he now entertained, he would not have proposed them now as a Minister of the Crown. It was not a fair way of putting the question to say that the labourer, if the Corn Laws were repealed, would be enabled to buy cheaper bread. The question was, would he be able to buy and to eat more bread? He was afraid that the labourer would not be able; for where subsistence was cheap, labour was cheap also, and the condition of the population most miserable. Sir Robert Peel had told the House that he could not hold out hopes that foreign nations would follow our example, or relax the regulations of their tariffs. But even if they did, you might increase your exports, but in the same proportion your home consumption of manufactures would fall off, as your agriculturists would be deprived of funds wherewith to purchase them. He should support the principle of protection, which had mainly conduced to the greatness, the happiness, and welfare of Great Britain.

Lord Worsley observed that this measure was not brought forward by Her Majesty's Government as a measure which they deemed right, but as a measure which peculiar circumstances had rendered expedient. At the last general election no cry was so general as that of "Peel, the farmer's friend; but now, "Peel, the farmer's friend," was introducing a measure which almost every farmer in the country considered as pregnant with ruin to himself and his property. Noticing the observation of Mr. Sidney Herbert, that the country gentlemen of England were entertaining apprehensions of the proposed change not very creditable to their good sense, he asked who, were the parties who had first

poured those apprehensions into the agricultural mind? They were no less personages than Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham. Having read, amid the cheers and laughter of the House, extracts from their speeches in direct contradiction to the many advantages which they now proclaimed as likely to result from free trade, he observed, that with the recollection of these speeches fresh in their memories it was impossible that the farmers would not at the next general election choose such representatives as would enable them to demand a revision of the Corn Laws, even if they were defeated in their present opposition to the new-fangled scheme of Government. The question, therefore, would not be settled even if the present measure were passed; but he hoped that it would not be passed even by the present Parliament, which was elected as a protection Parliament; for it was neither wise nor equitable to enact a permanent law to meet a mere temporary evil. He urged upon the Government the propriety of appealing to the country upon this subject, and of taking the opinion of the constituencies whether they would or would not abandon protective duties. If they did not, they must remain in their present painful position, in which they were dependent on their opponents for support.

Sir James Graham, in a speech of considerable length, supported the motion. He began by admitting explicitly that his opinions on the Corn-law question had undergone a great change, and by this admission he said he would dispose at once of the citations from his former speeches which Lord Worsley had made. He then proceeded to explain the

the Sidney Herbert of 1846 found that it failed because it restricted the free importation of corn. Mr. Sidney Herbert asked too much, if he supposed that the Corn Law of 1842 could, by any human ingenuity, be made to answer the views of a Minister of so changeable a temperament. The failure of a law which had succeeded two years and failed only one year, was not a sufficient reason why he should give up the principles of a whole life. He then noticed the arguments which Mr. Sidney Herbert had drawn from an exaggeration of the chances of famine in Ireland; and contended that, even supposing the facts on which those arguments were founded to be true, famine would not be averted, but would even be greatly aggravated, by the changes now proposed in the Corn Laws. He could not agree with the proposition of Lord John Russell, that protection to agriculture was no longer defensible; and, in reference to his assertion that labour was the property of the poor man, observed, that it was well for those who had used up that property most cruelly in the manufacturing districts, to come forward and say now that we ought to let it alone. We were propounding the most selfish doctrines when we brought forward measures of which the avowed object was to leave the poor man without protection, and so to consign him to unmitigated ruin. He had been accustomed to consider the present as a landlords' question. He was convinced that he had been wrong. It was not a landlords' question, but a tenantfarmers' question; and, being such, he refused to alter the existing law relative to the importation of foreign He then drew a highly co

corn.

loured picture of the ruin which would fall upon the tenant-farmers and the labourers whom they employed-whose honest hearts were worth more than all the heaviest volumes of political economy—if the new-fangled doctrines of Mr. Cobden should be carried into execution under the auspices of Sir R. Peel. Their great fault was that they, like their landlords, had trusted in the faith of the Legislature, and the misfortune which they would most deplore in their common ruin would be the loss of all confidence in public men.

Mr. S. Crawford considered that the eloquence of the last speaker was much greater than the power of his arguments; for though he professedly took great interest in the welfare of the working man, he showed the value of his professions by refusing to give to that working man cheap food. Nothing would promote the prosperity of the country so much as cheap corn, and therefore it was that he wished to repeal every tax which was imposed on its importation from foreign countries. He then entered into a discussion upon the social and domestic condition of Ireland, and upon the bearing of the changes now proposed upon the labouring population of that country; and after warning the House that the danger of famine in Ireland was not visionary, but actual and substantial, concluded by declaring his intention of giving his cordial support to the proposition of Her Majesty's Government on this oc

casion.

The Marquis of Granby believed that Sir Robert Peel was actuated by the most pure and honourable motives; but if he had promulgated in 1841 the same opinions which

he now entertained, he would not have proposed them now as a Minister of the Crown. It was not a fair way of putting the question to say that the labourer, if the Corn Laws were repealed, would be enabled to buy cheaper bread. The question was, would he be able to buy and to eat more bread? He was afraid that the labourer would not be able; for where subsistence was cheap, labour was cheap also, and the condition of the population most miserable. Sir Robert Peel had told the House that he could not hold out hopes that foreign nations would follow our example, or relax the regulations of their tariffs. But even if they did, you might increase your exports, but in the same proportion your home consumption of manufactures would fall off, as your agriculturists would be deprived of funds wherewith to purchase them. He should support the principle of protection, which had mainly conduced to the great ness, the happiness, and welfare of Great Britain.

was

Lord Worsley observed that this measure was not brought forward by Her Majesty's Government as a measure which they deemed right, but as a measure which peculiar circumstances had rendered expedient. At the last general election no cry was so general as that of "Peel, the farmer's friend;" but now, “Peel, the farmer's friend,' introducing a measure which almost every farmer in the country considered as pregnant with ruin to himself and his property. Noticing the observation of Mr. Sidney Herbert, that the country gentlemen of England were entertaining apprehensions of the proposed change not very creditable to their good sense, he asked who, were the parties who had first

poured those apprehensions into the agricultural mind? They were no less personages than Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham. Having read, amid the cheers and laughter of the House, extracts from their speeches in direct contradiction to the many advantages which they now proclaimed as likely to result from free trade, he observed, that with the recollection of these speeches fresh in their memories it was impossible that the farmers would not at the next general election choose such representatives as would enable them to demand a revision of the Corn Laws, even if they were defeated in their present opposition to the new-fangled scheme of Government. The question, therefore, would not be settled even if the present measure were passed; but he hoped that it would not be passed even by the present Parliament, which was elected as a protection Parliament; for it was neither wise nor equitable to enact a permanent law to meet a mere temporary evil. He urged upon the Government the propriety of appealing to the country upon this subject, and of taking the opinion of the constituencies whether they would or would not abandon protective duties. If they did not, they must remain in their present painful position, in which they were dependent on their opponents for support.

Sir James Graham, in a speech of considerable length, supported the motion. He began by admitting explicitly that his opinions on the Corn-law question had undergone a great change, and by this admission he said he would dispose at once of the citations from his former speeches which Lord Worsley had made. He then proceeded to explain the

reasons of the change which had taken place in his opinions, and to apply certain tests to try the honesty of that change. The first test would have reference to his private interests in this question. He must therefore inform the House that his private position as a landlord who had inherited a large portion of inferior land, exposed him, if this change should prove injurious, to as great risk as any landowner in the country. Lord Worsley had insinuated that the Government had brought for ward the present measure, not because it was right, but because it was expedient. Now, he distinctly asserted that the Government had brought it forward, not only because it was expedient, but also because it was right. He denied that this alteration would be injurious to the poor, and contended that it would give cheaper bread to the working population. The question, therefore, narrowed itself within this compass-"Is the maintenance of the Corn Laws conducive to the interests of the majority of the community, and is it calculated to procure for the population a cheap and abundant supply of food?" and that question he proceeded to argue at considerable length. He admitted that the unforeseen circumstances which occurred after the close of the last session had exerted great influence in producing the change of opinion which he was now about to defend. Those unforeseen circumstances were the condition of the harvest, which though not deficient in quality was variable in quality, and the great failure of the potato crop through all the domestic dominions of Great Britain. In Ireland the failure was so universal that it would become necessary before

many days elapsed to make a grant of public money to purchase food for its inhabitants. But could any Minister take upon himself the responsibility of asking the people of Great Britain to submit to a tax for such a purpose whilst their own food was enhanced in price by artificial regulations? He certainly could not; and, therefore, he had proposed that the law should be suspended; but he foresaw the necessity of abolishing if you once suspended it. Since the year 1842 those whose duty it was to watch public events had had experience leading to the most decisive conclusions. He might confess, now that the danger was passed, that the year 1842 itself was a year of the greatest danger. It was a time of high prices and of scarcity, and the danger arose from the want of the means of subsistence among the working classes. What an alteration had been accomplished in the last two years! We had

had abundant harvests-with them came abundance of employment and low prices. Perfect tranquillity and comparative happiness now prevailed, and nothing could be more striking than the contrast between the content of 1845 and the disaffection of 1842.

Sir James Graham then proceeded to compare the statistics of crime in the six counties of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Cheshire, and Staffordshire, in the years 1841 and 1842, when the prices of a quarter of wheat varied from 66s. to 57s., with those of the same counties during the years 1844 and 1845, when the prices averaged 50s. a quarter; and he impressed upon the landlords the necessity of having a settlement of this question, and reminded them.

that that settlement could only be accomplished by an abolition of the duties. Such an abolition would render the law certain, would give steadiness to prices, and would rid the landed interest of a reproach which had often been cast upon it, of wringing from the poor for their own advantage a paltry increase of rent. It had been said that by proposing this abolition a great party had been broken--social relations had been dissevered -and that a powerful Administration would be broken up. Though he should regret the two first results, he should be consoled for the last, if it took place, by his belief that the proposition of his right hon. friend would save a great and powerful nation from misery, anarchy, and ruin.

Mr. T. Baring expressed his deep regret that he was compelled to give his vote on this question in opposition to a Government which he had hitherto supported, and in whose patriotism he still trusted. The experience of the last three years was not a sufficient justification for adopting, without hesitation or reserve, a great experiment, which would shake the security of all who were interested in the prosperity of agriculture, and which would open a future to the whole country of which no man could foresee the result. After alluding to the allegation of Ministers, that famine was impending over Ireland, and after contending that casual distress ought not to induce us to change a permanent law, he proceeded to express the surprise which he felt at hearing Sir James Graham assert that he would not be the Minister to propose, and that this would not be the Parliament to consent, to the imposition of a tax for the pur

pose of supplying the starving people of Ireland with food, so long as the price of corn in Great Britain was enhanced by artificial regulations. Talk of want in Ireland! He believed that the greatest want under which the country laboured at present was the want of Ministers, and the most appalling scarcity was that of statesmen, who would consent to sit together in the same Cabinet. Neither in the effects of our previous relaxation of protective duties, nor in the present circumstances of the country, could he see any justification of the sweeping change now proposed. There were three parties on the subject of the Corn Laws at this moment-the agriculturist, who required the protection of a sliding-scale; the Anti-Corn-Law League, which repudiated all protection; and those who advocated a fixed duty. The present settlement would not satisfy any of the three. If ever there was a time when a compromise could be made by conciliation and concession, this was it; and he recommended the three parties, laying aside passion and prejudice, to submit their claims to friendly arbitrement.

Lord Morpeth observed, that the House knew before that evening, that Mr. T. Baring was a friend to free trade in the abstract; but after his recent speech it would be difficult to persuade the country that he was a friend to it, either in the abstract or in the detail. Mr. Baring had told the House that the greatest want of the country last autumn, was the want of a Minister. At the present moment, that want was most severely felt by that party of which Mr. Baring was a member, and which was now left without leaders and without a head.