sult of the late county elections. Did they recollect that the county representation, under the 501. clause, was not the old constitution of England? Fifty years ago requisitions were not got up by the tenants-at-will, but by freeholders. The League intended to fight the modern innovation of the 501. clause with the 40s. freehold, an institution in use five centuries ago. Had the opposite party ever reflected that half the money in the Savings Banks, if invested in small freeholds would produce a better interest, and would swamp the 50%. tenants-at-will, who had no independent suffrages? If the contest should unfortunately be protracted any longer, the free-trade party will meet monopoly in that way, and in that way will overcome it. He had now given them some idea of the position in which monopoly was placed in the country. The mischief of it might be averted if they would take these facts home with them, and would study them for their own advantage at leisure. So much had been said on the merits of the question, that there was no occasion for him to dwell on that topic. Though he had not heard, he had read all the speeches made in that discussion; and when he saw all the fallacies, which he had been knocking on the head for the last seven years, again brought forward as arguments, he could not help thinking what fun it would occasion for the working men in fustian jackets in the north of England. Since the Government measure had been propounded, he had inquired whether land had suffered any depreciation in value; and he had ascertained this very remarkable fact, that though silk was unsaleable, land was selling and letting at higher prices than ever. The house might affect the value of cotton, silk, and woollen manufactures; but there was a love for land inherent in the human race, and especially in the minds of Englishmen; and it was monstrous to suppose that the value of land could be diminished, whilst a process was going forward which must inevitably increase the number of customers for its produce, and augment the number of shoulders which had to bear its burdens. He, therefore, called upon the Protectionists to consider whether they could not do something better than prolong these angry conflicts with the advocates of free trade, and tax each other for the separate benefit of their respective classes. There was honour and fame to be gained in the adjustment of the question. Our nation was the aristocracy of the human kind. We had given the world the example of a free press of a representative government of civil and religious libertyand we were now going, he trusted, to give them an example more glorious than all, that of making industry free-of giving it the advantage of every clime and latitude under heaven, and of enabling our population to buy in the cheapest and to sell in the dearest market. The honourable member concluded amid long-continued cheers by giving his support to the measures of Government. Lord Geo. Bentinck condemned the proposition of the Government as vicious in principle, and likely to be deeply injurious, not only to agriculture, but to all the great interests of the country. Certainly it could not be carried in what he emphatically called a Protection Parliament without a loss of honour to public men. The alleged change of circumstances in the state of the country, combined with the experience of the last three years, formed no justification for Sir R. Peel in abandoning the whole course of policy he had pursued for the last thirty years. Accepting the challenge that had been thrown out to name any articles on which the repeal of prohibitory or protective duties had operated injuriously either to the consumer or producer, the noble lord adduced a variety of statistical details connected with the silk, woollen, spelter, and timber trades, for the purpose of showing that a relaxation of the protective system had, in these instances, signally failed. In fact, the free trade doctrine was an absolute delusion. The price of wheat was now actually lower than the average of three years before 1842. He contended that the rate of wages would fall with the price of corn, and the working classes would be better off with undiminished wages and wheat at 70s. per quarter, than with corn at 45s. and reduced means of procuring it. The apprehension of famine, at present, was altogether a mistake. The crop was more than an average one, and in some parts of the country, in Scotland particularly, there was positive repletion. The potato murrain was by no means so extensive as it had been represented; indeed, he complained that only one side of the question had been stated to the House. He had himself made some inquiries on the subject, and he found that in Roscommon there was no disease at all, while in Tipperary and Queen's County it prevailed but very partially. According to his noble friend, the Marquis of Clanricarde, onehalf of the evil was attributable to the conduct of the Government in sending commissioners to Ireland and creating an alarm. The potatoes were dug up before they were ripe, and they rotted. The cry of famine was a mere pretence for a party object. The Duke of Wellington had admitted that there was no scarcity of food in Ireland; and Lord Cloncurry declared that there was a sufficiency of oats now in that country to feed the whole population. Never was there a change of so extensive a character proposed on so slender a basis, and with so little just cause shown. He should not have objected to open the ports had that been necessary; but he could not see how the necessity alleged by Government could be met by free trade in corn three years hence. Much greater benefit would be derived by the public from a remission of the duties on tea and sugar, two of the main necessaries of life, produced by countries favourable to commercial intercourse with England, and which came into no rivalship with our domestic produce. The House divided at twenty minutes to three. The numbers CHAPTER III. The House of Commons goes into Committee on Sir Robert Peel's Resolutions on the 2nd of March-Mr. Villiers moves as an Amendment, That all Duties on Imported Corn should cease— -Division of Parties on this Proposition-Speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell-The Amendment is lost by a Majority of 187-Debate on the Second Reading of the Corn Bill continued by adjournment for four nights-Mr. E. Yorke, seconded by Sir John Yarde Buller, moves an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill-Speech of Sir Robert Peel in answer to the Attacks made upon him-The Amendment is lost, and the Second Reading is carried by a Majority of 88 -Further Debates on the Corn Bill in the House of Commons-The Third Reading is moved on the 11th of May, by Sir James Graham, and is carried by 327 to 229, after an animated Debate -The Corn Bill is discussed in the House of Lords, on the Motion for a Second Reading, on the 25th of May-Speeches of the Earl of Ripon, the Duke of Richmond, Earl Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Cleveland, the Marquis of Londonderry, Lord Stanley, Lord Brougham, the Earl of Wilton, the Duke of Cambridge, the Marquis of Normanby, Earl Grey, Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earls of Dalhousie, Clarendon, Carnarvon, Haddington, Hardwicke, and the Duke of Wellington-On a Division there appear for the Second Reading (including Proxies) 211; against it, 164; Majority, 47-Various Amendments are moved in Committee, by the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Wicklow, and Lord Ashburton, which, after much discussion, are rejected by considerable Majorities-The Duke of Richmond opposes the Third Reading by an Amendment, which is subsequently withdrawn, and the Bill is passed. HE large space occupied, in preliminary discussions on Sir Robert Peel's commercial policy renders it impossible, and at the same time unnecessary, to pursue with the same detail the numerous debates which succeeded during the progress of the Corn and Customs Acts, through their successive stages, until they became law. sions continued for several weeks with little interruption, every inch of ground being pertinaciously contested by the opponents, and all the resistance being made to the Ministerial scheme which the forms and usages of Parliament allow. It is needless to say that debates so continued soon ceased to possess the attraction of novelty ; the subject, extensive as it is, became fairly exhausted by the industry and ingenuity with which every ar gument bearing upon it was enforced and reiterated by successive apoakora. It is conceived that the apocction of which a summary bas hoon given in the last chapter wi indicate sufficiently the main positions takon up by the supporters and opponents in these debates, and test it will be sufficient, in tracing the further progress of the misraures through the House of Commours, to limit our notice to a twist statement of results. On the nd of March, on the Houap going into Committee, the first resolution being moved. Mr. Villiers proposed, as an amend mont," Phat all duties on im ported corn do now cease." He explained, that this amendment did not arise from any deure to impede the Ministerial measure, but from a conscientious belief that the full advantage of the measure might be extended at once, without danger or inconvenience. The opinions of leading agriculturists, farmers as well as landlords, showed that they had no apprehension of injury from immediate abolition, but that, on the contrary, they preferred it. Protectionist members in the House -Lord Worsley, Mr. William Miles, and others--had asserted, that immediate abolition would be better than a postponement for three years. Lord John Russell was of the same opinion. Mr. Villiers thought that Sir Robert Peel himself must prefer immediate abolition, as he had proposed what was tantamount to it, the opening of the ports in November. He also claimed the support of the Duke of Rich mond, on the ground of his expressed preference. The probability of a deficient harvest next year was urged. Considerable difference of opinion was expressed by members favourable to free trade as to the policy of supporting the amendment or the original resolution. Mr. Ward and Mr. Cobden deelared themselves in favour of the amendment, but Mr. Hume, Mr. T. Duncombe, and Mr. Wakley, avowed their intention of supporting the Government, whose measure had gone as far or farther than they had anticipated. Sir Robert Peel said: If the ease of Ireland were the sole question to be considered, he thought the immediate suspension of all duties would be the preferable course. But there were other considerations; and the Government had considered that the whole question could be better dealt with in the way they had proposed, than by the course prescribed by the amendment. Sir Robert proceeded to show that, by the adoption of his measure, certain descriptions of corn and other food would be admitted duty-free, and all other kinds at a greatly reduced rate. With respect to the amenement, he said— Still, if the measure be carried —that is, immediate instead of deferred repeal-I shall accept the amendment (though my conviction of the policy of my measure remains unchanged), and yield to the opinion of the majority of this House: but it is totally impossible I can answer for the effect of such a change in the passing of the measure. I prefer the deferred to immediate repeal, on this, among other grounds, that the Government intend to accompany it by other measures. I cannot help thinking, if we had come forward in the first instance with a proposal for the total repeal, the measure would have encountered such a degree of opposition, that we must have abandoned all hope of success.' Sir Robert was of opinion, that if the question were settled, wheat in the home market would instantly rise in price; and he did not think that the slightest apprehension need exist of this country being inundated, under any circumstances, with foreign corn. Mr. Bright had threatened the House with continued agitation if the repeal were not immediate: Sir Robert Peel was sorry to hear it. He thought, however, that such an agitation was unreasonable; he did not think the agricultural party would make an attempt to disturb a settlement when once made. [This statement of opinion was received in silence.] But not only did he think the threatened agitation unreasonable, he thought, also, it would not be successful. "I think a great number of persons would withdraw from the ranks of the Anti-Corn-Law League; that a great number of men would say that our proposal was not an unfair one, considering the differences of opinion which exist, considering the prospect there is of the duty expiring in three years, and that every day we are advancing towards a total repeal of the duty, which, after the proposed reduction, would be much lower than at present." Lord John Russell said he would have voted for the amendment were he not apprehensive that the success of the measure would be endangered if the amendment were carried. Sir Robert Peel had made a most important statement, to the effect that, in his opinion, if he had brought forward a project of immediate repeal he would have failed in his endeavour to settle the question." Looking," continued Lord John, "at the comparative advantages of the two courses, I, for my own part, say, that I will not incur the responsibility of assenting to the motion of the honourable member for Wolver hampton. It is far better, in my opinion, to promote the measure of the First Minister of the Crown; and I believe, if the House carry it by as great a majority as voted for the Committee, that the Upper House will accept it more readily as a measure of that Minister." 66 Sir Robert Peel had expressed. his regret, the other night, that Lord John Russell had not undertaken a Ministry founded on the immediate abolition of the Corn Laws. "I was surprised to hear that statement, said Lord John, for, though I believe the right honourable gentleman would have given me every support to any measure I might bring forward which he conceived to be for the public good, yet I think he must have heard, since that time, objections and statements strong enough, and numerous enough, to have convinced him that those who would have followed him and supported me in office, on such a proposition, would have been a very small number indeed, as compared with the hundred and twelve members who have now voted with the right honourable gentleman. I must fairly say, that I do not believe there would have been more than forty, or perhaps fifty, members to have voted with me. After other speeches, Mr. Villiers |