POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY NIGHT.

In the House of Commons last night, Sir Robert. Peel.made his deliberate answer to the charges prefered againt him by Lord George Bentinck, and reiterated and enforced by Mr. Disraeli. .The defence was complete, and its force irresistible; "shattering to pieces," to use his own phrase, the hostile indictment : but the effect, to those who did not hear the speech, can only be appretiated by reading a full report. We cannot- in this postscript do more than indicate some of the raisin features.

Sir ROBERT PEEL prefaced his defence by thanking the House for their ready acquiescence in his appeal for a suspension of judgment till he should be heard. He little thought, considering the great political confficts.and excitements of so many years past, that he should have been called upon, now, when much of the evidence was lost or dispersed, and many of the details forgotten, to answer ac- cusations connected with the transactions of 1825,1827, and 1829. He bad thought that those transactions, so far as they could be the subject of crimination against him,. were buried in oblivion; and years ago he had sent every document connected with them to his residence in Staffordshire. dile had been obliged to send for them, and he had been occupied for the last three days in examining them, and in collecting materials and collating news_papers, in order to refute to the satisfaction of other minds, the baseless charge which bad been directed against his veracity and.honour. After recapitulating the charges to which he had now to reply, (and which will be found in extenso in our abridgment of the week's debates, as well as in- corporated in the paper on "Peel and Canning,") Sir Robert addressed himself to the charge, that in 1825 he had intimated to Lord Liverpool that he had-changed his opinion on the Catholic question. He produced and read a-number-of letters from Lord Liverpool to himself in that year, and referred to other circumstances, all showing that it was impossible, he could have intimated a change of opinion which had not taken place. [This part of the statement was peculiarly lucid-and convincing: it exhibited 'very clearly the difficulties of Sir Robert's posi- tion, his unchanged opinion personally, and his wish to retire from office.] As to the charge that in 1829 he had admitted in Parliament that he had changed his opinion in 1825, he entered into 'an elaborate -examination of the evidence on which the charge rested. It had been asserted by Mr. Disraeli, that the report in the-Mirror of Parliament was written by Mr. Barrow, and that the reports of the Mirror were got up exclusively for its,use: the report which appeared in• the •Times had also been.addaced,,and was made to corroborate the accuracy of the report in the Mirror-of Parliament. Sir Robert Peel denied that Mr. Barrow wrote the report, and that there was a separate class of reporters for the Mirror of Parliament. He denied also the validity of the evidence which rested on the concurrence of the two reports. validity of prepared to.demonstrate that the reporters of the Morning Chronicle and the Times were in connexion with the Mirror of Parliament; that they did not make separate reports, but met together, compared .each. other's- reports, and sent to the Mirror ofParliament that which gave the fullest report of one part of a speech and that which gave the fullest report-of-another; .and thareports of the Mirror of Parliament were concocted from the reports so furnished. But if Mr. Disraeli had the " discretion," as he says he had, to examine the report in the Times, why had he not the_discretion and justice to examine other eeporta ? Did he lookat-the reports in the -M01741$9 Chronicle,- the Maiming Herald the Morning Post, and the Morning Journal, a paper which was.set up to destroy the hopes of _the success of Catholic Emancipation? If he had done so, he would have found that every other report of the tour other newspapers, all written by separate and independent-reporters, altogether exclude the words on which the imputation is founded. [Sir Robert read the reports in each of these journals.] In all of them there is an exact concurrence in the main fact; they all omit the passage about the time 't haviing come when something with respect to the Ca- tholic petition must be done." Mr. Disraeli had stated, that appended to the speech in Hansard were the words " inserted with the permission and apppprobation of Mr. Secretary Peel"; and the insinuation was that he had sent to a " corrected " report of the speech with the suppressio yeri, and begged him to in- sert it. What is the fact? "Mr. Murray, the book -published published that speech, and had the copyright of it: there was a jealousy about his having that copyright on the part of the Mirror of Parliament and Hansard; Hansard applied for my permission to publish it, and I got Mr. Murray to grant it; when it was published, they inserted a note to the effect that it was done with my approbation, in order to show that it was not done surreptitioualy, but had my authority and concurrence." In the report which appeared in the Times, the reporter states, by way of excuse for himself, that, Sir Robert Peet was imperfectly heard in the gallery. No other reporter makes any complaint: but, after the lapse of seventeen years, he was to be condemned on the words attributed to him by a deaf reporter ! And why did Mr. Disraeli not consult the Times re- lative to Sir Edward Knatahbull's speech also, with the view of seeing how far it corresponded with the report in the Mirror tit' Parliament, If he had done so, he would have found that the Times report did not contain one word of the accu- sation said to have been made by Sir Edward; neither did the reports in the Morn- ing Herald or the Morning Journal. These facts he had been enabled to state from the assistance afforded by many gentlemen of the press, who although un- connected with him in politics had communicated information to him from a sense ofjustice.

Mr. Disraeli had concluded his speech by a passionate representation of his vene- ration for the memory of Mr. Canning; describing him as an eagle," as the "rider of Bucephalus," and so forth. " One would have supposed that he had devoted all the energies of all his intellect to magnify the praises of Mr. Canning, and that he had submitted to some great sacrifice on account of his devotion to Mr. Canning. Why, Sir, if he has those feelings, they are to be held in honour; but if the hon- ourable gentleman, after the death of Mr. Canning, is parading these feelings of veneration for his memory for the purpose of wounding a political opponent— (Great cheeering)—he is, I think, desecrating feelings which are in themselves entitled to esteem and respect; and so far from succeeding in his purpose of in- flicting a blow upon me, my firm belief is, that he is rallying around me public sympathy, and public- indignation at the tame chosen for, and the motives which lead to, the attack. (Immense cheering.) The honourable gentleman frequently

and feelingly complains that I won't condescend to bandy personalities with him. (Laughter.) I, Sir, defend myself when I think, it necessary: I defend myself now from the plausibility and concatenation of. circumstances sought out. But when the honourable gentleman is so industrious in his research as to point out at what house on a certain day I attended a certain dinner, I must say I will not descend to his details: I know not where a dinner to which he refers, on the 3d of May 1827, was given; and I trust the House will not blame me if I do net condescend to inquire. (Great cheering.) I will not ascertain whether that honourable gentleman has a right to talk about r an organized hypocrisy L-' a pharisaical association.' (Great laughter.) With these charges and these phrases I have no concern. Every man has a right to determine for himself whether he-will descend into ehearena of personal contest. I will not retaliate tipen.thelnnourahle.gentlearan. distill limit myaelfeas I have now done, to the

defence of my character when I am unjustly attacked!' If new andetinheard-of charges were again to be brought against him, Sir Robert hoped that notice would he given beforehand, or that the House would again suspend judgment [Sir Idobert Peel sat down amid-loud and long-continued cheering,] Several long speeches followed.

Lord GEORGE Bum-rum adhered to his charges !!! and read long extracts from Hansard and the Mirror of Parliament, to show that their whole tenon was consistent with the admission made by Sir Robert Peel in 1829. He repeated the old story about treachery; denied that Sir' Robert Peel was his political leader; and defended his use of "strong language," by reminding the House of the language which ha&been used by "a gentleman of the name of Dawson," with whom Sir Robert Peel, according to Sir Francis Burdett, used to run " in eenylee Mr. ROEBUCK taunted Lord George with his friendly adherence to Sir Robert Peel for so many years, seeing that he blamed him for "chasing and hunting" his relative to death. He reminded Mr. Disraeli of the political changes he had undergone, and of the fulsome eulogies he bestowed upon Sir Robert Peel when his objects were likely to be promoted by so doing. He had suffered disappointment; had not succeeded to place or power; and hence his virulence to the former

object of his laudation.

14rd Jolly RUSSELL had hoped that Lord George Bentinck would have adopted a course which would have put an end to the discussion. " I am bound hi jus- tice to give my opinion, alter what fell from my noble friend the Member for "Lynn, and to state that the right honourable gentleman has satisfied my. mind with respect to all the charges. . . . . I have no hesitation in stating it as my opinion, that the right honourable gentleman is not guilty of that which lie was charged with, and that he ; has fully and completely justified him- self?' (Cheers.) Of the conduct of Sir Robert Peel to Mr. Canning in 1827 Lord John entertained a strong opinion, but he was not called upon to express it.now.

.41r..Disaavu denied that he and Lord George Bentinck had been wading among newspapers for charges against Sir Robert Peel: it was Sir Robert hiin- self who had been raking amidst the musty columns of old newspapers. They -lied merely sought for collateral evidence to support the statements made by

George Bentinck, seeing that •Sir,Robert Peel had denied 'them. lie asked

• Itobeet Teel to say why he had not written to Sir Edward Knatchbull on the !Iubject/leis speech, and got him to denounce it as a forgery; and also, why he pad not read any of his own letters to Lord Liverpool? . Iiir..Houimunsi offered himself as a witness, and the best witness that could :be adduced; for from his first entrance into political life he had been in constant aiersonal intimacy with his right honourable friend. He was present during all :Thr..debates referred to, and had no recollection whatever of any such remark laving been made by. Sir Edward Knatchhull as that attributed to him. lie had Always the most unreserved communication with Sir Robert Peel on the subject of the Catholic &lima; they were in office together, and arranged between them the opposition that was to be made as against those members of the Government who were deeply engaged in the prosecution of the claims; anti it was impossible, 'If Sir Robert had entertained any change of _opinion, that he shOuld not have been theiniividual to have been aware of it He had never heart' from him a single =pression which couM tkrow a doiffit upon -the ccinsistenceemf. his opinion in- 1825. 'Respecting' Sir Robert. Pees' letters teLoid Liverpool,-.1e was instructed • .tesay thaf-Sir Robert had searched' for copies, but none could be fourid. Mr. B.Escorr remarked that 'the real-cause Of the attack was obvious—the toriclaws. "Sir Robert's vindiciitiOn'was complete. Lord Sarrnox. saw with regret -Lord George Bentinck engage in such a contest, `arid with sta11.greater regret the mode in which he. had carried it on. He defied .thneeigicrillemen themselves wholdle,ged the charge, to say they were satisfied with the 'evidence. How could they be satisfied, Nek.n'four out of five of the con- PaPere'did not support it at all? :NEWDEGATE upheld the validity of the-chaeges.

".11r. Ht CE lamented that the accusations should be persisted in after''Sir `Robert Wad triumphant reply.

Lord MORPETII was personally aware of what took place in 1829, and he effid.not believe that anything which occurred could at all fasten mon SiillObert Peel the imputations levelled against him. Mr. 'Canning himself stated in the lieouse that he had been perfectly prepared for the resignation of Sir Robert Peel, hpugh not for the other secessions. ;VILLIERS asked, on what side of the House Mr. Canning-W=1d have been .flow,, had he lived? 'Everybody knows, that if anything political contributed to lir. Canning's death, it was the rancorous hostility of the landed interest, ex- 'cited by his touching the Corn-laws; and yet this was the party of which his _,IrOfessed defender was the leader ! It was Sir 'Robert Peers Free-trade inea- Ares which had led to the present Onslaught The personal speechifying did not terminate till nearly twelve o'cloCk : was too late to enter upon the Irish Coercion Bill,- and the discussion monadjourned Monday.

.Sir GEORGE GREY introduced a bill to enable Corporations and Vestries to-borrow-money. for -the erection-of Baths and Wasithouses, and-to pay it =back by instalments.

. The Lords went into Committee on the clauses of the Corn Bill.

The Duke of RICHMOND moved the insertion of certain provisions to -allowlenants to vacate their leases, and receive compensation for unex- hausted profits. His object was to prevent the respectable body of tenant- farmers of England from being consigned to-ruin.

-Tfie Earl of RIPON opposed the Duke of Richmond's proposal, as intro- ducing the utmost possible confusion and endless litigation. The Earls of tfifsrancscitricr, ABINODON, and STANHOPE, spoke in favour, the Earl of XORNINGTON against the proposal. Lord AsuntrErOw thought' the pro- iposal was surrounded with difficulties, and he did not see how he could :vote for it.

Ultimately, the Duke of RICHMOND intimated that he should not with- -draw his amendment, but he would not divide the Committee. The -amendment was then negatived, and the clauses of the-bill agreed to. The report is to be brought up on Monday; when Lord ASHBURTON is to 'move an amendment to provide against the sudden influx of the corn now in bond, at a time when prices are moderate and the prospects of the harvest 'promising. Thursday is named for the third reading.

The Tariff Bill is to be taken on'Monday.