measures of this kind, or of some other, are | I have felt that it was perfectly right that indispensably and immediately necessary those whose confidence I have lost should to restore confidence. I do not say that question the prudence of the course I purwith respect to the administration of the sued. But there are bounds which ought law, but confidence in the security of life. to be observed by every one who respects And here, Sir, I should have been willing the usages of Parliament. You cannot to dismiss all other topics; but I feel it forget that I heard the noble Lord presume incumbent on me not to sit down without not only to question the prudence of our noticing the speech which was made on the conduct, but to arraign the motives of Her night when this subject was last under the Majesty's Government-you cannot forget consideration of this House by the noble that I heard the noble Lord state, not Lord the Member for King's Lynn. I do merely that we despaired of ultimately sucdeeply regret, not for my own sake, but ceeding in carrying that measure (the Profor the sake of the character of this House tection of Life Bill)-but he presumed to -I do deeply regret that during this Ses- say that we were not in earnest, nor honest sion there has been, for the first time, a in our attempts to carry it. Now, I think, license assumed which is, I think, injurious that to question motives in this way is unto the cause of legitimate debate. Sir, I parliamentary. The House will remember may refer to the course which I have taken that I heard the noble Lord speaking of during my Parliamentary life for five and those with whom I am connected by official thirty years, for the purpose of showing ties-of those who acting from as pure and that at least my example cannot have jus- conscientious a sense of public duty as ever tified any one in the license now taken. influenced any representative in this House, Sir, I have sat in Parliament in times of have given me their support during the great excitement, and I believe it to be progress of my late measures that I possible to conduct the freest discussion in heard the noble Lord characterise them this House, and that every latitude can be as "hired Janisaries and renegades" given for censure either in the free discus--gentlemen engaged in public service sion of public subjects, or by the condem-gentlemen exercising their free right nation of questionable acts of the Govern- of judgment on public matters-that I ment; but if the language used by the heard the noble Lord characterize them noble Lord be Parliamentary, then I beg as hired Janisaries and renegades. [A leave to say that the license must not be VOICE: Paid Janisaries.] And this, by one-sided. Your sense of justice will in- a noble Lord who, without being quesduce you to give to all parties the same free- tioned, had exercised the perfect which he dom of speech and of discussion: you will possesses to vote according to his sense of not refuse to extend to those who feel them- public duty. I think the noble Lord voted selves calumniated and maligned, the same last year against restrictions on factory lalicense which you have given to their as- bour, and he voted for them this year-but sailants. And, Sir, if in commenting on without being questioned as to the honesty those attacks, though I hope to maintain of his motives. I think the noble Lord was the course which has hitherto prevailed prepared, although he denied the extent of with me, and though I hope to r spect the the famine in Ireland—although he thought usages which public men have hitherto ad- that it would not diminish but aggravate hered to in the course of public and even the false alarm, yet the noble Lord was acrimonious discussions-yet if I should prepared to support by far the most absurd forget them in commenting upon some of and impracticable measure I ever heard of, the observations made by the noble Lord, namely, to permit the importation of foreign I trust that you will not forget the provo- grain only into Ireland-that permission cation I have received, and that you will not to extend to England. The noble Lord, not forget that I, in my place as Prime I believe, voted for the first reading of this Minister of this country, am charged with Bill upon the ground that no man could the proposal and the conduct of more im- safely go to church-that old women going portant measures than have ever perhaps to church were subjected to constant danbeen submitted to the Legislature of this ger-that women with children in their country. You cannot forget that I have arms were assassinated, and that there was not sought to defend myself without great no security for life and property; and he provocation, though I hope I shall do so and his friends were determined that this in that temper which is certainly becoming license should no longer be tolerated under in a public man whose acts are impugned. the name of British and constitutional li

berty. Well, the noble Lord is now pre- the right hon. Gentleman in 1827. In 1829 he pared to vote against the second reading. told that House that he had changed his opinions in 1825; that he had communicated his change of The noble Lord says he withholds his conopinion to the Earl of Liverpool; but that, it fidence from the Government, and he thinks proved, did not prevent him in 1827 getting up in he is justified on this ground; but if he the same assembly and stating that the reasons he claims to himself the privilege of changing severed himself from Mr. Canning's Cabinet was, his vote, I tell him that he is bound to that he could not consent to support a Government of which the chief Minister was favourable withhold from others such expressions as to the measure which in two years more he (Sir "paid janisaries and renegades" for doing R. Peel) himself carried.” the same thing. Why, who are the men The noble Lord said he was old enough whose motives the noble Lord impugns? to remember those things. No doubt he Look at them. I don't name them, be- was old enough; for he was a Member of cause they are more particularly and emi- Parliament at the time, and the noble Lord nently entitled to respect than others. I heard all that passed. It is now nineteen believe that every man gave his support years since that transaction occurred. It from pure and honourable motives. But is is seventeen years since the speech was it to be tolerated that such men as my right made in 1829; and nineteen years since hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exche- the occurrences of 1827. I must say that quer, as Lord Francis Egerton, as Mr. I respect the feelings of any man who feels Wilson Patten and Mr. Escott-is it to be indignant at the conduct of any one who tolerated, that because they exercised that "chased and hunted his relation to death.” perfect right which every Member may ex- I say I respect his feelings. The noble ercise, that such men should be branded Lord abhors those who attempt to hunt with the names of "paid janisaries and and chase a public man who acts in the renegades?" I do believe that such lan- performance of his public duty. And I reguage as this is not only calculated to peat that for such feelings I have the highimpede fair discussion, but that, unless est respect. But how comes it that, enthere is a restraint laid upon its exercise, tertaining those feelings, the first time however right party feeling may prevail, I ever heard of them was on Monday it is calculated to create unmitigated dis- last? The noble Lord has been a Memgust. I now come to the personal attack ber of Parliament since 1826. There which was made upon me. I am glad that may have been intermissions; but, since I did not act upon the impulse of the mo- 1835 I have been honoured with the ment, and reply to that attack when it was noble Lord's cordial, and, I must say, made. It referred to circumstances which his pure and disinterested support. have now passed nineteen years. I cer- called me his right hon. Friend-he pertainly have but an imperfect recollection of mitted me to be the leader of the party to the exact details. I rejoice that I did not which he belonged-he saw me united to attempt to answer those personal imputa- his own immediate connexions and foltions until I had had an opportunity of as-lowers; never and until Monday last, in certaining how far they were well founded. That attack was made in presence of many Members who have entered Parliament now for the first time, and who have perhaps but an imperfect recollection of the circumstances to which the noble Lord referred; and I am particularly anxious that, however hostile they may be to me in other respects, they should not remain under the impression which the noble Lord's attack is calculated to convey. The attack to which I refer was contained in these words: the noble Lord said that

"He was old enough to remember, and he remembered it with deep and heartfelt sorrow, that he (Sir R. Peel) chased and hunted an illustrious relative of his (Lord G. Bentinck's) to death, on the ground that, though he had changed no opinion, he was, from the station which he then held, likely to forward the question of Catholic Emancipation. He could recollect that such was the conduct of

He

June, 1846, did I harbour the suspicion that the noble Lord entertained such feelings in respect to me-a man who hunted and chased his relation to death. I repeat that, entertaining these feelings may be highly honourable, and I should respect the noble Lord for entertaining them. They are apart from ordinary political considerations. A lapse of time may change political circumstances, and may compel combinations in politics which are unforeseen in regard to suppport given to opponents; but if the noble Lord really believed that I hunted and chased his illustrious relative to death, I cannot understand now, without making any public or private intimation to me that he had those feelings, the noble Lord could consent to accept me as his leader, and call me his right hon. Friend. I am now going upon the as

tening to everything I said, and the words I used were these

tinction certainly unsought and unsolicited on my "In the beginning of the year 1822-(a dispart)-I was appointed Secretary of State for the Home Department, with full notice, I admit, of the difficulties I might thereafter have to combat. If I retained office, it was not from personal moferred; and in 1825, after I had been left in mitives, or from any desire of the distinction con

I

sumption that this charge against me is founded in fact. I am proceeding on the assumption that I did really ever inform Lord Liverpool in 1825, that my opinion had changed on the subject of the Catholic Relief Bill. The bearing of the noble Lord's personal imputation upon me is this -that I declined to act with Mr. Canning in 1827-that I declined to act as Secretary of State, Mr. Canning being Prime Minis-norities on three different questions immediately ter; but that in 1829, when I was about to connected with Ireland-the Catholic Question, propose the revoval of the Roman Catholic the Elective Franchise, and the Payment of the disabilities, I then admitted that in 1825 Catholic Clergy (which I thought something very like the establishment of the Roman Catholic remy opinion on the subject was changed, ligion in Ireland)—I waited on my noble Friend, and that I had made the declaration in then at the head of the Government. I told him 1825, to another, which I had not made in that, personally, it was painful for me to discon1827 in the presence of Mr. Canning. nect myself from those whom I esteemed and reNow, Sir, I ask the noble Lord the Mem- spected; but that, having been left in a minority in that branch of the Legislature of which I was a ber for Lynn whether, consistently with Member, I anxiously desired to be relieved from the principles of justice, fairness, and my situation. The reply of my noble Friend was, common honesty, he was not bound to that my retirement would determine his own. have inquired before he made so serious an finally consented to remain in office, my noble Friend declaring that he deemed it of the highest accusation against me, whether there was importance that the Secretary of State for the any foundation in truth for the charge he Home Department should possess opinions as proposed to have advanced? Sir, what I much as possible in accordance with those of the said in 1829 upon this subject exactly Prime Minister. He represented to me the difficorresponds with what I uttered in 1827. culty he should experience in filling up the situation, and, in short, that my retirement must deAnd, furthermore, what fell from me in termine his own. I was thus induced to waive the last-named year was uttered in the my wish for retirement, and to consent to remain presence of Mr. Canning himself, whose until a new Parliament had pronounced an opinown remarks perfectly confirm mine. Iion upon the great question which interests and will read for the House what I said in the House on the subject, on the resolutions of the agitates Ireland. year 1827. I can assure you, unaffectedly, hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster, I exthat it is more painful to me than it can pected to have been again in a minority; and, possibly be to any other Member, that I had that expectation been realized, I should then should be under the necessity of interrupt- Although I prefer no complaints-for I have have withdrawn from the service of His Majesty. ing so important a discussion as the pre- always been treated with the most perfect good sent, by troubling you with matter perso-faith-yet it was no enviable situation at any nal to myself; but I throw myself on the consideration of the House, and I am sure that even of those who most loudly applauded the speech of the noble Lord, there is not one who will not recognize my claim to vindicate myself from so odious an aspersion as has been sought to be cast upon me. I do not ask you to rely upon my account of these transactions. I will give you the book of reference and the day and date for everything I assert. In the reported Parliamentary debates of the 1st of May, 1827, and of the 5th and 6th of May, 1829, you will find a detailed account of all that passed in this House on the occasion in question; and all those who feel an interest in this matter have at their command the means of justifying my statement by referring to those reports. I was speaking on the 1st May, 1827, Mr. Canning being then alive, sitting in his place in his place in this House, and lis

When last I addressed the

time to be the single Minister in this House responsible for the administration of the affairs of seeing those very Colleagues, the Members of the Ireland-opposed by all my Colleagues, and daily Government, actively concerting measures with my political opponents. They were at perfect liberty to do so; for it was understood that every or in promotion of, the Roman Catholic claims. man might exert himself, either in opposition to, I make no complaint, I prefer no charge on this account; I can only state the fact, as the reason which made my situation extremely embarrassing. The support and assistance I received from my noble Friend (Lord Liverpool) certainly rendered my difficulties less; but if, in the place of him with whom I cordially concurred-with whom I entered into public life-and between whom and myself there never was a shadow of difference of opinion upon any subject ;—if, I say, in his place, misfortune at all times to differ upon that paraI find my right hon. Friend, with whom I had the mount question, it is obvious that it was impossible for me to retain the particular situation I held, of Secretary of State for the Home Department, connected as it was with the office of Prime

Minister. Is there an hon. Gentleman who hears

me who does not feel that if it was impossible for

retire."

This was the declaration which I then made, in the presence of Mr. Canning. Mr. Canning spoke after me, and what he said was this:

"To begin with the more agreeable part of my task, the speech of my right hon. Friend, I shall confirm the greater part of that speech. I can bear testimony that throughout the whole of the

me to retain that situation, it was as impossible | quent to the death of Mr. Canning himself, for me to be guilty of the paltry subterfuge of re- proposals to join in forming a Cabinet were moving to another? I am perfectly satisfied every Gentlemen will be convinced that I took made to the friends of Mr. Canningthe only course remaining to me; and that, after friends quite as faithful and devoted as the misfortune which befell my noble Friend the the noble Lord the Member for Lynn. Did Earl of Liverpool I had no alternative but to they refuse to unite with the Government? Did they bring the charge against me of having acted unfairly or dishonestly towards their Friend? Did they accuse me with having hunted and chased him to death? Not one of them. Amongst Mr. Canning's most intimate friends were the late Mr. Huskisson, Lord Dudley, Mr. Grant, and the present Lord Melbourne. discussions that have taken place since Parliament Not one of them made any objection on was adjourned, I have kept up with my right hon. account of any preceding transaction. Friend the most constant and confidential inter- They one and all consented to serve with course; and throughout have I found in him theme in the Government and Cabinet. same candour and sincerity, and the expression of the same just feelings, and a uniform exhibition of the same high principle, to which he has laid claim in the address which he has this night delivered. I assure the House that they much mistake the position in which I have the honour to stand, who believe that position to be one of tified ambition, or as conveying the feeling of unalloyed satisfaction. From the beginning of these discussions I foresaw-both of us foresaw that they must terminate in a separation; which I hope to God may be only for a time! Had the question been merely between my right hon. Friend and myself, and had it been to be decided by his retirement or by mine, I do most solemnly declare it should have been decided by

the latter alternative."

gra

Is it likely that, if such an impression respecting me prevailed in their minds as would appear now, for the first time, to rankle in the heart of the noble Lord, they would, in five months after the death of Mr. Canning, join with me in the Cabinet, and admit me as the leader of the House of Commons? Is it likely that that man who is the personation of a gallant and chivalrous spirit-the embodiment of every generous and manly emotion-the Marquess of Anglesea-is it, I ask, likely, that he, the intimate friend of Mr. Canning, would have consented to go to Ireland as Lord So, you see, Mr. Canning, in the year Lieutenant while I was Secretary, if he 1827, when I assigned my difference from had participated in the sentiments of the him on the Catholic question as the cause noble Lord the Member for Lynn, that I of my retirement, so far from saying any- had acted unfairly towards Mr. Canning, thing that would give the slightest colour and had actually chased and hunted him of truth to the version of these transactions to death? But with that I have no which is contended for by the noble Lord concern. I merely refer to the conduct the Member for Lynn, declares that in the of those eminent persons for the purpose year 1825 I did not represent to Lord Li- of showing that they, at least, did not verpool that my opinions on the Catholic share in the feeling of the noble Lord. But question had changed; but that, on the I will not be content with inferences or contrary, the state of the case was this, conjectures; I will meet the assertion of that finding the divisions in the Cabinet the noble Lord in the plainest and most intolerable, and my own position exceed- direct manner; and this I do not hesitate ingly painful, from being opposed by my to say, that the charge of the noble LordColleagues, I said it was not at all right that in 1829 I avowed a change of opinion nor desirable that such a state of things in 1825, which change of opinion I conshould continue, and that I was anxious to cealed in 1827-I say, I hesitate not to retire from office. I repeated this offer in declare that that charge is utterly and en1829. But what passed in 1828? Did tirely destitute of foundation. Sir, when the course of conduct which the friends I undertook to propose those measures of Mr. Canning pursued in that year, indi- which have recently received the sanction cate a conviction on their part that I had of the House, I foresaw not merely the "hunted him down, and chased him to disruption of many ties, the existence of death?" In January, 1828, the Duke of which I regarded with pride, but the maniWellington was called to power. After festations of bitter hostility, to which I the explanations which had been made in knew I should be subjected in the execu1827, and at a period but shortly subse-tion of my public duty. I have explained