POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY NIGHT.

At two o'clock this morning, the Lords resolved to go into Committee on the Corn Bill; not then, but on Monday; Earl Stanhope's "six months" amendment having fallen to the ground. The oratory on this occasion, filling an immense proportion of the morning papers, stands out in striking contrast to most of the previous discussions. Instead of essays and com- monplace repetitions on the general question, it exhibited the characteristics of a real debate with this new feature that three members of the Episcopal Bench took a leading part in it. The Bishop of St. DAVID'S brought his calm and searching intellect to the discussion; the Bishop of EXETER ar- rived at his conclusions in a hurry; the Bishop of OXFORD displayed an informed understanding, a telling eloquence, and much aptitude for quick reply.

The other speakers were—the Marquis of EXETER, Earls DELAWARR and WARWICK and Lord Asnnuirros, against the bill; Lord Mosrr- EAGLE for- LODI STANLEY, against; Earl GREY and Lord BROUGHAM, for; the Duke of RicumoND, against.

Earl DELAWARE had laboured long to bring his opinions into harmony with those of her Majesty's advisers; but, after much deliberation, he had come to the conclusion that as an honest man he could not give the measure his support, The Bishop of &T. DAVID'S was compelled in self-defence to vindicate his vote, looking at the earnest appeals which had been made to the Bench of Bishops by those who opposed this bill. Those Bishops who had voted as he had done were in fact accused of nothing less than neglect of duty towards the poorer clergy. But reflect upon the consequences of such appeals. Had not every one of their Lord- ships repudiated the idea of treating this question as a landlord's question, or a question affecting the peculiar interests of a class; and still more, of invoking the aid of the clergy on the ground that it was a matter deeply affect- ing their class interest? The clergy had abstained from expressing any opinion on the subject; and in so doing they must have earned the re- spect and approbation of their countrymen. The Duke of Buckingham had asserted that the effect of the proposed measure would be to reduce the incomes of the clergy by 25 per cent: even if it were, the fault would not attach to this measure, but to the previous act for the commutation of tithes. But he could not consent to place such a momentous question as this upon any such narrow, paltry, and miserable ground, as its effect upon any particular class. He would view it in its probable effect upon the comfort, prosperity, and well-being of the great mass of the community.. It was a measure forced upon Parliament by the emergencies and necessities of the case: the question was one of life or death to the people of this country. His confidence in its efficacy had been very much strengthened by the sober and cautious language made use of by Ministers in re- commending it to the adoption of the House.

The Bishop of ExETEN understood the appeals which had been made to the Bishops in a different light. It was not because some ten or twelve thousand per- sons would be damaged by the passing of this measure- but it was because the interests of the Church, the interests of the poor and measure; rich, would alike stif- fer. He did not consider the interests of the labouring poor so much promoted by the cheapness of provisions as by the goodness of wages, and he did not see how wages could be raised by bringing the English labourer into competition with the serf of Poland.

The Bishop of OX.FORD' in the course of his most animated speech, said- " I admit that I think it probable tilt*, to a certain amount, the income of the English clergy will be injured by this bill. But I believe that many of them are i looking forward to this measure n the hope that, from the effects it will produce, they will minister to a happier, more contented, better-provided, elevated pea- santry. I know that they who live among that class—who do not see them only upon the days of forced festivity, drinking ont of empty glasses health to their landlord, and prosperity to agriculture '.-{"Hear hear!" and laughter)—I know that the clergy of this country believe that the state of the great mass of the labouring population and the peasantry of England is such that they cannot desire it long to continue as it is."

Lord Assmunrox replied to some parts of the Bishop of Oxford's address; contending that his exposition of first principles were not applicable to the arti- ficial state of this country.

Lord MosrrEaoLE warned the Peers against the danger of taking their stand on the "peculiar burdens" on land; and went into an elaborate argument to show the fallacy of the doctrine of protection.

Lord STANLEY expressed great satisfaction, considering the antagonists he had the good fortune to-meet, at finding no attempt had yet been made to answer the statements he made on the 25th of May. He replied to the speech of Lord Lyt- telton; defended the sliding-scale; and asserted that the only parties who could benefit by the fall in the price of corn will be the monied interest. This rise in the value of money woulI cause an enormous increase in the national burdens. He prophesied that the question of protection would not be settled with the pas- sing of the present measure; and entreated their Lordships to consider the conse- quences of what they were doing before it was too late. Earl GREY thought there had been no backwardness in meeting Lord Stanley's speech of the 25th of May. The very same evening Lord Brougham had torn the greater part of it absolutely to tatters. Lord Clarendon, too, had most con- vincingly made out, that wherever restrictions had been removed a great improve- ment in the home produce had taken place. Lord Stanley had expressed a wish that the opinion of Lord Metcalfe should be known on the subject of Canada: now the &r1 of Clarendon had received a letter from Lord Metcalfe, regretting that the state of his health alone prevented him from coming down to the House to give his support in person.

Lord BROUGHAM ridiculed the egotistical vanity of Lord Stanley in imagining that his great speech had not yet been answered; and characterized the opinion he had ex,...— tonight, about the national burdens being enormously augmented by the fall to take place in the price of corn as one of the meet extraordinary hallucinations, one of the most outrageous blunders he ever heard upon any poli- tical matter. As to Lord Stanley's warning to the Peers the same argument might be used on every question where the country was 'divided; and if their Lordships acted upon it they would never pass any measure at all.

The Duke of RICHMOND complained of the Bishop of Oxford's allusions to him in connexion with the labourers and the "empty jugs." The Bishop of OXFORD explained; and paid a high compliment to the 'Sake of Richmond for the atten- tion he paid to the labourers and the poor in his district.

No division took place on Earl Stanhope's amendment.

The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee"; upon which an amendment was moved to insert for "now," "on Monday next." That question was put, and agreed to. The House then adjourned, at two o'clock.

Before the commencement of the debate, the Duke of RICHMOND gave notice that he should in Committee move a clause in the bill to allow tenants to vacate their leases, and receive compensations for unexhausted crops.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM is also to move the omission of that part which provides for the total remission of the Corn-duties in 1949.

The Commons resumed the debate on the Irish Coercion Bill.

Mr. Dawn Ross spoke against the bill. Mr. MONCKTON MILNER also opposed it, on the ground that its moral effect was gone. Mr. PouLETT SCROPE joined the opposition; alleging that the root of:the evil ought to be removed in the first place. Lord BERNARD supported the bill; Mr. REDDINGTON opposed it. Mr. SHAvr would support the second reading, although he did not think the measure would accomplish the object in- tended; and he wished it to be understood that his vote was not given as a mark of confidence in Ministers. Sir Rommer PEEL was the last speaker—

He entered into an elaborate defence of the Government for introducing the measure, and for having determined to persevere with it. He drew arguments in support of his position from the admission of the opponents of the bill themselves ; and showed still more etrongly than before, the immediate necessity which exists for the enactment of the measure.

Sir Robert triumphantly vindicated himself against Lord George Bentinck's charge of having "hunted Mr. Canning to the death," and "of having in 1829 avowed that in 4825 he had changed his opinion on the Catholic question, and of having concealed that change in 1827.' He exposed the hollowness of Lord George Bentinck's affected indignation at the baseness of the conduct imputed to him, by asking how it happened that he had kept silence on the subject till Mon- day last? Since 1836, at the least, Lord George Bentinck had given him his cordial support, called him his "right honourable friend," and permitted bins to be the leader of the party to which he belonged; and till Monday last never did Sir Robert harbour the suspicion that Lord George Bentinck could entertain such feelings in respect to a man who he believed had hunted and chased his relative to the death. Sir Robert produced speeches delivered by himself and Mr. Canning, in 1827, on the very subject in question; and referred to other collateral circum- stances, which proved beyond question that Lord George's charge was utterly false. At the outset of this defence, Sir Robert made some telling remarks on the degrading influence which the use of such language as that indulged in by Lord George Bentinck must exercise on the character of the House of Com- mons. Sir Robert sat down amidst hearty cheers.

On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, the debate was adjourned till Monday.