MANCHESTER GAS-LIGHT BILL.

HC Deb 30 March 1824 vol 11 cc8-15

Sir J. Mackintosh

said, he had a petition to present from a Mr. William Walker, a solicitor of Manchester, which the House would be inclined to listen to-with attention, when he told them, that the petitioner complained, that his private and professional character had been attacked in the course of a proceeding under the sanction of the House, by charges which he had no opportunity of refuting, but which he was able to refute by evidence, and which he prayed to be allowed so to refute. He (sir J. M.) had no bias whatever on the subject of the proceedings, in which the matter complained of by the petitioner originated; or, if the names connected with it could give him any bias, it would rather be hostile to the party which the petitioner had espoused. The fact was, that a witness had been examined before the Manchester Gas-Light bill, who threw imputations upon the conduct of the petitioner, and subsequently before any evidence could be offered in refutation of this evidence, the committee adjourned sine die. Whether this adjournment was or was not within the words of the reference to that committee, he would not inquire; but when the petitioner stated, that by the imputations which he had been thus deprived of an opportunity of answering, his character would be taken from him, his professional prospects blasted, and himself reduced to utter ruin, if the House did not interpose, the petition could but receive the most favourable consideration. He moved that the petition be brought up.

Mr. Bright

rose to order. It was, he said, irregular for any member of that House to allude to the proceedings of a committee, unless the minutes of those proceedings were before the House. Now what was irregular when done by a member, must certainly be as irregular when done by a person who had not a seat in that House. He therefore objected to the bringing up of the petition.

The Speaker

said, it was clear that the petition referred to a matter of which the House had no cognizance whatever. This was the state of the case. The House had entertained a bill, and sent it to a committee up stairs. It having been so sent, the committee was bound, according to the strict forms of the House, to make a report; and, until the time had expired within which the committee had received directions to make their report, the House had no means of knowing that a report would not be made. At present, as there had been no order directing the minutes of the proceedings to be laid upon the table, the House could have no cognisance of what had passed in the committee, but must presume that every thing had been done correctly. In these days, it was very difficult to say what petitions should not be received, if they were properly worded; but it would be rather extraordinary to receive a petition which had been framed under such circumstances as that presented by the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough.

Mr. Hume

thought it extremely hard, that the petitioner should receive no redress for the injustice which he alleged to have been done to him by the committee.

The Speaker

was not quite sure that he had made himself perfectly understood. It was clear to him, that the case stated in the petition was not one for which there were no means of redress. All that he said was, that the House could have no knowledge of the circumstances mentioned in the petition. It was, however, competent to any member who knew that the committee was not sitting, to move that the minutes of their proceedings, up to the time when they ceased to sit, should be laid before the House. If such a motion were made and agreed to, the House would be cognizant of all the proceedings, and might then act upon any representation which should be made.

Mr. Bright

said, he was borne out by the orders of the House in declaring, that it was incompetent to any member of that House to speak of what had passed in a committee, before the minutes of the proceedings had been laid upon the table; a fortiori, it was incompetent to any individual, not a member of that House, to do so.

The Speaker

said, he did not know that he had even now made himself understood. It would not, he thought, be safe for a person in his situation to go the length of saying that, under no circumstances, could any representation be made to that House by petition of what had passed in committee. The course of proceeding which he had pointed out would be more efficacious, and more likely to afford a remedy for any grievance, than any other which, under the present circumstances, the House could adopt.

Mr. P. Moore

observed, that until the report from the committee was made, no motion on the proceedings in the committee could properly take place. It was not to be presumed that the committee would strangle by an adjournment the bill which it was referred to them to consider.

Mr. B. Wilbraham

said, that the hon. member for Sussex had given notice of a motion for that day, on the subject of the adjournment of the committee, and he should therefore not detain the House on the subject. As to the supposed wrong done to Mr. Walker by the adjournment, he should merely state, that the committee on the bill had sat every day for a month; that every tittle of the evidence for the bill had been gone through, and in the course of the evidence against the bill, a fact had been incidentally spoken to, which bore on the character of Mr. Walker. The committee subsequently adjourned sine die; but it was evident to those acquainted with the course of proceedings, that if the committee had continued to sit, Mr. Walker would not have been allowed to offer evidence in reply to the evidence against the bill; because such a course was never followed, and would never bring the business on a bill to a termination. Evidence was first offered pro, and then contra, and the committee immediately after reported.—Such was the invariable practice.

Sir J. Mackintosh

in the understanding that the motion of the hon. member for Sussex would come on immediately, said, he should consent to withdraw the petition for the present.

Mr. Curteis

then rose, in pursuance of notice, to move, that the committee, to whom the Manchester Gas-Light bill was referred, and which had adjourned sine die, should be revived and proceed to business to-morrow. His only motive for bringing the subject before the House was, that in the course of the proceeding, in the committee, most extraordinary practices had been detected, which the adjournment sine die had prevented from being brought under the consideration of the House. He proceeded to read from the minutes of evidence, a statement of a witness, that he had signed, on one occasion, to a petition in favour of the bill, 400 names of persons, some living, some dead, while a man assisted him by mending and changing the pens, to give an appearance of difference to the hand-writing.

Lord Stanley

rose to order, and objected to the reading of the minutes of evidence which had not been regularly laid before the House. He had been chairman of the committee, and he did not know that the minutes were yet regularly in the hands of a single individual.

Sir J. Mackintosh

said, that every member who had attended an open committee, might state in his place what had taken place there.

Lord Stanley

admitted that a member might state what had occurred, to lay a ground for the production of the minutes but to read those minutes before they were produced, was irregular.

The Speaker

confirmed the opinion of lord Stanley. It was difficult to lay down a strict rule, as to the statements which might be made of transactions in a committee, but the regular course was first to move the House, that the minutes be produced.

Mr. Curteis

said, that his only object was, to bring before the House the manner in which petitions from manufacturing and mercantile places were got up; that, when the House saw the hon. member for Yorkshire, or any manufacturing county, come down loaded with petitions like Atlas, for the abolition of slavery, and what not, they might know what value to give to them. He had no concern with Manchester, and scarcely a wish on the subject of the bill; he only wished to see these matters investigated.

Mr. Stanley,

in a maiden speech of much clearness and ability, opposed the motion. The bill which had been under investigation had, he said, excited so much interest among many members connected by no local concern in the affairs of Manchester, that he would briefly state the proceedings of the committee, and explain the motives on which it had come to its final determination. He had himself attended during the whole of the proceedings of the committee, and he could truly state, that he had gone into that committee with no bias against the bill, but with prepossessions rather favourable to the objects of it. But, before the evidence in favour of the bill had concluded, from the cross-examination of its own witnesses, his opinion in favour of it was entirely changed. It had been represented, that this bill was advocated by the body of the population of Manchester. He found that it was neither demanded nor desired by them, nor by any considerable part of them. It was contended, that under the present mode of supplying gas, the quantity and quality were deficient: both these assertions were disproved. It was asserted by the petitioners for the bill, that their wish was, to break up a monopoly. It appeared that the "monopolists" were a committee elected by a body of commissioners, said by some of the witnesses to amount to 20,000, who consisted of all persons possessing or occupying property to the value of 30l. a year. Of these every one had an equal vote, while, under the bill, the petitioners proposed to give votes to the proprietors of shares, whether resident or not in Manchester, according to the amount of shares, with liberty to vote by proxy. In support of the bill a petition had been presented, signed by seven hundred names. Of these, one hundred and eight were duplicates. He acquitted the petitioners of any attempt at fraud in this particular; it was too gross to suppose it to be premeditated, But, what was the defence?—that they had attached to the petition a skin of signatures which had nothing at all to do with it. It was, however, intimated, to the committee, that a person of the name of Corbett had informed a friend of his, that he, Corbett, had signed 300 names to the petition on one occasion, and, on another 196 names; and, after considerable discussion before the committee, it was decided, that he should be sent for. Subsequently to the statement to his friend, Corbett bad made a deposition as to the facts; and, when he was examined before the committee, his testimony completely agreed with the deposition, and with his original statement. The only manner in which Mr. Walker was affected by the evidence before the committee was, by a fact mentioned in the course of Corbett's evidence. Corbett had stated, that he had been met by a friend of his of the name of Hardman, who had informed him that he was paid 6s. a sheet for getting signatures, and that he accordingly, to oblige him, signed 300 names. That as he was afterwards passing through the streets, he saw the same petition lying for signature at an office, and that he walked in and there signed 196 names more, some of persons who had been dead for ten or twelve years, and some of persons who had never existed at all. The fact that affected Mr. Walker was, that the office where the petition lay for signature was his; and that a young man, whom Corbett represented to be Mr. Walker's clerk, assisted him, by changing and mending the pens. It was on this statement only, that Mr. Walker complained that his character and prospects in life had been ruined and blasted. The motive of the committee in not bringing up the report, was that of mercy, because they could not make a report without bringing the authors of the fraud and contempt to punishment; and the reason of this mercy was, that not having obtained the evidence in the most regular way, they did not think themselves justified in using that evidence to punish the witness and his friends. In this decision the committee was next to unanimous. An hon. member who had supported the bill at the outset', had stated, that he was "shocked and ashamed" of the conduct of those whom he had supported, and gladly consented to the adjournment, sine die, on the express condition, that no further proceedings should be taken. As not a single reason of any validity had been adduced by the hon. member for Sussex, he should vote against the motion [hear!].

Sir J. Mackintosh

said, he had heard, with the greatest pleasure, the speech which had just been delivered by his hon. young friend behind him—a speech which must have given the highest satisfaction to all who heard it, and which afforded the strongest promise, that the talents which the hon. member had displayed in supporting the local interests of his constituents, would be exerted, with equal ardour and effect, in maintaining the rights and interests of the country. No man could have witnessed with greater satisfaction than himself an accession to the talents of that House, which was calculated to give lustre to its character, and strengthen its influence; and it was more particularly a subject of satisfaction to him, when he reflected, that those talents were likely to be employed in supporting principles which he conscientiously believed to be most beneficial to the country. He did not rise for the purpose of answering any of the objections which had been urged by the hon. gentleman, or of entering into the merits of the bill. This was wholly unnecessary; for the only question before them was, whether the House should order the committee to make a report upon the bill, that committee having resolved to make no report, and having consequently adjourned sine die. He did not mean to throw any imputation on the committee for having taken this course; but, as the act of adjourning sine die was, in point of form, a disobedience of the orders of the House, he thought the committee should be directed to comply with the order of reference. He thought also, that the prayer of the petitioner, whose character had been involved in the evidence before the committee was entitled to the attention of the House. Under all the circumstances he thought the hon. member for Sussex was justified in calling upon the House to enforce its original order.

Mr. Philips

thought, that as the committee had adjourned sine die, it was at present extinct, and the regular mode of proceeding would be to revive it. This course was justified by a precedent which occurred in the year 1816. A more gross and fraudulent attempt to impose upon a committee of that House had never been made. So far were the people of Manchester from concurring in this bill, that it had been promoted only by a number of ale-house keepers, a quack doctor, and other persons, who had no sort of connexion with the respectable inhabitants of Manchester.

Mr. T. Wilson

said, he had supported this bill in the first instance, because the company, in whose bands the lighting of the town of Manchester with gas had been for the last seven years, had only lighted one-fifth part of the town. He bad withdrawn his support from it, not because he did not think the object of the bill useful, but because it had been promoted by means which could not be justified.

Mr. Bright

thought the proceedings before the committee ought not to go forward, because this step would be attended with additional expense to the parties concerned. Whether some step ought not to be taken—such, for instance, as the appointment of a select committee to examine into the way in which these petitions were got up—he would not now inquire. Such a mode of getting up petitions was, undoubtedly, a high parliamentary offence, which might be visited with severe punishment. It had been declared, in the case of the Barnstaple petition, that it was highly unwarrantable, and a breach of the privileges of that House, for any person to sign the name of another person in any petition sent to that House. It was high time that the House should take some steps to put a stop to this dangerous and unjustifiable practice.

Sir I. Coffin

said, he should vote for the revival of the committee, because that measure would afford an opportunity of doing justice to all parties.

Mr. H. Sumner

said, that after what had fallen from hon. members, he had no wish for the revival of the committee. He thought, however, that the committee might have expressed some opinion in the form of a report, as to the nature of the evidence which had been brought before them.

Mr. Alderman Heygate

thought the main question was, whether a committee of that House should exercise the discretion of making no report on a bill, in disobedience to the order of the House —a discretion which would give them an enormous power, and which might seriously involve the fortunes and character of individuals concerned in private petitions. He gave no opinion on the merits of the bill; nor did he mean to cast the slightest reflection on the committee, or to say a word in favour of the mode in which the bill had originated.