The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-04 00:00:00

`,

' \

•

the King. It was confidently stated dist the letter wa.
published verbatim, and it was as confidently concluded
that the publication could only have occurred through the
instrumentality of some individual in a high official situa-
tion. The assertion had been made with so much confi-
dence that an investigation was instituted. They had
heard of such a thing as "a trick" having been played
with the King's Cabinet, and it was, therefore, desirable
to ascertain how the letter referred to could have been
communicated to the conductors of a newspaper. The
result of the investigation proved, that it was not from
the Treasury or the Home Office, or the Foreign Office, or
the Admiralty, or the Exchequer, or even the Lord Chan-
celloi's private room, for it was well he should look near
home—(a laugh)—that the foul stream, carrying with it
so gross a breach of confidence, had issued. Would their

Lordships believe it ? Upon examination it turned out
that the letter bad not been published at all—(Loud
cheers.) There was no carpus delecti, as the lawyers
called it. Not a line or a tittle of the letter bad been
published, and the whole charge proved utterly unfounded.
After finding how much lie had been imposed upon in
that instance, the Right Rev. Prelate should certainly be
more cautious how lie came forward with accusatory
statements again, and how he charged the Hon. and
Learned Solicitor-General for Scotland with being guilty
of a foul trick.
The Duke of WELLINGTON felt be had done no
more than his duty in making the statement he had made,
arid he might add that, in .his opinion, no part of that
statement had been shaken by what fell from the Noble
and Learned Lords opposite.
The Bishop of EXETER begged to remind their Lord.
ships that in the case referred to, when a letter addressed
to his Majesty was said to have been published, he had not
stated any thing as a fact, he had merely stated what he
had heard.

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that as the Right
Ri-v. Prelate had been so grossly deceived, as he had been
on a former occasion, he ought to have been more cautious
in making new charges.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND begged to say that he
had sat near the Noble Duke (Buckingham) when the
Right Rev. Prelate called attention to the publication in
question. The Noble Duke said his letter had been pub-
lished nearly verbatim, and, he added, that he had given
no copy of the letter to any one, and had shown it only
to two persons, members of his own family, on whose dis-
cretion he could entirely rely. The Right Rev. Prelate,
therefore, was well justified in the part he had taken.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if ten Noble
Dukes repeated ten times that the letter published was a
verbatim copy of the letter addressed to the King, he (the
Lord Chancellor) must contradict the statement. He had
compared the letter himself with the publication ; others
had compared it, and there was not the slightest pretence
for saying that the person who had written the letter in the
newspaper had ever seen the letter addressed to the King.
The author of the new-paper letter, who signed himself
" Radical," was well known, and he had come forward
afterwards and distinctly stated that his information was
derived from ordinary society, and from a consideration of
the general course of events at that time, and that he had
no communication whatever on the subject with any
Member of his Alajesq's Government. He repeated that
there was not a tittle of the real letter published, and that
the writer of the newspaper letter had no possible access
to the letter addressed to his Majesty.

The Duk- of CUMBERLAND wished not to be under-
stood that the letter to his Majesty was published ver-
batim. He merely stated his recollection of what had been
stated by the Noble Duke (Buckingham) on the subject.
The Bishop of EXETER said that although the course
he had taken had been misrepresented from the highest
place in that House, yet he must be allowed to set himself
right with their Lordships. He had made no confident
assertions with respect to the letter addressed to his /Ma-
jesty ; he had merely said that he had bead such an in.
ciderit occurred ; that a letter addressed to the King by a
Noble Duke bad been published, and he asked the Noble
Duke to say whether what he had heard was true or not—
to which the Noble Duke replied, that the report was true,
for that the letter was nearly verbatim.
The Marquess of LANSDOWNE had assisted in com-
paring the real letter with the published letter, and he
confidently asserted, there was not such a resemblance be.
tween the two, as to lead any one to suppose that there
had been a breich of confidence.

Earl GREY understood distinctly that the charge made
by the Right Rev. Prelate was, that his M ijesty's Govern-
ment was connected with a particular newspaper; and, in
proof of that charge, he stated, that on a particular day,
a private letter addressed to his Majesty, had been pub-
lished in the newspaper alluded to, and th it the editor of
that newspaper could have received the letter from nobody
but a Member of his Majesty's Government. Upon com-
paring the publication and the letter, it appeared, as he
(Earl Grey) stated at the time, that the letter could not
have been communicated to the newspaper through any
Member of his Majesty's Government.
Lord HOLLAND sail that this discussion was truly
amusing. A Noble and Learned Lord opposite had talker'
of a prosecution. What ! pro-ecute a newspaper writer
as a sland rer and a 1:hller, merely because he hail stated
in his journal that a certain letter had been addressed to
the King? But what was the defence of the Right Rev.
Prelate against the charge brought against him ? Why,
that he had heard of such a communication having been
made to a newspaper, which lie understood to be sanc-
tioned by the Government. Surely their Lordships would
not mete out even-handed justice, if they, for a moment,
could think of calling a public writer to account for slan-
der, and, at the same time, consider it befitting the dignity
of this House that any man should indulge in slander
within its walls.—(Cheers.)

The Earl of ELDON and Lord HOLLAND mutually ex-
plained.

The Bishop of EXETER denied that any thing he had
stated bore out the representation of the Noble Earl
(Grey). lie slid not state that his Majesty's Ministers
had given to a certain newspaper the information in ques-
tion. All i-;e had said was, merely in allusion to an opi.
nion which was generally acquiesced in from the belief
that that paper was in close connexio❑ with the King's
Government.

E,rl GREY said that the Right Rev. Prelate had stated
openly, that a newspaper had published a letter which it
could only have received as a confi, ential communication
from the Government. He (Earl Gtey) felt no other
sentiment at the thine than disgust, and he felt no other
sentiment now than utter contempt.—(Loud cheers from
the Ministerial Benches. )
The M trquess SALISBURY knew not how to ex-
press his feelings, or how to measure his words on hearing
the word " contempt" applied to a Right Rev. Prelate
of this House. The words originally used by the Right
R -v. Prelate were " The newspaper breathes the inspira-
tion of the Treasury." He called upon the Noble and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack to rise up from his seat and
say th,it his observations ought rather to apply to a Noble
Duke (Buckingham) on that (the opposition) side of the
House than to the Right Rev. Prelate.

The Bishop of EXETER entreated Noble Lords not to
persist in this conversation. Whether any part of his con-
duct deserved the epithets of " disgust" and " contempt,"
ipplied to it by the Noble Earl, he would leave it to those
who knew him best to say.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would not obey the call
of the Noole Marquess. He would not admit that he was
wrong in any thing he had said, being convinced he was
right. He had mule no charge; he had only stood upon
his defence. The Noble Duke alluded to had not volun-
teered an imputation ; he had only answered a question
put to him by the Right Rev. Prelate.