The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-08 00:00:00

SPANISH CLERGY.

Lord J. MANNERS wished to know whether it
was the intention of the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor
of Dublin to submit any motion to the house on
the subject of that persecuted body of men, the Spa-
nish clergy.
Mr. O'CONNELL said it was his intention to do
so, for hisbelieved there was no class of men more en-
titled to the sympathy of the House.
COLONIAL IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. LABOUCHERE asked the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone) what course he intended to pursue
with regard to a notice, to which he saw his name
attached, for to-morrow, respecting the duties payable
on articles imported into British Colonies. He
apprehended that he only intended to lay his plan on
the table of the House, and not to ask the House to
express an opinion on it. This was the usual and the
most convenient course, and he apprehended it was
the one the Hon. Gentleman intended to adopt.
Mr. GL A.D STONE said the Hon. Gentleman was
quite correct in his supposition. He should lay
his plan fully before the House before he asked it to
come to any vote on the subject.
The Appropriation Acts Amendment Bill went
through Committee.
THE RIGHT OF DISCUSSING PETITIONS.
Mr. WALLACE rose to bring under the consi-
deration of the House the motion of which he had
given notice, relative to the right of discussing the pe-
titions of the people at the time of their presentation.
He begged leave, in the first place, to state the former
practice of the House. Ile had had a seat in that House
since the year 1833, and it was the custom, for some
time subsequent to that period, for Members to enter
into details respecting the opinions advanced in the
petitions of their constituents. That had been the
1 law for years, and it had prevailed under the Speaker-
! ship of Mr. Manners Sutton. He did not mean to
say that great inconvenience had not arisen from
Members pushing this privilege beyond the bounds of
prudence, while he did mean to say that the refusal
to allow Members to speak at all upon the presenta
tion of petitions was unjust to their constituents, and
led to an improper suppression of public opinion in
that House. It appeared to him to be a selfish course.
instead of a direct discharge of a public duty. There
were, no doubt, many persons in the House who
wished that their time should not be occupied at all
by the presentation of petitions, but who wished that
they should merely be laid on the table of the House.
or who were ready, at most, to allow a few words of
them, with the prayer, to be read. Now that was not
the way in which the people expected their petitions
would be treated.—(Hear, hear.) They did not
wish to see them lying in hundreds upon the table,
and crammed into a bag, while not the slightest at-
tention had been paid to their contents. lie did not
intend to complain in any way of the conduct of
their Chief Cleric, who duly discharged the duty im-
posed upon him. It was the Act of Parliament of which
alone he complained. Ile had already told the House
that there had been a time when the petitions of the
people were treated with the greatest respect. But the
last Parliament—a Parliament to which he indivi-
dually felt it was no honour to belong—a do-nothing,
poor, and inefficient Parliament, to the labours
of which he was exceedingly sorry that he had
devoted his time and his health—that Parliament it was
which abridged the rights of the people in regard to
the discussion of their petitions in the House. He
did not mean to advocate any waste of the time of the
House, on the contrary, he wished to discharge his
duties, as far as he'was concerned, with justice to his
constituents • but he did not wish to be muzzled,
and muzzled he had been in that House
since the 7th of February, 1839. He had de-
clared at the commencement of each preceding
Session that he would call the attention of the
house to that subject, but he had had such respect for
the majority of the House, that he had refrained from
pressing it upon them. He no sooner saw the late
Parliament succeeded by another, which was strong
in number to do what it might deem expedient,
than he resolved to bring this question under the
consideration of the House. The Parliament which
had in this respect taken away the liberties of the
people was designated a Whig Parliament; the
present was designated a Tory Parliament. The
vote of that night would show which had most
respect for the liberty of the subject—for the right
of petitioning, which he held to be one of the highest
privileges. What new Members might observe at
the present time was no criterion as to what might
be expected at a later period of the session. At
present they were upon their good behaviour—(A
laugh)—they were only at the commencement of the
session, they had not got into that immense run
of business, which made every Member anxious to
drive another out of his way. The time would come
when the petitions of the people would be pushed un-
der the table in a manner that would quite astonish
new Members. He was quite aware how important
it was that the public business should commence as
early as possible, and he was as anxious that that object
should be secured as either the present Ministers of
the Crown or their predecessors in office could possibly
be. But he was still more anxious that the rights and
privileges of the people should not be infringed upon. At
a future period of the session, when the months of June
and July had arrived, there would be from 50 to 60
Bills a month brought before the House at least, if
the present Government acted as their predecessors
had done. Hon. Members would be told that when
a petition was desired to be particularly considered it
might be printed with the Votes. He begged to tell them
that his right to have them printed had been success-
fully disputed in the last Session. In the case of a petition
which he presented from Kelso he moved that it

should be irinted with the Votes, and it was ordered
to be so ; his name was put upon the list, but the
Session was turned over, and he never had an oppor-
tunity of bringing on the petition. It sometimes
happened, frequently with the petitions presented from
Scotland, that the Clerk was unable to read the names.
Would any man tell him that if the names of the places
from whence petitions had been presented were not read
to the House distinctly, and if Hon. Members did not un-
derstand what the names were, or where the places were,
from which suchtvNi
eveprateelititia
eittoihnoisys
ndwl,
eVeeresieir.
erepep(rpireresesestenehnntaettAtedd
in f
rttohmaal ;
ii it
tt
presentinghec
oeouruelldd.
be said that they were properly presented? If the House
ind_ti)ordte bn eoht said akiid;tivhr
.a:
all petitions to the House, for the future, there should
be a very stringent rule, no matter whether there was to
be a discussion upon the subject or not. The rule should
be that those who presented petitions should state,
generally, their contents, the prayers of those
_peti-
tions, and the objects or wishes of the petitioners. That
should be strictly the right of the Members of the House,
whether a collision of opinion or a discussion had taken
place. He (Mr. Wallace) did not hesitate in saying
that the present mode of dealing with the rights of the
people was unjust towards them, and inconvenient to the
House, and he hoped that they should be attended to
for ever. Though he was not in a majority he would take
the sense of the House upon the subject, he would
adhere to the notice of motion he had given, and would
cnoomt
mchuannge a
imtedwsoormdeothf
ng toAi‘nirlHonvtsita
aireebe ovlhoMpermocheeer hedetdtno
say, that he would adopt the suggestion of his Honourable
Friend) who had just told him that the rule of the House
should be read upon the subject of presenting petitions; he
therefore submitted that that was the proper time to
have the rule of the House read, and he wished
the Speaker would direct the Clerk to do so.
Mr. Ley having read the Order of the House with
respect to the presentations of petitions.
Mr. WALLACE said that he thought the most con-
venient way would be for him to move that that resolu-
tion should be rescinded, as that would bring the ques-
tion more properly before the consideration of the House.
Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the motion.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS thought that the Hon. Gen-
tleman was not aware of the absorption of the time of
the House which would be occasioned if his motion
were successful. The number of petitions presented
last Session was 16,801—(11ear)—and if each of these
was accompanied by only one speech, of two minutes,
it would he impossible for the House to attend to
any other business. But surely if the Hon. Member
presented a petition from Kelso, he could not refuse to