just now is some practical illustration of the working of the Corn Laws, and the spirit of those who maintain them; something to strike the imagination; something to rouse those who have too long kissed the rod that has scourged them. All great changes have been preceded by some wanton act of power that was resisted and assailed. I should regard the rejection of the measure now before the House as the East Retford of the Corn Laws. It would be like the preliminary folly that characterizes those whom Heaven has marked as its victims. It would, I believe, really awaken the feeling on the subject of the Corn Laws that has too long been dormant; and therefore I shall go to the division perfectly at ease, fully satisfied that nothing but good can follow from it.'

In the debate of the 2nd of July of the same year, which followed Lord Fitzwilliam's presentation of a petition from Glasgow praying for the repeal of the Corn Laws, Lord Melbourne's declaration that the Government would not take a decided part in the question till it was certain that the majority of the people were in favour of a change, added to the prospect of a wet autumn and bad harvest, gave a decided impetus to the Free Traders; and towards the end of the year the Manchester Anti-Corn Law Association was formed. This was quite independent of the one formed in London some years previously, of which Mr. Villiers was a member.

Early in 1839, Mr. Villiers was invited by the new Association to a public dinner at Manchester to meet all the Members of Parliament who had supported him and voted for his motion of the previous Session, and delegates from the other Anti-Corn Law Associations that had sprung up in various parts of the country. Already an object of their regard before he came in personal contact with them, Mr. Villiers, on his first arrival amongst the Manchester people, was received with enthusiasm: his appearance, . . . the tone of his address, the knowledge of his subject, the closeness of his argumentation, his obvious determination to persevere in the course he had undertaken, and the hopefulness of his expectation that the struggle would end in victory, confirmed his hearers in their belief that he possessed high qualifications to be the leader in the Parliamentary contest.'1

The day after this dinner, at a general meeting of the representatives of all the Associations then in Manchester, it was resolved that on account of the mischief that the Corn Laws were doing to the manufacturing and commercial interests, and thereby to the country generally, petitions should be forwarded from all parts of the kingdom, praying to be heard by counsel and evidence at the Bar of the House of Commons, in the approaching Session, on

1 Prentice, History of the League.

the operation of the Corn Laws. And this resolution was the substance of the motion of which Mr. Villiers gave notice as soon as Parliament met.

Though the Queen's Speech omitted all allusion to the Corn Laws, Mr. G. W. Wood, President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in seconding the Address, was induced, at the instance of his constituents, to dwell on the injury sustained by the manufacturers and operatives through the exclusion of foreign corn; but the next moment, with unaccountable perversity, he completely destroyed the effect his words were designed to produce, and gave Sir R. Peel an advantage of which he was not slow to avail himself in upholding the existing system by groundless assertions of the prosperity of the country. The delegates listening under the gallery were perfectly amazed at the turn thus given to affairs, whilst the delighted country gentlemen received it with great cheering. Mischievous consequences to the cause of Repeal seemed inevitable from this sudden blow at the hand of a faithless friend; but immediately after Sir R. Peel had acknowledged his obligations for the very able speech the House had heard in defence of the existing system, Mr. Villiers, with his characteristic promptitude in debate, at once exposed the worthlessness of the alleged proofs of an improvement in trade, and defeated Sir R. Peel's adroit use of them. On the 19th of February Mr. Villiers made his

famous speech introducing his motion that J. B. Smith and others be heard at the Bar of the House. Abstaining from any consideration of the general effects of the Corn Laws, and limiting himself, according to the requirements of the occasion, entirely to the grave depression and loss of home and foreign trade caused by the Corn Laws, he argued with unanswerable force and point the necessity of an inquiry, at least, into the allegations of the delegates as to their injurious operation. The occasion and the result of the debate-when Sir F. Burdett declared that such an inquiry would be a waste of time, and Lord J. Russell, though he had told his constituents at Stroud that the laws were indefensible, went into the same lobby with Sir R. Peel, who, maintaining that repeal of the Corn Laws would be grossly unjust to the agriculturists labouring under heavy peculiar burdens, said that he should give a decided negative to the motion-are too well known to need more than a passing allusion here. Happily the people had a champion in the House who was courageous as well as sagacious in looking after their interests before they knew how to look after them themselves.1

Nothing daunted by his defeat in February, Mr. Villiers brought forward his second annual motion on the 12th of March. Apathy concerning the Corn Laws was perceptibly diminishing outside the House

1 Cobden, Speech at Manchester, 1843.

as well as within. Mr. Villiers's speech and that of Mr. Poulett Thomson were printed and supplied in thousands to the Corn Law Associations throughout the country; and whereas on the first motion in 1838 the question was dismissed with only one night's discussion, five nights' debate followed the motion of 1839, which was warmly supported by O'Connell.

From his exceptional position, the labours that devolved upon Mr. Villiers increased in the course of time with almost overwhelming rapidity, and brought with them corresponding anxieties. The Anti-Corn Law movement, from its being so eagerly taken up by the Manchester men, early incurred the disadvantage of being treated by the landed interest as a 'vulgar manufacturers' agitation'; and unquestionably there was at times considerable danger of the national character of the movement being injured by the angry retorts that were flung to and fro by the commercial and country parties. Indeed, quite lately it has been thought by his admirers no slur upon Cobden to attribute-most unjustly we should saya retaliatory character to his action in the League. However, whether it be so or not, the imputation has been fastened upon by a clever adversary, and urged with no little effect as damaging in the highest degree both to Cobden and the other leaders of the agitation. But it is not without its use, since it brings into a fresh light one of the peculiar diffi