PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c. (Hansard, 3 March 1817)

Sir F. Burdett
said, he was intrusted with the presentation of certain petitions for a reform in parliament, about 600 in number, and signed by nearly a million of individuals. He would not occupy the time of the House by attempting to particularize these petitions, but would merely move that they be brought up.

§ The Speaker
—Are they all to the same effect?

Sir F. Burdett
replied in the affirmative, and proceeded to the floor, near the table, which was strewed for a large space with these petitions. On the question that they be brought up, a laugh was caused by the difficulty in which the hon. baronet was placed, owing to the great mass of these petitions. Sir Francis, assisted by the clerks, went through the labour of lifting the petitions upon the table. When those from Blackburne, Derby, and some other towns were read, several of the petitions were found to be printed.

§ The Speaker
observed, that he was afraid the hon. baronet must take them all back [a laugh!]. Sir F. Burdett replied, that there appeared several not printed. He then selected those from Preston, Hull, Manchester, Bolton-le-Moore, Loughborough, Ashton-under-Line, and others; which were laid on the table. Lord Cochrane then assisted in selecting several petitions from Scotland, which were laid on the table. In the course of selecting these petitions from the quantity on the floor, an address to the Prince Regent was read among the number, which induced the Speaker to observe, that he was afraid the hon. member had not read the documents, that he was about to lay before the House.

§ Mr. Manning
said, that when the hon. baronet proposed to bring up the 600 petitions on the floor, he thought it not too much to expect that he knew something about them. It now appeared, however, that he did not. The hon. baronet would consult the convenience of the House, by ascertaining, before he brought petitions down to the House, what could, and what could not be received.

§ The Speaker
, since the attention of the House had been called to this subject, thought it right to state, that the hon. baronet owed it to the House and to himself, to see what it was that he took upon himself to present. Had the hon. baronet looked over the mass of documents now before the House, he would have seen that some of them were not petitions. As the matter now stood, it was not too much to expect that he should proceed no further with them that day.

Sir F. Burdett
had no objection to postpone the reading of the remainder, as he should then have an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on the course pursued by the House in rejecting printed petitions.

§ Mr. Serjeant Best
remarked, that some of the petitions had long lists of names attached to them, which were all evidently written by one hand.

§ The Speaker
said, the House had a right also to expect that the hon. baronet would not present any petition couched in the same terms as those which had been rejected. Much of the business of that House was done on the faith and confidence had in its members. If the rules of the House should in consequence be inadvertently overstepped, that confidence must be diminished for the time to come.

Mr. Law
put it to the House, whether justice could be done to the sentiments of the country, whatever they might be, by presenting petitions in this manner.

Sir F. Burdett
, in explanation, stated, that it had devolved on him as a duty, painful as it was in many respects, to present these petitions to the House, their number must be his excuse, for not acquainting himself with their contents. Some of them he found were printed, but he could see no rational ground for objecting to them on that account, for it could not be denied that a printed petition might express the sentiments of the people as correctly as if it were written.

§ The Speaker
said, the House had been in the habit of reading a single petition, and of receiving from members others on the same subject in confidence. Hence the practice of bringing up many petitions at once, had become common, but this night it had been carried to an unprecedented extent. At present, though many had been read, not one had been ordered to lie on the table; it was therefore competent for the House to postpone all further proceedings on them, and this, he thought, might be the best course that could be taken.

Mr. Swan
said, he had seen a list of many names attached to a petition, all evidently written by one hand, and there was one list without a petition.

§ The Speaker
inquired, if any one moved that the further proceedings on them should be postponed.

Mr. Law
noticed the extraordinary coincidence in the wording of these petitions, which were almost all that he had seen, nearly the same.

§ Mr. Calcraft
had no objection to the motion for postponing the petitions, but he begged leave to observe, on the assertion of the hon. member respecting the number of names said to have been written by one person, that it was difficult for any person to hazard such a conjecture on the cursory view taken of the names by the hon. member. He could see no advantage to be derived from such a circumstance, for among the hundreds and thousands of persons petitioning in the kingdom there was no necessity of affixing any false names to petitions.

§ Mr. Serjeant Best
said, that the right of petitioning was the dearest and most va- 862 uable privilege of the people, but in proportion as it was clear and valuable, the House should evince an anxiety to preserve it from abuse. It was easy to get hundreds and thousands, and even millions of petitioners, if one man were suffered to represent others, and subscribe any names he might think proper. The House was also bound to protect itself from insult, by not receiving several of the petitions on the floor, asserting, that the House did not represent the nation, that taxes were tyrannical impositions, and many such violent and insulting expressions.

§ Sir C. Monck
could not agree with the learned serjeant, that it was a gross insult to the dignity and authority of the House, for one man to affix the names of other persons to petitions, if duly authorized to do so.

§ The Speaker
was again called upon to state the rules of the House. The House had frequently refused petitions on the sole principle of their having names affixed to them not written by the persons themselves, and it was an established rule that no name should be affixed by any other person to a petition to the House, unless the person whose name was so affixed, happened to be out of the realm, and had sent a full and legal authority to another to subscribe his name.

Lord Cochrane
observed, that sheets for signature, without any petition or address attached to them, were now sending round, as it was said by persons in office. It had been offered to prove at the bar of that House in what way the majority of its members were returned.—

§ The Speaker
reminded the noble lord, that he was not speaking to the question. He might show his ingenuity by bringing the same topics before them in various shapes, but he must see he was striving against the feelings of the House.

Lord Binning
thought it probable the hon. baronet in bringing in the 5 or 600 petitions as he found them in the vote office, had only wished to save trouble to the House and himself, but had he given himself time to think on the subject, he would have seen that it was due to the House first to examine them. In a day or two, he and other gentlemen who acted with him, might have looked into them so far as to discover what could or could not be received by the House—what were petitions, and what addresses to the Prince Regent.