house seldom tolerant of close reasoning. He, therefore, rose, and, in a speech of great length, great apparent or rather great expressed candour, and great plausibility, attempted to show that the distress which confessedly prevailed was not to be attributed to the Corn Law alone, but to other causes, which were only temporary such as injudicious banking operations, both at home and in America, adroitly, and in accordance with the rules of single-speech "Hamilton's Parliamentary Logic," substituting effect for cause—the Corn Law being the main source of monetary difficulties, both at home and in the United States. He commended his own bill, as likely to prevent sudden inundations of foreign corn; and, in reliance upon the majority at his back, was pressing for an immediate division. Lord John Russell, who showed a much more determined spirit in opposition than he had done in office, protested against this speedy legislation, and the debate was once more adjourned.
On Thursday, the debate was diversified by a bold and telling speech from Mr. Cobden. Mr. Villiers had said that the debate had been one between two political parties, both of whom had striven to avoid the real question at issue, which Mr. Cobden said was simply, how far it was just, honest, or expedient, that any tax whatever should be laid on the people's food. He went on to controvert the fallacy, as old as the Corn Law itself, that high wages accompanied high prices of food. He charged the house with ignorance on this part of the question, and when derisive laughter, and cries of "Oh! oh!" arose from members of the ministerial side of the house, he turned round to them, and said:—
