I have been accused of "exaggeration."[21] That may be a parliamentary phrase; I will not presume to decide that it is an unparliamentary term; but I believe that it is a term not much used amongst gentlemen. It has been employed, however, in a privileged place, that must be nameless, and I shall advert to it no farther than to notice the conclusions which may be drawn from the use of such a term in reference to what I did say. I trust your lordships will excuse me for a few moments upon this subject, because I really think I have been most unjustifiably made the subject of a personal attack for what I stated in this, your lordships' house, with respect to the late riots in Birmingham. What I stated, my lords, was founded on the same species of information which, it appears, was in the possession of her majesty's government; for, neither the noble viscount, nor any of the other noble lords opposite, knew any more of the subject than I did; they knew nothing beyond what they had seen in the newspapers; and I stated, at the time, that I knew nothing beyond that, myself, with regard to the facts. But I compared the transactions at Birmingham with certain other transactions, of which, certainly, I have more knowledge than most noble lords in this house; matters on which I had a certain and positive knowledge; and I said (and I firmly believe that it was correct, and that, in making the comparison I did not, in the least degree, depart from the truth), that the peaceable inhabitants of the town of Birmingham were worse treated, upon that occasion, than the inhabitants of any town I had ever known or seen taken by assault. This is what I asserted; and, it is the fact, according to my opinion. [Footnote 21: A member of the House of Commons had used this term as applied to the Duke's remarks on this subject, a few nights previously.] * * * * *