d, (making every allowance for the exigencies
occasioned by the dearth of topics while Parliament is not sitting,)
we are exceedingly surprised, that the great London newspapers should
inflict upon their readers so much of the slang and drivel of the
gentry in question. In the due prosecution of our subject, we cannot
avoid the topic of the new corn-law, even were we so disposed; and we
shall at once proceed to our task, with two objects in view--to
vindicate the course pursued by Sir Robert Peel, and set forth,
briefly and distinctly, those truly admirable qualities of the
existing Corn-laws, which are either most imprudently misrepresented,
or artfully kept out of view, by those who are now making such
desperate efforts to overthrow it. "Mark how a plain tale shall set
them down!"

Whether foreign corn should be admitted into this country on payment
of _fluctuating_ duties, or a _fixed_ duty, or free of all duties, are
obviously questions of the highest importance, involving extensive and
complicated considerations. Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, and
the persons banded together under the name of "The Anti-corn-law
League," may be taken as representing the classes of opinion which
would respectively answer these three questions in the affirmative.
All of them appealed to the nation at large on the last general
election. The _form_ in which the question was proposed to the
country, it fell to the lot of the advocates of a fixed duty to
prescribe, and they shaped it thus in the Queen's speech:--

"It will be for you to determine whether the corn-laws do not
aggravate the natural fluctuations of supply; whether they do
not embarrass trade, derange currency, and, by their
operation, diminish the comforts and increase the privations
of the great body of the community."

To this question the country returned a deliberate and peremptory
answer in the NEGATIVE; expressing thereby its will, that the existing
system, which admits foreign corn on payment of _fluctuating_ duties,
should continue. The country thus adopted the opinions of Sir Robert
Peel, rejected those of Lord John Russell, and utterly scouted those
of the "Anti-corn-law League," in spite of all their frantic
exertions.

We believe that this deliberate decision of the nation, is that to
which it will come whenever again appealed to; and is supported by
reasons of cogency. The nation is thoroughly aware of the immense
importance of uph