The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-16 00:00:00

bad been pouring in from every direction complaining ei
the effects of the charter, and praying for inquiry.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM 441 h;would fix the second
reading of the Bill for 1!, fd
Mr. WAKLEY won rptwe-. 'ef his motion
r4re\''.V-Cf-1,,' •
for TuNtlaY•
I M PEA' ' t-41SR0 tsiEtiih which .11
Mr. FERRAND =5,1
tgt:"Vr y objec-
,• g priiated,
e•-•trils VOW .rperative
had presented the o
Protestant Associatilwo *Vise with the.e
votes. He did no
OW.
should be raised to th iflo. • -d certain
as it was most respectfully worde.. 41%
allegations against the First Lord of the Treasury,
which
allegations it was his (Mr. Ferrand's) intention to Ws<
under the notice of
,the House on the third reading 01
the College of Maynooth Bill, if it should ever arrive as
that stage. He therefore hoped that no Hon. Member
would think it necessary to oppose the printing of this
petition.
Mr. HINDLEY seconded the motion.
Colonel RAWDON said he had been in hopes that
the Hon. Member for Knaresborough would not have
made this motion—that he would not have singled out
that petition to be circulated amongst the Mem-
bers of that House. What would be thee
consequence of making that motion ? Why, that
on the following morning every Member of that House
would have on his breakfast table this petition.—(Great
laughter.) He begged the House to recollect that ha
1829 Roman Catholic Members were admitted into that
House, and that Roman Catholic Members would read.
that petition. What did that petition contain ? It con-
tained these words, "That the petitioners have kerne/
that laws are about to be introduced into the House by the
head of the Government, having for their object the
inculcation in public seminaries of Popish principles—
such principles being notoriously, demonstrably, and.
according to law, anti-Christian." Anti-Christian
Where was that feeling which ought to predominate
amongst Christians ? He was not objecting toe
the introduction of this petition, but he begged
shortly to call the attention of the House
to seine circumstances with reference to it. It
might be in the recollection of the House that the
greatest authority in that House, after the Speaker.,.
in matters of form, the Member for Montgo-
meryshire, expressed doubts as to the proper ad-
mission of this petition, and as to its right to be
laid on the table of the house. That Honourable
Gentleman did not act upon these doubts in con-
sequence of the interposition of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, against whom the shaft had been levelled. It wa..e
not a matter of necessity that the petition presented by
the Hon. Nlember for Knaresborough should be printed—
if he wished to bring the Prime Minister to condign.
punishment, as the petitioners prayed—if he wished tce
imitate Mr. Burke in a measure of impeachment, he.
(Colonel Rawdon) expected the printing of this petition.
was not a necessary preliminary. The petition could be}
referred to a Committee up stairs, according
to the custom of the House, and if the Committee con-
sidered there was matter of import they miglet order it
to be printed. He relied on the good sem:, and
generous feeling of the House—he thought this wee not
a party question, and he felt convinced that no man of
charitable feeling in that House, or out of
it, could sanction the words " false, idolatrous,
and anti-Christian," as applied to the religion.
of more than half of their fellow subjects.—
(Hear, hear.) Had Honourable Members seen the letter
relating to the petition, signed by the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough. He would not insult the House Of Com-
mons by mentioning its language, but he felt convinced
that there was hardly another Member of thtet
House who would write such a letter as that which*
the Honourable Member for Knaresborough hae%
written. He disclaimed all personal offence, butt
would fearlessly and fully express his opinion on.
this matter. The terms of the letter showed.
clearly the animus which existed in its writer. In a•
word, he considered it would degrade the dignity of the
House of Commons in the eyes of the nation if, by ore-
dering this petition to be printed, they in some measure,
stamped it with their sanction. If the petitioners.
really intended: to impeach Sir Robert Peel, and chose
the Hon. Member for Knaresborough for a leader, they
were at perfect liberty to do so ; and the Hon. Member
would be perfectly justified in carrying out their wishes-
But as the representative of what was termed in Ireland,
" Protestant Armagh," he must object to the wording
of this petition. He would therefore move a direct ne-
gative to the motion.
Lord NORTHLAND considered that the petition.
contained expressions which ought to prevent the House
from agreeing to the motion that it be printed with the
votes. _ .

I vMr. REDINGTON said that when he considered that;
one of the passages in the Coronation oath contained ex-
pressions not dissimilar to those which had been re-
ferred to by his Hon. Friend the Member for Armagh,
in reference to the Roman Catholics, he thought
that House would be acting with great inconsistency if
they exhibited any squeamishness in receiving theyeti-
tion of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough.—(Loud
cries of " hear, hear.") For himself he never had and
never would stoop to answer those foul ealumnies—
(Loud cheers)—though he considered it wars disgracing
the Crown of these realms to make it swear to them.

Sir R. INGLIS said he supposed the next measure of
her Majesty's Government would be a measure to do
away with the passage referred to by the Hon. Gentle-
man who spoke last, expecially as his remarks had been
so loudly cheered by the other side.----(" Hear, hear," and
a laugh.) But he rose for the purpose of calling the at-
tention of the House to the practice of the House.
that when a petition was ordered to lie on the
table it was almost a matter of course that it should be'
printed with the votes, when an Hon. Member declare&
his intention of making a motion upon it. That was
the usual course, without any reference to the language.
of the petition, and upon that ground alone, without at.;
all saying that he concurred in the language or the/
expressions of the petition, he should vote for the motion
of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, if pressed to a
divisi ,n.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that he certainly regretted the
passage in the petition which the Hon. and Gallant
Officer the Member for Armagh had brought under the
notice of the House. He regretted that any petitioners
should have used language so painful and so offensive.
towards a large portion of her Majesty's subjects.
It was not on the present occasion that he should
feel under the necessity of entering into a discussion
upon that point, much less was it any part of his duty to
enter upon the present occasion into a discussion upon
the terms in which the Coronation oath was
couched. As to the point of order, he agreed
with his Honourable Friend the Member for Oxford.
He thought it was a general rule of the House, subject
to exceptions in some peculiar cases, that when an
Hon. Member pledged himself on presenting a petition
to bring it under the special notice of the House in the
shape of a motion, it was, as a matter of course, to be
printed with the votes. The question then arose whether
there was anything so special in the circumstances of this
petition as t) prevent the operation of the usual rule ?
He had said that the language of the petition was of au
unusual kind, but he did not think that the language
was such as to take it out of the general rule. Then
came the question as to the allegation, that the First
Minister of the Crown had been guilty of high crimes and
misdemeanours—was that allegation a reason that the
House should refuse to print the petition ? Now, the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough had said that he
should make that allegation the subject of a motion.—
(Cries of " No, no," and " Yes, yes.') Was he (Sir J.
Graham) right ?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERRAND said that he had last night givers
notice of the motion which he intended to make.
Sir J. GRAHAM said if the Hon. Member meant to
found upon the petition a motion respecting the allega-
tions against the First Minister of the Crown, neither
his Right Hon. Friend, nor any member of her Ma-
jesty's Government, would offer the slightest opposition
to the printing of the petition.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERRAND said that he bad last night given
notice of the motion which he should bring forward on
the third reading of the Bill. The motion was to the
effect that The Catholic Bequests [Act was a viola.-
tion of the Act of Settlement and a contravention of the
oath of supremacy." What other course he might
afterwards feel it his duty to take he would state at
the lime.—(" Hear, hear," and " Oh, oh.")
Lord J. RUSSELL said he understood the Hon. Gentle-
man who last spoke to say, that he intended to found a motion
on the petition accusing the first Minister of the Crown, of high
re tason, and calling on the House to impeach him.—( H
te
earh,
hear.) Now he k Lord J. Russell) could not agree with
Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis) that it was a.
matter of course, according to the rules of the House, to print
every petition upon which an Hon. Member undertook to.
found a motion. It was a matter of course upon all ordinary
Butth etheheparvesiesentt
awilasegaationpescualgaiarincsast et.hempeempentai-
toAicloicnnaeissritenrmso.afdtehe Crown, and asked for impeachment. New the
R;ght Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) very naturally ex-
pressed a wish not to oppose the printing of the petition on
that ground. fie (Lord J. Russell) could understand the
feelings of the Right Hon. Gentleman. For himself, he thought
that the House, even if it were intended to found on this
in, to th not
Bill, but,
fort whet=
the
petition a motion directly impeaching the conduct of the first
Minister of the Crown, ought to pause before they consented to
bmt
thathy
mast
s printing
the motionrpi
part,
ti nn, gst
co
alluded,
consent
an
ohd
Af
ei s
the Q
petition.
p a r t
partly
de
Bute dhe did ot thinkil ut that the motion was to be made on the third reading, and that when
ct of Parliament
Lords,en
t paasnsdedcolasmtmsoensssi,oann—dpsatassteded
of
that Act of Parliament was a violation of the Act of
Settlement and of the Act
considered Supremacy,
as hea could
not consider that that could be motion
impeaching the first Minister of the Crown, and he
would say that the printing that petition, although it
did not positively say that, in the opinion of the House, there
were grounds for impeaching the Prime Minister, yet it did
imply that there was something reasonable in the allegations,
or, at least, that they were not altogether frivolous and absurd
allegations.—( Hear, hear.) Now, the allegations of this pe-
tition might be divided into two parts. One part, as had been
observed by the Right Hon. Member for Montgomeryshire,
the other evening, directed to the conduct of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, as a Member of that
House with regard to motions made by him, Bills brought in,
and votes given by him, as a Member of that House._( Hear,
hear.) That could form no ground for proceedings on the
part of the House. Another set of allegations accused him of
advising the Crown, in his capacity of Privy Counsellor, to
fulfil the provisions of the Catholic Bequests Act, and to place
certain Roman Catholic prelates on the Catholic Bequests
Board, giving them precedence according to the provisions of
the published order in council, and it stated that the appoint-
ment of these Members to that Board was a violation
of the oath of supremacy, and a violation of the
Act of Supremacy itself --(Hear.) Now, it appeared to
him (Lord John Russell) that this was a frivolous allegation.
It was not a plausible allegation. They could not take any
proceeding upon it, and on that ground alone, even if it had
been intended to found a motion upon it, he could not con-
sent so far to give the sanction of the House to those
allega-
tions as to allow the petition to be printed.—(Cheers.)
Bat
as the Hon. Gentleman said that he should only bring-forward
a motion on the third reading of the Bill, to the eff effect t that
been
violated by an Act passed by Parliament in le
the Act of Settlement and the Act of Supremacy
y had
-
session—
that Parliament having a right to alter or amend any proceed-
ing of Parlia
ment—and did not intend to ask the Hone to take
Into its consideration the crimes and misdemeanours of which