with a deficiency
of L2,900,000, and he met it by a resort to a corresponding issue of
exchequer-bills. Mr. Spring Rice intimated that he should follow the
same course, and should ask for a vote of credit to the extent of a few
hundred thousand pounds only.

MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE CORN-LAWS.

On the 15th of March Mr. Villiers moved for a committee of the whole
house to consider the act of 9 George IV. c. 60, relating to the
importation of corn. In his speech he remarked that the purpose and
principle of the corn-laws were protection to the landed interest. It
was alleged that the British farmers could not compete with the foreign
grower without protection. He considered this principle indefinite and
unjust. The motion was seconded by Sir William Molesworth, who drew a
gloomy picture of the operation of the corn-laws. Through them, he
said, there was an excess of farmers without farm, shopkeepers without
customers, lawyers without briefs, clergymen without cure of souls,
doctors without patients, sailors and soldiers without employment;
besides shoals of architects, painters, surveyors, tutors, clerks, and
others. All these classes were uneasy, and the victims of competition.
The corn-laws had further the effect of producing great immorality:
people either could not marry, or were obliged to many late in life, and
consequently there was an excess of unmarried women! Hence immorality
prevailed, and every foreigner who visited the land was shocked at the
exhibition of profligacy in the streets. Only a few members supported
the motion, which was consequently lost.

On a subsequent evening Colonel Seale proposed that foreign corn in this
country should, under certain restrictions, be permitted to be ground
while in bond, and exported, security being given for its exportation.
The object of this measure was to enable merchants trading to foreign
countries, and shipowners, to lay in their supplies in the ports of
the United Kingdom, instead of being compelled to obtain them, as at
present, from the Baltic. The Marquis of Chandos contended that this
measure would repeal the corn-laws: extensive frauds would take place,
and a great alteration ensue in the price of corn. On the other hand,
Messrs. Warburton and Poulett Thomson argued that the agricultural
interest would not suffer from it in the least degree. The latter said
that no fraud could take place, and he entered into details to show that
the preservation o