§ The Order of the Day being read, for the attendance of Joseph Byrne, law writer, Joseph Hinde, warehouseman, and Duncan M'Arthur, book-keeper, all of Liverpool, at the bar of this House at five o'clock, in reference to their conduct with regard to the signatures to the petition of 74 ratepayers of Liverpool (presented to the House on the 17th of June last) praying to be heard by counsel against the Liverpool Corporation Water Works Bill: The Yeoman Usher informed the House that they were in attendance; they were called in: Then William Kent Fletcher, the short-hand writer who took the evidence given by the said Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur before the Select Committee of this House on the said petition, was sworn to the correctness of the transcript of the said evidence given before the said Select Committee; and, having identified the said Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur, the evidence was read to them.
§ After the evidence given by Joseph Byrne had been read over to him,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid—Joseph Byrne, you have heard the evidence which you gave before the Select Committee read over to you. Have you any explanation to give of your conduct, or of your reasons for attaching fictitious names to that petition, and for signing the names of other persons who gave you no authority to do so?
Joseph Byrne.—My Lord, when I was first engaged upon this business I went out with the intention of soliciting names as signatures to the petition. It was then my intention to obtain none but legitimate signatures. I got a few persons to sign the petition on the first day. On the next day I went out at eight o'clock in the morning upon the same business; and after 11 hours' great exertion in the one street, I was only able to procure about 80 signatures. When I went to the confederation shop in the evening I saw one gentleman with nine sheets, and another with six sheets of signatures, which purported to have been honestly obtained. I then thought upon the way petitions were got up, and I said to myself "I don't see why I should not adopt the same plan of obtaining signatures." I have no other explanation to give.
§ Joseph Hinde.—The explanation I have to offer is, that Mr. Graves told me that if I could get persons to sign the petition, it would be all right.
§ Hinde.—No, my Lord.
75The LORD CHANCELLORYou may withdraw.
His Lordship then repeated the question to Duncan M'Arthur.
Duncan M'Arthur.—My Lord, a friend induced me to come here and to tell your Lordship the system under which petitions of this kind were got up. It is much against my inclination that I should have connnected myself with such a system. When I came to your Lordships' bar to he solemnly sworn as I thought, I did not expect that you would have turned round and have read the evidence given before the Committee against me. As regards my Conduct in this matter, I am just the same as every other person similarly engaged to impose upon your Lordships.
He was then ordered to withdraw.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that their Lordships now had before them the evidence given by these three individuals before the Select Committee, and the statements which they had made at the bar in explanation of it. The effect of that evidence and of those statements was, that each of them had been employed, and paid for their labour, in procuring the signatures of ratepayers adverse to a Bill before Parliament; but that, instead of acting honestly in their employment, they had adjourned to a public-house, and there put down names at random, in some eases attaching to the petition the names of actual persons, who had not given them any authority so to act. They had resorted to various other courses to deceive the persons by whom they were employed. In one case, one of the individuals who had just been removed from the bar had absolutely wetted himself with water forced from a pump, in order to induce his employers to believe that he had been out all day in the rain canvassing for signatures. It was a serious offence to endeavour to impose on their Lordships in such a way, and to procure attention to their petition by the number of names falsely attached to it. It was of importance that their Lordships should he satisfied of the genuineness of the petitions presented to them, and that the parties who practised any deception upon them in that respect should be severely punished. He therefore moved, "That Joseph Byrne, law writer, of Liverpool, in having subscribed the names of certain persons without their authority to the petition, purporting to be a petition of ratepayers of Liverpool against the Liverpool Corporation Water Works Bill (pre- 76 sented to this House on the 17th of June last), and in having signed many fictitious names to the said petition, is guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of this House."
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, Resolved in the Affirmative, Nemine Dissemtente.
The LORD CHANCELLORthen moved that Joseph Byrne be committed forthwith to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod for the offence which he had committed.
§ Agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNsaid, that he had brought this matter before their Lordships, because he felt, as the Lord Chancellor had stated, that a very serious offence had been committed against their Lordships. Many of the signatures which were now admitted to be forged had been verified by other witnesses, and those who had been guilty of such misconduct ought also to be punished. If these three men had not voluntarily come forward to give evidence, this deception would never have come to light. It ought to be taken as some extenuation of their guilt that they had come forward voluntarily to discover this most unworthy trick. They ought not to be punished more severely than those who had suggested to them this crime, for crime undoubtedly it was.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEfelt that, to a certain extent, there was some extenuation in the circumstance which the noble Earl had just stated. Still, he thought that these men ought to be committed to Newgate. They then might state their contrition in a petition, and afterwards be discharged.
LORD BROUGHAMthought that that was the right course to adopt. These men, after they were sent to Newgate, could pursue the usual course of expressing their contrition in a petition, and might then be discharged.
§ EARL GREYobserved, that if this system of forging names to petitions were general, the parties who employed these men could not be innocent. He therefore thought that their Lordships were hound to appoint another Committee for the purpose of seeing whether evidence could not be obtained to prove either that certain parties had been guilty of wilfully deceiving the House, or that they had been guilty of the most 77 culpable negligence in not discovering that many of the names were known forgeries.
The EAHL of MINTOwas led by the evidence to believe that some of the employers of these men were cognisant of the practices resorted to; for it appeared that some of them had ordered the men to put crosses opposite to the names they had attached to the petition.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNsaid, that the two gentlemen who had got up the petition were then in the House, and most anxious to be heard at the bar.
§ Similar Motions were then put and agreed to, in respect of the custody of Joseph Hinde and Duncan M'Arthur.
§ EARL GREYthen moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances attending the employment of these parties in procuring signatures to the said petition, and into the cireumstances attending the presentation of the said petition to the House.
§ On Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.