Lords Sitting of 21 March 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS Public—3a.and passed:—Punishment of Death.
Private.—1a. Hull and Selby Railway.
2a. Nottingham Lighting.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Bandon, from Brinney, and Desertmore, against the Irish Poor-law; and from Innoshannon, for Repeal of the same.—By the Earl of Galloway, and the Bishops of Lincoln, and Ripon, from Craven Heptonstall, Worcester, Eton, Chester, and Northampton, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From St. Asaph, and St. George's, Camberwell, for Church Extension.

PRIVILEGE—LORD LYNEDOCH—THE MORNING CHRONICLE.
Lord Broughamsaid he would not interrrupt their Lordships for any length of time, but his attention having been called to a somewhat singular publication of a noble and gallant and much esteemed, and, he might add, venerable Friend of his (Lord Lynedoch) in one of the public newspapers, and as that publication was not quite correct, he should state what were the facts, in order to show the extraordinary, the unaccountable, and utterly ridiculous falsehoods which some persons, for their own purposes, had thought fit to publish upon this subject. It was the more necessary for him to mention this, inasmuch as he was determined—inasmuch as he had made up his mind—to trace out the author of the falsehood, and call upon the House to exercise the undoubted privilege of Parliament upon those publishers of newspapers, who dared to print and publish most absurd—though utterly absurd, ludicrously absurd, yet most scandalous falsehoods—in this case a falsehood evidently invented by some malignant creature, with a view of lowering the character of two noble Members of their Lordships' House, and of producing a personal quarrel between them. Of that there was not the least doubt; and as Mr. Canning, in similar circumstances, had caused the printer of a scandalous publication to be brought to the Bar of the House of Commons, so it was his fixed determination to follow that example if he could on the present occasion. He had, for the last twenty-five or thirty years, abstained from ever taking such a course; but he now found, that waiving the privileges of Parliament did not cause them to be respected, that giving impunity to the press, had
1148
not conferred any benefit either on the press or the public, and that no benefit could be conferred by observing this abstinence any longer; he was therefore resolved, for one, to try whether the exertion of the privileges of Parliament would be beneficial or not. Having stated so much, which was all that it was necessary for him at present to do, until he should have traced out the author of the slander, which he was now engaged in doing, he would now call their Lordships' attention to the published account of what was said to have occurred between him and his noble and venerable Friend. The noble and learned Lord here read the article of which he complained, as follows:—
"Stratton-street, March 16,1843.
"Lord Lynedoch requests the editor of the Morning Chronicle to publish the accompanying version of a passage of a speech made by Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, on the 9th of February, corrected and sent to Lord Lynedoch by Lord Brougham himself. Lord Lynedoch would have published it earlier, had not Lord Brougham undertaken to read the corrected copy in his place in the House of Peers, but having neglected to do so, Lord Lynedoch is obliged to have recourse to the public press. Lord Lynedoch is not a member of the Anti-Corn-law League, though a sincere advocate of free-trade."
His noble Friend then published what had been said by him in the course of a former debate. The fact was this, he undertook to state in his place in the House of Lords what his noble Friend wished him to state, namely, that his noble Friend was not a member of the Anti-Corn-law League. He had stated that he supposed, or believed, that his noble Friend was a member of the League, which was the only statement he on that occasion made himself, and which was, consequently, the only thing any man could call upon him to explain or contradict. All he said about the siege of San Sebastian was not from himself, but a ridiculous extract from something which some member of the Anti-Corn-law League had talked about the massacre at the storming of Salamanca, when there was no siege, no storming of Salamanca, and, consequently, the statements of the Anti-Corn-law member could not be true; but he said, that he supposed what had been said by the member of the League had a reference to another siege, without naming it—for he did not name

1149
it—by a noble and gallant Friend of his, who was, he believed, a member of the Anti-Corn-law League, it having been in consequence of, and in connection with an Anti-Corn-law meeting that the alleged storming of Salamanca was mentioned. There was no more foundation for the alleged storming and massacreing men, women, and children, for three days and nights, at the siege of St. Sebastian, than at the storming of Salamanca, save and except that there was a siege at one place, and not a storming at the other; and that was what he stated. There was no one less capable than his noble and gallant Friend, Lord Lynedoch, of allowing his troops to commit any excess. That was his (Lord Brougham's) opinion at the time he spoke, and it was his opinion still. He would now beg to state, that before he heard of any complaint on the part of the noble Lord, and the moment he heard that the noble Lord was in town, and that he was told there had been a misstatement in the papers of what he had stated, he directed a copy to be made from Hansard's Debates of what he had really said, and sent to the noble Lord. Subsequently he was asked, by his noble Friend Lord William Russell, to state in the House of Lords what he had really said, as his words had been misrepresented in the newspapers; and, above all, his noble Friend wished him to state that Lord Lynedoch was not a Member of the Anti-Corn-law League. But in the meantime, and before he had an opportunity of doing so, there came up from Edinburgh a paragraph (as if from authority), purporting to be taken from a letter received from London, stating that there had been an hostile message sent to him by Lord Lynedoch, and that in consequence of that message he had retracted what he had said, which was a thing not very likely for him to do; but not more unlikely for him to do than for his noble and gallant Friend to send a hostile message. Anything more impossible, or more absurd than such a statement could not be, considering the great age and consequent physical inability of that noble Lord, who was upwards of ninety-five years of age, and incapable from blindness of writing a single line. A greater falsehood never crossed the lips of man, or forced itself into print. Nevertheless, this was not only stated once, but, after a contradiction it was persisted in by the author of the slander. The letter written by
1150
Lord Lynedoch, and which was called a hostile message, was not only perfectly polite, but full of kind and friendly expressions towards him. The noble and gallant General used the kindliest and friendliest expressions towards him, but begged that some contradiction should be given to the report in the newspapers, which his noble and gallant Friend was quite certain was not a correct version of what he had said, and a statement made that his noble Friend was not a member of the Anti-Corn-law League. And that was what was called a hostile message. Before he received any message at all, or had been called upon to give any contradiction, he had written what it was he really had said; and that hostile message was neither more nor less than one of the most friendly mentionings of him that he had ever seen. In every one point of view, therefore, anything more utterly ridiculous, he would say, were it not malignant, or, rather, despicable, and hateful, and execrable—anything more thoroughly ludicrous than that his most noble, gallant, and venerable Friend, whose age and infirmity were known, should have sent to him a hostile message, was never before conceived or uttered. The grossest exaggerations of this simple fact had reached various quarters and had been eagerly seized upon. It was first printed in a Scotch paper, and was then copied into the London papers by the editors, no doubt for their own purposes. He deemed it, therefore, his duty to say what he had already said, and also to add that any such interference with the private society and public privileges of Members of Parliament on the part of the conductors of the public press, could no longer be endured, and they should not be permitted, as long as he could prevent it, to endeavour to promote and create personal quarrels between Members of that House, where age and infirmity rendered a personal quarrel utterly impossible, to excite differences with the relations, for that was the object, with the relations of those Members who, from various reasons were prevented from engaging in personal quarrels themselves.

DUTIES ON CANADIAN CORN.
Lord Beaumontrose to put a question to the noble Duke opposite on the subject of a bill which had passed the Legislature of Canada for imposing a duly on foreign wheat imported into Canada. The ques-

1151
tion he wished to ask was, whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure this Session to reduce the present duties on wheat and wheaten flour imported from Canada. If the question he had just stated were answered in the affirmative, he should wish to ask, further, whether any negotiations were on foot with the United States, to enable us to obtain from that country a reduction of her import duties upon English manufactures, in return for the enormous boon which we were about to bestow on that country.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid the noble Lord had given notice last night of his intention to ask a question, which he (the Duke of Wellington was prepared to answer. The noble Lord had not given notice of his second question, and he (the Duke of Wellington) was not prepared to answer it. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was in the House, and he would probably state whether he could answer the question. At all events, he could not answer it. With respect to the first question of the noble Lord, he begged to inform the noble Lord that the document to which the noble Lord had referred was not an act of the colonial Legislature, although it was a bill passed by the colonial Legislature. It could not be an act of the Colonial Parliament until confirmed by her Majesty. He would remind their Lordships, that in the course of the last Session of Parliament, when the Corn-laws were under discussion, it was stated to be the intention of the Government to propose an alteration in that part of the colonial system which related to intercourse with the province of Canada, when an act should have passed the colonial Legislature to regulate the intercourse with the United States, in the article of corn. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, he (the Duke of Wellington) would tell the noble Lord that when the bill to which he had referred became law, it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose the alteration which was in contemplation during the last Session of Parliament, when the corn bill was passed.
Lord Beaumontregretted deeply the answer he had received. He regretted it because it appeared that between the Secretary for the Colonies and the Government of Canada there was actually going on a kind of bargain, while at the time
1152
Parliament was discussing a bill which was believed to be permanent.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought he had told the noble Lord and the House—he knew it had been stated in the other House of Parliament that it was intended in case such a bill as had been alluded to passed the colonial Parliament, that the laws governing the intercourse between this country and that colony would thereafter be revised.
Lord Monteaglewished to know when the bill was likely to be introduced. He would also ask the noble Duke opposite, when the bill would be likely to come into operation?
The Duke of Wellingtonwas understood to reply—not immediately.
Their Lordships adjourned.