HC Deb 16 July 1861 vol 164 cc977-92
MR. CONNINGHAM

said, he rose to present a petition form Mr. George O'Malley Irwin, who claimed to be the original promoter of the Royal Atlantic Steam Packet Company, complaining of the manner in which the affairs of the Company had been conducted by Mr. John Lever, and charging against him various fraudulent acts in his capacity as managing director.

MR. ROEBUCK

Sir, I rise to order. I want to know if a libel such as that the nature of which we have just heard, ought to be circulated by means of a petition to this House?

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. Member for Brighton was in order in stating the prayer of the petition.

Mr. CONINGHAM

observed that perhaps the hon. and learned Member would allow him to finish, and he would see that the petition was not a libel. The hon. Member accordingly proceeded to read the petition.

MR. ROEBUCK

Now we know that that petition is a libel, and I want to know if a libel can be read in this House. This man has been in prison for nine months, and I want to know if such a petition as that can be received. I move that the petition be not received, and the reason why I make that Motion is this—

MR. SPEAKER

A petition is presented to this House on the responsibility of the hon. Member presenting it. The House is not acquainted with the contents of a petition until after it is presented, and, therefore, it is presented on the authority of the hon. Member who has it in charge that it contains on offensive matter, or matter that is contrary to the rules of the House. We have only heard the statement of the hon. Member, and if there be any question about the contents the petition the proper course is to move that it be placed in the hands of the clerk, and read by him at the table.

MR. ROEBUCK:

Then, Sir, I move that this petition be read by the clerk at the table. Petition of George O'Malley Irwin, alleging certain Frauds stated to have been committed by the Managers and Officers of the Royal Atlantic Mail Steam Navigation Company, and praying for inquiry; and also that the Attorney General may be directed to Prosecute John Orrell Lever, esquire (a Member of this House), and other Managers of the said Company, for participation in the said alleged Frauds, —brought up and read.

Motion made and Question proposed. "That the said Petition do lie upon the Table."

MR. ROEBUCK

I am about, Sir, to move that that petition be not received. In the first place, I think the right to present petitions to this House on the part of the people of England is on of the most important that they can enjoy, but if it should be turned to the purposes of private malice it may become one of the greatest evils. Let me tell the history somewhat of this man. In the first place, he has been convicted of forgery, and has been nine months in prison in Ireland. He had brought action against Mr. Lever, and all those actions have been rejected by the English Courts of Law. Now the whole of that petition is accusation, and I hope this House will not allow itself to be made an instrument to gratify the malicious propensities of any individual. I say, Sir, without taking up the time of the House, that this man is unworthy of credit. He has proved himself so. He is lying in goal on an accusation of forgery, of which he was convicted; and I say that such a man as that ought not to have the power of giving pain to any hon. Member of this House. I, therefore, move that the House do not receive the petition.

LORD DUNKELLIN

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Petition" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be rejected"—instead thereof.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

The petition as far as I could collect form the reading, implicated the character and conduct of an hon. Member of this House. I think it would have been will if the hon. Member for Brighton, before presenting that petition, had given notice to the hon. Member concerned that he was about to do so, and that it contained a statement gravely implication his conduct. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brighton took that course. I believe it is one not only in conformity with the usual practice of the House, but it is a simple rule of justice. The question now submitted to the House, however, is whether the petition shall be received or not Now, as far as I can collect, there seems to be nothing in the petition which should induce the House to reject it. It is a statement implicating a Member of this House, and without saying anything about the accusation—I know nothing about them—the House should consider whether, supposing the statements were true, they would not receive a petition of the kind if it were expressed in proper language, although it might inculpate the character of a Member of this House. I apprehend we have but one course to pursue. The petition being presented by the hon. Member inculpating the character of another Member, and couched in proper language, is one which we are, I imagine, bound to receive; then it is our duty to ascertain whether there is any foundation for those charges or not. But I apprehend it is the duty of any hon. Member of this House, before he presents a petition inculpating so gravely the character of another hon. Member to ascertain that there is ground for making those charges and to be prepared to substantiate them, when the House, in vindication of the character of one of its Members, offers him the opportunity of so doing. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Brighton is prepared to do this. He has not given notice of a Motion founded on the petition, and I must say that an hon. Member who presents a petition of this character containing grave charges against the conduct of a Member of this House is bound to take the first opportunity of laying before the House the grounds upon which he has thought himself justified to bring such accusations. If it turns out, as we all must hope it will turn out with respect to the character of any Member, that such charges are unsubstantial and not founded in fact, and that there is scarcely sufficient prima facie evidence on which to bring them under the notice of the House, then it will be a matter for the House to consider whether the hon. Member who bring forward these charges is not justly worthy of the condemnation and censure of the House. As far as the reception of the petition is concerned, I apprehend that in conformity with the usual practice, the petition not being worded disrespectfully or in unbecoming language, is one that we ought to entertain.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, there was another matter that the House ought to take into its consideration. The House had delegated to a Committee an inquiry into the circumstances of the Atlantic Steam Packet Company. That committee had diligently inquire into the subject, but had not yet reported. The Committee would, however, sit the next day for the purpose of considering the Report, and he thought it was hardly right that a petition involving so many circumstances connected with the question should be received until the Report was made. At all events he thought the hon. Member for Brighton ought to withdraw the petition until the Report was before the House. He might state that no charge had been made before the Committee to inculpate the director of fraud or malversation, but he had see a letter signed by the gentleman who signed this petition, not addressed to the Committee, but sent to a Member of that Committee, which contained many of the charges now before the House; but he (Sir John Trollope) thought the Committee exercised a wise discretion in refusing to enter into those charges, as they had not been referred to them. The hon. Member for Brighton would, he repeated, do well to withdraw the petition until the Report of the committee was before the House.

LORD DUNKELLIN

said, he wished to say a few words on behalf of an absent Gentleman, who was his colleague. He did not dispute that the knowledge of the practice of the House Possessed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) was superior to his own, but he could not help dissenting from the rules laid down by the right hon. Gentleman as regulating the presentation of petitions. It was evidently impossible for him during the rapid although distinct reading of the petition by the clerk at the table to understand fully the extent of the imputations against his hon. Colleague. But what he knew of him who had signed the petition would make him very tender about believing everything he might put forward. He would undertake to say that if the House thought that such imputations, reflecting as they did upon the life and business habits of a gentleman out of that House, were matters for inquiry within that House his hon. Friend (Mr. Lever) would not shrink form taking the full responsibility of his acts. He felt certain that if his hon. Friend had had any idea that such a petition would be presented he would have attended in his place. Meanwhile, as it was not the practice of the House to concern itself with the occupations or professional business of hon. Members out of doors, he should support the Motion of this hon. and learned Friend for the rejection of the petition, the presentation of which would do no credit to the House, nor was it calculated to increase the confidence which hon. Member was accustomed to place in those rules of justice and honour that guided the transactions of the House. He regretted that the hon. Member for Brighton had not first satisfied himself of the truth of the charges in the petition. That hon. Member was not lucky in the allegations he made against individuals. Only yesterday that hon. Member had "hinted a doubt and hesitated dislike" against a gallant and distinguished officer, and now he brought charges of dishonesty against an hon. Member of the House. He trusted that the House would mark its sense of the nature of the petition and the manner in which it had been presented, and that such charges would not be tolerated by the House.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that when a petition of this nature was about to be presented to the House it was usual, in conformity with the courtesy due from one gentleman to another, to give to the hon. Member whose conduct was complained of notice of such intention, in order that he might be in his place and have an opportunity of meeting the charges contained in the petition. Under these circumstances he certainly thought that the hon. Member for Brighton would do well, seeing that a Report was to be presented on a future day, to withdraw the petition now. [Some cries of "No!"] Hon. Members said "No !" and assumed that, because the petition contained libellous matter, the House ought not to entertain it; but numbers of petitions containing libellous matter were presented. The newspapers published them and the speeches made in connection with them at their own risk; but the rule laid down by the House was that such petitions should be printed for the use of Members only, as the charges made might be groundless. He did not think that the House ought to reject the petition or to deny access to any petitioner who made charges which he stated he was prepared to substantiate. At the same time opportunity should be given to the Member of meeting the charges made against him. He would not say there was anything in the petition which required the cognizance of the Committee now sitting, but he thought the hon. Member for Brighton should not have presented it without giving full notice to the Member whose conduct it impugned.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, it is important that the country should clearly understand that the reception of petitions by this House is not a matter of course. The presentation of petitions is the exercise of a valuable right to the people, and I hold the privilege to be of inestimable value; but it should be clearly understood that the House has the power of refusing the reception of petitions. In this instance, some grounds of objection may arise on the matter of the petition, and thus some hon. Gentlemen have stated as a ground for its rejection, that it is libellous. The matter contained in the present petition may be, as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield says, utterly untrue and unfounded, but I confess I do not think that a sufficient ground for refusing to receive this petition. It is the duty of the House to listen to any charges that may be made against its Members, and I suppose that the first feeling of any Gentleman whose character and conduct has been assailed would be to throw no obstacle to the fullest investigation. Another ground of objection may be found in the manner of the presentation, and with respect to the manner in which this petition has been presented I do think very grave objection arise. Not merely a deficiency of that courtesy usual between Members had been shown by not giving notice to the Member whose conduct is impugned, or any public notice of the intention to present the petition, but it is impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that weeks have now elapsed since the subject to which it related was matter of controversy and discussion in this House. The attention of the country has been drawn to it, and yet this Gentleman never thought it his duty to present a petition till now. And when it this petition presented? At the fag-end of the Session, when it is quite impossible, if it be desirable, that a Committee should be appointed to examine into the allegations. That is a course of conduct which the House ought not in any way to sanction, for it tends to show that the presentation of this petition is not invested with the bona fide and genuine character which a petition alleging such grave charges out to have. I think, however, that the House should be cautious in supporting a Motion for the rejection of a petition, and I, therefore, trust that the hon. and earned Member, who has properly called attention to the subject, will be content with the suggestion made that the petition should be withdrawn. I think that such a course will sufficiently show the sense of the House that in the presentation of a petition containing grave charges against an hon. Member there has been a want of that courtesy which should attend such a proceeding; and that, moreover, the petition has been presented under circumstances of delay, after the question has been under the consideration of the House, that are full of suspicion. I cannot condescend to go into the character or conduct of the petitioner. I have no doubt that in due course that will influence the opinion of the House and the country on the subject; but the manner in which the petition has been presented is nor respectful to the House, nor has there been paid that deference to fair and honourable conduct which is desirable, and which we should be anxious to encourage. I, therefore, think that the petition should not be received, but I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton will withdraw it.

MR. GREGORY:

As Chairman of the Committee which is now sitting, I may observe that we received an application from this person Mr. O'Malley Irwin) to be examined, with a view to substantiate against the hon. Member and others connected with the Galway contract similar allegations to those which he has made in this petition. The Committee, having looked at the reference that was made to them, were of opinion that it was altogether out of place for them to consider these allegations, and they, therefore, refused to enter into them. I must call the attention of the House to the position we are in. I think the House ought to mark very strongly its disapprobation of the conduct pursued by the hon. Member for Brighton. Remember the position in which we stand. If and hon. Member is to come down to this House and make himself the vehicle of libel and slander, all I can say is that, under these circumstances, the character of every Member of this House is liable to be affected by any person, no matter how low his position is society, who chooses to hand a Member a petition affecting his character and fair fame. These things go abroad into the world, the Member in gibbetted before the public for doing things which may be, and which in this case I believe are, entirely false. A man brings charges of the worst and most degrading character, and they go abroad into the world before he has an opportunity of repelling them. I think the House ought to mark its sense of such conduct by rejecting this petition, and I certainly cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton for having converted himself into a "lion's mouth" for the reception and venting of every charge which a person of bad character may choose to make.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, if there was one privilege or right which the people prized more than another, it was the right of petition. But it was the bounden duty of the House to take care that the right was properly used, and not abused. He knew noting of the hon. Member against whom the petition was presented. But if the House received the petition they would constitute themselves a species of grand jury, and find a true Bill without giving the hon. Member an opportunity of inquiry into his conduct. If he understood the petition rightly, it contained serious charges against the hon. Member for Galway, and it asked the House to instruct the Attorney General to prosecute him for these matters. Now, if that hon. Member had been guilty of the frauds imputed, or the misconduct, that would not be the course which the House would pursue. It would not instruct the Attorney General to prosecute, but it would expel the Member—expulsion would be the proper course for such misconduct. He could not understand how it was that the hon. Member for Brighton had presented the petition without first giving notice of his intention to do so. He would not go into the question whether the petition was libellous, or whether the allegations were true, he would simply say that it ought not to have been presented, but having been presented simple withdrawal would not satisfy the justice of the case. The petition ought to be rejected altogether at the present moment. If the hon. Member should bring it forward at a future time, let him bring forward a petition properly worded, and give notice to the Member charged; and if the charges were true, let the Member be expelled from the House.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I with to call the attention of the House to one point that not yet been noticed, but which appears to me to have a material bearing on this case. Last year there was a Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the Galway packet contract, and after the Committee had made its report its attention was drawn to those charges which Mr. O'Malley Irwin made against Mr. Lever. The Committee thought that these chares ought not to be passed over. Mr. Irwin and other persons other persons were examined with respect to them, and the Committee in their Report summed up the facts as the appeared in the evidence, and concluded by saying— Your Committee having now set forth the whole facts of the case, deem it advisable to leave the matter to the judgment of the House without suggesting any opinion of their own. The effect of this is that it cannot be said that these facts are now brought before the House for the first time; the House has had the opportunity if it had thought fit to use it to inquire into all the circumstances of the case. It has not so thought fit, but it is open to any hon. Member, with this Report before him, to make a Motion for further inquiry; but it is hardly fair to make an attack upon an hon. Member without notice on facts which are not new, and which the House, having the facts before it, has not thought fit to notice.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

It seems to me that this matter involves to a great extent the privileges of the House of Commons and the duties of Members of Parliament. I cannot, however, admit that the fact that a petition contains grave charges against the character of any hon. Member— charges even amounting to a libel—ought to be held to be a good reason why the petition should not be received. I am, upon the contrary, of opinion that if any one of our number be guilty of any act disgraceful to himself personally and unbecoming, his position as a Member of Parliament, it is rather the interest of the House that accusations made against him should be examined, while it is one of the material and essential privileges of the subject to be able to petition Parliament on any matter on which any individual may deem it desirable that his opinions should be submitted to its consideration. I do not, at the same time hold that an hon. Member is bound to present any petition which may be intrusted to him. No man has a right to come to me or to any other hon. Member and say, "I insist on your presenting my petition." It is the duty of every hon. Member to whom a petition is handed for presentation to ascertain by inspection, and inquiry, if necessary, that its contents are fit to be laid before Parliament; and, if the petition should happen to be one inculpating the conduct of any Member, I should deem it to be the duty of the person intending to present it to do two things—first of all, to satisfy himself by the most diligent inquiry that there was a prima facie ground for the imputations which it contained, and, if he were unable to do that, to return the petition to the person from whom it emanated; secondly, in the event of his coming to the conclusion that just and sufficient grounds for the imputation existed to give notice to the Member against whom the charges were made, that on a certain day he meant to present a petition against him—thus affording him an opportunity of being in his place and making such a reply as he might have it in his power to make in re- futation of the allegations embodied in the petition. Now, it appears to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton has not, so far as any statement goes which I have heard from him, fulfilled either of those duties. He has not, so far as I am aware, told us that he himself has examined into the charges in question, or satisfied himself that there were prima facie grounds for those charges being made. Neither does it appear that he has given Mr. Lever or any other person alluded to in the petition notice that he was about to lay it before the House. That being the state of the case, my hon. Friend would, I think, do well to take back the petition. He would, by adopting that course, be afforded an opportunity of informing himself somewhat better upon the subject, and if upon inquiry he should find that the matter of the petition is really such that the honour of the House is involved owing to the conduct of one of its Members, and that a serious examination of the charges made is necessary, he might bring the subject forward on some future occasion, having in the meantime given Mr. Lever due notice that it was his intention to take that course. I trust, therefore, my hon. Friend will either withdraw the petition, or that the debate will be adjourned.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he wished at once to express his readiness to withdraw the petition in compliance with what seemed to be the wish of the House. He might, however, before he sat down, be allowed to say that of all the Members of the House the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was the very last who ought to complain, as he had done, of personal at tacks being made, inasmuch as no hon. Gentleman so freely used, or rather abused, the system of personal attack as himself. With respect to the remarks which had been made by a noble Lord who had taken part in the discussion (Lord Dunkellin), as to the course which he (Mr. Coningham) has on the previous day pursued in calling the attention of the House to the appointment conferred upon a gallant officer, he would only say that as a Member of Parliament he claimed it as a right to call in question the expediency of all important public appointments if he felt called upon to do so. ["Question, question!"] He trusted that as he had been attacked hon. Members would not interrupt him. It was contended by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) that in presenting a petition which was characterized as libellous he was doing a serious wrong to the character of an hon. Member, and suggested that the petition should, on that ground, be rejected. He would, however, venture to say, in reply to that suggestion, that if he were attacked in the same way as the Gentleman against whom the accusations were made, he should, so far from endeavouring to avoid publicity, urge the institution of the strictest and most searching investigation into all the details of the charge. He had, he might add, no personal knowledge of Mr. Irwin, and had received his petition only a few hours before. He found that Mr. Lever was absent, but having learnt that the petitioner had appealed to the Committee now sitting upstairs with the view of having the subject of the petition investigated; that the Committee had rejected his request to be examined on the subject, and that their labours were on the point of terminating, he looked upon the presentation of the petition as a matter of urgency. He was, he could assure the House, actuated by no motive whatsoever save a regard for the public interest in taking the course which he had pursued, and he was strongly of opinion that when hon. Members recalled to mind all that had occurred in courts of law and elsewhere on the subject there existed a prima facie case on which the presentation of the petition could be justified. It was, he thought, for the interest of the House that the petition should be referred to the Committee upstairs and printed, while he was at the same time, as he had before stated, ready to withdraw it in compliance with what appeared to be the general wish.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, he wished to refer to the course adopted by several hon. Members last Session, when charges of a nature to seriously affect his character had been made against himself, as one which was in accordance with the usual proceedings, under similar circumstances, of Members of the House and of gentlemen. The individual who made the accusations against him had, he might add, not been convicted of any crime, yet those Members to whom letters were addressed praying that the charges might be brought before3 the House were so good as to communicate with him whom those charges affected. He had disregarded the attack for some time, but, finding that it began to assume a serious character, he had instituted proceedings in a court of law, and the offender was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour. In that case these hon. Members, to whom letters containing the charges against were addressed, had recognized the right of the person accused to have the earliest intimation give of the attack made upon him, and in the present case, in which the person from whom the petition emanated had had his veracity seriously impugned in proceedings which had taken place in a court of law, he thought the hon. Member for Brighton would have done well to follow the precedent to which he adverted.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, he was on the Committee with the hon. Baronet the member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) last Session, and from the Knowledge he then acquired of Mr. Irwin, from his peculiarities and other circumstances, he should not have the slightest hesitation in accompanying the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield into the lobby on his Motion that the petition be not received.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, that if the petition were not withdrawn he should be disposed to vote for the adjournment of the debate, inasmuch as he believed there was no substantial ground for rejecting the petition, whether hon. Members did or did not believe the charges which it contained. Protection ought not, he thought, to be thrown to so great an extent over hon. Members as to lead the House to the conclusion not to listen to complaints made by a person out of doors with respect to their conduct. He might also observe that the prayer of the petition was that Mr. Irwin should be heard before the Committee sitting, and therefore, it had reference to a question under the consideration of the House. He thought it was a rather bold thing for hon. Gentleman to say that they would not receive such a petition. He admitted that the mode in which the petition had been presented was unusual, but he was sure that the hon. Member for Brighton had not adopted it designedly. It was true, as the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) had stated, that some inquiry took place about these transactions before the Committee last year. He had not had time to examine the petition for the purpose of ascertaining whether it contained additional matter, but he was bound to state that after the evidence given last year by Mr. Irwin, who was undoubtedly a very peculiar gentleman, a very considerable change took place in his mind and in the minds of several other Members of the Committee, as the House would see from the Report, which in its first shape was not exactly the same as it was before Mr. Irwin appeared before the Committee. He should be sorry if the House were compelled to divide, but if the question came to be whether the petition should be rejected or not, he should feel it to be his duty to vote against its rejection.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL:

There are two very different questions involved in this case, which, as it appears to me, some hon. Gentlemen have confounded together. One is, whether the petition should be received; the other, what course the House should take upon it. You might receive the petition, and yet see fit to reject its prayer. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) has said truly enough that the House would never think of directing the Attorney General to prosecute in this case. I may say, moreover, that I should not think of voting for a proposal to refer the petition to the Select committee on the Galway contract, because I agree with the Members of that Committee in thinking that the subject of the Petition is totally different from that which has been submitted to them for consideration, and that therefore, it is not in their power to investigate it. But these questions are totally different from the question whether the petition ought to be received. What my noble Friend at the head of the Government said was perfectly right, that the hon. Member for Brighton ought to have given notice to the Member inculpated that he had been asked to present a petition containing grave charges against him —charges affecting his personal character; and I think the hon. Member ought to to have given notice to the House likewise. The hon. Member has accounted in some way—though I must say not satisfactorily—for his omission in this respect. He has pleaded urgency as the reason why he could not take the course I have suggested. I do not think that is a sufficient reason. However, he has now offered to withdraw the petition, which I hold to be the right course for the House to adopt. [Cries of "No, no!"] It seems to me that saying you will reject a petition of this sort is to say that a subject has no right to come to this House making charges against one of its Members. Now, undoubtedly, that is a right of the subject. The House may deal with the petition as it pleases. It may find that the charges are frivolous; it may censure the hon. Gentleman who has presented the petition, and it may pass a re- solution in favour of the Member inculpated; but to say that no subject of this realm shall present a petition inculpating a Member of this House does seem to me to be throwing an immunity over Members of the Legislature to which they are not entitled.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Brighton having offered to withdraw the petition, the first question I have to ask is whether the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield will withdraw his Amendment?

MR. ROEBUCK

I will not, Sir.

MR. G. W. HOPE

said, it appeared to him that the charges contained in the petition were different from those which were referred to the Select Committee of last Session. The question before that Committee was one affecting the conduct of public officers of the Government. It appeared that Mr. Lever had contracted to give a large sum of money to Mr. Irwin and Mr. Holmes in the event of his succeeding, through their means, in obtaining a subsidy for the Galway Packet Company. That agreement was clearly proved before the Committee, and then the question arose whether the money was not intended to be given for the exercise of improper influence on the part of Mr. Irwin and Mr. Holmes. The whole evidence was directed to that point. There were no general charges of fraud such as those contained in this petition, no request that the Attorney General should be instructed to prosecute. Mr. Irwin came forward last year to establish his right to the sum of £10,000 which Mr. Lever had contracted to give him. That contract was said to affect the validity of the transactions with the Government. the Committee, seeing that the affairs of the Galway Company had passed into other hands, did not feel themselves bound to make any recommendation to the House on the subject; but at the same time he was clearly of opinion that no question of fraud committed by Mr. Lever was concluded either by the Report of the Committee or by the evidence taken before them.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 75: Majority 9.

Question again proposed, "That the said Petition do lie upon the Table.

MR. SPEAKER

said, he had then to put the question that the petition do lie on the table.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he would beg leave to withdraw the petition.

MR. BRADY

did not think the hon. Member for Brighton deserved much credit for the step he had taken. An hon. Member before presenting any petition was bound to look to the character of the person from whom it had emanated. The character of the present petitioner was well known in all the courts of justice. The time of the House had, therefore, been misspent in considering a petition coming from such a source.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn

Petition withdrawn