POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY NIGHT,.

The House of Commons entered yesterday upon the work allotted for last Monday; and, 1Bre other procrastinators who stave off difficulties in- -stead of meeting them, Members found that the troubles to be encountered -were neither removed nor lessened by the delay.

The interim, however had not been unemployed by the bustling leader of the opposition to the Irish Assassination Bill, Mr. Smith O'Brien. De- spairing of Ministers doing enough to relieve Irish distress, he had dropped a note to Lord George Bentinck, the leader of the Protectionists, to know how far Lord George and his party were prepared to go in the way of giving relief?

The result of the correspondence was developed in Parliamentary fashion, and proved exceedingly convenient for speechmaking, and of course for oc- cupying time. Out of it came a rousing speech from Mr. Cobden; and a broken one from Mr. Disraeli, who took offence at something which Sir Robert Peel said. This led to a "scene," in the course of which much was spoken about the rationale of " cheering."

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN rose to put a question to Lord George Bentinck, which the noble Lord bad been kind enough to tell him he would answer. It was this—

Supposing the Government brought in a bill to suspend the operation of the Corn- law immediately with respect to Ireland for a period of three months, would the noble Lord and the party who acted with him be prepared to support such a -measure? [The questioner added a canto of Irish horrors from mcreasing fa- . mine, and rated the Government for not supplying money to buy food.] Lord GEORGE BENTINCE replied with coy reserve. His own opinion was that the distress was exaggerated, and that it was not corn, but money, that the Irish needed: still, if it were thought the suspension of the Corn-laws for three months would afford any material relief to the people of Ireland, if such a measure were -proposed by the Irish Members, or by the English Government at the dictation of • Irish Members, it would receive the cordial support of himself and his friends. Mr. E. B. ROCHE had never listened to any speech with greater pleasure than to Lord George Bentinck's : it was full of hope for Ireland. [Much more speaking followed, diverging into all sorts of by-ways.] Mr. COBDEN returned to the Smith O'Brien and Bentinck correspondence. • The unexpected and irregular debate originated in a question put by the honourable Member for Limerick to the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, which it seems has arisen out of a private communication between them. But there is another pro- position before the House and the public—not to suspend, but to abolish the Cons-law; and he supposed that Mr. Smith O'Brien was anxious to substitute a three-months' suspension for Ireland instead of general abolition. "But there are other parties to be consulted with regard to such a proposition—the people of England—( Cheers, and ironical cheers from the Protectionests)—I don't mean the Country party, but the people living in the towns, and who will govern this country. (Loud cheers.) !tell him, that the English people and the Scotch, and the Welsh, and I believe the Irish too, are determined not to be content with a suspension, but to haves total abolition of the Corn-law. (Cheers.) I think, therefore, the matter is taken out of the hands of this House altogether." Were it not for the inconvenience that would arise to the trade of the country and to the private business of the House, he felt anxious, when he heard such speeches as emanated from the gentlemen opposite, that an appeal were made at once to the country; for the country would make an example of honourable gentlemen ' below the gangway which they little anticipate. In reply to a question' from Mr. Smera O'BRIEN, Sir ROBERT PEEL declared that he would not accept the proposition to suspend the Corn-laws as regards Ireland for three months as a substitute for his own measures.

Mr. DISRAELI replied with some warmth to the speech of Mr. Cobden. That gentleman had treated the House with a definition of what he meant by the people of England, and had then threatened the Country party with its reprobation. They had been told that the people of England were those who lived in towns; . and that definition had been loudly cheered and accepted by the First Minister of the Crown. "I repeat it, that the right honourable gentleman immediately

• cheered that definition the people.' The cheer came from the same right honourable gentleman who once was so proud of being the head of the gentlemen a land.'

Sir ftOBERT PEEL—" I totally deny it." (Loud cheers.)

Mr. DISRAELI—" The right honourable gentleman totally denies it. If he -means to say that anything I stated is false, of course I sit down." [A mock motion of adjournment was made by Mr. MansicE °Vox- NELL, to enable Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN to deliver a second speech.] Mr. NEWDEGATE proceeded to interrogate Sir Robert Peel as to whether he stated that an assertion made by an honourable Member in his place was false r

• Sir ROBERT PEEL explained what he had said in reference to the imputation -of cheering a particular expression. "What I said of the imputation was, that

I totally deny it. The honourable Member for Shrewsbury said, that I had cheered a particular expression of the honourable Member for Stockport--namely, that the towns had a right to dictate to the Country party, and that I accepted his .definition of the word people.' I said, I totally deny it." Mr. PETER BORTHWICK regretted that Sir Robert Peel did not take the oppor- tunity of Mr. Disraeli's sitting down to make the statement he had now done. "V` Oh, oh!") Major MACNAMARA thought the explanation sufficient. Lord GEORGE :BENTINCH remarked that there was obviously some mistake: he hoped there .would be an end of any feeling on the subject. . Sir JAMES GRAHAM had sat next Sir Robert Peel, and was consequently in

the best position for knowing what passed. He had himself cheered some of the sentiments which fell from 3,1r. Cobden, particularly-the remark that the people

had settled the question of the Corn-laws long ago. Sir James did not cheer what Mr. Cobden said about the people in towns—he held a different opinion; and -he was quite sure that Sir Robert Peel did not cheer either.

Further evidence for the cheer was given, according to the Times, by Mr. WILLIAM MILES and Mr. H. HINDE ; against it, by Mr. S. WORT- -LEY, Mr BROTHERTON and Mr. M. CORBALLY. Weighing the evidence, Mr. DISRAELI admitted that he must have been mistaken. Sir ROBERT

PEEL reassured him that he was; and the scene closed with "cheers."

[Those who are curious in such matters will probably turn to the reports of Mr. Cobden's speech in the morning papers to ascertain whether the reporters had detected Sir Robert's cheer given in approval of the sentiment in question. The result of the inquiry will be found to be this. The Times inserts Cheers, and 'Hear from Sir Robert Peel," at that part of Mr. Cobden's speech which asserts that the only thing which can be substituted for the Ministerial measure is "total and immediate repeal." The Morning Herald puts "Hear hear!' from several honourable Members, among whom, we believe, was Sir R. Peel," to that part which refers merely to the people of England as being parties to the question of abolition. The Hartung Chronicle has "'Loud cries of Hear, hear,' amongst others from Sir R. Peel," at the close of a question by Mr. Cobden, as to whether Mr. Smith O'Brien and his correspondent were prepared with the details of a measure for opening the ports in Ireland and keeping them shut in England. The Morning Post does not describe Sir Robert as cheering any part.]

The adjourned debate on the Irish Assassination Bill was then entered upon. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL spoke three hours and a half in opposition. After desultory remarks about evictions, the debate was again adjourned till Monday.

In the House of Peers, Lord CAMPBELL% two bills, abolishing the law of deodands, and providing for compensation to the families of per- sons who lose their lives through the negligence of others, were read a second time.

The slow progress of the new Houses of Parliament formed a subject of unsatisfactory animadversion. Viscount CANNING stated, that the present delay arose from a doubt as to the propriety of adopting one uniform system of ventilation to a building occupying a space of eight or nine acres: to resolve the doubt, Government had asked the opinion of three gentlemen, whose reports would be ready in a few days. This seemed to satisfy the malecontents, so far as it went.