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

answer in the reports of the speech of the following day, and
hex would that ree•meile with the other statement? Well,
rtn v, with re,pect then to the speech of my Hon. F. iend qtr
E lava, d Knatchhull. lam quite convinced that he is utterly
inc triable ot garbling or mulilating a speech. I think that you
will find that this is a corrected report of the speech; and cer-
trinly in that speech he does assume the statement to be made
by me on the preceding day the lbth of Alarch. that I
hd used these words that the " Times" imputes to me.
Bait if he had read the " Mirror of Parliament"
he would have found that it did not agree with the " Times."
Bat now will the Hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him another
question ? As he thought he hail no right to confirm the
report of the " Nlirror of Parliament' by a reference to the
" Times," with regard to my speech, did he take the same
course with reeird to it as Sir Edward Ku rtchhuil?—( Hear,
h'•ar. ) Oh mrve, he did not trust to the " Mirror of Par;ia-
rn,mt" to prefer hid accusation a.ainst me. Bat my Hon.
F:iond Sir E. Knatchbull said that ha had had the discretion
to refer to the " Thrice." for the parpo,e ot seeing whether
that erainsait public newspaper confirmed the report of the
" Alma. of Parliatneut." Well, new, did the Huneurahle
Gentleman take the same course with regard to the
" Times" as had been done by Sir Edward Knatchhull ?
With regard .o Sir Edwar i Knatchbull, why d.d the Nobe
Lrril not take the same c ursa with res sect to me, and see
-.yhether the rrrioua reports of the speech agreed with ea- h
th r ? is th sp ech of Sir Edward Knatchbull, and unt
on word of accusation is 'brought aga net me in it.—(Cheer .)
Tats is the, report of Sir Edward Knatchbu l's speech in the
" With reference -0 the accounts he alluded to, he
ri,leed the Right Hon. Gentleman, if the state of. Ireland and
country w:re the reasons for his policy, if he ought not, in
justice to the count,l, to have conceded the tatho is claims in
the time of Mr. Canning ? He wished to ask the question
which he put the ot er day. If his accounts of the state of
Ireland, as it existed at toe presi t day, were true, why tid
not support those claims when they received the suport f Mr.
Can..ing ?—( Hear, hear.) If the Honourable Gentleman
hat not thin discovered the necessity for c.incession, why
did he oppose Mr. Canning on other groun e, which he
had since abandoned? Canning was the powerful, the c.m-
sivent advocate of the Catholics, and if the Right Hon.

Gentleman in 1829 had reason for adopting the line Of policy
of that distinguished statesman, why did he not as readily do
so in 1827, when Mr. Canning supported him ?" New, I
have referred to other reports. I did not find it in the " Morn-
ing, Herald," but in the "Morning Journal," Sir Edward
Knatehbuil is 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 ceuntry, and in 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
qich was my opinion before it was again brought forward in
1827." Now, Sir, then if the reports in the " Mirror of Par-
liament " were in point of fact the compilation of the previous
reports of newspapers—it is rather hard to condemn me be-
cause it now appears—(because I declare Ihad not the slightest
conception of that on the 16th of March. 1827, although the
replrts of the morning papers, at least the " Morning
Herald," and of the " Times," do not attribute that expression
Q Sir Edward Knatchbull)—it is rather hard to impute to
me, that I remain silent under a charge which, as far as my
recollection serves me, was never uttered.—( Cheers.) He
!)egins the speech, " I am de.irous to state as shortly as I can.
'he reason why I oppose further omissions." lan not pre.
pored to say that my Right lion. Friend wig
absent, but be it as it may, I am sure my
tli iht Hon nimble Friend is quite incapaale of

attributing. or mutilating any speech. ell now, Sir, I have
(some through the charges brooght against me.—( Loud cheers )
liarler the disadsantages which I have laboured in going into
these different reports, the charge against me being the dis-
crepancy /4f a newspaper report pubitahed seventeen years ago,
it is probable I might have failed.--(Cheers ) I might have
itelieved that the " Mirror of Parliament" had not a separate
hand of reporters, and induced gentlemen connects d with the
tiress, not connected with me in politics, to give them informa-
tion of the speeches delivered in Parliament. This it is which
--nahles me to dispose of Mr. Barrow, that great reporter, and
,he " Mirror of Parliament " This it is which enables me to
dispose of the " Mirror of Parliament," and to scatter to the
winds the assertion that the " Mirror of Parliament" had a
land of reporters separate from the newspapers. This it is which
enables me to shatter to pieces the misrepresentations of the
Times," and to prove :hat its report was diff'rent from the
eber morning newspapers. I have proved that this report
was made by two persons, who each reported the same speech
ia a different manner; that this speece, as it appears in the
" Mirror of Parliament," was made up from the " .‘lorninct
Chronicle," the " Morning Herald," and the "'Times." I
nave proved, in the course of my °hie' vations, that so tar from
'here being a separate baud of reporters fur the " Mirror
of Parliament." that it took its reports from the
Times," and adopted and inserted them as its own.
And thus I have accounted for the equivocal expressions which
appear3d in the " Mirror of Parliament." When the Hon.
Gentleman in the zourse of his speech attempts by the repre-
sentation of his affection for the memory of Mr. Canning, we
411 feel bsund to respect the motives by which every man in
nis position may be actuated. No one can fail to participate
io feelings such.at those which he has appealed to. The Hon.
Gentleman has described Mr. Canning as an eagle. He has
*sated that he was as the rider of Bucephalus. Why one
would suppose that Mr. Canning had devoted the whole of
his intellectual faculties to the purposes of private study alone.
I am quite ready to grant all the credit to which Mr. Canning
is entitled, and I am now also ready to submit to the assertion
-hat these feelings are entitled to consideration arid regard. I
am ready to grant that those feelings of affection and respect
which we entertain for any particular object are likely to be
sohanced ; according as the time grows remote those feelings
',row stronger and wore permanent in their character. But,
Ir, I would ask, why. if the Hon. Gentleman does entertain
'hose feelings—why. if such are the *entim,nts of the Hon.
Gentleman, has he retained them for twenty years after the
I..ath of Mr. Canning for the purpose of wounding a political
ipponent?—(lnarnense cheering.) I ask why, in descrihing
hese feelings—which in themselves are entitled to esteem and
•espect—l say, scisy has he retained them for inflicting a
glow on me, and fir exciting by their expression general odium
gainst me, and rallying round himself the great influence of
tublic sympathy?—(lmmense cheering.) But, Sir, lam jus-
•itled. in saying that instead of public sympathy he has roused,
with hardly an excep.lon, an unmitigated indignation, and
eapression of the public sense of the means by which the
lelustrin was attempted, and an abhorrence at the perversion of
hat which is so sacred in itself for such :a perpose. I will
liacharge my character from the suspicion which the Hun.
:entlernan would attach to me. But when the Hon. Gen-
..leman goes to a house on a certain day nineteen years ago, I
sill not descend to follow him.—(Hear, hear, and cheers. )
.Vhen the Hon. Gentleman speaks of certain dinners, and par-
'cularises where they were held, I hope the House will not
dame me for not following Cheers.) I wild-not re-
:abate on the Hon. Gentleman; I will simply content myself
,iih having defended my character by reading the documents
tpon which these charges have been founded.—(Hear, 'hear. )
i now entreat the House that as I have no opportunity to an-
wer fresh cisarges, that it will suspend its judgment, should
.uch charges be brough: forward, till I shalt have an oppo w-
itty, by your kind indulgence, of ag tin making my defence.
the Right Hon. Gewlernan resumed his seat amidst great

:heering.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK rose, but for some minutes
:ould not proceed, in cons-quence of the cheering with which
he Right Hon. Baronet was greeted on the conclus.on of his
oe,el). Silence 'wring been at last re,tored, the Noble Lori
. id —Sir, the charge that was origi.iilly maize against the '
light Hon. Baronet was made by the humble indivi.tual who
ioer addresses you, and not by my Hon. Friend who sits beside
ae. It was my Hon. Friend wno rose to defen I me ag ,inst
he attack of the Right Hon. Baronet. I think, therefore, !hat
he House will agree with me that it becomes mt., rather than
ay Hon. Friend, to get up, and to mamtain the charge which
as advanced in the first instance.—( Ironical cheering, cries of
, Oh, oh I" and mach confusion.) Sir, I was not in this
louse in the year 1827—1 was not a Member of ►his House in
;tat year, but I was a Member of this House in 1828. I was a
letnber of this House in 1829, and I heard the speech of the
Right Hon. Baronet. I heard the question asked him by the
~arl of Uxbridge. I heard his answer to that question. I heard
he speech—the crushing speech—of Sir Edward Knatchbull,
,nd 1 heard the Right Hon. Baronet's answer to that speech.
i am prepared to show by the internal evidence in those re-
ports that the sta•ement I made was 'he correct truth.
He .r, hear.) Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet has said that Mr.
3arrow was not the reporter who gave this speech. Why, I
iresume that there is 'no Hon. Member in this House who
ines not know that in a speech of four hours not one, bat
Four, or six, or eight, or twelve different reporters may Is,. en-
:aged. When, therefore, my thin. Friend spoke of i,r. Bar-
ow as the gentleman who furnished that r'-port, he spoke of
him only as at the head of that establishment, and not as the
•eporter--(Cries of "Oh, oh")—not as the into who himself
-eported that speech, but as the principal person connected
with tlna journal. But I appeal to those reports, and I take

Hansard" as it is. I take the " Mirror of Parliament" as

ind it, and I will endeavour to show by the internal evidence
if the reports in these papers. that I have not imputed to the
Right Hon. Baronet that which may not be fairly inferred from
the speechei themselves. When\ I made the charge against
he Right Hon. Baroiiet I had referred to the " Mirror of
Parliament," and nothing else. I was not aware that " Han-
sard" had been corrected by the Riget Hon. Baronet. Sir,
what does the Right Hon. Baronet say in the outset of his
speech, in bit' very first paragraph. He says, "So far as 1
ern personally concerned, I beg to say, that my own course on
ihis question is the same as that which I suggested in 1825."
Another paragraph stated, that in 1829—(and we all know what
was the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet)—that in
1829 hia 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 clues-
' ion is concerned, it is the same as that suggested to me in 1825."
The evidence of the Right Hot . Baronet in his own corrected
repo, t, as well as in the report of the " Mirror of Parlia-
ment, was, that the courses he pursued in 1829 and in 1825
were the same. The Right lion. Baronet has told you
that they were not indepe, dent reporters on that paper, but
that, according to his belief, all the reporters got together and
eompired 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
ves on to say—" After the House of Commons came to the
iniejen which I have stated in 1828, I was prepared to take
the course which I was prepared to take In 1825. With this
intimated to the Noble I ukel at the head of his Ma-
jesty'sonly prepared, but anxious
Government of five, seeing the current of public opinion in
to retire from
hulk claims; and in whatever situation 1
I that I was not
might fine my.
" After this comes what the Right Hon.
myself to its voice.
a:add ,i
A myself, I could no longer be justified in opposing
utironof the Cat hulk
to this duty, and to
not pursue the sentence.
prepared to make a sacrifice
not readh.
iwsatsrTiehiledsißiipight Hon Baronet did
Saronet did
he
this great object,
duce a settlement of the question that was.,
of his c.insistency and
he might be, to for wuhuadteervtaek%wno;ualdndphroe-,
fir one, was prepared in whatever posit', n .
tie had seeo
Establishment. Here is his own admission—that •
sup-
port any measure for the purpose of upholding
the Protew.ant
the time was come when, in his o iinion, seme concession ought
to he made to the Reman Catholics, while, to 1825, he was
prepared to retire from office to leave others to carry out the
Catholic 'emancipation. But, in 1809, he said that he was pre
a question which had
himself to carry it. Tbpbeen
aR-ikg,ht Hon. Baronet hasrefehreedhatdo
that the Noble Earl asked Why
given to the Earl ,if Uxbridge. d, and an answer which
said
course which he t ink in I t32wo ;in
and
carrying
witdhhenyo6.
ttihn take,oif
i2A7I
i.anr March he
.2,hi
i7ed.
nthet
engToon
thisthe Governrntn,
consent to assist Mr. Canning
an I carrying out the Catholic questio7ion the
Right Non baronet replied—" Between thecigrciu"'
that occurred in 1827 and those which occu-red circumstances
that
theie is this material difference. In 1827, at the-
time Mr. Canning made this proposal to me, the
subject had been discussed in the House of Commons of the
new Parliament, and I had been in a majority in 1827 and in
a minority in 1828. And in 1828, therefore, I took the course
which I took in 1825. He (Lord G. Bentinek) had only to
read to mcertain the course the Right Hon. Baronet took in
lease In 1809, when he proposed to retire, he said the time
has now.emne when a tv•vt. House of Comm,ms was disposed to
~,... ~, ~ ~! ~. r ~,.• !2. ri I.` C.!'l'4l,i, P,'. ' .!`e Hotta. (1
k-li; t.• ,i)dz,-ed ~',c ..u,.te,;lon. Tie this)! thou. fi,rt net tits,,
1
said that an attempt should be made to settle the question, and
to that attempt he would lend himself.—( Hear, hear.) In
182.5 he took a similar course; and in 1828 he took the same
COM 64 in 1020. In 1620 ho Oin Walt the king* mom