§ Mr. Christiesaid, the House would no doubt expect, after the remarks which had been made elsewhere, and which were now become public, that he should come forward and either substantiate, explain, or withdraw the charges which he had made against a noble Duke. It would be recollected that he had on a former evening refused to give an explanation. He would now state, that although he had had doubts at the time, he felt he had acted properly in postponing that explanation, and, having maturely considered all the circumstances, he now felt himself justified in going further in the way of explanation than he should have done if he had spoken at the time the noble Lord, the Member for Colchester, complained, and not unnaturally, he confessed. The noble Lord had complained of an assertion that he had made, to the effect that a noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had conspired to prejudice the claims of the plaintiffs in the late gaming transactions—that the noble Duke had abused his position as Chairman of a Committee in another place—and that his conduct could reflect no credit on the noble Duke, or those with whom he was associated. With regard to the first two points, it appeared from what had passed in the other House, that there was presumptive proof that the noble Duke had been guilty of an irregular proceeding; but with respect to the other imputation—namely, "that the noble Duke had abused the privilege of his position, and that the circumstance reflected no credit on himself, or on those who were associated with him," he felt bound to acknowledge that there was no presumptive evidence upon those points, and that even if there had been such presumptive evidence, he should scarcely have been justified in making such statements so broadly and unreservedly. He therefore felt it to be incumbent on him to withdraw those statements unequivocally and unreservedly. The noble Duke had accused him in another place of attributing to him motives on which he should have been ashamed to act himself, and under the suspicion of which no honourable man could hold up his head in this country. He (Mr. Christie) acknowledged, that he having used the words in question, the noble Duke was justified in so speaking, but as he had now withdrawn the charge he made against the 829 noble Duke, he trusted the House would exonerate him from the noble Duke's attack. With regard to the noble Duke's motives he had, in fact, said nothing, and all he had left to be inferred was, that as the noble Duke had a strong opinion upon this subject, he had taken a course which he (Mr. Christie) deprecated as unfair towards the parties whom the noble Duke opposed, and he had connected the noble Duke with the subject by name because he knew enough of the forms of the other House of Parliament to understand that it was impossible for any one but the Chairman of the Committee to communicate in manuscript the evidence which had been taken by that Committee. In stating his opinion on these points, however, he had not intended to impute to the noble Duke any motive that was dishonourable.
§ Lord A. Lennoxhoped the House would indulge him for one minute, to remark on what had just fallen from the hon. Member. He must say that what the hon. Member had stated did go to prove, very strongly, the great evil of Members making charges which they could not substanstiate; and he must add, that he thought it was incumbent on the hon. Member, on account of his position in the House, and on account of his position as a man of honour and a Gentleman to have taken an earlier opportunity of affording the explanation which he had just given.