The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that with reference to the union of the parish of Stoke Poges with other parishes, he had had affidavits put into his hands, which contradicted the statements of the noble and learned Lord opposite, who, however, was no more responsible for the statements which he had made in opposition to the petition, than he (the Duke of Buckingham) was for the statements he had made in support of it. Each was instructed by other persons, and acted on those instructions. He had informed the persons who had made the affidavits, that they could not be used in that shape, and he had written to those persons to recommend them to wait patiently till the regulations of the Commissioners had been published, and then, if they found those regulations improper, to embody those affidavits in a petition against the regulations.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the noble Duke had pursued the best course on this subject. The noble Duke he had never considered to be answerable for the statements made in the petition—he was the only Peer, held by their Lordships to be answerable for the statements contained in the petitions that he presented. The noble Duke had, however, exonerated him from being responsible for the statements he had made in opposition to the petition—it was very fair of the noble Duke to do so, but he could assure the noble Duke, that he had inquired more fully into the substance of those statements, and all the evidence he had since received most fully concurred with the statements he had then made. He had said, that the expense of maintaining the paupers was 4s. 1½d.each'; it had been stated, that that expense was but 2s. 11d.; but upon further inquiry he had had the Return sent to him, which had been furnished by the parish officers themselves, and from that Return he found that the expense was 4s. 11d. each. He therefore was almost inclined to make himself respon- 155 sible for the accuracy of the statements he had made.