idably, arise out of the spirit of speculation. Let but this
additional element of confusion--the distress of the agricultural
classes, _and all that depend upon them_--be thrown into the already
wavering scale, and who can pretend to estimate the amount of ruin which
a week may produce? The paradise of free-trade in corn may indeed be
obtained, but it will be reached through the purgatory of a general
bankruptcy.

But is free-trade to be confined to corn? Are the agriculturists alone
to be deprived of protection, the manufacturing interests retaining the
advantage of those protecting duties which exclude the competition of
foreign markets? That is plainly impracticable. The silk, the wool, the
iron, the manufactures of the Continent--the "main articles of _food and
clothing_," according to Lord John Russell's letter--are also to be
admitted into our markets at rates with which native industry cannot
contend. Is this likely to raise wages, or to keep them as they are?
Will it better the condition of the working classes? Or is the condition
even of the higher classes in the mercantile circles to be made more
comfortable by that immediate increase of the income-tax, which must be
imposed, to balance the loss of revenue arising from the deficiency of
our customs, if national faith is to be preserved, or the government of
the country conducted. In every view of the case, and to every interest
in the state, we believe that absolute free-trade, such as appears to be
contemplated by the late leader of the Whigs, would be fraught with
ruin. The letting loose of such a storm upon the State, _with the hand
of Lord John Russell to hold the helm_, is a contingency from which we
believe the very boldest will draw back.

But we feel no apprehension of such a result. There is now no democracy
to be fooled into a new excitement in favour of a Whig ministry, or to
be cheated by a cry of cheap bread, counteracted as it must be by the
contemplation of lower wages, and an increased competition in the
labour-market. The middle classes, again, and all who have any thing to
lose, are too wise to hazard the prosperity of the last four years, by
supporting the men to whose ejection from office that prosperity is
attributable.

We should, at the same time, act with a want of candour and frankness
towards our agricultural friends, if we did not direct their attention
to another aspect of the case. If it be true, contrary to our own hopes
and c