The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-08 00:00:00

TROOPS FOR CHINA.

In reply to an HON. MEMBER,
Mr. S. HERBERT said that there were 14,000 troops
despatched to China.
LAW OF RATING.
Sir W. MILES asked the Secretary of Stet...for the Home
Department when he proposed to bring in this bill for the
amendment of the law of rating, which he hs4d stated he
had prepared f
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that there was no doubt the pre-
sent system of rating was incorrect, but in the present state
of public business the Government were not prepared to
go on with the bill this session.
MR. WALTER AND MR. HORSMAN.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. WALTER said,—Sir, I rise to move the adjourn.
ment of the house for the purpose of making a pummel ex-
planation. lam extremely reluctant to trouble the house
upon a p ersonal matter, but I conceive that it has a right
to be informed of any circumstance affecting the position
and independence of one of its members, and, as I have
reason to complain of an attempt which has been made by
the right hon. member for Stroud to place me in a false po-
sition as a member of this house, and to impair my freedom
of reeech, I venture to ask its indulgence for a few moments
while I state the nature of my complaint, and I feel confi-
de] it that, when it has heard my statement, it will be of opi-
nion that no other course was left open to me than that
wh !eh I have pursued. Sir, on Monday evening last I ven-
tured to address the house in the debate on the Reform Bill,
and! can the following Wednesday I received from the right
hon. member for Stroud the following letter, which, as it
cont sins the reasons for an attack which the hon. member
into Wed to make upon me in this house, though ciroum-
stances prevented him from fulfilling that intention, I will
take the liberty of reading to the house. I was the more
surinised at this letter, because, up to the moment when I
rete,ived it, I had no reason to suppose that my relatii)n •

.elth the right hon. gentleman were otherwise than of a of his speech appeared to me to countenance and advocate
jendly character. The letter is as follows : that mode of settlement of the question. I do not say he
•
"1, Richmond-terrace, May 2. intended to do so, but when he came to the dissolution and
" Sir,—l think it right to request that you will be in your the postponement of the bill, what the hon. gentleman said
nlace to-morrow, when the debate on the Reform Bill is re- wss received with ironical cheers and laughter fem different
Sumed, as I intend in speaking to notice the suggestion you parts of the house, and the house evidently fis ed that in-
rnade on Monday, that the passing of the bill should not be e
i'ollowed by an early dissolution. And I feel the more terpretation upon it which the rumour mentioned by my
bound to do this, as the same suggestion was coupled with hon, and gallant friend assigned. That same morning there
my name in a leading article of the Times of that day, in appeared in the Times an article from which I will read an
Which-I am personally brought in for no other purpose but extract. The writer is speaking of the Reform Bill :
as illustrative of the general meanness of the House of " There are certain gentlemen in the house whose seats
Commons. As the member selected by the Tines through are secure, and whose elections cost them nothing, and
whom to offer an insult to the House of Commons more whose nature it is to make hustings speeches, who would
gross than any yet offered by Mr. Bright, whom you re- just as soon it passed as not. There are also a'few Censer-
buked, I feel called upon to repudiate, as publicly as it was Tative leaderswho have never ceased to regret their own folly
made, a description of the character nd sentiments of the in committing themselves to any reform, and who would
house which every member of it will repel as indignantly as
Perhaps a release from this most disagreeable pledge
Ido myself.—l have the honour
DtoWls.SHir,oyßouSrMoAbltTd!,e,nt
even at the expense of an interview with their constituents.
servant, (Cheers, and a laugh.) But with these exceptions. the pass-
" John Walter Esq., M.P." ing of this Reform Bill means money out of pocket, a
Now, in this letter the house will observe that a distinct month of hard, disagreeable work, and possibly a fall from
charge is made against me of using language in my speech the Parliamentary firmament. Perhaps it might have facili-
in the debate which, taken in conjunction with language tated the progress of the bill if a public announcement had ,
sbeenlmade that a Reform Art should not be followed by a 1
used in a leading article in a public journal, the right hon.
gentleman supposed to convey an imputation on the charac- butspoeurrapns.
it
tThhaes idea,i)ee we believe, hasdiodeacsurtrond to many,
ter of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) To this indecorum. A maiden may te very
von candid
for vael;gues 11311332°,11,
letter I addressed the following reply : ' a barrister for a brief, or a politician for a seat, and each may
"40, Upper Grosvenor• street, May 3. tremble at the thought of losing the object of his solicitude
" Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of —but it is part of the respectable hypocrisy of social life
your extraordinary letter, which I received last evening at that a perfect and stoical indifference shall always be as-
a public dinner, and to which, as I shall of course be in the sumed in such matters. We believe that if such an assur-
house this evening, I need make no further reply at this ance had been volunteered even Mr. Horsman would have
moment.—l have the honour to remain, Sir, your most indignantly repudiated any suggestion of an unwillingness
obedient servant, "J. WALTER." to test the confidence of the electors of Stroud. (A laugh.)
In consequence of the invitation of the right hon. gentleman But still it might have helped the bill."
What was the construction to be put on this article ? The
I attended in my place on Thursday evening, and waited
from 4 o'clock till half-past 7. The right hon. gentleman construction I put upon it was that, however d Leroux the
was in his place, but did not rise to address the house. He House of Commons might think that bill, however descruc-
intimated to me at half-past 7 that, as he found his rising to tive it might be considered by the Times to the national in-
terests, still that what we cared about was the danger of a
address the house at that time would lead to an adjourn-
ment of the debate and cause great public inconvenience, he dissolution, and that therefore, if matters could be made
had abandoned his intention of speaking. Here, perhaps, pleasant by an understanding with the Government, mem-
some person may ask why I did not allow the matter to
leers were to sell their votes in return for a two years lease
drop. Sir, I felt it impossible to allow it to drop. (Hear, of their seats. If this could be secured then this Parliament
hear.) After having been called on to attend in my place —legally condemned and morally defunct, in which there
and hear a charge preferred against me in reference to a are many members who would in that case have no right
legally to sit here, and from which many persons would be
remark in a speech made by me, coupled with reference to
remarks made elsewhere, I felt that I could not allow the excluded who had a legal right to sit here—would be willing
right hon. gentleman to hold in his hand a weapon that he to sell their votes, openly and unblushingly, with a selfish
regard to their base and sordid interests. (Hear.) That was
might use against me at any time at his convenience. (Hear,
the construction I put upon that article, and, putting that
hear.) I therefore wrote the following letter to the right
hon. gentleman :
construction upon it, I say that a grosser calumny and
" 40, Upper Grosvenor-street, May 4, 1860,
a fouler and a more insulting aspersion could not have been
" Sir,—l cannot help thinking that your letter of Wed- cast by any public speaker or writer upon the House of
nesday, which occasioned my attendance in the house last Commons. (Hear, hear.) I then wrote the letter which
evening to no purpose, must have been written in a mo- the hon gentleman the member for Berkshire has read to
merit of irritation, and under circumstances of misappre • the hens' e. No one had seen that letter but myself, and I
hension which your better judgment may have led you to
regret. If so, I shall be happy to receive an assurance
gave no notice of my intention to bring the matter before
from
you to that effect ; if not, I shall feel it my duty to bring ihe house. Therefore, I believed, when I told the hon,
your letter and the subject to which it relates under the mernler I was not going to notice the matter in debate, that
aotice of the house this evening at the earliest opportunity. no injury had been done to him, and that no public yin-
-I have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient servant, dication of his character was required. I will go further,
" J. WALTER."
and say that if, when I received the hon. member's letter
I waited at home till half-past two o'clock on Friday after-
next morning in which he complained of my abandoning
mem for a reply, but, not receiving any reply, I came down
to the house to consult you, sir, as to the course which I my intention of speaking upon the matter, that letter had
not been accompanied by the threat that if I did not make
ought to pursue. I had just arranged for the proper moment
an apology he would bring the question before the house,
of bringing the subject under the notice of the house, when,
at half-past three o'clock, this very brief epistle. was for-
I should have been ready to make any apology for any in-
warded to me from the right hon. gentleman. Of course I convenience, and give any explanation which the right hon.
gentleman desired. But when that letter was accompanied
was prevented from giving to it the attention which such a
document deserved, and I was obliged to postpone my state-
by a threat of an appeal to the House of Commons, I ask
ment till the present moment. (Hear.) I ?tags no wish to any hon. gentleman whether I could have given an apo-
refer to the contents of this letter, except to one passage logy. (Hear, hear.) I regret the hon, gentleman did not
only, which relates to a speech of mine at Nottingham. It ask for an apology without the accomponiment of that
threat. After that letter I wrote a reply, which, after the
contains a great deal of very curious matter, and the right
challenge of the hon. gentleman, I must read. Before, how-
hon. gentleman, if he thinks proper to read it to the house,
ever, I read it, I may be permitted, to show my opinion on
hail my permisaion to do so, on the distinct understanding
the subject, to read the two subsequent letters referring to
that he reads every word of it. (Cries of "Read, read.") I
this matter. I received from the hon. member for Berkshire
would rather not read it ; but the right hon. gentleman may
the following letter :
read it to the house, provided he reads every word of it.
(Cries of "Read, read.") I informed the right hen. gentle- of
the course
I felt that I had good reason to complain
urgse which cihmyeaouoonurlwabThurousdtyadevening, in
man of my intention to bring the subject before the house abandoning
this evening, when he would have an opportunity of making summoned me to undergo, I did not consider myselfejx&rasecr,
a reply. Now, with respect to the passage in my speech to at the risk of another adjournment of the debate on the
which the right hon. gentleman refers, I hale Reform Bill,and the further delay of public business, in
nothing to making any objection to that proceeding. I felt, however,
explain or to vindicate. It referred in express terms to the
and, accordingly,
thel imputations con-
speech which the right hon. bart. the member for Hert- veyed in yourt:1ot
ieetmtearul-
fordshire had delivered a few nights before, in which he home, after the debate, I wrote the 'fey4lnuesmwyhictiftyuoniu
spoke of a dissolution as a great evil to the country, the received at an early hour yesterday morning. After wait-
ing at home forour rel till half-past 2 o'clock, I went
only difference being that, while the hon. baronet depre- cflooi7mn to the house
sdaril had just arranged with the Speaker
rated the passing of the Reform Bill, because it would lead explanation
au when, at o'clock,-
tochomalfm-punasitca3tiont
a dissolution, I, agreeing with him as to the mischief of I received your copious
a dissolution, thought that it did not follow as a necessary was too late for me at that hour to study its contents before
consequence of a Reform Bill, and therefore should not be
addressing the house, and I was therefore reluctantly com-
pled to postpone my explanation till Monday evening,
considered an obstacle to the passing of a Reform Bill
when yon will have an opportunity, if you think fit, of re-
during the present year. (Hear, hear.) Even had the plying to it.'
language which I used conveyed the meaning which the I replied to that letter immediately by the following :
right hon, member attributes to it, Ido not think there are o Sir,—l must leave you to take whatever course
you
many members in this hens() whose sensibilities would have may think proper on Monday, on the distinctunderstand-
boen wounded by the suggestion that the prospect of a ing that there will be a motion before the house on
which
general election, with all its concomitant expense, confusion I shall be at liberty to ape tk, and that you read to the
and dissipation, was one which they would not wish to pre- house my letter on which you found your complaint. Irheasveontnaseeytet shown that letter or any portioh of our col,.
cipitate. (Hear, hear.) The fact is, however, that I one
nor out
i of
confiden-
neither expressed nor intended to convey any such mean- Bally to one ii'ienani, aI i nmt'ern family,utlesesxcept
lding. (Hear, hear.) But what I do complain of is, that show it. I shall only regret its production compelled,
House
the the right hon, member seeks to connect my speech with an of Commons, because the names of two of your friends are
mentioned in the course of remarks which I told you were
article in the Times, with which I had no more to do than
oprivately3rourteolfifteiroedn i'o
IbriLesuutallyoouorwir 11
correspondence
apprisede them
he had himself, and of which I can only say that I do not at
this moment know who wrote it. But as this statement house, and to take on yougrself the reesTonsiblciety of before
may surprise the hon. member, and as he founds his infer- to their names a publieitythat I would willingly have spared
en :e as to my connexion withlhe press, and pleaded it as an them, but from which I have not the slightest disposition
excuse for not having taken a more active part in the debates to shrink."
in this house, I will explain to the house the reasons which The house will see from this that I did not compel the
reading of the letter. As far as I was concerned, I depre-
led me to make that statement. There is, in my opinion, a
neceesary antagonism (I know not by what other name to
rated the course which the hon, gentleman has now obliged
call it) between Parliament and the press, which ought to me to pursue, and warned him that it would be painful toothers. I hope, therefore, the house will bear with me
keep the functions of each entirely apart, and which requires
a good deal of delicacy to be observed in the relations while I read this letter, and be kind enough to feel that it
between them. Now, I have observed a growing dispo-
is not a voluntary act on my part, but one which has been
ninon of late years on the part of a certain section
forced upon me by the challenge which the hon. gentleman
of this house to import into the debates in this
has given me to-day. I should mention first that the let-
house very frequent references to the opinions of the ter of the hon, gentleman was delivered at my house early
press, to an extent which appears to me to be in the morning, before I was up. As soon as I received it,
with a number of other letters, I hurriedly wrote a reply in
hardly consistent with the dignity of Parliament. And in
the year in which my speech to which the right hon, gen-
order that the hon. gentleman might receive it early that
tleman refers was made I was particularly struck by the day. He had, however, left home before my letter arrived
there, and therefore he received it at the House of Com-
circumstance that a right hon. gentleman, now a member of
mons. My letter was as follows :
the Cabinet, had in the debate on the Conspiracy Bill quoted
" Sir,—l did not write to you under, feelings of misappre-
very largely from leading articles in the Times, with a view
tension, and still less of irritation, and havenot the smallest
to strengthen the case against the noble lord now at the
requesting your
head of the Government, whom he succeeded in ousting,put you to my
attendancereret oexiatrtre oiliou thats
e account.
inconvenience,esn otee4:) hle erred
n
(Hear, hear.) That circumstance, coupled with the growing through a rule of courtesy, which requires
fashion to which I have referred, has always made me feel to members whose speeches are to be pointedly alluded to.
A.S soon as I found I could not speak without risk of causing
that the position of any hon, gentleman in this house who -
was supposed to be in any way connected with the press has attatalim
adjournment, ent,hl thought it courteous to inform you
become somewhat embarrassing, (Hear.) Accordingly, in to you to have
eo aohaenedteoide
ttlheeant intention. It
the
was quite open
the speech delivered on the occasion referred to at a public presume, from the early hour art "evail.cle youerenvoetneintsford•
de-
dinner dinner at Nottingham, in reply to a toast in which my name livered, that it was written before the debate closed last
was connected both with the House of Commons and with the Ili'
and I should have been ready to adopt the course
it now appears would have been more satisfactory
0 which
press, I made some remarks on that circumstance, and mein- o you,if you had returned to the house and apprized me
tioned that any hon. gentleman supposed to be connected Of what your note now conveys. I will now state to
with the press laboured under some disadvantages .in this you what I intended to do, and my reasons for it. I
house. (Hear, hear.) But if I have felt unduly sensitive was much surprised when you suggested in your speech,
on that point it was because I never before had the oppor- as an accompaniment to the passing of, the big, that
the dissolution should be adjourned ; and it appeared
tuuity which the right hon. gentleman has now afforded
to nie that re?
iv one cou misunderstand what conveyed
me, which I could not have made for myself, and without as to the motes by which the house was to beit influenced.
which I could not volunteer the statement I now make— It was only on Wednesday morning that, alluding again
.f a nature which makes ma feel the deepest interest ithat my connection with the Times newspaper, althoughn
in conversation to your suggestion, I was informed that
o
it bad been made previously in the Times, and on referring
its concerns, is not of an editorial character—(hear, hear) L° the filethle fur tohne
whicht time noticed the article of
—and does, not involve any responsibility on my part for noticing the the various argumentsy°uan?mokoetivesluirligteer for the
111
any opiffion or statement which it contains. (Cheers.) If passing of the bill, to have alluded particularly to your swa-
thet
gestion about a dissolution, as conveying, in my opinion, right hon. gentleman wants any more information, all
I can say is that I have not got St to give him ; nor can the House aumdontsui-uarinor
lessrot oflathe members of
have added that,
Ibe responsible for any conjectures which public gossip or although your sentimen't was clothedli
in thev
the imagination of any private individual may lead him to gentleman addressing gentlemen, and though languageye wereoa
form on the subject. (Cheers.) I have thought it due Yourself incapable of language inconsistent with your high
personal character and position, it was extremely to be re-
alike to the house and to myself to offer this explanation,
sgrueettedottivaetsai maemberifrt own body should seem to imply
and, having done so, I will only say in conclusion that in themust tend to give weight and
event of any similar attack being directed against me I authority to theu speech
same sentiment expressed elsewhere in
shall take no notice of it whatever. (Loud cheers.) , coarser terms and a more offensive spirit. I should then
Mr. HORSMAN—If the hon. member for Berkshire have read the passage in the Times—not in any way con-
necting you with it, or making you responsible for it, any
felt great reluctance in bringing this matter before the house, more
n tl,tnlshould have made Lord Palmerston or Lord
I can assure him and the house of my unfeigned regret that Russell responsible for an article to which I charred
be has felt it his duty to take the course he has now them with giving weight and authority by adopting its sub-
adopted. Ido so not on my own account. I freely confess stance. I will not, however, be so uncandid as to deny that
that I would willingly and anxiously have avoided this dis- in my own mind there would have been a connection be-
t ween your speech and that article, and that it might and
euseion, for I feel that the statement which the hon. member
now compels me to make must give some pain to a gentle- awnol would probably
unnaturally,hee bzrn Ili
metedimi)
et or the
tha minds of others,
man for whom personally I entertain feelings of respect and your constituents at Nottingham you avowtedu oausrpeeoenenhe
et o
esteem, and no word shall fall from me to add to the ten- lion with the Times, and stated, with great tasteyand delicacy;
pleasant feeling which a controversy of this description that you felt that connection embarrassed you in your desire
must under any circumstances produce. As all that has
to take a proper share in the debates in Pariiament. I should
have made no furtherallusion to you—be ond that one regret
passed between the hon, member and myself has taken that the speech of one of our own bodishould
appear,
place by correspondence, I will leave that correspondence however small an extent, to give weight to asper
sunsant(oi
to tell its own tale. The hon. gentleman has read only a imputations on the house made elsewhere, and I should have
portion of that correspondence, and he has left it to me to
gone on to say that if this insult were to be offered to the
atiousle,tl did not regret that I should be brought in as an read the the rest. The hon. member read the first of those let-
ters, but if he had read on the house would see that in a mneuerospoTpartlliiaeuiruenletawsotoultdhededepth of baseness to which
os r
submitting
mt o i
tretainsome their
eseats,ne
subsequent letter I qualified some of the expressions I used as it gave me the opportunity
in the first ; and, so far as I could, I think I rendered it un- ral observations to the house on the relations of the pub-
necessary to bring the question before the house. I warned Itioc press
house institutions of the country, and especially
the hon. gentleman, however, that if the question were forming ; and as I belietuvemo
ynosu, tthoatewteh are now re-
ennt.reoptiiiietor of
brought before the house it must give pain which I would the Times, thp leader in its councils, and
not willingly be the instrument of inflicting ; and that, as other man responsible for its acts, I think I may do thane paily-
lie good service if I can now induce you to weigh well the
far as I was concerned, I would rather the matter should be
night,
now privately offered, but which, had I spoken last
settled by personal explanation without these walls between
him and myself, which I courted. These efforts of mine yourt Zo shouldn
pers onhauviee
teesivveenmototthe world. You 'tY.rtceosmbine in
failed. I regret extremely that they failed, but Ide not re- Englishman can possess, as as talented)ow
member of theth
et an
gret that I made them, because the responsibility of the hitive body and the supreme head of the press that governs
course I amcompelled to take in my own vindication rests the world. In both characters you have immense responsi-
bilities, and you are doubly bound to sustain the
upen' the friends and advisers of the hon. gentleman, and not each of the bodies to which you belong. Youreputation
do not
upon me. While lam as ready as the hon. member to assert or
require me to tell you that the character and hoaour of the •
the independence of the press, and as anxious to maintain House of Commons are the nation's best possessions, and it
it, I utterly repudiate as false and mischievous that doe- is therefore difficult to exaggerate the mischief that is done
by the tone of low morality attributed to public men, and
trine of responsibility which the hon. gentleman has set
up ; and before I sit down I shall have, lam afraid, to show terxhibi,.tgerin itselfly the moit powerful:i organ in the coun-
try, the hon. gentlemanis personal ly and directly responsible veYlu. able aseflosrutL finefrltensswadvocacye pressi3y each o' Englandoul is
its
os
for every letter and every word of that article to which I own line of opinions when it is done with art' honestyruau and
have taken exception. (Hear, hear.) The facts are these: consistency that command respect, and, at the same time,
showe a capability of feeling respect for all that is'great and
—On taking my place on Monday I was told by my hon. and '
iestiinespublcie life, with a full appreciation of the cares
gallant friend the member for Roscommon (Capt. French', anr anxieties
that there was a rumour of a compromise on the Reform responsibility, and sazio,cwesbife theloseelayetwinafeindesrhoonugoties
Bill, that there was to he a £l6 franchis© for counties, an ,
jiist ly and generously judged. Thejournalism of England,
; irhtonourtably conducted, elevating the tone of public me-
nd for boroughs, and an engagement that there was to be
vsantsuteling the character of public men, LS of in-
no dissolution of the house for two years. (Laughter.) I e':ehriYarlte.
ought to repeat that my hon. and gallant friend the men- but it is nothing nsr of strengtheninganatonthaT
enztaimoltal.
wiienuiali institutions;
her for Roscommon merely mentioned this as a rumour, opinion is influenced by great journals, which, less mindful
but the postponement of the dissolution for two years was of the responsibilities than the privileges of the press, show
openly discussed as a sop to the House of Commons. (A
themselves true to no principle, constant to no policy, and
laugh.) The hon, gentleman the member for Berkshire dirdainful of all rules of public justice and morality. Now,
you must excuse my taking the liberty of reminding you that
afterwards rose and addressed the house, and in the course e note eadi the; is I 'ng man on either front bench that the Times,

guided with such wonderful ability and 6/ielding such a ter-
rific power, has not by turns lauded and calumniated, flat-
tered and ;illified. By turns it has vehemently espoused and
bitterly vituperated every party, and advocated and abandoned
every principle. And there is this painful and distinctive
peculiarity about the Times—other journals are content
with opposing the policy or censuring the acts of the Mi-
nister, but the Times always tries to crush the man. For
some years it seemed its special vocation to hunt down,
ruin, and destroy Lord Palmerston, whose official life is
now deemed vital to the nation. Lord J. Russell was once
the idol to be worshipped, but more recently he would have
been driven altogether from public life if the acrimony of
the Times could have accomplished it. So, again, Lord
Derby's first Administration was supported by the Tunes ;
but, in his second one, in the personal persecution of every
leading member, it furnished only another instance of con-
sistency and consideration, and thus with every public man
that is capriciously—and personally, as distinct from poli-
tioully—assailed, it is not criticism but extermination that
is timed at. The practical consequences of all this on our
political condition are very serious. Governments and par-
ties have been lately in a state of weakness and disorgani-
zation alike deplorable and dangerous ; but all this is enor-
mously aggravated when all the vast machinery of the
Times and its gigantic writing power are directed to one
end—that of pursuing to the death, day after day, every
leading man on whom, in turn, the nation (as the Times
comes round to show) must rely; and doing this to an ex-
tent that their public acts don't justify. The result is that
all our best public men become not only politically weakened,
but personally discredited. Public principles are unsettled
and discredited also, respect for parliamentary government
and political institutions is much shaken, and strong go-
vernment becomes impossible. I avow to you my deliberate
and solemn conviction, founded on much observation and
reflection, that the present confusion in our political world
is to a great extent owing to the manner in which every
leading man and principle and cause have been damaged by
the wavering invective of the Times. As I wish you to re-
ceive this before you go to the house, I have not time to re-
mark on the personal influences by which the Tinges is sup-
posed to be affected—on the peculiar influences that draw
Mr. Delane to Lord Palmerston, and the anomalous position
and proceedings of Mr. Lowe on the Treasury bench. They
are the subject of comments which I will not now repeat,
but which affect both the House of Commons and the press.
If you receive my observations in the same frank spirit in
which I make them, I shall be happy to follow them up by
a further expression of views that may be useful to you.
Few public men are in a condition to speak boldly to the
Times. There are few men in Parliament who, like myself,
are so indifferent to party, to office, or to their seat, that they
are as independent of the Times as the Times is of them, and
fear it as little as it fears them. As lam in that position I
have felt it a duty to tell you what may be useful truths, and
in a plain though not unfriendly spirit ; and if they should
have the effect of leading you to consider what I have said,
and if you will permit your judgment to be influenced by it,
I shall not regret the difference—l trust in that case only of
a temporary nature—that has arisen between us, and which
will have been productive of good results through a circle
beyond ourselves." May I read the postscript ?. (Mr.
Walter assented.) "In saying I should have expressed
these views last night, I mean, of course, the general views
on the press, without personal allusions to yourself or
others."
Having read that letter by permission, or rather in answer
to the challenge of the hon. gentleman, I leave it without
further comment, except that it shows two things —that
I did not wish to make this a merely personal question, be-
tween the hon. member for Berkshire and myself, and that,
as far as I am concerned, I have not necessitated the bring-
ing the question before the house. (Hear, hear.) Upon
the general and important principle of the independence of
the public press and its irresponsibility, I have a few words
to add in reply to what has fallen from the hon. gentleman
who is its principle representative.
Mr. WALTER—I beg to explain.
Mr. HORSMAN—I withdraw that expression. I sin-
.cerely regret the inadvertence in so describing the hon.
gentleman. Whence arises this doctrine of responsibility ?
Every man in this house is in favour of the independence
of the press, as all are in favour of the independence of Par-
liament, but this independence carrieswith it responsibility.
Every member of this house is, individually or collectively,
responsible. The. House of Lords is responsible. The Crown
is responsible. Why is the public pressalone to be irrespon-
sible ? (Hear.) It is the Fourth Estate. It is a mighty in-
stitution. The first law of the constitution is that there is
no power, and there can be no power, which is not accom-
panied by responsibility. In a constitutional Government
power and irresponsibility are perfectly incompatible. Why,
then, is the public press, or why is the Times newspaper,
to be the sole exception to the rule ? Conventionally you
may say the press is responsible, but practically you find
that the press is irresponsible. Why ? Because it is anony-
mous. But its being anonymous does not remove the respon-
sibility. It only makes it difficult to enforce it. You cannot
enforce it against a man working in the dark—having a
mask before his face. When a muffled figure, who plants a
dagger, is not punished it is because you cannot identify
him. Nor can you punish the midnight burglar whom you
cannot catch. But the principle of responsibility applies
equally to both. How does that affect the hon. gentleman
the member for Berkshire ? I am afraid that I now come to
the somewhat painful part of the question, but at the same
time a very important public part. By what law of public
responsibility are gentlemen connected with the public press
and having seats in this house to be judged ? I think the
hon. gentleman himself laid down that law on Monday
night. I attempted in the correspondence with him, in
courtesy to him, to detach from him any responsibility with
the Times, but I now mean to fix it upon him. (Opposition
cheers.) What was the leading element of the able speech
of the hen. member for Berkshire on Monday night ? What
was its most telling and effective part? Was it not the in-
dignant and spirited rebuke administered to the hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham for speeches not made here but else-
where ? (Hear.) Did he not tell us that if we wished to see
the hon. member for Birmingham painted by himself we
must read the National _Review What does that mean ? Is
not every member, as a public man and perfectly indepen-
dent, to exercise his rights? Is he not to expresroopinions
and disseminate principles wherever he pleases, in this house
or elsewhere, provided he does not transgress any rule of
public decorum and propriety ? And was that not the reason
why the member for Birmingham was brought into the
house and the hon. gentleman executed on him his law of
responsibility ? Why, all of us feel that responsibility is en-
forced on every member wherever he acts, wherever he
speaks, in his place or out of it, as it was enforced the
other night by the hon. member for Berkshire. Is the same
rule not to be applied to him ? To Caner he appeals, to
Caesar he must go. He says he has no editorial functions
with the Times—he does not know who was the writer of
the article. Who, I ask, employed the man who wrote it ?
(Opposition cheers.) Who paid the man who wrote it ?
(Opposition cheers.) And if, sir, he, as the proprietor of
the Times—

Mr. WALTER—" A" proprietor or "the" proprietor ?
Mr. HORSMAN—As the leading proprietor of the Times.
If the hon. gentleman gets up and tells me he is not the
leading proprietor I have done.
Mr. WALTER—My proprietary interest in the Times,
if the hon. gentleman wishes to know, is of a very limited
description. I have large property connected with the
Times, wholly independent of a limited proprietary interest
in it.

Mr. HORSMAN—I am sure the house will feel that it
is unworthy of the house and unfit in me to descend to a
controversy with the hon. gentleman the member for Berk-
shire on the exact amount of his interest in the Times. The
hen. gentleman cannot dens that he has a leading interest,
and that he is the greatest authority in the Times. I ask
again, who employs the man who writes, who pays the man
who writes these articles ? (Opposition cheers.) And I
say, if the writer received instructions from the council of
which the hon. gentleman is a leading member—if the
waiter receives instructions and remuneration from him, I
want to know what is the difference between the hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham and the hon. member for Berkshire as
regards responsibility. Why, sir, the difference is this, and
this only :—The member for Birmingham goes on a plat-
form in the face of day, avows his opinions before all the
world, and braves the responsibility which is brought upon
him in this house, while the member for Berkshire em-
ploys another to do what the member for Birmingham does
himself. (Opposition cheers.) Because the 'gentleman he
employs works in secret his employer thinks he is to evade
responsibility. I lay down boldly and confidently this prin-
ciple, that between a public writer and a public speaker, on
the ground of responsibility, there is no distinction what-
ever. (Hear.) The only distinction is as to the, difficulty
of identification and detection. (Hear.) If the independence
of the press be assailed, every man in this house, and
99 out of every 100 men in the country, will raise their
voices in its favour. I say, as to the responsibility of the
press, that as in the responsibility of public men, it is the
interest of the whole community to enforce full responsi-
bility. If a member of our own body out of this house
makes a public speech which we feel loweirs and discredits
the body to which we belong, all are anxious that he
should be called to account, all are anxious to enforce re-
sponsibility, the enforcement of which is a protection to our
own character and honour. So it is with the press. It has
the same interest in keeping up the character of the press
as we have in keeping up the character of public men; and
if there be one organ which lowers the character of the
press, I Fay it is the interest of every man connected with
the press to do all they can, not only to discountenance it,
but to enforce responsibility against that organ which would
otherwise throw discredit on the whole body, who are not
more distinguished for talent than for honour, taste, refine-
ment, high principle, and a combination of all those quali-
ties which make the leading contributors favourites and
ornaments of every society which they enter. (Cheers.) It
is with extreme regret that I have had to say this to the
hon. member for Berkshire. I have sat with him many
years, and I have learnt to regard him with feelingFi of sin-
cere respect. Although it is impossible that occasionally
there should not have been an incidental recellection of his
connection with the press, my wish has always been to re-
gard him in a different character, as the representative of an
important English county—as one who, while he doe; in-
herit a noble inheritance, which we are now discussing,
inherits still more the position of a territorial proprietor,
which puts him on a social equality with the greatest and
noblest in the land. (Cheers.) believe he owes his seat
not so much to his merely territorial position as to the ex-
ample which he has set of every virtue. 1 know that in his
own neighbourhood few landlords are more popular. There
is no man whose conduct sets a better example in the esti-
mation of all those who live in his vicinity than that of the
hon. gentleman, and my sincere wish is that he may sit
many years in this house, sharing more largely than he has
hitherto done in those debates which, as we all know, he has
already adorned, and receiving from- us that respect and
esteemwhich as a tribute to his past demeanour he' has fairly
won, and to which he is eminently entitled. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said—l hope this discuseim will