The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-01 00:00:00

a copy of it to Sir John Thorold, and if it contained any thing
which was incorrect, as relating to what passed between us, I
should have thought that, in common names& and acting upon
the general principles in dealing between man and man, he
would have corrected the error, and made the correction in the
face of the public. He had not done so; and I now must say
that (of which I never had a doubt) the statement contained
in the hand-hill should be looked upon as authentic.
Mr. A now beg to ask the gentlemon of the deputa-
tion, Were they ever verbally authorised by Air John Thorold
to publish the partial extract from the conversation with hint
which they have published ?
Mr. DEaurnr.—l could not declare on my oath to the exact
words which passed between us; but I could declare on my
oath, and I would not state it if I could. not declare it on oath,
that the contents of the hand-bill were the fair and honest in-
ference which we drew from the nature of the conversation, and '
that the sentiments attributed to Sir John Thorold were faith.
fully detailed.' thought so #t the time r parted from Sir
John Thorold, inttl think sO
Mr. A Lti wish to ask thegen tie cr the deputation
whether, they..putSir John Tltorold,ran id so far, as; to
telt him the use they intended to make of Is answers ? Did
they in form him they intended to publish his conversation
with them ?
Mr. DEALT did not. 'We considered such a pro-
ceeding wholly unnecessary, for Sir John Thorold must have
been aware of the object for which the questions were put to
him.

Mr. A max.—A re the gentlemen sure that they gays the
correct sense as well as the words of those extracts ftom the
conversation which they have thought fit to publish ?
Mr. DEALT stated on Tuesday lastrfrom the hustings,
that the substance of the conversation wills Sir John' Thorold
was accurately given in the hand-NIL-0)4 there was not, and
could not exist a disposition on the part of the deputation to
misrepresent any thing that occured. But if there was mis.
representation, why did not Sir John Thorold, in print, and to
the world, declare what the misrepresentation was ?—( Cheers
and some disapprobation.)

Mr. Aida x again complained of the deputation in having,
without any authority, written or verbal, published extracts
of a conversation, and also that the Rev. Baronet (Sir C. Ander.
son) should, have put his name to the hand bill, without having
any-personal knowledge of the truth or falsehood of its con-
tents. Ile had intended to offer some further observations on
such conduct, but the answers which the Meeting had heard
to his questions were sufficient to explain, without any comment
of his, the nature of the whole transaction. If this were done
as an election trick, he could not find any word in the English
language sufficiently strong to express his detestation of it.
But he could not bring himself to believe the misrepresentation
to have been intentional. He knew the gentleman concerned to
be It ighly honourable. They, however. w ere m istaken , and greatly
mistaken in what passed between them and Sir J. Thorold on that
occasion. The mistake had already been productive of great
mischief in the county. But for it an immense body of free-
holders, who had remained away, would have attended on the
day of nomination, It was from a strung feeling of those cir-
ctunstances that he had put the questions to the lion. Gentle-
man, and he now called upen them to explain themselves to the
county.-4 Cheers.)
Mr. DEALTItV said he regretted that any circumstance
should have occurred in this contest to oblige hint to come so
frequently before the freeholders. However, they were Eng-
lishmen, and would, he Was satisfied, give a patient hearing
to every man, while explaining a charge made against him.—
It was true he did go to Sir John rhombi, as one of the depu-
tation, the object of which was to hicertain the Hon. Baronet's
sentiments with respect to the intended nomination. He wished
to know whether the proposal was with his own consent, in order
to prevent an nnnecessary contest in the county. It was im-
possible that the Hon. Baronet should not have been aware of'
the object for which the interview was Jiought-that lie could
be ignorant that his answer would be published. Under these
circumstances, he put it to the meeting, as men of plain sense,
whether they ;lid not think that when r. copy, of that hand.bill
Was sent to Sir John Thorold's rertideteserse t;ystietteelteswenld
riot, if he found it contained any iiiiefeptisentittietw havaelm.
mediately detected it, and published the detection to the world P
When lie did not take any step of the kind. must not the in-
ference of the meeting be, that the substance of the hand-bill
was what he (Mr. Dealtry) now declared it to be—strictly cor-
rect. lie would now tell them what hie feelings would have
been on such an occasion. If he had promised his vote to any
man, there was no power on earth could have induced him to
counteract by his silence or otherwise the effect of the promise.
The time was not yet too far gone by for Sir J. Thorold to con-
tradict any thing wrongg, which the hand-bill contained ; and if
he did not, the freeholdera would then judge who were the men
who were entitled to their confidence. They were now, as it
had been remarked by the Hon. Baronet (Sir WW. Ingilby),
fighting with a body'without a head. In giving. their stipport
to this body, the freeholders were throwing their votes to the
wind..—(Hisses and applause.).-eln calling upon them to sup-
port Sir W. Ingilhy, besolicited their votes for a man whom°.
fesited himself ready and willing to serve them—a man, the
excellence of whose private life inetified the fullest confidence
that in the discharge of, his public duty he would be upright
and faithful. As It was then getting late, (it was at this time
nearly dark, and was quite so before the parties quitted the
hustings), he would not trespass farther on their attention.—
Another opportunity would offer for addressing them more at
length.
The Rev. Sir C. A moraisox said, that as his name had
been alluded to, he would make one (and for the present only
one) remark. If any misrepresentation of Sir John Thorold
was contained in the hand-bill, he (Sir .lohn Thorold) had had
sufficient time to correct it. He Intl nut done so; and the
natural inference was, tot its etatemente were correct.
Colonel SIBTIIIOIII,II here begged to correct a misrepre-
sentation which had gone abroad respecting him. It hail been
stated that he had canvassed for Sir John Thorold. Ile now
declared that he had not canvassed for either party.
Colonel Jowesosr said, that as the hour was late, and as
it rained, be would not detain the freeholders more than a mi.
nute. It hail been said that they (the Ingilby party) were
fighting against a body without a head. He could tell them
that it would yet take a great many heady to beat them.—
(Cheers.)—The majority on that day's poll was no criterion of
the feeling of the •county as being against Sir J. Thorold's
cause. On the contrary, he thought it was .the highest honour
a man could receive, that on the third (lay of the contest he
should have received nearly 1000 votes, without any solicitation
whatsoever. The contest here was of no ordinary kind. It
was a novel one in England, and he trusted the example which
the freeholders of Lincoln would set on this occasion would
teach freemen, to set a proper value on their freedom. The
Hon. Baronet (Sir Win. Ingilby) had expressed his regret that
Mr. Wells had left the contest. Ile (Colonel Johnson) could
assure him, that he had more occasion to rejoice than be sorry
for Mr. Well'. absence; for through the course of that day's
work he had deeply felt the loss of his great talents. This he
felt it necessary to say in defence of ;hat gentleman, that no
feelings could be more honourable to a man than those which
had induced him (Mr. Wells) to withdraw himself from any
further interference in the election e and before the close of
the contest, he would make that fact apparent to every free-
holder in the county. There was, lie understood, a most re-
spectable gentleman on the hustings, who had written to Sir
John Thorold, asking him a most material question. It was,
whether, if elected, he would support the abolition of slavery ?
His answer was, that if the county conferred upon him the
high honour of electing him their representative, he would
vote for the abolition, and in every other respect endeavour to
discharge his duty to the county.--(Cheers.)—The inference,
then, which they must draw from this declaration, must be the
reverse of that which was sought w be drawn from the hand-
Sir Rollitlir HERON
bill.—(Cheers.)
said he wawiet not no* dwell on the
• , ,
impropriety of Sir William Tngilbys committee in publishingthe hand-bill. That had been sufficiently remarked upon al.
from Sir John Thorold,
ready. lie would only observe, that lie held in hand &letter
•
which at present he was not at liberty,
to read at length but in that letter Sir John expressed his sur•
prise and astonishment that sing part of the conversation be.
tween hint and the, gentlemen of the committee shouldhave
been published,
and declaring that such publication was wholly
without his knowledge or consent; if it were asked why Sir
John Thorold did not come forward and state those facts, he
answered, that he did not wish, under all the circumstances of
the case, to appear on the hustings. lie stated this to the de.
putation. As to the questionwhich had been so often asked—
whether Sir John Thorold would serve if elected, Sir John had
distinctly stated that lie would; and he (Sir K. Heron) now
repeated the fact in the most positive manner.
Colonel Josistsosz begged to saY one word as to the premise
which Sir John Thorold bed matte to vote for Sir 'WWiitin