§ MAJOR O'GORMANasked the honourable Baronet the Member for Walsall, Whether the Petitions from Londonderry, bearing upwards of nine thousand signatures, in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill, Ireland, has on examination been discovered to consist of signatures a large number of which, if not the principal portion, are inscribedin one and the same handwriting; and, also, whether Petitions from Dundalk and Innistiogue in favour of the same Bill have been found irregular?
§ SIR CHARLES FORSTER,in reply, said, it would appear from the Questions that had been addressed to him from both sides of the House that the battle on this question was about to be shifted from the floor of this House to the Table of the Committee on Public Petitions, and it was only right that parties who signed such Petitions should be thus reminded that Petitions even after examination by the Committee were subject to rigid scrutiny by Members of this House. Since Notice was given of this Question, he had directed a fresh examination to be made of the particular Petitions. It was not quite accurate to say that the Petitions from Dundalk and Innistiogue were irregular, though it was quite true that several of the petitioners were unable to write their own names. Under these circumstances, it was his intention to propose to the Committee that the names should be cancelled. With regard to the Petition 1294 from Londonderry, he could not take the same course. The hon. and gallant Member was not quite accurate in his facts. It was true that in a note that was appended to the Petition in one Report it was stated that signatures were signed by one person; but it turned out on investigation that that person was really attesting the signatures of persons who were unable to write. It was his intention next Monday to propose to the Committee to add a foot-note on the subject to their next Report.