Now, we beg the reader distinctly to mark the character of these several admissions made by Sir Robert Peel and by Lord John Russell. They were made five years ago--are quite unequivocal--and demonstrate the opinion of both, that, _in justice_, no alteration should be made in the laws which regulated the admission of foreign grain, without granting to the occupiers of the soil a relief from their peculiar burdens. This is a matter which it is very necessary to keep in view, inasmuch as we cannot compliment Lord John Russell on his general ethical perceptions. He has an odd way of addressing the whole agricultural body as if they were liable for the consequences of the rejection or acceptance of certain proposals, which, in office or out of it, he thought proper to make to certain members of Parliament--a mode of dealing which, in our humble mind, is more suitable to a sharp attorney than to a wise and enlightened statesman. What followed is well known to every one. The Free-Trade measures proposed by Sir Robert Peel were carried, and Lord John Russell succeeded him in office; still, however, not one word was heard about the promised relief to the agriculturists. It is quite true that there was no explicit bargain, but justice is independent of bargains. Both Ministers had expressed their opinion that, in the event of the repeal of the Corn Laws, it was not only reasonable, but JUST, that the agriculturists should be relieved from certain burdens peculiar to them alone; and yet neither of them took one step in the direction of justice. At that time it was notorious that neither of them contemplated the disastrous effects of their measures upon the landed interest. They imagined--foolishly enough, it is true, but in accordance with the false data on which they proceeded--that very limited supplies of grain would be thrown into this country, and that consequently prices could not be affected to any large degree. We cannot read the different speeches of Sir Robert Peel, guarded as they were, without concluding that he never contemplated a permanent fall in the price of wheat below 50s. per quarter, if he even expected it to drop so low; and yet, these being his calculations, he admitted that it was not just to expose the agricultural body to that contingency, without giving them a measure of relief. We all know what has occurred. An average of 40s. is now considered a high price in England, as markets go; and in Scotland we are settling down to 36s.; yet still the preliminary measure of justice, which, according to both Ministers, ought to have accompanied the repeal of the Corn Laws, is withheld. With a surplus in their hands, Ministers refrain from applying it to the discharge of the just debt and when the debt is claimed--as it was the other day by Mr Disraeli, in terms not less distinct than forcible--they give it the go-by, and commence declaiming on the impolicy of a return to protection--a point which was not before them!