| 1844— | for Mr. Villiers' motion | 124 |
| Paired | 10 | |
| Absent | 56 | |
| ———— | ||
| 190 | ||
And it was still more gratifying to see that the number of those who wore ashamed to be found amongst the supporters of a selfish monopoly was rapidly increasing. The numbers voting in opposition to Mr. Villiers were:—
| In | 1842 | 395 | ||
| 1843 | 383 | Decrease | 12 | |
| 1844 | 330 | Decrease„ | 53 | |
| 1845 | 254 | Decrease„ | 76 | |
| ——— | ||||
| Total decrease | 141 | |||
The proportion between monopolist and free-trade votes was:—
| In | 1842 | 17 | monopolists | to | 4 | free-traders. |
| 1843 | 12 | monopolists„ | 4 | free-traders„ | ||
| 1844 | 11 | monopolists„ | 4 | free-traders„ | ||
| 1845 | 8 | monopolists„ | 4 | free-traders„ |
Here was encouragement for those who were not disposed to wait till the calamity came, but to do their best to avert it. Some encouragement was also had from the hopeless tone of certain organs of the agriculturists. The Mark Lane Express, quoting the admissions of Sir James Graham, said: "Here is a full concession of the principles of free trade. The only ground for demur is that Mr. Villiers' motion is too precipitate." The Express turned to the premier, to see if there could be any help there; but Sir Robert had said of himself and his colleagues that "every act which they have carried has been an act to establish principles which I believe to be sound ones, namely, those embodying the gradual abatement of purely protective duties," and that he meant to abide by those principles, whereupon the Express said: "We will not mar these
