Page:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf/340

324 Corn Laws. (Cheers from the ministerial side.) I hear on this side of the house, in all directions an acknowledgement of the principle of perfect freedom in the trade of corn. (Hear.) But, there are some of my noble and right honourable neighbours who think that there should be a duty for the purposes of revenue. How can there be a duty for revenue which is not a duty for protection? (Hear.) The gentlemen who think that the Corn Laws ought to be repealed, but cannot reconcile themselves to their immediate repeal, are showing a very great sympathy for the few who are gaining, and vastly little sympathy for the many who are suffering. (Cheers.) The question is now drawn within such narrow limits as to depend upon these two points—are you, the landed interest, able to show that you are subjected to exclusive burthens? If so, then the way to relieve you is, not to put taxes on the rest of the community, but to remove these which bear exclusively on you. Secondly, are you prepared to carry on even-handed justice to the people? If not, your law will not stand—nay, your house itself, if based upon injustice, will not stand. (Cheers.)"

Mr. Ferrand followed Mr. Cobden, in a speech which kept the house in a continual state of excitement, alternate cheers from the protectionists and laughter from the free traders following every libellous and abusive sentence. Mr. Villiers somewhat subdued the impatience of the house when he rose to reply, and, after his speech, the house divided, when the numbers were:— The division showed that the adherents of the late whig ministry had swelled the majority. There had been 349 votes against his lordship's motion, and there were 393 against that of Mr. Villiers. The accession of 44 was from the whig ranks.

The scene in a dissecting-room, described by one of our novelists, where the reckless students mangle the dead body, while they smoke their cigars and crack their coarse jokes, and practically exhibit their wit, by throwing portions of the "subject" at each other, is not unlike the House of Commons when matters of serious discussion are before it. During the debate on Mr. Villiers' motion,