was filled with an audience almost exclusively tenant farmers, or landlords cultivating their own land; and from the conversation held afterwards, for many of them remained to talk, it appeared that there was a pretty wide conviction that protection had been injurious, rather than beneficial, to all but the landowners; that the only protection that could be given was equitable leases, with corn rents; that under either a fixed duty, or any modification of the sliding scale, the farmer would always be liable to uncertainty, and that his safety would be in total repeal, which would enable him to make a fresh bargain with his landlord, and start upon a sure foundation. One old farmer said to me, "Sir, I came into the room determined not to believe a word you said." I told him he had made an honest confession, if he had not made a wise resolution, and asked him if he had stood fast by his determination? Yes," he said, "I did until you paused and said, Now, farmers, what are you going to do with your sons,' and 'told us about the farm being but the nest where the birds were to fly from; and then I thought of my two sons, and what I would do with them. I have been trying for two of the manufacturing years to get them situations in some towns, but nobody will have them, because trade is so bad; and I can't make them farmers, for that business is as bad as trade. When I thought on them I listened with both ears, and I think you are about right."
After all the agitation of this eventful year, and after the almost universal acknowledgment that the principle of protection was indefensible, the belief began to grow that when Parliament met again further changes would be proposed, of sufficient width to satisfy a portion of the public supposed to be ready for compromise. In reference to this expectation, in my paper of December 31st, I said:—
"The year of unsettlement has almost past; will that which approaches be productive of any measure that, so founded on justice, can be called a settlement? It depends
