In the Speech delivered from the Throne at the opening of the present Session of Parliament, the following passage will be found:

"Notwithstanding the large reductions of taxation which have been effected in late years, the receipts of the Revenue have been satisfactory. The state of the Commerce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom has been such as to afford general employment to the labouring classes. I have to lament, however, the difficulties which are still felt by that important body among my people who are owners and occupiers of land; but it is my confident hope that the prosperous condition of other classes of my subjects will have a favourable effect in diminishing those difficulties, and promoting the interests of agriculture."

Without attaching too much importance to the phraseology of this Address, it will, we think, be admitted by every one who recollects the dissensions of last year, that her Majesty's Ministers, by inserting in the royal Address this acknowledgment of the difficulties under which the owners and occupiers of land are labouring, have virtually abandoned their ground; and are not now, as formerly, prepared to maintain that agricultural depression, arising from low prices, is to be considered simply as an accident, and not as the result of legislation. Last year we were told, on high Ministerial authority, that the low prices then current were merely exceptional, and could not continue; and that a signal check had been given to the importation of foreign grain. "Therefore," said Sir Charles Wood, "the farmer need not apprehend that ruin from the operation of Free Trade, which he at present anticipates from prices under 40s. a quarter." But time, more infallible than Sir Charles Wood, or any other Chancellor of the Exchequer, has proved that all these notions are fallacies. The importation continues, and prices droop. During the twelve months which have elapsed, there has been no symptom of rallying; and it is now almost universally admitted, that the depreciation of the value of agricultural produce is permanent, and must so continue in the absence of a protective duty.

We are always glad to see a fallacy cleared out of our path. The idea that high-farming can ever be made an adequate substitute for protection, was exploded last year; and now the efforts of the Whigs to demonstrate that importations cannot continue, have been abandoned. The state of the case is precisely that which we laid before the public in January 1850; and no one thinks of denying it. Even those journals, which, from time to time, have hazarded vaticinations as to rises in the value of produce, are compelled to acknowledge their fallibility, or drop their pretensions to the mantle of the gifted seer.

The matter is, therefore, very materially simplified. We are justified in holding that henceforth, under the system of free ports, the average price of the quarter of wheat in England will not exceed 40s., and may possibly be much lower when the resources of the Continent and America, both aware of their market, are fully developed. In Scotland, the average must necessarily be two or three shillings less. A corresponding fall has taken place, and will continue, in all other kinds of cereal crop and of provisions. If these data are admitted—and a very short period will now suffice to establish or refute their accuracy—the agricultural question may be discussed without any specialities whatever. Every man throughout the country will have the means of forming his judgment upon the actual working of the measure, and its effect, both direct and indirect, upon all branches of British industry. It is most desirable, on every account, that there should be no mistake as to this. Our opponents—perhaps naturally enough exasperated at the prolongation of a combat in which they have been uniformly worsted when the weapons of argument were employed, and being moreover aware, from symptoms which are everywhere, manifested, that the period of delusion is nearly gone by—have over and over again charged the country party and its chiefs with a desire to cut short the experiment, before its results were sufficiently apparent. We need hardly say that the charge is utterly unfounded. We have no wish to precipitate matters, or to effect by a coup-de-main that alteration which never can be permanent unless based on the conviction of the majority of the constituencies of the Empire. We have no desire to take a leaf from the book of recent statesmen, and to induce members of Parliament to act contrary to those declarations on the faith of which they were returned. But we are entitled—nay, we are bound—to watch the experiment as it proceeds, and ever and anon to declare our honest and sincere opinion as to the nature of its working. We cannot shut our eyes to the vast injury which it is causing, and has already caused, to a most important and numerous class of our fellow-countrymen; we cannot reconcile ourselves to the operation of a system which has undoubtedly disappointed the expectations even of its founders. We have, therefore, whenever that was needful, expressed our opinion without any reservation whatever; and we shall continue to do so, not the less confidently because the views which we entertain are now openly adopted and received by many who were heretofore unwilling to disturb a course of legislation which had been deliberately sanctioned by the State.

We beg to assure the Free-Traders that we never, for one moment, underestimated the advantages of their position. At the commencement of this Parliament, they had a majority large enough—supposing that their cause was good, and their boasted experiment successful—to render all idea of a return of protection perfectly futile and hopeless. And, therefore, we were told, day after day, and month after month, that it was in vain for us to struggle against the tide—that a course of policy such as this, once commenced, must be regarded as irrevocable—and that we were merely losing time in demonstrating, what latterly was hardly denied, that the agricultural interest could not maintain itself under the pressure of the growing competition. But those who held such language seemed to have forgotten that the experiment, upon the success of which they had staked their reputation for sagacity, was all the while progressing before the eyes of the nation. Had its progress been successful and satisfactory, the country party must long ere this have dwindled away into nothing. Can our opponents not see that it is the failure of Free Trade alone which constitutes our strength? In the late debate upon Mr Disraeli's motion, Sir James Graham, who is certainly not apt to exaggerate the power of his opponents, spoke as follows: "I see very plainly that we are on the eve of a great and serious struggle. I see a party of gentlemen in this and the other house of Parliament, powerful in numbers, powerful in the respect in which they are held for their personal and hereditary virtues, having great influence in the country, and great possessions. They are an interest which, up to the present moment, has commanded great influence with the Government; and, with the main body of the community at their back, they exercise a power upon any question that is irresistible.... With such opponents it behoves us to gird up our loins. I know not whether the watchword, 'Up, guards, and at them!' may not already have been given. It is clear to me that the opponents of protection must prepare for a severe contest. They must stand upon the defensive. They must stand to their arms, and close their ranks, and prepare for a firm, manly, and uncompromising resistance!" Now, considering that not more than two years have elapsed since it was the fashion of the Liberal journals to aver that the country party was all but extinct, helpless in the House of Commons, and unsupported beyond its doors, this estimate of Sir James Graham is undoubtedly remarkable. We are naturally led to inquire how it is that the cause of protection has made so prodigious a stride—why it should now appear so formidable in the eyes of an old and experienced statesman? No other reason can be assigned than the justice of the cause which the country party have maintained, and the failure of the experiment to which their adversaries were pledged. If there are any new "opponents" to Free Trade within the House of Commons, they have either been sent there by constituencies since the present Parliament was summoned, or they have become convinced of the error of their former views, and seceded from the Ministerial ranks. If, beyond the House of Commons, men are changing their opinions to that extent which Sir James Graham indicates, surely that is no argument in favour of the party which still is dominant—no testimony which can be adduced to support the wisdom of their policy. Rather should it be to us a great encouragement to persevere as we have begun, for it conveys a direct acknowledgment of the truth of those arguments which we have all along maintained.

Very absurd indeed is the accusation, that the Protectionists will not allow fair play to the progress of the experiment. Hitherto the promoters of the experiment have had it all their own way, and have been allowed to go on without any check or impediment. They profess themselves to be extremely well satisfied with the result; and yet, singularly enough, whenever a division occurs upon any point arising from their policy, they find their boasted majority becoming less and less. The conduct of the Protectionist party has indeed been marked by an extraordinary degree of forbearance. But the supporters of the cause without the walls of St Stephen's have full reliance on the integrity and the discretion of their champions within. They have not forgotten the distinct announcement of Lord Stanley that, "it is not in the House of Lords, nor in the House of Commons, but in the country at large that the battle must be fought, and the triumph achieved;" and they have no desire, through rash impatience, to endanger the coming victory. But, whilst refraining from a direct attack upon the principles of the Free-Trade system, our representatives in Parliament are by no means oblivious of their duty. The peculiar burdens on land and agricultural property and produce have not been removed, notwithstanding the promises which were made; and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he had a surplus of revenue in hand, the Government very naturally been called upon to consider, whether that surplus should not be applied to the alleviation of the distress among "the owners and occupiers of land," admitted, in the Royal Speech, to exist; and whether, in fact, they have not a righteous claim to a considerable reduction of their burdens?

Such was the tenor of Mr Disraeli's motion, which was negatived, in a crowded house, by a majority of only FOURTEEN. In the proposal itself there was nothing unreasonable—nothing which even faction could lay hold of. The difficulties of one class in the community were admitted by Ministers, and contrasted by them with the general prosperity which was assumed as the condition of all others. It was not denied, but rather stated as matter of exultation, that this general prosperity arose from the same cause which had occasioned the depression—that the same fountain had given forth both sweet and bitter waters, refreshing and enlivening on the one side, whilst, on the other, it spread decay. Under these circumstances, it will not be denied, by any unprejudiced person, that it was the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Ministers—not to come forward voluntarily with any remission to the suffering class, which might be construed as a favour—but seriously to consider whether or not the statement preferred on the part of the agriculturists, that they were unjustly and unequally burdened and restricted, was true; and if it were true, then to accord relief in a fair and equitable manner. Sorry are we, indeed, to say, that neither her Majesty's Ministers, nor such of the supporters of the late Sir Robert Peel as spoke and voted on the motion, had the courage to face openly this question of abstract justice. It was enough for them that the proposition was made by a leader of the country party, and that it was generally supported by those opposed to their commercial policy. These circumstances were of themselves sufficient to secure its rejection, even had the discussion of it not involved points to which no Free-Trader has ever yet ventured to address himself.

What these points are, we shall presently examine. But first let us go back for a little to what are matters of history.

In the first speech which he delivered in the House of Commons, during the eventful Session of 1846, the late Sir Robert Peel, while paving the way for the introduction of his Free-Trade measures, made the following remarks with regard to the peculiar burdens upon land:—"Further, it may be said that the land is entitled to protection on account of some peculiar burdens which it bears. But that is a question of justice, rather than of policy: I have always felt and maintained that the land is subject to peculiar burdens; but you have the power of weakening the force of that argument by the removal of the burden, or making compensation. The first three objections to the removal of protection are objections founded on considerations of public policy. The last is a question of justice, which may be determined by giving some counter-balancing advantage." Further, on the very same evening, the present Premier, Lord John Russell, thought fit to read to the House of Commons a letter which bad been addressed by him to Her Majesty, of which the following is an extract:—"The measures which Sir Robert Peel had in contemplation appear to have been—a present suspension of the duties of corn—a repeal of the Corn Laws at no remote period, preceded by a diminution of duties—relief to the occupiers of land from burdens by which they are peculiarly affected, so far as it may be practicable. Upon full consideration of these proposals, Lord John Russell is prepared to assent to the opening of the ports, and to the fiscal relief which it was intended to afford." On that evening, (22d January 1846,) Lord John was in a peculiarly communicative mood; for, besides the letter of 16th December 1845, of which the foregoing is an extract, he read to the House another epistle, dated the 20th, informing Her Majesty that he had found it impossible to form an Administration. That letter, moreover, contains a sketch of what the noble lord proposed to have done, provided it had been possible to procure the aid of that galaxy of talent with which he is now surrounded. "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."

Now, we beg the reader distinctly to mark the character of these several admissions made by Sir Robert Peel and by Lord John Russell. They were made five years ago—are quite unequivocal—and demonstrate the opinion of both, that, in justice, no alteration should be made in the laws which regulated the admission of foreign grain, without granting to the occupiers of the soil a relief from their peculiar burdens. This is a matter which it is very necessary to keep in view, inasmuch as we cannot compliment Lord John Russell on his general ethical perceptions. He has an odd way of addressing the whole agricultural body as if they were liable for the consequences of the rejection or acceptance of certain proposals, which, in office or out of it, he thought proper to make to certain members of Parliament—a mode of dealing which, in our humble mind, is more suitable to a sharp attorney than to a wise and enlightened statesman.

What followed is well known to every one. The Free-Trade measures proposed by Sir Robert Peel were carried, and Lord John Russell succeeded him in office; still, however, not one word was heard about the promised relief to the agriculturists. It is quite true that there was no explicit bargain, but justice is independent of bargains. Both Ministers had expressed their opinion that, in the event of the repeal of the Corn Laws, it was not only reasonable, but JUST, that the agriculturists should be relieved from certain burdens peculiar to them alone; and yet neither of them took one step in the direction of justice. At that time it was notorious that neither of them contemplated the disastrous effects of their measures upon the landed interest. They imagined—foolishly enough, it is true, but in accordance with the false data on which they proceeded—that very limited supplies of grain would be thrown into this country, and that consequently prices could not be affected to any large degree. We cannot read the different speeches of Sir Robert Peel, guarded as they were, without concluding that he never contemplated a permanent fall in the price of wheat below 50s. per quarter, if he even expected it to drop so low; and yet, these being his calculations, he admitted that it was not just to expose the agricultural body to that contingency, without giving them a measure of relief. We all know what has occurred. An average of 40s. is now considered a high price in England, as markets go; and in Scotland we are settling down to 36s.; yet still the preliminary measure of justice, which, according to both Ministers, ought to have accompanied the repeal of the Corn Laws, is withheld. With a surplus in their hands, Ministers refrain from applying it to the discharge of the just debt and when the debt is claimed—as it was the other day by Mr Disraeli, in terms not less distinct than forcible—they give it the go-by, and commence declaiming on the impolicy of a return to protection—a point which was not before them!

It is difficult, indeed, to observe the limits of conventional decorum while commenting on conduct like this. Had Mr Disraeli demanded the re-imposition of a duty, whether fixed or variable, we should of course have expected that, however strong his case, he would be met by strenuous opposition. The Whigs have committed themselves so far that, were it proved to them that in the course of a single year, the whole agricultural interest must perish unless their whole system of commercial policy were changed, we should not expect them to step in and offer to stay the calamity. In this line of dogged inaction and obstinacy they would probably receive the congenial support of the small rump of Conservative renegades, who follow them rather through the necessity of their degraded position, than from any abstract love they bear to the Whig dominant faction. But Mr Disraeli asked nothing of the kind. He simply pointed out the fact, which could brook no denial, that certain burdens and restrictions were still imposed upon the agriculturists, which prevented them from entering on anything like, equal terms, into that course of competition which is the glory and essence of Free Trade. He demanded the removal of these, or, at all events, all impartial adjustment of them, in order that the British agriculturist might have fair play, and not be brought into the field loaded and oppressed by a weight which no other class of the community is called upon to bear. It was no question of countervailing duties to put the British on a level with the foreign producer: it was simply a question of home taxation between class and class, and between man and man. Under the system of protection, burdens had been laid largely upon the land, and the land alone; restrictions had been laid upon the occupiers, forbidding them to grow certain valuable crops, in order that the revenue might be maintained by fixed custom-duties, levied on the same articles when imported from foreign countries; and certain other produce was placed under the fetters of the Excise. The system of protection fell, but the burdens and restrictions remain. Apart altogether from the foreign question—apart from considerations whether the owner and occupier of land in Britain can compete with foreigners in his own market on equal terms whilst the burden of British taxation remains undiminished—lies the question of fair and equal adjustment of taxation among ourselves. It may be that this is difficult—it may even prove to be impossible. The state of the public revenue may be such, that no Government can accord to the occupiers of land their natural right of producing what crops they please, or abrogate the laws which have the effect of restricting certain kinds of produce to very narrow limits. It may be that human ingenuity cannot devise a method for setting agricultural industry free in all its branches, and allowing that open competition which is not withheld from any kind of manufacture if so, that is the strongest of all arguments in favour of protection, and it were well if it were thoroughly understood. And understood it is by many, though some of those who understand it find it convenient to do their utmost to perpetuate an act of injustice. Sir James Graham, Mr Cobden—ay, twenty more of those who either spoke or voted against Mr Disraeli's motion, have declared themselves hostile to the continuance of the malt-tax, and yet we see the result. But there are, according to the recorded admissions of both Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, burdens from which the agriculturists ought in common justice to be freed—or rather, from which they ought to have been freed long ago; and yet even this poor modicum or instalment of justice is denied. And when is it denied? At the very time when the Ministry boast of the general prosperity of the country, with the exception of one single class, at whose expense, they allow, this general prosperity has been gained! At the very time when they are in possession of a surplus of revenue, part of which is to be applied to a remission of duties on foreign timber!

We rejoice that the question has been brought forward fairly, manfully, and openly. The division, and still more the tone of the debate, must show the agriculturists how hopeless it is to expect any redress from her Majesty's present advisers. No one speaker attempted to meet Mr Disraeli on the ground to which he strictly confined himself. "If I am asked," said he, "what is my remedy for the difficulties of the owners and occupiers of land, my answer, on the part of those who sit around me, is brief. It is—We want justice. We ask that you shall not prohibit or restrain our industry. We ask that you shall not levy upon us direct burdens for public purposes, to which very few other classes contribute. We ask that you shall not throw upon us, who, according to your own account, are the only class that is in a state of prolonged distress, the burden of your system. That is what we ask. We say—remove this enormous injustice, and let us be fairly weighted in the race. We shrink not from the competition which you have thought fit to open to our enemies; but do not let us enter into the struggle manacled." Was there anything in this discordant with the theories of Free Trade? Was there any claim advanced for the maintenance or the imposition of burdens pressing upon the rest of the community to the advantage of the agricultural class? Nothing of the kind. It was, on the contrary, a demand which, if the Free-Traders had an atom of principle, could not be refused, unless they were prepared to maintain that they alone had a right to immunity of taxation. So strong was Mr Disraeli's argument—so irresistible were his conclusions, that no one orator on the other side ventured to meet him fairly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward statistics, letters, reports, newspaper articles, and all the other gallimaufry which elaborate subordinates are expected to supply on such occasions, for the purpose of showing that trade was in a healthy condition, exports increasing, and what not;—things, even supposing them to be true, quite as relevant to the matter in dispute, as if he had read a statistical account of the commerce of China. One point he certainly did touch, and that was the saving clause in the Speech from the Throne, expressing "my confident hope that the prosperous condition of other classes of my subjects will have a favourable effect in diminishing those difficulties, and promoting the interests of agriculture." Upon this text Sir Charles Wood chose to dilate, asking, "Is it possible that the agricultural interest can stand so much separated from the rest of the community as not to be benefited by their prosperity, and derive advantage from the great and increasing demand for their produce which that prosperity must create?" Great and increasing demand FOR THEIR PRODUCE!! Why, according to the same authority, the prosperity of the said classes has been created, or, at all events, augmented, by their deriving their supplies abroad, from the foreign producer who can afford to undersell the overburdened British farmer! Something like ten or twelve millions of quarters of grain are now annually forced into this country, whatever be the quality of the harvest; as also provisions enough to feed the army, victual the navy, and supply the sea-coast towns; and live cattle innumerable are shipped for our eastern ports. And this, according to Sir Charles Wood, is to create a great and increasing demand for British agricultural produce! We may say frankly, that although we never entertained a high estimate of the intellectual powers, acquirements, or sagacity of this member of the Cabinet, we should not have ventured to accuse him of such sheer imbecility as this speech of his betrays, save on his own evidence. We believe him to be perfectly sincere. Even had he the desire to practise it, nature has fortunately denied him the possession of the talent of casuistry. His optics are like those of the owl in daylight, utterly irreconcilable with the common standard of vision, and therefore we need not wonder if, ever and anon, he dashes himself unconsciously against a tree.

Neither have we much to say to the speech of the Premier. If we are to consider it in the light of a hortatory warning against any future attempt to regain protection, it is not without its value. We know very well that it is much easier and more popular to remit, than to impose a duty; and the ancient experiences of the noble lord in fostering democratic agitation, make him a valuable witness in all that relates to the probable causes of tumult. But Lord John Russell, in his forcible sketch of the awful consequences of any return to the protective system, did, as it seems to us, not only mistake the question before him, but overlook, whether wilfully or casually, the express statement of Mr Disraeli, which embodies the declared views of the chiefs of the country party. Let us see what that statement was:—"I am extremely anxious that I should obtain no support to-night under a false pretence, and that I should not incur any opposition by the same means. I trust no honourable gentleman will rise to-night and say that this motion is a direct or an indirect attack on our new commercial system. Far from it. It is in consequence of your new commercial system that I have felt it my duty to make this motion, and to try to adapt, if I can, the position of the owners and occupiers of land to that new commercial system you have introduced. Nor let any honourable gentleman support me to-night in the idea that this is an attempt to bring back protection in disguise. Nothing of the kind. I last year said what I now adhere to severely, strictly, even religiously. I said then that I would not, in this Parliament, make any attempt to bring back the abrogated system of protection, and I gave my reasons for that course. I deeply deplored at the time the circumstances of the change. I deeply deplored that a Parliament and a Ministry, which, if not formally, at least virtually—and that is of much more importance in the opinion of the constituencies—were pledged to uphold the system of protection, should have abrogated it. I think there was in that circumstance a clear plain cause of quarrel between Parliament and the constituencies; but I cannot forget what passed after that great change. The general elections took place; that opportunity was afforded to the constituencies, even if they were betrayed, to recall the legislation the abrogation of which they deplored. I cannot forget that the agricultural body in particular were warned by their best and most powerful friend—now lost to us—not to lose that opportunity, because it was their only one. I cannot forget that they rejected that counsel; that, misled by the superficial circumstances of the moment, the prices of the year, which were undoubtedly the result of exceptional circumstances, they did not support us in the policy we recommended; and I for one, sir, cannot consent that the laws which regulate the industry of a great nation should be made the shuttlecock of party strife. I say that, if I thought I might, by a chance majority, bring back the system called 'protection,' I would shrink from it. That is a thing which must be done out of the House, and done out of the House by no chance majority, but by the free unfettered expression of public opinion; and no other result can be satisfactory to any class, or conducive to the general welfare. I have expressed this opinion before, and honourable gentlemen opposite, if they will condescend to recollect what I have said, will do me the justice of admitting I have done so. I repeat it now, because I wish no one to be in error with respect to my motives, my object, and the policy I wish Government to pursue."

As to the distinctness of this statement in all its parts, there can be no difference of opinion. Some who are not merely smarting, but writhing under the injuries inflicted by Free Trade, may think that Mr Disraeli has taken too dispassionate a view of the case, and that the line of conduct which he has announced, and which he declares himself determined to follow, is less energetic than suits the emergency of the present crisis. Deeply as we deplore the misery which exists, and the evils which have been occasioned, we cannot do otherwise than express our entire concurrence with the views so ably stated. Protection cannot be regained by a side-wind, or a mere casual and hasty vote. It must be brought in by the voice of the constituencies, and according to the forms of the Constitution, or not at all; and he is no friend of the agricultural body who would counsel otherwise. Therefore we say, that Mr Disraeli performed a most manly, proper, and timely act in making that distinct declaration; and we verily believe that nothing could have galled the Free-Traders more, or struck greater consternation into their ranks, than the simple and clear avowal of the principles by which the advocates of native industry are determined to abide. Lord John Russell evidently felt himself placed in an awkward position. He was of course prepared to combat any proposal for a return to protection, but he had not one argument to meet the demand for justice which Mr Disraeli so strongly urged on the part of the agricultural body. Where could he find any? We have seen that, five years ago, he acknowledged the justice of the claim, and, by a broad admission of agricultural distress in the Speech from the Throne, he virtually confessed that the time had arrived when all fair remissions should be made, more especially as he had the means to do so. But, finding it impossible to meet Mr Disraeli on the only ground which he occupied, the shifty Premier thought fit to evade the question altogether, and, under the sheltering shield of Sir James Graham, who preceded him in the debate, to utter a harangue upon the dangers to which the country would be exposed should protection carry the day. Now, we have nothing whatever to say upon the subject of Lord John Russell's vaticinations, simply considered as such. A return to protection may be bad, or it may be good; it may make us poorer or richer; it may involve us in new difficulties, or it may free us from those which confessedly exist at present. All that is matter of opinion. But has Lord John Russell so far forgotten his old constitutional creed, as to maintain that, if the majority of the constituencies should declare in favour of protection, and the majority of the House of Peers adopt the same view, the present commercial system is not to be reversed? And if he does not mean that, why all this empty bluster and ridiculous vapouring upon a point which has not yet been mooted? There is no Guy Fawkes' conspiracy going on in the cellars to blow the Treasury benches, with their occupants, into the air; there is no intention on the part of the Protectionists to call the yeomanry of England together, and march them upon Westminster, to see their wrongs redressed by force of arms. If the noble lord dreads anything, it is a moral reaction on the part of the people—on the part of the voters throughout the country, who hold the franchise, and return members to the House of Commons; and if he denounces the acts of a majority so obtained,—why, we must even seek out a new interpreter of the mysteries of the British Constitution!

In sober sadness, we could almost find it in our heart to be sorry for Lord John Russell. For years past he has had it in his power very materially to strengthen his position, by acting up to the tenor of those letters which we referred to in the commencement of this article. We do not say that any such arrangement would or could have satisfied the agricultural interest; for the vicissitude which they have experienced has proved so tremendous, that no adjustment of taxation could act as a remedy for the evil. Nevertheless, it was perfectly open to the Premier to have freed himself at once from the trammels of party—to have taken a high, honourable, and bold position—and to have insisted that the interest which was made the subject of experiment should be placed as nearly as possible, in so far as regards taxation, on an equal footing with the other interests of the country. To that line of conduct, indeed, his credit, if not his honour, was pledged; and we confess that we cannot fathom the motive which has led him first to delay, and then directly to refuse, what he once acknowledged to be an act of simple justice. What ulterior views the Whig Cabinet may entertain, we have no means of guessing; but if it should be, as has already been surmised, that they calculate on maintaining their supremacy through the ruin of the most important branch of the producers of the United Kingdom, they may look for a struggle not less desperate than that which Lord John Russell has predicted as the consequence of a constitutional return to the protective system.

But, to keep to the actual question which was before the House of Commons—the question as to the peculiar burdens imposed upon the land—let us see Lord John Russell's opinion in 1851, contrasted with his opinion in 1846. He thus speaks in reply to Mr Disraeli:—"Well, but it is said that land is burdened in a special manner, and that the owners should receive compensation. Why, I remember when a friend of mine, who is now Governor General of the Ionian Islands, year after year attempted to gain a Select Committee for the Purpose of considering what were the burdens upon the land; that those gentlemen who are the most clamorous for protection never could bear to consent, and used to come forward to beg that there might be no inquiry, and to stop all attempts at investigation; and now it appears that, without any investigation at all, we are to suppose those great and unfair burdens are placed on the land." Without any investigation at all! What reduction, then, was Lord John Russell willing to have given in 1846? Was he, an ex-Prime Minister, so entirely ignorant of our fiscal system, that he did not know what were the peculiar burdens upon land? If so, it is manifest that he had not passed his apprenticeship when he was pretending to act as a master. But, in reality, the subterfuge is as mean as it is ridiculous. Never was a promise to pay more clumsily and disgracefully eluded; and we only regret that the stamp duties are not sufficiently comprehensive to include within their reach, in a legally binding form, the promises or offers of an ex-Minister who is making a violent effort to re-establish himself, his relations and friends, in the highest offices of these kingdoms.

Absolutely, however, we care nothing for what was said in this discussion by Lord John Russell or his colleagues. They have taken their part, and they are determined to abide by it; and from their hands the agriculturists need not look for the slightest measure of relief. According to the Whig creed, each fresh importation of corn, flour, provisions, and cattle, must tend to "diminishing the difficulties, and promoting the interests of agriculture," since by those means the general prosperity of the country has been attained, and it is through that general prosperity alone that agriculture is hereafter to profit. In short, the doctrine is, that an increased consumption of foreign produce in Great Britain must materially tend to the prosperity of the British agriculturist! Truly, political economy, as thus interpreted, is a great and wonderful science!

But we have a few words to say with regard to another section of politicians, who were represented on this occasion by their present chief Sir James Graham. Notwithstanding the violent efforts which have been made to keep it together, that party has undergone, during the last twelve months, a very considerable modification. The great head and originator of it has been removed from this world, and many who were content to fight under his banner have not cared to renew their oath of allegiance to a less trusted and popular captain. Sir James Graham has some excellent qualities and accomplishments, but he is wanting in others. He is the very Reuben of politics; unstable as water, uncertain as the winds of heaven. With the fussy assistance of his prime janissary, Mr Cardwell, he has been attempting for some time back to intrench himself in a small camp, apart from the larger leaguers, and to maintain such a semblance of exact neutrality, that neither party, on the eve of joining battle, can confidently reckon on his support. It must be acknowledged that he is true to his hereditary traditions. The Grahams of "the Debateable Land," as that tract of country occupied by the clan was denominated, were, in the days of Border warfare, accounted neither Scots nor English. One day they appeared on the one side, and on the next they showed face on the other. That method, however, though it may have its conveniences, is not likely to meet with much approval at the present day. The Free-lance system has gone out of fashion; and we confess that we are not sorry to observe that Sir James Graham has at last committed himself so decidedly, that the country party must hereafter regard him in the light of a permanent foe. Do not let us be misunderstood. We acknowledge the great advantage of his services as a friend: we have not the least desire to depreciate or undervalue his abilities as a debater. But now, more than ever, it is important to know distinctly who are for us, and who against us. Sir James Graham, in so far as his own opinions are concerned, has left no doubt whatever on the matter. He has not only joined with Lord John Russell in denying the justice of any claim whatever on the part of the agricultural interest, but he has taken the bolder step of practically denying the existence of agricultural distress. We cannot attach any other meaning to that portion of his speech, in which he alludes to the state of his own tenantry, and the condition of the Scottish farmers. We shall transcribe it here, in order that our readers may fully understand the views of the right honourable baronet:—

"I pass from the handloom weavers to the farmers and landlords of Cumberland. I know none of the cases to which the honourable member alluded of my own knowledge; but he adverted to a farm which has been recently relet in Cumberland at a considerable diminution of rent. The noble marquis has spoken of his labourers. Perhaps I may here be permitted to say a few words of mine. I have already stated to you the infinite obligations I am placed under by the conduct of my tenantry, but I stand here this moment without an acre of land unlet which I wish to let. I have not for the last five years changed two tenants who pay me above £100 a-year, and I have not an arrear of £300 on my whole rental. That is the state of my county, so far as I am concerned. But I look to the estate of my neighbour, of my colleague, and of my friend, as I am proud to call him, the Duke of Buccleuch, one of the greatest proprietors in the south of Scotland, and one who differed from me as to the policy of Free Trade. He has not, in Roxburghshire and Dumfries, let land falling out of lease—and those leases are usually for nineteen years—at any diminution of rent. A case has been mentioned, again, of a farm in East Lothian; and I dare say some hon. member more conversant with the details of that property than I am will speak upon that point; but, as I am informed, the farm in question had been previously in the hands of the owner, and had never been let before the last letting—that it was never calculated to be worth more than £1800 a-year—that some speculative farmer took it at £2200—that he made an imprudent and improvident bargain—and that a remission, therefore, has taken place, reducing the rent below £1800 a-year, but not much. I have friends in East Lothian, and I have made it my business to inquire into these matters, and I am told farms let freely as they fall out of lease, without any diminution of rent whatever; and also I am informed that the value of the fee-simple, which is the real test among the shrewd and sagacious people of Scotland, has increased since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I have said I have no farms to let; but I have perceived that, since the repeal of the Corn Laws, there has been a competition for land, arising among a class of persons with whom there was formerly no desire to occupy land, while there was the uncertainty which attended the operation of these laws."

The natural inference from this is, that Ministers have been entirely deceived as to the condition of the owners and occupiers of land—that, notwithstanding the great fall of prices, agriculture is flourishing—and that the whole of the agitation which has been got up on the subject is no better than a gigantic imposture. We call this "the natural inference," because such undoubtedly would be the impression conveyed to the mind of any unprejudiced reader. It is very much to be regretted that such statements should go forth to the public on the authority of Sir James Graham. In so far as Scotland is concerned, they are calculated to lead to a conclusion directly opposite to the truth. It is always a delicate thing to allude to individual instances; but we cannot help observing, that when Sir James Graham cites the case of the Buccleuch property in "Roxburghshire and Dumfries," he does not add, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the locality, that the great bulk of these possessions consists of sheep-farms; and it is notorious that, owing to the price of wool, the sheep-farmers constitute the only agricultural class which has not suffered severely from the introduction of the Free-Trade measures. Of the Buccleuch estates in Mid-Lothian, where the land is entirely arable, Sir James Graham makes no mention. In the south-eastern districts of Scotland, the fall in the value of farms has latterly been remarkable. To this point we may have occasion to recur hereafter; for although we do not think that the letting of particular farms is to be taken as a criterion of the general condition of agriculture, still we are desirous that the public should know how the case really stands. It is quite true that, until lately, instances have occurred of farms being let without any diminution of rent; nor is this the least surprising, considering the language which was employed so late as last spring by Lord Lansdowne and other members of the Government, as well as by individuals of considerable station, influence, and intelligence, like Mr W. E. Gladstone. The whole tenor of their addresses was calculated to persuade the farmers that the depreciation of prices then existing was attributable to an excellent harvest in 1849, and not at all to foreign importation. They scouted the idea that the averages of wheat could remain permanently at or near 40s.; and they prophesied a speedy rise. It is no great marvel if these representations induced some people to offer for farms which were falling out of lease. A farmer cannot, from the nature of his profession, be idle. He must have ground whereon to place his stock, unless he chooses to sell it off; and as the value of stock had also greatly fallen in the spring of last year, few were willing to part with theirs, and so virtually to abandon their profession. But it is a gross mistake to suppose that, in the majority of cases, the reletting of a farm in East Lothian or Roxburghshire, at the same rent as formerly, is to be taken as evidence of continued agricultural prosperity. During the last nineteen years, the common period of the endurance of a lease, the land in these counties has been so much improved by a liberal expenditure of capital, that a considerable rise of rent was anticipated, and would have been obtained but for the operation of the new commercial measures. Be that as it may, we are assured by the most competent authorities, that since last harvest there has been a general disinclination on the part of farmers to offer for land, except at greatly reduced rates; and we have heard of instances in which the highest offers did not reach two-thirds of the previous rental. We are speaking just now of the best arable land in Scotland. It is commonly and currently stated, and has never yet been contradicted, that elsewhere the depreciation is at least as great. Earl Grey, perhaps, may be able to afford some rather startling instances of the decline of rents in Northumberland. In the cattle-breeding districts of the north and Argyleshire, tenants have almost entirely ceased offering for vacant farms. They consider their occupation gone; and many of the best and most prudent of them are either on their way or preparing to emigrate to America. As for the islands, they are now no better than so many districts of pauperism.

Perhaps, however, we are attaching too much importance to this statement by Sir James Graham. So far as we can see, he now stands alone, a solitary believer in agricultural prosperity, whilst every one else has admitted the distress, though differing as to the nature of the remedy, or even denying the propriety of administering a remedy at all. From what is passing in England, we should imagine that the distress among the agricultural classes there is of unexampled severity. We read in the Times of 17th February—the last number which has reached us—a curious account of the South Nottinghamshire election, which has resulted in the return of Mr Barrow. As one paragraph bears directly upon the point which we are now discussing, and as it, moreover, contains a wholesome warning to such landlords throughout the country as have chosen to stand aloof from the tenantry during this momentous struggle, we shall here extract it.

"The result astonishes everybody, even here; and that, in the most aristocratic county of England, with the landlords almost to a man banded together in support of their nominee,—a scion of one of the largest landed proprietors in the county should be defeated by a plain country gentleman, a retired solicitor, with scarcely an acre of his own in the county, appears truly marvellous. It can only be accounted for by the fact of the losses of the occupiers during the last two years rendering them indifferent as to whether they be expelled from their homesteads or not; even though Mr Barrow has for many years presided at and taken part in their farmers' clubs and other meetings, and Lord Newark has never been seen by one elector in a thousand until this contest."

Assuming this account to be true—for we have no other knowledge of the case—we rejoice that the electors of Nottinghamshire have acted so independent a part, and returned to Parliament a gentleman who has made their grievances and condition his especial study. Such men are wanted at the present time, and it is to such we look for the firm vindication of the rights of an injured tenantry. But what degree of agricultural prosperity is implied by the previous statement?

Of course it is very easy for Sir James Graham, holding such views, to descant on the impolicy of any return to protection. If no injury has been inflicted upon any one, and if all interests are prospering, there certainly can exist no conceivable motives for a change. For, not to mention the obvious difficulties which lie in the way of a reversal of the present commercial system, what chance should we have of persuading any one to join us in such a mad crusade, if there indeed exist no grievances of a weighty and intolerable character? According to Sir James Graham, the landlord is receiving the same rent as before, the tenant is equally comfortable, the labourer much more comfortable than he was under the system of protection—grant all this, and no censure, no reproach, can be severe enough to stigmatise our conduct. Unfortunately for his theory, the Knight of Netherby has to contend against something more stubborn than arguments. Before he can establish his conclusions, he will in the first place demonstrate that 38s., the present average price of the quarter of wheat, is equal to 56s., the former remunerative rate. Next, he must explain and make clear to the comprehension of the farmer, how all public and private taxes, imposts, and obligations, can be discharged by the same amount of produce as formerly, that produce having fallen upwards of thirty-five per cent in value. And lastly, rising to economics, he must show us how the home trade can be improved by the depression of the principal customer. When these points are satisfactorily disposed of, we promise to give in; for why should we prolong a contest, to our own great discomfort, for no substantial reason?

But we must now allude to a passage in the speech of Sir James Graham, far too serious to be passed over without indignant commentary. Irish iteration may of late years have somewhat blunted the nicer sensibility of the ear of the House of Commons, once painfully acute to the remotest whisper of sedition; but we certainly never expected to see the time when such language as the following, from the lips of a Privy Counsellor, should be allowed to pass without rebuke:—

"Now, I will not venture to make any prediction with respect to the price of corn in future; but this, sir, I say, that, be the price what it may, the time has arrived when it must be left to its natural level; and that for any Government or for any Legislature artificially, and by power of law, to enhance it,—I say the day is past. And why do I say so? I say there is not a ploughboy who treads the heaviest clay in England, who does not feel practically his condition improved within the last three years—and he knows the reason why. I tell you there is not a shepherd on the most distant and barren hill of Scotland, who does not now have daily a cheaper and a larger mess of porridge than he ever had before—and he also knows the reason why. I tell you, again, there is not a weaver in the humblest cottage in Lancashire who has not fuller and cheaper meals, without any fall in his wages, than he had before—and he knows the reason why. Now I must tell you the whole truth. The time has arrived when the truth fully must be spoken. There is not a soldier who returns to England from abroad, that does not practically feel that his daily pay is augmented, that he has a cheaper, larger, and a better mess, and that he enjoys greater comforts,—and he also knows the reason. Now, sir, I entreat my honourable friends who sit below me to be on their guard. You may canvass the country—you may endanger property—you may shake our institutions to the foundation, (hear, hear, from Lord John Russell, and cheers from the Government benches); but I am persuaded that there is no power in England which can permanently enhance by force of law the price of bread. Now, that is my honest and firm conviction. The peace of this country, my own possessions, are as dear to me as any honourable gentleman who sits on the benches below me; but I feel that we have arrived at the period when it is necessary to speak the truth, and I have spoken it without reservation."

It is much to be regretted that Sir James Graham did not choose to speak the truth at an earlier stage of his career. Since the clatter of the muskets of Pride's detachment of soldiery was heard in the House of Commons, no more insolent sound has jarred on the ear of that popular assembly than this suggestive harangue. We pass over the declamatory passages about the ploughboy and the shepherd without comment, as mere bombast; but Sir James Graham ought to know, and if he does not he should be made to know, that such language as he used with respect to the British army is not more offensive than it is greatly dangerous to the State. Are gentlemen of the House of Commons, acting upon their own honest convictions of what is best for the interests of the State, and deputed by constituencies to represent their feelings and opinions, to be threatened by a Privy-counsellor and Ex-minister with the attack of a PrÆtorian guard? Anything so monstrous—so unpardonable as this, it has never been our lot to comment upon. Not only the dignity of the law, but the liberty of the subject, and the prerogative of the Crown, are here passed over as matters of no account; and a presumption is directly reared—that the soldier is a political functionary, and may exercise his judgment as to what side he should adopt, or what course he should pursue, in the event of any legislative enactment whatever! Grant but that, and we are indeed on the verge of anarchy. Now, we entreat our readers and the public to weigh well the meaning of this language, considering the quarter from which it came. It is no trifling matter. Those sentences were not the rapid conceptions of an orator in the heat of debate. Their context shows that they were prepared, studied, and committed to memory, with a serious intent and purpose; and the sooner we understand their entire significance the better. This gentleman, Sir James Graham, after having assumed all the postures of the weathercock—after having looked, in the maturity of his years, all winds of political doctrine in the face—finds himself at last in the position of a Cabinet Minister, pledged to his constituents to uphold a certain line of commercial policy. The head of the Cabinet, equally, or even more, deeply pledged, wavers, turns round, belies his former profession, and carries his colleague along with him. Having carefully ascertained that a considerable number of the representatives of the people, though pledged directly or indirectly to an opposite course, are ready to obey their orders; and being thus certain of a majority, these statesmen refuse an appeal to the country, and proceed to obtain the sanction of the law for certain measures diametrically opposite to the opinions which they formerly professed. They are so far successful, that the measures are carried, but the Cabinet shortly afterwards falls, in consequence of the treachery of its members. A new Parliament is summoned, and the members of that Parliament are bound, not more by pledges than by evident considerations of the public welfare, to give a fair trial to the working of the new commercial system. The Cabinet, and the majority of the members of Parliament, believe in the excellence of that system: the minority do not. Time rolls on, and the system develops itself. No attempt is made to impede it: it is left as free as the metal is to run into the mould. But in the course of its progress it crushes and breaks down various of those interests which were always considered the most important in the British commonwealth; and a cry is heard, that to persevere is to ensure destruction. Still no attempt is made towards a retrograde movement. The experiment was asked for—demanded—let it be seen in its true colours. The cry, however, is not altogether without its effect. The majority is weakened—the minority materially increased. Beyond the walls of Parliament the ferment increases daily. The anticipations and the prophecies of the supporters of the new system prove to be not only inaccurate, but so wholly contrary to the real result that no one can venture to defend them. The small party rapidly swells into importance, because it has public opinion with it. Almost each casual election is given in its favour. And at last the leader of that minority comes forward and, without requiring a total change of system, requests that Parliament should at last take into consideration the unjust, peculiar, and unequal burden of taxation, which the most suffering interest is still compelled to bear, notwithstanding that it has been deprived of that position which alone could justify the imposition of peculiar burdens. Whereupon this quondam Minister and adviser of the Crown, avoiding the question before him, and practically denying that meed of justice which his former colleague, the head and front of the whole offending, had directly admitted to be due, stands up in his place, and warns the opposite party to desist from the course which they are pursuing; not because their case is hopeless, for he acknowledges their power and the extent of their support; but because he foresees a rebellion looming in the distance, with the soldiery arrayed against them! We say deliberately, that such language as this is eminently and grossly mischievous. It presupposes, what we certainly never expect to see in this country, the masses of the nation and the army drawn out, not against the House of Commons, or the House of Lords, or the Sovereign individually, but against all these three estates in the exercise of their undoubted functions. The Protectionists do not propose to imitate the example of Sir James Graham and his friends, by perverting the House of Commons against the will of the constituencies. Even were that in their power, they would abstain from doing so, for the nation has already suffered by far too much from the consequences of such a total abandonment of principle. The success of the country party depends solely upon the will of the constituencies. Nothing shall be done illegally—nothing deceitfully. When an appeal shall be made to the electoral body of these kingdoms, they will have it in their power to decide, whether the nation is to persevere in a system which has already proved so disastrous to many interests, or whether British industry is to be again protected to the extent, at all events, of its burdens. And if the constituencies decide in our favour, and the two other estates of the realm act in accordance with the opinion of the House of Commons, what is it that we have to fear? Not certainly the dark hints and insinuations of Sir James Graham. When the two Houses of the legislature are divided in opinion, and when neither of them will yield, or, when the Sovereign authority is broadly opposed to the declared will of the Commons, it is perfectly possible that a most serious and lamentable struggle may ensue. But so long as the three great estates act together in harmony and concord, there is no power in the land that can set their councils at defiance. Therefore, when Sir James Graham sketches his imaginary league of ploughboy, shepherd, weaver, and soldier, against the resolutions of the Imperial Parliament, he is contemplating an anomaly which never has occurred, and which never can occur in Great Britain. Why or wherefore should we accept his affectionate entreaty, and be on our guard? How are we to convulse the country—endanger property—or shake our institutions to the foundations? Are we plotting? Are we conspiring? Do we destroy the law? Are we doing anything, or do we propose to do anything, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution? And if not, why are these big words thrown at our heads? We may be quite wrong in our anticipations. The country may not accord us its support. The electors may determine that henceforward and for ever Free Trade shall remain the sole and dominant system. If so, we shall submit, as is our bounden duty. We shall rear up no phantom armies, such as are said at times to be seen skirting the hills of Cumberland, to oppose to the levies of Sir James Graham; but whilst we are acting constitutionally and openly, let us hear no more of such language, which is somewhat worse than offensive.

We observe from the report, that these passages in the speech of Sir James Graham were cheered emphatically by the Premier. Indeed, in his own address to the House, he touched upon similar topics: "I should be most grieved if I thought the great mass of the people of this country were induced, by the restoration of laws which enhance the price of food, to consider that, by imitating the example of the democracies on the Continent, they could gain any advantage which they could not now obtain, or increase the prosperity they are deriving from the ancient institutions of this country." We cannot of course presume to say that we distinctly apprehend the meaning of this complicated sentence, which we now put upon record for the benefit of future students of composition; but it sounds very like a hint of civil insurrection. Now, we take leave to say, once for all, that such hints and inuendoes are excessively indecorous and improper when emanating from any Minister of the Crown; and that Lord John Russell, in particular, considering his antecedents, is a vast deal too fond of indulging in this sort of dubious talk. His business and his duty is to inculcate respect for the laws, not to contemplate their infraction. If he entertains, as he professes to do, a deep regard for the Constitution, he should cautiously abstain from hinting that there is a power beyond the Constitution which may possibly be called in to control it. Certainly we are not inclined to submit ourselves to this sort of despotism, or to be deterred from doing our duty, and expressing our opinions, by vague threats of future consequences. There is another passage in Lord John Russell's speech which is open to peculiar animadversion. He, the champion of popular opinion, deprecates any appeal to the country on the subject of import duties, on account of the damage which might thereby arise to trade! Does the noble lord think that the great body of the British agriculturists now under the pressure of the screw, and with the prospect of ruin before them, will be deterred from prosecuting their demand for what they conceive to be their just rights, by any such considerations as these? Are the yeomanry to suffer themselves to be crushed and expatriated without a murmur, simply for the sake of putting the manufacturers to no temporary or extra inconvenience? The Premier may depend upon it that he will never save himself in an emergency by putting forward such worthless and shallow arguments. Why, if he, like Sir James Graham, recognises the great and growing power of the country party, can he shut his eyes to the fact, that that power is simply the embodiment of public opinion, without which to back him, Mr Disraeli's speeches and motions would be as innocuous as the sheet lightning of a summer's evening?

There are several other points arising out of this memorable debate, to which we intended to refer had our limits permitted. We cannot, however, avoid noticing the prosperity terms of the Royal Speech delivered at the opening of the Session.

It is a very remarkable circumstance, that the trade and manufactures of Great Britain, however much they may have been depressed at different periods of the previous year, are always marvellously resuscitated towards the opening of the Session. Thus, in December 1849, the cotton trade was, according to the confession of the Free-Trade organs, in a very bad condition. Less business than formerly had been done during the year; and even the Economist questioned "whether 'the power of purchase,' on the part of the British community, is nearly equal to what it was in 1845." In February thereafter, under the medical treatment of Ministers, all kinds of manufactures received an amazing fillip. Mr Labouchere almost wept for joy at the amazing prosperity of the shipowners, who, ungrateful villains as they were, instantly and unanimously repudiated the soft impeachment. This year there has been the same burst of sunshine precisely at the same season. Everything is couleur de rose. We were exceedingly delighted to hear it. In our ignorance we had been led to believe that the iron trade was nearly in a state of stagnation, and the cotton-mills not remarkably remunerative; but it appeared that we were wrong. However, a day or two afterwards, in turning over the Times, we lighted upon a paragraph which did not appear to us indicative of a high degree of prosperity in one important branch of manufactures. It is as follows:—

"State of Trade. Manchester, Feb. 13.—The continued decline of cotton places our spinners and manufacturers in a very awkward and critical position. The market appears to have lost all confidence, for the present, in the maintenance of prices, and heaviness and gloom are its prevailing characteristics. There has scarcely been business enough to-day to determine what rates would be acceded to; but there can be no doubt that, for any considerable order, a modification of price equal to 3d. per piece on cloth on the nominal rates, or of 4½d. to 6d. on the prices of Thursday last, would be accepted. The decline on yarn is to a proportionate extent."

Messrs Littledale's circular of 20th February is not much more cheerful in its tone. It opens thus:—"The dulness which has pervaded our different produce markets since the opening of the year still continues, but with little change in prices during the last fortnight." As regards the article of silk, we are told that—

"Since the commencement of the month, several parcels of China raw silk have changed hands at rather lower prices than in December last. The manufacturers, finding a great falling off in the sale of their goods, have shown but little disposition to purchase. This, with the announcement of the public sales which are now in progress, has caused great dulness throughout the manufacturing districts. East India and China piece-goods—the demand for which has suddenly diminished; and prices for all sorts are lower, except good and fine Corahs (which for some months past have been very scarce.) These have sold at previous rates; but all other descriptions have been unsaleable."

This is at best but April prosperity—gloom and brightness, intermingled sunshine and showers.

In a very few days we shall learn how Ministers are to meet the opposition which the absurd and incoherent financial statement of Sir Charles Wood has provoked. We have seen bad budgets before, but this is incomparably the worst that was ever devised. The obnoxious and unjust Income Tax is to be renewed, solely for the purpose of bolstering up Free Trade, and the removal of the Window Duties is to be nearly neutralised by the imposition of a house tax! The "happy family," it must be owned, have an especial talent for making themselves universally unpopular.

The result of the division on Mr Disraeli's motion cannot fail to be very cheering to those who look for the advent of better times, and more enlightened legislation. It marks the progress which has been made, even in the present Parliament, from which we had so little to expect; and it will be our own fault if the advantage is not pursued. We would earnestly recommend to the serious perusal and consideration of all, but more especially the landlords of Great Britain, the emphatic peroration of Mr Disraeli in his admirable reply:—"I hope honourable gentlemen will not be frightened by threats, from whatever quarter they may come. I hope there is still so much spirit in gentlemen of the United Kingdom, that they will not be daunted even by the mystical reference of the First Minister, or the more authoritative, more decided threats that may reach them from any other quarter. I hope honourable gentlemen, if they believe they are doing their duty by supporting this motion—and let no man support it who does not believe that he is doing his duty—will feel in future that their part is one of more activity in defending the interests of the tenantry of this country. This is mainly a farmers' question. No one has met my argument about rent, which showed the fallacy of that barbarous slang that has been too long prevalent. It is a farmers' question. Upon the farmers the pressure for years has been too severe; it is now increasing. From motives I call appreciate, and feelings of delicacy I can comprehend, the owners of the soil have not stood forward to vindicate, as they ought to have done, the interests of the tenantry. I hope that this is the commencement of a new era in that respect; and that no man, whether owner or occupier, will hereafter be ashamed or afraid of asking from an English Parliament that justice to which every English subject is entitled."

Printed by William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh.