REPORT OF THE BULLION COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 30 April 1811)

§ Mr. Tierney
wished to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he would have any objection to postponing the Committee on the Bullion Report from to-morrow to another day. The Resolutions proposed by the right hon. gent., whom he did not then see in his place, (Mr. Vansittart), created the necessity for some farther delay, in order to enable gentlemen to make themselves fully acquainted with their nature and bearing. From the consideration which he had been able to give the subject, and he had paid particular attention to it, he was satisfied, that, as the Resolutions were framed, they were not calculated to convey an assertion of facts according to the evidence. It was, therefore, material that gentlemen should have a better opportunity of making up their minds upon this important question; an opportunity the more necessary, as some gentleman might feel it his duty to submit to the House some counter-Resolutions, in opposition to those of the right hon. gentleman. For himself, he must say, that he should not pledge himself to bring forward any such Resolutions, though he 782 hoped some other member would. But of this he was certain, that, to the Resolutions of the right hon. gent., as they were framed, it was absolutely impossible for any gentleman to give either approbation or dissent, except on general principles. On general principles he should be ready to give his vote against them; but as it was desirable on all hands, that the question should be decided upon the particular merits, he trusted the right hon. gent. would not make any objection to a short delay, for the purpose of enabling gentlemen to come to the discussion with minds fully made up on the subject.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was rather surprised to hear this application from the right hon. gent.; because it must be in the recollection of the House, that when his right hon. friend read his Resolutions, and a suggestion was made as to the necessity of some postponement of the discussion from Monday, an hon. member (Mr. H. Thornton) remarked, that having heard the Resolutions read, they did not appear to him to suggest any new idea Upon the subject, or to involve any matters which were not familiar to those who had considered the Report, and that therefore no postponement of the discussion was necessary. For his own part he fully felt how disagreeable it was to defer still farther this discussion, which had been so long hanging over their heads; but he was at the same time sensible how awkward it would be to hurry on the discussion when any gentleman desired a short delay in order to come better prepared to the consideration of the question. He was of opinion, however, that if the proposed delay, which he understood to extend to Monday next, should be assented to, it should be an an express understanding, that, if in point of fact any counter-Resolutions were to be proposed by the right hon. gent. or any other hon. member, they should be communicated to the House on Friday next, previously to the debate on Monday. With respect to the delay, he rather thought, that, though his right hon. friend was not present, with whom the power of consenting rested, he would have no objection to acquiesce in the arrangement proposed.

§ Mr. C Adams
could take upon himself to consent to the delay on the part of his right hon. friend, whose authority he had to say, that he would have no objection to the delay required.

§ Mr Tierney
disclaimed having given any 783 pledge that he would bring forward any counter-Resolutions; though he thought it likely that some other hon. gent, might do so.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that he had not charged upon the night hon. member having given any such pledge; neither did he wish the right hon. gent. to bring forward any counter-resolutions. He should be much better satisfied at his concurring in the Resolution" of his right hon. friend.

§ Mr. Horner,
so far as he was personally concerned, was perfectly prepared to go into the discussion at any time: but he must observe, that these were Resolutions founded upon an extensive mass of evidence, which it would be impossible for gentlemen to decide upon justly, without making themselves acquainted with that evidence particularly. Several of the right hon. gentleman's Resolutions were not consistent with the evidence, and only calculated to mislead the House. If gentlemen had not time, therefore, to consider the evidence, it would be extremely difficult for him to convince them that the Re solutions were not borne out by that evidence. There were some of the Resolutions which he considered unfounded, The 5th, for instance, assumed four or five things as facts, which he contended were not (acts, but which it would not be easy for him to shew not to be facts, unless gentlemen were to be fully in possession of the evidence.