to a high state of prosperity, but he had every where been met by the objections that England, by her exclusive commercial system, had set the example of prohibition, and that no bargain which he could effect, for a mutually beneficial change, would receive the sanction of a legislature in which he had not a seat, and in which there was but a very small band of men in favour of thoroughly free trade. And thus, at Stockport, Richard Cobden was returned, an especially gratifying event to me who had earnestly striven to have him selected as a candidate for Manchester. On his election I wrote: "Need we say that the result is matter for national exultation? Far greater than a local triumph—far greater than the gain of a single man—far greater than even the gain of a ministerial majority would have been, his return must be regarded. Cobden is the acknowledged leader of that great and energetic movement which has driven ministers to the recognition of free-trade principles, and which is now agitating the three kingdoms with a degree of excitation unparalleled. He goes to the House of Commons to give additional life and vigour to the movement there—to assert boldly the principle of total repeal amidst timid compromisers—to supply with practical information those who are right in theory—to keep up to the mark those who, without being very hearty in the cause, have used the cry of free-trade to secure their seats—to bring to the question of questions his ample knowledge of all the bearings of commerce, at home and abroad,—and to demolish with ready argument and pungent sarcasm the cunning sophistications by which monopoly is defended. Great honour to Stockport for the impulse it has given to the right cause."
Why was he not member for Manchester? It was a blunder that he was not—a blunder, although no evil consequences resulted from it—perhaps some good, for an able representative was secured, who had honourably thrown up the representation of Ipswich because he no
