STANDING ORDERS—PETITIONS. (Hansard, 27 January 1841)

Lord Stanley
suggested that those petitions ordered to be printed by the House, without reference to the committee on petitions, should have a mark of privacy put on them to this degree, that they should be printed for the use of Members only. It was desirable that Members should have an opportunity of sifting the allegations of some petitions, but it was equally desirable that charges should not be circulated throughout the country under the sanction of their privileges which the parties affected had no opportunity of refuting.

§ Lord John Russell
There had certainly been greater abuse of the privilege of printing petitions in the manner represented by the noble lord than in the printing of any other of their records. It was a question whether they should not adhere to the practice of sending all petitions to the committee, unless in some cases of great, urgency.

Mr. O'Connell
observed, that it was only in cases of urgency that the rule was now departed from. He was of opinion that there should be a separate committee for the consideration of petitions containing criminatory matter and that that committee should have the power of deciding on the question of printing.

§ Viscount Howick
The experience of every Gentleman for the last Session must convince him that they were rapidly relapsing into the old and condemned practice as regarded the presentation of petitions. Whenever a Gentleman wished to call particular attention to any complaint, no matter how ill-founded, he presented a petition according to the usual rule, and it was appended without opposition to the votes. The committee on printed papers, of which he was chairman, recommended that some steps should be taken to remedy this evil.

§ Mr. Goulburn
If petitions containing charges were sent to the committee upstairs, he did not see that they could exclude any portion without special instructions. In that way the objection as to publicity would remain as strong as ever. The only remedy in his mind was to print such petitions for the use of Members only.

§ Sir R. Inglis
thought that all petitions 122 should be referred to the committee, giving them a discretion as to the selection of parts for publication.

§ Sir R. Peel
doubted whether the House would be willing to delegate such a power. The best security against abuse was in his opinion, the vigilance and precaution of the House and of the Member presenting any petition. He concurred, therefore, in the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley).

§ Mr. Hume
It would be well if notice were given the previous day of the presentation of any petition that was to be brought forward, and that it contained criminatory matter.

§ Mr. Wakley
knew that persons entrusted petitions to Members who, after the accusatory matter was mentioned in the House, said their object was gained, and they did not desire to push the matter further. This was a gross breach of the obligation by which every Member should feel himself bound. Every Member should certainly satisfy himself that there was at least some good ground for bringing inculpatory allegations under the notice of Parliament. If the suggestion of the noble Lord were acted on, the accused party would be shut out from a knowledge of the facts affecting him.

Lord Stanley
His desire was to prevent a general circulation. But there was nothing to prevent an individual Member from apprising the accused party of the charges made against him.