his annual motion
against the corn-laws on the 25th of June. He moved:--"That it appears
by a recent census, that the people of this country are rapidly
increasing in number. That it is in evidence before this house that a
large proportion of her majesty's subjects are insufficiently provided
for with the first necessaries of life. That, nevertheless, a corn-law
is in force, which restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its
abundance. That any such restriction, having for its object to impede
the free purchase of an article upon which depends the subsistence of
the community is indefensible in principle, injurious in operation, and
ought to be abolished. That it is therefore expedient that the act 5 &
6 Vic. c. 14, shall be repealed forthwith." The debate on this motion
occupied two evenings. Mr. Villiers supported it on the same ground
which had been traversed by former argument on the same subject. By the
facts and arguments which he adduced, he contended that he established
these positions:--"That the supply of food had been deficient; that
great inconvenience had resulted; and that the protective system had
led to the cultivation of the land in a most slovenly manner." Mr.
Gladstone, on the part of government, announced his intention of calling
upon the house to give a direct negative to the original resolutions.
Lord John Russell said that the motion placed him in a difficult
position: he could not vote for the total and immediate repeal of
the protective duty, neither could he assent to maintain the existing
corn-law. Sir Robert Peel, who spoke towards the close of the debate,
said that the performance of the evening had been for the benefit of the
company which usually performed at Covent Garden Theatre. Mr. Villiers,
in closing the debate, said, that there was nothing for him to reply to,
since no one had controverted his arguments. The speech which Sir Robert
Peel had delivered would please the agriculturists; but he had made
the same sort of speech for them in 1839, and had thrown them overboard
afterwards, because the state of the season and the distress of the
people had made it indispensable to give some relief to the country.
He predicted that the same thing would happen again. The motion was
rejected by a majority of three hundred and twenty-eight against one
hundred and twenty-four.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

At this time, in consequence of the great abundance of capital in tire
market, th