one member out of seven so chosen voted against a law to make the food of the people scarce and dear. To assume that the House of Commons really represented the people was thus an assumption that forty-one out of forty-two of the male adult population were in favour of the Corn Laws With such proof of the mockery of representation—with such feeble result, in that house, of nearly three years of most energetic agitation, was it matter for wonder that many, in the despair of ever overturning selfish legislation while the house was so constituted, should begin to think that representative reform must precede all other reforms? The O'Connor chartists had held that opinion all along, and the signal defeat of the free traders was matter to them of loud rejoicing. Other thorough reformers—men, who, in earlier days, had been called radicals—men deserving the name of rational radicals—did not think that it accorded with either justice or policy to put down one agitation in order to exalt another, and they had heartily aided the anti-corn-law movement. The excellent Joseph Sturge, without slackening his exertions for the repeal of the Corn Laws, had originated the Complete Suffrage Union, and great numbers were glad to see, and to join, two movements, having the same practical end, though sought by different means. I was one of those who, promoting both, believing that the object of each would be best served by their being kept distinct and separate. I did not despair of the successful result of the anti-corn-law agitation. The teachings of the League, and the more stern teachings of intense suffering, had convinced at least one half of the community. It was true that the half of the people had only one-seventh of their so-called representation, but that seventh had all the argument on their side. There was but a small fraction of the house holding to the principle of prohibitory duties. Sir Robert Peel and his party, in supporting their modified sliding scale, almost went the length of asserting the doctrines of en-
