reduced gradually, because he could come to a fresh arrangement with his landlord at once, instead of having to make one every year during the process of reduction; and that there would be no "sudden inundation" of foreign corn under free trade, as the additional supply would scarcely ever exceed a fourth of the whole consumption. On these grounds he advocated the total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws; and he would exhort those who had any fears as to the result to satisfy their minds as to what was strictly just in the case, and, having done so, to leave the consequences to the God of justice. Mr. John Mayson argued for repeal as a moral duty, and stated his belief that it would contribute greatly to the physical benefit and the moral advancement of the industrial classes. Mr. George Wilson denied that the agriculturists bore any burthen in which the other classes of the community did not bear their full share, and read some statements proving that the agricultural labourers were in a wretched condition notwithstanding the protection, which it was said was for their benefit. Mr. George Chappell having advocated gradual repeal for the sake of farmers, I spoke at some length in favour of its being immediate, were it only for the benefit of farmers themselves, who were deprived by the Corn Laws of any outlet for the employment of their sons. The farmer could not make a provision for his family unless he sent them out to engage in commercial pursuits, and if commerce continued in its depressed state, the farmers in England and Scotland would soon be reduced, like the same class in Ireland, to a state of destitution and beggary. Mr. Alderman Brooks said that the simple question was what was right, and that being ascertained, it should be gone for at once. Mr. Alderman Callender thought that every law should be for the benefit, not of the few but of the many and, therefore, was for the repeal of one which was selfishness personified. Mr. S. Stocks said that while there was much cry about
