the Bill, which he characterized as unprecedented for its boldness and dangerous in its character, altogether departing from that course of policy under which this country had attained a power and renown superior to any other country in the world; and the great evil attending it was, that if it failed, however ruinous its consequences, it would be impossible to retrace our steps. The concessions which accompanied the measure were of a trivial character, and still left it one of the most unjust and oppressive ever imposed upon a loyal people. The measure of 1842 was believed by all to be final, and the arguments now urged against it by the Minister were precisely the same as those which had been employed by Mr. Villiers and Mr. Cobden in 1842. It was the duty of the Government to have assembled their friends and consulted them before this measure was determined on, instead of betraying them as they had done. The persons who would be most injured by this measure were the small landholders, or country gentlemen, the yeomanry (the pride and ornament of England), and the tenantfarmers; whilst thousands of agricultural labourers would lose their employment, if land were, as he believed it would be by this measure, thrown out of cultivation. The noble Duke, like the Duke of Richmond, considered that this measure was a prelude to further innovations, and that the next object of attack would be the Irish Church.

The Marquis of Londonderry supported the measure. He said that the farmers in the north of England did not participate in the apprehensions entertained by the noble Dukes. He felt it was a

great experiment; but he had such confidence in the ability of the present Ministers, displayed in their domestic and foreign policy, that he could not desert them upon a question which, after all, was more a question of rent-roll and of profit than of any high principle of political economy. He thought that their Lordships should try an experiment proposed by Ministers who had raised this country to the very highest pinnacle of prosperity.

Lord Stanley began by expressing great distrust in his own powers, but he felt a conviction of the truth of the cause he supported, when entering upon the defence of a system of law which had been designated by Earl Fitzwilliam an absurd system, and which had been vigorously assailed by those who had hitherto ably and strenuously defended it, and to whom it owed its very existence. Upon the question of authority, he appealed from the authority of the living to that of the dead; from statesmen of the present day to Lord Chatham, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Huskisson; to Lord Liverpool, Mr. Canning, and Lord Grey. The Earl of Ripon had denied that the Legislature had recognized the principle of protecting native industry as a reason for regulating the importation of corn, whereas such a principle had been adopted so early as the reign of Edward IV., and it had continued to be the rule of our legislation up to the present time, that it was expedient to secure the independence of this country upon foreign nations for corn, and to give encouragement and protection to the cultivation of its own soil. own

This had not only been our policy, but at the very mo

ment when we were venturing upon the bold experiment of leaving the supply of this nation's food to chance every other country in the world of any eminence maintained a protection to its agriculture. He did justice to the motives of those who had brought forward this measure, and Sir Robert Peel in particular could not fail to have foreseen the dislocation and disruption of ties, the shock to public confidence, and the distrust which it would occasion on the part of constituencies in public men and in Parliament. But the right hon. Baronet had mistaken the emergency and the position in which he was placed; he had confounded the brawling torrent of agitation with the deep, still current of public opinion. Ministers had been asked in another place, what they expected would be the result of this measure, and they frankly said they did not know. This measure, therefore, was introduced without a knowledge of what its effects would be. The grounds assigned for the measure were, the famine in Ireland and the success of the tariff; but these reasons were mutually at variance. If this Bill relieved the famine in Ireland, it could only be by bringing down the price of corn to the means of the starving population of Ireland. Their Lordships must distinguish between famine and great local scarcity. He spoke of famine in Ireland as a vision, a base less vision; he spoke in different terms of the amount of destitution and distress through the partial failure of the potato crop. When the subject came before the Cabinet, of which he was a member, he yielded his own opinion, and consented to a suspension, and a suspension only, of the Corn Law;

a total abolition he considered unjustifiable in itself; but he was left alone. The noble lord then entered into details respecting the course he had taken in these transactions, and then into statistical details applicable to the policy and effects of the existing Corn Law, and particularly to the operation of the sliding-scale in checking the tendency of a rise in the price of corn, and in preventing the fluctuation of prices. This was a complete answer to those who said that fluctuation of prices was the peculiar vice of the sliding-scale; whereas never had prices fluctuated so much as during the free trade in corn, when we were most dependent on a foreign supply. In the prices of articles not subject to any sliding-scale, in which there was a free trade-potatoes and cotton, for example-the fluctuations were enormous. The present Corn Law had kept us independent of foreign nations, and maintained a steadiness in prices; and would any man contend that these advantages had been purchased by a sacrifice of any interest ? So far from it, our exports had increased, our shipping had increased, the value of land had augmented; why, then, was this hazardous experiment to be made? The system of manufacturing prosperity was not without its danger; it should not be checked, but it ought to be carefully watched; the power of production was always overtaking that of absorption, and if manufactures were pampered to an unwholesome increase, when the bubble burst the ruin would be extensive. But it was not clear that the repeal of the Corn Law would increase manufactures. If an argument was drawn from the

effects of the tariff upon other articles, the price of corn would rise with the repeal of the duty, for that of wool had risen. He, however, contended that the price of corn would fall greatly; that we should have an inundation of foreign corn at 40s. a quarter, making that about the price of corn in the British market. The large profits of the foreign corngrower on the importation of the article into England would furnish him with a capital which he would apply to the raising of more corn. And how were the manufacturers to be benefited by this measure? Only by the reduction of wages. The price of labour must fall with the price of corn. If the labourer's wages were to be reduced, they ought to have the balance of advantages fairly put before them. The noble lord then showed the fallacy of the notion, that Russia, Prussia, and the United States would not take our manufactures because we did not take their corn, and that our exports to these countries would increase after the Bill passed. But admitting that there would be a great increase in the exports of our manufactures, difficulties might arise, and war intervene; and when foreign markets were closed against us, and we had destroyed our home markets, then would be the period of bitter suffering to all, and especially to our artizans. And upon whom would the loss fall? Not merely on the landlords but on the tenant-farmers, who must suspend improvements, discharge labourers, and reduce wages according to the cold and selfish maxims of the free-traders. But if this system could be carried into effect in England, could it even be tried in Ireland? And to say that this measure was for VOL. LXXXVIII.

the relief of Ireland was a proposition perfectly absurd. The noble lord then laboured to show the injurious effects of the measure upon the Colonies. Destroy the principle of protection, and he told them that they would destroy the whole basis on which our colonial system rested. If our Colonies were taught commercial independence, they might learn political independence. With regard to Canada, we were going to break our promises to her; and more, we were about to destroy the communication by the St. Lawrence, and to make New York the channel of our communication with Upper Canada, whilst the United States saw our suicidal policy and were taking advantage of it. In conclusion, his lordship made a powerful appeal to those noble lords who went with him in his argument, and disapproved of and were alarmed at this measure, and yet, for various reasons, were prepared to vote for it, against a blind deference to the authority of the other House, which, according to its recorded votes, had repeatedly negatived this measure. Such a sudden conversion diminished confidence in the last vote. He warned them, likewise, against being deterred by the fear of being suspected of unworthy motives of self-interest. It was for their lordships to check hasty and illconsidered legislation, and to protect the people against the treachery of those whom they had chosen to represent their opinions.

Lord Brougham began by complaining of the disadvantage under which he laboured in addressing their lordships after a speech of so much power and eloquence at so late an hour. Lord Stanley had denied the alleged famine in Ire[G]

land, and he (Lord Brougham) doubted any general famine in Ireland, but that a great scarcity existed there could be no doubt. He might maintain that there was no reason for introducing the measure this year, and yet support the measure on its merits. The noble and learned lord then showed the inconsistency of Lord Stanley's opposition to this Bill with his advocacy of the Canada Corn Bill. With respect to the effect of this Bill on prices, the question was too difficult to answer: it depended upon a great variety of considerations. The apprehensions of large tracts of foreign land being brought suddenly into cultivation was utterly groundless. Where was the capital? where were the labourers? The operation of increasing the growth of corn in such a country as the Ukraine must be gradual and slow. He did not argue that there would be no diminution of price in consequence of this Bill, but he thought the diminution would be small. He could, from inquiry, undertake to say that the tenantfarmers were not apprehensive of this measure. He had met with many instances of farms let at an increased rent- none in which farms had been refused or let at a reduced rent. He expected that the agriculturists would benefit from this measure to an extent far beyond the slight loss by a diminution in price. Lord Stanley had maintained that this country should not be dependent upon foreign nations for the food of the people, and contended that a war would exclude us. But Napoleon's almost universal power could not seal up the ports of the continent against the exportation of grain to this country, for in one year, (1810), a million and a half quar

ters of wheat were sent hither-a great part from the ports of France itself. The argument drawn by Lord Stanley, from the existence of protective laws in other countries, was neutralized by his admission that the moment a pressure came the law was suspended in all those countries. The noble and learned lord then discussed the other arguments of Lord Stanley, to which he replied in some detail, and prognosticated that if we set other nations the example of a liberal tariff, they would follow it, and the benefit would be mutual. The noble and learned lord concluded by disclaiming all community of feeling with those who assailed the landed interest, upon which, as well as upon Sir R.Peel, he pronounced a high eulogium.

The Earl of Wilton expressed his intention of voting against the Bill, though his vote would be given with pain and regret at finding himself opposed for the first, and he hoped for the last time, to the Duke of Wellington.

The Duke of Cambridge deemed it due to his own character to state the course which he intended to pursue on this most important question. He had been a member of the House of Peers for fortyfive years, and he had made it an invariable rule never to vote in opposition to the Government, but, if he could not vote with the Government, not to vote at all. It was painful to him not to be able to vote with them upon this question, but his own character was at stake. Having a high opinion of Sir R. Peel, he had attended the late debate in the House of Commons, in hopes that he should be convinced by him; but the reasons he gave had worked no conviction in his mind. He was no politician;

he wished to act honestly and fairly towards the country. He regretted that this question should have been brought forward at all, less for the question itself than for what might be the consequences of it. Feeling as he did, he could not support her Majesty's Government upon this occasion.

The Marquis of Normanby believed that the effects of the measure, whether for good or for evil, had been much overrated. He thought, however, that the balance was in favour of the good, and that it would tend to relieve the distress of the labouring classes. He condemned the Government for not taking earlier measures to ameliorate their condition. He reflected with much severity on the inconsistency of Sir Robert Peel's conduct, and on the sacrifice of public character, which he considered to have been made by the introduction of these measures by the party now in office.

The Earl of Cardigan declared his inability to support, upon this occasion, a Government which seemed to have no fixed and determinate opinions.

The Earl of Winchilsea delivered a keen philippic against the Government for their change of opinion upon this question, which he declared was not now whether protection to agriculture should be retained, but whether the Government of this great country, supported by those who had basely betrayed their constituencies, should be allowed to act so degrading a part as to give a premium to one of the most revolutionary factions that had ever existed. There was no greater friend to cheap bread than he was; but it must be cheap bread of home growth, for he would not

have such a country as this, with so many conflicting interests, dependent to any extent for food upon other nations, when it could grow corn enough for its own consumption. As to this question being settled out of doors, it had been settled in 1842, and upon the faith of its being so settled capital had been invested in improvements of land, and that capital would by this Bill be diverted to other countries and employed in the cultivation of their soil. He implored their lordships to vote without any consideration of private feeling or private interest, but only from a sense of public duty.

The Earl of Clarendon rejoiced at the introduction of this measure, and at the justice of the arguments by which it had been defended during the long and wearisome ordeal which it had passed through in the other House. He did not consider this a party measure: the question was merely one of time, of facts, and of experience. During the last thirty years the opinions of almost every one had changed upon the subject of the Corn Law. Would the Protectionists say that their opinions were the same? When they took upon themselves the responsibility of the Government, as they expected to do, were they prepared, at all hazards, to maintain the existing law? The noble Earl vindicated the course pursued by Sir Robert Peel, who had acted upon a higher ground than that of party, and although some had pretended to have been taken by surprise, he had, during the last four years, spoken language that was, or ought to have been, perfectly intelligible. With regard to the plea now urged in fayour of the Corn Law, that native industry must be protected, native in