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 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 improvement, however, on the present system, he should regret its rejection. Mr. C. Buller quoted largely from 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 coun. try, 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 read ing. 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

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 With struggle with whom? 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. He 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 håd yet been pro

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