SUPPLY. (Hansard, 8 February 1839)

§ Mr. Hume
said, it had been usual on such occasions as the present, when ob- 201 jections were taken to the policy of the Government, to state those objections, particularly when the grievances of the people were not attended to, or when they had complaints of serious moment to bring before the House. He was sorry to say, that the chance of obtaining a redress of their grievances was every day farther off. The first day they had met they had been told by a very large majority of that House he admitted–426 to 86—that the Reform Bill had answered all its purposes. [No, no.] It was the same thing. One side had put the proposition, and the other side denied it. He was sorry that hon. Members had come to that decision, for the people of the country would think the House meant to stifle their petitions. He said so, and thought so. Hon. Gentlemen might excuse themselves for the vote they had given on the plea of the time being improper, but he could not help expressing a hope, that the time might come when the trammels of an Address would not prevent men from expressing what their opinions were upon such important subjects. It appeared to him, to take from them the right of stating the nature of, or interpreting the wants with which petitions were charged. That this resolution would be taken by the great bulk of the people in the country, as a practical resolve to prevent a proper statement of their grievances, there was no doubt. It was on that account that he voted as he did. They had declared that this was to continue, notwithstanding that its introduction was so novel, and that it had so little to recommend it. When the House was about to vote away the money of the people in the Committee of Supply, he hoped some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would make a specific motion, that this question should be settled by a confirmatory vote of the House. They ought to have the public Minister put on the same footing as individual Members in regard to giving notices. He would submit, that when they went, the Speaker took the chair—all notices should be given by the Minister of the day, in order that Members might know what was likely to be brought on. For instance, last night a notice of a Committee of Supply was given just before the House adjourned, when there were only about ten Members present, so that scarcely any One was aware of that notice until they 202 saw it in the votes the next day. He submitted it would be desirable that Members of the Government should give notices at the same time that other Members were bound to give them. He wished to enter his protest against money being voted as heretofore, while all redress was refused to the people.

§ Mr. Warburton
was not present during the discussion of the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, not being aware that it would come on so early, but if he had been present, he would have stated, that although he was perfectly willing to admit the convenience of the rule generally that had been adopted, yet that they ought not to take away the right of deliberating on petitions. During the first ten years that he sat in Parliament, he remembered that debates occurred upon this very Corn-law question, until nine o'clock in the evening, when each Member who presented a petition, had not only the right of debating upon one question, but of debating on four. There was first the question—"That this petition be brought up;" next, there was the question, "That this petition be now read;" then there was the question, "That this petition do lie on the table;" and then came the fourth question very often, "That this petition be printed." So that every Member presenting a petition had not only the opportunity of speaking on the full merits of all the subjects adverted to in the petition, but had the opportunity of speaking not less than four times—a right which applied to no other sort of motion. He could not disguise from himself, that except from the right of repeatedly debating questions on which petitions might be presented from the people, it would have been impossible to have carried many great questions that had been carried. Where would Negro Slavery—the emancipation of the Catholics, and the Reform of Parliament have stood, if it had not been possible to debate the question again and again until the people were excited upon them, and came forward with petitions. If this right were taken away, there were other modes left. It would not be difficult to introduce Poor-laws, or any other subject. He would recommend those individuals who thought the attention of the public had not been sufficiently drawn to the Corn-laws to take that step.

§ Colonel Conolly
could say, from his 203 own experience of what had taken place for the last four years, so far from limiting the right of the public, it had done much towards facilitating the object of petitions. He thought that the speech of the right hon. Member for Tamworth had exhibited the subject in a proper point of view. But that the motion recently disposed of was shewn not to be intended to increase the right of the subject to petition, but to give a facility to every person to dilate, and give a paraphrase separate from the petition itself. His mind was satisfied that the right of a petitioner remained unimpaired. He had remarked last Session that many petitions sent from London to the country had been forwarded to the House. He concluded that these were the class of petitions which the hon. Member for Kilkenny thought 300 might be classed as one. His purpose in alluding to them was to shew that they had no other object than the excitement of the people, instead of their legitimate object —the submitting their grievances to the deliberate assemblies of the country. He presumed, as the hon. Member for Kilkenny had passed the whole of the vacation among his constituents, he referred to their particular grievances.

Mr. O'Connell
thought the hon. and gallant Member had made a trifling mistake, for he had called this a deliberative assembly. That was certainly going a great way. The gallant Colonel came here quite uncertain how he should vote; it was only by the result of the debate that he was induced to vote either one way or the other, but all hon. Members were not so unprejudiced; and it was therefore a mistake to say that this was a deliberative assembly. His hon. Friend near him had also fallen into a mistake, in stating that petitions formerly were spoken to four times, for the old practice of the House really gave an opportunity of speaking on them eight times. There was a great difference between that plan of proceeding and a Gagging Bill to prevent petitions from being discussed at all, which was the greatest violation of the old principle that could possibly take place. It would make the House disreputable in public opinion. The sooner the public were aware that the House treated their petitions with contempt by not deigning to listen to them the better; the remedy would come the sooner, and the public, who petitioned in vain would then clamour in such a way, 204 that though the gallant Officer might not be intimidated, a strong impression would be made on others, which would be likely to induce them to go a little further in the career of Reform.

§ Mr. Clay
said they were now acting on the plan of deciding first and speaking afterward. The practice which had been formerly pursued by the recent division, seemed to have become a rule, and hon. Members had been securing convenience to themselves at the expense of the rights of the public. He believed that short and animated debates on petitions, were much attended to by the people, such debates presented opportunities for stating facts.