HC Deb 04 February 1817 vol 35 cc202-8
Lord Cochrane

presented a petition from certain burgesses and other inhabitants of the town of Hamilton, in Lanarkshire. On a former evening, when presenting a petition, he had been unable to speak to the character and situation of the persons from whom he had received it. In the present instance he could state to the House, that those from whom the petition now in his hand came, were persons of religious habits, whose industry had heretofore maintained them in comfort, and whose general peaceable demeanour could not be called in question. They stated, in temperate language, the distress of which they had to complain, and the grievances which, at length, compelled them to come before that honourable House. Their prayer was for retrenchment in the public expenditure, and for a reform in the House of Commons. Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. W. Smith

said, he had a petition to present from Norwich, which he did not know contained airy thing improper or offensive. This opinion of his, however, did not affect, in his mind, the substance or object of the petition. He must decline giving any particular opinion on the contents, because he thought, that the claim upon a member to give such opinion was imposing upon him a task which was at the same time both invidious and useless— invidious, because it called on an individual member to state an opinion as to the wording of a petition, and because such an opinion was imagined to have a certain degree of influence upon the House. There must be very strong language indeed in a petition, before he could be induced to decline to present one from his constituents. The claim was useless, since, after any member's declaration, the House might totally disagree with the petition; so that no advantage was to be gained from the individual member's opinion. If, again, he thought a petition was improper to present, it might be given into the hands of some other member who thought differently, and the House might afterwards think it was fit to be received, in which case his own opinion would be gratuitous and useless. He then adverted to the case of a rejected petition from Horsham on the 25th of April, 1716, which was refused on the score of improper language. That petition prayed for the repeal of the septennial act, which was styled "an overturning of the constitution and subversion of the rights and liberties of the nation." But he thought, that if the House of Commons would go so far as to double the period of its own existence, he scarcely knew any terms so strong as to prevent him from thinking it his duty to offer a petition upon the subject. He had looked at this petition and its prayer, and he thought it ought to be received. There were respectable names on the first sheet, followed by thousands of signatures. It was on the principle of the question that he thought it right to decline giving his own opinion on the terms in which the petition was couched. He moved, that the petition be brought up.

Mr. Wynn

regretted exceedingly, that he should find himself called upon to oppose the bringing up of this petition, but remembering what he had heard repeatedly from the oldest members of that House, and the firmest friends of the British constitution, that a member presenting a petition should be held to give his sanction to the language of it, though not to the prayer, he, for one, would not consent, after what had been said by his hon. friend, to receive it. If he looked back to the proceedings of parliament, he found the great examples of Mr. Fox and Mr. Whitbread, who were as anxious as any members to support the just rights of petitioners. They had however presented on some occasions, petitions of which they stated that they did not approve the prayer; but then they said they had read them, and did not see any thing in them offensive or disrespectful to the House. His hon. friend seemed to treat this as nugatory, because the House could reject a petition. But was it really a point of indifference to the House to act on such questions as a mere matter of course, and thereby to be compelled to hear a train of expressions offensive in themselves, and impertinent to, or unconnected with, the subject on which the petition was founded? At this rate, a petition of the size of a quarto volume might be brought up and read, filled with extraneous and offensive matter, till the House was quite tired out with hearing it. He was sorry to be obliged to oppose receiving a petition under the present circumstances. He had said to persons who had brought petitions to him, that he was willing to present them, but sometimes they had run to too great a length, or contained what might cause their rejection, and he had then recommended the parties to amend and alter them. It was much the better way to take any offensive matter out of a petition before presenting it. He saw no one benefit likely to arise from any alteration of the uniform and established practice of the House. There must obviously be a great inconvenience in being obliged to sit and hear all sorts of insult and contumacy. He had, on a former occasion, alluded to the circumstances of the Kentish petition. The House, after hearing offensive language, had no way of animadverting upon it but by the rejection of the petition which contained them. The former practice had been to state objections to petitions on the question of bringing them up. It would be a subject of regret if all petitions were to be read as a matter of course. He should regret deeply if petitions were rejected merely because they contained passages which expressed sentiments contrary to the opinions of the majority of the House. He saw no way more effectual for all desirable purposes, than to inquire the opinion of a member as to the character of a petition; and it was the best mode of avoiding the painful necessity of rejection.

Mr. Lockhart

had always thought the member presenting a petition bound to read it, but not to go further, and vouch for the propriety of the language it contained, excepting in particular cases, where the House having reason to believe the matter of it was offensive, might require some assurance on the subject. The opinion he had formed had been confirmed by what occurred a few days back. When the hon. baronet had brought up his first petition, no questions had been asked; but when one or two had been read, and found to be disrespectful to the House, and couched in nearly the same terms, he had properly been asked if those which he was subsequently about to present were of the same character. When called to state what the character of a petition might be, he thought the member presenting it was bound to give a pledge, that it contained nothing improper, but he did not think he was called upon to do this in the first instance.

The Speaker

apprehended the rule of the House to be what had been laid down on a former day, and what had been correctly stated by an hon. gentleman on this, that the House had a right to expect a member presenting a petition, would be prepared to declare the language of it was not in his opinion intentionally disrespectful. If he refused to give such a pledge, it seemed hard that the House should be expected to depart from its established rules to receive the petition so presented. The member ought in the first instance to satisfy himself that the language of it was not improper.

Lord Castlereagh

said, the feeling of the House must ever be in favour of receiving petitions, and it never could be their wish, in considering what was due to their dignify and what was their duty, to throw any obstacles in the way of petitioners. He thought the hon. member who presented this petition had gone most unnecessarily out of the way, and he hoped it would be felt, that if the motion were opposed, it was not from any wish on that side of the House, to get rid of the petition, but from a desire to assert a principle which had now been brought into discussion. He apprehended the rule of the House to be founded in true wisdom, and true wisdom went to throw open their doors to petitioners in the largest sense, and doing this to be careful not to depart from the established usage of parliament. It was not necessary they should submit to be treated with disrespect to secure to petitioners their rights. What degradation would be theirs, were they to submit to every insult that the wicked imaginations of designing men might be pleased to heap upon them—to read every petition that might be presented, and reading, to put it on their journals, however offensive its contents might be! He trusted the members of that House would not lend themselves to become the channels of insult, and to be used as the means of libelling it In a case where a member doubted what was the course most proper to be pursued, he might with propriety state his doubts, and then the petition could be read, that the wisdom of the House might assist him in coming to a decision. But when the hon. gentleman so broadly maintained that the House was bound to receive any petition that might be offered, without requiring any pledge as to its language, he would say, that if they lent themselves to such a doctrine, they lent themselves to their own degradation, and to the destruction of their own privileges and dignity. As this subject had been forced unnecessarily on the House, he had no difficulty in adhering to the established rule, and, considering the rights and liberties of the subject involved in the dignity of that House, he thought they were bound in the present case to reject the petition.

Sir F. Burdett

thought it was rather hard on so respectable a body of men as the petitioners, that their petition should be rejected, because the member presenting it, had expressed an opinion on a matter with which they in the present instance had nothing to do. After all, it could not be doubted that every member would exercise his own discretion whenever a petition was brought for him to present, and he hoped the noble lord would not persevere in his opposition on the present occasion.

Mr. Bathurst,

after alluding to what had passed on the same subject on a previous evening, observed, that if the hon. member who presented this petition had omitted his observations, it was probable that the petition would have met with no opposition. He might suspect, in such a case, that a member thought that his petition would not be received when read; but he imputed no such thoughts to the hon. gentleman, who, he rather believed, wished merely to raise the question. He could not deny the practice; but he had merely argued against the reasons assigned for the rule, which he seemed to consider as extremely absurd. If a member had any doubt respecting a petition, he could state it. As to a petition, declined by one member, going into the hands of another, that was no argument against the security afforded to the House, by relying, to a certain extent, on the character of one of their own body to protect them against a petition which might contain gross abuse from beginning to end. Many things might be sufficiently stated without offensive language. All responsibility was lost when a member said he had not read what lie presented; yet a libel might thus go to the journals. The point was, whether it was proper to take the chance of a petition which nobody had read, and the risk of insults. It was impossible to assent to this.

Mr. W Smith

replied, that no one was: more ready to bow to the authority of the chair than himself, but he considered the present question as one of great importance. It was upon the principle alone that he stood. He never doubted the power of the House to require of any member that he should declare a petition to be such as the House might receive, or that he might be called upon to read a petition in his place, and in the latter case it would not appear on their journals, if couched in improper language. They could not expect that petitions upon reform, or upon grievances arising from a want of reform, would be expressed in very conciliatory terms; but he did not think it was the duty of a member to make himself the channel of refusal, if he considered a petition objectionable. He was, therefore, ready to abide by the decision of the House on the present occasion, whatever that decision might be.

Mr. Canning

observed, that no question would have been agitated upon the subject of this petition, if the hon. member had not sought it by stating his objection to saying that he had read it.

Mr. Bankes

thought that the hon. member had fully complied at first with the rules of the House, in saying he had read the petition, though, he afterwards started the general question about the necessity of his compliance. If he would repeat what he had first stated, so as to undo the effect of his subsequent observations, he would vote for the reading of the petition. The hon. member might bring forward the subject on another occasion.

Mr. Brougham

trusted his hon. friend would not give the House the trouble of dividing, but he also trusted that he would not comply with the request of the last speaker. If it were felt that a member ought to read a petition before he presented it, let a fair and honourable understanding be come to on the subject on both sides; but he hoped that no member nor even the House itself, would get into the habit of administering interrogatories to every hon. gentleman who might present a petition. Such a course, he contended, was extraordinary and unparliamentary, and would lead to a course of examination that would be very inconvenient, as, after the question—"Have you read the petition?" the next question undoubtedly would be—"Is it fit to be presented?" and if a doubt occurred here, it would then be asked—"What do yon think of it upon the whole?" To this he must object, and he therefore hoped his hon. friend would not repeat what he had before stated, in compliance with the suggestion of the last speaker.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that an hon. baronet had been questioned on a former night in consequence of his having said he had not read one of the petitions he presented. In the present case no one would have thought of asking the hon. gentleman a question.

The question, that the petition be brought up, was then put and negatived.