Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1899 Excerpt:... insult to the House. 'Of the hon. member for Shrewsbury,' he added, 'I will only say, that if--after reviewing the whole of my public life previously to my accession to office in 1841--if he then entertained the opinion of me which he now professes, it is surprising that he should have been ready, as I think he was, to unite his fortunes with mine in office, implying the strongest proof which any public man can give of confidence in the honour and integrity of a Minister of the Crown.' The Minister passed on to a long and able vindication of his policy. When he sat down, Mr. Disraeli rose again, and denied that he had given any such proof of confidence. 'I can assure the House,' he said, 'that nothing of the kind occurred. I can say that I never asked a favour of the Government, not even one of those mechanical things which persons are obliged to ask. With respect to my being a solicitor for office, it is entirely unfounded.' Had he forgotten the terms of his letter in 1841? Sir Bobert Peel might have referred to it pointedly, but did not. Significantly passing by the assurance to the House that 'nothing of the kind occurred,' he was content to repeat his comment. 'If the hon. gentleman really believed that I deserved the character he gave of me to-night, then it was not right that in 1841 he should have intimated to me that he was not unwilling to give the proof of confidence that would have been implied by the acceptance of office.' The letter was kept private so long as the writer of it lived, and its existence has been known to few. It is published now only to remove a doubt which has too long prevailed, whether Sir Robert Peel (who left a character for strict regard to truth) on this occasion said more, or less, than he could prove. That day, hearing...