apply it not to the opening of the ports for an
exigency, but to the total abolition of the protective duties upon
grain!

Of the improvidence of the peasantry of Ireland we never entertained a
doubt. To such a scourge as this they have been yearly exposed; but how
their condition is to be benefited by the repeal of the Corn-laws, is a
matter which even Sir Robert Peel has not condescended to explain. For
it is a notorious and incontrovertible fact, that if foreign corn were
at this moment exposed at their doors duty free, they could not purchase
it. We shall give full credit to the government for its intention to
introduce the flour of Indian corn to meet, if possible, the exigency.
It was a wise and a kind thought, objectionable on no principle
whatever; and, had an Order in Council been issued to that effect, we
believe there is not one man in the country who would not have applauded
it. But why was this not done, more especially when the crisis is so
near? If the Irish famine is to begin in May, or even earlier, surely it
was not a very prudent or paternal act to mix up the question with
another, which obviously could not be settled so easily and so soon. It
is rather too much to turn now upon the agriculturists, and say--"You
see, gentlemen, what is the impending condition of Ireland. You have it
in your power to save the people from the consequences of their own
neglect. Adopt our scheme--admit Indian corn free of duty--and you will
rescue thousands from starvation." The appeal, we own, would be
irresistible, _were it made singly_. But if--mixed up as it were and
smothered with maize-flour--the English agriculturist is asked at the
same time to pass another measure which he believes to be suicidal to
his interest, and detrimental to that of the country, he may well be
excused if he pauses before taking so enthusiastic a step. Let us have
this maize by all means; feed the Irish as you best can; do it
liberally; but recollect that there is also a population in this country
to be cared for, and that we cannot in common justice be asked to
surrender a permanent interest, merely because a temporary exigency,
caused by no fault of ours, has arisen elsewhere.

Apart from this, where was the necessity for the change at the present
moment? We ask that question, not because we are opposed to change when
a proper cause has been established, but because we have been taught--it
would seem somewhat foolishly--to respect consi