and example to soften and benefit society at large. That was probably what the right honourable Gentleman meant ; but he had not shown that all those same advantages of a resident gentry could not be obtained without the expense of protection. He could not suppose that the resident gentry would be less wise, less virtuous, less patriotic, less country gentle men, than before. Was it to be imagined they were to be kept as they were, the ornaments, the pillars, the Corinthian capitals of the state, by a 20s. duty? Was there no inherent virtue in them, but were they to be bought? He could not believe it. If the landed interest suffered a peculiar griev ance, let them prove it he wanted some honourable Gentleman to get up and state their grievance. Would one tell him that they paid the poor-rate? So did he. Would another say that they paid the country-rate? So did he. The other classes of the community paid the same taxes as the agriculturists; and he believed that the quota of the manufacturers was as large as that of the agriculturists, if not larger. But they who said that they had certain peculiar burthens to sustain had no right to make that an argument for the continuance of this monopoly. If they were aggrieved, they ought, like other classes of the community, to lay their petitions before that House, and, exposing their grievances, ask the House to find a remedy for them."

"The people," said Mr. Roe buck, in conclusion, "would not regard this experiment as a mere mercantile speculation, but as the project of a great statesman; and failing in this, that statesman must see that he lagged behind his age,

as he had done before; and that by not keeping pace with the march of public opinion, he never could again be at the head."

The greater part of the speeches delivered during this debate possessed very little of originality or individual interest, consisting for the most part of recapitulations and reproductions of the same reasonings and statements of which a copious specimen has already been given in the speeches with which the discussion was introduced. The reply of Sir Robert Peel, however, contained some passages worthy of commemoration. Adverting to Mr. Roebuck's exhortation to him to discard the prejudices of a class, to show that he did not lag behind the age, and to bring forward some measure that would stamp hìm a great statesman, he said he would tell Mr. Roebuck what he thought more properly belonged to the true character of the Minister of a country like England. "I think it would be more in keeping with that true character for me to aspire to none of those magnificent characteristics which he has described, and that the wisest and safest course for me to adopt is to effect as much practical good as I can ; and not, after announcing some great principle calculated to win for me a great deal of popularity, to find at last that the practical part of the subject was in precisely the same state in which it was before I began. It is easy enough for the honourable and learned Gentleman to say apply great principles,' make change.' But I find that mighty interests have grown up under the present law, and in full dependence on its faith. I find that the agriculture of this country produces 22,000,000 quarters of wheat every

mighty

year, while of grain of all kinds it produces no less than 45,000,000 of quarters. Think what pecu. niary interests must be involved in the production of such an amount of grain. Think, too, of the amount of social interests connected with those pecuniary interests-how many families are depending for their subsistence and their comforts upon the means of giving employment to thousands before you hastily disturb the laws which determine the application of capital. If you disregard those pecuniary and social interests which have grown up under that protection, which has long been continued by law, then a sense of injustice will be aroused, which will redound against your scheme of improvement, however conformable it may be to rigid principle."

He entered into a detailed analysis of the operation of his scale at various points. He admitted that the country could not be made independent of foreign supply altogether, but he would have foreign importation supplemental only, and not substantial and primary. He compared his own scale with those which had preceded it, and showed by an elaborate comparison its advantages over them all. Some of his opponents had said, "Do not disturb, unless you settle ;give up your alterations, and let the old law stand." He felt all the difficulty of meeting objections by answers which were seized by the opposite side as confirming opposite objections:-"If I try to calm an apprehension here, I see a note taken on the other side; if I try to answer an unreasonable objection there, I am met, not by obstacles, but by the intimation of alarm on this side; and it is whispered from one to the other

that I am conceding too much. This is inseparable from the task I have undertaken. I do believe that in a mere party sense it would have been wiser for me to say, I will stand by the Corn-laws and resist all change. Some tell me that all the change required is an amendment of the averages. But other considerations, other responsibilities, press upon those who are charged with the administration of affairs. I stated before, and I repeat, that in considering this question, the arrangements which ought to be made consistently with enlarged and comprehensive viewsavoiding disturbance of capital embarked in agriculture, and the clouding of the prospects of worldly prosperity and social happiness of those who derive their subsistence from laud-looking again to the state of commerce, to the advantage, when there is to be a supply of corn, of so introduciug that corn that there may be the least disturbance of the monetary system of the country, the greatest approach to regular commercial dealings, the greatest encouragement consistent with due protection to agriculture, to manufacturing and commercial industry having to consider all these questions, having to weigh their relative and comparative importance, the measure upon which we have determined is that which we conscientiously believe to be upon the whole the most consistent with the general interest of the country. We did not confer with agricultural supporters for the purpose of insuring their concurrence; we did not permit the abatement of it in this particular or in that, in order to insure its success."

He concluded his speech by declaring his assurance, that according to the usual practice in this

country, reason and moderation would eventually gravitate towards that which is just.

Lord Palmerston followed in a clever speech which concluded the debate. He taunted Sir Robert Peel with the general dissatisfaction which his measure gave, testified on his own side of the House by an eloquent silence. He said, two courses were open to the Minister-either to have stood by the old Corn-laws, in which he would have been cordially supported by a majority in the House, or to have taken a bold course in changing the Corn-laws, in which case he would have obtained support from other quarters. It is not given to man, much less to man in office, to please all parties. Lord Palmerston admitted that the proposed law was a mitigation of that which it was to replace, but he proceeded to show in how trifling a degree; and he asked why agriculturists should be insured against the contingencies of the seasons, when such an insurance is not attempted in any other trade? the merchant is not insured against loss by accidents at

sea.

The late Ministers had proposed a duty of 8s., but Sir Robert Peel had almost convinced him that that was too high. Without admitting that, however, he contended that the duty should be fixed and known:- "If a moderate fixed duty was established, you would have a complete change in the trade altogether; you would have an entirely different system of transactions in the corn market. For instead of gambling transactions, you would establish a sound and advantageous trade; and, instead of the merchant hurrying at every rise in price to the foreign market on the Continent-for the distant markets are hardly touched-and

thus at once enhancing the price of corn, you would establish a steady and well-regulated barter, which would at the same time supply your wants and open new fields for the consumption of the produce of your manufacturing industry. Under such an arrangement, the merchant would make his arrangements for buying a supply of corn in those places where it was cheapest, and would bring it home at a period when he thought that it could be best disposed of both to the country and to himself. Above all, you would extend greatly your commercial relations with the United States."

Adverting to the comparative merits of the Whig and Tory propositions, he remarked, that there were larger grounds on which the doctrine of independence of foreign supply ought to be repudiated by the House:- Why is the earth on which we live divided into zones and climates? Why do different countries yield different productions to people experiencing similar wants? Why are they intersected with mighty rivers, the natural highways of nations? Why are lands the most distant from each other brought almost into contact by that very ocean which seems to divide them? Why, Sir, it is that man may be dependent upon man. It is that the exchange of commodities may be accompanied by the extension and diffusion of knowledge-by the interchange of mutual benefits engendering mutual kind feelings multiplying and confirming friendly relations. It is that Commerce may freely go forth, leading Civilization with one hand and Peace with the other, to render mankind happier, wiser, better. Sir, this is the dispensation of Providence; this is the

decree of that power which created and disposed the universe. But, in the face of it, with arrogant, presumptuous folly, the dealers in restrictive duties fly, fettering the inborn energies of man, and setting up their miserable legislation in stead of the great standing laws of Nature."

However, Lord Palmerston hailed the Ministerial concession, small as it was, as breaking ground in removing the intrenchments of monopoly.

The House then divided, when there appeared for Lord John Russell's amendment, 226; against it, 349 majority, 123.