§ MR. THORNELY
wished, as Chairman of the Committee whose duty it was to examine public petitions, to state, that a petition was presented to the House, and had been laid before the Committee, to which there were 200 signatures, which were written on scraps of paper, and pasted on a large sheet. He thought it was important that hon. Members should examine petitions before they presented them to the House. The Committee were of opinion that the petition in the present case was informal, and he, therefore, moved that it be withdrawn. According to the rules of the House the marks of persons who were 194 unable to write their names were receivable upon proper authentication, but the signatures that were cut from other papers and pasted on a petition were not.
§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
, as a Member of the Committee of which his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton was chairman, begged to corroborate his statement, that the clergy of a certain archdeaconry had by letters sent in their adhesion to a principle of legislation, and their signatures were cut out of those letters and pasted on a petition. He thought it very important that all petitions should be signed by the parties who concurred in the prayer of them, or by a friend authorised to sign them on their behalf.
§ In reply to a question from Mr. HINDLEY,
§ MR. THORNELY
said, that the petition in question was from the clergy of the archdeaconry of Dublin.
§ Subject dropped.