agricultural produce, and the effects of the change of
system upon landed property. The result had been the
reluctant recognition of continued distress among the
agricultural classes, after attempts in past years, on the
part of the government, to represent the depression of
prices as exceptional and temporary, and to prove that
what had happened could not possibly recur. He did
not mean to build upon these results a proposition to
retrace our steps; but if all the estimates upon which
changes of system had been founded were wrong, and
all the calculations erroneous, and if a most important
class continued depressed amid the general prosperity,
it was the duty of Parliament to investigate the subject
in a charitable spirit, and to adopt the course which reason
and policy dictated. He vindicated the character and
conduct of British farmers from the stigma of sloth and want
of skill, and characterised the outcry against rent, and the
plea that this was a landlords' question, as economical
fallacies, tending to arm one agricultural class against
another. The object of his motion was not to dispute
the fact of the general prosperity of the country, or to
attack the new commercial system, but to adapt the
condition of the owners and occupiers of land to that
system. He should make no attempt to bring back the
abrogated system of protection; if that system was to be
restored, it must be done by a very preponderating
opinion out of doors. What, then, was the reason why
the cultivator of our soil could not compete with the
foreign producer? It was the amount of taxation to
which he was liable, and which had been allowed to
press unequally upon him in consequence of the
artificial state in which agriculture was formerly placed.
The great mass of our general taxation was supplied
from three sources—external imposts, inland revenue,
and local contributions. Nearly one-half of the first
was raised by not permitting the cultivators of the soil
to produce a particular crop, or loading it with a
peculiar impost; two-thirds of the inland revenue were
raised by a colossal tax upon one crop of the British
agriculturists; while of the £12,000, 000  of local
contributions, £7,000,000 was paid by them, and the whole
was levied upon a very limited class. Mr. Disraeli
entered into the details of these several burdens, urging
at much length the hardships they inflicted upon the
landed interest; and with respect to the last, referred
to the proposal he made last session for relieving the
land in the matter of local taxation—a question which
had been since much advanced. He urged, in addition,
the severity with which the tithe fell upon owner and
occupier, not merely in the commutation, but in the
incidence of the charge itself, which Mr. M'Culloch
thought justified an adequate countervailing duty upon
foreign corn. All these facts proved that the British
farmer was overweighted. But it was said that the
land enjoyed exemptions. The amount of these
exemptions Mr. Disraeli endeavoured to show was
comparatively small or illusory, and he opposed to these
exemptions the land tax. It was only by that powerful
instrument, the property and income tax, that our
present financial system was upheld, and from the returns
of that tax, it appeared that at least one-half was levied
from the owners and occupiers of land—from owners
whose rents were reduced, and from occupiers without
profits. What these classes required was only severe
justice; they did not shrink from competition, but they
asked not to be forced into it manacled. He desired no
legislation that was not consistent with the welfare of
all her Majesty's subjects, not excluding one particular
class which it was now acknowledged had been treated
with injustice.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
observed that Mr. Disraeli had brought forward no
clear or definite proposition. Sir Charles justified the
opinions he had expressed in past years respecting the
effects of the change in our commercial policy; he had
never concealed his apprehensions of the difficulties
which agriculture, like manufactures, might experience
upon the withdrawal of protection, but he thought still
that it would revive and stand upon a sounder
foundation than before. The anticipations of the advocates
of free trade had not proved more exaggerated than
the gloomy forebodings of its opponents. The distress
alleged to exist among our agriculturists was paralleled
in France, notwithstanding its large exports of corn to
this country and its importing none. The diminished
price of meat here was the result of increased production,
and cattle were produced at a cheaper rate. In
Ireland as well as England the numbers of able-bodied
paupers were rapidly diminishing. Wages, in relation
to prices, were higher than during the war. In almost
all the articles of a poor man's consumption the fall of
prices during the last ten years had greatly exceeded
the fall of wages. While the labouring classes were
thus benefited, there had been no reduction of rents
commensurate with the diminution of prices. Sir
Charles then reviewed the several burdens alleged to
fall peculiarly upon the land, and the objections which
Mr. Disraeli had offered to other remedies than his own.
Assuming that Mr. Disraeli asked to be relieved from
the Customs duty on tobacco, and the Excise duty on
malt, hops, and spirits, he asked him, how would he
provide for the public expenditure? It could only be
by re-imposing those duties which, with so much
advantage to the country, had been repealed. Sir
Charles read statements of our foreign trade, showing
an increase of our exports perfectly unexampled, and
asked whether it was possible that a legislation which
had produced such results could be wrong? No
protected interest ever lost protection without transient
suffering; agriculture had not been the only interest
protected; the others had recovered from their depression,
and now flourished beyond precedent; the
application of capital and improved processes of cultivation
would produce the same result in agriculture, and
enable the British farmer successfully to compete with
foreigners.—Mr. G. BERKELEY and Mr. SANDARS
briefly supported the motion, and the debate was
adjourned.

On Wednesday, the 12th of February, the adjourned
debate on the Papal Aggression was resumed in a thin
House.—Mr. P. HOWARD opposed the bill, as an arrogant
interference with the right of private property.—
Mr. NAPIER supported it, as not only a just and wise,
but a merciful measure.—Mr. KEOGH objected to the
operation of the measure in Ireland; and Mr. ANSTEY
contended that it ought not to be extended to that
country.—Colonel THOMPSON supported the bill; to the
surprise of Mr. HUME, who said that, up to that moment
he had regarded the gallant Colonel as one of the most
resolute and consistent friends of religious liberty.—
Lord J. RUSSELL replied to various objections made by
the opponents of the bill; and the house adjourned at
six o'clock.

On Thursday; the 13th, the debate on the Agricultural
Question was resumed by the Marquis of GRANBY, who
repeated the usual Protectionist assertions and arguments.
—Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied to them; and stated a
number of facts to show that the alleged distress among
the landlords, the. farmers, and the labourers, does not
exist; and he arrived at the conclusion, that the day
for recalling Protection, or for any attempt to enhance
the price of food, is past. "And why," he exclaimed,
"do I say so? I say there is not a ploughboy who
treads the heaviest clay in England who does not feel
practically his condition improved within the last three
years; and he knows the reason why. I tell you there
is not a shepherd on the most distant and barren hill of
Scotland who does not now have daily a cheaper and a
larger mess of porridge than he ever had before; and he
also knows the reason why. I tell you again there is
not a weaver in the humblest cottage in Lancashire who
has not fuller and cheaper meals, without any fall in his
wages, than he had before; and he knows the reason
why. Now I must tell you the whole truth: the time
has arrived when the truth fully must be spoken. I
will speak of another class still. There is not a soldier
who returns to England from abroad who does not
practically feel that his daily pay is augmented, that he
has a cheaper, larger, and a better mess, and that he
enjoys greater comforts; and he also knows the reason.
Now, sir, I entreat my honourable friends who sit below
me to be on their guard. You may convulse the country
—you may endanger property—you may shake our
institutions to the foundations—but I am satisfied
there is no power in England which can permanently
enhance, by force of law, the price of bread. Now, that
is my honest and firm conviction. The peace of this