called on Lord Lincoln (the Secretary for Ireland) to deny it if he could.

Lord Lincoln admitted, that he was responsible for all the statements which had been made by Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham, on the subject of the scarcity in Ireland. He asserted that they were in all respects correct; and that the distress, so far from being on the decline, had not yet reached its height. He appealed to Mr. Stafford O'Brien himself, who had gone to Ireland sceptical on the subject of the distress, but who had not been a day upon his estate before he wrote a letter to him representing in the strongest manner the existence of severe distress and destitution, and stating that, unless aid were promptly administered, it would be difficult to maintain the peace. The pressure was not so great in some parts of the north of Ireland as in the south-west, and generally in the south portions of the island: the reason of this, with respect to the north, was that the people in those parts of the country were not so generally dependent on the potato for food as in other parts. As showing the increasing demands made on the Government for aid, he quoted two letters, which he had that morning received, one from the island of Valentia, and the other from the county of Cavan, representing that the supply of potatoes, both for consumption and seed, was completely exhausted.

Mr. Stafford O'Brien testified to the existence of much distress in the counties of Limerick and Clare.

Lord George Bentinck taunted Lord Lincoln with the loss of his seat for Nottinghamshire, where he had recently been defeated in a

contest with Mr. Hillyard, upon his accepting the office of Irish Secretary. The debate, after this, assumed a personal character: it eventually terminated by the Report being agreed to without a division.

The House arrived at the last stage of the Bill on the 11th of May, when Sir James Graham moved, that it be read a third time.

The Marquis of Granby thereupon moved as an amendment, that it be read a third time on that day six months. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Milnes Gaskell, who had recently held the office of a Lord of the Treasury, but had resigned it upon the change of ministerial policy. Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Plumtre, Sir John Walsh, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Hudson, the Marquis of Worcester, Mr. Disraeli, Lord George Bentinck, and several other members, supported the opposition with arguments similar to those before employed; Sir James Graham, Mr. Sherman Crawford, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Villiers, Lord John Russell, and Sir Robert Peel, were the principal speakers on the other side. At length, after three nights' debate, the third reading was carried in a full House, at four o'clock in the morning of the 16th May, by the following division:

For the third reading
For the Marquis of Granby's
amendment

:

327

229

Majority for third reading 98

The principal debate on the Corn Bill, in the House of Lords, took place upon the question of the second reading of the measure, on the 25th of May.

as

The Earl of Ripon introduced the motion. Having undertaken to discharge this duty voluntarily, he should not apologize to their lordships for bringing forward a measure which he had always considered as by far the most important, as regarded the social condition of the country, that had ever called for the attention of that House. The question, however, was difficult as it was important. His lordship proceeded to state the motives which had influenced him on former occasions with reference to it the principles upon which he had supported the Corn Law, and what were not the principles he had recognized. When he introduced the Corn Bill of 1815, he did it with reluctance, and he told Lord Liverpool, who had desired him to introduce that measure, that he had a great objection on principle to any Corn Law whatever. He had never supported any Corn Law, on the grounds assigned by many others, he did not acknowledge that any ground for a Corn Law was to be found in rents, mortgages, and settlements; nor did he consider it part of a great system of protection to national industry-a doctrine which the legislature had never avowed, but, on the contrary, many of its acts were directly adverse to the proposition. His lordship adduced, amongst other examples, the case of wool, on which no import duty had been imposed till 1819, and then for the purpose of revenue. The only ground upon which he had recognized the expediency of a Corn Law, was a sincere conviction that, without such a law, this country would be, or might be, more dependent than it ought in prudence to be upon foreign countries. Unless a Corn Law was considered

to be so intimately connected with the commercial and agricultural interests of the country, that it ought to be permanently maintained, the question was reduced to one of time. After a detailed history of the various measures restrictive of the importation of foreign grain, showing that if the system of protection was so essential to, and so interwoven with, all the interests of the country, it had been a most unstable system, and that, meanwhile, agricultural improvements had been going on, and were still going on, he said it must, therefore, be admitted, that the repeal of the Corn Law was a question of time; and, if so, the principle was gone.

Then came the fact of the rapid increase of the population, which had a tendency to press upon the limits of subsistence, if one augmented in a geometrical and the other in only an arithmetical ratio. Another question was, that of Ireland. Those who thought that a temporary suspension of the Corn Law would have met that evil gave up the important principle that the law contained a power of self-adaptation to circumstances; and, if once suspended, such a law could not be reverted to. A great objection urged against a repeal of the Corn Law was, that it would throw land out of cultivation; he had never been able to ascertain what was the land which would thereby relapse into waste; he had found in his experience that no such apprehension was entertained. In conclusion, his lordship declared he felt no shame at being a party to this measure, and at bringing it before the House. He knew it was inconsistent with what he had formerly done, and it might be with sentiments he had expressed; but he was in

acted under a solemn conviction, founded upon deliberate reflection, that this measure was not calculated to injure any of the interests of the country, but would do good to them all.

The Duke of Richmond moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, feeling it to be a measure likely to inflict a deadly blow upon British agriculture and the national greatness. Lord Ripon had not told their lordships what, in his opinion, would be the average price of corn if this measure should pass; but surely Ministers had not dared to bring in such a measure without estimates. Lord Ripon had given their lordships a history of the various measures regulating the importation of corn, except that of 1842, which was the measure they were about to repeal; and of this he had not said one syllable. The noble duke then amused their lordships by reading extracts from the speeches of Lord Ripon in 1815 (when Mr. Robinson) and in 1842, dwelling on the discrepancies between them and the speech of the earl to-night. Lord Ripon had admitted that improvements had been made in agriculture for years past, and the money expended on land, upon the faith of an Act of Parliament, was now about to be confiscated. The noble duke then proceeded to show the benefits which the labourers had derived from the system of protection, as exhibited by the vast accumulations in savings-banks. The present measure was called for by the cotton manufacturers, who looked to a permanent reduction in wages therefrom. The object, the avowed object, of the advocates of this measure out of doors was

less their lordships maintained the good opinion of the middle classes of the country-which they could not do if they abandoned their former opinions-they would be powerless indeed. This measure was only the first of a series of attacks that would shake the foundation of the Throne, cripple the Church, endanger the institutions of the country, and plunge a happy and contented people into misery, confusion, and anarchy.

Earl Fitzwilliam supported the Bill, and believed it would be passed by a great majority; nevertheless, it was not a measure he should have proposed; a great revenue had been wasted by it, for which a substitute must be found. He did not think that the measure would be injurious to the landed interest, and therefore they were not entitled to demand compensation; but he had expected there would have been a diminution, if not a repeal, of the malt tax, which was not only oppressive, but unequal. He objected to the retention of a rag of protection for three years; the landed interest desired to have a settlement of the question at once. Though he disapproved the Bill, he must vote for it, as he had no alternative except that of rejecting the measure for another year. In propounding a measure of this magnitude, was it right or decent for the Ministers to propose it in a manner which drove their Lordships, as it were, into a corner? The least amendment of the Bill, being a money Bill, would sacrifice it. Adopting all the Duke of Richmond's opinions upon the conduct of Ministers, he must still oppose his amendment.

The Duke of Cleveland opposed

the Bill, which he characterized as unprecedented for its boldness and dangerous in its character, altogether departing from that course of policy under which this country had attained a power and renown superior to any other country in the world; and the great evil attending it was, that if it failed, however ruinous its consequences, it would be impossible to retrace our steps. The concessions which accompanied the measure were of a trivial character, and still left it one of the most unjust and oppressive ever imposed upon a loyal people. The measure of 1842 was believed by all to be final, and the arguments now urged against it by the Minister were precisely the same as those which had been employed by Mr. Villiers and Mr. Cobden in 1842. It was the duty of the Government to have assembled their friends and consulted them before this measure was determined on, instead of betraying them as they had done. The persons who would be most injured by this measure were the small landholders, or country gentlemen, the yeomanry (the pride and ornament of England), and the tenantfarmers; whilst thousands of agricultural labourers would lose their employment, if land were, as he believed it would be by this measure, thrown out of cultivation. The noble Duke, like the Duke of Richmond, considered that this measure was a prelude to further innovations, and that the next object of attack would be the Irish Church.

The Marquis of Londonderry supported the measure. He said that the farmers in the north of England did not participate in the apprehensions entertained by the noble Dukes. He felt it was a

great experiment; but he had such confidence in the ability of the present Ministers, displayed in their domestic and foreign policy, that he could not desert them upon a question which, after all, was more a question of rent-roll and of profit than of any high principle of political economy. He thought that their Lordships should try an experiment proposed by Ministers who had raised this country to the very highest pinnacle of prosperity.

Lord Stanley began by expressing great distrust in his own powers, but he felt a conviction of the truth of the cause he supported, when entering upon the defence of a system of law which had been designated by Earl Fitzwilliam an absurd system, and which had been vigorously assailed by those who had hitherto ably and strenuously defended it, and to whom it owed its very existence. Upon the question of authority, he appealed from the authority of the living to that of the dead; from statesmen of the present day to Lord Chatham, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Huskisson; to Lord Liverpool, Mr. Canning, and Lord Grey. The Earl of Ripon had denied that the Legislature had recognized the principle of protecting native industry as a reason for regulating the importation of corn, whereas such a principle had been adopted so early as the reign of Edward IV., and it had continued to be the rule of our legislation up to the present time, that it was expedient to secure the independence of this country upon foreign nations for corn, and to give encouragement and protection to the cultivation of its own soil. This had not only been our own policy, but at the very mo

ment when we were venturing upon the bold experiment of leaving the supply of this nation's food to chance every other country in the world of any eminence maintained a protection to its agriculture. He did justice to the motives of those who had brought forward this measure, and Sir Robert Peel in particular could not fail to have foreseen the dislocation and disruption of ties, the shock to public confidence, and the distrust which it would occasion on the part of constituencies in public men and in Parliament. But the right hon. Baronet had mistaken the emergency and the position in which he was placed; he had confounded the brawling torrent of agitation with the deep, still current of public opinion. Ministers had been asked in another place, what they expected would be the result of this measure, and they frankly said they did not know. This measure, therefore, was introduced without a knowledge of what its effects would be. The grounds assigned for the measure were, the famine in Ireland and the success of the tariff; but these reasons were mutually at variance. If this Bill relieved the famine in Ireland, it could only be by bringing down the price of corn to the means of the starving population of Ireland. Their Lordships must distinguish between famine and great local scarcity. He spoke of famine in Ireland as a vision, a baseless vision; he spoke in different terms of the amount of destitution and distress through the partial failure of the potato crop. When the subject came before the Cabinet, of which he was a member, he yielded his own opinion, and consented to a suspension, and a suspension only, of the Corn Law;

a total abolition he considered unjustifiable in itself; but he was left alone. The noble lord then entered into details respecting the course he had taken in these transactions, and then into statistical details applicable to the policy and effects of the existing Corn Law, and particularly to the operation of the sliding-scale in checking the tendency of a rise in the price of corn, and in preventing the fluctuation of prices. This was a complete answer to those who said that fluctuation of prices was the peculiar vice of the sliding-scale ; whereas never had prices fluctuated so much as during the free trade in corn, when we were most dependent on a foreign supply. In the prices of articles not subject to any sliding-scale, in which there was a free trade-potatoes and cotton, for example-the fluctuations were enormous. sent Corn Law had kept us independent of foreign nations, and maintained a steadiness in prices; and would any man contend that these advantages had been purchased by a sacrifice of any interest? So far from it, our exports had increased, our shipping had increased, the value of land had augmented; why, then, was this hazardous experiment to be made?

The pre

The system

of manufacturing prosperity was not without its danger; it should not be checked, but it ought to be carefully watched; the power of production was always overtaking that of absorption, and if manufactures were pampered to an unwholesome increase, when the bubble burst the ruin would be extensive. But it was not clear that the repeal of the Corn Law would increase manufactures. If an argument was drawn from the