Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/338

 324 History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1841- it did not rally a very large vote, the numbers being for the committee, 191 ; against it, 306, giving ministers a majority of 115. Mr. Gladstone, in the debate raised by Lord Howick, had spoken of having a very good temporary answer to those who asked why corn should, in the matter of taxation, be dealt with differently to other commodities. This, together with the Premier's own refusal to regard the subject as finally settled, gave great encouragement to the free-traders in the House to continue the agitation. The growing feeling that there could be but one real settlement, and the increasing power of the League, which was urging on the acceptance of the true remedy, were also telling on the structure of the Liberal party. Both these tendencies were manifested during the session, the corn laws being kept constantly before Parliament in one way or other. On the I4th of March Ward moved for a special committee to inquire if there were any special burdens affecting the landed interest, or any peculiar exemptions enjoyed by that interest. It had been often urged, in the debates on the corn laws, that the existence of special burdens justified protection, and it was a very telling challenge for the free-traders to ask for a searching inquiry. Those who had been loudest in the appeal to those alleged grievances were the first to resist the inquiry, and the motion was re- jected by 232 to 133. It was only in the country, and not in the House, that such a discussion could produce its proper effect. This was a sort of general Liberal attack, but the usual Radical and Whig proposals were afterwards submitted in due course. On the 1 3th of May Mr. Villiers brought on his annual motion for a committee of the whole House to consider the duties affecting the importation of corn, with a view to their immediate abolition. The debate lasted over five nights, and at times was very stormy. In the end the motion was lost, the numbers being for, 125 ; against, 381, showing a majority of 256. This vote manifested a remark- able growth of opinion in favour of repeal. As compared with