ice is at 55s. or 56s., the price at
which the right honourable gentleman said it would please him to see it,
nobody can tell why, there would then be a prohibitory duty upon
foreign corn." Lord John Russell concluded by moving his amendment. The
amendment was opposed by Mr. E. Gladstone, who thought that some of Lord
John Russell's opinions ought to have led him to support the government.
The debate which followed lasted three nights, and the principal
speakers were, on the ministerial side, Lord Sandon, Sir J. Graham and
E. Knatchbull, and Messrs. Childers, Ormsby Gore, and B. Ferrand; and in
favour of the amendment, Lord Worsley, and Messrs. C Wood, Labouchere,
Ward, E. Buller, and Roebuck. The greater part of the speeches delivered
consisted of recapitulations and reproductions of the reasonings and
statements used by the leaders of either party. On a division the
amendment was rejected by a majority of three hundred and forty-nine
against two hundred and twenty-six. The house having thus pronounced in
favour of the principle of a sliding-scale of corn-duties, it might have
seemed illogical and superfluous afterwards to discuss a proposition
of which the affirmative had been involved in the preceding decision;
namely, whether corn should be subjected to any duties at all. Nothing
daunted, however, Mr. Villiers brought forward his intended motion to
that effect; a motion which, after five nights' debate, was rejected by
a majority of three hundred and ninety-three against three hundred and
three. Subsequently Mr. Christopher brought forward his scale of duties
as a substitute for those of Sir Robert Peel; but the original
proposition was carried by an equally overwhelming majority. In
committee various amendments were proposed, but they were all rejected
or withdrawn, and the bill was, on the 5th of April, read a third time,
and passed.

The second reading of the corn-law bill was moved in the house of lords,
on the 18th of April, by the Earl of Ripon. Lord Brougham rose and
moved the total and absolute repeal of the duty on foreign corn; but
his amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority. On the following
day, on the motion to go into committee, Viscount Melbourne moved,
"That it is the opinion of this house that a fixed duty upon the
importation of foreign corn and flour would be more advantageous to
trade and more conducive to the general welfare of all classes of the
people than a graduated duty, varying