HC Deb 12 April 1842 vol 62 cc296-307
Mr. Cowper

rose, in pursuance of notice, to present a petition from Hertford against the Income-tax. He trusted that after the expressions of opinion which had recently taken place, in two debates, relative to the reception of petitions like the present, and considering that the Government had been reduced to within one unit of a defeat on this question, the hon. Gen tie-men opposite would not offer any further objection to the exercise of that which was the inherent and indisputable right of Englishmen, namely, the right of petitioning; and that they would not attempt to close the avenues of that House to the petitions of the people. He was much disappointed at the course taken by the right hon. Baronet opposite on this question; for he had reason to hope that the right hon. Baronet, since he had been at the head of the Government, was advancing towards sound and liberal opinions. It was absurd to keep up a practice when the original reason for it no longer existed, and nothing could more clearly show the inexpediency of last night's decision than the fact that he was now obliged, in order that the sentiments of his constituents might be heard, to interfere with the progress of the public business of the House. He moved that the petition be brought up.

Lord F. Egerton

said, that in the course of the debate yesterday evening he stated his opinion on a motion analogous to that of the hon. Member for Hertford, and he should have been satisfied with merely repeating, on this occasion, the vote which he then gave; but the inconvenience of such discussions must be obvious; and although he had himself exhibited the tendency of his own opinion as to the merits of this question, yet, as it was apparent that there was a considerable difference of opinion in the House, as to the propriety of abrogating a practice which had lasted for so long a period as the one now under consideration, he thought it would be of advantage to the settlement of the question, and to the future discussions of the House, if the regulation were placed on some better footing. He would not go into the question of how it could be best settled, although his own view would be in strict consonance with the vote he gave last night; but he wished that those petitions which, by the practice of the House for some 150 years, were not allowed to be received should be accepted, and in that he concurred, he believed, with many hon. Gentlemen of authority upon this subject on the other side of the House. He wished also that they should adhere to the rule which they had for some time observed, of preventing a discussion on the reception of petitions. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member who presented this petition, whether he might not avoid the discussion now by withdrawing the petition for the present, and allowing him to bring forward the question in a more substantive shape on the earliest day possible. If that were allowed, he would undertake to make such a proposition as the House would then have ample time and opportunity to consider.

Colonel Sibthorp

would support the motion of the hon. Member for Hertford, and expressed his regret that, upon such an occasion he should feel himself called upon to give his vote in opposition to those with whom he had acted for so many years.

Lord J. Russell

did not mean, any more than the noble Lord who had just spoken, to argue this question again; but he wished to state to the House in what position the proposition of the noble Lord left those who inclined to favour the reception of petitions. The House at the last sitting agreed by the majority of only one to reject the petitions, the number being 221 in favour of their reception. It was clear, therefore, that there was a strong opinion in the House in favour of receiving those petitions. His hon. Friend, therefore, naturally thought that, upon reconsideration, petitions of this nature might be received. The noble Lord thought that such petitions might be received if the present one was withdrawn, but the noble Lord only engaged that some proposition should be submitted to the House at some future day. He must say, that upon a question in which the issue was so clear and decided, no such proposition could be satisfactory to those who were in favour of the reception of the petitions. They all remembered that when his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury proposed that the present practice should be discontinued, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said, he could take no other course than to give to the proposition a direct negative, and he had heard no different opinion from the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. The noble Lord said he understood there was a willingness to maintain that resolution which prevented discussion on petitions. That resolution, though a resolution of the late Parliament, was so far considered binding in the present Parliament that the Speaker, at the commencement of the present Parliament, enforced it, and when the question was raised the House adhered to that resolution and that practice. If any greater weight could be attached to that resolution by making it a standing order, or by any other means, he should not object to that course being taken, if it were proposed by the noble Lord; but, in the absence of any proposition of that kind, he could only vote on this occasion as he did on the former one—in favour of the petitions being received. He thought it better, when the debate was still going on in respect of the Income-tax, and at the moment he held in his hand two petitions on the subject, that they should not put off to some future day, after the House had divided upon the other question, the consideration of the question whether they should reject or receive petitions.

Mr. Liddell

said, that the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire had ended his speech without any proposition, and he therefore did not see how they should escape the difficulty if they adjourned the consideration of this question. They were called upon to support the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government in the course he was taking— the course, he considered, he was bound to take in the circumstances of the country; and, although he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire, and his hon. Friend the Member for one of the ridings of Yorkshire, that they should give the people every possible liberty to lay their opinions before the House; yet, feeling that the House was so suddenly called upon to abrogate a custom which had prevailed for 150 years, he must say that they took a very narrow view of the question. The question was, yesterday, put on a much fairer ground, when it was stated to be a remnant of the protection of the Crown—a protection to the Crown through this House—so that the passing of a tax might not be obstructed by the presentation of petitions, which, as Mr. Hatsell remarked, would, on such a subject, be sent in from every part of the kingdom. He knew not whether the change of circumstances which had placed the noble Lord on the other side of the House might not have had some effect on his opinion on this question. From the course taken by the noble Lord when the question of privilege was anxiously debated, he doubted very much whether the noble Lord, if this question had been brought forward last year, when the noble Lord was in the position now occupied by the right hon. Baronet, would have adopted the course which he now proposed. — Credat Judæus Apella, Non ego—. ["Divide."] He was as anxious as hon. Gentlemen for a division; but if they divided now, and the question were again renewed, he asked what possible advantage could occur by attempting to cut short the discussion by calling for a division. He might trouble the House with reading long extracts from Mr. Hatsell's work, but if hon. Gentlemen would consider the question as it was then stated, he thought they would see that sufficient grounds were there given why they should not suddenly determine to depart from a practice which had been so long observed. This was not a question between the Government and the Opposition. It was for the convenience of the House, and it was for the House to consider whether for that purpose they would adhere to this rule. The Government should consider the reasons why the rule was not established: they were the guardians of the rights of the Crown, and the rule was considered essential to their protection: and although it might tend to their popularity if they took an opposite course, still they were bound to vole in opposition to the motion. He thought, therefore, that this much might be asked—that no sudden determination should be come to; that the question might not be decided on the mere semblance of a division with regard to a particular tax, but that it should be considered with reference to the future convenience of the House. On those grounds he voted against the motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite last night, and upon the same grounds he should vote in the same way on this occasion.

Lord F. Egerton

was not ready to state the distinct terms of his motion, but he was quite ready to give notice that he would bring forward a motion on the subject on the earliest day that suited the convenience of the House.

Mr. T. Buncombe

said, there were only two ways of getting out of the present difficulty; the one was for the House at once to receive the petition, the other was for her Majesty's Ministers to come down with a Standing Order, and pass that Order to the effect that no petition against a lax should be received. That, as he had said yesterday, was the proper way, considering the views of the right hon. Baronet opposite, of dealing with the subject. But what did the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton) propose? He proposed, that this petition should be withdrawn, and he would see, in the course of a few days, whether he could not make a sort of feather bed, for her Majesty's Ministers to fall gently down upon—whether he could not devise some course by which her Majesty's Ministers might escape the difficulty in which they had placed themselves, and thus escape the mortification of a defeat. He, and the Gentlemen on his side of the House, were not prepared, in the slightest degree, to compromise the principle at issue. They had placed before the House and the country, the grounds which induced them to think, that the people had a right to address that House by petition on the subject of taxation, as upon all other measures under the consideration of Parliament. He maintained, that as the guardians of the public purse, and as the representatives of the people, they were bound to entertain those petitions, and that the people were entitled to advise them as to the disposal of their own money in the same way as any proprietor of an estate, had a right to direct his steward in the application of his rent. That was his case; and until they were prepared to controvert that position, it was no use to come down and talk about a practice of 150 years. Such arguments might have done remarkably well in the days of Gatton and Old Sarum, but they would not do at the present day. Public opinion was against the course, that the Ministers were pursuing; the press was against them, common sense was against them, and justice was against them. Of what use was it, then, for the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, to propose delay? The noble Lord had voted last night for receiving the petition presented by him, and the noble Lord, he trusted, would vote in a similar way now. At all events, he hoped his horn Friend, the Member for Hertford, would not compromise the interests of those who had charged him with their petition, but would take the sense of the House on the motion he had made.

Sir Robert Peel:

I assure the hon. Gentleman I am not acting under the apprehension of any fall whatever, nor do I want any feather bed. I have done that which I believed to be the duty I owed to the Crown. I believed it to be my duty to maintain the practice which I found had been established for 150 years, not because it had prevailed for 150 years, but because the repeated proofs of the inconvenience of a departure from the rule had gradually confirmed the advantages of that course which was originally adopted. I thought it my duty to maintain the rule because I saw that the service of the Crown and of the country might be most materially prejudiced, and the necessary supplies might be impeded by the joint operation of the practice of presenting petitions against taxes for the service of the year, and debating those petitions; and I now hold the opinion, that if the House sanction that practice, if petitions may be received against taxes for the current service of the year, and those petitions may be debated, controlled only as to length by the discretion of individuals, then you are establishing a rule from which great public inconvenience will arise. I, therefore, opposed the relaxation of the rule, and the House having decided, by a majority of thirty-one, that they would not depart from it, that common sense, upon which the hon. Member opposite laid so much stress, dictated to me that when it was proposed to present a petition on the following day, I should act upon that rule. That is the position, therefore, in which we stand. 1 perfectly admit, and I wish explicitly to state, that I do not think a rule of this kind, not having the force of a law or of a standing order, can be maintained unless there is a very strong opinion predominant in its favour. I feel that the narrow majority of last night evinces that there is no general feeling in favour of the general maintenance of the usage. That opinion does not alter my own; but, at the same time, feeling what I have just Stated, and feeling that upon the right which any hon. Member possesses, of per- petually presenting petitions for reception, as I have no power—in consistency with the performance of other duties—nor, perhaps, have many other Members the power of coming down constantly at four o'clock to oppose such reception, it is probable that at some time the hon. Members opposite might succeed. I am willing to admit all this. At the same time, there is a duty which we owe to the House of Commons. Therefore, though it is desirable that we should hot leave the door open for future discussion, which would be a great consumption of public time, and a great hindrance of public business, and not very creditable to us, yet I think the decision of the House ought to appear upon its records in a clear and intelligible manner. And not at all departing from my opinions upon the question—if there be a determination to uphold the other regulation against perpetual debating on petitions, I think, provided there be some mode of rendering our decision clear and intelligible on our records, it is perfectly open to me to desist from further opposition to the claim set up, not hesitating to avow at the same time that I do so in deference only to the feeling so widely pervading the House. I, therefore, think, the proposition is reasonable for a few days delay, in order to devise means for settling the subject on a satisfactory footing. The withdrawal of the hon. Member's motion seems a proper course. If, however, the hon. Member resist this proposal, I shall give my vote against him, and I hope that all who voted in favour of the presentation of the petitions yesterday, under the impression that nothing was to be done towards it, will to-night support me in obtaining a short interval of reasonable delay. I assure the House I am far more anxious (and am desirous that they should be) about the precedent we may set for future practice, than for the immediate result of the change. I doubt not if public meetings are invited, public meetings will take place. I doubt not that they will be real public meetings, not hole-and-corner meetings; and I, therefore, hope, that all those who object to the extension of the assessed taxes, or to the increase of the house taxes, or to the re-imposition of taxes on articles of common consumption. All those who, having incomes under 150l. a-year will not be affected by my tax, and all those who think that the alterations to be effected by my tariff will be of benefit to them, will attend at these public meetings, and will take the opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject.

Viscount Howick

said, the right hon. Gentleman had come to a perfectly just conclusion as to the necessity for a general support in order to sustain any regulation of the House. The right hon. Gentleman also acted quite fairly in offering the concession which he had expressed his readiness to make to the feeling of the House. Further than this, the right hon. Baronet had been perfectly just in calling on them to take care that their decision was entered on the journals in a clear and intelligible manner. But when the right hon. Baronet asked for a withdrawal of the petition in order to a delay of some days, he could not concur with the right hon. Baronet, for there had not been anything sufficiently definite in the statement of the noble Lord; and if the question were to be settled (as it was best that it should be) by a resolution of the House, considering the right hon. Baronet's position in the House, perhaps he himself would be the most fitting person to undertake the proposition of this resolution; were he to give this undertaking, the withdrawal of the petition might be agreed to.

Sir R. Peel

Undoubtedly, Sir, there are many occasions on which the person who stands in my position—the leader (as he is rather unparliamentarily, perhaps, called) of the House—should take a certain course of proceeding; but I think there are others on which it would be rather hard to commit to such an individual the duty of proposing—as in this instance, for example—a measure to which be is sincerely opposed. I am perfectly ready to declare my intention of relinquishing the opposition I have hitherto given. Could not a committee be appointed on the subject.

Mr. C. Bruce

said, he had intended last night (had he been able to catch the Speaker's eye) to propose the course just suggested by the right hon. Baronet.

Lord J. Russell

said, it might be for the advantage of the House, that the right bon. Gentleman in the Chair should state the difference between a resolution of the House and a standing order to the same effect.

The Speaker

The distinction between a resolution and a standing order is this— that the resolution is binding only throughout the present Parliament; and, therefore, during the present Session, it cannot be questioned, though it may be during any other Session of Parliament; but a standing order is binding not only on this present Parliament, but on all future Parliaments.

Lord Mahon,

as one of the Members for the place whence this petition proceeded, and also as one of the minority last evening, wished to address a few observations to the House. He had voted in that minority not from any doubt as to the propriety of the Income-tax itself, not from any apprehension of any feeling against it out of doors, but because in his opinion it was not merely a longstanding precedent, it required some strong and stringent reason to justify them in refusing the petitions of the people. Such a reason was in the first instance supplied by the rule which permitted a discussion to be raised on each separate petition, and therefore enabled any factious man or knot of men, to obstruct the passing of even the most just and needful impost. But the instant that licence was abrogated, that instant the reason and the justification for excluding petitions against imposts ceased also, on these grounds he (Lord Mahon) had felt himself compelled on a former evening to vote against his right bon. Friend at the head of the Government, and however painful the duty, if this question were not adjusted, he would not shrink from thus voting again. But there was now a fair prospect of adjusting it. His noble Friend the Member for South Lancashire had given notice that he would move resolutions upon this subject on Thursday next. Under these circumstances the aspect of the question was changed, and he (Lord Mahon) much wished and recommended that his hon. Colleague, should accede to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, as to the withdrawal of the petition for a few days; until after the resolutions had been proposed and discussed. His noble Friend had not indeed been as explicit as might have been desired as to the nature of the resolution which he intended to bring forward. But at leas the had stated thus much, that they would be in conformity with his noble Friend's vote the other evening for the reception of petitions. Now, then, it was surely no very extraordinary stretch of confidence for the House to suppose that the resolutions would go to authorise and establish for the future the claim, in support of which he (Lord Mahon) had voted, for the reception of such petitions, and along with which the necessary securities could be established against a re lapse into the old system of debating on petitions. He therefore strongly urged that the petition now before the House should be withdrawn by his hon. colleague. ["No, no," from the Opposition Benches] Well, then, if his hon. Colleagues or those around him would (not consent to the withdrawal of the petition with this view, he (Lord Mahon) should move the adjournment of the debate till Friday, or the day after the resolutions of his noble Friend should have been discussed.

Lord F. Egerton

begged to read his notice of the resolution he meant to propose— It would be first confirmatory of the practice of the House as laid down by the Speaker, in 1839, with respect to the reception of petitions; and (secondly) permitting the presentation of petitions against taxes imposed for the services of the year; also (thirdly), that such resolutions be made standing orders.

Viscount Palmerston

would recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford, to accede to the adjournment of the debate till after those resolutions should have been discussed, provided the right hon. Baronet would give his assurance of support.

Sir R. Peel

The noble Lord assumes, I am acting in concert with my noble Friend as to the proposition of his resolutions. That is not the case; and, therefore, without seeing the resolutions themselves, I surely cannot be expected to commit myself by a promise of future support. This, however, I will say, that I am quite prepared to give a general adherence to the resolutions. I reserve myself on one point expressly—as to its being made a standing order that such petitions should be received. The hon. Member for Finsbury's original proposal it would be remembered was for the suspension, not the abolition, of the existing practice.

Mr. Wakley

regretted that the proposition of the right hon. Baronet should have been at all sanctioned on that (the Opposition) side of the House. The right of petitioning was of no consequence so long as the practice of debating on petitions was restrained. The emancipation of the West-Indian slaves was an object accomplished through the agency of petitions addressed to that House, and by means of the debates consequent upon those petitions. By the same means, and by debating on petitions, the question of Catholic emancipation was also carried. Now, if petitions on the subject of the Income-tax were to be presented, and made subject to the old rule, it was clear that such petitions would be presented to the House, and would, according to the recent practice, be disregarded. On that ground, he was opposed to anything in the shape of compromise. He conceived, that those who were favourable to the unrestrained practice of petitioning could accomplish the object which they had in view without making any compromise whatever; they wanted no new regulation still more odious and objectionable than the existing practice; why should they have such a thing without a necessity? Let hon. Members only remember what they had gained by debating on petitions, and were they now to fall into the gross error of becoming willing parties to gagging themselves? He was unable to conceive anything more reasonable than the petition presented by the hon. Member for Hertford; nor could he conceive anything more repugnant to the most obvious principles of justice than an attempt to deprive the people of their right to give free expression to their opinions. He decidedly objected to entering into a compromise on a subject so important. He thought that they had much better take the division on the question now before them, and leave to the Government the responsibility of adopting whatever course they might think proper upon the subject.

Sir G. Grey

said, that nothing had been said on either side which amounted to a compromise. The resolution of the House regarding debating on petitions was now in full force. As he understood the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, it would only go to reiterate that resolution which now regulated the practice of the House. The practice of the House be altered by the adoption of the resolution which the noble Lord intended to propose. The supporters of the right of petition would, therefore, lose nothing by agreeing to the proposition of the noble Lord, and on that ground he thought that it would be keeping up discussion unnecessarily if they were to reject the concession offered and were not to avail themselves of the opportunity to throw open their doors to the reception of petitions. They were not entitled to delay the exercise for a moment of that right upon any such ground as that stated by the last speaker.

Mr. Wallace

was of opinion that if they did not then go to a division, an important occasion would be lost for promoting the public interest. For his part, he was resolved, in the next Session of Parliament, to move that the resolution which prevented debating upon petitions, should be rescinded. He was decidedly favourable to going to a division on the present occasion.

Mr. Curteis

observed, that he should say to the noble Lord sic vos non vobis. He saw no reason why the matter should be taken out of the hands of the hon. Member for Finsbury; he, therefore, took the liberty of suggesting that it should be confided jointly to the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Finsbury. He thought that no part of the honour of the proceeding ought to be taken out of the hands of the latter Gentlemen.

Mr. O'Connell

was favourable to allowing the matter to stand over till Friday, in order that the proposition now made, might be put into proper form. He thought that this extension of time might very fairly be agreed to, and in his judgment such an assent involved no compromise whatever; he therefore moved that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. Cowper

said, he would persist in dividing the House, if he could see that any possible advantage was likely to accrue from pursuing that course, but thinking that the manner in which the right hon. Baronet had given in upon this occasion was creditable to him, he should readily consent to adjourn the debate.—Debate adjourned.