The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-17 00:00:00

tl,t, however, it was frightened. Still the most fla-
gitieus part of the conduct of Government was the
treatment of the country hankers. They sent for the
country banker., promised them the circulation of one
pound notes for eleven years, induced them to go on, arot
when they had blundered into dangers and difficulties,
and reduced the country to within forty-ei,eht hours or
a sate of barter, they brought in the Bill of 1826, than
which a more iniquitous or mischievous measure never was
designed. That Bill brought a hundred country bankers
to bankruptcy, and half ruined five or six hundred more.
Talk of national faith after such an act as that. Before
national faith could be maintained justice must be done to
the parties by that act so grievously injured. The key-
stone, however, of all the mischief was the Bill of 1819,
a Bill which had inflicted on the country low prices and
high taxes. And, after all the misery and wrongs en-
dured,
could it be said that the country was in a state or
security ? No such thing. The Noble Lord (A!tborp)
knew full well that there was no security. In Scotland there
avert notes; in England there were millions upon millions
,!tat could not be paid in gold. He did not blame the Right
Hon. Baronet more than some others, but he must have
somebody—(A laugh)—and as the Right Hon. Baronet
was still in being, still important, and the introducer of
the cause of all the mischief, he fixed on him. In sr
doing be meant nothing discourteous. He meant not to
impute to the Right Hon. Baronet ignorance upon any
tine sultject but the one mixed up with the question. Ht
admitted his great and general knowledge of questions of
science, in the science of prosody, for instance—he readihs
admitted the superiority of the Right Hon. Baronet. The
Right lion. Baronet was fully competent to criticise his
pronunciation ; and if he (Mr. Cobbett) called a word
tec•i-nd, and the Right Hon. Baronet said it was rec-ee-ref,
he had no doubt that he was right.—(A laugh.) (Sir J.
40raharn at Ibis moment took his season theTreasuryßencla )
Ahl" (said Mr. Cobbett, striking the table) " now I
'shall 'have a vote."—(A laugh.) He must remind the
ht Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) of the course he
haad himself pursued in 1829. In that year the Right
Hon. Baronet had proposed to reduce the interest of the
debt thirty per cent., candidly confessing that the (mach
Ricardo had misled him. At that time the Right Hon.
Baronet had made the amende honorable for his former
false opinions ; and he now called upon him to complete
the deed, by marching out with him in support of his re-
solutions. He was not aware that any statement could be
made to controvert the facts he had advanced. It was
not for him to presume to anticipate the course the, Right
Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) would pursue ; but
he found in one of his speeches this interrogatory, " Was
there no distress before 1819 ?" Yes, there was in 1804.
And the very same point had been put by the Right
Hon. Secretary for the Colonies with regard to the suffer-
ing West Indians. But what caused that distress ? Why,
the peace of Amiens.—(Hear.) Then came the pro.
position for the resumption of cash payments, even when
loans were going on. Why it was fit only to have been
issued from Bedlam.—(Hear, hear.) And that induced
distresses in 1815 and 1816, and so it was all through.
Whenever there had been a reduction or a threatened re-
duction in the amount of money there had been distress.
He did not find fault with returning to payments in gold,
but with the manner in which it was effected. Nor could
it be said that the evil consequences bad not been foreseen.
A million and a half of the people had set them forth in
their petitions. That million and a half had prayed for
two things—for Parliamentary Reform, and for an ad-
justment as to the money affairs of the country. In 1817
those petitions had prayed that " the last drop of the
nation's blood might not be poured out to be licked up by
the cannibals of 'Change alley."—(A laugh.) But the
only answer they received at the time was a Bill to cram
them into dungeons at the pleasure of the Secretary of
State. The first object of their solicitude, however, had
now been allowed to be right, and the second must be
granted if there was to be peace in England. Ho repeated
it was as shameful an Act as ever was passed even by a
boroughenongering Parliament, and God knew that was
saying a great deal.—(A laugh.) He now came to
notice the effe t these Bills, and especially that of 1819,
had on the working classes. It had been repeatedly as-
et rted, and the assertion bore on its face no small degree
of plausibility, that the effect of the alteration in the cur
rency tended to amend the lot of the working classes, in.
asmueh as it lowered the price of provisions.—(Hear.)
Where were the employers ?—(Hear.) Did they make
no new regulations upon the occasion?—(Hear.) No,
no; they took right good care that the poor working
classes should gain none of the benefits, if any there was,
attendant upon the measure. Did the House desire proof
of his assertion ? If they did he could give it. On the
Slut of August, 1822, eight Hampshire Magistrates as-
sembled at Winchester, and there laid down the prices at
which labourers should in future be paid. Now what was
the rate for an unmarried able bodied labourer, no matter
of what age? The officers of every parish in the county
were recommended to offer to every single man, not a
pauper it was to be recollected, Se. from Michaelmas to
Lady day, and 4s. from Lady day to Midsummer.—
( Hear.) The amount of the wages was small enough ;
but that was nothing to another recommendation which
the magistrates made, namely, that if any man should
refuse to serve at that rate for the year round he should
he entitled to no relief whatever.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
Was there ever, he asked, greater barbarity contemplated
by any set of men, than to compel an able-bodied hale
man, in want of temporary relief, to bind himself down
for one year at most inadequate wages, or otherwise
starve ?—(Hear.) Was he stating that which could not
be substantiated ? No. There was the book from which
it was taken ; and every one who doubted the correctness
of it, was at litetry to examine it. There was a vile
book lately published by the Commissioners of poor
laws, published on what authority he could net say, and
against that statement he wished to set off the authenti-
cated work to which he referred. And what was the rea-
son he referred to the recommendation of the Hampshire
magistrates, in connection with the present subject
Simply, because those magistrates closed their report by
a statement that their recommendation was made in con-
sequence of the reduction in the price of provisions, by
the Act of 1819.—(Hear, hear.) Did not that circum-
stance develop the evil consequences of the Hon. Baro-
net's Act? In short, he felt satisfied in saying that that
measure had produced more mischief, by the effect i•
had on the minds, character, and conduct of the people
of the country, than any twenty of the measures ever
adopted by Parliament.__(Hear, heir.) The scale o'
wages which he had detailed was continued in Hampshire
until 1830, and the consequence of it was the transports.
tit)°, in the most instances for life, of 135 of the best la-
bourers in that county. The Hon. Gentleman concluded
by stating that he would leave his resolutions to the deci-
sion of the House, being quite content to have them en-
tered upon the Journals of the House, even though at a
future period it should be decided that they were unworthy
of being so entered and ought to be expunged.
Mr. J: FIELDEN seconded the resolutions in a speech
of considerable length, but owing to the low tone in which
the Hon. Gentleman spoke, and the repeated, we may say
constant, interruption of the House, his observations were
quite in audible in the gallery.
An Hort. Alzatßs appealed to the Chair whether the
Hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to consume the time
of the House by digressing into subjects totally irrelevan
to that before it.

Mr. HELDEN resumed his speech, and continued at
great length to discuss the state of the poor and the rates
of wages, but in a voice inaudible in the gallery.
Sir F. BURDETT rose, but resumed his seat, in order
that the resolutions might be read by the Speaker.
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose amidst the most astounding
and long-continued cheering, which having subsided, he
proceeded to address the House in vindication. He said
that this was a charge which was of a most serious nature,
but which he should have treated with more respect if it
had been made by some man of influence in the House, and
one who conscientiously believed it to be the pure impulse
of public duty which induced him to call upon the House
to
.pass upon him (Sir R. Peel), as a public man, the
igliest disgrace that could be inflicted upon any public
man, as an example to.all the rest. But would that Hon.
Gentleman conscientiously and seriously come forward
upon this pure principle, when only a few nights ago he
had declared in that House, in the debate on the currency
question, that compaiing him (Sir R. Peel) with the
others, he held him to be " a spotless angel?"—
(Cheers and a laugh.) Could that Hon. Gentleman
think it fair or just to inflict upon him (Sir R. Peel)
a punishment which, according to his own resolutions,
should more properly fall upon Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Hut
kisson, and several others? The grounds on which that
lion. Gentleman wished to have hint disgraced, were on
the face of them most vague.—(immense cheering.) Ile
had not not been even charged with bad motives,forthe
Hon. Member entirely disclaimed imputing
any
ignorancesuch to
him ! the whole extent of the charge was alleged
and want of foresight in the conduct pursued by him in
the course of six years.—(Cheers.) This was the front of
his offending, as drawn up in the six column indictment
brought by the Hon. Member ; and here he would ask
whether it would not have looked fairer in that Hon.
Member, after he had drawn up this elaborate bill of in.
dictment, to have sent the accused party a copy of it, s.)
that he might be prepared with his deience ? As it wa,,
however, he (Sir R. Peel) bad not been made acquainted
with even the outline of them till this evening.--(Cheers•
He was not, however, the less prepared with their refuta-.
tion.—(Renewed cheering.) The indictment set forth

certain mischievone things alleged to have been committed
by him (Sir R. Peel) in 1819, 1822, 1823 ; to which
charges the lion. Seconder had added several others, not
confined to any particular period, among which was
one, that he (Sir R. Peel) had refused to comply
with the demands dot forth in a certain memorial
'orwarded by certain persons at the Bull Inn, Burnley ;
and the lion. Gentleman had also recited a letter written
by him (Sir R.) in answer to one from Lord Stanley,
with reference (as we understood) to ordering out troops.
The Hon. Member, however, had omitted the letter of
Lord Stanley, to which his (Sir Robert's) letter was an
answer, and which required the aid of troops, in order to
preserve the peace in Lancashire, which was then in a
most disturbed state. Yes, Lord Stanley's requisition had
been wholly omitted by the Hon. Member; with what
feeling of justice, he (Sir R.) would leave the House to de-
tertnine.—(Turning to the Hon. Member for Oldham, the
Right Hon. Baronet continued) :_Why have you not
brought your accusations forward in a fair and practical
manlier ? What do you mean by displaying such gross
ignorance of facts and reason ? What do you mean by
your opening declamation about responsibility and non-
responsibility of Kings and Ministers, and about my being
a responsible Minister at the time in question ; and having
been rewarded with large sums of money, and so on ?
This, continued the Right Hon. Baronet, was the whole
ground of the charge ; but the Hon. Member required to
be told that in 1819 he (Sir R. Peel) was not a Minister
of State—(lmmense cheering and laughter)—and that he
had not received a farthing benefit from that Act which
the Hon. Member represented as having redounded so
eminently to his (Sir Robert's) advantage. He hail not
had the slightest object at that time for appreciating the
currency with any view to salary, any more than he could
have now in depreciating it. The fatal Act of 1819 had
not been brought forward by him as Minister, but as a
mere Member of the House; so, although the Hon. Mem-
ber seemed to think that the five and ten-pound notes were
only to be saved by his (Sir Robert's)destruction, he could
assure the lion. Member that it was not ex officio
that he had introduced the appalling Bill in question.
Now, with reference to the Bill of 1822, the Hon. Gen-
tleman said that it was brought forward merely as a
remedy for the Bill of 1819, and hereupon took occasion
to accuse the then Ministers of gross ignorance and in-
consistency. Now if he (Sir Robert) could conceive any
man of such exquisitely clear and infallible judgment as
never to find reason to change or improve upon an opinion
—(Hear, bear, and a laugh)—that man might well bring
forward an argumentum ad hominent. Such a man
might taunt them with inconsistency, but he really could
not admit of any such thing, especially upon the present
occasion.—(A laugh.) And what had been the sense of
the House upon these three Acts ? The Bill of 1819 had
passed without the slightest opposition. On the Bill of
1822 there was only one division, when there appeared
four only in opposition. On the Bill of 1826 there were
several divisions, the minorities altogether nine. So that
the final result was, that on all the Bills the whole oppo-
sition amounted to 13 out of 658; yet he (Sir R. Peel)
was to be disgraced and expelled for Acts sanctioned by the
united approbation of such a majority as this. As to any
little private accounts in this question, be would settle
them with the Hon. Gentleman in a currency that he
would take care should not be depreciated.—(Cheers,
and a laugh.) The next charge was, that he (Sit Robert
Peel) had committed these offences against the most
solemn warnings, and had thereby been guilty of a double
crime. The Hon. Gentleman had certainly not mentioned
himself as the author of this solemn warninz; but it was
evident that the object of the Hon. Member, in this
matter, was quite as much to show off and extol his own
supposed prophetical powers, to exhibit his talents as a
second-sighted youth, as anything else.—(Hear, hear, and
a laugh.) He (Sir R. Peel), to speak to this point, must
refer the House heck to the year 1919, when he was not
a Minister, but only a Member ; at which time there had
been four courses open to be pursued by the House
for the s ifety of the country—either to keep up,
according to Mr. Western's plan, the circulation of the
;taper money at the full extent of the di predation ; the
next was to institute at once a practical depreciation of
the standard ; and the third was the plan adopted, namely,
to revert to the former standard. The Hon. Gentleman
had greatly plumed himself upon the solemn warnings,
and so on, which he had given ; but he (Sir. R. Peel)
would not at once proceed altogether to destroy the Hon.
Gentleman's assumed character of a prophet.—(A laugh.)
The Right lion. Baronet then quoted a passage from the
Register, mentioning that, by the Act of 1797, the
country was pledged to return to cash payments in six
months after the peace ; that the Bill of 1619 was a re-
laxation of the Pitt system—(Laughter)—which would
have screwed up the country in six months after the peace.
The Pitt system, the quotation continued, would have taken
away the estates of the landed gentlemen seven years
before.—(More laughter.) The Act of 1797 was what
caused the derangement. The great distress of the
country was alleviated by the Act of 1819, and that dis-
tress it was not possible to avoid. The question was,
was it in the power of Parliament to avoid returnime to
cash payments ? " You," said Mr. Cobbett to Mr. Wes-
tern, " say it was, I say it was not."—(Greit laughter.)
The quetatio❑ went on to say, that Government had not
the power, if it wished to preserve itself, to support the
paper system. The Government only gave them Peel's
Hill, when the country was on the eve of a rebellion"—
on the eve of a rebellion—the Right Hon. Baronet called
on the House to mark that—" and that it was not the
Six Acts which quieted the people, but Peel's Bill, and
low prices." Quietness, then, according to the Hon.
Gentleman, had been brought about by Peel's Bill and
low prices.—(Laughter and cheers.) The paper system,
the Hon. Gentleman had said, " was a worthless thing,
and might easily be puffed out." He had tried to puff it
out.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentlemen had recom.
wended the forgery of Bank paper.—(Loud and conti-
nued cheers.) He had recommended the forgery and the
issue of notco. The Hon. Gentleman had threatened its
destruction, and tried to effect it; and was it not too
bad that he should now make a motion against those who
had taken means to guard against the consequences
of such threats ?—(Loud cheering.) This was the
Hon. Gentleman's language in 1822. It was most acu•e
reasoning. There was no defence of the Act of 1819 so
good: it contained a masterly display of the necessity and
advantages of that Act. " Government (the Hon. Gen-
tleman said) was compelled to come back to cash pay-
ments, the paper system was coining to a close, and the
ruin of that infernal system was at hand."—(Loud cheers.)
He described it as a bubble, and said the bubble had burst.
That was the answer the Hon. Gentleman had made to
M. Western, who was the great advocate of the paper sys-
tem.—(Cheers.) There was another proposition made
which the Hon. Gentleman combatted. That was to
coin the ounce of gold into 5/., instead of Si. 17s. 10d.,
which would have secured the convertibility of paper, but
would have kept the standard at its depreciation. How
did the lion. Gentleman meet that? All the indignation
and execration which he bad heaped on Mr. Western's
plan fell short of the indignation and execration the Hon.
Gentleman expressed at this project. The Hon. Gentle-
man did not condescend to reason with its author. He
said it was proposed by a Birmingham man—(Laughter)—
and the Hon. Gentleman made him a Peer. He dubbed
him Lord Little-shilling, of Birmingham.—(Great
laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman only satirized the
scheme of my Lord Little-shilling.—(Laughter.) The
Right Hon. Baronet next referred to Mr. Cobbett's opi-
nions of Lord Folkestone, whom the Hon. Member for
Oldham had described as taking wider views on the sub-
ject
of the currency than any other Member of Parliament.
Lord Folkestone, notwithstanding these wide views, pro-
posed a debasement of the standard. The Hon. Member
for Oldham had referred to the Noble Lord in one of his
most characteristic papers; and how was his Lordship's
proposed debasement of the money system met by the Hon.
Member? Sir Robert again quoted the Register. "It
could not succeed. lie had borrowed from me—(Laughter)
—one or two sound principles, but the application was all
his own.—(Laughter.) It was a most childish argument,
all his own, and of the weakest description."—(Loud
laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman (continued Sir Robert)
went on to show that the difficulty of reverting to the
ancient standard was very great, and be bad opposed all
these plans for reducing the standard well. The Hon.
Gentleman said that the country must resume payments
in gold, and must return to the ancient standard; and
what then was the difference between the Hon. Gentleman
and him ? The Hon. Gentleman said that we must re-
sume the ancient standard, but must at the same time pro-
ceed forcibly to reduce the debt; that we must resume the
church lands.—(Mr. Cobbett said be had made no such
proposal in that House.) He considered the Hon. Gentle-
man as a public man, and if he adopted any line of argu-
ment out of the House, he would hold him responsible
there for the language the Hon. Member used.—(No,
from Mr. Ceibbett.) lie said yes. There was no public
man who had a right to exercise any influence over the
public mind, for which he was not to be held re-
sponsible. —(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman, then, was an
advocate for reverting to the ancient standard ; hut he
proposed with that a forcible reduction of the debt, or
rather, a refusal to pay the just amount of interest. Ile
said that we paid too much to the public creditor. Ties
only other point of difference betwee❑ him and the Hon.
Gentleman was, that the country could not afford to pay
pensions and large salaries, and they must be reduced.
But there was no man in Parliament who made a propo-
sition similar to that of the Hon. Gentleman.-...(He.,,

hear.) He was like the Phoenix of Cowley, one vast
species which stood alone. He would then refer to what
the Hon. Gentleman had said about the condition of the
labouring classes. The Hon. Gewlem in had read a reso-
lution of certain Magistrates, which he said was a conse-
quence of the Act of 1819. But the Hon. Gentleman
ought to have contrasted the situation of the labouring
classes when that resolution was passed, with that situa-
tion in 1819. "In 1819," said the Hon. Member for
Oldham (and Sir Robert again quoted the Register to the
following effect) " the poor rates were eight millions—the
labourers were in rags—they were chained to carts they
had been banished from the farm houses—they had no
places but the worst hovels to dwell in—and if the devil
himself had invented a system, he could not have in-
vented one of greater suffering than that he was lament-
ing the consequence of."—(Great laughter.) The Hon.
Gentleman said, that the men of Preston could not buy
sugar—not because there was a scarcity of sugar—no ;
but he said they could not buy sugar, because there was an
under-production of money, not an over-production of
sugar.—(Hear; " No," from Mr. Cobbett.) He was
quoting the very words of the Hon. Member.—(Cheers.)
He had followed the Hon. Gentleman with the closest
attention, and he admitted that there was so much of real
merit in the talents of the Hon. Gentleman that they com -
manded attention. Again, he said that the only point of dif-
ference between him and the Hon. Gentleman was in re-
suming the ancient standard. The Hon. Member re-
quired that the national establishments should be forth-
with reduced ; and because he (Sir Robert Peel) had not
made that reduction, and because be bad not made that
proposition to reduce the interest of the debt, which no
lion. Member had then made, and which the lion. Mem-
ber for Oldham was the only man who had the courage
or the dishonesty to make—(Loud cheers)—because he
had not made the proposition, the Hon. Member now
moved an address to the crown to remove him from the
Privy Council. He would not make it, and be would
rather be dismissed from ten Privy Councils, if that were
possible, than make such a proposition. The Hon. Gen.
tleman said that sinecures should be reduced. If there
were any sinecures, let them be reduced ; but let no man
run away with the notion that any relief which could be
obtained by the reduction of sinecures could be more than
a drop in the Pacific Ocean. He was ready to reduce
establishments, not to the nominal state of any former pe-
riod, but to that state which was the test of propriety, the
security of the public, and the honour of the country. So
much for the motion of the Hon. Gentleman—the pub-
lic, plausible, parliamentary grounds of the motion.
—(Loud cheers.) The Honourable Gentleman had referred
to the answer he bad returned to the representations
made of great distress in 1829, and to his taking no means
to remove that distress. But at that very time a parson
had been sent down to Birmingham, to make inquiries
into the distress, and he had authority, if he found the dis-
tress severe, to relieve it ; but he was instructed to say
nothing of that authority. He would not enter into
details to refute the Honourable Gentleman, who
thought, because distress existed, that therefore public
men ought to be dismissed from the councils of the
King. But what was the real object of the motion
of the Honourable Member? He could not think that
he had laid any sufficient Parliamentary grounds for his
motion. The Hon. Member said he anticipated a large
majority. He knew him too well to know, that the
Hon. Member expected any such thing.—(A laugh.) The
Hon. Gentleman knew that a motion so eminently absurd
had no chance of success. The answer to his anticipation
was that incredulous burst cf laughter with which his an-
ticipations were greeted, and which would have
penetrated any skin lees tough than that of the Hon. Member.
He knew that the House was opposed to the motion ; but
lie would state, without any delicacy, what he believed to
be the real motive—the unavowed object contemplated by
the Hon. Gen tlenian.—(Liughter. ) It he had taken ano-
ther course, he was not mad enough to believe that he
could have escaped the indignation of the Hon. Gentle-
man.—(Hear.) Suppose he bad agreed with an Hon.
and much venerated relative, from whom he had on that
occasion the misfortune to differ—suppose he had agreed
that the continuation of the issue of paper money was
sa'e—suppose he had not avowed the opinions he enter-
tained, could he have escaped the Hon. Gentleman's in-
dignation?—(Hear, hear.) In one of the Hon. Gentle-
man's books—the volume for 1819—be found a letter ad-
dressed, "To Sir Robert Peel, Baronet and cotton-
weaver."—(Great laughter.) There was nothing in the
whole range of scurrility more disgraceful—nothing which
was so offensive in the organs and instruments of a certain
party—as that scurrility which sought to depreciate a man
because he had raised himself from obscurity by his own
talents and exertions. (Loud and long continued
cheers.) The Hoo. Member addressed his letter to
Sir Robert Peel, Baronet and cotton-weaver ; but
when the Hon. Gentleman wanted to get into Par-
liament, he did not disdain to ask the assistance
of a cotton-weaver.—(Cheers and laughter.) There
were no men who were more distinguished for a vulgar
deference to mere rank, than those who assailed it with
scurrility, while they effected to stand up fer liberty, than
the whole class of wen to which the Hon. Member be-
longed. They all spoke as if they were the descendants
of the Courtenays and Montmorenciee; and if they were
they would be too generous to despise those who bad
raised themselves to eminence. The illustrious blood
which flowed in their veins made them too generous ever
to begrudge others the rewards of their exertion, and the
public honours which min not of their class might attain.
To make it a matter of reproach to any men that he was
of humble origin, denoted nothing but inherent vulgarity
of mind.—(Loud cheers.) And in this age, and on these
principles, to taunt a man that he had raised himself to a
station of eminence by his own exertions and his own
talents, was not only vulgar, it teas something worse. So
far from that taunt causing him any shame, be felt only
proud.—(Loud cheers.) He professed the greatest re-
spect for those who could boast of hereditary honours, but
he professed equal respect for these new families, whose
founder, by their virtue and talents, laid the foundation
of a great name in the land. He had had the misfortune
to differ from his father, but the Hon. Gentleman would
not have spared him had he adopted the opinions of one
whom he was bound to respect. The Hon. Member,
in his letter to Sir Robert Peel, put a hypothetical
case of two brothers—A and B—A being a fundholder and
B a landholder; and he stated that the landholder suf-
fered ; but the Hon. Member forgot that he (Sir Robt.
Peel) was the brother 8.--(Laughter.) B was the
owner of land, and, according to the Hon. Gentleman,
had suffered a depreciation of his property of 25 per cent.
The question wets, whether, if he had agreed with his
lamented parent, would be have escaped this motion, and
though he might have escaped the public plausible motion,
would he have escaped that which was the real though
unavowed object of the motion ?—(Cheers.)—The letter
concluded thus. The Right Hon. Baronet then pro..
ceeded to read the letter to this effect—." Now Sir Robt.
Peel, I care little whether you reflect on these truths or
not. .1 know well what is coming (those words being in
Italics), and if I put your name at the head of this letter,
it is not merely to reason with you, but to point you
out" (also in Italics). What was the meaning of these
Italics ? Could the /lon. Gentleman say they bad any
good object?—(Loud cheers.) What could he mean by
putting in Italics, " I know well what is coining ?" and
that his object in addressing Sir R. Peel was to point
him out, and not to reason with him.--(Hear, bear.)
He knew well what the object was, and no motives of
false delicacy should prevent him from doing what he
believed to be a public good, and to declare that, in his
opinion, the HOD. Gentleman speculated on the chances of
what he believed would be a period of public confusion.__
(Cheers.) The intention of the present motion was to
point him out.—(Cheers.) He did not make this charge
on light grounds; he did not rest merely on the letter of
1819 ; be would refer to a later period, when they would
find him addressing the labouring classes, the physical
strength of the country, and maintaining similar doctrines
to those to which he had just alluded. Oa the 6th of
April, 1833, the Hon. Gentleman recommended the
formation in different parts of the country of defence asso-
ciations, the objects of which were to obtain, in reference
to the direct taxes, a correct list of the name and place of
residence of all the great landholders in this country, to
ascertain as nearly as possible how the owners came to
their estates, whether by descent or purchase, together with
their probable worth.—( Hear, hear.) Aud this was the
man who was talking of liberty. Was it possible that any
man could preach liberty, and yet wish for such abomina-
ble tyranny as the existence of Commissions of this de-
scription in the neighbourhood of every gentleman's man-
sion ?—(Loud cheers.) In addition to this, they were
to cause to be printed a true pedigree of every landlord,
and the amount of public money which he and his ances-
tors had received to three or four generations, and to be
sure and distribute a sufficient number, and cause them
to be circulated amongst the industrious classes, that
they might be enabled all to know one another well —( Hear,
hear)—and that as the day of reckoning must soon
come, it was absolutely necessary that they should make
up their accounts and have them ready, so that they might
not be taken by surprise when they were called on to ar-
range matters and come to an equitable adjustment.—
(Hear.) Equitable adjustment, indeed ! What justice,
what equity, what courage was there in this proposition
of the Hon. Gentleman, in thus seeking to drive to des-
peration those to whom such language was addressed ?
(Cheers.) The Hon. Member could have no object but
one connected with the accomplishment of that end which

now led him, looking to public confusion, or "equitable
adjustment," to bring forward the present motion in order
to point him (Sir R. Peel) out in reference to this
"reckoning commission," as in 1819 he had pointed out
his father, " knowing well what was coming."—(Cheers.)
The lion. Member had not the same motives or reasons
for attacking him as for attacking others: he (Sir R.
Peel) never lent the Honourable Member his confidence—.
(Cheers)—from him the Honourable Member never
received any ob!igation—(Renewed cheering)—there-
fore, public motives alone could influence the Ho-
nourable Member in his attack. One of these mo-
tives or objects might be to produce some indications of
fear on the part of the intended victims ; but he told the
gentlemen of England that their best security was in boldly
facing and defying these insidious efforts.—( Cheers.) God
forbid that the Hon. Member's speculations on the pros-
pect of "public confusion" should be realiz•d. He la-
boured under no apprehension that they would. He felt
confident, whatever might be the political differences that
divided public men, that all who were possessed of pro-
perty would unite in its defence and put down such at-
tempts.—(Great cheering.) Not only would it be the
greatest calamity, hut a calamity ten-fold greater than had
ever happened to this country, because accompanied by the
greatest disgrace, to live under the domination of such in.
struments as these.—(General and continued cheering. )
" Come the eleventh plague, rather than this should be ;
Come sink us rather in the sea.
Come rather pestilence, and reap us down ;
Come God's sword rather than our own.
Let rather Roman come again,
Or Saxon, Norman, or the Dane :
In all the bonds we ever bore,
We grieved, we sighed, we wept; we never blushed before."
But (continued the Right Hon. Baronet) blush we shall,
and must, if we submit to this domination; and I for one,
believing as I do, when I read these comments of the
Hun. Member, and consider his present motion, that I
have been selected as an object of attack either for the
purpose of producing some abatement of resistance to in-
timidation, or with a view to induce submission to those
who threaten us,—l, fur one, never shall have to re-
proach myself with having furthered the ulterior objects
of the party in question by showing any symptoms of
intimidation or submission.—(General cheering, which
continued for several minutes.)
Mr. COBBETT rose, but was received by repeated
volleys of groans from all parts of the House. The scene
that occurred was such as we have seldom witnessed, even
in the moat stormy of our public meetings ; the continued
yells of indignant execration with which every sentence of
the Honourable Member was assaiaed rendered him for a
considerable time perfectly inaudible. As nearly as we
could hear, he said, that the speech he had just listened to
was full of calumnious assertious. If order could not be
kept, he would move an adjournment. It was, no doubt,
some mortification to the House to listen to him ; but it
ought to have been more mortifying to them to eat their
own vote on the malt tax ; and if they would not listen to
what he had to say, in reply to some parts of the Right
Hon. Baronet's speech, they would stand out to the world
in a light which he would not venture to describe. If he
experienced such interruption from the House, he must
describe it as the most unjust assembly in the world. He
had heard no defence from the Right Hun. Baronet ;
nine-tenths of his speech were taken up in reading from
books which he had written, and the rem tinder consisted
of vulgar abuse.—(" Order," and much confusion.)
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member bad in-
dulged in expressions which no gentleman—(Hear)—in
that House was entitled to use, and the House had cer-
tainly a right to expect an apology.
Mr. COBBETT—Then 1 most readily apologise to the
House. A pretty charge had been made against him,
that be wanted to benefit by public confusion. He would
tell the Noble Lord opposite that if he would take off the
soap-tax, the malt and hop duties; and the house and
window-tax, he need be under no appiehensions of public
confusion. Though he would rather the predictions of
the Right Hon. Baronet on this subject were realized, and
that the country should be thrown into confusion, than
that the people of this country should be trodden under
foot, and knocked on the head as they had been within
the last few days.—( Hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose t.t retire previously to put-
ting the question, and was loudly cheered en quitting the
House.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, when the
numbers appeared to be—
For the motion
Against it 298
Majority _n,_ik4
Just as we entered the gallery, Lord ALTHORP rose
and said—Sir, I am not aware of any precedent fur the
course which I am about to call upon the House to pursue.
But never in memory, or within my knowledge, has a
personal attack been made within these walls upon such
grounds, or supported like the present. I feel, therefore,
that it is unnecessary to detain the House, being confident
that the feelings of every Hon. Gentleman will respond to
mine and agree to this proposition—" That the resdution
which has been moved be not entered o❑ the minutes."—
(Vehement and long-continued cheering.)
The SPEAKER put the question :—" That the pro-
ceedings on this last debate be expunged from the Journals
of the House."
Mr. COBBETT understood that the Noble Lord pro-
posed that the proceedings on the debate should not be in-
serted in the Journals. Did the Noble Lord mean that
that they should he first printed and then expunged? or,
did be mean that they should not be inserted at all?
The SPEAKER said that the motion of the Noble
Lord was in effect—that the minutes of the proceedings
should be expunged from the Journals of the House.
Mr. COBBETT said there was a difference between ex-
punging the proceedings and not patting them down.
The SPEAKER observed, that it was out of the power
of any Hon. Member to prevent the insertion of the pro-
ceedings on the journals of the House. The clerks had to
enter the proceedings as they occurred. The moment a
motion is moved and seconded, it is to be entered on the
minutes. Hon. Members must decide whether, con-
sisterrly with their duty to themselves—whether, con-
saftently with their duty to the public, they could suffer
such a motion to remain upon the journals of the House.
Mr. COBBETT had observed at the outset of the dis-
cussion that he expected a motion would be made to ex-
punge the motion from the journals of the House; but if
the proceedings were not printed, it would be quite a
novel course. Many extraordinary things had already
been done by the present Parliament—(Great confusion)
—but if they prevented the printing of a ;notion in the
proceedings of the House, they had only two things more
to do—the first was, that no man should be allowed to
speak in that House in opposition to certain opinions; and
next, that that gallery should be closed against the public;
and if they proceeded in the same course as they had
begun, be should not be surprised if both these points
were carried before the end of the present session.

Mr. LALOR said he had formed one of the very small
minority on the motion of the Hon. Member for Oldham,
because he considered that the repeal of the Bank Restric-
tion Act was the cause of the distress of the country.
An Hort. MEMBER, said such observations were not at
all relevant to the question.
Mr. FIELDEN said, in his opinion it would not be
wise for the Government to persevere in such a motion.
The gallery was again cleared for a division, when there
appeared--
For Lord Althorp's motion 295
Against it 4
Majority for expunging the proceedings -291
Lord G. LENNOX postponed his notice of a Bill to
alter the law of settlement, as far as regards apprenticeship
to the sea service.

SABBATH OBSERVANCE BILL.
The Sexma having called on Sir A. AGNEW, the
Hon. Baronet lose and said, that he feared at that late
hour of the night it would he impossible to obtain a proper
discussion for the motion which he had to make, for the
second reading of the Lord's Day Observance Bill.—
(Cries of "Go on, go on.") He was in the hands of the
House, and he would postpone the motion, if the House
wished it, to a more convenient day.—.(" Go on.")
Sir R. INGLIS said that it was scarcely possible that
such a subject could be properly debated at that late hour
of the night. They could not commence such a debate at
half-past 11 o'clock.--(Cries of "Go on.")
Sir A. AGNEW said that if it was the opinion of the
House that he should go on with his motion, he was
ready to do 50._..(" Go on, go on.") If, however, the
House would allow him, he would, for the convenience of
the House, postpone it to —...—...(Several voices " To this
day six months.")
The SPEAKER—To when ?
Sir A. AGNEW—To—(Cries of " To Sunday next")
.—to Friday se'nnidit.
Mr. WARBURTON—I beg leave to move as an
amendment, that the second reading of this Bill be post-
poned to this day six months...—(Cheers.)
Sir R. INGLIS had never known an instance of a
motion being g..t rid of in the way in which the Hon.
31ember for Bridport proposed to get rid of the present.
He did not envy the feelings of the Hon. Member on the
occasion, as his only object must he to stifle discussion.
Lord ALTHORP said, it was obvious, from the peti-
tions, that the measure of the Hon. Bironet was agreeable
to a great proportion of the people. He thought, therefore.,
that at so late an hour it ought to be postponed, and he
hoped that the Hon. Member for Bridport would not per-
severe in his amendment.
Mr. WARBURTON said his reason for proposing the