The new Corn Bill proceeded as satisfactorily through the Commons as its framers could wish, the amendments proposed by the ultra "farmers' friends," on the one hand, and by the half-repealers on the other, being very summarily, and sometimes with "much laughter," disposed of. On the 25th of February, Mr. Christopher's motion, that when wheat was at 50s. the duty should be 25s. had only 104 votes. On the 28th, Mr. Wodehouse made an unsuccessful effort for an increase of the protection to barley; and the same result followed Mr. Redington's proposal to give better protection to the growers of oats and Lord Sandon's to give greater encouragement to British millers. On the 1st of March, Mr. Buller's motion, that when wheat was at and above 64s. there should be a duty of 6s., and Mr. Hastie's, that the scale of duties should be reduced one shilling annually, were also negatived. On the 9th, Lord Ebringtpn, after contending for a fixed duty, moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The second reading was carried by a majority of 284 against 176.
The third reading of the new Corn Bill was not moved until the 7th of April, in order that it and its twin measure, the new Income Tax, should march hand-in-hand. On that evening, Mr. Cobden made a motion, of which he had given notice: "That, inasmuch as this house has repeatedly declared, by its votes, and through reports of committees, that it is beyond the power of Parliament to regulate the wages of labour in this country, it is inexpedient and unjust to pass a law to regulate, with a view to raise, unnaturally, the price of food." He supported his motion with powerful argument, but none was elicited in reply. Sir Robert Peel said he had listened to the speech with great attention, but did not deem it necessary further to discuss the question; and he added, that the
