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

must say there was a very general impression that their •
time was sufficiently consumed in debates.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not think that the country generally—
that those who formed the class of petitioners to that
House, would wish them to devote more of their time to
debating, and less to the performance of practical busi-
ness. If it was found that night after night was con-
sumed in preliminary discussions leading to the postpone-
ment of legislation, he (Sir R. Peel) did not believe that
the people would be satisfied. It was for them to strike
a balance between the advantages and disadvantages, and
from the experience he had of the working of the pre-
sent rule he would give it his support.
Mr. WAKLEY said there was a mode of redressing
the grievance complained of, which was by consulting
more the feelings of the people. If this were done
there would be far fewer petitions presented; but, acting
in opposition to the people, the consequence was
that they must petition. The Right Honour-
able
Baronet considered that Ministers had little
or no peculiar interest in discussing the petitions of
the people. Yet there were no persons in the
House who were so deeply interested in discussing
their grievances as the Ministers of the Crown. The
late Ministry considered this their duty, and they most ,
minutely examined them. Numbers of petitions were
presented against them, a large number praying their re-
moval. They could not have been pleased to hear or discuss
those petitions. In this case the Right Hon. Baronet
stated that they ought to look at the question practi-
cally ; they should do so, and with a view to the inte-
rest of the community generally. He would ask if the
mode at present adopted were consistent with the views
of petitioners ? He had seen a large bundle of petitions,
thirty in number, presented by an Hon. Gentleman, all
relating to one subject, and this occupied but half a mi-
nute. Considering the anxiety of people out of doors on
public questions, the expense of petitioning, and the
great expectations entertained of the results of their
discussions, what would be the feelings of petitioners,
when the grievances and opinions of thirty public meet-
ings were presented in half a minute, scarcely the names
of the places being mentioned ? This was altogether far
eke], and unworthy of that assembly. There was a mode
of lessening the number of petitions, as well as improv-
ing their practice, and that was shortening the duration
of .Parliament. They should go back to their constitu-
ents more frequently. At present they had a lease for
seven years, and the unfortunate persons who sent them
have to pray of us to alter our proceedings, but when
they come with their complaints no discussion takes
place. This is the House of the people, and this the
course they take ; but what is the course of the
other House, who, as an hereditary House, do
not pretend to represent the people ? In this
House those who pretended to represent the people
were gagged and muzzled, and were not allowed a single
comment upon a petition, unless it contained what was
called a personal grievance ; then, if it did contain
a personal grievance, it was requisite to bring
a motion betbre the House upon that, and it was
notorious to Hon. Members that such a motion was
set down night after night, and week after week, before
it could be entered into, yet nothing was done to get rid
of so crying a grievance. He had seen personal griev-
vances brought forward in both Houses of Parliament, on
the same night ; in the House of Lords, those motions
would be entered into and considered, whilst in this
House no notice would be taken of them: He remem-
bered, some time ago, that a motion of this kind was
brought forward by his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Westminster, in that House, and by Lord Brougham in
the other House. In the House of Lords Lord Brougham
was allowed to state his grievance, and the account of it
occupied three columns of the morning newspapers ;
whilst, in the House of Commons, a few minutes was all
the space allowed to his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Westminster, for the recital of his grievance. He
(Mr. Wakley) should.cin future entreat the people not to
present any more petitions to the House of Commons,
but to take them all to the Upper House. It was
there they would be heard and listened to ; it was here
that they could not be considered. He (Mr. Wakley)
was one who had taken upon himself, in the year
1836, the responsibility of recommending that an
amendment of the practice of the House should take place.
If the Speaker's time ,were so much occupied, a deputy
Speaker might be appointed, that they might sit there
at an early hour to consult on measures for the interests
of the people.
Sir WALTER JAMES then rose, amidst loud cries
of " Divide." He would only take notice of one re-
mark which had just fallen from the Hon. Member op-
posite (Mr. Wakley). He had, indeed, stated several
things in which he (Sir W. James) could not concur.
He could agree with the Hon. Member opposite that
that House ought to represent the people, and that they
ought to study the wishes and interests of the people ;
it was their business to look after the people's interests,
and the question now was, whether they were to conduct
their affairs in a business-like way, or to delay their
affairs in a tedious and vexatious way ?
Sir V. BLAKE supported the motion of the Hon.
Member for Greenock. The ancient right of the peo-
ple, relative to the presenting of petitions, had been
curtailed in that House, and he thought there should be
every reasonable license for discussing them, on their
presentation.
Mr. WALLACE rose amidst loud cries of " Di-
vide." He was well aware that the House at that mo.
went was against him. In reply to certain objections
which had been made to his motion, he begged to ob-
serve that never had there been more business done than
in the years 1833, 1834, and 1885. when the right to
discuss petitions was exercised and admitted. He be-
lieved that the time of the House would not be uselessly
wasted in debates on petitions. What the people com-
plained of was the monstrous practice of delaying a sin-
gle point for four or five nights, ,for purposes of party
triumph. He had no doubt but that the leading parties
on each side of the House had already arranged between
them the weeks' debate, which was to be continued from
Monday till Friday next, as they used to do last
Session.—(Hear.) Now that was the abuse of' time of
which the public complained. The people did not ob-
ject to the time spent in doing their own work, but the
time consumed in Ministerial work and trickery. The
people should have their political food given to them day
by day, or they would not take it at all. He was cer-
tain he brought before the House a proper proposition,
but as it had been overruled by the Speaker he should
abide by that. He thought the matter should be re-
ferred to a Committee, from which he expected the
greatest good. He begged to tell the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet opposite that he did not wish to take up the time
of the House, and that he would be content himself not
to occupy more than two minutes on presenting a peti-
tion, which he thought would be sufficient for all persons
who had not very dull brains.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He adhered to the motion which was put,
and he would divide the House upon it.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 5O
Against it
Majority against the motion — 187
LOAN SOCIETIES.
Mr. M. SUTTON obtained leave to bring in a girl
'to explain and continue, until the Ist of August, 1843,
the Act to amend the laws relating to Loan Societies.
LIBRARY COMMITTEE.
Sir R. INGLIS moved the re-appointment of the
Library Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS commented on the needless expense
in printing a number of Reports and documents which
were read by nobody, and were generally sold for waste
paper. He should wish to call the attention of the Hon.
Baronet to this subject. He also wished to be established
an entire new system of appointing the Committees of
the House, as a different plan was very much needed.
As an example of a better system, he would take the
plan adopted by the House of Representatives of the
United States. There they appointed Committees at
the commencement of the session, and there was no in-
stance of the same person being appointed on two Com-
mittees. In this House, if any Hon. Member wished for
an inquiry into any subject, he moved for a Committee,
and he takes care to place on it a majority of Members
entertaining his own views of the question ; he selects
men of the best abilities, and the best conversant with
the subject on his own side, but, to preserve an appearance
of impartiality, some men of opposite opinions were se-
lected, but they were generally taken from among those
who were likely to pay the least possible attention to the
subject. The consequence is, that the Committees had
not that weight and influence with the House which they
ought to have, as many of them were merely moved for
to gratify some crotchet of a particular Member, without
having any practical object to carry out.
Sir R. INGLIS said that the House had concurred
without discussion in the course which he had proposed for
the last seven years. The objections of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Coventry did not apply to the present practice of
the House in respect to Committees. It used to be the

practice to appoint the same Member upon several Com-
mittees ; as, for instance, his Right Hon. Friend the
First Lord of the Treasury, used to be appointed upon
every Committee ; for his services, however short the
time he could devote to each, were considered of the
highest value. But now no Member was appointed to
two Committees. There used to be sometimes forty
Members on a Committee, but lately the number of
' Members on each Committee was not more than fifteen
or sixteen ; and on the Library Committee there was no
necessity for so many, as their functions were very few.
Yet it was necessary to re-appoint them every Session.
With respect to the second Committee, he could say that
he should hare no objection whatever that the name of
any other Hon. Gentleman should be substituted for his.
As for the third Committee, that on printing, the Secre-
tary fur the Treasury generally nominated the Members,
composing it, and would doubtless give the best expla-
nation respecting it. He (Sir R. Inglis) had no objec-
tion whatever to withdraw from thiS either ; but he pre-
ferred that some one else should state why he should be
on the Library Committee.
Dr. BOWRING complained of the very bad attend-
ance of members of the Committee on petitions last year.
The Committee on printing, however, was regularly at-
tended. He thought that every Member nominated to
the Committee on petitions should give a pledge to attend,
if chosen, for the matters referred to it were of very
great importance.
Sir R. INGLIS said that when he was Chairman of
that Committee, he read every petition that was referred
to them by the House.
Mr. E WART bore testimony to the conscientious
manner in which the Right Hon. Baronet discharged his
duties. He (Mr. E.) thought the reduction of the num-
ber of Committees from 40 to 15 was a good, rather than
an evil, .as it increased the responsibility of the Mem-
bers; and if the latter number were reduced to seven it
would be a still greater improvement, for the same reason.
No gentleman ought to be appointed a member of a
Committee who had not first promised to attend to the
duties of it, and he thought that no person ought to be a
member of two Committees at tbe same time.
On the motion of Sir R. INGLIS, the following Mem-
bers were then appointed :—Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr.
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Robert Peel, Lord ,
John Russell, Mr. Baring, Mr. Williams Wynn, Mr.
Itutherfurd, Mr. Shaw, Lord Viscount Palmerston, Mr.