§ MR. GISBORNE, who had placed a Notice on the Taper for a Select Committee on the petition of Charles Evans Deacon and John Wheeler, with reference to a petition which had been presented relative to this railway, said, that in rising to call the attention of the House to the petition, he had the pleasure of being able 487 to say that he was now in a condition to state not only that every allegation in that petition was true, but also that he could now give the House an explanation as to how the irregularity occurred. It did not appear that there was in the present case any attempt to commit a fraud on any party, but there was a very great degree of irregularity, which the House could not fail to visit with severe reprehension. The statement was, that after the petition had been presented an alteration was made in it by interpolating a sheet containing various allegations which did not exist in the petition at the time it was presented to the House. That was now allowed to be the case, and the explanation which had been handed to him by one of the clerks at the Table was, that the petition had been placed by the parties in the hands of Mr. Vacher, the law stationer, in order that a copy might be made for presentation, and that the man who was directed to join the sheets had accidentally dropped one of them, so that the petition was delivered and presented without that sheet. It was further explained that Mr. Vacher, on finding that a sheet had been omitted, went to the office of the Clerk of the House, asked for the petition, and placed the dropped sheet in its proper place. It seemed to him a serious matter that any person should be allowed to alter a petition after presentation. There was no fraud attempted in the present case; but, at the same time, when matters of such great interest were concerned, it became the House to see that no alterations were made in a petition after presentation. The facts being now before them, he had no object in moving for a Committee on the subject. The Notice had had the good effect of inducing the parties to give an explanation. He had no wish to punish the parties, and thought that the House might safely leave the matter in the hands of the Speaker, confident that that right hon. Gentleman would take the steps necessary to prevent the recurrence of so gross an irregularity. He apprehended, however, that the dropped sheet could not be considered as having been presented. On that point he should be glad to hear the opinion of the Speaker.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he had no hesitation in stating to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, that the petition would only be valid with reference to those parts of it which had actually been presented, and that those parts which had not been presented could not be properly refer- 488 red to the Committee. He had instituted inquiries into the case, and the report which he had received corresponded with the statement made by the Member for Nottingham. If the House would leave the matter in his hands he would attend to it.
§ MR. FRENCHhoped there would be no objection to his calling the attention of the Speaker to a case of not exactly a similar kind, with regard to which he had already presented petitions. The statement was, that three petitions had been presented by the hon. Member for Totness (Mr. B. Baldwin) which had been interpolated with different statements after one of the parties had signed them, and had been presented as if they had been regularly signed, while the fact was that one of the parties was not aware of the additions made.
§ MR. B. BALDWINsaid, that he did not know how the petitions had been got up; they had merely been transmitted to him for presentation.
§ Subject at an end.