HC Deb 08 April 1824 vol 11 cc281-3

Mr. Curteis moved, that the resolution of 2nd June, 1774, declaring it a breach of privilege to affix to a petition signatures or marks not the writing of those whom they purported to come from, be read. Which having been done, he next moved, that the minutes of evidence taken before the committee on the Manchester Gas Light bill, be laid before the House. He said, it might excite surprise, that, as he was unconnected with Manchester, or with the bill, he had submitted the motion which he now made. It was true, that he was totally unconnected with Manchester, or the Gas Light bill, or the St. Catherine Dock bill, or any other of those projects, to which he should not be at a loss to apply the proper term, and which he hoped would all meet with the fate they deserved. He allowed, too, that the motion would have come with a much better grace from the noble lord who was chairman of the committee on the bill, or from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stanley), who was a member of that committee, and who had, on the subject of it, delivered a speech which showed that he would be an honour to the House, and an advantage to his constituents. His object was, however, to preserve the respect due to petitions, by preventing the scandalous practices from being repeated, which had been disclosed on the committee. They had heard of an automaton chess-player; and, if they suffered these practices to prevail, they might have an automaton signer of petitions. The hon. member proceeded to read a part of the evidence, to shew the extent to which the practice of annexing false signatures to petitions had proceeded; and concluded by moving, "that the minutes of the evidence taken before the committee on the Manches- ter Gas Light bill, be laid before the House."

Lord Stanley

said, that, as chairman of the committee, he should be the last person to object to the production of the minutes of evidence taken before it. He could not help thinking, however, that if the hon. member had done them the favour to attend the committee, he would have seen ample reason for not bringing forward his present motion. He objected to the motion on no other ground, than that it would be extremely inconvenient, if the time of the House were to be taken up in considering matters which had passed before a committee, unless it could be shewn that some substantial public benefit was likely to result from it.

Mr. B. Wilbraham

admitted, that it would be proper to discourage the practice of improperly annexing signatures to petitions. At the same time, it was hardly possible to prevent it altogether in large and populous districts, and petitions were not generally, on that account, to be considered as at variance with the sentiments of the great majority of those whose signatures were annexed to them.

Mr. Grenfell

thought it would have been more proper in the hon. mover, if he had abstained from characterising the St. Catherine's Dock bill as a job, until that measure was brought regularly under discussion. The hon. member seemed to take a most extraordinary distinction between northern and southern petitioners, as if every petition that came from the north must be a job, while every southern petition was necessarily fair and orthodox;

Mr. H. Sumner

thought the subject deserved the serious attention of the House. He hoped that the persons who were charged with these practices would be brought to the bar, and if proved to be guilty, committed to Newgate.

Mr. W. Peel

thought it extremely questionable whether the evidence taken before the committee ought to be laid before the House. If it were, he was satisfied the consequence would be, that not one but four or five individuals would be sent to Newgate. The committee had adjourned their proceedings in mercy to those individuals, and hot with any view of saving themselves trouble.

Mr. Philips

thought it quite unworthy of the House, that their time should be occupied in examining evidence, to ascertain whether an Irish weaver had annexed a number of signatures to a petition, the Irish weaver had admitted candidly before the committee, that he had done this; but he had declared, at the same time, that he had done it innocently.

The motion was negatived.