would be ready to support or originate any motion for the re consideration of the Corn Law, but could not vote for the present motion. Mr. Danby repeated the old assertion that free trade would throw land out of cultivation. And so the third night's debate terminated.
The fourth night's debate was opened by Mr. Joseph Brotherton, who, after some correction of misrepresentations of what he had said on former occasions as to the effect of a fixed duty, went into the general question. He respected the rights of property, but some consideration was due to the rights of industry: the commercial community contributed more than one-half of the Income Tax and other taxes; and the prosperity of the community was to be mainly measured by the degree of comfort in which the middle and labouring classes could indulge. Mr. Hampden said that free-trade without reciprocity would be at once a solecism and a delusion; and no greater error in legislation could be committed, than to regulate the affairs of a highly artificial state of society, by an unbending adherence to abstract principles. Mr. James was opposed to the Corn Law, but was not prepared to support its total and immediate repeal, being disposed rather to advocate & moderate fixed duty. He should, therefore, abstain altogether from voting on the motion, Captain Thomas Gladstone admitted that the Corn Law raised the price of food, but he denied that it was the cause of those fluctuations which were attributed to it. There were peculiar burdens on the landed interest, under which they could not stand a free competition in corn; and on this, and other grounds, he opposed the motion. Mr. Aldam did not undervalue treaties of commerce; but foreign nations, is in the case of France and Portugal, were jealous of us. and fearful that we wished to cheat them. But if we opened our ports, and let them enjoy the advantages of our trade, we should speedily cure them of their reluctance to reciprocate. Mr. Benet said that the first effect of the
