§ Mr. Stuart Wortleyrose to present a petition from the manufacturers of Bradford, in the West Riding of York, against the imposition of any new tax on the importation of foreign wool. He was one of those who felt the necessity of that House providing taxes to meet the present wants of the state; but, while he admitted that, he was desirous that these taxes should not be laid on articles of the most material importance to our manufactures, and to tax which, went to cut at the root of the national resources. However highly he respected the petitioners, he should not have supported their prayer, did he not feel, that the view they took of the subject was correct. He should therefore, in every stage, oppose the intended imposition on foreign wool.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas inclined to think that there could be no sound objection to receiving any petitions against the resolutions. Even in cases where there was reasonable ground for doubting on the point of form, the House would rather be in favour of opening a door to petitions. When a committee of ways and means had once agreed to taxes, no petitions against them could be received; but as that was not the case in the present instance, he could see no objection to the petition being brought up.
§ Mr. Broughamthought this question of great importance, as it involved the privilege of petitioning that House. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman in thinking that the ground on which it was alleged a petition could not be received failed in the present case, since the measure had not been confirmed by a committee of ways and means; and here he should have stopped, had not the right hon. gentleman gone a step farther, and opened the question, whether, if these resolutions had been sanctioned by a committee of ways and means, that would 1000 have excluded petitions. As this case might arise afterwards, he thought if as well to attend to it now. From a precedent in Hatsel, it appeared that the right hon. gentleman was wrong. After stating the case, Mr. Hatsel said—"We see from the foregoing instance, that the House found it necessary to establish a rule; and they accordingly said they would not admit petitions against a money bill depending." The learned gentleman then quoted another precedent, which showed that petitions had been admitted against a resolution which had been agreed to in a committee of ways and means. This case, he contended, supported his opinion, and was perfectly in point, as it applied to a duty on wool, the subject then before the House. The petitions against the measure were so numerous, that it was not thought advisable to persist in it. Thus, then, although the resolution had passed through a committee of ways and means, petitions against it were not only received, but were so effectual as to prevent the passing of the measure. In 1727, a resolution having passed through a committee of supply, but the report not having been received, a petition was presented against it, and received.
Lord Castlereaghthought that every particular case ought to stand on its own merits. To the reception of the present petition, falling as it did within the admitted principle, there could be no objection. If any petitions should be presented between the concurrence of the House in the proposed resolutions in a committee of ways and means and the introduction of the bill founded on those resolutions, the same arguments would not be applicable. But, in his opinion, the best course would be to suspend any discussion on the subject until it should appear whether or not any such petitions were presented.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.