there are times, when the insignificance of the accuser is lost in the
magnitude of the accusation. I know the difficulty the honorable gentleman
labored under when he attacked me, conscious that, on a comparative view of
our characters, public and private, there is nothing he could say which
would injure me. The public would not believe the charge. I despise the
falsehood. If such a charge were made by an honest man, I would answer it
in the manner I shall do before I sit down. But I shall first reply to it
when not made by an honest man.

The right honorable gentleman has called me "an unimpeached traitor." I ask
why not "traitor," unqualified by any epithet? I will tell him; it was
because he durst not. It was the act of a coward, who raises his arm to
strike, but has not courage to give the blow. I will not call him villain,
because it would be unparliamentary, and he is a privy counsellor. I will
not call him fool, because he happens to be chancellor of the exchequer.
But I say he is one who has abused the privilege of Parliament, and the
freedom of debate, by uttering language, which, if spoken out of the House,
I should answer only with a blow. I care not how high his situation, how
low his character, how contemptible his speech; whether a privy counsellor
or a parasite, my answer would be a blow.

He has charged me with being connected with the rebels. The charge is
utterly, totally and meanly false. Does the honorable gentleman rely on the
report of the House of Lords for the foundation of his assertion? If he
does, I can prove to the committee there was a physical impossibility of
that report being true. But I scorn to answer any man for my conduct,
whether he be a political coxcomb, or whether he brought himself into power
by a false glare of courage or not.

I have returned, not as the right honorable member has said, to raise