"The result astonishes everybody, even here; and that, in the most aristocratic county of England, with the landlords almost to a man banded together in support of their nominee,--a scion of one of the largest landed proprietors in the county should be defeated by a plain country gentleman, a retired solicitor, with scarcely an acre of his own in the county, appears truly marvellous. _It can only be accounted for by the fact of the losses of the occupiers during the last two years rendering them indifferent as to whether they be expelled from their homesteads or not_; even though Mr Barrow has for many years presided at and taken part in their farmers' clubs and other meetings, and Lord Newark has never been seen by one elector in a thousand until this contest." Assuming this account to be true--for we have no other knowledge of the case--we rejoice that the electors of Nottinghamshire have acted so independent a part, and returned to Parliament a gentleman who has made their grievances and condition his especial study. Such men are wanted at the present time, and it is to such we look for the firm vindication of the rights of an injured tenantry. But what degree of agricultural prosperity is implied by the previous statement? Of course it is very easy for Sir James Graham, holding such views, to descant on the impolicy of any return to protection. If no injury has been inflicted upon any one, and if all interests are prospering, there certainly can exist no conceivable motives for a change. For, not to mention the obvious difficulties which lie in the way of a reversal of the present commercial system, what chance should we have of persuading any one to join us in such a mad crusade, if there indeed exist no grievances of a weighty and intolerable character? According to Sir James Graham, the landlord is receiving the same rent as before, the tenant is equally comfortable, the labourer much more comfortable than he was under the system of protection--grant all this, and no censure, no reproach, can be severe enough to stigmatise our conduct. Unfortunately for his theory, the Knight of Netherby has to contend against something more stubborn than arguments. Before he can establish his conclusions, he will in the first place demonstrate that 38s., the present average price of the quarter of wheat, is equal to 56s., the former remunerative rate. Next, he must explain and make clear to the comprehension of the farmer, how all public and private taxes, imposts, and obligations, can be discharged by the same amount of produce as formerly, that produce having fallen upwards of thirty-five per cent in value. And lastly, rising to economics, he must show us how the home trade can be improved by the depression of the principal customer. When these points are satisfactorily disposed of, we promise to give in; for why should we prolong a contest, to our own great discomfort, for no substantial reason?