gravated now; and the House must come to one or other of these two alternatives—it must either maintain the existing law, or propose some facilities for the importation of foreign corn. If, then, all former precedents justified the suspension of the Corn Laws in emergencies similar to the present, let the House consider the laws to be suspended, and what the case would be then. His conviction was strong that it would be utterly impracticable, after suspending the Corn Laws for six months, to bring them again into operation. It was an utter misapprehension of the state of public opinion to suppose that any Government, after the country had tasted for six months the sweetness of free importation, would be enabled to re-enact the existing Corn Laws in all their provisions. Would any sane man advise this Government to give a guarantee, in case of its suspending the Corn Laws for six months, that it would renew them at the expiration of the suspension? He then proceeded to notice the arguments which had been offered against his plan by the different speakers in debate. Mr. T. Baring had recommended compromise on this subject. What was a compromise but a new law? and was this a time for producing a new law which would satisfy no party? Referring to Mr. F. Scott's curious notion of the relation existing between a Sovereign and his Minister, which he had compared to that of a client and his counsel, he observed that there was this difference between the counsel and the Minister-that the Minister took an oath to give his Sovereign the best counsel that his judgment could dictate, and that the counsel did no such thing. Mr. Scott had spoken of him as the counsel of a

a

party, and had claimed for himself the privilege which was formerly claimed for himself by Anacharsis Cloots, namely, that of being the Attorney-General for the whole human race. Adverting to Mr. Colquhoun's assertion that he had not in this measure established a great principle, he remarked that, if such were the case, no man in the empire ought to be more indebted to him. Mr. Colquhoun had voted both for and against the repeal of the Corn Laws. He had been since 1841 a determined advocate for a fixed duty; and yet during the subsequent interval he had done all that he could to support a sliding scale. He wondered how he should have fared with Mr. Colquhoun, if, after he had carried the suspension of the existing law, he had got up and said, that Government would stake its existence upon restoring the Corn Laws at the period when the suspension ended. But this was mere trifling. The real question before the House was, "Is this measure right?" If it be, vote for it; if it be wrong, vote against it, and withhold your confidence from the men who proposed

it.

He then entered upon a dissection of the speeches of Mr. Miles and Mr. S. O'Brien, controverting the statistical returns of the former, and turning into ridicule the pathetic colloquies of the latter with the tenant-farmers of his district. Both those gentlemen, and, indeed, every speaker on their side, had treated the question as a Corn Law question; but, in point of fact, it was not a Corn Law, but a great national and commercial question. That portion of his measure which related to the Corn Laws might be rejected, and the other portion accepted, or vice versá. He wished

it, however, to be considered as a whole, and rejected or accepted as such. It was also the intention of the Government to adhere to its own proposal. He stated this, however, distinctly to the House, that if the agricultural body should be of opinion that immediate was preferable to deferred repeal, and if, by uniting with the Anti-CornLaw League, they placed him in a minority, he should only consider what course he ought to take to give effect to the law so amended at their instance. He would do all he could to carry the proposition of the Government. He preferred it. He did not pretend to say now, what effect success in the House of Commons might produce elsewhere; but his opinion that it was necessary to procure a final adjustment of this question was so strong, that he should prefer immediate repeal so carried against him to the chance of throwing the country into confusion by postponing for six months the settlement of a question which was now paramount to all others. The great question was, "Shall we advance in the relaxation of protection and in the removal of prohibitory duties, or shall we stand still?" Mr. Miles said, "Stand still;" but for the House of Commons to stand still on such a question was to condemn every previous step which it had taken in a liberal career of commercial policy.

He then entered into an eloquent defence of his past, and into a lucid explanation of his own present relaxations in our tariff. After showing that in every case the removal of prohibition had contributed, not only to the welfare of the consumer, but also to that of the producer, he called upon them calmly to reflect on what was the policy best suited to a great commercial empire like

our own. Let them look at the moral, social, physical, and geographical advantages which God and nature had given to this country; let them also look at their acquired advantages; let them reflect on their capital, their skill, their free press, their inimitable constitution, and let them say, whether this was the country which ought to dread competition? What was it they had to dread? Which would be their motto, "Advance" or "Retrograde?" Other countries were watching their example. There was no reason for expecting that every where they would be met with a hostile tariff. Sardinia and Naples had both adopted liberal systems. Prussia was already shaken. The most sound and sensible thinkers in France were instigating a willing Government, which was desirous to follow that of England and to reciprocate advantages with it. They were giving encouragement in the United States to the party which was seeking to procure a more liberal tariff. Even if that party was unsuccessful, he advised the House not to punish itself by seeking to be revenged on others. His earnest advice to the gentlemen of England, founded not on the experience of three years merely, but on the experience of every previous relaxation of restriction, was to persevere in the course upon which they had entered. By passing these measures they would take another guarantee for the content, and love, and willing obedience of the population; and if a calamitous time should come, when we must offer them exhortations to bear their destiny with fortitude, it would be a consolation for us to reflect that we had relieved ourselves from the necessity of regulating the supply of

food in a time of famine; and that, in a period free from clamour and excitement, we had anticipated difficulty and removed every impediment to the free circulation of commerce. Sir Robert Peel, after a speech which occupied two hours and three quarters in its delivery, resumed his seat amid loud cheering.

Lord John Manners, who spoke next after Sir R. Peel, deplored the disadvantageous position which a Member occupied who could enlist neither under the banner of the Member for Northamptonshire, (Mr. S. O'Brien), nor under that of the Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden). He deprecated the idea of deciding a question, involving the food of a people, upon the principles of political economy. Count Carli, President of the Council of Public Economy at Milan, a great authority, entertained a similar opinion; remarking, in his celebrated work, that statesmen ought to separate the subject of food from all questions of a merely commercial nature. Men, he observed, could do without wine or oil; but the first necessary of life-that which was essential to human existence ought not to be subjected to the ordinary rules of commercial intercourse. The consequences likely to arise from free trade had been greatly exaggerated; and Lord John was therefore anxious to consider any proposition for a settlement of the question, whether it proceeded from Lord John Russell or Sir Robert Peel. But he was persuaded that any such proposition, to be satisfactory or successful, should be made not on narrow, temporary, evanescent, suspicious, or self-contradictory grounds, but placed on broad, great, and general principles-not as the expedient

of a terrified Cabinet, hurried through a mystified Parliament into a premature law-but submitted to the patient discussion and free and calm verdict of the English people; without which, a measure of such a revolutionary character could not be productive of present good, or of lasting benefit. After the speech which had been delivered by Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Manners was at a loss to see how the Government could have adopted any other course than that which they had pursued: but how different would have been the position of Ministers if the right honourable Baronet had opened the ports during the past winter, and if upon the meeting of Parliament he had told them, to use his own metaphor, that he would no longer steer the ship in the same course? Then he might have well vindicated the full performance of his duty. But, unfortunately, it would seem that the members of his Cabinet were not prepared to support him. Sir Robert Peel had stated very unfairly the argument touching the resumption of the Corn Laws after the opening of the ports: he asked, did they wish for a guarantee that the Corn Laws would be restored? Why, every Member knew that no guarantee of the kind could be given; for the ports could not be closed, after having been opened, without the consent of Parliament.

Even now, if the danger were so imminent and the remedy so easy, the shortest course would be to open the ports before the end of the week, with the consent of Parliament, and leave it to the good sense of the people of England to determine whether the law should be revived.

Lord John Manners gave it as his opinion that a scheme which

admitted the produce of the Colonies and Indian corn duty-free, and other foreign corn at a moderate fixed duty, would place the corntrade on a basis satisfactory to the mercantile interests of the country, would bind the members of our vast Colonial empire to us by the closest ties of interest, and would afford security to the English farmer. This view he fortified by a quotation from the circular of Messrs. Fergusson and Taylor, of Manchester, suggesting a fixed duty of 5s. or 6s. Lord John Manners deprecated all rash and hasty interference with the great interests which had grown up under the system of protection; and advised the House not to lend itself, under the dictation of the Minister, to a policy calculated to alienate the sympathies and affections of the rural classes. While, therefore, he was not afraid of free trade, and most anxious for a settlement of the great question at issue, he should nevertheless give his most hearty vote for an appeal to the country, and his most determined opposition to the proposal that the House do now go into committee.

Mr. Bright supported the motion, with a warm eulogium on the Prime Minister. Sir Robert Peel had been called a traitor. It would ill become him to defend the right honourable Baronet, after the speech which he delivered last night-a speech which, he would venture to say, was more powerful and more admirable than any speech ever delivered in that House within the memory of any man in it. (Cheers.) He watched the right honourable Baronet last night go out of the House; and he must say-it was the first time he did it -he envied him the feelings which must have animated his breast.

That speech was wafted on the wings of scores of thousands of newspapers to every part of the kingdom and of the world; and it would be carried to the abodes of the labourers, conveying to them joy and hope. This was the man whom the Protectionists had chosen to be their leader. They placed him in office: but they should remember that a man in office was not the same man as he was in opposition; they ought to consider the responsibilities of office. "There is not a man among you," continued Mr. Bright, "who would have the valour to take office and raise the standard of Protection, and cry 'Down with the Anti-CornLaw League, and Protection for ever!' There is not a man in your ranks who would dare to sit on that bench as the Prime Minister of England pledged to maintain the existing law. (Loud cheers from the Free-traders.) The right honourable Baronet took the only honest course-he resigned. told you by that act, I will no longer do your work. I will not defend your cause. The experience I have had since I came into office renders it impossible for me at once to maintain office and the Corn Laws. The right honourable Baronet resigned-he was then no longer your Minister. He came back to office as the Minister of his Sovereign and of the people-not the Minister of a class who first raised him into office for their own special and private purposes. Why, the right honourable Baronet did not use you badly: he offered no obstacle to your taking office." (Loud cries of "Hear, hear!")

He

Mr. Disraeli assailed the cond u of Sir Robert Peel, in bringing forward such a measure as the present, with great severity and keenness

of invective. He said, whatever doubts had been expressed upon other points in the course of this debate, there had been none as to whether Her Majesty's Ministers had changed their opinions. Sir R. Peel had complained that a great part of the present discussion had been wasted on the subject of party. He (Mr. Disrael) considered party as public opinion embodied, and protested against Sir R. Peel's conduct, not because he had deferred too much to party or public opinion, but because he had outraged it by the abandonment of his past principles, and by the flagrant scandal of carrying a measure which the majority of his Cabinet resisted. Sir Robert had then indicated what, in his opinion, ought to be the proper subject of discussion in the House, and had called upon it to meet an emergency, and to construct a system. Now, could there be a stronger contrast than between a system which was permanent, and an emergency which must be precipitate? We had now a Protection Cabinet and a Free Trade Premier; and perhaps some of the Protectionists in that Cabinet would explain to the House what were the reasons which induced them to come to the conclusion that the present system of Corn Laws ought to cease. Passing from that subject, Mr. Disraeli noticed Sir R. Peel's declaration, that in consequence of the removal of prohibitory and the relaxation of protective duties, accompanied by the regulations of his tariff, in 1841, there had been a great and simultaneous increase of exports and imports. Now, when a great change was recommended on the ground of the increase in the exports and imports, it became necessary to analyze the cause of that increase. After

tracing the influence of that cause on the import of all our colonial commodities last year, he proceeded to notice and controvert the argument which Sir R. Peel had drawn from the present condition of the silk trade in favour of free trade. He (Mr. Disraeli) asserted, that after twenty years of relaxation, we did not now import more pounds of silk than we did in the last year of protection. It was true Sir R. Peel maintained that the importation had risen from 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 pounds; but, even if that were correct, all the increase was not to be attributed to commercial regulations, but some part of it at least must be assigned to the industry and enterprise of Englishmen. He admitted the fact, which Sir R. Peel had laboured so effectually to establish in his last speech, namely, "that, for thirty years, we had relaxed protection, and that the country was flourishing." That was his (Mr. Disraeli's) case. The country was flourishing, because you had given it a just, judicious, and moderate protection. Could Sir R. Peel fight hostile tariffs with free imports? If so, why had he made so many lamentations over the failure of his diplomatic negotiations for commercial treaties? He concluded, from Sir R. Peel's language the other night, that he was not so well satisfied on that point as the pupils of the Manchester school. Why else did he hope so much that other nations would follow our good example? He (Mr. Disraeli) could assert, from his personal knowledge of the leading men in France, and from his perusal of the works of German writers on statistics, that Sir R. Peel was much mistaken as to the feelings of France and Prussia; and in America it was notorious, that ever since the question