Sitting of 6 October 1841

MINUTES.
New Members. W. Thompson, Esq., for Westmoreland; R. Pulsford, Esq., for Hereford (City); H. Meynell, Esq., for Lisburn; J. Ffolliott, Esq., for Sligo (County).
Petitions presented. By Sir Robert Inglis, from Billy, for the restoration of the ten suppressed Irish Bishoprics, and from Derby for inquiry into Intimidation in Ireland.— By Dr. Bowring, from William Naisby, for inquiry into death from distress at Bolton.— By Mr. Alderman Thompson, from the county of York, New Brnnswick, against alteration of the Timber Duties.

EXPORTATION OF MACHINERY.
Mr. Walkerbegged to know whether it was intended to revive the committee which sat last year upon the subject of machinery?
Mr. Gladstonecould not answer the question. There were many important questions connected with the Board of Trade, with reference to which it was impossible, in so short a time, to come to any positive determination; and that relating to the exportation of machinery was one. It should, however, be fully considered before next Session.
Mr. C Bullerrose to call the attention of the House to the petition of Lord G. Paget (presented the 1st of October,) complaining of the decision against the sufficiency of the recognizance in respect of his former petition, on the ground that it was not taken before a magistrate having jurisdiction in Westminster; and praying to be allowed to present another petition, complaining of the election and return for the borough of Carnarvon. If the question were to be decided upon the ground of strict law, he was quite aware that there was at once a decisive answer to the motion which he was about to make. But it was not on that ground he placed it; and he hoped the House would regard it as a question of equity, and give relief to the petitioner, who had been disappointed by the decision of the examiner Upon a point of law for the first time raised. The ground of the failure of the recognizances was, that the magistrates before whom they were entered into was not a magistrate acting in his own county— was not a magistrate of Middlesex. The petitioner had been led into the error by no omission or negligence" of his own. He had acted upon the authority of legal advisers of eminence in the profession, who informed him that the act of Parliament directing affidavits and recognizances to be sworn and taken in these matters, authorized such affidavits to be sworn before one of her Majesty's justices of the peace, and that any and every justice had power to act ministerially in the taking of such affidavits and recognizances, without reference to his local jurisdiction. Relying upon that opinion, the petitioner had acted as he did, believing that he was entering into a valid recognizance. Had he been apprised of the error in time, he could have rectified it, -while it was owing to the

1131
dubious wording of the act that the error had been committed; and although, according to the strict interpretation of the law, a justice of the peace could not Le said to be a justice of the peace, except in his own county, he hoped the House would not on this occasion, and under the circumstances, view the case otherwise than as one of equity. He put it to the House, whether the case of the petitioner was not one of those in which the House would grant indulgence, so that he might not be prejudiced by a technical error. The hon, and learned Member concluded by moving—
" That Lord George Paget be allowed to present another petition, complaining of the last election and return for the borough of Carnarvon, pursuant to the prayer of the said petition.''
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the utmost strength of the case on behalf of the petitioner was this— that he had made a mistake, and now threw himself upon the consideration of the House, to allow him to stand in the same position as if he had not committed it. it seemed to him, however, very difficult to misunderstand the meaning of the clause in the act in question, which empowered the justice of the peace to take the recognizances, the justice of the peace being understood to mean the justice of the peace of the jurisdiction mentioned in the act. Out of his own jurisdiction the individual could not act as justice of the peace, nor was he held as such. As far, therefore, as the law of the case was concerned, there could not, he conceived, be a doubt that the decision against the petitioner had been a correct one. But an appeal was made to the good feeling of the House to allow the petitioner to retrace his steps. He could not but look with much alarm to such applications, if successful, as they opened the door to continued and indefinite appeals on the same ground from the decisions of the tribunal appointed by the act, founded on a plea to which no limit could be put; so that, in fact, the House would not know where to draw the line and stop. The Sessional orders also stood directly in the way of this application, the fourteen days having elapsed. Whether on that ground alone the House would feel itself competent to entertain the application, was a matter to be decided by the Chair.
Mr. J. Jervisobserved, that his hon. and learned Friend had only entered on the law of the case, in order to show that
1132
there was a bonâ fide ground for this application. The hon. and learned Attorney-general feared that they would not know where to stop if they entertained such applications. The boundary appeared to him a very simple one. They would stop where-over they perceived that there were not bonâ fide grounds for granting the indulgence. He contended, that the law was by no means so clearly ascertained as that the petitioner might not reasonably have been misled in the first instance; indeed, he had acted, it appeared, in accordance with very high legal advice. It was a matter open to doubt, whether recognizances so entered into by a magistrate out of his jurisdiction might not be binding. There was the authority of Hawkins for that. Nor had the petitioners had due notice of the objection to his recognizances. The examiner had received the affidavit, and endorsed the petition, and the fourteen days were allowed to elapse before the sitting Member served his notice of objection. He that the petition was thus thrown over by a merely technical objection, and he was thus deprived, by a merely technical form, of his opportunity of contesting the seat, to which he was entitled to assume that he had a right. There were cases on record, where time, under such circumstances, had been given. In the Pontefract case, which occurred in 1837, the surely had been improperly described, and time was given to prepare a fresh petition. In the Dudley case, which also occurred in 1837, the same cause produced the same indulgence; and in the Limerick case, a similar indulgence was granted, because the affidavit had been improperly sworn to. Here were distinct cases where the rules and practice of the House had been departed from, because the petitions were bonâ fide, and not for the purpose of annoyance or vexation; yet in the present case, it was sought strictly to adhere to the technical rule, and thus perhaps to preserve the scat to the sitting Member, when it might turn out that he was not entitled to it. This was one of the first questions arising out of the construction of the new act, and he thought that it was a case in which the House could not do wrong by granting indulgence.
The Solicitor-Generalhoped the House would not countenance this application, as it went materially to interfere with the whole object which his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tarn worth had had in view, in introducing his measure on the subject

1133
of the trial of election petitions. One main object of that measure was, to prevent the constant recurrence of discussions in that House on the merits of questions connected with election petitions, and it was most especially desired to remove the discussion and decision on such subjects from the House itself, in order to relieve it from the imputation of being guided by party motives. The cases which his hon. and learned Friend had adduced in support of his view, were precisely the class of cases which showed the House the inconvenience of interfering at all. One case was made the pretext for the introduction of another, until it was considered necessary to pass a measure that would prevent such cases coming before the House under any circumstances. The hon. and learned Gentleman said none but bonâ fide cases ought to escape from the rule; but who was to decide whether they were bonâ fide cases or not? Would not that be re-opening the whole evil which it had been the desire of his right hon. Friend to put a stop to? That being the view which he took of the case, he would not enter into the facts; but he could not help remarking, that it was extraordinary it should have been thought necessary to have recourse to any legal opinion, or that the recognizances should have been entered into at Cardigan, when there were so many justices of the peace in Westminster, and when they could have been entered into before the examiner himself. He hoped the House would not entertain the application, should the hon. and learned Gentleman press it.
Mr. J. Jervis, in explanation, observed, that the petitioner's agent had taken counsel's opinion on the subject.
Sir R Peelsaid, it seems to me somewhat remarkable, that the learned counsel, whose opinion was taken, did not refer to the form of the recognizances. If he had looked to the form of the recognizances, there arc some words in them, which ought to have excited some suspicion in his mind that no other justice of the peace could take the recognizances, except a justice acting within his own jurisdiction. The words in the Act of Parliament are, "Any justice of the peace in the county of (blank)." It appears to me, that the Act of Parliament distinctly directs, that the justice of peace before whom the recognizances are entered into, should be a justice of the peace acting within his own jurisdiction, and not merely a justice of the
1134
peace in a certain locality. I have not the least hesitation in saying, that if the House admits the prayer of the present petition, they will go far to do away with any benefit which might be expected from the passing of the Act of Parliament. The House, with its eves perfectly open, and fully sensible of the evils that would accrue from allowing party feelings to operate in the decision of election cases, passed that bill. That Act of Parliament appointed two tribunals; one for the trial of election petitions, namely, the select committee; the other, the examiner of recognizances, who was to decide on the validity of election recognizances. Observe the words which the act makes use of, in declaring, that the decision of the election committee shall be final and conclusive:—
"The committee shall decide and report their decision to the House, which decision shall be final and conclusive between the parties to all intents and purposes."
And, in the other case:—
"The decision of the examiner of recognizances shall be final and conclusive against all parties."
If, then, you consent to interfere with the decision of the examiner of recognizances, why not interfere with the decision of the committee. The terms applied to the one are not stronger than those applied to the other, and there is no reason if the House sets aside the decision of the examiner of recognizances, why parties should not come forward and say, "the decision of the committee was wrong, and set aside that also." If the House interfere to ascertain whether the parties acted with bonâ fides, there will be no end to litigation of this kind. Is it not better even to submit to some cases of hardship, even supposing them to arise, than to interfere with the decision of the courts where that decision was intended to be final and conclusive. I hope the House will not interfere to inquire whether the party acted with bonâ fides or mala fides; for even if the decision of the examiner were wrong, I would say, that it would be better to abide by it. I think it is better that you should allow, that that decision should be final than to '0 again into the matter, on the ground, that there was evidence, that the petitioner had given a large fee for advice from counsel, and that he had a right to expect good advice. Now, if you are to make it a ground, that the petition should be received, because the

1135
petitioner paid a large fee, and expected good advice, I must at once admit, with all respect for the legal profession, that I fear cases of appeal will be very numerous.
Mr. Hawesrecommended his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the motion. For his own part, he was prepared to abide by the words of the act; for he thought it a dangerous precedent to give this House the power of deciding whether a petition against the return of a Member was bonâ fide or not.
Mr. C. Bullerfelt obliged to follow the unpalateable advice of his hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth, and was willing to withdraw the motion. He hoped, however, that what had occurred would cause petitioners to attend more carefully to the words of the act
Mr. T. Duncombewished to say a few words before the motion was withdrawn. He believed, that in the most corrupt times, in the most corrupt state of the representation, there never was more bribery, corruption, or intimidation than at the last election. He believed, that most of the Members of the present House owed their seats to such means. He did not mean to blame one side of the House more than another; for he believed the hands upon that side were not a whit cleaner than those on the other side. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) whether it were his intention to propose a remedy in the course of the next Session, to put an end to bribery and intimidation?
Sir R. Peel— I have no personal experience of the extent of the evils of which the hon. Member complains, as I happen to represent a remarkably pure constituency, and I do not believe that there is any person in the town which I represent accessible to the influence of bribery. At the same time I am afraid that the general impression is well founded, that of late years the practice of bribery at elections has rather increased than diminished. I am sure that nobody more sincerely laments the prevalence of such practices than I do. I also regret the prevalence of treating, and I volunteered last year to give my cordial co-operation to the noble Lord when he introduced a bill for the purpose of putting an end to bribery, and putting an end, as far as was practicable, to the practice of treating. I am sure the hon. Member opposite is himself aware of the difficulty of dealing with a matter of this kind, and of the extreme danger in
1136
any stringent enactment of interfering with the liberty of the subject, so far as that the remedy might not be worse than the evil which it was to remove. At the same time I have no hesitation to say that I will give my cordial assent to any measure that shall appear to me calculated to put an end to all undue treating. I think it very probable that the noble Lord the Member for London, may call the attention of the House to this subject next Session. It is a subject of great difficulty; and I hope that the hon. Member will not at present require from me any pledge that I will bring in a bill on the subject. At the same time I will give the subject every consideration, and I cordially concur with the hon. Member in the desire that these practices should be extinguished, so far as laws can extinguish them.
Mr. Ewartwished to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether he would go to meet the real source of the evil by adopting a different distribution of the constituencies? He could assure the House, that, as he believed, as long as they had small constituencies they never could eradicate the evil.
Sir R. Peel— I will tell the hon. Member at once that my confidence in the particular remedy he has suggested has been much abated by recent experience. The hon. Member for Finsbury has said, that at the last election bribery and corruption prevailed to a greater extent than was ever before known. I think there cannot be a question that the Reform Bill made a great increase in the constituencies. One of the benefits expected from the Reform Bill was that it would diminish bribery; but yet we hear it avowed that since the extension of the constituencies, bribery and corruption have prevailed to a greater extent than before. When I hear this I am compelled to doubt whether a further increase of the constituencies would be an. effectual remedy for bribery and corruption.
Mr. Etvarl— My observations were only intended to apply to the small constituencies.
Sir R. Peel— Some of the worst cases which I heard of took place in the large towns. In some places the extent of bribery and corruption was enormous. It would be invidious to name particular places, but I believe that the metropolitan towns of certain counties might be named. If certain election petitions which have been presented should be persevered in, and which I hope will be the case, it will show that some of the worst cases of bribery

1137
have occurred in large towns. Nothing would give me more satisfaction than to see the cases of some of those large towns taken up by the House, and that signal examples should be made of those places by disfranchising their constituencies, whether they were small or large towns, in which those corrupt practices occurred.
Dr. Bowringbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet if he did not think that the introduction of the vote by ballot would do away with the system of bribery?
Sir R. Peel— I will not at present enter into that question; but my great objection to the vote by ballot is that it tends to increase, rather than diminish, bribery and corruption.
Mr. H. R. Yorkesaid, that the right hon. Baronet had been pleased to say, that bribery was as extensive, and more so, since the Reform Bill than before; but he would not suggest to the right hon. Baronet the inference, that a reform of the Reform Bill was necessary, and that a new system would be better calculated to win the respect of the country than the present, which was allowed to be productive of so much corruption.
Sir R. Peel: I should deprecate the logical interference to be drawn from the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, which would be a repeal of the Reform Bill.
Motion withdrawn.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Wakleysaid, he did not rise for the purpose of submitting any motion to the House; but if he was out of order in addressing it, without making a motion, he would do so. The question connected with the custody of insane persons, was one of great importance, and the general impression respecting the law on the subject was, that it required improvement, not only with regard to the manner of sending persons to the asylum, but also with regard to the manner in which they were treated when there. The first law on this subject relating to Scotland was passed in the year 1815, and he believed that it was designed in a beneficent spirit. However, cases had occurred, which proved that it was ineffectual in securing the object for which it was passed. It appeared that by that statute, the custody of insane persons was intrusted to the sheriffs, who had the power, not only to 6end persons to a lunatic asylum, but to issue orders for their proper care after
1138
they were sent to those establishments. He would not detain the House many minutes in stating a case, which, he could assure them, was well worthy of their attention. In April, 1840, a gentleman seated in his breakfast-room was visited by the keeper of an asylum near Glasgow, who entered his apartment with a warrant from the sheriff, for the purpose of taking him to his asylum. The gentleman asked at whose instance the warrant had been issued, but he received no reply. He then asked the name of the medical gentleman who had testified to his insanity. But he received no reply, and it appeared that the sheriff, without seeing the party, had issued a warrant for sending him to the lunatic asylum. The keeper of the asylum accompanied the patient. Within one week after he had been in the asylum, he addressed the sheriff on the subject, entreating him to state at whose instance he was confined, and beseeching him to pay him a visit. To that letter, which was transmitted on the 1st of May, 1840, he received no answer. On the 27th of June, one of the visiting physicians who attended the asylum admitted, in the presence of the governor, that he saw no symptom of insanity in the mind of the patient. On the 4th, and on the 21st of July, the same physician made a similar admission, but said he thought the patient should undergo a longer probation. On the 30th of September, one of the sheriff's substitutes, and two additional physicians attended the asylum, and the patient, in their presence, entreated that his case might be examined, declaring that he was ready to submit to any test, and that he believed that he was confined in consequence of some misunderstanding with his family. All these entreaties were made without avail. On the 8th of October, the brother of the patient attended. The patient asked him why he was confined? and the reply of his brother was, that he believed it was owing to the interference of a parcel of doctors. On the 16th of October, the patient again requested that there might be an investigation of his case, and the application was again refused. On the 4th of September he intreated the governor of the institution to place him in a private room, and thus to remove him from constant intercourse with the insane people, stating that it was his sincere belief, that an attempt was being made to drive him mad. This application was also refused, although the patient declared that

1139
he was prepared to pay all the expenses, In this case he purposely abstained from mentioning names, because it was too late in the Session for the parties to answer the statement, but there were some names which he would mention. On the 26th of September, the visiting physician again attended, and, in the presence of a keeper, John Walker, he declared that he believed that the gentleman of whose case he was speaking was perfectly sane. The testimonial of John Walker was as follows:— a-
" June 24,1841.— I certify that I have seen Mr. William — daily for more than ten months, during which time he has always been of sound mind, and very quiet. I also heard Dr.— declare, that he was quite well on the 26th of December last, and I told that to Dr.—
" JOHN WALKER, Keeper."
On the 2nd of January, the keeper of the asylum admitted to the patient, that he believed he had been placed in confinement in consequence of some quarrels with his family. He requested the keeper of the asylum to interfere with his relatives, and to permit him to be admitted to a public examination; but all his applications were unavailing. On the 13th of February, the visiting physician again admitted that he was well. On the 4th of June it appeared that Mr. Douglas, a surgeon, was called in, and he gave the following certificate, that the gentleman was not insane:—
"—House, June 21, 1841.
" I have this day visited Mr. William—, and see nothing insane about him at present.
" JAMES DOUGLAS, Surgeon."
On the 21st of June, the same surgeon again attended, but the doctor, in whose custody he was lodged, refused to receive the certificate of the surgeon, and said he would receive no testimonial or certificate, except from the sheriff, or the physician of the institution. On the 29th of June, after he had been in prison fourteen months, the sheriff visited the asylum, when he examined the case, and the gentleman believed he had given the sheriff every satisfaction. He entreated him to grant a public investigation of the case, and he referred him to the affidavits of John Walker, and of the visiting physician. The sheriff said that he would take the case into his consideration, but a week having elapsed, during which he had heard nothing from the sheriff on the subject, he, being in the garden, forced back the
1140
lock of the door, and made his escape, after having been in confinement for fourteen months. He did not consider himself safe in Scotland; he therefore at once fled across the border, and reached Carlisle. He had been only a few days in that city, when the keeper of the asylum, accompanied by a person of gigantic strength, entered the apartment he occupied in the hotel, and attempted to seize him as a madman, and carry him back to Scotland. He escaped from the room, and meeting the chambermaid on the stairs, desired her to go and fetch a sharp attorney for him. No application was made to any legal adviser, but he told the people of the hotel his case, and entreated them to rescue him. They did interfere, and he was taken before the Mayor of Carlisle; and after an examination in open court, before the mayor and two magistrates, he was by them released from the custody of the keeper. Indeed, it did not appear upon what authority the keeper had arrested him in Carlisle. The magistrates gave him a certificate, stating that they had examined him, and that he had shown no symptoms of insanity, and therefore they had released him from the custody of the keeper. That certificate was as follows:-
" On Wednesday, the 21st day of July, 1841, Mr. William —was brought before us, having been pursued from Scotland by Dr.—, from a private asylum near Glasgow, who wished us to detain him, he having escaped from that asylum; but on examining the said William—, he showed no symptoms of insanity, and consequently we refused to interfere.(Signed)
" JOHN DIXON, Mayor of Carlisle.
JOHN FAWCETT, J. P.
GEORGE FLINT, J. P."
The Gentleman who had suffered in this way was at present in London, and had been introduced to him by a Member of that House. He did not dare to return to Scotland, lest he should be again seize and sent to the asylum. He wished to ask the Lord-advocate if he could hold out any hope, that, if that gentleman should return to his family and his property, he would not be again subjected to the treatment which he had already suffered. He knew that by law the sheriff had ample power; but whether it was that he had not time to attend to his duties, or for some other reason this gentleman did not dare to return to his native Country, for fear of being again subjected

1141
to similar persecutions. The very character of the House was concerned in the matter. The sheriff, according to the 55th of George the 3rd, was bound to liberate the party if improperly confined. Until the party in the present instance was confined eleven months it did not appear that the sheriff paid him a visit. The person in this case did not know the name of the individual at whose instance, nor of the medical gentleman on whose certificate, he was confined. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a return of the persons confined in the lunatic asylums in Scotland in the years 1840 and 1841.
Sir W. Raesaid, that nothing could be more distressing- than that a person of sound mind should be imprisoned in a lunatic asylum. He gave the hon. Gentleman due credit for the caution he had observed in not mentioning the names of the individuals. He would have wished that he had observed the same caution with respect to the place from which the complaint came, for he had mentioned that the individual was confined in a private asylum near Glasgow. He thought the wiser course would have been for the hon. Member to have mentioned the case to him some days before, and he would have inquired into the matter, and be enabled to afford some explanation, but until the hon. Member rose to state the case, he knew nothing of it whatever. All he could promise the hon. Member was, that he would make the most minute and anxious inquiry into the facts of the case. The subject was one to which he had paid much attention, and in which he felt the deepest possible interest. Under the present state of the law, if any person received into a lunatic asylum an individual without a warrant from the sheriff of the county, he was liable to a pecuniary penalty. The course of proceeding in such cases was to make an application to the sheriff to lodge the party in the asylum. The sheriff could only grant the requisite authority on a medical certificate of a particular description. The members of the University of Edinburgh, and of the faculty of Glasgow, had four members of their number appointed inspectors of madhouses in Scotland, and the medical certificate should be written by one of those inspectors, and by one of them alone. From his own experience as frequent official visitor to lunatic asylums, he knew that many persons who were insane would
1142
maintain that they were in their perfect senses, and their insanity only displayed itself when they were addressed on some particular point. He knew that there was a description of insane persons who obstinately protested their sanity, and who generally succeeded in proving it until touched upon the particular cause of mania, when their disordered state of mind soon became apparent. He feared that the case which had been brought under the notice of the House by the hon. Member for Finsbury, was one of that description. However, every pains should be taken to ascertain the truth.
Mr. Wakleytrusted the unfortunate gentleman, whose case he had laid before the house would obtain the protection he solicited, and he hoped the whole subject of the treatment of the insane would undergo investigation next Session, as the state of many private madhouses in this country was a disgrace to the age. He would suggest, that before a party could be confined in any madhouse, whether public or private, he should betaken before a public tribunal and examined.
Motion withdrawn.

TAMWORTH MEMORIAL.
Mr. Wardwished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, relating to a circumstance which had excited great surprise in Tamworth. A memorial had been sent up from that borough to be presented to her Majesty by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. A report was current that a copy of the memorial, with signatures appended, had been sent from the Home Office to the mayor of Tamworth, and subjected to a scrutiny of the signatures. The person who had stated this to him was a man of the greatest respectability, who was incapable of circulating any assertion destitute of foundation. A hand-bill had also been published in the place, stating that the names to the petition were all genuine, and that every person had given his address, which showed that the impression of the truth of the report was genuine. He had never heard that the course of making an inquiry into the signatures of a petition had been hitherto adopted, and he hoped to receive from the right hon. Baronet a denial of the fact, or an explanation of the circumstances.
Sir J. Grahamwas not aware, until about fire minutes ago, that the hon.

1143
Gentleman intended to put this question. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in what he had stated in the beginning of his remarks, and he (Sir J. Graham) had i had the honour that day to present the Tamworth petition to her Majesty, exactly as he had received it. Her Majesty was informed of the number of signatures appended to it, and of the prayer of the petition. The hon. Gentleman had also been rightly informed that, before he laid the petition before her Majesty, he had thought it his duty to verify he signatures annexed to that petition. The hon. Gentleman said that before making his statement to the House he had received information which he believed to come from a credible quarter. He acted with the same precaution, and before transmitting the petition to Tamworth, to ascertain the authenticity of the signatures, he was informed on authority entitled to credit that the petition had been most improperly got up, that false signatures had been put to it, and that many of the petitioners were not free agents when they signed it. He had felt that no petition ought to be presented to her Majesty respecting which these statements could be made with truth, and he had therefore resolved, as the most direct and open conduct he could pursue, to send the petition, without the slightest concealment to the mayor of Tamworth, stating the report made to him, and asking him to verify the facts. He now held in his hand the report of the mayor of Tamworth, which, to a very considerable extent, bore out the original statement, but, on considering it, he did not think it so impugned the character of the petition as to justify him in withholding it from her Majesty. But since the hon. Gentleman had asked the question, and stated it to be his impression that all the signatures were genuine, he would just read the document, in order that it might be seen in what manner the signatures were obtained. The following was the mayor's report:—
"Tamworth, Sep. 30,1841.
"Sir— Having had the honour to receive your letter of the 25th inst., together with the address which I now return, I proceeded with the assistance of some of my friends lo collect the following information:—
"The assistance to which I have alluded has been rendered by such persons as I considered, from their extensive and familiar knowledge of the inhabitants, would the most
1144
readily be able to recognise the signatures to the address, if bonâ fide.
" In the first place we found a very great number of the names to be those of persons totally unknown to us, which could not have been the case had they been really inhabitants of this borough. Whether, therefore, as to this portion, the names be of persons who exist or not elsewhere, neither I nor any friends can undertake to assert.
" There is also throughout the list of names a very frequent repetition of signatures; as, for instance, the name of George Starkey occurs three times, when in fact, they are only two of that name. The name of Thomas Starkey occurs three times, although there is only one of that name. The name of John Starkey occurs three times, there being only one of the name; there are the names of two William Starkeys, neither of whom consented to have his name put down; also two Sarah Starkeys and two Elizabeth Starkeys, although in fact there is only one of each, and Chas. Siarkey's name appears, though there is no such person. The name of William Deville occurs three times, though there is but one of that name. The name of John Clarson occurs three times, though, in fact, there are only two of that name, excepting an infant two years old; and none who consented to sign. The names of Charles Clarson occurs twice, there being only one who consented to sign the petition. The name of Ann Clarson also occurs, though there is no such person; and the name of Catherine Clarson occurs twice, though none of that name can be found. The name of Buxton occurs twenty times; though there are only seven of that name. We have not thought it requisite further to multiply instances of this kind, and, therefore, our inquiry has been limited to only a few names but we have no doubt, were we to extend our inquiry, that the same sort of repetition would be found to occur through-out.
"It also appears that very many inhabitants, whose names are attached to the petition, neither signed it themselves, nor consented to have their names put down by others. The following are a few of the instances:—
" The names of John and Ann Westbury are attached entirely without their knowledge or consent, and these names also occur twice over. The names of William Farebrother and his wife, of Joseph, Thomas, and Henry Woodcock, of Mary and William Coleman, and of John Coleman, are each attached without consent, and the latter twice over, unless it be of an infant of that name, only two years of age. The names of Samuel, of Sarah, and of Ellen Bailey, are of the same class; as are also those of William Wilcox, of his wife, and an apprentice, and many other instances of the same kind could be added, if requisite.
" The names of vagrants in lodging-houses have been numerously attached, and the names of Joseph Fenton, of William Taylor, and of

1145
William Seale, are also to the petition, although these three persons were at the time, and still are, confined in Stafford gaol on charges of felony.
" It is evident that but few of the signatures are the hand-writing of the persons whom they are intended to represent, and we find that people have gone from house to house obtaining names of whole families, without regard to age, and having entered these names in a book, have added them afterwards to the petition, though, at the time, the names were taken, no petition was produced, and the names thus taken would be given by one member only of a family, and that not unfrequently a child."
This was the mode in which many of the signatures had been obtained, but as he had said before, he had not thought it formed sufficient grounds for withholding the petition.
Mr. Wardexpressed his regret that the hon. Baronet had not resorted to a public inquiry. The report could at best be considered merely as a one-sided report.
Sir James Graham: It. is the report of the mayor of the town.
Mr. Ward: The mayor of a town is not always an impartial authority.
Mr. Wakley: I hope that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government will now admit some doubt as to the surpassing purity of Tamworth.
Sir R. Peel: Quite the reverse. If strangers come to Tamworth and endeavour to contaminate the electors, that is no reason why I should doubt the purity of the latter. Surely the hon. Member would not class the prisoners in Stafford gaol amongst the electors of Tamworth.
Mr. W. Williamswished to ask the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department, how many signatures were attached to the Tamworth memorial?
Sir J. Graham: I do not recollect the exact number— somewhere about two thousand; but the hon. Member will, of course, make some abatement after the statement I have read.
Subject at an end.

PROROGATION OF PAHLIAMENT.
Mr. Thornleywished to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether, in consequence of the addresses which had been presented to her Majesty, Government had altered their intentions respecting the prorogation.
Sir R. Peel: In answer to the question of the hon. Member, I beg to state that Government have not thought it expedient to alter the advice they had previously given
1146
to her Majesty respecting the prorogation of Parliament.
Sir R. Peelmoved that the House do now adjourn.

FINANCE.
Mr. F. T. Baring, as he might not have another opportunity, wished now to advert to a statement, which he perceived through those channels of information to which all had access, had been made in another place, bearing upon his own conduct while he had the honour to hold that office now filled by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. The statement to which he alluded had been made on an authority entitled to respect, not only from himself, but from every one, and he should he glad to hear the view taken of the subject by the right hon. Gentleman. It was said, that besides the deficiency of 2,500.000 l. for the present year, which he had stated to the House while the budget was under discussion, there was a large additional deficiency, of which he had neglected to take any notice. He was not in the habit of making statements, either privately or publicly, by which he was not willing to abide. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had likewise brought forward a budget, and the right hon. Gentleman had followed the statements which he had found it his duty to make, and had adopted his figures without making the slightest allusion to any deficiency beyond what he had stated. He did not like to use harsh language, but he must say, if he had deceived the public by making false statements of the sums required for the public service, he was utterly unworthy of the confidence which the House had placed in him, and of the situation which the goodness of her Majesty had confided to him. He should be glad, therefore, to learn from the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether this large deficiency existed, as they were given to understand? Fie wished also to know if the right hon. Gentleman had found that the sums, the figures of which the right hon. Gentleman had adopted from his budget, with the exception of a few minor items, left out of calculation on account of communications to be made by the Governor-general of Canada, were not fixed at the fair and proper amount necessary for the service of the year? The right hon. Gentleman was bound to have stated to the country the fact, if it were not so. He had fully entered his protest against the course which had been pursued by the Government; but had there been any such large

1147
deficiency concealed by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman must have well known of these inaccuracies, whatever they v/ere, yet had not once alluded to any such circumstances. Now, he used no harsh language— he well knew how improper it was; he perfectly well knew also how utterly insignificant he was in comparison with the illustrious individual to whom he was referring; his only anxiety was to defend himself, and without using a single expression inconsistent with the high respect he had for the distinguished authority on which the statement he alluded to had been made. He did think he had a right to call upon the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation. He would further state this, that as to the estimates for the succeeding years (though it was well known how difficult such estimates must necessarily be), which he had stated at 50,000,000 l., with the exception of one item, as to China, which it was clear had only been in the nature of a vote on account, seeing how very probable it was that circumstances might arise creating a necessity for a larger expense than was estimated— taking into consideration treaties effected by his noble Friend, which it was fair, in his opinion, to presume would afford opportunities for further reduction of expenses — he did think, upon the whole, that, so far as the calculation could have been made at the period of his quitting office, he had not been far out In estimating the permanent expenditure at 50,000,000 l. He thought the House would agree with him, at all events, that he could have hardly done less than bring the statement t he had mentioned before them in the manner he had done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was one of the inconveniences of adverting to statements made elsewhere that the House could never be very accurately informed of the precise words alluded to, and it was a still greater inconvenience that, as in the present case, the person of whom the explanation was asked had often no opportunity of conferring with the individual whose language was referred to. For, as he had told the right hon. Gentleman, he had not even seen the printed statement to which he had adverted, until it had been shown to him by the right hon. Gentleman that evening; and, having since been waiting in the expectation of the matter being mentioned, he had not been able to see the distinguished individual referred to. But on leading the statement he confessed that
1148
he had put upon it a different interpretation from that which had been imagined by the right hon. Gentleman. He had not understood the statement to be of a. deficiency over and above the estimate for this year, which the right hon. Gentleman had stated at 2,500,000 l.; and if the right hon. Gentleman would look more closely at it, he would see that even in the reported statement the individual making it had brought it forward as a reason for not, at the present period, being impelled to a full development of financial schemes, as to the manner in which the wants of the country were hereafter to be met; because (stating reasons against such precipitation) that individual had seen, in addition to the existing deficiency of 2,500,000 l., difficulties enough to grapple with. There were other great expenses connected with the colonies (that he had peculiarly noticed), which it would be necessary shortly to provide for. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman had been in the House when the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government made a reply to the noble Lord opposite on a recent occasion, he would have heard stated those very facts, connected with additional expenditure to be apprehended, to which it must be evident that the expression in the reported statement referred. The right hon. Gentleman would have heard that there was a prospect of greater expenditure in several colonies and in China, for which provision would have to be made; and the argument founded upon those statements was natural enough, that to provide for such apprehended additions to our expenditure full time for consideration ought to be allowed the Government. This was as it appeared to him (Mr. Goulburn), the real sense of the statement, not that the right hon. Gentleman had concealed any deficiency of which he was aware at the time he made his estimate, but that before anything like a permanent arrangement could be made upon financial matters, not only the existing deficiency must be supplied, but those expenses provided for which must be anticipated from various quarters of the globe. This was all the explanation he could give— the bonâ fide sense which he attached to the statement referred to — and a sense in which he did not think even the right hon. Gentleman would be able to dispute it.
Mr. Baringsaid, he was quite satisfied

1149
with the explanation, which, as he understood it was, that the statement referred only to expenses anticipated— not incurred — but which were necessary to be taken into the calculations incident to a general financial arrangement. Now, although, as was well known, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the conclusion to be deduced, he should not have deemed it necessary, had he understood the statement in that sense, to have come up to the House (at considerableinconvenience) for the purpose of asking explanation.
Sir R. Peelsaid, unfortunately there had been a discussion upon that very subject in that House when the right hon. Gentleman was not present; and although he had not had the opportunity of examining the precise terms of the reported statement, he thought it would not be doubted that his noble Friend (it was idle to affect ignorance of who was intended) had the same impression in making that statement as he (Sir R. Peel) had given expression to in the discussion of which he was speaking. In the observations which he had then made in the presence of the noble Lord lately at the head of the Colonial Department, he had not at all impeached the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's estimates for the present year; on the contrary, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted those estimates, and had said, that though there had been circumstances which might have accounted for any errors, yet upon the whole, he believed the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the probable deficit, might be assumed to be correct. When he (Sir R. Peel) had spoken on the former occasion he had reason to apprehend considerable expenses not falling within the estimate of what was lobe provided for in the present year— not at all impugning the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's calculations, yet considerable expenses which must be calculated in attempting an estimate for future years. He had particularly referred to the state of New South Wales, quoting a despatch (to which certainly, the right hon. Gentleman had not referred, nor had opportunity of referring) showing that engagements had been entered into by the governor entailing an expense of 900,000 l., which must be borne either by the colonial or imperial Government, (and of which no
1150
estimate had hitherto been made) the probable extent of the liabilities to be foreseen by this country being accounted at not less than 500,000 l. on this head. To New Zealand he had also referred and the liabilities incurred there for bills actually drawn. Then he had mentioned (though some ridicule had been cast upon it) the expense of the establishment which it appeared had been contemplated on the small island in Canton river; such were some of the expenses (amounting, as they could not but do, to considerable sums) to which he was persuaded his noble Friend in the upper House had referred, rather than to any inaccuracy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. Now, in this sense, he must say, that he believed no doubt could be entertained of the truth of this statement, and that it must not be assumed that the expenditure of the present year was necessarily the measure of that of future years; and that the expenses connected with the colonies— as they must be provided for somehow (though he trusted they would be borne by the colonies)— should not be left out of view in calculating our future engagements.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, when the statement alluded to had been pointed out to him, his impression had been certainly the same with that expressed by his right hon. Friend; however, an explanation had been made, which, coupled with the correct representation given by the right hon. Baronet of the discussion the Other night, was satisfactory. As this was the last opportunity he might have he would avail himself of it, not to renew former discussions— the Government had taken their time as to the prorogation and the postponing of all announcements of intention as to important measures; he would not attempt to revive those discussions, but he did hope the Government would feel that the questions he alluded to were of such a nature that they must be prepared to come to a decision upon them; and that it was not to be supposed that "the chapter of accidents" would lead to such a change of circumstances as to dispense with the necessity for coming to such a decision; and, above all, he begged of them, to bear in mind that no circumstances could reasonably be apprehended "which could dispense with the obligation on the part of the Government to prove and to declare to Parliament their determination on that great question— the

1151
Corn-laws, and on our whole commercial policy. He would entreat them to consider this, persuaded as he was that the public would never be contented with the proposition to Parliament of some petty change in the "pivot," or some slight alteration of the "sliding scale;" and that even supposing the existing distress to subside, the country would not be satisfied with any measure short of one which would substantially, bonâ fide, permit the introduction of foreign corn at a moderate fixed duty.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he would not enter into the discussion (which the noble Lord while professing to deprecate, seemed disposed to invite) regarding the Corn-laws, or our commercial policy; as to these questions, the determination which he had frequently stated was unshaken, and it was not to be expected that on the eve of a prorogation be should deviate from his resolution of abstinence from premature disclosures. And as to what the noble Lord had kindly dropped in the way of advice, he could assure the noble Lord that the result of his experience of former Governments was, that he entertained a very deep dislike and distrust of any dependence on the "chapter of accidents."
House adjourned.