it; that, of the whole population, there were ten millions that did not consume wheaten bread, while six millions "rejoiced in potatoes;" that farmers had no benefit from the monopoly, and that so far from there being peculiar burthens upon land, there were some shameful exemptions in its favour. Mr. V. Stuart seconded the motion. And then Mr. Gladstone rose, as able as any man in the house to give an argument for the monopoly, if any was to be found. It is curious now to refer back to what was then said by such a man. The Corn Law, he said, was not to be repealed, because on former motions Mr. Villiers had only some 90 votes; further change would be a breach of faith on the part of the government and the house, and, after the act of the previous year, a proof of the grossest imbecility; that act ought to have a fair trial; prices were lower than they were in 1835; repeal would throw the agricultural labourers out of employment; it would introduce more corn, he admitted, but if it were paid for in bullion, it would very seriously injure the currency; and that the revenue of the country would suffer severely! Mr. Trelawney did not think the repeal of the Corn Law would be a panacea for all evils; but he believed its effect was to undermine the best interests of the country. Mr. Christopher opposed the motion, because duties had already been lowered. Mr. Roebuck said he agreed with neither side of the house; but he did good service to the cause of free trade by some good argument. As to the draining of bullion from the country, he reminded Mr. Gladstone that bullion itself could be paid for only by manufactures. The house then adjourned.
Mr. Miles resumed the debate on the following night. Forgetting the formal and often repeated resolutions, disclaiming all protection to manufactures, made at the meetings of the League, he said he could give that body more credit for sincerity if it called not only for the repeal of the Corn Law, but of all import duties. Mr. G. Ward
