The Speaker has decided that a Member for Parliament is
justified in refusing to present a petition which appears to imply that the House of Commons has done that which is illegal; but he has not decided, as had been stated, that a Member has no right to present a petition containing an im- plication to the same effect. -The question arose on a petition sent to the Mernber for Greenwich by a constituent, in which the House is prayed to remove the obstacle interposed between Mr. Bradlaugh and his obedience to the law, and wherein it is asserted, by implication of course, that in refusing to let Itr. Bradlaugh take his seat, the House has encouraged disobedie nee to the law. We do not quite understand, however, why it should be even a sufficient ground for refusing to present a petition, that an opinion is respectfully implied in it that the House did en- courage disobedience to the law. That was the opinion openly expressed not only by the Prime Minister himself, but by it.very large minority of the House -of Commons. And we cannot understand why it should be held sufficient ground for refusing to present to the House the prayer of any English citizens,--if respectfully expressed,—that they hold the same view on this subject as the Prime Minister and a very large proportion of his followers. Surely Mr. Brand took a very contracted view Of the right of petition, when he came to. this strange decision.
Previous page
