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 Wolverhampton. 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." 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 replied, and the House divided, be difficult to render it a palatable when there appeared Upon the bringing up of the Report, a few nights afterwards, some further discussion arose. Upon the resolution which referred to maize, rice, and buck-wheat, Mr. Miles made some observations. He had expected that Sir Robert Peel, to make it more palatable, would have introduced into the resolution a few words limiting the free importation of Indian corn, buck-wheat, and rice, to three months. No absolute necessity for the change had been shown; but, had the abolition of duties been merely temporary, the Protectionists would have shown, by the readiness of their assent, that they had no wish to prevent the introduction of food for the Irish people. Should the Bill, however, pass, the abolition would be permanent, and he hoped the agriculturists would well consider what they were about. Maize, in point of nutriment, came next to wheat, and a bushel of it was equal to a bushel and threefourths of barley, or to three bushels of oats. No doubt, therefore, it would be used largely where barley and oats were now consumed; and he was informed that maize could be introduced into the port of Liverpool at only 20s. a quarter, duty included. England could not compete with America in the production of this article, the climate was too cold. No doubt could exist that its introduction, duty-free, would displace, to a great extent, barley and oats; for it would not substitute, especially with a small admixture of wheat. It would thus come into competition chiefly as human food, and, to a certain extent, would doubtless supersede even wheat. Mr. Miles added, that it was not his intention to divide the House; and he hoped the friends with whom he acted would adopt the same course; thus displaying as great an anxiety as those on the free-trade benches to afford relief to the Irish people. A desultory discussion ensued, in which the members on the side of protection generally expressed concurrence with the views of Mr. Miles. Some of the Irish members declared their anticipation of permanent benefit to Ireland from the substitution of a more substantial and nutritious food for po tatoes. The Corn Bill, founded upon the resolutions just referred to, stood for a Second Reading on the 20th of March. The debate was continued by adjournment for four nights. Mr. E. Yorke began, by moving as an amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time on that day six months. He said, if gentlemen around him felt as he did, they would not be deterred from using every form that the House allowed, and adopting every rule that the usages of Parliament suggested, to defeat the measure. He spoke of the Ministerial scheme as a breach of faith, calculated to diminish the value of property, and reduce the profits of farmers and the wages of labourers. With the view of showing the feeling which existed among the agricultural labourers, he mentioned that he had received a communication from a poor but intelligent man, who said that in the neighbourhood from which he wrote, there was "not a village in which the people were not ready to assert, by brute force if necessary, their right to taste of the fruits of their own labour;" and he added, that " every village in the vicinity was ripe for outrage at the first reduction of wages. Sir John Yarde Buller seconded the amendment, which was supported by Sir R. H. Inglis, Lord Pollington, the Earl of March, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Finch, Lord Rendlesham, Lord George Bentinck, and other members. On the other side, speeches were delivered by Mr. Fox Maule, Sir John Hanmer, Lord Ebrington, Mr. F. Baring, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. C. Buller, Sir James Graham, and Lord Palmerston. Sir Robert Peel, at the conclusion of the debate, entered into a vindication of his own conduct and measures from the attacks which had been made upon them by some of the preceding speakers, remarking that, had he occupied the position of a private member of the House, he would have allowed the accusations to pass unnoticed. He entered into a defence of his proceedings, bringing to recollection most of the facts already known in connection with the ministerial explanations. He adverted to what he said on Mr. Villiers's motion of 1845, and commented on at the time, to show that he had then arrived at the conviction, that the Corn Laws could not be defended on the old grounds in consequence of this speech, the Protection Society passed resolutions expressive of distrust in the Government. replied to a charge made by Mr. Bankes, of having acted an unconstitutional part in venturing to advise Her Majesty as to a succes He sor. He refuted the more important objections to the ministerial measure. He showed the necessity of adopting means to improve the physical condition of the population: the first step ought to be that which the Government had taken. Looking at the measure as a whole, he was convinced that it would not be injurious to the agricultural interest, and that it would be conducive to the interest of the community generally. He noticed the taunts of his dependence on opposition support. 66 An honourable gentleman asks me how long do I calculate upon their support? I will be perfectly frank and explicit on this, as on every other subject. I have no right to place any confidence in the support of honourable gentlemen opposite-I have none whatever. I feel and acknowledge every proper obligation to them as a public man, for the support which they have given to this measure, and for studiously avoiding every thing calculated to create embarrassment to its progress; but then our differences remain the same. I have no right to claim their support, or their protection; nor shall I seek it, by departing in the slightest degree from that course which my public duty may urge me to adopt. If this measure pass, our temporary connection is at an end; and I have not the slightest right to expect support or forbearance from them. Still less have I, after the declarations that have been made, a right to expect forbearance or support from this side of the House." He concluded his speech in these words: "I am not surprised to hear honourable members predict to me that my tenure of power is short. : Let these measures pass into a law. Suspend your indignation until then; and then it will be perfectly open to you to determine what measure you will adopt for the purpose of terminating my political life. I shall still pursue steadily that course which my conscience tells me I should take, let you and those opposite pursue what course you think right. I only hope you will permit these measures to be passed into a law. I do assure you that I deplore the loss of your confidence, if I have unfortunately lost it I deplore it more than I do the loss of political power. The accusations which you have preferred against me are on this account harmless, that I feel they are undeserved. Every man has within his own bosom and conscience the scales with which are determined by their real weight whether his acts are deserving of reproach or of approbation; and if I could feel, if I could believe, that I had been moved by corrupt motives or unworthy impulses, one-tenth part of the accusations you have levelled against me must have been fatal to my existence and my peace. You may think I have taken too great precautions against Irish famine : you are mistaken, Events will prove that these precautions are not unnecessary. But even if it were not so, the motive was to rescue a whole population from the calamity of possible famine and disease; and I shall, under these circumstances, be easy under such an accusation. I am not saying whether this measure will do it or not; I am merely speaking of the motive. I am only observing upon the weight such an accusation will have even if the precaution is superfluous. With the information we have had, even if the precautions were superfluous, I can say with Mr. Burke, under similar circumstances, under every accident, in pain and in sickness, in depression and distress, I shall call to mind this accusation and be comforted. I shall never regard the reproaches that may be heaped on me, if the events prove that these precautions have been superfluous. Sir, the month of July will have established the conviction that these measures of precaution were not superfluous; and I am speaking now, not of the temporary, but of the permanent ones we have adopted. Sir, when I do fall, I shall have the satisfaction of reflecting that I shall not have fallen because I have shown subserviency to any party. I shall not fall because I have preferred the interests of party to the general interests of the community. I shall carry with me the satisfaction of reflecting, that during the course of my official career my object has been to mitigate monopoly, to increase the demand for industry, to remove the restrictions upon commerce, to equalize the burden of the taxes, and to ameliorate the condition of those who pay them." answered at some length by Sir Robert Peel, who was followed by Lord John Russell, Mr. G. Bankes, and Mr. Disraeli, the two latter gentlemen speaking with much severity of the measure and the parties who had proposed it. After two divisions occasioned by motions from the opponents of the Bill, the order of the day was carried, and on the next evening the House went into Committee. Upon the clause applying to the reduction of the duty on oats, Lord George Bentinck moved the omission of the word "oats," assigning the peculiar circumstances of Ireland as his reason. The annual importation of oats from Ireland had amounted in the last and former years to 2,500,000l. in value; and, supposing that the free importation of oats from abroad should but lower the price of oats to the extent of 10 per cent, that would affect Ireland in a very grievous degree, and the loss to the Irish producer, with respect to the single article of oats, would amount to 250,000l. a year. Lord George proceeded to comment on some points in Sir Robert Peel's speech of the previous evening, and expressed himself with increased animosity on the position assumed by the Government. It was most humiliating in a great statesman like Sir Robert Peel to come down and acknowledge that the whole course of his life had been a series of errors. Lord George also reasserted his opinions about Irish distress, and the steps which Ministers ought to have taken to meet the partial evil which existed. Sir H. V. Barron said, that the people of Ireland would not thank Lord George Bentinck, either for the proposition which he had made or for the manner in which he had made it. He argued strongly in favour of the measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to put Lord George Bentinck right upon an important point. He thought the noble lord could hardly be aware of the effect of leaving out the word "oats" from the clause. The real effect of that motion would be, that after the 1st of February, 1849, oats, instead of paying a 1s. duty, as proposed by the Bill, would be admitted without paying any duty at all. It was provided by the Bill, that after that date, the duties should be 1s. upon all wheat, barley, bear or bigg, oats, rye, peas, and beans, for every quarter. In lieu, however, of that duty, the noble lord proposed nothing; therefore the effect of the motion would be, that the duty on oats would be lost altogether, and that oats would be admitted without paying any duty. He felt it his duty to statewhat would be the real effect of the alteration, if carried, in order that the time of the House might not be wasted in a fruitless discussion. The Attorney-General having confirmed Mr. Goulburn's construction, the amendment, after some further discussion, was withdrawn, and the other clauses were agreed to without a division. He On the bringing up of the Report on the 8th of May, another discussion took place. Sir Charles Burrell again moved as an amendment, that the Report be brought up on that day six months. repeated the assertion, that the distress of Ireland had been extremely exaggerated. This view was supported by Colonel Verner and Mr. George Bankes. The latter asserted that the fear of famine was already at an end, and he |