that nothing would stay that competition more than greater facilities being afforded for the introduction of our goods.

I am glad to see that my Hon. Friend the Member for Leeds has a notice of a Motion this evening on the subject: the time is now at hand when the countries, united in the Zollverein, are about to agree upon the terms on which they wish to rest their commercial relations with other countries in future; and I believe that it will just depend upon what we are disposed to agree to in the matter of corn and timber, whether we shall be excluded still farther than we are at present from their markets.

Bearing in mind, therefore, the great importance that belongs to this question, the vast issues that it involves for the productive classes of every kind in this country, and having shown, as I consider, that those who seek to continue the Timber Monopoly have no public or national ground on which to rest their claim, I hope that the House will consent to the Motion, which I now propose to it: That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the duties now levied on foreign and colonial timber.

V.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 1, 1840.

The financial state of the country in 1840 was very serious whilst expenditure was increasing, the deficiency of revenue was no less than a million and a half. Depression in trade continued without a prospect of improvement; and the sufferings of the people were so heart-rending, that the members of a deputation which waited on Lord John Russell to seek relief for them in the Repeal of the Corn Laws, utterly broke down in attempting to detail them. It was under these circumstances that Mr. Villiers, seconded by Sir George Strickland, brought forward his third Annual Motion on Wednesday, April 1. After two adjournments, the debate-in which the Earl of Darlington, Mr. Labouchere, Lord Morpeth, and Sir Robert Peel amongst others had taken part-came to an end on the Friday following. Between one and two o'clock in the morning, after many of those who would have voted with Mr. Villiers had gone away in the belief that the House would not be divided, Mr. Warburton moved the adjournment of the debate until the following Monday. This Motion was, however, pressed to a division and lost by a majority of 116, the Noes being 245 and the Ayes 129. Mr. Warburton, to avoid a division on the main question, then moved the adjournment of the House, and this being agreed to the original Motion became a dropped Order.

IN rising to propose the Motion of which I have given notice, I beg to apologize to the House for its postponement till this evening. I assure the House that the delay proceeded from a cause that I could not control it arose from indisposition. An excuse that I could, indeed, offer with great force this evening, and one that together with several other considerations present to my mind makes me regret more than ever that it is still in my hands to bring this question before the House; but having learnt that many persons expected it to be discussed this

week, I determined that, if possible, no other delay should occur on my account.

The question is now assuming a very serious aspect in the country. It is arousing the interest and engaging the attention of the great mass of the community; and, whatever the House may think, questions of this character, affecting as they do the commerce, the employment, and the condition of the people, excite among them an interest far exceeding any other. I wish, therefore, that the present Motion were in the hands of those who could do more justice to it than myself; and still more that it were in the hands of those who have the power to do justice to the people.

I hoped, moreover, that ere now the landed proprietary of this country, in consideration of the deep distress that pervades and bears down the productive classes of our community, would have given some sign of an intention to relax the rigours of their Laws; and that what has hitherto been denied to the claims of justice would have been granted on the grounds of mercy. But three months have passed away since Parliament assembled, and not a whisper of such an intention has been heard. On the contrary, the same querulous note has been sounded in another place about agitation, and the same haughty and ill-placed observations respecting its object have been uttered; while in this House we have seen the usual efforts made to produce some proof of opinion in favour of the Corn Laws, which reveal with tedious sameness the influence

commonly used by landowners over their dependents, and their determination to maintain the Corn Laws unchanged.

However, as I mooted this matter before in this House, some confidence is placed in me that I will not suffer it to slumber. I cannot, therefore, allow more time to elapse without asking the majority of the House to reconsider the decision they gave on it last Session, and seriously to review the grounds on which they rested their decision. These grounds I apprehend to have been that the Corn Laws work well; that they have satisfied the purpose for which they were enacted; and that they ought to be maintained.

It was a bold thing to pronounce such a conclusion last Session; but it will, I think, require more courage to repeat it. And therefore I shall re-state some of those facts and arguments that led me to the conviction that the Laws are bad; that they have worked ill; that they have caused and are still causing great loss and suffering to the productive classes; and that they now cast upon the community a fearful addition to those burdens that it is at all times compelled to endure. Were I to state further what it is that prompts me to press this matter again on the House, I should say that it is because of my conviction that not a day has passed since the last discussion on the Corn Laws on which, either from personal suffering or greater intelligence, fresh converts have not been made to the repeal of these Laws; while, at the same time, I do not believe that

I

one human being could be produced who, having been either indifferent or opposed to the Corn Laws before, has since become a convert to their continuance. regret the importance that I must attach to this circumstance. But it will greatly outweigh any argument that I could adduce on the subject; for I cannot persuade myself that unless there were a general impression in both Houses of Parliament that either great ignorance or general indifference prevails among the people on the question, those who take a prominent part in these discussions would utter the things that we hear said about it. Not only do we hear that the Corn Laws are a necessary evil, but also that they are a positive advantage; and thus the advocates of Repeal have it cast upon them to prove once more that an abundance of the essential of life, which gives further means of satisfying the wants of life, is better than the dearness and scarcity that deteriorate the condition of the mass of the people.

Still, if the task has to be performed again, the present moment is perhaps favourable for the purpose; for it is difficult to believe that those who argued against the Corn Laws last year would have made the statements they did make could they have known how quickly events would follow that would completely refute them; and it is scarcely credible that their decision would have been what it was had they foreseen the sad advantage that the distress in the country gives us this year.

Nevertheless I am not going to deny that there