THE VAPOURERS OF THE TREASURY BENCH.

THE correspondence between Sir ROBEnT PEEL and Mr. Burns— discreditable to the Minister, if for nothing more than countenancing in the highest official place, and on the gravest occasion, the prac- tices of a code disgraceful to a civilized community—was made the subject of a motion in the House of Commons on Monday, by Mr. ROEBUCK. It is to be regretted that some person of more weight in the House, and better skilled in Parliamentary tactics, than the Member for Bath, did not take up the matter ; for it was sadly mis- managed by that gentleman. That Sir ROBERT PEEL'S letter was a breach of privilege of the grossest kind, there could be no doubt; and Mr. ROEBUCK might have brought it regularly before the House, by questioning Mr. HUME in his place as to the receipt of it from Sir ROBERT PEEL. Had this course been pursued, and the subject been treated with proper gravity, we do not see how the House could have avoided an expression of opinion which would have at once thrown discredit on the duellist's code, and checked to, the system of" bullying," which, when it can be safely resorted Sir ROBERT PEEL and certain of his friends are so ready to practise.

It is instructive to observe who the persons are with whom Sir ROBERT PEEL ventures to assume a tone of defiance. It is not long since he vented a letter of insolent spite against Dr. LUSH- 1NGTON. There was no danger of au Ecclesiastical Judge firing any thing more dangerous than paper pellets; so Sir ROBERT was very valiant. Ile also knew perfectly that Mr. HUME is no duellist. and never considers himself bound to give "satisfaction," by fighting them, to the persons whom, in the performance of a duty strictly public, he may chance to offinid. Mr. HuatE makes no personal attacks. Ills motions and speeches in the House have reference solely to the public or Ministerial character of his allies or antagonists. If, therefore, charges of political delinquency are not to be resented as personal affronts, and the Parlia- mentary doctrine that a inan may be personally honourable who is politically base, be good fur any thing, Mr. HUME ought not to have been called to account for his attack on Sir ROBERT PEEL; which had reference solely to public acts of that Minister. When Colonel Evaras and Mr. BARRON repeated, in words very much stronger than Mr. Hume's, their opinion of the disgusting dereliction of principle manifest in the conduct of Ministers, there was not any individual in the House but felt per- fectly sure that neither of thov gentlemen would be called to ac- count out of the house by Sir ROBERT PEEL.

Mr. Humes reply to Sir ROBERTS letter would have been better bad it only contained what follows :

" Sir—I expressed myself in the deb:Ite, to the best of my recollection, strongly condemnatot y of the conduct of the novernment of which you are the

head, inasmuch as you and your party obiveted to and rejected the bill of

Jest session for settling tithes in Ireland, as ineonistent with the welfare a the country; and I added, that I did not consider it honourable to have done so,

and then to covie down, as you had now done, to propose a measure evety way similar. When you appealed to me in the House as to the words I had used, and whether I intended to cast imputat:ons on your honour, my immediate

answer was, that I could not sag what your .ft elinys of honour were, but Mot I, as a political tune, should not hare considered it honourabk conduct if I And so acted."

The opinion implied in the last sentence, that Sir ROBERT PEEL'S standard of honour is lower than Mr. H UME'S, is sufficiently sarcastic; and if Mr. HUME had simply added—" You know I

don't fight," the letter would have been admirable; and we 'en- lure to say that the Member for Middlesex would not have heard another word from the Premier ; who had not the slightest in- tention of forcing him into the field, a. ti would have been de- prived of all decent pretext for making the attempt. But Mr. lin:an added the following surplus sentences :

" It is, therefore, quite clear in my recollection, that whilst I made my ob- servations in allusion to what I would have done, I did not impugn your

henour as a gentleman in the course you had taken, as the views you take of your political duty are doubtless as pure as my own, or those of any other Member, although your political conduct be the reverse of mine. I am not

aware, therefore, that you had any just grounds for understanding my expres- sions to impugn your honour as a gentleman. I had no intention to make any sueb personal charge; and I regret that in the heat of debate I should have so ampressed myself as to convey a meaning I did not intend."

This was unnecessary, for it had previously been stated that the remarks referred to the political conduct of the parties, not to their bearing as "gentlemen ;" which, in Parliamentary morality, is a thing distinct from their behaviour as Representatives of the People or Ministers of the Crown.

The "Ancient Pistol" spirit broke forth again on Monday night, but was rebuked admirably by Colonel EVANS, who above almost any man in the House is well entitled to put it down. Ile signi- ficantly told Sir HENRY HARD' NGE, that such vapouring as he is too apt to indulge in was "no proof of valour." Indeed, nothing in this world can be more contemptible than the valiant, braggart air, assumed by some Members in the presence of several hundred wit- nesses ready to keep the peace. We might suspect a man, who in the House silently and calmly bore a virulent attack, of a determi- nation to call his antagonist to account for his words elsewhere ; but when we See Sir HENRY HARDINGE and Sir ROBERT PEEL pat on an air of defiance, and hear them talk big before the Speaker, the idea of a duel never seriously enters our minds. We know at once that they mean to pocket the affront out of doors, or at any rate not to resent it in sword and pistol fashion.

We trust the lecture read to the vapourcrs of the Treasury bench by Colonel EVANS will be useful to them. Perhaps Sir ROBERT PEEL may also derive a lesson, which he needs, from the Recollection that his correspondence with Mr. HUME, so far from deterring other Members from telling him plainly what they thought of his public conduct, appeared only to instigate then, to a contrary course ; for Mr. HUME'S expressions were courteous compared with what fell from Mr. BARRON, Colonel EVANS, and two other Members—none of whom have received letters from Sit-

ROBERT PEEL,