of a protecting duty; and he therefore agreed with Mr. Mitchell, that if we got rid of the present Corn Law, we had better assent to a total repeal. He thought that the probable quantity of corn received with open ports was greatly under-rated, and argued that it would displace oneeighth of the produce of Ireland, and in England the clay land, which was most costly in cultivation, and throw agricultural labourers out of employment.
Mr. Bright said, that, from recent discussions both in that House and elsewhere, he could form but one conclusion as to the probability of the maintenance of protection. The right honourable baronet appeared, during the delivery of his speech, to have been endeavouring to say one thing at one part of it, and to unsay it at another part; so that it would have been impossible for any member of that House, if he were not acquainted with the right honourable baronet's opinions from former speeches and previous passages in his life, to ascertain to what side of the question he was most inclined to lean. He said that the change in the Corn Laws ought to be gradual and easy—that they ought gradually to diminish protection, and advance towards free trade, by bringing corn into a nearer relation with other articles which the government had already interfered with; and then he had proceeded to show that, if there were any further alterations made, it ought to be an entire repeal of the Corp Laws. He demonstrated that there existed no arguments in favour of a fixed duty; so that, having repudiated a fixed duty, and demonstrated that the next change in the Corn Laws should be repeal, he then fell back upon the fallacies of some of the supporters of the government in that House (with which fallacies the right honourable baronet notoriously did not agree); and he went on to speak as if he really thought that the statement of placing this country in dependance on foreigners for corn ought to have any weight in the discussions on this question. He encouraged
