Trade was made upon a large and general scale, would believe that the same justice was meted out to them as to the great and powerful interests of the country, and would acquiesce even in a temporary injury. In such cases, under the former tariff, the complaint had always been" If we are to be exposed to competition, let it be an open and free competition." When the duty on fruit was reduced from 20 per cent. to 5, the market gardeners naturally enough said, "Why not reduce the duty on corn also?" However, they sustained no injury, for prices were as good as before; and this ground of complaint would now be removed (hear, hear). The Noble Member for London had complained that the support was not given to him in measures of this kind, which he was now prepared to give to these; and he (Colonel Wood) did regret that in the course of opposition he was led to act as many others did, and resist Free Trade measures when brought forward by the Noble Lord (hear, hear). That course created a great deal of the present difficulty (hear, hear). In truth, the main question before the House really was one of time. Did the exigencies of the moment, or rather of last November, demand this great change in our commercial policy? Now, almost every speaker had admitted the scarcity in Ireland to be such, that if the Government had thrown open the ports that step would have been consented to; and really that was an admission of the whole question. Besides, without this scarcity, a deficient harvest would before many years have created the emergency. On the whole, he (Colonel Wood) felt that these measures of Free Trade would be for the general welfare of the country, and would in the long run be beneficial to the agricultural interest itself (hear, hear).

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was then put and agreed to.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16.

The EARL OF MARCH expressed his astonishment at the sudden conversion of Lord Northland to the cause of Free Trade. Other Members had taken a considerable time to alter their opinions, but Lord Northland's conversion was miraculously sudden; for in the course of the last month he had delivered himself of two speeches in that House, one against Free Trade and the other in favour of it. He could not say to what private cell the Noble Lord had retired to complete his conversion. This he was sure of, that he had not been in the House, for all the argument had been on one side, and that in favour of Protection. He lectured Mr. B. Cochrane for his attack on the Duke of Richmond. It was true that the Duke of Richmond had been a member of Earl Grey's Administration, but that was no reason that he should be a Free Trader; for Earl Grey, its head, was an advocate for Protection. He then proceeded to contend that the abolition of Protection would be the utter ruin of the country; and that Mr. Sidney Herbert's plan to settle the question of the Corn Laws by throwing them altogether overboard was not the way to come to a satisfactory settlement of it. Mr. S. Herbert had favoured the House with the cogent reasons which had produced the change in his opinions. He

should like to hear what Mr. Goulburn and Lord G. Somerset had to say in favour of this measure, which they once opposed, but which they now supported. After dwelling at some length on the inconsistency of Lord Lincoln, Mr. Gladstone, and other Members of the Administration, who at the last general election had denounced a more moderate measure than the present as "the fugitive humbug of a dying political faction," and who were now supporting a proposition for the total abolition of all protective duties, he concluded by declaring that he could not give his assent to a measure so detrimental as the present to all classes of the community.

MR. M. GIBSON, in reply to the argument that this Parliament, having been elected to continue Protection, ought not and could not agree to abolish it, asserted that this Parliament, having been elected expressly for the consideration of Protection, was, of all others, the Parliament best entitled to discuss and settle the question connected with it. If the charge of misrepresentation rested on any party for what was done at the last election, it rested most particularly on the representatives of the agricultural interest; for they induced the farmers to believe that the leaders of their party, notwithstanding the speeches delivered by those leaders themselves, and the comments made upon them by others, would support Protection at all risks. Why, even Sir Robert Peel had told them that he would not prescribe till he was called in. They had called him in, and they were now suffering from the drastic purge which he had administered. He then proceeded to refute the statistical returns which were put forth on Friday night by Mr. Miles as the great Protection case. He denied that the English farmer in the price of labour and in the amount of local taxation, had burdens to contend with which did not press upon the Polish and the American farmer. With respect to America, it was notorious that the price of labour was nearly double that in England; and when there was added to it the taxation to which the American was liable, and the freight and insurance which he must pay before he could transport his produce to England, it was evident that the English farmer was sufficiently protected against his competition by the natural course of things, without any artificial regulations. But if the English farmer were not protected sufficiently in this manner, he was not entitled to any further protection whatsoever. The foreign corn trade was a branch of industry which Englishmen had a right to follow free and unmolested, and the agricultural interest had no right to impede them in it either to suit their own convenience or to promote their pecuniary advantage. If those Corn Laws were so material to the prosperity of the agricultural interest, why did we not see at present some fall in the price of land? There was no appearance of it in any quarter; on the contrary, in Suffolk, a friend of his had called his tenants, sixty-three in number, together since Sir R. Peel had made known his new code of commercial policy, and had offered them the renewal of their leases for a long period, and not one of them had asked for any reduction of rent, for, said they-" We are convinced that Protection is a bane, and not a benefit to agriculture." Turning, however, from the agriculturists to Sir R. Peel, he wished

to know why, if the Corn Laws were to be totally abolished, the repeal was not to take place now? Why should we defer to a distant day that measure which justice required, and which the present emergency of the country imperiously demanded? First of all, he thought that the agriculturist would do better to take his competitors by surprise than to give them warning of the opening of our markets. In the next place, if the emergency required that we should purchase out of the taxes foreign corn in America and Poland for our domestic supply, we ought not to impose a farthing duty on its importation. He, therefore urged upon the Government the propriety of making this repeal immediate; for unless they did so, their arrangement would not settle this conflict amicably and peaceably. The question was now in such a position that it could not be endangered. It was carried indeed already, not indeed by this Parliament or by politicians in either House of Parliament, but by the force of public opinion out of doors. There was no truer barometer of public opinion than Sir R. Peel. If they wished to know what the people out of doors were thinking of, let them look to what Sir R. Peel was doing.

MR. HALSEY wished that all the extempore proselytes to Free Trade would make such a candid declaration of the reasons of their conversion as had been made by Lord Northland on a former evening, as it would be useful to the House, and still more useful to its constituents. After a passing attack upon the Anti-Corn Law League for its proceedings in collecting large sums of money for the purpose of meddling with the registration and of tampering in elections, he proceeded to denounce the Government plan as a measure which supported Free Trade, and yet did not carry it out-which repudiated Protection, and yet left it in force. The farmer was not allowed to cultivate tobacco, because it was necessary to protect the revenue, and also some colonial interests. Were the landowners to allow the ports to be thrown open, and then to be told that they must cultivate their farms with their hands tied behind them? Sir R. Peel proposed to reduce one-half the duty on foreign hops; and yet there was no reduction to be made to the same amount on the excise duty on English hops. He (Mr. Halsey) was the advocate of equal justice and protection to all classes. He wished to know, if the price of English wheat should fall, on what principle Sir Robert would settle the Tithe Commutation Act? Sir Robert had also said that the revenue would not be affected by the changes which he now proposed; but if he were disappointed in that calculation, would he make up the deficiency of the revenue by doubling the Property Tax, and by making it avowedly permanent?

MR. DICKINSON considered that the proposal now made by the Government was just and right, and therefore he should support it. However the members of the Central Agricultural Association might complain of the proceedings of the Anti-Corn Law League, it was undeniable that they themselves acted on the very same principles. Else what was meant by their interference in elections, and their dictation of pledges to county members? He then proceeded to explain the reasons which had induced him to moderate the views which he had formerly entertained on the subject of Protection, and

to support the measure of the Government. He was convinced that it would inflict no great loss either on the owners of landed property, or on those who were subordinate to them. He should, however, consider it as an improvement to the Government plan, if its operation were made immediate.

LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL in a brief speech, which was very imperfectly heard in the House, declared his intention of opposing the measure which had recently proceeded from the new lights of Sir R. Peel and his colleagues in the Ministry.

SIR W. CLAY lamented that this debate had partaken so much of a personal character. It had been called a one-sided debate ; but if it were so, it was owing to the fact that the staple of the arguments on the other side had been the abuse of Sir R. Peel, and not the defence of a system of protective duties. The country gentlemen had absolutely overdone their case: they had proved too much for their own side; for when they showed that Sir R. Peel had broken up a noble party they convinced the public that he had discarded all merely personal interests, and that under the pressure of an overwhelming necessity, he had sought nothing else than the advantage of the country. He then proceeded to refute several statements in the speech of Mr. Miles on Friday night. That gentleman had declared himself the open foe of all future relaxation of protection. Might he ask Mr. Miles if he was prepared to condemn the past relaxations of it, and to retrace the steps which had been already taken towards Free Trade? If he would not abrogate past relaxation, with what show of reason did he call on the House to proceed no further in its present liberal and enlightened course? The cry of protection to native industry found no echo out of doors. He (Sir W. Clay) gave his entire approbation to the measure, which would be productive of no injury to the agricultural interest. If there was one interest deeply concerned in the abrogation of these laws, it was the agricultural interest, for that interest depended more than any other on the success of the whole community. It had nothing to fear from the competition of the agriculturists of the Baltic or the United States.

MR. BUCK participated in the alarm and dismay which this unjust and uncalled for measure had produced among his constituents. The annunciation of it had shaken all confidence in public men, and its baneful influence would extend not only to the agricultural, but also to all the trading and manufacturing classes of the country. To the working part of the population it would be eminently injurious; for whenever the price of wheat had been high pauperism had been low, and whenever the price had been low pauperism had been high. Having delivered himself of a passionate invective against Sir R. Peel for having deceived and deserted the Conservative Associations, which he had himself called into existence, and of a bitter attack upon the Anti-Corn Law League, he concluded by declaring his intention to give a most decided negative to this most rash and injurious measure.

LORD H. VANE explained the reasons why he was now prepared to give a vote in opposition to the policy which he had formerly followed on this question. Though he had always urged the reduction of

duties on agricultural as well as on all other production, he had never yet gone the length of advocating the total repeal of the Corn Laws. He believed that a low fixed duty would have been equally advantageous for all commercial purposes, and therefore regretted that it had been abandoned. The time for compromise had now unfortunately gone by; and the question was not to be settled now, except by the adoption of some such measure as that proposed by Sir R. Peel. He appealed to the country gentlemen in the House, and asked them whether it would not be advisable for them to withdraw their opposition to this measure, seeing that they could not hope to resist it effectually, after the numerous conversions which had taken place.

SIR J. TYRRELL, after denouncing the Government scheme as a claptrap proposition, observed, that in speaking on it it was impossible to avoid making personal reflections on Sir R. Peel, inasmuch as he always represented the Government in his own person, and scarcely permitted any of his colleagues in the Administration to speak. The present measure would not settle the question of Protection; for not many moons would elapse before Lord John Russell would come forward with a motion for abrogating the discriminating duties on sugar; and if the present motion were carried, he did not see how that could be resisted. He amused the House by stating, that as Sir Robert Peel had appealed to posterity for its judgment on his policy, the sooner posterity had an opportunity of judging on his merits the better. If the House should pass this measure for the repeal of the Corn Laws, and if the House of Lords should register that verdict all ties between the upper and lower classes of society would be dissolved, and misery, ruin, and anarchy would ensue.

MR. JAMES took pride to himself that on every occasion, since he had been in Parliament he had voted in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws. On the first occasion, when it was brought forward by Henry Hunt, he had been one of the tellers, and there was only a minority of 5 in favour of it. Now he trusted that the majority would be counted by as many hundreds as there were formerly units in the minority.

SIR R. PEEL then rose and spoke as follows:-Mr. Speaker, two matters of great importance have occupied the attention of the House during this protracted debate the one, the manner in which a party should be conducted; the other, the measures by which the contingency of a great public calamity shall be mitigated, and the principles by which the commercial policy of a great empire shall for the future be governed (loud cheers). On the first point, the manner in which the party should be conducted, by far the greatest part of this debate has turned (hear, hear). I do not undervalue its importance; but, great as it is, surely it is subordinate in the eyes of a people to that other question to which I have referred, -the precautions to be taken against a great danger, and the principles by which your commercial policy shall hereafter be governed. On the party question I admit I have little defence to make (hear). Yes, Sir, these are, I admit at once, the worst measures for party interests, that could have been brought forward by me (cheers). I make that admission freely. I admit at once that it is unfortunate that the conduct of this measure, so far as the Corn Laws are con