grounds of opposition to the amendment. The continuance of the sliding scale for three years was not adopted by the Government as a compromise; he would never have been a party to any compromise so miserable. The reason for the introduction of that clause was this—as a very great change was about to be made, it appeared to the Government advisable that there should be some gradation in the process of effecting it. He would not allude to any circumstances which might hereafter arise if this amendment should be carried; but he begged to say, that the amendment did, in point of fact, involve an entire alteration of the principle of the bill, for it professed to give permanency to that protection which it was the object of the bill after a limited time to remove. But the amendment was objectionable even as regarded the object of his noble friend; and the duke himself did not appear to attach any great importance to it. He spoke of it as merely preserving a remnant of protection: but Lord Ripon could not think that it was desirable to preserve a remnant of protection, for it had been contended that that remnant was not worth having.

The amendment was supported by the Earls of Clancarty, Stanhope, and Hardwick, and opposed by the Marquis of Bute and Lord Kinnaird.

Upon a division the amendment was lost, there being

For the Duke of Buckingham's amendment

103

136

33

The Earl of Wicklow moved as

another amendment to the first clause, that after the 1st February, 1849, the duty on wheat, not the produce of our own Colonies, be 5s. instead of 1s.

If his amendment were sanctioned, he should propose a proportionate duty on the other kinds of grain. Steadiness of price was one of the great objects contemplated by the Bill; and he did not think that a fixed duty of 5s. would have any effect in causing fluctuation. The protection of 5s. would be advantageous to the farmers, and it would also benefit the revenue. If the alterations in the Sugar Duties, advocated by Lord Monteagle, were adopted, there would then be such a revenue from sugar, and from corn, as would render it possible to reduce one half of the Income Tax. He knew that the proposition, if carried, must defeat the Bill; but he was most anxious to do so, because he was desirous of getting a better and more serviceable Bill.

A debate of some length ensued, in which the Earls of Carnarvon, Winchilsea, and Fitzwilliam, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Stanley, Lord Brougham, and Lord Cloncurry took part. On a division, Lord Wicklow's amendment was supported by 107, the number on the other side being 140.

On a subsequent evening, the committee being resumed,

The Duke of Richmond moved the insertion of certain provisions, to allow tenants to vacate their leases, and receive compensation for unproductive outlay. His object was to prevent the respectable body of tenant-farmers of England from being consigned to ruin.

The Earl of Ripon opposed the

Duke of Richmond's proposal, as introducing the utmost possible confusion and endless litigation. The Earls of Malmesbury, Abingdon, and Stanhope, spoke in favour, the Earl of Mornington against the proposal. Lord Ashburton thought the scheme was surrounded with difficulties, and he did not see how he could vote for it.

Ultimately, the Duke of Richmond intimated that he should not withdraw his amendment, but he would not divide the committee. The amendment was then negatived, and the clauses of the Bill agreed to.

The Report was brought up on the 22nd of June, when Lord Ashburton moved the following amend

ment:

"That whatever may be the alterations which it may be expedient permanently to make in the laws regulating the introduction of foreign corn, it is the opinion of this House, that the sudden introduction of the large quantity of wheat, now in bond, at a very low rate of duty, while the prices are moderate, and the prospect of the approaching harvest is promising, may be productive of great injury and injustice to the cultivators of the soil of the United Kingdom; and that some better provision against such a calamity should be provided, than is contained in the Bill now before the House."

Some time ago, it appeared by the returns that the quantity of corn in bond might be fairly taken at 2,000,000 quarters; and since then large quantities had poured in, making a quantity equal to 2,500,000 quarters. The last price of wheat in our market which he had heard of was 52s. 10d. ; and it was quite clear, if that price remained, or was to fall, every ounce

of this foreign corn would be poured into the market. To show how much this quantity exceeded the import of other years, he mentioned some particulars. In 1845, the amount exclusive of the ordinary import from Canada did not exceed 80,000 quarters; in 1844, there were 730,000 quarters; in 1843, 844,000 quarters; showing an average for these three years of 550,000 quarters. What prospect, then, was there that we could safely receive five times that amount, with a moderate marketprice, and the probability, so far as we were able to judge, of a good harvest? In 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1842, we received large supplies, averaging 2,400,000 quarters; but from 1832 to 1837 the average was only 100,000 quarters, and during four of these years we received no corn at all. He showed how cautious former Governments had been in guarding against large influxes of corn at diminished duties. The resolution now submitted did not intimate any particular plan, but was simply a declaration of the facts of the case. He meant not to call on their lordships to retrace their steps-would to God he could induce them to do it!-but, seeing the hopelessness of it, he was not inclined to press the

matter.

The Earl of Dalhousie on behalf of the Government opposed the amendment.

Any address more at variance with facts and unsupported by argument, it had not been his fortune to hear in that House. From want of sufficient information, Lord Ashburton had greatly exaggerated when he stated the amount of corn in bond at 2,500,000 quarters. By the latest returns, the quantity did not reach, in wheat and wheat-flour

un

together, 1,900,000 quarters; and there was no likelihood of its being increased. The prospects of the harvest in foreign parts were as gloomy this year as they were last year. Both this and last year, nature seemed to be setting her various elements in conspiracy against this country as regards the obtaining of supplies from abroad. In the North of Europe there was an alarming deficiency of corn, from the superabundance of wet: in the South there was an equal or greater deficiency, from the ravages of the grub. In Poland and the corn-producing countries of the North of Europe the people were in a state of actual starvation; and in the South of Europe and in Anatolia the population were dying on the road-sides. Lord Ashburton wished it to appear that the quantity now in bond was exampled in extent; and in contrast had mentioned the quantities introduced in 1843, 1844, and 1845. Lord Dalhousie, however, would quote the importations for 1842 and 1841, the two previous years. In four weeks of 1842, the quantity introduced 2,180,000 quarters; in 1841, the quantity was 2,017,000 quarters. It was not the fault of Sir Robert Peel, that the present accumulation had taken place; for he had offered to place corn in the same position as the other articles upon which a reduction in duty was proposed; taking a bond for the repayment of the difference of duty, if the measure did not pass. To this proposition great exception was taken by the opponents of the measure, and Sir Robert withdrew the offer. The resolution now under consideration contained no specific proposal. Upon what terms was the corn now in bond to be admitted? VOL. LXXXVIII.

was

If the resolution was affirmed as it stood, a glaring act of injustice would be done towards the owners of the corn in bond. By adopting it, the corn now in bond would be dealt with in one way, while the corn which arrived the next week would escape the resolution and be admitted as provided by the new Bill. His noble friend had altered the resolution, which, as it at first stood, was a mercantile monster in phraseology, for it talked of the "importation" of corn in bond. As to prices, it was notorious to every one engaged in the corn trade, that the whole of the transactions, external and internal, had been carried on with reference to the stock in bond. Its effect on prices, therefore, had been produced long ago. He much doubted whether the better course would not have been to make the change in the duties immediate. Under existing circumstances nothing could be worse than suspense.

After a short debate, the amendment was lost by 70 to 47. Lord Stanley shortly afterwards stated. that, after the divisions which had taken place, those who acted with him did not intend to divide the House on the third reading; but should enter a protest against the Bill on the journals. The clauses having been gone through, several noble lords, who were most warmly opposed to the measure, availed themselves of the final opportunity to declare their deep distrust and disapprobation of the measure, and of the mode in which it had been carried. The Duke of Richmond particularly maintained his opposition to the last. He said he was sorry to see such a measure become law without an amendment appearing on the journals of the House. He would therefore move that the

[H]