now endeavouring to pass into law, and PARLIAMENT-BREACH OF PRIVILEGE that their names were appended to the -FICTITIOUS PETITIONS. Special Report [22nd July] considered. MR. C. FORSTER rose to move that the Order of the 11th day of this instant July, "That the Petition of the Inhabitants of Manchester, Salford, and district, praying for alterations in Sale of Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill, do lie upon the Table," be read, and discharged, and that the said Petition be rejected. The hon. Gentleman said this was the third occasion during the last seven years that it had been his duty to make a special Report to the House upon a Petition. In the first case it was found that there were a number of forged signatures, and a Committee of Investigation was appointed, over which he had the honour to preside. That Committee brought home the forgeries to the guilty persons, and they were committed to Newgate for the remainder of the Session. That was at the beginning and not at the end of the Session, however; and in that case there was a clue to guide the Committee in their inquiries. But in in this case there was no clue, and as Parliament would very soon be prorogued, he felt that he should not be justi- | fied in proposing the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, which would occasion some expenditure of time and labour, with no certainty that it would not be so much time and labour lost. At the same time, it would not be consistent with the dignity of Parliament to allow the matter to be passed over, and after much reflection, and taking counsel with the highest authorities, he was of opinion that the simplest and most convenient course would be to follow the precedent of the Halifax Petition in 1867, and to move that the Order be discharged and the Petition rejected. The present Petition had all the characteristics of the one from Halifax. In the case of the Halifax Petition there was a wanton invention of names, but not the use of forged signatures. No doubt, the House would be amused to hear some things in connection with the Petition, and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Department would be surprised to find that two of his Colleagues sitting on the Treasury Bench were opposed to the Bill, which he, in the name of the Government, was Petition. The name of the Prime Minister appeared twice-first as "William Ewart Gladstone, Scotland," and next as "William Ewart Gladstone, London; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was irreverently described as "Bob Lowe," was also represented as a supporter of the Petition. Then followed the names of other Members of the House, including the hon. Member for the city of Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), the noble Lord the Member for Argyleshire (the Marquess of Lorne), the right hon. Member for Birmingham, who was described as "John Bright, of Anne Street, Manchester," and there also appeared the name of the Marquess of Hastings as M.P. for Oldham. There were also, he was sorry to say, some disgraceful signatures. According to the Return furnished by the Clerk to the Committee there were 117 fictitious names; but disgraceful as that was, he should not have moved its rejection had it not appeared on a close examination that more than half of the signatures were in the same handwriting. Under these circumstances, the House might fairly treat the Petition as a fraud, and follow the precedent which was set in the Halifax case. If it should be considered that this was a harsh measure with regard to the bona fide signatures, his reply must be that the promoters should have exercised greater caution in the choice of agents. He was not prepared to charge the promoters of the Petition with being cognizant of this fraud; for he had no doubt that in this as in other cases fly sheets had been entrusted to inferior agents, who were paid according to the number of signatures they obtained, and who, in order to secure the promised reward, had taxed their ingenuity to find names to make up the requisite number. Considering the large number of bond fide signatures attached to the Petition, if the parties were prepared to offer explanations with the view of getting the Petition restored, and should instruct any hon. Member to move for a Committee, he should not oppose the Motion, although he should decline to serve on the Committee. He denied the rumour that the Committee on Public Petitions had been led to examine this Petition at the instigation of the United Kingdom Alliance, and said their attention was directed to the supposed character of the Petition by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), who only discharged his duty in giving information respecting a Petition which came from his own constituency. It was scarcely necessary to say that if their attention had been drawn to Petitions on the other side of this question a similar course would have been pursued, for the Committee knew no distinction of parties. Having made their Report they desired now to leave the matter with the House, merely remarking that the sacred and constitutional right of petitioning would degenerate into a farce if such proceedings were allowed to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member concluded by moving the rejection of the Petition. MR. JACOB BRIGHT said, it was on his suggestion that this Petition was examined, for finding that the Petition was suspected in Manchester he thought it fair to the promoters that inquiry should be made; and, on the other hand, he considered that it would be very unfair, if the Petition was dishonest, that the great constituency of Manchester should be misrepresented in that House. It was stated by one of the promoters at the Home Office that the Petition would have 91,000 signatures; whereas there turned out to be only 69,000. The promoters did not think proper to submit the Petition for presentation to one of the Members for Manchester and Salford, but asked the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) to present it. That hon. and learned Gentleman had been attacked most unfairly for the course he had taken, for he acted in perfect fairness. It might be observed from this Petition how difficult it was in Manchester to get a Petition numerously signed in favour of extending the hours for the sale of drink; because from the justices on the bench to the poorest man and woman in the streets, there was a general feeling that these hours should be limited, while very wide support was given to the Bill of the Home Secretary upon this question. He ventured to say that no evidence could be adduced to prove that the temperance people had tampered with this Petition. COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN regretted that the hon. Member (Mr. Jacob Bright) had introduced the question of the feeling of the town of Manchester on the subject-matter of the Petition, for this was merely a matter in which the credit of the House and of certain parties to the Petition was involved. He thought the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. C. Forster) had taken the proper course in moving simply that the Order should be discharged. At the same time, if the period of the Session had permitted he should have been in favour of an inquiry, for unless measures were taken to prevent the recurrence of cases of this kind the right of Petition would become a farce. He had received letters from the neighbourhood of Manchester intimating that the false signatures had not been affixed by the promoters, but by persons who differed from their views. He declined to accept that explanation, and he hoped the House would not receive any explanation of that kind. In a future Session it might be found proper to institute an investigation. There was often too much elasticity in the getting up of Petitions; but there had seldom been a grosser abuse than this. MR. SERJEANT SIMON said, he had communicated with the hon. Members. for Manchester and Salford before he presented this Petition, and he might explain that the promoters selected him, as they stated, because, having practised many years on the Northern Circuit, he was well known in Lancashire, and also because he represented what they regarded as a working-class constituency. The deputation whom he accompanied to the Home Secretary assured him that the greatest care had been exercised in getting up the Petition. In fact, no one could have supposed that men of such intelligence could have been so foolish as to send a Petition in this manner; and he believed still that those whom he saw knew nothing of these transactions. The moment his attention was called to these improper signatures he communicated with the parties, as he stated on a former occasion; and the statements in the letter to which he then referred he was bound to say remained wholly unsupported by any evidence. If an inquiry was instituted he should be happy to serve on the Committee and do all in his power to unravel the mystery and bring the offenders to the Bar of the House. MR. WHEELHOUSE alluded to the means adopted in large towns to obtain signatures to monster Petitions, and mentioned a Sheffield Petition which he said had been improperly signed. MR. CANDLISH expressed a hope that this matter would not be allowed to drop, but that the subject would be brought before the House at the beginning of next Session. He wished to know whether the parties guilty of this gross offence were not answerable to criminal procedure for forgery? NAVY-NAVAL RESERVES - MANNING MR. GRAVES, in rising to move "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the present means of manning the Navy, the Naval Reserves, and to consider whether the keeping up of the requisite supply of men for the services of the seamen of the Mercantile Marine and the seafaring population generally, might not be made more readily available for the Naval Service of the country in times of sudden emer gency or war," said:-The House will probably remember that towards the close of last Session I submitted for its consideration a Motion MR. BRUCE replied that there had been no attempt to defraud individuals, though undoubtedly this was an fraudulent abuse of the right of petitioning. SIR WILFRID LAWSON said, that similar in terms to the one I desire to as his name had been attached to the propose to-day. The sense of the House Petition, he begged to assure the House was not then taken in consequence of an that if he had put his signature to the assurance given by the First Lord of the document, it would not have been at a Admiralty that he would, on the responsober moment. He could not imagine a sibility of the Government, submit a more gross outrage upon that House scheme to Parliament this Session for and the public than had been committed dealing with the subject-matter of my in this case, and regretted that the Com-Resolution. The assurance was conveyed mittee on Public Petitions had not arin these wordsrived at a different conclusion, or that the authorities of the House had not taken the matter in hand. MR. BRUCE said, there could be no doubt that the attempt to deceive that House on points on which it was anxious to ascertain the wishes of the people was a very great offence. The adoption of the Motion would not preclude the House from appointing a Select Committee next Session, and he hoped that during the Recess some means would be taken of detecting the offenders. "I would suggest, therefore, that the hon Member for Liverpool should be content with the discussion which has arisen, and should not press his Motion to a division, being assured that the Government will attempt to deal with this matter, and will endeavour, on their own responsibility, to submit to Parliament a proposal in reference to it in the course of next Session. If the Government scheme shall be deemed inadequate, or if it shall be thought desirable to collect more information, it will then be in the power of the hon. Member to renew his Motion for a Commission." [3 Hansard, cevi. 1633.] The right hon. Gentleman was then but two months in office. I felt his appeal was reasonable, and having the fullest confidence in his ability to grapple with the question in a large and comprehensive spirit, I accepted his proposal, though I did not doubt then, nor have I doubted since, that the course I suggested would probably prove the more valuable mode for guiding this House to a right conclusion. We are now very near the close of another Session, and as no scheme has been laid on the Table of this House, I have thought it right to afford the First Lord an opportunity of unfolding his scheme, in order that I might, if I deemed it inadequate, take the sense of the House on it at the opening of next Session. It is not my intention to-day to enter into the subject so minutely as I felt was necessary on a former occasion. I do not wish to oc cupy the time of the House one moment tary strength is equal to any possible longer than is necessary to put my views emergency. Now, what I desire to see clearly before it; besides, the question is our naval power supported by Reserves is better understood, and there are indi- which would be to the Navy what our cations that the public mind of the coun- Wimbledon Volunteers are to the Army. try is becoming more alive to the neces- There is no reason why we should not sity of laying down a clearer and better have such Reserves. We possess a loyal, defined policy as to what are the real hardy, brave, seafaring population, just requirements of the country-what, in as able and willing to defend our shores fact, is sufficient for times of peace, and as our citizen soldiers are our soil-a necessary for a great war; and having race living on and by the sea, capable arrived at the best conclusions we can, of acquiring the same high efficiency in then to base on that policy our naval the working of large guns and gunboats and military expenditure, in place of as our Volunteers have shown in the use resting our expenditure, as is our habit, of field guns and rifles; and yet with on no settled principle, and without any such natural materials at hand we have consideration for the offensive and de- made but sorry progress in utilizing fensive requirements of the country. If them. We have, it is true, good reason we keep up great fleets and large armies for relying on our fleets for offensive through times of peace, the less thought and defensive purposes; they are powerwe need give to our Reserves; but if, on ful, and manned by the sons of the men the other hand, we aim at keeping down who fought at Trafalgar; but we must our annual expenditure on our Army not overlook the fact that a naval disasand Navy, and still be ready for war— ter now, come from what course it maywhich we all know is the desire and the storm, accident to hull, or machinery, or interest of the nation-then, I say, there an enemy-will be a much more serious is but one way of accomplishing this, and event than when in past times halfthat is to have large Reserves trained, a-dozen ships could be ordered home to drilled, ready for the manning of our refit without materially weakening the fleets, our gunboats, and our transports strength of a fleet. The disabling of a -Reserves which can be maintained single ship may now decide the fate of a through long years of peace in the ordi- naval engagement. If we desire to feel nary industrial avocations of the country, absolute security to prevent the recurand which can be relied on in periods rence of periodical panics, and the lavish of emergency. The experience of recent expenditure which invariably follows years clearly shows the policy of non- panics, we must pay greater attention intervention which England has of late to our Reserves. We must have a comlaid down for her general guidance is prehensive and voluntary system of coast not a policy that leads to international defence; we must have gunboats in friendships; on the contrary, it is calcu- every port and estuary that will underlated to weaken alliances. When the take to man them; the boats are easily American struggle and the Franco- provided, they cost a comparatively small Prussian War terminated, we heard more sum each, and can be built in a few or less dissatisfaction with England ex-months; the men who would man them pressed by each of the contending parties; so I fear it ever will be, that a policy of non-intervention is regarded as a selfish policy, directly leading to isolation in the end; and we must not shut our eyes to the fact that the nation which adopts it must be prepared to rely upon her own resources and her own strong arm for resisting unaided every attack, come from what quarter it may. No one could have attended that remarkable gathering at Wimbledon a few days since and have witnessed the marvellous efficiency of the competitors, or the spirit which animated them, without feeling satisfied that with such Reserves our mili are just as easily obtainable, but it will take time to drill and train them. At all our principal ports we have a large sea-going population of pilots, watermen, riggers, and naval pensioners; 150,000 or more fishermen surround our shores, familiar with every bank and channel, the set of every tide, and who, knowing every inch of the coast, would attach themselves to their gunboats, handle the heavy guns after a time as readily as they do their oars, and who could in the face of any pressing danger be relied on to fight in defence of their shores, though they might have a repugnance to leaving their own homes. at Beaumaris, Amlwch, Holyhead, and Carnarvon, If there are any who regard such a pro- | be found four important recommendaposal as visionary or impracticable, they tions-That Coastguard service afloat know but little of the resources of our and ashore should be 12,000; it is now ports, still less of the spirit which ani- 4,252. That the Royal Coast Volunteers mates our seafaring population. It is should be kept up to 10,000; they are only a few weeks since the First Lord now reduced to 1,517. That the Royal vaguely intimated that if men could be Naval Reserve, composed of the best found to work gunboats, the Govern- seamen in the Mercantile Marine, should ment would not be indisposed to provide be instituted, with a limit of 31,000. them. The mere suggestion was suffi- This force was over 16,000 in 1869, cient; a public meeting was held, and I 15,000 in 1870, 13,500 when I last understand sufficient men have volun- spoke on the subject, and is to-day teered to man four or five gunboats. A 12,400. But perhaps the most imgentleman conversant with the spirit portant feature in the Report was that that animates the Scotch ports, writes at all our principal ports training-ships me that in Dundee alone there would be should be established, in which the careno difficulty in creating a naval brigade fully-selected, robust youths of the counfor local purposes of 400 to 500 men; try should be trained conjointly for the and the marine superintendent of a Navy and the Mercantile Marine serleading railway-himself a distinguished vices. We are to-day without a single naval officer-writes me in reference to ship for such a purpose, nor have we my proposalone receiving the slightest aid from the Admiralty. It is true the Admiralty has "The expense of this, the first step towards a complete system of coast defence would be organized a very extensive, and I must trifling, excepting the first cost of the boats, and say admirable, system for the recruiting would, I think, suffice to protect each place of its own seamen, and the result is the against anything but an organized attack. Take, seamen of the Navy have kept pace with for instance, this district, with a gunboat stationed the highly-skilled requirements of our a glance at the chart will show you that under ships, and in physique, discipline, trainalmost any circumstances, at least two of these ing, and intelligence cannot be surcould be concentrated in a very short time, and passed. The boys thus trained are in narrow waters would prove a formidable foe only sufficient to keep up the normal to any sea-going vessel. Were the boats pro- strength of the Navy, which is now establishment as would suffice to protect this about 18,000 blue-jackets just a harbour from any ordinary attack by sea. No sufficient number to man our ships in doubt, many companies trading from other ports periods of profound peace. For sudcould do the same, and the trifling outlay neces- den and prolonged emergencies we have, sary to keep the vessels from rusting would be therefore, to rely on our Reserves, and it well repaid by the additional security to property is for this reason it has always appeared in the event of war. At present, we have no means of resisting the attack of even a steam- to me that their quality and strength were just as deserving of attention as the number and strength of the Forces we relied on to resist the first shock of war, and yet the condition of the Mercantile Marine, or the mode by which it is recruited, has received but small consideration at the hands of any Government since that Commission reported. We had in our Mercantile Marine, in 1865, 197,000 of all grades, and it was then shown by official Returns that 72,000 of this number were A.B.'s. It is much to be regretted that the Board of Trade discontinued the separation, for we have no Returns of later date; but as in 1870 the total number was 195,000, or 2,000 less than in 1865, though the tonnage in that time has increased, I am warranted in saying there were not more than 72,000 vided, I could easily organize such a force in my launch." From other quarters I have received the same assurances, and I am persuaded that if we can but induce Her Majesty's Government to utilize by a comprehensive scheme the unrivalled resources which we possess round our shores, they would be consulting the best interests of the country. The steady diminution which is taking place in our Reserves generally cannot fail to attract the attention of the most casual observer. It is, in fact, the strong point of my case. The Manning Commission, which sat in 1861, was composed of some of our ablest statesmen; the present Secretary of State for War was the Chairman; there were also distinguished naval officers upon it, and Members of this House. In the Report of this Commission will |