The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-07 00:00:00

that complained—it was under this impression that I all
along laboured. Now, if he admits there, was some ground •
for this persuasion on my part, then, of course, I can have
nothing to explain or qualify. If it turn nut that lam
in error, I shall be most happy to acknowledge my mis-
take—more than a misapprehension it cannot be in any
quarter.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH uttered a few sentences in a
tone quite inaudible in the gaUery, and then proceeded :
On the occasion to which the Right Ron.- Gentleman re-
fers, I mesa en Friday night, I confess I did not hear
from him a single expression ef the harsh nature which has
_been attributed... and which is well known to be so incon-
sistent witlh,histtsnal manner. On, that very occasion the
Right' Hon. Gentleman, came to me and offered to.make!
the qualifications of which he, has spoken ; and I, smiling,
observed, that it was perfectly needless, thinking he merely
referred the general explanation, given on similar..occa-'
bionic. namely, that hil,was hetrayed into the language -he
had used during thOeite"Of-tiebate. • r 1 thought, as I think
still, that language, rfiereikPi4c!ieding from the excitement
•Of the moment,' requires no such explanation amongst
Gentlemen Whd Proceed upon the understanding which, '4l
trust,- genetally prevails In this (louse.. As I have entered
upon this suhject, shall take the liberty of saying a few
words with respect to the ccindOct of a, Gentleman now
absent=l mean the forther Member for Coventry.—
In the interviews whiCh I had ;6th-that Gentleman,
as -well those which had with him alone, as in the
presence of other respectable
,personi,
.1 never once
swerved' from a declaration of my intention to offer
to the Bill of 18e2 the most decided resistance.—
That Hon.' Gentle Man was as warmly the advocate of the
Bill as I was its opponent, and .he labehre& very Strenu-
ously to 'induce me to adopt his views, but I uniformly
persisted in my declaration that I would oppose the
In doing this, however, I was most anxious to soften my
refusal by every possible courtesy.e of manner—at the same
time, that I intended, and .an,far ,as my recollection can
give assurance; r distinctly stated My intention of adhering
to my original determination, and never did I depart 'from
that. In justice to the late Member for Coventry, it is
only right I should say, that I know him to be as incapable
of intentionally misrepresenting' any matter 'whatsoever, as
I know myself to be incapable of receding from' any en-
gagement which I had once formed. The only mode by
which I can account for the misapprehension is, by sup.;
piing that the late Member for Coventry was led tb hake
the representation lie did to the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite, ;or, if he will still allow me to call him so,' to'
my Right Hon. Friend-4 say, Sir, that the MeMber for
Coventry waa induced to snake this representation to hini
in consequence of taking my civility of manner in a sense
which I was far from intending at all events, he must be'
entirely acquitted of any thing like misrepresentation. I
don't know that it is necessary for me to say any thing
further on this subject.
Mr. W. 11011 TON-My statement was this, that six
weeks before the discussion in question;Alr..Ellice told me
that I might expect the support of the Right Ifni'. Gentle-
man opposite. I have nothing to do with what took
place afterwards. I had merely to state the facts is they
cams under my observation. I made no accusations 'against
the Right Hon. Gentleman. I never intended any.

sie J.-MACKINTOSH—I should have thought that.
enough was already said upon a Misunderstanding of this
nature. I shall, therefore, merely state, that it is Per-
feedy true, that a cepy of the Bill was shewn to me, and
read by me amongst a variety of other papers, and it must
have been as. I have already said, that the Member for
CoventrY mistook mere civility. of manner for assent, to his
representations. I certainly said, that.tbe conditions of
the Union Bill were advantage Mis to the English settlers,,
but I saw no reason for departing from the original reso-
lution I had expreSsed on the subject. It might be, that
the late- Member for Coventry understood what I then
said, in a much larger sense than I intended. My Right
lion. Friend opposite, seems alsO to misunderstand me.
I did not treat the Bill of 1822 as peculiarly his measure.
He was merely:thetrepresentative of the Colonial flovern-
h merit. . I 4o:not censure himor.the Noble Lord who VMs.
the organ of Government in this House at the time the
Bill was proposed.• I merely considered that they took an
erroneous view of the subject at. the time ; P thought so en
Friday, and I think so still. . .
After at few words from Mr. LABOLtellilig and Mr. A.
BARING, the petition was brought up and ordered to lie
on the table.: , . , ' (.1
Lord MOUNTCHARLES ,presented a petition from
Donoughtnore; in favour of the Catholic Claims.:—Ordered
to be printed: •
Admiral SOTIIARON presented similar petitions from
Nottingham and Kinnegad.—Ordered to lie on the table.
ADMIRALTY COURT.—PLURALITIES OF
LIVINGS (IRELAND).
Sir J. NEWPORT postponed until Tuesday fortnight
his notice of motion " to consider the state of the Admi-
ralty Court (Irelr.nd)." The Right Hon. Baronet also
fixed for the same day his. motion for " a Bill to limit.and
restrain the granting dispensations or faculties for holding
pluralities of livings in Ireland ; and fur confining the power
of uniting Parishes therein to the Lord-Lieutenant and
Couna."