[24] Poultry L5 for every L100 value; oxen and bulls, L1 each; cows, 15s.; calves, 10s.; horses, mares, foals, colts, and geldings, L1 each; sheep, 3s. each; lambs, 2s. each; swine and hogs, 5s. each—­(Stat. 5 and 6 Vict. c. 47, Table A.)

    [25] Thoughts, &c., by a Quiet Looker-on, pp. 16, 17.

Before passing from the subject of the new tariff, let us observe, that the suddenness and vastness of its changes (some of which we consider to be of questionable propriety) for a time unavoidably deranged mercantile operations; and in doing so, as necessarily produced many cases of individual dissatisfaction and distress.  Some of the persons thus situated angrily quitted the Conservative ranks for those of the Opposition; others, for a position of mortified neutrality:  but we believe that many more, notwithstanding this sharp trial of their constancy, remained true to their principles, faithful to their party, and are now rewarded by seeing things coming rapidly round again, while unvarying and complete success has attended every other branch of the policy of Ministers.  We know a good deal of the real state of opinion among the mercantile classes of the City of London; and believe we correctly represent it averse to further changes in our tariff-system, and coincident with the views expressed by Mr Baring in his address to the electors, when he deprecated “a constant change, unsettling men’s minds, baffling all combinations, destroying all calculations, paralysing trade, and continuing the stagnation from which we are recovering;” and declared his belief “that the minister who applies the principles of free-trade with the most caution, deliberation, and judgment, is the statesman who merits the confidence of the commercial world.”  We now, however, quit the subject—­interesting, indeed, and all-important—­of the tariff, with the deliberate expression of our opinion, that it is, taken as a whole, a very bold, masterly, and successful stroke of policy.  Now for the NEW CORN-LAW.

But how shall we deal with a topic with which the public has been so utterly sickened by the people calling themselves “The Anti-corn-law League?” We do not, nevertheless, despair of securing the attention of our readers to the few observations which we have to offer upon a subject which, however hackneyed, is one of paramount importance.  We are satisfied that nine out of every ten even of newspaper readers turn with disgust from the columns headed “Anti-corn-law League,” “Doings of the League,” “Great Meeting of the Anti-corn-law League,” and so forth; and, (making every allowance for the exigencies occasioned by the dearth of topics while Parliament is not sitting,) we are exceedingly surprised, that the great London newspapers should inflict upon their readers so much of the slang and drivel of the gentry in question.  In the due prosecution of our subject, we cannot avoid the topic of the new corn-law, even were we so disposed; and we shall at once proceed to our task, with two objects in view—­to vindicate the course pursued by Sir Robert Peel, and set forth, briefly and distinctly, those truly admirable qualities of the existing Corn-laws, which are either most imprudently misrepresented, or artfully kept out of view, by those who are now making such desperate efforts to overthrow it.  “Mark how a plain tale shall set them down!”