The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-29 00:00:00

ABOLITION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Th=e lion. MEnnEn also pres,•ntea a petition troni a
Mr. Beall.), praying for the abolition of the House of
Lords, the alteration of the currency, annual parlia-
ments, universal suffrage, the repeal of the law of
primogeniture, the better application of the income
from the Church, and that the proceeds from the
waste Crown lands might be applied to the reduction of
the national debt.

Sir R. INGLIS objected to the reception of the pc•
tition.

Mr. lIUME considered that it was not competent to
any Honourable Member to oljeet to the presentation
of any petition as long as its prayer did not intethre
with the privileges of the House.
The SPEAKER ruled that the petition could be pre-
sented as long as it did not interfere with the privileges
of the House, or the rules and orders that it had made
for its government.
Sir H. H. INGLIS—I object to this petition being
received.—(Cries of " Order, order.")
The SPEAKER—Does the Hon. Baronet intend to
object to the petition on the ground that it violates the
rules and orders of the Howe ?

Sir It. IL INGLIS—I contend that the people of this
country have no right to petition this House for the
abolition of the House of Lords.—(Cries of "Oh, oh.'')
That I consider is sufficient ground for my objecting
to its being received, but I apprehend that
this House can no more receive a petition
fpr the abolition of the House of Lords thin it
can receive a petition praying for the abolition of the
Menarchy.—( Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.) However, be-
fore proceeding further, I will ask for the decision of
the Speaker, to whose authority alone I will bow upon
the subject,—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GUAHAM said his Hon. Friend had, withcut
inten:ling it, placed the Speaker in a peculiar position,
and before they prcceeded further with the discussion,
he would suggt st that the Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Finsbury should state in simple and definite terms
the prayer of the petitioner.
Mr HUME rose to aildr( ss the House, but was inter-
rupted by the arrival of
The Usher of the Black Rod, who amidst suppressed
laughter advanced to the table of the House to summon
the House to attend in the House of Lords, and hear
her Majesty's royal assent given to certain public and
private Bills (tor the titles of which see Lords'
report).
On the SPEAKER'S return,

Mr. WAKLEY said—l believe it-is the pleasure of the
House that I should read the petition.--(Laughter, and
cries of " No, no," " Road the prayer.") The petition
was one couched in due form, and as far as he
could judge there was nothing objectionable in it,
looking at the manner in which petitioners on other sub-
jects expressed their views to the House. With regard
to the propositions suggested by tke petitioeer, be
was ready to admit that they were objectionable to
many Members of the House—
Mr. HUME interrupted the Hon. Gentleman by say-
ingt—Then I move, agreeably to the rule of the House,
that the petition be brought up to the table and
read—(Bear)—it will then bo competent for
any Hon. Member to make a motion h ith respect to
any portion to which he may object.—(Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER said the House must decide in the
first place whether the petition was in accordance with
the rules of the House or not.

Sir R. H. INGLIS merely objected to that portion of
the petition which prayed for the abolition of the House
of Lords. He was prepared to move that the petition
be rejected.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said, before the petition was
declared objectionable, and rejected, that the House
ought to be made more fully aware of its contents.
Mr. WAKLEY said, -that as ho had stated the
prayer of the petition without reading its words,
be would now do so with the permission of
the House. (Hear, hear.) Tho tenth 'propo-
sition was the abolition of the House Of Lords. The
words were—" Your petitioner considers one as.
Sembly, duly elected, sufficient for national pur-
poses. There was no mistaking the meaning
of those words, in which he stated his reason
for the prayer he put forward. Then the final prayer
was, that " your petitioner extremely desires to
see ell these measures pissed, believing the
condition of the country to be such that
unless they are adopted confusion must ensue,
which will involve iu one common rui❑ the institutions
of the country, now the envy of foreigners, but a con-
tinued source of evil to the people of this county)."
Sir. R. 11. INGLIS only wished the portion to which
be objected read at the table; when that was done he
should state in substance the grounds on which he con-
sidered the petition ought to be rejected.
Mr. HUME thought that the whole petition ought to
be read.—(Laughter and cries of "No.") But that was
the rule.

Sir G. GREY said the passage with which it was
only necessary to trouble the House was the one
objected to, namely, that the abolition of the
House of Lords would be advantageous to the
country. Now there were many petitions
presented to the House in which perhaps no

asides, sonitar petitions .iso peen
_e occasions.—(Hear.) He really
thought the Hon. Gentleman was attaching too much k*-
portanco to the petition.
The Clerk having read the passages,
Sir R. 11. INGLIS said, if a petition had been pre-
sented to the House of Lords, praying for the abolition
of the House of Commons, that it would not be re-
ceived; and that House could not receive a petition
praying for the abolition of the monarchy. He thought
the House ought, therefore, to reject the petition.
The Honourable Member for Finsbury had, by his
tone and manner, and his running commentaries upon
it, seemed to invite the attention of the House to the
matters contained in the petition, and thus seemed to
identify himself with it.—("Oh, oh," from Mr. Wakley.)
And he invited the House to pronounce a decision on
the question whether it was to the interests of the country
that this species of petitions should be allowed to cir-
culate.
Mr. HUME said that in his opinion a more absurd
reason could not be given for the rejection of the peti-
tion than that given by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet the Member for the University of Oxford,
that it could not be received on the ground that it was
opposed to the general opinion of the House. Why
those were the very kind of petitions which were
required, and which the House ought to throw wide
open its doors to receive.—(Hear, hear.) Petitions which
agreed with the House were not petitions that were re-
quired. It was the duty of the House to re
ceive every petition that was sent to it. If once
the House were to begin to refuse, at what
part would they draw the line of distinction ?
Nothing but evil consequences would ensue from the
rejection of the petitions of the people.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was sorry to be com-
pelled to pronounce an opinion upon the matter. He was
as anxious as any Hon. Member to offer no obstruction
to the presentation of petitions of the prayers of the
people upon all subjects which might be a matter of de-
bate before the House. He was glad that the pe-
tition had been allowed to be brought up and
read at the table, because he thought that
they would have been acting wrongly had they
pronounced any decision upon the subject in ignorance
of the contents of the petition. He could not say that
he went the full length of the llon. Member for Mon-
trose (Mr. Hume). He could not agree with him in
thinking that it would be consistent with loyalty
to the Sovereign, or respect to the institutions
of the country, to entertain petitions addressed to this
House, calling for the abolition of kingly government
and for a substitution of a republic in this
country.—(Hear, hear.) He could not with a
sense of duty subscribe to that doctrine. The
form of government established in this country
was a government by Kings, Lords, and Commons.
He thought that a line must be drawn with respect to
petitions to be entertained by the House, and that no
petition should be allowed to lie upon the table which
dealt with the fundamental interests of the country. He
thought that the institution under which they lived was no
less a kingly government than a government composed
of two Houses of Parliament, the Houses of Lords and
Commons; and if this opinion was well founded, then,
in his opinion, this house ought nut to entertain
petitions wishing for the abolition of kingly go-
vernment. By a parity of reasoning, he would not
resist the force of the inference, that they should not
allow petitions to lie upon the table asking for the aboli-
tion of the House of Peers. He regretted the duty
which was thus forced upon him by the Right
Honourable Baronet the Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford, but acting at once upon
the impulse of his judgment and feeling, he felt
bound to say that if this question should be forced to a
division, he should certainly feel it his duty to vote
against the petition being allowed to lie upon the table.
.qtr. BRIGHT wished to know whether it had not
been the custom of the House to allow petitions to be
received for the rejection of bishops from the House
of Lords. He thought that if such petitions were
allowed to be received by the House, there
could be no reason to believe that the House
was unable to receive, petitions, praying fur
the total abolition of the House of Peers. He did not

express any sympathy, and probably no lion. Member
in the House would express sympathy, with the whole
of the contents of the petition. (Hear, hear.)
He was sure, that with regard to these particular peti-
tions, the only effect of this discussion would be to
raise the petitioner in his own estimation, and turn
the public attention to the discussion of questions
whiCh the Hoese did not wish to be discussed.—(Hear,
hear.) If the House determined not to receive the
preset petition he was sure that it would only lead
to the presentation of other similar objectionable
petitions. He would express no opinion whatever upon
this petition; that was a matter of minor importance,
but he considered it of enormous importance that the
House should not take a false step on the present occa-
sion.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR had no doubt that the petition
either came from an unenlightened Chartist or an ig-
norant Whig.—(Great laughter.) When the lion.
Member for Montrose talked about ignorant Chartists,
he ought to recollect that he was one of the seven wise
men that signed the People's Charter.—(Great laughter.)
He trusted that in future the Hon. Member tor Mon-
trose would express the same opinion in that House that
he was in the habit of doing out of it,.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. HUME challenged the Hon. Member for Not-
tinghatn to state a single instance in which he had made
assertions out of that Ilouse that he did not uphold
in it. lie was not, he bugged to inform the lion. Mem-
b-,r, one of those who was in the habit of using language
for the oceasion--(Hear, hear)—and, as to his saying
that the Chartists were an ignorant holy, he had never
said any such thing.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELC believed that the Right
Ron. Baronet the Member for Ripon had made a most
erroneous parallel in the abolition of the (louse of Lords
and that of the monarchy.—(llear, hear.) Any
person out of doors proposing the abolition
of the monarchy would be subject to severe
punishment, but such would not be the case on propos-
_

in 4 the abolition of the House of Lordi.7(llear, hear.

He thought the Right Hon. Baronet had thrown the dis-
cussion into an improper channel. He considered that
it' the House had any doubt us to the reception of the
petition, they ought to give the benefit of that doubt in
favour of the reception of the petitions of the people.
1)r. BOWRING thought that the question of the
monarchy had been most improperly introduced into
this matter.
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE which
did not reach the gallery.
Mr. WAKLEY said he had reason to complain of
the lion. Member for the University of Oxford, when
he stated that he considered that Members of this
House, in presenting petitions, ought previously to read
the prayer of such petitions, and see that they
agreed with his own individual views. Ile
(Mr. Wakley) totally denied that any such
doctrine could be sustained in that House, and he for
one had frequently presented petitions when ho had en-
tirely disagreed with the views of the petitioners, but, the
petition being respectfully worded, he considered it was
his duty to the petitioners and to the House to present
them.--(Hear.) There were times when people ought
not to withhold the honest expression of their opinion
bf these subjects, and he did not hesitate to say that he
agreed in a great measure with the prayer of the peti-
tioner in this instance, but at the same time he did not
agree with that portion of it that related to the House of
Cords.—(Hear, hear.) He conscientiously disagreed in
what the petitioner had stated in that respect, and he
did not concur in the prayer which prayed for the abo-
lition of the House of Lords, because he sincerely
believed that, under the present form of government;
more liberty might be enjoyed by the people than under
any other system.—(Hear, hear.) He had not the least
hesitation in expressing his opinion fully after what
had been said to-night, indeed he felt it to be
his duty, not only to the House, but to his
opinions, to make a declaration of his belief
that, under the existing form of government,
the greatest extent of humau liberty might be enjoyed
by British subjects.—(Cheers.) But it was all nonsense
to say that in presenting petitions to that House Hon.
Members ought to consult their own particular views
and opinions, and the views, prejudices, and opinions
entertained by the House. In future, however,
he trusted his own constituents would send their peti-
tions to some other Hon. Member for presentation, for
he believed, as a general rule, that it was utterly useless
for -them to present petitions to that House, because
they met with no attention whatever. Indeed the
public had much reason to complain of the House
in that respect, for it invariably happened that
when people went to the inconvenience of holding
public meetings to sign petitions to the House,
that such petitions did not receive the atten-
tion of more than ten Members out of between
the 300 and 400 who had seats in that House.—(Hear.)
With regard, however, to the opinion of the Honour-
able Baronet, that no Honourable Member ought
to present a petition to that House who did not agree
with its prayer, he entirely disagreed with that doctrine,
and he should certainly press his motion, that the peti-
tion be ordered to lie upon the table.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY said he had quite a contrary opi-
nion as to the manner in which petitions were
received by the House, and whenever he had
an opportunity of addresting his constituents,
he invariably held out to them the wholesome doc-
trine of making their sentiments known to the
House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) Ho had held a
seat in the House for many years, and he could
most positively deny that the petitions of the people
were not treated with respect. True, it sometime hap-
pened that one description of petitions met with more
favour than others, but the people were aware of this,
and they felt that it was utterly impossible that all
petitions could be treated alike. With regard to
the particular question before the House he thought
there could not be a shadow of a doubt that
all petitions of the people that were respectfully
worded ought to be received ; and he hoped, in giving
his vote upon this occasion, it would not be under-
stood that he was expressing any opinion upon
the views the petition contained. (Hear, hear.)
If the motion of the Hon. Baronet was acceded to, it
would interfere with the right enjoyed by the people of
petitioning. that House on all subjects affecting their
well'are.—(Hear.) It would, he thought, have been
much better if, instead of the public attention having
been called to the subject, it had been passed over.—
(Loud cries for a division here arose.)
Sir J. GRAHAM explained what he meant was not
merely the general institutions of the country, but par-
ticularly the " Government—King, Lords, and Com-
mons."
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he should very much regret
if the House was compelled to divide on the subject.—
(Loud cheers.) He should regret it, because the
House could not fail to tole under some re-

'much with Those

. .r 3 ..,th . to the fundamental
institutions of the country, " Queen, Lords, and Com-
mons." He believed the majority of the House entertained
the opinion that those institutions should be upheld and
continued—(Hear, hear)—and also that those who en-
tertained this opinion represented the sentiments of
a vast majority of the people of these realms.
—(Loud cheers.) However much they might
wish to see more temperate government introduced into
those institutions, they yet entertained the opinion that
the great fundamental institutions of this country
should be upheld, under which they enjoyed more
security, liberty, and more happiness than
was ever enjoyed by any other portion of the
human race.—(Hear, hear.) That, however, was not
the question before the House. If the House was pre-
pared to divide he should certainly vote with his Hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department
for the reception of the petition. There was no indecent
language in the petition; if it had contained seurrillous
language towards another branch of the Legislature
the case would have been otherwise ; but with ie-
spect to that other branch, they should be as
jealous of any disrespect towards it, as if it
had been directed against themselves. He totally
differed with the views of the petitioner, because
he believed that the abolition of the House of Lords
would involve the country in ruin. Petitions for
the abolition of the Church, and the expulsion
of Spiritual Peers frcm the House of Lords had
been presented, and the House would, therefore,
see that it was impossible to draw a nice line of distinc-
tion.—(Cheers.) They would beat consult the public
interest by accepting the petition.
Mr. 8.. PALMER said the House had on several
occasions received petitions for the repeal of the legisla-
tive union with Ireland—a matter less within its com-
petency than the one now before the House. He hoped
the question would not be pressed to a division. If it
was, he should support the petition being received.
Sir R. INGLIS said he had heard with no common
pleasure, from all sides of the House, a repudiation of
the doctrines contained in the petition, as far as the
House of Lords was concerned; and his object being
thus substantially gained, in eliciting from the House an
expression of its unanimous opinion that such a course
would be destructive.—(" No, no," from several Members
on the Ministerial benches.) Sir R. Inglis here sat
down, intimating that he should divide the House; but
on the Speaker putting the question, no division was
called for, and the petition was ordered to lie on the
table.
THE EVICTIONS IN GALWAY.

Sir G. GREY said he migkt perhaps be permitted to
refer to a case which had been mentioned on a former
evening, by the Hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P.
Scrope). He had that morning received a private letter
from his Noble Friend the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
stating that he had seen the notice taken of that case
in the House, and expressing surprise, in which he (Sir
G. Grey) participated, that his Right lion. Friend (Sir
W. Somerville) and himself should have been ignorant
that measures in reference to this cue had actually been
taken by the Irish Government; for it was the Noble
Lord's firm conviction that information of the pro-
ceedings taken by the Government had been ad-
dressed to the Homo-office some tine ago. That letter
must have been accidentally lost, for it had certainly
never reached him (Sir G. Grey); and his Right
lion. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) had assured him
that, until tho preceding night, he had not received any

„ .
answer to the communication he had addressed to Mr.
Redington on the subject. He felt it due to the Lord
Lieutenant, after the reproach that had been cast on the
Irish Government, to state the steps that had been taken
in the matter, whereby the Noble Lord would be ac•
quitted of any neglect, or any indifference to the outrage.
At the moment he heard of the case, which was before
the statements appeared in the newspapers, for it was
first brought to the knowledge of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners—he determined to take those measures which it
was competent to him to adopt for a thorough investiga•
tion of the facts, and for the punishment, if possible, of
the parties who had been guilty of the cruelties alleged.
Considerable but unavoidable delay took place, owing to
the circumstance of Captain Ellard, who was deputed to
make the requisite inquiries, being seized with typhus
fever, which unfortunately terminated in his death. Major
IPKie was appointed to succeed him; an inquiry was di-
rected to be taken upon oath; and the result was before the
House. Immediately after that report has been brought
under the notice of the Lord-Lieutenant he had sub-
mitted the whole case to the law officers; and they were
of opinion that the Government could not legally insti-
tute a criminal prosecution against the parties. The next
step which the Lord-Lieutenant took was to intimate his
opinion to the Lord Chancellor—Mr. Blake being a
magistrate—that his name should be removed from the
commission of the peace.—(Hear, hear.) The Lord
Chancellor had not immediately acted on that sugges-
tion, but, adopting his invariable practice, had trans-
mitted a statement of the case to Mr. Blake, thus afford-
ing him the opportunity of explanation. For a length of
time no explanation had been received from Mr. Blake,
and when it did arrive at last it was considered unsatis-
factory, and Mr. Blake's name had been struck off the
commission. Another person also implicated in the
transaction, Mr. St. George, a Member of that House,
but who was now abroad, had been called upon for an
explanation,,but noianswer had yet been received. This
would convince the House that the case had not escaped
the observation of the Irish Government, and that the
Noble Lord had taken all the measures which it was
competent to take in order to express his sense of the
proceeding.—filear, hear.)