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

point. Th e Hon. Memleer say: that he has been making de liberate inq .ir•es, and that he has anprtatred the reports of the " Mirr or of Parliernent" were contributed by independent gen tlemen not connected with the pa`ili, pre-s. As a coese (Pence, tliet efore, ens eonfdens aeother. There was evid•.nee of tha concurrence of these two sets of independent reporters, and it was remarkable that two independent sets of re• Porters should have made the same reenrs. And the Hon. Gen t', man went on to say, " Sir, I have inquired, and I have been informed that the report in the • Mirror of Parliament' to svhith I have referred. was done by Mr. Barrow, one of the Most finished snore-hand reporters, and a matt of e,iucation and inteliigence." Mr. Bentleys, unfortunately, is not here; tad as to the inquiry melte by the Hon. Member, anti 'h. statement that he had asenertained flea the report was by Mr. Barrow, I give the most peremptory contretli :don —( Great cheering,) I den! that the report WAS by Mr. Barrow, who was the editor o' that paper; an I I believe that he was not then, althoue d I believe he might have been, a reoorter, and was not in ',tie habit of reporting. The Hon. Gentleman. for purposehe of adding weight to his charge, had t o ld t h e that it was an independent. report of a man of high ch aracter and great attainments. The Hon. Gen'l. men weer , 3 r, to say--" However, I had the di•eretion to refer to the re port of the speech in one of the mast eminent of the public papers of the time, and I find the same report under the date of March 6, 18'29." The lion. Gentleman had thus taken credit to himself that he was not an indiscreet man, and did not prefer charses against me on a report without comparing it with other reports. He to tk credit to himself for discretion, as he did not make the charge on a single report, bat ho hod fund the report of the " Times" confirming and concurrent with the repert of she other indepen dent sets of reporter s . Is it discreet and just to refer to only two 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 same time—(Cheers)—for which there were independent reports ; and has he hod the discretion to refer to One of them ; and in the event of the apparent concurrence of any Of them t inform the House of the feet? Did he conclude Vista there was no necessity for further inquiry? Allow me to ask if the same sense of justice induced you (to Mr. Disraeli) to e xamine any other report—to Ink at the report of the "Morning Chronicle," of the " Morning Herald," of the. " Morning Post," of the " Morning Journal"—a paper set up for the purpose of destroying the white success of the measure I had then in hand? There are four other tedeperalent report', and I ask you this question—DA you go in search of any Other papers? And if you eid, why have you not had the honesty to bring them forward to the House ? Yon did not do so. Why did you confine yourself to those reports that seemed to suppert your charge, and net extend your inquiries to others ? Or if you did, why dirt you not come forward and stare the feet that every other report but that to which you referred, though written by the independent reporters of four newspapers, excluded the words on whieli the accusation rests ?—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear ") Now Observe. the wards of " The Times' are, " That the time had arrived when something, must be dime with the Roman Citho lic Question." The 4' Mirror of Parliament" it is said con curred with this—thus supporting the accusation by two lode- Pe'adent reports, and bearing out the charge that I had lattailated and garbled the speech, withholding the knowledee of what I really said.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, what are the versions of these four other jeurnels whose retorts were furnished by independent parties ? The " Herald's" report says, " So tar as he was personally concerned, in 1825, when he was at the head of the Horne Department, he must state that, regarding the Catholic question. he felt his situation was Untenable. He did not seek ( the" Times" says " I did seek") '—he did not seek to retain office, and he told the Earl of Liver pool that, in hie opinion, • he time had come when he ought to be relieved from the duties of office— Loud cheers )—as }t ins in a minority on that question. The Earl of Liverpool told him that his retirement from office would proleibly lead to a dissolution of Parliament." This speech was one of four hours' length ; and I must observe, that however able and care ful reporters may be in the execution of their duties, and dis posed to do justice, it is impossible for them to avoid mistakes of this kind It is quite clear, from the extract I have given, that the remark of which so much had been made meant no thing but a dissolution of the Government.—( Hear, hear.) The " Morning Chronicle" says, " As far as my personal con duct is concerned, in 1825, when I was Minister of the Horne Department, respecting the Catholic question before the House, I felt that from my situation, and the intimate connexi •n of "%y office with the adminstration of affairs in Ireland, and find ing myself in a minority on that question, 1 considered the state of things was such that it was right I should be re ieved from the r espoas l o l e situation I held. I told Lord Liverpool that the time had arrived whe n I s h ou ld b e relieved frem the responsibility of office. This, I was told b y Lord Liverpool, would break up the whole Administration, so far as he was concerned." Is it necessary that I should h ad it all ?—(N o , no ; go on. ) " H e mum , state t h at i n th e . 1 825, when h e was Mi n i ster o f t h e H ome D epartm e n t, he Land himself in a minority, and feeling the difficulty of his po sition, charged as h e was w i t h the atim'nistration of affairs in leland, and that he thought the time had come when he should seek to be relieved from the responsibilities of his office, !t , ud that he had stated to the Earl of Liverpool that the time had arrived, i n consequence of finding himself in a millo 'tv t b l 2 upon a subje c t i n tim a t e ly connected with the s a na gement of Ir e land, and that the Earl of Liverpool 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 my ersonal 825 conduct is concerned, I can state, that in the year , when I was Minister in the Home Department, I was in a minority or, the Catholic quest on in the House of Commons. and I f e l t that my situation as a Minister in the office which then held, charged as I was with the administration o 4 affairs in Ireland, that I found myself in a minori•y upon n question of the greatest importance, which, in reference to the ' " al e of the country could engage my attention ; and that I ''ustht to b e relieved' from the respensibilities of my situation. I then told the Earl of Liverpool that one thing must be done, that 1 should be relieved from the duties of my office. It was stated upon tha' occasion that my retirement would lead to their retirement.—(Cheers.) You hare now the exact taneurrence of three other morning papers, all omitting tha k''''ag•e which in itself wa s certaielts of an eqtrivocal nature. p ton have then the concurrence of four other morning papers. _all . employing sep ara t e an d independent reporter s , a ll agree i ng th mar ve li ous accuracy i n the context of what I said, omit tWi ing that passage. If there was a paper which reported lode- Pendently and separately, which did lend its sanction to th report of another paper, the absence of the passage in foot 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. There is something singular in the fact, that if Mr. Barrow was an independent reporter and if there was a certain class of reporters reporting separatelv• that they did not arrive at the same conclusion. I deny the fact that Mr. Barrow made these reports, also that thene was s separate c , ass of reporters employed on the " Mirror of Par liament."—( Loud cheers.) I have inspired up n the subject as well as the Hon. Member. I state this fact. I state it positively, and I will demonstrate it to you that Mr. Barroc did not report my sentiments upon this occasion. —(Hear. hear,) But wait till I state the fact. The " lirror of Par l•ament" had not a distinct corps of reporters. Now I will stab , this fact that the reporters of the " Morning Chronicle," an' the reporters of the " Times" were in cennexion with tht "Mirror of Parliament;" that they did not make separate re ports ; no, of course it would have been absurd ; that they met together, c o mparing each others report, and that then sent to the " Mirror of Parliament" that which gave the fullest report of one part of the speech, and that which give the Niles' report of another.—( Hear, hear.) The reporters of the " Mir ror of Parliament" concocted from the reports of the " Morn ing Chronicle" and " Times." Now that is the information Which has reached me, and which I era establish by most ex • ceptional authority. Now, is it right that any man shouls labour under the charge that, for unworthy purposes, he ha. garbled a particular speech ; but, more than all, is it right that a Minister of the Crown—an active Member of this Howe— should be cempellsd, in the middle of a session of Parliament. to go out of his ordinary course, to disprove such a palpably un fontided charge ?—( Hear, hear.) But I have (lone it ; and I will prove to you, by taking the reports of the " Mirror of Par liament" itself, and comparing them with the reports of ths "Morning Herald," the " Morning Chronicle," and tin " Times," that the report of the " Mirror of Parliament" is nce an independent report, but rather the concocted report of th , reporters of those three papers. I will prove that whole passages are taker, with scarcely any alterations v of the Words, except altering " he' into " I, or ehaneine the person. I will prove to you, that withou any alteration, some part! , are taken Chronicle," Mernine Herald," others from the Morning (ahronicle, and some parts from the " Times " I will strove this by showing you that the part taken from the 4 4 Times," which, I believe, wo• taken by Mr. 'ryas, is copied with its accidental mistakes, is faithfully copied into the 4 , Mirror of Parliament," only changing he " into " I." I will sho w y ou th at t h e repor t o ' the " Mirror of Parliament , was prepared fro m th e "Morn ing Herald," the " Morning Chronicle," and the " Times ;" and I will show you that the reporters of these morning pa pers were employed upon the " Mirror of Parliament "—that they were not independent—that they did not make separate reports—but that, after the business of the day was over, and they had written their reports for the morning papers, the reporter , : of these morning papers met together, and conuocted the re port for the " Mirror ofParliament," which was not published for a day or so afterwards. ( H e does not the argument altogether ' hear. ) Well , now, then. break down—( Hear, hear) —is it not the same report?—(Hear, heart—and the report of the" Times " is not confirmed by the, adoption of the same report by the " Mirror of P' rliament. ' Or did I garble ms speech, by striking out what I . had no t uttered, and in which I was borne out by the author try of four other papers , aria also by the "Morning Chronicle," which I was accustomed to look to in matters of the assertion of the"f thiskin d. Well, then, what becomes C Gentleman with reference to the corrected report , and with regard to the note which he read out, that it wi t s inserted with ihe permission of Secretary Peel, as if to say, I had sent to Hansard 1. But the facts of 1 . my c rrected report, 7 and begged of ban, in a inote, ton-ert the ca,e are there : --11r. Murray, of Albemarle-street, pub hatted the speech, and there wa s a jealousy about the copyright; ana Hansard had no right to publis h it, but he applied to me fu r my permission, and I got Mr. Murray to give his consent to the p u bli cat i on.—( L ou d an d continued' cheering.) And the note was inserted in order to show that it had not been taken surrepti t i ously.—( H ear, hear. ) Yet the Hon. Gentleman in sinuated th a t - I h a d sent to Hansard to do away with the . mis chief of the publication of the passag e attributed to me by on Paper.: But still mor e —th e o ther reports make no comP lal n' ,, brit we find the "Times'' reporter, the man who has made the mistake, regrets that Mr. Secretary Peel's voice w as area- l i sionally so lew, that h e was b ut indistinctly h ear d i n the gal lery--( Hear, hear, and loud cheers)—and nineteen years after wards I am to be maligned and condemned ; and why P because there was a deaf reporter on the " Times "—( Tremendou• cheering.) Every other reporter did it correctly. The 4 , Times" reporter made the mistaki%d the man w h o sa id m y voice was indi s ti nc tly heard. Oct A night I heard tor the first time that ther e was any discrep between th es e reports; and am I to be d en o unce d as a of the truth, because I took the aut h ority of i,) as ur a supp res s or confirmed by my own impressions? Welt, I thTifkaini t one, have suffiiently cleared myself of these imputati on , ( Loud cheers, Now, I think I have dispe ed of Mr. Barrow a n d h is i rid , ' , ) dent report—( Hear, hear, and laughter) —and I think 111:v; denied the allegation too that there was a separate band of reporters aloof from the newspapers—( Hear, hear)— m „ki, a independent reports ; and I now come to the speech of my Hon. Friend Sir Edward Knatchhull. Well, as I said, I went through a 1 these fierce confltets. I never heard this charge preferred, except it was preferred on that occasion, cn the 16th of Nllrch ; but if it was preferred then, it was the only time during the conflicts on the Catholic question. But heard that in 1829 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 tenor of my speech delivered at that time. I take the Mirror of Parliament," I said in 1829, after the House of Commons had come to the d-cision I ha ve stated, that in 1822 I was prepared to take tie course which Uhad been prepared to take in 1825, namely, t.. resign my office. But what di 1 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 follow irg day I was questioned as to why I had stated that 'ln 18 4 5 my opinion had changed ; but the natural question was put to me, " If you are now prepared to grant Catholic Emen cipetion, why del you not grant it in 1e27. when Mr. Ginnie:, was in f a v o ur of it ; k , twit t here were just as etroeg reasons for it as there are now?" Why that was the question put to the Earl of Uxbridge On the night after the 16th of March. It wart rat by b\ir Edward Knattbbnli, Yott pill find my answer in the reports of the speech of the following day, and ! hew would that rec incite with the other statement.? Well, no e, with respect then to the speech of nay Hon. Fiend ell. E {ward Knatchliull. I am vire convinced that he is utterly ineepable ot garbling or mutilating a speech. I think that you will rind that this is a corrected rep , rt of the speech ; and cer tainly in that speech he (lees assume the statement to be made by me on the preceding day the 15th of March, that I had seed these words that the " T:rnes" impuies to me. B it if he had read the " Mirror of Parliament" he would have fount that it did not agree with the " Times." Bat niy.v will the lism. Gentleman allow me to ash him another question ? As he thought, he ha't no right to confirm the rimert of the " Mirror of Parliament' by a referenve to the " Times," with regard to my speech, did he take the same coarse welt ree,rd to it as Sir Edward Knetchbutl?-4 Hear, bear.) Observe, he did not trust to the " Mirror ot Perlis- Irises" to prefer his accusation against me. But my Hon. Friend Sir E. Knatchbull said that he had had the discretion to refer to the " Tunes." for the purpose ot saeing whether !hat eminent public news paper confirmed the report of the " elirror of Parliament." Well, now, did the Honourable Gentleman take the same course with regard to the Times" as had bsen done by ?sir Edward Knatchbull ? With regard .o Sir E {war ! Knatchbull, why d d the Nob l e L ird not take the same c urea with res iect to me, and see whether the :trims reports of the speech agreed with ea, h . th r ? :Sere is th sp ech of Sir Edward Knatchbuti, and itot one word of accu'ation is inought age nst me in it.—(C seer .) This 1, the report of Sir Edward Knatchlm l's speech in the . " Times." " With refer coca o the accounts he alluded to. he asked the Right Hon. Gentleman, if the state of Ireland and i 'hi, country w , re this reasons for his policy, if he ought not, in ju , tice to the country, to have coeceiled the s. atho is claims in rho time of Mr. Cloning ? He wished to a-k the question which he put the ot er day. If his accounts of the state of Irelant. as it existed at t ie preee 4 dry, were true, why lid he lee support _.to-e claims when t hey received the suport e f Mr. Can .ing ?—( Hear, hear. ) If the Honuurahle Genlemen !lel net then discovered the necessity for c ,ncession, why did he oppose Mr. Canning on other groan s, which he had since abandoned? Canning was the powerful, the c in sistent advocate of the Catholics, and if the Right lion. Gentleman en 1b29 had reason fir adopting the line of policy of that distinguished statesman, why did he not as readily do cc in 1627, when Mr. Canning supported him ?" Now, I have referred to other reports. 1 did not find it in the " Morn iug Herald," but in the " Morning Journal," Sir Edward Knatchbuilis 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 it iuntry, and ;n 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 such was my opinion before it was again brought forward in 1827." Now, Sir, then if the reports in the " Mirror of Par lenient " were is point of fact the compilation of the previous seporrs of newspapers—it is rather hard to condemn me be eause it now appears—( because I declare I had not the slightest conception of that on the 16th of March. 1627, although the seports of the marring papers, at least the " Morning Heraid," and if the "Times," do not attribute that expression io Sir Edward Knatchbull)—it is rather hard to impute to tie, that I remain silent under a charge which, as far as my recollection serves me, was 'never uttered.—( Cheers.) He hegins the speech, " I am desirous to state as shortly as I can, ' +he reason why I oppose further omissions." I am not pre. ' cored to say that my Right Hon. Friend was absent, but be it as it may, I am sure my stiaht Honourable Friend is quite incapable ot attributing or mutilating any speech. e ell now, Sir, I have gone through the charges b-ought against me.—( Loud cheers ) Under the disads antages which I have laboured in going into these different reports, the charge against me being the dis erepincy of a newspaper report published seventeen years ago, it is probable I might have failed. —( Cheers ) I might have believe I that the " Mirror of Parliament" hid not a separate band of reporters, and induced gentlemen connected with the eress, not connected with me in politics, to give them intorma. 'ion of the speeches delivered in Pa.rhament. This it is which -cables ma to dispose of Mr. Bas Tow, that great reporter, anti ' I; e " Mirror of Parliament " This it is which e'nable's me to dispose of the " Mtrrer of Parliament," and to se.atter to the winds the assertion that the " Mirror of Parliament" had a sand of reporters separate from the newspapers. .This it is which eneblss me to shatter to pieces the misrepresentatione of the • Times," and tee prove that its report was different from the ober morning newspapers. 1 have proved that this report was made by two persons, who each reported the same speech iii a different manner ; that this speech, as it appears in the " Mirror of Parliament," was made up from the " Horning Chronicle," the " Morning Herald," and the " Times." I lave proved, in the course of my observations, that so tar from 'here being a separate band of reporters for the " Mirror - )1 Parliament." that it took its reports from the " Times," and adopted and inserted them as its own. sod thus I have accounted for the equivocal expressions which Appeared in the "Mirror of Parliament." Wnen the Hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech attempts by the repre ssntation of his affection for the memory of Mr. Canning, we all feel b tund to respect the motives by which every .lian in nis position may be actuated. No one can tail to participate in feelings such as these which he has appealed to. The Hon. Gentleman has described Mr. Canning as an eagle. fie has -tared that he was as the rider of Bucephalus. Why one would suppose that Mr. Canning had devoted the whole of its intellectual faculties to the purposes of private study alone. 1 am quite ready to grant ail the credit to which Mr. Canning is entitled, and I am now also ready to submit to the assertion hat these feeengs are entitled to consideration and regard. I .on ready to grant that those feelings of affection and respect which e s o en ertain for any particular object are likely to be enhanced ; according as the time grows remote those feelings ;row stronger and leore permanent in their character. But, ir, I would ask, why. if the lion. Gentleman dues entertain hose feelings —why, if such are the sentiments of the Hon. 7tentlemen, has he retained them for twenty years after the leads of Mr. Canning for the purpose of wounding a pelitical ipponent ?—( Immense cheering.) I ask why, in describing nese feelings—which in themselves are entitled to esteem and espect-1 say, ally has he retained them for inflicting a slow on me, and fir exciting by their expree ion general odium gains , me, and rallying round himself the great influence o' white sycapethy ?_( Immense cheering. ) But, Sir, I am jus ilied in saying that instead of public sympathy he has roused, with hardly an excepien, an unmitigated indignation, and .n expression of the public sense of the means by which the lelu.ion was attempted, and an abhorrence at the perversi , m of teat which is AO sacred in itself for such a purpose. I will Recharge my character from the suspicion which the Hon. ;entleman would attach to me. But when the Hon. Gen lernan goes to a home on a certain day nieeteen years ago, I gill not descend to follow him.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Nhen the Hon. Gentleman speaks of certain dinners, and par ,cularives where they were held, I hope the House will not dame me for not following him.—e Cheers.) I will not re •aiiate on the Hon. Gentleman; I will simply content myself tilt having defended my character by reading the documents ipon which these charges have been founded.—( Hear, hear.) I now entreat the House that as I have no opportunity to an ster fresh csiarges, that it will su•penci its judgment, should ueh charges be brought forward, till I shale leave an oppo t.tl ~ty, by your kind indulgence, of again making my defence. The Right Hon. Gendemaa resumed his seat amidst great cheering. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK rose, but for some minu'es eitild not proceed, in cons-quence of the cheering with which he Right Hon. Baronet was greeted on the conclus on of his peeeh. Silence having been at last restored, the Noble Lori .lid—Sir, the charge that was origidally made against the Right lion. Baronet was made by the humble individual who low addresses you, and not by my Hon. Friend who sits beside ne. It was my lion. Friend who rose to defend me ag 'inst he at'ac.k of toe Right Hon. Baronet. I think, therefore, that I he House will agree with me that it becomes me , rather tha n ny Hon. Friend, to get up, and to madr ain the charge which _as advanced in the first instance.—(lronical cheering, cries of •‘ Oh, eeh l" and much confusion.) Sir, I was not in this louse in the year 1827—1 was not a Member of this House in e i at year, but I was a Member of this House iii 1828. I was a {(ember of this House in 1829, and 1 heard the speech of the Right [lon. Baronet. I heard the question asked him by the ~ arl of Uxbridge. 1 heard his answer to that question. I heard he speech—the crushing speech—of Sir Edward Knatchbull, end I heard the Right Hon. Baronet's answer to that speech. l am prepared to show by the internal evidence in those re worts that the sta einsnt I made was the correct. truth.— He a-, hear.) Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet has said that Mr. Barrow was not the reporter who gave this speech. Why, I 'resume that there is no Hon. Member in this House who toes nut know that in a speech of four hours not one, bat four, or six, or eight, or twelve different reporters may be en ;aged. When. therefore, my [lot. Friend spoke of Air. Bar ew a s the gentleman who furnished that report, he spoke of him only as at the head of that establishment, and not as the seporter—(Cries of " Oh, oh")—not as the man who himself reported that speech, but as the principal person connected with that journtel. But I appeal to those reports, and I take ' Hansard" as it is. I take the " Mirror of Parliament" as I tind it, anti I will endeavour to show by the internal evidence .f the reports in these papers. that I have not imputed to the Right Hon. Baronet that which may not be fairly inferred from the speeches themselves. When 1 m ide the charge against 'he Right Hon. Baroeeet I had referred to the " Mirror of Parliament," and nothing else. I was not aware that " Han sard" hail been corrected by the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir, what does the Right Hon. Baronet say in the outset of his -peech, in his very first paragraph. He says, " So far as 1 em personally concerned, I beg to say, that my own course on •his question is the same as that which I suggested in 1825." Another paragraph stated, that in 1829—(and we all know what vas the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet)—•hat in 1829 his 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 ques ion is concernecl,it is the same as that suggested to me in 1825." The evidence of the Right Hot . Baronet in his awn corrected repo t, as we.l as in the report of the " Alirror of Parlia ment," wit, that the c(eirses he pursued in 1829 and in 1825 were the same The Right Hon. Baronet has told you that they were not indepie dent reporters on that paper, but that, according to has belief, all the reporters got together and e impared 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 goes on to say—" After the /louse of Commons came to the decision which I have stated in 182 S, I was prepared to take ' the course which I was prepared to take in 1825. With this addition I intimated to the Noble I , uke at the head of his Ma jesty's Governme nt that I was not only prepared, but Anxious retire from off oe, seeing the current of public opinion in ' t ?vour of the Catholic claims; and in whatever situation I ' " 'night find myself, I could no longer be justified in opposing myself to its voice. After this comes what the Right Hon. Baronet did not read. ee The Right Hon Baronet did ce. He not pursue the said, to this duty , and to this great objec t, he was prepared to make a sacrifice seet his c nsistency an sett l e ment of the qaesti d his friendship for whatever would pro of- du on that was undertaken; and he, ce a ent be, t su fir one, was pre pared in whatever position he might thldin the Prote o stap et port any measure for the purpose of u ', o i,; Establishment. Here is his own admission—that tie had see. , the ti me was come w h en , in his o d nion, some concession ought to be ma d e to the Roman C a th o lics, while, In 1825, he was prepared to retire from office to leave others to carry out the Catholic ern A .' • in 1829, he said that he was pre iiimsor , ni ipation. But, i ° Ca rry it. The Right Hon. Baronet has refined to a questi on which had b given to the Earl f • d had been a=k,d, and an answer which he that the Noble Ear[ Uxbridge. On the 6th of March he said course to he t ink asked why he did not take, in 1827, the consent to assist Mr. n i'''. l o f and why, in 1-.127, he did not .(armi ng i n anl carrying out the Catholic carrying on the Government Right lion baronet re ii:d question. To this question the that occurred in 1827 P ----" Between the eireurnstanees and those which there is this materiel differ, ocou-red in 1828 time Mr. Canning mer l e this ge ': le 1827, at the subject hail been d ssits•e I in the [l, use 'i r to 'TU. ' r the, new Parliament, and I had been in a i ‘ it t ;,. , e . ot. esornmons of to a minority in 182 e. And in 1828, theret'o'r'e"ti in 1827 and in which I took in 1825." He (Lord G. Bentine k took h the course had only to read to ascertain the course the Right Hun. Bar ) o s 1828, In 1828, when he proposed to retire, he saidthenitook in time had now come when a new House of Commons was disposed favour the claims of the It sman Catholics, and the tou to , . Lords sipoorict i I,e emicession. The Ris l st Hon. flsr, net House ~,°. i said that an attem p t sheltie be made L. beltir e !lc Cpcbilol, 11 to that attempt he would lend himself.—( Hear, hear.)' and 1825 he took a similar course ; and in 1828 he took the same muse as in 1823, In 103 he alto took the id t' NA 1 on (mute which he did in 1827, 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 the correctness of what he ( Lord G. Bentinck ) had stated in reference to the oppesition of the Right Honourable Baronet. to this Catholic realms to 1824.—( Hear, hear.) In support of what he had stated, he would refer to what took pace in 1531. when 'he Right lion. Gentleman the Member for Edmhurgh (Mr Macaulay) spoke in favour of the Reform Bill, aid alluded to the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet. The Right Hon. Baronet then went into a statement of his con ' duet. in 1828. He said he had left in 1828 on acsount of his views on the Roman Catholic question, but that the time had of a rived when he could explain the cire.urnstaeees that led to it. But he mi g ht state that his opinions on the question of the Cat holiee laims remained unchanged, but he thought that there would be danger to the country, and the stability of i'.s institutions in further resisting the measure. His opinions were unchanged, but he had doubts of resisting the measure for fear that greater evils might arise.--( Hear, hear. ) His opinions were the same as they had ever been, even at the time wren he asked Parliament to consent to the pass ing of the measure of Catholic Emancipation. The Hon. Uenther 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 ola speedy settle ment of the lonseagitated qaestion of Cathulie Emancipatien. hut that he (S hr R. Peel) considered that. it would affect his character as a public man if after his exoression 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 Howe, in which he stated that if the Noble Earl 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 t ask, were the memories of Hon. Gentlemen so fickle that they had for g itten that in the autumn of le2e the Right lion. Baronet 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 previeusly acted in 1527 towards Viscount Canning, when he had the assurance to go down to Manchester, and dined at a large puhlic dinner as the champion of Protestant ascendancy ?—( Cheers ) 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 Prote.stant champion, after he had 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 front Liverpool—from Nlr. Hellingshead, he be lieved —whether he would have received these assemblies—se would have been fi'tsd and honoured with all these dinners by the Protestants and Orangemen of the country, if they had anticipated that in the summer of 1825 he had made up his mind to carry Catholic emancipation? There was then an end of the Right Honourable Baronet's defence.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") Hon. Gentlemen might cry " Oh, oh," but did they ,1 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 Edward Knatchbull. The Right lion. 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 of this, or to make any explanation ?—( Cheers.) Bat 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 able and constant advocate cf the measure, to have conceded it. If, as he says now, that he considered in 1825 the quest on ought to have been coeceded, why did he riot think so in 1127, when the supposed difference with Mr. Canning upon this point obtained fur him the meat powerful support, which I coofess, said Sir E. Knatchbull, " to have been the case with me; and if we are to be secured by our con. sessions 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 who could not view it in such a light coming from the hands that it did, with the confession that it was retorted from them ?"—( Hear, hear.) Then, when be 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 si oast of it was the same. It was as follows :—" The Right Hen. Gentleman, however, said that. even then (that was in 1825) he was satisfied something must be done to conciliate Ireland. 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?"--(Hear, hear.) But was 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)— coeld 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 aed besotted. They were, however, beguiled by Peel's explanation. So was I. I was one of them. I thought the conduct of the Noble and Right Hoc. individual concerned sacrificed a principle to consistency. What it was it is not worth while to inquire, since it wss 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 cf the Government, because he was favourable to a measure and now so indecently forced upon the 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 feel the warmth of his friendship, which, I believe, mould only be equalled by its stability. Had I had the honour of having a seat in the House at that time, I should have con scientiously opposed him on that occasion, but with feelings very different from those who then opposed 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 regardcsl—when it is drowned by the voice of interested adu lation, 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. Sailler—( Hear )—upon this same spei ch 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 reporters' gallery). Then it was not attempted to be denied that the speech in " Hansard" was also correct. But in 1828 the Hon. Baronet did what he hail done in 1n25, with this addition, namely, that ha was prepared to pass the measure thromsh Parliament. There could be no doubt now, that the communication referred to was a verbal one, and that his resig nation was tendered in a written statement. This case must stand on its own intrinsic merits. The Right Hen. Baronet had said that a reporter of the " Times" was a deaf reporter, but it should be known that it was the practice of reporters o n ly to take their notes for a quarter of an hour 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 the " 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 hie, that the report ad been tampered with. When the Right Hon. Baronet WAS qu ding " Hansard " against him, he had looked him s'eadey in this face, to sea 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 hi nds, hut he threw it from hint as if afraid any longer to retain it in his grasp.—(Cheers. ) Sir W. JAMES rise 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 GEORGE BENTINCK—The Right 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 way severely dealt with by Sir Edward Knatebbull, and was much ques tioned by a Noble Lord. He held with no such double-iteal ins; as this by a Minister high in the confidence of his Sove reign. The Right Hon. Gentleman was a great reformer of the 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 he should bear in mind that the country would not forgive two great crimes. He (Lord G. Bentinek) had been charged with bringing up an old offence with regard to the name of Mr. Canning. Had he done so without provecation—had lie mare one charge that was not borne out in fact? He was there not to melte false charges; but while he had the honour of a seat in that House, he would denounce political profligacy. Tne Right Honourable Baronet had charged him with using language unbecoming a Member of that House. When the Honourable Speaker was first proposed to sit in that Ch sir, he (Lord G. Bentinck) 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 ttost impartial. With such a Right Hon. Gentle man in that chair, he (the Noble Lord) believes! that language unbecoming a Member of that House could not be used without calling for his interference.—( Hear, hear. ) Ho had used no language but what was quite legitimate and just.— ( Hear, hear.) He used langnat'e denouncing the political profligacy of those who had sold their constituencies. Mr. ESCOTT—Who sold,them—who ? Lord GEORGE BENTINCK—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 ise as the Bight 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 H INMER said that the Noble Lord was very partial to making a comparison between his own speeches and those of Mr. Fox ; but he (Sir John Ilanmer) 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 had spoken to the electors of Lynn as a supporter of the Right Hon. Baronet. He was not one to rake up old speeches, as he but occasionally dipped into the newspapers, and then only for the speeches of a few leading Ministers, and their leading opponents. But he had been induced to depart a little oat of his usual course to inquire whet the Noble Lord had said to hispeechee, seeing that he had been so ready to quote the spee , " h i s of other parties. He would read an extract of a speec h .it the Noble Lord given in the Norfolk y th 3 t; Id distinctly said. that in l''3s he I s S o l b l l . e L T o h . (. speec h . v was spoken at the Lynn e Ministry of the day. was elected to support the Conservative at ,Citi,,rttotoi)ttelr and that tim e the Right New, let the Meuse bear in m ed t hat. Hon. Hart. was at variance with • Lord ' , and all the leading Noble Lord (Lord George Bentin7k) had represented as hi s S anloy whom the Right Hon. Baronet on the Member for Lynn ruiported the political leader. He f ,und also that the Noble Lord the motion for electing Manners Sutton as Speaker of the House, Ly the Right - B motions of the o therefore, not Hon , Baronet. The Noble Lord was, not innocent of the charges '. T s l een ". w l h l a a t "t e the t realssentientsm ents aga in s t the Right 1, - -ict'nn . that ,0 ,ni C , hai 1 a -ea, deal had I ' 'aid sl»tit a eistieral : b r ought ort s n e t. r h v , en a t , pi i v ea e ot ghp.l p ar t y , England o n it woo J h i in relation to the Bight H on. B aronet poled bins. and those who now op- THE _,SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 20, 1846. Mr. ROEBUCK said he was at ales. what to make of the sr eech 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 hint hunted to death—( Hear, heat ) —ant he watched the han.t that struck the blow which penetrated that noble heart ; yet h.t man who had directed the blow the Noble Lord had afterwards called his Right lion. Friend.—( Hear, hear.) As a plain man, he ( Mr. Roebuck) would say, had he possessed such a frien had he grown up with Mr. Canning—had he s.-en the blow struck that laid him in the dust, and knew the hand that dealt the blow, he at least would never have gulled that man his Right Hon. Friend. flow came it that not till nineteen years after the death of Mr. Can ning did the Noble Lord think proper to make the declara tion he had made? Why did he not make the declaration before, instead of reserving it to such a Isle perii d, and then, in a moment of irritation and party quarrel, to make the charge of his friend being hunted to death ? Again, when did the Hon. Gentleman the Aleipb .r for Shrewsbury make ti,e same discovery ? Was it in 1602, 1825, 1628, or 1,32 ? He got into Partiainent in 1832 _ Mr. DISRAELI—I diil not get in then. Mr. Id OEBUCK—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 finding 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 disanpointment, 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 object he had in view. The Right Hon. Baronet, it could not be denied, had also charged 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 fur Shrewsbury and the sacri fices which the Right Hon. Baronet, in his present conduct, had made to ensure a great public good.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon Baronet had yielded to new convictions, while the charges of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury proceeded from motives of place and power, and from a feeling of disappointed ambition. lie was sure the people of England would nit much longer hear with such proceedings of the Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, and the Hon. 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. lie hoped, and sincerely too, that the aholitioe of the corn-laws would not be the last act of the Right Hon. Barooet's political life, but that he wr uld become a ceadjutor with others in promoting and carrying out measures and views which should be 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 doirg justice to his feelings and to his country if he had not taken the earliest opportunity to rise in his place, and express his gratitude to the Right Hon. Baronet for what he had done; and at the same to assure him that he had per fectly vindicated his character, in the reply he had made to the change of the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn.—( !leer. ) Lord J. RUSSELL had hoped that his Noble Friend, the Member for Lynn, would have relieved him from the nee cessity 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 not one of these who was disposed to think that upon general questions, I;ke these they ha I lately had under discussion, Hon. Members ought not to refer to matters which occurred twenty years ago, and stilt less to express hemselves in strong terms upon such sub jects. He was not prepared either to say that the great diffe rence of opinion which had existed in that House upon a sub ject of great and vital interest to the country was not sufficient to restrain Hon. Memb .rs from indulging in strong late guace against the Minister who propesi e l it.—(Hear, hear.) Bet the question which the Right Him. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury had brought before the House to-nieht 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 chanced upon the subject. In the next place, whether he 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 renroach that while he thought the question ought to be settled he oeposed 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 m tcle in 1829. He had been a party to sending forth to the would a quibbled and mutilated report ofthat speech, for the pur pose of suppressing the truth upon the subject to which it related. 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 lion. 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 douse 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. lie believed in the next place that in 1829, instead of stating what he did in 1825, he stated exactly the course he adopted in 1828. H e 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 1325 ; 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, arid subjected to repeated accusations, did not always get up to reply to them. But there was no doubt that the Right Hon. Baronet did take an opportunity to explain all the circumstances connected with the mater. 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, hut he certainly did not recollect any thing of the kind as stated by the Hon. and Learned Member for Lynn. A short time ago, 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 Si Mirror of Parliament." This impression, however, could now be left on no man's mind, because the Right lion. Baronet had clearly shown that the report in " Hansard," agreeing with:five newspapers of the day, was likely to he more conformable to the statements of the Right lion. Baronet than the report of the st Mirror of Parliament." The statement of the Right Hon. Baronet had, therefore, in his opinion fully vindicated his character from the imputations which had been cast upon it by the Hon. 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 lion. and Learned Member for Bah, that the Right Hon. Bart., in taking the part he had done upon this and other political question-, had rendered a great service to the country, but he certainly slid not agree with the Hun. and Learned Member that this aught to protect the lion. Member from censure, because it must he remembered that in the course of his political career the Hon. arid Learned Member had altered his opinions twice. When the Protestant Church and the Protestant institution was to he defended from the assaults of the Roman Catholic: the Right Hon. Ba.ronist undertook to lead that defence ; and again, when the corn-laws were attacked, and powerfully attacked, both in and out of that House, the Right lion. 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 Hon. Gentleman's sup porters, rcliing 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 that 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 Hm. Gentleman in his capacity of First Minister of the Crown, had d 'ne grea t service to the country, ' while it w as on ly j ust i ce fir 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 ELI 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. Ile should conFrie 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. ) With regard to what the Hon. and Learned Member had ad dressed " to presumptuous and ignorant youths," he should leave it to be , nswered by those " presumptuous and ignorant youths," whom he had no doubt would be found equally as strong as the Hon. and Learned Member, whether in an intellec tual, moral, or physical point of view. He now approached the matter before them, and he would, with the permission of the House, address himself seriously and anxi ous l y to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. In th e fi rst p l ace he might be permitted to observe that througho u t the Right Hon. Baronet's statement there ran a constant and remarkable 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 lion. Baronet, upon an authority to which he would in a few minutes refer, the Right t '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 collateral illustrations 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 referred to, he must remark that the " Edin l!‘ujeringhbeßrev()ifewo,e' wh il i o c u li s szas w s h u o ppo b s a ec i l to eharerbeesent duringwritttsn the ya e whole of the debate, and conversa n t w ith t h e whole matter, was produced by them not as a p roo f , b ut as an illustration of the charge which they ha 1 made a ga i ns t t h e R ight Hon. Baronet. He now came t o M r . B arrow. He never meant to say that gentle man repor t e d a speech which occupied five - that or six hours in the delivery ; while he could assure the o e f p ocrotue course House that i n th e ear l y parts of 182f3, he knew of his own kn ow l e d ge , t h at the " Mirror of Par liatriva nentlilpru had ,,g up as in the independentshapeof ,th, nrcorpssd ," and r of He knew that this work did not rece i ve an extensive patr onage . A the publication of Mr. Barrow was eventually lim:t d e to a very seen!). circulation. His authority for saying test was Mr. Barre .v himself. He could not produce Mr. Barrow hisaself, 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 nes etricny correct. The reporters made up this culled report of the Right Hful. Gentleman's speech. Now, he must at the saute time remark upon the very circumstarce of the reporters upon the principal journals going together in council upon this nosy speech, and he telieved that the report which was given was the most accurate and authentic record. That was a cir cu instance that could not have escaped the calm consideration of the House. About which did they commit their mistake? Upon one of the most extraordinary statements that ever was ma le by a Minister of the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) That was a circumstance that could not ' for a moment be forgotten. Now, he 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 campaigns of a very y different charac ter to those in w hi c h b e had lately mixed, it appeared he had generously come f orward to declare that there was no proof of the allegation of his Noble Friend ; but be should wish the Noble Lord t o g i ve hi m his attention,whilst he shortly detailed the f acts o f t h e case. Hewould ould accept for moment, for th e purposes of argument , that the heas s umption which had been made was e perfectly r ( Hear.) He wou ld assume that ther ,, t which had appeared i n the Mirror of Parli ament " or th e e newspaper (he did not care w h et h er i t b e two auth orities,m Times" whether it be one) bus. that the report which appeared in the " Times" newspaper or the " Mirror of Parliamect" de clared that the Right Hon. Gentleman said, in 1829, that he was prepared to consent to the settlement of the Catholic question. He would assume, hepeated for the sake of ar sit mutt, that the Ri g ht H on. Gentleman said that. Now, l'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 umcd 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 " Mirror of Patliament" as a proof of what he said, though for the sake of argument he assumed that he did 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 inguisbed Members of Parliament to recollect the real 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 Houss. But he was in the House ; because in March, although he was so indis posed that he could not speak upon the subject, he found in the division list the name of Sir Edward Knatchbull.— ( Hear, hear.) Now he begged the House to recollect that important fact. He was not arguing the case, he 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 the other night that he (Mr. Disraeli) had got up to make this at tack upon him. God knew it was 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 expression of his convictions. The Right Hon. Gentleman did not choose to allow that to pass; h e t oo k a certain time, and came down and made an elaborate defence of himself—( Hear, hear)—.and then because his Noble Friend asked him (Mr. 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 House a Member 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. Ban OW who had reported this—it was. not the collective council at midnight of the most accomplished reporters of toe London press that retorted 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 Hen. 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 report 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 was 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 1825.—(N0, no.) Very well; that at least was a faithful report of what had been said, according to his infers 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 Members as the Right Hon. Gentle man in that publication. Now this had never beets brought forward in the course of the debate. This was in answer to the question to Lord Uxbridge, 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 1828. In 1827 a new House of Commons decided against concession, but in 1828 it decided in favour of concession. Mr. Secretary Peel then adopted the course which he took in 1825, when Lord Liverpool was elected at the head of the Government. We had this passage, that he then took the course which he adopted in 1825, when Lord Liverpool was at the head of the Govern ment. In 1828, when the question was put forward, and it was likely that the Government would be in a minority, he said " Tbe 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 answer tcrthe 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 " N o , no !") The Right Ho n . G en t. sa id 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, for he raid that the time had arrived when an attempt must be made to settle the Catholic question, and to that attempt he would lend his aid.—( Hear, bear.) 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 cars y that question, he ( Mr. D'lsraeli) had a right to assume that which he as sumed only. Was there any truth that the Right Hon. Gent., in hie 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 Knatchbull 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 she Right Hon. Gentleman. When the Right Hon. Gentleman occupied 20 or 30 minutes in this chance allusion 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 beets 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 him if he had made the speech attributed to him, and if he had given a simple response to that simple inquiry, and i t he had then walked to the table of that House, and read that letter 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 scrsiety 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 the 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) with having referred to all the newspapers. Why he (Mr. Disraeli) referred to the newspapers with very great reluctance, and even upon reference to the " Times," he only availed himself of it because it was very well known that the reporting staff of it was by far the most extensive,' most complete, and most skilful of any of the public journals. He offered it in evidence on that account.—(Hear, hear.) He looked to the " Times," which was used amongst the authorities, and he found that the speech was there reported verbatim Now he would put the case fairly before the House. He would put aside all the " 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 facts which he had put before the House could be ex plained away—if they could be explained away from the " Mirror" of th a t un f ortunate Mr. Barrow, have supposed he would have been referred to in this who never could debate in the sarcastic article in the "Edinburgh,"ieh or all those varieties in the newspapers from which they had quoted —if these facts could D I plained away, then the Right Hon. mightGentlemearniect; but indeed appeal to the country with Public why the confidence fora d if he could, in fact, explain to the English m o of Parliament most respectable and influential u e Me make a violent speech should have got up in that House and upon the assamption that against him, all of which p roceeded a dmitted that in 1825 he was the Right Hon. Gentleman had the settlement of the Catholic ready to contribute his aid couldexplainin to the country why such express question. If he hsc' read tothe House, and which he lions as he (Mr. Disraeli) 1 he could explain, why, in one of the most • detail--if could not memorablerecapitulate'n s peeches he positively declared I , I that in settlingee e stion in 1828 he was prepared to r do what he bad inten ded to do in 1825.4 1 the Right Hon. Gentleman could persuade the public that Sir Edward Knateh [ bull sac wrong in making the speech wuich he had in 1829 ' if the Right Hon. Gentleman could persuade the public that I the speeches he (Mr. Disaaeli) had quoted were never male, then the Right Hon. Gentleman might appeal with confidence to the public for a verdict, but that must he done. It would not do to make a speech imputing the worst motivea tohisopponents, and exercising a most ingenious argumentation upon the most worthless materials—destroying accusations which never had been made—( 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 -1 fied that it should remain there. It was not that book that he f quoted—it was not the speeches of Sir Edward Knatchbull, or the speeches of the Right Hon. Gentleman which induced r his Noble Friend ever to make the statement which he had i made. He spoke from his personal memory, he spoke from his personal experience—he spoke from that in whi c h h e h a d more confidence than his personal memory—and his personal i 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 not be re. futed.—( Cheers. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I think that 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 t o rep l y to the renewed assertions of the H on. M em b er for Shr ew s b ury, or point out to the House how easy it is by culling extracts from particular speeches, to give to these a the r s represent a ti on w hi ch reading the entire speeches would not bear out. —(Ch eers. ) Sir , r , l ur i n .. thee hav e of h cause ea d e these t p h r ere ese f u n t a d s , i 3 r r i n a t g h e t r h e a whole witnessdebates,course than I f u was is teo, enter into an argument. I say that I ' t he was present during whole of these debates upon the Rom an Cat h holic question, and I have no recollecti on w h atever of an y opi nion on the part of Si r Edward Knaclstieullexpression of i , as that to w hi c h the Honourable Gentl eman h as referred that his suspicions a re well-founded. as confirmation that the non-recollectio n o f a fact can am aware little against any expres s i ons w hi ch might, pr i o n ve f but have fallen from him. Consideri ng th e i nterest which I toor iti; 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 on 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 any Right Hon. Friend was Secretary 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 againstthe Members of the Govern ment, and it was impossible in this intimacy that he child have entertained any change of opinion without my not being aware of it.—(Cheers.) I can assure the House that I never heard from him a single expression 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 en d to t h e case.—(Loud cheers.) The H on.f 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.") I am anxious to state—for my Ri g ht H on . 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 nay 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, he 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 thel 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 of betraying his con stituents that he had called a public meeting of his con stituents, and that a resolution was passed approving of his conduct, there being only three hands 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. DlSRAELl—Nineteen years. Mr. B. ESCOTT—The , public would not distinguish the difference between nineteen and twenty years. They would tell these Holz. 5/embers 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 brought forward, p er h a p s , t oo l a t e f or 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 raises his party by attempting to back up his statements by reports from old newspapers, and that, having entered into these discussions, they should back it up by quoting paragraphs, sometimes from the " Mir r or o f 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 Hon. Baronet, partly because of the Catholic question, and partly because of the opposition which the Right Hon. Baronet gave to Mr. Canning. He would not disguise that he had seen with regret the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet at that time, but he wouli 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 ment ; but still he 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 had so frequently referred, that more evil had been done by the Noble Lord, by his prolonged resistance to the Govern ment measure than would possibly follow from the 1 assing of tte 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 anyof the other 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 afirmed that the Noble Lord had 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?") The "Mirror of Parliament," and the " Times " news (Ironical cheers, and cries of " Oh , o h ")—lf t h spapers-- ere was a con spiracy, as he supposed they intended to insinuate, they account for the t urn w hi ch the debate how cou ld (H was hi ear, hear, and ch eers. ) It took afte rwar d s ?--- his hu taking that i nser ti on of those a mble opinion that pragraphs, together with what occurred in the debate afterward tunities whi c h th e Noble 3—considering also the oppor. 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 to the statement he had made to the House. He believed that the Noble Lo r d h ad brought forward this charge w ith . thc . pur te. purest intention s , an d h e bad certainly sa tisfied him ( 0 r • P le wi gate) that he had good grounds for thisasse i r tr deep regret the Mr. HUME sa id that he had witnes sed a tt a ck upon the Right course which had been taken in 'tehe w Hon. Baronet. It was quitepess in the journals which had might have arisen from a but m is take poss ible that the whole matter every one would s ee cause to been so so often referred to, h ad persisted, , ed notwithstanding the gret that the party opposite h p triumphant answ er of the Rig R' ht Hon. Baronet. ow the had just sat down, could de l iver his Hon. Gentleman w ho opinion in the !lay he had done, was to him (Mr. Hume) a ma tter of surprise ; . . b u t there was one thing which had not been a lluded to that ni g ht, and which he thought would set t h e question co mpletely at rest. It was this, in the year of Wellingtondetermined when the Duke to 1829. bring forward the Catholic Emancipation Bill, the Right Honourable Baronet ten de red his resignation, and the letter of the Right Hon. Baronet, addressed to the' Duke was read to the House in bringing forward that quit 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 wasaled 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 hadthehonour of oceupyinga seat in Parliament at the time that Mr. Canning was at the head of the Administration, trusted the House would bear wish him while he addressed a few remarks upon this subject. He hag. felt for that great Mhister feelie..es of the most profound ad, miration, and although he did not sympathise in the political measures of Mr. Canning, he yet viewed with great disappro bation the course pursued by the Right lion. Baronet at that period. The Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn, had brought forward certain charges against the Right Hon. Baronet. words, tha t pe: hlhteaeh tteLe Rightl yocvgrhodeatH7er He would not attempt to repeat them, but he must say, that he gave the utmost attention to them, and he had no reason for thinking them to be true, on the contrary he had every reason to believe that they were untrue. Ile w as confirmed in this impression by his distinct recollection of Me. - Canning standing up in the House, and saying in a marked mariner that for the resignation of the Right Hon. Baronet he was fully prepared. H Gentleman, ee shattered.—( axe m tpna p rttele te s to, eaoi t fgan o r, be set uslteieett great errh n eswe), p a tt against mt nut himth,ahtre fer encea h a d lei hnkiop He considered, therefore, to use the Right Hon Baronet's own egorenba. ylapreparedt qualifying against ea e n n sst t o t : hb m el 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 agitated in that House.—( Hear. ) Mr. VILLIERS said that he did not consider it beside the question to ask to what side Mr. Canning. if he were alive, would attach himself.._( Hear, hear.) They had heard wonderful professions of respect and veneratio n for that illus trious man, but the Noble Lord was allied at the very moment with that very party who had hunted him to death.-- (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 n ow used against the Right 'Honourable Gentleman. It was the law of ISIS which the landed interest were attached to. Mr. do away with it and carry ou t free trade • and that be could then assailed. reason he was insulte d and Canning saw its gross imposition , and he was determined to assure the House was Mr. Cannin He had id en ti fi e d hi m self with every enemy o f g How, th en , an d w i t h w h a t grace co uld he make them, even If assailed. And now the Noble Lord made these charges. they were true? He was sure that Mr. Canning, if he were alive, with hi s generous sp i r it, w hich was his cha racteristic, would join heart and soul in the great _trsear. ) ove ment which they were now about The pa r t y w hi ch the Noble Lord represented, had joinedi n the cry, b ecause their immediat e i n t e r e car s tsw ring out. —(H e y re attacked. The Noble L or d k new these facts as well as he could tell him. Why what wa s the question th ey were then d ' scin o sing? The cha racter of the P r i me Minister. The people took no interest its a certain poi n t o f v i ew i n the question, bnt he .ld tell the Noble Lord that they rece i ved with unmitigated e°tl ' gated d i m ust the per sonal attacks whi c h h a d b een made upon the Ri ght Hon. Gen tleman; and there w as one class in the e country who woul d take no interest in it, and that was the British eactner, of whom they were always talking. They brought evidence against the Right Honourable Gentleman of ninet e sen 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 them safely„ and 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 distinction between following the Prime Minister and following Lord 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 had been taken. Did or did not the Noble Lord follow the Right Hon. Gentleman P— ( 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 be used to cross the House, after he changed his opinion, was met with such jeers thate had at last to sit up , n the side of the House:from which he had seceded. Yet the Honourable Member foe Lynn, who followed that Noble Lord, was shocked— exceedingly shocked, at treachery to party.—(Hear, 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 with disgust—they looked upon these personal attacks as disgraceful to the House—disgraceful to its honour and dignity, and disgraceful to those who made 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 whew 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 principles was not that he had swerved from his principles entirely, but that be had done so by introduCing the Canada Bill. The Hon. Member had charged that part of the House with having offered an opposition to this measure wholly uncalled for, and the result of which was only to delay the passing of the mea sure. lie felt that this charge of protracting that debate was not only uncalled for, but that it was only cons i s t ent w i t h the character of the H ousei 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 d)wn. He had stated that the opposition of the great landed proprietors to Mr. Canning was occasioned by his advocacy of free trade, Mr. PETER BORT HWICK rote amidst considerable laughter. He did not wish to take part in the personal squab bles which had 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 ex aping his position. He said, however, if he bad reason to thank the Hon. Gentleman for the compliment which had been paid to himself. He was sure the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth 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 my friends" than had the Hon. Member for Tamworth to-night, when the Hon. Gentleman rose to defend him.— ( The Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst cries of " Divide," and " Adjourn.") An HON. MEMBER, who moved that the debate on 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 had 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 ment which ought to have been repealed ; 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 H. 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, }riving a large church, existed, it would be under the necessity of levying a separate rate in each parish. This Bi,l rer: oved such a necessity, and it should therefore have his support. After a lew 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 Bill 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 b ui ld i ng churches by church rates further than the present law allowed. He thought (hat it would be better to adjourn the question, in order that the Bill might be considered by the Law Officers of the Crown, and afford an opportunity of introducing a Bill which would be better calculated to meet the objects in view. Sir R. 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 the objections which had been urged against it. Mr. W. MILES thought the inhabita n t s o f par i s h es, who might be called upon to subscribe un d er i t, would have great obj T ections heco se tno dag o its re provisions.din fas the Bill w then negati ve d w i thout a division.OF THE PEACE AND CLERK OF THE ( I RELAND) tori li ng lL in L a . cLER K Lord LINCOLN obtained tained leave Bill to provide that the office o f Cl er k of the Pe Ireland sho u ld be hereafter filled by the same person. PU BLIC BATHS AND . W ASHHOUSES. Om the motion of Sir G. GREY, boroughs and paribbes Leave Was given to bring in a Bill for prom i o n ti volun tary establishment, in danand Wales, of public baths and was hhottses. The Hous e a dj o urnedat a Quarter p as t T welve. i I h —BRUSH E S.—NEW INTENTIONS. One stroke of this is equal to the nye small-tooth combs, and one even. rush • to be had in four sizes, No. 7, 5. 6d ; No. 8. 7s. cut b rash g s . 6d. ; No. 10, 1 Ls. 6d. The Double Anti. effectAh eopfTvor2pealTpeerirsnnearrranßtisturr.ug.., Press 6d. tire Nail Brush, which does not divide the quick from the nail, no pressure being required, and thoroughly cleans and po. fishes the nails in a tenth part of the time of any other Ille* 6N t h t o d p w; ; Tooth-pic k oo r t c h4 e : ps i i n cs bone, Brush, andne , oNf which l a l l ile , 2 sizes ze s ; s. entirely n No . 2 d ente r spr , 2 i c s e e. between 6d i n . ivory. 3 r y.t he The i 33 teretices of the closest teeth ; marks, full-sized brushes, No. 1, hard ; No. 2, less hard ; No. 3, middling ' • No. 4, soft. TM narrow brushes, No. 5, h ar d ; N o. 6, less hard; No. 7, mid dling ; No. 8, soft, at ls. each, or 10s. per dozen in bone ; and 2s. each, or 21s. per dozen in ivory, the hair warranted never to come out. The Medium Shaving Brush, between the usual badger hair and bristle brush, being a selection of the strongest hair only from the badger skin in a variety of sizes, both in bone and ivory. The above articles are the inventions of Ross and Sons, 119 and 120, Bishopsgate-street, Londe'', and, being protec ted, any one imitating them will be proceeded against. [ADVERTISEMENT.] SIGHT AND HEARING. 39, Albemarle-street. Piccadilly. Newly-invented Spectacles, Tele. scopes, Opera Glasses, Microscope., &c. Patronised by Generale Sir Edward Paget, Sir Evan Lloyd, Sir John Keating., Walston, Frederick Goodfellow, Clayton, Grosvenor Morrison, Dyott Robert s on, Mackenzie, Galway, Biggs, Woolf, Murray, Walker, Fox, Price, Lindsay, and Thackray ; Major Generals Sir H. Elphinaton o , Sir John Ross, Sir James Cockburn, Achinty, P. Fyers, D. Macleod, Bonverie, Sir J. Mecdonall, Sir It. Barton, Sir T. Dallas, and Sir Wm. Eustance : Admirals Lord John Hay, Sir G. Cockburn, S George Munday, Sir George Martin, Sir James H. Whitshed, Sir D. Gold, Ross, Alexander, Curzons, Tompkinson, Hollis, and Price. Vice-Admiral Sir F. Austen ; Rear-Admirals Brown and Ribonlean, &c. Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, have invented Spec tacle Lenses upon a new construction. Immediately they are placed before imperfect vision, that mist and dullness which appear beim.* the eyes is at once removed, every object becomes clear and distinct, so that the most aged imperfect sight becomes bright and brilliant. and is brought to its y ouththl. natural, and original state. Also. Achromatic Telescopes, Opera Glasses, Microscopes, Invisible and sit kinds of Acoustic Instruments, for relief of most extreme deafness. Cantion—Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, are not in any war connected with a person of the same name in th e i r immediate neigh. bourhood. To prevent mistakes be cautious, and Observe—Oak, t s be had at 39, Albemarle-&e4, Piccadilly, opposite the York Hetet,