174 THE TllKATY OF WASHINGTON. 



or otlicr Kni;lishiiK'n, uliosc false rcproscntations de- 

 ceived tlie ihitisli CIoverniiK'ut, and involved Great 



W. Atliorton, if llicv ever went to citlicr? "\V)»y ■were tlicy not 

 sent to the lionso of Sir Uoundell Palmer? How did tliey ulti- 

 juately ,t,'et into tlic hands of Sir William Athcrton and Sir 

 Koundell Tahner? 



>,'ow, whatever Sir Tioundell Palmer says I believe; and liis 

 declaration shows that there is no more reason to 8ii])iwse the 

 liaj>ers were sent, either to Sir J. Harding or to Sir AV. Athcr- 

 ton, of whicli iiothincj is known, than that they were sent to 

 Sir K, Palmer liimself, to wliom wc know they were not sent, 

 as lie ])osilively declares. 



Observe that Sir K. I'almer takes pains to cojnmend the dili- 

 gence, conscientiousness, and industry of Sir W. Athcrton, from 

 which it is jtlain to infer that he never received the papers. 

 Of course, the allusion to the death of him and his wife is as 

 little to the i)uri)Ose as that to the deatli of Sir J. Harding and 

 his wile, or the insanity of Sir J. Harding. 



Another observhtipn. According to Sir Koundell I'almer's 

 statement, there were two Rucccssivo references to the Law 

 Othccrs,— on the 23d and the 2oth or 2Gtl). He implies that 

 each of these references 7)iif/ht have been communicated to Sir 

 J. Harding and to Sir "William Athcrton. He does not spe.ak 

 of the insane Sir J. Harding <donc, as Lord Kussell docs; but 

 is carifiil to make excuse in like manner for tlic sane Sir W. 

 Athcrton. Now, when he was called in for consultation on the 

 evening of the 28th, did it not occur to him to inquire why 

 these sets of papers, each one of which ought to have been 

 communicated to him at tlieir respective dates, were not so 

 communicated ? Why speculate on the cflccts of tlic insanity 

 of Sir J. Harding or the integrity of Sir W. Athcrton? AVhy 

 not as well lay before us conjectural inferences founded on tho 

 diligence, or uprightness of him, Sir K. Palmer ? Should not tho 

 {i.upprcssion of tlic papers as to himself have suggested to him 

 that they liad been suppressed as to Sir J. Harding and Sir W. 

 Athcrton ? 



Wc revert now to Lord llusscU's statement to Mr. Adams, 



