Parliament reassembled on the 19th of February. As her majesty proceeded to the walls of St. Stephen, a significant incident occurred: at the corner of Bridge-street, one of the spectators exclaimed, “No monopoly!” at which her majesty smiled, graciously bowing, at which a hundred voices united in the shout of “God save the queen!” The speech delivered by the queen first referred to friendly relations with allied powers; to an adjustment of differences between the Ottoman Porte and the King of Persia, to negociations pending for the pacification of the states of Rio de la Plata, in which for several years a desolating and sanguinary war had existed; and to the convention concluded with France last year for the more effectual suppression of the slave-trade. On the dispute with America her majesty remarked:—“I regret that the conflicting claims of Great Britain and the United States, in respect of the territory on the north-western coast of America, although they have been made the subject of repeated negociation, still remain unsettled. You may be assured that no effort consistent with national honour shall be wanting on my part to bring this question to an early and peaceful termination.” Having adverted to the estimates, and to the crime of assassination in Ireland, which was more flagrant than even in former years, her majesty proceeded to say:—“I have to lament that in consequence of a failure of the potato crop in several parts of the United Kingdom, there will be a deficient supply of an article of food which forms the chief subsistence of great numbers of my people. The disease by which the plant has been affected, has prevailed to the utmost extent in Ireland. I have adopted all such precautions as it was in my power to adopt for the purpose of alleviating the sufferings which maybe caused by this calamity; and I shall confidently rely on your co-operation in devising such other means for effecting the same benevolent purpose as may require the sanction of the legislature. I have had great satisfaction in giving my assent to the measures which you have presented to me from time to time, calculated to extend commerce, and to stimulate domestic skill and industry, by the repeal of prohibitory and restrictive duties. The prosperous state of the revenue; the increased demand for labour, and the general improvement which has taken place in the internal condition of the country, are strong testimonies in favour of the course you have pursued. I recommend you to take into your early consideration, whether the principles on which you have acted, may not with advantage be yet more extensively applied, and whether it may not be in your power, after a careful review of the existing duties upon many articles the produce or manufacture of other countries, to make such further reductions and remissions as may tend to insure the continuance of the great benefits to which I have adverted, and, by enlarging our commercial intercourse, to strengthen the bonds of amity with foreign powers.”
Before proceeding with the address, Sir Robert Peel announced that on the next Monday, he should propose the appointment of a committee to consider the mode in which the house should deal with railway bills; and that on Tuesday, the following day, he would make, in committee of the whole house, a statement as to the intention of her majesty’s government with respect to the commercial policy of the country, and the corn-laws.
The address was moved in the commons by Lord Francis Egerton. Lord Francis had long been a noted Conservative, and a supporter of the corn-laws; but he now avowed himself favourable to free-trade. The address was seconded by Mr. Beckett Denison. Sir Robert Peel rose to explain the late ministerial crisis, and his own views and measures. He attributed the cause which led to the dissolution of the cabinet, to that great and mysterious calamity—the failure of the potato crop. At the same time he confessed, that it would be uncandid to attribute undue importance to that one cause. “That particular cause,” he continued, “appeared to me to preclude any further delay, and to require immediate decision—decision, not only upon the measures which it was necessary at the time to adopt, but as to the course to be ultimately taken with regard to the laws which govern the importation of grain.” Sir Robert Peel continued to say he should have wished that another parliament should have had the opportunity of considering this question; but in the course of last autumn occurred that visitation of Providence, the consequences of which it was still difficult to foresee—the failure of the potato crop in Ireland, and in some parts of England—and it became a question whether it was not desirable to take immediate steps to meet the threatened evil. Government had instituted inquiries, and had received much correspondence from foreign countries on the subject; and from all the accounts they had received, it became evident that something must be done. The right honourable baronet next came to the explanation of what had occurred in the cabinet, and how he had been led to tender his resignation. He would not have abandoned his post, he said, if he had been supported by an unanimous government; but that was not the case, and he had no alternative but to quit office. Her majesty accepted his resignation, and of her own choice sent for Lord John Russell, who undertook the task of forming an administration. Their appeared every probability that the question would have devolved on his lordship; but before he went to Windsor to take a final farewell of the queen, he learned that Lord John had failed to form a government. On meeting Sir Robert, the queen informed him that so far from taking leave, she was obliged to require him to continue his services; and the colleagues who differed from him not having advised the formation of a cabinet on the principles of protection, and Lord John having failed, he did not hesitate to withdraw his resignation. Accordingly he resolved to meet parliament, prepared to submit those measures which he thought necessary to meet the emergency. These measures would be brought forward on Tuesday next, and therefore he would not anticipate the discussion. Lord John Russell rose to explain his conduct during the recent negociations, and how he had failed in forming an administration. Having received her majesty’s commands, he called together those with whom he had been in the habit of acting, and had stated that he would endeavour to frame an outline of a measure on the corn-laws. He had previously been informed by Sir Robert Peel that it was not advisable he should state the details of the measure he should have brought forward under the responsibility of his own government: and, therefore, he had to consider what it would be the duty of his government to propose, should he succeed in forming one. The result of his exertions on this subject would be best explained by reading a letter which he addressed to her majesty:—“Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your majesty, and has the honour to state that he has found it impossible to form an administration. Lord John Russell was aware from the first moment, when your majesty was pleased to propose this commission, that there were very great difficulties in the way, which it required the most cordial co-operation on the part of his friends, and the firm support of a large portion of those who followed Sir Robert Peel to surmount. Those who have served your majesty and your royal predecessor in cabinet-offices during the administration of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne, who were now in political connexion with Lord John Russell were consulted by him. They agreed on the principles by which they would be guided in framing a measure for the repeal of the corn-laws. Thus one great difficulty was surmounted. But, as the party which acts with Lord John Russell is in a minority in both houses of parliament, it was necessary to ascertain how far they were likely to obtain the support of Sir Robert Peel. Your majesty is acquainted with all that has passed on this subject. Lord John Russell is quite ready to admit that Sir Robert Peel has been willing, from the commencement to the end, to diminish the difficulties in the course of a new government prepared to attempt the settlement of the corn-laws. But Sir Robert Peel could not, of course, rely on the support of his political friends should the proposed measure be in their eyes dangerous and unwise. In this uncertainty of obtaining a majority in the house of commons it was absolutely necessary that all those who were prominent in the political party to which Lord John Russell is attached should give their zealous aid, and act in concert in the new administration. Lord John Russell has, in one instance, been unable to obtain this concert; and he must now consider this task as hopeless, which has been from the beginning hazardous. Lord John Russell is deeply sensible of the embarrassment caused by the present state of public affairs. He will be ready, therefore, to do all in his power, as a member of parliament, to promote the settlement of that question which, in present circumstances, is the source of so much danger, especially to the welfare and peace of Ireland. Lord John Russell would have formed his ministry on the basis of a complete free trade in corn, to be established at once, without gradation or delay. He would have accompanied that proposal with measures of relief to a considerable extent of the occupiers of land from the burdens to which they are subjected. But he will be little disposed to insist, as a member of parliament, on what may seem to your majesty’s advisers an impracticable course. The country requires, above all things, an early and peaceable settlement of a question, which, if not soon settled, may, in an adverse state of affairs, cause a fearful convulsion.” Lord John Russell concluded by expressing the obligations he felt to her majesty for the gracious manner in which she entrusted him with the task of forming the administration; and by stating that, whether in office or out of office, he should be ready to give his assent to measures calculated to benefit the country, without reference to the proposer. Mr. D’Israeli was not so liberal in his sentiments. As the champion of protection, he asked, what would be thought of a statesman who, having served under four sovereigns, came forward and declared that, after an observation of three years, he had found it necessary to change his convictions on a subject which must have presented itself for more than twenty years to his notice?
The peers waved their right to discuss these great topics on the first night of the session; awaiting the discussion in the commons. The Duke of Richmond endeavoured to bring on a debate; but ministers were taciturn; and after a long and discursive speech delivered by Lord Brougham, which touched upon the subjects of the Oregon dispute, the corn-laws, and Irish affairs, the address was carried. In the course of the evening, the Duke of Richmond wished the Duke of Wellington to explain the reasons which induced the government to accept and to re-accept office; but his grace said that he could not do so without her majesty’s permission. On the following Monday, however, the noble duke explained their reasons in his own plain, straightforward, and characteristic manner. What these reasons were has been touched upon before.
SETTLEMENT OF THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.
The house of commons resolved itself into committee on Tuesday, the 3rd of February, to consider that portion of the speech from the throne referring to the commercial policy of the government. Sir Robert Peel commenced his speech by bespeaking the patient indulgence of the house. He was about to act, he said, on the assumption adopted in the queen’s speech, that the repeal of prohibitory duties, and the relaxation of protective duties is in itself a wise policy. He was about to act on the presumption, that during the last three years, notwithstanding the relaxation of heavy taxes, there had been increased revenue, increased demand for labour, increased commerce, increased comfort, contentment, and peace in the country. Passing on to the explanation of his views and designs, the right honourable baronet said, that within the last three years, the tariff, that is, the whole scheme of customs’ duties, had been submitted to the review of parliament; and the general principle of the changes then effected was, to remit the duty on raw materials, and to subject foreign manufactures to a duty of twenty per cent. Notwithstanding the fears of a falling revenue, those remissions were carried further: in 1844, the duty on wool was altogether reduced; in 1845, the duty on cotton-wool. Almost the only articles of the nature of raw material still subjected to duty were timber and tallow; and he now proposed to reduce these. Tallow, which was chiefly imported from Russia, had a duty on it of 3s. 2d. per hundred weight; he proposed, mainly with a view to our own interests, and partly to induce Russia to follow our liberal policy, to reduce it to Is. 6d. With respect to timber, he could not yet state particulars, as the details needed careful adjustment. The course which government would probably take would be a gradual reduction of the existing amount of duty, where it should rest a certain time lower than at present: the reduction being so apportioned, if possible, as to prevent any derangement of internal trade by inducing parties to withhold the supply of timber, in the hope of realising a large amount of duty; and yet at the same time, as the importation of timber from the Baltic partook in some respect of a monopoly, care would be taken that the reduction of duty should be an advantage, not so much to the producer as to the consumer. Having given the manufacturer the advantage of a free command, without any impost, of the raw materials which enter into his fabrics, he should call upon the manufacturers of the three great articles which entered into consumption as the clothing of the great body of the community, to give a proof of the sincerity of their convictions as to the impolicy of protective duties, by consenting to relax the protection on their manufactures. These three great articles were linen, woollen, and cotton manufactures; and he asked the manufacturers of these at once to set the example to others, by relaxing, voluntarily and cheerfully, the protection they enjoyed. It should not be said, that he considered only the “great interests,” and injured the minor interests. As the case now stood, the great articles of the cotton manufacture, such as calicos, prints, &c., were subject to a duty of 10 per cent, on importation; while cottons made up, as cotton stockings, &c., were subject to a duty of 20 per cent. With respect to the former articles, he proposed that they should be duty free; and that the duty of 20 per cent, on the manufactured articles of cotton in a more advanced state should be reduced to 10 per cent. He proposed also to call on the manufacturers of linen and woollen to relinquish protection on the coarser manufactures used in the clothing of the great body of the people. There would be some loss to the revenue; but he believed that the importation of some articles competing with the production of our manufacturers would stimulate their skill; and, with the capital and enterprise of this country, he did not doubt but they would beat foreign manufactures. At present woollen goods which were made up were subject to a duty of 20 per cent.: he proposed they should be reduced to 10 per cent. Flax was a raw material, he continued, imported free of duty: the duty will be taken off the coarser manufactures; on the finest and made up kinds it would be reduced one half. Silk enjoyed apparently a protection of 30 per cent., practically ranging indeed to 78, or even 145 per cent, on some made up articles, such as net and bonnets, or turbans: but a false reliance was placed on that protection. It was a delusion: many houses in London and Paris undertook to introduce silken goods into this country at half the duty. The revenue and the trade were robbed by the smuggler; and the manufacturer was deluded by an unreal protection. With respect to silks, he proposed, therefore, to adopt a new principle. The general rule would be, enumerating each article of silk manufacture, to levy a duty of so much per pound, giving an option to the custom-house officers of levying for every £100 value of silk, a duty of 15 per cent. Sir Robert Peel went on to explain the reduction of duties on paper-hangings, carriages, metal manufactures, soap, &c., most of which articles are noticed in a subsequent page. By the measure of 1842, he continued, the tariff was greatly simplified. There were one thousand articles still on the list, five hundred of which were free of duty: he proposed that many other articles should be relieved from duty. Brandy and foreign spirits were to be reduced from 22s. 10d. per gallon to 15s. With respect to sugar, he could not enter into details; and he feared his proposition would not satisfy all parties. He would still exclude slave-labour sugar; but on free-labour sugar, the differential duties would be reduced from lis. 8d. for clayed sugar, to 8s.; for Muscovado, from 9s. 4d. to 5s. 10d. He next came to the articles connected with agriculture; first taking those not immediately used as food for the people. On leek and onion seed, he said, the duty was 20s. per cwt.: he proposed to reduce it to 5s. With reference to maize, or Indian corn, he proposed that the duty upon it should hereafter and immediately be nominal. By removing this duty he did not conceive that he was depriving agriculture of any protection. Maize was generally used in the United States, and partly for human food: and he believed that, though it was disregarded in this country, on parts of the Continent it was made into excellent food. His object in providing for its free importation was the better feeding of cattle, which would be an advantage rather than a detriment to the agriculturist. Buck-wheat was to be subject to the same rule: maize and buck-wheat, and the flour of these corns, were to be admitted duty free. “Rice feed,” as a substitute for the expensive article of linseed-cake was also to be introduced, for the better feeding of cattle, duty free. He now came to the food of man. He feared that his proposal would not satisfy both sides—those who insisted on protection, and those who insisted on its total abolition. He could assure both that his desire was, without any favour or undue partiality, to suggest that which he believed to be just, and calculated to terminate that conflict, the continuance of which all must regret. He considered that it was for the public advantage, at least, to lay the foundation of a final settlement of this question; but he was not about to propose the immediate repeal upon grain. But first he explained his course with reference to other articles. Butter, the duty of which was 20s. per cwt., hops £4 10s., and cured fish 2s., were each to be reduced one half. On those articles which constituted meat as distinguished from grain, namely, fresh or salted beef, salt or fresh pork, potatoes, vegetables of all sorts, and un-enumerated articles of the kind, he proposed a total repeal. The duties on live animals also would be abolished. Some urged him to make a distinction in the importation of lean or fatted cattle, as it was unfair to levy an equal amount on both kinds: his proposal to admit materials for fattening cattle would meet that objection. He hoped that these advantages would be considered as somewhat a compensation for any immediate loss that might be felt by the introduction free of the other animals. He asked those connected with agriculture, while he was proposing these reductions, to bear in mind that he had already proposed the removal of protection from some of the great articles of manufacture connected with clothing in this country. He directed their attention not merely to the protection connected with the land, but asked them to remember that he had called on the manufacturers to set the first example of the relinquishment of protection. They would bear in mind that their farm servants and domestics would be able to command a cheaper supply of clothing; and they would, therefore, be disposed to follow the example of those whom he had called upon to make the first example of relinquishment. Sir Robert continued:—“I will now state, with the permission of the house, the proposal which I mean to make on the subject of grain. I propose that, from the passing of the act, some articles shall be admitted duty free. On the one hand, I do not propose the immediate repeal of the corn-laws; but in the hope of a final arrangement, of preventing undue apprehensions, and giving time for the adjustment of agriculture to the new state of circumstances, though I propose a temporary continuance of protection, I propose it on the distinct understanding, that, after the lapse of a certain time, foreign grain shall be imported into this country duty free. I am deeply convinced that any intermediate proposal would be of no avail. It would have been entirely out of my power to explain or to suggest any modification of the existing corn-law with a guarantee that it should be continued. The choice is either between the maintenance intact of the existing amount of protection in every particular, or laying the foundation for an ultimate settlement by means of ultimate freedom. I propose, therefore, a considerable reduction in the existing amount of duties; and I propose that the continuance of the duty so reduced shall be for a period of three years; that it shall then continue till that period of the year in which I believe there will be least inconvenience in the termination of that protection. I propose that on and after the 1st of February, 1849, oats, barley, and wheat shall be subject only to that nominal rate of duty which I have proposed to apply to maize and buck-wheat. But what shall be the intermediate state of the law during the continuance of these three years?” Sir Robert Peel then explained the duties on wheat, oats, and barley, which will be found in a subsequent page; after which, he stated that the arrangement of them would be accompanied by other provisions, calculated, if not to give compensation, at least to advance the interests of the agriculturists. “Take,” he said, “some of the burdens on land, and see whether they are not capable of alleviation, not by their transfer to others, but by introducing reforms into their administration. Take that admitted grievance, the highway-rates. As railways advance, the parish highways will become of increased importance. There are 16,000 local authorities that have charge of these highways. There is a nominal surveyor to each parish—a surveyor who knows nothing about rates. Such a division of authority makes lax expenditure and bad management. An existing act of parliament authorizes the union of parishes for the management of highways; but the act is permissory—the union must be voluntary; and in very few cases has advantage been taken of the statute. I propose to make what is now voluntary, compulsory. Taking the scale of the poor-law, there will be 600 district authorities, instead of 16,000.” Further aid would be given to agriculture in loans of public money for improvement of estates, to persons applying for assistance; the public to be secured against ultimate loss. The loans were to be made by the exchequer-bill commissioners, and the administration of the measure entrusted to the newly-appointed inclosure-commissioners; the preliminary expenses to be borne by the applicant for aid. An annual repayment by instalments was to be secured as a rent-charge, having priority over other charges; but the commissioners would have the discretion left to them of allowing objections made by parties already having a charge on the land. This alteration, Sir Robert said, he believed would lay the foundation for great agricultural improvement throughout the country. He further proposed to relieve the counties of the whole expense of prisoners, and place it upon the consolidated fund: the charges of that fund to be subject to periodical review in the house. The estimated cost of that change was £64,900. In England half the expense of the prosecutions, in Scotland all, is paid by the treasury: he proposed to make the treasury pay the whole in England and in Ireland. The relief would not be great; but it would be of importance, as giving greater control over prosecutions: the estimated expense in England was £100,000; in Ireland, £17,000. At present part of the police force in Ireland was borne by the land: he proposed to impose the whole expense on the state. He proposed, also, that government should bear a share in the cost of medical relief under the new poor-law act; half to be defrayed by government, half by local authorities—the estimated cost was £100,000 for England, and £15,000 for Scotland. Aid also would be given in providing education in workhouses; the unions to appoint, and government to pay the schoolmasters. The expense of this would be £30,000. Finally, government proposed to pay the poor-law auditors in England and Ireland, which would cost £15,000. Sir Robert concluded by thanking the house for the patience with which they had listened to his financial exposition.
A long and desultory conversation followed this explanation of the ministerial measure of free trade; several members avowing their determined hostility, and others promising unlimited support. At the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, Monday, the 9th of February, was fixed for the day on which the discussion should commence. In order to enable the reader to understand rightly the reductions and alterations proposed in the tariff, it is necessary to glance at the resolutions proposed by Sir Robert Peel in committee of the whole house on the customs and corn act. The first resolution related to the importation of corn, grain, meal, or flour, setting forth the duties to paid until the 1st day of February, 1849, when the duties were wholly to cease. Thus, on wheat, when under 48s. per quarter, 10s. duty was to paid; and this duty was to be lowered Is. on the rise of wheat up to 53s., when there was to be a duty paid of 4s. for every quarter. Barley, oats, rye, peas, and beans, wheat-meal and flour, barley-meal, oat-meal, rye-meal, pea-meal, and bean-meal were by tire same resolution, taxed in equal proportion, until the 1st day of February, 1849, when these duties were likewise to cease and determine; or, at least, to pay only a nominal duty of 1s. per quarter on wheat, let the price be what it might, and the other corn in proportion to its value. By the second resolution, in lieu of duties of customs then chargeable on certain articles, reduced duties were, from the passing of the bill, to be exacted. These articles consisted of what might be termed the necessaries and luxuries of life; and the duties were reduced on some to the amount of one hundred per cent. The articles enumerated in the resolution were agates, or cornelians; ale and beer; almonds; amber (manufactures of); arrowroot; band-string twist; bailey, pearled; bast-ropes; twines, and strands; beads: coral; crystal; jet; beer or mum; blacking; brass manufactures; brass (powder of); brocade of gold or silver; bronze (manufactures of); bronze-powder; buck-wheat: butter; buttons; candles; canes; carriages of all sorts; casks; cassiva-powder; catlings; cheese; china or porcelain; cider; citron; clocks; copper manufactures; copper or brass wire; cotton; crayons; crystal (cut and manufactured); cucumbers; fish; gauze of thread; hair, manufactures of hair or goats’ wool, &c.; hams; harp-strings; hats or bonnets of straw, silk, beaver, felt, &c.; hops; iron and steel, wrought; japanned or lacquered ware; lace, made by the hand, &c.; latten-wire; lead (manufactures of); leather (manufactures of)—calashes, boots, and shoes, of all sorts; linen, or linen and cotton, viz., cambrics, lawns, damasks, &c.; maize, or Indian corn; musical instruments; mustard-flower; paper, painted or stained paper, &c.; pencils, lead and slate; perfumery; perry; pewter; pomatum; pots of stone; puddings and sausages; rice; sago; seeds, garden, &c.; silk (manufactures of), &c.; silk-worm gut; skins (articles manufactured of); soap, hard and soft; spa-ware; spirits, viz., brandy, geneva, and other foreign spirits, &c.; steel manufactures; tallow; tapioca; tin; tobacco; tongues; turnery; twine; varnish; wafers; washing-balls; wax (sealing); whipcord; wire; woollen manufactures. If any of the articles here enumerated was the production of a British possession, they were to be admitted at a reduced duty. Thus, while the woollen goods of foreign countries were to pay £10 for every £100 value, those of British possessions were only to pay £5. By a third resolution the duties of customs, chargeable upon certain goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United Kingdom, were to cease and determine. These goods, wares, and merchandise were—living animals: viz., asses, goats, kids, oxen, and bulls; cows, calves, horses, mares, geldings, colts, foals, mules, sheep, lambs, swine, and hogs, and sucking-pigs; bacon; beef (fresh and salted); bottles of earth and stone; casts of busts, statues, or figures; caviare; cranberries; cotton manufactures, not being articles wholly or in part made up, not otherwise charged with duty; enamel; gelatine; glue; hay; hides, tawed, curried, or in any way dressed, not otherwise enumerated; ink for printers; inkle (wrought); lamp-black; linen, manufactures of linen, or of linen mixed with cotton, or with wool, not particularly enumerated, or otherwise charged with duty, not being articles wholly or in part made up; magna-grocia ware; manuscripts; maps, and charts; matresses; meat, (salted or fresh), not otherwise described; medals; palmetto-thatch manufactures; parchment; pens; plantains; potatoes; pork, fresh and salted; silk, thrown or dyed, viz., silk, single or tram, organzine, or crape-silk; thread, not otherwise enumerated or described; woollens, viz., manufactures of wool, not being goats’ wool, or of wool mixed with cotton, not particularly enumerated or described, not otherwise charged with duty, not being articles wholly or in part made up; vegetables, all, not otherwise enumerated or described; and vellum.
Sir Robert Peel announced the intentions of government with respect to the reductions in the timber duties on Tuesday, the 10th of February. He was anxious to make the statement at the earliest opportunity, on account of the importance of the subject, and as the American mail was on the eve of sailing from Liverpool. “We propose,” he said, “to make ultimately a reduction in the differential duty on foreign timber, so that the duty shall remain after the reduction at 15s., instead of the present amount. I think on hewn timber the duty is now 25s.; we propose to reduce it 15s. But, with the view of insuring to the consumer as great a benefit as possible, the Baltic timber-trade partaking now very much of the nature of a monopoly, in consequence of the very great demand for it, we do not propose that the reduction shall be immediate. We propose that from the 5th of April, 1847, the period of the year we think most suitable for making a reduction of duty, the duty on hewn timber shall be reduced by 5s.; and on the 5th of April, 1848, by another 5s. With respect to sawn timber maintaining the same proportions, the reduction of duty ought to be 6s. on the 5th of April, 1847, and another 6s. on the 5th of April, 1848. With respect to the smaller description, such as lath-wood, spars, and oars, the reduction will be proportionate.”
Such were the great measures of free-trade brought forward by the government. By the people they were not met with any national demonstration, or by any well-pronounced declaration. The signs of the prevalent opinion, however, were well seen in various quarters, particular as well as general, official as well as popular. Meetings were held in various parts of the country, but success was very partial; and if there was no enthusiastic and unqualified manifestation of the abolition of the corn-laws on the part of “the country,” the opposition to it proved, to be disjointed and petty in the extreme. In parliament the Conservatives put forth all their remaining strength to check the onward progress of free-trade. On the 10th of February, the day fixed for the resumption of the discussion, a “monster debate” commenced, which, as will be seen, continued for some weeks. It was brought on by Mr. P. Miles, who, on the motion that the house resolve itself into a committee, moved that it should do so on that day six months. The measure was further opposed by Lord Norrys, Sirs W. Heathcote and J. Walsh, and Mr. W. S. Lascelles: Lord Sandon and Mr. Cochrane, both of whom were Conservatives, supported it. Lord John Russell proceeded to discuss the mode in which Sir Robert Peel had treated the question. With the principles of the measure he agreed; but he advocated immediate abolition of the corn-laws, and hoped that Sir Robert Peel would reconsider that part of his plan. His lordship concluded by drawing a contrast between the disinterested support which the Whigs were now giving to the free-trade measures of a Tory government, and the factious opposition which the Tories gave to the same measure when proposed by a Whig government. He thought that if the free-trade measures of the Whig government had been allowed to pass when originally proposed, much of the sufferings of 1842 would have been avoided; and that if Sir Robert Peel had then been true to himself, he would have escaped, much of the invective now heaped upon him. After a few words from Sir Robert Inglis and Captain Fitzmaurice in support of the amendment, and from Mr. S. Herbert in favour of the measure, he having “changed his opinion on the subject,” on the motion of Mr. S. O’Brien, the debate was adjourned. The debate continued by adjournment up to February 28th, before any division or amendment took place: the opposition wishing to stop it on the very threshold. On the last night of the debate the house was addressed by Mr. Cobden, who complained that extraneous matter had been introduced into the discussion to a greater extent than had ever been introduced previously into any corn-law debate. The two main topics, he said, on which it had turned, were the conduct of ministers and the propriety of an appeal to the country. The people of England believed that the discussion on the first topic was a quarrel got up for no other purpose than to evade the real question, and to conceal from public observation that there was no justification for the corn-laws. He assured their opponents that the more they covered ministers with obloquy, the more sympathy they would obtain from the country. In point of fact they were making ministers popular: if Sir Robert Peel were to visit the manufacturing districts, his march through them would, be one continued triumph. Even Sir James Graham, who had rendered, himself unpopular by certain measures, by his magnificent contribution to free trade, and still more by the nightly attacks which had been made upon him during this debate, had become an object of popular sympathy in Manchester and Liverpool. As to the wish of the protectionists to appeal to the country, nobody knew better than they did, that they had no chance of obtaining a majority at the next election. Three months ago he had said that the advocates of a free trade had no chance of obtaining that majority; but now that the protectionists were a broken party, and had lost all the talent and intelligence which formerly directed their tactics, the case was altered, and it was they who had now no chance of success in an appeal to the constituency. Speaking of the intelligence of the people on this subject, Mr. Cobden remarked:—“I will tell you what my thoughts were, as T sat at home patiently reading these debates. As I read speech after speech, and saw the fallacies which I had knocked on the head seven years ago reappearing afresh, my thought was, What fun these debates will afford the men in fustian jackets! All these fallacies are perfectly transparent to these men; and they would laugh at you for putting them forward. Dependence on foreigners! Who in the world could have supposed that that long-buried ghost would come again to light! Drain of gold! Wages rising and falling with the price of bread! Throwing land out of cultivation, and bringing corn here at 25s. a quarter! You forget that the great mass of the people now take a very different view of these questions from what you do. Seven years ago they gave in to your reiterated assertions that wages rise and fall with the price of bread. You had a very fair clap-trap against us, as we happened to be master manufacturers, in saying that we wanted to reduce wages. But the right honourable baronet at the head of the government, and the right honourable baronet, the home-secretary, are not suspected by the English people of having such motives on these questions. The English people have no disinclination to refer to high authorities on these matters. They assume that men high in office have access to accurate information; and they generally suppose that those men have no sinister motive for deceiving the great body of the people on a question like the present. You see I do not underrate the importance of your leaders having declared in favour of free trade. On the contrary, I avow that that has caused the greatest possible accession to the ranks of the free traders. Well then, the working classes, not believing that wages rise and fall with the price of bread, when you tell them that they are to have corn at 25s. per quarter, instead of being frightened, are rubbing their hands with the greatest satisfaction. They are not frightened at the visions which you present to their eyes of a big loaf, seeing they expect to get more money, and bread at half the price. And then the danger of having your land thrown out of cultivation! Why, what would the men in smock-frocks in the south of England say to that? They would say, ‘We shall get our land for potato-ground at 1/2 d. a lug, instead of paying 3d. or 4d. for it.’ These fallacies have all been disposed of; and if you lived more in the world, more in contact with public opinion, and less within that charmed circle which you think the world, but which is anything but the world—if you gave way less to the excitement of clubs, less to the buoyancy which arises from talking to each other as to the effect of some smart speech in which the minister has been assailed, you would see that it is mere child’s play to attempt to balk the intelligence of the country on this great question, and you would not have talked as you have talked for the last eleven days.” Mr. Cobden proceeded to discuss the effect of the march of free trade on farmers; proving to demonstration that they were not alarmed by it, and that they were at the very time the discussion was going forward, and with a certainty of the repeal of the corn-laws in prospect, taking farms at a higher rent, and engaging to drain lands at great cost. Speaking of public opinion on protection, he said:—“What is this boasted protection? The country has come to regard it as they regard witchcraft—as a mere sound and a delusion. They no more regard your precautions against free-trade than they regard the horse-shoes that are nailed over stables to keep the witches from the horses. They do not believe in protection; they have no fear of free-trade; and they are laughing to scorn all the arguments by which you are trying to frighten them. How can protection, think you, add to the wealth of a country? Can you by legislation add one farthing to the wealth of a country? You may by legislation, in one evening, destroy the fruits and accumulations of a century of labour: but I defy you to show me how, by the legislation of this house, you can add one farthing to the wealth of this country? That springs from the industry and intelligence of the people of this country.” In conclusion, Mr. Cobden called upon the protectionists cheerfully to make concessions for the good of the community. The debate was closed by Lord George Bentinck, who condemned the proposition of government as vicious in principle, and likely to be deeply injurious, not only to agriculturists, but to all the great interests of the country, On a division, the amendment was negatived by a majority of three hundred and seven against two hundred and forty.