ROBERT PEEL, was MR. DISRAELI.
In his speech he accused the Whigs of seeking to retain power in
opposition to the wishes of the country, and of profaning the name of the
QUEEN at their elections, as if she had been a second candidate at some
petty poll, and considered that they should blush for the position in
which they had placed their Sovereign. MR. BERNAL, Jun., retorted upon MR.
DISRAELI for inveighing against the Whigs, with whom he had formerly been
associated. SIR ROBERT PEEL, in a speech of great eloquence, condemned the
inactivity and feebleness of the existing Government, and promised that,
should he displace it, and take office, it should be by walking in the
open light, and in the direct paths of the constitution. He would only
accept power upon his conception of public duty, and would resign the
moment he was satisfied he was unsupported by the confidence of the
people, and not continue to hold place when the voice of the country was
against him. [HERCULES TEARING THESEUS FROM THE ROCK TO WHICH HE HAD
GROWN.] LORD JOHN defended the acts of the Ministry, and denied that they
had been guilty of harshness to the poor by the New Poor Law, or enemies
of the Church by reducing "the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY to the miserable
pittance of L15,000 a year, cutting down the BISHOP OF LONDON to no more
than L10,000 a year, and the BISHOP OF DURHAM to the wretched stipend of
L8,000 a year!" He twitted PEEL for his reticence upon the Corn Laws, and
denounced the possibility of a sliding scale of duties upon corn. He
concluded by saying, "I am convinced that, if this country be governed by
enlarged and liberal counsels, its power and might will spread and
increase, and its influence become greater and greater; liberal principles
will prevail, civilisation will be spread to all parts of the globe, and
you will bless millions by your acts and mankind by your union." Loud and
continued cheering followed this speech, but on division the majority was
against the Ministers. When the House met to recommend the report on the
amended Address, MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved another amendment, to the
effect that the distress of the people referred to in the QUEEN'S Speech
was mainly attributable to the non-representation of the working classes
in Parliament. He did not advocate universal suffrage, but one which would
give a fair representation of the people. From the want of this arose
unjust wars, unjust legislation, unjust monopoly, of wh