MR. SPOONER wished the Bill not to

be pressed this Session. The county courts objected to the operation of the Bill, which would place increased duties on those courts without a proportionate increase of remuneration. He must move that the Bill be postponed.

SIR G. GREY had stated distinctly that the Bill would be brought forward, so that there was not any reason to complain that it came upon the House by surprise. The measure related to matters on which great and almost personal alarm existed, and a delay at that period would amount to a rejection of the Bill. With respect to the judges of the county courts, who would be affected by its operation, it should be remembered that power was placed in the hands of Government to increase the salaries of those officers; but he objected to those gentlemen coming to the House, through the medium of Members, to stipulate for an increase of salary, and he hoped that that would not be made a ground for delaying the Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE thought fair ground had been alleged to call on Government to postpone the consideration of this Bill.

MR. AGLIONBY said, the question now raised was, as to additional remuneration to persons connected with the county courts. That was no valid reason for postponing the measure. The present was not a time to stop an important public measure on an incidental question of an increase of salaries to county court judges.

MR. HENLEY said, many hon. Members on his side of the House wished to have time to consider the report which had been recently placed in their hands. There certainly ought to be further time allowed for the consideration of this Bill; to afford | which, he should now move that the House do adjourn.

MR. HENLEY said, Government had no right to say any unfair delay was contemplated. Some further information had come out recently, which ought to be considered before the Bill went forward. No opposition would be offered to the Bill on Monday next.

Third Reading postponed till Monday

The BISHOP of SALISBURY presented petitions against this Bill, and after expressing a strong opinion against the policy of the measure, asked the Government if it was their intention to proceed further with it in the course of the present Session? Many noble Lords who intended to oppose the Bill were now absent, and among others the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench.

The EARL of ST. GERMANS said, that he saw no reason for not proceeding with it in the present Session.

LORD BROUGHAM thought that this was rather too short a notice for the second reading of such a Bill; at the same time, he intimated it to be his opinion that it would not be expedient to postpone the decision on the Bill till next Session. He trusted that the noble Earl would consider

The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH, though he thought that this Bill was a bad one, was nevertheless favourable to the object of it. He therefore hoped that his noble Friend would not bring it forward during the present Session, but would let it be remodelled during the recess. Thursday was too early a day for the second reading. As a sincere friend to the object of the Bill, he recommended the noble Earl to take no further step with regard to it during the present year.

LORD STANLEY declared himself to be an opponent, not only of the Bill itself, but also of its object. Still he thought that every great measure should have the advantage of a full, free, and impartial discussion. He had previously entered his protest, on many occasions, against the mode in which their Lordships (perhaps inevitably) were compelled to deal with important Bills towards the close of a Session, and he repeated his protest upon this occasion. He reminded his noble Friend (the Earl of St. Germans) that there was at the present moment a decreasing feeling in favour of this Bill, and an increasing feeling in opposition to it. It had now lain upon the table for a week or ten days, without a single step being made in its progress. It was a Bill which might originate in that House at the commencement of the next Session. If it were then negatived it would be disposed of for the next Session; and if it were carried, it would go down to the House of Commons with the recommendation of their Lordships in its favour, and might then undergo a fair discussion in the other House of Parliament. If he recollected rightly, it had only been carried this year in the House of Commons by a bare majority of ten voices.

The EARL of ST. GERMANS said, he would take till to-morrow to consider of the course he ought to pursue with regard to the measure.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE - LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.

The Order of the Day being read, for the attendance of Joseph Byrne, law writer, Joseph Hinde, warehouseman, and Duncan M'Arthur, book-keeper, all of Liverpool, at the bar of this House at five o'clock, in reference to their conduct with regard to the signatures to the petition of

House on the 17th of June last) praying to be heard by counsel against the Liverpool Corporation Water Works Bill: The Yeoman Usher informed the House that they were in attendance; they were called in: Then William Kent Fletcher, the short-hand writer who took the evidence given by the said Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur 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 Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur, the evidence was read to them.

After the evidence given by Joseph Byrne had been read over to him,

said

The LORD CHANCELLOR Joseph Byrne, you have heard the evidence which you gave before the Select Committee read over to you. Have you any explanation to give of your conduct, or of your reasons for attaching fictitious names to that petition, and for signing the names of other persons who gave you no authority to do so?

Joseph Byrne.-My Lord, when I was first engaged upon this business I went out with the intention of soliciting names as signatures to the petition. It was then my intention to obtain none but legitimate signatures. I got a few persons to sign the petition on the first day. On the next day I went out at eight o'clock in the morning upon the same business; and after 11 hours' great exertion in the one street, I was only able to procure about 80 signatures. When I went to the confederation shop in the evening I saw one gentleman with nine sheets, and another with six sheets of signatures, which purported to have been honestly obtained. I then thought upon the way petitions were got up, and I said to myself I don't see why I should not adopt the same plan of obtaining signatures. I have no other explanation to give.

66

The LORD CHANCELLOR: You may withdraw.

The LORD CHANCELLOR put the same question to Joseph Hinde.

Joseph Hinde.-The explanation I have to offer is, that Mr. Graves told me that if I could get persons to sign the petition, it would be all right.

The LORD CHANCELLOR : Have you any further explanation to make? Hinde.-No, my Lord.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: You may withdraw.

His Lordship then repeated the question to Duncan M'Arthur.

Duncan M'Arthur.-My Lord, a friend induced me to come here and to tell your Lordship the system under which petitions of this kind were got up. It is much against my inclination that I should have connnected myself with such a system. When I came to your Lordships' bar to be solemnly sworn as I thought, I did not expect that you would have turned round and have read the evidence given before the Committee against me. As regards my conduct in this matter, I am just the same as every other person similarly engaged to impose upon your Lordships.

He was then ordered to withdraw. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that their Lordships now had before them the evidence given by these three individuals before the Select Committee, and the statements which they had made at the bar in explanation of it. The effect of that evidence and of those statements was, that each of them had been employed, and paid for their labour, in procuring the signatures of ratepayers adverse to a Bill before Parliament; but that, instead of acting honestly in their employment, they had adjourned to a public-house, and there put down names at random, in some cases attaching to the petition the names of actual persons, who had not given them any authority so to act. They had resorted to various other courses to deceive the persons by whom they were employed. In one case, one of the individuals who had just been removed from the bar had absolutely wetted himself with water forced from a pump, in order to induce his employers to believe that he had been out all day in the rain canvassing for signatures. It was a serious offence to endeavour to impose on their Lordships in such a way, and to procure attention to their petition by the number of names falsely attached to it. It was of importance that their Lordships should be satisfied of the genuineness of the petitions presented to them, and that the parties who practised any deception upon them in that respect should be severely punished. He therefore moved, "That Joseph Byrne, law writer, of Liverpool, in having subscribed the names of certain persons without their authority to the petition, purporting to be a petition of ratepayers of Liverpool against the Liverpool Corporation Water Works Bill (pre

sented to this House on the 17th of June last), and in having signed many fictitious names to the said petition, is guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of this House."

After a few words from Lord Brougham, Resolved in the Affirmative, Nemine Dissentiente.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved that Joseph Byrne be committed forthwith to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod for the offence which he had committed.

Agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

The LORD CHANCELLOR next moved that Joseph Byrne be committed to Newgate.

The EARL of EGLINTOUN said, that he had brought this matter before their Lordships, because he felt, as the Lord Chancellor had stated, that a very serious offence had been committed against their Lordships. Many of the signatures which were now admitted to be forged had been verified by other witnesses, and those who had been guilty of such misconduct ought also to be punished. If these three men had not voluntarily come forward to give evidence, this deception would never have come to light. It ought to be taken as some extenuation of their guilt that they had come forward voluntarily to discover this most unworthy trick. They ought not to be punished more severely than those who had suggested to them this crime, for crime undoubtedly it was.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE felt that, to a certain extent, there was some extenuation in the circumstance which the noble Earl had just stated. Still, he thought that these men ought to be committed to Newgate. They then might state their contrition in a petition, and afterwards be discharged.

LORD BROUGHAM thought that that was the right course to adopt. These men, after they were sent to Newgate, could pursue the usual course of expressing their contrition in a petition, and might then be discharged.

EARL GREY observed, that if this system of forging names to petitions were general, the parties who employed these men could not be innocent. He therefore thought that their Lordships were bound to appoint another Committee for the purpose of seeing whether evidence could not be obtained to prove either that certain parties had been guilty of wilfully deceiving the House, or that they had been guilty of the most