The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-12 00:00:00

(COPY•)

" Bowood, Feb. 5.
" Sir,—l have read with some astonishment in the
newspapers of yesterday the report of your speech at
Lincoln on Friday last, in which you are represented to
have stated it as a fact, and to have founded an argument
on the fact so assumed, that on one of the days preced-
ing the discussion and division in the House of Com-
mons on Mr. Disraeli's budget, on Friday, the 17th of
December, there was a large meeting of the Whig party
held at Lansdowne-house, for the purpose of considering
what was to be done on Lord Derby's overthrow.

" As there is no difference in their reports, except that
in one the Wednesday preceding is specifically mentioned
to have been the day on which this large meeting took
place, while it was only inferred to have been the day in
the others, I presume them to be substantially correct.
" I beg, therefore, to state, for your information, and
that of those whom you addressed, that you are com-
pletely in error, and that there is not even the shadow
of a foundation for the fact alleged.
" No such meeting took place, no such meeting was
proposed to be held, and, in the position in which I then
considered myself to stand, had any such meeting been
proposed to be held, I should have objected to its being
held at my house.
" I may further add, that although it would not have
been surprising if I had conversed on a matter of public
interest with any person with whom I was acquainted, it
so happenelthat, from being confined to my room, I did
not, before I was honoured with her Majesty's commands
(after Lord Derby had actually resigned) to attend her
at Osborne, which I was prevented from obeying by se-
vere indisposition, communicate with any leading per-
son, either of that which you describe as the Whig or
of the Pee]ite party, or see Lord Aberdeen, as I did
after that event, by her Majesty's command, at my own
house.

" I hope, therefore, I may be permitted to inquire
upon what authority you conceived yourself justified in
making public a statement so entirely founded in error ?
" I have the honour to be,
" Your obedient servant,

" LANSIiOWNE."

(COPY•)

"Bloxholm, Sleaford, Feb. 9.

"My Lord,—Your Lordship's letter, dated from
Bowood on the sth of this month, owing to its misdirec-
tion, reached me last night. I mention this that your
Lordship may not suppose me deficient in courtesy in
not taking the earliest opportunity of answering it..
"Your Lordship's impression of what I stated at Lin-
coln on Friday last in all essential particulars, with a
slight variation, is substantially correct. What I stated
was this, that on the Wednesday of the week during
the debate on Mr. Disralii's budget, an influential meet-
ing (not large, as stated in the report) of the Whig party
took place at your Lordship's house ; that I was unable
to tell what occurred at that meeting, but that on the
same day Lord John Russell left town for Woburn
Abbey, and met Lord Aberdeen, who at that time was
the guest of the Duke of Bedford.'
_ _

"I am not able, in answer to your lordship's request,
to state the precise authority from which I derived this
information, but, as it formed the topic of general con-
versation of persons of opposite political opinions at the
Carlton and Travellers' Clubs, as well as in the precincts
of the House of Commons, and, if I be not mistaken,
was commented on by the public press, I received it as
a fact, and believed it to be such till I got your lordship's
letter yesterday.
"It appears from that letter that I have been under a
misapprehension as to what really took place. I beg to
express my regret at having made any statement which
seems to have been founded in error, and which has been
the cause of a moment's uneasiness to your lordship.
" My Lord, I have the honour to be,
"Your Lordship's very obedient, humble servant,
R. A. CHRISTOPHER."