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

point, The Panto Member say, that he has been making de-
liberate inei ices, and that he has ascertained the reports of 'he
" Mirror of Parliament" were contributed by in•ierendeot gen-
tian:len not connected with the pu:)lic pre-s. As a col,e-
quenee, therefore, one confirms another. There was evol,nce
of the coreeurrence of these two sdts of independent reporters.
and it was remarkable that two independent sets of re-
Porters should have made the same report. And the Hon. Gen-
Vrltratt went on to say, " Sir, I have inquired, and I have
Detti informed that the rrport in the • Mirror of Par:jail:lent'
tO which I have referred was done by Mr. Barrow, (see of the
Most finished short-hand reporters, and a inan of education
nd intelligence." Mr. Barrow, unfortunately. is not here ;
ad. es to the inquiry mole by the Hon. Member, and th,
teeement that he had ascertained that the report wan by Mr.
rairrow. I give the most peremptory eontr,di ttiun —(Great
*tiering.) I deny that the report tv,s by Mr. Ba-row, who
Was the editor or that paper; and I believe that he was not
then, althonee I believe he might base been, a re.orter, and
Z‘sas not in the habi' of reportiag. The lion. Gentleman, for
eert° PorPose of adding w ight to his charge, had told the
noose 'chat it was an independent report a man nf high
tharacoer and great attainments. The Hon. Gentli man went
on t(, say—" However, I had the di,cretion to refer to the re.
PD:et of the speech in one of the most eminent of the public
`Papers of the time, and'l find the same report under the date
of March 6, 1629." The Hon. Gentlemen had thus taken
credit to himself that he was not an indiscreet
man, and did not prefer charees against me on a
port witfeout comparing it with other reports. He took
credit to laimself for ditcretion, as he did not snake the char,r,n
eot)ratalosele report, but be had found the repert of the " Times"
debrAling and concurrent with the report of the other inlepen-
a•
.tets of reporters. Is it discreet and just to refer to only
,IT'h 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 tline—(Cheers)—for which there were
independent reports i and has he had tne discretion to refer to
One of them; and in the event of the apparent concurrence of
thay of theta to inform the House of the fact? Did he conclude
thesee was no necessity for further inquiry ? Allow me to
o 4 if 'the savae sense of justice induced you (to Mr. Disraeli)
as oe.aatoitle any other report—to look at the report of the
adorning Chronicle," of the " Morning Herald," of the
fir the
Post," of the "Morning Journal"—a paper set up
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 eid, why have you not had
thee„ honesty to bring them forward to the House ?
lon did not do so. Why did yen confine yourself to those
reports that seemed to support your charge, and not extend
'our inqyAries to others ? Or if you did, why di,l you not
Dome forward and state the feet that every other report hut
that ti', which you referred, though written by the independent
I:,°_Por. ter% of four newspapers, excluded the words on which
the accusation rests ?—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear ") Now
of:serve, the words of " The Times" are, " That the time had
'arrived when something must be done with the Roman Cetho-
he Question." The " Mirror of Parliament" it is said con-
curred with. this—thus supporting the accusation by two ;nee-
Pendent 'reports, and bearing out the charge that I hid
altoilatod and garbled the speech, withholding the knowledge
winat I really said.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, what
ire tkie versiens of these four other 'ournals whose reports were
`gtesished by independent parties The " Herald's" report
alga, " So far as he was personally anncerned, in 1925, when
ek.'e liras at the head of the Home Department, he must state
*heat, regarding the Catholic question. he felt his situation was
11;atatable. He did not seek ( the" Times" says " I did seek")
st-she did not seek to. retain office, and he told the Earl of Livers
Pool that, in his opinion, he time had come when he ought to
De relieved from the duties of office— Loud cheersl—as h'
was in a minority on that question. The Earl of Liverpool
told him that .is retirement from office would probably lead to
!Is dissolution of Parliament." This speech was one of four
!ours' leneeth ; and I must observe, that however able and care-
t:a reporters may be in the execution of their duties. and dis-
P?sed to do justice, it is impossible for them to avoid mistakes
this kind It is quite clear, from the extract I have given,
rii..kt the remark of which so much had been made meant no-
but a dissolution of the Government.—( Hear, hear.)
• os,
Morning Chronicle" says, " As far as my personal c0n-
;1825,
net is concerned, in when I was Minister of the Home
!eePartment, respecting the Catholic question before the House,
4 felt that from my situation, and the intimate connexion of
ay Office with the adminstration of affairs in Ireland, and find
°R Myself in a minority on that question, 1 considered the
rate of things was such that it was right I should he re ieved
'roan the responsible situation I held. I told Lord Liverpool
, that the time had arrived when I should be relieved
k °to the responsibility of office. This, I was told
by
Lord Liverpool, would break up the whole Administration.
It far as he was oencerned." Is it necessary that I should
raid it all ?-4 No, no ; go on.) "He must state that in the
/mu' 1825, when he was Minister of the Home Department, he
?end himself in a minority, and feeling the difficulty of his ph-
Vion, charred as he was with the administration of affairs in
eirteland, and that he thought the time had come when he
aaould teek to be relieved from the responsibilities of his office,
kid arrived, in consequence of finding himself in a mino-
rity upon a subject intimately connected with the
I...iituagement of Ireland, and that the Earl of
beverpool had stated that if Mr. Peel retired
must also send in his resignation. Now I will refer to the
" Morning Journal." It states in its report So far as m)
ersonal conduct is concerned, I can state, that in the year
825, when I was Minister in the Home Department, I was in
a Minority on the Catholic quest on in the House of Commons,
laad I felt that my situation as a Minister in the office which
then held, charged as I was with the administration of
affairs in Ireland, that I found myself in a minority upon a
tPlestion of the greatest importance, which, in reference to the
"..little, of the country, could engage my attention ; and that I
-I,,itta to be relieved from the responsibilities of my situation.
"Ken told the Earl of Liverpool that one thing must be done,
thv•
, 1 should be relieved from the duties of my office.
• Was stated upon tbat occasion that my retirement would
. mad to their retirement.—(C:heers.) Yost hare now the exact
thnacurrence of three other morning papers, all omitting the'
• passage which in itself was certainly of an equivocal nature.
iron have then the concurrence of four other morning papers.
ej,"!froPloying separate and independent reporters, all agreeing
Zn marvellous accuracy in the context of what I said, omit-
"Nl the, passage. If there was a paper which reported lade-
Plmtleoetly and separately, which did lend its sanction to th,
refr:irt of another paper, the absence of the viselike to font,
others, however strong may be the presumption
Of their accuracy, does not at all affect the
Possibility of the charge being founded upon it.
It is as four to one against it. Thera is something singular
in the fact, that if Mr. Barrow was an independent reporter
and if there was a certain class of reporters reporting separately.
that they did not arrive at the same conclusion. I deny the
• tact that Mr. Barrow made these reports, also that there was e
oseparate class of reporters employed on the " Mirror of Par
iiininent."—(Loud cheers.) I have inquired upsn the subject
as well as the Hon. Member. I state this fact. I `'ate
Positively, and I will demonstrate it to you that Mr. Barron
Ldid not report my sentiments upon this occasion. —( Hear
hear-) But wait till I state the feet. The " Mirror of Par-
'lament" had not a distinct corps of reporters. Now I will stat,
this fact that the reporters of the " Morning Chronicle," an,
the
rePo:rters of the " Times" were in connexion with th.
1' 'Mirror of Parliament ;" that they did not make separate re
ports ; no, of course it would have been absurd ; that they
:et together, comparing each others report, and thet they
"ot. to the " Mirror of Parliament" that which gave the fulled
rePort of one part of the speech, and that which gave the fillies•
report of another. —( Hear, hear.) The reporters of the "
llir-
ror.of Parliament" concocted from the reports of the " Morn•
init Chronicle" and " Times." Now that is the informatiot
Which has reached me, and which I can establish by most ex
• rptsonal authority. Now, is it right that any man shout.
absour under the charge that, for unworthy purposes, he ha,
k:eobled a particular speech ; but, more than all, is it right the
a Minister of the Crown—an active Member of this House-
should be cempellsd, in the middle of a session of Parliament
t° lag out of his ordinary course, to disprove such a palpably un-
founded charge ?—( Hear, hear.) But I have tone it ; and 1
,w,ill prove to you, by taking the reports of the Mirror of Par-
plulent" itself, and comparing them with the reports of th
Herald," the " Morning Chronicle," and th
" Times," that the report of the Mirror of Parliamen•"is r
anftolependent report, but rather the concocted report w
tof tio
hohi.
rePorters of tho-e three papers._ I will
.terations of the
prove :
passages are taken, with scarcely any.
se
or changink
words, except altering " he" into
the person. I will prove to vnu, that withou
any alteration, some parts are taken tram the " Mernine
Herald," others tram 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, we,
taken by Mr. Tyas, is copied with its accidental mistakes. I'
rror of Parliament," onl3
into ". Mi •
lellus.foagit,hoigullyivet..„piinedto
I w,ll show you that the report o
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
Pen were employed upon the Mirror of Parliament "—the
they were not independent—that they dpi not make sepai-ate
reports.-but that, after the business of the day was over, and they
tad written their reports for the morning papers, the reporter:
was no t p blished
u
of these morning papers met together, and concocted the re-
port for the " Mirror of Parliament," which
Well, now, then.
for a day or ao afterwards.—( Heir, hear. )
does not the argument altogether break. down-7(Hear, hear)
•--is it not the site report heart—pact?—(Hear, the report on
ti
the.. Times" is not confirmed by the adoption of theta sam
as
e-
report by the ss Mirror of Parliament.', did I g
Or
speech, by striking outthwe ditynoteufttfeereerd, aont
ei
rn wphoipcoh
I
was borne out by r
and also by the .
g Chronicle," which I was accustomed
haatutlhhoal
Irn
to look to in matters of this kind. Well, then, what becomes
of the assertion of the Hon. Gentleman with reference to
the corrected report, anti with regard to the note which he
read out, that it
was inserted with the permission of Secretary
Peel, as if to say, I had sent to Hansard my cerrected report,
and begged of him, in a note, to inert it? But the facts of
the case are these ;—Mr. Murray, of Albemarle-street, pub-
lished the speech, and there was a jealousy about the copyright;
anti Hansard had no right to publish it, bet he applied to me
eni
for my permission, and I got Mr. Murray to give hiscon
to the publication.—( Loud and continued cheering.) Andsthe
note was inserted in order to show that it
had not been taken
surreptitiously.--( Hear, hear.) Yet the Hon, Gentleman in .
.
sinuated that I had sent to Hansard to do away with the mis
chief of the publication of the passage attributed to me by on -
paper.' But still more—the other reports make no complaint.
but. we find the t' Times" reporter, the man who has made the
mistake, regrets that Mr. Secretary Peel's voice was ucca
sionally so li,w, that he was but indistinctly heard in the gal-
lery—( Hear, hear, and loud cheers)—and nineteen years after-
wards a am to be maligned and condemned ; and why p because
there was a deaf reporter on the " Times."—( Tremendous
eheeringd Every other reporter did it correctly. The
" Times reporter made the mistake, the man who said my
voice was indistinctly heard. Oil Monday night I heard for
the first time that there was any discrepancy 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 impression.? Well, I think I have
suffiiently cleared
no self of these i m_outsat ions.— (
purl t cheers. )
at row an
Now, I thick I have dispe•ed of Mr.
indepen-
dent report—( Hear, hear, and lauehter)—and I think I have
denied the allegation too that there was a separate band of
reporters aloof from the newspapers—( Lear, hear)--making
independent reports ; and I now come, to the speech of my
Hon. Friend Sir Edward Knatchbud. Weil, as I said, 1
event through al these fierce cenflict
charge preferred, except it was preferred I never heard this
on that occasion, on
the kith of March ; but if it. was preferred then, it was the
only time during the centletts on the Catholic question. But
I heard that in 18;::9 1 had asserted in 1825 my opinions were
changed. In the first place. if I had said so,
it would have
been utterly at variance with the whole tenor of my speech
e,,
delivered at that time. I take the " Mirror of Parliament.
,
Isaid in 1829, after the House of Commons had come to tne
decision I eve stated, that in 1822 I was prepared to take the
course which I had been prepared to take in 1825, namely, to
resign my office. But what did I say ? That I was not
only anxious to retire from office, but I repeated that
whenever the Catholic claims came on I should feel myself
justified at once to retire from office. But on the following
day I was questioned as to why I had stated that in
5e5 my ovens .n had chitoged ; hot the nvoral qu,stion was
Va;'inf:ti[O)utn"f when there were just as strong reasons
for it as there are now?" Why that was the question put to
the Earl of Uxbridge ion- the night after, the -16th of March..
It** put tif eb:1044-Ki4W14411,*. Irtni *ll 541 ivy