The Sun. — London, England, 1846-06-20 00:00:00

point, The Panto Member say , that he has been making de liberate ine i ices, and that he has ascertained the reports of 'he " Mirror of Parliament" were contributed by in•ierendeot gen tian:len not connected with the pu:)lic pre-s. As a col,e quenee, therefore, one confirms another. There was evol , nce of the coreeurrence of these two sdts of independent reporters. and it was remarkable that two independent sets of re- Porters should have made the same report. And the Hon. Gen- Vrltratt went on to say, " Sir, I have inquired, and I have Detti info rme d th a t th e rrport in the • Mirror of Par:jail:lent' tO which I have referred was done by Mr. Barrow, (see of the Most finished short-hand reporters, and a inan of education nd intelligence." Mr. Barrow, unfortunately. is not here ; ad. es to the inquiry mole by the Hon. Member, and th, teeement that he had ascertained that the report wan by Mr. rairrow. I give the most peremptory eontr,di ttiun —(Great *tiering.) I deny that the report tv,s by Mr. Ba-row, who Was the editor or that paper; and I believe that he was not then, althone e I believe he might base been, a re.orter, and Z‘ sas not in the habi' of reportiag. The lion. Gentleman, for ee rt ° PorPose of adding w ight to his charge, had told the noose 'chat it was an independent report a man nf high tharaco er and great attainments. The Hon. Gentli man went on t(, say—" However, I had the di , cretion to refer to the re. P D :et of the speech in one of the most eminent of the public `Papers of the time, and'l find the same report under the date of March 6, 1629." The Hon. Gentlemen had thus taken credit to himself that he was not an indiscreet man, and did not prefer charees against me on a port witf eout comparing it with other reports. He took credit to l aimself for ditcretion, as he did not snake the char,r,n eo t)ra talosele repo r t, b u t b e had found the repert of the " Times" debrAling and concurrent w ith t h e report o f t h e o the r inlepen a• .tets of reporters. Is it discreet and just to refer to only , I T'h reports—the concurrent reports of the " Times" and the _Mirror of Parliament?" Had the Hon. Member the discre tion to examine other reports? There were other morning papers at the sam e tline—(Cheers)—for which there were independent reports i and has he had tne discretion to refer to One of them; and in the event of the apparent concurrence of thay of theta to info rm th e H ouse o f t h e f act ? Did h e conclude thesee was no necessity for further inquiry ? Allow me to o 4 if 'the sava e sense o f j ust i ce i n d uce d you ( to M r . Disraeli) a s o e. aatoitle any other report—to look at the report of the adorning Chronicle," of the " Morning Herald," of the fir the P ost ," o f t h e "M orn i ng J ourna l"— a pa p e r s et up the pu r p ose o f d estroy i ng t h e w h o l e success o f the measure I had then in hand? There are four other independent report, and I ask you this question—Did you go in search of any Other papers? And if you eid, why have you not had the e „ honesty to bring them forward to the House ? lon did not do so. Why did yen confine yourself to those reports that seemed to support your charge, and not extend 'our inqyAries to others ? Or if you did, why di,l you not Dome forward and state the feet that every other report hut that ti', which you referred, though written by the independent I :,°_Por. ter% of four newsp a p ers , exc l u d e d the words on which the accusation rests ?—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear ") Now of:serve, the words of " The Times" are, " That the time had 'arrived when something must be done with the Roman Cetho he Question." The " Mirror of Parliament" it is said con curred with. this—thus supporting the accusation by two ;nee- Pendent 'reports, and bearing out the charge that I hid altoilatod and garbled the speech, withholding the knowledge w i nat I really said.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, what ire tkie versiens of these four other 'ournals whose reports were `gtesished by independent parties The " Herald's" report alga, " So far as he was personally anncerned, in 1925, when ek . ' e liras at the head of the Home Department, he must state *heat, regarding the Catholic question. he felt his situation was 11 ;atatable. He did not seek ( the" Times" says " I did seek") st-she did not seek to. retain office, and he told the Earl of Livers Pool that, in his opinion, he time had come when he ought to De relieved from the duties of office— Loud cheersl—as h' was in a minority on that question. The Earl of Liverpool told him that .is retirement from office would probably lead to !Is dissolution of Parliament." This speech was one of four !ours' leneeth ; and I must observe, that however able and care t:a reporters may be in the execution of their duties. and dis- P? s ed to do justice, it is impossible for them to av o id mistakes this kind It is quite clear, from the extract I have given, r i i .. kt the remark of which so much had been made meant no but a dissolution of the Government.—( Hear, hear.) • os, Morning Chronicle" says, " As far as my personal c0n ;1825, net is concer n ed, in when I was Mi n i s t er o f t h e Home !eePartment, respecting the Catholic question before the House, 4 felt that from my situation, and the intimate connexion of ay Office w ith t h e a d m i ns t rat i on o f a ff a i rs i n Ireland, and find °R Myself in a minority on that question, 1 considered the rate of things was such that it was right I should he re ieved 'roan the responsible situation I held. I told Lord Liverpool , t hat the time had a rr i ve d w h en I s h ou ld b e re lieved k °to the responsibility o f o ffi ce . Thi s , I was told by Lord Liverpool, would break up the whole Administration. It far a s he was oencerned." Is it necessary that I should raid it all ?-4 No, no ; go on.) "He must state that in the /mu' 1825, when he was Minister of the Home Department, he ?end himself in a minority, and feeling the difficulty of his ph- Vion, charred as he was with the administration of affairs in e i r t eland, a n d t h at h e t h oug h t t h e t i me h ad come w h en h e aaould teek to be relieved from the responsibilities of his office, kid arrived, in consequence of fi n di ng hi mse lf i n a mino rity upon a subject intimately conn ec t e d w ith the I.. . i ituagement of I r el a nd, a n d th a t t h e E ar l of beverpool had stated that if Mr. Peel retired must also send in his resignation. Now I will refer to the " Morning Journal." It states in its report So far as m) ersonal conduct is concerned, I can state, that in the year 825, when I was Minister in the Home Department, I was in a Minority on the Catholic quest on in the House of Commons, l aad I felt th at my s i tuat i on as a Mi n i ster i n the office which then held, charged as I was with the administration of affairs in Ireland, that I found myself in a minority upon a t Plestion of the greatest importance, which, in reference to the ".. li ttle , of the cou n try, could engage my attention ; and that I - I,,itta to be relieved from the responsibilities of my situation. "Ken told the Earl of Liverpool that one thing must be done, th v • , 1 should be relieved from the duties of my office. • Was stated upon tbat occasion that my retirement would . mad to their retirement.—(C:heers.) Yost hare now the exact th nacurrence of three other morning papers, all omitting the' • pa ss age which in it s elf w a s cer t a i n ly o f an equ i voca l nature . ir on have th en t h e concurrence o f f our ot h er morn i ng papers. e j, " !froPloying separate and independent r e po r t ers , a ll agree i ng Zn marvellous accuracy in the context of what I said, omit "Nl the, passage. If there was a paper which reported lade- Plmtleoetly and separately, which did lend its sanction to th, refr:irt of another paper, the absence of the viselike to f o nt, others, however strong may be the presumption Of their accuracy, does not at all affect the Possibility of the charge being founded upon it. It is as four to one against it. Thera is something singular in the fact, that if Mr. Barrow was an independent reporter and if there was a certain class of reporters reporting separately. that they did not arrive at the same conclusion. I deny the • tact that Mr. Barrow made these reports, also that there was e o separate c l ass o f repor t ers em ployed on the " Mirror of Par iiininent."—(L ou d cheers.) I have inquired upsn the subject as well as the Hon. Member. I state this fact. I `'ate Positiv e l y , and I will demonstrate it to you that Mr. Barron L did not report my sentiments upon this occasion. —( Hea r h ear-) But wait till I state the feet. The " Mirror of Par 'lament" had not a distinct corps of reporters. Now I will stat, this fact that the reporters of the " Morning Chronicle," an , the rePo:rters of the " Times" were in connexion with th. 1 ' 'Mirror of Parliament ;" that they did not make separate re ports ; no, of course it would have been absurd ; that they :et together, comparing each others report, and thet they "ot. to the " Mirror of Parliament" that which gave the fulled rePort of one part of the speech, and that which gave the fillies• r eport of another. —( Hear, hear.) The reporters of the " llir ror.of Parliament" concocted from the reports of the " Morn• i nit Chronicle" and " Times." Now that is the informatiot Which has reached me, and which I can establish by most ex • rptsonal authority. Now, is it right that any man shout. absour under the charge that, for unworthy purposes, he ha , k:eobled a particular speech ; but, more than all, is it right the a Minister of the Crown—an active Member of this House should be cempellsd, in the middle of a session of Parliament t ° lag out of his ordinary course, to disprove such a palpably un founded charge ?—( Hear, hear.) But I have tone it ; and 1 ,w,ill prove to you, by taking the reports of the Mirror of Par plulent" itself, and comparing them with the reports of th Herald," the " Morning Chronicle," and th " Times," that the report of the Mirror of Parliamen•"is r anftolepende n t r e port, but rather the concocted report w to f tio ho h i. r ePorters of tho-e three papers._ I will .terations of the prove : passages are taken, with scarcely any. se or changink word s , except altering " he" in t o the person. I will prove to vnu, that withou any alteration, some parts are taken tram the " Mernine Herald," others tram the " Morning Chronicle," and some parts from the " Times " I will prove this by showing you that the part taken from the " Times," which, I believe, we , taken by Mr. Tyas , is copied with its accidental mistakes. I' rror of Parliament," onl3 into ". Mi • l e ll us. f o a g it , h o i g ully iv e t .. „ p i i n ed to I w,ll show you that the report o the Mirror of Parliament'' was prepared , from the "Morn ing Herald," the " Morning Chronicle, and the " Times •" and I will show you that the reporters of_ these morn in g Pe n were employed upon t h e Mirror of P arliament "—the they were not independent—that they dpi not make sepai-ate reports.-but that, after the business of th e day was over, and they tad written their reports for the morning papers, the reporter: was no t p blished u of these morning papers met tog ether, and concocted the re port for the " Mirror of Parliament," which Well, now, then. for a day or ao afterwards. — ( Heir, hear. ) does not the argument altogether break. down- 7 (Hear, hear) •--is it not the site report heart — pact?—(Hear, the report on ti the.. Times" is not confirmed by th e ad o p tion of theta sam as e- report by the ss Mirror of Parliament.' , did I g Or speech, by striking ou t t h w e d ity not e u f tt f e e r e e r d, a o n t e i r n w p h o i p c o h I was borne out by r and also by the . g Chronicle," which I wa s accustomed ha a t ut l h h o a l Irn to look to in matters of this kind. Well, then, what becomes of the assertion of the Hon. Gentleman with reference to the corrected report, ant i with regard to the note which he read out, that it was inserted wit h the p ermission of Secretary Peel, as if to say, I had sent to Hansard my cerrected report, and begged of him, in a note, to inert it? But the facts of the case are the s e ;—Mr. Murray , of Albemarle-street, pub lished the speech, and there was a jealousy about the copyright; anti Hansard had no right to publish it, bet he applied to me eni for my permission, and I got Mr. Murray to giv e hiscon to the p u bli ca ti on .—( L ou d an d c ontinued cheering.) Andsthe note was inserted in order to show that it had not bee n taken surreptitiously.--( Hear, hear.) Yet the Hon, Gentleman in . . sinuated that I had sent to H ansar d t o do away with the mis chief of the publication of the passage attributed to me by on - paper.' But still more —the other reports make no complaint. but. we find the t' Times" reporter, the man who has made the mistake, regrets that Mr. Secretary Peel's voice was ucca sionally so li,w, that he was but indistinctly heard in the gal lery—( Hear, hear, and loud cheers)—and nineteen years after wards a am to be maligned and condemned ; and why p because there was a deaf reporter on the " Times."—( Tremendous eheeringd Every other repo r t er di d it correctly. The " Times reporter made the mistake, the man who said my voice was indistinctly heard. Oil Monday night I heard f o r the first time that there was any discrepancy between these reports; and am I to be denounced as a garbler, as a suppressor of the truth, because I took the authority of four against one, confirmed by my own impression.? Well, I think I have suffiiently cleared no self of these i m_out s at ions.— ( purl t cheers. ) at row an Now, I thick I have di s p e•ed of Mr. indepen dent report—( Hear, hear, and lauehter)—and I think I have denied the allegation too that there was a separate band of reporters aloof from the newspapers—( Lear, hear) --making independent reports ; and I now come , to the speech of my Hon. Friend Sir Edward Knatchbud. Weil, as I said , 1 event through al these fierce cenflict charge preferred, except it was preferred I never heard this on that occasion, on the kith of March ; but if it. was preferred then, it was the only time during the centletts on the Catholic question. But I heard that in 18;::9 1 had asserted in 1825 my opinions were changed. In the first place. if I had said so, it would have been utterly at variance with the whole t e nor of my speech e,, delivered at that time. I take the " Mirror of P arliament. , Isaid in 1829, after the House of Commons had come to tne decision I eve stated, that in 1822 I was prepared to take the course which I had been prepared to take in 1825, namely, to resign my office. But what did I say ? That I was not only anxious to retire from office, but I repeated that whenever the Catholic claims came on I should feel myself justified at once to retire from office. But on the following day I was questioned as to why I had stated that in 5e5 my ovens .n had chitoged ; hot the nvoral qu,stion was Va; ' inf:ti [ O ) utn " f when there were just as strong reasons for it as the re are now?" Why that was the question put to the Earl of Uxbridge i on- the night after, the - 16th of March.. It** put tif eb:1044-Ki4W14411,* . Irtni *ll 541 ivy THE. SUN, LONDON, which he did in 1837, when he said that the time had come when something ought to be dene to settle the question. There ap pea ed. therefore. the strongest probability of ;he correctness of what he ( Lord G. Bentinck ) had stated in reference to the opposition of the Right Honourable Baronet to the Catholic &aims in 182.1.—( Hear. hear.) In supped of what he hail stated, he would refer to %chat took teace in 1831. when the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr Macaulay) spoke in favour of the Reform BM, and alluded to the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet, The Right Hon. Baronet then went into a statement of his con duet in 1823. He said he had left in 1828 on account of his views on the Roman Catholic question, but that the time had rof a-rived when he could explain the circumstances that led to it. But he might state that his opinions on the question of the Catholic: laims remained unchanged, but he thought that there would be danger to the ceuntry, and the stability of ice institutions in further resisting the measure. His opinions were unchanged, but he had doubts of resisting the measure fir fear that greater evils might arise.--( Hear, hear.) H it opinions were the same as they had ever been, even at the time when be asked Parliament to consent to the pass ing of the measure of Catholic Emancipation. The Hon. Mernoer then read at considerable length a letter written by the Right Hon. Baronet to his Grace the Duke of Wellington, in which he urged upon his Grace the necessity oiasneedy settle ment of the long agitated question of Catholic Emancipation. hut that he (Sir R. Peel) considered that it would affect his character as a public man if after his expression of opinion on the subject on a former occasion, he should undertake the con ducting of the Bill in the House of Commons. The Right Hon. Baronet had written a letter to the Earl of Liverpool, which he also read to the House, in which he stated that if the Noble E,arl considered it would promote the success of the Bill, he would resign and support it, regardless of any effect which such a course might have upon his character as a public man. The Noble Lord ( George Bentinck ) proceeded te ask, were the memories of Hon. Gentlemen so fickle that they had for gitten that 'n the autumn of 182 e the Right Hon. Beronet made a triumphant progress through the country as the apostle of Protestant ascendency? Had Hon. Gentlemen forgot, had the country forgot, would they ever forget, that he acted as he had previously acted in .1827 towards Viscount Canning, when he had the assurance to go down to Manchester, and dined at a large public dinner as the champion of Protestant ascendancy ?—(Cheeek ) When the Right Honourable Baronet talks of the probity of his conduct, how could Hon. Members of that House answer for the probity of the conduct of a Gen tleman who stood there convicted of having gone through all the manufacturing districts, dining there at great public dinners as the Protestant champion, after he hail in the summer of that year made up his mind to carry Catholic emancipation. He wanted to know whether a snuff-box would have been pre sented to him from Liverpool—from Mr. Hollingshead. he be lieved —whether he would have received these assemblies-- would have been feted and honoured with all these dinners by the Protestants and Orangenaen of the country, if they had anticipated that in the summer of 1828 he had made up his mind to carry Catholic emancipation ? There was then au end of the Right Honourable Baronet's defence.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") Hon. Gentlemen might cry " Oh, ob," but did they rember the pledges they had given to their constituents ; would their constituents cry " Oh, oh ?"—( Cheers. 1 He would now go back to the speech of Sir Seward Knatchbull. The Right Hon. Baronet had said Sir Edward Knatchbull could not have been present when he made his speech, or he would not have addressed the House in the tone and manner he did. But did the Right Hon. Baronet get up at the time to complain pith's, er to make any explanation ?—( Cheers.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman never touched that part of the speech in which Sir E Knatchbull imputed to him that con duct towards Mr. Canning. He has never answered that charge--it never can be answered. Sir E. Knatchbull said, that if his opinions had been changed. he ought, in justice to himself, in justice to his friends, in justice to Mr. Canning, who was the ab!e and constant advocate of the measure, to heve conceded it. If, as he says now, that he considered in 1825 the quest on ought to have been conceded, why did he not think so in 1627, when the supposed difference with Mr. Canning upon this point obtained for him the must powerful supeert, which I confess. said Sir E. Knatchbull, " to have been the case with me; and if we are to be secured by our con. cessions to Catholics, from their gratitude, why not, concede the measure through the hands of those who have been its con stant advocates, and who would have looked upon it as a boon coming from them, but wh3 could not view it in such a light coming from the hands that it did, with the confession that it was extorted from them?"—( Hear, hear.) Chen, when he said that they should look to the report in " Hansard," he knew that it was not all couched in the same language with that in the " Mirror of Parliament," but the sense of it was the same. It was as follows:—" The Right Hon. Gentleman, however, said that even then (that was in 182 i) he was satisfied something must be done to conciliate I -eland. If, then, he was satisfied as to the necessity of con ciliation, and if he was thus abandoned by his supporters, why did he not consent, and lend his assistance to Mr. Canning in the accomplishment of that object?"- (Heat, hear.) But wee that the only comment that was made upon the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet ? There was at that time, in that House, a warm supporter of Protestant ascendancy, Mr. Michael Thomas Sadler—( Hear)—and what was the language that Mr. Sadler used on this occasion ? Why, he said, " Long winded orations, passages which led to nothing—( Hear) — could never set this matter in an honest light before the country.—(Cheers.) They can comprehend it as little as the question of emancipation, in which they are declared to be so ignorant and besotted. They were, however, beguiled by Peel's explanation. So was I. I was one of them. 1 thought the conduct of the Noble and Right Hoe. individual concerned sacrificed a principle to consistency. What it was it is not worth while to inquire, since it was anything rather than that. It is now too late to rectify the error ; all that remains is to regret most deeply that those who have so secretly, sud denly, and unceremoniously deserted us should have so con ducted themselves with regard to that highly-gifted individual, unhappily now no more, as one who ought not to serve his king and country as the head of the Government, because he was favourable to a measure and now so indecently forced upon to country." Mr. Sadler said, "I do heartily repent of my share in it, and the too successful attempts to hunt down so noble an individual—a man whom England, and the world would not fail to recognise as its orna ment ; whose eloquence was, in these days at least, unrivalled; the energies of whose capacious mind, stored by knowledge and enervated by genius, were devoted to the service of his country; the qualities of whose generous heart led those who spoke of them to reel Liitt warmth or ins frlirusitntirtp,wtitcti, 7 betleVe, could only be equalled by its stability. Had I had the honour of having a seat in the House at that time, I should have eon scientionaly opposed him on that occasion, but with feelings very different from those who then oppo..od him. Those gen tlemen who said it was impossible to act with such a Minister, and for reasons which vitiate their present doings, implying therefrom that as the transaction with such a person the annals of our country could not furnish so disgraceful a page. But, passieg to his memory, my humble tribute is paid when it can can be no longer heard or regarded—when it is drowned by the voice of interested adu intim poured only into the ears of the living. But his character is rescued, and rises in triumph over surviving— what shall I call them? Let their own consciences supply the name."—( Loud cheers.) That was the comment of Mr. Sadler—( Hear)—upon this same speech of the Right Hon. Baronet; and it might be remembered too by those who heard Mr. Sadler wind up another soul-stirring speech to the same effect. The speech in the " Mirror of Parliament" was no doubt the speech of the Hon. Baronet, collected from all the reports supplied to the newspapers by all the reporters in that gallery (said the Noble Lord, pointing to the reporter , ' gallery). Then it was not attempted to be denied that the speech in " Hansard" was also correct. But in 1623 the lien. Baronet did what he had done in 1325, with this addition, namely, that he was prepared to pass the measure through Parliament. There could be no doubt now, that the communication referred to was a verbal one, and that his writtenresig nerit,. Thestatement. This case must Right Han. Baronet but it should be known that it w as the p ractice of re p orters hadt standio nsaid on w a that hta tendered s t a reporterintrinsic t irnin a of the m (silly to take their notes for a quarter of an h our at a time. This paragraph occurred far down in this four hours' speech, whereas the Right. Hon. Baronet was alluding to the mistakes that occurred in the early part of the report. He had compared the report in he " Times" and in " Hansard," and he found that there were 66 words in one report, and only 38 in the other. This sufficiently proved to bins that the report ad been tampered with. When the Right Hon. Baronet was queting " Hansard" against him, he had looked him steadily in the face, to see what effect the witness of that book would have upon him. He read steadily enough whilst quoting what passed in 1827, but when he came to what passed in 1829, he would not say the book almost fell from his hands, but he threw it from him as if afraid any longer to retain it in his grasp.—(Cheers. ) Sir W. JAMES rose to order. The Noble Lord, he con ceived, might state facts, but he had no right to speak of feelings. The SPEAKER decided that his Lordship might proceed. Lord GORGE BENTINCK—The Bight Honourable Baronet had acknowledged that •he had altered that report in " Hansard," for there was a note to that effect at the bottom of the page. That speech was severely 'dealt with by Sir Edward Knatchbull, and was much ques tioned by a Noble Lord. He held with no such double-deal ing as this by a Minister high in the confidence of his Sove reign. The Right Hon. Gentleman was a great reformer of th,, criminal law, and he pleaded the Statute of Limitations on the charges which had been brought against him. The Right Honourable Baronet should bear in mind that the law of limitations only applied to the law of debtors, and not to criminal offences. The Right Hon. Baronet had com mitted two offences—they were great in magnitude, and be should bear in mind that . the country would not forgive two great crimes. He (Lord G. Bentinck) had been charged with bringing up an old offence with regard to the name of Mr. Canning. Had he done so without provocation—had he made one charge that was not borne out in fact? He was there not to mike false charges • but while he had the honour of a seat in that House, he would denounce political profligacy. The Right Honourable Baronet had charged him with using ianguage unbecoming a Member of that House. When the Honourable Speaker was first proposed to sit in that Cheir, he (Lord G. Flentine.k) voted against him, for the Right Honourable Gentleman was then untried. He was, however, elected by a small majority, and the next time the Right Hon. Gentleman was proposed, he (Lord G. Bentinek) voted for him, because his decisions had always been Trost impartial. With such a Right Hon. Gentle man in that chair, he (the Noble Lord) believed that language unbecoming a Member of that House could not b. used without calling for his interference.—( Hear, hear.) He bad used no language but what was quite legitimate and just.— ( Hear, hear.) He used language denouncing the political profligacy of those who had sold their constituencies. Mr. ESCOTT—Who sold,them—who ? Lord GEORGE BE'NTLICK—You ask me who, and I say you, sir. I have the honour of being one of your con stituents, and I have the means of learning some of the secrets of the city of Winchester He had made such a c, , se as the Hight Hon. Baronet failed to answer so as to disprove it, and he was now willing, and he was now ready, to leave it to the judgment of an impartial English public.--(Cheers. Sir JOHN HANMER sa id t h at the N o bl e L or d was very parial to making a comparison between his own speeches and those of Mr. Fox ; but he (Sir John Hanmer) differed in opinion with the Noble Lord as to the force and vigour of the speeches of both. He was prepared to prove that the Noble Lord hail spoken to the electors of Lynn as a supporter of the Right Hon. Baronet. He was not one to rake up old soeeches, as he but occasionally dipped into the n ewspapers, he a ha o st d e e rs p , i a ct ud a heir leading f i ew bee l e n a d i Il i n cra ce l d i n t that he had been so ready to had said in his speeches, seeingread and then onlyofpoprotnheentssp.eecßheu of other parties. He would an little out of his usual course to inqu i re what the Noble Lord Noble Lord given in the " Norfolk extract of a speech of the The speech was spoken at the Lynn Chronicle" Ju'y 3, 1841. Lord distinctly said. that in 1335 he election ; and the Noble • Y Ministry of the da y. Now, Conservative vote the speeches wa s elected to support t Lord Stanley, whom the Hon. Bart, was at variance with motion for electing Noble Lord (Lord George Bentinek) had represented as his Now, let the House bear in mind that at that time the Right grew deal has h political leader. He found also that - the :Noble Lord the - and all the leading Member for Lynn supported the - Right Hon. Baronet on the Conservative par • , ty a.‘, led on .y the Right Hon. Baronet. The Noble Lord was, therefore, Iso Baronet A eat in oeent of the charge s h g g m M n a ti n o n n e s rs of S t u h t e to co n n e s s e Speaker of th.: House, election , that event might seenin relation what useQii.ntsionae sn -aid about a general seharnaosetdbo arrive,o a ug adn h d t t z hm li nOw3 itth otwhnoeounwdigop.bliet the people cf England raid btu. answer in the reports of the speech of the following day, and hex would that ree•meile with the other statement? Well, rtn v, with re,pect then to the speech of my Hon. F. iend qtr E lava , d Knatchhull. lam quite convinced that he is utterly inc triable ot garbling or mulilating a speech. I think that you will find that this is a corrected report of the speech; and cer trinly in that speech he does assume the statement to be made by me on the preceding day the lbth of Alarch. that I hd used these words that the " Times" imputes to me. Bait if he had read the " Mirror of Parliament" he would have found that it did not agree with the " Times." Bat now will the Hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him another question ? As he thought he hail no right to confirm the report of the " Nlirror of Parliament' by a reference to the " Times," with regard to my speech, did he take the same course with reeird to it as Sir Edward Ku rtchhuil?—( Hear, h'•ar. ) Oh mrve, he did not trust to the " Mirror of Par;ia rn,mt" to prefer hid accusation a.ainst me. Bat my Hon. F:iond Sir E. Knatchbull said that ha had had the discretion to refer to the " Thrice." for the parpo , e ot seeing whether that erainsait public newspaper confirmed the report of the " Alma. of Parliatneut." Well, new, did the Huneurahle Gentleman take the same course with regard to the " Times" as had been done by Sir Edward Knatchhull ? With regard .o Sir Edwar i Knatchbull, why d.d the Nobe Lrril not take the same c ursa with res sect to me, and see -.yhether the rrrioua reports of the speech agreed with ea- h th r ? is th sp ech of Sir Edward Knatchbull, and unt on word of accusation is 'brought aga net me in it.—(Cheer .) Tats is the, report of Sir Edward Knatchbu l's speech in the " With reference - 0 the accounts he alluded to, he ri,leed the Right Hon. Gentleman, if the state of . Ireland and country w:re the reasons for his policy, if he ought not, in justice to the count,l, to have conceded the tatho is claims in the time of Mr. Canning ? He wished to ask the question which he put the ot er day. If his accounts of the state of Ireland, as it existed at toe presi t day, were true, why tid not support those claims when they received the suport f Mr. Can..ing ?—( Hear, hear.) If the Honourable Gentleman hat not thin discovered the necessity for c.incession, why did he oppose Mr. Canning on other groun e, which he had since abandoned? Canning was the powerful, the c.m sivent advocate of the Catholics, and if the Right Hon. Gentleman in 1829 had reason for adopting the line Of policy of that distinguished statesman, why did he not as readily do so in 1827, when Mr. Canning supported him ?" New, I have referred to other reports. I did not find it in the " Morn ing, Herald," but in the "Morning Journal," Sir Edward Knatehbuil is reported to have said, " I say. then, in reference to that period, that if the policy of conceding the claims of the Catholics were so strong as the Hon. Gentleman describes, in common justice to the ceuntry, and in common justice to him self, that was the moment he should have conceded them, when Mr. Canning, who 'was the able, the consistent advocate of those claims, first introduced the measure into Parliament. I do not consider such concession expedient or necessary, and qich was my opinion before it was again brought forward in 1827." Now, Sir, then if the reports in the " Mirror of Par liament " were in point of fact the compilation of the previous reports of newspapers—it is rather hard to condemn me be cause it now appears —(because I declare Ihad not the slightest conception of that on the 16th of March. 1827, although the replrts of the morning papers, at least the " Morning Herald," and of the " Times," do not attribute that expression Q Sir Edward Knatchbull)—it is rather hard to impute to me, that I remain silent under a charge which, as far as my recollection serves me, was never uttered.—( Cheers.) He !)egins the speech, " I am de.irous to state as shortly as I can. 'he reason why I oppose further omissions." lan not pre. pored to say that my Right lion. Friend w ig absent, but be it as it may, I am sure my tli iht Hon nimble Friend is quite incapaale of attributing. or mutilating any speech. ell now, Sir, I have (some through the charges brooght against me.—( Loud cheers ) liarler the disadsantages which I have laboured in going into these different reports, the charge against me being the dis crepancy /4f a newspaper report pubitahed seventeen years ago, it is probable I might have failed.--(Cheers ) I might have itelieved that the " Mirror of Parliament" had not a separate hand of reporters, and induced gentlemen connects d with the t iress, not connected with me in politics, to give them informa tion of the speeches delivered in Parliament. This it is which --nahles me to dispose of Mr. Barrow, that great reporter, and , he " Mirror of Parliament " This it is which enables me to dispose of the " Mirror of Parliament," and to scatter to the winds the assertion that the " Mirror of Parliament" had a land of reporters separate from the newspapers. This it is which enables me to shatter to pieces the misrepresentations of the Times," and to prove :hat its report was diff'rent from the eber morning newspapers. I have proved that this report was made by two persons, who each reported the same speech ia a different manner; that this speece, as it appears in the " Mirror of Parliament," was made up from the " .‘lorninct Chronicle," the " Morning Herald," and the "'Times." I nave proved, in the course of my °hie' vations, that so tar from 'here being a separate baud of reporters fur the " Mirror of Parliament." that it took its reports from the Times," and adopted and inserted them as its own. And thus I have accounted for the equivocal expressions which appear3d in the " Mirror of Parliament." When the Hon. Gentleman in the zourse of his speech attempts by the repre sentation of his affection for the memory of Mr. Canning, we 411 feel bsund to respect the motives by which every man in nis position may be actuated. No one can fail to participate io feelings such . at those which he has appealed to. T he Hon. Gentleman has described Mr. Canning as an eagle. He has *sated that he was as the rider of Bucephalus. Why one would suppose that Mr. Canning had devoted the whole of his intellectual faculties to the purposes of private study alone. I am quite ready to grant all the credit to which Mr. Canning is entitled, and I am now also ready to submit to the assertion -hat these feelings are entitled to consideration arid regard. I am ready to grant that those feelings of affection and respect which we entertain for any particular object are likely to be sohanced ; according as the time grows remote those feelings ',row stronger and wore permanent in their character. But, Ir, I would ask, why. if the Hon. Gentleman does entertain 'hose feelings—why. if such are the *entim,nts of the Hon. Gentleman, has he retained them for twenty years after the I..ath of Mr. Canning for the purpose of wounding a political ipponent?—(lnarnense cheering.) I ask why, in descrihing hese feelings—which in themselves are entitled to esteem and •espect—l say, scisy has he retained them for inflicting a glow on me, and fir exciting by their expression general odium gainst me, and rallying round himself the great influence of tublic sympathy?—(lmmense cheering.) But, Sir, lam jus •itled. in saying that instead of public sympathy he has roused, with hardly an excep.lon, an unmitigated indignation, and eapression of the public sense of the means by which the lelustrin was attempted, and an abhorrence at the perversion of hat which is so sacred in itself for such :a perpose. I will liacharge my character from the suspicion which the Hun. :entlernan would attach to me. But when the Hon. Gen ..leman goes to a house on a certain day nineteen years ago, I sill not descend to follow him.—(Hear, hear, and cheers. ) .Vhen the Hon. Gentleman speaks of certain dinners, and par 'cularises where they were held, I hope the House will not dame me for not following Cheers.) I wild - not re :abate on the Hon. Gentleman; I will simply content myself ,iih having defended my character by reading the documents tpon which these charges have been founded.—(Hear, 'hear. ) i now entreat the House that as I have no opportunity to an wer fresh cisarges, that it will suspend its judgment, should .uch charges be brough: forward, till I shalt have an oppo w itty, by your kind indulgence, of ag tin making my defence. the Right Hon. Gewlernan resumed his seat amidst great :heering. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK rose, but for some minutes :ould not proceed, in cons-quence of the cheering with which he Right Hon. Baronet was greeted on the conclus.on of his oe , el). Silence 'wring been at last re,tored, the Noble Lori . id —Sir, the charge that was origi.iilly maize against the ' light Hon. Baronet was made by the humble indivi.tual who ioer addresses you, and not by my Hon. Friend who sits beside ae. It was my Hon. Friend wno rose to defen I me ag , inst he attack of the Right Hon. Baronet. I think, therefore, !hat he House will agree with me that it becomes mt., rather than ay Hon. Friend, to get up, and to mamtain the charge which as advanced in the first instance.—( Ironical cheering, cries of , Oh, oh I" and mach confusion.) Sir, I was not in this louse in the year 1827—1 was not a Member of ►his House in ;tat year, but I was a Member of this House in 1828. I was a letnber of this House in 1829, and I heard the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet. I heard the question asked him by the ~ arl of Uxbridge. I heard his answer to that question. I heard he speech—the crushing speech—of Sir Edward Knatchbull, ,nd 1 heard the Right Hon. Baronet's answer to that speech. i am prepared to show by the internal evidence in those re ports that the sta•ement I made was 'he correct truth. He .r, hear.) Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet has said that Mr. 3arrow was not the reporter who gave this speech. Why, I iresume that there is 'no Hon. Member in this House who in es not know that in a speech of four hours not one, bat Four, or six, or eight, or twelve different reporters may Is , . en :aged. When, therefore, my thin. Friend spoke of i , r. Bar ow as the gentleman who furnished that r'-port, he spoke of him only as at the head of that establishment, and not as the •eporter--(Cries of "Oh, oh")—not as the into who himself -eported that speech, but as the principal person connected with tlna journal. But I appeal to those reports, and I take Hansard" as it is. I take the " Mirror of Parliament" as ind it, and I will endeavour to show by the internal evidence if the reports in these papers. that I have not imputed to the Right Hon. Baronet that which may not be fairly inferred from the speechei themselves. When \ I made the charge against he Right Hon. Baroiiet I had referred to the " Mirror of Parliament," and nothing else. I was not aware that " Han sard" had been corrected by the Riget Hon. Baronet. Sir, what does the Right Hon. Baronet say in the outset of his speech, in bit' very first paragraph. He says, "So far as 1 ern personally concerned, I beg to say, that my own course on ihis question is the same as that which I suggested in 1825." Another paragraph stated, that in 1829—(and we all know what was the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet)—that in 1829 hia course was the same as in 1825. But, Sir, before I go on, I shall confirm this by a reference to " Hansard ;" and Hansard" says :—" As far as my own course on this clues ' ion is concerned, it is the same as that suggested to me in 1825." The evidence of the Right Hot . Baronet in his own corrected repo , t, as well as in the report of the " Mirror of Parlia ment, was, that the courses he pursued in 1829 and in 1825 were the same. The Right lion. Baronet has told you that they were not indepe , dent reporters on that paper, but that, according to his belief, all the reporters got together and eompired their reports, and that the result of their labours was put in the " Mirror of Parliament," as it was always the fullest report. What better evidence could I have had to prove the correctness of the " Mirror of Parliament" than that of the Right Hon. Baronet? The Right Hon. Baronet ves on to say—" After the House of Commons came to the i n iejen which I have stated in 1828, I was prepared to take the course which I was prepared to take In 1825. With this intimated to the Noble I ukel at the head of his Ma jesty'sonly prepared, but anxious Government of five, seeing the current of public opinion in to retire from hulk claims; and in whatever situation 1 I that I was not might fine my. " After this comes what the Right Hon. myself to its voice. a :a dd , i A myself, I could no longer be justified in opposing u ti r on of the Cat hulk to this duty, and to not pursue the sentence. prepared to make a sacrifice not read h . iwsatsrTiehiledsißiipight Hon Baronet did Saronet did he this great object, duce a settlement of the question that was ., of his c.insistency and he might be, to for w u h u a d t e e r v ta e k %w n o ; u a ld nd p h ro e - , fir one, was prepared in whatever posit' , n . tie had seeo Establishment. Here is his own admission—that • sup port any measure for the purpose of upholding the Protew.ant the time was come when, in his o iinion, seme concession ought to he made to the Reman Catholics, while, to 1825, he was prepared to r e ti re f rom office to l eave ot h ers to carry out the Catholic 'emancipation. But, in 1809, he said that he was pre a question which had himself to carry it. T bp b e e n a R - i k g , ht Hon. Baronet hasrefehreedhatdo that the Noble Earl asked W hy given to the Earl ,if Uxbridge. d , and an answer which said course which he t ink in I t32wo ;in and carrying wi t d h h e nyo 6 . ttihn take,oif i2 A 7 I i. a n r March he .2, h i i7 e d. nthet engToon thisthe Governrntn, consent to assist Mr. Canning an I carrying out the Catholic questio7ion the Right Non baronet replied—" Between thecigrciu"' that occurred in 1827 and those which occu-red circumstances that theie is this material difference. In 1827, at the - time Mr. Canning made this proposal to me, the subject had been discussed in the House of Commons of the new Parliament, and I had been in a majority in 1827 and in a minority in 1828. And in 1828, therefore, I took the course which I took in 1825. He (Lord G. Bentinek) had only to read to mcertain the course the Right Hon. Baronet took in lease I n 1809, when he proposed to retire, he said the time has now . emne when a tv•vt. House of Comm , ms was disposed to ~,... ~, ~ ~! ~. r ~,.• !2. ri I.` C.!'l'4l,i, P,'. ' .!` e Hotta. (1 k-li; t.• ,i)dz ,- ed ~',c ..u,.te,;lon. Tie this)! thou. fi,rt net tits,, 1 said that an attempt should be made to settle the question, and to that attempt he would lend himself.—( Hear, hear.) In 182.5 he took a similar course; and in 1828 he took the same COM 64 in 1020. In 1620 ho Oin Walt the king* mom SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 20 1846. Mr. ROEBUCK said he was at a los-_ what to make of the sreech of the Noble Lord who had just sat down. According to the statement of the Noble Lord, he stood by Mr. Canning till the time when he saw him hunted to death—( Hear. heat ) —ant he watched the hand that struck the blow which penetrated that noble heart; yet hat man who had directed the blow the Noble Lord had afterwards called his Right Hon. Friend.—( Hear, hear.) As a plain man, he ( Mr. Roebuck) would say, had he possessed such a friend—had he grown up with M. Canning—had he seen the blow struck that laid him in the duet, and knew the hand that dealt the blow, he at least would never have sailed that man his Right Hon. Friend. How came it that not till nineteen years after the death of Mr. Can ning did the Noble Lord think propr to make the declara tion he had made? Why did he not make the declaration before, instead of reserving it to such a late peri d, and then, in a moment of irritation and party quarrel, to make the chariT of his friend being hunted to death? Again, when did the Hon. Gentleman the Memb J. for Shrewsbary make tba same discovery ? Was it in 1602, 1825, 1828, or 1832 ? He got into Parliament in 1832 -- Mr. DISRAELI—I did not get in thee. Mr. ROEBUCK—The Hon. Gentleman tried to get in, at all events —( Laughter.) He got in. however, in 1835, and then he set about with fulsome speeches to praise the Right Hon. Baronet—prepared speeches, got up for the occasion— and Ending that he did not succeed, he changed about—a change he (Mr. Roebuck) boldly attributed to disappointed ambition. He failed of success in his flattery, and, in the bit terness of disappointment, he became the uncompromising op ponent of the Right Hon. Baronet.—( Hear.) They had been told that his Radical opinions were the produce of his generous youth, but that his Toryism was the result of his mature man hood. But he did not succeed, with all his chopping and changing, to get into place and power—the great obie . ct he had in view. The Right Hon. Baronet, it could not be denied, had also changed his opinions, but the change was the result of a new conviction, and did not proceed from any expectation of place and pension—( Hear, hear)—and his country would yet do full justice to his conduct. The English people were a prudent people, and they would weigh in the balance the petty passions of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury and the sacri fices which the flight Hon. Baronet, in his present conduct, had made to ensure a great public good.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet had yielded to new c nvictions, while the ' charges of the Hen. Member for Shrewsbury proceeded from motives of place and power, and from a fscling of disappointed ambition. He was sure the people of England would net mach longer hear with such proceedings of the Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, and th'e lion. Member for Shrewsbury, and when a general election came he had no fear for the result. He at least was not afraid of meeting his constituents for the support he had given to the Right Hon. Baronet in forwarding his present measure. He hoped, and sincerely too, that the abolition of the corn-laws would not be the last act of the Right Hon. Baronet's political life, but that. he vre uld become a coadjutor with others in promoting and carrying out measures and views which should he equally wise, and of equal import ance to the vital interests of the country as the one he had just alluded to.—( Hear, hear. ) He felt that he should not have been doing justice to his feelings and to his country if he had not taken the earliest opportenity to rise in his place, and express his gratitude to the Right Hon. Baronet for what he had done ; and at the same to a , sure h;m that he had per fectly vindicated his character, in the reply he had made to the change of the Noble Lord tl , e Member for Lynn.—(Hear.) Lord J. R tiSSELL had hoped that his Noble Friend, the Member fir Ls nn, would have relieved him from the ne• eessity of saying anything upon the present occasion.—( Hear.) He had trusted that his Noble Friend would have taken a course which would have at once put an end to any discussion upon this subject. He was net one of those who was disposed to think that upon general questions, like these they ha I lately bad under discussion. Hon. Members ought nut to refer to matters which occurred twenty years ago, and still less to expresi ' hemselves in strong terms upon such sub jects. He was not prepared either to say that the great diffe rence of opinion which had exi=ted in that House upon a. sub ject of great and vital interest to the country was not sufficient to restrain lion. Members from indulging in strong lan guage against the Minister who proposed i'.—( Hear, hear.) But the queen ion which the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury had brought before the House to-night was not a question of general accusation, or of indiscriminate attack, but it was an accusation against him upon specific points. The Right Hon. Baronet had been charged, in the first place, with having stated to Lord Liverpool, in 1825. that he thought the Roman Catholic question ought to be settled, and that his opinions had changed upon the subject. In the next place, whether be stated that to Lord Liverpool or no in 1829. he made a statement to that effect in that House, and thereby laying himself open to the reproach that while he thought the question ought to be settled he opposed Mr. Can ning in endeavouring to effect the object in 1827. But the last and greatest charge of all was that with respect to a speech he made in 1829. He had been a party to sending forth to the world a quibbled and mutilated report of th at speech, for the pur pose of suppressing the truth upon the subject to which it relate:l Now these were specific charges; whether they were worth bringing before the House was another question. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just sat down seem to thin.'; that it was not, but he for one was of opinion that the Right Hon. Baronet would have suffered in character if he had not done so—and being so brought before them, he must say, in justice to the Right Hon. Baronet, that the answer he had made had quite relieved his mind from all doubt on the subject of those charges. He believed, in the first place that the Right Hon. Baronet in 1825 stated to Lord Liverpool, that being in a minority in that House upon Irish questions, it was net fit and suitable for him to hold a Government situation, but that he made no declaration or statement to Lord Liver- pool as to what would be his subsequent course. He believed 828. in the next place that in 1829, instead of stating what he did in 1825, he stated exactly the course he adopted in 1828. He admitted with the Noble Lord that in conning over the debates of that period there were some passages, such as those relating to Lord Uxbridge and others on which it would be gathered that the course the Right Hon. Baronet adopted in 1828 was similar to that he adopted in 1825 ; but if they looked to other passages which took place two or three days afterwards, they would see clearly that the Right Hon. Baronet did explain exactly what had taken place in the manner he had done that evening. He admitted that the Right Hon. Baronet—and he did not wonder at it—being a Minister of the Crown, and subjected to repeated accusations, did not always get up to reply to _them. But there was no doubt that the Hight rion. rtaeonet am race an opportunity ro explain all the circumstances connected with the matter. With respect to the Right Hon. Baronet having brought the matter formally before the House on the present occasion, he for one thought it was highly important that the Right Hon. Baronet had done so. He had himself a very imperfect recol lection of these debates, but he certainly did not recollect.any thing of the kind as stated by the Hon. and Learned Member for Lynn. A short time aco, however, a " Mirror of Par liament" was put into his hand, and the impression it left upon his mind was that he must have been mistaken in that which had occurred. He readily thought that the " Mirror of Parliament" was more likely to be correct than his own recollection, and he was therefore glad that the Right Hon. Baronet had taken the opportunity of making this statement, because it was only natural that persons should be misled by the reports of the " Mirror of Parliament." This impression. however, could now he left o sh n on n:mtahna'tste reportmhind,bec in ~ auset iianh eß s i im gh ,,, tHon. Baronet had clearly agreeing with-five to be more conformable to the newspapers of the day, was lik ely statements of the Right H on. Baronet than t h e report o f t h e Mirror of Parliame n t." T he statement o f t h e Ri g h t H on. Baronet had, therefore, in his opinion fully vindicated his character from the imputations which had been cast upon it by the lion. and Learned Member for Lynn. He thought there was no necessity for taking the opinion of the House with respect to the opposition which the Right Hon. Baronet made to Mr. Canning in 1827. But he agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, that the Right Hon. Bart., in taking the part he had done upon this and other political questions, had rendered a great service to the country, but he certainly did not agree with the Hon. and Learned Member that this ought to protect the Hon. Member from censure, because it must be remembered that in the course of his political career the Hon. and Learned Member had altered his opinions twice. When the Protestant Church and the Protestant institution was to be defended from the assaults of the Roman Catholics the Right Hon. Baronet larder ook to lead that defence ; and again, when the corn.laws were attacked, and powerfully attacked, both in and out of thatoHouse, the Right Hon. Baronet undertook to lead a party organised for the express purpose of maintaining them. The Right Hon. Gentleman, he thought, had upon both occasions ultimately arrived at a wiser conclusion, which had resulted in his proposing mea sures more beneficial to the country. But it must be re membered that many of the Right lion. Gentleman's sup porters, relying upon his political wisdon, and upon his elo quence in debate, had enrolled themselves as his supporters while he pursued a particular policy, and it was only natural th a t they should offer some resentment when they found the Right Hon. Baronet forsaking the cause he had so often and so strongly adhered to. He had said these few words because he really believed that whatever political difference might exist between himself and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, the Right Hon. Gentleman in his capacity of First Minister of the Crown, had done great service to the country, while it was only justice for him to add, that his statement that evening had triumphantly vindicated his character from the slurs which had been cast upon him- Mr. B. DISR AELI said, he had already spoken at such great length on this debate that he was not over anxious of the privilege afforded him on this occasion, and he should therefore confine himself to the general case which the Right Hon. Baronet had brought before the House. He should confine himself to a simple statement of facts, and to an examination of the allegations which had been made in answer to the charge of his Noble Friend the Member for Lynn. Arguments he thought would be out of place and recrimination quite unne cessary. He need hardly notice what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, because they all knew that his speeches were not prepared, and according to the Hon. and Learned Member's own statement speeches which were not carefully prepared before delivery in that House were not worthy of much attention.--(Hear, hear, and laughter.) d W re it ss h ed reg ,, ar to d p to what resumptt t l he Hon. and Learned Mme ousand ignerantyouth e s,,, b h r had d eshoauld leave it to be answered by those " presumptuous and ignorant a i d t with anxiously the youths," whom he had no doubt would be found equally as - s trong as the Hon. and Learned Member, whether in an intellec tual, moral, or physical point of v iew. He now approached had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. In the first place he might be permitted to observe that throughout the Right Hon. theth the matter i nae before address Baronet's statement there ran a constant an d remar k a bl e them, himself and he would, seriously n w fallacy. The Right Hon. Gentleman had assumed through out his statement that they had been hunting for evidence, culled from journals and newspapers of the House, in order to prove a charge against him. Now, it would be remembered that on a charge being made against the Right Hon. Baronet, upon an authority to which he would in a few minutes refer, the Right -'on. Baronet rose and declared that the charge.was totally unfounded, was utterly groundless, and in fact was quite destitute of all foundation. He defied them to produce any au thority to support it, and excepting that challenge, they had produced reports and documents as collatera l illu st r a t ions of the charge they had made. Now before he adverted to the publi cation of Mr. Hansard, in the "Mirror of Parliament," which had been so much reierred to, he must remark that the " Edin burgh Review," which was supposed to have been written by a Member of the House, who had been present during the whole of the debate, and conversant with the whole matter, was produced by them not as a pro o f, b ut as as illustration of the charge which they ha I made against the Right Hon. Baronet. He new came to Mr. Barrow. He never meant to say that that gentleman reported a speech which occupied five or six hours in the delivery ; while he could assure the House that in the early parts of 1823, he knew of his own knowledge, that the " Mirror of Par liament" had an independent corps of reporters. He knew that this work did not receive an extensive patronage. A rival sprung up in the shape of " Hansard," and of course the publication of Mr. Barrow was eventually limited to a very scanty circulation. His authority for saying this was Mr. Barrow himself. He could not produce Mr. Barrow himself, but that gentleman told him on a subsequent occasion, about three or four years afterwards, which was in the first Parlia ment of the reign of William the Fourth, that he found it was quite impossible to carry on the publication, as there was not a sufficient circulation. Now it was not impossible to press upon such a matter, but merely to set the Right Hon. Baronet right upon this matter of Mr. Barrow. He believed he was strictly correct. The rep eters made up this culled report of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech. Now, he must at the same time remark upon the very circumstance of the reporters upon the principal journals going together in council upon this my we*, and he believed that the report which wail riven was the most accurate and authenti,! record. That was a cir. curostance that could not have escaped the calm consideration of the Howe. About which did they commit their mistake? u wan o ne of the most extraordinary statements that ever was male by a Minister of the House of Cominons.—( Hear, hear.) That was a circumstance that could not for a moment be forgotten. Now, ho would put the matter fairly before the House, and state the facts as they had oc curred, and he must not be stopped by the generous interpo sition of the Noble Lord the Member for London. The Noble Lord was so habitual a supporter .of the Right Hon. Gentle man, that though it was supposed he would have an encounter of a different kind, and camp a i gns of a very different charac ter to those in which he had lately mixed, it appeared he had generously come forward to declare that there was no proof of the allegation of his Noble Friend ; but he should wish the Noble Lord to give him his attention, whilst he shortly detailed the facts of the case. He would accept for a moment, for the purpesea of argument, that the as sumption which had been made was perfectly true._ (Hear.) He would assume that the report which had appeared in the'. Mirror of Parliament" or the " Times" newspaper (he did not care whether it be two authorities, or whether it be one) but that the report which appeared in the " Times" newspaper or the " Mirror of Parliament" de clared that the Right Hon. Gentleman said, in ;829, that he was prepared to consent to the settlement of the Catholic question. fie would assume, he repeated for the sake of argu ment, that the Right lion. Gentleman said that. Now, he wanted to know, independently of that report, what proof there was that the Right Hon. Gentleman said that ? He begged the House to understand that he as umed that the Right Hon. Gentleman said that ; but he would not accept the report of the " Times" newspaper—he would not accept the report of the ff Mirror of Parliament" as a proof of what he said, though for the sake of argument he assumed that he Aid say it. but he wanted to know what proof there was that he said it ? Assuming that he said it, he (Mr. Disraeli) produced very dis inguished Members of Parliament to recollect the r'al state of facts. Now the report of the " Times" must he forgotten. The Right Hon. Gentleman (he meant Sir E. Knatchbull) said on the occasion alluded to, that he was indisposed, and he was therefore not in the House. But he was i in the House ; because in March, although he was so ndt po division edthathe list co the name uldnotsp of Sireakupo Ear upon the subject, teh ject kn h a efo b u u n l d the in i. (Hear, hear.) Now he begged the House to recollect that important fact. He was not arguing the case, Le was sure, with any vituperation,—( Hear, hear.) It was the Right Hon. Gentleman himself who had challenged him to this investigation. The Right Hon. Gentleman said lie. other night that ile . (lllr..Disraeli) had got up to make this attack uponlim. God knew itwas with the greatest reluctance that he rose to speak in compliance with the request of his Noble Friend, because he happened at that time to be parti- cularly indisposed.—(Laughter.) It was a charge of his Noble Friend's, made certainly in the excitement of the debate, but it was the honest expressl,n of his convictions. The Right Hon. Gentleman did not choose to allow that to pass; he took a . - certain time, and came down and mark, an elaborate defence of himself—( Hear, hear)—and then because his Noble Friend asked him ( Air. Disraeli) to speak, because he himself could not speak again, the Right Honourable Gentleman came down and said he (Mr. Disraeli) made a malignant attack upon him. But assuming that he did not offer it as a proof that the Right Hon. Gentleman did not ad mit, that in 1825 he said this. Had he (Mr. Disraeli) no proof? He would bring before the Howe aAI ember of Parlia ment who said that he did, and that that Member of Parliament was in the House at the time was very clear. Now, he was going to quote an authority, and it was not Mr. Barlow who had reported this—it wa l / 4 not the collective council at midnight of :he most accomplisheil reporters of toe London press that reported this. This was a corrected copy by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself of his speech, on the sth of March. Now, he begged the House to observe this paragraph. This was a speech in which the Right Hon. Gentleman had made a very important admission—that admission being the one to which Sir Edward Knatchbull referred. Now he would read this extract from the corrected roport of the Right Hon. Gentle man's speech of March 5. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, in 1828, however the House might choose to view this matter, and they did not choose to agree to a resolution favourable to the principle of adjustment , he wished then to observe that he watt then in the same situation which he was in 1825, and he determined to retire from office. He intimated his fixed intention in this respect to the Duke of Wellington, but he felt it his duty to accompany that intimation with respect to retirement with another, to the effect that he would not, in his private capacity, any longer obstruct the settlement of the Catholic question. That was what the Right Hon. Gentleman said in l 25.—(N0, no.) Very well; that at least was a faithful report of what had been said, according to his infor mation—and he hoped he would show that his information was right. Now he would quote from " Hansard"—a report of what the Right Hon. Gentleman might have said on March the 6th. His (Mr. Disraeli's) Noble Friend had only quoted from the " Mirror of Parliament," as he wished to put the case clearly before the House. This was from " Hansard," and from a corrected speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He fairly admitted that he did not mean to represent that every speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman reported in " Hansard" was a faithful report, but he was only quoting from " Hansard," for they all knew how , correct were the reports of such eminent Memti as the Right Hon. Gentle man in that publication. Now this had never been brought forward in the course of the debate. This was in answer to the question to Lord Uabride, to which the Right Hon. Gentleman had referred as being reported in the "Mirror of Parliament."—( Hear, hear.) Now he (Mr. Disraeli) would _ . not quote in answer to LOrd Uxbridge, that there was a material difference in his situation in 1827, and his situation in In 1827 a new House of Commons decided agaiist concession, but in 1828 it decided in favour of concession. Secretary Peel then adopted the coarse which ho took in - 1825, when Lord elected at the head of the Government. Liverpool was We had this passage, that he then took the course which he adopted in 1615, when Lord Liverpool was at the head of the Govern- went. In 1828, when the question was put forward, and it was likely that the Government would be in a minority, he said " The time is now come when a new Parliament has de cided against me, and when the House of Lords are in a state of division upon the question. The time is arrived when an attempt to settle the question must be made, and to that attempt I will lend my aid."—(Cries of " Oh, oh," " Hear, hear," and " Order, order.") That was not_ the_ cheer that was made in auswer — tu the speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman when he alluded to this case—(Cries of " Hear, hear") — but they would set their case temperately and fairly before the House. They thought it an unanswerable case, and he would now come to what was a most important feature of the case ; but his intent was not in doing so,—(lronical cry of " No, no !") The Right Hon. Gent. said he was ready in 1845 to take the course which he took in 1835; and he described the grounds upon which he took these steps, fur he said that the time had arrived c‘hon an attempt must be made to settle the Catholic question, and to that attempt he would lend his aid.—( Hear, hear.) Very well, then, if there was no truth in these books, or they were not to be accepted as evidence ; if it were true that the Right Hon. Gent. in 1825 was prepared to do that which he did in 1838 ; and if the report in the " Mir ror of Parliament" was not a true report of what the Right Hon. Gent. said, that he was prepared to cart y that question, he (Mr. D'lsraelil had a right to assume that which he as sumed only. Was there any truth that the Right Hon. Gent., in his speech of March 8, did use these expressions which were recorded in the " Times," newspaper? He would not say , that he quoted the report of the " Times" newspaper, but he would quote Sir Edward Knatcbbull himself as to what the Right Hon. Gentleman had said. He put the case fairly before the House. He might be wrong—it was very well for them to say that he had no right to offer facts like these in support of his arguments. And Gentlemen who said " no, no," when he ( Mr. Disraeli) quoted these facts, ought to get up and negative these facts by argument.—(Hear, hear.) He wished the question to be put fairly before the House. He wished it to be put without any passion, and if any per- son could answer his arguments and facts, let them answer them.—(Hear, hear.) But it was utterly impossible that this question could be settled in the manner in which it had been discussed by the Right Hon. Gentleman. When the Right Hon. Gentleman occupied 20 or 30 minutes in this chance allwion to the " Edinburgh Review"—when the Right Hon. Gentleman entered into a minute comparison of all the reports of all newspapers to which he had referred, he ( Mr. Disraeli) naturally asked himself, why did not the Right Hon. Gentle man explain to him why Sir Edward Knatchbull had made the speech that had been reported in the papers—•and why, on the sth and 6th of March, he himself made those admissions? —( Hear, hear.) Now, a , to this affair of the " Edinburgh Review" case, he (Mr. Disraeli) never put faith in the fact. The " Edinburgh Review" insinuated that the Right Honourable Gentleman had written a letter to the Earl of Liverpool. And what did the Right Hon. Gentleman say ? He said, " I will clear my character, for I will bring all the letters that Lord Liverpool wrote to me." What answer was that ?—( Hear, hear.) Two days had been wasted on a discus sion in these matters, but he would ask the Right Hon. Gentle men would it not have been better, if, instead of sending to Drayton, he had sent to Sir Edward Knatchbull to ask bins if he had made the speech attributed to him, and if he had given a simple response to that simple 'inquiry, and it he had then walked to the table of that House, and read that Iptter_ from Sir Edward Knatchbull, denouncing that version of his speech as a forgery, would not that course be more satisfactory to the House?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord did not make this charge upon the authority of the newspapers, but upon the authority of the printed records of the Parliamentary debates. The Noble Lord would never have done anything of the kind. None who read the reports in the newspapers could help admitting that the present system of reporting was a wonderful, probably almost the most won derful accomplishment of the society in which we lived ; and though very much improved to what it was twenty years ago, nobody would attempt to make a charge against a public man upon the authority of the reports in the news papers.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord never looked into the reports of the newspapers when he made that charge.— • (Hear, hear.) He made that charge upon what he heard from the highest authority—the persons among whom he lived, and who were acquainted with Mr. Canning, and who were then tiaa Members of that House—and the Noble Lord could not for a moment doubt the truth of their statement. He must remind the House, too, that the speech was heard by the Noble Gentleman himself, and the speech of Sir E. Knatch bull was also heard by him, and therefore they could not expect that a man who was himself present, and who spoke from his own personal experience of public life at that time—they would not expect that such a man was bound to look into all the newspapers before he ventured to make his statement. The Noble Lord made his statement principally from his own recollection of the affair—from what he had himself seen and heard. It was he who brought the newspapers. The Right Hon. Gentleman compared the variations in the newspapers, and accused him (Mr. Disraeli) o ffered of it i in because ev6dT e non Times," it ce with having referred to all the newspapers. Why he (Mr. Disraeli) referred to the newspapers with very great reluctance, and even upon reference to th e was very well known that the reporting staff of it Was onlylie journals . arvnaaillesd. He himself by far the most extensive, most compl e t e , and most skilful Times,"any o he thepub of that account.—( Hear, hear.) H e l oo k e d to the , which was used amongst the au th or i t i es, and he found mes," that the speech waq there reported verbatim. Now he the case fairly hero n the Home. Il e wou ld put aZloeualldl pute " Edinburgh Reviews," and all personal imputations, and all personal sarcasms and sneers. He would put the question before the House, and he did not care what their feeling might be—whether they decided in favour of the person who then spoke, or the person who had spoken—the case would be decided by the calm and deliberate judgment of the public. If the fat' s which he had put before the House could be ex plained away—if they could be explained away f rom the " Mirror" of that unfortunate Mr. Barrow, who never could have supposed he would have been referred to in this debate in the sarcastic article in the "Edinburgh," or all th ose var i et i es in the newspa pers from which they had quoted —if these facts could be t ex plained aw a y, t h en t h e Ri g ht Hon. Gentleman migh indeed app ea l to t h e country w i t h confidence for a verdict ; but if he could, in fact, explain to the English publicwh y the most respectable and i n fl u ential Members of Parliament should h ave got up i n that House and make a violent speech against him, all of which proceeded uponththaet tin"alm B x s tio h n that the Right Hon. Gentleman had adm i tted of the Catholic question. ready to contaibute his aid in the settlement question. If he could explain to the country why such express sions as he (Mr. Disra e li) had read to the House, and which he . detail — if he couldwhy, • explain, in could not recapitulate in one of the most mem orable speeches he positively declared that in settling the question in 1828 ha was prepared to do what he had intuited to do in tise_Right lion. Gentleman could persuade the public that Sir Edward Knatch hull was wrong in waking the speech which he had in 1829 if the Rieht Hon. Gentleman could persuade the public that the speeches he (Mr. Disraeli) had quoted were never made, then the Right Hon. Gentleman might appeal with confidence to the public for a verdict, but that must be done. It would not do to make a speech imputing the worst motives tuhisopponents, and exercising a most ingenious argumentation upon the most worthless materials—destroying accusations which never had beeu mede—( Hear, hear)—and putting an end to charges which had never been brought forward. That was what they required. They did not say they had a right to ask it. The case was before the House, and they should feel perfectly satis fied that it should remain there. It was not that book that he quoted—it was not the speeches of Sir Edward Knatchbull, or tne speeches of the Right lion. Gentleman which induced his Noble Friend ever to make the statement which he had made. He :poke from his personal memory, he spoke from his personal experience—he spoke from that e in which he had more confidence than his personal memory-eand his personal experience—he spoke from a deep-rooted and enduring, and be (Mr. Disraeli) believed a growing conviction, which he— and especially the friends and family, he believed, of Mr. Can ning —had, that the allegation which had been made was a true allegation, and one which, he believed, could uot be re futed.—(Cheers. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir , I think thet the time has arrived, upon every ground, that it would be desirable that this debate should be brought to a close. I do not intend to reply to the renewed assertions of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, or point out to the House how easy it is by culling extracts from particular speeches, to give to these a representation which reacting the entire speeches would not bear out.—(Cheers.) Sir, I have heard these debates ; I was present during the whole course of these debates and I rise, therefore, rather a witness i n t h e cause than as ' one about to enter into an argument. I say that I was present during the whole of these debates upon the Roman Catholic question, and I have no recollection whatever of a n y such expression opi nion on the part of Sir Edward Knatchb u ll, rs thatto of which the Honourable Gentleman has referred as confirmation that 1113 suspicions are well-founded. I am aware that the non-recollection of a fact can prove but little against any expressions which might, in fact, have fallen from him. Considering the interest which I took in the whole of that proceeding, I think it impossible that a state ment of that kind could have been made without fixing itself in my memory. But, Sir, the real question is, did the Right Hon. Baronet entertain opinions in the year 1825, or was he then prepared to make concessions en the Roman Catholic question.—(Cheers.) .Upon that I conceive myself to be the best witness to decide in that case. I have been, from my first entrance in political life, in constant private Intimacy with the Right Hon. Gentleman. I have sympathised with him in all the public questions which have been brought before Parlia ment. I have acted in unison with him on every public ques tion which has been under discussion —(Cheers.) There has subsisted between us a most unreserved communication of sen timent and opinion, both of a private nature and on public policy, and at no time has he taken any important step in politics without my being privy to it. At the time when these occurrences took place, I was Secretary for Ireland, and my Right Hon. Friend was Secretars , of State, under whose direction I was acting. We concerted together upon all occasions upon the opposition to be made to the Roman Catholic Claims as against the Members of the Govern ment, and it was impossible in this intimacy that he could have entertained any change of opinion without my not being aware of it.—(Cheers.) I cen assure the House that I never heard from him a single eipression which threw a doubt on the consistency of his opinions in the year 1825, and so much was I surprised when the Noble Lord made his statement upon the first occasion, that I immediately inquired of my Right Hon. Friend, who was sitting near me at the time, upon what ground could such a statement as that, so much at variance with fact, be made. I rose as I said merely to give evidence upon this case, and if the testimony of one who has been connected with the Right Hon. Baronet through all his political life, and who has been intimately acquainted with the various proceedings which have taken place during his life—if that testimony be worth anything, it at once puts an end to the case.—( Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury has thrown out an insinuation to the effect that while my Right. Hon. Friend has produced the letters of the Earl of Liverpool, he has kept back those letters which his Right Honourable Friend had addressed to the Noble Earl.—( Cries of" No. no," " Hear, hear.") lam anxious to state—for my Right Hon. Friend has authorised him to do so—that having made search for these letters he has produced all the letters upon the subject which he could find. —(Cheers.) Having thus given my evidence, as I thought it my duty do, I shall not trouble the House any further. Mr. B.: ESCOTT quite agreed with the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down, that the House had had quite enough of these personal discussions. He would not for a moment venture to call upon the House for indulgence, if what he was about to say related only to the question between the Right Hon. Baronet, the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, and the Hon Member for Shrewsbury. I think that has been disposed of by the unanimous verdict of the House.—(Cheers.) I think that the public will well know what motives have ac tuated these charges, and will say that it is quite true that the Right Hon. Baronet might have served his party more, and kept them more together, but that in serving his party more he would have served his country less. When he considered the rank of the Noble Lord, although he might compare it with his own humble situation, be trusted the House would allow him to say a few words. It had been stated by the Noble Lord that he (Mr. Escott) had be trayed the interests of his constituents. The Noble Lord said that he was one of my constituents, though how he made that out he did not know ; he certainly was not aware of the fact. Lord G. BENTINCK—I have some property at Stock bridge. Mr. B. ESCOTT—Oh, yes,l the) Noble Lord' had some stables at Stockbridge, which gave him the right of being his constituent. He would tell the Honourable Member, with reference to the charge df betraying his con stituents that he had called a public meeting of his con stituents, and that a resolution was passed approving of hie conduct, there being only threehands held up against it. He would tell the Noble Lord and the Hon. Member for Shrews bury that the public did not expect that the time of that House was to be wasted by raking up old debates which took place twenty years ago. Mr. B. DISH AELl—Nineteen years. Mr. B. Escorr—The . public would not distinguish the difference between nineteen and twenty years. They would tell these Hon. Members that they had been impeding the Government in their desire to ameliorate the condition of the people of this and the sister country, and had obstructed measures which had been broughtsforward, perhaps, too late for the protection of the best interests of the country and the advancement of all classes of people at large. Lord SANDON was surprised that the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, representing a great country party, should think that he mites his party by attempting to back up his statements by retorts from old newspapers, and that, having entered into these discussions, they should back it up by quoting paragraphs, sometimes from the " Mirror of Parlia ment,' from " Hansard," when that suited him, and from the " Times" when it suited him, and overlooking all the papers which did not suit him. He ventured to say, that if they were to take one hundred gentlemen upon this question, their opinions would he decidedly in favour of the Right Hon. Baronet. Now he spoke in this manner certainly with no bias in favour of the Right Hon. Baronet, and with no desire to cast into the shade the memory of Mr. Canning. He would speak rather as that great Minister's ardent friend, as he hoped he had proved at the time when he was connected with the Administration in 1827.—(Hear, hear.) He then declined to serve with the Right lion. Baronet, partly because of the Catholic question, and partly because of the opposition which the Right Hon. Baronet gave to Nlr. Canning. He would not disguise that he had seen with regret the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet at that time, but he woula not accuse him of the dis honourable conduct which the Noble Lord ascribed to him. He thought the Right Hon. Baronet ought to have inter posed to check the language which had been used, by his supporter when opposing Mr. Canning and his Govern meat ; but still ho did not believe that he had acted in the manner described by the Noble Lord, still less did he believe that if he had so acted he would afterwards have had the weak ness to admit it The case was dubious at,the best, and when the Noble Lord saw that four or five of the newspapers were opposed to the view which he had taken, he ought to have exercised some caution before he made this statement to the House. He thought he was called upon to express this opinion. He did so, and no one could tax him with being a servile fol lower of the Right Hon. Baronet, or that he had sacrificed office when he might have been a Cabinet Minister. He de clined it because he could not act with the Right Hon. Baronet. He had never fawned upon those in power • he had acted honestly and independently, and therefore he claimed to be heard as giving an unbiassed and independent opinion on this subject. There was a general belief, even in the agri cultural . districts to which the Noble Lord bad so frequently referred, that more evil had been dune by the Noble Lord, by his prolonged resistance to the Govern , went measure than would possibly follow from the I assing of the measure itself. The Noble Lord spoke of appealing to the country. He (Lord Sandon) should have no fear of meeting the Noble Lord in any country or on any hustings and appealing to the people, either on this question or on aoyof theother mea- Sures brought forward by her Majesty's Government. He trusted the House would not be much longer detained by the abortive attempts to prove a crime against one of her Majesty's Ministers. Mr. NEWDEGATE rose, and was beginning to address the House, when Lord SANDON said. in explanation, that the Noble Lord behind him imagined that he (Lord Sandon) had i.ffirmed that the Noble Lord bad read all th i newspapers when making his inquiries on the subject. He (Lord Sandon) had not said so ; he had only supposed, very naturally supposed, that the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury would have looked at all the papers of that day to see if he had the concurrence of every journal in his opinion upon the subject. Mr. NEWDEGATE said that he could not refuse to give credit to the statement made by the Noble Lord on this matter. He could not satisfactorily account for the in• sertion of two paragraphs in two separate journals unless there was something existing which warranted those insertions. He asked the Noble Lord' ( Lord Sandon) how he could other wise account for the appearance of those concurrent para graphs in two newspapers, unless there was something to justify them. (An Hon. Member--" What papers?") Tste "Mirror of Parliament," and the 4, Times newspape (Ironical cheers, and cries of " Oh,oh ")—lf there was a con spiracy, as he supposed they intended to insinuate, how could they account for the turn which the debate took 'afterwards?— (Hear, hear, and cheers.) was his humble opinion t that taking that in ser ti on o f those paragraphs, occurred in the debate afterwards — consideringtogetehe v also v tb i e h what oppor. oppor tunities which th e N o bl e Lord had of forming a correct esti mate of these circumstances—he could not avoid coming to the conclusion that the Noble Lord was perfectly justified statement he had made to the House. Ho belitehvetdb lent the statement Noble L trd had brought forward thischarge vi (Mr. mwde intentions, and be bad certainly satisfied h t t i m on. gate) that he had good grounds for d with er deep regret the Mr. HUME said that he had witntheseseis attack upon the Right course which had been taken in th ' Hon. Baronet. It was quite possible thethat jotuhrenawlshwolheicmhattaedr might have arisen from a mistake trhe. e triumphant answer of t h e Right Hon. Baronet. H ow t h e been so often referred to, but h d e very P ersisted, ne w onuoltdwi seet h s e t a a n u ds n e t g o grct that the party I opposite lion. Gentleman who had just sat down, could deliver his the . way . he had done, was to him ( w A h l i r e . h Hume) n opinion in but there was one thing matter of surprise been alluded to that night, and which be thought would set the question completely at rest. It was this, in the year 1829, when the Duke of Wellington determined to bring forward the Catholic Emancipation Bill, the R i g h t Honourable Baronet tendered his resignation, and the letter of the Right lion. Baronet, addressed to the ' Duke was read to the House in bringing forward that qua tion• In that letter it was shown that the Right Hon. Baro net had not changed his opinion, and he afterwards expressly stated, that although he had carried out that measure afterwards he had never once altered his opinion. That admission was frequently used against him on after occasions. He (Mr. Hume) could not, therefore, understand why the party which was led by the Noble Lord should have pursued this course after the very triumphant explanation which had been made by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and nothing but the meanest party motives could have prompted them to persist in this state ment. He had expected that after that explanation the Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, would have risen in his place to have said that he was sorry in having brought forward this charge. Lord MORPETH having had tlae honour of occupying a seat in Parliament at the time that Mr. Canning was at the load of the Administration, trusted the House would bear with him while he addreaed a few remarks upon this subject. He shad felt for that great Micaister feelings of the irtost profound ad miration, and although he did not sympathise in the politiCal measures of Mr. Canning, he ye£ viewed with geeat disappro bation the course p ursue d b y t h e Right Lion. B are - net at that period. The Noble Lord, the Member far Lynn, hie' brought forward certain charges against the Right Hon. Vaionet. He would not attempt to repeat them, but he trust say, th.‘t he gave the utmost attention to them, and he bad no reason !or thin cl ' ing them to be true, 'on the contrary he had every reason' to believe that they were untrue. He was confirmed in this impression by his distinct recollection of Mr. Canning standing up in the House, and saying in a marked manner that for the► resignation of the Right Hon. Baronet he was fully prepared. He considered, therefore, to use the Right Hon Baronet's own words, that the charge attempted to be set up against him had been completely shattered.—( Hear, hear.) With refer ence to the general state of politics, he was, like the Noble Lord, prepared to vote with him, and against the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he could not help qualifying that vote by exprerising his great regret teat he should be obliged to do so at a moment when he was conduct ing to a triumphant issue the greatest question which perhaps. had ever been agit a t e d i n that House.. —(Hear,) Mr. VILLIERS said that he did not consider it beside thew question to ask to what side Mr.-Canning. if he were alive, wculd attach himself.—( Hear, hear.) They had hears wonderful professions of respect and veneration for that illus trious man, but the Noble Lord was allied at the very moment with that very party who had hunted him to deztb.— (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had identified himself with the very party and the very principles most opposed to that of his illustrious relative ; and what was the reason that he was assailed in that bitter spirit? It was because he had attacked the corn monopoly. That was the occasion for all the bitterness of feeling which had been manifested, and he was attacked precisely in the language which was now used against the Right Honourable Gentleman. It was the law of 1815 which the landed interest were attached to. Mr. Canning do away with it and carry out fre e trade ; and the., he could saw its gross imposition , a nd ho was determined ter assure the House was the reaso n he was insulted aand then assailed. And now the Noble Lord made these ctaarges. He had identified himself with every enemy of Mr. Cant: mg. wit htrue his? Heg onerous w How, th en , an d w i t h w h a t grace could he make them , even if a th li e c y e, were was ssa i tre sptlraitt, which was his cha- Mr. Canning , if he were alive, would join heart and soul in the great move mentn which they were now about carrying ont. — (H ear * ) The party w hi c h t h e Noble Lord represented. ha d )(s l u ed in the cry,what o l l beewLeaaosurtdsheek t heir questione w t iiems these hf e en di t a sw t immediate were einterests he hde i.wereco ul d,intellg attacked. ? hiTrn The h. V by cha racter of the Prime Minister. The people took no interest in a certain point of view in the question, bnt be could tell the Noble Lord that they received with unmitigated disgust the per serial attacks which had been made upon the Right Hen. Gen. denian ; and there was one class in the country who would take no interest in it, and that was the British farmer, of when they were always talking. They brought evidence against the - Right Honourable Gentleman of nineteen years' standing.—( Hear, hear.) And ;for the last ten years they had been always preaching to the British farmer to put their trust in the Right Hon. Baronet. Although they had this evidence in their pockets against him, and they had been telling the British farmer that he was the only man who could lead 4hem safely:7and /securely, and that he was the only man who was trust worthy, with what decency could these charges have been brought forward? The Noble Lord had drawn a distinci.ien between following the Prime Minister and following Lora . , Stanley. Why, Lord Stanley followed the Right Hon. Baronet, and the Noble Lord bad followed Lord Stanley, and where was the difference though the distinction bad been taken. Did or did not the Noble Lord follow the Right Hon. Gentleman ? ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had professed that he was exceedingly shocked by treachery to party. Why, he must recollect that his leader (Lord Stanley), when he used to cross the House, after he changed his opinion, was met with such jeers thatihe had at last to sit upon the side of the House:front which he had seceded. Yet the Honourable Member for Lynn, who followed that Noble Lord, wsas shocked— exceedingly shocked, at treachery to party.—(fiaear, hear.) The public were beginning to be worn out by .he personal quarrels of that House.—( Hear, hear.) The public; looked upon such p ersona l matters w i t h disgust—they looked upon, these personal attacks as disgraceful to the House—disgracaafel to its honour and dignity, and disgraceful to those who main': them, and to those who took part in them. His opinion was, that the result of those attacks would be, that instead of damaging the Right Hon. Baronet, it would but exalt him in the estimation of the public. —( Hear, hear. ) Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said that he was the only Member in that part of the House who escaped the sweeping censure of the Honourable Member who had just sat down. The Honourable Gentleman had made a charge against a Noble Friend of his (Lord Stanley) with having changed his principles, and the great reason why the Honourable Member had charged the Noble Lord with change of principiaas was not that he had swerved from his principles entirely, btif that he had done so by introducing the Canada Bill. The Hon. Member had charged that part of the House with ha'ing offered an opposition to this measure wholly uncalled for, said the result of which was only to delay the passing of the mime sure. He felt that this charge of protracting that debate was not only uncalled for, but that it was only consistent with the character of the ouse that that debate should have been a lengthy one ; and compared with the great magnitude of the question, that its whole bearings should have been discussed. It was quite consistent with the character of the House, that whenever a great change was proposed it should be freely discussed, and he was sure that the Hon. Members who differed from him on that question, and he would say the Right Hon. Baronet him self, would not think that the opposition to the measure had led to any uncalled-for delay in the progress of the Bill. Mr. VILLIERS explained. What he had said was not properly understood by the Hon. Member who had just sat awn. He had stated that the opposition of the great landed proprietors to Mr. Canning was occasioned by his advocacy of free trade, Mr. PETER BORTHWICK rose amidst considerable laughter. He did not wish to take part in the personal squab bles which bad that night occupied the time of the House, for humble as was his dignity, he did not think that taking his share in such matters would add one atom in the way of en. tilting his position. He said, however, if he had reason to thank the Hon. Gentleman for the compliment which bad been paid to himself. Ile was sure the Right Hon. Member for 'famvrorth had great reason to regret that. the Hon. Gentleman had taken upon him his defence.. Never had any- one more reason to say, " God defend me from any friends" than had the Hon. Memter for Tamworth to-night, when the Hon. Gentleman rose to defena (The Hon. Gentleman eat down amidst cries of "Divide," and " Adjourn.") An Hoar. MEMBER, who moved that the debate can the Pro tection of Life (Ireland) Bill should be adjourned to Monday, remarked that he understood such was the expectation of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) from what had fallen from him. Mr. HUME here pointed to the clock, it being but twenty minutes past eleven o'clock. Sir JAMES GRAHAM consented to the adjournment, which was agreed to. - CHURCHES BILL. --.. Mr. HODGSON moved the second reading of this Bill, and explained its nature and provisions. Mr. HENLEY would object to the second reading unless all the alterations proposed as to the levying of the poor-rates. and the appointment of parish overseers, were struck out. Mr. HUME would object to the second reading if the sug gestion of the Hon. Gentleman who bad just sat down were carried out, as the Bill would then become useless. But he objected to it in its present form, first, because it recited twelve or thirteen Acts of Parlia. went which ought to have been r..-pealed; and secondly, because it authorised three-fourths of the inhabitants to raise rates for the building of churches, despite the remain ing fourth of the people. He there.ore moved that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. Sir 11, ELPHINSTONE said that he quite agreed with his Hon. Friend that the present system of repairing churches, by means of church-rates, was a very bad one ; and where a dis trict containing several parishes, having a large church, existed, it would be under the necessity of levying a separate rate in each parish. This Bid removed such a necessity, and it should therefore have his support. After a few words from Mr. HAWES, Sir J. GRAHAM said that the effect of the present Bill would be to render the law more complicated than it now existed. The first object of the i3lll he was disposed to believe was effected by the existing law; and with regard to the other two objects, he had an insuperable objection to them, for he was not disposed to carry the power of building churches by church rates further than the present law allowed. He thought that it ;mild be better to adjourn the question, in order that the Bill might be considered by the Law Officers of the Crownize and afford an opportunity of introducing a Bill which would be better calculated to meet the objects in view. Sir K H. INGLIS concurred in the view taken by the Right Hon. Baronet. He thought an adjournment for ten days would give an opportunity for re-considering the Bill. Mr. B. ESCOTT thought the clauses were so objection. able that the Bill ought to be thrown out at once, instead of trying to amend it in Committee. Mr. HODGSON defended the details of the Bill against ti objections which had been urged against it. Mr. W. MILES thought the inhabitants of parishes, who might be called upon to subscribe under it, would have great objections to its provisions. The second reading of the Bill was then negatived without a division. i CLERK OF THE PEACE AND CLERK OP THE CROWN (IRELAND) BILL. Lord LINCOLN o bt a i n ed le that the o ffi ce of Cl erk o f the p re to hring in a Bill to provide ace and Clerk of the Crown in Ireland sho u ld be hereafter fi lled ereaSter filled b y the same person. PUBLIC BATHS AND W ASH HOUSES. On the motion of Sir G. GREY, Leave was given to bring in a Bill fo r p romoting the volun tary establishment, in boroughs and par&bes in England and Wales, of public baths and wohh"s"' t The House adjournedat a Quarter pas Twelve. riADVI!RTISEAIENT.j—BRUSHISSe...NEW INVENTIONS. The Triple Hair Brush. One stroke of this is equal to the effect of one penetrating, five small-tooth combs, and one even cut brush ; to be had in four sizes, No. 7, be. 6d No. e, 7s. 6d; No. 9,9 g. 6d. ; No. 10, 115. 6d. The Double Anti pressure Nail Brush, which does not divide the quick from the nail, no pressure being required, and thoroughly cleans and poi lishes the nails in a tenth part of the time of any other mew thod; price in bone, No. 1,2 s. ; No. 2,2 s. 6d. ; No. 3; 3s. 6d. ; No. 4, as. ; and of all sizes and prices in ivory. The New Tooth-pick Brush, which entirely enters between the in terstices of the closest teeth ; marks, full-sized brushes. No. is hard ; No. 2, less hard ; N o . 8, m iddli ng ; No. 4, so ft . The narrow brushes, No. 5, hard ; No. 6, less hard; No. 7, mid dling ; No. 8, soft, at ls. each, or 105. per dozen in bone; ant 2s. each, or 21s. per dozen in ivory, the hair warranted 110Yer to come out. The Medium Shaving Brush, between the usual badger hair and bristle brush, being a sele ction of the strongest hair only from the badger skin in a variety of si z es, both in bone and ivory. The above articles are the inventions of Ross and Sons, 119 and 120, Bisliopsgate-street, London, and, being protected, any one imitating them will be proceeded against. f ADVERTISE3IENT.] - SIGHT Art) 'TEARING. - 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. —Newly-invented 'Spectacles, Tele. scopes, Opera Glasses, Microscopes, &c. Patronised by General. Sir Edward Paget, Sir Evan Lloyd, Sir John Neatings, Frederick Goodfellow, Clayton, Grosvenor Morrison , Dyott Robe rt. son, Mackenzie, Galway, Biggs, WooL4 ~Idurrs,,y, Walker, Fox, Price, Lindsay, and Thackray ; Major Generals .Sir A. Elphinstone, Sir John Ross, Sir James Cockburn, .Achlnty. F. FP'rs, 1). Macleod, Beuverie, Sir J. Macdonall, Sir R. Barton, Sir T. Dallas, and Sir . , W m . Eustance: Admirals Lord John Hay, Sir O. Coelzburn, Gtr George Munday, Sir George Martin, Sir James 11.,Whitsheds Sir D. Gold, Bess, Alexander, Curzons, TomPkinscas ,Hckins, and Prim. Vlce-.S.dinind Sir F. A,usten;. Rear-Admirals Brawn and. Itihonleau. &c. Mos:Sr*. S. and B. Soloraons, nptiCialls, have itiyented Spy. tads Lenses upon a new construction. Immediately they are pi tte td• before imperfect 'vision, that mist and dullness which appear he,to t . e : the eyes is at once removed, every obiort becomes clear andlitatinet, so that the, most aged impertect sight becomes bright and. briutam._ and is brought to its youthful, natural, and original state, A c hromatic Telescopes, Ar at i: , opera Glasses, Microscopes, 'alit hie tuit kinds of Acoustic Instruments, for relief of most extreme deafn Caution—Messrs. S. and 11. Solomon, Opticians, tirii not in any wap connected with a person of the same name in their immediate b o urhood. To prevent mistakes be cautious , and Observe-o'ly t : slot id 99, Aloe-street , Picoadilly, opposite the York itotst.- I