The Sun.
London, England, 1868-12-16 00:00:00

, -
LORD CAIRNS AND LORD FORTESCUE.

The follnwinz correspondence appears In the Times:—

" No. 1.
" Lord Cairns to Earl Fortescne.

" 5, Cromwell Houses, Dec. U.

"My Lora,—t observe in the Times of to-day it is
reported that'your lordship at a dinner at Barnstaple or
the Bth inst., in acknowledging the toast of The Lord
Lieutenant and Magistrates of the County,' and corn
menting on the members of the late Government, stated
you had yourself twice witnessed the detection of Lor
e
Cairns in misquoting despatches and Acts of Parliament.'
"I should be glad to hear from your lordship that this
report is incorrect ; but if it be correct, I take this mode—
as the House of Lords is not sitting for the purpose of
questions or debate—of asking you to furnish me with s
reference to the `despatches and Acts of Parliament
which you allege were misquoted by me, with a statement
of the misquotations' to which you referred, and of the
occasions when, as you say, you yourself witnessed the
detection' of these misquotations.
" I have the honour to be, my lord, your most obedient
servant, " C URNS."
_ _

24, No. 2.
" Lord Cairns to Earl Fortescue.

" 5, Cromwell Houses, Dec. 12.
" My Lord,—Since writing my letter of yesterday I
have been furnished with a copy of the North Devon
Journal of the 10th inst., in which your lordship is
reported to have spoken, at the public dinner at Barn-
staple, on the Sth inst., in the following words :
" ' Then we hear a great deal about the admirable
Lord Chancellor in the late Government. Undoubtedly
he was a man of consummate eloquence and ability, but
during the short time he has had a seat in the House of
Lords I have been twice an eye-witness to his detection in
the act of misquoting despatches and Acts of Parliament,
and of his misquoting them with an effrontery and a dex-
terity painfully suggestive of a familiarity with such
practices.'

I now beg to ask your lordship whether this report is
correct.

" I have the honour to be, my lord, your most obedient
servant - " CAIRNS."

"No. 3.

" Castle-hill, Dec. 12, 1868.

"My Lord,—l have the honour to acknowledge your
lordship's letter of the 11th, inquiring whether the words
attributed to me in a short report in the Times of the
speech made after the dinner to Mr. Acland last Tuesday
was correct, and asking me to furnish you with a reference
to the despatches and Acts of Parliament which I alleged
to have been misquoted by you.

" I saw none of the reports of the Devonshire papers
before their publication, but from their unanimity I fear
I must have omitted to use the words ' misrepresentation or
misquotation' as I ought on that occasion. It is with
shame and regret I have to acknowledge that, while
complaining in such strong terms of inaccuracy
on the part of your lordship, I have been guilty of it
myself, and I hasten to tender the apology due to you for
my indefensible language about you in that speech.
Your lordship did not misquote the despatches cited by
you in your attempt to convict Lord Carnarvon of
inconsistency and inaccuracy in the debate on the
Irish Church Bill. You only, in my opinion, and I
fancy in that of most of your hearers, seriously
misrepresented their bearing on my noble friend's con-
duct. Your lordship did not, as I bad imagined before
referring to-day to the reports of the debate, quote, much
less misquote, the Act placing upon the Consolidated Fund
an annual grant of i;20,300 for Church purposes in the
West Indies. You only, as was subsequently shewn by
Lord Carnarvon and the Duke of Buckingham in the House
of Lords, and since verified from ' Hansard ' by myself,
altogether misstated the time and circumstances of the in-
troduction of that grant, and utterly misrepresented its
character. Your lordship in the same speech assigned as a
reason for your Government's proposal to discontinue that
grant dispositions and intentions on the part of the West
Indian colonists which, when challenged to the proof, you
did not attempt to substantiate.
"It was not so much these misrepresentations (for, as I
too well know, men are liable unintentionally to be led
into them, especially by the excitement of speaking) as
your lordship's marked omission to tender Lord Carnarvon
one word of apology for them, an omission felt by many,
and publicly complained of by Lord Granville, that left
such a strong impression on my mind. It was that omission
which suggested to me the not absolute impossibility of simi-
lar inaccuracy on the part of your lordship in your thrice
repeated interruption and correction of my words wLen
following your lordship in the discussion of the 31st and
32nd Victoria, c. 73. It was that omission which led me
then to hurry out immediately to look at the clause under
discussion (7th and Sth George IV., c. 73, s. 0), instead of
accepting, as I otherwise should, at once the correction of
a Lord Chancellor on such a point. I need hardly remind
your lordship that there I found the very words I had
used ; while what your lordship, with such unaccountable
eagerness, thrice substituted, amid the cheers of your
friends, was not iu the clause.

" Dec. 13.

" I had written nearly thus much before receiving your
lordship's second letter this morning. I cannot, lam
sorry to say, but acknowledge from my own recollection,
confirmed by the reports in other Devonshire papers, that
I used the words attributed to me in the North Devon
Journal. I had already prepared before the post came a
letter to the Times, which, with some corrections, I encloso
for your lordship's transmission, should you think proper
to send it in preference to publishing the correspondence.
In that letter your lordship will see I fully acknowledge
my misstatement, and own that my comments on those
instances of your lordship's reckless assertion in the
excitement of discussion were couched in terms which
subsequent reflection, and still more the bitter lessors of
my own inaccuracy, have convinced me I was not justified
in using then, and ought publicly to retract and apologise
for now, as I desire to do.
" I have the honour to be, my lord, your lordship's
obedient servant, " FORTESCUE.

" P.S.—I have not finished making a fair copy of my
corrected letter, and the post is going, but your lordship
shall receive it to•morrow."

" No. 4.
" Lord Cairns to Earl Fortescue.
" Dec, 15, 1868.

" My Lord, —I have to acknowledge your lordship's
letter dated the 12th and 13th instant, and also another
letter to the same effect, which your lordship offers
me the option of transmitting to the editor of the
Times.
" As your lordship desires to retract and apologise for
the statement of which I complained, your letter, had it
contained no more, would have left nothing for me to do
but to accept the apology and forget that the circumstance
had occurred.

" But your lordship adds to the apology an elaborate
narrative, by way, as I understand it, of an excuse ; and I
am forced to refer to this, lest I should appear to admit
either its accuracy or relevancy.
" As to a discussion which your lordship states to have
taken place in the House of Lords during the progress of
anAct of last session (the 31st and 32nd Victoria, c. 73), you
do not supply me with any idea or words connected with ,
it by which it could be identified. I have looked at the
reports of the debates both in the times and Hansard,'
and I can find nothing whatever on the subject. lam
sorry to say I have no recollection of, and I do not even
understand, what you refer to. But if you had then any
complaint to make of any statement made by me in
debate, I apprehend that the House of Peers, and not an
election dinner at Barnstaple, would have been the fitting
place in which to make it.
" You refer at greater length to the debates on the Irish
Church Bill, and to an argument adduced in those debates,
derived from the past and present position of the Church
in the West Indian Colonies. I have no intention of reopen-
ing that subject in this correspondence. I cannot accept
your lordship's version of either the condition or details of
the argument, or of the facts on which it was founded.
This, however, is matter of opinion. Your lordship is
of course free to form your own opinion, and I do
not expect you to concur in mine. But what I own is to
me matter both of surprise and regret, is. that your lordship
should see in any view of that passage of parliamentary
history, even the colour of justification for an attack made
not in your place in the House of Lords, but at a public
dinner in a country town ; not in self-defence, but wholly
without provocation ; not in the heat of debate, but in
ceremonious acknowledgment of a non-political toast ;
an attack which, if your lordship understands it as I
understand it, imputed personal dishonour and deceit to a
member of a Government which you wished to discredit.
" I propose, as your lordship anticipates, to request the
publication of this correspondence, arid I therefore return
the letter addressed to the editor of the Times.—l have the
honour to be, my lord, your most obedient servant,
CAIRNS."

THE CRYSTAL PALACE. —The report of the
Crystal Palace Company shews that there is a balance of
£46,128 as the result of the year's working. There has
been to some extent a falling off in the receipts on ordinary
clays—a fact which the directors attribute in part to the
"unfortunate rise in fares" on the two lines of railway to
the Palace. On the other hand, the'humber of visitors on
the days of special attractions has been maintained, and the
attendance of season ticket holders exceeds that of last
year by 72,106. The restoration of that portion of the
building which was destroyed by fire two years ago has
been gradually pushed on, and the greater part of it will
be " restored to the attractions of the coming Christmas
season." The Palace is now insured in the amount of
nearly £llO,OOO. _ _