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

Most finished short-hand reporters, and a man of education and intelligence." Mr. Barrow, unfortunately , is not here ; and as to the inquiry made by the Hon. Member, and ohs statement that he had ascertained that the report was by Mr. Barrow, I give the most peremptory contradi eion.—(Great cheering.) I deny that the report was by Mr. Barrow, who , Was the editor of that paper ; an't I believe that he was nut then, although I believe he might have been, a reporter, and was not in the habit of reporting. The Hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of adding wsight to his charge, had told the House that it was an independent report of a man of high character and great atOinments. The Hon. Genii man went on to say—" However, I had the di cretion to refer to the re port of the speech in one of the most eminent of the pualic Papers of the time, and I find the same report under the date of March 6, 1829." The Hon. Gentleman had thus taken credit to himself that he was not an indiscreet. Man, and did not prefer cheeses against me on a report without comparing it with other reports. He took credit to himself for discretion, as he did not make the charge en a single report, but he had found the report of the " Times" confirming and concurrent with the report of she other indepen dent sets of reporters 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 had the discretion to refer to one of them ; and in the event of the apparent cencurrenese of any of them to inform the House of the fact? Did he conclude that there was no necessity for further inquiry? Allow me to ask if the same sense of justice induced you (to Mr. Disraeli) to examine any other report—to look at the report of the "Morning Chronicle," of the "Morning Herald," of 'he " Morning Post," of the " Morning Journal"—a paper set up for the purpose of destroying the whole success of the measure I had then in hand? There are four other Independent report', and I ask you this question—Did you go in search of any other papers? And if you aid, why have you not had the honesty to bring them forward to the House ? You did not do so. Why did you confine yourself to those reports that seemed to support your charge, and not extend your inquiries to others ? Or if you did, why did you not come forward and state the fact that every other report but that to which you referred, though written by the independent reporters of four newspapers, excluded the words on which the accusation rests ?—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear ") Now observe, the words of " The Times" are, " That the time had arrived when something must be done with the Roman Crtho- Ile Question." The s' Mirror or Parliament" it is said con curred with this—thus supporting the accusation by two inde- Pendent reports, and bearing out the charge that I had Mutilated and garbled the speech, withholding the knowledge of what I really said.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, what are the versions of these four other journals whose reports %ere furnished by independent parties ? The " Herald's" report says, " So far as he was personally eoncerned, in 1825, when he was at the head of the Home 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") she did not seek to retain office, and he told the Earl of Liver pool that, in his opinion, he time had come when he ought to be relieved from the duties of office— , Loud cheers )—as he Was in a minority on that question. The Earl of Liverpool told him that his retirement from office would probably lead to a; dissolution of Parliament." This speech was one of four hours' length ; and I must observe, that however able and care fttl 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 Home bepartment, respecting the Catholic question before the House, I felt that from my situation, and the intimate connexion of ray 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 responsible situation I held. I told Lord Liverpool that the time had arrived when I should be relieved filen the responsibility of offiee. This, I was told by Lord Liverpool, would break up the whole Administration, so far as he was concerned." Is it necessary that I should read it all ?—(No, no, go on.) "He must state the' in the /ear 1825, when he was Minister of the Home Department, he faund himself in a minority, and feeling the difficulty of his po lition, charged as he was with the administration of affairs in Ireland, and that he thought the time had come when he Should seek to be relieved from the responsibilities of his office, and that he had stated to the Earl of Liverpool that the time had arrived, in consequence of finding himself in a mino rity upon a subject intimately connected with the rretna,gement of Ireland, and that the Earl of Liverpool had stated that if Mr. Peel retired he must also send in his resignation. Now I will refer to the ".Morning Journal." It states in its report :—" So far as my personal conduct is concerned, I can sta'e, that in the year 1825, when I was Minister in the Home Department, I was in t minority on the Catholic quest on in the House of Commono o iled I felt that my situation as a Minister in the office which I then held, charged as I was with the administration of affairs in Ireland, that I found myself in a minority upon a question of the greatest importance, which, in reference to the state of the country, could engage my attention ; and that I taught to be relieved from the responsibilities of my situation. I then told the Earl of Liverpool that one thing must be done, that I should be relieved from the duties of my office. It was stated upon tba - occasion that my retirement would tread to their retarement.—( Cheers. ) You have now the exact Ooncurrence of three other morning papers, all omitting that Itiassage which in itself was certainly of an equivocal nature. iou have then the concurrence of four other morning papers, all employing separate and independent reporters, all agreeing 'lath marvellous accuracy in the context of what I said, omit ting that passage. If there was a paper which reported inde pendently and separately, which did lend its sanction to the report of another paper, the absence of the passage in four Oth ers , however strong may be the presum p tion of their accuracy , does n ut a t a ll affect the possibility of the charge being founded upon it. It is as four to one against it. There i; something singular In the fact, that if Mr. Barrow was an independent reporter, end if there was a certain class of reporters reporting separately, that they did not arrive at the same conclusion. I deny the fact that Mr. Barrow made these reports, also that there was a %operate class of reporters employed on the " Mirror of Para liarnent."—(Loud cheers.) I have inspired upsn the subject as a stil as the Hon. Member. I state this fact. I loateltt POrsitively, and I will demonstrate it to you that Mr. Bariow' did not report my sentiments upon this occasion.-( Hear, hear.) But wait till I state the fact. The " xlirror of Par liament" had not a distinct corps of reporters. Now I will state this fact that the reporters of the " Morning Chronicle," and the reporters of the " Times" were in connexion with the "Mirror of Parliament;" that they did not make separate re- Ports; no, of course it would have been absurd ; that they Met together, comparing eac h others re p ort, and that they sent to the " Mirror of Parliament" that which gave the fullest repo r t of one part of the speech, and that which gave the fullest report of another.—( Hear, hear.) The reporters of the " ',Mir ror of Paaliament " concocted from the reports of the " Morn ing and " Times. ' Now that is the information which has aeached me, and which I can establish by most ex ceptional authority. Now, is it right that any man should labour under the charge that, for unworthy purposes, he had garbled a particular speech ; but, more than all, is it right that a Minister of the C r own—an active Member of th is House— Should be compelled, in the middle of a session of Parliament, to no out of his ordinary course, to disprove such a palpably un founded charge ?—( Hear, hear.) But I have cone it ; and I Will prove to yen, by taking the reports of the " Mirror of Par liament" itself, and comparing them with the reports of the "Morning Herald," the " Morning Chronicle," and the " Times," that the report of the " Mirror of Parliament" is not an independent report, but rather the concocted report of the reporters of those three papers. I will prove that whole Passages are taken, with scarcely any alterations of the Words, except altering " he" into " I," or changing the person. I will prove to you, that without any alteration, some parts are taken from the " Morning Herald," others from the " Morning Chronicle," and some parts from the " Times " I will prove this by showing you that the part taken from the " Times," which, I believe, was taken by Mr. Tyas, is copied with its accidental mistakes. It is faithfully copied into the " Mirror of Parliament," only changing "he inso " I." I w:11 show you that the report of the " Mirror of Parliament'' was prepared from the "Morn ing Herald," the " Morning Chronicle,' and the " Times ;" and I will show you that the reporters of these morning pa pers were employed upon the " Mirror of Parliament "—that they were not independent—that they did not make separate reports--bnt that, after the business of the day was over, and they Shad written their reports tor the morning papers, the reporters of these morning papers met h togetther , together, and consorted the re port for the " Mirror of Parliament," which was not published for a day or so afterwards.—( He.r, hear. ) Well, now, then, kioel not the argument altogether break do wn —( H ear , hem.) -is it not the sane report ?—(Hear, hear)—enil the report of the " Times " is not confirmed by the adoption of the same the' Mirror of Parliament.' Or did I g ar bl e m y speech, s triking out vs report byhat I had not uttered, and in whi c h I was borne out by the authority of four other palters, sano also by the "Mosning Chronicle, which I was a ccustome d to look to in matters of this kind. Well, then, what beco mes of the. assertion of the Hon. Gentleman with. reference i ference to the corrected report , and with regard to the note deb he read p at, that it was i nserted with the permission of Secretary Peel, as if to say, I had sent to H an sard my c irrected report, and begged of ham , in a note, to insert it. But the facts of the case are these Murray, of Albemarle-street, pub lished the speech, and there was a jealousy about the copyright; and Ha naard had no right to publish it, but he ap hied to i sene for my per mission, and it got Mr. Murray to giveonnt to the publication.—( Loud and continued cheering.) And the note was inserted io .e o a r r d . er to show that it had not been taken hear.) Yet the Hon. Gentleman in sinuatedsurreptitiously.---(Hhat I had sent to Hansard to do away with the mis chief of the publication of the passage attributed to me by one paper, But still more—the other reports make no complaint. •"Times" reporter, the man who has made the but we fin d t mistake. regrets that Mr. Secretary Peel's voice was occa sionally so low, that he was but indistinctly heard in the gal lery—( Hear, hear, and loud cneers)—and nineteen years after- Wards I am to be maligned and condemn ideand why ? because there was a deaf reporter on the T . s,"—( Tremendous cheering.) Every other reporter did it correctly. The ho said my " Times" reporter made the mistake, the man voice was indistinctly heard. On Monday nightwl heard for the first time that there was any discrepsney between these reports; and am I to be denounced as a garbler, as a suppressor of the truth, because I took the authority of four against one, confirmed by my own impressions. Well, I think I have suffiiently cleared myself of these imputations.—( Loud cheers.) Now, I thiols I have dispo;ed of Mr. Bar row and his indepen dent report —( Hear, hear, and laughter)—and I think I have denied_ the a llegation too that there was a separate band of reporteri aloof from the newspapers—( Hear, hear ) —making independent reports a and I now come to w the eil speech of my Hon. Friend Sir Edward Knatebbull. nnteh, , :tr as I said, I went through all these fierce c p ortl f i e c r t r s e . d 4 1 ) occasion, this i c t as w er s , th on charge preferred, except it was the 16th of atarch ; but if it was preferred then, during the conflicts on the Catholic question. B ut owlytitne I heard :bat in 1829 1 had asserted in 1825 my opinions were changed. the first place, if I had said so, it would h ave :hi variance with the whole tenor of my speech been delivered rat t time. l a tb : I take the " Mirror of Parliament." t s . I said in 1629, afte., the House of Commons h ad come to the decision I have stateolr that in 132 2 I w a s p re p ared to take the course which I had bees prepared to take in 1825, namely, to resign my office. But : a be t dal I say ? That I was not only anxious to retire foom office' but I repeated that whenever the Catholic claims .me on I shou'd feel myself justified at once to retire from office. But on the following day I was questioned as to why I had stated that in 1825 my restrains had changed ; but the natural question was put to me, " If you are now prepared to grant Catholic Eman cipation, why did you not grant it in 1t 27. when itlr. Canna-is, was in favour of it ; when there were just as strong 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 was put by Sir Edward Knotehball. You will find my answer in the reports of the speech of the following dry. and how would that reconcile with the other statement? Well, now, with respect then to the speech of my Hon. Fiieud air Edward Knatchhull. lam quite convinced that he is utterly incapable of garbling or mutilating a speech. I think that you will find that this is a corrected report of the speech ; and cer tainly in that speech he does assume the statement to be male by me on the preceding day the 15th of March, that I hid used these words that the " Times" imputes to me. But. If he had read the " Mirror of Parliament" he would have found that it did not agree with the ,4 THE , S ! ITN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, JUNE 20, 1846, eat • • -- But now will the Hen. Gentleman allow me to ask him another duct in 1828. He said he had left in 1828 on account of his question? As he thought he had no right to confirm the I views on the Roman Catholic question, but that the time had report of the " Mirror of Parliament' • by a reference to the tot a-rived when he could explain the circumstances that " Times," with regard to my speech, did he take the same I led to it. But he might state that his opinions on course with regard to it as Sir Edward Knatchbull?—( Hear, I the question of the Catholic claims remained unchanged, hear.) Ob:e, ye, he did not trust to the " Mirror of Parlia- ! but h e thou g ht that there w ould be d ange r to the countr y , and msto" to prefer hi 3 accusation against me. But my Hon. I the stability of its institutions in further resisting the measure. Foiend Sir E. Knatchbull said that he had had the discretion ! His opinions were unchanged, but he had doubts of resisting to refer to the " Times." for the purpo•e of seeing whether ! the measure for fear that greater evils might arise. —( Hear, that eminent public newspaper confirmed the report of the hear.) His opinions were the same as they had ever been, even " Mirror of Parliament." W e ll, now, did the Flonourab:e !at the time when he asked Parliament to consent to the pass- Gentleman take the same course with regard to the Mg of the measure of Catholic Emancipation. The Hon. " Times" as had been done be Sir Edward Knatchbull ? j alemsier then read at considerable length a letter written by W i th regar.f . o Sir De war Enatebull, why d d the Noble the Right Hon. Baronet to his Grace the Duke of Wellington, Lord not take th e ,same e urse with res ect to me, and see in which he urged upon his Grace thenecessityoiaspeedy settle w hea l er th e etr i ous r eports of the speech agreed with ea , ti i ment of the long agitated question of Catholic Emancipation. th r ? ~ere i s th sp ech of Sir Edward Knatchbull, and ,rot but that he (Sir R. Peel) considered that it would affect his one w or d o f accu'ation is erought aga nst me in it.—(Ct.eer . ) character as a public man if after his expression of opinion on This i s th e re p or t of Sir Edward Knatchbu l's speech in the the subject on a former occasion, he should undertake the con " Tones." •• With reference o the accounts he alluded to, he I ducting of the Bit! in the House of Commons. The Right asked the Right Hon. Gentleman, if the stile of Ireland and Hon. Baronet had written a letter to the Earl of Liverpool, the country es. re the reasons for his policy, if he ought not, in I which he also read to the House, in which he stated that if the ja-tice to the country, to have conceded the t atho iv claims in Noble Earl considered it would promote the success of the Bill, the time of Mr. Canning ? He wished to ask the question he would resign and support it, regardless of any effect which which he put the ot er day. If his accounts of the state of I such a course n:ight have upon his character as a public man. Ireland, ash existed at tee press .t day, were true, why id h_ The Nuble Lord ( George Bentinek) proceeded to ask, were not support those claims when t hey received the suport f Mr. the memories of Hon. Gentlemen so fickle that they had for- Can ing ?—( Hear, hear.) If the Honourable Gen Leman gotten that in the autumn of le2e the Right Hon. Baronet ha net the n discovered the necessity for concession, why made a triumphant progress through the country as the del he oppose Mr. Canning on other group s, which he apostle of Protestant ascendency? Had Hon. Gentlemen forgot, had since abandoned ? Canning was the powerful, the eerie had the country forgot, would they ever forget, that he acted as sistent advocate ,of the Catholics, and it the Right Hen. he had previously acted in 1827 towards Viscount Canning, Gentleman in 18 2 9 had reason fu r ado p tin g th e line of p olic y when he had the assurance to • go down to Manchester, and of that distinguished statesman, why did he not as readily do dined at a large public dinner as the champion of Protestant so in 1827, when Mr. Canning supported him ?" Now, I ascendancy ?—( Cheers.) When the Right Honourable Baronet have referred to osaer reports. I did not find it in the " Morn- talks of the probity of his conduct, how could lion. Members lag Herald," but in the "Morning Journal," Sir Edward of that House answer for the probity of the conduct of a Gen- K oa tehbulis reported to have said, " I say, then, in reference tlernan who steed there convict e d of having gone through all to that period, that if the policy of conceding the claims of the I the manufacturing districts, dining there at great public dinners Catholics were so strong as the Hon. Gentleman describes, in as the Protestant champion, after he huer in the summer of that common justice to the country, and in common justice to him- year made up his mind -to carry Catholic emancipation. He self, that was the moment he should have conceded them, when wanted to know whether a snuff-boa would have been pre_ Mr. Canning, who was the able, the consistent advocate of sewed to him from Liverpool—from .tlr. Hellingshead. he be those claims, first introduced the measure into Parliament. I lieved—whether he would have received these assemblies.-- do not consider such concession expedient or neces'ary, and would have been feted and honoured with all these dinners such was my opinion before it was again brought forward in by the Protestants and.Orangemen of the country, if they had 1827." Now, Sir, then if the reports in the " Mirror of Par- anticipated that in the summer of Ins he had made up his iiament " were in point of fact the compilation of. the previous mind to carry Catholic emancipation? There was then au end reports of newspapers—it is rather hard to condemn me be- of the Right Flooourahle Bat onet's defence.—(Cries of " Oh, cause it now appears—(because I declare Ihad not the slightest oh.) Hon. Gentemen might cry " Oh, oh," but did they conception of that on the 16th of March, 1827, although the rember the pledges they had given to their constituents ; would i eports of the morning papers, at least the " Morning their constituents cr y " Oh, oh ?"—( Cheers. 1 He would now Herald," and of the " Times," do not attribute that expression go bark to the speech of Sir Edward Knatchbul I. The to Sir Edward Knatchbuil)—it is rather hard to impute to Right Hon. Baronet had said Sir Edward Knatchbull could me, that I remain silent under a charge which, as far as my not have been present when he made his speech, or recollection serves me, was never uttered.—(Cheers.) H e he would not have addressed the House in the tone and begins the speech, "I am desirous to state as shortly as I can; manner be did. But did the Right Hon. Baronet get up at the the reason why I oppose further omissions." lam not pre- time to complain of this, or to make any explanation?—(Cheers.) pored to say that my Right Hon. Friend was But the Right Hon. Gentleman never touched that part of absent, but •be it as it may, I am sure my the speech in which Sir E. Knatchbull imputed to him that con- Right honourable Friend is quite incapaole of duct, towards Mr. Canning. He has never answered that attributing or mutilating any speech. seen now, Sir, I have charge—it never can. be answered. Sir E. Knatchbull said, gone through the charges brought against me.—(Loud cheers.) that if his opinions had been changed, be ought, in justice to Ureter the disadvantages which I have labourer, in going into himself, in justice to his friends, in justice to Mr. Canning, these different reports, the charge against me being the dis- who . was the able and constant advocate of the measure, crepancy of a newspaper report published seventeen years ago, to have conceded it. If, as he says now, that he considered it is probable I might have failed.—(Cheers ) I might have in 1825 the quest:nn ought to have been conceded, why did he believed that - the " Mirror of Parliament" had not a separate not think so in 1827, when the supposed difference with Mr. band of reporters, and induced gentlemen con n e c t e d with the C ann i n g Lynn this point obtained for him the most powerful press, not connected with me in politics, to give them informs.- support, which I confess, said Sir E. Knatchbull, "to have rion of the speeches delivered in Parliament. This it is which been the case with me; and if we are to be secured by our con enables me to dispose of Mr. Barrow, that great reporter, and cessions to Catholics, from their gratitude, why not. concede the " Mirror of Parliament." This it is which enables me to the measure through the hands of those who have been its con dispose of the " Mirror of Parliament," and to scatter to the stant advocates, and who would have looked upon it as a boon winds the assertion that the " Mirror of Parliament" had a coming from them, but who could riot view it in such a light band of reporters separate from thenewspapers. This it is which coming from the hands that it did, with the eisablts me to shatter to pieces the misrepresentations of the confession that it was extorted from them?"—(Hear, hear.) " Times," and to prove that its report was different from the l'hen, when he said that they should look to the report in other morning newspapers. 1 have proved that this report " Hansard," he knew that it was not all couched in the same was rattle by two persons, who each reported the same speech language with that in the " Mirror of Parliament," but the ii a different manner; that this speech, as it appears in the sense of it was the same. It was as follows:—" The Right " Mirror of Parliament," was made up from the " Morning Hon. Gentleman, however, said that even then (that was in Cnroniele," the 6' Morning Herald," and the "'rimes." I 1825) h e was sat i s fi e d something must be done to conciliate have proved, in the course of my observations, that so tar from Ireland. If, then, he was satisfied as to the necessity of con there being a separate band of reporters for the " Mirror ciliation, and if he was thus abandoned by his supporters, why of Parliament," that it took its reports from the did he not consent, and lend his assistance to Mr. Canning in " Times," and adopted and inserted them as its own, the accomplishment of that object?"--(Hear, hear.) But And thus I have accounted for the equivocal expressions which was that the only comment that was made upon' the conduct of appeared in the " Mirror of Parliament." When the Hen. the Right Hon. Baronet? There was at that time, in that Gentleman in the .course of his speech attempts by the repro- House, a warm supporter of Protestant ascendancy, Mr. sentation of his affection for the memory of Mr. Canning, we Michael Thomas Sadler—(Hear)—and what was the language ill feel bound to respect the motives by which every man in that Mr. itaadli•r used on this occasion ? Why, he said, " Long his position may be actuated. No one can fail to participate winded orations, passages which led to nothing—( Hear) — in feelings such as th ose which h e h as ap p ea l e d to . The Hon. could never set this matter in an honest light before the Gentleman has described Mr. Canning as an eagle. He has country.—( Cheers.) They can comprehend it as little as stated that he was as the rider of Bucephalus. Who one the question of emancipation, in which they are declared to be would suppose that Mr. Canning had devoted the whole of so ignorant met besotted. They were, however, beguiled by his intellectual lacuities to the purposes of private study alone. Peel's explanation. So was I. I was one of them. 1 thought lam quite ready to grant ail the credit to welch Mr. Canning the conduct of the Noble and Right Hod. individual concerned is entitled, and lam wow a,so ready to submit to the assertion sacrificed a principle to consistency. What it was it is That these fee.ings are entitled to consideration and regard. I not worth while to inquire, since it was anything rather than ern ready to grant that those feelings of affection and respect that. It is now too late to reeify the error; all that remains which we en ertain tor any partioutar object are likely to be is to regret most deeply that those who have so secretly, sud enchanced ; according as the tune grows remote those feelings dentv, and unceremoniously deserted us should have so con. grow stronger and ii.ore permanent in their character. But, ducted themselves with regard to that highly-gifted individual, Sir, I would ask, why, if the Hon. GentLinan does entertain, unriatipily now no more, as one whn ought not to serve his those feeling—why, a such are , he sentiments of the Hon. king and country as the head of the Government, because he Gentleman, has he retained them for twenty years after the was f vourabte to a measure and now so indecently forced upon death of Mr. Cont% for th e p ur p ose 0 1 wounding a political tee couistry." Mr. Sadler said, "I do heartily repent of my opponent ?—(lmmense cheering.) 1 ask why, in describing share in it, and the too successful attempts to hunt these feelings—whicn in thetnsesves are entitlest to esteem and down so noble an individual—a man whom England, respect-1 say, why has he retained them for inflicting a and the world would not fail to recognise as its orna blow on me, and for exciting by their expression general odium ment ; whose eloquence was, in these days at least, unrivalled; against me, and rallying round himself the great influence ot the energies of whose capacious mind, stored by knowledge and public sympathy ?—( Immense cheering.) But, Sir, lam jus- enervated by genius, were devoted to the service of his country; titled in saying that instead of public sympathy he has roused, the qualities of whose generous heart led those wild spoke of with hardly an exception, an unmitigated indignation, and them to feel the warmth of his friendship, which, I believe, an expression of the public sense of the means by which the eetild only be equalled by its stability. Had I had the honour delu • ion was attempted, and an aboorrance at the perversion of of having a seat in the House at that time, I should have con that which is so sacred ui itself for s u c h a pu r p o se. I will scientiously opposed him or that occasion, but with feelings discharge my character from the suspicion which the Hon. very different from those who then opposed him. Those gen- Gentleman would attach to me. But when the Hon. Gen- tlernen who said it was impossible to act with such ' a tlerr.an goes to a house on a certain day niweteen years ago, I Minister, and for reasons which vitiate their present will not descend to follow him.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) doings, implying therefrom that as the transaction with When the Hon. Gentleman speaks of certain dinners, and par- such a person the annals of our country could not ticularises where they were held, I hope the House will not furnish so disgraceful a page. But, passit.g to his memory, my blame me for not following him.--t Cheers.) I will not re- humble tribute is paid when it can can be no longer heard or taeatert on the Hon. Gentleman; I will simply content myself regarded—when it is drowned by the voice of interested adu oi h having defended my character by reading the documents Wipe, poured only into the ears of the living. But his upon which these charges have been tounded.—( Hear. . aaeaa ) character .is rescsiede o and rises in triumph over sprvivins 7 - I now e ntreat the House that as I have no opportunity to. an , , what shall I call them? - Lit tfiefr owto consciences `apply the ewer fre.h c eirges, that it will suspenc its judgment, should name."--( Loud cheers.) That was . the comment of Mr. such charges be brought forward, till I shah have an oppo.tn- Saftler— , (Hear)—upon - this same speech of the Right 'Hon. nits, by your kind indulgence, of again making my defence. Baronet; and it might be remembered MO by those who heard • The Right Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat amidst great Mr. Sadler wind up another soul-stirring speech to 'the same cheering. effect. The speech in the " Mirror of Parliament" was no Lord GEORGE BENTINCK rose, but for some minutes doubt the speech of the Hon. Baronet, collected from' all the • couldin consequence of the cheering with which reports supplied to the newspapers by all the reporters the pHrooene.erld' b ar onet was greeted on the canclus , on of his in that 't gallery (said the Noble Lord, pointing' to the Ri not speech. Silence hav in g been at last restored, the Noble Lord reporters' gallery). Then it was not attempted to be said—fir,the charge th at was origiaally matte against the denied that the speech in " Hansard" was also correct. But Right • Hon. Baronet was made b y the humble individual who in 1828 the Hon. Baronet did what he had done in 1825, with now addresses you , and not by my Hon. Friend who sits beside this addition; namely, that he was prepared to pass the measure It was my Hon. Friend wno rose to defend me a g ainst throu g h Parliament. There could be no doubt now, that the m th e e attack of tne Right lion. Baronet. I think, therefore, that communication referred to was a verbal one, and that his resig the House will agree with me that it becomes me, rather than nation was tendered in a written statement. This case must my Hon. Friend, to get up, and to maar.aiti the charge which stand on its Own intrinsic merits. The Right Hon. Baronet was advanced in the first instance.—(lronical cheering, cries of had said that a reporter of the " Times" was a deaf repbrter, "Ohloh I" and winch confusion.) Sir, I was nut in this but it should he known th,t it was the practice of reporters House in the year 1827—1 was not a Member of this House in only to take their notes fur a quarter of an hour at a time, that year, but I was a Member of this House in 1828. I was a This paragraph occurred far down in this four hours' speech, Member of this House in 1829, and I heard the speech ef the whereas the Right Hon. Baronet was alluding to the mistakes Right lion. Baronet. I heard the question asked him by the that occurred in the early part of the report. He had compared andsard l a y n d 3B h e found u t n h d e Earl of Uxbridge. I heard his answer to that question. I hoard the report in . thee 664, the speech—the crushing speech—of Sir Edward Knatchbull, that ther%wiser " in an on d e in re " o li rt a , n sufficiently proved to P him that the report words Tm es and I heard the Right Hon. Baronet's answer to that speech. other.- T "Hansard" against him, he had looked him lam prepared to show by the internal evidence in those re- ad been . tampered with. When the Right Hon. Baroet Mr. steldi , in the face, to see what effect the witness of that ports that the streement I made was the correct truth.— was quoting ( Hear, hear.) Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet has said that i but when he to whatpassed in 1827, came B a rrow was not the reporter who gave this speech. Why, I beik would Y have upon him. He reed steadily enough whilst ]resume that there is no Hon. Member in this House who quoting what passed to nut know that in a speech of four hours not one, bat in 1829, he would not say the book almost fell from his hands, four, or six, or eight, or twelve different reporters may be en- but he threw it from him as if afraid any longer to retain it in gaged. When, therefore , my Hon. Friend s p oke of or. Bar- his grasp.—(Cheers.) row as the gentleman oho furnished that r port, he spoke of Sir W. JAM ES rose to order. The Nettle Lord, he con him only as at the head of that establishment, and not as the calved, might state facts, but he had no right to speak of r eporter—(Cries of "Oh, oh")—not as the man who himself felines. reported that speech, but as the principal person connected The SPEAKER decided that his Lordship might proceed. with that journal • But I appeal to those' reports, and I take' • The Right Hon. Baronet had acknowledged that he had al- Hansard" as it is. ,I take the ." Mirror of Parliament" as I terel that report in " Hansard," for there was a note to that find it, and I will endeavour to show by the internal evidence effect at the b-sttom of the page. That speech was severely of the reports in these papers, that I have not imputed to the dealt with by Sir Edward Knatchbull, and was much ques- Right Hon. Baronet that which may not be fairly inferred from tioned by a Noble Lord. He held with no such double-deal the speeches themselves. When I made the charge against ing as this by a Minister high in the confidence of his Sove the Right Hon. Baro'.et I had referred to the •• tlirror of reign. The Right Hon. Gentleman was a great reformer of Parliament," and nothing else. I was not aware that " Han- the criminal law, and he pleaded the Statute of Limitations card" had been corrected by the Riget Hon. Baronet. Sir, on the charges which had been brought against him. The what does the Right Hon. Baronet say in the onset of his Right Honourable Baronet should bear in mind that the speech, in his very first paragraph. lie says, "Se far as I law of limitations only applied to the law of debtors, and not am personally concerned, I beg to say, that my own course on to criminal offences. The Right Hon. Baronet had corn this question is the same as tiat which I suggested in 1825." milted two offences—they were great in magnitude, and he Another paragraph stated, that in 1829—(and we all know what -hould bear in mind that the country would not forgive two was the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet)—•hat in great crimes. He ( Lord G. Bentinck) had been charged 1829 his course was the same as in 1825. Eat, Sir, before I \viols bringing up an old offence with regard to the name of go on. I shall confirm this by a reference to •• Hansard ;"- and Air. Canning.- • Had he done so without provocation—had " Hansard" says As far as my own course on this ques- he ma 'e one charge that was not borne out in fact? He was 'ion is coneerned, it is the same as that suggested to me in 1825." there not to ke false charges; but while he had the honour The evidence of the Bight Hot • Baronet .n his ewn corrected of a seat in that House, he would denounce political profligacy. rep o • t, as well as in the report of the " Mirror of Parlia- The Right Honourable Baronet hail charged him with using meld," %v.+ s, that the courses ihe pursued in 1829 .and in 1825 language- unbecoming a M ember of that House. When were t he same The Right Hun. Baronet has told you the Honourable Speaker was first proposed to sit in that they were not lintel).- dent reporters on that paper, but that Ch..ir, he (Lord G. Bentinek) voted against that, according to his belief, all the reporters got together ant him, for the Right Honourable Gentleman was then compared their reports, and that the result of their labours untried. He was, however, elected by a small majority, and was put in the " Mirror of Parliametit,' . as it was always the the next time the Right Hon. Gentleman was proposed, he fullest report. What b e tt er ev id ence could I have had to (Lord G. Bentinek) voted for him, because his decisions had prove the correctness of the n mirror of Parliament" than always been mostimpartial. With such a Right Hon. Gentle that of the Right Hen. Baronet? The Right How Baronet man in that chair. he (the Noble Lord) believed that language goes on to say—" After the House of Commons came to the unbecoming a MemSer of that House could not b• used decision which I have stated in 182 e, I was p re p are d to t a k e without calling for his interference. —( Hear, hear.) He had the course which I was prepared to take in 1825. With this used no languag. but what was quite legitimate arid just.— addition I intimated to the N o bt e uke at the head of hi s M a - ( H ear , hear.) He . used language denonacing . the political jetty's Government that I was no t o n ly p re p are d, b ut anxious profligacy or those wno tool sole their constituencies. to retire from office, seeing the current of public opinion in Mr. ESCOTT—Who eold th ? who? f a vour of the Catholic' 'claims • and in whatever situati on I Lord GEORGE BEN. TIN m C e K—You ask me who, and I might find myself, I could no longer be justified in o pp os i ng sa y you , s i r . I have the hon our o f b e ing one of your con myself to its voice." After this comes what the Right Hon. stituents, and I have the means of learning some of the secrets baronet did not read. The Right Hon Baronet did of the city of Winchester He had made such a case as the no t pursue the sentence. He said, to this duty, and to night Hon. Baronet failed to answer s o es to disprove it, and t hi s gr eat object, he was prepared to make a sacrifice he was neW wilting, *awl he wa s now rea dy, to leave it to the of his c nsisteney and his friendship for whatever would pro- judgment of an impartial English public.—( Cheers.) duce a settlement of the question that wa s u n d er t a k en; an d h e , Sir.JOH H.'NMER said that the Noble Lord was very fir one, was prepared its whatever position he might b e , t o sup- partial to making a comparison between his own ape. dies and por t any measure for the p ur p ose of u p holdin g the Protestant those of Mr. Fo x; but he (Sir John Hanmer) differrel in 'a: s tablishneent. Here ;-s his own admission—that he had seen opinion with the Nobte Lord as to the force and vigour or the the time was come when, in his o anion , some concession ought speeches of both. He was 'prepared to prove that the Noble to the Roman Catholics, while, in 1825, he was Lord bad spoken to the electors of Lynn as a supporter of the office to leave others to carry out the Right Hon. Baronet. •He was not one to rake up old prepared • anon. But, in 1829, he said that he was pre speeches, as 'he hut occasionally dipped into the newspapers, Catholic era""P. Right Hon. Baronet has refered to and then only for leading Ministers, and The the speeches of a tew to be glade himself to carry . d t e o retire from leading opponents. But he had been induced to depart a a question wbridge. On the 6th of March he said little out of his usual course to inquire what the Noble Lord hich had been ask, d, and an answer which he had their' leadh • • . Earl asked why he did not take, in 1827, the quotesd in his speeches, seeing that he had beeroso ready to that the Noble • in 1820 ; and why, in 1827, he did not the speeches of other parties. He would • read t o course which he Leek given to the Earl of Us extract of a speech the. • o oble Lord given in the Norfolk an to assist Mr. Chronicle" Jui Canning in carrying on the Government ofN yThe speech as spoken at the Lynn the circumstanees election ; and the Noble Lord distinctly said e that in. 1835 he Right Hon Baronet replied—" Between • ed in 1828 was elected to support the Conservative Ministry of the day. an carrying out the Catholic question. To this question the that- occurred in 1827 and those which occu•r at tne Now, let the House bear in mind that at. that time the Right there is this material difference. time Mr. Canning made this proposal to me, the In 1827, Hon. Bart• was at variance with Lord Stanley, whom the Bentinek) had represented as his subject had been diseusset in the I leader. He f eind also that the Noble Lord the new Parliament, and I had been in a ma'ority in 1827 and in political for Lynn supported the Right Hon. Baronet on the a minority in 1824. And . in lBaB therefore 3 I took the course Member which I took in 1825," He House of Commons of the Noble . Lord (Lord George had only to (Lord G. Bentin- k) the leading row ions of the Consfrvative party, as led on read to a• retrain when he proposed to retire,. he said the time motion for electing I\lanners Sutton as Speaker of the House, the course the Right Hon. Baron,t took in and all 1823. In 1828,h t agaiiest the Right favour the claims of the Roman Catholics, and the Houseof had now (mine when a newnot in..ocent of the charges Ise had broug made T he t Right Commons was disposed to _ d about 1 Baronet. A great deal had been oat oat a genera I. H y the Reght Hon. Baronet. The Noble Lord was, therefore, Hon. should neeso b n e'• nts of the people ef England s L a o id ra t s i Lip t p a o r s i e a d tt f e h m e p c t o what the real sentiments seen were Baronet and those wl.o now op to that attempt he would lend himself.—( - 1I to the Ri tht Hon. 18'25 he took a similar course ; and in r ear, hear.) In in relit ion ie tt t le H t o h n e , g ß uesrsotinoen t then 'electron eleCtion , that event might stein arrive, and then it wou:d be 1828 he took the same.. • posed him. I what . to make of the curse as in 182 5 - Itt 1828 he also took the identical course M. ROEBUCK said he was at a .03 lin which he did in 1a3517, when he said that the time had come when 1 speech of the Noble Lord who had just sat down. Accort g something ought to be (Line to settle the question. There ap- Ito the statement of the Noble Lord, he stood by I% r. pea ed, therefore, tee strongest, probability of th e corr ec t ness Canning till the time when he saw him hunted to of what he ( Lord G Bentinek) hail stated in reference to the t death—( Hear. heat ) —and he watched the hand that opposition of the Right Honourable Baronet to the Catholic ! struck the blow which pene t ra ted that noble h e a rt ; y et claims in 1824.—( Hear, hear.) In support of what he • thst m an w h o had directed the blow the Noble Lord had had stated, he would refer to what took pace afterwards called his Right Hon. Friend..—( Hear, hear.) As in 1831, when the Right Hon. Gentleman .th e M em b er for a plain man, he ( Mr. Roebuck) would say, had he possessed Edinburgh (Mr Macaulay) spoke in favour of the Reform such a friend— had he grown up with Mr. Canning—had he Bill, and alluded to the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet. seen the blow struck that laid him in the dust, and knew The Right Ron. Baronet then went into a statement of 114 con- the hand that dealt the blow h e a t le as t have sailed that man his Right Hon. Friend. How came it that not till nineteen years after the death of Mr. Can-- Ding 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 late pericd, 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 .Memb,-r for Shrewsbury make t.:,e same discovery ? Was it in 1802, 1825, 1828, or 1832 ? He got into Parliament in 1632 -- of a different kind, and campaigns of a very different charac ter to those in which he had lately mixed, it appeared he had generously come forward to declare that there was no proof of the allegation of his Noble Friend ; but he should wish the Noble Lord to give him his attention, whilst he shortly detailed the facts of the case. He would accept for a moment, for the purposes of argument, that the as sumption which had been made was perfectly true.... (Hear.) He would assume that the report which had appeared in the " Mirror of Parliament" or the " Times" newspaper (he did not care whether it be two authorities, or whether it be one) but that the report which appeared in the " Times" newspaper or the " Mirror of Parliament" de clared that the Right Hon. Gentleman said, in 1829, that he was prepared to consent to the settlement of the Catholic question. He would assume, he repeated for the sake of argu ment, that the Right Hon. Gentleman said that. Now, he wanted to know, independently o f th at report, what proof there was that the Right Hon. Gentleman said that ? He begged the House to understand that he as ume d t h at 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 Parliament" 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 be forgotten. The Right Hon. Gentleman (he meant Sir E. Knatchbull) said on the occasion alluded to, that he was indisposed, and be was therefore not in the House. 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 attack 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; he took 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 be 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. Barrow who had reported this—it was not the collective council at midnight of the most accomplished reporters of toe London press that reported this. This was a corrected copy by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself of his speech, on the sth of March. Now, he begged the House to observe this paragraph. This was a speech in which the Right 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 saute 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 infor. mation—and he hoped he would show that his information was right. Now he would quote from " Hansard"—a report of what the Right Hon. Gentleman might have said on March the 6th. His (Mr. Disraeli's) Noble Friend had only quoted from the' Mirror of Parliament," as he wished to put the case clearly before the House. This was from " Hansard," and from a corrected speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He fairly admitted that he did not mean to represent that every speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman reported in " Hansard" was a faithful report, but he was only quoting from " Hansard," for they all knew how correct were the reports of such eminent Members as the Right Hon. Gentle. man in that publication. Now this had never been brought forward in the course of the debate. This was in answer to the question to Lord 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 w hi c h h e a d opte d i n 1815, 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 " The time is now come when a new Parliament has de cided against me, and when the House of Lords are in a state of division upon the question. The time is arrived when an attempt to settle the question must be made, and to that attempt I will lend my aid."—(Cries of " Oh, oh," " Hear, hear," and " Order, order.") That was not the cheer that was made in answer to the speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman when he alluded to this case—(Cries of " Hear, hear") — but they would set their case temperately and fairly before the House. They thought it an unanswerable case, and he would now come to what was a most important feature of the case ; but his intent was not in doing so,—(lronical cry of " No, no !") The Right Hon. Gent. said he was ready in 1845 to ' take the course which he took in 1835; and he described the grounds upon which he took these staps, fur he said 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, hear.) Very well, then, if there was no truth in these books, or they were not to be accepted as evidence ; if it were true that the Right Hon. Gent. in 1825 was prepared to do that which he did.in 1838 ; and if the report in the Mir ror of Parliament" was not a true report of what the Right Hon. Gent. said, that he was prepared to carry 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 his speech of March 8, did use these expreQsions 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 the 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 been reported in the papers—.and why, on the sth and 6th of March, he himself made those admissions? —( Hear, hear.) Now, as 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 lion. Gentle men would it not have been better, if, instead of sending to Drayton, he had sent to Sir Edward Knatchbull to ask bim if he had made the speech attributed to him, and if he had given a simple response to that simple inquiry, and i i he had then welked to the table of that House, and read that letter from Sir Edward Knatchbull, denouncing that version Air. DISRAELI—I did not get in then. • Mr. ROEBUCK—The Hon. Gentleman tried to get in, at all events.—(Laughter.) He got in, however, in 1835, and then he set about with fulsome speeches to praise the Right Hen. Baronet—prepared speeches, got up for the occasion— and finding that he did not aucceed, he changed about—a change he (Mr. Roebuck) boldly attributed to disappointed ambition. He failed of success in his flattery, and, in the bit terness of disappointment, he became the uncompromising op penent 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 changed his opinions, hut 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 wou ld y et prudentsioful i people, justice t n o nti his h ey con duct. wnn ld weigh Th in The Eng the English balpaneocele thewpetty e passions of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury and the sacri ficeslrea 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. He was sure the people of England would not much longer bear 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. He hoped, and sincerely too, that the abolition of the corn-laws would not be the last act of the Right Hon. Baronet's political life, hut that he would become a coadjutor 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 doing justice to his feelings and to his country if he had not taken the earliest opport-nity to rise in his place, and express his gratitude to the Right Hon. Baronet for what he had done ; acd at the same to assure him that he'had per fectly vindicated his character, in the reply he had made to the chat g s of the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn.— ( Hear. ) Lord J. RUSSELL bad hoped that his Noble Friend, the Member for Lynn, would have relieved him from the ne• cessity of saying anything upon the pres.snt 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 those who was disposed to think that upon general questions, like these they has lately had under discussion, Hon. Members ought not to refer to matters which occurred twenty years ago, and still less to express • heniselves 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. Members from indulging in strong lan guage against the Minister who proposed Hear, hear.) But the question which the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury had brought before the House to-night was not a question of general accusation, or of indiscriminate attack, but it was an accusation against him upon specific points. The Right Hon. Baronet had been charged, in the first place, with having stated to Lord Liverpool, in 1825, that he thought the Roman Catholic question ought to be settled, and that his opinions had changed upon the subject. In the next place, whether 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 reproach that while be thought the question ought to be settled he opposed Mr. Can ning in endeavouring to effect the object in 1827. But the last and greatest charge of all was that with respect to a speech he made in 1829. He had been a party to sending forth to the worle 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 think that it was not, but he for one was of opinion that the Right Hon. Baronet would have suffered in character if he had not done so—and being so brought before them, he must say, in justice to the Right Hon. Baronet, that the answer he had made had quite relieved his mind from all doubt on the subject of those charges. He believed, in the first place that the Right Hon. Baronet in 1825 stated to Lord Liverpool, that being in a minority in that douse upon Irish questions, it was n' .t fit and suitable for him to hold a Government situation, but that he made no declaration or statement to Lord Liver pool as to what would be his subsequent course. He believed in the next place that in 1839, instead of stating what he did in 1825, he stated exactly the course he adopted in 1828. He admitted with the Noble Lord that in conning over the debates of that period there were some passages, such as those relating to Lord Uxbridge and others on which it would be gathered that the course the Right Hon. Baronet adopted in 1828 was similar to that he adopted in 1825 ; but if they looked to other passages which took place two or three days afterwards, they would see clearly that the Right Hon. Baronet did explain exactly what had taken place in the manner he had done that evening. He admitted that the Right Hon. Baronet—and he el.d not wander at it—being a Minister of the Crown, and subjected to repeated accusations, did not always get up to reply to them. But there was no doubt that the Right Hon. Bar-net did take an opportunity to explain all the circumstances connected with the matter. With respect to the Right Hon. Baronet having brought the mattnt 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 hit hand, and the impression it left upon his mind was that he must have been mistaken in that which had occurred. He readily thought that the " Mirror of Parliament" was more likely to be correct than his own recollection, and he was therefore glad that the Right Hon. Baronet had taken the opportunity of making this statement. because it was only natural that persons should be misled- by the reports of the Mirror of Parliament." This impression; however, could now be left on no man's mind, because the Right Hon. Baronet had clearly shown that the report in Hansard, agreeing with five newspapers of the day, was likely to be more conformable to the statements of the Right Hon. Baronet than the report of the " '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 war no necessity for taking the opinion of the House with respect to the opposition which the Right Hon. Baronet made to Mr. Canning in 1827. But he agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, that the Right Hon. Bart., in taking the part he had done upon this and other political questions, had rendered a great service to the country, but he certainly did not agree with the Hon. and Learned Member that this aught to protect the Hon. Member from censure, because i must be remembered that in the course of his political career the Hon. and Learned Member had altered his opinions twice. When the Protestant Church and the Protestant institution was to be defended from the assaults of the Roman Catholics the Right Hon. Baronet urdertook to lead that defence ; and again, when the corn-laws were attacked, and powerfully attacked, both in and out of that House, the Right Hon. Baronet undertook to l ea d 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, relying upon his political wisdon. and upon his elo quence in debate, had enrolled themselves as his supporters while he pursued a particular policy, and it was only natural 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 Wm. Gentleman in his capacity of First Minister of the Crown, had done great service to the country, while it was only justice for him to add, that his statement that evening had triumphantly vindicated his character from the slurs which had been cast upon him. Mr. B. DISR AELI said, he had already spoken at such great length on this debate that he was not over anxious of the privilege afforded him on this occasion, and he should therefore confine himself to the general case which the Right Hon. Baronet had brought before the House. He should confine himself to a simple statement of facts, and to an examination of the allegations which had been made in answer to the charge of his Noble Friend the Member for Lynn. Arguments he thought would be out of place and recrimination quite unne cessary. He need hardly notice what had fallen from the Hon. sad 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.—( H e ar, hear, and laughter. ) With regard to what the Hon. and Learned Member had ad dressed " to presumptious and ignorant youths," he should leave it to be snswered by those 66 presumptuous and ignorant youths," whom he had no doubt would be found equally as string 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 anxiously to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. In the first place he might be permitted to observe that throughout 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 ag N a o i sv os , t i t t h w e o ß u i l g d ht be Ho r n em ß em ar b o e n r e e t d , ie r ni o n n g et hmi r ma o d se e and declared that the charge was that u p i r p , e o o av Right na g n h cah t authority ca v hrg o are o B b eing to which he would in a few minutes refer, 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 illust ra ti ons e f t h e c c a li t a i r o g o e o t f h h Mr. admad Hansard, e. i No nt z e b e f o r e ,3ii r h ad ro e r,f verted to the Parliament," i h had been so muchrete was supposed rrcl etos,oiheomud to havestrema been writtenrkthatthe'' by Ed a in bMuermghbeßrevoifewL which House, _who had been present during the whole of the debate, and conversant with the whole matter, was produced by them not as a proof, but as an illustration of the charge which they ha .i made against the Right Hon. Baronet. He new came to Mr. Barrow. He never meant to say that ythat parts the of Mirror h r e that gentleman reported a speech which occupied five or six 1826, hours in the delivery; while h e cou ld assur e the liament" had an independent corps of reporters. okfne ar knew of . He knew that this work did not receive an ext e nsi ve pa t r o nage. his souse ow n tltat in knowledge,the e arl A rival sprung up in the shape of " Hansard," and of course the publication of Mr. Barrow was eventually lim:ted to a very subsequent was in occasion, the first sc anty circulation. His authority for saying this was Mr. a Barrow himself. He could not produce Mr. Barrow himself, three e t that four t gentleman years toldafte afterwards, him rd n a which Parlia ment of the reign of William the Fourth, that he found it was quite impossible to carry on the publication, as there was not a sufficient circulation. Now it was not impossible to press upon such a matter, but merely to set the Right Hon. Baronet right upon this matter of Mr. Barrow. He believed he was strictly correct. The reporters made up this cu'led report of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech. Now, he must at the same time remark upon the very circumstance of the reporters upon the principal journals going together in council upon this wry speech, and he believed that the report which was given was the most accurate and authentic record. That was a cir cumstance 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 ss i 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 f a i r ly 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 Loudon. 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 his speech as a fergery, would not that course be more satisfactory to the House ?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord did not make this charge upon the authority of the newspapers, but upon the authority of the printed records of the Parliamentary debates. The Noble Lord would never have done anything of the kind. None who read the reports in the newspapers could help admitting that the present system of reporting was a wonderful, probably almost the most won derful accomplishment of the society in which we lived ; and though very much improved to what it was twenty years ago, nobody would attempt to make a charge against a public man upon the authority of the reports in the news papers.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord never looke rmnb d u‘cerv i ogh n ettuhiihx t icl o ,id.:l the reports of te newspapers when he made that charge.— ( Hear, hear.) he He made that il ed chargehimself of iwselsthv,deha,oayeEf because oodouefohmi could da e eoboi heard se it 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 upoa reference to the y mad a e va ‘ v ‘ ra T s im ve e r s y ," 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 of f ered 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 dohtr t , li hr,la:Aeb e vi n iaenfaiaterle s crdl pTe, or the person who had spoken—the case would be decided by the calm and deliberate judgment of the public. If t ou s ra;tiwphn w oaoo l sys i fe i e—t c dth h h ieafvhthaeert unfortunate enaew h tfryio a coe r d aus tcslutod p inuic u anl h t dt aea v b ribethil e ei f ele o lrb r e. e eneßnei tanwhr explained ersorlewahHfrieeeor who — th it e R th ig e h se t Honfaet.s could be ex plained Gentlem an might c n ountry with - csinfidence f or a verdi ct public theyild indeed d a had pap we appeal y t o , quote d tthhee if he could, i n f ac t, exp l a i n to ' the English why ' the most respectable a n d i n fl uent i a l Members of Parliament should have got up in that House and make a violent speech against him, all of which proceeded upon the assumption that the Right Hon. Gentleman had admitted that in 1825 he was ready to contsibute his aid in the settlement of the Catholic question. If he could explain to the country why such expres sions as he ( Mr. Di srae li) h ad read to the House, and which he could not recapit u l a t e i n d etail—if he could exp l a i n , w hy, in , one of the m os t memorable speeches he pos i t i ve ly declared that in settli n g the uestion in 1828 he was p re p ared to q do what h e had intended to do in 1825—i . t he Ri g ht Hon. Gentleman c ou ld persua d e the pu bli c t h a t Sir Edward Knatch -1 bull was w rong i n ma ki ng t h e speec h which he had in 1829 might appeal with confidence to if the Ri g ht H on. G ent l eman cou ld persuade the pub li c t h a t the spe ec h es b e ( 11 r. Di saae li ) h a d quoted were never made , then the Right Ho n . G en tl em an the public for a.verdict, but that m ust be done. It would not do to mak e a speech imputing t h e worst motives to his opponents, and exercising a mos"ngPnmus arg umentation upon the most worthless materials --destroying acc usations which never had been made—(dear, hear) —and gutting an end to cha r ges which had never b een brought forward. That was what they ' required. Tbey did not say they had a right to ask it, The f~ , case was before the House, and they should feel perfectly satis fied that it should remain there. It was not that book that he quoted—it-was not the speeches of Sir Edward Knatchbull, or the speeches of the Right Hon. Gentleman Which induced his Noble Friend ever to make the statement which he had made. . Be spoke from his personal memory, he spoke from his personal experience —be spoke from that in which he bad more confidence than his personal memory-and his personal e/yerience—he spoke from a . deep-rooted and enduring, and be (Mr. Disraeli) believed a growing conviction, which he— and especially the friends and family, be 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 desirablethat this debate should be brought to a dose. I do not intend to reply to the renewed assertions of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, or point out to the House how easy it is by culling extracts from particular speeches, to give to these a representation which reading the entire speeches' would not bear out.—(Cheers.) Sir, I have heard these debates ; I was present during the whole course of these debates, and I rise, therefore, rather a witness in the cause than as one about to enter into an argument. I say that I was present during the whole of these debates upon the Roman Catholic question, and I have no recollection whatever of any such expression of opii nion on the part of Sir Edward Knatchbull, as that to which the Honourable Gentleman has referred as confirmation that his suspicions are well.founded. 1 am aware that the non-recollection of 'a fact ' can prove but little against any expressions which might, in fact, have fallen from him. Considering the interest.which I took in the whole of that proceeding. I think it impossible that's state ment of that, kind c ou ld have been l made without fixing itself in my memory. But, Sir, the nsreina t restion is, did the Right year 1825, or was he then prepared - to make coneessio i ns co e e n !he Roman Catholic question.—( Cheers. ) Upon that best witness to decide in that case. C a c v e e iv myself to be the been, from my first entrance in' olitical life,in constant private intim acy i with the Right Hon. Gentleman. I hare sympathised wit h the public questions which have been brought beftipbrelrnicPainrliaa ment. I have acted in unison with him on every ques tion which has been under discussion —(Cheers.)P Theretm 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 lie taken . any important step in politics without any being privy , to it. . At the time when these occurrences took place, I was Secretary for Ireland, and my Right Hon: Friend was Secretary of State, under whose directipn 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 could have entertained any change of ppinion without my not being aware of it.--(Cheers.) I can assure the noise that I never heard from him a single expression which threw a doubt on the consistency of his opinions in the year 1825, ands.? 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 neat me at the time, upon what ground could such a statement as that, so much at variance with fact, be made. I rose as I said merely to give evidence ' upon this case, and if the testimony of one who has been connected with the. Right Hon. Baronet through all his political life, and who has been intimately acquainted with the various proceedings which have taken place during his life—if that testimony be worth anything, it at once puts an end to the case.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member for Shreivsbnry 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 Right. Hon. Friend has authorised him to do so—that having made search for these letters he has produced all the letters upon the subject which he could find. —(Cheers.) Having thus given my evidence, as I thought it my duty do, I shall not trouble the House any further. Mr. - T. B. ESTCOURT quite agreed with the Honourable 1 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 even humble situation, he Misted the House would allow him to say a few words. Pt had been stated by the Noble Lord that he (Mr. Escott) had be trayed the interests of his constituents. The Noble Lord said hat 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. T. B. ESTCOURT—Oh, yes, the Noble Lord had some stables at Stockbridge, which gave him the right of being his constituent. He would. tell the Honourable .Member, with reference to the charge 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 bands 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 np old debates which took place twenty years ago. Mr. B. DISIVAELI--Nineteen years. • • Mr. T. B. ESTCOURT—The public would not distinguish the difference between nineteen and twenty years. They would tell these Hon. Members that' they had beeir 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, perhaps, too late for the protection of the 'best interests of the country and the advancement of all classes of people ,at large. , Lord SANDON was surprised that the Noble Lotd the Member for Lynn, representing a great country party, should think that he rai'es 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 " Mirror of Parlia ment,' from " Hansard," when that suite&him, and from the 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 down. He had stated that the opposition of the great landed proprietors to Mr. Canning was oceasioned by his advocacy of free trade, Mr. PETER BORTHWICK rose amidst considerable laughter. He did not wish to take part in the personal squab bles which 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 alting his position. He said, hot/ever, if he had 'reason to thank the Hon. Gentleman for the compliment which had been paid to himself. He was sure the Right Hon. Member for Tamvrorth had great reason to regret that the lion. Gentleman had taken open him his defence. . Never had any one more reason to say, " God defend me from my friends" than had the Hon. Meml er for Tamworth to-night, when the Hon. Gentleman rose to defend him.— (The Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst cries of " Divide," and " Adjourn.") . An Hoti..MEstaxa, 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 flight Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) from what had fallen from him. " Times" when it suited him, and overlooking all the papers which did riot suit him. He ventured to say, that if they were to take one hundred gentlemat upon this question, their opinions would he decidedly in faiour 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 apeak rather as that great Minister's ardent friend, as he hoped he had proved at the time when be was connected with the Administration in Mr. HUMS 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 1827.—(Hear, hear.) Ho then declined to serve with the Right Hon. Thironet, partly because of the Cathclic 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 woultnot 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 Moister. 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 the measure itself. The Noble Lord spoke of appealing to the country. He (Lord Sandon) should have no fear of meeting the Noble Lord in any country or on any hustings and appealing to the people, either on this question or on any of 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 Mr. HODGSON moved the second reading ef this Bill. and explaiued 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 Par 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. ELPHIN STONE said that he quite agreed with his Hon. Friend that the present system of repairing churches, by means of church-rates, was a very bad one ; and where a dis trict containing several parishes, having a large church, existed, it would be under the necessity of levying a separate rate in each parish. This Bid reir oved such a necessity, and it should therefore have his support. After a few words from Mr. HAWES, Sir J. GRAHAM said that the effect of the present. Bill would be to render the law more complicated than it now existed. The first object of the Bill he was disposed to believe was effected by the existing law ; and with regard to the other twe objects, he had an insuperable objection to them, for he was not disposed to carry the power of building churches by church rates further than the present law allowed. He thought that it would be better to adjourn the question, in order that the pill might be considered by the Law Officers of the Crown, and afford an opportunity of introducing a Bill which would he better calculated to meet the objects in view. Sir R. H. INGLIS concurred in the view taken by the Right Hor.. 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 again s t t h e thought urgedhtthe againstinhabitants Mr. of parish es , w h o objections r.vr. which had might be called upon to subscribe under it, would have great objections to its provisions. The second reading of the Bill was then negatived without a division. CLERK OF THE PEACE AND CLERK OF THE CROWN (IRELAND) BILL, Lord SANDON said, in explanation, that the Noble Lord behind him imagined that he (Lord Sandon) had I.ffirmed that the Noble Lord had read all th : 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 da y to see if he had the concurrence of every jour nal 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 " newspapers— k Ironical cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh ")—lf there was a con spiracy, as he supposed they intended to insinuate, how could they account for the turn which the debate took afterwards?— ( Hear, hear, and cheers.) It was his humble opinion that taking that insertion of those paragraphs, together with what occurred in the debate afterwards—considering also the oppor tunities which the Noble 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 in the statement he had made to the House. Ha believed that the Noble Lord had brought forward this charge with the purest intentions, and he had certainly satisfied him ( Mr. Newde. gate) that he had good grounds for this assertion. regret Mr. HUME said that he had witnessed w i t h deep the course which had been taken in the attack upon the Right Hon. Baronet. It was quite possible that the whole matter might have arisen from a mistake in the journals which had been so often referred to, but every one would s ee cause to re gret that the party opposite had persisted, notwithstanding the triumphant answer of the Right Hon. Baronet. How the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, could deliver his opinion in the way he had done, was to him (Mr. Hume) a matter of surprise; but there was one thing which had not been alluded to that night, and which he thought would set the question completely at rest. It was this, in the year Ins, when the Duke of Wellington the bring f orwar d th e C at h o li c Eman c ipation resignation, Right Honourable Baronet tend ered and the letter of the Right lion. parmiet, addressed to the for . ward that qui Duke was was read to the House in bringing that the Right Hon. tion• In that letter it was opinion, ,and he afterwards expressly Baro net had not changed his opini stated, that although he had h. ca rried o in o i u e t e that T m ha e t as a u , r i e m a is f s t i e e r n wa e r . d a ' ss on p after . occasions. He (Mr. he had never once a s l i t e e s r t ed hhe is undersfand why the party which frequently used Home) could not, therefore, was led by the Noble Lo rd s h ou ld h ave pursue d t his course a fter the very triumphant explanation which had b een made by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and nothing but the meanest party motives could have prompted thein to persist in this state ;lea. 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 broieght forward this charge. Lord MORP Err H having had thehonour of neeupying a seat in Parliament at the time that Mr. Canning was at the head of the Administration, trusted the House would bear with him while he addressed a few remarks upon this subject. He had felt for that great Minister feelings 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 br oug h t forward certain c h arges aga i nst t h e Right Hon. Baronet. 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. He was confirmed in this Lord LINCOLN obtained leave to bring in it Bill to provide that the office of Clerk of the Peace and Clerk of the Crown in Ireland should be hereafter filled by the same person. PUBLIC BATHS AND WASH-HOUSES. Oa the motion of Sir G. GREY, Leave was given to bring in a Bill for promoting the volun tary establishment, in boroughs and p a ri s h es in England and Wales, of public baths and wash-houses. The House adjournedat a Quarter past Twelve. ECHOES FROM THE BACK WOODS OF TaaNSATLANTIC LIFE. By Captain, I. EvENGE. KETCHES 2 vols., with IlluStrations, 21s. bound. The abov e work is published this day by Mr. Colburn, and may now be had of all book sellers. Mr. Colburn has also just published the following new works :--2. The Second Series of the Stanhope Memoirs, comprising the Seven Years' Travels of Ladv Hester Stan hope, hope,3 vols., with numerous Illustrations. • Thewith between Costume; or Annals of Fashion in all Countrie l s, Two and Three Hundred Illustrations Lives of Men -t. The Second Volumes of Lor.: ( l ), MoV. t during the reign of of Letters and Science, who v a ism the Conqueror, forming 21:.eI s egiat I George 111. 5. The Life of William Lives of the Kings of England, the First Volume of Illustrations. Roscoe 6. A Fifth Edition of the 10s. 6d. bound, withU Eliot Warburton, Esq., 2 vols.. Crescent and the C,,rosi,. s' botunl. ' with Illustrations, molcrEs, Tn E AIATADon.—The Spa n i s h torus are disaPPo i n ted after ' in; Monies, their most formid a b le assailant, is n ot dead, 11.4 WAS annotunA •ii, but k already recovering from the erbitele 'if his W° l lP ig. OF TIIE P THE TIA R A POPE.--Th e tripl e crown which i,, now used at (I the Coronation of his Holiniess is the sa me that Napo - 1 can presented to Pius VII. ; there is also another which Was given ~,, p o pe Gregory XVI. The tiaras and mitres are kept at Fort St. Angelo, where they are taken hack atter the eere , lllOry. The tiara given by Napoleon is of white, velvet ; the three crowns a re e f sap phires, emeralds, rubi es, pearls, and dismonds ; on the top is a largo emerald surmounted by a diamond cross. This tiara is estimated at 0,000 Roman crowns (about 17,000/.) On Monday morning, at two o'clock, as the Rouen Railway train was cooling up to St. Pierre d'Auth s and i1ft1r71"3314 was suddenly , ingle loan wlio had _our , ' ,l the;"-ran' si l e ' e l c ; o hi% pos:, when ha suddenly roused, and was hurrying across ni was run ever and killed. I -- - Minto.—Many reports are in circulation respecting tile marriage of this tenor, who is himself a Sardinian Count by birth, with an English lady of rank. We are eriablrd to contradict the ru n-wTIIE ars in question. SECOND ITALIAN OPESIA HOUSE.—The capital for this undertaking has heen deposited with the London banker and the agreement with the Covent-garden proprietors duly ext.. cute(l. The season will commenee in April, 16S1. AN 01,n MANlTscail'T.—A letter from Odessa says— " Dr. Pinner, one of the professors of the University of Berlin, w e ll known for his knowledge of the Hebrew language and translation of the Talimul.•has Just discovered in this city a parchment manuscript of the prophet Habakkuk, of the ninth century. 'this curious mans. energy:kii: h e T c ' i b i ee f a n script is remarkable for not hiving tile points and accents in the stme. way as any other known manuscript of that period. A. de. seription of the new discovery is to be speedily published here, at the expense 'of the Imperial Archeological Socieiy.",... [ADVERTISEMENT.] --•A CERTAIN CURE FOR Bu J r . Ilt.4nActi.F.s, AND ALSO FAR WEAK AND DERANGED STOMACHS, Rl' I ho,LLW AT'S . 1'11.1.51. Nothing rends so much •to tiring 1 (In incurable diseases affecting either the heart, the liver, or the lungs, as aq xui _ healthy state of the stomach, which, in tile first instance, Causes loss of appetite, loss of strength, and loss of few doses of Holloway's justly celebrated Pills be takel). to purify the blood they will immediately give a healthy action to all Use vitals, and act like a charm upon the whole systeril, restoring olloway'a x l health and vigour even in case= where the physiclans li . of no avail.---Sold by all druggists, and at Pr9fesser tatAishment, 244, tiiroil, London, impression-by his distinct recollection of Mr. , Zt ^^~ up in the House, and saying in a marked mane t resignation`-of the Right Hon. Baronet he was jiliat pfeparec .- He considered, th ere f ore, to use t h e Right HoifEttleffetlististiAlaw words, that the charge attempted to be set up against him had been completely shattered.—( Hear, hear.) With refer ence to the. general state of politics, he was, like . the . Noble Lord, prepared. to vote with him, and _ againstihe Right Hon. Gentleman, but he could. not .help qualifying that vote by expressing his great regret that he should be ohligertto - do so at a moment when he was conduct.. ing to a triumphant issue the greatest question which perhapi 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 would attach himself.—( Hear, hear.) They had heard .. wonderful professions of respect and veneration for that illus trious man, but the Noble Lord was allied at the very moment with that very party who had hunted him to 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 be wets: , assailed in that bitter spirit? It was because he had attacked the corn monopoly. That was the occasion for all the bitterness of feeling which had been manifested; and he was attacked precisely in the language which was now used against the Right Honourable Gentleman. It was the law of 1815 which the landed interest were attached to. Mr. Canning saw its gross imposition, and he was determined to do away with it and carry out free trade ; and that he could assure the House was the reason he was insulted and then assailed. And now the Noble Lord made these charges. Ile had identified himself with every enemy of Mr. Canning. How, then, and with what grace could he make them, even if they were true? He was sure that Mr. Canning, if he were alive, with - his generous spirit, which was his cha racteristic, would join heart and soul in the great move ment which they were now about carrying out.—( Hear.) Theparty'which the Noble Lord represented, had joined in the crv, because their immediate interests were attacked. The Noble Lord knew these facts as well as hicould tell him. Why what was the question they were then discussing ? The cha racter of the Prime Minister. The people took no interest in acertain point of view -in the question, but he could tell the Noble Lord that they received with unmitigated disgust the per senal attacks which had beenrnade upon the Right Hon. Gen tleman ;_and there was one class in the country who would take no interest in it, and that was the British farmer, of whom they were always talking. • They brought evidence against the Right Honourable Gentleman of nineteen years standing._( Hear, - hear.) And ;for the last ten years they had been always preaching to the British farmer to put their trust in the Right Hon. Baronet. Although they had thi s ev id ence in their pockets against him, and they had , been xaan temlihiong couldth British lead f armer th at h e was th e only them safely: and that he was th e only man- It and trust worthy, with what dec ency could these cwhaorges wasecurely. havebeen brought forward ? The Nobl e L or d had draw-ne distinction between following the Prime Mi n i ster and foll owing Lo rd Stanley. Why; Lord Stanley followed the Right Hon. Barone t . and the Noble Lord had followed Lord St an l ey , and where was the difference though the distinction bad bee n ta k en. Did or did not the Noble Lord follow the Right Hon. Gentleman ? ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had professed that he was exceedingly shocked by treachery to party. Why, he must recollect that his leader (Lord Stanley), when he used to cross the House, after he changed his opinion, was met with such jeers that he had at last to sit upon the side of the House to which_ he. had_seceded. Yet the Honourable Member for 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 personal 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 h 3 was the only Member in that part of the House who escaped the sweeping censure of the Honourable Member who had just sat down. The Honourable Gentleman had made a charge against a Noble Friend of his ( Lord Stanley) - with having changed Lis 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 he 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. He felt that this charge of protracting that debate was not only uncalled for, but that it was only c ons i s t ent w i t h the character of the House 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 charlcter 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