The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-03 00:00:00

RIGHT OF PETITION.

Mr. WALLACE rose to bring forward, according to notice,
a motion—" That the practice of the House on the presenta-
tion of petitions complaining of the grievances of the people be
altered, so that in future petitions may be publicly discussed at
the time of their presentation ; and that any rule or order of
this House, which controls or prohibits the discussion of the peti
tions of the people at the time of their presentation, be rescinded."
The sessional order on this subject having been read by the
Clerk at the table, the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that
it was his intention to move, in conformity with the terms of
the motion he had just read to the House, that that order be
rescinded ; but as the question had been often discussed, he did
inn
feel it necessary to occupy much of the public time
in addressing himself to it. f he people of this country,
however that House might frame their regulations,

could not bring themselves to understand why, when their pe-
titions were sent up, they should, by a rule, in the making of
which they had no part, and tlse practice of which the)
disapproved, be merely mentioned, but' not discussed
To pursue this plan would be to make petitions obso-
lete.—(Laughter.) During two of the years he had had
the honour of a seat in Parliament, he referred to the years
1832 and 1.5.,-.33, the petitions of the people were discussed fully,
and this mo 'e of doing business gave great satisfaction to the
entire coon ry. As might be supposed, the discontinuance of
so wholesome and popular a practice had an effect exactly the
reverse. The people now were led to believe th t Members
received their petitions, just read their object to the /liaise,
and that they were they thrown under the tables, or jammed
into bags and large sacks. Now those who knew what
importance the people attached to this, their ancient right of
petition, should pause be.ore they did anything that -might
lead to a distrust in or a discontinuance of the prac-
tice. He (Mr. Wallace) did not deny that the former
practice was attended at times with considerable
trouble; but a distinction might be made were there any in-
clination shown by the House to do away with the present
system. In the session of 1839, a division took place on this
subject, and the numbers were for the continuance of the pre-
sent practice 105, and against its continuance 50 only. In
the session of 1842, the subject was twice before the House—
once being brought forward by himself, and once by the Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) ; for the division
on his own motion he had forty-three votes with him, and one
hundred and eighty-three against him. in that year there was
somethingworthy ofremarkin that House, in consequence of the
motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe). He (Mr.
Wallace) brought forward the question in that year
on the same principle that he did now—the inherent
right of the people a right which that House
had not constitutionally the power to wrest away. But his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe) had broached the subject as
connected with the question of taxation ; viz., that at all
events, when matters of taxation were petitioned about, they
should have the right to discuss those petitions—that therein, at
all events, the old and healthy practice should be restored.
On the occasion to which he referred in 1842, the division
showed 136 votes in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, whereas there were only 167 against it; then
the motion was lost, even in a Conservative Parliament, by
only 31 votes. The people out of doors had no opportunity of
ever seeing their petitions after they were presented. They
were sent to the Committee on Petitions, who dealt with them
as they pleased—sometimes reading them in whole, and some-
times reading mere extracts. The only way left to a representa-
tive of informing his constituents what had become of their
petition, was by stating that he had presented such a peti-
tion on such a day. But the people out of doors did
not understand this, and they found great fault
in being dealt with in such a manner. The rule that indivi-
dual petitions might be printed with the Votes, was overborne
by other rules. On two occasions—one last session, and the
other in the preceding session—he was forced to leave two
petitions undiscussed, because he could not find a day to
bring them forward, though he had watched every opportunity.
One of those he got printed with the Votes, but the other he
did not, because it referred to the character of a judicial person.
He would therefore call on the House to depart from the
stringent rule by which the petitions of the people were kept
in a manner secret. The people could not purchase the.votes
of the House, in which those things were noticed, and the
Members were not allowed to send them to their constituents.
Ile believed that the rescinding of that rule would be exceed-
ingly gratifying to the country. Having stated the nature of
the case which he had to bring before the House, and it having
been stated fully twice before during the present Parliament,
he had merely to observe that, if this proposal should be re-
jected, the people would have a right to conclude that the majority
of that House were determined to do all that in them lay to
prevent the people haying any knowledge of the manner in
which the business of that House was conducted. He should
certainly divide the Fiance upon his motion.
Dr. BOWRIN G fully agreed with the observations which
had fallen from his Hon. Friend, and he should therefore feel
great pleasure in seconding the motion. It could not escape
the observation of Hon. Gentlemen, that there was a growing
indisposition on the part of the people for petitioning that
House, and he, therefore, cordially seconded the motion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL felt a little surprised at the observa-
tion of the Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House,
that there was a growing disposition to withhold petitions from
the House of Commons. He (Sir R. Peel) thought—he was
then speaking from memory—that during the last year 25,000
petitions wire presented ; and if the Hon. Gentleman would
compare that number with the number presented during the
preceding yes r, he would not find that therewas any disposition
on the part of the people to withhold petitions from the House
of Commons. Did the Hon. Gentl ernan recollect the petitions
that were presented with respect to education, when the Educa-
tion Bill was unde- consideration last year? If he did so, he ( Sirß.
Peel) did not-think that in that case any proof would be dis-
covered of a want of disposition on the part of the people to
withhold petitions when they had any objections to public
measures proposed. He thought he had heard from Honour-
able Gentlemen that the result of these petitions was
a conclusive proof of the efficacy of the right of petitioning.
Ttie question was not what would most suit the personal conve-
nience of Members, but as to which practice would be most
conducive to the proper conducting of public business. Some
years ago it was usual to enter into debate on petitions, as it
was then held that it was very useful, because many Members
of Parliament, who distrusted their own powers, and were un-
willing to enter into a general discussion, had thus an opportu-
nity of speaking on petitions- He (Sir R. Peel) must say, that
the confidence of the House had very much increased
and now there was no such diffidence on the part of individual
Members to address the House.—( Hear, and laughter. )
In point of fact the practice had grown up of having debates
on questions of great public importance, which lasted six or
seven days, and thus the opportunity of addressing the House
was afforded ; and he thought that a speech made a
greater impression when delivered in the course of
a consecutive discussion, than when delivered at an unexpected
time on the occasion of presenting a petition. This subject was
brought under the notice of the House when the late Govern-
ment was in power, and when Mr. Abercrombie filled
the chair which the present Speaker now so worthily
occupied ; and he begged to remind the House of the rule then
laid down. The impression was se great, of the inconvenience
of occupying the early part of a day fixed for an im-
portant public discussion by the discussion of petitions, that
the general sense of the House was taken on the point, and
by the general concurrence of the House, the practice was
changed. But what were the regulations at present ? It was
competent for any Member to present a petition ; he might state
the place from whence it came, its objects, and the number of
nLe r tts—a
that
f petition the e -
signatures attached to it, and if he pleased, he might have
that petition read at the table. If he intended to found.
a motion on that petition, it was not referred to the Select Com-
tmhiat
tt e ei t onw
aPs e tciot impo n se,t
ebnutt
fwor the as pr ied
m wb i
eth e lvroet e h
o h a
tition referred to a personal grievance, then he apprehended
discussed. These were the standing regulations, and, instead
of arguing the question, he thought it better to leave it to the
sense of individual Members to decide whether it
not better for the order and satisfactory conduct woasf
public business, to adhere to the present rule, rather
than originate a discussion on the presenting of petitions.
His own opinion was that it was for the public advantage to
adhere to the Standing Orders formed by a large majority of the
House, and he hoped the House would not now depart from the
rules it affirmed in 1840.
Mr. BROTHERTON said he was convinced that the
discussion on petitions, when presenting them, was impracti-
cable. He never saw one of his constituents whom he could
not convince of i:s impracticability. The present mode, so far
from being objectionable, was the best, and petitions were now
presented in the best manner in which he had ever seen them.
According to the old principle it was impos.sitle to present
more than three or four petitions of a night. He hoped his
lion. Friend would not attempt a division. He would merely
direct the attention of his Hon. Friend to the number of peti-
tions which had been presented at different periods. In the
five years ending 1799, the number of petitions presented
had been 880 ; in the five years ending 1805, it
had been 1,026; in the five years ending 1815, they had been
4,498. In the five years ending 1831 they had been 24,492,
and in the five years ending 1843 they had been 94,295.—
(Hear, hear.) Now he would ask his Hon Friend if it were
possible to have a discussion upon all these petitions. —( Cheers.)
'The fact was, that under the old system petitions were sent to
only a few Members, who would occupy the time of the House,
regardless of the feelings of all present, and who would make
long speeches. He had, under the old plan, brought down
petitions to the House, for nine days consecutively, without
having had an opportunity of presenting them. He had the
strongest conviction that the people would not be dissatisfied
with the present .plan if it were properly explained to them.—
(Cheers.) Although he was tcenerally found voting on the
popular side, and although he was not insensible to the appro-
bation of the people, he felt, from a sense of duty, bound to
vote against the motion.
Mr. WARD had, some years since, brought forward a mo-
tion similar to that proposed by the Hon. Member for Greenock,
but further experience had convinced him of the correctness of
the views entertained by the Hon. Member for Salford, and of
the impossibility of discussing petitions when they were pre-
sented. He should, therefore, be compelled to vote against the
motion, although he had brought forward a similar one himself
some years since. He felt that the adjourned debates to which
allusion had been made by the Right Hon. Baronet, afforded
the Members representing large constituencies amore conve-
nient opportunity of placing their sentiments on record, than
would be afforded them ry any discussion upon petitions.
The Right Hon. Baronet, however, had overlooked the fact
that many Hon. Members on his (the Aiinisterial) side of the
House were constantly anxious to press on a division. The Right
Hon. Baronet should recollect that in debates on great com •
mercial questions it was but right that every Member repre-
senting a large commercial constituency ought to have an
opportunity of delivering his sentiments. It was true
he had brought for ward a motion something similar
in purport upon a former occasion, but that was in the days of
his inexperience, and much as he might regret it he felt bound
to vote against his Hon. Friend.
Alr. FIELDEN, who from the extremely low and indistinct
tone of voice in which he spoke, and the noise in the House,
was nearly inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say that
he hoped his Hon. Friend would divide the House upon his mo-
tion, when he (Mr. Fielden) would certainly vote in its favour.
Mr. WALLACE said that all he had heard on both sides of
the House had not changed his opinion that the people out of
the House would be glad to have the rule rescinded. He en-
tirely differed from the view taken by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Salford. His Hon. Friend was a member of
the Committee on Petitions, and most people were
easily biassed in their opinions by the possession of mock autho-
rity. However, he did not wish to waste the time of the
House—(Laughter, and Oh, oh)—and as he was reminded by
the First Lord of the Treasury that to do away with the rule
would interfere with another regulation, which he considered
very useful, he would withdraw his motion- for the present, but
at another time he would show the House ,that the rule cught
to be modified.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn. •
THE SESSIONAL ORDER.S.
Sir G. CLERK moved the usual sessional of
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said some of these standi'ng orders were
so much at variance with the practice of the House- that Govern-
ment ought to revise them. When the House had 1 aid down rules
for the guidance of its proceedings, those rules should be strictly
adhered to; but such was far from being the case. One
of the orders was, " That no Peer of this realm bath
any right to give his vote in the election of a uy Member
to serve in Parliament." Now he would not discu as the right
of Peers to vote for,Members of that House ; but the order in
question ought not to be established unless they had both the
disposition and the power to enforce it. No statute law or
common law of this country forbade a Peer to vote -for a Mem-
ber of that House ; and if a Peer were to claim to vote in virtue of
a proper qualification, no revising barrister:could refuse to allow
his claim. It had been publicly stated that a certain Peer had
declared that he would act in direct opposition to the standing
order on the subject; he did not know whether lie had done
so, but be did not see what there was to prevent bim. They
must bring their authority into contempt by passing rules
which they had no power to enforce. Take another of the
standing orders :—" That it is a high infringement
of the liberties and privileges of the honours, .of the United
Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other PI !er or Prelate
to concern himself in the election of Members to serve the
Commons in Parliament." How were they to, 'enforce this ?
It was proved before a Committee in 1836, that the Members of
the House of Peers, without one single exceptit in, exercised all
the power which they possessed in virtue of prverty, office,
or anything else, in influencing the election of mbers of the
House of Commons. It was notorious that • the Peers drove
their tenants and dependents to the poll, and r pule them vote
at their own pleasure. If they refused they were punished,