PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c. (Hansard, 6 February 1817)

Lord Cochrane
rose for the purpose of presenting a petition, signed by 30,050 of the inhabitants of Manchester, praying for a radical reform in parliament, and for the abolition of sinecures and pensions. He thought it his duty to state that he had read the petition, but that he could not take upon himself to be responsible that the language of the petition was such as the House was likely to think unobjectionable. At the same time, he thought there was nothing in it very violent or obnoxious, although the petitioners stated their grievances in strong terms. After stating that the distresses of the people at the present moment were such as to justify their stating their complaints to the House, he took the opportunity of mentioning that he had calculated the comparative amount of the contributions of some of those who had put their names to the subscriptions for the relief of the poor, with the annual amount of the sinecures which they held; and it was with much pain that he found that no sinecurist had paid above a penny in the pound on the annual amount of his salary. One noble duke had paid only 16–17ths of a farthing in the pound on the income which he derived annually from his sinecure. For the present, he would content himself with moving that the petition should be brought up, not taking upon himself any responsibility as to its contents, farther than the rules of the House required with relation to his motion. He then moved that the petition be brought up.

§ Mr. Brougham
observed, that the noble lord unintentionally he was convinced appeared to him to have taken the only method that could be adopted to prevent the petition from being read. It was signed, it seemed, by 30,000 of his fellow subjects, and the noble lord must doubtless be anxious that it should be read; but in order to attain that object, it was not necessary he should voluntarily inform the House, before any question was asked, that it contained matter which might be deemed objectionable. The rule had been so laid down by the chair, and sanctioned by the decision of the House. It was enough for any member, when he had a petition to present, to move that it should be read, and if no other member expressed his doubts of the propriety of its language, the House would assume that it was not improper; but he apprehended it was utterly inconsistent with parliamentary usage for a member gratuitously to state that he had read a petition, and then 235 to give his opinion, that it was couched either in respectful or disrespectful language.

Lord Cochrane
said, that knowing the petition contained expressions precisely similar to those which had been found in others rejected by the House, he thought it his duty to mention it, that he might not incur their censure for appearing to disregard their recent decision.
The petition was then brought up and read. It was couched in the same language, with one exception, as the petition from Saddleworth, presented by the noble lord on the second day of the session. When the clerk had read the first sentence, stating that the House of Commons was in no rational or constitutional sense, the representatives of the nation, and that a House so constituted, was a subversion of the constitution,

Lord Castlereagh
observed, that it would be unnecessary to trouble the House with any further perusal of it, for being expressed in language similar to that which had caused the rejection of a former petition, they had only the same course to adopt on the present occasion.

Lord Cochrane
hoped the House would not reject the petition upon the reading of a single line or two.

Lord Castlereagh
repeated his former objections, and urged that, as the petitioners described that House as an usurpation upon the constitution, no other arguments would be required to induce them to reject the petition.

§ Mr. Brougham
said, he had thought the present petition was precisely the same as the one which the House had formerly rejected, from the observations of the noble lord who presented it; but now, upon its being read, and that was one of the advantages of reading it, it turned out to be very different. If he rightly recollected the proceedings on the former occasion, the objectionable passage of the petition related to what the petitioners called, the tedious and disgusting debates of that House; and upon that ground the petition was rejected. That passage however, was now left out. He admitted the words of the petition were not very prudent or very moderate, but in substance, they contained no other statement than what every man must use who supported the question of parliamentary reform in that 236 House. Had the words "constitutional and rational" been left out, the sentiments of the petition would have been much more objectionable, in his opinion, for then they would have amounted to an absolute denial of their functions and authority.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the former petition was not rejected on account of that single libellous and insulting passage alluded to by the hon. and learned gentleman, but from its whole tenor. The present petition was the same in every respect, except that one paragraph, as the former, and that paragraph had been supplied by another equally offensive; for the petitioners now stated, that "in all the discussions of that House they saw nothing but a direct tendency to keep the people in all times under the unrelenting lash of a taxation, which already exceeded the utmost extent of human endurance." He thought that House would exceed the utmost extent of human endurance if they suffered such a petition to lie on the table.

Lord Cochrane
, with reference to the passage which had just been read, could only say, that he conceived it to be true that the misery now suffered by the lower classes of society had got to the utmost extent of human endurance. He could only say, with respect to what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman, that when he read this petition he conceived it to be in exactly the same language with that which the House had rejected, and that not intending to press upon the House what they had already rejected, he thought it his duty to preface his motion with the statement which he had made.

§ Mr. Curwen
acknowledged that the expressions were strong, and the conduct of the petitioners highly injudicious; but the House should rather extend the principle of free petitioning than seek to limit it. The language might indeed sound harshly to their ears, but it must be allowed, that while the people approached the House with their petitions, it was a perfect acknowledgment of the power and authority of parliament. A petition, of a nature at least as offensive as the present, had some years ago been presented to the House. It stated that the sale of seats in that House had been as notorious as the sale of cattle in Smithfield; and yet, when objections were raised against its being received, Mr. Pitt himself contended for its admission, on the principle that more injury must result from its rejection. If there were in 237 the country any class of persons desirous of stimulating the people to acts of violence, must not the House be aware that their objects would be seriously advanced if the petitions of the people, were rejected.

Sir J. Sebright
said, no man was more desirous to facilitate and extend the right of petitioning than himself, and there were many things prayed for in the present one, such as reform, economy, &c. which had his cordial support. But so long as he had a vote to give, or a voice to raise, in that House, he would use them both against receiving any petition, the language of which was evidently to convey an insult. He knew there was a set of men in the country, who studiously endeavoured to induce the people to word their petitions in such a way as would occasion their rejection, in order to promote their own views [Hear, hear!]. If the House wished to be respected out of doors, it must continue to respect itself. The cause of reform and retrenchment was one which he would always advocate; but he saw no reason why the members of that House should, in their collected state, consent to put up with language which no man singly would endure; and therefore he should vote against allowing this petition to remain on the table.

§ Mr. Lockhart
contended, that it was impossible to collect the real sentiments of the people, from the manufactured petitions which were prepared by others for their signature. He had never heard or read of any legislative assembly in any country, who were respected, trusted, and looked up to, in proportion as they suffered themselves to be insulted. An hon. gentleman opposite had said it would be more magnanimous not to notice such language. He confessed he did not understand that sort of magnanimity which consisted in the tame endurance of an injury. He believed that persons who used that kind of language, in speaking of the unconstitutional nature of the House of Commons, did so, in order, if any concessions should be made, if any reform granted, that they might be able to deny their validity, and thus endeavour to render them abortive.

Sir F. Burdett
said, he thought the dignity of the House would be best consulted by reforming its own abuses. The present petitioners might perhaps be somewhat indecorous in their language, but they had great and strong grievances to represent; and unless there was something extraordinarily offensive, something unlike what 238 had ever been tolerated in any former petition received by the House, he did not think it would be prudent to reject it, in the present situation of the country.

Lord Cochrane
wished the noble lord, or the right hon. gentleman opposite, would state the particular sentences or expressions that were objectionable, that they might be avoided in future petitions.