§ Mr. Lawley,in presenting three Petitions from individuals against the London and Birmingham Junction Canal Bill, complaining that their names had been improperly inserted in the subscription-list, observed, that so many irregularities had been committed in the management of the Bill, and so many of the Standing Orders of the House had been violated, that he wished these Petitions should be referred to a Committee to examine their allegations.
§ The Speakerexplained, that the rule of the House was, to give leave to bring in a private bill, after the petition praying for leave to bring it in had been referred to a committee. It was the duty of the committee to ascertain that the Standing Orders had been complied with. A petition against the principle of a bill might be received at any stage, but petitions against its details were always referred to the committee after it had been read a second time. In this case it appeared, as the Bill had been read a first time, that it must have been referred to a committee, which had reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with. If the hon. Member were prepared to show that the committee had been imposed on, the House might reject the Bill.
§ Mr. Lawleysaid, he understood that the petitioners were prepared to prove that the Standing Orders had been evaded.
§ Mr. Littletonsuggested, that the safer course would be, to adhere to the rules laid down by the House.
§ The Speakerstated it to be his opinion, that the case could not be passed over, though there was a difficulty in saying what was to be done, as it could only be 169 referred back to the committee which had already decided that the Standing Orders had been complied with.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, he had a Petition to present from several individuals, complaining that their names had been inserted in the list of approvers of the Bill without their consent. That appeared to him an unwarrantable infringement on the rules of the House, which could on no account be passed over.
§ The Speakersaid, as there was no breach of privilege, and no irregularity in the forms which had been followed, he was at a loss to know to what committee it could be referred for investigation.
§ Mr. Littletonsaid, that until last year, when the regulations then made limited the time of presenting petitions complaining of irregularities, with respect to the Standing Orders such a petition might have been presented at any time. If the House were once to open a door to vexatious proceedings, by infringing those regulations, the consequence would be, that attornies in a late stage of the proceedings, point out some irregularity as to the Standing Orders, with a view to stop the progress of a bill to which his clients were opposed. He admitted that the case of the petitioners was a hard one, but he thought it would be still greater hardship, if the rules of the House were departed from.
§ The Speakerexplained, that up to the Session before last, a petition might be presented against a private bill at any stage of its progress through the House, complaining that the Standing Orders had not been observed. That power, however, was frequently abused, and petitions presented at a late stage of the measure, in order to frighten the party promoting it, or increase his expense. To guard against this, the House ruled that no petition should be received complaining that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, after the first reading of any private bill. This regulation was, however, found to go too far, and in practice, as a private bill was generally brought in when a Committee reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with, to operate as a complete bar against all petitions. To remedy this, the time of petitioning was extended to the second reading of a bill, because that allowed the parties opposing the bill an opportunity of petitioning against it, on account of the Standing Orders not having been complied 170 with before the party promoting it had been put to much expense. By that rule the House was then guided, and he did not see how it could be departed from without causing great inconvenience.
§ Mr. Hume,who said he had proposed the Resolution just referred to, was of opinion that it did prevent vexatious opposition, while it gave a means of redress. If it were made out that names and sums had been put down without any authority, that, by the rules, of the House would justify throwing out the Bill.
§ Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that the allegation was, that a false subscription had been deposed at the Private Bill Office, which was a fraud. If it were proved, though he did not accuse Mr. Eyre Lee, or any other gentleman, the Bill ought to be instantly rejected, and an inquiry set on foot as to its author. One of the allegations of the petition was, that the name of a person appeared in the list of subscribers for 1,000l. who was not, as he knew, worth any such sum.
§ The petitions presented by Mr. Lawley were then orderred to be refered to the Committee on the Petition for the Bill.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonthen presented a Petition from several persons, complaining that their names had been put down as subscribers to the same Junction Canal Bill, when they had never subscribed a single farthing. The list deposited in the Bill Office, they stated, was false; they therefore prayed that the House would institute an inquiry in order to find out the authors of this subscription-list, and that they might be heard by counsel at the Bar against the Bill. He had seen the subscription-list, and could assure the House, that the names of many persons were down as subscribers for large sums, whom he knew to be quite unable to pay any such amounts.
§ Mr. Littletondeprecated the discussion, which was allex parte and quite needless, as the petitions would be referred to a committee. Mr. Eyre Lee, whose name had been mentioned, was then in Worcestershire, discharging his duty as sub-sheriff, and though he knew nothing-whatever of the facts of the case, he could answer for that gentleman being ready, on his return, to meet any charge that might be made against him.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, he had no wish to hurry forward an inquiry in the absence of that gentleman. He 171 had no doubt of Mr. Eyre Lee's respectability, but he was not more respectable than many of the subscribers to the petition, which he had presented. He would move that the petition be referred to the same committee, which he had no doubt would give Mr. Eyre Lee an opportunity of vindicating himself.
§ Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that what the petitioners complained of, the House was bound to inquire into. It was of such a nature that it was not to be overlooked. He had no object in pressing the inquiry but to do justice, and he hoped that Mr. Eyre Lee, and the other parties, would be fully heard in their own defence. He could not avoid regretting, however, that the hon. Member for Staffordshire had not evinced the same desire for parties to be heard, when he (Mr. Harvey) presented a petition from an individual against a measure by which his interests were affected.
§ Mr. Littletonthought, that his conduct on that occasion needed no justification, and that he was bound to move a resolution, declaring that it was improper for a person to be both judge and attorney in the same cause.
§ Sir John Wrottesleyknew nothing of the particular case, but he wished that every Englishman, when accused, should have a fair trial.
§ Mr. Lawleysaid, that it was not his intention that the committee should proceed in the investigation till Mr. Eyre Lee was present. He did not implicate Mr. Lec, or any other person, but would leave the matter entirely to the committee.
§ The petition presented by Mr. Alderman Thompson was also referred to the committee.
§ Mr. Bensonpresented a similar Petition from thirty-six individuals. They had applied for shares in the canal, but had never received any answer. They had never paid any deposit, and many of them said they were unable to pay the large sums placed against their names. He thought these were matters that required serious investigation, and he should move that the petition be referred to a committee. He wished, as well as the hon. Baronet, not to condemn a man unheard, and he should be ready to assist Mr. Eyre Lee in making his defence; but if he could not defend himself, it would be his painful duty to uphold the dignity of Parliament, and bring the offender to account.
§ Mr. Littletonsaid, that the Standing 172 Orders at present did not require the Christian names of the parties to be inserted, which sometimes led to mistakes. Perhaps the Standing Orders ought to be altered in that particular.
§ Petition referred to the Committee on the Bill, which was revived.