castle he was commissioned to garrison—made what play writers call 'a situation,' that would have been irresistibly droll, if the House of Commons were the Adelphi Theatre, and the Corn Laws a farce, instead of a question involving the interests of millions, and, perhaps, fraught with a fearful tragedy. Sir Robert Peel adroitly availed himself of Mr. Wood's statements. With cutting irony, he thanked the honourable member for Kendal for the very able speech he had delivered in favour of the existing system,and with all the art the art of the practised debater, expressed his hope that the house would pause before it acceded to any propositions which would have the effect of exchanging a law thus proved to be beneficial, and which would materially affect the agricultural interests of this country, having received from the President of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester the account which had been given them of the stable and secure position of our commerce and manufactures!" This was availing himself, with a vengeance, of Mr. Wood's unfortunate affection for "prosperity" tables; but Mr. Villiers at once cut down both the prosperity statist and the Tamworth baronet, by proofs of the worthlessness of the alleged proofs of an improvement in trade. Mr. Brotherton had previously, in a plain and manly way, contradicted the statements made by Mr. Wood, and shown the mischievous operation of the Corn Laws in diminishing the demand for labour. Lord John Russell left it in doubt whether he leaned to Mr. Villiers or to Sir Robert Peel. He thought the subject of the Corn Laws deserved investigation. In the House of Lords, Lord Melbourne gave assurance that he was neither pledged to maintain nor to change the laws.
The delegates met on the following day, at their smaller house of parliament, right across Palace Yard, and expressed themselves in most indignant terms at the statements of Mr. Wood, most of which were successfully and remorselessly demolished by Mr. Smith, Mr. H. Ashworth,
