in America that we could not present in England that appearance of ease and comfort which, from the cheapness of food, was visible in the great mass of the American people. He had also felt that we could not meet the wants and wishes of our own people if we did not work out our aristocratic institutions in more of a democratic spirit. No class which propped itself on selfish interests could escape from downfall in this age of intelligence; and no aristocracy-not even an aristocracy as illustrious as our own-could stand under the pressure of a system of Corn Laws, if those Corn Laws were prohibitory. He, therefore, conjured the aristocracy to rise above their own special interests, and to bear their part in the consideration of this question, which, if not adjusted with them, would be adjusted in spite of them. Our system enabled us to embrace within it the active energies of industry, the steady forethought of the middle classes, the privations and patience of the working classes, the busy agency of a free and enlightened press, and the progressive intelligence of an advancing age. Let the aristocracy throw in their lot together with these interests, and let it be their pride, as it would be their safety, to be the leaders, and not the laggards, in the honoured march of the great community of the British empire.

Mr. Gaskell observed, that in spite of the speeches of Sir J. Graham and Mr. S. Herbert, he had yet to learn what new circumstances had arisen to induce this Parliament, elected on protection pledges, to consent, not to a suspension of the Corn Laws, but to a total departure from their general principles. During the last four Vol. LXXXVIII.

years he had opposed every motion for the repeal of the Corn Laws under the guidance of those in whom he had hitherto placed confidence. He had always been a friend to a moderate protection to agriculture, and in those opinions he had been confirmed by the authority of Mr. Canning, Mr. Huskisson, Lord Grey, and Sir R. Peel. The force of that authority could not be swept away by a single sentence even of so able a statesman as Sir R. Peel; and, the more he reflected on this subject, the more he was convinced that gentlemen on his side of the House should not propose, and that this Parliament should not sanction, the repeal of the Corn Laws. In the course of his public life, Sir R. Peel had made great sacrifices to his sense of public duty; but the first sacrifice which he had made was not so great as his present. By the first, he had lost the representation of the University of Oxford; by the present, he had destroyed a noble party which was once his pride. He then expressed the regret with which he had contrasted the votes with the speeches of Lord Sandon and other members. Though he differed from Sir R. Peel with pain, he differed from him without hesitation; and he should therefore, with a clear conscience, give his vote in favour of the amendment of Mr. Miles.

Mr. Roebuck observed, that when passion had passed away on this question, posterity would wonder how it had contrived to raise such a storm of agitation. He differed from most of the speakers who had preceded him; for he had nothing to retract-nothing to defend-but every thing to assail. He was surprised that the High Tories on the other side of the House should

[E]

have given encouragement to the notion that a Member ought to resign his seat whenever his opinions were in opposition to those of his constituents; for that doctrine, which degraded the representative into a mere delegate, was contrary to all their former dogmas on the subject. He also wondered what they would say to those representatives who had resigned their seats, not on the demand of their constituents, but because they were the nominees of certain influential proprietors of close boroughs. He lectured Sir R. Peel and Lord J. Russell on their recent change of opinion on the Corn Laws, and observed, that he who gave them credit for sincerity must do so at the expense of their understandings. The real meaning of "protection" was that the food of the people should be produced at a higher price at home by certain individuals for their own benefit, than that at which it could be procured abroad if the trade were free. It was said that such a system was necessary to promote the welfare of the agricultural class, which consisted of labourers, farmers, and landlords, all with different, if not conflicting interests. He contended that it was more injurious than beneficial to them all. After a long argument on this subject, he concluded by expressing a hope that the measure of Government would pass, and by recommending the House to accompany it with some measure for the general education of the people. This measure, if carried, would give a stimulus to the population; and as the population increased, its condition, unless it were educated, would deteriorate rapidly.

Sir Howard Douglas said, that he rose with inexpressible pain to op

pose the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, and to give his vote in favour of protection and against the extinction of restrictive duties. After explaining the grounds on which he thought that agriculture was entitled to protection, he proceeded to make several practical observations on the injurious bearings of the present scheme upon those great colonial interests which were not represented in that House, and which were not in general well understood by the country. The abolition of protecting duties extinguished the Canada Corn Bill, which was a solemn compact between the Imperial and Canadian Legislature, and destroyed all the flattering hopes. which that bill was intended to foster. It also involved the abolition of discriminating duties; and from the moment when discriminating duties were abrogated, our colonies, so far as commercial purposes were concerned, became free and independent States. There would arise the question-“ Of what use are our colonies?" and to that question it would be difficult to give a satisfactory answer. concluded by quoting several extracts from the speeches of Mr. Huskisson, for the purpose of proving-first, that that great statesman was not an advocate for free trade properly so called; secondly, that he was the strenuous supporter of protection to agriculture; and, lastly, that he thought it absolutely necessary that we should give protection to our colonies if we wished to maintain our maritime ascendancy.

He

Mr. W. Miles observed, that he was glad that this question was presented to the House in such a shape that there could be no mistake respecting it. Protection

must be defended as applicable to every class of the community, or must, if withdrawn from one class, be withdrawn from every other. Mr. Thomas Baring had talked of the expediency of a compromise. He never had been, he never should be, for such an arrangement. On the contrary, he thought that we must either have the present duties under the sliding scale, or else submit to the new duties proposed by Sir R. Peel, and to their abolition at the expiration of three years. He could not understand the principles on which that proposition rested, nor could he see why the policy which had been pursued for more than two centuries, and which had raised this country to greatness, should be set aside on no other ground than the experience of the last three years. The apprehension of impending famine had been alleged as a reason for this innovation; but he was rejoiced to have it in his power to dissipate all fears of a coming scarcity on the authority of returns made to the Central Agricultural Association from its provincial branches in twenty-six counties, if not more, of England and Wales. There was a sufficient stock of wheat in England for the consumption of its inhabitants, and the price of potatoes was at present falling in the London and country markets-a certain proof that the supply of them was not deficient. He then proceeded to reply to the statements made by Sir Robert Peel in his speech on the Address at the commencement of the session, and also in his speech in proposing his present commercial code, and to controvert the returns which he had quoted respecting the consumption and price of flax, wool, meat, lard, and various other articles for the three

years before and after the passing of the tariff in 1842. Even supposing the returns of Sir Robert Peel, and the conclusions derived from them, to be correct, were they sufficient to justify him in throwing overboard all the industrial energies of the country, and in leaving us to compete by ourselves, under our heavy taxation, with the untaxed energies of Germany and the United States? After contending at great length for the negative of that proposition, and after reading a large quantity of statistical information in support of his arguments, he proceeded to show, that it was the interest of the country to foster its home trade in preference to its foreign; whereas Sir R. Peel was upholding the foreign trade at the expense of the immense mass of capital thrown into the home market by the great consumers and little savers of the

country. Our recent prosperity had not been occasioned by the relaxation of duties made by the tariff of 1842 so much as by the impetus given to the home trade by the formation of railroads; and he therefore cautioned the House against acceding rashly to any proposition for interfering with the march of our native industry. Though he did not approve either of the plan proposed by Sir Robert Peel or of that proposed by Lord John Russell, he must say, that if he were compelled to accept one or the other, he should prefer that of Lord John Russell to that of Sir Robert Peel, inasmuch as the suffering which Lord John admitted must accompany the transition from the present Corn Laws to a frec trade in corn, would, in his opinion, be less under the latter than the former plan. After giving his reasons for that opinion, he noticed

with some indignation the advice which Mr. S. Herbert had offered a few nights ago to the landed interest, when he said that it was time for the country gentlemen to lay aside their clap-traps, and not to propagate alarms founded on delusion. In order to show that the alarm was not unfounded, and that we should be inundated with foreign corn in case of the repeal of the Corn Laws, he read a description of the immense agricultural resources of the United States in the extensive valleys and boundless prairies of the Mississippi, and of Russia in her northern and southern provinces, amid some laughter occasioned by the extraordinary accounts of the fertility of Tamboff, which he quoted. As soon as our markets should be thrown open to the world, those fertile lands would be tilled, and our barren lands would go out of cultivation. He could not see any prospect more disheartening; and yet the agriculturist was told "to cultivate, to cultivate." Why should he cultivate, when, after his crop was grown, he would find the home market paralyzed and closed against him by the foreign corn thrown into it free from duty? He concluded a denunciation of great length and vehemence against the proposed measure, by a declaration of his fears that the time would soon arrive when the people of these islands would curse the day when first their Government was intrusted to a cautious and temporizing free-trade Minister.

Sir R. Peel observed, that two matters had occupied the attention of the House during this debate; the first was, the manner in which a party ought to be conducted; and the second, how the contingency of a great political cala

He

mity could be mitigated, and how the commercial policy of a great nation should be directed. On the first question a great part of the debate had turned; but surely, in the eyes of the people, that question was subordinate to the two other questions-the precautions against an impending danger, and the principles of our commercial polity. On the party question he had nothing to offer to the House; for party interests the Government measures were bad measures. admitted too, at once, that it was unfortunate that the conduct of them was intrusted to his hands. He believed, however, that there was impending over the country a calamity which was perfectly appalling; and, whilst there was a hope of averting it, he did not think it consistent with his duty as a public man to evade the difficulty which he saw approaching. He had not a word to say against the explanation which Lord John Russell made a few nights ago; but he must read a letter which Lord John Russell had not seen, and which he had addressed to Her Majesty during the period when he was out of office, to show that he had not been desirous of robbing those of the credit of settling this question who had originally brought it forward, or of embarrassing their course during the settlement of it. That letter (which he then read at length to the House, but which it is not necessary to set out here,) was of such a nature, that he was certain Lord John Russell would be convinced by it, that he (Sir R. Peel) had been prepared to give him the same cordial support which he (Lord J. Russell) now boasted that he had given him. His belief at that time was, that this question ought to be adjusted; and he had been pre

pared out of office to facilitate that adjustment both by his vote and by all the influence which he possessed. He admitted to the party which had honoured him with its support, that it was entitled to withhold from him its confidence. But was it likely that he should have voluntarily sacrificed its support, unless he had been influenced by strong motives of public duty? Be the consequences to himself what they might, he would avow that his party could not rob him of the conviction that the advice which he had given to his Sovereign and the Parliament during these late transactions was consistent with all the duties which he owed to that party. The month of May would not arrive without convincing the members of it that he should have abandoned his duty to his country, his Sovereign, and his party, if he had hoisted the flag of protection for a time, knowing that he must soon have deserted it. Before the House came to a decision upon this measure, it was necessary for them to know the state of Ireland as connected with it. For this purpose he read a series of letters received by the last two Irish mails from Sir D. Roche, Lord Stuart De Decies, and various other gentlemen in different parts of that kingdom, giving the most appalling description of the scarcity of the potato in Ireland. One eighth of the crop was always wanted for seed; and, if that quantity was not saved from consumption as food, Ireland would have to struggle with famine in the next year also. It was impossible to supply that quantity of potatoes from any foreign country, and the Government therefore proposed to get the seed potatoes into its keeping by giving other food in exchange for

them. Now, in that case, would it be possible for him in May next, with a duty of 17s. on the importation of foreign corn, to call on the people to pay such a duty for the food to be distributed to the people of Ireland, to save them from starvation? Supposing famine then to ensue, would the aristocracy be able to bear the odium of saying, "We will throw on the Government the responsibility of supplying the people of Ireland with food, but one iota of the Corn Laws we will not part with?" He called upon Parliament to consider what had been the course taken by its predecessors on former occasions when scarcity was impending over the country. On every occasion Parliament had removed for a time the duty on the importation of foreign corn. The cheer with which that observation was greeted, he received as a unanimous, or, at any rate, a very general assent that at a period of approaching famine the proper course to be adopted was a free importation of corn. If that were so,

then he asked the House to expedite the passing of this bill, or else that all the duties on the importation of provisions should be suspended. He reminded the House that in November last he had advised, and three of his colleagues had supported, the suspension of the existing duties on corn by an Order in Council. There was no day in his political life of which he was more proud than that on which he had recommended that suspension of the law. But the law was not suspended; Parliament was now assembled, and it was not within the competence of the Crown to suspend duties by an Order in Council whilst Parliament was sitting. If there was a necessity for suspending the corn duties in November, that necessity was ag