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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 20, 1846.

82d Foot—Lieut. W. Corbett to be Captain, by purchase, vice
Alleyne, who retires ; Ensign C. H. R. Broughton to be Lietrenant,
C. P. Blathwayt, Gent., to be Ensign, by
pbuyrnerirmech
, as
vice vice
liro g
43d Foot—Lieut.-Col. J. Byrne, from 31st Foot, to be Lieutenant •
Colonel, vice Phillips, who exchanges, April 15.
Cuorhbetotiit), 'l9.
June
11th Foot—Lieutenant H. E. Redmond, from 2d Foot, to be
Lieutenant, vice Gillespie, who exchanges, June 19.
60th Foot—Lieutenant A. Fitzgerald, from 301 Foot, to be Lieu-
tenant, vice Eustitce, who exchanges, June 19.
64th Foot—C. Thompson. Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice
Trevor, who retires, June 19.
72d Foot—Ensign L. Newman, to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice
Dandling, who retires ; S. S. Theliuseon, Gent„ to be Ensign, by
purokaae, vice Newman, Jane 19.
82d Foot—Herbert Morris, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice
Harvey, who retires, June 19.
85th Foot—Lieutenant-Colonel Sir John Gaspard 3.0 Merchant,
from Inspecting-Field-Officer of a Recruiting District, to be Lieute-
nant-Colonel, vice Frederick Maunsell, appointed Inspecting-Field-
Officer of a Recruiting District, June 19.
Royal Newfoundland Companies—Lieutenant Hugh Beat Cham-
bers, to be Captain, by purchase, vice Brevet-Major Jeffares, wile
retires ; Ensign Henry Christopher Marriott, from lat Foot, to be
Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Chambers, June 19.
31satoitaNnust.—The Christian names of Ensign Platt, of 49th Foot,
are Theodore Edwin Houghton.
The name of the Ensign appointed to 83th Foot, on 19th March,
1846, is John Fitzgerald iituddert, not Studdart.
The Christian names of Ensign Grant, of the 3d West India Regi-
'neat, are Patrick James John,
Erratum in the " Gazette" of March 31, 1846.
3d Light Draoons—For Lieut. S. Fisher to be Captain, Nice
Brevet Major Berries, killed in action ; Cornet H. W. White to be
Lieutenant, vice Fisher, promoted, Dec. 19, 1845 ; Cornet J. rfath-
well to be Lieutenant, vice Codd, killed in action, Dec. 22, 1845
read, Lieut. J. E. Codd to be Captain, vice Brevet Major Herriee,
killed in action ; Cornet H. W White to be Lieutenant, vice Codd,
promoted, Dec. 19, 1845; Lieut. S. Fisher to be Captain, vice Codd,
killed in action ; Cornet J. Bothwell to be Lieutenant, vice Fisher,
promoted, Dec. 22, 1845.

1101 P ERTA L PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 19.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the Lord
Chancellor, took his seat on the Woolsai•k at Five o'clock.
On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, the Southwark
Drainage Bill was read a third time.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS ACT.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Whitchurch, Herefordshire, praying for the re-
peal of that part of the Act making it binding on justices of the
peace to build county lunatic asylums.
Messengers from the H use of Commons brought up several
Bills, and prayed their Lordships' concurrence to them.
FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Lord CAMPBELL presented several petitions from Dundee,
Greenock, Dumfries, and other places in Scotland, in favour of
the Bill for procuring sites for the Free Church of Scotland.
The petitioners did not wish to interfere with the rights of
property; all they claimed was the liberty of worshii ping God
according to the dictates of their consciences, and for that pur-
pose wished to have the means of doing en.
LAW OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.

Lord BROUG HA M laid on the table a Bill for-the better
regulation of the law of debtor and creditor. The Noble Lord
raid he would not press the Bill forward till he had an oppor-
tunity of consulting the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool-
sack, and the Noble Lord behind him ( Lord Campbell).
The Bill was reai a first time, and ordered to be printed.
The Bishop of NORWICH presented a petition, very nu-
merously signed, against the sale of intoxicating liquors on the
Lord's day.
SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
The Earl of FITZWILLI AM presented a petition from the
Rey. Mr. Gordon, a rector in the county of Oxford, against
the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. He agreed
with the petitioner, that instead of diminithing the number of
bishops, there ought to be a large increase of them. He was
favourable to a diminution of the incotte of individual bishops,
but not to the extent that petitioner went.
The Bishop of EXETER heard the sentiments ex-
pressed by the Noble Earl with great pleasure. He said that
the cry throughout the country for an increase of the number
of bishops in the Church was a loud and earnest one, and he
hoped it would be attended to. He was of opinion that there
was no necessity for an increase to their salaries,
but he thought there ought to be an adequate
number of bishops for the spiritual wants of the country. The
question as to whether the new bishops should have a. seat in
the House of Lords was a secondary question, though, for his
awn part, he thought that the dignitaries of the Church ought
to have a seat in that House, alongside the aristocracy of
the country.
Lord BROUGHAM said that this question was one which
affected the constitution of the country, and ought to have the
most '3c:ie.us consideration before any determination was come
to respecting it.
After a few words from Earl FITZ WILLIAM,
The Earl of ELLEN BOROUGH thought it an extremely
inconveni. nt course for any discussion to take place on such a
subject without previous notice.
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
CANADIAN DISPATCH.
Lord LYTTELTON said he was not in the House when the
Noble Duke on the cross-benches referred, a few evenings ago,
to the di-patch to Lord Cathcart. He rose to say that the dis-
patch was not sent to the newspapers, but laid upon the table
of that House.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that he was not aware he
had anything to explain. All he said was, that if be were
Governor-General Of Canada he would have felt indignant
that his dispatches; before they reached him, were previously
published in the papers of the mo her country.
SUPERINTENDENCE OF CONVICTS BILL.
The Duke of RICHMOND wished to call the attention of
the House to what he considered to be a great evil. He wanted
one improved state of discipline throughout the gaols of this
country. Formerly the inspectors of prisons were fully
efficient in number to perform their duties, but since the limi-
tation of their number those gen lumen sere unable to per-
form all the arduous duties of their officee He had no objec-
tion to their salaries being inereaqed, but he was opposed to
their being appointed to the performance of duti,•s which did
not come within their province. He should move, as an
amendment, that inspectors of prisons should not be eligible
to serve as superintendents of convicts.
After a few words from Lord LYTTELTON, the gallery
was cleared for a division.
On our re-admission to the gallery, the numbers were—
Content l9
Non- Content - 21
Majority against the amendment —2
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the
CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
The Duke of RICHMOND said it he knew anything of
the high-minded yeomanry of the country, he felt satisfied that
they scould be ashamed to ask anything of Sir Robert Peei,
who had cruelly deceived the country. He respectfully de-
manded that the House should adopt the clause he was about
to propose as an act of justice to the farmers. He conceived
that they were not tgoing to legislate like those cold-blooded
capitalists, who openly confessed that they would screw every
possible shilling out of the tenants' pockets. Surely they could
not compel men to pay 50s. a quarter for wheat, when in the
market it was selling far 40s. He contended that they must
not throw the tenant tied hand and foot to the tender mercies of
the Anti-Corn-law League. He proposed that every tenant
should have the power, twelvemonths after the passing of that
Act, to give his landlord six months' notice of his intention to
quit • and then he proposed by arbitration to settle the claims
of the tenants for compensation ; and the arbitrators were to
be the Commissioners of the commons and wastes of this
country. The Noble Duke concluded by moving the addition
of the clause, which he read, to the Bill.
Earl of RIPON—So entirely did he agree with the obser-
vations of his Noble Friend with respect to the worthy class
he had eulogised that he would vote with him, if he did not
think that there would be no end to litigation in all parts of the
country, if the clause proposed were adopted with the Bill.
He could not see the necessity of going out of their way to do
that which on every principle was objectionable. He knew
that a more generous landlord than his Nimble Friend did not
exist in the country, and he felt sure that if any of his tenants
were to wish to be relieved from any pressure that might result
from the passing of the measure, his Noble Friend would im-
mediately release him. He certainly could not consent to the
introduction of the elapse_

Lord MALMESBURY thought that the introduction of the
clause was only one of the many difficulties which they would
have to encounter in dealing with the Bill. The law would
put the tenants completely under the power of the landlords.
They had been made to sow under one law, and were now com-
pelled to reap under another law. He was not ready to place
the tenant entirely at the mercy of the landlords, and be should
therefore, support the amendment.
The Earl of MORNINGTON said, that having resided abroad
for several years, he was much surprised when arriving in Eng-
land, at the change that had occurred in the social order amongst
the yeomanry. He found them a greatly improved class of
people, and intelligence had greatly increased among them. He
had served 110 notices on his tenants, who rented land at a
very small amount, and he wished to show to those of their
Lordships who opposed the Bill from their fear of finding no
tenants to occupy their farms, that the inferior order of tenants
would be succeeded by a superior class. There was one instance
on his estate of a place called Rochford Farm, the birth-place of
Anna Boleyn, which he had undertaken to let at 1,4001. a year,
and within a week afterwards he hat: an offer from another man
of 1,841.1. a year for the same farm, which of course he could
not accept. He had conversed with many farmers • and one,
whom he had seen scarcely two hours age, in alluding to the
proposed measure, said that he began to think that Sir Robert
Peel was going right at last.. He had heard all the speeches of
the Opposition in the House, and they did not contain one
single new argument or one new fact ; they were all attuned to
the same cry, " The tenants will be ruined."—( A laugh.) He
had been to many auctioneers, and had asked them whether
they had any difficulty in finding purchasers for land, and they
replied, '° Not the least." He doubler, n.e. but that the price
of land would be raised every day after the pas,ing of the mea-
sure, and that opinion would be coi,firmed before long by the
farmers of England. They had already estahli.hed the prin-
ciple of reciprocity, which was more than IJr. Huskisson had
ever done, and let them not shrink from proceeding with the
iings of foreigners to the Eng- I
things, but in eonsequence
great work which they had so nobly begun, and which had
olailfsrhe.a foreignlAy iari.bPv
wareitdt had never irritatednaettve: attempted
rbteeefdenf thosea
tile to accomplish the change.
The newspapers on the continent were a much better exponent of
public feeling and opinion than the newspapers in this country,
and the difference in the tone of the foreign public journals to-
wards this country was very great. Until very recently they
abused the policy of England, and now they were extolling it
to the utmost. He felt satisfied that the measure wouln not
be injurious to the tenant-farmers or to the landlords, hut he
saw so many bright prospects to come from it that he could not
consent to have any portion of it mutilated, nor interfered
with in any way. He thought that the amendment proposed
by the Noble Duke ( Richmond) had no necessary connexion
with the measure, and he should certainly oppose it.
Lord ABINGDON believed he was a protectionist, a great
protectionist s-• nay, more, an exalted protectionist.—
(Laughter. ) The farmers had strong constitu-
tions, and a strong feeling of attachment and
loyalty to their Sovereign. If there were no protection their
would be no woolsacks.—( Laughter )—( Here the Lord Chan-
cellor left his seat.) He had always been a constant supporter
of a Conservative Government and now regretted that all his
cherished principles were to be thrown overboard. If he were
accustomed to speak heshould detain the House at much greater
length. In early youth he had served Lis country,
and had been brought up, not under a bishop, but under a
Gallant Duke. He had been appointed chief drummer in the
band—( Roars of laughter)--and subsequently he had been ap-
pointed Speaker to that House, and he proved that he could
perform the duties of the latter office as easily as he transacted
the duties of the former office.

Lord STANHOPE did not mean to wake a reply to a
speech which was totally irrelevant to the question before the
Home. He said the Noble Earl (Morningron) called on them
to defend protection; and, though defeated, they assuredly
would defend it while breath were in their bodies. They con-
tended that the measure proposed was opposed to the best inte-
rests of the country. He had only to refer to the general and
unsolicited movement amonshe farmers from one end of the
country to the other. About three years ago there was a ge-
neral movement, unsolicited by landlords, against the reduction
of duty. But here was a measure which proposed to reduce
the duty from 161., as it was at present, to 4s. a quarter.
Then they ought to look at the rents at which farms were let.
Why, the reduction of 103. a quarter on wheat in
the market, he said, would annihilate the rent of the corn land
where such wheat had grown. He was not speaking at ran-
dom when he referred to such a reduction. He could quote
the speeches of Sir Robert Peel, who had promised uni-
versal cheapness to the whole community. But at
whose cost, he asked, eas this cheapness to come
about ? But turning from these merely introductory re-
marks, he would confine his attention to the amendment
of the Noble Duke. And, as to that, be differed FO far from
the President of the Board of Control that he thought no
amendment was ever snore founded on the pure principles of
eternal justice. That amendment was the more necessary in
these days of political experiment and chimerical notions, to
gave the tenantry from coming ruin. The Noble Earl had
said it would produce confusion. fie (Earl Stanhope) did
not see that such a power given to the tenant was any
more than existed already in the case of the tenant-at-will.
The Noble Earl had said that the amendment had no connexion
with the Bill, but it was certainly his opinion that it proposed
what was due from even-handed justice as it affected the
tenant.
The Earl of MORNING TON rose to explain what he said
concerning Mr. Pitt, that ha was a free-trader ; and read from
a speech by Mr. Pitt, which the Noble Earl said fully proved
what he had averred, if their Lordships would take into ac-
count the circumstances of the country, of France, and of
America, which were just before invllved in war. He
(the Earl of Mornington) said he had not been all
his time at home • he bad been much abroad, and knew
what, but for that, home;
would not have known, and he was
certain that they could never avail themselves of the advantages
they would gain from the Continent, till they were prepared, in
the firm way which they were now taking, to meet them on the
even terms of reciprocity. He had tact with many wbo con-
ducted the policy between this country and the Continent on
such liberal principles, and ti ey invariably said they could
not make those on the Continent hPlieve they were sincere in
what thr.% propo,erl, N
Fan of :11.rrningt" ) was
sure that such a measure as the
present would greaAy extend
their moral power on the Continent • and he was sure also
that the present measure was perfectly in the spirit of Mr.
Pitt' s policy.

After a few words from Earl STANHOPE in explanation,
( Lord ASBBURTON (who was for some time inaudible)
stated that the tenant-farmer was, by this Bill, exposed to con-
side-able risk. They were told that it was immaterial, so long
as cheap bread could be obtained ; but it was not so, in his
opinion. The loss would, in the first instance, fall upon the
the tenant, who,finding a reduced price for his produce, would,
no doubt; begin to "screw" his labourers. If by an Act of
legislation they took away a large portion oI the value of the
soil, they were hound to make some equitable adjustment. A
considerable amount of difficulty Would attend such a course,
and much litigation would necessarily be the consequence.
Some reduction must necessarily be made by the landlord,
whose interest would not be to keep people upon his estate who
were ruining themselves as well as the land; and he had no
doubt that, after some time, some such arrang?ment
would be come to. There was one evil which
would most probably result from the adoption of this
measure, and he had a motion to submit to the House
with regard to it, but he would postpone it until they
got upon the order of the day for the third reading.
There were at present 2,000,000 of quarters of corn waiting to
; be admitted into the country, and the sudden admission of that
corn at a very low rate of duty, with every prospect of an
abundant harvest, would produce a calamitous effect. He
spoke as much to those favourable to the Bill as to th,:se
against it, to provide some measure against such a contingency.
• He would put off his amendment until Monday.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that he cauld not withdraw
his amended clause, nor could he press it to a division, for lie
did not see the advantage of beirg again beaten by a majority
of 33, or perhaps 49, and he would not therefore discredit their
I Lordships by proceeding any further.
After some discussion the question was then put, and the
amendment was negatived.
Lord DALHOUSIE and Lord MONTEAGLE said that they
understood that the tariff was to be taken on Monday, and this
Bill to be read a third time on the Thursday following.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that he understood that
the Bills were to go pari passu. He had understood that the
course to be adopted was to take the tariff on Tuesday, and
the thi-d reading of the Corn Bill on the Thursday following.
If it seemed fit to their Lordships to alter that course it was
not for the servants of her Majesty to object.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL, it was even-
tually arranged that the Customs Duties Tariff Bill, with Lord
Ashburton's resolution as a substantive motion, should betaken
on Monday, and the third reading of the Corn Importation Bill
on Tuesday.
The remaining clauses, with the preamble, were then agreed
to, and the Bill was reported without amendment.
The House then resumed.
The other orders of the day having been disposed of their
Lordships adjourned at a Quarter past Nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 19.
The SPEA rER. took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Returns from the Poor-law Commissioners, Trinity House,
and other public offices, were brought up.
SECOND READINGS.
The following Bills were read a second time, and ordered to
be committed, viz.:—Larne, Belfast, and Ballymena Railway ;
Limerick, Ennis, and Killaloe Railway; Mountmellick Junc-
tion Railway ; and Templemore and Nenagh Railway.
REPORTS.
The following reports were brought up and laid on the table,
and the Bills were ordered to be engrossed, viz. :
Blackburn, Darwen, and Bolton Railway ; Cornwall Rail-
way ; Curtis's Divorce Bill ; Dudley Canal and Birmingham
Canal Companies Amalgamation ; Eastern Counties Railway
( stations Enlargement) ' • Great Leinster and Munster Railway
(No. I—Carlow to Kilkenny); London and Birmingham
Railway and Birmingham Canal Arrangements.
THIRD READINGS.

The following Bills were read a third time and passed, viz.:
—Argyll Canal; Banffshire Raids; Caledonian Railway
(Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway Branches);
Eastern Counties Railway (Epping Extension); London and
Black is all Railway ( Widening) ; I idland Railways (Burton-
upon-Trent to Nuneaton Branch and AAhy Canal Purchase);
Ni'wcastle and Berwick Railway; Newcastle and Darlington
Junction Railway ( Durham and Sunderland Railway and
Wearmouth Dock Purchase and Branches); Scottish Central
Railway (Crieff Branch).
WEST LONDON RAILWAY (IMPROVEMENT AND

EXTENSION j BILL.
•
Captain MANGLES movel the third reading of this Bill;
which was objected to by
111 r. MASIERNIAN, who proposed that the third reading
should be postponed until Monday next, when he should move
that clauses 21, 22. 23, and 24 be omitted.
Captain MANGLES objected, on behalf of the promoters,
to any delay being occasioned in the progress of the
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the postponement
of the Bill was necessary, as litigation was pending between
the City Corporation and the company with respect to compen-
sation for the soil of the bed of the river. He thought the
clauses alluded to should be retained.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the principle which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had laid down was quite correct,
but he (Lord John Russell) did not see that any case had
been made out by the Corporation of the City of London, and
it would, therefore, he unfair towards the promoters of the Bill
to postpone the third reading.
After a short conversation, the House divided, when there
appeared—
For the postponement
For the motion 55
Majority
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
IPSWICH AND BURY ST. EDMUND'S RAILWAY.
Earl JERMYN moved—" That the report on the Ipswich
and Bury St. Edmund's Railway (Extension to Ely, with a
Branch therefrom) Bill, and the Thetford, Bury St. Edmund's,
and Newmarket Railway Bill, be taken into consideration upon
Monday next."—Agreed to.
REPORTS.

The following reports were consiflered and agreed to :—The
Ardrossan Municipal, Police, and Improvement; the Forth
and Clyde Navigation and Bowling Bay Improvement; and
the Stockton Gas.
Captain L AYARD presented a petition praying the House
to take into their consideration the late deduction of 5 per
cent. in the amount of the pensions paid to the out-pensioners
of Greenwich and Chelsea.
UNION SETTLEMENTS.

Lord MORPETH presented a petition from York in favour
of the Uuion Settlements.
SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT.

Lord MORPETEI presented a petition from Doncaster,
praying that the two Members should be a'ded to Doncaster
who had formerly been returned fur Sudbury.
ART-UNIONS.

Lord MORPETH also presented a petition from a town in
the West Riding of Yorkshire in favour of the legalizati,n of
art-unions.

SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.

Mr. FINCH presented a petition Iroin—Rutia;d agair.st the
union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
TAXING RAILWAY COSTS.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a t:etition from a number of
Ehare,holders in the Dul.Mn and Armagh Railway, praying tile
House to adopt some measures for taxing the costs of engineers
and solicitors in railway Bills.
An HoN. MEMBER. presented a petition from Queen's
County, signed by a large body of lane lords. praying that ha f
the rates should be paid by the landlord and half by the tenant.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE MEIROi.- OLITAN

portnnity of noting the accusations made against me in this
Hunts en Mendit evening Hear, hear.) I deeply thank
the Reuse. at least many of the Hen Members, for s' d g
their judgments at the time those aecusatior, were made
They telt no doubt that it ice somethirto, hard that a public
man should have so many charges made against him at this
period, when they might have been preferred msny times for
the last fifteen years.—( Hear, hear, and cheering. ) Why
were they not made before? Why were they not made at a
time ween the opportunities or proving the whole matter were
greater than they can be after the lapse of years ? ( Hear,
hear.) I labour under great disadvantages. 1 little thought
that I should tie cal'ed upon to answer for my acts since
1825. Some the seer 1825 there hive beers many changes.
There had hewn a severance foam Mr. Canning; there was
also one with the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Catinirig ; there
was a separation in 1828. There were fierce confides iu 16:29s
and then I felt it neces-ary to support the Catheltc claims.
Then came the formation of that Government of which the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite was a distinguished mention.;
then shortly afier succeeded the conflicts on the Reform Bill ;
then came the dissolution of the Governinein of Lord Mei-
beurne in 1834.
An HON Mementra—Lord Grey l—(Coninsion and cries of
" No, no.")
Sir R. PEEL—The dissolution of the Government of Lord
Melbourne and the formation of that Government over which I
presided in 18:35. I conducted the affairs of Government with a
minority for ?lame months, and then yielded it again to the Hoe.
Gentleman opposite. Then at the Mme of ilisse contests I
thought that the events of 1825, 1827, and 1829. as far as any
subject of crimination against ME' was concerned, were buried in
oblivion.—( Great eh-4.ring) tVben that speech was made
on Monday night, I had no means of refer ring to a single
paper which bore upon the events of those years; my time
has been too fully occupied to allow me to examine at leisure
the subject of the Hon. Member's; accusation, and the secre-
taries by whom the letters of those years had been answered
have long ago ceased to exist. I have been myself occupied
for the last three days in collecting materials and coliating
newspaper reports in order to free my reputation from the
charges which have been directed against my veracity as a
man, anti my honour as a Minister.—( Tremendous cheering.)
Yes, Sir, I have looked at every newspaper with
this object alone in view, for when I heard the charges
which were urged against me, I felt within me own breast
a perfect conviction 'hat they were unfounded.—(Great
cheers.) I heard them with that calmness which results from
the accused's own knowledge that they were not founded in
truth, hut yet with that anxiety se hich every man must partake
of who fears that, after a lapse of twenty years, he may not he
enabled to establish that complete and satisfactory defence
against charges which, in common fairness, and in common
justice, should have been preferred when the memories of
men who took part in those debates were more recent, and
when I could have referred to them to say whether those were
the very words, whether those were the very expressions. that I
had used ; when I could have referred to my political op-
ponents—( Great cheering)—whether they would remember
my words or the impressions which I intended should he un-
derstood from them.--( Cheers ) I am new to answer
those charges.—( Continued cheering.) I shall confine myself
to those charges, and to the evidence on w inch they are founded
It was riot fair on those two different occasions to make (barges
inculpating my honour unless the evidence on a hich the charges
were preferred was brought forward.— (Loud cheering.) If
there is any other evidence which can be product d, and I ant
not cognisant of any, when I shall have to meet it, I shall
ask the House to be generous and jest enough to give me the
opportunity of repelling that new evidence, if new evidence is
brought forward. I will now proceed to the vindication of
myself from those charges, and whatever may be the doad-
vamaces and ditfculties of that task, if I do not succeed in es-
tablishing to the conviction of every honourable mind that
those charges are w litmus foundation, I shall retire from this
discussion with deep mortification and de.pondeney. I -hall
say nothing of any charges but those to which I have referred
in the notice I have given, and that evidence which has up t,,
this time been brougot forward against me. When the Hon.
Gentleman, the Member fur Shi exsi ury, rose to speak on
Aloeday night the question at issue was this. On the pie-
ceding night the 'robl Lord, the Mem!, r for Lynn.
who was a Member of Parliament in 1826. 1n27, end
1828—(Immense cheering) who was the relative arid
Private Secretary of Air. Canning, and cognisant .1 AL
C nieng's feelings, troissht f :retard at that late stage of the
delaite—not ane que titan affecting Mr. Canning's t
at that late siaue of the debate on the Cern Bill the Noble
Loid bi ou_ht for -aid t hese charges a, amst me. T..e ble
Lord said, " Sush as the conduct of tse Right Ho-. Gentle
man in 1827 (alluding to my sepsra ion from Mr. Ginning in
1827), and. said the Noble Lord, in t e year 1629 Sir Robert
Peei intimated to the house that he hail elmoged his o in ns
io 1825, and he had concealed that change of hl op,
exisept t La r Liverpool ; but that del 4. it prevent ohm in
1827, from g tie in the Holes d stati, g, as h s reasons
for separating from Mr. Canreng's Government, hat he could
not eonsent to su -port a Government of which the chief Mi-
nis erswae a oarable to those,naeasores which it t peeared a: ter-
wards .n two yea-s he sims t ted." This simp.e charge
of the Noble Lord the ?-remaer f r Linn mat. d that, in
14'27 I had decline i to act wi h Mr. Canning as Pri.. e
ratter, on the ground that I w s hosti_e still to t. e rJ-
moval of the Catholic disabilities, and that oh-
jecten to the state of ire Cat ho ics eng at alt am. lierat (la
But," said the Noble Lord, " in, 1829,in bringing forward the
Catholic question, the Right Hun. Gentleman informed the
House that in 1825 his opinions on the Catholic question had
changed' and that he had intimated the chanee of his opipioos
to Lord Liverpool. then at the head of the Government, and
notwithstanding that change of op'oion in 1825 he had refused
to act under Mr. Caoding. ' I state at once that the charge
is alteg,emer unfounded, and that I never did inform Lord
Liverpool that my opinions on the Catholic question in 1825
had changed. I told the Earl of L verpool then that I was
responsible for the Government of Ireland—that there were
questions of great and vital interest to which I could not assent.
In 1825 there was the question of the relief of Roman Catholic
disabilities, the question of the curtailment of the eleetivefran
chile, and the question of the payment of the Roman Catholic
clergy ; on every one of which my colleagues were in opposi-
tion to mc. I said, therefore, to the Earl of Liverpool, that
I could not consent to fall in wish the views of the Oppostion,
and I asked to be relieved from my official duties, and no
longer to be responsible for the administration of affairs in
Ireland. Such are the facts relative to that then took place.
The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir. Disraeli), in his
speech of last Monday, insii:uated that which was wholly
without foundation—he in,inuated that there teas a letter to
the Earl of Liverpool in existence, written by me in 1825, in
which I wished to be relieved from my official duties, and in
which I intimated a change in my opinions on the Roman
Catholic question. He also stated that such a letter was in
my posses ion. In proof of its existence he referred to the
Edinbnrgh Recicw, stating that I had a copy of the letter in
my possession. To that I said, if that assertion was
made by the Honourable Member, he ought to know
that such a letter was in existence.—(Hear and cheers)—
and I challenged him for its production.—( Loud cheers.) I
said, further, " this I will engage to do, if I have a copy of
such letter in my possession, I will myself produce it."—(llt ar,
hear.) So much for this point; so much for the etaiemeut
that I changed my opinion on the Catholic question. 1 now
proceed to meet the other charges that have been preferred
against me ; and, in doing so I will plead no statute of limita-
tions. Public men, I hold, should be above all such means of
defending their character. Let those who oppose me establish
these charges if they cart. I want no evasion. I wilt riot
say a word about motives, but will meet the charges distinctly
and boldly. lam charged by the stronge-t insinuations, that
I wrote a letter to the Earl nf Liverpool intimating ehahge in
my opinion, and that there is reason to believe, that that
change of opinion tonk place in 1620, and was cemniunmated
to the Eat' of Lirerpool, then at the head of the Government.
ibis is the first accusation. The next one is as follows :
Whether or no such a change had taken place, or
whether they had been communicated to the Earl of Liver-
pool. He stated that. I had distinctly avowed in my place in
Parliament, in the year 1829, that there had been such a
change in my opinin. I think that was the char t-.—( Cheers.)
I, is possible, however, that no change of ()violin may have
taken place, viii that no corn inunieatioti had been made to the
Earl of Liven 001. But it is just partible, al hough the objet is
not great, that there hail been no change of (pinion, yet still
that I night have informed the House falsely, that there had
been such a change in my opinion. The grounds upon which
that as-errion was toumied, and the evidence orought forward
in support of Ch it charge by the Hoii. Gentleman µas tins :
That there was a rep.-,t in a newspaper, cated The. Mirror of
Parliament, in which it was stated that I had informed the
Earl of Liverpool that the time was come, when something
should be done respecting the Roman Latholie disabilities.
These are the expressions up -n which the Hon. Gentle-
man founds the charge, that I had informed the Earl et
Liverpool that a change in my opinions upon the Catholic ques-
tion had taken place ; and the Hon. Gentleman says, " I wish
to state most fully the wh -le evidence against him ; whether
actual or plausible I wish to state the wrime evidence." Then.
said the Hon. Gentleman, the Mirror of Par iament employed
an independent class of reporters, men of high eminence and
great attainments in the art of short-hand writing. and that
the Mirror of Partianunt was published every three da)s,
and therefore there sbou.d be a strong presumption that the
report was correct. If, said he, there was any doubt of this,
there was a strong corroboration of the accuracy of the report
upon this ground, that the Times newspaper contained a re-
port which contained in it precisely the same words as in the
Illerrer of Parliament, arid conseqiiently there was a strong
confirmation from a separate and independent authority to the
correctness of the reports of the Mirror ,IPaz iiament. This
is the charge; am I not stating the charge correctly ?
c Cheers.) " Well," said the Hon. Member, " but there is
another evidence corroboiative of the accuracy of that report,
which was that the Right Honourable Baronet Sir Edward
Knatchbull, speaking a fortnight after, referred to that report,
and assumed it correct." Now I think these are the grounds
upon which the charge was made. Then there was another
charge which the Hon. Gentleman brought against me,
namely, that I had been guilty of a suppres,to vied, and that,
for unworthy purposes, I had given a mutilated and garbled
report of the speech.—(Loud cheers.) There may have been
some other small and incidental charges besides these three,
which are immediately connected with it. The gravamen of
the charge, and the nature of the evidence by which those
charges were support d, I believe I have correctly stated. I
now first address myself to the question—Did I intimate to the
Earl of Liverpool that my opinions upon the Catholic question
had undergone a change, and that I was prepared to sup-
port a Bill for the removal of Catholic disabilities? First,
I refer to the course which 1 took in the year 1825.
I first ask whether the course I took in Parliament,
publicly expressirm my opinion as I did, was incon-
sistent with such' an intimation as that stated to have
been conveyed by me to the head of the Government ?
Sir Francis Burdett, some Hun, Members would remember,
brought forward the Roman Catholic question in 1825.1t0
began, in his usual manner, by moving for a Committeeh
consider the Roman Catholic question. During ec
aI c uprogress
of the discussion two other measures were proponsaemov,
ato facilitate the success of the first measure,
re-
duction of the nnmber of freeholderfsuinel.rienari ding entitledth the
franchise
evijoi
st
ee
at county elections, and a measure
to Roman Catholics. It was on the r 28th of February that
Sir Francis Burdett brought forward the primary question_
the 28th of February innossmand took part to the debate on
.
the motion that the House do resolve itself into a Committee
on the Catholic question. On the 28th of February, 1823,
without expressing any objection to the time when the motion
meade, I stare " that no change nad taken place in my
E upon the subject, and I should therefore pursue the
course which I had uniformly pursued, and I must g
decided opposition to the motion." At th the
thY
the debate Sir Francis Burdett 4, said a'e conclusion of
reply, and thanked the Right Honu !levy words in
urab.e Gentleman
fur the candid manner in which he had declared that his objec-
tions went to the principle, and not to the details of the ques-
tion of Catholic emaneii iation
considerable majority in favour the motion made by Sir
Francis Burdett. My oi,in.on is the numbers were in Sir
Francis Burdett's motion 247 to 234. The second reading of
the Bill vvas proposed on the Bth of April, 1825, when I took
part in the debate ; and I find this in the reporta--" Mr. Peel
expressed his satisfaction at the frank and candid manner in
which the Hon. Member for Armagh had declared that his
opinion upon this subject had undergone a change, but he (Alm
Peel) had not changed his own opinions upon it, and he could
not, therefore, support the measure." The Bill was neverthe-
less carried b a majority of 268 to 241, and the third readine
came on on tire 10th of May, 18s5. when I said, " II the
-sees at the EXCelitiVe ttle
Sans who were av,,r,e to the Roman Catholic religion, he did
not think there could be any just Around for complaint." I
should state that on several previous occasions I admitted that

still I thought the chief officals of the Executive
Government ought to he reserv,se to persons professing the
Proles ant riligien.—( IL ar, hear. ) And the conviction of
my mi ncl remain.. unaltered I said that I telt it my du:y to
pets eee re in my opposition, Well, •hen, fa; is Lot very pro-
bable, after such a statement, that I could haae
gone to the
Earl of Livertioiii and said that a change bad talts"e l'aea in
my opinion. But it was after the 10th of May, aft,..r I had
been in a minority, that I intimatedthat the ventionance of
tits division in the Cabinet was objectionable, but, tate'lye all'
that my ewe position at the head of the Feu:entire Adtefipi''
tration of Leland was intolerable, and I asked to be releasNl
from the responsibilities of office. In 1527 I stated
what were the c reurnstances on which I consented to
remsia in office rather than break up a Government
that certainly up to that time had maintained the general con-
fidence of the country. It was then resolved that the quest ion
thould await the decision of another Parliament, and that it
should remain an opsn question. every meteiber of the Govern-
merit being at libel ty to pursue his own opinions upon the sub-
ject. It Wa, between the 10th and 20:h of 11.1-st' I "lgtlified,ose
my
desire to be relieved from office ; and it was also ;eetween th
periodstliat I intimated my reluctant consent to re.. ein in offices
Bet on the
26th of 1; at there was a division in this Ho se
the stets. of Ireland. The Bill had been sent up to "'au—
from the Lords : and, in the debate in the Lords, Lord ivere
peed mate the most decided speech against t: e measure ihat
ever he had done, and there wos a majority of 40 against
Bill. This was the language I held at th,t time to Lord Li-
verpool on the subject. I said " My lion. Friend now seemed 10
exeeet an apology from me fir continuing to hold the sable
opinion, end so my H e Hon. Friend thought it ncessary to call
neon me to explain whs I changed my opinions after hearing
the evidence of Dr. Doyle. The ground f irrnerly held ap-
peared t., be utterly untenable." That I stated in the
year 1826, in May, in the presence of Mr. Canning,
that I had changed my opinions on this question.—(Hear'
hear.) Is it probable that I would utter that langua Lord
the face of Parliament if I had not intimated to
Liverpool that my opinion was chat ged .
1 was not Prepared
to acquiesce in tee Roman Catholic ErnanS'ipation Bill, but. I
.
then showed that I was prepared to edmit that they should
gem "r"1 election
enjoy some freedom. In 1820 there was a
's hs
and in the early period of 1827, before Lord Livere'ee-
-1
when I had not the slightest expectation to anticipate odeseThii
and melancholy a termination to his political career, c.'7' for
the Roman Casholie question ; and on hatch 6, 18`..1.7' seel
it was not until the latter end c` March that Lord LiverP`t.
was rendered incapable of transacting pubic business—I "'it'
this, " He, Sir Robert Peel, should still retain his opinions a!
to the system that the Legislature ought to enforce with regard
to the country.
He thought it right again to express those
opinions—certainly common serve said that something as to the
Roman Catholics should be dime—that is to say, that the
anomaly of the laws between England and Ireland should be
removed. But in expressing his opinion, he thought it
right. to retain ti:e existirg disabilities as far as related to
admitting Roman Catholics to the legislature and to the offices
of state." If his opinions were unpopular, he had now an op-
portunity of showing that he retained the fame opinion still.
And how was it possible that he could have expressed those
opinions w.th respect to this Bill, with any view of acquiring
public favour, or gratifying his personal ambition.e-( [tears;
hear. ) myself, fully expected that in 18:27, we shota'r
have
had a minority, es we had in 1825, and was prepared to ie
again the same course, namely, to adhere to my own el'ini`3,l
still, and to r linquish office. But to the surprise, 1 beltevelire
all parties, in 1827 there was a majority of firer against tot
Bornan Catholic belief Bill. I had taken this course wih"u
the slie,htest eite follow,
ectation of what was to and I still re-
trained in the office of Secretary of Slate for the
Home Department. Now, that is a Parliamentary
profession of opinion which took place at that timetVell, one, what look place between me and Lord Liserr e.
I slated on Monday night, that if I could find that I had sail'mated any opini. n to Lord Liverpool in writing, that I wea ILI'
produce it. But I said also that the commut•tcation whie
took piece between us was not of a perimeal nature. I,Qt. I w"
in the habit of seeing him every day, and not of rnalsit4';
formal comrnunica,iiiiis to him. My impression was• ao
sated on Monday night, that nu ce-mmunicatton took Pla'g
k if
between u in virh nag or
' the subject. bat still I undertoo
there was any communication, te produce it to the H use.
ith
In
1627, three a ears aeerwards, when of course my memory
respect to these transactions was stronger, speaking le
House I said, not that I had written to Lord Live- sestslt
e- "
that I had informed him that it was my intention to disceen,,„
myself from those for whom I entertained e.!vem, but having
he, n left in aml mi,y, it was my desire to be eelieved here,
the ease which I held. My resienation was accepted, and 1-
did leave office. I think any Gentleman has a right to ask net
cla'
say that there was no written communication from me to
Liverpeoi on the subject. I may be asked. have you got lbl/ .
whole of the correspondence wh•ch took p!ace between you ar:.
Lord Liverpool at that time ? Why, I ordereir the cerrespor;l:.
cure for seven years, under the letter L, to be erought up, a
I have searched through the whole of my correspendence.heix;
tending over 7 years, in order 'o find any correspondence w h.
had passed between us on the subject. As I said before, I was
in that constant communication with Lord Liverpool which
rendered it unnecessary for us to communicate with each other
except verbally. And this I state that there was no letter
which has the remotest bearing to this subject, or which can
throw any 1 ght upon it—there is no letter which lam not
ready to tiro uce which pas's(' between Lord Liverpool and
myself. I see the letters of 1823; here they ye.— (The Right
lion. Baronet here took a packet of letters from the table and
exhibi.eci them to the House ) Some may thin!'s they are not
very material, or they may think they are. I hobs' the copies
and the orig.nals in my hand ; I looked at the letter, °f
othern
s on
years, bu' they have no bearing on this subject. Ido the.
ve
my honour declare that n) letter passed between Lord ,T,l r,
po 1 and myself on this subject which I have not produCees
an t I have no hesitation in communicating in extenen the cone-
tents of the letters to those who have the least curiosity to see
them.—( Cheers.) I find only three, and the House will judge
whether from the tone of those letters they do give the slightest
colour to the charge that I had intimated to Lord Liverpool
the change in my opinions. But now—it was on the 10t1:1
of March, 1825,
I hid then been beaten on the Catholic
claims--there were rumours that Lord Liverpool had changed
his opinions. It certainly was material for me to ascertain
that feet, because if really Lord Liverpool's opinions bail
changed, and 1 was in a minority in the House of Commons, it
was one additional reason for my retiring. On the 10th March
1826, 1 received this letter from Lord Liverpool. I will
read it:—

" March 10, 1826.
"My dear Peel,—l return you the report of the
Association, and in consequence of the appearance of ad
article in the ~Vorning Chroniee of this day, I have caused an
article to be sent to the Courier, contradicting the reports in
r,reulation, of any change in my sentimei.ts on Catholic
emancipation.—Very sincerely yours,
" LIVERPOOL."
N.),/, it is not likely that at the time the letter was written
which I have read I had changed my opinions. That letter
was written en the 10th of March, and certainly intimated
that my opinions had not changed. The only other letter that
I received from Lord Liverpool in connexion with this subj. ct
—the other lever—is dated on the 10th of May. 182.5, and I
think that it completely rebuts the charge that has beets
brought against the of a fondness for office. It will be recol-
lected that I w,nt out of office in 1818, when I left the duties
of the Secr(eary for Ireland. I was again invited to return to
office in 1822, after having declined a place in the Cabinet in
1621. This next letter is dated on the 19‘h May, 1825. On
the 17th May tho diyish.n took place in th, Lords. This sub..
jet had been dinus,ed, and I was solicited to remain in officer
rather than break up the Cabinet. It is dated on the 19t1s
Ma), and reads thus

"19th May, 1825.
"My dear Peel,—l have seen Canning, and should be glad
if you will call on me to-night, between nine and ten o'clock,
feir five minutes.—Ever yours, " LIVERPOOL.
"Pray do not trouble yourself to send an answer."
This w 11 surely create some impression that at that time I had
not changed fly opinion=, and that I con.ented to remain in
office, although I had not changed on this subject, but that I
did remain rather than beak up the 'Ministry. This will to
some extent appear from the rt quest which this letter con-
tains, to cal upon Lint Liverpool ,•n tha. night between nine
and ten. It is true that 1 cannot prov.i that this letter yeas
written on that parlicular subject—( Loud aid continued cheers)
—but surely the Hou-e will grant my assertion that such was
the case. I have yet ano. her communication which passed be-
tete Lord Liverpool aid myself. It is dated on the 25th of
Sept emir. r, 16:25. I find that it is the enly ()tie at that time
written upon this .object, and was written in answer to one
from me. It was forwarded from Wa!mer Caqle.

;7NS;a—lm. er Castle.

"(Most crinfid,ntial )
r' My dear Peel,-1 return, in another
r lbletters. You may wish to hear from me what I think about
et,h;e Sept.,
-P, 0
u 213 n
dissolution. In he first piaca, it must he decided, one way or
the other, en the 22d, the day of our meeting I have h.ad-
some correspondence with Canning upon the subject ; the 112-
1 81u'.3r.'s
clination of his opinion is to put off the disaolution till net
year. I son decideoly for the dissolution now, if the Carhoiie
question is to receive the su pot% of those wh4 are gon,rallr
friendly to it in the Government in the next session. But if
tlsey are willing that the Catho ic and corn questions shall re-
main in abeyance during the next year, and are prepared.
tberef ire, :is to the former, to discourage i.s being brought on.
and, if brought on, to move a previous Efuei,tion or adjournment
upon it ; in that case I have no desire to press the di,olution
during the present autumn. I say to pr. ss the disso ution,
because I think the reasons fur and ,gain,t it are nearly
balanced; anti I can readily acquiesce in the e,tveision, whatever
it may be. I hear Lord Wellesley is for dissolution now, and
and the Whole -- connexion, for very opposite reasons,
decidedly aglinst it.

" Ever sincerely yours,
"LIVERPOOL."
If that be rightly interpreted, can any one say th it at that time
I had changed my opinions? Now, his inferring that my
opinions were in conformity with his own in 1825 prove
nothing of the charge made against me. The Right Hon.
Gentleman then resumed reading Lord Liverpool's letter,
which stated it was his opinion that if the Catholic claims were
to be pressed there would be a dissolution of Parliament, bat
that if the Catholic question was not to be brought on there
twinouueldd dissolution.beTnhoesearethe
three The Right Hon. Gentleman con-
letters which I received from
Lord Liverpool ; but they are not such as would be written to a
man who told Lord Liverpool that he was opposed to the Ca-
tholic claims.—( Hear, hear.) IN vy, speaking of 1629, I hold
in my hand a document which will prove this fact—that my
leaving office would lead to a dissolution of the 31intstry. 1
am certain that my opinion on this matter was expressed in a
n
; but I have no let•
e
words on this point.
I °
orovvv e
to s tcome'i)b nnw. between
to
me
evidence myself
by
e
attempted to be shown
that I did make use of those words ; that 1 did make that
statrment in 1829. The whole c
tcra‘ t hwhich and e
tt
. another
oundation of the charge of the
Hon. Member for Shrewsbury was, that I said, in 1829, that
I had communicated to Lord
Liverpool in 1825 that the time
was come when something respecting the Catholic question
ought to be done. lam going to make no quibbling inter.
pre:ation id' these words. I positively deny that. I used these
words at all. I assert that
rt that I did not sa in 1829 that the time
was come when snmethin y
g ought to be done with the Catholic
'
9ue6tlon •.)1 y impression—my sincere lull ression—is, that I
did not e'ien make such a statement as that at all.--( Cheers.)
And now I cerae to the evidence.—( Cheers.) I request the
House to follow me, for I want to dissect the evidence on
which it is founded ; that I really did in 1829 make that state-
ment, and that I afterwards garbled a speech with the in•
Notion of perverting the fact. Says the Hon. Gent. the
member for Shrewsbury, "I am making no charge against
my Right Honourable Friend, but I say that he used
a garbled and mutilated, or to use the softer art..guFge of this
Ho. se, a muitated report of his speech " Why, the epeeches
i.f the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury are difforent y eported
in different jou nals, and is it just to refer upon such evidence
as this to a pet sod of 20 years before, fur wards on which to
found a charge again-t a Mioister of the Crown? The
charge is a emarkable one, and it is advanced in a most sin-
gular manner. The Hon. Gentl man been by saying that
hi, r-vorts to this subject with the deepest pain.—(Funical
cheering and laughter, wn.ch continued I r some time.) We
says that there are only two scurcea to which we may refer for
the reports of the proceedings in the House at that period. The
one was " Hansard," in .vhich Hon. Members bad an op-
portunity of correcting their speeches, but he also s.iid th-t
there was anotiier, " The Mi.ror of Parliament," for which
the speeches were taken down ,n snort-hand by the most skilful
sh, or-band writers, i any of them m'n of education and in•
teli,!P, se, a.,,c, c-ov,rsant with the bn.inesg which ()relined in
- •.. ... j •:a ,ia. \,.;.„ ;+:11):6,..ci ,:v &;y ;-6r,ati.)). The
Hon. G,:ntieroan who introduced this subject with so much pain,
says also that he has been making the most careful in-
quiries on this subject. He is most honourably connected with
11... r..•- ..,1..}-1... 1.1 I_, ..... -I. ....I.M. ......16L--,_