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

allow the Member for the county to have a two minutes'
speech in reply to his.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Did
the Hon. Member consider that the practice which he.
wished to establish would (if his own principle were
carried out to the fullest extent) entirely destroy the le-
gislative functions of the House ; for it was not possible
in the course of nature that they could do anything
but discuss petitions ?—(Hear, hear.) But, after all,
what benefit would the Hon. Member's friends in Kelso
for instance, derive from a six hours' debate upon the
petition ?—(Hear.) The Hon. Member thought they
would be indirectly benefited by the public attention
being brought to their case. But the legitimate
mode of doing that was by a specific motion.—
(Hear, hear.) The number of petitions presented
the year before last was upwards of 18,000, and their
titles alone occupied a folio page closely printed. Now,
if the discussions upon each of these occupied
only two minutes (and he was sure that the
Honourable Member for Greenock, would not be
contented to restrict even his own speech to that time, to
say nothing of an answer), what other business could
be got through ? If the Hon. Member had no sympathy
for the 40 or 50 Bills brought in last June and July by
his friends, the late Ministers, surely he might have some for
the private Bills of his own friends in Scotland. Besides
there was an understanding that petitions of importance
might be included in the Votes, and discussed. But a
large majority of those so printed had never been brought
on. On all considerations he should oppose the motion.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the sole argument brought
against the proposition of his Hon. Friend was, that it
would cause an absorption of the time of the House.
Now he would suggest to the Honourable Gen-
tleman opposite a course that he (Mr. Roebuck)
might now pursue under the present regulation, if he
were desirous of absorbing the time of the House.
Whenever a petition was proposed to be laid on the
table, he might divide the House on the
question that it "do lie " on the table ?
On that point he might divide the House, as he might
wish to place his vote on the records of the House. The
lion. Gentleman also said that he had a right to make the
Clerk read every petition presented to the House, but
was it ever done ? The Hon. Gentleman truly said it
was physically impossible Gentlemen .in this respect
were regulated by the feelings of the House, and
would not come forward to discuss the subject matter of
petitions contrary to the feeling of the House. Ho
would put it to the Honourable Gentleman whether he
was not much moize likely to obtain a clear and pro-
per understanding of the opinions of the people
of this country, if the proposition were adopted.
Every man in that House did not fancy him-
self a speaker, and was not prepared to come
down to the House with a set oration ; but
he does come down with the petition of his consti-
tuents, and prepared with their statements as contained
in the petition : he gets ready those statements
in a certain form of words, and is able to ex-
press them to the Members of the House, and the
people of this country. He comes prepared to state that
much, and not to make a set oration ; and thanks be to God,
he did not.—(Laughter.) lie comes to set forth the opinions
of his constituents, and that was much better done
viva voce, than by the bare form " let it lie on the table."
Under the present regulations, the people of this country
do not petition—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—he would
even say that they cannot petition. The lion. Gentleman
had said that during the last year there were 18,000
petitions ; how many .of them were on one subject ?
That of Church Extension; perhaps, or on the Corn-laws?
Did he suppose that if he (Mr. R.) has 20 petitions to
present on the Corn-laws, he should make twenty
speeches.—(Hear, hear.) But if the Hon. Member
was impressed with the peculiar importance of the
petition, he ought to come forward and state it.
It was said that lie might state the substance
of the petition, but that would not answer the
purpose. The substance of the petition merely
stated the grievance complained of, but did
not state why—did not state the reasons of that com-
plaint. Throe minutes would often be sufficient for that
purpose, but the present practice put a stopper upon
persons trying to make the petitions of the people
heard. He would go further, he would say that no question
assist-
ance.
could be thoroughly discussed either by the House or the
country, but upon the old established principle. He would
appeal Member Member
was
Hon. fora Oxfordfor his
Conservative—now
principle of Conservatism, as he (Mr. Roebuck) understood
it, was an acting upon the precedenfs of former times,
an abiding by the usages of our ancestors. Now,
since the Reform Bill, a new practice had been
introduced in regard to the petitions of the
people, sane somewhat smacking of the times
in which we lived, and yet the Honourable Mem-
ber for Oxford had suffered it to pass unnoticed.
He (Mr. R.) was now arguing, upon Conservative
principles, for a return to the wholesome practice
of our ancestors, and he trusted that, for consistency's
sake, the Honourable Baronet the Member for Oxford
would vote with him. The wants of the people would
never be made known to the House while the pre-
sent practice was persisted in, The newspapers
could not make them known to the House z the
House knew nothing of newspapers. He was there, as
the representative of his constituents, to State their griev-
ances to the House. It was said he might make a motion.
To this he would reply, that lie might not have an
opportunity, he might not be able to speak ; although per-
fectly able .to state the feelings of his constituents to the
llouse, he might nothave the courage to make a set oration.
lle would make use of the argnmentnm ad hominem to
the llon. Member for Oxford, and claim his vote for this
motion upon Conservative grounds, as a return to the
practice of our forefathers.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought it necessary to give
his reason for voting as he intended. He had as great a
regard for the right of petition as any Hon. Member
could have, and would be the last to say anything to abridge
it, but he was sure the present motion would not
answer the purpose proposed. He had seen this
House, before he was a Member of it, when
the proposed plan was in full operation ; and
he could state that at that time it turned out a per-
fect failure. The petitions were neither noticed by the
newspapers nor by the Members of the House; the time of
the House was occupied by a few loquacious Members,
so that it was utterly impossible for the majority of the
Members to present the petitions entrusted to their care.
He felt bound to declare that he had attended in that
House ten days successively, and he had never had an op-
portunity o f presenting a single petition; at this time he had
seen a great number of Members with petitions, which
they were anxious to present, and a feeling of justice
prevented him from presenting those that he had.
He considered that it would be quite impossible that a
presentation of petitions could be carried on if every
Member was allowed to make a speech upon every
petition—(Hear, hear, hear). With respect to the
observations that had been made as to the disorderly
manner in which petitions were generally pre-
sented, lie must be allowed to say that he
considered the manner in which petitions had
been presented latterly was most orderly. Every
Member had an opportunity of stating what were
the contents of the petition which ho had to present,
and he thought that that was quite sufficient ; but as
to supposing that every Member was to state his own
opinions on these petitions, he considered it quite absurd.
He was of opinion that the people had u right to have
their petitions heard and attended to, but he did not
think that that could be effected by allowing Hon. Mem-
bers to make long speeches upon their presentation.
Mr. O'CONNELL considered that the petitions of the
people were treated in that House with a levity which-
was unbecoming. He admitted that the late practice in
the presentation of petitions was an inconvenient one.
He thought that a middle course should be adopted, be-
cause he could not but think that the practice at pre-
sent adopted was insulting to the people at large.
The House ought to refer the question to a Committee,
which would doubtless devise some means of giving a
more substantial hearing to the petitions of the people,
so that no one should have a right to complain,
as at present, of the mockery and insult of throw-
ing bundles of petitions together on the table.—
, (Hear, hear.) He hoped, therefore, that the House
I would rescind its resolution, and follow it up by
some plan which would neither trespass upon the public
time nor give the people reason to complain. .
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that if any insult were
offered to the people through the present mode of pre-
senting their petitions—if there were a mockery of cere-
mony, to use the words of the Honourable Gentleman,
by throwing bundles of petitions on the table, that was
the fault of the Members who so presented them—
(Hear, hear)—because the rules of the House

ore :pse
haduna crt necessity.agmbeaenetn.
petition
eirrt
ihoenl
adoptedimre
utliwesbtsoyu
statelsd said
ihdrefer toeaatj o
'placera,
majority
oiximposed
rulesePm
hsbeeedr whichlastnp
whencs it came, so that if an Honourable Member were
not able to pronounce the names of Irish and Scotch
places,the rules gave him liberty to learn to pronounce them
properly—(Laughter)—which it was his duty to do, not
that of the Clerk.—( Hear.) The Member presenting a
petition was bound also to state the number of signatures
and the material contents of the petition. If the
petition complained of personal violence, and re-
and discussed forthwith.—(Cries of
quired immediate redress, it might be entertained
"Hear.) And if
the subject were of a special nature, it might be printed
in the Votes, and a notice of a motion on it
be given. Now, if they were to return to
the late system, there would be no limit
to the presentation of petitions.--L(Hear, hear.)
It was true that, in the abstract, every petition had a
right to be read by the Clerk, and attended
.po by the
House ; but it was clear, that if the Clerk was to
read every petition, theit: whole time wouid be absorbed,
and if Members would listen carefully, all he could say
was, that this would be different from their usual course.
—(Laughter.) But now the question was, did the
present mode diminish the confidence of the people ?
Since the rules adopted the number of petitions had
increased. During the last two Sessions their average
number was 17,000 each Session. Certainly they
could not infer, from the increase of petitions, that the
petitioners were dissatisfied with the present mode of pro-
ceeding. He (Sir R. Peel) believed there was no alternative
between adhering to the rule and the complete relaxation
of it. If they permitted individual Members to exer-
cise their discretion the consequence would be con-
tinued'debates on the presentation of petitions. Members
would be much less anxious to do justice to the object of
the petitions entrusted to them, than to state their
Sir
ir table,R
o
own individual and personal opinions. That would
eto sayhe present
gallery,
necessarily provoke reply; reply would provoke re-
joinder, and they would be involved in the same diffi-
culties as they experienced from the same source some
twelve or thirteen years ago-
Mr. ROEBUCK here made some observation across
the
BwEhßicTh wraEsEntot
pohreacredeidn dthe
order was made in February, 183:1, during the Speaker-
Ship of Mr. Manners Sutton, and the intention of it was
to lead to the prevention of debates on petitions. The
question, however really was, what should be conform-
able to public feeling and to public policy on this score.
As far as public feeling was concerned, he (Sir R. Peel)
• •