to laugh at its own colonel, seeing that his speech was as good for protection as one with less fun in it. Mr. Villiers then, in his own nutshell-cracking way, stripped the pretences bare by which the motion of Mr. Cobden was resisted. Were not the very contradictions of Mr. Cobden's allegations all so many additional reasons why the committee should be granted, in order that the facts might be sifted? The same question was put by Mr. Bright, who, in doing so, made one of the best points during the whole evening. He told the House, that if the majority thought that the justice of the Corn Law could be proved, they would grant the committee at once? The very force of contrast made this a most striking illustration.
"Of the entire discussion we may remark, that it evinces most strikingly the progress of public opinion. During the whole evening there was a full attendance of members. There was no emptying of the benches at seven o'clock—the hour of dinner. There was no skulking, no evasion; it was felt that the question must be met. But the most remarkable thing in the debate was the way in which the Ministerial
side of the House treated Mr. Newdegate. That young man got up at a late hour, when the House was crowded, and charged the Anti-Corn Law League with fomenting disturbances in the manufacturing districts, and with having objects ulterior to the repeal of the Corn Laws. But even those around him refused to listen. The general feeling evidently was—'Oh, that game won't do now—we must give it up!' A loud noise of conversation drowned his voice; there was an intense anxiety for a division. To prolong the debate was clearly felt to be but a strengthening of justice, reason, truth. All the argument was on one side—all the moral weakness on the other. So they pushed to a division; and at one o'clock in the morning 153 friends of justice and fair-play voted for the proposed committee, but were opposed by 244 fearful monopolists; the majority being ninety-one, exactly the same that installed the present Ministry in office."
There was still much to be done, and much was done in the period between Mr. Cobden's motion for inquiry, and Mr. Villiers' for total repeal. The lecturers were each
addressing three or four audiences every week; the distribution of tracts went onactively; and numerous meetings were held all over the country, the few meetings under the auspices of the agricultural association, or Anti-League League as it was called, most of them grievous failures, only stimulating the free-trade agitation into increased energy;
