ARIGNA MINING COMPANY. (Hansard, 7 December 1826)

§ Mr. R. Martin
said, that he had a motion to make relating to a petition which had been referred to a select committee of the House against the directors of the Arigna Mining Company. An hon. friend of his (Mr. Brogden) had been one of the directors of this company, and as such, along with the other directors, had been charged by the petitioners with purchasing property for 10,000l., and charging the parties for whom they purchased 25,000l. for it. Had his hon. friend acted in this manner, he not only deserved to lose his seat in that House, but to be sent out of the country. But he was convinced that he was incapable of having acted in such a manner. Still, this petition would have the effect of producing a prejudice against 314 him in the public mind, which could not be removed until the committee had made their report. In order, however, to obviate this prejudice, he wished it to be known, that the number of the petitioners only amounted to four, although the subscribers to the company exceeded a thousand. That the public should know who they were, he would move, "That the names subscribed to the Petition be printed."

§ Mr. Wynn
said, that if the names were printed in this instance, impartial justice required that they should be omitted in no others. At present the expense of putting petitions into type was sufficiently heavy; and if the signatures were appended, the votes would soon be as voluminous as the statutes at large. He recommended the hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion, which was now unnecessary, as the House had appointed a committee to investigate the charges against the hon. member. If it turned out that there was no foundation for the accusation, those who had brought it forward would, of course, meet with merited disgrace.

Mr. Alderman Waithman
termed the advice given by the right hon. gentleman lenient towards the hon. mover, but argued, that it would degrade the character and dignity of the House, to allow the motion to be withdrawn. If he had attended to one branch of history more than another, it was that which related to the constitutional principles of parliament and the country, and he would venture to say, that since the Revolution, a more atrocious attack had never been made upon the rights and liberties of the subject. This was the first time he had heard, that the value of what was stated in a petition depended upon the number of the signatures, or even upon the characters of the parties. To require their publication was most improperly to obstruct the right of petitioning, and to encroach upon one of our dearest privileges. The hon. gentleman then adverted to the expulsion of sir John Trevor, in 1695, in consequence of the circulation of a pamphlet in the lobby, by one Crosfield, which complained of a gross misapplication of the public money, and quoted the Parliamentary History of the time upon the subject. The investigation went on, and one thing came out after another, until 315 they led to the expulsion of several members.^* Again, in 1680—

§ Mr. Wynn
rose to order. The hon. I alderman, he said, seemed to misunderstand the question before the House, which was merely whether certain names should or should not be printed. There had been no attempt made to throw obstruction in the way of inquiry. In fact, the House had already determined, that an inquiry should take place.

Mr. Alderman Waithman
maintained, that he was perfectly in order. He meant to conclude with moving an amendment. An attempt had been made to obstruct the right of petitioning. It was wished that the names of certain persons who had brought a serious charge against a member of that House should be published, in order to let the world know how few they were in number, and also how much they were wanting in respectability. It mattered not whether a petition was signed by one person or by one hundred, so that the facts contained in it were correct. It was an attempt to obstruct the right of petitioning, to propose to hold up petitioners to ridicule, or to expose them in any way. The hon. member had stated, that the petitioners were not persons of respectability. With respect to the privilege of petitioning, the poorest, man stood upon the same footing as the richest. Previous to the revolution it was asserted, that all attempts to obstruct petitioning were illegal. The obstructing of petitioning was declared to be illegal in the bill of rights. If members were allowed to cast reflections on the characters of petitioners, and to hold them up to public contempt, the doors of the House would be barred against petitions. In 1680, the House of Commons resolved, "That it was, and ever had been, the undoubted right of the subject to petition parliament for the redress of grievances." In pursuance of this resolution, sir F. Withins and sir George Jeffreys were expelled the House, for throwing obstructions in the way of petitioning. Another objection had been made to one of the petitioners, Mr. William Clarke; namely, that he had been running about the streets, collecting information relative to this Joint-stock company. So much the better. He was, on that account, the more likely ^* Parliamentary History, vol. v. p. 881. 316 to be well informed on the subject, and his petition deserved so much the more attention. But be he what he might, even if he were under sentence of death in Newgate, he had a right to petition the House to make inquiry into any grievance which he might think worthy of its attention. But he himself happened to know something of this gentleman, and he could affirm that, on the Stock-Exchange, he bore a very fair character; and he would mention a fact, which was of itself no small evidence of good character. Having lost a great deal of money in these Joint-stock companies, he was not able to meet the demands of his creditors at the time, but afterwards he paid them every shilling of their debts. He would move, as an amendment, "That it is, and ever has been, the undoubted right of the subject to petition parliament for the redress of grievances, and that to publish the names of the petitioners, with the view of bringing discredit on them, tends to obstruct that right, and to deter the subject from bringing his grievances before parliament, and is subversive of the liberties of the subject."

§ Mr. R. Martin
said, that he would not have been very anxious to press his motion, if the hon. alderman had named the other three petitioners, as he had named Mr. Clarke; for walls had cars, and if the hon. alderman had done so, they would be known all over London to-morrow morning. He denied that his object was to hold up the petitioners to ridicule. His object was, to show the public, that out of a thousand persons interested, only four had petitioned against his hon. friend. There was nothing in this which went to impugn the right of petitioning. He asked, why the petition had been printed without the names of the petitioners? It was wrong—it was monstrously wrong — to print that petition without the names of the petitioners, so long before the investigation could be gone into. It had been said, that if the charges were unfounded, his hon. friend would have an opportunity of clearing himself. So he would. But when? Why, in two months from this time; and during the whole of that time these allegations were hanging over him; so that his hon. friend was punished before he was tried. The process was, to punish him first and hear him afterwards; which was exactly the same as hanging a 317 man first, and then trying him. He regretted that he had consented to the proposition for the retirement, for the present, of his hon. friend, from the situation of chairman of the committee of Ways and Means. He thought that neither he himself nor the House had done perfectly right on that occasion. Why had not this objection been made against his hon. friend a year ago? He was as much involved with this Joint-stock company a year ago as he was at present. He had been already tried by the most competent; of all tribunals—a tribunal composed of the sufferers; and after a full and minute investigation, had been almost unanimously acquitted. He did not mean to protect his hon. friend against a fair investigation of the charges made against him. If, upon such investigation, his hon. friend could not clear himself, then "let the stricken deer go weep:" he would give him up. But what he complained of was, the prejudice which hung over his hon. friend in the mean time.