vantages are not sufficient to counterbalance the risk; and I ask your free suffrages with this frank and explicit declaration of my opinions." Frank and explicit He saw no frankness here, for he never recollected to have read a sentence that had less. What "advantages"-the advantages of abandoning or of maintaining the present Corn-laws? What risk did the right honourable Baronet incur with an immense and overwhelming majority in both Houses of Parliament ready to support the Corn-laws? He deprecated a struggle with whom? With the Corn-law League? Or with the landed interest? It would have been very convenient if the right honourable Baronet had been a little more frank. He need not have informed his constituents at Tamworth what his plans were, but if he had only given them a hint that he intended to make a very considerable diminution of the present protection to the home grower, and that the importation of cattle was to be encouraged, it would have had the effect of relieving himself and his colleagues of the cares and anxieties of office. He cited figures to show that the prices of corn abroad were much lower than had been assumed; and he came to the conclusion, that the bill would only give protection up to 50s. instead of 56s.; while home-grown corn does not obtain a remunerating price until it is sold in the market for 60s. The ulterior effect of the measure would be to annihilate rent. He did not believe, indeed, that land would go out of cultivation. It would be cultivated for the consumption of those who owned, occupied, or tilled it, and any of these three classes, if they wished to have other articles not produced by that land, would procure them only by barter. The result would be the annihilation of all public and private trade, and at no distant period, national bankruptcy. He adverted to the injurious effects of "that monstrous and destructive measure known by the name of Peel's Bill;" and comparing the present measure with previous Acts, he observed, that whereas in the time of Charles the 2nd, the duty on wheat, at the price of 55s., was 16s. 6d., now it was proposed to be 17s., an addition of only 6d., notwithstanding the almost incredible amount of the burthens of the country! He asked for a plain answer to the question, whether Ministers did or did not expect a large importation of foreign corn, and a large reduction of price? If they did, what must be the effect on agriculture, and on all other branches of productive industry? if not, where was the advantage to the consumer? He attributed the absence of numerous petitions against the measure to the contempt with which such documents were treated by Parliament, and also to dislike on the part of the farmers to risk the reinstatement in power of their political adversaries. must, however, observe, that when a man was sentenced to death, it did not much import to him whether the executioner were a Whig or a Conservative; and to carry the simile a little further, if he should be sentenced to have his head cut off, whether the instru ment employed for that purpose should be a guillotine or an axea sliding-scale, or a fixed duty. (Great laughter.) He was grieved to say, that nothing but mischievous measures had yet been pro He pounded by the present Government, and he should steadfastly resist not only the Corn-importation Bill but also the New Tariff. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Earl of Hardwicke denied that Sir Robert Peel had deceived the country; he had pledged himself to adhere to the broad principle of the sliding-scale, but he reserved to himself the power of making what alterations he thought fit. That the farmers so understood, the Earl had evidence in the county with which he was connected; they felt that the Corn-laws were in an unsettled state. He thought, indeed, that after the decision of the House of Commons, the Lords were not left to form an opinion whether the Corn laws should be altered or not; they might reject this Bill, but the question of alteration was already determined by the voice of the country; and no Corn-law could be so bad, no protection so inadequate, as that which was always questioned and debated. The Earl proceeded with a general defence of the measure, maintaining that the best interests of the people had been preserved, as they were themselves intelligent enough to perceive. The Duke of Buckingham regarded the measure-produced, no doubt, from the best motives with a feeling of deep alarm. The progress which agriculture had made for a number of years past would be checked, the farmer's spirit of enterprise would ere long be extinguished, and the foreigner would soon meet him in his own market, and overpower his competition. If they pauperised the agricultural interest, on what support would they lean in times of difficulty and danger? The bill would satisfy no party, nor would it settle existing differences. Ministers were giving up a law which had worked beneficially; they were risking more than they were aware of; and, ere long, they would be called upon to yield a little more. The Earl of Winchelsea was glad that an agitation which had shaken the confidence of the agriculturists in their prosperity, and the permanence of the laws, was about to be brought, so far as human prudence could foresee, to a final settlement. There was no question on which it was more easy to excite the labouring classes, none on which they were more unqualified to come to a just and accurate conclusion. Such, however, was his confidence in the capabilities of the soil, and in agricultural improvements, that if England proceeded for the next fifteen years as she had done for the last, he thought she could not only supply her increasing population, but become an exporting, instead of an importing, country. In an entirely new country, a free trade in corn might be advocated; but here a Corn-law was needed to sustain the country under its burthens. The fixed duty, however, was a perfect fallacy. He declared the accusation that the Ministers had deceived the country, a gross mis-statement. Government had maintained the principle to which it was pledged. Lord Western said, that the statement of Lord Ripon had been made so fairly, that it had almost changed his opinions upon certain points. He wished he could vote in favour of the principle of free trade; but he believed that agriculturists could bear no reduction of price, and if prices fell, so would the wages of labour. He did not say that wages always rise with the price of food; but, certainly, they always fall in proportion to it. He had been about to withdraw his support from the late Government when they brought forward their fixed duty scheme; he certainly should take care how he did anything of that sort again, -how he withdrew his support from one party before he had tried another. He certainly did expect from a Conservative Government that they would have conserved existing institutions. A new tariff to follow the Ss. duty was looked for from Lord John Russell; but who ever expected a tariff from such a quarter? What did the Government expect by such a measure? Popularity? They might obtain the votes of the people, but they had lost their hearts. There would be other and greater effects; the country could not resume the confidence it had previously felt in its own power and resources. The people would not know what to expect. It would be almost better to have free trade at once. A free trade would raise the energies of the people, and, if freed from the burthen of taxation, or-if unable to do that with a currency to meet that taxation, the people of England might do wonders; for the contraction of the currency by the Bank was the real cause of the distress. Lord Fitzgerald, after commenting on some inconsistencies in Lord Western's speech, adduced evidence from Sir Robert Peel's former speeches to exonerate him from the charge of deception. Lord Beaumont admitted, that after the change proposed by the late Ministry, their successors must inevitably take up the subject; but he did not anticipate that, at one fell swoop, half the protection would be removed from wheat, and two thirds from barley; and he complained that the intentions of Ministers had been kept so secret that they had taken the country by surprise; Lincolnshire, Buckinghamshire, and Essex, however, had protested against the measure, and in other counties it was regarded with dismay. Lord Brougham neither concurred in Earl Stanhope's opposition, nor altogether in the measure itself; and he should move an amendment, asserting what he considered to be a right and just principle, the total and absolute repeal of the duty on foreign corn. Comparing the Bill with the existing law, Lord Brougham judged it to be an improvement in the removal of obstacles to the importation of corn, and that it would to a certain extent, render more difficult the trafficking and jobbing in the averages; though he doubted whether the addition of 150 towns would have the effect expected. The measure was but a step in the right direction, which would open the gates to further improvement. In a final settlement of the question, the agriculturists were most interested, for, until that was effected, no man knew the real value of land. To show the groundlessness of alarm at the total repeal of the Corn-law, he explained how small the supplies were which could be brought from abroad. In Jersey, where there is perfect freedom, the price of wheat in 1840, was no lower than 51s., while it was 57s. in England. If there were free trade in England, either there must be a great demand, and then prices abroad would rise consider ably, or there must be no such demand, and, in that case, no harm could be anticipated. In improving our commercial intercourse with foreign states, the condition of those states must be bettered, and the consumption of corn there would increase; a process illustrated by the course of the trade with Ireland, and the diminished importation from that country. The distress had been attributed, not to the Corn-laws, but to the currency; but the evil influence was only imputed since 1835, and the measure which altered the currency was passed twenty years before, and could not have anything to do with it. And was it desirable to issue Government assignats? was there no fear of a recourse to a system under which in France 500,000 francs' worth of assignats had purchased only a pair of gloves? He argued that the price of provisions and of labour had no mutual dependence, and he concluded by moving an amendment to Lord Stanhope's, that no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of foreign corn. Earl Fitzwilliam would vote for the bill, as bearing within itself the seeds of future amendment. He held it impossible for any one to believe, that the right honourable Baronet who had propounded this measure, and the Tariff in connection with it, did not see much further into the question than those Gentlemen who thought it would be a final settlement. A final settlement of this question there could be but one, and that was the adoption of a perfectly free trade. Viscount Melbourne could nei- ther approve of the principle, nor the general provisions of the bill; but he would not deprive the country of the advantages which it undoubtedly offered as compared with the present system. On a division, Lord Stanhope's amendment was rejected, by 119 to 17. Lord Brougham's by 109 to 5. The bill was then read a second time. On the motion to go into committee, on the following day, Viscount Melbourne moved the amendment of which he had given notice. He had always been a friend to free-trade, and he was so still. It would have been much better for the world, if trade had been free from the beginning,had all nations applied themselves to the cultivation and interchange of the commodities which each could produce under the most favourable circumstances, reciprocally; but while all sound argument, all good sense, all clear reason, all the well understood interests of mankind were on that side, all usage, all custom, all prejudices, and, with but few exceptions, all feelings, were on the other. He, therefore, could not adopt the resolution which Lord Brougham was to move against all restriction on corn. He did not arrive at that conclusion by the argument that the agriculturists were entitled to protection on account of exclusive burthens; if they had such burthens, they ought to be removed. Neither did he rely on the objections to dependance on foreign countries. Two of the greatest republics, Rome and Athens, were wholly dependent on foreign supplies. Even if we did depend on foreign countries for corn, foreign countries must depend on us for payment; and [F] nothing would more tend to preserve peace than thus establishing the relation of tradesman and customer. He was not prepared, however, by removing all restrictions on importation, to make experiments in throwing inferior lands out of culture. How then to impose that restriction? He thought that the best way would be by a fixed duty; which would have the effect of giving freedom to trade, remove the opportunity for fraud, or, what was almost as bad, the suspicion of fraud, and would at the same time assist the revenue. It was said that a fixed duty could not be maintained; but they had adhered to another plan; the excitement which pains had been taken to get up, had failed; and if so unlikely an event occurred as the price rising under the fixed duty, there could be no more difficulty of maintaining it than with a high price under the existing scale. Lord Melbourne moved, "That it is the opinion of this House that a fixed duty upon the importation of foreign corn and flour would be more advantageous to trade, and more conducive to the general welfare of all classes of the people than a graduated duty varying with the average of prices in the markets of this country." The Earl of Ripon said, that the House could not rescind the decision of the previous evening in order to adopt an entirely new principle for the regulation of corn; while, as to the mode of carrying it into effect, Lord Melbourne had not given any glimmering of intimation. The only effect would be to extinguish the bill; but when that was got rid of, the question would not be advanced one jot. Everybody admitted that some measure was necessary; all but seventeen had on the previous evening conceived it advisable to come to some settlement of the question. But Lord Melbourne, though he named no sum, hinted that he was still attached to the 8s. fixed duty; and that, Lord Ripon contended, would not be sufficient protection, since, if corn could be imported into this country at 40s. it would sell at 488., some eight or ten shillings below the point at which the remunerating price had been taken. Then, when prices rose very high, the 8s. duty was to be removed sliding or jumping down from 88. to nothing; but how it was to be removed Lord Melbourne did not explain. - The Earl of Clarendon congratulated Lord Ripon on the unanimity which prevailed as to the necessity of changing the Cornlaws. He did not think that the measure was such that the Duke of Buckingham need have seceded from his colleagues on account of it, or that Lord Stanhope need have conjured up visions of revolution and ruin, still he rejoiced that Lord Stanhope's motion was not successful; for he looked on the introduction of the bill as a great and important event, and as the abandonment of all those positions hitherto held by the party now in power. He was not for withdrawing all protection; and he thought that if the 8s. duty had been adopted, protection might have been prolonged for some time to come. But that measure had been dealt with as the Reform Bill had; and if the present bill passed-maintaining as it did the essential evils of the existing system, based as it was on no solid arguments, and accompanied by examples of a different kind in the |