Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/322

 speaking for themselves and others, intimated that they would take. Lord Howick, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Villiers —the latter being particularly happy in his jokes about "the agricultural mind," which Mr. O'Brien had said would be "soothed by inquiry," but which inquiry Mr. O'Brien would not go into—were the speakers on the other side. Mr. Cobden complained, in his reply, first, that a cabinet minister had intercepted two or three agricultural members on the opposition benches, and had given them their cues; and next, that the agricultural members had been too happy to take it. They were going, he said, on a future night to oppose the ministers on the auction duties he told them frankly that their opposition was a mere sham. The House then divided, when there appeared:—

On Monday, March 17th, Mr. Miles brought forward a motion, of which he had given notice, That it is the opinion of this house, that, in the application of surplus revenue towards relieving the burthens of the country by reduction or remission of taxation, due regard should be had to the necessity of affording relief to the agricultural interest." The following description of the debate is from the League; and it is followed by a curious discussion on GREASE and LARD, in which certain of the agriculturists, escaping from the control which Sir Robert Peel had exercised over them in the debate on Mr. Cobden's motion, made an exhibition of themselves, much to the amusement of the country:—

"In support of his views, Mr. Miles went into an extensive series of figures, comparing the annual importations of foreign grain, and the average prices in low-priced years, under the Corn Act of 1828, with the average prices and the importations under the act of 1842. The present