REPORT.

HC Deb 21 March 1878 vol 238 cc1737-42

Special Report brought up, and read, as followeth:— Your Committee having examined the signatures to two Petitions presented from the Working Men and other Inhabitants of Dublin, praying for the rejection of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, which were presented on the 21st of January last, and purport to bear respectively 600 and 686 signatures, have to inform the House that a clear forgery has been committed, one in each Petition, in the signatures appended thereto; and that in the case of 10 other Petitions, also from the Working Men and other Inhabitants of Dublin, nine of which were presented on the 21st of January last, and one on the 19th of February last, against the same Bill, a certain number of the addresses given with the signatures are cither such as do not exist, or they are not the addresses of those persons to whom they purport to belong.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Special Report do lie upon the Table."

MR. MELDON

said, it occured to him that a very serious question must arise in this matter for the consideration of the House. As he understood the Report just read, it amounted to this—that the Committee on Public Petitions found that there had been forgeries to this Petition of persons' names who had not signed it. The Committee had also found that a large number of the signatures were fictitious. It appeared to him that some action ought to be taken in the matter, if the facts reported on were substantiated upon fuller inquiry, and that, as a question of Privilege, it could not be allowed to be passed over on the present occasion. The Public Petitions Committee were fettered by reason of not being empowered to take evidence; and he thought the facts should be fully inquired into, and that a Report, that forgeries had been committed, should not be passed over in silence. The proper course would be that some further investigation should be made by the Public Petitions Committee, and all the circumstances and facts accurately ascertained, before any definite action was taken by the House; and, therefore, as an Amendment to the Motion before the House, he would move that the Petition be referred back again to the Public Petitions Committee, that they should be empowered to send for Persons and Papers, and that they should make a further Report to the House. He was afraid that on the present occasion it would not be a proper course to suggest what the definite action should be, and therefore he refrained from making any suggestion. At all events, he thought the Report ought not to be entirely passed over, and he hoped the House would assent to his proposition.

MR. SPEAKER

The Question before the House is that the Report do lie on the Table of the House. If the hon. Member has any Amendment to move upon that Question, he will be so good as to bring it up to the Table.

MR. MELDON,

accordingly, went to the Table, wrote an Amendment, and handed it to the Clerk.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "Report" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be referred back to the Public Petitions Committee, and that they inquire into the circumstances connected with the Petitions mentioned in the said Report, and make a Report thereupon to the House,"—(Mr, Meldon,) —instead thereof.

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

SIR CHARLES FORSTER

said, he could not support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Meldon), which was not justified by precedent. The Committee on Public Petitions had fully attended to the matter. When the Petitions were submitted to the Committee, they were carefully examined, and the Committee were unanimously of opinion that the proper course would be the one they recommended in their Report—"That the Report should lie upon the Table of the House." He might remind the House that that was the course adopted in a similar case which occurred last year in regard to an irregular Petition from the same place and upon the same subject—Sunday closing in Ireland. On the 8th of June a Report was presented by the Public Petitions Committee stating that a Petition purporting to be signed by 11,245 persons contained numerous fictitious signatures, and the Report was ordered to lie on the Table. The course then adopted was precisely that which was now recommended by the Public Petitions Committee.

MR. MONK

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forstor) had done all that lay in his power as Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions. The Committee had notified to the House that there were certain fictitious signatures to this Petition, and that there were also forgeries in it; and, as he understood the hon. Baronet, a Petition from the same place on the very same subject was presented to the House last year, in which there were also fictitious signatures. If Petitions were to have any weight whatever with the House, it was desirable that the House should take some notice of false Petitions. He did not understand his hon. Friend to say that the House should continue to receive these Petitions without taking any notice of them. If such a course were taken, he thought it would be beneath the dignity of the House to continue to receive Petitions at all. He was, therefore, very much inclined to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), although, perhaps, it would be as well to print the Report before the Motion was made; but, whenever a Motion was made for referring the Report back to the Committee, he would support it in order that the Committee might take the necessary steps to ascertain how it was that such a Petition was presented. Before doing so, he thought the House ought to express a very strong opinion in regard to the conduct of persons who got up these fictitious Petitions. Unless the Committee were empowered to send for witnesses, and to examine them in regard to the manner in which these signatures had been attached, no weight whatever would continue to be attached to the Petitions addressed to the House.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I think the course which has suggested itself to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) is clearly the most convenient course for the House to adopt—that is, to allow the Report to lie upon the Table and be printed. It will then be in the hands of hon Members, and the House will be in a better position to decide what ought to be done. I hope that course will be adopted.

MR. D. M. O'CONOR

said, he had no objection to that course being taken, provided that an opportunity would be afforded to hon. Members of discussing the question after the special Report should have been printed. The House must remember that on the last occasion when irregularities of this kind occurred, no opportunity was given to hon. Members who wished to raise the question after the Report was presented, and the Motion for the consideration of the Report was obliged to take its chance of the ballot among the ordinary Notices. The result was, that the Motion was ultimately brought on after 1 o'clock in the morning, when there was nobody in the House, and the consequence was that not a word about it was published in the papers next day. If this debate were adjourned, and the Report allowed to lie on the Table, and a discussion raised which could be brought on at half-past 4, he would be quite prepared to agree to the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, it appeared to him that something had been done which amounted to a breach of Privilege. When they had evidence of the fact fully before them, it would be competent for any hon. Member to bring it forward as a question of Privilege, and in that case the consideration of it would take precedence of all other Business.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

hoped the House would adjourn the debate, and in that case if the Report were printed, every hon. Member would be able to comment upon it. If the Motion for printing it were withdrawn, there would be no such opportunity. He therefore begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the Motion proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would defeat his own object, because it was moved in substitution of the Motion for printing the Report. Until it was printed the House would have no opportunity forming a judgment upon the matter.

MR. SANDFORD

apprehended that when the Petitions and Report were printed, they could be brought forward as a broach of Privilege, provided that Notice was given.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I understand that the Question before the House is an Amendment to the Motion that the Report should lie on the Table. In any case, the Report would be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, and I am under the impression—the Speaker will probably correct me if I am mistaken—that, as a breach of Privilege, it would be competent for any hon. Member to bring forward a Motion on that question at half-past 4.

MR. SPEAKER

The Report now lying on the Table involves a Question of breach of Privilege on the part of certain persons who have forged signatures to a Petition to this House; and, if the debate be adjourned, it would take precedence of all other public proceedings of the House on the day to which it might be adjourned. Therefore, if the debate be now adjourned, the Motion would come on as a Question of Privilege on a future day.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped that, under those circumstances, the debate would be adjourned.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, the original Motion, as he understood it, was that the Report should lie on the Table; but if the debate were adjourned and the Report did not lie on the Table, he apprehended that there would be nothing before the House.

MR. SPEAKER

The ordinary practice is to print such a Report with the Votes after having been read by the Clerk at the Table. Does the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle move the adjournment of the debate?

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

Yes, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till Monday next.

Ordered, That the special Report be printed. [No. 97.]