repeal of the Corn Law would be to hand over the estates of the landowners to their monied creditors, the holders of ancient mortgages: Mr. Hume said we had been enabled to maintain our extravagance so long as we possessed a monopoly in the market of the world for the sale of our manufactures. But we could not retain it any longer; and we must prepare to return to a natural state, by reducing our prices to a level with those of other countries. This we could only attain by free-trade in everything, only raising what was requisite for the revenue. Protection to any one class whatever was robbery; and every man who upheld monopoly was & patron of robbery. Sir John Tyrrell said that the reduction of protection which had taken place, by the recent measures of the government, instead of benefiting the revenue, as the advocates of total repeal contended would be the result of their favourite policy, had rather injured it. Mr. Henry Berkeley supported the motion, Sir Walter James, considering himself in the same boat with the landowners, thought, nevertheless, that the time was now come when all the middle and upper classes must take a step in advance to save the labouring class. Lord Worsley said that the agricultural interest had made large sacrifices to place the present government in office, and they were entitled to a specific declaration, whether or not, after the brief trial of one year, they were dissatisfied with the Corn Law.
Hitherto the debate had produced nothing new in defence of the Corn Law. There was the old often-refuted argument, and the old often contradicted assertion. The old dog had not even a new doublet. Would Peel make anything better of the defence? If not better, would he introduce any novelty into the threadbare discussion? Here is an abstract of his speech:—
