of the manufacturers in Huddersfield had put such a large quantity of this Devil's dust into their cloth, that the foreign trade had become almost ruined. In fact, they used no more wool than what was necessary to keep the Devil's dust together. These frauds rendered English manufactured goods almost worthless in the foreign markets.

Mr. Ferrand's statements produced considerable excitement in the House; loud cheers and laughter on the one side being met by indignant exclamations and expressions of dissent on the other.

Mr. Brotherton avowed that he had no intention of deceiving the House, when he drew the distinction between mills and printworks; and Mr. Cobden, amid reiterated cries of "Explain," declared that "he trembled for the dignity of the House," when it listened to such statements with complacency.

Mr. Villiers in his reply, commented with much severity on Mr. Ferrand's speech. Even if the length of the discussion did not forbid him to reply at length, the state of the House since the delivery of that speech would preclude him from entering calmly and deliberately into the question: "It was a speech which misrepresented most grossly the objects and motives of those who brought forward this question, and so far it concerned him; but it was a speech that appealed to all the prejudices of the upper classes-of the landed classes against the trade and manufactures of this country; and it was received with a degree of satisfaction which he had never witnessed in the House before. He was of opinion that the striking effect of that speech gave a decided

character to the question now before the House; and he must think that the division about to take place, would mark the difference between the views of those who agreed with the honourable Member for Knaresborough and those who advocated opposite doctrines, rather than on the question immediately before the House."

Two points of Mr. Ferrand's allegations Mr. Villiers could deny of his own knowledge-that all petitions against the Corn-laws were unfairly obtained (Mr. Ferrand interposed that he did not say "all")—and that the people were opposed to a repeal of those laws. Mr. Ferrand was bound to prove the frauds he had imputed to the manufacturers. His own course in bringing forward this motion, and the length to which the discussion had extended, were justified by the admissions made on the part of the Government, and by the staleness of the arguments directed against him. To those who objected to the total repeal, he said, that he respected vested interests; but if the removal of this evil was to take place at all, it must have its beginning at one time or other; and a fixed duty, or even the proposed measure, if it did any good at all by cheapening food, must, in just the same proportion, tend to withdraw protection, and throw poor land out of cultivation. What respect had the Legislature for vested interests when it passed the Bank Restrictions Act, or the New Poor Law? He regretted his present motion only on account of the large majority who were likely to vote against it.

The Division, after five nights spent in debate, now at length took place, when there appeared,

for Mr. Villiers's resolution, 90; against it, 393: majority against the resolution, 303.

During the time that these discussions were proceeding in the House of Commons, numerous public meetings were taking place in the Metropolis, and in various parts of the country, for the purpose of considering the proposed Corn-law Bill. The body styling itself the Anti-Corn-law League, and holding its sittings in London, had pronounced a condemnation of the measure immediately upon its promulgation; and at Manchester, Wigan, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Bradford, Bolton, and other great manufacturing towns, similar resolutions were carried, accompanied, in many instances by declarations for an extension of the Suffrage, or in favour of the Charter. At Bradford in Wiltshire, at Hull and Manchester, at Hawick in Flintshire, and several other towns, the effigy of the Prime Minister was burnt, a demonstration to which he himself alluded in the speech last referred to. Among the opponents of the Corn-laws, however, symptoms of internal dissension were occasionally manifested.

Lord Nugent, who had joined the Anti-Corn-law League, now withdrew from it, assigning his reasons in an ably-written letter, of which the following are ex

tracts:

"The return to the principles. of free-trade, in order to be beneficial, must be conducted with discretion, and in order to be just, must be conducted with impartiality. And in both these respects I cannot but feel, that the Anti-Corn-law League has been grievously wanting, and insomuch has done grievous damage and

wrong to the cause whose principles it professes to represent. It has, in direct terms, rejected and denounced every measure of relief except an entire and immediate repeal of every duty on the importation of corn; and it has shrunk from frankly devoting itself to the principle for which its honour stands engaged to the country, I mean the commensurate sacrifice of protecting-duties affecting the importation of foreign manufactures. And this

not from oversight, since the Exccutive Committee were reminded of the omission. This is calculated, not unnaturally, to excite a distrust in the integrity of purpose professed two years ago, in a manner so creditable to a body which, like the Anti-Corn-law League, consists for the most part of persons whose capital is vested in manufactures."

Other charges which he preferred were, that the late London Conference of Deputies pronounced the landholders generally to be without sympathy with the poor,

an assertion indiscreet, ungrateful, and inaccurate; and that 600 deputies made a ridiculous demonstration in proceeding to the House of Commons door on the night of Sir Robert Peel's speech.

On the other hand, the agriculturists in various parts of the country seemed at first disposed to give a very equivocal reception to the measure, being inclined to regard the protection which it offered to the farming interest as short of what was needed. The advice, however, which their representatives in Parliament generally gave them was, to be satisfied with the Bill as a reasonable compromise of the question, and the best adjustment which, under all the circum

stances they could expect to obtain, and this recommendation being for the most part acquiesced in, the farmers, if not entirely pleased with the measure, may be said as a body to have received it at its introduction without dissatisfaction, and without abating their confidence in the Cabinet from which it emanated. This feeling, however, was not quite without exception.

At Aylesbury, a meeting of the Agricultural Association took place, at which the Duke of Buckingham presided, who addressed them in a speech, in which he professed himself the uncompromising advocate of the farming interest; and expressed his dissent from the opinions of the two Members for Aylesbury, Captain Hamilton and Mr. Clayton, who were favourable to the proposed modification. The three following resolutions were then carried :

"Resolved-1. That it is the opinion of this meeting that the sliding-scale respecting the duty on corn should be adhered to.

"2. That it is the opinion of this meeting that the farmer should be protected to the amount of 60s. per quarter; whilst the proposed scale of Sir Robert Peel's Government extends that protection to only 56s. per quarter.

66

3. That the thanks of this Association be given to the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, for the manly, firm, and consistent course he has taken in the defence of the agricultural interest; and that this resolution be entered on the minutes."

The desire of the unsatisfied portion of the agriculturists for an additional protection, found an organ in the House of Commons in Mr. Christopher, one of

the Members for Lincolnshire, and a leading advocate of the farming interest. On the 25th February, in Committee on the Corn Importation Act, that gentleman proposed to substitute another scale of his own framing for that of Sir Robert Peel. He started from the ground that Mr. Meek, the Government Commissioner of Inquiry on the Continent, had estimated the prices of continental corn at too low a rate; and he further assumed, that if corn could be imported from the Continent at the price of 26s., the maximum duty ought to be not less than 30s. ¡ if at 30s. to 34s, not less than 25s.; and if at 40s., the duty might be as low as 20s. He believed that corn could be introduced at 30s. to 34s.; and he made a variety of calculations to show that it could. He believed that the different towns introduced into the lists of those returning the averages, would make a dif ference of 2s. in the gross average; but, taking that advantage into account, he reckoned that Sir Robert Peel's scale would only secure a price of 54s. to the home grower. He therefore proposed the adoption of a scale beginning with a duty of 25s. when the price of wheat is 50s, the duty steadily diminishing by 1s, at a time, to be fixed at 1s. when the price is 73s. or more.

When Mr. Christopher ceased there was a pause; no one rising until Mr. Francis Thornhill Baring got up with the remark, that the proposal met with not the slightest response; Mr. Christopher was fighting with shadows. He then turned to the Ministerial project, observing, that there was a strong impression that the new mode would considerably lower the ave

rages, and raise the duty. Mr. Christopher admitted that it would do so to the extent of 2s. He taunted the Government with altering their intention about the duty on American wheat imported into Canada; and compared that proceeding with the reproaches with which he was met, when he altered his plan of changing the sugar-duties last year. He called for information as to the reasons for placing the two rests in the Ministerial scale. He declared that the papers successively laid on the table by Government themselves more and more confirmed the conclusions against the scheme. And then he entered into elaborate calculations to show, that foreign wheat could only be imported at a price of about 45s.

Mr. Gladstone made countercalculations, declaring that Mr. Labouchere's estimate, that the new mode of averages would enhance them by the sum of 5s. was one of the grossest arithmetical absurdities ever committed; and even Mr. Christopher's estimate of 2s. was beyond all rational calculation. The gross population of the towns which already returned the averages, was 4,000,000; of those which were added to the lists, 1,600,000. If the new towns sold the same proportionate amount of corn as the old towns, the price of corn there must be 78. lower than in the others, to affect the gross average to the amount of 2s., and 10s. or 12s. less to affect it to the amount of 5s. ; whereas returns which he cited showed, that the difference between the prices in country towns, and the high prices of London, fluctuates from Is. to the rare extreme of 6s. 11d. He calculated, the price at which foreign corn could sell here under

the new scale at 60s. to 63s. citing the testimony of commercial men, which was preferable to the calculations of Members of Parlia ment. With respect to the altered intention on which Mr. Baring commented, he observed that it was not Mr. Baring's change of plan with the sugar-duties, but the want of notice, that was culpable. He now announced that if Parliament thought proper to lay a purely nominal duty on wheat imported from the United States into Canada, he would pledge himself to the present plan.

Mr. Labouchere attacked some details of the Government scheme; and from this point the debate assumed a very miscellaneous character. Sir John Tyrrel led a band of agricultural Members, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Fleming, who declared that they should support the Government plan as the most practicable.

Lord Palmerston said that he should vote not with Mr. Christopher, but against Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Aglionby, on the other hand, that, having voted successively with Lord John Russell and Mr. Villiers, he should vote for the lower of the two duties now submitted to the House, Sir Robert Peel's. Mr. S. O'Brien was authorised by his constituents to support the Government measure. Lord Worsley preferred Mr Christopher's higher duty.

Some sharp criticism, directed against Mr. Christopher and the Government, was carried on at intervals by Mr. Horsman, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Charles Wood.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe made a very amusing speech, in which he dealt heavy blows on both sides. He did not believe that Sir Robert Peel was held back by his party, as

some supposed: he thought it unfair to praise his abilities so much at the expense of his political integrity: He accepted the rapturous delight, with which Mr. Ferrand's speech was cheered,-a delight only exceeded by the malignity of the libel,—as a declaration of war from the agriculturists to the manufacturers. Towards the end of the debate, Sir Robert Peel again declared that if his measure affected the averages, even to the extent of 2s., he would reconsider that part of it. In his reply, which came before several of the other speeches, Mr. Christopher intimated that, if his measure were rejected, he should support Sir Robert Peel's.

The division was taken on the question, "That under 51s., the duty shall be for every quarter, 17.;" for which Mr. Christopher proposed to substitute, "That under 51s., the duty shall be for every quarter, 25s. ;" and the original proposition was carried by 306 votes to 104. The House then resumed.

On the next night of debate, the Government scale of Barleyduties having been moved, Mr. Wodehouse moved an amendment to exclude barley from the proposed alteration. He expressed a dread of competition from Denmark and France, and complained that in an interview which he had with Sir Robert Peel, he could not learn what were the intentions of Government with respect to the duties on foreign malt. He warned the Prime Minister that if the prices of farm-produce were approximated to the Continental level, wages also must approach that level, and that in such a case the new Poor-law could not be supported. He concluded by mov

ing that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Sir Robert Peel observed, that Mr. Wodehouse had given no explicit reasons for the protection which he claimed; but he would state that the Government had no intention of altering the import duties upon malt, the revenue derived from that source being considerable. With respect to barley and oats, he conceived that the rates of freight paid on those species of grain, which were higher in comparison to their value than those exacted upon wheat, in themselves constituted a protection, and he believed that the soil and climate of England were in themselves better suited to the production of barley than those of the Continent. Major Cumming Bruce urged the Government to reconsider this part of their scheme. Mr. Christmas and Mr. Christopher said they would support the Amendment, if it would have any practical result, but it would produce none. Mr. C. Buller said, he would vote with the Government, but he taunted the agricultural Members with their want of courage in not resisting the proposals of Government like the Duke of Buckingham.

Mr. Wodehouse being satisfied with Sir Robert Peel's declaration that he would not alter the Malt duties, withdrew his motion, and the Government scale of Barleyduties was then agreed to.

The scale of Oat-duties was then moved, upon which Mr. S. O'Brien took up the cause of protection to Irish oats. He said :— "At almost any time when oats were at 20s., foreign oats could be imported and sold at a profit, after paying the 6s. duty which the new scale proposed to levy. When oats