causes during a time of scarcity. He had been told that the crop of this year had already sustained considerable injury; but, be that as it might, it was at any rate a backward crop, and a backward crop always subjected the country to great risk. The object of those who advocated the present Corn Laws was to make the country indepen. dent of any supply of foreign corn. But had they considered, supposing that our crop failed in the ensuing autumn, where the requisite supply was to be got? Europe was completely drained of corn. There was no chance of obtaining it in the Mediterranean. In the northern parts of Russia a famine was prevailing at present. In Odessa, perhaps, you might procure a million of quarters; but no one dared to send out an order for corn, either to Odessa or to our more legitimate market, the United States, at present, because nobody could say what the effect of the duties would be before the corn ordered from those markets arrived in the harbours of England. It was, therefore, possible that we might have such a price of corn next autumn as we had not had for many years. Mr. Mitchell then proceedod to explain the reasons which had converted him from a partisan of a moderate fixed duty into an advocate of the total repeal of the Corn Laws. He recommended the house to legislate upon this subject at present, whom it could legislate calmly, and not to wait for a time of destitution and distroess, when it would have to yield the repeal of these laws to clamour and intimidation.
Mr. Buck made a stout agricultural speech in favour of the existing Corn Laws, and deprecated the constant but ineffectual attempts of Mr. Villiers and his friends to repeal them.
Mr, Mark Phillips supported the motion, and exhorted the house to come to a speedy solution of this question, which was at present keeping all the great interests of the country in suspense.
Sir James Graham said, that notwithstanding the sheers
