§ MR. GRENFELLsaid, he wished to preface his Question on this subject by a few remarks. He was a member of the Jamaica Committee, which had been subject to the unceasing persecutions of an irresponsible body of persons signing themselves "The Eyre Defence Committee."
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member is not acting in accordance with the Rules of the House in not confining himself to such matter as is necessary for explaining the grounds on which he puts the Question.
§ MR. GRENFELLsaid, he did not wish to trespass on the Rules of the House, and if it were necessary he would move the Adjournment. He was a member of the Jamaica Committee, and he had taken it upon himself to ask the hon. Member for Bute, On what grounds he stated, on Friday June 5th, that the Petition which he presented praying for an early re-appointment of Mr. Eyre to Her Majesty's Colonial Service was signed by 71 Peers, 6 Bishops, 1851 20 Members of the House of Commons, 40 Generals, 26 Admirals, 400 Clergymen, and 30,000 other persons, when, in fact, it is only signed by 3 Peers, 1 Bishop, 6 Members of Parliament, 20 Generals, 9 Admirals, 171 Clergymen, and 10,000 other persons? He should not have ventured to ask this Question if it merely contained a Prayer that the expenses of Governor Eyre should be paid by the country, because there would be nothing astonishing in a Petition of that kind from a large number of irresponsible persons who might not have had the blue books before them, and might have signed the Petition in ignorance of the facts.
§ MR. SPEAKERI think the hon. Member has now stated everything necessary to give the information he desires to convey.
§ MR. LAMONTsaid, he must beg the indulgence of the House while he gave a brief explanation of the circumstances attending the exaggerated statement referred to. When that Petition was given to him for presentation to the House it was accompanied by a short statement in writing, purporting to be an analysis or summary of the Petitioners. He did what he imagined the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent or any other Member of this House would have done—he did not analyze this immense number of names himself; but be accepted the written statement as being substantially correct, and he read it to the House. He had now to express his regret that he committed himself to an unintentional exaggeration of the numbers, and he trusted that the House would believe him when he said that he stated that which he believed at the time to be strictly correct. It appeared that this exaggeration of the numbers was caused by the clerk who made up the statement supposing that he was entitled to include as Petitioners all those who had subscribed sums of money, however small, to Mr. Eyre's Defence and Aid Fund. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, of which he had private notice, he begged to say that, considering the vast preponderance of opinion in favour of his distinguished friend among the educated and enlightened classes of the community, and especially among those who know anything about the colonies, he apprehended that there would not be the slightest difficulty before the prorogation in procuring a Supplementary Petition from the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent and the borough of 1852 Westminster alone, even more numerously signed than he stated the last to be.
§ MAJOR ANSONsaid, he wished to make one or two remarks, and, to place himself in Order, he would, if necessary, move the Adjournment of the House. When the Petition was placed in the hands of the hon. Member for Bute some information was handed to him by the Secretary of the Eyre Defence Fund referring to figures which he might have to make use of in his speech. As soon as the Secretary saw the exaggerated statement in question he went to the hon. Member for Bute and told him of the mistake that had been made. None of the members of the Defence Fund Committee were responsible for the mistaken statement that had gone forth to the public.