PETITIONS AGAINST THE NEW TAXES. (Hansard, 14 June 1819)

§ Mr. Dickinson
rose to present petitions from Shepton Mallet and Frome, against the contemplated duty on wool. The petitioners stated, that, if the measure were carried into effect, it would occasion the total ruin of the woollen manufacture.

§ The Speaker
said, that the bill, providing for this additional duty, had been read the first time, and was now awaiting the second reading. He doubted, therefore, whether the petitions could be received.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it would be against the established rule of the House to receive those petitions, as they were directed against a tax which was voted as part of the supplies of the year.

§ Lord Milton
observed, that the question was, whether the bill alluded to, and the other bills of the same description, were for the supplies of the year? He thought they were not so. They were not to furnish the supplies of the year, but to support a sinking fund for the reduction of the national, debt. Now, it appeared to him, that not being bills for furnishing the supplies of the year, the House ought not to close its doors against petitions which might be presented against them. This was a parliamentary distinction, which, he believed, had been recognized more than once.

§ The Speaker
observed, that he believed all resolutions agreed to in a Committee of Ways and Means were, without distinction, considered to be for the supplies of the year. He was not aware of the practicability of making any distinction on the subject.

§ Lord Milton
stated, that the bills in question were founded on resolutions originally agreed to in a committee of the whole House, but not in a committee of 1135 ways and means; and that it was specifically stated in those resolutions, that it was expedient to make an addition to the sinking fund.

Mr. S. Worthy
said, that as it seemed not to be the disposition of the House to receive these petitions, he gave notice, that when the consolidation bill went into the committee, he would take the sense of the House on the proposed increase in the duty on foreign wool.

§ Lord Lascelles
said, he should certainly oppose a measure, which threatened to impose a duty on the raw material of a manufacture, which was, at the present moment, peculiarly incapable of sustaining any increased pressure.

§ Mr. Calcraft
denied that the duties against which the petitions were directed were, fairly speaking, for the supplies of the year. In the first place, they were not sums annually voted. In the next place, the supplies of the year were specific services, for which sums were voted. The duties in question were for the purpose of adding to the sinking fund, and consequently not for the supplies of the year. If, therefore, by any favourable construction, the petitions could be received, he trusted they would not be rejected.

Mr. Robinson
observed, that whenever a loan had been raised, a sinking fund was provided for, and therefore that the present duties were on a footing precisely similar to the duties which for many years had been imposed, and against the bills for imposing which, the House had never allowed petitions to be presented.

§ Mr. Dickinson
, as the sense of the House appeared to be against receiving the petition, obtained leave to withdraw it.

§ Lord Milton
said, he had two petitions to present against the proposed duty on wool, and notwithstanding the recent decision of the House, he would endeavour to show that they ought to be received. It had been stated by the highest authority in the House that such petitions could not be received. By an entry in the Journals for 1733, it appeared that on the 10th of April a petition was presented by the sheriffs of London, against the excise duties (the bill for imposing which had been read a first time), praying to be heard by themselves or counsel against the second reading of the bill: A debate arose, and after a recurrence to a number of precedents, the result was, that the petition should be allowed to be on the table until 1136 the second reading of the bill, but that the petitioners should not be heard either by themselves or by counsel. A division took place on an amendment moved to the last proposition, when the numbers were 197 to 214. He would feel satisfied if the petitions were at least read; that the House might be in possession of the arguments against the proposed duty. The petitions which he had to present, were the one from Wakefield, the other from Dewsbury.

§ Mr. Huskisson
conceived that the petitions were similar to those which had been already withdrawn. The noble lord might have found, upon a little examination, that the case to which he had alluded was not one precisely in point, as the law respecting the excise was one of regulation, not of an additional tax. That this tax was for the support of the sinking fund, was an erroneous impression; it was like any other tax for the ways and means of the 3year, and he conceived the House could not receive the petition unless they admitted the principle of receiving petitions against proposed taxes.

§ Mr. Brougham
could not agree with the construction which Mr. Huskisson had put upon the precedent. If the petition of the city of London had been objectionable, as being against a proposed tax, it would not have been ordered to lie upon the table till the second reading. In 1720 a petition was received from the soap-makers and chandlers of Bristol against an increased tax upon soap. This petition was not allowed to lie upon the table, but it was read, and he conceived the same should be adopted in the present case.

Lord Castlereagh
said, it was better that there should be a rule against receiving petitions in cases like the present, than to receive, and then reject them. In the latter case, it would appear as if the House had decided against the prayer of the petition.

Mr. S. Worthy
said, there was a note in Hatsell to the precedent alluded to by his noble friend, which did away the force of it. On that occasion the Speaker stated, it had been the practice for more than a century to make the city of London an exception from the rule; for when the sheriff of London was allowed to appear at the bar with a petition, the House could not be supposed to know the nature of that petition until they heard it read.

§ Mr. Brougham
contended, that the precedent in question went farther than the 1137 receiving a petition and allowing it to be read—it allowed it also to lie on the table.