At

were selling at 20s. in the London market, the corresponding prices in Ireland would not be more than 13s. or 14s. Kiln-drying and other expenses in Ireland could not amount to less than 6s. or 7s.; and from 7d. to 74d. would be the maximum price per stone on the western coast of Ireland. those prices much land must necessarily be thrown out of cultivation. In 1837, no less a quantity than 322,274 quarters of oats paid a duty of 9s. 11d.; and in 1839, 355,000 quarters paid a duty of 6s. 5d. This was enough to show that he was not giving way to any imaginary fear. The importation of oats last year from Ireland into England amounted to 841,000 quarters."

Mr. Redington supported the views of Mr. S. O'Brien.

Mr. W. E. Gladstone entered into minute explanations to show that, as compared with wheat, barley and oats had been taken at the very highest standard of value, and that ample security had been taken against foreign competition. The price at which large quantities of barley might be computed to be put on board at the principal Continental ports of export was 18s. 2d., to which 5s. being added for freight and other expenses, made the price 23s. 2d. The duty of 9s. would further increase the market price to 32s. 2d., which few would pronounce an unreasonable amount. With respect to oats, they could be put on board at 11s. 2d. a quarter. To that add 5s. for expenses, and 16s. 2d. would be the price at which they might be expected to be imported. Add the duty, and 22s. would be the market price, which he thought every Gentleman who made reasonable calculations would con

sider as a fair and steady protection.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell complained that the scales for barley and oats had not been fairly proportioned to the scale for wheat. Last year he had voted for the abolition of all duties; he had opposed unequal measures whether of restriction or of relaxation.

Sir Robert Peel was surprised at the inconsistency of those speakers, who, while they applauded the sentiment that his measure was an insult to the people of England, yet the moment that the interests of their own constituencies were touched were loud in their outcries of complaint on the other side, and clamoured for more efficient protection. The more these debates were protracted, the more he felt sure would the people be convinced that amidst all the difficulties and embarrassment of this question the course which he had taken was a just and moderate one, and a reasonable compromise between those conflicting interests which were affected by the subject in question.

The first item in the oats-scale was then agreed to. On the second item, that at 19s. and under 20s. of price, the duty should be 7s. the House divided, when the proposition was carried by 256 to 53. The other items of the scale were confirmed, as was the resolution relating to rye, pease, and

beans.

The resolution that the duty on every barrel of wheat, meal, and flour of 196 lbs., should be equal to the duty on 38 gallons of wheat was then affirmed, after some objections made on behalf of the millers by Lord Sandon.

On the resolution fixing a duty of 5s. on Colonial wheat, when the home price was under 55s.,

sliding down to 1s. duty at 58s. and upwards, Mr. S. O'Brien moved as an amendment that for every quarter of wheat the duty should be 1s. After some debate this amendment was rejected by 135 to 58, and the other resolutions relating to Colonial grain were agreed to.

The House then resolved, "That it is expedient to amend the laws relating to the mode of taking and determining the average prices of corn," Sir Robert Peel promising to lay before the House information on that part of the subject before going into committee on the bill.

Upon the report of the resolutions being brought up on a subsequent day, Mr. E. Buller, after denouncing Sir Robert Peel's plan as calculated to give satisfaction to nobody, proposed, by way of amendment, a scale of his own, which was to commence with a 20s. duty when the price was under 51s., and gradually to slide down by a shilling at a time as the price should rise, until at 61s. or more the duty should be 6s., which he described as giving freetrade in corn at that price.

This motion, however, did not even find a seconder; and Sir Robert Peel declining to enter into a new discussion on the subject, it was withdrawn. Another amendment, of a novel kind, was proposed by Mr. Hastie. In years of plenty, he alleged, when there was a glut in the home market, there was also great store of foreign corn ready for importation, but none was imported; in years of scarcity that accumulated store was suddenly poured in, to the derangement of the monetary system, and of every other interest. He, therefore, proposed that a yearly importation to the extent of the average annual

deficiency of home produce should be encouraged by admitting a fixed amount (1,000,000 quarters) at the nominal duty of Is.: a steady trade to the extent required by the deficiency would thus be substituted for the present fluctuating and variable trade. He concluded by proposing a resolution in which this suggestion was embodied.

Sir Robert Peel said, that of all the schemes submitted to the House this seemed to him the most extravagant. A certain quantity of corn was to be admitted annually without any reference to its price or to the wants of the people. He pointed out the great practical difficulties which would attend the working of such a plan, and which would increase, instead of remedying, the evils of a sliding-scale. Mr. Hastie's motion was then withdrawn, the resolutions were agreed to, and leave given to bring in the bill.

The second reading was fixed for the 8th of March, when Lord Ebrington, after urging some of the former arguments against the measure, moved that it be read a second time on that day six months. Mr. Blackstone said, that though generally supporting the present Government, he would vote for the amendment on the ground that the bill did not give sufficient protection to agriculture. Viscount Howick said, that he did not regard the measure in a party point of view. He freely conceded to the Government that their measure would afford a decided improvement upon the existing law, although in his opinion it did not go so far as was expedient. He thought it an improvement also, because it must inevitably lead the way to a more complete and effectual reform of the system. But it retained the

principle which had caused the failure of the last Act, the attempt to put a certain price upon corn. The only way in which the variations of the seasons could effectually be diminished was to permit the natural and unchecked operations of trade. He repudiated the idea of protection as unsuited to the age of the world. He declared, however, that he did not aim at a total repeal of duties; he would give a fixed duty to counteract the burthens on land, but if he had no alternative betwixt the present measure and the abolition of all duties, he should prefer the latter, He agreed with Sir Robert Peel in thinking the Corn-laws not the only--perhaps not the principal, cause of the prevailing distress, but they greatly aggravated that distress. He felt quite satisfied that the present measure could not be final, and predicted that Sir Robert Peel, if in office, would propose further changes in a year or two. But he thought it was for the interest of agriculture that the law should now be permanently settled, for the longer such settlement was delayed, the worse would be the terms obtained, and while a law remained in force only provisionally, it would be vain to look for improvement in agriculture. In conclusion, he declared that he should vote for the amendment merely as expressing that the proposed measure was unsatisfactory; regarding it as a decided improve ment, however, on the present system, he should regret its rejection. Mr. C. Buller quoted largely a report of Mr. Horner, the Government Inspector of Facto ries in Lancashire, to show the present destitution of employment in manufacturing districts. In a long statement of figures he cal

culated the loss which had accrued to the country from not adopting the 8s. duty in the preceding August. Under various hypotheses he estimated that loss at 544,000l., 949,000l., and 1,438,000l. in price, which went into the pockets of the dealers, and at 730,000l. in the shape of revenue-in all probably 2,168,000l. He allowed two merits, however, to Sir Robert Peel's measure, the one that it brought in a little more revenue,-the other, that it pulled one brick out of the old system, which gave hopes that the rest might follow in due time.

The debate was continued by Sir E. Knatchbull and Mr. Gladstone on the one side, and Mr. Shiel and Lord John Russell on the other; but these speakers added little in novelty to the arguments already often advanced, and now worn threadbare with repetition.

Sir Robert Peel answered Lord John Russell, contrasting his own course with that of the late Ministry and drawing from the languid and spiritless tone of the present debate an inference favourable to the reception of his own measure by the country. "I did not want to bring forward a measure enunciating some general principle, and after spending the Session in discussion, find myself in August practically where I was in January previous. I wished to propose a measure which there would be a prospect of passing into a law-not giving universal satisfaction, for that I despaired of-but having the concurrence of the well-thinking, rational, intelligent portions of the community. Yes, and I have had it. (Much cheering.) And what makes your debates so flat and dull? what, but that the country has decided in favour of my measure? I am not speaking of the

Anti-Corn-law League; it is quite impossible that they should so soon forget their vocation as to permit their acquiescence in this law. I am not speaking of the agricultural community. But I do believe that among the trading, manufacturing, commercial classes, there is a strong conviction that the measure I have proposed, looking at the exist ing state of the country, is a fair and just arrangement. Yes, and if it were otherwise, I should find the debates in this House carried on with much more spirit and vigour."

After a few words of self-vindication from Lord Worsley and some remarks from Sir C. Napier and Mr. Villiers, the House divided, when there appeared-For the Second Reading, 284; for the Amendment, 176: majority, 108. The principle of the Bill having been thus carried, and the House exhausted by long and wearisome discussions on the subject, its progress through committee was rapid and unimpeded. A few amendments were moved on particular clauses, but they were generally either withdrawn or negatived without much discussion. Before the committal of the bill a motion was made by Mr. Ward for a Select Committee to inquire whether there were any special burthens or peculiar exemptions attaching to the landed interest of the country. Some discussion took place on this motion which was resisted by Sir Robert Peel, both on general grounds, and also as tending to interpose an indefinite delay to the settlement of a question which the interests of all classes required to be speedily adjusted. Lord Howick opposed the motion as an obstruction to legislation. Mr. Villiers enumerated a list of the peculiar

exemptions enjoyed by the landholders. Eventually the motion was negatived by 115, there being for Mr. Ward's motion, 115; against it, 230. When the House came to that part of the Bill which related to the mode of taking the averages, various amendments were moved, but all unsuccessfully. Among these one proposed by Mr. Childers, to defer acting upon the averages taken under the new system for twelvemonths, supported by Messrs. Hawes and Villiers, and opposed by Sir Robert Peel, was withdrawn. Another, by Lord Worsley, to calculate the averages on ten, instead of five, weeks, was negatived by 242 to 37. Another, by Colonel Sibthorp, to make the duty payable on the importation of foreign corn, instead of its release from bond, was negatived without a division. Another, by Mr. Barclay, against the addition of any new towns for returning averages, was withdrawn. Some slight alteration in the schedule of towns was agreed to, and the Bill passed through committee.

When the third reading was moved, Mr. Cobden proposed as an amendment the following resolution: "That inasmuch as this House has repeatedly declared, by its votes and the reports of its committees, that it is beyond the power of Parliament to regulate the wages of labour in this country, it is inexpedient and unjust to pass a law to regulate, with a view to raise unnaturally, the prices of food."

Sir Robert Peel said, he hoped he should not be thought guilty of disrespect either to the mover or to the House, if he declined to enter at large into a topic already so fully debated.

Lord John Russell said, he

should not oppose the third reading. He believed that the present bill would eventually lead to the overthrow of the existing law. He was still in favour of a moderate protection to agriculture.

In the discussion which followed, some severe remarks, impugning the consistency of the agricultural Members who supported the Bill, were made by Messrs. Villiers and Ward ;-Sir J. Tyrrell and Mr. Darby vindicated themselves and other county Members against these imputations. Lord Worsley announced that he should vote against the third reading of the Bill, and Mr. Eaton did the same, though he had supported the first and second reading.

. On a division, Mr. Cobden's amendment was rejected by 236 to 86.

After the rejection of some other clauses of minor consequence, the Bill was, on the 5th of April, read a third time and passed.

In the House of Lords, on the 18th of April, the Earl of Ripon moved the second reading of the Bill," the Bill of the people," he said, it might be called, for what could be more important than to provide for them an adequate supply of the necessaries of life at a ⚫ reasonable rate? He examined at some length the "two great antagonistic principles" on which it was proposed to secure that object, by removing all restrictions on foreign corn, or by regulating that import and partly retaining the restrictions; and then he explained the rival propositions, a duty varying inversely with the price, and a fixed duty. He did not admit that the principle of the existing Corn-law had failed, but he thought that its working might be improved. It did not follow,

that the protection that is necessary at one time is necessary at another; during the last ten years, more than 2,000,000 of additional population had come into existence, and had to be provided for; and the consumption of rye or barley (the use of which by a large portion of the people he was old enough to remember,) had given place to a more general use of wheat; while the same process was going on in Ireland, until at last it was very probable that Ireland would have little or no surplus to export to this country. He explained the nature of the Bill; and took some pains to show that the agriculturists had little to fear from any excessive importation of foreign corn into this country.

Earl Stanhope said, that a sliding-scale was no part or parcel of the principle of the existing Corn-law; that principle was protection to agriculture: and the sliding-scale now offered was equally pernicious with a fixed duty. He quoted Lord Melbourne's declaration in 1840, that a change of the Corn-law could not be carried without a dangerous struggle. An appeal had recently been made to the country, and it had decided in favour of that protection. The Conservative candidates bore on their banners that they were friends to agriculture; the defence and preservation of the Corn-law were the watchwords of the party; promises and pledges were given in profusion; and, on the eve of the election, the right honourable Baronet now at the head of the Government, in addressing his constituents at Tamworth, said "I deprecate a struggle on the subject of the Cornlaws, because I think, as Lord Melbourne did last year, the ad