The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-14 00:00:00

PETERSFIELD ELECTION COMMITTEE.
The Cl rk at the table read (from the revised list) the
names of the Election Committee balloted for upon the
petition against the return for Peter:field, as follow :
11. J. Winnington, W. Turner, S. White, C. C. Casen-
dish, R. M. Bellew, .1. E. Wein) ss, J. Maher, W. Wilkins,
and J. Ramsbottom—Liberals. Lord Viscount Northland and
J. S. Blackburne—Tories.
PENSION LIST.
Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY rose to bring forward hi!
motion fixed for this evening—that the name of D. W, Hare
vey, Esq., should be added to the Select Committee upon the
Pension List. Before he proceeded, he begged to put a uest,
Lion to any Member of the Government; but the Hon. hem,
ber was interrupted by
Mr. F. FRENCH, who said that he had the precedencot
of the Hon. Member for Marylebone, inasmuch as /10 h 11.4 4 Mot tion respecting a Breach of Privilege.
Sir S. WHA LLE Y gave way. Mr. FRENCH then said that be had thought, In wee. quence of the decision in a case brought forward b'. the lion.,
Member for Carrickfergus, that his proposed tneetion would be
acceded to as a matter of course, as it Was founded on the
circumstance that some of' the names to a petition wore forged.
But as be understood that it was the intention of some
tlemen to oppose the motion, he should be obliged to takgeenws-
the time of the House by referring to precedents in support of ht.'ls
o u
motion. Three petitions had been presented, complai-
r' g f iini the ae
undue return for the borough of Sligo ; the one in
`.vhc l
ler, but trh'ea
cognize:ices had been perfected was from Jobe' Ty
sitting Member could, if allowed to do to, bring evil
to prove that Tyler had himself earnitted the signature to
his petition purporting to be his, was not in his hen-n_weitine. Now, in 1689, the House had, come to a leesoltition that the
names of petitioners should be affixed to their petitions in their
own hand-writing. The Hor.:se had steadily adhered to that
precedent, and had units- may rejected every petition not so
signed, both befot,e e-A .
the passing of the Grenville
sated, I
se, e d since.of . ~..orc the passing that Act, it was the
Testoin of the House to hear evidence at the bar, or to refer
the case to the Committee of Privileges appointed at the com-
mencement of the Session.—( Hear, hear.) Since the passing
of the Act, the House had invariably, on application calling
in question the authenticity of the signature to an elec-
tion petition, referred the matter to a Select Committee.
He (Mr. F.) would first refer to precedents before the passing
of the Grenville Act. He could only find two cases prior to
that period. One was the case of Mr. Burgess (as we under-
stood), 17th Vol. of the Journals. In that case the name of a
petitioner had not been affixed to the petition in his own:hand-
writing. The petition was rejected by the House, without even
a division. The next case to which he would refer them, was that
of Colonel Erskine. A petition was presented from this gentle-
man against the return for the borough of Stirling, and notice
having been taken that it was not signed by th petitioner,
it was ordered that it be referred to the Committee
of Privileges. . It was hardly necessary for him to tell the
House, that at the time this petition was presented, which
was in March, 1730, these petitions were always decided by
tire Committee of Privileges. In referring Colonel Erskine's
Ew...:alOn to the Committee, it was moved as an instruction to
them, that they should examine the manner in which
it was signed. The Committee found that the petition had
not been duly signed by Colonel Erskine, and on the fith of
March, it was ordered to be discharged. There was next
tl:c case of Lord Barrymore. A petition was presented from
the Borough of Abingdon, stating that the petition lodged by
him against the return for that Borough, had not been signed
by Lord Barrymore himself. A gentleman, named Harvey,
who had signed the petition by the direction and in the name
of Lord Barrymore, and the petitioner himself, were exa-
mined before the Committee on the subject ; and although
Lord Barrymore stated that Mr. Harvey had signed the
petition for him,: and that it was his petition, the
House ordered it to be discharged.—(llear, hear.) On
the 12th of April, 1735, a petition was presented from
certain electors of Bristol, setting forth the surprise which
they felt at a petition which had been presented from that
town, which professed to be signed with their names. On
the 7th of April, the petition was by leave withdrawn.
The next case was that of Nicholas Robinson, of Wootton
Basset, on the 2d of December, 1742. That petition was
not signed by the petitioner, and on the 10th of December it
was ordered by the House that Mr. Robinson be at liberty to
withdraw his petition. It was not necessary for him to go on
with these precedents._(Hear.) lie would now come to
the passing of the Grenville Act, since which a more strin-
gent enforcement of the law of Parliament in respect to the
signine of petitions had taken place, and it had been held a
breach of the privileges of the House for any person to affix
the signature of another. The resolution of November, 1689,
vas, that it was highly unwarrantable, and a breach of the
privileges of the House for any person to affix the sig.
nature of any other person to be presented to the House.
The next case to which he would refer were those of the
31 June, 1784, complaining of the return for Bristol, and the
petition of John Moxon on the 28th June, 1819, regarding
the case of John Burton, a Member of the House im-
prisoned for debt. On the Ist of December, 1826, a petition
was presented from Athlone, which was referred to a Select
Committee, which reported that certain signatures attached to
the petition were not genuine, and they considered that Thomas
Flannagan was cognizant of the forgery. Another case
was on the 15th November, 1830, when a petition was pre-
sented from Carrickfergus against the return of Lord G. Hill.
They stated that the petition was signed by certain persons,
and a Committee was ordered to report upon it. In that case
there were two petitions, the one of which was perfectly regu-
lar, and upon which the Committee decided that Lord Hill
was duly elected, but a Committee was appointed to inquire
into the alleged forgeries; and in neither of the cases of Ath-
lone or Carrickfergus had the House hesitated in appointing
the Committee. They decided that petitions so circum-
stanced affected the privileges of that House ; and he lied
yet to learn what reasons could be urged by hit
Honourable and Gallant Friend in opposition to the motion
eith which he vas about to conclude. Ho certainly
did not anticipate any opposition from the Hon. Member for
Oxford, by whom the petition in the Carrickfergus case had
been brought under the consideration of the house ; and, he
must add, that he did not anticipate any objection from the
Right Hon. Member for Merionethshire, or the Right
Honourable Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, by whom
he had been supported. He should conclude by moving, that
a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the mariner
of signing the petition against the return for the Borough of
Sligo, and report to the House thereupon.
Colonel PERCE VAL felt it his duty to move an amend-
ment to the motion of his lion. Friend the Member fur Ros-
common, riot for the purpose of stifling the inquiry, or that he
had the slightest doubt that the petition was signed
by the parties whose names were attached to it.--( Hear. )
He was induced to adopt that course for the purpose
of preventing the great inconvenience and injury which
would result to certain parties connected with the case. It
was his intention to move, as an amendment, that the parties
be called to the bar of the house and examined upon
oath, and it would then be for the House to de-
cide upon the course it should adopt.—((pear, hear.)
He must he permitted to express his regret that his
Honourable Friend, the Member for the County of Ros-
common, had not given him due notice of his inten-
tion to present the present petition, and the objects
which it had in view. If he had done so, he (Colonel P.)
could lure produced at the Bar of the House the three gentle-
men whose names were said to have been forged to the peti-
tion. It was true that the Hon. Member had stated to him
( Col. P.) that it was his intention to present a petition,
but he did not state what its object was. He therefore could
not but complain, as Member for Sligo, that it had not been
made known to hint what the object of the petition
was.—( Hear, hear.) He could not but say that the pe-
tition was brought forward at the eleventh hour, for
the purpose of stifling that inquiry which was about to
take place. The petition was presented on the 13th, when it
was well known that the Committee was to sit on the 15th j
and if the prayer of the present petition was granted, what
would be the consequence ? Why, that the witnesses who were
to give evidence before that Committee would be kept in town
at a very great expense. Ile was an advocate for the most
extended justice, but he would ask whether it was justice at
the eleventh hour to come forward with a petition praying
fur a Select Committee. He would be enabled, if he was per..
mitted, to show, by the testimony of a respectable professional
gentleman iir Dublin, Mr. Moffat, at whose desk Tyler tsigned.
the petition, that that signature was genuine. Tide lion,
and Gallant Member concluded by moving as an amendment,
that the parties who had signed the petition be forthwith
called and examined at the bar.
Mr. F. FRENCH assured the House and his lion. and
Gallant Friend that the petition only came into his hands
yesterday at four o'clock ; and he had given all the notice in
his power.
Colonel PE R CEVA L had not intended to cast theti slightest
imputation upon his Hon. Friend,
Mr. WARBURTON quite agreed with the Honourable
and Gallant Member for Sl. go, that it would be the
better mode of settling the business to hear witnesses
at tire bar. He understood that the petitioner contended
that none of the signatures to the petition were genuine—if it
was proved that even cue was so, he would hold that the
petition was valid. He however thought that the petitioner
was the party to begin, and he should be asked whether he was
prepared witli evidence to prove his allegations.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that as reference had been
made to the Carrickfergus petition, he would mention what
he believed to have been the state of the House on that occa-
sion. In 1830 a petition was presented, complaining
of an undue return for the borough of Carrickfergus.
The House agreed that that petition should be taken into
consideration on a future day ; and on the 16th of December,
he ( Sir R. Inglis) presented a petition from the sitting
Member, stating that a number of signatures to the pe-
tition, against his return had been forged, and praying
that the allegations might be inquired into, and that
the petition against the return might be forthwith discharged.
The House conceded the first part of the prayer, but refused
the second. In the present instance the House was called
upon to avoid a Select Committee, by hearing evidence at
the bar, Tile amendment of his Hon. and Gallant Friend was
a eery simple one, namely, that an individual be called
upon at the Bar, to swear that he saw the greater number of
the persons whose names were annexed to the petition actually
sign it. If the petition were signed by one person only, it
would he as good as if it were signed by 30. He did not think
th,t there was any reason why the inquiry should be post-
poned, inasmuch as sufficient evidence was at hand, and.
could he produced at the Bar at once.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
all parties seemed agreed that the subject matter of the com-
plaint was such, that the Ileetse was bound to inquire into it.
Now, the only vesitleat between the Gallant Officer opposite