to recover lost advantages-and to restore a state of things that has passed away for ever! They fret, and fume, struggle and strive now exultant-now despairing-but the decree of doom has gone forth, and the painful certainty becomes more mournfully manifest, that prosperity forfeited by abuse, cannot possibly be retrieved by means of violent resumption. These remarks have been forced from us by contemplating the course of agitation now vehemently pursued by the party named, or rather nicknamed protectionists in England and Ireland-for Scotland, to the credit of her quiet good sense, be it affirmed, has little or nothing to do with the existing hubbub.

There is so much vain talking, and such an infinite quantity of vague scribbling on this said subject of protection, that we think we shall render some good service to our readers, by offering them a clear, intelligible synopsis of the question so hotly disputed. Even the bustling babblers of the protectionist school may derive some benefit from having the hopelessness of their case set honestly before them—for surely, when men are fighting for fallacies, and beating the air, it is not an unfriendly part to dissipate their delusion.

It is to the representative system of Great Britain that we must seek for the true origin of what is styled Protection-for was not the vast variety of direct and incidental privileges of possession or exemption afforded to divers sections of society, sanctioned by innumerable acts of Parliament? From the freedom of our institutions, it became not only a boast, but a sordid benefit, that every class of the community sent to the Legislature special advocates of their interests and expounders of their views-and the very tenure of seats in the House of Commons was insensibly connected with the peculiar gain of selfish constituencies. The mercantile bodies of the greatest commercial country in the world— every trading pursuit-every branch of manufacture-every learned profession-every open municipality or close corporation -every town or rural region, had, in short, their respective delegates in the Senate, who strenuously contended for partial, exclusive interests, instead of conjunctly labouring to promote the integral interests of the empire. This is the true solution of the mystery of Protection-which was, in truth, the creature of unjust legislation. Flaming in the van of these mischievously cherished interests was the banner of Corn Law Protection-a monstrous

monopoly conceded to the powerful proprietors of the soil, at the expense of every other interest in the community-for, however men may contrive to forego their other wants-bread is a universally craved aliment, that cannot be dispensed with. By the churlish operations of the corn laws, the population of Great Britain was robbed of all the advantages of foreign supply, and nothing short of famine at home could abate the rigour of interdicted importation. Of course the vicissitude of annual production, or the competition among necessitous sellers occasioned variations in the price of grain; but of all years it might be fairly alleged that the British consumers were paying prices for the staple article of food, which in effect were frauds upon the whole community; and the certain, though frequently unremarked results of injustice stigmatized this vile system in the plainest manner. Of all the classes comprised in what is called the "agricul tural interest," the class of agricultural labourers, the actual tillers, and food-producers of the soil formed by far the most numerous portion. Was their condition improved by the corn laws? Did they prosper increasingly, or even maintain the measure of their former comfort and competence? Quite the contrary. From the year 1815-the era of prodigal protection to the proprietors of land-the welfare of their dependent labourers visibly declined. While rents were exorbitantly raised, wages were distressingly depressed, and the chief agricultural districts of England shewed, and still shew, that where the rich are monopolists, the poor become paupers. Nor did agriculture itself thrive under the influence of these monstrous, exclusive encouragements. Take cultivation in the mass, and it will be found that farming improvements are lowest on the scale of advancement in all that relates to national progress. Indeed the slovenly, thriftless tillage prevailing in many parts of England, would hardly be credited by some expert Scotch cultivators. Who then, it may be fitly enquired, were the parties really enriched by the operation of the Corn Laws? To which question we would unhesitating reply, that no class from the peer to the peasant was ever solidly and permanently benefited by the prohibitory duties on foreign corn. The proprie tors of the soil became enfeoffed with the power of raising their rents, but the luxury of the rich rose still higher than their resources; and even monopoly can be rendered poor by profuseness! The British aristocracy is not really wealthy, it is sustained by

conventional credit more than by undoubted property; and the extravagant expenditure of fashionable life begets not only embarrassments but expedients which sap the foundations of all independence. If untoward events were to assail the coroneted possessors of land, how many haughty houses would swerve from their perpendicular, and perhaps fall as lowly in the dust as the prostrate Duke of Buckingham!

After thirty years' enjoyment of exclusive rights and profitless privileges, the time at length arrived when the proprietors of the soil were to be stripped of their ungainful spoils. A crusade against agricultural monopoly was eagerly engaged in by the partisans of manufacturing monopoly, and with the aid of a Prime Minister pledged to uphold protection, the whole system of artificial enhancement, by which landed property was unjustly propped, fell prone to mother earth. The land must from henceforth protect itself by the skill, prudence, and frugal industry of its cultivators—and by the honourable liberality, instead of the shameful lavishness of its titled or untitled owners. Labour must have its honest recompence, instead of being robbed of its reward to enable farmers to pay extravagant rents—and here we come to the secret of the present protectionist agitation. The farmers of England find that the prices of agricultural produce are lower than even their fears foreboded-but that rents remain inflexibly the same as high as in the olden time. Here then is the poor farmer's perplexity, which lays him open to the tricks of jobbing agitators. Reduction of rent, puzzled Hodge cannot ask for-because he is sure to be supplanted by some competitor for landwho will promise to pay what Hodge cannot pay without a prospect of pauperism. Proprietors of the old orthodox stamp will not listen to the heresy of reduced rents-for diminished revenue must imply either retrenchment or insolvency—and no such vulgar alternative can be daringly whispered to ears polite! Such being the state of things, Mr D'Israeli, or some other political protectionist and amateur agriculturist, gets up a meeting of farmers half-fuddled after a market dinner-and speechifying begins in the most approved fashion of popular fraud and deception. The grand point is to relieve the poor farmers groaning under the intolerable burden of high rents-but as high rents are a consecrated part of conservatism-and are deemed the Palladium of the State

H

-relief must be sought in every direction, save in the landlord quarter-the stronghold of exorbitant unyielding rents! D'Israeli, the talking as well as writing romancer, consumes three mortal hours in prattling upon every topic under the sun, except the one, practical, common-sense theme of a rational reduction of rentsand the bewildered clod-hoppers of England are almost led to believe that one of D'Israeli's protectionist speeches, price five pence in the Times-will secure a receipt for rent on the next audit day -instead of the usual fob of dirty bank notes, or current coin of the realm!

But it is full time that these follies should have an end. The poor gulled and gullible farmers must be told the stern, funereal fact, that protection is dead and buried, and that no factious clamour-no oratorical sorcery, can evoke even the phantom of the sinful sleeper! Whatsoever changes may be in reserve for Great Britain-trying and terrible as may prove her future ordeal of reform or even revolution- -one thing is certain, no ministry or legislature will have the hardihood or the power to revive the corn-laws, however declaimers may spout, or farmers may stare. High rents must come down in merry England, as well as in bonny Scotland, and every evasion of this equitable necessity will only serve to sink proprietors and farmers in a common gulf of irretrievable ruin.

PLAIN TRUTHS REGARDING PROTECTION :-ESPECIALLY ADDRESSED TO OUR AGRICULTURAL FRIENDS.

In some brief notices which recently appeared in this journal, we emphatically expressed our conviction that all attempts to restore the system of so-called protection were quite futile, and would eventually prove abortive-and to these conclusions we unalterably adhere. As honest journalists we desire to soar above the suspicion of pandering to any popular delusion, and therefore we frankly told our readers, what we now as unreservedly repeat, that let bustling agitators declaim as they may, it is a clear, stern certainty, that the protective principle of the corn laws cannot be revived. But while we firmly hold, and conscientiously press this persuasion upon our readers, it must not be imagined that we are insensible to the distress which palpably prevails throughout

the important range of agricultural interests. We are sure that great privation and perplexity are experienced by very many industrious farmers; and for this, among other reasons, we wish to save them from the additional difficulties into which they will inevitably be drawn, if they give heed to the beguiling statements unscrupulously put forward by ignorant and impudent deceivers. To seduce the hard-working classes from their proper pursuits, and to plunge them in a vortex of political turbulence, is the main, though concealed drift of all scheming agitators, who hope to derive gain, of some sort or other, from the credulity of perturbed multitudes. Now with the view of weakening the influence of all such mischievous demagogues, we propose to lay before our readers some sound and cogent considerations, which we trust will have due weight with minds open to truthful thought, and which, if cordially received, may prove peculiarly serviceable to our farming friends.

The present agitation on the subject of protection may be chiefly ascribed to two individuals, who, in point of professed opinions, (for principles are altogether out of the question) are in total antagonism to each other, but who, nevertheless, being members of the same family of faction, cleverly combine to create and augment confusion. Mr D'Israeli is a literary politician-smart of pen and voluble of speech-and possessing a strange nondescript sort of mind, filling an intellectual space between the Jew and the Gentile. His position in the Senate is not one of dignity, importance, or influence, but he commands attention by his biting sarcasms-by his elaborate prose epigrams-and lastly, by the penury of high talent and genuine eloquence which vapidly characterises the reformed House of Commons. Mawkish mediocrity is stamped upon all they say, or do, or fail to perform. A party styling itself protectionist being sadly in want of a head, Mr D'Israeli sticks himself between the vacant shoulders, and assumes the action usually appertaining to that part of the body which contains the brain; but, strange to say, the members give no sign of acknowledgement, as to the supremacy of this obtrusive head, so that poor D'Israeli's primary function, as to parliamentary exercise and eminence, is very much of a sinecure. To make amends for this lack of real leadership in the House of Commons, Mr D'Israeli has of late betaken himself to meetings of distressed and discontented agriculturists, where, according to agreement,