HC Deb 30 November 1819 vol 41 c508
Mr. Stuart Wortley

said, he was extremely unwilling to occupy the attention of the House by any thing that respected himself personally, and he felt that, on the preceding evening, he had put an entire end to a misrepresentation that had taken place with reference to what he had said a few days ago. Ho had since been charged with saying, that at some meeting in the West Riding of Yorkshire, resolutions had been passed on the part of the Radical Reformers, in which the property of earl Fitzwilliam had been pointed at for partition. He explained to the House yesterday, that he never said that such resolutions had been passed; but that, in the course of a meeting held within the West Riding of the county of York, the property of the noble earl was directly pointed at for partition. There was a material difference between the two statements; because, if the Reformers had come to resolutions of such a nature, the persons concurring in them would have been implicated in their adoption, as much as the persons by whom they were proposed. What he ori- ginally said was, if gentlemen wished to know the object of the Reformers, let them look to the resolutions agreed to at Leeds; and he added, that at a meeting held somewhere in the West Riding, the property of earl Fitzwilliam was "pointed at" for partition. He did not say that resolutions were passed having that object in view; but that, in the course of the meeting, the property was so pointed at. He was unwilling to believe that there was any intention to misrepresent the words made use of by the members of that House, but these were critical times, and if any accusation were thrown out against any party, it was most material that it should be precisely stated, and that words should not be placed in the mouths of gentlemen which they had not made use of. He would leave the matter here, being unwilling to press it farther. As in all those vehicles by which parliamentary intelligence was conveyed to the public, he appeared to have been equally misrepresented on this occasion, he could only attribute the circumstance either to the terms in which he delivered his explanation not being sufficiently clear, or else to some defect in the hearing of those who noticed it. He was most anxious, and he earnestly hoped, that the misrepresentation which had taken place would now be effectually done away.