berty. Well, the noble Lord is now prepared to vote against the second reading. The noble Lord says he withholds his confidence from the Government, and he thinks he is justified on this ground; but if he claims to himself the privilege of changing his vote, I tell him that he is bound to withhold from others such expressions as "paid janisaries and renegades" for doing the same thing. Why, who are the men whose motives the noble Lord impugns? Look at them. I don't name them, because they are more particularly and eminently entitled to respect than others. I believe that every man gave his support from pure and honourable motives. But is it to be tolerated that such men as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Lord Francis Egerton, as Mr. Wilson Patten and Mr. Escott-is it to be tolerated, that because they exercised that perfect right which every Member may exercise, that such men should be branded with the names of "paid janisaries and renegades?" I do believe that such language as this is not only calculated to impede fair discussion, but that, unless there is a restraint laid upon its exercise, however right party feeling may prevail, it is calculated to create unmitigated disgust. I now come to the personal attack which was made upon me. I am glad that I did not act upon the impulse of the moment, and reply to that attack when it was made. It referred to circumstances which have now passed nineteen years. I certainly have but an imperfect recollection of the exact details. I rejoice that I did not attempt to answer those personal imputations until I had had an opportunity of ascertaining 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 the right hon. Gentleman in 1827. In 1829 he told that House that he had changed his opinions opinion to the Earl of Liverpool; but that, it in 1825; that he had communicated his change of proved, did not prevent him in 1827 getting up in the same assembly and stating that the reasons he severed himself from Mr. Canning's Cabinet was, that he could not consent to support a Government of which the chief Minister was favourable to the measure which in two years more he (Sir R. Peel) himself carried." The noble Lord said he was old enough to remember those things. No doubt he was old enough; for he was a Member of Parliament at the time, and the noble Lord heard all that passed. It is now nineteen years since that transaction occurred. It is seventeen years since the speech was made in 1829; and nineteen years since the occurrences of 1827. I must say that I respect the feelings of any man who feels indignant at the conduct of any one who He "chased and hunted his relation to death.' I say I respect his feelings. The noble Lord abhors those who attempt to hunt and chase a public man who acts in the performance of his public duty. And I repeat that for such feelings I have the highest respect. But how comes it that, entertaining those feelings, the first time I ever heard of them was on Monday last? The noble Lord has been a Member of Parliament since 1826. There may have been intermissions; but, since 1835 I have been honoured with the noble Lord's cordial, and, I must say, his pure and disinterested support. called me his right hon. Friend-he permitted me to be the leader of the party to which he belonged-he saw me united to his own immediate connexions and followers; never and until Monday last, in 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 agitates Ireland. When last I addressed the will read for the House what I said in the House on the subject, on the resolutions of the 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. was speaking on the 1st May, 1827, Mr. Canning being then alive, sitting in his place in his place in this House, and lis I 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 my difficulties less; but if, in the place of him noble Friend (Lord Liverpool) certainly rendered 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 I find my right hon. Friend, with whom I had the opinion upon any subject ;-if, I say, in his place, misfortune at all times to differ upon that paramount 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 every Gentlemen will be convinced that I took the only course remaining to me; and that, after the misfortune which befell my noble Friend the Earl of Liverpool I had no alternative but to retire." 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 made to the friends of Mr. Canningfriends quite as faithful and devoted as the noble Lord the Member for Lynn. Did 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. Not one of them made any objection on account of any preceding transaction. They one and all consented to serve with me in the Government and Cabinet. Is it 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 discussions that have taken place since Parliament was adjourned, I have kept up with my right hon. Friend the most constant and confidential intercourse; and throughout have I found in him the 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 gratified 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." So, you see, Mr. Canning, in the year 1827, when I assigned my difference from him on the Catholic question as the cause of my retirement, so far from saying anything that would give the slightest colour of truth to the version of these transactions which is contended for by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, declares that in the year 1825 I did not represent to Lord Liverpool that my opinions on the Catholic question had changed; but that, on the contrary, the state of the case was this, that finding the divisions in the Cabinet intolerable, and my own position exceedingly painful, from being opposed by my Colleagues, I said it was not at all right nor desirable that such a state of things should continue, and that I was anxious to retire from office. I repeated this offer in 1829. But what passed in 1828? Did the course of conduct which the friends of Mr. Canning pursued in that year, indicate a conviction on their part that I had "hunted him down, and chased him to death?" In January, 1828, the Duke of Wellington was called to power. After the explanations which had been made in 1827, and at a period but shortly subse 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 Lieutenant while I was Secretary, if he had participated in the sentiments of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, that I had acted unfairly towards Mr. Canning, and had actually chased and hunted him to death? But with that I have no concern. I merely refer to the conduct of those eminent persons for the purpose of showing that they, at least, did not share in the feeling of the noble Lord. But I will not be content with inferences or conjectures; I will meet the assertion of the noble Lord in the plainest and most direct manner; and this I do not hesitate to say, that the charge of the noble Lordthat in 1829 I avowed a change of opinion in 1825, which change of opinion I concealed in 1827-I say, I hesitate not to declare that that charge is utterly and entirely destitute of foundation. Sir, when I undertook to propose those measures which have recently received the sanction of the House, I foresaw not merely the disruption of many ties, the existence of which I regarded with pride, but the manifestations of bitter hostility, to which I knew I should be subjected in the execution of my public duty. I have explained the motives which led me to think that the public interest demanded that there should be a final adjustment of the Corn Law question-I had to choose between organising a decided and interminable opposition to any change, and undertaking (in case the noble Lord the Member for London should be unable to do so), to lay the foundation of a measure of final adjustment. I foresaw the consequences to which that act of mine would lead. I saw that it would probably lead to the extinction of political power, and necessarily to the heavier penalty of the loss of confidence of those who were wont to confide in me, and the abatement and extinction of private friendships. It is for you to decide whether or no the reasons and considerations which prevailed with me in inducing me to adopt the course I undertook were adequate and sufficient. It is possible I may have been erroneous in my views. It might perhaps have been possible to have continued opposition. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Campbell, from Derry and other places, praying that a Bill may be passed compensating Proprietors of Lands for the Purchase of Sites for Free Churches (Scotland).- From Bedford, and other places, against the Corn Importation and Customs Duties Bills. From Chichester, for the Substitution of Affirmations in lieu of Oaths where persons having Conscientious Scruples object to be sworn in Courts of Justice.-From the Parish of All Saints, Wandsworth, complaining of the Inadequate Remuneration and Inconvenience that Petit and Common Jurors are subject to at Assizes, and for a Revision of the Laws relating to Jurors.-By the Duke of Buckingham, from Inhabitants of Falmouth, in favour of the Corn Importation and Customs Duties Bills.-From Railway Passengers on the Bristol and Birmingham Line, complaining of the Inconvenience attending the change of Carriages at Gloucester resulting from the Break of Gauge. From the City of London, against the Corn Im portation Bill.-From Westminster, for the Adoption of a Measure for the Employment and Reformation of Discharged Prisoners.-From Guardians of the Droitwich Union, for Repeal of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act. It might have been right CHESHIRE AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION to have committed the Lords and Com- House adjourned at a quarter to One o'clock. SOCIETY. LORD DELAMERE was understood to say that he was anxious, in defence of his character, to offer a few words of explanation to their Lordships. The noble Duke (Richmond) on a former occasion had stated his surprise at finding his (Lord Delamere's) name as a member of the Cheshire Agricultural Protection Society. He (Lord Delamere) answered without hesitation that he had never belonged to that society, and that he never had belonged to any society of the sort, and that he believed he had never aided that society by subscription, but that he could not tax his memory; his strong impression, however, was, that he had never done anything of the sort. He now repeated that he never did belong to the Cheshire Agricultural Association; and he felt called upon, as a gentleman and man of honour, to declare that what he had said on the former occasion as to not being a subscriber he then repeated. It was strictly true. The fact was, that when the Anti-Corn-Law League began distributing pamphlets and laying out money for the purpose of setting tenants against their landlords, and began to tamper with the registration, he, with a large portion of the gentlemen of the county did attend a meeting at Northwich to see whether it might not be possible to defeat the machinations of the Anti-CornLaw League; and it being considered necessary that there should be a small sum at the command of the Committee, for the discharge of legal, advertising, and other expenses, he had subscribed something and paid it immediately to the chairman; but he had never attended any meeting afterwards, and he never was a member of the Cheshire Agricultural Protection Association, nor any other protection association. If the noble Duke had told him what he (the Duke of Richmond) had stated in his (Lord Delamere's) absence from the House, he should have immediately risen and made the explanation he had just given. The DUKE of RICHMOND: It appears, from the noble Lord's statement, that the people in his part of the country do not hear much, neither, I am afraid, do they remember much. Your Lordships may remember, that I got up the other night to justify myself as to the grounds which induced me to believe that the noble Lord was a member of the Cheshire Agricultural Society. The moment I saw the noble Lord in his place I told him what I had stated, though, as there was a debate going on, he might not have heard what I said. LORD DELAMERE: I give you my word of honour I did not. your This resolution, my Lords, I find was moved by the right hon. Lord Delamere. My Lords, that is the paper on which I rest my justification. I agree in every syllable of it, and I only wish the noble Lord had adhered to it as stedfastly as might have been expected from the part he took in those proceedings. LORD DELAMERE: With regard to that meeting I certainly attended it, and it was very numerously attended. But the adjournment spoken of did not take place from the great numbers attending it, but from the fact of our having been ousted by the Anti-Corn-Law League. The resolution alluded to was certainly moved by me, but it was moved in conjunction with many others bearing on the particular circumstances of that period; for then it was that paid emissaries were sent by the League to Cheshire, who endeavoured to separate the farmers from the landlords, and the labourers from the farmers. That resolution was accompanied with others as to registration. I refused an invitation to belong to the Protection Society of Cheshire, nor did I ever pay a halfpenny towards it except the trifle of 251. which was given for the purpose of counteracting the machinations of the League. The DUKE of RICHMOND: I am not charging the noble Lord, I beg to remind your Lordships, with a greater offence than has been perpetrated by many of Lordships a change of opinion on the corn question within the last two years. I VISCOUNT COMBERMERE: I can only tell you fairly, my Lords, that ever since say that, as chairman of that society, I this Bill came into your Lordships' House, always considered the noble Lord as one of I have come down every night with a list our most active and efficient members. As of all the noble Lords favourable to it who he has now withdrawn, of course I can no have been members of protectionist so- longer look on the noble Lord in that cieties; and I should not be at all sur-light. The noble Lord says he did not prised if, before the debate closes, I find pay his subscription. I received this mornan occasion of reading to your Lordships ing a letter from Mr. Harding, a neighwhat I conceive to be so curious as well as bour, if not a tenant, of the noble Lord, perhaps instructive a document. It apwho says, as secretary of the Association, pears that on the 5th March, 1844, there" Having seen that Lord Delamere stated was a large meeting of the gentry and that he did not belong to any protection farmers of Cheshire, who met in the association, or subscribe to the funds of market-place, and so large was the at- any such society, I beg to state, for your tendance that there was obliged to be an Lordship's information, that Lord Delaadjournment elsewhere. Now the first re- mere is our vice-president, and that he solution that was proposed at that meeting subscribed to our funds towards the end of last and further, that he moved the first resolution at our meeting," that referred to by the noble Duke (Duke of Richmond). was "That a society be formed for the protection of agriculture; that the objects of this society be not merely the protection of the landed interests against the schemes of the League, but also to oppose all measures that may be brought forward, having a tendency to deprive agriculture of that protection to which it was so justly entitled. That this society ought not to interfere with political subjects, but that every effort should be made to secure to the tenant-farmer a fair remuneration year; PETITION OF THE MERCHANTS, BANK- On the Order of the Day for resuming |