the allegations of their petition, presented to the house on the 15th instant, complaining of the operations of the Corn Laws."His speech," says Miss Martineau, "was a statement of singular force and clearness, and the occasion was destined to great celebrity." Mr. Strutt, in seconding the motion, said that his constituents, the silk manufacturers of Derby, had in their petitions declared that they wanted no protection for their own trade if the trade in corn were set free. Sir Francis Burdett, who, when Corn Law of 1815 was passed, had said that the measure would not affect the interests of the working classes, because if it raised the price of corn their wages also would rise, objected to the waste of time the inquiry would occasion. Mr. Mark Philips thought that one who had been a great advocate of public rights should be the last to allege the waste of time when the interests of the great majority of the people were at stake. Mr. C. P. Thomson, his colleague, one of the administration, strongly advocated the inquiry demanded. Lord Stanley could find little better than a stale and offensive joke with which to oppose a motion so much concerning the interests of his constituents. Mr. Brotherton made a manly reply to his lordship. Lord Howick thought the house was ripe for discussion without inquiry. Lord John Russell was of the same opinion and Sir Robert Peel, stating his belief that the repeal of the Corn Laws would be grossly unjust to the agriculturists, who had to bear heavy peculiar burthens, said he was prepared to give a decided negative to the motion. The House of Commons, in March, 1851, debated eight nights on the motion for the second reading of a bill to prevent Vicars Apostolic calling themselves bishops; in February, 1839, the House of Commons thought one night enough for the discussion of a question affecting the vital interests of millions. The votes for the motion were 172; against it, 361;—and this in a house in which the whigs, professedly the friends of free trade, had yet a preponde-
