§ Mr. Tancredin moving "that Counsel or Agents be admitted to be heard before the Committee on the Leamington petition in support of the petition presented by certain inhabitants of Leamington Spa, on the 11th instant," wished briefly to state the circumstances out of which the motion arose. A petition had been presented some time ago from a numerous body of persons, representing themselves as inhabitant rate-payers of Leamington Spa, in favour of having the elective franchise of Warwick extended to that town. Many of the signatures to that petition had been impugned as forgeries. Some of the parties who had signed that petition had presented another yesterday, alleging that the former was genuine, and offering to prove that fact. What he had now to move was, that these parties be heard by their counsel or agents before that Committee in support of their petition.
§ The Speaker, in putting the Motion, put it in the usual form—"that the parties be heard by their counsel or agents so far as their interests were concerned."
§ Mr. Tancredsaid, that the object of the petitioners was to have an opportunity of proving that the whole of the signatures to the first petition were genuine.
§ The Speakerexpressed a doubt as to how far the petitioners could, according to the forms of the House, be allowed to appear by counsel or agents before the Committee in any other character than that of merely advocating their own interests.
§ Mr. Tancredrepeated his former remark, adding that justice to the parties who signed the former, as well as the present petition, would not be done, unless they were allowed to prove that the allegations against them were unfounded.
§ The Speakerremarked, that the whole case was one of the most extraordinary which had come before Parliament within his recollection. When the former petition was presented, it was stated by the hon. and learned member for Dover (Mr. Halcombe) that the petition was a fraud upon the House, that it contained the names of parties alleged to be residents in Leamington, who had no existence there, and that the names of others who were resident had been put to it without their knowledge or consent. A Committee had subsequently been appointed to inquire respecting that petition; but it seemed to him that great difficulty would be to be encountered in going into the case of every party who signed the petition.
§ Mr. Tancredsaid, that the petitioners whose petition had been presented on the 11th offered, if allowed, to prove that the whole of the signatures to the former petition were genuine.
§ The Speakersaid, that that would no doubt relieve the House from some part of the difficulty, but not from the whole. Every turn which the case took presented a new and singular feature. Supposing that these petitioners could give the evidence they stated, still it was doubtful whether they could be allowed to be heard before the Committee, merely as amici curiœ and beyond their own interests.
§ Mr. Abercrombysaid, that his attention had been called to this subject in an unexpected manner. He had found by the votes that his name, in his absence, had been placed on the Committee to inquire respecting the first petition from Leamington, in which it was alleged that a fraud had been practised on the House. He attended the Committee, and inquired for the parties who made the charge, and who were to adduce the evidence in its support. He was answered by the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Halcombe) that he it was who made the charge, and he would call evidence to prove it. He had understood, that the charge had rested on something to be brought forward by some parties who had petitioned to be allowed to prove the alleged fraud; but he found that that was not the case, and that the hon. member for Dover was the only party appearing to conduct the prosecution of the affair. Now, as to the Motion for the appointment of counsel to be heard on the part of the petitioners, and who would probably claim to be heard on matters not 120 connected with the immediate interests of the parties for whom they appeared, he agreed that that would be only to increase the difficulty; but he felt that if the Committee were to proceed with the inquiry, it would be impossible that they could do so unless they were assisted by agents whose local knowledge made them familiar with facts and circumstances as to the alleged signatures, with which the members of the Committee could not be supposed to be acquainted. He fully admitted that the House was placed in a difficulty by the appointment of the Committee, which if it were to go fully into the allegations made, must consume a great deal of time, and involve a very considerable expense. It would, however, be for the House to consider whether the present was a course in which they ought to proceed.
§ The Speakerwould remind the House of the circumstances under which the Committee had been appointed. When the hon. member for Dover first mentioned the subject as a breach of privilege, he applied to him (the Speaker) to know whether it were not a case which ought to take precedence of all other business. He informed the hon. Member that it was one of those cases into which the House would inquire if brought before it; but the question was put, whether or not there had been any petition presented complaining of this alleged breach of privilege, and the answer of the hon. member for Dover was in the affirmative. It was then, of course, the impression of the House that such a petition was before it, but on further inquiry it turned out that no such petition had been presented. This fact of course created a great difficulty as regarded the course which should be taken in the proposed inquiry. As to the appointment of counsel, the right hon. Gentleman repeated the difficulty which would occur in admitting them to act for parties as amici curiœ.
§ Mr. Abercrombyremarked, that another difficulty in the case arose from the fact that the claim of the petitioners now before the House did not rest on any petition which impugned their former petition, but on the speech of a Member of that House in his place. How the House could proceed in a matter which was in effect a claim to be heard in reply to a speech within its own walls he would not decide; but it certainly placed the Com- 121 mittee in a new situation, and one which added in no slight degree to the embarrassment as to the mode of conducting its inquiries.
§ The Speakerhere suggested, that probably the better course would be, to adjourn the debate on this Motion until the meeting of this House the next day, when they might have an opportunity of reconsidering the original proposition.
§ Mr. Spring Ricethought the suggestion was one which the House ought to adopt, for if it should appear that the ground-work of the appointment of the Committee had failed, they might then consider the propriety of rescinding the original Motion.
§ Mr. Aglionbyasked whether the House could retrace its steps in the appointment of the Committee, if it should be found that that appointment had taken place under a misconception as to the presentation of a petition, which petition, in fact, had no existence?
§ The Speakerhoped that hon. Members would not retire under the notion, that he had stated that this Committee had been appointed under the misrepresentation that a petition on the subject had been presented; for undoubtedly the House had a right to appoint the Committee even though no petition complaining of a breach of privilege had been presented. He had felt it his duty to put the House in possession of the fact, that when the hon. Member complained in his place of a breach of privilege, the question was asked whether that complaint rested on any petition presented to the House stating the fact, and the answer of the hon. member for Dover, was in the affirmative. It appeared, however, on inquiry, that in that answer the hon. member for Dover was mistaken.
§ The further debate on the subject was adjourned till the next day.