help in the cause. The fable tells us that when the lion got caught in a net, he did not get out by roaring, and he could not get out by himself. It was the smallest animal in the forest that released him. By constantly nibbling away at the net the little mouse at last made a hole big enough for the lion to get out. And it is on this principle that year after year I go on nibbling away-though the task is no pleasant one, I can assure you-hoping each time to make the hole in the horrid net of Monopoly a little bigger, until at last the British Lion shall be free.

I find nothing around me to induce despair. In fact I find in the utterances of various men which reach me from time to time, much to encourage me. The other day I heard a Cabinet Minister lamenting the injustice and folly of making a free people pay 40 per cent. more for their food than they need do in order to support a Monopoly. Nothing could be more just than what he said; only, unfortunately, when he said it, he was talking of Jamaica and the negroes, and not of England and her people. But as I cannot of course suppose that this Minister cares more for an African than for an Englishman, I expect that when I bring on my Motion for the repeal of the Corn Laws he will express the same indignation at Englishmen's paying 40 per cent. more than they ought for their food, as he did at the injustice imposed on the negroes of Jamaica.

I was also, I confess, much pleased to hear the Noble Lord who leads the House of Commons de

nounce very distinctly, the night before Parliament broke up, the pernicious system of class legislation. All of us in this room, I believe, condemn that system. I, for one, will support any Minister, be he Whig, Tory, or Radical, who denounces it and who is ready to act against it. And the people, if they know their own interests, will give such a Minister full power to abolish it.

The Corn Laws are a great and flagrant deviation from the principle of legislating for the general good, and not for the particular interest. They are the corner-stone of Monopoly in this country. I am certain that if they were abolished a host of minor evils would speedily disappear. But whilst they remain, Monopoly and its attendant mischief can never be removed.

I think that the present moment is most opportune for the display of our determination to procure justice for the country, and alleviation of the distress in the manufacturing districts which has so long been shocking the feelings of every well-disposed man. I cannot but hope that many will now give their support to the cause who have hitherto held aloof from it. And here I would allude specially to the ministers of religion. For I cannot conceive anything more immediately within the province of the disciples of Him who said 'Feed my people,' and the labourer is worthy of his hire,' than to inculcate their Master's great lessons of charity by enabling the poor, through honest industry, to feed themselves.

Moreover, I think that it would be only wise in those who hold that no redress can be obtained till the suffrage is extended, to aid us in showing the community the frightful evils of the Corn Laws which were passed, and are maintained, under the present limited constituencies. For surely they must see that the chief reason they have for demanding the Charter is that there is no chance of obtaining the abolition of such Laws until the power of the people is increased. But if they sanction the notion that they approve of these Laws, what reason have they for urging the reform of Parliament?

Whatever other men may do, it becomes those who have leagued themselves together for the good and great purpose of procuring the repeal of the Corn Laws, to endeavour by every legitimate means in their power to convince the community of the truth that no more effectual means of promoting the well-being of the industrious masses, of adding to the wealth of the country and of preserving the peace of the world can exist, than a free and unrestricted commercial intercourse between nation and nation throughout the globe.

VIII.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 7, 1841.

The Budget of 1841 showed a deficiency of nearly two millions. To meet this the Government resolved on what was considered the bold stroke of attacking the Corn, Sugar, and Timber Monopolies. Accordingly on April 30, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial statement, Lord J. Russell, who before had vehemently resisted all proposals for repealing the Corn Laws as impracticable and mischievous, gave notice that on May 30 he should move for a Committee of the whole House to consider the Laws affecting the importation of foreign corn. This notice of a Motion, identical with that hitherto brought forward by Mr. Villiers in face of strenuous opposition, coming from Lord Melbourne's Ministry, took the House completely by surprise: the annual estimates and proposed alterations in the Sugar and Timber Duties were almost lost sight of in the all-absorbing topic of corn, and the debate on the Budget became simply a discussion of the Corn Laws. Agitation on the question throughout the country increased greatly. Lord J. Russell found it necessary not to delay the announcement of the terms of his Motion till the date originally fixed; and on May 7 he stated his intention of proposing a fixed duty of eight shillings. Sir R. Peel declared strongly in favour of a Sliding Scale; but Lord Palmerston, who only two years previously had voted against Mr. Villiers's Motion to hear the members of the Manchester Association at the Bar of the House, showed himself convinced of the soundness of Free Trade principles, and spoke admirably against Protection. The Government were beaten on the Sugar Duties; and on June 4, before the corn question could be brought on, Sir R. Peel carried a vote of want of confidence by a majority of one. On June 7, Lord J. Russell announced the intention of the Government to dissolve Parliament, and to appeal to the country as soon as they had taken a Vote of Supply for the immediate requirements of the public service.

As the Noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies and the Right Hon. Baronet have stated what they call their view of the position of parties, and the course they intend to take, and as Members seem to consider that all real business is over, I hope that I

may make one or two observations upon the question that has caused this position of parties and upon which they are now about to disturb the peace of the country.

If I did not know what grave considerations this question involves, how closely connected it is with the misery of many of our fellow-creatures, I could really find matter for amusement in the predicament in which I see some around me placed by it.

It has been made matter of reproach that the demand for a total repeal of the Corn Laws is extravagant; and those who have leagued themselves together, out of the House, to instruct the people on the matter are told that they are too violent; that they should be more moderate; that they should leave it to the Government to bring it forward. Let the Government take it up, say some, and the landed interest will then consider it gravely; they will enter into it calmly; they will admit of some mitigation of the Laws, and settle the question.

Now I invite the attention of the country and of the House to the present position of the matter. The question was taken out of my hands by the Government; and I surrendered it with satisfaction, hoping that good might follow. They have proposed a measure; a moderate, a fair measure as some call ; a measure extravagantly in favour of the landed interest as I consider it. How are they treated? Why, worse than I have been! I have been allowed to have my say; I have been allowed to bring on my Motion; but the Noble Lord has not even been

it