INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 15 February 1881)

§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN
said, the Motion he had upon the Paper was a very simple one, and entirely explained its own object; and he could not think there could be any objection to it on the part of the House. The facts were those—certain important Petitions which had been sent from India, though very carefully drawn up, were found to be informal, and the Committee on Public Petitions had been unable to print them. The Committee had several times divided on the question, not as to whether they should print the Petitions, but as to whether they had power to receive them. In mating the Motion he did, he had the authority of the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions; and he thought that as the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had once made a similar Motion, not in regard to Petitions in general, but in respect of a particular Petition, the Government could not object to the proposal.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
would appeal to the hon. Member not to press his Motion at that hour of the night (1.40 A.M.), for the question was a very important one; and though the Motion had the approval of the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, that hon. Member was not in his place, and it should not be agreed to until the grounds on which it was based were fully explained. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had heard very important 993 debatesraised on this question of informal Public Petitions, and the matter was one which always attracted a large amount of interest. Much as he respected the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, he must ask the hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn) to let the Motion stand over until it could be discussed.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
hoped the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion. If the hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn) was not allowed to proceed with the question that night, someone might put down a blocking Notice, and he might have to keep in the House night after night at great personal inconvenience. The hon. Baronet might not be able to proceed with it at all. The people of India were very much interested in the question, as hundreds of Petitions were sent back respecting some informality, owing to ignorance of the Rules of the House. The Irish constituencies were interested in the subject also, for it was only the other day that a Petition was sent back to that country owing to the slight error that the words "Your Petitioners will ever pray" were put at the wrong end of the document. The proposal seemed very reasonable; and as there would be plenty of opportunities for raising the general question, he hoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would be withdrawn.

MR. E. N. FOWLER
agreed with the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan), and could not see how the hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn) would ever be able to bring on his Motion at an earlier period of the evening. The time of the House was taken up at an earlier period by the discussion of Irish matters. He would ask the House to recollect the great difficulty in which their fellow - subjects in India were placed. It was not possible to get them to understand the Rules of the House as people in England understood them, and the result was that a great many mistakes were made in the Petitions. The House ought to look leniently upon such mistakes.

§ MR. PUGH
said, he hoped the Motion for adjournment would not be pressed. He did not wish to take up the time of 994 the House by pointing out what few facilities the Natives of India had for getting their views represented at all in Parliament; but those facilities were very meagre. What was put forward in support of the Motion for adjournment? The noble Lord said the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions was not in his place, and that was perfectly true; but surely there could not be a stronger ground than that for saying that the Chairman was satisfied with the justice of the Motion? And that argument would apply in the case of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington). No one could doubt that if the noble Marquess had considered there was an objection to be taken to the Motion he would have been in his place to point out that objection. All that was the matter with the Petitions was certain informalities; and he considered it would have an evil aspect if the House adjourned the debate, and so threw over the Motion to some future time—probably to another Session.

§ MR. DODSON
thought the House might very well agree to the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn). The matter had, he presumed, been submitted to the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, who had agreed to it on behalf of that Committee. The House would see that it was only an empowering Resolution, giving the Committee a discretionary power to admit Petitions from India in cases where there were informalities, nor defects of character or substance.

MR. D.O'CONOR
wished, as a Member of the Committee on Public Petitions, to make a remark on this subject. The hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn) had not the authority of the Chairman to say that he approved of the Motion on behalf of the Committee, for the Committee had authorized no such statement. When the matter was brought before them, the general opinion was that it would be inconvenient to make an alteration in the Rules of the House, for this was not a mere matter of irregularity on the part of their fellow-subjects in India as the Motion would lead one to suppose. If it were, there would be no objection to the Motion; but the difficulty had arisen through a number of Petitions having come from India, pray- 995 ing that charges should be defrayed out of the public funds in this country, which otherwise would be defrayed out of the public funds of India. It was a direct Rule that if a Petition prayed for public money it could not be accepted by the House; and, therefore, if they passed this Resolution, they would be passing that which would be an infraction of a Rule that, up to the present time, had been adhered to most strictly. The Committee would have no difficulty in dealing with the matter under the now Rule, if the Motion were accepted; but be wished the House to know that there was no general opinion on the part of the Committee that the existing Rules should be altered.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
said, that, after the statement they bad just heard from a Member of the Committee, they should hesitate to pass the Motion until the Chairman of the Committee were in his place. The Resolution, if passed, would be taken by the Committee as almost an order or direction to them to print these Petitions unless there were some strong objection to that course. The Committee, it seemed, had not decided on the matter, and were not agreed upon it; and it was, surely, not of such vital importance that the House could not wait until the Chairman of the Committee could take part in the discussion.

§ MR. M'LAGAN
said, he was also a Member of the Committee, who were not unanimous on this question, which had never been raised formally before them. They must bear in mind that it was very easy for them to send back an informal Petition to their constituents; but it was a different thing to send back a Petition to India, whence it could not, in all probability, be returned until the following Session. The Committee should have a discretionary power, which they would, no doubt, exercise in accordance with the views of the House; but care should be taken that it was not made an Order.