POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY NIGHT.
The debate on Lord How-Ices motion was brought to a close last night, with a scene; having been continued, without material change in the course of argument on either side, by Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY, Captain LAYARD, Mr. MARK PHILIPS, Mr. BROTHERTON, Mr. MILNER GIBt3ON, in favour of the motion ; and against it by Mr. RASHLEIGH, Mr. BLACKSTONE, Mr. DARBY, Lord H. VANE, Mr. MATTHIAS ATT- WOOD, and Lord FRANCIS EGERTON.
It was at this point that the comparative placidity of the discussion was interrupted by a speech from Mr. COBDEN, in which, by way of empathically marking the urgency of the proposed inquiry, he en- deavoured to fix very grave and distinct responsibility on those who refused it. In that sense he made an appeal to the landowners—he would not call them agriculturists—shipowners might as well be called sailors : he undertook to prove that the Corn-laws do not benefit the agriculturists properly so called, by showing, that in De- vonshire, Sussex, Wiltshire, and Oxfordshire, the worst distress pre- vails; and calling upon Mr. George Bankes by name, he said that the labourers in the neighbourhood of his Dorsetshire estate were the worst-paid, worst-fed, worst-clad, and most illiterate in the kingdom— living worse than paupers and felons. Defending the League from attempts to connect it with " an almost maniacal transaction," (the assassination of Mr. Drummond,) he characterized the language lately held by Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, if it were truly re- ported, as "the ebullition of an ill-regulated intellect, rather than the offspring of a malicious spirit." He asked Sir Robert Peel what he meant to do, with capital melting away, pauperism rapidly increasing, and foreign trade declining : everybody saw that he must adopt some change of plan ; and it was the duty of every independent Member to throw on him the individual and personal responsibility of the present state of affairs—a responsibility, of course, arising from his position : he had the privilege of resigning office.
Mr. George Bankes rose, but gave way to Sir ROBERT PEEL ; who, in a state of excitement shared by the House, accused Mr. Cobden of holding him individually and personally responsible for the distress of the country : he had said so before at the conference of the Anti-Corn-law League : bat, added Sir Robert, (his voice almost drowned in the loud, recurrent cheering, given with peculiar emphasis on the Ministerial side)—" Be the consequences of these insinuations what they may—(A long burst of cheers)—never will I be influenced by menaces such as these—(An- other burst)—to hold language or adopt a course which I consider in the slightest degree inconsistent with my public duty." (Much cheering Mr. COBDEN said, he did not say personally. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, " You did, you did." (Loud cheers : Sir James Graham handed a paper to Sir Robert.) He admitted that he was not sure of that phrase ; but Mr. Cobden held him individually responsible : "the honourable gentle- man may do so, and he may induce others to hold me individually re- sponsible—(A fresh burst of cheers)—but it shall in no way influence me in the discharge of my public duty." (Renewed cheering.)
Sir Robert Peel then addressed himself to the motion ; his f iremost argument against it being, that it must inevitably be followed by some proposition by Lord Howick—general and abstract,andtherefore useless; or specific, and therefore interfering with the functions of the Executive Government in the management of finance, and rendering it impossible for Government to deal with the revenue and the estimates, not yet pro- duced. Nothing could more tend to paralyze commerce and aggravate the distress. Sir Robert retraced ground mainly anticipated by Sir James Graham ; repeated his own recent declaration respecting the Corn-laws ; and announced, that although the two wars in the East were so recently concluded that the full benefit could not be felt, 4,000 troops had been withdrawn from Canada, and the naval, military, and civil estimates would show a reduction of about 850,0001.—the first, he hoped, of a series of diminished estimates. He finished by desiring that no consideration of party might prevent any one from voting for the motion, who thought that it would tend to alleviate the public distress.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in a speech whose shortness and comparative trivialty is accounted for by his recent indisposition, declared that he put no personal construction on Mr. Cobden's remarks. Mr. COBDEN, often interrupted by the SPEAKER, who checked his disposition to wander from the mere explanation, averred that by the word "indi- vidual" he only designated Sir Robert Peel as the bead of the Govern- ment; a construction which Sir ROBERT PEEL accepted.
Mr. ROEBUCK then attacked Mr. Cobden in defence of Lord Broug- ham; who had merely exhorted those interested in the success of Corn- law repeal to separate themselves from the utterers of dangerous language. Mr. Roebuck read from the Quarterly Review, (in which Lord Brougham had first read it,) the statement of the Reverend Mr. Bailey of Sheffield, at the Conference, on the 17th of July, that a gentleman had said he would cast lots to take the life of Sir Robert Peel ; an attempt which Mr. Bailey deprecated, but with the remark, that few would shed a tear over Sir Robert Peel's grave. Such an exhortation was " the result of maniacal conduct !" Having told Mr. Cobden in the Library that he was going to defend Lord Brougham, the other replied, " Do not have anything to do with that affair—do not mix yourself up with it ; for if you do, the Corn-law League will go down to Bath and turn you out." He felt nothing but contempt for the announcement.
Mr. BANKES declared that Mr. Cobden's account of Dorsetshire was unwarranted by the facts. Nothing could so damage the Leaga,: as Mr. Cobden's speech that night.
Mr. COBDEN explained, that he did not apply the word " maniacal" to Lord Brougham, but to M`Naughten ; and he complained, that Mr. Roebuck, towards whom his warning was strictly friendly, repeated private conversations.
Lord HowicE replied. Mr. FERRAND withdrew his amendment. The House divided ; and the motion was rejected, by 306 to 191 ; majority, 115.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM obtained leave to bring in a bill for the registra- tion of electors in England and Wales.
In the House of Lords, Lord WHARNCLIFFE stated, that 75,0001. had been collected under the Queen's letter, and 25,000/. by public sub- scription.
Previous page
