petitions against the continuance of the Property Tax, notwithstanding the strong public feeling against it. from re ligious It was not until the latter part of the succeeding reign, Petitions that petitioning attained that development, by which it has since been distinguished. From that period it has bodies. been the custom to influence the judgment of Parliament, not so much by the weight and political consideration of the petitioners, as by their numbers. Religious bodies, -especially of Dissenting communions,-had already contributed the greatest number of petitions; and they have since been foremost in availing themselves of the rights of petitioners. In 1824 an agitation was commenced, mainly by means of petitions, for the abolition of slavery; and from that period until 1833, when the Emancipation Act was passed, little less than twenty thousand petitions were presented: in 1833 alone, nearly seven thousand were laid before the House of Commons. Upon many other subjects, petitions were now numbered by thousands, instead of hundreds. In 1827 and 1828, the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts was urged by upwards of five thousand petitions. Between 1825 and 1829, there were above six thousand petitions in favour of the Roman Catholic claims, and nearly nine thousand against them. Other questions affecting the Church and Dissenters,-the Maynooth grant, church rates, and the observance of the Sabbath, have since called them forth, in still greater numbers.1 1 In 1834 there were upwards of 2,000 petitions in support of the Church Establishment, and 2,400 for relief of Dissenters. In 1837 there were about 10,000 petitions relating to church rates. Between 1833 and 1837, 5,000 petitions were presented for the better observance of the Lord's Day. In 1845, 10,253 petitions, with 1,288,742 signatures, were presented against the grant to Maynooth College. In 1850, pre Extraordinary increase of On a single day, in 1860, nearly four thousand petitions were presented, on the question of church rates.1 The people have also expressed their opinions upon all the great political measures of the last thirty years, petitions. by prodigious numbers of petitions2; and these petitions have been freely received, however distasteful their opinions, however strong their language. Disrespect and menace have not been suffered; but the wise and tolerant spirit of the age, has recognised unbounded liberty of opinion. Abuses of -- This general use of petitions had been originally petitioning. developed by associations; and in its progress, active organisation has ever since been resorted to, for bringing its great influence to bear upon Parliament. Sometimes, indeed, the manner in which petitioning has been systematised, has discredited the right on which it is founded, and the questions it has sought to advance. Petitions in thousands, using the same language, inscribed in the same handwriting, and on the same description of paper, -and signed by fabulous numbers,—have marked the activity of agents, rather than the unanimity of petitioners; and, instead of being received as the expression of public opinion, have been reprobated as an abuse of a popular privilege. In some cases, the unscrupulous zeal of agents has even led them 629,926 signatures, were presented 1 March 28th, 1860. 2 In 1846 there were 1,958 petitions, with 145,855 signatures, against the repeal of the corn laws; and 467 petitions, with 1,414,303 signatures, in favour of repeal. In 1848 there were 577 petitions, with 2,018,080 signatures, praying for universal suffrage. In the five years ending 1843, 94,000 petitions were received by the House of Commons; in the five years ending 1848, 66,501; in the five years ending 1853, 54,908; and in the five years ending 1858, 47,669. In 1860, 24,279 petitions were received, being a greater number than in any previous year except 1843. to resort to forgery and other frauds, for the multiplica tion of signatures.1 While the number of petitions was thus increasing, Debates on their influence was further extended, by the discussions presenting petitions to which their presentation gave rise. The arguments restrained. of the petitioners, were repeated and enforced in debate. Whatever the business appointed for consideration, the claims of petitioners to a prior hearing, were paramount. Again and again, were the same questions thus forced upon the attention of Parliament. A popular question absorbed all others: it was for ever under discussion. This free access of petitioners to the inner deliberations of Parliament, was a great privilege. It had long been enjoyed and appreciated; but when it was too often claimed, its continuance became incompatible with good government. After the reform act, the debating of petitions threatened to become the sole business of the House of Commons. For a time, expedients were tried to obtain partial relief from this serious embarrassment; but at length, in 1839, the House was forced to take the bold but necessary step, of prohibiting all debate upon the presentation of petitions.2 The reformed Parliament could venture upon so startling an invasion of the right of petitioning; and its fearless decision was not misconstrued by the people. Nor has the just influence of petitions been diminished by this change; for while the House restrained desultory and intrusive discussion, it devised other means for giving publicity, and extended 1 Such practices appear to have been coeval with agitation by means of petitions. Lord Clarendon states that in 1640, "when a multitude of hands was procured, the petition itself was cut off, and a new one framed suitable to the design in hand, and annexed to the long list of names, which were sub scribed to the former. By this 2 Com. Journ., xciv. 16; Han- Pledges of members. circulation to the opinions of petitioners. Their voice is still heard and respected in the consideration of every public measure; but it is no longer suffered to impede the toilsome work of legislation. To these various modes of subjecting Parliament to the direct control of public opinion, must be added the modern custom of exacting pledges from candidates at elections. The general election of 1774 appears to have been the first occasion, on which it prevailed so far as to attract public notice.2 Many popular questions, especially our differences with America, were then under discussion; and in many places, tests were proposed to candidates, by which they were required to support or oppose the leading measures of the time. Wilkes was forward in encouraging a practice so consonant with his own political principles; and volunteered a test for himself and his colleague, Sergeant Glynn, at the Middlesex election. Many candidates indignantly refused the proposed test, even when they were favourable to the views, to which it was sought to pledge them. At this period, Mr. Burke explained to the electors of Bristol, with that philosophy and breadth of constitutional principle, which distinguished him,-the relations of a representative to his constituents. "His unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. Government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of in 1 About a thousand petitions are annually printed in extenso; and all petitions are classified so as to exhibit the number of petitions, with the signatures, relating to every subject. 2 Adolphus, Hist., ii. 143. clination; and what sort of reason is that in which the determination precedes the discussion,-in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide? Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; ... but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, -that of the whole; where not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole." 1 Since that time, however, the relations between representatives and their constituents have become more intimate; and the constitutional theory of pledges has been somewhat modified. According to the true principles of representation, the constituents elect a man in whose character and general political views they have confidence; and their representative enters the Legislature a free agent, to assist in its deliberations, and to form his own independent judgment upon all public measures. If the contrary were universally the rule, representatives would become delegates; and government by the entire body of the people, would be substituted for representative institutions.2 But the political conditions of our own time have brought occasional pledges more into harmony with the spirit of the constitution. The political education of the people,-the pub 1 Burke's Works, iii. 18-20. 2 There is force, but at the same time exaggeration, in the opinions of an able reviewer upon this subject. "For a long time past we have, unconsciously, been burning the candle of the constitution at both ends; our electors have been usurping the functions of the House of Commons, while the House of Commons has been monopolising those of the Parliament.' - Ed. Rev., Oct. 1852, No. 196, p. 469. Again, p. 470: "In place of se lecting men, constituencies pronounce upon measures; in place of choosing representatives to discuss questions and decide on proposals in one of three co-ordinate and co-equal bodies, the aggregate of which decree what shall be enacted or done, electors consider and decree what shall be done themselves. It is a reaction towards the old Athenian plan of direct government by the people, practised before the principle of representation was discovered." |