BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—THE LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL. (Hansard, 13 August 1850)

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
detailed the circumstances connected with the subscription of false signatures to this petition, and the steps already taken by the House to punish the subordinate agents in the fraud; the appointment of the Select Committee to investigate into the conduct of the employers of those subordinate agents—to the investigations of that Committee—to the report which it had presented to their Lordships—and to the order of the House that the two persons now at the bar should appear there to give some explanation of their conduct and proceedings. 1,500 names had been appended to the petition, and among them 900 or 1,000 fraudulent signatures had been discovered. At a public meeting called for the purpose of forwarding this petition to their Lordships, it was publicly stated by the framers 1057 of it that it was signed by 18,000 ratepayers. A person who attended the meeting observed that this could not be true, and the consequence was, that the concocters of this fraud altered their statement, and alleged that it was signed by 18,000 inhabitants of Liverpool. Having mentioned this fact as a proof that the petition had not been sent up to their Lordships without some premeditation, it was next alleged by the Liverpool Committee that the discovery of the false signatures had not been made until it was too late to alter it. This allegation was incorrect, as the promoters of the Bill had given that Committee notice that the petition was fraudulent. There could be no doubt upon that point, as page after page were in the same handwriting. It had been suggested that this was occasioned by a number of the subscribers being marksmen; but it was impossible to believe that merchants, brokers, and one person who described himself as a "student," could not write their own names. Besides, the placing of a mark before a man's name who had not given authority for it, was as much a forgery as a false signature. As to the evidence taken before the Committee, so far as it applied to the two persons at the bar, it was proven beyond doubt that they had not used due diligence to prevent fraud—which, perhaps, might not be a Parliamentary offence—and next, that they had not only made themselves privy to that fraud, but also responsible for it, by referring the petition so got up to the consideration of a Committee of their Lordships. The Select Committee which had inquired into the whole of this subject was unanimous in their report that measures must be adopted to check such conduct in future. The particular offence which it was incumbent on their Lordships to punish was this—that after it came to the knowledge of these parties that frauds and forgeries had been committed, they had instituted no inquiry respecting them, but on the contrary employed counsel to support the petition so got up, and to defeat the investigation commenced by their Lordships into its merits. He, therefore, proposed, that their Lordships should first of all accede to a resolution, declaring that it appeared from the evidence taken before a Select Committee that C. Gream, Esq., and M. A. Gage, Esq., had caused a petition against the Liverpool Corporation Waterworks Bill to be presented to their Lordships, they well knowing, or having 1058 good reason to believe, that numerous fictitious signatures, and the names of persons without their authority, attached to it. He proposed to follow up that resolution, by two others declaring, that each of those individuals by so doing had been guilty of a high breach of their Lordships' privileges.

The LORD CHANCELLOR
thought it unnecessary for him to enlarge on the heinous nature of an offence which had deprived petitioners whose interests were affected by the Bill, of the benefit of being heard before their Lordships, as well as the House itself, of the information which was necessary for its guidance. The evidence taken before the Committee, showed that the grossest frauds had been perpetrated in attaching signatures to the petition, the persons employed to procure signatures having signed many hundreds of names of imaginary persons, with imaginary places of residence. The humbler instruments in those frauds had already been called before their Lordships and punished; and now the more important parties were before the House. He regretted to say that, in their case, there was but one conclusion to which he had been able to come from the evidence given before the Committee, namely, that persons whose profession and station in life—a solicitor and an engineer—ought to have afforded protection and assistance to their Lordships in the investigation of the Bill, should unfortunately have forgotten what was due to their own character no less than to the House. Under these circumstances, it was for their Lordships to take such steps as the dignity of the House and the nature of the case required.

§ LORD BEAUMONT
said, the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) had given a correct history of the proceeding's as they were detailed in the evidence; and he was gratified to hear, that in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack, the report of the Committee was completely borne out by the evidence. He hoped that these proceedings would have an effect beyond the parties now at the bar. Whenever petitioners approached their Lordships' House, they had a right to expect a full consideration of the matter of their petition; but a corresponding duty was imposed upon petitioners, of taking care by every means in their power that the representations which they made were founded in fact, and that the signatures to the petition were genuine. He hoped that this case would be the means of causing peti- 1059 tions presented to that House to he more carefully looked at before being presented; but certainly, if a similar case again occurred, the parties would be severely punished.

The LORD CHANCELLOR
then put resolutions, and it was resolved that Charles Gream and Michael Alexander Gage had been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the House and contempt of its authority.

LORD CAMPBELL
said, that having been absent upon circuit when the proceedings in this case commenced, he was scarcely able to give an opinion upon the circumstances; but it appeared to him that a specific punishment should be meted out, such as would meet the justice of the case. There was every reason to believe that the Session was rapidly drawing to a close; but for so grave an offence, a bare committal allowing the parties to petition tomorrow, and discharging them on expressing their contrition, would hardly be a sufficient punishment. He threw out this suggestion for the consideration of their Lordships; but, of course, they would pursue the course which justice and their own dignity seemed to them most to require.

The LORD CHANCELLOR
suggested, that before proceeding to consider the question of punishment, the parties should be called in, to ascertain if they had anything to say.
Then the said Charles Gream and Michael Alexander Gage were again called in, and

The LORD CHANCELLOR
informed them that the House had resolved that they had been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the House; and he demanded of Mr. Gream whether he had any explanation to offer upon the subject of this offence?

Mr. Gream
My Lords, I beg with all respect to your Lordships to claim to be heard by counsel, and to have my witnesses examined upon this, to me, most important subject. I feel that I am perfectly innocent of the charges laid against me, and I claim at your Lordships' hands the privilege of being heard by counsel, and to have my witnesses examined.

The LORD CHANCELLOR
Charles Gream, you have given your evidence before a Committee of this House, and that Committee heard what you had to say. It has also been reported to the House. The 1060 House, upon that report, has resolved that you have committed a great breach of its privileges; and you cannot be heard in contravention of the judgment of the House. Whatever you may have to say in extenuation or explanation of the offence of which you have, by the judgment of the House, been found guilty, the House will hear.
Then the parties having been severally heard, were ordered to withdraw.

The LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that their Lordships had had two persons at their bar occupying a respectable station in life, who undoubtedly must suffer severely from the circumstances under which they had fallen under their Lordships' displeasure; but their Lordships would have to consider the interference which had taken place with the right of petitioning enjoyed by Her Majesty's subjects, and which had been lost in prosecuting before their Lordships a measure in which they were deeply interested; and they had also considered that their Lordships' authority had been abused to a greater extent than he remembered ever to have heard of before, and that too by persons in a respectable station of life, who appeared competent to judge of the misconduct of the transaction in which they were implicated, and who it appeared were in the course of carrying it into execution, contemplating the probability of the very circumstances which had occurred, for they had cautioned the persons engaged of what the consequence would be, should it come to their Lordships' knowledge that there were fictitious signatures to the petition. When he considered the conduct of those persons to their Lordships, he felt under the painful necessity of coming to the conclusion that the caution to those persons was only as to the mode of doing what they had done so as to avoid detection, and that the direct object in view was that of protecting the persons who were the cause of the misconduct, if the facts should come to their Lordships' knowledge. If their Lordships were to deal out a punishment to these men measured by the magnitude of the offence, and the direspect to their Lordships' authority, they would be bound to go to a greater extent than he thought they would be disposed to go. Their Lordships would therefore have to think by how small a measure of punishment they could make it understood that it was the determination of their Lordships to defend the rights of the people to peti- 1061 tion, and to maintain their own dignity and privileges, and yet to be as lenient as their public duty would allow. He also felt strongly that whatever their Lordships' judgment might be, the punishment suffered afterwards by these men would be severely felt. An attorney who had been censured or punished by their Lordships' House must, throughout the whole course of his professional life, suffer a stigma of a very serious description; and the other person, who was an engineer, and who was liable to be brought in the discharge of his professional duties before Committees of either House of Parliament, must also suffer from these circumstances being brought forward to his discredit. They had thus brought themselves within the scope of a punishment heavy and severe, and that relieved their Lordships, to a certain extent, from dealing with them in such a way as otherwise they might have dealt with them; because their Lordships' object was to protect the public, and the public would be protected, inasmuch as the parties would suffer as much from the consequences of their own conduct as by any punishment their Lordships could inflict. He should, therefore, move, that the persons who had appeared at the bar, and whose statement their Lordships had heard, but from which statement he had failed to extract anything advantageous to their case, should be committed to prison for a fortnight for the offence which they had committed.