Mr. Vesey Fitzgeraldbrought up the report of the committee on the Ballinasloe Petition. This was the case of a petition presented by sir John Newport on the 17th of March, in favour of the Catholic Claims, and purporting to be signed by a number of persons at Ballinasloe. Subsequently it was discovered that the document was a forgery, got up by a person named Robert Poer French Pilkington; and the persons at Ballinasloe whose names had been subscribed to it, presented a true petition, praying that the House would take the fraud into consideration. The Report of the committee was as follows: "The Committee to whom the petition of the inhabitants of Ballinasloe, and of the parishes of Creagh and Kilclooney, complaining of the forgeries of their names to a petition in favour of the Roman Catholic claims, was referred to examine the matter thereof, and to inquire into the circumstances under which a paper, professing to be a petition from the Protestant parishioners of the town of Ballinasloe and the united parishes of Kilclooney and Creagh, was presented to this House on the 17th of 797 March last, and report the same, With their observat ions thereupon to the House, have called before them, and proceeded to examine Mr. Robert Poer French Pilkington, who has confessed himself to be the sole author of the said pretended petition. He has further stated, that he affixed the signatures thereto annexed, without the privity or knowledge of any of those individuals whose names appear as subscribed to the same; and that such paper, so professing to be a petition to the House of Commons, was by him forwarded to a member of this House, accompanied by a copy of certain resolutions stated to have been adopted at a public meeting, which resolutions he has also admitted to have been fabricated by him. Your committee is of opinion, that the said Robert Peer French Pilkington, has, in what he has urged before them stated nothing which can be received in extenuation of his conduct, and have to report the same to the House."
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, it was an unpleasant duty to recommend any measure of severity; but the proof of the fact was so clear, and the offence of so heavy a description, that he felt himself compelled to move that Mr. Pilkington be committed to Newgate.
§ Mr. Brougham ,wishing, in every case of breach of privilege, to act in such a way as would secure unanimous concurence, was desirous that Mr. Pilkington should be called in, and that the House might hear what he had to say.
§ Mr. Peelhad no objection to that course, but doubted if it would be quite regular. The offender had admitted the fraud in the inquiry before the committee, and offered nothing in extenuation of it.
§ The Speakerthought it right to call the attention of the House to the precedent which he found existing on the subject. In the year 1736, a bill being pending in the House touching some duties upon spirituous liquors, it was complained, that a pamphlet had been published out of doors setting forth the provisions of that bill, and commenting upon it. A committee was appointed to examine, which discovered, from the evidence of witnesses, that this pamphlet had been published by a certain servant named Abraham Riley, from the house of a printer named Wm. Rayner. On this report from the committee, the House resolved nem. con, that W. Rayner and Abraham Riley be taken into custody of the Ser- 798 geant-at-Arms. W. Rayner being examined and the pamphlet shown to him, admitted, that it had been printed at his house, but by his servant, and without his knowledge.
§ Mr. Broughamwas rather unwilling to take up, in the way of precedent, a case which turned upon that very severe law, as to the liability of printers. No doubt the law was clear; but it was hard that a man should be answerable for that which his servant might do when he was a hundred miles off; or in gaol. And, besides, the cases were different, for the House had only committed Rayner to the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms without hearing him; it was now meant to send Mr. Pilkington to Newgate.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldobserved, that the offender had been heard already before the committee, and that he had nothing to say in his defence.
§ Mr. Broughamadmitted that the examination before the committee rendered a hearing by the House less imperative, but was still anxious that it should be afforded.
§ The Speakersaid, he understood the case to stand thus—the House had acted upon the report of the committee as to the establishment of the offence; it was now a question as to the nature of the punishment; and upon that the party was to be heard in extenuation.
§ Mr. Peelhad no objection to calling in the offender; but thought it not right to press for a sort of apology, when an apology, without some punishment, could not be accepted.
The question for the commitment to Newgate was withdrawn. It was then put and carried— "That Robert Poer French Pilkington be taken into the cusof the Sergeant-at-arms, in order to his being brought to the bar."