Page images

Friday, when stating the va O'Connell) except that Mr riance between my account O'Connell had not mentioned and Mr. O'Connell's, although to me his remark, in respect he informed me, that he had of his being dissuaded by any noticed that variance (as it friend, of course I did not at appeared to him to be) to Mr my second interview, or at any O'Connell, he did not give me other time give Sir Charles Saxto understand, that Mr. O'Con- ton or Mr. O'Connell to undernell himself had made any stand, that any variance existed objection, either to my accu- between their statements. racy, in this respect of the passage last above quoted.

5thly. That the mention of I admit, that I frequently Mr. Lidwill's regret at the expressed my regret, but at observation uttered by Mr. what periods, I cannot say O'Connell preceded any ques- and that he, Sir Charles Sastion of mine, at any conversa- ton's remark concerning the tion respecting the import of use of the words attributed to the words attributed to Mr. Mr. Peel, was his own answer Peel, and that on hearing them to my quotation of the supfrom Mr Lidwill, my observa- posed words. tion was," that I did not be- The words “personal hoslieve they were ever used by tility,” were never used, but Mr. Peel and that I had search- “ personality” was. ed for them as far as lay in my power," but that the words “personal hostility,” were never introduced by me.

6thly. That his objections I refuse to agree to this. to my written statement were not offered until I had finished reading that part which recited my conversation with Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Lidwill's objection then was that the paragraph referring to words used by Mr. Lidwill, viz, “ that

Mr. O'Connell did not feel himself called upon to take any step in consequence of Mr. Peel's communication" should have been as it is now printed, viz. that he, Mr. Lidwill did not think Mr. O'Connell called upon by the circumstances to send any hostile message.

7thly, That it was not until I admit that it was after I asserted that it was unne- Sir Charles Saxton said that cessary

for me to insert Mr. it was unnecessary for him to Lidwill's reasoning on the sub- insert my reasoning, that I ject, that he declared he could declared I could not admit any not admit any part of the pro- part of the proposed stateposed statement.

ment. (Signed)

J. P. DICKENSON. From the 6th article Mr. Lidwill dissented; and also required that the declaration subjoined hereto should be considered preliminary to any publication of his admission, viz.

“I make this explanation, in answer to Sir Charles Saxton's minute, under the stipulation, that my declaration - That I entered more freely into an explanation, because I was in the custody of the magistrate, and my arm tied up, therefore, I could not be supposed to be under any other influence on earth, but a sense of what was right, shall accompany any publication or statement made of my explanation.

I am, Sir, you obedient servant,


To the foregoing statement, Mr. Lidwill published the following reply :

To the PEOPLE OF IRELAND. Sir Charles Saxton again precedes me in publication. That, which I have read in the Correspondent of last night surprises me not a little, for these reasons;

First, That he should not resort to any publication at all, under the circumstances in which he and I now stand mutually pledged.

Secondly, That he should have published, as explanation given, those which were only admitted would be given by me under a condition which his friend refused to comply with, and which he was told by me, if he quitted my apartment without complying with, the whole was at an end.

“ Thirdly, Sir Charles, in his publication, has complied with the very condition demanded by me, and objected to by his friend, namely that the admission required of me, which I rejected of it, in my statement to be published. His friends had offered to withdraw his proposal, and then to take the other explanations, as I was satisfied that I could give them.

For these reasons his publication has superseded me.
Now, a word as to the explanations.

First, That I admitted my belief of an impression upon his mind, “ that in the instance referred to, he was speaking from himself, and not from Mr. Peel.”

This I could not have doubted; not only because he subsequently said so, but because he took the trouble to impress such a belief upon my mind by an extraordinary species of argument, namely, by distinguishing his personal from his representative capacity, and observing that he could not hear some of my arguments in the former capacity, though not in the latter. To the validity of this distinction I did object.

Secondly, The English language will not admit the expression “ suppressing and conceding,” under any circumstance, to be “ misrepresentation,” but certainly not in the instance before us relative to Sir Charles Saxton, for he admits, in his own statement that a great deal was said by me, which he calls “ reasoning," and forebore to relate, because it did not go to remove the impression then upon his mind. This does not appear to be “ misrepresentation,” though certainly a material “ suppression."

The third explanation is exactly what is stated by myself, in my letter of last Saturday, to Mr. O'Connell.

The fourth is stated.

The fifth, “that I expressed my regret at observations originally made by Mr. O'Connell relative to Mr. Peel, “ this will be deemed most natural, when it is recollected, that it being my object to prove, that the first hostile message should come from Mr. Peel, it was my argument to make Mr. O'Connell appear as much in the wrong originally, as my sense of his error would admit: and I have already stated in my letter to Mr. O'Connell, that I did express that regret.

As to the latter part of that explanation, relative to the remark made by Sir Charles Saxton as to the words attributed to Mr. Peel, I must consider the remark to have been Sir Charles' own, inasmuch as Mr. Peel, could not have foreseen what answer I could make to Sir Charles' question.

“ Personality," was the term, which I asserted in my letter to Mr. O'Connell, to have been used by Sir Charles and to the use of that term by him 1 adhered in my explanation.

The sixth admission required, was the only one which, in my opinion, militates against any part of the statement in my letter to Mr. O'Connell; and I rejected it at once; and demanded that it should be inserted as having been required by him, and rejected by me; and thus prove to the public that I would be as firm in refusing what I ought to resist, as willing to explain what I ought to explain,

Sir Charles Saxton's friend refused to consent to this demand ; but said that he would withdraw it entirely, as if it had not been proposed, and let the explanation, No 7 stand in its stead, as No. 6.

The seventh explanation is as stated.

Whilst Sir Charles Saxton was altering his notes to meet my objection, and whilst I was transcribing that passage which he said was substantially correct as reported in my letter to Mr. O'Connell, and which I admitted was correctly published by him, Sir Charles observed, that his publication would be brief, for that he would not publish my reasoning. I then rose, and said that I wouli not consent to a partial report, or agree to the correctness of his notes, as read to me, inasmuch as I

[ocr errors]

did not then know whether he would publish that of mine, which he said was substantially correct as that of his own, which he read to me before he began to alter.

Guarding against any possible future event, I wished to give you every information relative to that part of my conduct, which has been prematurely brought before you by Sir Charles Saxton, and boldly call upon the people of Ireland to compare these explanations as given by him, with the statement contained in my letter to Mr. O'Connell; to look at the declaration which I stipulated should accompany any publication of those explanations, and then to decide whether my honour is or is not unsullied.

I go to the Continent in your quarrel, for 1 have none of my own.

I go under the heart-rending circumstance of being obliged to put to the test, the fortitude of a dearly-beloved and affectionate child, in a delicate state of health, and whose only surviving parent I am, by confiding to her the truth, to save her from the torture of doubt--but I go on behalf of a country in which I have drawn my first breath-I go for a people the more endeared to me by their misfortunes, and for a cause to which my last words bear evidence of my fidelity.

I feel no uneasinesss for my character in my absence; whether I may be present, yours shall never be tarnished in my person.


The circumstance to which reference is made in Mr. Lidwill's letter is very curious, and one which puts the publication of Sir Charles Saxton's statement in a new and singular point of view. The reader will be of this opinion, when he is informed that on the day previously to the publication of Sir Charles Saxton's letter, it was expressly stipulated between the friends of the parties, that Sir Charles and Mr. Lidwill should meet in Calais on the same day of that month. The following may be considered as an accurate statement

« PreviousContinue »