The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-07 00:00:00

CAIINAR VON ELECTION.

Mr. C. BULLER rose to move the motion of which
ie had given notice. He did not put it on any strong
;;rounds of law, but on such grounds as would induce
'
lion. Gentlemen to take it into consideration. The
point of law was one which was raised for the firs: time.
The objection taken was that the recognizances were
entered into before a Magistrate, who was not in the
Commission of the Peace in the County in which the
act was done—that is, Lord G. Paget, acting under the
advice of an eminent Parliamentary agent, had the re-
cognizances entered into in Middlesex before
a Magistrate for the county of Cardigan. It
had been decided that that was not according
to the strict letter of the law ; and he was not in
any manner complaining of the decision of the
Examiner—the law was distinct upon the point—but
he brought forward the case as one in which the peti-
tioner was in error by no lathes of his own—one in
which there was no dispute whatever as to the sol-
vency of the recognizances—everything had been done
in time, and therefore he thought it was a case in
which the House ought to grant relief.—(Hear.)
He was not pressing the question as against the dcci•
sion of the Examiner. He did not mean to say that the
Examiner was wrong in the decision he had come to ;
all he said was, that it was a dubious point of law, in
which different opinions might be come to. In
the present case, where the petitioner was guilty
of no offimce, and where he had acted upon legal advice,
he hoped the election petition would not be defeated by
a mistake upon a point of law. He left it to the fair-
ness and good feeling of the House, whether the peti-
tioner should not have the privilege he claimed, namely,
to be allowed to present a fresh petition, and to be allowed
to enter into proper recognizances. The Learned Gent.
concluded by moving that Lord George Paget be allowed
to present a fresh petition, complaining of the return for
the borough of Carnarvon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it was very
difficult to misunderstand the purport of the Act to
which his Hon. and Learned Friend had referred.
He thought the House should pause before they con-
sented to take such a step. The point had been decided
by the competent authority, and he believed according
to the true construction of the Act. If the Hon. Mem-
ber were to succeed he did not see where the House was
to stop. By one of those orders it was provided that a
petition should not be received after fourteen days.
He threw out this suggestion for the serious considera-
tionof the Hon. Member.

Mr. J. JERVIS said the House was not called upon
to discuss the question of law, The petitioner applied
for further time to be allowed-for, the wesentation of the
petition. He admitted that the decision of the Examiner
was against the petitioner, but he contended that the
party had a bona fide case for applying to the
House. He (Mr. J. Jervis) had a right to start
with the assumption that the sitting Member was
not entitled to his seat. Now, with respect
to the case of the petitioner it was bona fide' first,. be-
! cause he had acted upon the advice of a legal gen-
tlernan of authority ; and, secondly, because it was
extremely doubtful whether the Examiner had any
jurisdiction at all in the matter. It was doubtful,
according to the construction of the section, whe-
ther the matter entered into the jurisdiction of the in-
spector or not. Honourable Members were aware that
'the petition could not be received until the sufficiency
of;, the recognisances had been' examined into. In
the, present instance, the Mayor of Carnarvon had
endorsed on the affidavit that the recognizances hail been
prdperly taken. If the Examiner had pointed out the
error immediately on receiving the affidavit, there would
have,heen plenty of time to have presented a fresh pea-
' tion, but the sitting Member waited until the fourteen days
liad elapsed, and then turned round upon the petitioner with
a technical objection. The petitioner had been lulled
into security by the act of the Examiner and then advan-
tage had.been taken of him. Was not that a case for indul-
geade? It had been asked, if they granted the indulgence in
such a case, where were they to stop ?- He would reply
where the .boaiz fides ended. Here was a bona fide case.
The :House in 1837 had granted relief in the cases
of Pomfret, of. Ludlow, and of Limerick, which were
neatly similar to the present. Courts of Law
in similar cases constantly granted the indulgence
prayed, and he trusted the House would grant the re-
laxation prayed for.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped the House
would not adopt the motion. The present law had
"been'. enacted purposely to prevent such applications as
the present, and it had laid down a rule of proceed-
ing, to which all persons should adhere at their peril.
-That the petitioner or his attorney should tllce counsel's
opinion as to whether he ought to enter into recog-
nizances was indeed a most extraordinary proceeding.
There was a number of Magistrates .n London
and Westminster before whom the petitioner might
have entered into recognizances without having
had recourse to a magistrate in Carnarvon. The pre-
sent was not a case in which he thought the House was
called on to interfere. The Act of Parliament referring
to this subject was plain and clear ; it constituted a tri-
bunal whose decision was final in all cases. The deci-
sion of. the Examiner was to bo final and conclusive
to all parties. If they allowed the present application,
there was no case which might come before the Exa-_
miner of Recognizances in which the House might not be
called on to
,admit a similar application, and thus
the Act of Parliament in such eases provided would
become a dead letter, and precisely th'e same inconve-
niences which existed before the passing of the Act
wuuld be again felt. He therefore trusted the House
would negative the motion.
Mr. J. JElt VIS in explanation observed, as we under-
' stood, that the petitioner's agent had taken counsel's
opinion on the subject, as being applicable to another case.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said there was some ground to
suppose the Learned Counsel had not looked to the
form of the recognizances; if he had, he thought the
words in it ought to have excited. some suspicion
in his mind that no Justice could take the recog-
nizances except one acting in his own jurisdiction.
The • words were "or one of her Majesty's Justices
of the Peace for the county." He (Sir Robert Peel)
had not the least hesitation in saying that if the House
admitted the prayer of the petition they would establish a
principle that would do away with the benefit expected
from the law. The House had been sensible of the evils that
would accrue from allowing party feelings to operate
in the decision of election cases, for it had ap-
pointed two tribunals, one for, the . trial of the
election . petition—namely, the Election Cora-
mitte ; the other, the Examiner •of Recogni-
zances, to decide on the validity of the recogniz-
ances. Observe the words the Act ma.lfes use of in
decreeing that the decision of the,Eleetibn Committee
should be final :=".The Committee shall decide, and
.re-
port their decision to the House, which determination.
shall be final between the parties to all intents and pur-
poses:"' And in the other case, " The decision of the Exa-
miner of Recognizances shall be final and conclusive against
all parties." If the House consented to interfere with
the decision of the Examiner of Recognizances, why
not with the decision of the Committee ?—(Hear, hear.)
The terms applied to the one were not stronger than
those applied "to the other, and there was no reason,
if they set aside the decision of the Examiner of Recog-
nizances, why they should not come forward and say the
decision of the Committee was wrong, and set aside
that also. It was better that they should submit to some
cases of hardship than attempt to do justice in individual
cases, and interfere with the decision of the
Courts.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped that the
House of Commons would not accede to the ap-
plication made, and moreover, in his opinion,
the Examiner of Recognizances had good ground for
the decision he had come to.—(Hear, hear.) If they
should say that it was a good ground, that the petition
should be received, that bad advice had been given by
counsel, notwithstanding evidence that a large fee was
paid, with all his respect for the legal profession he
feared the cases of appeal would be very numerous.
Mr. HAWES recommended his Hon. and Learned
Friend to withdraw the motion.—(Hear.) For his
own part he was prepared to abide by the words of the
Act; for he thought it a dangerous precedent
to give this House the power of deciding whether a peti-

tion against the return of a Member was bona fde or
not.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. BULLER felt obliged to follow the advice of his
Hon. Friend the Member fur Lambeth, and was willing
hope w ithdraw the motioHear, and a laugh.) He
d, however, that what had occurred woul.l cause
petitioners to attend more carefully to the words of the
Act.—(lleac, hear.)
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to say a few words be-
fore the motion was withdrawn. He believed that
in the most corrupt times, •in the most cor-
riipt state of the representation, there never
was more bribery, corruption, or intimidation, than
at the last election.—(Hear.) He believed that most of
the Members of the present House owed their seats to such
means.—(Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) He
did not mean to blame tine side of the House more than
another ; for he believed the hands upon that (the Op-
position) side were not a whit cleaner than those on
the other side.--(Laughter, and cheers from the Minis-
terial benches.) He wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) whether it was his intention to
propose a remedy in the course of the next Session ?
Sir It. PEEL had not so much experience in the mat-
ter as the Hon. Member for Finsbury—(A laugh)—for
the constituency which he had the honour to repre-
sent was one of the very purest.—(Hear and a laugh.)
Yet he was willing to admit that the practice of bribery
and intimidation had very much increased of late
years.—(Hear, hear.) He regretted the prevalence
of those practices, as well as of the practice of treating.
Btit he did not very well see how any more stringent
enactments against " treating" than existed at pre-
sent, • without infringing on the liberty of the sub-
ject could be passed.--(Hear.) But he could have no
hesitation in saying. that he would give his most cordial
support to any measure which might be brought forward
with a probability of limiting the practice of treat-
and entirely abolishing bribery and corruption.
The subject was certainly one of great importance; but
he hoped the Hon. Member would not then require from
him (Sir R. Peel) any positive pledge that he would
bring in a Bill on the matter, although lie would give
it every consideration ; and he would join with
the Hon. Gentleman in his desire that an end should be
put to such practice's.
Mr. EWART would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
whether he would be ready to meet the evil, by the
adoption of the only effectual remedy—namely, an exten-
sion of the constituencies? (Ministerial laughter.)
He could assure the House that in his belief so long as
they had small constituencies, they never could eradicate
the evil.
Si 4 R. PEEL could assure the Honourable Gentleman
that his confidence in the remedy he had suggested
had been much abated by recent experience.
An Hon. Gentleman had that night stated that at the late
Belfastelection, bribery had prevailed to an extent never
known in former years. And he (Sir R. Peel) had fre-
quently heard similar complaints since the House of Com-
mons had been reformed.—(Hear, hear.) It would
however be admitted that the Reform Bill had greatly
increased the number of constituents. He should have
hoped, according to the opinion of the Hon. Gentleman,
that one of the benefits which would have followed the
Passing of the Bill, would have been a. diminu-
tion of bribery and corrupt practices ; but when
lie heard it avowed that it was since the exten-
sion of the . franchise that the evil had been
most complained of, he was compelled to doubt whether
a mere increase of the constituent body would afford
a sufficient remedy against the recurrence of such prac-
tices.—(Hear, hear.)
EWART said that his observations applied only
to those places in which corruption habitually took place.
Sir R. PEEL said that some of the worst cases of the
kind he had heard of had taken place in large towns.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It would be invidious
on his part to name particular places, but he believed that
if certain election petitions should be persevered in, as he
hoped would be the case; it would be shown that some of
the worst cases of bribery had taken place in large towns,
and even in the capitals of counties. And nothing
could give him greater satisfaction than to see the cases
of those large towns taken up by the House,
with a view to make signal examples of their constituen-
cies—(Hear)—by disfranchising those places without any
regard to the extent of their population.—(Hear, hear.)
Dr. BOWRING begged to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet if he did not think that the introduction of the
-Vote by Ballot would do away with the system of bribery.
Sir R. PEEL said that he. had the greatest objection
to secret voting, as it would facilitate the system of
bribery.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. YORKE said, that the Right Hon. Baronet
had been pleased to' say that bribery was as extensive,
and more so, since the Reform Bill than before ; but
he would suggest to the Right Hon. Baronet the in-
ference that a reform of the Reform Bill was necessary,
and that a new system would be better calculated to win
the respect-of the country than the present, which was
allowed-to be productive of so much corruption.
Sir R. PEEL could not agree with the Hon. Gentle-
Man that the mode he suggested would be the proper
one to meet the evil.
The motion was then withdrawn.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
Mr. WAKLEY said he did not rise for the purpose
of submitting any motion to- the House, but if
he was out of order in addressing it without
making a motion he would -do so. The question con-
nected with the custody of insane persons was one of
great importance, and the general iMpression of the law
on the subject was, that it required improvement,
not only with regard to the manner of sending
persons to the asylum, but also with regard
to the manner in which they were<treated when there.
He would not detain the House :king, but he requested
its attention to the case which he was going to submit
to them. In April, 1840, a gentleman,seated in his break-
fast room, was visited by the keeper of an asylum in Glas-
gow,for the purpose of taking him to his asylum. The gen-
tleman asked at whose instance the warrant was signed.
The medical gentleman having testified to his insanity,
the Sheriff; without seeing the party, made out a warrant
for sending him to the asylum. The keeper of the asylum
accompanied the patient. . Within one week after
he had been in the asylum he addressed the Sheriff on
the subject., entreating him to state at whose instance
he was confined, and beseeching him to pay him a visit.
To that letter, which was transmitted on the Ist of
May, 1840, he received no answer. On the 27th of
June one of the visiting physicians who attended the
Asylum admitted, in the presence of the Governor, that
he saw no symptom of insanity in the mind of the
patient. On the 4th, and on the 21st of July,
the same physician made a similar admission, but said
he thought the, patient should undergo a longer proba-
tion. On the 30th of September, one of the She-
riff's Substitutes, and two additional physicians
attended the asylum, and the patient, in their pre-
sence; entreated that his case might be examined,
declaring that he was ready to submit to any test,
and that he believed that he was confined in consequence
of some misunderstanding with his family. All these
entreaties were made without avail, On the Bth of
October the brother of the patient attended. The pa-
tient asked him why he was confined, and the
reply of his brother was that he believed it was
owing to the interference of a parcel of doctors.
On the 16th of October the patient again requested that
there might be an investigation of his case, and the ap-
plication was again refused. On the 4th of September
-he intreated the Governor of the Institution to place
him in a private room, and thus to remove him
from constant intercourse with insane people,
stating that it was his sincere belief that an attempt was
being made to drive him mad. This application was
also refused, although the patient declared that he was
prepared to pay all the expenses. In this case he (Mr.
W.) purposely abstained from mentioning names, because
it was too late in the Session foretmptrties to answer
the statement, but there were some' itaiiiesttavhieh,he
would mention. On the 26th Sept. the visiting
cian again atteneed, and, in the presence of a keeper,
John Walker, he declared that he believed that
the gentleman of whose case he was speaking,
was perfectly sane. The testimonial of John Walker
was as follows :—" June 24th, 1841. I certify that I
have seen Mr. daily, for more than ten months,
during which time he had always been of sound mind
and very quiet. I also heard the Doctor"—(the phy-
sician to whom he (Mr. W.) had referred—" declare that
he was quite well on the 26th of September last, and I made
that statement to Mr. Black, the keeper of the Asylum."
On the 2d of January the keeper of the asylum ad-
mitted to the patient that he believed he had
been placed in confinement in consequence of some
quarrels with his family. He requested the keeper of
the Asylum to interfere with his relatives, and to'per-
mit him to be admitted to a public examination. The
Governor, however, refused to interfere. On Feb. 3, the
Visiting Physician admitted that he was well. On the
4th -of June, Mr. Douglas, a surgeon, was called in
K aye ad certificate, stating that he saw no-
thing insane about him. On the 21st of June the
same surgeon again attended, but the doctor in whose
custody he was lodged refused to receive the certificate
of the surgeon, and said he would receive no testimonial
or certificate except from the Sheriff or the physician of
the institution. On the 29th of June, after lie hail
. been in prison fourteen months, the Sheriff
visited the asylum, when he examined the case
and the gentleman believed he had given the Sheriff
every satisfaction. He entreated him to grant a public
investigation of the case, referring him to the affidavits of
John Walker, and of the visiting physician. The She-
riff said that he would take the case into his con-
sideration, but a week having elapsed, during which
he had heard nothing from the Sheriff on
the
of
subject, he, being in the garden, forced back the lock
the door and made his escape, after having been in h
nnim
con-
finement for fourteen months. He did not consider
border,shim-
self.
s a
anfeind reached Scotland
C;
ahreli thereforesle.
lie lead been only
a t once fled
naCin that city when the keeper of theenas},l u_ncompanied
the apartment ! racferowssdatylies
red
by a person of gigantic strength, entered
Scotland. He escaped
madman, and carry
him back to
chambermaid on the
he occupied in the hotel,. and attempted to seize him as
a
from the room, and meetingf _
thela sharp attorney for him.
stairs, desired her to go andt
legal adviser, but he told
them to
people of the hotel his case,
the and entreated
applicationNo
rr imie•ays,
dinidadien.toceraftnecryle,
and he was taken rescue him.
court, before the Mayor and two be-
foreMagi-
the Mayor of Carlisle ; and after an examina-
don in open
he was by them released from the custody of
Magi-
strate,

the keeper. Indeed, it did not appear upon what authority
the keeper had arrested him in Carlisle. The Magis-
trates gave him a certificate stating that they had examined
him, and that he had shown lio symptoms of insanity,
and therefore they had released him from the custody of
the keeper. That certificate wag signed J. Dixon,
Mayor, and J. Faucet, and G. Flint, Magistrates. That
gentleman was at present in London. He bad been
introduced to him (Mr. Wakley) by a Member of this
House. He did not dare to return to Scotland lest he
should be again seized and sent to the asylum. He
wished to ask the Lord Advocate if he could hold out
any hope, that .if that gentleman should return to
his family and his connections, lie would
,not be
again subjected to the treatment which he
had already suffered. He knew that by law the Sheriff
had ample power ; but whether it was that he had not
time to attend to his duties, or for some other
reason, that gentleman did net dare to return
to his native country, for fear of being again
subjected to similar persecutions. The very cha-
racter of the House was concerned in the matter.
The Sheriff, according to the 55th of George the
Third was bound to liberate the party if improperly
confined. Until the party in the present instance was
confined eleven months it did not appear that the Sheriff
paid him a visit. The person in this case did not know
the name of the individual at whose instance, nor of the
medical gentleman on whose certificate, he was confined.
The Hon. Member concluded . by moving for
a return of the persons confined in the Lunatic Asylums
of Scotland
LORl)otlandint andAheyeDavrsolcBA4oTEwas
1841.
The
not averse to
the Honourable Gentleman's bringing forward this
question, but what he regretted was that the Hon. Gen.
tleman did not mention the name of the place, because
the Sheriff of the particular county was accountable in
such cases. This was a subject to which he ,(the Lord
Advocate) had paid more than usual attention, and in
which he felt the deepest possible interest. Under the
present state_ of the law, if any person received into a
lunatic asylum an individual without a warrant from the
Sheriff of the County, he was liable to a penalty of 2001.
The course of proceeding in such cases was to make an
application to the Sheriff to lodge the party in the asy-
lum. The Sheriff could only grant the requisite authority
on a medical certificate of a particular description. The
members of the University of Edinburgh, and of the Fa-
culty of Glasgow, had four members of their number ap-
pointed inspectors of madhouses in Scotland, and the
medical certificate should be written by one of
those inspectors, and by one of them alone.
From his own experience as a frequent official visiter
to lunatic asylums, he knew that many persons
who were insane would maintain that they were
in their perfect senses.---(A laugh.) He was afraid that
something of that kind was the fact in that case. But
he pledged himself that immediately on his return to
Scotland, he would institute a full and searching inquiry
into the whole of the facts.
Mr. WAKLEY was satisfied with the assurance
of the Learned Lord, for the gentleman on
whose behalf he had been asking for pro-
tection would now receive it. The whole subject
must come under the consideration of the House
in the next Session, for it was most important
and every feeling of humanity was violated by what
had taken place under the law as it now stood. He
would tell the Learned Lord what would prove a
sufficient remedy for those evils—make it imperative
that when it was proposed to consign any party
to a lunatic asylum, he should be brought before
a public tribunal, and oblige his relations to
make out the case to the satisfirction of
that body. If that course were taken there would not
be one for thousands of the abuses which now occurred
Being satisfied, he begged leave to withdraw his motion.
—Withdrawn.
On the motion of Mr. BORTHWICK, a return was
ordered of all moneys levied and expended for the poor,
from the several parishes of England and Wales, from
1839 to 1841 inclusive.
The SPEAKER informed the House that the sure-
ties in the case of the petition against the return For the
Borough of Athlone, were unexceptionable.
WORKHOUSES.
Ontihe motion of Colonel SIBTHOU, a return was
ordered of the number of union ' workhouses in each
county in England and Wald';, distinguishing those
occupied from those unoccurled, with the sums paid for
the purchase of the site. gardens, &c.
lIAILWAYS.
The Hos. and GALLANT MEMBER gave notice that next
Session he should call the attention of the House to the
accidents that had taken place on the various railways,
with a view to some remedy being devised.
THE TAMWORTH PETITION.
Mr. WARD, seeing the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Secretary of State for the Home Department in his
place, begged to ask whether the report which was gene-
rally circulated was correct, namely, that the Address to
the Queen which had been forwarded from Tamworth,
praying her Majesty not to prorogur: Parliament till the
question of the Corn-laws was tak:en into consideration,
had been sent down to the W.,yor for the purpose of
having a scrutiny of the signatures previously to
its presentation?—(Hear, ~ear.) This was certainly
a most unusual course, e4nd he thought the matter ought
to be set at rest by receiving, as he had nodoubt it would,
a positive denial from the Right Hon. Gentleman,
or an explanation of , the circumstances under which it
had taken place.
~The time that had intervened since
the petition was placed in the 'Right lion. Baronet's
hands had been anildy sufficient for the purpose. He
took it for granted that the petition had been
presented to her Majesty with the other petitions that
he understood had been presented that day.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was not aware until about
five minutes before, of the Hon. Gentleman's intention
to put the quest;on. He (Mr. Ward) was quite
right in what he had stated at the conclusion of his
speech, that he (Sir James Graham) had had the
honour of presenting the Tamworth petition to
her Majesty actually as it was transmitted to
him, and her Majesty was at the same time
informed of the manlier of signatures appended to it.
Thellon. Gentleman had been informed that before lie
(Sir James Graham) had laid the petition before
her Majesty, he had thought it his 'duty to
verify the signatures. The Honourable Gentleman
stated that before he made his statement to the House
he had taken precautions to ascertain the truth of his
statement. He (Sir J. Graham) had acted with the same
precaution before he transmitted the petition, 'and lie
was informed that the petition was most improperly ob-
tained, that many false signatures were put to it, and
that many of the signatures were forgeries. He (Sir
James Graham) held himself responsible that no
petition should be presented to her Majesty under such
circumstances, and he did conceive it to be his duty to
send the petition to the Mayor of Tamworth, stating the
reports that had been made to him, and asking him to
ascertain the facts and report to him the result. He
then had in his hand the report of the Mayor of Tam-
worth, which to a considerable extent bore out the ori-
ginal statement, but not to such an extent as he thought
would justify him in withholding it from her Majesty.
But since the Hon. Gentleman had raised the question
and stated on authority which he thought sufficient, that
the signatures were all genuine, he would shortly read
to the House some few statements from the letter (be
did not think it necessary to read the whole, though he
was ready to do so if required) as a specimen of the
mode in which the signatures had been obtained.
The letter stated that the Mayor having proceeded, with
the assistance of several other persons, who were ac-
quainted with most of the inhabitants of the town, found
that there were attached to the petition the names of se-
veral persons who did not reside in Tamivorth, although
he could not say they did not reside somewhere else.--
(Laughter.) The names also of several inhabitants were
repeated three or four times, there being but one or
two of the name in the town. The names of several in-
habitants also were attached without their permission,
and that of a person named Baxter was repeated
twenty times.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He (Sir J.
Graham), however, did not think that this information
was sufficient to warrant him in withholding the petition
from her Majesty, nor did he think it his duty to inform
her Majesty of the facts.
Mr. WARD made some observations across the table,
which we did not hear.
Mr. WAKLEY said that after what had been read by
the Right lion. Baronet the Secretary of State, he was
inclined to doubt the purity of the people of Tamweeth,
and the constituency of the Right lion. Baronet. '
Sir ROBERT PEEL did not see what the people of
Tamworth had to do with the matter, or how they could
be made responsible for the convicts in Stafford gaol-
THE PROROGATION.
Mr. HASTIE begged to put a question to the Right
Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. Numerous
addresses had been sent to her Majesty, which
he pre-
sumed sinned had been presented to her that day, that she it
be graciously pleased not to prorogue Parliamen,
till
had considered the state of the country. lh
he wished to put was whether, in consequent' it right consequence question
e6rfthht to
those
addresses, her Majesty's Ministers thought
prorogue the Parliament ?
Majesty not to
• her
did not think it their duty to advise
ent.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that her Maje sty
advise the Crown to prorogue Parliament.
:e Ministers
Hon. the Secretary of State ho
Mr. WILLIAMS begged to
manyk
sfigronmatutrheesßwigehret
DEFICIENCY OF
attached to the addresses from
do adjourn,
House
TwthwhhEeire_chßwhEeevrerEenaNedaurtlhyEe.27omooe.s .
Soinr
the
eGmRoAt
motion
M said that
t thatG the
wished Exchequer t
ot to call
statement the attention
made
in
nf
at
he
from him what the facts
present when the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman hlainrc. eFI oTr
against the course which the
were.
ht fit to pursue. But it had
other place, and fßanAthdße
beenhiis.fipnancial statement, and he (Mr. Ba-
d there were large demands on the
bßtleeiegmnhatnilmiloaned. leGl3
public :• a s nnort
pinrityhaete,habbyit
which
icmhabke-
otlueimitra.:, for which no supply bad .been
made. All he could say was, that if he were guilty. of
ot efr
tehd Ide
:
srieresn
was not willing to abide. But if he had been guilty of
tiahnngaYt ,tshtiaivntiegi what teomnf statements,
ibilen'e(sil:aii hei
of the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite, who in his budget had adopted his (Mr. Ba-
ring's) figures ? He did not wish to use stsong words,
but he must say, that if he had deceived thbi public by
making false statements, he would have been utterly un-
worthy of that situation which, by the favour of her
Majesty, had been placed in his hands. He thought,
if such charges were made, he should have an op-
portunity of answering them. lie wished to ask
the Right Hon. Gentleman whether this lair defi-
ciency, which had been stated, did actually exist. He
wished further to ask him, whether those figures
which he had adopted from him (Mr. Baring) were or,
were not correct ? The question was one not affecting
himself alone, but the Right llon. Gentleman who, in
said that he stated starte:ecitsilloirueo.
presenting his Budget, was bound to correct misstate-
ments. He knew how perfectly insignificant he (Mr.
Baring) was, compared with the high authority which
was given, as he understood, for the statements to
which he had referred ; but he thought he was bound