In that case only one signature was forged, but in the present case 281 were alleged to be so. He held in his hand a petition from some of the parties, who were prepared to prove that their names had been signed to the petition without their knowledge and against their wish; but he had not presented it, because he wished the case to stand as it was. Mr. Tancred: What is the date of that petition? Mr. Halcombe: A petition has no date. Mr. Tancred: When did the hon. Member receive it? Mr. Halcombe would answer the hon. had to submit to the House upon his own authority as the ground for a future Motion. He heard that the noble Lord on his right had presented a petition from the inhabitants of Leamington, referring to the former petition, and this petition he at once believed to be the petition which was expected, and which had been on the road directed to him or to the noble Lord. In conclusion, he protested against their now stopping short in the inquiry, for the purpose of screening somebody. The Committee had called on the hon. member for Banbury to declare from whom he had received the petition. The hon. Member declined to do so,-a course which he should not have felt himself justified in pursuing. The hon. Member had, by this refusal, thrown all manner of difficulties and inconveniences in his way. Mr. Hughes Hughes observed, that a regular hoax had been practised on the hon. member for Dover. Seventeen men with similar names to those inscribed on the petition had very truly sworn that they had not authorised the signatures, or themselves affixed them; but the fact was, the seventeen men who had actually signed were ready to come forward and swear that they had done so. Lord Eastnor said, that in presenting the petition to which the hon. member for Dover alluded, he had stated, that it referred to the petition of last year. He was extremely sorry that there had been any misunderstanding on the subject. He could not vouch, of course, for the correct Member presently. The hon. Member's present Motion could have no other object than to stifle inquiry. The whole of the seventeen persons whose names had been falsely affixed to the spurious petition would have signed the petition which he held in his hand, had it not been for a notion which prevailed that if they did so they would be precluded from giving evidence before the Committee, and, therefore, in order to be on sure ground, he recommended that no more than two persons should sign it. He had put his name down to present the petition two days ago, but on reflection he thought it better to leave the case as it stood. When he first stirred in the matter, he stated that he acted on his own responsibility, and by that declaration he was prepared to abide. He had undoubtedly made a misrepresentation, but the hon. member for Banbury was good enough to do him the justice to say he was convinced the misre-ness of each and every signature to the presentation must have been unintentional. He had made this statement upon the authority, or rather he should say upon the supposed authority, of the noble Lord on his right, who presented the petition. When he moved for the Committee, it was opposed by the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces. He was annoyed at the moment, that the measure before the House should be thus hindered from going on, and the noble Lord said there was no petition. He asserted that there was a petition. He believed so at the time; he had received a communication from the parties, who stated, that their desire was, to address the House, and he afterwards received a letter adding, that the petition was to be intrusted either to him or to the noble Lord, and this without delay. Several days elapsed; he looked to the precedent he had already quoted; and he thought it better to state what he petition; but he had spared no pains to ascertain their authenticity; and he had been assured by a man on whose veracity he placed the fullest reliance, and who had collected the greater number of the signatures, that they were perfectly genuine. He begged to say, that he should be inclined to dissuade the hon. member for Dover from pressing for an inquiry to prove a negative with respect to all the names, on account of the inconvenience and expense which it must necessarily occasion. He would prefer having the inquiry limited to those who described themselves as 101. householders. Mr. Abercromby said, that as he meant to concur in the Motion of the hon. member for Banbury, he wished to state the grounds upon which he did so. He certainly did not support the Motion with a view, either directly or indirectly, to suppress inquiry. He begged utterly to dis claim any such feeling. He conceived that the question which the House had to decide was, whether it was fit and proper to appoint such a Committee as that which had been granted, simply upon the assertion of an individual, without any petition for inquiry. The case which the hon. member for Dover had quoted, proved any thing but a case in favour of the position which he sought to establish, because, in that instance, the statement made was supported by the letter of an individual addressed to an hon. Member, and that hon. Member read that letter in his place in the House. That authority was equivalent to any other authority which the House would demand. The hon. Gentleman had adverted, in terms not the most courteous, to the name of Mr. Joseph Parkes. He had the authority of that Gentleman to state, that he was as ignorant of the petition to which the hon. Member had referred, until it was submitted to the House, as either the hon. and learned Gentleman or himself could be. He begged to state this upon the authority of Mr. Parkes himself, a gentleman who was as incapable of misleading him or any man as any hon. Member in that House could be; and therefore upon his authority he spoke with perfect confidence as to the accuracy of his information. Lord Granville Somerset: As a member of that Committee which the hon. and learned member for Banbury had designated as one from which justice could not be obtained, he now called upon him to consider the nature of the imputation he had cast upon the Committee, and he asked him to come forward and declare what act of the Committee, or of any member of it, had given fair ground for such an imputation. The only mistake made by the Committee arose from a mis-statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. That hon. and learned Gentleman assured the Committee, that the House had come to a vote to which it had not come; and in consequence the Committee was thrown into difficulty as to obeying the orders of the House, and at the same time conducting the inquiry with justice and impartiality. He did not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of wilful mis-statement; but when he was so prompt and eager to make charges against others, it was well for him to be reminded, that even so learned a Member as himself was sometimes liable to act incorrectly. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would now see reason to withdraw the charge he had made, when it was thus put to him. Now, as to the reasons upon which he would ground his vote. If the hon. Member had used the same arguments on the question that a Committee be granted, that he had urged that night, they might have been valid, and made the House pause before they granted an inquiry; but it was now too late, after a Committee had been appointed, witnesses brought forward, and expense incurred. There was, if not great doubt respecting the signatures to the petition, at least great irregularity concerning it; and he considered, that at the present stage, the inquiry should he suffered to proceed, which perhaps the House would originally have been justified in refusing. It was his opinion, that if the inquiry went on, the accused parties would have an ample opportunity of exculpating themselves, if they possessed the evidence necessary for that purpose, which he was far from saying they did not. Of one thing there had been the strongest assertion, and it was therefore well worth inquiring into further-namely, that many of the signatures had been most improperly obtained; and he confessed, for that, as well as for other reasons, that he did not see how the Committee could be stopped in its present stage; for if he were the most eager partisan of the persons accused, he should still think a continuance of the inquiry would be for their advantage. Surely nothing could be more unfair to their characters than to stop the inquiry after five or six witnesses had been heard. The only apprehension he had arising from the possibility of the proceedings being abruptly stopped was that he felt a strong anxiety to deliver, as it were, a just verdict; and that, of course, he could not do on imperfect testimony. It would now be inconsistent with the most obvious principles of justice to arrest the progress of the inquiry. At the commencement of all inquiries, it might be very necessary for the House to be extremely cautious how they set anything of the sort on foot, but the case was widely dif ferent when they came to deal with proceedings not only entered on but considerably advanced. It might be said, that the continuance of the inquiry would cost a certain number of pounds, and that, upon economical grounds, it ought not any further to be pursued. To that he had only to reply, that he hoped the House, however attentive to economy, would pay some regard to justice. Lord John Russell wished, that the House could have the advantage of hearing from the Chair what the usual practice in such cases had been. The Speaker said, that, as well as his experience and recollection prompted, the usual practice was, that the Committee was appointed on the complaint, and at the instance of some person or persons interested, made in some shape or other, but generally in the form of a petition. A case had been referred to, which had been brought before the House not in that form. It was true there was such a precedent; but then the complaint was made in a written letter, which gave it some sort of formality, and was read by the hon. Member to the House, which thereupon granted the Committee. In adopting this course, he (the Speaker), believed the House was influenced by the consideration that a letter had in some sort the effect of a petition, and inferred a responsibility. The House would, in this instance, exercise its own discretion, but the practice was, to take care that the grievance complained of should be substantiated by the assurance and responsibility of some party aggrieved, and therefore to require something more than a mere statement. On this practice, and believing that some person aggrieved was accessory to the complaint, the House granted the Committee. Many hon. Members and he were of opinion that a petition existed, which afterwards turned out not to be the case, as no petition had been forwarded. The Committee had been appointed, and had made some progress in their inquiry, when this was discovered to be the case, and under these circumstances the noble Lord put the question whether it would be more regular to proceed with the inquiry, or to discharge the Committee. He did not think it would be irregular to discharge the Committee. The House was at liberty to reconsider its vote upon the matter, and if it believed it more conducive to the ends of justice to discharge the Committee, the House certainly had it in its power to do so. But if the matter had already proceeded so far that there would be a difficulty in retracing its steps, and if by the inquiry, as hitherto proceeded in, matters appeared greatly involved, the House should then be guided by circumstances, and resolve accordingly. Lord John Russell observed, that when a statement was made, not in the form of a petition, but in that of a statement through HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, March 14, 1834. MINUTES.] Bills. Read a third time:-Marine Mutiny.— Read a second time:-Sugar Duties. Petitions presented. By the Earl of CAWDOR and the Earl of DURHAM, from a Number of Dissenting Congregations, -for Relief to the Dissenters.-By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from certain Inhabitants of Greenwich, against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.-By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from a Number of Places, for Protection to the Church of England.-By the Duke of WELLINGTON, the Earl of ORFORD, and Lord KENYON, from a Number of Places,-for the Repeal of the Duties on Malt and Hops.-By the Earl of DURHAM, and the Bishops of St. ASAPH, CHICHESTER, and BANGOR, from several Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath. MINUTES.] Bills. tionments. Read a third time:-Equitable Appor Petitions presented. By the Earl of KERRY, Sir ROBERT PRICE, Colonels LANGTON and WOOD, Messrs. BUCKINGHAM, PEASE, RICHARDS, PHILPOTS, RIDER, BISH, and B. KING, from a Number of Places, and Dissenting Congregations, for Relief to the Dissenters.-By Mr.WIGNEY, Colonel WOOD, and Mr. BYNG, from three Places,-for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.-By Mr. T. DUNDAS, from the Tea-dealers of York, for the Amendment of the Tea Dutics Act.-By Mr. RUTHVEN, from several Places, against Tithes in Ireland.-By Lord DALMENY, from Dunfermline and Perth,-for the Abolition of Lay Patronage in Scotland; and for the Repeal of the Stamp Duty on Receipts.-By Mr. SHAW, from Drogheda, against the Apothecaries Act; from Weathersfield, against any Measure tending to weaken the Efficiency of the Established Church.-By Mr. HARDY, from the Handloom Weavers of Bradshaw, for Relief.-By Colonel WOOD, and Mr. RIDER, from Cranbrook, &c.,- against the Duties on Malt and Hops.-By Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. RUTHVEN, from several Places,-for the Repeal of the Union.-By Mr. PEASE, from Stockton-upon-Tees, for the Abolition of Church Rates.-By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Dublin, in favour of the Kingstown Canal. IRISH FISHERIES.] Mr. O'Connell presented a Petition from the fishermen of the salmon fisheries on the rivers Barrow CASE OF MR. LAWRENCE DUNDAS.] and Nore, signed by about 1,000 persons, Mr. O'Connell said, that he had received complaining of great distress. They stated a letter from Mr. Dundas, against whose that they obtained a good livelihood until appointment as a stipendiary Magistrate about five years ago, when a company was he had on a former day remonstrated. He formed in Scotland to fish on those rivers thought it but just to the individual to with stake nets. That company was, in read it. It appeared to be dated from his opinion, perfectly illegal, by two Sta- Liverpool, on the 7th instant, and stated tutes, namely, the 28th Henry 8th, cap. that the ground of charge connected with 22, and the 10th Charles 1st, cap. 14. the police force of the county of Wexford Some time ago a private individual prose- had occurred seven years ago, when the cuted a party for using those nets on the writer had resigned his situation as Chief Shannon, and a verdict of 40s. damages Constable. He had made good all defiwas obtained, thereby establishing the ciencies to the utmost farthing that had illegality of the use of stake-nets. As, been demanded, and had appeared at the however, the Statutes did not give costs, head Police-Office of Dublin, where he the plaintiff was put to the expense of had given bail to appear to answer any 4001, and, consequently, persons, parti- charge that might be subsequently brought cularly in the condition of poor fishermen, against him. No charge had been brought, were deterred from further prosecuting, and he denied, that he had been guilty of The former Statute empowered the Sheriff any malversation in the discharge of his and his officers of the three counties of office; but having resigned it, and having Kilkenny, Carlow, and Waterford, on a large family to provide for, he had notice being given to them, to destroy applied for a situation in the colonies, the weirs. The petitioners had applied to the individual who recommended him being Sheriffs, and on their refusing to act ap-quite ignorant that he (Mr. Dundas) had plied to the Government, who, however, held any situation in Ireland. He deeply postponed any reply until a case between regretted, that Mr. O'Connell had thought the Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Smith, it necessary to bring forward the case at which was then pending in the ourt of so distant a date, when proofs of innocence King's Bench, was decided. The Court were so difficult to be procured, and of King's Bench did decide in favour of claimed the benefit of the maxim, that the noble Duke, and thereby again estab-every man was to be considered innocent lished the illegality of the weirs. They applied to the Lord Lieutenant again, and were informed that the Government would not interfere. What was the consequence? Two Statutes were distinctly violated by a wealthy company, who could easily contend against a poor man, as the notion of a poor fisherman going to law, who never in his life, perhaps, could scrape together as much money as would pay for the first process, was as wild as to dream of paying off the National Debt. He submitted to the House whether this was not a case in which the prayer of the petition ought to be attended to? They might proceed against those who violated the Statute by indictment, and in the present case there could be no difficulty. Though he had not the honour to be the legal adviser to the Irish Government, yet he had no hesitation in stating, that there was no lawyer who saw the Statutes but would tell them at once that there was a distinct mode of proceeding, and an easy remedy. Petition laid on the Table. until he had been found guilty by a Jury of his country. The hon. Member added, that in consequence of the receipt of this letter he had applied to his informant, Mr. Walker, a Member of the House, who had acted as a Magistrate of the county of Wicklow in the original investigation of the case against Mr. Dundas, and from him he had received a statement, in answer to the foregoing bold assertion of innocence, which he would also read. It represented that the original suspicion of the inaccuracy of the accounts of Mr. Dundas had arisen in 1824, and in 1827 distinct charges were brought against him. A Commission had been appointed to investigate the whole case; and on the thirteenth day of the inquiry it appeared that Mr. Dundas had given 107. to one of his clerks to go to London, promising him more money to enable him to proceed to America. The name of this clerk was M'Cann, who subsequently confessed that the evidence he had given in favour of Mr. Dundas was untrue. Mr. Dundas then pleaded illness; and being allowed to withdraw, made his escape, and war- Sir James Graham had to thank the House for the courtesy it had shown in having allowed him to advance so far in a measure of so much importance as the present without calling on him at an earlier stage to state its principles and justify its details. The subject was of a very complicated nature, and though he was at the same time deeply convinced of its importance, and that it well deserved the gravest attention of the Committee, he was afraid that he might make it neither attractive nor clear. In the first place, he had to explain the circumstances under which he had been selected to bring the matter under the notice of the House. He had been called upon to introduce the measure on the part of Government, having had the honour of serving on a Commission appointed by his Majesty to inquire into the Public Accounts, over which the right hon. Baronet, the member for Dundee, (Sir Henry Parnell) then a Member of his Majesty's Government, presided; but as his Majesty's Government had not now the honour to reckon that right hon. Gentleman as one of their colleagues, and as it was considered that a measure of such importance as the present should be brought forward by one of his Majesty's responsible advisers, although, in the presence of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Parnell), he deeply felt his unworthiness, yet, as it had been judged adviseable, he (Sir James Graham), being one of the Commission, had ventured to undertake the task. In the next place, he had to submit to the Committee some explanation of the circumstances which had led to the introduction of the measure itself, which had EXCHEQUER RECEIPT BILL.] been contemplated, in its principle at least, James Graham, in moving the further by the predecessors of the present Governconsideration of the Report on the Ex-ment, and recommended in its details by chequer Receipt Bill, said, he should post- the Commission to which he had alluded. pone his statement respecting the general First of all, then, he had to state to the scheme of the measure until the House Committee, that the importance of the resolved into a Committee for the purpose measure had received the most mature and of considering the amount of compensation anxious consideration; and perhaps he to be given to the officers who were affected might here be permitted to allude to a by this Bill. The right hon. Baronet circumstance which would appear on the moved, that the House resolve itself into a face of the Report-namely, that the late Committee to consider of the compensa- Auditor of the Exchequer, Lord Grenville, tion to be allowed for the abolition of cer- having entertained certain objections to tain offices in the establishment of his Ma❘ the proposed alterations, the feeling both jesty's Exchequer at Westminster, in conse- of the First Lord of the Treasury and the quence of the passing of any Act in the pre- Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect sent Session for the reduction of the same. to that distinguished individual had operThe House resolved itself into a Com- ated on their minds as an obstacle to the mittee. introduction of so extensive a change; but VOL. XXII. {Third Series Sir H |