Star.
London, England, 1828-02-26 00:00:00

MINISTERIAL SZPLANATIONS.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY—I move that your.
Lordships do now adjourn.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—My Lords, it is
with very great reluctance that I again obtrude myself
upon-, our Lordships' notice; but, as there is no business
before your Lordships, I beg permission, in a few words,
to refer to a subject, which a few evenings back I
brought under your Lordships' consideration, and to a
contradiction which a part of my statement on that
occasion has since received. I then stated, that a decla-.
ration had been made by a Itighs Honourable Gentle-
man, a Member of the other House of Parliament, in
part of the speech reported to have.been delivered by
him at Liverpool, wholly at variance with a previous
one ; ani I asked the Noble Earl opposite n-hether he
were aware of that declaration, and to whom it had
referred? The Hight Hon. Gentleman in that speech is
reported to have said—• 4 As to personal enemies of Mr.'
Canning, I know of none in the present Administration."
—(Hear, hear). In reviewing and comparing that state-
ment with his former declaration, I do not make it
matter of charge against the Right Hon. Gentleman
that he has departed from the principle of his first decla-
ration ; I merely ask for an explanation of the obvious
inconsistency of the two statements. On the former
evening, I believe I did not make myrel understood by
the Noble Earl (Dudley), for, in his reply, he contented
himself with calling the attention of your Lordship,
to the conduct of my lamented father-in law (Mr. C.)
under circumstances which I cannot allow were, in
any point or particular, similar to the circumstances
under which the Noble Earl and tl:e Right Hon. the
Secretary for the Colonies intermixed themselves with
the new Administration. It is probable that the noise
created by several Noble Lords leaving the House pre-
vented my making-myself distinctly understood by the
Noble Eat I ; but I repeated them at the request of the
Noble Lord, and then I understood him (Earl I).) to say,
that he had heard of some such declaration, but that it had
not the authority of the name of the Right Honourable
Secretary. Now, although there is a great difference
between the declaration which I stated to have been
made by the Right Honourable Gentleman, and the,
declaration avowed and admitted to have been made
in another place, to which 1 am not at liberty to refer,
1 still contend that the statenn nt to which I referred,i
and the avowal and the declaration.admitted by the
Noble Earl to have been made, must be received as.
proofs of the inconsistency of the Right Honourable
Gentleman's statement at Liverpool ; for he admitted
that in September he knew of some enemies of Mr..
Canning, but that in January he knew of none. As to.
the truth of the declaration which I on a former even-'
ing attributed to tie Right Honourable Gentleman,
there can be no doubt ; because on his return from the
Continent, the Right Honourable Gentleman (the Se-
cretary of State for the Colonie-) paid mile than one
visit to the widow of Mr. Canning. I cannot state the
exact day upon which what I am about to mention
took place—but on going to Mrs. (now Lady) Canning's
house one day, I met the Right Honourable Gentle-
man coming out. On going up 'stairs I was informed
by that Noble Lady and by another individual, that he
(Mr. Huskisson) had to each of them separately related
the declaration as having been made in the terms, or
at least to the purport in which I gave it. Conceiving
that declaration to be inconsistent with what the Right
Honourable Gentleman subsequently said at Liverpool,
I thought a reference to it by me was by no means im-
pertinent. When I heard, therefore, that my descrip-
tion of the Right Honourable Gentleman's former de-
claration was contradicted directly, and positively)
contradicted (even though that contradiction was
afterwards a little qualified), I own that I felt surprised
—(Hears hear).—Clearly recollecting all the citcom-,
stances under which I learned, for the first time, the
declaration of the Right Honourable Gentleman, I
acknowledge that, when I was made aware ofthe de-
nial of its correctness, I did doubt whether my memory
bad not failed me, and I determined to inquire respect-
ing it ; and,. whether I found that my then statement

had been correct or incorrect, to inform your Lordship*
of the result. I did inquire, and 1: now reassert, ow
my own recollection, and on the recollection of the two
individuals to whom I have referred (which are so
perfect, so undeviating in every particular, that in my
mind no doubt can be thrown nn their accia-acy), the
statement I first made to your .Lordships. respect
to what I, as an individual, stated oa my own recollec-
tion, I deemed it necessary to obtain the fallen cor•
roboration, and I hold in my hand a copy of a letter
written bylthat Noble Lady (Canning), on Friday last,
addressed to the Right Hon. the Colonial Secretary, in
which she distinctly states he had made to her the decla%
ration which I stated to your Lordships the other night.
That letter it is not my intention to read to your Lord-
ships, unless I shall be specifically called upon to do so
but if it shall be required of-me, lam at perfect liberty
and quite ready to produce and read it. It has been
asserted that the declaration of the Right Hon. Gentle.
man could not have reached the public eye but by a
base and scandalous violation of good faith ; hut I con•
-tend that there was nothing in the manner in which I
obtained a knowledge of it, and nothing in my reference
to it in this House, that deserves that term. The Right
.Hon. Gentleman did not make the communication con-
fidentially ; moreover, it must have been made to other
persons, for several weeks ago it appeared in a Daily
Journal—one of those possessing the widest circulation.
it could not have been given by my friends to that
Journal, for it was not known to them until after it had
been so published—(Hear). Another objection to my
statement has been raised, namely, that I have brought
them forward in a place where the Right Honourable
Secretary cannot be present to deny or defend himself.
But where am I to comment upon speeches ?—I do not
mean a speech made in a place to which it would be
irregular to refer, but a speech made at a public meet-
ing—where, I ask, am Ito comment upon such a speech,
if not in this House ? (Hear.) It is a matter of very
great pain to me to find myself placed in a position of
hostility to the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of
State for the Colonies; but I felt it to be a duty imee-
rative on me not to suffer the statements or rediesentaa
tions said to have been made by that Right Honourable
Gentleman at Liverpool to remain uncontradicted—
(Hear).• Having thus far explained my motives, and
proved the correctness of my statement, I shall not fur-
ther trespass en your Lordships' attention than to de-
clare, that although the lapse of time has not obliterated
iq my mind the feelings of sorrow which the loss of my
distinguished and lamented relative so naturally pro-
duced, yet, so far am I from allowing those feelings to
influence me in my Parliatnbutaiy course, that I sin-
cerely hope tfe measures whica may be brought for-
ward by the present Administration may be such as I
can conscientiously support—(Hear, hear). But when
I observe the hostility even yet displayed by some, and
the oblivion attempted by others to be cast upon that
individual, whose principles and whose Governmetit
weresalculated to insure the.safety and prosperity of
-the country, I own I cannot make up my mind to give
to.the present Administration, who were the opponents
of both, my confidence—(Hear, hear).
The Earl of DUDLEY—I have no intention of oc-
cupying your Lordships' attention at any length open
the question which the Noble Martinis has thought fit
a second time to bring before your Lordships, and who
has done so, giving no other notice of such his intention
to persons likely to be interested than that to be col.
lected from reports in Clubs and from Newspapers. I
own it appears to me that the subject thus again brought
forward by the Noble Marquis is not a question that
ought to be discussed in Parliament. The acts of public
men—their public declarations—may on public grounds
become matter for discussion here, but it is not the
province ef Parliament to inquire whether the friends
of a deceased Statesman had or had not conducted
themselves with proper delicacy and proper feeling in
accepting of office, with persons among whom any un-
friendly feelings towards him had grown up? The
Noble laird has repeated his question of a former even-
ing, relative to a declaration which it is supposed had
been made by my Right Hoff. Friend, the Secretary of
State for the Colonial Dapartment. The Noble Lord
has put a second question as to a declaration which he
supposed to have been made respecting what be held
to be his duty, in connecting himself with per sons,
members of the present Administration, hostile to the
Administration of my deceased friend. I told the Noble
Lord then all I knew of the sulject— that after the
death of my lamented friend (Mr. Canning), I under-
stood that a declaration had been made by Mr. Hus-
kisson that he was not disposed to act with those persons
sho had been opposed to Mr. Coming's Government.
That was all I knew of the circumstance. I had no
reason to believe that that declaration was of such a
mature as ought to have precluded my Right Hon.
Friend, at a future period, or under other circumstatice<4
from accepting, office together with those individuals.
I will not dwell up.n those reasons which induced me
Ito cherish regard and veneration for my deceased and
lamented friend; but, on political grounds, it is impos-
sible that Governments could be formed, or go on, if
.wei in or hasty expressions are to be considered as bind-
ing upon men, so far as. to prevent their. acting for the
public good. The history of this country affords nu-
merous examples of quarrels, and of reconciliations
between public men—of quarrels much more bitter,
and of much longer continuance, than that which un-
happily subsisted between my late Right Hon. Friend
and some of his former colleagues. How stood the case
of which I speak? After a connection with those indi-
viduals of several years in the Government of the coun-
ftnryrm, Mr. Can
am Administration.
ningw'iscellCedircutipmonstabnyceisusarlOisaejewstlytictoh
but
in
measures,bi sGovern_
that difference (although certainly it
induced those pearfstoentswtaordrsef.(u)pspentsoe,djohinia
tmneentd,araantdinnthenyi
ended only with his life), was only for two months.
Now, after a connection of several years, it would be
going too far to say, that a difference of only two
months' existence was to remain interminable. They
might, and probably would, have become reconciled.
But with this, my Lords, the public have nothing to do.
Society is the tribunal before whom only it can be
judged; and, for my part, I will not, by any further
observations on the subject, make myself accessary to
the introduction of topics into Parliament, with ts ham
Parliament has nothing to do.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, in explanation,
said, that what he had stated was, not that .the Right
Hon. Gentleman ought not to have forgotten the per-
sonal feelings by which be professed himself to be. once
animated, but that he (the Marquis of Clanricarde)