TOPICS OF THE DAY.

POLITICAL NOVICIATES.

IN these days of unstable opinions, a code is much wanted for the guidance of neophytes. It appears to be the generally received doctrine that converts ought to allow a certain time to elapse be- fore they attempt to act upon their new views of things, or even i to argue openly n their favour. A political Pytha,,o.oreanism is in the ascendant, which would impose a probationary term of silence and inaction upon all disciples.

At least this seems to be the only key to the vehement pro- testations one meets with, that the present Ministers are not the men who ought to carry Corn-law Repeal. High-toned Whig moralists are indignant at the presumption of Ministers who imagine they have learned perfectly in three short months the Free-trade lesson which it took the League eight years to flog into the memories of Whig leaders before they had it by heart.' Or they are shocked at the audacity of new men laying their hand on the ark wii,hout undergoing a probationary purification. They would relegate Sir Robert Peel to the Opposition benches—or perhaps to the seclusion of Tamworth—there to meditate for live years in silence 'on the mysteries of free trade, before he ventured to expound them. They would condemn him to a purgatorial state of suspended action to purge away the stains contracted in his days of Toryism, and send him back regenerated to serve his country.

To judge by the practical applications made of their doctrine by these moralists, it must be a nicely-graduated scale by which they measure the time that ought to elapse ere converts can be allowed to act upon their new convictions. It is a sliding scale more slippery than Sir Robert's own ; for it varies not only with circumstances but with the parties to whom it is applied. Lord John Russell's penance for Protectionist heresies is as short and easy as that of the pilgrim who boiled his peas ; Sir Robert Peel's is protracted and severe as that of the brother rogue who omitted the softening process.

This jealousy of new converts—this anxiety to keep the last recruits to a sect or party in the background—is not peculiar to Whigs or to our own time. In all ages, propagandists have had a hard struggle between their anxiety to strengthen the body to which they belong by accessions of new members, and their dis- like of that diminution of individual consequence which attends every increase of numbers. The convert of yesterday is as sulky at the caresses lavished upon the convert of today, as he who has , been waiting for hours at the pit-door, when he sees a more' robust new-comer push in before him. Jealousy and vanity have quite as much to do with this depreciation of new converts as high moral feeling. This indulgence of envy under the cloak of excessive purity. was rebuked long ago in the parable of the labourers in the vine- yard. And it must be said in behalf of the malecontent labourers, the cavillers at the payment of those who came to work at the eleventh hour, that they had borne the burden and heat of the • day. This the Whigs cannot say of themselves; for, until within these few months, they were not to be found in the ranks of Corn-law Repealers any more than Peel and his colleagues. Neither did the grumblers of the vineyard propose to take from the workers for one hour their day's wages to give them to those who had done nothing or tried to hinder work. But the Whigs seem anxious to take from Peel, Graham, and Aberdeen—the labourers of the eleventh hour—the day's wage, even though it should be transferred to the Richmonds, Buckinghams, and Mileses, who, not satisfied with doing no work, would keep others idle too.

Opportunely enough, our musings on the puzzling doctrines of true repentance and saving faith in political economy are in- terrupted by the following communication of dates and names from an esteemed correspondent.

WHIG EFFORTS TO PROMOTE FREE TRADE IN CORN.

In 1813, a Committee of the House of Commons, of which Sir Henry Parnell was Chairman, resolved that a remunerating price ought to be given to the grower for the cultivation of the "cold, wet, and unproductive soils not yet brought under tillage." By way of practically applying this doctrine, Sir Henry in the House moved a senes of resolutions, recommending 95s. as the price at which pro- tection should begin with a duty of Is., the duty to rise Is. for every fall of Is. in price. In the discussions, protracted through more than one session,to which this proposal gave rise, originated the Corn-law of 1815. Sir Henry's resolutions were opposed by Lord Archibald Hamilton and Mr. Horner, left by their party in a minority of 32. February 1823, Mr. Wolryche Whitmore moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Corn-laws. Mr. Whitmore only ventured to propose a fixed duty of 12s.; but his speech reads like a prophecy.. The first man who rose to oppose the motion was Dlr. Curwen and the second Mr. Benett, both leading Whigs, and the only members of the party who joined in the debate. Among the names of the minority of 25 which supported Mr. Whitmore, we find—Sir R. Ferguson, J. Gladstone, J. C. Hobhouse,_ (not then a Whig,) W. James, Sir E. Knatchball, D. Ricardo, Captain Wemyss, J. Hume, S. Wortley, and Marmaduke Wyvill.

Daring the discussion of Mr. Charles Grant's modification of the Huskisson- Canning Bill in 1828, Mr. Hume obtained 27 votes in support of a motion for a fixed duty of 158. on corn, to decrease annually by Is. till it reached 10s.

In 1829, Mr. Home's motion for a Committee of the whole House to consider the Corn-law of 1828, with a view to substitute a fixed duty, was lost by 154 to 12; Lord Morpeth voting in the minority. Long before the Whigs came into office in 1830, there was a small party in Parliament vigorously advocating the cause of Corn-law Reform; but the Whigs as a party discountenanced their efforts. Out of Parliament, Colonel Thompson 's Corn-law Catechism—tbe rudest shock the Corn-laws ever received—had made free trade in corn the popular creed; but with that opinion the Whigs ligld

sympathy, - •

From 1830 to 1841, the Whigs were in office: let Hansard (often raked up for less useful purposes) tell what they did as Ministers for Corn-law Reform, which they had discountenanced as an Opposition. In 1831, Mr. Hunt's mo- tion for a Committee of the whole House with a view to their total repeal— seconded by Mr. James, and supported by Colonel Torrens—was rejected; Mr. Hume moving and Sir Robert Peel and Lord Althorp speaking in favour of the amendment—the previous question. In 1833, Lord Althorp, early in the session, volunteered a declaration that Ministers did not intend to take up the subject of the Corn-laws. On the 17th of May in that year, Mr. Wolryche 'Whitmore proposed the substitution of a fixed duty (to be abandoned in time of dearth) for the sliding scale. Mr. Hume moved as an amendment, a fixed duty without Mr. Whitmore's suspensive proviso in case of dearth. Lord Althorp did not think the time suited to the discussion; and, at his instance, Mr. Hume withdrawing his amendment, Mr. Whitmore's motion was rejected by 305 to 106. A subsequent motion by Mr. Fryer, to diminish the restrictions on Colonial grain, found equally little favour in the eyes of the Whig Ministers: in a thin House it was negatived by 72 to 47. In 1834, there was a considerable movement out of doors against the Corn- law. A petition against it was sent from Glasgow with 60,000 signatures; and Colonel Thompson and other friends of free trade in corn were active in different parts of the country—though Manchester still slumbered. Mr. Hume moved in the Commons for a Committee of the whole House, with a view to substitute for the sliding scale a moderate fixed duty, and an equivalent bounty on exported corn, as preparatives for free trade. The Whig birst Lord of the Admiralty spoke against the motion, and the Whig President of the Beard of Trade in sup- port of it; while the Whig leader in the House, Lord Althorp—intimating, that as he agreed in theory with Mr. Hume he could not speak against, but not being disposed, in the distressed state of agriculture, to alter the Corn-laws, he would vote against him—got the motion thrown out, by 312 to 155. In 1836, the House of Commons, at the instance of Mr. Poulett Thomson, re- fused even to inquire whether it were possible to devise regulations under which foreign corn and flour might be manufactured in bond without defrauding the revenue.

In 1837, Mr. Clay moved for a Committee of the whole House to consider the proposition of a fixed duty on imported corn: Ministers as a body took no part either way, but allowed the motion to be thrown out by 223 to 89. In 1838, Mr. Villiers's first motion for a Committee on the Corn-law was nega- tived by 300 to 95: the only Ministers who voted with him were Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Sir George Grey, and Lord Morpeth. In 1839, Lord Melbourne stated that Government bad made the Corn-law question an open one; that he believed a majority of its members were in favour of a change, but he was not prepared to pledge himself to any alteration. In the same year, with characteristic candour, he declared the proposal for the total re peal of protective duties to be "the wildest and maddest scheme that ever entered into the mind of man." In this year, however, Lord John Russell supported the metion for a Committee of the whole House to entertain the question of Corn-law repeal. In 1840, the Whigs were still inert and inactive in the cause: but Mr. Hume got a Committee on the Import-duties; in which Mr. Thornely, Dr. Bowring, and sonic other Free-traders, took an active part. In 1841, the Whig Ministers—after their popularity in the country was clean gone, (as Earl Grey reminded Lord John Russell on his late attempt at Cabinet- making,) and their doom as an Administration sealed—developed their plan of substituting a permanent fixed duty of 8.5. the quarter on wheat, instead of the Iiuskisson-Canning sliding scale.

in 1842, Sir Robert Peel altered the Huskisson-Canning Corn-law, and lowered the protecting-duties; began extensive reforms of the general Tariff; and made frequent applications of Free-trade doctrines in his speeches. In the same year, Lords Palmerston and John Russell (out of office) declared themselves friendly to a moderate fixed duty: Mr. Macaulay declared himself hostile to immediate repeaL

In 1843, Lord John Russell proposed a moderate fixed duty, with power in the Executive to suspend lain time of scarcity. In 1844, Lord Jelin Russell suggested a compromise between the Protectionists and the Total Repealers. In the autumn of 1845, from the anxious inquiries of Government respecting the harvest, the meetings of the Cabinet, and other signs, it began to be surmised that a great change of the Corn-law of 1842 was contemplated. On the 1st of November, Sir Robert Peel set himself earnestly to persuade his colleagues to open the ports immediately, and prepare for the ultimate abolition of the Corn- law; bat was opposed by the whole Cabinet, except Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. On the 22d of November, in a letter addressed to the electors of London Lord John Russell declared himself a convert to total repeal. On the 6th of December, Sir Robert Peel, having failed to overcome the resistance of his Cabinet, resigned; but frankly offered his support, out of office, to enable Lord John Russell to repeal the Corn-law and carry on the Government.

Truly, after this retrospect, it is difficult to comprehend what preferable claim the Whigs have to the honour of repealing the Corn-law. If they are to be the principal figures in the ovation for its downfal, they will remind people of the captive Prince in Timour the Tartar, who occasionally looks out from a window at the progress of the plot, but takes no part in the action till he is brought out to be made the hero of the triumphal procession.