Page:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf/272

256 question of time, and I beg of your lordships to consider what I have always looked upon as the pinch of this question, namely, that these laws have been introduced and supported by those who have a direct interest in maintaining them. They were sanctioned by two houses of legislature, one of which is entirely composed of landholders, and the majority of the other consists of the same class. I say that this is not a state of things which we should look upon with complacency. I am not accustomed to speak in the language of dictation or of admonition; but I tell you it is not safe for the governing powers of a country to stand in such a situation as to be open to an imputation of so popular, so plausible, and so specious a nature as that which I have described; and I do assure your lordships that you will find it absolutely necessarrynecessary [sic] to put these laws, some day or other, on a more reasonable and satisfactory foundation.”

Probably had his lordship and his colleagues spoken thus boldly two years before, they would have preserved the majority they possessed when they accepted office. The utterance of such truths should not have been reserved until they saw that they must inevitably relinquish power. The house thought one night’s discussion enough for the matter under their consideration, and, dividing, the numbers were:- The result of the debate in the Lords was a strong encouragement to the monopolists, and the aspirants to office in the Commons, where the debate, however, lasted throughout four nights. The compliment was paid to Manchester (it ought to have been paid earlier) of asking Mr. Mark Philips to move the address, which he did in a speech highly creditable to himself and to the large