§ The EARL of GALLOWAY, after presenting a petition, said, he would take that opportunity, with their Lordships' permission, of complaining of a misrepresentation which he had seen in the Times newspaper of that day of what fell from him in the House yesterday. He was in the recollection of their Lordships, but for the information of any noble Lords who were not present on the occasion to which he referred, he begged leave to say that his complaint was, not that he had been reported, because for that he did not care one straw, but that he had been misreported; not that he complained of the things which he said not having been reported, but of things having been put into his mouth which he never said. He was also represented to have "addressed their Lordships with great fury." He did not know whether that was altogether a Parliamentary phrase. Had that appeared as an editorial remark, he should not have complained; but as it appeared in a regular account of what passed in their Lordships' House, he thought he 256 had some claim to throw himself upon their indulgence. He might have spoken with energy, but certainly it was without anger. Under a sense of injustice done, or under the influence of great excitement, a man might speak with warmth, but not with anger. He believed he spoke good humouredly. He intended to do so. If he failed—[Cheers]—he thanked their Lordships for that cheer—if he failed to express himself good-humouredly, he must apologise to their Lordships. This was another and a strong example of the misrepresentations which often took place in the reports of the proceedings of the House—misrepresentations tending to lower the character of the House, and the character of the Members of the House.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELsaid, that he was in the same situation with the noble Earl who had just sat down. He did not often intrude himself upon the attention of their Lordships, but he sometimes did so on subjects connected with Ireland, He had frequently had to complain that false impressions had gone abroad of what he had said in that House. On various occasions he had endeavoured to set the public mind right, but had always found that what he had said was either not noticed at all or was misreported. He did not see why one noble Lord should enjoy the favour of the reporters, and another not; why one should be given at great length and with much accuracy, and another should be entirely cast aside and rejected. He was glad that this subject was to be brought under the notice of a Committee; and he hoped that the reporters would be placed under some better control, if they were to be continued as the organs of communicating their debates to the public, and that they would be taught to make their reports fair and full, sufficient and correct.
§ EARL GREYdid not concur in the general charges which had just been made by the two noble Earls; but he found that he stood in the same predicament, for there was a very important mistake in the report of what he said the other evening, which he was most anxious to correct. As far as he had read the report, it appeared to him to be exceedingly correct, but a noble Friend had called his attention to a passage which he thought was of some importance, and which was certainly given in a sense the very opposite to what he did say. The passage in the report was as follows:— 257
But he was not prepared to say that that feeling would continue if so gross an act of injustice, as in their opinion it would be, should be committed as that of the rejection of this measure. He believed that if their Lordships should throw out this Bill, they would part with the last security for the attachment of those colonies to the British Crown. It was known to men who had watched well the current of political opinion and events in the world, that the connexion of these provinces with the mother country was drawing rapidly to a close, and that they would become an independent people at a very early day. If therefore this country should lose the present opportunity of doing with a feeling of good grace an act of favour to these colonies, which they could not hope long to preserve, they might eventually put it out of their power even to secure to themselves the benefits that would arise from the maintenance of friendly relations with them as an independent Power.He should lament most exceedingly if it were to go out to Canada that he could have been thought to have said that he believed the connexion of that great province with this country was likely soon to be determined. The whole drift of his speech was the opposite. What he did say was, he believed the Canadians were at present loyal and attached to this country, and were becoming daily more so. He certainly added, that he did not know how far those feelings would be proof against the sense of injustice which would be created by the rejection of the Bill then under discussion. But the misconception was with reference to the future. What he really did state was, that whatever the decision of the House then might be, he was persuaded that the navigation laws, as they now existed, could not long continue—that they must inevitably be soon repealed; but that was an opportunity of repealing them with a good grace, and as an act of justice; and if they did so hereafter, it might be done with very different impressions and feelings. He was sure that those of their Lordships who were present on that occasion must be aware that that was the substance of his remarks; and that nothing fell from him implying any doubt as to the permanence of the connexion between this country and Canada, if Canada were treated with that justice which it had a right to demand.