before they allowed an impression to be made to their disadvantage in the minds of their fellow countrymen, by the constant repetition of the remark that it was only kept up to enable them to keep up their rents.
Sir Robert Peel, after some remarks upon Lord John Russell's intended vote, proceeded to observe that ex. perience proved that the high price of corn was not accompanied with a high rate of wages; for the rate of wages did not vary according to the price of cord. If he could believe in the predictions of Mr. Cobden, his objections to an immediate repeal of the Corn Law would be greatly alleviated; but he could not, and therefore he must proceed, in pursuance of his own policy, to reconcile the gradual approach of our legislation to sound principle on this subject with the interests which had grown up under a different state of things. He then proceeded to defend the existing Corn Law and Tariff, and to maintain that under their operation there had been a great revival of domestic industry and foreign commerce. He did not think that the existing Corn Law was liable to the objections urged against it. He did not think that the predictions of its failure had been verified, and therefore he was unwilling to accept the proposition of Mr. Villiers. He did not defend the Corn Law on the ground that it was a protection to any particular interest. He admitted that it would be impossible to maintain any law on the ground that it was intended to keep up rents; but looking to the obligations of the landlords, he thought that any such change as that which Mr. Villiers suggested, would, if suddenly produced, tell injuriously on them, and still more injuriously on the large and numerous class of the cultivators of the soil, and others connected with them.
Lord Howick called attention to the fact that not one word had been said that evening by the government in contradiction to the first two resolutions of Mr. Villiers, condemnatory of the principles and policy of the present
