object was to make a few pounds, and who was willing to sacrifice
to that object my reputation and his own. He took the very worst
report extant, compared it with no other report, removed no
blemish however obvious or however ludicrous, gave to the world
some hundreds of pages utterly contemptible both in matter and
manner, and prefixed my name to them. The least that he should
have done was to consult the files of The Times newspaper. I
have frequently done so, when I have noticed in his book any
passage more than ordinarily absurd; and I have almost invariably
found that in The Times newspaper, my meaning had been correctly
reported, though often in words different from those which I had
used.

I could fill a volume with instances of the injustice with which
I have been treated. But I will confine myself to a single
speech, the speech on the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. I have
selected that speech, not because Mr Vizetelly's version of that
speech is worse than his versions of thirty or forty other
speeches, but because I have before me a report of that speech
which an honest and diligent editor would have thought it his
first duty to consult. The report of which I speak was published
by the Unitarian Dissenters, who were naturally desirous that
there should be an accurate record of what had passed in a debate
deeply interesting to them. It was not corrected by me: but it
generally, though not uniformly, exhibits with fidelity the
substance of what I said.

Mr Vizetelly makes me say that the principle of our Statutes of
Limitation was to be found in the legislation of the Mexicans and
Peruvians. That is a matter about which, as I know nothing, I