THE TOWNSHEND PEERAGE. (Hansard, 30 June 1843)

The Earl of Leicester

begged to make a statement to the House in reference to his own conduct, and the course he had taken in the bill now before the House. He believed, that no person charged him with any personal fault in regard to the transactions to which the bill referred, though before the bill had been considered by the committee of the other House —he had been charged with very great faults by parties whose proceedings he thought deserved reprobation. It was hardly any satisfaction to him now, after the allusions which had been made to his conduct by one or two noble Lords in another place, that they had since ascertained there was no foundation for the statements which had been made to his prejudice. He would state to the House 480 the reasons why he considered the bill was proceeding through Parliament at a pace so rapid that it was quite impossible for him and the other parties who would be affected by it, to defend their interests. The parties who had brought forward the bill, and who had collected the evidence on which it was founded, and on which the whole case rested, had been engaged —twelve or fifteen months in making good their case, and it could not be expected, that he should be in a condition, without time was allowed him, to collect evidence to contradict the statements of the other side, or to show the motives by which the witnesses who had been examined were influenced. It must he quite obvious, as many years had elapsed since the circumstances out of which these proceedings had originated took place, that it required long and' strict investigation, and considerable time to examine into them, so as to arrive at absolute proof. His object was to induce the House to postpone the measure for a time; and he thought, looking at all the circumstances, and how materially his interests were affected by the bill, that there was no reason why this request should not be granted. In written Chancery proceedings, extending from 1813 to 1819, he was clearly defined as the eldest son and the heir to the Marquess Townshend. And it was very hard on him now, that that evidence which then existed, and which justified parties adopting that course in these legal proceedings, should be deemed altogether useless. A lady and gentleman, Mr. and Mrs. Gardner, who at that time were living, and were intimately acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the family affairs of the late Marquess, and of his family on the mother's side, were since dead, and he thought it would have been much fairer in the other party if they had had the courage to commence those proceedings at an earlier period when all the witnesses were living. The opposite side, however, had shown great tact and ingenuity, after so many years of silence, in commencing their proceedings at a time when the parties attacked had no means of defence. Down to the previous year, no kind of intimation or notice had been given to him that any such proceedings would be instituted, nor was it stated to him by any person that he had no right to the title which he possessed. This he thought was a material point, for it was 481 reasonable to presume, that if, previous to that time, Lord C. Townshend or any of the opposite party, had determined to carry on so systematic a course of opposition against him, some notice of that intention would have been given to him. He thought the House was bound to grant him the delay which he sought for; if not, he could not say that he had received the advantages of that open court, and fair trial which under the circumstances he had a right to expect. He was not requiring anything unreasonable, for it was not likely, at this advanced period of the Session, that the committee on the bill would have time to examine into and investigate the very voluminous evidence on which the bill was founded. It had been observed in the other House, that it was remarkable that no witnesses had been produced against the bill; but no opportunity had been afforded to bring forward evidence. He had, however, no doubt that if the House acceded to his present request, he should be enabled at a future time to submit evidence that would completely rebut the statements upon which the bill was founded.