HC Deb 02 July 1858 vol 151 cc872-3
MR. CAIRD

said, that before he put the question of which he had given notice he was anxious to take the first opportunity he had of correcting a charge of inaccuracy brought against him by the Secretary to the Treasury on Tuesday night, in reference to the discussion on Hainault Forest. On that occasion the argument on which he founded his case was that an excessive expenditure of £67,000 odd had been made upon an estate of 3,000 acres. The Secretary to the Treasury had contradicted him—

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he rose to order. He must put it to Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Gentleman could refer in the manner he was doing to a former debate.

MR. SPEAKER

said, he understood that the hon. Member had an explanation to make of a personal character. But his reference to a former debate, and the length to which he had already gone, appeared to him to transgress the rules of order.

MR. CAIRD continued

He had been about to say that he must ask the indulgence of the House, as the question was one involving his personal accuracy in regard to a statement of some importance which he had made to the House. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had used these words:—"The truth was that Hainault Forest comprised an area of 17,500 acres." Now, his own statement was, that the expenditure had been confined to an area of 3,000 acres. He now held in his hand the documents. ["Order!"] If it was out of order for him to produce these documents to prove the accuracy of his statement, he must only rely on the forbearance of the House while he said that which he had not had the means of doing at the moment. He had now beside him the map of the Forest—

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, he rose to order. He was the last person in the world who would wish to prevent an hon. Member from entering into any explanation which he might think necessary in his own vindication, but if the hon. Gentleman went into the explanation he was now about to make, it would be necessary for him also, in his turn, to enter into a similar explanation, establishing the accuracy of the statement that he had himself made.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he again rose to order. He had no desire to interpose between the hon. Gentleman opposite and any personal statement which he wished to make to the House under any circumstances. But he thought the hon. Gentleman misconceived the position in which he had placed himself. His personal honour was not concerned simply because a statistical fact might not be correctly appreciated by the House, either one way or the other. This was really a statistical question, which might lead to a lengthened controversy, involving much delay to the public business, and it in no degree affected personal character.