bring down the price of corn from 61s. a quarter, which it was then, to 458. a quarter, which it was now? And yet this they had done, in voting first for Sir Robert Peel's alterations in the Corn Laws, and afterwards for his alterations in the tariff. As protection had hitherto done them little, or rather no good, he recommended them to go into committee, and inquire whether it would not be for their advantage to abandon protection entirely.' Mr. Bright added that no one could deny that the tendency of the country was towards Free Trade.

But the country gentlemen believed only too implicitly that Mr. Cobden could explode protection, and so they voted against him. The motion was lost by 213 to 121, or a majority of 92.

On the 8th of May, the great Bazaar in connection with the League was opened in Covent Garden Theatre. It created, as Mr. Prentice says, an interest 'scarcely inferior to that which was felt at a later and happier period at the opening of the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park.' The London newspapers of all shades of opinion were filled with descriptions of the affair. The appearance of the building was very novel and striking. Instead of the horseshoe sweep of boxes with Grecian scrolls terminating at the massive pillars of the proscenium, the long perspective of a Gothic hall stretched across pit and stage; the vista of slender columns and Tudor arches terminating in a mimic painted window. The roof was bright with gay colours, produced by transparent painting; and in lieu of heraldic blazonry, escutcheons charged with a bunch of wheat-ears on an azure field, and inscribed with the motto, 'Free'-the badge of the League-were seen in every direction. Gothic lanterns of gay colours shed light upon the moving throng that filled thegangways, and on the heaps of manufactured articles piled upand hanging down on every side. The contributions from each town occupied a separate stall-Manchester alone having three stalls. The articles offered for sale were of the most varied description, and at one stall there was a veritable lock of Sir Walter Scott's hair offered for the sum of £3 38. A post-office was amongst the ingenious devices for raising money, and disseminating free-trade doctrines. Portraits there were in many forms of Messrs. Cobden, Bright, and Villiers. Although the weather was very unfavourable, the bazaar was most successful. The visitors numbered upwards of 100,000; goods to the value of £20,000 were presented for sale, and 400 ladies, the wives and daughters of leading Free-traders, presided at the stalls. The sum of £25,000 was realized towards the funds of the League. The bazaar attracted great attention in the press, many metro

politan journals observing that its influence and significance could not be ignored by politicians opposed to the repeal move

ment.

On the 10th of June, Mr. Villiers submitted for the last time in the House of Commons his motion for a committee of the whole House to consider his resolutions for the abolition of all restrictions on the importation of foreign corn. At the close of a long and able speech, Mr. Villiers said he was at a loss to know what plea would now be urged by the Government in reply to his demand, on behalf of the people, for free access to the means of subsistence. If the Government should either plead the pressure of local taxation, or the peculiar burdens on land, he would reply, 'Bring us in at once an account of what is paid on those scores, and we will show that it is far less than the loss which the people sustain every year owing to the restriction of their supply of food.' He called upon the Government to indemnify the landlords in any way they pleased except that of making the food of the people dear.

Sir James Graham, of whom some hopes had been entertained by the Free-traders, met the motion with a decided negative. He advocated a gradual and cautious policy in legislation affecting the Corn Laws; and said it was his conviction that suddenly and at once to throw open the trade in corn would be inconsistent with the well-being of the community, and would give such a shock to the agricultural interest as would throw many other interests into a state of convulsion.

Mr. Bright expressed his surprise at the Home Secretary's speech, and said he was at a loss to discover whether it was intended to give more hope to the Opposition, or more consolation to the Ministerial side of the House. Sir James had evidently been endeavouring to say one thing in one part of his speech, and to unsay it in the next. In the commencement he had been a furious Free-trader; in the close he had brought forward in a mass all the fallacies of the Protection Society. It was time that this imposture should cease; for so long as it prevailed the country would be involved in a perpetual agitation. The question of the repeal of the Corn Laws was now only one of time. He would score off every part of Sir James Graham's speech after that sentence of it which contained the enunciation that Free Trade was the key-stone of Sir Robert. Peel's policy. Let the county members reflect upon that, and let them remember that if Sir Robert Peel gave the word for the repeal of the Corn Laws, they had no power to prevent it. Replying to the objection that the abolition of the Corn Laws

would cause a suspension of labour, Mr. Bright asked, Did the right hon. baronet know that the whole number of persons who were engaged in producing the 2,000,000 quarters of corn he spoke of were not as great as the number of persons who were thrown out of employment probably in one town in this country by the state of things caused by this monopoly, like Sheffield, Leeds, or Stockport? Addressing the agriculturists, he adduced numerous instances of greatly increased importation of articles, the produce of the soil, which had not at all injured the interests of agriculture. He again warned them that there was a strong feeling in the country against protection, which it would not be wise to despise. The hon. member then gave a history of the Anti-Corn Law League, the annual contributions to which had increased from £5,000 in the year of its birth to £110,000 in the present year. His allusion to the Covent Garden Bazaar having been sneered at, he said there was one person who would not sneer at it, and that was Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Bright thus concluded his speech:

'An hon. member opposite had lately given to the world a book in which he represented the monarch of this country as reigning over two nations, the rich and the poor,* and there was a great deal of truth in that. Others talked of the widening of the separation between the very rich and the very poor. The Corn Law created nothing; it blighted almost everything. There was an abundance of capital, of labour, and of material in this country, but there wanted an honest distribution of it; and that honest distribution could only be given upon those just, true, and immutable principles which the great Creator had given for the regulation of the ordinary affairs of life. He knew that on going to a division his party would be in a minority of course, but he also knew that minorities in that House often became majorities; and if a man advocated a sound principle, and knew that millions out of door supported it, let him not be deterred because the teller gave a majority against it, instead of in its favour. They had seen good principles growing, growing, growing, because everybody supported them; and bad principles fading away, and those who formerly adhered to them ashamed to recall them. If they wanted this law to be maintained on its principle, they should have prevented Caxton from erecting his press in Westminster Abbey, they should have placed an interdict upon Chambers, proscribed Knight's weekly volumes, and put down all newspapers, and, above all, put a stop to those locomotive engines which came up from Manchester to the metropolis in four hours and a half.'

Mr. Cobden complained that the questions mooted by Mr. Villiers had not been met. These were, first, Had they a right to restrict the supply of food for the people? secondly, Was it true that they had a law to that effect? and, thirdly, If their Corn Law was not to that effect, what was its purpose? By careful calculations made, he supported Mr. Villiers's propoLord John Russell pointed out the inconsistencies of

sitions.

* Sybil; or, The Two Nations. By Benjamin Disraeli, M. P.

Sir James Graham, and said that the Corn Law, as it now stood, was vicious in principle, and could not long be maintained in its present condition. He felt himself at liberty to go into committee with Mr. Villiers, and to consider in what way a relaxation of the law could be made. Sir Robert Peel said that if he could believe in the predictions of Mr. Cobden, his objections to an immediate repeal of the Corn Law would be greatly alleviated; but he could not, and therefore must proceed gradually with legislation.

On the division being taken, there appeared for the motion, 122; against, 254; majority against repeal, 132. These numbers indicated a still increasing support to Mr. Villiers's proposition. With those who paired or were absent, there were now 190 members in favour of Free Trade, as compared with 165 in the year 1844.

Confident as the members of the League were, however, of the coming triumph of their cause, there was probably not one amongst them who thought it was so immediate, so close at hand, as it actually was. Precipitating causes-such causes as Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright had again and again said must bring matters to an issue-were already at work to force on repeal; and the curtain was destined shortly to rise on the last act of the great Parliamentary drama in connection with tho Corn Laws.

CHAPTER VII.

REPEAL OF THE CORN LAWS.

The Potato Disease in Ireland.--The Government and the Crisis.-Lord John Russell's important Letter declaring for Free Trade-Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright appeal to the Prime Minister. The Corn Laws doomed.Great League Meeting at Covent Garden Theatre.-Cabinet Difficulties. Peel returns to Office.-Meeting of Parliament.-Measure for the Repeal of the Corn Laws introduced.-Sir Robert Peel's Statement.--Protracted Debates. Mr. Bright's eulogium upon the Premier.-The Corn Importation Bill passes both Houses.-Dissolution of the League.-Interesting proceedings.--Final Speech by Mr. Bright.-Celebrations in the Country. Presentations to the League Leaders.-General Effects of Free Trade. IN the middle of August, 1845, there began to appear the earliest indications of that mysterious potato disease which was to complete the work of the Anti-Corn-Law League, and to force from Parliament that measure of repeal which had long been clamoured for in vain. In Ireland the minute plague spread rapidly, till it blackened thousands of acres, and destroyed the food of millions of men. In a very short time two-thirds of the tubers were found to be rotten within, though large and well-looking without. On the 13th of October Sir R. Peel wrote to Sir J. Graham that the accounts of the state of the potato crop in Ireland were becoming very alarming. Something would have to be done, and he had no confidence in such remedies as the prohibition of exports or the stoppage of distilleries; the removal of the impediments to import was the only effectual remedy.

A meeting of the League was held in the Free Trade Hall on the 28th of October. The object of the meeting was to point out the remedy for the famine which threatened England, and to avert the misery, starvation, and death of millions in Ireland. Mr. Cobden said the natural and obvious remedy was to open the ports. Russia, Turkey, Germany, and Holland had done so, and why should not our Government follow their example? Mr. Bright said that everything around was telling them in a voice louder than ever that every word of reproach, every harsh saying which they had uttered against the Corn Law, had not by any means conveyed its true character as it was then exhibited. The Corn Law was now having its due