HC Deb 06 August 1881 vol 264 cc1107-9
SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, he wished to ask a Question of the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions (Sir Charles Forster). On the 23rd of June the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) asked a Question of his hon. Friend whether a Petition presented in this form was one which could be accepted by the House. The Petition referred to the Bradlaugh case, and it was worded thus:— Your Petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will cause the law to be obeyed and justice to be done, and forthwith allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat on making a solemn Affirmation. His hon. Friend replied that it was true that a Petition in which those words were contained had been submitted to the Committee on Petitions, and that the majority of the Committee had determined that those words were not disrespectful to the House. And in answer to a Question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) put to the Speaker in the same discussion, the Speaker said— That with regard to whether it would be right that Petitions of that character should be in future received by the House, it was a question for the decision of the House rather than for him to decide. Two or three days ago he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was asked to present a number of Petitions with regard to the Brad-laugh case, and the following were the words of those Petitions:— That no one of the Estates of the Realm can, or may, by itself alter or override the statute law of the Realm; that the Resolution of your honourable House of the 27th of April and 10th of May last are respectively in direct conflict with the statute law; and your Petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will immediately rescind the said illegal Resolutions. He presented those Petitions, and he subsequently received this intimation from the Clerk of the Committee on Petitions:— The accompanying Petitions presented by you are informal, as they contain language disrespectful to the House of Commons. They will not, therefore, be submitted to the Select Committee on Public Petitions. Now, the question he wished to ask his hon. Friend was this—that, as the House had certainly not taken any cognizance of those Petitions, whether the Committee on Petitions had had Petitions of that nature before them, and had decided upon them in the same way as they decided the Petitions referred to by the hon. Member for Greenwich when he asked his Question?

SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in reply, said, he was very glad that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had asked this Question, because he found that many Petitions of a similar character had been sent back to hon. Members. His hon. Friend had correctly stated the answer which he gave in re- ference to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms). He then stated that the Committee, in considering Petitions, were anxious to place the most liberal construction upon their language, and to give whatever doubt there might be in favour of the Petitioners. Therefore, with regard to the Petitions then alluded to, the Committee thought that in asking the House to do what was just and right, if it were disrespectful to the House, it was merely an implied disrespect, and the majority of the Committee passed these Petitions. But the Petitions to which his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle now referred went a step further, and, in direct and distinct terms, stated that the Resolutions of the House were illegal, and the Committee, as the delegates of the House, decided that they could not receive Petitions of the kind; and he might say, as bearing on the question of the conduct of the Clerk of the Committee, that they determined that after that no Petitions couched in similar terms could be brought before them. With the objectionable words erased the Committee would not be unwilling to receive the Petition.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

asked the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions whether the decision of the Committee was based on the absurdity of the word "illegal" in relation to the action of the House, or of its being a distinct affront to the House? He said absurdity, because it was quite clear that no act of the House could be illegal. He should also like to ask whether it was permissible for the phrase "unconstitutional" to be applied in relation to the action of the House on the 10th of May. The question involved was not one of mere words, but one of very considerable significance. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is now entering into debate.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he begged pardon, he only wished to know what were the reasons which induced the Committee to reject these Petitions?

SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in reply, said, that it was quite sufficient for the Committee to determine each case as it came before them, and they were clearly of opinion that the use of the word "illegal" was decidedly disrespectful to the House.