Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/329

 made to parliament by the agricultural interest for relief subsequent to the passing of the corn law were sufficient proof that the law had failed in its object. The increased interest taken by the country at large was shown by the debate extending over five nights, when the motion was rejected by 342 to 195 votes. In the House of Lords Earl Fitzwilliam's motion condemning the corn law was defeated by 224 to 24 votes. To these adverse votes the corn-law repealers retorted by founding the League of Anti-Cornlaw Associations and publishing the ‘Anti-Cornlaw Circular,’ and by despatching their lecturers through the length and breadth of the land. In that year James Wilson published ‘The Influences of the Corn Laws,’ which attracted Villiers's notice, and furnished him with some of his most telling arguments when he brought forward the question of the corn law in his third annual motion on 1 April 1840. On that occasion the opposition offered to Villiers's motion was so violent that no decision upon it was taken. Petitions bearing a million and a quarter signatures had been presented by Villiers against the corn law on introducing his motion. Fresh petitions signed by another quarter of a million people were presented by Villiers on 26 May, when he renewed his motion. But the uproar was so great that the repealers failed to obtain a hearing, and a division was taken showing 300 against and 177 for the motion. In 1840 Villiers consulted [q. v.], who had just retired from official life, as to the best means of forcing the facts upon the minds of the government. Hume recommended Villiers to move for a select committee to inquire into the import duties. He did so, and was refused. But on [q. v.], the veteran member for Montrose, appealing to the government, a committee was appointed. Villiers presided at three-fourths of the meetings, and largely conducted the examination of the witnesses (comprising (1797–1857) [q. v.], secretary of the board of trade; J. D. Hume;  [q. v.], head of the statistical department of the board of trade; and sixteen eminent merchants and manufacturers). The report was published on 6 Aug. 1840, and was at once reprinted and circulated broadcast by the Anti-Cornlaw League. The council of the league declared their entire case might be decided by the evidence in the report itself. On 15 April 1841, at a meeting at the Manchester corn exchange of nearly two thousand delegates from the principal towns of the kingdom, Villiers gave a direct impetus to a movement among ministers of religion to agitate for the repeal of the corn law, and within a few months the bread tax was being denounced from more than a thousand pulpits and platforms. In 1841 Villiers was precluded from bringing on his annual motion for repeal in consequence of Lord John Russell giving notice of a motion in terms identical with those which in former years had brought down on Villiers the ridicule and wrath of the protectionists. But the decision of Lord Melbourne's cabinet to attempt to remove the deficits that annually faced them by lessening the duties on corn, sugar, and timber did not save the government from defeat. Lord John Russell stated that he intended to propose a fixed duty of 8s. a quarter, while Sir Robert Peel declared in favour of a sliding scale. The government were beaten, and a general election returned the tories to power. Cobden took his seat in parliament, and at once thanked Villiers, ‘the hon. member for Wolverhampton, for whose great and incessant services I, in common with millions of my fellow-countrymen, feel grateful.’ Sir Robert Peel formed his ministry in September, and prorogued parliament in October without heeding the appeal of the free-traders for immediate relief. In February 1842 Sir Robert Peel introduced his sliding scale, which O'Connell described as ‘sliding from everything honest.’ Lord John Russell opposed the measure, and was defeated by 123 votes. Villiers then moved on 18 Feb. ‘that the corn law do now cease and determine.’ A five nights' debate followed, when the motion was rejected by 393 against 90. On 18 April Villiers spoke against the imposition of the property and income tax, urging that it would deepen the distress in the country by causing a diminution in the rate of wages. The next year (1843) found Villiers more than ever engaged in the work of the league. In the spring of that year the league removed its headquarters to London, and engaged Covent Garden Theatre for its weekly meetings, at which Villiers frequently attended. The chief debate of the session was on Villiers's motion for total and immediate repeal. After five nights' debate Villiers's motion was defeated by 381 against 125. Villiers declared that the farmers were rapidly learning that the artificial enhancement of the value of land could not benefit any but the owners of the land; and this contention was justified soon afterwards at a meeting held at Colchester (one of the most formidable strongholds of protection), when Villiers completely won over the farmers, who had attended at the invitation of Sir J. Tyrrell,