The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-14 00:00:00

BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed, after the
introduction of some amendments.

LONDON-BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.

This Bill was read a second time; aud,
On the motion of the Earl of CARLISLE, the
standing orders were suspended, when the Bill was
committed, read a third time, and passed.
BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 3) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee.
LIVERPOOL WATERWORKS BILL.

On the motion of Lord MONTEAGLE, Charles
Gream, of 23, Temple-str,et, Liverpool, and Michael
Alexander Gage, were called to the bar of the House.
They were accordingly brought up.
The NOBLE LORD then proceeded to detail to their
Lordships the circumstances under which these gentlemen
had been summoned before their Lordships. It appeared
that asham petition had te en g, t up in Liverpool against
the Liverpool Water Wei kti Bill, and the fraud having bt en
discovered by the Committee on the Bill, the Chairman
brought the matter under the attention of their Lord-
ships, and, ultimately, the men who got up the petition,
and forged, or wrote, the names to it, were summoned to
the bar of the House, and after undergoing a term of
imprisonment, they were again brought to the bar, and
discharged with a reprimand. In the course of the
examination of these parties it transpired that the
two gentlemen now at the bar had been instrumental
in employing them to get up the fraudulent pe-
titions, and hence they were summoned to-day to give
some explanation of their conduct and proceedings.
These parties went round the separate houses, but, find-
ing that that was somewhat troublesome, they repaired
to a public-house and wrote down the names of hun-
dreds of imaginary persons, with imaginary descriptions,
to the petition. The extent to which that had been carried
appeared on the evidence, which showed that between
900 and 1,000 signatures appended to the petition were
entirely fraudulent. One witness said he could speak to
about 1,500 being fictitious names. A person named
Brennan, a law stationer's writer, at Liverpool,
said he had been present when the parties were
in a public-house and engaged in writing the names
of imaginary persons to the petition as quick as they
could write them. In one case they had made a mark
to the name of a man whom they described as a student.
—(A laugh.) Their Lordships had had before them the
mere agents in this nefarious practice, who were paid
their ss. or 6:. a day for obtaining signatures; but the
object of the second Committee was to discover,
it possible, the parties who employed those men.
The particular offence which it behoved their Lord-
ships to punish was, that after it came to the knowledge
of the parties that the frauds and forgeries had been
committed, they instituted no inquiry respecting
them, but, on the contrary, employed counsel
to defeat the investigation which had been set
on foot by their Lordships' House. The Noble Lord
concluded by moving that the parties at the bar bad been
guilty of a gross abuse of the privileges of the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there could
be no doubt that the subject was one of very
great importance. It appeared to the Committee that a
fraud and forgery had been committed, and that a peti-
tion had been wilfully presented to the House with a
great number of fictitious signatures attached to it. If
the circumstance was allowed to pass over without
notice, neither their Lordships nor the public would
have any security with regard to the petitions which
were presented to the House. He did not think, how-
ever, that the punishment awarded by their Lord-
ships should fall on. the humble persons who
had been made instruments in the hands of others.
It was under these,circumstances that the parties were
before their Lordships, and it was fur their Lordships
to say what steps should now be taken to prevent such
malpractice in future.
Lord BEAUMONT said the Noble and Learned
Lord had • given a correct history of the
whole proceedings, and he would confine his
observations to this simple remark, that the steps they
now took should be clear, distinct, and decisive. He
hoped the lesson to be given on this occasion would be
the means of inducing parties to be more cautious
in the petitions which they laid upon their Lordships'
table. He apprehended that there was now only one
course open to them, and that was to punish the parties.
The parties were then ordered to withdraw.
Two resolutions were then passel, declaring they had
been guilty of a gross violation of the privileges of the
House.

Lord MONTEAGLE then moved that the parties be
taken into custody.

Lord CAMPBELL suggested that they ought to be
committed for a specific period.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said before they did
that they ought to call the parties in and hear if they
had anything to say.
The parties were then called in.
The LORD CHARCELLOR then informed them of
what had transpired in their absence.
Mr. Charles Gream sail he wished to be heard by
counsel, and have witnesses examined in his favour. He
was innocent of the charge which had been made against
him.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, after the resolu-
tion of the House that application could not be granted.
What Mr. Gream had to say u.ust now be urged in mi-
tigation of the sentence.
Mr. Gream then proceeded to declare that he had been
no party to the fraud. The parties who were guilty of
that fraud were law-writers, and he and those with
whom he acted, who were the promoters of the petition,
had felt that they were proper parties to employ in
soliciting signatures to the petition. The parish
meeting to which reference had been made
had nothing whatever to do with the petition ;
it was merely called to consider out of what
fund the expenses of the opposition to the Bill were to
be defrayed. He atimiled that he had told the men
that they might put the names of ratepayers
to the petition, provided they had the authority
of those ratepayers so to do, but only on such authority
being given to them. He contended that the evidence
of the man Planche was not worthy of credit. He
would state a small circumstance with respect
to him ; in giving an account of his expenses
in coming to attend the Select Committee of Inquiry,
he actually told a falsehood for the sake of
4s. 6d. in misrepresenting his fare on the rail-
way from Liverpool to London. He (Mr. Gream,)
felt that in this matter he had been actuated by only Lair'
and upright motives, and with not the slightest intention
to deceive their Lordships. As ha hoped to stand before a
higher tribunal than that, he declared his innocence, and
that in presenting the petition in question to the House
he thought he was presenting a petition to their Lord-
ships' House which could not be challenged.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—MichaeI Alexander
Gage, have you any thing' to urge in extenuation or ex-
planation to the House?
Mr. Gage replied in the affirmative, and proceeded to
vindicate himself and the committee over which he had
presided as chairman. The principal charge which had
been brought against them was that they did not take
sufficient pains to inform themselves of the genuineness
of the signatures attached to the petition. But the fact
was, that in consequence of the second reading of the
Bill having been fixed for a very early day in their
Lordships' House, there were but two days to get up
the petition, and the Committee had not time minutely
to investigate the character of a number of signatures
which amounted to upwards of 18,000. He then read
copious extracts from the evidence he had given before
the Select Committee, for the purpose of exculpating
himself from the charge of having participated in the
fraud, by showing that he had given instructions to the
parties entrusted with the duty of obtaining signatures
for the purpose of securing bona fide signatures only.
He maintained that he had been not only cautious but
overcautious. He complained that there bad been an
unjust bearing against him and others, and was about to
refer to a speech of Lord Beaumon►, as reported in the
Times.
The LORD CHANCELLOR told him he could not
refer to anything in the newspapers that purported to be
an account of what had been said in that House.

Mr. Gage said he would then refer to the evidence,
and was understood to cite answers given by himself ex-
plaining his conduct. He said that when it was heard
that their petition was impugned, they determined to
wait patiently, as they were sure that justice would be
done by their Lordships. They had abundance of wit-
nesses to answer the charge if it had been their Lord-
, ships wish to hear them; and they did not desire to tres-
pass on their Lordships' time. It was his conviction
that this was a deep-laid conspiracy for the purpose of
defeating justice; and he hoped they would yet bring to
light the authors of this iniquity. As to imposing upon
their Lordships' House it was the farthest from his
thoughts; for he ventured to say there was not a man in
her Majesty's dominions who had a deeper veneration
for this branch of the Legislature than himself.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was his be-
lief that persons in the situation of life of those who now
stood at that bar—that persons like those must suffer
severely from falling under their Lordships' displeasnre.
They were considered by their Lordships to interfere
with the right of petition, and he must say that he was
not aware of the abuse ever being carried to a greater
extent; and he was convinced that the persons who did
this were fully conscious of what they were doing by the
cautions they gave when this was attempted—that they
were anxious that the persons they employed should be
cautious in what they
.did so as to escape detection.
Thus the caution was given to b 3 a protection to the
authors of what was attempted in case it should after-
wards be discovered. If their Lordships had dealt out
punishment to those by whom the mischief had been
effected they could not spare those who were the authors
of that mischief. They must award such amount of
punishment as would vindicate the authority of their
Lordships, and secure the right of petition. This
they would do, although their disposition was
to be as lenient as their public duty would
enable them to be. The heaviest portion of the
punishment for the persons who had stood at the :Jar
would be, on men of their station in society—an attor-
ney and an engineer—would be that which they would
suffer when the punishment imposed by their Lordships
had terminated. An attorney censured by their Lord-
ships would find that his reputation was injured, and the
suffering, therefore, inflicted upon him would be of a
serious nature. The other, an engineer, must isnsof
the
course of his duty have to appear before
I
he H
Parliament, and what now occurred could not buet be
brought forward to his discredit whenever he was exa-
mined. They had brought
aubpdonthth that he
a pu-
nishment that would b
Would be a consideration with their Lordships winaawshearte-
ever punishment they did inflict. With regard to these