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

COMMISSIONER,

In answer to Mr. W. 0. STANLEY'S inluiry as to the
truth of some of the allegations which appeared a few days ago
in the Times relative to the conduct of this individual in his
management of a certain private lunatic asylum in the north of
Lancashire,

Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was quite willing ti• produce
copies of any documents which migh have reached his
hands in reference to Mr. Mott during the time that
he was employed by the Poor-law Commissioners, which was
now four years ago. A most gross statement had appeared in
the Times a few days ago (but no doubt unintentionally), in
which it was represented that Mr. Mott some years ago corn
menced a newspaper, under his (Sir J. Graham's) patronage.
He had to' state, in answer to that, that Mr. Mott was per-
sonally unknown to him, and that he had ceased to bean Assis-
tant Poor-law Commissioner for nearly four years. This error
no doubt arose from the facts which he would state to the
House. Mr. Aloft, on the 11th of March, 1843, became the
editor of a weekly paper which was called the Poor Law Guide.
It was printed, he believed, by Messrs. Bradbury and
Evans, of London, and he believed that it was
edited by Mr. Osborne, who also resided in London.
This was in March, 1843. On the Ist of October, 1843,
another periodical, called tke Union Gazette, was pub-
lished, edited by a gentleman named Marriott, which
contained notices with reference to paupers who had
deserted their families ; and the Board of Guardians of
Netherby, of which he had the honour to be
chairman, applied to the Poor- law Commissioners for permission
to take in this publication for the purposes of the union, and
the Poor-law Commissioners stated in reply that if the
information was considered necessary they were at liberty
to take in this publication, and to charge it upon the rates.
He again repeated that Mr. Mutt has ceased to be a Poor-
law Commissioner for four years, and he could not possibly
see how a statement so unfounded could be published. Mr.
Mott was at no time the editor of a newspaper under his (Sir
James Graham's) patronage.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said the Right Hon. Baronet had
alluded to him as in some way connected with the Times
newspaper, with reference to the subject before the House.—
" No, no.") He begged to say that he had nothing whatever
to do with the article in question.
Mr. DUNCO3II3E said the Right Hon. Baronet had omit-
ted to answer the most material part of the question, namely,
whether any person having a joint speculation in the Lunatic
Asylum was connected with the Poor-law Commission?
Sir J. GRAHAM repeated that Mr. Mott had no longer
any connexion with the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. CHRISTIE wished to know whether Mr. Moffatt held
office under the Poor-law Commissioners as a district auditor.
In reply to the former part of the question he had nothing to
say, as there was no certain information from the Commissioners
at Somerset House. In reply to the second part it appeared
that when Mr. Moffatt was introduced Mr. Oliver had certain
districts appointed to him, but it having appeared to the
guardians that the office of auditor was unnecessary, Mr. Moffatt
had him suspended from his office.

BARRACKS AT ARMAGH.
Colonel RA WDON wished to know whether the design for
the enlargement of the barracks at Armagh had been set aside ?
The inhabitants of that town had spent much money in pro-
viding accommodation for the officers, and if this design were
to be set aside they would lose large sums. He wished to
know whether the grant was to be continued or not.
The Earl of LINCOLN said that the sum of 5,0001. had
been originally proposed, but it had afterwards been altered to
under
the for the enlargement of the baracks at' Armagh,
he
the impression that it was to be the chief depot .
dis-
trict. But the military authorities had afterwards
revised
that
decision, and made it a place for a detachment had been
.
was
simply a military question, and on that ground
de-
cided,
?PLANATION.
SIR ROBERT PEEL'S
Upon the order of the day E ming the debate on the
!PROTECTION TO LIFE
Speaker—Sir, in rising
E:r(u.IRELAND) BILL,
Sir R. PEEL rose andf stahte
day for resuming the de-
to move the order
to Life (Ireland) Bill, I deeply
bate on the Protection
regret that it should be necessary for me to obstruct for one
ent the public business by taking up the time of the
inFruse 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 reflecting on
myself ; but deeply as I must regret taking up the time of the
House, and so delaying the public business, I doubt whether

there is a Member in this House in whose estimation I
should not fall if I did not avail myself of the earliest op-
portunity of noting the accusations made against me in this
House on Monday evening.—( Hear, hear.) I deeply thank
the House, at least many of the Hon. Members, for suspending
their judgments at the time those accusation,: were made
They telt no doubt that it was something hard that a public
man should have so many charges made against him at this
period, when they might have been preferred many times for
the last fifteen years.—( flea-, 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 abaur under great disadvantages. I little thought
that I should be cal'ed 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 18:29,
and then I felt it neces•ary to support the Cath-lic
Then came the formation of that Government of whioh the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite was a distinguished meraber ;
then shortly after succeeded the conflicts on the Reform Rill ;
then came the dissolution of the Government of Lord Mel-
bourne in 1834.

An How. Memean—Lord Grey !—(Contusion 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
presithd in 1835. I conducted the affairs of Gov. rnment 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
subject of crimination against me was concerned, was 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 time
has been too fully occupied to allow me to examine at leisure
the subject of the Hon. Member's accusation, and the secre-
taries by whoirs the letters of those years had been answered
hive long ago ceased to exist. I have been myself occupied
for the last three days in collecting materials and collating
newspaper reports in order to free my reputation from the
charges which have been directed against my veracity as a
man, and my honour as a Minister.— ( Tremendous cheering.)
Yes, Sir, 1 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 results from
the accused's own knowledge that they were not founded in
truth, hut yet with that anxiety which everyman must partake
of who fears that, after a lapse of twenty years, he may not be
enabled to estannsn tom, complete aria satisractory defence
against charges which, in common fairness, and in common
justice, should have been preferred when the memories of
men who took part in those debates were more recent, and
when I could have referred to them to say whether those were
the very words, whether those were the very expressions, that I
had used ; when I could have referred to my political op-
ponents—( Great eheering)—whether they would remember
my words or the impressions which I intended should be un-
derstood from them.—( Cheers, ) I am now to answer
those charges.—( Continued cheering.) I shall confine myse!f
to those charges, and to the evidence on vt hich they are founded
It was not fair on those two different occasions to make charges
inculpating my honour unless the evidence on which 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 disad-
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 shall
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. 1527, and
1828—( Immense cheering)—who was the relative and

Private'Secretary of Mr. -Canning, and cognisant tf Ms
C ruling's feelings, l,rought f trward at that late stage of the
deliste—not an/ question affecting Mr. Canning's horou7—set
at that late stage of the debate on th. Cern Bill the Noble
Lot d brought fort-aid these charges a:ainst tee. T. .e iNt ble
Lord said, " Such ..as the conduct of tee Right Hoe. Gentle
man in 1827 (alluding to my separa ion from Mr. Canning in
1827), anti, said the Noble Lord, in t e year 1629. Sir Robert
Peet intimated to the House that he had changed his o im ns
in 1825, and he had concealed that change of hI opt ions
except t Li r Liverpool ; but that did t, it prevent him, in
1827, from g,ting up in the Howl • at d static g, as h.s reasons
for sep crating from Mr. Cann ng's Government, hat he could
not consent to su -port a Government of which the chief 111i-
nis'er Cr4s. a otrable to those measure, which it : ppeared a.ter-
wards .n twi yea •s he ..ims If suppi rted." This simp:e charge
a the Noble Lord the Memeer f r Ltnn stet. d that, in
1827 I had decline I to act wi h Mr. Canning as Pri rte 511-
ni.ter, on the ground that I w s hosti.e still to t e r ,-
reoval of the Catholic disabiliies, and that I oh-
jectm ta the state of tee Cathoics it ng, at all am. Herat d
" But," said the Noble Lord, " ir.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 had intimated the change of his opipions
to Lord Liverpool. then at the head of the Government, and
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 iw 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 fran
chile, 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 not consent to fall in with the views of the Oppostion,
and I asked to be relieved from my official duties, and no
longsr to be responsible for the arlministration of affairs in
Ireland. Such are the facts relasive to what then took place.
The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Di raeli), is his
speech of lava Monday, insinuated that which was wholly
without foundation—he insinuated 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 the Roman
Catholic question. He also stated that such a. le:ter was in
my poSsea,ion. In proof of its existence he referred to the
Edinbnrgh Review, stating that Ihad a copy of the letter in
my possession. To that I said, if that assertion was
made by the Honourable Member, he ought to know
that such a- letter was in existence.—(Hear and cheers)—
and I challenged him for its production.—(Loud cheers.) I
said, further, " this I will engage to do, if I have a copy of
such letter in my possession, I will myself produce it.,—( Hear,
hear.) So Much for this point; so much for the statement
that I changed my opinion on the Catholic question. I now
proceed to meet the other charges that have been preferred
against ate; and, in doing so I will plead no statute of limita-
tions. Public men, I hold, should be above all such- means of
defending their character. Let those who oppose me establish
these charges if_ they can. I want no evasion. I will not
say a word about motives, but will meet the charges distinctly
and boldly. I am charged by the strongest insinuations, that
I wrote a letter to the Earl of Liverpool intimating change in
my opinion, and that there is reason to believe, that that
change of opinion took place in 1825, and was communicated
to the Earl of Liverpool, then at the head of the Government.
This is the first accusation. The next one is as follows :
Whether or no such a change had taken place, or
whether they had been communicated to the Earl of Liver-
pool. He stated that I had distinctly avowed in my place in
Parliament, in the year 1829, that there had been such a
change in my opinin. I think that was the charge.—( Cheers.)
It is possible, however, that no change of opinion may have
taken place, and that no communication had been made to the
Earl of Liverpool. 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
!ieen such a change in my opinion. The grounds upon which
t hat assertion Viislohnded, and the evidence brought tor ward
in support -of that charge by the Hon. Gentleman was this :
That there was a report in a newspaper, called The Mirror of
Parliament, in which it was stated that I had informed the
Earl of Liverpool that the time was come, when something
should be done respecting the Roman Catholics 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 opinions upon the Catholic ques-
tion had taken place ; and the Hon. Gentleman says, -4' I wish
to state most fully the whsle evidence against him ; whether
actual or plausible I wish to state the whole evidence." Then.
said the Hon. Gentleman, the Mirror. of Par,iament employed
an independent class of reporters, men of high eminence and
great attainments in the art of short-hand writing, and that
the Mirror of Partiammt was published every three da)s.
and therefore there shou.d be a strong presumption that the
report was correct. If, said lie, there was any doubt of this,
there was a sarong 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
Mires,. of Parliament, and consequently there was a strong
confirmation from a separate and independent authority to the
correctness of the reports of the Mirror o f Parliament. This
is the charge; am I not stating the chrrge correctly ?
t 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
Knatchbull, speaking a fortnight after, referred to that report,
and assumed it correct." Now I think these are the grounds
upon which the charge was made. Then there was another
charge which the Hon. Gentleman brought against me,
namely, that I had been guilty of a suppressio veri, anti that,
for unworthy purposes, I had given a mutilated and garbled
report of the speech.—(Loud cheers.) Thorp may hay.- been
some other small and incidental charges besides these three,
which are immediately connected with it. The gravamen of
the charge, and the nature of the evidence by which those
charges were support. d, I belie /e I have correctly stated. I
now first address myself to the question—Did I intimate to the
Earl of Liverpool that my opinions upon the Catholic question
had undergone a change, and that I was prepared to sup-
port a Bill for the removal of Catholic disabilities? First,
I refer to the course which 1 took in the year 1825.
I first ask whether the course I took in Parliament,
publicly expressing my opinion as I did, was incon-
sistent with such an intimation as that stated
itiomfer;
been conveyed by me to the head of the q
°vreremember,
Sir Francis Burdett, some Hon. Members ywould
1825. He
brought forward the Roman Catholic que_sotra
Committee to
began, in his usual manner, by moving f
During d
eyl the progress
consider the Roman Catholic question. cla aced
a ted'if the discussion two other measures were
p p
to facilitate the success of the first measure, m , onsaem
re-
duction of the number of freeholders in teelnadnidnegnttihtelefdratnoce
votehis
at county elections, and a measure f or e
to Roman Catholics. It was on the 28th of February
that
Sir Francis Burdett brought forward the primary question—
the 28th of February, 6
s—and I took part in the debate
the motion that the Housel2 on
doresolve itself into a Committee
on theOn
Catholic question.the 28th of February, 1825,
otion
without expressing any objection to the time when
was made, I stated " that no change had taken place in my
opinions upon the subject, and I should therefore pursue the
course which I had uniformly pursued, and 1 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 Rig ht uarr
ea bd!
teh
at Gentleman
.
for the candid manner in which he
had decl
tions went to the principle, anti not to the details of the ques-
tion of Catholic emancipation. There was, I think, a
considerable majority in favour of the motion made by Sir
Francis Burdett. opinion47to the2is34 numbershee were in Sir
Francis Burdett's motion d reading of
the Bill was proposed on the Bth of April,' 18c205n, when I took
part in the debate ; and I find this in the report:—" Mr. Peel
expressed his satisfaction at the frank and candid manner in
which the Hon. Member for Armagh had declared that his
opinion upon this subject had undergone El change, but he (alr.
Peel) had not changed his own opinions upon it, and he could
not, therefore, support the measure." The Bill was neverthe-
less carried be a majority of 268 to 241, and the third reading
came on on the 10th of May, 1825, when I said, " If the
offices of the Executive and 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 was not prepared to oppose all the details of the Bill, but
still I thought the chief offices of the Executive
Government ought to be reserved to persons professing the
Protestant religion.—(Hear, hear.) And the conviction of
my mind remain. unaltered I said that I felt it my duty to
persevere in my opposition, Well, then, it is not very pro-
liable, after such a sta'ement, that I could have gone to the
Earl of Liverpool and said that a change had taken place in
my opinion. But it was after the 10th of May, after I had
been in a minority, that I intimated that the continuance of
this division in the Cabinet was objectionable, but, above all,
that my owe position at the head of the Executive Adminis-
tration of Ireland was intolerable, and I asked to be released
from the resporsibilities of office. hi 1827 I stated
what were the ci cumstances on which I consented to
remain in office rather than break up a Government
that certainly np to that time had maintained the general con-
fidence of the country. It was then resolved ;hat the question
should await the decision of another Parliament, and that it
should remain an op- n question, every member of the Govern-
ment being at liberty to pursue his own opinions upon the sub-
ject. It, was between the itith and 20:h of May I signified saY
desire to be relieved from office ; and it was also between those
neriedsthat I in imated my reluctant consent to re- ain in office.
Bet on the 26th of ay there was a division in this House on
he state of Ireland. The Rill 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 t: e measure that
ever he had dime. and there was a majority of 40 against the
8.11. This was the iangunge I held at that time to Lord Li-
verpool on the subject. I said " My Hon. Friend now seemed to
expect an apology from me fair continuing to hold the same
opinion, end so my Hon. Friend thought it necessary to call ,
upon me to explain wha I changed my opinions after hearing
the evidence of Dr. Doyle. The ground f .rmerly held ap- •
peered to be utterly untenable." That I stated in the
year 1826, in May, in the presence of Mr. Canning,
that I had changed my opinions on this question.—(Hear,
hear.) Is it probable that I would utter that language in
the face of Parliament if I had not intinaltei to Lord
Liverpool that my opinion was changed. I was not prepared
to acquiesce in the Roman Catholic Emancipation B'll, but I
then showed that I was prepared to admit that they should
enjoy some freedom. In 1826 there was a general election ;
and in the early period of 1827, before Lord Liverpool's death,"
when I had not the slightest expectation to anticipate so early
and melancholy a termination to his political career, came on
the Roman Catholic question ; and on March 6, 1827—for
it was not until the latter end of March that Lord Liver Pool
was rendered incapable of transacting public business—I said
this, " He, Sir Robert Peel, should still retain his opinions as
to the system that the legislature ought to enforce with regard
to the country. He thought it right again to express
those
opinions—certainly common sense said that something as to the
Roman Catholics should be done—that is to say, that the
anomaly of the laws between England and Ireland should be
removed. . But in expressing .his opinion,. he thought it
right to retain the existing disabilities as far as related to
admitting Roman Catholics to the legislature and to the offices
of state." If his opinions were unpopular, he had now an Nee
portunity of showing that he retained the Fame opinion still.
And how was it possible that he could have expressed those
opinions with respect to this Bill, with any view of acquiring
public favour, or gratifying his personal ambition.—(Hear'
hear.) I, myself, fully expected that in 1827, we should have
had a minority, as we had in 1825, and was prepared to teae
_
again the same course, namely, to adhere to m own opinwnt
still, and to r; linquish office. But to the surprise, I believe, of e
all parties, in 1827 there was a majority of four against
Roman Catholic Relief Bill. I had taken this course W
the slightest expectation of what was to follow, and I still re-
mained in the office of. Secretary of State for the
_
Home Department. Now, that is a Parliainen.tal!.,
profession of opinion which took place at that tun_e
Well, now, what took place between me and Lord LiverpFolf
I stated on Monday night, that if I could find that I had int
mated any opinit n to Lord Liverpool in writing, that I would
produce it. But I said also that the communication which
took place between us was not of a personal nature, for I Wl'
in the habit of seeing him every day, and not of making ani
formal communications to him. My impression was• as
ce
stated on Monday night, that no communication took
between us in writing on the subject, but still I undertooke,i_i
there was any communication, to produce it to the 1-1 .use. ,4111
1827, three years afterwards, when of course my memory
respect to these transactions was stronger, speaking ht
House I said, not that I had written to Lord Livetre'f
that had informed him that it. was my intention to disconnec
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 resignation was accepted, and
to
did leave office. I think any Gentleman has a right to
say that there was no written communication from
Liverpool on the subject. I may be asked, have you ,
g,e nand
whole of the correspondence which took place between yo
and
Lord Liverpool at that time ? Why, I ordered the corresp
and
ence for seven years, under the letter A, to be brought up,
ex.
I have searched through the whole of my correspondence,
correspondence which
tending over 7 years, in order to find any
was
d between us on the subject. As I said before,
had passe
eneastke:L. en.hrde
in that constant communication wi.h Lord Liverpool which
rendered it unnecessary for us to communicate with each other
except verbally. And this I state that there was an letter
which has the remotest bearing to this subject, or which can
throw any l•ght upon it—there is no letter which lam notnd
ready to pro uce which passed. between Lord Liverpool a
myself. I see the letters of 182.5; here they are.— (The Right
and
Hon. Baronet here took a packet of letters from the table
exhibited them to the House ) Some may think they are not
very, material, or they may think they are. I hold h
and the originals in my hand ; I looked at the lettertsoef
otherou
years, but they have no bearing on this subject. I thendo
_.ve
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 in extenso 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 jade
whether from the tone of those letters they do give the slightest
colour to the charge that. I had intimated to Lord L:verponi
the change in my opinions. But now—it was on the 10th
of March, 1825, I h..el then been beaten on the Catholic
claims—there were rumours that Lord Liverpool had ehanged
his opinions. It certainly was material for me to ascertaus
that fact, because if really Lord Liverpool's opinions had
changed, and, I was in a minority in the House of Commons, it
was one additional reason for any retiring. On the 10th March
1826, I received this letter from Lord Liverpool. I will
read it:—

" March 10, 1826.

"My dear Peel,—l return you the report of the Irish
Association, and in consequence of the appearance of an
article in the Morning Chronicle of this day, I have caused an
article to be sent, to the Courier, contradicting the reports in
circulation, of any change in my sentiments on Catholic
emancipation.—Very sincerely yours,

" LIVERPOOL."
Now, it is not likely that at the time the letter was written
which I have read 1 had changed my opinions. That letter
was written on the 10th of March, and certainly intimated
that my opinions had not changed. The only other letter that
I received from Lord Liverpool in connexion with this subject
—the other letter—is dated on the 10th of 2day. 1825,
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 went out of office in 1818, whew I 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 in
and I
1821. This next letter is dated on the 19th May, 1825. On
the 17th May the division took place in the Lords. This subs
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-night, between nine and ten o'clock,
for five minutes.—Ever yours, LIVERPOOL.
"Pray do not trouble yourself to send an answer."
This will surely create some impression that at that time I had
not changed my opinion=, and that I con.ented to remain is
office, although I had not changed on this subject, but that
did remain rather than break up the Ministry. This will to
some extent appear from the request which this letter con-
tains, to call upon Lord Liverpool (II that night between nine
and ten. It is true that I cannot prove that this letter way
written on that particular subject—( Loud and continued eheers)
—but surely the Hou.e will grant my assertion that such was
the case. I have yet another communication which passed be.:
tween Lord Liverpool and myself. It is dated on the 25th of
September, 1825.- I find that it is the only one at -that tio!
written upon this subject, and was written in answer to 011'
from me. It was forwarded from Walmer Castle.
"Weimer Castle. .
" Most confidential. 15th Sept., 1825.
" Sly dear Peel,—l return you Goulburn's letter, under aU
other cover. Will you be kind enough in let me know what yeg.
would think of a dissolution. It must be decided in one way.S;
the other on the 22d. I have had some conversation with
Canning. His inclination is to put off the dis.olution till ar=t
year. I arn for dissolution immediately, if the Catholic claim
are to receive duo support.—Ever yours,

If that <' LIVERPOOL."
be rightly interpreted, can any one say that at that tioSe
I had changed my opinions? Now, his inferring that nrY
opinions were in conformity woth his own in 1-25 proud
nothing of the charge made against me. The Right Hotr,
c
ientteman then resumed r.-a.ting Lord Liverpool's letters
which stated it was his opinion that if the Catholic claims wens
to be pressed there would be a dissolution of Parliament, bat
that if the Catholic question was not to be brought on th,ere
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
ossuch as would benriti CAb tto 6
man who told Lord Liverpool that he was opp to
taer r tdeldt
mblei
,atel- onsant
tholic claims.—( Hear, hear.) Now, speaking of 1829, I. hold
in my hand a document which will prove this faet—that al
leaving office would lead to a dissolution of the Minist.ry.. I
am certain that my opinion on this matter was expressed in a
conversation between myself and another; but I have 130 let-
ter to show me the exact words on
_thois point.
tlhnaotwl did i;
atht
come
m make
oeevuitneoet bthy,:tt.iiewboriats
wsbury was, that I said, in 18:9, :hat
Hon. Member for Stare
.nnyo that quibbling;
Isici inter
these
star' went in 1829. The whole foundation of the charge, o the
I had communicated to Lord Liverpool in 1825 that t'ne lita3
was come when something respecting the Catholic ,question
ought to be done. lam - going_
amsas aytkhd
le
al
ation of these words. I positively
veni%lmYairepsrueeshsinans—tarnteYment
Pre' I assert that I did not '
words at all.
sincere im • that I
2a9il.t_h_at(-
Cheers.)
was come when something ought to be done with the' rs '
....,atholic
question.
not e iression.....,s, ,
And now I come to the evide
House to follow me, for I
vv nce...-( Cheers, ) I request the
which it is founded ; that I reallyant to
dissect the evidence on
state-
ment, and that did in 1829 make that I afterwards
tendon of perverting the garbled a speech With the Abe
did .
fact.
member for Shrewsbury, Says the Hon. Gent. ,tuat
my Right Honourable "I am making no cht,rge egalnsd
a garbled and Friend, but I say that he use
lit)* St'. • mutilated or f this
a mi.tilated , to use the softer La_.guage o- ,„,.
of
the Hon.
__ report of his speech Why, the frec..-,-
in differ. nit iVerrther for
Shrewsbury are kliff:rent y ePorteu
Joe nals and .4 videnee
is it just
as this to a per iod of 2 Jto refer upoa such e. ,ch to
found a charge again,ytelrs'Alp'fore, for w-rde on n
w 1 The
chairge is a emarkable one: andli:Aister-..
is advancedfthe inC a...o;st eiv
gh, ar manner. The Hon. 'Gent', man be in, by saying tha
h r..verts to this subject with 4 ' (I "lel"
the ring and laughter, the deepest pain.-- '
g
says that there are only two s.nrcesto which we snot- refer or
the report- of the proceedings in the-House at that period. The
one was " Hansard," in .which Hon. Members bad-an or:
portunity of correctin theirb • he al sid th..t
g speeches,_ but SC, .- , . h
there
was anotner, "The- Mi. ror 'Of Parligment,"":lOr Ole 1
the speeches were taken down .n snort-hand by the nloit ikilfu
sh on-hand writers, . any of them m,n of educie.;lon and in..
telligence, and conversant with the business which •occurced in
Parliament. This journal was published every tbrai days: The
Hon. G ntleman who introduced this subjectvith sm m uch pains
says also tbat he has been making the most '''bitrefid in-
quiries on this subject. He is most honourably epaneela4 wilb
the press, which enables him to, speak witivantharitY ipon the
de-
point. The Hon. Member says that he ,has been making
liberate inquiries, and that he has ascertained the reports 9f t
he
Mirror of Parliament were contributed liyiidePendint g
tlemen not connected with 'the ';public press. -,A$ a cons'
quence, therefore, one confirms another. There was. evidence
of the concurrence of these two sets of independent reporters,
and it was remarkable that two•independent sets of re-
porters should have made the same report., And the Hon. Gen-
tit man went on to say, " Sir, I have • inqtrired, and I hail
been informed that the report in the ' Mirror, of Parliament_
to which I have referred Wagdone by Air..734lToYr, :One 4g the
7-'4l'l

:r•'

1

Most finished short-hand reporters, and a man of education
and intelligence." Mr. Barrow, unfortunately, is not here ;
and as to the inquiry made by the Hon. Member, and ohs
statement that he had ascertained that the report was by Mr.
Barrow, I give the most peremptory contradi eion.—(Great
cheering.) I deny that the report was by Mr. Barrow, who ,
Was the editor of that paper ; an't I believe that he was nut
then, although I believe he might have been, a reporter, and
was not in the habit of reporting. The Hon. Gentleman, for
the purpose of adding wsight to his charge, had told the
House that it was an independent report of a man of high
character and great atOinments. The Hon. Genii man went
on to say—" However, I had the di cretion to refer to the re-
port of the speech in one of the most eminent of the pualic
Papers of the time, and I find the same report under the date
of March 6, 1829." The Hon. Gentleman had thus taken
credit to himself that he was not an indiscreet.
Man, and did not prefer cheeses against me on a
report without comparing it with other reports. He took
credit to himself for discretion, as he did not make the charge
en a single report, but he had found the report of the " Times"
confirming and concurrent with the report 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 had the discretion to refer to
one of them ; and in the event of the apparent cencurrenese of
any of them to inform the House of the fact? Did he conclude
that 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 look at the report of the
"Morning Chronicle," of the "Morning Herald," of 'he
" Morning Post," of the " Morning Journal"—a paper set up
for the purpose of destroying the whole success of the measure
I had then in hand? There are four other Independent report',
and I ask you this question—Did you go in search of any
other papers? And if you aid, why have you not had
the honesty to bring them forward to the House ?
You did not do so. Why did you confine yourself to those
reports that seemed to support your charge, and not extend
your inquiries to others ? Or if you did, why did you not
come forward and state the fact that every other report but
that to which you referred, though written by the independent
reporters of four newspapers, excluded the words on which
the accusation rests ?—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear ") Now
observe, the words of " The Times" are, " That the time had
arrived when something must be done with the Roman Crtho-
Ile Question." The s' Mirror or Parliament" it is said con-
curred with this—thus supporting the accusation by two inde-
Pendent reports, and bearing out the charge that I had
Mutilated and garbled the speech, withholding the knowledge
of what I really said.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, what
are the versions of these four other journals whose reports %ere
furnished by independent parties ? The " Herald's" report
says, " So far as he was personally eoncerned, in 1825, when
he was at the head of the Home 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")
she did not seek to retain office, and he told the Earl of Liver-
pool that, in his opinion, he time had come when he ought to
be relieved from the duties of office—, Loud cheers )—as he
Was in a minority on that question. The Earl of Liverpool
told him that his retirement from office would probably lead to
a; dissolution of Parliament." This speech was one of four
hours' length ; and I must observe, that however able and care-
fttl 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 Home
bepartment, respecting the Catholic question before the House,
I felt that from my situation, and the intimate connexion of
ray 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 responsible situation I held. I told Lord Liverpool
that the time had arrived when I should be relieved
filen the responsibility of offiee. 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
read it all ?—(No, no, go on.) "He must state the' in the
/ear 1825, when he was Minister of the Home Department, he
faund himself in a minority, and feeling the difficulty of his po-
lition, charged as he was with the administration of affairs in
Ireland, and that he thought the time had come when he
Should seek to be relieved from the responsibilities of his office,
and that he had stated to the Earl of Liverpool that the time
had arrived, in consequence of finding himself in a mino-
rity upon a subject intimately connected with the
rretna,gement of Ireland, and that the Earl of
Liverpool had stated that if Mr. Peel retired
he must also send in his resignation. Now I will refer to the
".Morning Journal." It states in its report :—" So far as my
personal conduct is concerned, I can sta'e, that in the year
1825, when I was Minister in the Home Department, I was in
t minority on the Catholic quest on in the House of Commono
oiled I felt that my situation as a Minister in the office which
I then held, charged as I was with the administration of
affairs in Ireland, that I found myself in a minority upon a
question of the greatest importance, which, in reference to the
state of the country, could engage my attention ; and that I
taught to be relieved from the responsibilities of my situation.
I then told the Earl of Liverpool that one thing must be done,
that I should be relieved from the duties of my office.
It was stated upon tba- occasion that my retirement would
tread to their retarement.—( Cheers. ) You have now the exact
Ooncurrence of three other morning papers, all omitting that
Itiassage which in itself was certainly of an equivocal nature.
iou have then the concurrence of four other morning papers,
all employing separate and independent reporters, all agreeing
'lath marvellous accuracy in the context of what I said, omit-
ting that passage. If there was a paper which reported inde-
pendently and separately, which did lend its sanction to the
report of another paper, the absence of the passage in four
Others, however strong may be the presumption
of their accuracy, does nut at all affect the
possibility of the charge being founded upon it.
It is as four to one against it. There i; something singular
In the fact, that if Mr. Barrow was an independent reporter,
end if there was a certain class of reporters reporting separately,
that they did not arrive at the same conclusion. I deny the
fact that Mr. Barrow made these reports, also that there was a
%operate class of reporters employed on the " Mirror of Para
liarnent."—(Loud cheers.) I have inspired upsn the subject
as astil as the Hon. Member. I state this fact. I loateltt
POrsitively, and I will demonstrate it to you that Mr. Bariow'
did not report my sentiments upon this occasion.-( Hear,
hear.) But wait till I state the fact. The " xlirror of Par-
liament" had not a distinct corps of reporters. Now I will state
this fact that the reporters of the " Morning Chronicle," and
the reporters of the " Times" were in connexion with the
"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 they
sent to the " Mirror of Parliament" that which gave the fullest
report of one part of the speech, and that which gave the fullest
report of another.—( Hear, hear.) The reporters of the " ',Mir-
ror of Paaliament " concocted from the reports of the " Morn-
ing and " Times. ' Now that is the information
which has aeached me, and which I can establish by most ex-
ceptional authority. Now, is it right that any man should
labour under the charge that, for unworthy purposes, he had
garbled a particular speech ; but, more than all, is it right that
a Minister of the Crown—an active Member of this House—
Should be compelled, in the middle of a session of Parliament,
to no out of his ordinary course, to disprove such a palpably un-
founded charge ?—( Hear, hear.) But I have cone it ; and I
Will prove to yen, by taking the reports of the " Mirror of Par-
liament" itself, and comparing them with the reports of the
"Morning Herald," the " Morning Chronicle," and the
" Times," that the report of the " Mirror of Parliament" is not
an independent report, but rather the concocted report of the
reporters of those three papers. I will prove that whole
Passages are taken, with scarcely any alterations of the
Words, except altering " he" into " I," or changing
the person. I will prove to you, that without
any alteration, some parts are taken from the " Morning
Herald," others from the " Morning Chronicle," and some
parts from the " Times " I will prove this by showing you
that the part taken from the " Times," which, I believe, was
taken by Mr. Tyas, is copied with its accidental mistakes. It
is faithfully copied into the " Mirror of Parliament," only
changing "he inso " I." I w:11 show you that the report of
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--bnt that, after the business of the day was over, and they
Shad written their reports tor the morning papers, the reporters
of these morning papers methtogetther, together, and consorted the re-
port for the " Mirror of Parliament," which was not published
for a day or so afterwards.—( He.r, hear. ) Well, now, then,
kioel not the argument altogether break down—( Hear, hem.)
-is it not the sane report ?—(Hear, hear)—enil the report of
the " Times " is not confirmed by the adoption of the same
the' Mirror of Parliament.' Or did I garble my
speech, striking out vs
report byhat I had not uttered, and in which I
was borne out by the authority of four other palters,
sano also by the "Mosning Chronicle, which I was accustomed
to look to in matters of this kind. Well, then, what becomes
of the. assertion of the Hon. Gentleman with. reference i
ference to
the corrected report, and with regard to the note deb he
read p at, that it was inserted with the permission of Secretary
Peel, as if to say, I had sent to Hansard my c irrected report,
and begged of ham,
in a note, to insert it. But the facts of
the case are these Murray, of Albemarle-street, pub-
lished the speech, and there was a jealousy about the copyright;
and Ha naard had no right to publish it, but he ap hied to i
sene
for my permission, and it got Mr. Murray to giveonnt
to the publication.—( Loud and continued cheering.) And the
note was inserted io.eoarrd.er to show that it had not been taken
hear.) Yet the Hon. Gentleman in-
sinuatedsurreptitiously.---(Hhat I had sent to Hansard to do away with the mis-
chief of the publication of the passage attributed to me by one
paper, But still more—the other reports make no complaint.
•"Times" reporter, the man who has made the
but we find t
mistake. regrets that Mr. Secretary Peel's voice was occa-
sionally so low, that he was but indistinctly heard in the gal-
lery—( Hear, hear, and loud cneers)—and nineteen years after-
Wards I am to be maligned and condemn ideand why ? because
there was a deaf reporter on the T.s,"—( Tremendous
cheering.) Every other reporter did it correctly. The
ho said my
" Times" reporter made the mistake, the man
voice was indistinctly heard. On Monday nightwl heard for
the first time that there was any discrepsney between these
reports; and am I to be denounced as a garbler, as a suppressor
of the truth, because I took the authority of four against one,
confirmed by my own impressions. Well, I think I have
suffiiently cleared myself of these imputations.—( Loud cheers.)
Now, I thiols I have dispo;ed of Mr. Bar row and his indepen-
dent report —( Hear, hear, and laughter)—and I think I have
denied_ the allegation too that there was a separate band of
reporteri aloof from the newspapers—( Hear, hear)—making
independent reports a and I now come tow theeil speech of my
Hon. Friend Sir Edward Knatebbull.
nnteh,,:tras I said, I
went through all these fierce cportlfiecrtrse.d
41)
occasion,
this
ictaswers,thon
charge preferred, except it was
the 16th of atarch ; but if it was preferred then,
during the conflicts on the Catholic question. But
owlytitne
I heard :bat in 1829 1 had asserted in 1825 my opinions were
changed.
the first place, if I had said so, it would have
:hi
variance with the whole tenor of my speech
been
delivered rat t time.
l a
tb :
I take the " Mirror of Parliament."
t s.
I said in 1629, afte., the House of Commons had come to the
decision I have stateolr that in 1322 I was prepared to take the
course which I had bees prepared to take in 1825, namely, to
resign my office. But :abet dal I say ? That I was not
only anxious to retire foom office' but I repeated that
whenever the Catholic claims .me on I shou'd feel myself
justified at once to retire from office. But on the following
day I was questioned as to why I had stated that in
1825 my restrains had changed ; but the natural question was
put to me, " If you are now prepared to grant Catholic Eman-
cipation, why did you not grant it in 1t27. when itlr. Canna-is,
was in favour of it ; when there were just as strong 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 was put by Sir Edward Knotehball. You will find my
answer in the reports of the speech of the following dry. and
how would that reconcile with the other statement? Well,
now, with respect then to the speech of my Hon. Fiieud air
Edward Knatchhull. lam quite convinced that he is utterly
incapable of garbling or mutilating a speech. I think that you
will find that this is a corrected report of the speech ; and cer-
tainly in that speech he does assume the statement to be male
by me on the preceding day the 15th of March, that I
hid used these words that the " Times" imputes to me.
But. If he had read the " Mirror of Parliament"
he would have found that it did not agree with the ,4