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

Gentleman could persuade the public that Sir Edward Knatch-
hull was wrong in waking the speech which he had in 1829
if the Rieht Hon. Gentleman could persuade the public that
the speeches he (Mr. Disraeli) had quoted were never made, then
the Right Hon. Gentleman might appeal with confidence to
the public for a verdict, but that must be done. It would not
do to make a speech imputing the worst motives tuhisopponents,
and exercising a most ingenious argumentation upon the most
worthless materials—destroying accusations which never had
beeu mede—( Hear, hear)—and putting an end to charges
which had never been brought forward. That was what they
required. They did not say they had a right to ask it. The
case was before the House, and they should feel perfectly satis-
fied that it should remain there. It was not that book that he
quoted—it was not the speeches of Sir Edward Knatchbull, or
tne speeches of the Right lion. Gentleman which induced
his Noble Friend ever to make the statement which he had
made. He :poke from his personal memory, he spoke from
his personal experience—he spoke from thatein which he had
more confidence than his personal memory-eand his personal
experience—he spoke from a deep-rooted and enduring, and
be (Mr. Disraeli) believed a growing conviction, which he—
and especially the friends and family, he believed, of Mr. Can-
ning—had, that the allegation which had been made was a
true allegation, and one which, he believed, could uot be re-
futed.—(Cheers. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I think
thet the time has arrived, upon every ground, that it would be
desirable that this debate should be brought to a close. I do not
intend to reply to the renewed assertions of the Hon. Member
for Shrewsbury, or point out to the House how easy it is by
culling extracts from particular speeches, to give to these a
representation which reacting the entire speeches would not
bear out.—(Cheers.) Sir, I have heard these debates ; I was
present during the whole course of these debates and I rise,
therefore, rather a witness 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
opi-
nion on the part of Sir Edward Knatchbull, rs thatto of
which
the Honourable Gentleman has referred as confirmation
that 1113 suspicions are well-founded. I am aware
that the non-recollection of a fact can prove but
little against any expressions which might, in fact,
have fallen from him. Considering the interest which I took in
the whole of that proceeding, I think it impossible that a state-
ment of that kind could have been made without fixing itself
in my memory. But, Sir, the real question is, did the Right
Hon. Baronet entertain opinions in the year 1825, or was he
then prepared to make concessions en the Roman Catholic
question.—(Cheers.) .Upon that I conceive myself to be the
best witness to decide in that case. I have been, from my first
entrance in political life, in constant private Intimacy with the
Right Hon. Gentleman. I have sympathised with him in all
the public questions which have been brought before Parlia-
ment. I have acted in unison with him on every public ques-
tion which has been under discussion —(Cheers.) There has
subsisted between us a most unreserved communication of sen-
timent and opinion, both of a private nature and on public policy,
and at no time has he taken any important step in politics
without my being privy to it. At the time when
these occurrences took place, I was Secretary for
Ireland, and my Right Hon. Friend was Secretars, of State,
under whose direction I was acting. We concerted together
upon all occasions upon the opposition to be made to the
Roman Catholic Claims as against the Members of the Govern-
ment, and it was impossible in this intimacy that he could
have entertained any change of opinion without my not being
aware of it.—(Cheers.) I cen assure the House that I never
heard from him a single eipression which threw a doubt on
the consistency of his opinions in the year 1825, and so much
was I surprised when the Noble Lord made his statement upon
the first occasion, that I immediately inquired of my Right
Hon. Friend, who was sitting near me at the time, upon what
ground could such a statement as that, so much at variance
with fact, be made. I rose as I said merely to give evidence
upon this case, and if the testimony of one who
has been connected with the Right Hon. Baronet
through all his political life, and who has been intimately
acquainted with the various proceedings which have taken
place during his life—if that testimony be worth anything, it
at once puts an end to the case.—( Loud cheers.) The Hon.
Member for Shrewsbury has thrown out an insinuation to the
effect that while my Right. Hon. Friend has produced
the letters of the Earl of Liverpool, he has kept back those
letters which his Right Honourable Friend had addressed to
the Noble Earl.—( Cries of" No. no," " Hear, hear.") lam
anxious to state—for my Right Hon. Friend has authorised
him to do so—that having made search for these letters he has
produced all the letters upon the subject which he could find.
—(Cheers.) Having thus given my evidence, as I thought
it my duty do, I shall not trouble the House any further.
Mr. B.: ESCOTT quite agreed with the Honourable
Gentleman who had just sat down, that the House had had quite
enough of these personal discussions. He would not for a
moment venture to call upon the House for indulgence, if what
he was about to say related only to the question between the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn,
and the Hon Member for Shrewsbury. I think that has been
disposed of by the unanimous verdict of the House.—(Cheers.)
I think that the public will well know what motives have ac-
tuated these charges, and will say that it is quite true that the
Right Hon. Baronet might have served his party more, and
kept them more together, but that in serving his
party more he would have served his country less. When
he considered the rank of the Noble Lord, although
he might compare it with his own humble situation, be trusted
the House would allow him to say a few words. It had
been stated by the Noble Lord that he (Mr. Escott) had be-
trayed the interests of his constituents. The Noble Lord said
that he was one of my constituents, though how he made that
out he did not know ; he certainly was not aware of the fact.
Lord G. BENTINCK—I have some property at Stock-
bridge.
Mr. B. ESCOTT—Oh, yes,l the) Noble Lord' had some
stables at Stockbridge, which gave him the right of being
his constituent. He would tell the Honourable Member,
with reference to the charge df betraying his con-
stituents that he had called a public meeting of his con-
stituents, and that a resolution was passed approving of hie
conduct, there being only threehands held up against it. He
would tell the Noble Lord and the Hon. Member for Shrews-
bury that the public did not expect that the time of that
House was to be wasted by raking up old debates which took
place twenty years ago.
Mr. B. DISH AELl—Nineteen years.
Mr. B. Escorr—The . public would not distinguish
the difference between nineteen and twenty years. They would
tell these Hon. Members that they had been impeding the
Government in their desire to ameliorate the condition of the
people of this and the sister country, and had obstructed
measures which had been broughtsforward, perhaps, too late for
the protection of the best interests of the country and the
advancement of all classes of people at large.
Lord SANDON was surprised that the Noble Lord the
Member for Lynn, representing a great country party, should
think that he mites his party by attempting to back up his
statements by retorts from old newspapers, and that, having
entered into these discussions, they should back it up by
quoting paragraphs, sometimes from the " Mirror of Parlia-
ment,' from " Hansard," when that suited him, and from the
" Times" when it suited him, and overlooking all the papers
which did not suit him. He ventured to say, that if they were
to take one hundred gentlemen upon this question, their
opinions would he decidedly in favour of the Right Hon. Baronet.
Now he spoke in this manner certainly with no bias in favour
of the Right Hon. Baronet, and with no desire to cast into the
shade the memory of Mr. Canning. He would speak rather as
that great Minister's ardent friend, as he hoped he had proved at
the time when he was connected with the Administration in
1827.—(Hear, hear.) He then declined to serve with the
Right lion. Baronet, partly because of the Catholic question,
and partly because of the opposition which the Right Hon.
Baronet gave to Nlr. Canning. He would not disguise that he
had seen with regret the course pursued by the Right Hon.
Baronet at that time, but he woula not accuse him of the dis-
honourable conduct which the Noble Lord ascribed to him.
He thought the Right Hon. Baronet ought to have inter-
posed to check the language which had been used,
by his supporter when opposing Mr. Canning and his Govern-
meat ; but still ho did not believe that he had acted in the
manner described by the Noble Lord, still less did he believe
that if he had so acted he would afterwards have had the weak-
ness to admit it The case was dubious at,the best, and when
the Noble Lord saw that four or five of the newspapers were
opposed to the view which he had taken, he ought to have
exercised some caution before he made this statement to the
House. He thought he was called upon to express this opinion.
He did so, and no one could tax him with being a servile fol-
lower of the Right Hon. Baronet, or that he had sacrificed
office when he might have been a Cabinet Minister. He de-
clined it because he could not act with the Right Hon. Baronet.
He had never fawned upon those in power • he had acted
honestly and independently, and therefore he claimed to be
heard as giving an unbiassed and independent opinion on this
subject. There was a general belief, even in the agri-
cultural . districts to which the Noble Lord bad so
frequently referred, that more evil had been dune by
the Noble Lord, by his prolonged resistance to the Govern-
, went measure than would possibly follow from the I assing of
the measure itself. The Noble Lord spoke of appealing to the
country. He (Lord Sandon) should have no fear of meeting
the Noble Lord in any country or on any hustings and appealing
to the people, either on this question or on aoyof theother mea-
Sures brought forward by her Majesty's Government. He
trusted the House would not be much longer detained by the
abortive attempts to prove a crime against one of her Majesty's
Ministers.
Mr. NEWDEGATE rose, and was beginning to address
the House, when
Lord SANDON said. in explanation, that the Noble
Lord behind him imagined that he (Lord Sandon) had i.ffirmed
that the Noble Lord bad read all th i newspapers when making
his inquiries on the subject. He (Lord Sandon) had not said
so ; he had only supposed, very naturally supposed, that the
Hon. Member for Shrewsbury would have looked at all the
papers of that day to see if he had the concurrence of every
journal in his opinion upon the subject.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that he could not refuse to
give credit to the statement made by the Noble Lord on
this matter. He could not satisfactorily account for the in•
sertion of two paragraphs in two separate journals unless
there was something existing which warranted those insertions.
He asked the Noble Lord' ( Lord Sandon) how he could other-
wise account for the appearance of those concurrent para-
graphs in two newspapers, unless there was something to
justify them. (An Hon. Member--" What papers?")
Tste-
"Mirror of Parliament," and the 4, Times newspape
(Ironical cheers, and cries of " Oh,oh ")—lf there was a con-
spiracy, as he supposed they intended to insinuate, how could
they account for the turn which the debate took 'afterwards?—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
was his humble opiniont that
taking that insertion of those
paragraphs,
occurred in the debate afterwards—consideringtogetehe v
also
vtbieh whatoppor.
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
statement he had made to the House. Ho belitehvetdb lent the
statement
Noble L trd had brought forward thischarge
vi(Mr. mwde-
intentions, and be bad certainly satisfied httimon.
gate) that he had good grounds for
d wither deep regret the
Mr. HUME said that he had witntheseseis
attack upon the Right
course which had been taken in th
' Hon. Baronet. It was quite possible
thethat
jotuhrenawlshwolheicmhattaedr
might have arisen from a mistake
trhe.
e
triumphant answer of the Right Hon. Baronet. How the
been so often referred
to, but
h de very
Persisted,ne w onuoltdwi seet
h set aa nu ds ne tgo
grct that the party
I opposite
lion. Gentleman who had just sat down, could deliver his
the
.way.he had done, was to him (wAhlire.h Hume) n
opinion in
but there was one thing
matter of surprise
been alluded to that night, and which be thought would set
the question completely at rest. It was this, in the year
1829, when the Duke of Wellington determined to
bring forward the Catholic Emancipation Bill, the
Right Honourable Baronet tendered his resignation,
and the letter of the Right lion. Baronet, addressed to the '
Duke was read to the House in bringing forward that qua-
tion• In that letter it was shown that the Right Hon. Baro-
net had not changed his opinion, and he afterwards expressly
stated, that although he had carried out that measure afterwards
he had never once altered his opinion. That admission was
frequently used against him on after occasions. He (Mr.
Hume) could not, therefore, understand why the party which
was led by the Noble Lord should have pursued this course
after the very triumphant explanation which had been made
by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and nothing but the meanest
party motives could have prompted them to persist in this state-
ment. He had expected that after that explanation the Noble
Lord, the Member for Lynn, would have risen in his place to
have said that he was sorry in having brought forward this
charge.
Lord MORPETH having had tlae honour of occupying a seat
in Parliament at the time that Mr. Canning was at the load of