HC Deb 19 June 1843 vol 70 cc89-92
Mr. Christopher

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of the House to a circumstance materially affecting the honour of a portion of his constituents, but more materially affecting, the privileges of this House He should at once state the case he had to complain of, and in bringing all the circumstances of it before the House, he thought he should make out one sufficiently strong to satisfy the House that there was a gross and flagrant breach of the privileges of the House, so that the House would no doubt be induced unanimously to accede to his proposal for a select committee to inquire into the circumstances of the case. In the first place he begged leave to advert to a petition that was presented to the House on the 9th May last, which purported to come from a portion of the inhabitants of Epworth, in Lincolnshire. That petition declared that the Corn-laws were highly injurious to the interests of the country; and they, the petitioners, living as they were in an agricultural district, were involved in common ruin in consequence of them, and were then suffering through privations which the want of profitable employ entailed upon the people; they implored the House to remove the cause of the present distress by at once repealing those unjust and oppressive laws which obstructed the bounty of an all-wise Providence, and deprived the poor of their daily bread. This petition was presented to the House by the hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Preston. He acquitted the hon. Baronet of all blame and cognizance of the circumstances connected with the getting up of that petition. It so happened, whether from the public newspapers or from some other source, the attention of the inhabitants of Epworth was drawn to these facts, in consequence of which a public meeting was held in that town, the result of which was, that a petition was forwarded to bins to this effect:— Whereas a petition for the repeal of the Corn-laws was presented to the House of Commons upon the 9th May last, which professed to come from the inhabitants of Epworth, and that such petition was a forgery, we, the owners and occupiers of property in and inhabitants of Epworth, pray your honourable House to institute a rigid inquiry into this scandalous abuse of the privilege of petitioning, which abuse was becoming every day more general. This petition was signed by every ratepayer in the parish, and by the vestry-clerk of the parish, who saw the signatures of the individuals attached to it. He (Mr. Christopher) had declined, in the first instance, to present this petition, without further evidence as to the facts of which they complained. He thought it necessary to obtain from the clerk of the journal-office a copy of the first petition, with the signatures thereunto attached, and he had informed the complaining parties that, in order to justify him in bringing this question before the House as a breach of privilege, it would be necessary to investigate most minutely as to whether the signatures were authentic or not; and, further, that a declaration should be made before a magistrate of the offence complained of and that this declaration, with the copy of the forged signatures, should then be enclosed to him. After a considerable inquiry, Mr. Hudson, the vestry-clerk, a most respectable man, who had been acquainted with the parish about thirty-two years, and in whose veracity he had the most entire confidence, made the following declaration before a magistrate:— I, William Hudson, vestry-clerk of Epworth, in Lincolnshire, do declare that I have carefully examined the copy of the petition, with the signatures thereunto attached, which was presented to the House of Commons on the 9th May last, and purported to come from 213 of the rate-payers and inhabitants of the town of Epworth, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws; and I have also personally waited upon all the bonâ fide inhabitants of the town whose names appear attached to the said petition. I have ascertained that three of those signatures were never signed by those whose names they purport to be; that ten other persons stated they had never signed this petition, but had authorised a person to sign it for them, under the impression that it was for cheap tea and cheap sugar; and that there were 119 forged names to said petition. I make this declaration conscientiously believing it to be true. He thought, without further comment, that he had made it sufficiently clear that it was the duty of the House to originate a very rigid and strict inquiry into this gross breach of privilege. The question they had to consider was, what course the House ought to adopt under the circumstances of the case. He did not pretend to be deeply read in the precedents of this House, but he would recommend the House to follow the course they had pursued in 1827, under precisely similar circumstances, respecting the presentation of a petition from Athlone complaining of the return of that borough. Hem begged leave, therefore, to move That the petition from Epworth, for repeal of the Corn-laws (presented 9th May), and the petition from Epworth complaining that the former petition was a forgery (presented 15th June), be referred to a select committee.

Sir George Strickland

had made inquiries upon the subject, and had found that the statement made by the hon. Member was substantially correct. He had this morning received a letter which gave somewhat a different colour to the affair: it was from the secretary to the Anti Corn-law League at Doncaster, and although he did not know him, he had been informed that he was a highly respectable individual, The letter (from which the hon. Member read some passages) stated that the person employed at Epworth had been recommended to the League as an intelligent and respectable man, who stoutly denied the allegations made against him, and asserted that not a few of the signatures were obtained on condition that the names were not shown, to other parties. Mr. Milner had been down to Epworth last week, and found that there was not the least chance of obtaining the truth from any of the subscribers—so absolute was the bondage in which the bold peasantry were kept: they might as well set fire to their houses as acknowledge the fact of what had been said in Parliament. The writer went on to say, that he was at a loss as to the motive by which the person sent to Epworth had been actuated; he was no party man, nor was he a member of any Anti Corn-law Society; he had moreover been cautioned on the subject of improper signatures, and was not paid by his success in procuring them, but by the time it occupied. It was difficult to say how a person, residing seventeen miles from Epworth, could go there, and in a single day, forge 119 names. The writer concluded by stating, that the Doncaster League had no wish to screen the guilty party, and that the members of it were not to blame in the transaction, as they always used every caution in their power. Hence, it appeared, that if an investigation were instituted, a different aspect might be given to the business, and if the House thought the question deserved further inquiry, he would willingly support the appointment of a select committee.

The question agreed to.