Mr. Warburtonpresented a Petition from Members of the Council of the National Political Union, praying that the qualification for exercising the elective franchise might not be made to depend on the payment of any rate or tax.
§ Lord Stormontsaid, that many persons had a serious objection to this class of societies, from which this petition proceeded, and in that number he was included. He conceived that it would not become the dignity of the House to receive a petition from a body of persons designating themselves the Members of the Council of a Political Union, after such societies had been denounced by a Royal proclamation as illegal and unconstitutional; and, upon 1279 that ground, he thought that the petition ought not to be received. If the petitioners had designated themselves householders of the city of Westminster, being members of such a society, he would have waved his objections to their petition being brought up, signing themselves Members of a Political Union, which was an illegal society, he should feel it his duty to oppose the motion for laying such a petition on the Table.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that the noble Lord had just informed him of what he really did not know before, viz., that a Royal proclamation had declared that similar associations to that from which this petition came were illegal. The proclamation to which the noble Lord alluded was directed only against such associations as, by their conduct, should bring themselves within the letter of certain penal Statutes. When the noble Lord, therefore, objected to this petition, upon the ground of its coming from an illegal body, it remained for him to prove that that body had so conducted itself as to come within the meaning of the penal enactments to which the proclamation related. That the proclamation itself was to be considered in the light of a Statute, that it should be supposed to have the force of a Statute, and that consequently it should be interpreted as having the power to render illegal what was not illegal before, he must altogether deny. The proclamation was founded upon the enactments of certain Statutes; it derived its force from those Statutes, and could be considered only in conjunction with them. The body from whom the petition emanated had never so conducted itself as to violate those Statutes, and, consequently, could not be regarded as illegal. He maintained, that the petition ought to be received.
Mr. O'Connellrose to support the reception of the petition. In the first place, he declared, that the society was not illegal; and in the next, it was plain that a Royal proclamation could not make any thing illegal which was not so by some previous law. It never had been said, that the King's proclamation should have the force of a Statute, except in a part of the reign of Henry 8th, or in Ireland, where violations of the Constitution had been the mode of government resorted to. He stood in that House, as a member of this Union, to defend its legality, and to declare its right to petition. He denied that there was any shadow of a foundation for charging the society with being illegal. He was a Member of 1280 the society; he had the honour, too, of being a lawyer. The noble Lord, he believed, did not pretend to be acquainted with the technicalities of English law, but if the noble Lord were, he defied him—he defied even the most captious lawyer—to shew that the society was guilty of a breach of any one law. He, for one, must denounce as most mischievous the assertion, that a proclamation could have the force of law; and knowing the utility of such societies he should support the petition. He considered it of much importance that these Unions should not be treated with any thing like contempt or haughtiness by either House of Parliament, so long as they conducted themselves properly. They consisted of Englishmen who thought and felt that there were great abuses in the system of Representation now existing, and it was neither proper nor becoming, that those who had shared the fruits of these abuses should be the parties to oppose the honest petitions of those who felt themselves aggrieved.
§ Mr. Trevorentirely concurred in the objections which had been taken by his noble friend near him to the reception of this petition. Had it proceeded from the same individuals, describing themselves as householders, no objection could possibly have been raised to it. But when it was signed by them in the exclusive capacity of members of a Political Union, against which a Royal proclamation had been issued, denouncing such Unions as illegal bodies, and for an illegal purpose, he thought it would not become that House to receive it. He considered such a petition to be an evasion of the practice of the House, which only received petitions from acknowledged corporations, or as containing the prayer of the individuals who signed them. Whatever course his noble friend might adopt, he should feel it to be his duty to give him his humble support.
Mr. Humesaid, that, as a Member of this Political Union, he must protest against the language of the hon. Member for Durham. So far from Political Unions being illegal associations, it was the duty of every man to become a member of such associations. He would say of this Union, that it was a body as well entitled to address the House as any other set of men in the country, and if the noble Lord and the hon. Member had read its rules, they would speak of it with praise. He said the House was bound to receive the petition, provided the petitioners signed for themselves, which they did in this instance, as they did not 1281 profess to be delegates, or to sign for others. While there were evils, there would be Unions, and he hoped to see them in every parish in the kingdom, so long as there were grievances to be redressed. He would ask, were Englishmen to be told, that, no matter under what name they might come to this House, whether they were called free-and-easy societies, or by any other denomination they chose to assume, that therefore these petitions were to be rejected? No such thing; and to speak of proclamations as having the force of law, was only referring to the worst periods of our history, when truth was stifled by tyranny.
§ Mr. Trevorwished to ask the hon. member for Middlesex, of what avail was the Royal Proclamation, if the House were to continue to receive such petitions?
§ Mr. Huntsupported the petition, although he was not a member of the society. The prayer of the petition was in his mind proper. The object of it was, that rent and taxes should not be the only qualification for voting under the Reform Bill. That had never yet been the law, and he, as well as they, wished that it never should be so. There was no law whatever to prevent persons from forming themselves into political associations. He would go further indeed than any one who had spoken, for he would ask whether, if parties had even been declared guilty of crime, and were suffering the sentence of the law, they were still to be debarred from their right of petitioning?
Sir Robert Ingliscontended that these parties, petitioning as the council of a Political Union, came under the terms of the rules for rejecting petitions laid down repeatedly in the House.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that unless there appeared on the face of a petition some valid ground of objection, it ought to be received. There was none whatever here; for the designation those persons thought proper to bestow upon themselves did not justify the House in rejecting the petition; and this, as well as the petitions of all classes of the King's subjects, ought to be readily listened to.
§ Petition to be printed.