§ MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, he begged to claim the indulgence of the House for a few moments, whilst he addressed it upon a matter affecting its privileges. For three days he had attended in his place in that House in consequence of a correspondence which had taken place between himself and the hon. Member for Cambridge. To-day he had seen an advertisement upon the subject in the Morning Chronicle newspaper, and he had come down to the House at great personal inconvenience, 461 expecting to see the hon. Member for Cambridge, and found that he was not in his place [An Hon. MEMBER: He is here.] Then, if the hon. Member is present, perhaps it would be convenient to permit him at once to allude to a matter which had taken place in the course of a former debate.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that comments on a former debate could not be made without trespassing on the rules of the House, but it was quite within the province of an hon. Gentleman to offer an explanation.
§ MR. HUMEwished to know whether it was competent to Members of that House to publish advertisements in the newspapers regarding those debates?
MR. CAMPBELLdid not know what connexion existed between the Member for Montrose and the conductors of the Morning Ghronicle, which authorised the hon. Gentleman to interpret their paragraphs into advertisements. That he (Mr. Campbell) was the author of an advertisement in that journal, was an assertion not so much entitled, perhaps, to contradiction as contempt. It certainly was his intention today, upon the notices of Motion, to refer to a topic personal to himself and to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Middlesex. He had been informed, however, by the Speaker that the usages or wishes of the House would not support him in his object. The House, however, should determine his course on this occasion. [" Go on, go on!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman should confine himself to explaining any misrepresentation to which he had been subjected.
MR. CAMPBELLhad suffered a twofold misrepresentation on Thursday, Feb. 28th, at the hands of the gallant Gentleman the Member for Middlesex. He was ready to repel it at the moment. His friends upon the Treasury bench, for whom he entertained great respect, had, at so late an hour, dissuaded him from doing so. Since then he had acquired the materials of repelling it with greater clearness, and if the gallant Gentleman had been able to attend the House on Monday last, there would not have been so long an interval between his attack and the exposure of it. The attack related to the intercourse which in two successive years he (Mr. Campbell) had had with the inhabitants of Kensington, and to language he had been supposed to utter in the House while 462 referring to it. The hon. Gentleman here explained the nature of his intercourse with the inhabitants of Kensington, which had been solicited on their part, incurred at his own cost of leisure and convenience; and, on the first occasion, a public meeting, he attended at a twice-repeated invitation—requested in a manner which could not but leave upon his mind an impression of bad faith, ingratitude, and discourtesy on the part of those who had invited him. In spite of this, he had not applied to them the term "low," as he had been openly, repeatedly, and unreservedly reproached with doing by the gallant Gentleman behind. Not only had he never applied the term "low people" to the inhabitants of Kensington, but in none of the daily nor none of the weekly organs had he been reported to have done so. Such a fact spoke for itself. He (Mr. Campbell) would content himself with observing, that when a charge was brought by one Member of the House against another—still more if it was brought against a political opponent or a public enemy—its accuracy ought to be inquired into with more than usual rigour. On that occasion it was destitute of truth, and unsupported by authority. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to state that his sentiments with regard to the lower orders were the reverse of those which had been imputed to him, and coincided with the speech of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) when—
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was quite sure the hon. Member would see the necessity of abstaining from further pursuing the subject. Having corrected a misrepresentation which had been made on a former occasion, and having disposed of that, the hon. Gentleman would see that the greater part of the speech he had now addressed to the House ought to have been made immediately after the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesex had been delivered. The House was always willing to extend its indulgence when an hon. Member wished to clear up any misrepresentation of his character, but that indulgence ought to be strictly limited to such misrepresentations, and ought not to extend to any observations other than by way of correction, nor to the going into any other matter except that which related to the misrepresentations of which an hon. Member complained.
MR. CAMPBELLbegged to thank the House for their indulgence, which he could assure them was not unappreciated by him, 463 and to express a hope that the statement he had made was calculated to produce an impression of his conduct towards the in-habitants of Kensington exactly the reverse of that which the hon. Member for Middlesex had endeavoured to establish.
§ MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, that after the long story which the hon. Member had favoured them with, it was almost unnecessary for him to trouble the House. So far from being the hon. Gentleman's "public enemy," he felt a kindly friendship towards him. On the part of his constituents at Chelsea, Hammersmith, and Kensington, he could assure him that he accepted his apology with the greatest kindness.
§ Subject dropped.