§ The Order of the Day being read for the Attendance of William Isaacs, Clerk to Mr. Boodle, Solicitor at Cheltenham, and John Preston, Town Crier at Cheltenham, at the Bar of this House, at Four o'Clock, in reference to their Conduct with regard to the Signatures to the Petition of Barbara Robinson and others of Cheltenham, presented on the 22nd of May last, praying to be heard by Counsel against the "East Gloucestershire Railway Bill," the Yeoman Usher informed the House that they were in attendance: They were called in.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDMy Lords, In consequence of what took place before the Committee on the East Gloucestershire Railway Bill, of which Committee I was Chairman, the Committee went into certain points with regard to the mode in which signatures had been obtained to a Petition against that project; and in consequence 1117 of the evidence which, was then brought before us that the two persons at the Bar had obtained signatures to the Petition by representing that it was in favour of the Bill, the Committee unanimously came to the decision that the names so obtained to that Petition should be struck off the Petition, and that the conduct of the two persons who had obtained them should be reported to the House. I therefore beg to move that the shorthand writer be examined upon the evidence which he took down on that occasion.
Then Francis Neate Walsh, the Shorthand Writer who took the Evidence given by the said William Isaacs and John Preston 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 William Isaacs and John Preston, the Evidence was read to them, and they were examined as follows:
THE LORD CHANCELLORWilliam Isaacs and John Preston, it has been proved to the satisfaction of a Committee of this House sitting on the East Gloucestershire Railway Bill, and also to the satisfaction of the House, that you have obtained signatures to a Petition against that Bill by representing that the Petition was in favour of it. Have you any explanation to give of your conduct?
§ PRESTON: Yes my Lord.
§ PRESTON replied, that he was employed to obtain signatures to the Petition on the understanding that there was no objection, to the Bill, but only to the clause providing that the line should be carried through the town of Cheltenham by means of a tunnel.
§ ISAACS said, that he was totally ignorant of the nature of the Petition, except that he was told that it was to oppose the line passing through the town in a tunnel.
THE LORD CHANCELLORIf you were ignorant of the contents of the Petition, how came you to make the statement you did?
§ PRESTON: I had heard that the Bill had passed, and that the only object of the Petition was to oppose the line passing through the town.
1118§ LORD WENSLEYDALEWho instructed you to obtain these signatures?
§ PRESTON: Mr. Linwood, the attorney.
§ Both PRESTON and ISAACS denied that they had done so.
§ Both admitted they did, and that they could read and write.
§ The clerk to Mr. Linwood.
§ Both PRESTON and ISAACS said that they had acted entirely according to the instructions of the clerk to Mr. Linwood.
§ ISAACS added that he had seen Mr. Linwood, whose only instructions were that they should get signatures—good names. He was paid £1 7s. 6d. for his trouble; he was engaged during portions of six or seven days, and there was no agreement as to the payment being according to numbers.
§ PRESTON: The clerk told us that. He said there was no objection to the railway, only to the tunnel.
§ ISAACS: Partly from Linwood, and partly from his clerk.
§ The examination was pursued at considerable length, but nothing new was elicited.
§ The said William Isaacs and John Preston were then ordered to withdraw.
THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this is a matter which, I think your Lordships will agree with me, is a most serious matter, as it affects public interests, and as it affects your Lordships' proceedings and the privileges of this House. From reading the evidence before the Committee there can be no doubt that the men now at the Bar of your Lordships' House were, at all events, the instruments in making representations false in a most material point with regard to the contents and object of the Petition. When I speak of them as instruments, it must be at the 1119 same time recollected that, upon their own confession, it appears that each had in his hand a printed paper, by which the falsehood of the representations would have been apparent to every one who could read. They admit they were perfectly able to understand the contents of that paper; but they have stated, and the same statement was made before the Committee, that they received directions to do what they had done from other persons, that they did not concern themselves with the contents of that Petition, but that they accepted those directions and proceeded to execute them. The true object of your Lordships must therefore be to ascertain from whom, and with what motive, and under what circumstances those directions were given to these persons. What, therefore, I would suggest to your Lordships to adopt is—and I move accordingly—at present to discharge these men, ordering them to attend again at some future day, and that those two persons, and also the employer and his clerk, be ordered to attend at the Bar at the same time.
LORD BROUGHAMI quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that this offence is a very grave one. I quite agree that enough appears in the statement of both these persons to show that they have done enough to render themselves liable to punishment; and enough to show that it is very probable they were set on by others. At any rate, we ought to inquire of others how far that statement is borne out. I therefore wholly agree with my noble and learned Friend in the course he has taken. It is not merely in this matter of Private Bills that very grave frauds are committed. Signatures to petitions, I have constantly experienced, are obtained from persons who are utterly ignorant of the contents of the paper to which they are called upon to sign their names. This is a practice which strikes at the root of the efficiency of your Lordships' proceedings.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought it right to say, that having heard the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he was prepared to acquiesce in the Motion he had made, which he thought was the best course that could be taken under the circumstances.
§ Then the said William Isaacs and John Preston were ordered to attend again on Friday next, at Four o'clock.
1120
§
Ordered,
That Robert Sole Lingwood, Solicitor at Cheltenham, and Charles William Maisey, Clerk to said Robert Sole Lingwood, do attend at the Bar of this House, on Friday next, at Four o'clock, in reference to their Conduct with regard to the Signatures to the Petition of Barbara Robinson and others, of Cheltenham, presented on the 22nd of May last, praying to be heard by Counsel against the "East Gloucestershire Railway Bill.