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

SIR RO3ERT PEEL'S EXPLANATION.

On the order of the day beingread for re uming the debate on
THE PROTECTION TO LIFE (IRELAND) BILL,
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Mr. Speaker—Sir, in rising
to move the order of the day for re.,uming the de-
bate on the Protection to Life ( Ireland) Bill, I deepll
regret that it should be neeetsary for me to obstruct for one
moment the public business by taking up the time of the
House with any personal matter with regard to myself.
I deeply regret that it should be necessasy for me to avail
myself of what perhaps at best is but a doubtful privilege,
of making an explanation of matters personally ege
relleetina
myself ; but deeply as I must regret taking up the, on
House, and co (delaying the public business, I time of the
ltheciralektisnoat Ailseurnibf
aiidn
notthi avail myself
in
Whose estimation I
, doubt whether
myself of the eitrliest op-

portunity of noting the accusations made against me in this
Houce on Menday evening.—( Hear, hear.) I deeply thank
the House, at least many of the Hon. Members, for suspending
their judgments at the time those accusations were made.
They telt no doubt that it was something hard that a public
man should have so m iny charges made against him at this
period, when they might have been preferred many times for
the last fifteen years.—( Hear, hear, and cheering. ) Why
were they not made before ? Why were they not made at a
time when the opportunities of proving the whole matter were
greater than they can be after the lapse of years ?—( Hear,
hear.) I labsur under great disadvantages. I little thought
that I should be called upon to answer for my acts since
1825. Since the year 1825 there have been many changes.
There had been a severance from Mr. Canning ; there was
also one with the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Canning; there
was a separation in 1828. There were fierce conflicts in 1829,
and then I felt it necemary to support the Catholic claims,
Then came the formation of that Government of which the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite was a di•tinguished member;
then shortly after succeeded the conflicts on the Reform Bill ;
then came the dissolution of the Government of Lord Mel-
bourne in 1831.
An Hos. lllEstnEß—Lord Grey !_(Confusion 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 Gov.- rnrnent with a
minority for three months, and then yielded it again to the Hon.
Gentleman opposite. Then at the close of these contests I
thought that the events of 1825, 1827, and 1829, as far as any
suhject of crimination against me was concerned, were buried in
oblivion.—(Great cheering.) When that speech was made
on Monday night, I had no means of referring to a single
paper which bore upon the events of those years; my tine
has been too fully occupied to aeloav me to examine at leisure
the subject of the Hon. Member's accusation, and the secre-
taries lay whom the letters of those years had been answered
have long ago ceased to exist. I hove been myself occupied
for the last three days in collecting materials and collating
newspaper reports in order to free my reputation from the
cherges which have been directed against nay veracity as a
man, and 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 my own breast
a perfect conviction that they were uufounded.— (Great
cheers.) I heard them with that calmness which result!, from
the accused's own knowledge that they were not founded in
truth, hut yet with that anxiety which every man must partake
of who fears that, after a lapse of twenty years, he may not be
enabled to establish that complete and satisfactory defence
against charges which, in common fairness, and in common
justice, shouiel have been preferred when the memories of
men who took part in those debates were more recent, arid
ashen I could have referred to them to say whether those were
the very woods, whether :ham were the very expressions, that I
hail used ; ashen I could have referred to nit political op-
ponents—( Great oheenng )—whether they would remember
my words or the impreseons which I intended should be un-
derstood from them. Cheers ) lam new to answer
those charges.--( Continued cheering.) I shall confine myself
to those charges, and to the evidence on which they are founded
It was not fair on those two different occasions to make charges
inculpating my honour unless the evidence en w hich the charges
were preferred was brought forward.— ( Loud cheering.) If
there is any other evidence which can be produced, and I am
not cognisant of any, when I shall have to meet it, I shall
ask the House to be generous and just 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 di-ad-
vantages and difficulties of that task, if I do not succeed in es-
tablishing to the conviction of every honourable mind that
those charges are without foundation, I shall retire from this
discussion with deep mortification and despondency. 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
this time been brought forward against me. When the Hon.
Gentleman, the Member for Shrewsbury, rose to speak on
Monday night the question at issue was this. On the pre-
ceding night the Noble Lord, the Member for Lynn,
who was a Member of Parliament in 1826, 1 e 27, and
1828—( Immense cheering)—who was the relative and
Private Secretary of Mr. Canning, and cognisant if Mr.
C ntiing's feelings, l.rought f ,rward at that late stage of the
dente—not an, que•timi affecting Mr. Canning's honour—cut
at that late sage of the debate on the Corn Bill the Noble
Lord brought foie-aid these charges aminst me. T..e A. ble
Lord said. " Such eas the conduct of tee Right Hor. Gentle-
man in 1827 (alluding to my aepara ion from Mr. Canning in
e 27). anu, said the Noble Lord, in t e year 1629 Sir Robert
Peel intimated to the House that he had changed his o iire, ns
in 1825, and he had concealed that change of hi opt lims
except t ) Lcr I Liverpool ; but that did nit prevent him, in
1827, from g iMing up in the Hestia aid state: g, as his reasons
for separating from Mr. Canning's Government, hat he could
not consent to su port a Government of whieh the chief Ali-
nimerWas favourable to those measnrea which it eppeared atter-
wards .n ten) years he ..ims If supported." This simple charge
ef the Noble Lord the Memeer I r Lunn :Mated that, in
1827 I had decline.l to act wi h Mr. Cannteg as Priare Mi-
nister, on the ground that I w. s hostile still to ti e r.:-
move' of the Cathodic disabilities, and that I ob-
jected te the state of the Catholics iming at alt ameliorat
" But," said the Noble Lord, " in 1829,in bringing forward the
Catholic question, the Right Hon. Gentleman informed the
House that in 1825 his opinions on the Catholic question had
changed, and that he bred intimated the change of his opipions
to Lord Liverpool, then at the head of the Government, arid
notwithstanding that change of opinion in 1825 he had refused
to act under Mr. Canning." I state at once that the charge
is altogether 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 Liverpool 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 elective Man
chise, and the question of the payment of the Roman Catholic
clergy ; on every one of which my colleagues were in opposi-
tion to me. I said, therefore, to the Earl of Liverpool. that
I could wit consent to tall in wi Ii the views of the Oppostien,
and I asked to be relieved from my official duties, and nu
longer to be responsible for the admini-tration of affairs in
Ireland. Such are the facts relaa Me to what hen took place.
The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury (elm Di raeli)a in his
speech of lam Monday, insieuated that which was wholly
without foundation—he iwinuated that there was 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 thie Roman
Cithoiic question. He also stated that such a letter was in
my posse, ion. In proof of its existence he referred to the
Edinbnroh &vil', stating that I had a copy of the letter in
my possession. To that I said, if that assertion was
male by the Honourable Member, he ought to know
that such a letter was in emstence.—(Hear and cheers)—
and I ceallenged him for its production.—( Loud cheers.) I
aaid, further, " this I will engage to do, if I have a copy of
such letter in my possession, I will myself produce it."—( H, ar,
hear.) So much for this point; so much for the ata,ement
that 1 changed my opinion en the Catholic question. I now
proceed to meet the other charges that have been preferred
against me; and, in doing sa I will plead no statute of hunta-
tions. Public men, I hold, should be above all such means ut
defending their character Let those who oppose me establish
there charges if they can. I avant no evasion. I wilt not
•ay a word about motives, but will meet the charges distinctly
and boldly. lam charged by the strongest insinuations, that
1 wrote a letter to the Earl of Liverpool intimating change in
my opinion, and that there is reason to believe, that that
change of (Teems took place in 1825, and was communicated
to the Earl of Liverpool, then at the head of the Government.
Phis 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 1629, that there had been such a
change in my opinin. I think that was the charge.—( Cheers.)
ft is possible, however, that no change of ompion may have
taken place, and that no communisation had been made to the
Earl of Livemool. But it is just possible, al hough the object is
not great, that there had been no change of opinion, yet still
that I might have informed the House falsely, that there had
been such a change in my opinion. The grounds upon which
that assertion was founded, and the evidence brought forward
in support of that charge by the Hon. Gentleman was this :
That there was a report in a newspaper, called The Mirror of
Parli2ment,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 Paornatt Catholie disabilities.
These are the expressions upon which the Hon. Gentle-
man founds the charge, that I had informed the Earl of
Liverpool that a change in my ophidians upon the Catholic ques-
tion had taken place ; and the Hon. Gentleman says, " I wish
to state most fully the while evidence against him ; whether
actual or plausible I wish to state the whole evidence." Then.
said the Hon. Gentleman, the Mirror of Par lament 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 Partici/rime was published every three days,
and therefore there should be a strung 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
• Mlrr,:r of Parliament, and consequently there was a strong
confirmation from a separate and independent authority to the
correctness of the reports of the Mirror ,fParliament. This
is the charge; am I not stating the charge correctly ?
( Cheers.) " Well," said the Hon. Member, " but there is
another evidence corroborative of the accuracy of that report,
which was that the Right Honourable Baronet Sir Edward
Knatchbell, speaking a fortnight alter, 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 aeainst me,
namely, that I had been guilty of a suppressio veri, an that,
for unworthy purposes, I had given a mui Hated and garbed
report of the speech.—(Loud cheers.) There may ham- been
seine other :entail and incidental charges besides these three,
which ace immediately connected with it. The gavamen of
the charge, and the nature of the evidence by which those
charges were support d, I belie ,e I have correctly stated. I
now first address rem self to the question—Did I intimate to the
Earl of Liverpool that nay opinions upon the Cathoii.t question
had undergone a change, and that I was prepared to sup-
pert a Bill for the removal of Catholic disabilities? First,
I refer to the course which 1 tone in the year 1825.
I first ask whether the course I took in Parliament,
publicly expre•sing my opinion as I did, was incon-
sistent with such an intimation as that stated to have
been conveyed by me to tha head of the Government ?
Sir Francia Burdett, some Hon. Members would remember,
brought forward the Roman Catholic questioa in 1825. He
began, in his usual rimer, by moving for a Committee to
consider the Roman Catholic question. During the progress
of the discussion two other measures were proposed calcuai
t
no facilitate the success of the first measure. namely,
re-
duction of the number of freeholders in Ireland entitled
nocvhoistee
at county elections, and a meaiure for extending thefee
to Retnan Catholics. It was on the 28th o.f February that
ySir Francis Burdett brought forward the
question—
the 28th of February. I,42s—and I took
.epafP;tlinnatrh eie bate on
part
into a Committee
the motion that the House do resolee.
sietth of F-bruarv, 1825
when n
placethe motionin
m y,
on the Catholic question. On
without expressing any objection ttoheth
was made, I stwed " that no change;nattlimteakwe
opinions upon the subject, and I should therefore pursue the
course which I had uniformly pursued, and I must give my
decided opposition to the motion. At the conclusion of
the debate Sir Francis Burdett " said a few Words in
reply. and thanked the Right Honourable Gentlemanfor the candid rammer in which he had declared that
hli
tions went to the principle, and not to the details of ttse°qeeees:
tion of Catholic emancipation. There was, I think, a
considerable majority in favour of
Francis Burdett. My 0;,illion
is the motion made by Sir
the numbers were iu Sir
Francis Burdett's motion 247 to 2 341
the Bill was propose The second raading of
on teBth (,April, 1825, w ben I took
part in the debate; and I
find thisin the report:—" Mr. Peel
expressed his satisfaction at the
rank and candid manner in
which the Hon. Member for Armagh had declarect that his
opinion upon this,ubjecthadundergone a change, but he (Mr.
Peel) had not changed his own opinions
Billuponit, and he could
not, therefore, support the
measure." The was neverthe-
less carried b s a majority of 268 to 241, and the third reading
came on on the 10th of May, 18'25, when I said, " If the
offices of the Executive arid the Crown were reserved to per-
sons who were averse to the Roman Catholic religion, he did
not think there could be any just ground for complaint." I
should state that on several previous occasions I admitted that
I wag not prepared to oppose all the details of the Bill, but

still I thought the chief offices of th 6 ngeeiative
Guverntnent ought to be reserved to persons professing the
• Protestant religiun.a—( Hear, hear.) And the conviction el
to y mind remains unaltered I said that I felt it my duty tc:
pe: severe in my opposition, Well, then, it is not very ptr°_
hable, after such a statement, that I could have gone to I,e__
Earl of Liverpool and said that a change had taken pile°.
ail
my opinion. But it was after the 10th of May, after 111
been in a minority, that I intimated that the continuancel
1,
this division in the Cabinet was objectionable, but, above. at.
that my ewe position at the bead of the Executive
be
Adrnints_
tration of Ireland was intolerable, and I asked to released
from the respoasibilities of office. In 1827 ,amtiael
to
what were the c.reum,tances on which I consent,
remain in office rather than break up a Governs:T
that certainly up to that time had maintained the general cll.':
fidence of the country. It was then resolved that the quest
should await the decision of another Parliament, and that
should remain an open question, every member of the Govern.:
ment being at liberty to pursue his own opinions upon the sup_
ject. It was between the 10th and 20th of May I signified
desire to be relieved from office ; and it was also between those
periodsthat intimated my reluctant consent to re, gin in °E6e49. -
Bat on the 26th of May there was a division in this House oil .
the state of Ireland. The Bill had been sent up to this House
from the Lords : and, in the debate in the Lords, Lord Liver:
poi male the most decided speech against tt e measure thafr
ever he had done, and there was a majority of 40 against the
Bill. This was the language I held at that time to Lord Li-
verpcol on the subject. 1 said " My Hon. Friend now seemed 1°
ex, ect an apology from me for continuing to hold the brine
opinion, and so my Hon. Friend thought it necessary to all
upon me to explain why I changed my opinions after hearing
the evidence of Dr. Doyle. The ground f trmerly held aj);
peered to be utterly untenable." That I stated in th
}ear 1826, in May, in the presence of Mr. Cani!ing,
that I had changed my opinions on this question--( Hear,
hear.) Is it probable that I would utter that lartetiage
to Lovl
the face of Parliament if I had not intimated
Liverpool that my opinion was changed ? I was not prep
ari
to acquiesce in the Roman Emancipation B'il, b/1t e
then showed that I %cis prepared to admit that they shoo.;
eenjoy some freedom. In 1826 there was a general electio
aril in the early period of 1827, before Lord Liverpool's dearly
when I had not the slightest expectation to anticipate se
and melancholy a termination to his political career, came on
the Roman Ca hone question ; and March 6, 15:27-1
it was not until the latter end of March that Lord Liverlsyanott
was rendered inearble of transacting public business-1
this, He, Sir Robert Peel, snnuld st;Jl retain his opinion
r
ona
to the system that the Legislature ought to enforce with rtgos:
to the country. He thought it right again
opinions—certainly common serve said !hat somebin
"that, the
Roman Catholics should be done—that is to sayr
an,rn:tly of the laws betwt-en England anti Ireland Oloul
removed. But in expressing his opinion, he thoW•th!.
right to retain the existing di•abilities as far as relatetl T"
admitting: Roman Catholics to the legislature and to the ale:"
to express
t(t)iibe
of state." If his opinions were unpopular, he had now an oil,
portunity of showtne that he retained the came opinion 001'
And how was it possible that he could have expressed 111°6
opinions wah respect to this Bill, lNiih any view of acquiring
pubic favour, or gratifying, his personal ambition.—( Hears
hear. ) I, myself, fully expected that in Ida 7, we should have
had a minority, as we had in 1825, and was prepared to take
again the same course. namely, to adhere to my own opinions
still, and to r linquish office. •
But to the surprise, I bAeveih",
all parties, in 1827 there was a majority of foes* atlairista.
ut
Roman Catholic belief Bill. I had taken this course
the 'lightest expectation of what was to follow, and I soli 7,;
roainect in the office of Secretary of State for t
Horne Department. Now, that is a Pd
profession of opinion which took place at that tio,e;
Well, now, what lock place between me and Lord Liserre.,.
I stated on Monday night, that if I could find that I had into"
mated any nto Lord Liverpool in writing, that I woncT
produce it. But I said also that the communication ugh'
took place between us was not of a personal nature• for I Wnsi
Momentary
h
in the habit of seeing him every day, and not of making am
formal communications to him. My int ression vvas•
stated on Monday night, that nu coMmuPnication tock Pal
between us in writing on the subject, bat still I undertook, l
there was any communication, to produce it to the H use. Ihts
1
y
w t
eit:s2)l,,,7e,ce
tt three
oaei
these
es t
transactions
a afterwards,ldwwhwaesrni
tsottefrnoC to't,ll7r sLrE:.
speakingni al riyn
poc,i, hut
that had informed him that it was my intention to diseopilec
t
myself from those for whom I entertained esteem, but having
been left in a minority, it was my desire to be relieved from
the office which I held. My resianation was aecepted, and I
did leave office. I think any Gentleman has a right to ask me to
say that there was no written communication from ins to
be asked, haveLor"
Liverpool on the subject. I may you got the
whole of the correspondence which took place between you and
Lord Liverpool at that time ? Why, I ordered the correspoqd;
enee for seven years, under the letter L, to be brought up, ail'
I have searched through the whole of my correspondence, eX'
tending over 7 years, in order to find any correspondence which
had passed between us on the subject. As I said before, I was
in that constant communication wilt Lord Liverpool which
rendered it unnecessary for us to communicate with each other
except verbally. And this I state that there was no letter
waich has the remotest bearing to this subject, or which can
throw any Ight upon it—there is no letter which lam not
ready to pro uce which passed between Lord Liverpool and
myself. I see the letters of 1825; here they are.— (The Right
Hon. Baronet here took a packet of letters from the table and
exhibited them to the House ) Some may think they are not
very material, or they may think they are. I hold the copies
and the or,g•nals in my hand ; I looked at the letters of other
years, but they have no bearing on this subject. Ido then on
my honour declare that no letter passed between Lord Liver!.
pool and myself on this subject which I have not produced,
and I have no hesitation in communicating_ it: e,rfetitO the con-
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 trom the tone of those letters they do give tha slightest
colour to the charge that I had intimated to Lord L:verpool
the change in my opinions. But now—it was on the 10. h
of March, 1825, I h,id then been beaten on the Catholic
claims—there were rumours that Lord Liverpool had ehanged
his opinions. It certainly was material for me to ascertain
that tact, because if really Lord Liverpool's opinions had
changed, and I was in a minority in the House of Commons, it
aas one additional reason for my retirin..z. On the 10th March
1826, I received this letter trom Lord Liverpool. I
will
read it:—

"March 10, 1826.
"My dear Peel,—l return you the report of the Irish
As•ocialion, and in consequence of the appearance of ant
article in the iloining Chronic e of this day, I have caused an
artinle to be sent to the Courier, contradicting the reports in
c.rculation, of any change in my sentiments on Catholic
emancipation.—Very sincerely yours,
" LIVERPOOL."
N.wv, it is not likely that at the time the letter was written
.vbich I have read I had changed my opinions. That letter
was written n 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 suhj-ct
—the other letter—is dated on the 10th of May. 1823, and r
think that it completely rebuts the charge that has been
brought against me of a fondness for office. It will be recol-
lected that 1 vvnt out of office in 1818, when 1 left the duties
of the Secretary for Ireland. I was again invited to return to
office in 1822, after having declined a place in the Cabinet to
Is2l. This next letter is dated on the 191 h May, 1525. On
the 17th May the division took place in th- Lords. This sub-
ject had been discussed, and I was solicited to remain in office
rather than break up the Cabinet. It is dated on the 19th
May, and reads thus

" 19th May, 1825.
"My dear Peel,—l have seen Canning, and should be glad
if you will call on me to-uieht, between nine and ten o'clock,
fur five minutes.—Ever yours, " LIVERPOOL.
"Pray do not trouble yourself to send an answer."
This will surely create some impr.ssion that at that time I had
not changed my opinion, and that I consented to remain in
office, although I had not changed on this subj,,et, but that I
did remain rather than break up the Ministry. This will to
some extent appear from the r.quest which this letter con•
tains, to call upon Lord Liverpool on that night between nine
and ten. It is true that I cannot prune that this letter was
written on that par.-,icular subject—(Loud and continued cheers)
—but surely the House will grant my assertion that such was
the ease,. I have yet another communication which passed be-
tween Lord Liverpool and myself. It is dated on the 2ith of
September, 1825. I find that it is the only one at that time
written upon this subject, and was written in answer to one
from me. It was for wardtd from Walmer Castle.

~Valmer CaFtle.

" (Most confidential.) ".15th Sept.. 182 b.
"My dear Peel,—l return, in another cover, Goulburn's
letters. You may wish to hear from me what I think about
dissolution. In the first place, it must be decided, one Way r
the other, on the 22d, the day of our meetirg I have had
some correspondence with Canning upon the subject ; the in-
clination of his opinion is to put off the dissolution till next
year. lam decidedly for the dissolution now, if the Catholic
friendlyare tow iiltlining
question is to receive the au port. of those wh'4 are generailY,
they the Catholic and corn questions shall Ithheat Government in the next session. But it
re-
main in abeyance during the neat year, and are prepared,
therefore, as to the former, to discourage its being brought on.
and, if brought on, to move a previous question or adjournment
upon it ; in that case I have no desire to press the dissolution
during the present autumn. I say to press the disso ution,
because I think the reasons for and against it are nearly
.nallneed ; and I can readily acquiesce in the decision, whate‘er
it may be. I hear Lord Wellesley is for dissolution now, and
and the whole connexion, for re, y opposite reasons,
decidedly against it.

" Ever sincerely win's,
-"LIV.',RPOOL."
If that be rightly interpreted, can any one s..y to .t at that time
I had changed my opinions? Now, his inferring that my
nothingopitiion o
swfetrheeinchcag
conformity with
against
hinst hism eo.wnThine
Rightl
'25
Pl7Ol
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, but
that if the Catholic qu-stion was not to Le brought on there
would be no dissolution. The Right Hon. Gentleman con-
tinued—These are the three letters which I received front
Lord Liverpool • but they are not such as would be written to it
man who told Cord Liverpool that he was opposed to 'he Cam
thelic clairns.--( Hear, hear ) Now, speaking of 1829, I hold
in my hand a document which will prove this fact—that my
bthyowsa,h.eiriwchaonri,otistiii:s,ratht;:aetbmut I have no let..
whole foundation leaving office would lead to a dissolution of the Ministry. I
am certain that my opinion on this matter was expressed in a
fist
dided tomba
words on this point.
t , conversationo h o
watbkoeetewuieedes
evidence
myselfcotehf.
exact
ekeel°tl7:t
1829. The
o' the
h of the charge ,
Hon. Member for Shrewsbury was
,t I
th
ana
rot now come
dide
ntinm
t et I said, in 1829, th"
I had communicsted to Lord '
Liverpool
in 1825 that the time
ouwas
ht co
tome
be when
done. sornethine r!spec'ing the Catholic question
pre 4 anion these worlds.
am
I°ing' to make no quibbling inter-
Positively deny that I used theist
I
words at all. I assert that did not say in 1829 that the time
was come when someth•
question. Al ' mg ought to be done with the Catholic
Sly impression ' • . . that I
did not e'en mate such ' —to)• sincere imyressione—dat
a statement as that at all.—( Cheers.)
And now I c.rne to the evidence.—( Cheers. ) I request the
House to 10110
which it is vf me, for I want to di.sect the evidence on
founded ; that I really did in 129
make
that
andstate-
ment, that I afterwards .• the in-
garbled a speech with
i ett t ion of ,
pi rverting the fact. Says the Hoa. Gent. the
member for Shrewsbury, "I am making no charge against
toy Right Honourable Friend, but I say that he used
w-h
a_garblrd and mutilated, or to use the softer ,a-gusge of ties
H,
i Sc. a mutilated report of his speech '' y, the speeches
i 4 the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury are difnrent y sported
in diffetent jou tall, and is it just to refer upon such evidence
as this to a pet iod of 20 years before, for werds on which to
t,
found a charge against a Minister of the Croat? The
charge is a . emarkable one, and it is advanced in a most sin;
gular manner. The Hon. Gentl man beenla:, saying that
h, r_verts to this subject with the deepest pain.—(l cniWci,
chC ring . and laughter, wt, ch contitiued t r some time.) , _
says that there are only two a, urces to welch we may refer •°r
the report, of the proceedings in the House at that perie% op.
one was "Hansad," in ,vhich Hon. Members
had
lad th t
portunity of c,rrecting their speeches, but Inc
also which
there was anoteer, " The Mi.ror of Parliament," •
t skilful
the speeches were taken down :n snort-hand by the "105 and in-
sh. ortaand wri'ers, a any of them min of educationur..ed in
telligence, and conversant with the business which °,",„ . 'Pe
I"lii;lne..t. This jeurns' bli h d everr thre'3"•,— •
e. was pu ii, e , . .
thi
a mu hpaiut
Hon. G.ntleinan who introduced • .
s 01 I.)je ctwitn s
says also that he has been making the most careful in-
quirieswi
on this subject. lHe is most honourably connected
,_.
the Prey) which enables him to opal' WI
b stiniti DPG4 1"

point. The Hon. Memleer say: that he has been making de-
liberate inq .ir•es, and that he has anprtatred the reports of the
" Mirror of Parliernent" were contributed by independent gen-
tlemen not connected with the pa`ili, pre-s. As a coese-
(Pence, tliet efore, ens eonfdens aeother. There was evid•.nee
of tha concurrence of these two sets of independent reporters,
and it was remarkable that two independent sets of re•
Porters should have made the same reenrs. And the Hon. Gen-
t', man went on to say, " Sir, I have inquired, and I have
been informed that the report in the • Mirror of Parliament'
to svhith I have referred. was done by Mr. Barrow, one of the
Most finished snore-hand reporters, and a matt of e,iucation
and inteliigence." Mr. Bentleys, unfortunately, is not here;
tad as to the inquiry melte by the Hon. Member, anti 'h.
statement that he had asenertained flea the report was by Mr.
Barrow, I give the most peremptory contretli :don —( Great
cheering,) I den! that the report WAS by Mr. Barrow, who
was the editor o' that paper; an I I believe that he was not
then, althoued I believe he might have been, a reoorter, and
was not in ',tie habit of reporting. The Hon. Gentleman. for
purposehe of adding weight to his charge, had told the
that it was an independent. report of a man of high
character and great attainments. The Hon. Gen'l. men weer
,3r, to say--" However, I had the di•eretion to refer to the re-
port of the speech in one of the mast eminent of the public
papers of the time, and I find the same report under the date
of March 6, 18'29." The lion. Gentleman had thus taken
credit to himself that he was not an indiscreet
man, and did not prefer charses against me on a
report without comparing it with other reports. He to tk
credit to himself for discretion, as he did not make the charge
on a single report, bat ho hod fund the report of the " Times"
confirming and concurrent with the repert of she other indepen-
dent sets of reporters. Is it discreet and just to refer to only
two 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 time—(Cheers)—for which there were
independent reports ; and has he hod the discretion to refer to
One of them ; and in the event of the apparent concurrence of
any Of them t inform the House of the feet? Did he conclude
Vista there was no necessity for further inquiry? Allow me to
ask if the same sense of justice induced you (to Mr. Disraeli)
to examine any other report—to Ink at the report of the
"Morning Chronicle," of the " Morning Herald," of the.
" Morning Post," of the " Morning Journal"—a paper set up
for the purpose of destroying the white success of the measure
I had then in hand? There are four other tedeperalent report',
and I ask you this question—DA you go in search of any
Other papers? And if you eid, why have you not had
the honesty to bring them forward to the House ?
Yon did not do so. Why did you confine yourself to those
reports that seemed to suppert your charge, and net extend
your inquiries to others ? Or if you did, why dirt you not
come forward and stare the feet that every other report but
that to which you referred, though written by the independent
reporters of four newspapers, excluded the words on whieli
the accusation rests ?—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear ") Now
Observe. the wards of " The Times' are, " That the time had
arrived when something, must be dime with the Roman Citho-
lic Question." The 4' Mirror of Parliament" it is said con-
curred with this—thus supporting the accusation by two lode-
Pe'adent reports, and bearing out the charge that I had
lattailated and garbled the speech, withholding the knowledee
of what I really said.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, what
are the versions of these four other jeurnels whose retorts were
furnished by independent parties ? The " Herald's" report
says, " So tar as he was personally concerned, in 1825, when
he was at the head of the Horne Department, he must state
that, regarding the Catholic question. he felt his situation was
Untenable. He did not seek ( the" Times" says " I did seek")
'—he did not seek to retain office, and he told the Earl of Liver-
pool that, in hie opinion, • he time had come when he ought to
be relieved from the duties of office— Loud cheers )—as }t-
ins in a minority on that question. The Earl of Liverpool
told him that his retirement from office would proleibly lead to
a dissolution of Parliament." This speech was one of four
hours' length ; and I must observe, that however able and care-
ful reporters may be in the execution of their duties, and dis-
posed to do justice, it is impossible for them to avoid mistakes
of this kind It is quite clear, from the extract I have given,
that the remark of which so much had been made meant no-
thing but a dissolution of the Government.—( Hear, hear.)
The " Morning Chronicle" says, " As far as my personal con-
duct is concerned, in 1825, when I was Minister of the Horne
Department, respecting the Catholic question before the House,
I felt that from my situation, and the intimate connexi •n of
"%y office with the adminstration of affairs in Ireland, and find-
ing myself in a minority on that question, 1 considered the
state of things was such that it was right I should be re ieved
from the respoaslole situation I held. I told Lord Liverpool
that the time had arrived when I should be relieved
frem the responsibility of office. This, I was told
by Lord Liverpool, would break up the whole Administration,
so far as he was concerned." Is it necessary that I should
had it all ?—(No, no ; go on.) " He mum, state that in the
. 1825, when he was Minister of the Home Department, he
Land himself in a minority, and feeling the difficulty of his po-
sition, charged as he was with the atim'nistration of affairs in
leland, and that he thought the time had come when he
should seek to be relieved from the responsibilities of his office,
!t,ud that he had stated to the Earl of Liverpool that the time
had arrived, in consequence of finding himself in a millo-
'tv
tbl2 upon a subject intimately connected with the
s anagement of Ireland, and that the Earl of
Liverpool 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 my
ersonal
825 conduct is concerned, I can state, that in the year
,when I was Minister in the Home Department, I was in
a minority or, the Catholic quest on in the House of Commons.
and I felt that my situation as a Minister in the office which
then held, charged as I was with the administration o 4
affairs in Ireland, that I found myself in a minori•y upon n
question of the greatest importance, which, in reference to the
'"ale of the country could engage my attention ; and that I
''ustht to be relieved' from the respensibilities of my situation.
I then told the Earl of Liverpool that one thing must be done,
that 1 should be relieved from the duties of my office.
It was stated upon tha' occasion that my retirement would
lead to their retirement.—(Cheers.) You hare now the exact
taneurrence of three other morning papers, all omitting tha
k''''ag•e which in itself was certaielts of an eqtrivocal nature.
pton have then the concurrence of four other morning papers.
_all. employing separate and independent reporters, all agreeing
th marvelious accuracy in the context of what I said, omit-
tWi
ing that passage. If there was a paper which reported lode-
Pendently and separately, which did lend its sanction to th
report of another paper, the absence of the passage in foot
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. There is something singular
in the fact, that if Mr. Barrow was an independent reporter
and if there was a certain class of reporters reporting separatelv•
that they did not arrive at the same conclusion. I deny the
fact that Mr. Barrow made these reports, also that thene was s
separate c,ass of reporters employed on the " Mirror of Par
liament."—( Loud cheers.) I have inspired up n the subject
as well as the Hon. Member. I state this fact. I state it
positively, and I will demonstrate it to you that Mr. Barroc
did not report my sentiments upon this occasion. —(Hear.
hear,) But wait till I state the fact. The " lirror of Par-
l•ament" had not a distinct corps of reporters. Now I will stab,
this fact that the reporters of the " Morning Chronicle," an'
the reporters of the " Times" were in cennexion with tht
"Mirror of Parliament;" that they did not make separate re-
ports ; no, of course it would have been absurd ; that they
met together, comparing each others report, and that then
sent to the " Mirror of Parliament" that which gave the fullest
report of one part of the speech, and that which give the Niles'
report of another.—( Hear, hear.) The reporters of the " Mir-
ror of Parliament" concocted from the reports of the " Morn-
ing Chronicle" and " Times." Now that is the information
Which has reached me, and which I era establish by most ex •
ceptional authority. Now, is it right that any man shouls
labour under the charge that, for unworthy purposes, he ha.
garbled a particular speech ; but, more than all, is it right that
a Minister of the Crown—an active Member of this Howe—
should be cempellsd, in the middle of a session of Parliament.
to go out of his ordinary course, to disprove such a palpably un-
fontided charge ?—( Hear, hear.) But I have (lone it ; and I
will prove to you, by taking the reports of the " Mirror of Par-
liament" itself, and comparing them with the reports of ths
"Morning Herald," the " Morning Chronicle," and tin
" Times," that the report of the " Mirror of Parliament" is nce
an independent report, but rather the concocted report of th,
reporters of those three papers. I will prove that whole
passages are taker, with scarcely any alterationsv of the
Words, except altering " he' into " I, or ehaneine
the person. I will prove to you, that withou
any alteration, some part!, are taken
Chronicle,"
Mernine
Herald," others from the Morning (ahronicle, and some
parts from the " Times " I will strove this by showing you
that the part taken from the 44 Times," which, I believe, wo•
taken by Mr. 'ryas, is copied with its accidental mistakes,
is faithfully copied into the 4, Mirror of Parliament," only
changing he " into " I." I will 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 pa-
pers were employed upon the " Mirror of Parliament "—that
they were not independent—that they did not make separate
reports—but that, after the business of the day was over, and they
had written their reports for the morning papers, the reporter,:
of these morning papers met together, and conuocted the re-
port for the " Mirror ofParliament,"which was not published
for a day or so afterwards. ( He
does not the argument altogether ' hear. ) Well, now, then.
break down—( Hear, hear)
—is it not the same report?—(Hear, heart—and the report of
the" Times " is not confirmed by the, adoption of the same
report by the " Mirror of P' rliament. ' Or did I garble ms
speech, by striking out what I. had not uttered, and in which I
was borne out by the author try of four other papers,
aria also by the "Morning Chronicle," which I was accustomed
to look to in matters
of the assertion of the"f thiskind. Well, then, what becomes C
Gentleman with reference to
the corrected report, and with regard to the note which he
read out, that it wits inserted with ihe permission of Secretary
Peel, as if to say, I had sent to Hansard
1. But the facts of
1 .
my c rrected report,
7
and begged of ban, in a inote, ton-ert
the ca,e are there :--11r. Murray, of Albemarle-street, pub-
hatted the speech, and there was a jealousy about the copyright;
ana Hansard had no right to publish it, but he applied to me
fur my permission, and I got Mr. Murray to give his consent
to the publication.—( Loud and continued' cheering.) And the
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 comPlaln',,
brit we find the "Times'' reporter, the man who has made the
mistake, regrets that Mr. Secretary Peel's voice
was area- li
sionally so lew, that he was but indistinctly heard in the gal-
lery--( Hear, hear, and loud cheers)—and nineteen years after-
wards I am to be maligned and condemned ; and why P because
there was a deaf reporter on the " Times "—( Tremendou•
cheering.) Every other reporter did it correctly. The
4, Times" reporter made the mistaki%d
the man who said my
voice was indistinctly heard. Oct A
night I heard tor
the first time that there was any discrep between these
reports; and am I to be denounced as a
of the truth, because I took the authority of i,) asur a suppressor
confirmed by my own impressions? Welt, I thTifkainit one,
have
suffiiently cleared myself of these imputation,( Loud
cheers,
Now, I think I have dispe ed of Mr. Barrow and his irid,',)
dent report—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—and I think 111:v;
denied the allegation too that there was a separate band of
reporters aloof from the newspapers—( Hear, hear)—m„ki,a
independent reports ; and I now come to the speech of my
Hon. Friend Sir Edward Knatchhull. Well, as I said, I
went through a 1 these fierce confltets. I never heard this
charge preferred, except it was preferred on that occasion, cn
the 16th of Nllrch ; but if it was preferred then, it was the
only time during the conflicts on the Catholic question. But
heard that in 1829 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
delivered at that time. I take the Mirror of Parliament,"
I said in 1829, after the House of Commons had come to the
d-cision I have stated, that in 1822 I was prepared to take tie
course which Uhad been prepared to take in 1825, namely, t..
resign my office. But what di 1 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 follow irg
day I was questioned as to why I had stated that 'ln
1845 my opinion had changed ; but the natural question was
put to me, " If you are now prepared to grant Catholic Emen-
cipetion, why del you not grant it in 1e27. when Mr. Ginnie:,
was in favour of it ; k, twit t here were just as etroeg reasons
for it as there are now?" Why that was the question put to
the Earl of Uxbridge On the night after the 16th of March.
It wart rat by b\ir Edward Knattbbnli, Yott pill find my

answer in the reports of the speech of the following day, and
! hew would that rec incite with the other statement.? Well,
no e, with respect then to the speech of nay Hon. Fiend ell.
E {ward Knatchliull. I am vire convinced that he is utterly
ineepable ot garbling or mutilating a speech. I think that you
will rind that this is a corrected rep ,rt of the speech ; and cer-
tainly in that speech he (lees assume the statement to be made
by me on the preceding day the 15th of March, that I
had seed these words that the " T:rnes" impuies to me.
B it if he had read the " Mirror of Parliament"
he would have fount that it did not agree with the " Times."
Bat niy.v will the lism. Gentleman allow me to ash him another
question ? As he thought, he ha't no right to confirm the
rimert of the " Mirror of Parliament' by a referenve to the
" Times," with regard to my speech, did he take the same
coarse welt ree,rd to it as Sir Edward Knetchbutl?-4 Hear,
bear.) Observe, he did not trust to the " Mirror ot Perlis-
Irises" to prefer his accusation against me. But my Hon.
Friend Sir E. Knatchbull said that he had had the discretion
to refer to the " Tunes."
for the purpose ot saeing whether
!hat eminent public news
paper confirmed the report of the
" elirror of Parliament." Well, now, did the Honourable
Gentleman take the same course with regard to the
Times" as had bsen done by ?sir Edward Knatchbull ?
With regard .o Sir E {war ! Knatchbull, why d d the Noble
L ird not take the same c urea with res iect to me, and see
whether the :trims reports of the speech agreed with ea, h
. th r ? :Sere is th sp ech of Sir Edward Knatchbuti, and itot
one word of accu'ation is inought age nst me in it.—(C seer .)
This 1, the report of Sir Edward Knatchlm l's speech in the .
" Times." " With refer coca o the accounts he alluded to. he
asked the Right Hon. Gentleman, if the state of Ireland and i
'hi, country w ,re this reasons for his policy, if he ought not, in
ju,tice to the country, to have coeceiled the s. atho is claims in
rho time of Mr. Cloning ? He wished to a-k the question
which he put the ot er day. If his accounts of the state of
Irelant. as it existed at t ie preee 4 dry, were true, why lid he
lee support _.to-e claims when t hey received the suport e f Mr.
Can .ing ?—( Hear, hear. ) If the Honuurahle Genlemen
!lel net then discovered the necessity for c ,ncession, why
did he oppose Mr. Canning on other groan s, which he
had since abandoned? Canning was the powerful, the c in-
sistent advocate of the Catholics, and if the Right lion.
Gentleman en 1b29 had reason fir adopting the line of policy
of that distinguished statesman, why did he not as readily do
cc in 1627, when Mr. Canning supported him ?" Now, I
have referred to other reports. 1 did not find it in the " Morn-
iug Herald," but in the " Morning Journal," Sir Edward
Knatchbuilis reported to have said, " I say, then, in reference
to that period, that if the policy of conceding the claims of the
Catholics were so strong as the Hon. Gentleman describes, in
common justice to the it iuntry, and ;n common justice to him-
self, that was the moment he should have conceded them, when
Mr. Canning, who was the able, the consistent advocate of
those claims, first introduced the measure into Parliament. I
do not consider such concession expedient or necessary, and
such was my opinion before it was again brought forward in
1827." Now, Sir, then if the reports in the " Mirror of Par-
lenient " were is point of fact the compilation of the previous
seporrs of newspapers—it is rather hard to condemn me be-
eause it now appears—( because I declare I had not the slightest
conception of that on the 16th of March. 1627, although the
seports of the marring papers, at least the " Morning
Heraid," and if the "Times," do not attribute that expression
io Sir Edward Knatchbull)—it is rather hard to impute to
tie, that I remain silent under a charge which, as far as my
recollection serves me, was 'never uttered.—( Cheers.) He
hegins the speech, " I am desirous to state as shortly as I can, '
+he reason why I oppose further omissions." I am not pre.
'cored to say that my Right Hon. Friend was
absent, but be it as it may, I am sure my
stiaht Honourable Friend is quite incapable ot
attributing or mutilating any speech. e ell now, Sir, I have
gone through the charges b-ought against me.—( Loud cheers )
Under the disads antages which I have laboured in going into
these different reports, the charge against me being the dis-
erepincy of a newspaper report published seventeen years ago,
it is probable I might have failed. —( Cheers ) I might have
believe I that the " Mirror of Parliament" hid not a separate
band of reporters, and induced gentlemen connected with the
eress, not connected with me in politics, to give them intorma.
'ion of the speeches delivered in Pa.rhament. This it is which
-cables ma to dispose of Mr. Bas Tow, that great reporter, anti
' I; e " Mirror of Parliament " This it is which e'nable's me to
dispose of the " Mtrrer of Parliament," and to se.atter to the
winds the assertion that the " Mirror of Parliament" had a
sand of reporters separate from the newspapers. .This it is which
eneblss me to shatter to pieces the misrepresentatione of the
• Times," and tee prove that its report was different from the
ober morning newspapers. 1 have proved that this report
was made by two persons, who each reported the same speech
iii a different manner ; that this speech, as it appears in the
" Mirror of Parliament," was made up from the " Horning
Chronicle," the " Morning Herald," and the " Times." I
lave proved, in the course of my observations, that so tar from
'here being a separate band of reporters for the " Mirror
-)1 Parliament." that it took its reports from the
" Times," and adopted and inserted them as its own.
sod thus I have accounted for the equivocal expressions which
Appeared in the "Mirror of Parliament." Wnen the Hon.
Gentleman in the course of his speech attempts by the repre-
ssntation of his affection for the memory of Mr. Canning, we
all feel b tund to respect the motives by which every .lian in
nis position may be actuated. No one can tail to participate
in feelings such as these which he has appealed to. The Hon.
Gentleman has described Mr. Canning as an eagle. fie has
-tared that he was as the rider of Bucephalus. Why one
would suppose that Mr. Canning had devoted the whole of
its intellectual faculties to the purposes of private study alone.
1 am quite ready to grant ail the credit to which Mr. Canning
is entitled, and I am now also ready to submit to the assertion
hat these feeengs are entitled to consideration and regard. I
.on ready to grant that those feelings of affection and respect
which eso en ertain for any particular object are likely to be
enhanced ; according as the time grows remote those feelings
;row stronger and leore permanent in their character. But,
ir, I would ask, why. if the lion. Gentleman dues entertain
hose feelings —why, if such are the sentiments of the Hon.
7tentlemen, has he retained them for twenty years after the
leads of Mr. Canning for the purpose of wounding a pelitical
ipponent ?—( Immense cheering.) I ask why, in describing
nese feelings—which in themselves are entitled to esteem and
espect-1 say, ally has he retained them for inflicting a
slow on me, and fir exciting by their expree ion general odium
gains, me, and rallying round himself the great influence o'
white sycapethy ?_( Immense cheering. ) But, Sir, I am jus-
ilied in saying that instead of public sympathy he has roused,
with hardly an excepien, an unmitigated indignation, and
.n expression of the public sense of the means by which the
lelu.ion was attempted, and an abhorrence at the perversi,m of
teat which is AO sacred in itself for such a purpose. I will
Recharge my character from the suspicion which the Hon.
;entleman would attach to me. But when the Hon. Gen-
lernan goes to a home on a certain day nieeteen years ago, I
gill not descend to follow him.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Nhen the Hon. Gentleman speaks of certain dinners, and par-
,cularives where they were held, I hope the House will not
dame me for not following him.—e Cheers.) I will not re-
•aiiate on the Hon. Gentleman; I will simply content myself
tilt having defended my character by reading the documents
ipon which these charges have been founded.—( Hear, hear.)
I now entreat the House that as I have no opportunity to an-
ster fresh csiarges, that it will su•penci its judgment, should
ueh charges be brought forward, till I shale leave an oppo t.tl
~ty, by your kind indulgence, of again making my defence.
The Right Hon. Gendemaa resumed his seat amidst great
cheering.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK rose, but for some minu'es
eitild not proceed, in cons-quence of the cheering with which
he Right Hon. Baronet was greeted on the conclus on of his
peeeh. Silence having been at last restored, the Noble Lori
.lid—Sir, the charge that was origidally made against the
Right lion. Baronet was made by the humble individual who
low addresses you, and not by my Hon. Friend who sits beside
ne. It was my lion. Friend who rose to defend me ag 'inst
he at'ac.k of toe Right Hon. Baronet. I think, therefore, that I
he House will agree with me that it becomes me, rather than
ny Hon. Friend, to get up, and to madr ain the charge which
_as advanced in the first instance.—(lronical cheering, cries of
•‘ Oh, eeh l" and much confusion.) Sir, I was not in this
louse in the year 1827—1 was not a Member of this House in
eiat year, but I was a Member of this House iii 1828. I was a
{(ember of this House in 1829, and 1 heard the speech of the
Right [lon. Baronet. I heard the question asked him by the
~arl of Uxbridge. 1 heard his answer to that question. I heard
he speech—the crushing speech—of Sir Edward Knatchbull,
end I heard the Right Hon. Baronet's answer to that speech.
l am prepared to show by the internal evidence in those re-
worts that the sta einsnt I made was the correct. truth.—
He a-, hear.) Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet has said that Mr.
Barrow was not the reporter who gave this speech. Why, I
'resume that there is no Hon. Member in this House who
toes nut know that in a speech of four hours not one, bat
four, or six, or eight, or twelve different reporters may be en-
;aged. When. therefore, my [lot. Friend spoke of Air. Bar-
ew as the gentleman who furnished that report, he spoke of
him only as at the head of that establishment, and not as the
seporter—(Cries of " Oh, oh")—not as the man who himself
reported that speech, but as the principal person connected
with that journtel. But I appeal to those reports, and I take
' Hansard" as it is. I take the " Mirror of Parliament" as I
tind it, anti I will endeavour to show by the internal evidence
.f the reports in these papers. that I have not imputed to the
Right Hon. Baronet that which may not be fairly inferred from
the speeches themselves. When 1 m ide the charge against
'he Right Hon. Baroeeet I had referred to the " Mirror of
Parliament," and nothing else. I was not aware that " Han-
sard" hail been corrected by the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir,
what does the Right Hon. Baronet say in the outset of his
-peech, in his very first paragraph. He says, " So far as 1
em personally concerned, I beg to say, that my own course on
•his question is the same as that which I suggested in 1825."
Another paragraph stated, that in 1829—(and we all know what
vas the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet)—•hat in
1829 his course was the same as in 1825. But, Sir, before I
go on, I shall confirm this by a reference to " Hansard ;" and
•' Hansard" says :—" As far as my own course on this ques-
ion is concernecl,it is the same as that suggested to me in 1825."
The evidence of the Right Hot . Baronet in his awn corrected
repo t, as we.l as in the report of the " Alirror of Parlia-
ment," wit, that the c(eirses he pursued in 1829 and in 1825
were the same The Right Hon. Baronet has told you
that they were not indepie dent reporters on that paper, but
that, according to has belief, all the reporters got together and
e impared their reports, and that the result of their labours
was put in the " Mirror of Parliament," as it was always the
fullest report. What better evidence could I have had to
prove the correctness of the " Mirror of Parliament" than
that of the Right Hon. Baronet? The Right Hon. Baronet
goes on to say—" After the /louse of Commons came to the
decision which I have stated in 182 S, I was prepared to take
' the course which I was prepared to take in 1825. With this
addition I intimated to the Noble I,uke at the head of his Ma-
jesty's Government that
I was not only prepared, but Anxious
retire from off oe, seeing the current of public opinion in
't?vour of the Catholic claims; and in whatever situation I
' "
'night find myself, I could no longer be justified in opposing
myself to its voice. After this comes what the Right Hon.
Baronet did not read.ee The Right Hon Baronet did
ce. He
not pursue the said, to this duty, and to
this great object,
he was prepared to make a sacrifice
seet
his c nsistency an
settlement of the qaesti d his friendship for whatever would pro-
of-
du
on that was undertaken; and he,
ce a
ent be, t su
fir one, was pre pared in whatever position he might
thldin the Proteo stap-
et
port any measure for the purpose of u ', o i,;
Establishment. Here is his own admission—that tie had see.,
the time was come when, in his o d
nion, some
concession ought
to be made to the Roman Catholics, while, In 1825, he was
prepared to retire from office to leave others to carry out the
Catholic ernA .' • in 1829, he said that he was pre
iiimsor , ni ipation. But,
i ° Carry it. The Right Hon. Baronet has refined to
a question which had b
given to the Earl f • d had
been a=k,d, and an answer which he
that the Noble Ear[
Uxbridge. On the 6th of March he said
course
to he t ink asked why he did not take, in 1827, the
consent to assist Mr. ni'''.lo f and why, in 1-.127, he did not
.(armingin
anl carrying out the Catholic carrying
on the Government
Right lion baronet re ii:d question. To this question the
that occurred in 1827 P ----" Between the eireurnstanees
and those which there is this materiel differ, ocou-red in 1828
time Mr. Canning merle thisge': le 1827, at the
subject hail been d ssits•e I in the [l, use 'ir
to
'TU.'
r the,
new Parliament, and I had been in a i‘itt;,.,e. ot. esornmons of
to
a minority in 182 e. And in 1828, theret'o'r'e"ti in 1827 and in
which I took in 1825." He (Lord G. Bentinektookh the course
had only to
read to ascertain the course the Right Hun. Bar)o s
1828, In 1828, when he proposed to retire, he saidthenitook in
time
had now come when a new House of Commons was disposed
favour the claims of the It sman Catholics, and the tou to,
. Lords sipoorict i I,e emicession. The Rislst Hon. flsr, net House
~,°.
i said that an attempt sheltie be made L. beltir e !lc Cpcbilol, 11
to that attempt he would lend himself.—( Hear, hear.)' and
1825 he took a similar course ; and in 1828 he took the same
muse as in 1823, In 103 he alto took the id t'NA 1 on (mute

which he did in 1827, when he said that the time had come when
something ought to be dene to settle the question. There ap-
pea ed, therefore, the strongest probability of the correctness
of what he ( Lord G. Bentinck ) had stated in reference to the
oppesition of the Right Honourable Baronet. to this Catholic
realms to 1824.—( Hear, hear.) In support of what he
had stated, he would refer to what took pace
in 1531. when 'he Right lion. Gentleman the Member for
Edmhurgh (Mr Macaulay) spoke in favour of the Reform
Bill, aid alluded to the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet.
The Right Hon. Baronet then went into a statement of his con-
' duet. in 1828. He said he had left in 1828 on acsount of his
views on the Roman Catholic question, but that the time had
of a rived when he could explain the cire.urnstaeees that
led to it. But he might state that his opinions on
the question of the Cat holiee laims remained unchanged,
but he thought that there would be danger to the country, and
the stability of i'.s institutions in further resisting the measure.
His opinions were unchanged, but he had doubts of resisting
the measure for fear that greater evils might arise.--( Hear,
hear. ) His opinions were the same as they had ever been, even
at the time wren he asked Parliament to consent to the pass-
ing of the measure of Catholic Emancipation. The Hon.
Uenther then read at considerable length a letter written by
the Right Hon. Baronet to his Grace the Duke of Wellington,
in which he urged upon his Grace the necessity ola speedy settle-
ment of the lonseagitated qaestion of Cathulie Emancipatien.
hut that he (S hr R. Peel) considered that. it would affect his
character as a public man if after his exoression of opinion on
the subject on a former occasion, he should undertake the con-
ducting of the Bill in the House of Commons. The Right
Hon. Baronet had written a letter to the Earl of Liverpool,
which he also read to the Howe, in which he stated that if the
Noble Earl considered it would promote the success of the Bill,
he would resign and support it, regardless of any effect which
such a course might have upon his character as a public man.
The Noble Lord ( George Bentinck ) proceeded t ask, were
the memories of Hon. Gentlemen so fickle that they had for-
g itten that in the autumn of le2e the Right lion. Baronet
made a triumphant progress through the country as the
apostle of Protestant ascendency? Had Hon. Gentlemen forgot,
had the country forgot, would they ever forget, that he acted as
he had previeusly acted in 1527 towards Viscount Canning,
when he had the assurance to go down to Manchester, and
dined at a large puhlic dinner as the champion of Protestant
ascendancy ?—( Cheers ) When the Right Honourable Baronet
talks of the probity of his conduct, how could Hon. Members
of that House answer for the probity of the conduct of a Gen-
tleman who stood there convicted of having gone through all
the manufacturing districts, dining there at great public dinners
as the Prote.stant champion, after he had in the summer of that
year made up his mind to carry Catholic emancipation. He
wanted to know whether a snuff.box would have been pre-
sented to him front Liverpool—from Nlr. Hellingshead, he be
lieved —whether he would have received these assemblies—se
would have been fi'tsd and honoured with all these dinners
by the Protestants and Orangemen of the country, if they had
anticipated that in the summer of 1825 he had made up his
mind to carry Catholic emancipation? There was then an end
of the Right Honourable Baronet's defence.—(Cries of " Oh,
oh.") Hon. Gentlemen might cry " Oh, oh," but did they ,1
rember the pledges they had given to their constituents ; would
their constituents cry " Oh, oh ?"_..( Cheers. 1 He would now
go back to the speech of Sir Edward Knatchbull. The
Right lion. Baronet had said Sir Edward Knatchbull could
not have been present when he made his speech, or
he would not have addressed the House in the tone and
manner he did. But did the Right Hon. Baronet get up at the
time to complain of this, or to make any explanation ?—( Cheers.)
Bat the Right Hon. Gentleman never touched that part of
the speech in which Sir E. Knatchbull imputed to him that con-
duct towards Mr. Canning. He has never answered that
charge--it never can be answered. Sir E. Knatchbull said,
that if his opinions had been changed. he ought, in justice to
himself, in justice to his friends, in justice to Mr. Canning,
who was the able and constant advocate cf the measure,
to have conceded it. If, as he says now, that he considered
in 1825 the quest on ought to have been coeceded, why did he
riot think so in 1127, when the supposed difference with Mr.
Canning upon this point obtained fur him the meat powerful
support, which I coofess, said Sir E. Knatchbull, " to have
been the case with me; and if we are to be secured by our con.
sessions to Catholics. from their gratitude, why not. concede
the measure through the hands of those who have been its con-
stant advocates, and who would have looked upon it as a boon
coming from them, but who could not view it in such a light
coming from the hands that it did, with the
confession that it was retorted from them ?"—( Hear, hear.)
Then, when be said that they should look to the report in
" Hansard," he knew that it was not all couched in the same
language with that in the " Mirror of Parliament," but the
si oast of it was the same. It was as follows :—" The Right
Hen. Gentleman, however, said that. even then (that was in
1825) he was satisfied something must be done to conciliate
Ireland. If, then, he was satisfied as to the necessity of con-
ciliation, and if he was thus abandoned by his supporters, why
did he not consent, and lend his assistance to Mr. Canning in
the accomplishment of that object?"--(Hear, hear.) But
was that the only comment that was made upon the conduct of
the Right Hon. Baronet ? There was at that time, in that
House, a warm supporter of Protestant ascendancy, Mr.
Michael Thomas Sadler—( Hear)—and what was the language
that Mr. Sadler used on this occasion ? Why, he said, " Long-
winded orations, passages which led to nothing—( Hear)—
coeld never set this matter in an honest light before the
country.—(Cheers.) They can comprehend it as little as
the question of emancipation, in which they are declared to be
so ignorant aed besotted. They were, however, beguiled by
Peel's explanation. So was I. I was one of them. I thought
the conduct of the Noble and Right Hoc. individual concerned
sacrificed a principle to consistency. What it was it is
not worth while to inquire, since it wss anything rather than
that. It is now too late to rectify the error ; all that remains
is to regret most deeply that those who have so secretly, sud-
denly, and unceremoniously deserted us should have so con•
ducted themselves with regard to that highly-gifted individual,
unhappily now no more, as one who ought not to serve his
king and country as the head cf the Government, because he
was favourable to a measure and now so indecently forced upon
the country." Mr. Sadler said, "I do heartily repent of my
share in it, and the too successful attempts to hunt.
down so noble an individual—a man whom England,
and the world would not fail to recognise as its orna-
ment ; whose eloquence was, in these days at. least, unrivalled;
the energies of whose capacious mind, stored by knowledge and
enervated by genius, were devoted to the service of his country;
the qualities of whose generous heart led those who spoke of
them to feel the warmth of his friendship, which, I believe,
mould only be equalled by its stability. Had I had the honour
of having a seat in the House at that time, I should have con-
scientiously opposed him on that occasion, but with feelings
very different from those who then opposed him. Those gen-
tlemen who said it was impossible to act with such a
Minister, and for reasons which vitiate their present
doings, implying therefrom that as the transaction with
such a person the annals of our country could not
furnish so disgraceful a page. But, passieg to his memory, my
humble tribute is paid when it can can be no longer heard or
regardcsl—when it is drowned by the voice of interested adu-
lation, poured only into the ears of the living. But his
character is rescued, and rises in triumph over surviving—
what shall I call them? Let their own consciences supply the
name."—( Loud cheers.) That was the comment of Mr.
Sailler—( Hear )—upon this same spei ch of the Right Hon.
Baronet ; and it might be remembered too by those who heard
Mr. Sadler wind up another soul-stirring speech to the same
effect. The speech in the " Mirror of Parliament" was no
doubt the speech of the Hon. Baronet, collected from all the
reports supplied to the newspapers by all the reporters
in that gallery (said the Noble Lord, pointing to the
reporters' gallery). Then it was not attempted to be
denied that the speech in " Hansard" was also correct. But
in 1828 the Hon. Baronet did what he hail done in 1n25, with
this addition, namely, that ha was prepared to pass the measure
thromsh Parliament. There could be no doubt now, that the
communication referred to was a verbal one, and that his resig-
nation was tendered in a written statement. This case must
stand on its own intrinsic merits. The Right Hen. Baronet
had said that a reporter of the " Times" was a deaf reporter,
but it should be known that it was the practice of reporters
only to take their notes for a quarter of an hour at a time.
This paragraph occurred far down in this four hours' speech,
whereas the Right Hon. Baronet was alluding to the mistakes
that occurred in the early part of the report. He had compared
the report in the " Times" and in " Hansard," and he found
that there were 66 words in one report. and only 38 in the
other. This sufficiently proved to hie, that the report
ad been tampered with. When the Right Hon. Baronet
WAS qu ding " Hansard " against him, he had looked him
s'eadey in this face, to sea what effect the witness of that
book would have upon him. He read steadily enough whilst
quoting what passed in 1827, but when he came to what passed
in 1829, he would not say the book almost fell from his hi nds,
hut he threw it from hint as if afraid any longer to retain it in
his grasp.—(Cheers. )
Sir W. JAMES rise to order. The Noble Lord, he con-
ceived, might state facts, but he had no right to speak of
feelings.

The SPEAKER decided that his Lordship might proceed.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK—The Right Honourable
Baronet had acknowledged that he had altered that
report in " Hansard," for there was a note to that
effect at the bottom of the page. That speech way severely
dealt with by Sir Edward Knatebbull, and was much ques-
tioned by a Noble Lord. He held with no such double-iteal-
ins; as this by a Minister high in the confidence of his Sove-
reign. The Right Hon. Gentleman was a great reformer of
the criminal law, and he pleaded the Statute of Limitations
on the charges which had been brought against him. The
Right Honourable Baronet should bear in mind that the
law of limitations only applied to the law of debtors, and not
to criminal offences. The Right Hon. Baronet had com-
mitted two offences—they were great in magnitude, and he
should bear in mind that the country would not forgive two
great crimes. He (Lord G. Bentinek) had been charged
with bringing up an old offence with regard to the name of
Mr. Canning. Had he done so without provecation—had
lie mare one charge that was not borne out in fact? He was
there not to melte false charges; but while he had the honour
of a seat in that House, he would denounce political profligacy.
Tne Right Honourable Baronet had charged him with using
language unbecoming a Member of that House. When
the Honourable Speaker was first proposed to sit in
that Ch sir, he (Lord G. Bentinck) voted against
him, for the Right Honourable Gentleman was then
untried. He was, however, elected by a small majority, and
the next time the Right Hon. Gentleman was proposed, he
(Lord G. Bentinek) voted for him, because his decisions had
always been ttost impartial. With such a Right Hon. Gentle-
man in that chair, he (the Noble Lord) believes! that language
unbecoming a Member of that House could not be used
without calling for his interference.—( Hear, hear. ) Ho had
used no language but what was quite legitimate and just.—
( Hear, hear.) He used langnat'e denouncing the political
profligacy of those who had sold their constituencies.
Mr. ESCOTT—Who sold,them—who ?
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK—You ask me who, and I
say you, sir. I have the honour of being one of your con-
stituents, and I have the means of learning some of the secrets
of the city of Winchester He had made such a c ise as the
Bight Hon. Baronet failed to answer so as to disprove it, and
he was now willing, and he was now ready, to leave it to the
judgment of an impartial English public.—( Cheers.)
Sir JOHN H INMER said that the Noble Lord was very
partial to making a comparison between his own speeches and
those of Mr. Fox ; but he (Sir John Ilanmer) differed in
opinion with the Noble Lord as to the force and vigour of the
speeches of both. He was prepared to prove that the Noble
Lord had spoken to the electors of Lynn as a supporter of the
Right Hon. Baronet. He was not one to rake up old
speeches, as he but occasionally dipped into the newspapers,
and then only for the speeches of a few leading Ministers, and
their leading opponents. But he had been induced to depart a
little oat of his usual course to inquire whet the Noble Lord
had said to hispeechee, seeing that he had been so ready to
quote the spee
, "
his
of other parties. He would read an
extract of a speech .it the Noble Lord given in the Norfolk
yth3t; Id distinctly said. that in l''3s he
IsSolbll.e
LToh. (. speech.
vwas spoken at the Lynn
e Ministry of the day.
was elected to support the Conservative
at
,Citi,,rttotoi)ttelr
and
that time the Right
New, let the Meuse bear in m ed that.
Hon. Hart. was at variance with• Lord ' ,
and all the leading
Noble Lord (Lord George Bentin7k) had represented as his
S anloy whom the
Right Hon. Baronet on the
Member for Lynn ruiported the
political leader. He f ,und also that the Noble Lord the
motion for electing Manners Sutton as Speaker of the House,
Ly the Right - B motions of the o
therefore,
not Hon,
Baronet. The Noble Lord was,
not innocent of the charges'.
Tsleen".wlhlaat"te thet
realssentientsments against the Right
1,--ict'nn . that
,0
,niC,
hai 1
a -ea, deal had I ' 'aid sl»tit a eistieral
: brought
ort sne
t.rhv,
ena t,
pi i vea eot
ghp.l party,
England o n
it woo J hi
in relation to the Bight H
on. Baronet poled bins. and those who now op-