allowed to bring on his. He gave his Notice, announced the nature of his measure, and fulfilled every condition that I was told last year would secure serious attention to the subject, when down comes the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, and in the face of the Noble Lord's Notice carries by a majority of persons whose interests are supposed to be involved in it, a Resolution that has the effect of precluding the Noble Lord from bringing forward his measure, of preventing a deliberate consideration of the subject, and, in fine, of enabling themselves to escape from a division.

This, then, is the position of the question: the land-owners form the majority of the House; they will not allow the Laws that give them a Monopoly to be altered; and they will not allow them to be fairly discussed.

The question is now seriously engaging the attention of every State in Europe and the United States of America. Their interests are all involved in it. They see and understand the struggle. They know the parties engaged in the conflict: those who profit by a Monopoly of the subsistence of the people on the one side, and the advocates of unrestricted commerce with the rest of the world on the other. And this week presents them with a scene in the battle little creditable to the country, though doubtless a triumph for Monopoly : namely, a deliberate refusal on the part of the land-owners to allow the question to be fairly debated. This House represents only their interests, and they can do what they like with their

own.

I referred the other night to the close analogy that exists between the Slave question in America and the Corn Laws of England; that resemblance is now strengthened. In America they refuse to discuss the Slave question in Congress. Two years ago it was mooted and the Members all rushed from the House as they rushed from this House to-night. The subject of slavery is offensive to the interests of the majority in Congress as the Corn Laws are offensive to both Houses here, and all refuse to discuss it.

Does this discourage me? Far from it. Do I advise the country to be disheartened by it? Quite the contrary. No cause in the name of freedom has ever fared better at first. I am glad, indeed, that this course has been pursued. People in this country hate unfairness above everything, and this will rouse them. They will now see the relative strength of their friends and their enemies; and they will see the necessity for acting with energy.

Moreover, I like the course taken by the opposite side on this account: it is bold and daring, and intelligible to all. I far prefer it to the trimming course pursued before. It is not a delusive course, which it might have been. It bids defiance to the people. It will compel the people to meet it.

I am satisfied that there is no ground whatever in justice for any tax on the people's food. Had the Government Measure been adopted, or spoiled by the landlords, the question of total Repeal would hardly have had fair play.

That question is now again fully before the country, and I defy any man to show that the people are not entitled to this full measure of justice. They bear the burdens of the country, and none I contend are borne exclusively by the landlords. I rejoice that the question has been agitated in the country upon this broad, intelligible basis, and that the people have put the landlords to the proof of their claim to a permanent tax upon the bread of the community.

As I have said before, I see nothing in what is occurring at present that does not raise my most sanguine expectations of speedy success. The question must now exclusively engage the attention of the House till it is settled in some way. Constant reference will be made to it in all the business of the next Parliament, and I predict another speedy dissolution, upon the same ground, of the Parliament about to be elected. The question never can be smothered up again; and I firmly expect that in the end these iniquitous Laws will be totally repealed.

I believe that the country would have supported the Noble Lord had he on this occasion disregarded the usual form and, in spite of the Resolution carried, brought in his measure. The country understands the Noble Lord's position. The Noble Lord had given his Notice, had fixed his day; his measure was offensive to the majority in the House; they interposed a Resolution declaring that he had not their confidence, which they carried, and threatened even further interference. I hoped that anything so unfair, so unusual, might have been disregarded by the

Government; but I am told that in point of form the Noble Lord was precluded from bringing on his Motion, and that he could not have had a fair discussion if he had been opposed in doing so.

I think, however, that this matters little: the people understand the question now; and the whole proceeding will mark clearly in what way they ought to act in justice to themselves and with regard to the interest of the country in its present deep distress.

IX.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 27, 1841.

The Government candidates went to the country in 1841 with Lord J. Russell's fixed duty as their election cry. Sir R. Peel admitted at Tamworth the prevailing deep distress, but declared his firm conviction that it was not in any way due to the Corn Laws, and was returned to maintain the existing Sliding Scale. Parliament met on August 19. The Queen's Speech dwelt on the suffering and poverty of the people, and explicitly stated that it was not only necessary for the Legislature to consider the Corn Laws, but also to determine whether they were not the direct cause of the distress of the great body of the community. Lord Ripon, in the House of Lords, carried a vote of want of confidence in the Ministry as an amendment to the Address. And in the House of Commons a similar Motion was carried on August 27, after four nights' debate. Mr. Cobden, who had just been returned to Parliament for the first time, spoke during the debate, and made a powerful impression on the House in his maiden speech, in which he acknowledged Mr. Villiers's 'great and incessant services' in the cause of the people.

HAVING often had occasion to address the House on the subject that has been recommended to its consideration in the Speech from the Throne, I have listened with great care during the present debate to the things that have been uttered on the other side in order to be saved, if possible, the trouble of repeating my former observations. For this reason I have given my best attention to those who have not observed the rule of silence prescribed to the party, and who undertook to explain the question to which as they said they were confined on this occasion.

I must confess, however, that they have failed to enlighten me. My Hon. Friend the Member for