sion than the landed interest of England. There was an increasing population; that increasing population must be employed; it could only be employed by payment of wages; wages could only be paid out of profits, and profits were dependent on demand. He held these to be the principles of every man of common sense." They certainly were the principles of common sense and common justice, and therefore Sir James Graham and his colleagues declined to act upon them. "Common sense was off and up the Cowgate," until some other day.
The fourth night's debate was commenced by Mr. Peter Borthwick (once of Dalkeith), who rather ungraciously said that he could not give his unqualified approbation of her Majesty's ministers, but generously added they were better than their predecessors. Sir C. Napier followed, and made a speech which excited much laughter, and in which he recommended the League to make a compromise with the monopolists! Mr. Cochrane attributed the distress to speculation and agitation, but admitted that a total repeal of the Corn Law would be better than the present uncertainty. Mr. Villiers made a short speech, in which he demolished some of the fallacies advanced on the other side of the house. He said, "he could not condescend to answer the cavils and attacks that had been brought against the Anti-Corn-Law League. He thought that the Anti-CornLaw League was well occupied in diffusing political truth. They were doing in their vocation what the religious societies were doing for religion; what the scientific societies were doing for agriculture. They could not put down the League but by doing justice, and with nothing short of that would it be satisfied." Lord Sandon, the representative of commercial Liverpool, "was perfectly convinced that we should sacrifice more by opening up our agriculture to & competition with every new soil than we could possibly gain by the speculative projects of those who contended. for such a course!" Mr. Muntz, with his one idea, of
