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

SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 20 1846.

Mr. ROEBUCK said he was at a los-_ what to make of the
sreech of the Noble Lord who had just sat down. According
to the statement of the Noble Lord, he stood by Mr.
Canning till the time when he saw him hunted to
death—( Hear. heat ) —ant he watched the hand that
struck the blow which penetrated that noble heart; yet
hat man who had directed the blow the Noble Lord had
afterwards called his Right Hon. Friend.—( Hear, hear.) As
a plain man, he ( Mr. Roebuck) would say, had he possessed
such a friend—had he grown up with M. Canning—had he
seen the blow struck that laid him in the duet, and knew
the hand that dealt the blow, he at least would never
have sailed that man his Right Hon. Friend. How came
it that not till nineteen years after the death of Mr. Can-
ning did the Noble Lord think propr to make the declara-
tion he had made? Why did he not make the declaration
before, instead of reserving it to such a late peri d, and then,
in a moment of irritation and party quarrel, to make the
chariT of his friend being hunted to death? Again, when
did the Hon. Gentleman the Memb J. for Shrewsbary make
tba same discovery ? Was it in 1602, 1825, 1828, or 1832 ?

He got into Parliament in 1832 --
Mr. DISRAELI—I did not get in thee.
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
Hon. Baronet—prepared speeches, got up for the occasion—
and Ending that he did not succeed, 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-
ponent 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 obie.ct he had
in view. The Right Hon. Baronet, it could not be denied,

had also changed his opinions, but 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 would yet
do full justice to his conduct. The English people were a
prudent people, and they would weigh in the balance the petty
passions of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury and the sacri-
fices which the flight Hon. Baronet, in his present conduct,
had made to ensure a great public good.—(Cheers.) The
Right Hon. Baronet had yielded to new c nvictions, while the '
charges of the Hen. Member for Shrewsbury proceeded from
motives of place and power, and from a fscling of disappointed
ambition. He was sure the people of England would net
mach longer hear with such proceedings of the Noble Lord, the
Member for Lynn, and th'e lion. 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, but that. he vre uld become
a coadjutor with others in promoting and carrying out measures
and views which should he 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 opportenity to rise in his place, and
express his gratitude to the Right Hon. Baronet for what he
had done ; and at the same to a,sure h;m that he had per-
fectly vindicated his character, in the reply he had made to the
change of the Noble Lord tl,e Member for Lynn.—(Hear.)
Lord J. R tiSSELL had hoped that his Noble Friend,
the Member fir Ls nn, would have relieved him from the ne•
eessity of saying anything upon the present 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 net one of those who
was disposed to think that upon general questions, like these
they ha I lately bad under discussion. Hon. Members ought
nut to refer to matters which occurred twenty years ago, and
still less to expresi ' hemselves in strong terms upon such sub-
jects. He was not prepared either to say that the great diffe-
rence of opinion which had exi=ted in that House upon a. sub-
ject of great and vital interest to the country was not sufficient
to restrain lion. Members from indulging in strong lan-
guage against the Minister who proposed i'.—( Hear, hear.)
But the queen ion 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 be 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 he
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
world a quibbled and mutilated report of th at speech, for the pur-
pose of suppressing the truth upon the subject to which
it relate:l 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 thin.'; 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 House upon Irish questions, it was
net 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

828.

in the next place that in 1829, 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 did not wonder 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 Hight rion. rtaeonet am race an opportunity ro
explain all the circumstances connected with the matter.
With respect to the Right Hon. Baronet having brought the
matter 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, but he certainly did not recollect.any-
thing of the kind as stated by the Hon. and Learned Member
for Lynn. A short time aco, however, a " Mirror of Par-
liament" was put into his 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
he left oshnon
n:mtahna'tste reportmhind,bec in ~
ausetiianheßsiimgh,,,tHon. Baronet had
clearly
agreeing with-five
to be more conformable to the
newspapers of the day, was likely
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 lion. and Learned Member for Lynn. He thought there
was 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
ought to protect the Hon. Member from censure, because it
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 larder ook to lead that defence ; and
again, when the corn.laws were attacked, and powerfully
attacked, both in and out of thatoHouse, the Right Hon.
Baronet undertook to lead 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 lion. 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 Hon. 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. and 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.--(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
dWreitsshedreg,,artod
pto what
resumptttlhe Hon. and Learned Mme
ousand ignerantyouthes,,,bhr had d
eshoauld-
leave it to be answered by those " presumptuous and ignorant
aidt with
anxiously the
youths," whom he had no doubt would be found equally as
-strong as the Hon. and Learned Member, whether in an intellec-
tual, moral, or physical point of view. He now approached
had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. In the first place he
might be permitted to observe that throughout the Right Hon.
theth the matter i
nae before
address
Baronet's statement there ran a constant and remarkable
them,
himself and
he
would,
seriously n w
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
prove a charge against him. Now, it would be remembered
that on a charge being made against the Right Hon. Baronet,
upon an authority to which he would in a few minutes refer,
the Right -'on. Baronet rose and declared that the charge.was
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 illustrations of the
charge they had made. Now before he adverted to the publi-
cation of Mr. Hansard, in the "Mirror of Parliament," which
had been so much reierred to, he must remark that the " Edin-
burgh Review," which was supposed to have been written by a
Member of the 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 as 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
that gentleman reported a speech which occupied five or six
hours in the delivery ; while he could assure the
House that in the early parts of 1823, he knew of
his own knowledge, that the " Mirror of Par-
liament" had an independent corps of reporters.
He knew that this work did not receive an extensive patronage.
A rival sprung up in the shape of " Hansard," and of course
the publication of Mr. Barrow was eventually limited to a very
scanty circulation. His authority for saying this was Mr.
Barrow himself. He could not produce Mr. Barrow himself,
but that gentleman told him on a subsequent occasion, about
three or four years afterwards, which was in the first 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 rep eters made up this culled 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
my we*, and he believed that the report which wail riven

was the most accurate and authenti,! record. That was a cir.

curostance that could not have escaped the calm consideration
of the Howe. About which did they commit their mistake?
uwan one of the most extraordinary statements that ever was
male by a Minister of the House of Cominons.—( Hear,
hear.) That was a circumstance that could not
for a moment be forgotten. Now, ho would put the matter
fairly 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 London. 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 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 purpesea 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 ;829, that he
was prepared to consent to the settlement of the Catholic
question. fie would assume, he repeated for the sake of argu-
ment, that the Right lion. Gentleman said that. Now, he
wanted to know, independently of that report, what proof there
was that the Right Hon. Gentleman said that ? He begged
the House to understand that he as umed that 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
ff Mirror of Parliament" as a proof of what he said, though
for the sake of argument he assumed that he Aid 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 inguished Members of Parliament to recollect the
r'al state of facts. Now the report of the " Times" must
he forgotten. The Right Hon. Gentleman (he meant Sir
E. Knatchbull) said on the occasion alluded to, that he was
indisposed, and he was therefore not in the House. But he was i
in the House ; because in March, although he was so ndt-
po
division
edthathe
listco the nameuldnotsp of Sireakupo Ear
upon the subject,
teh
jectknhaefobuunld
the in
i.

(Hear, hear.) Now he begged the House to recollect that
important fact. He was not arguing the case, Le 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

lie. other night that ile.(lllr..Disraeli) had got up to make this

attack uponlim. God knew itwas 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 expressl,n of his convictions. The Right
Hon. Gentleman did not choose to allow that to pass; he took a

. -
certain time, and came down and mark, an elaborate defence of
himself—( Hear, hear)—and then because his Noble Friend
asked him ( Air. 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 Howe aAI ember of Parlia-
ment who said that he 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. Barlow who
had reported this—it wal/4 not the collective council at midnight
of :he most accomplisheil 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 Hon. 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 roport 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 watt then in the same 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 l 25.—(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 Memti 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 Uabride, 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

In 1827 a new House of Commons decided agaiist

concession, but in 1828 it decided in favour of concession.

Secretary Peel then adopted the coarse which

ho took in - 1825, when Lord
elected at the head of the Government.

Liverpool was
We had this

passage, that he then took the course which he adopted in
1615, when Lord Liverpool was at the head of the Govern-

went. 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
auswer—tu 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 steps, fur he said that
the time had arrived c‘hon 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 cart y that question,
he (Mr. D'lsraelil 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 expressions 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 Knatcbbull 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
allwion 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, a, 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 Hon. Gentle-
men would it not have been better, if, instead of sending to
Drayton, he had sent to Sir Edward Knatchbull to ask bins if
he had made the speech attributed to him, and if he had given
a simple response to that simple 'inquiry, and it he had then
walked to the table of that House, and read that Iptter_
from Sir Edward Knatchbull, denouncing that version
of his speech as a forgery, 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 looked into
the reports of the newspapers when he made that charge.— •
(Hear, hear.) He made that charge upon what he heard
from the highest authority—the persons among whom he
lived, and who were acquainted with Mr. Canning, and who
were then tiaa 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)
o ffered of
it i
in because
ev6dT e
non
Times,"
it
ce
with having referred to all the newspapers. Why he
(Mr. Disraeli) referred to the newspapers with very
great reluctance, and even upon reference to the
was very well known that the reporting staff of it Was
onlylie journals.
arvnaaillesd. He himself
by far the most extensive, most complete, and most skilful
Times,"any o he
thepub
of
that account.—( Hear, hear.) He looked to the ,
which was used amongst the authorities, and he found mes,"
that
the speech waq there reported verbatim. Now he
the case fairly heron the Home. Ile would put aZloeualldl pute
" 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
then spoke, or the person who had spoken—the case would be
decided by the calm and deliberate judgment of the public. If
the fat's which he had put before the House could be ex-
plained away—if they could be explained away from the
" Mirror" of that unfortunate Mr. Barrow, who never could
have supposed he would have been referred to in this
debate in the sarcastic article in the "Edinburgh,"
or all those varieties in the newspapers from which
they had quoted —if these facts could be t
ex-
plained away, then the Right Hon. Gentleman migh
indeed appeal to the country with confidence for a verdict ; but
if he could, in fact, explain to the English publicwh y the
most respectable and influential Members of Parliament
should have got up in that House and make a violent speech
against him, all of which proceeded uponththaet tin"almBxstiohn that
the Right Hon. Gentleman had admitted
of the Catholic
question. ready to contaibute his aid in the settlement
question. If he could explain to the country why such express
sions as he (Mr. Disraeli) had read to the House, and which he
.
detail—if he couldwhy, • explain, in
could not recapitulate in
one of the most memorable speeches he positively declared
that in settling the question in 1828 ha was prepared to
do what he had intuited to do in tise_Right lion.