at unwashed." The
buildings at the back appropriately include "New Bethlehem," and the
house which the reader may remember was engaged for the purposes of her
miraculous _accouchement_. A rougher and coarser piece of workmanship,
if possible, will be found in _Gambols on the River Thames, February,
1814_ (published also by Tegg), which commemorates the memorable frost
of that year.

1815. THE CORN LAWS.

On the 17th of February, 1815, Mr. Frederick Robinson, vice-president of
the board of trade, moved for the House of Commons to resolve itself
into a committee of the whole house, for the purpose of considering the
state of the corn laws. This having been done, he proceeded to lay
before the House certain resolutions, three of which related to the free
importation of grain to be warehoused and afterwards exported, or to be
taken for home consumption when importation for that purpose was
allowable. The fourth and most important stated the average price of
British corn at which free importation was to be allowed, and _below
which it was to be prohibited_, and this for wheat was fixed at eighty
shillings per quarter. An exception was made in favour of grain produced
in the British colonies, which might be imported when British grown
wheat was at sixty-seven shillings. All the resolutions were read and
agreed to, with the exception of the fourth, and this in the end also
passed in the face of every amendment.

On the 1st of March, Mr. Robinson brought in his bill "to amend the laws
now in force for regulating the importation of corn." By this time very
numerous petitions against the bill were coming in from the commercial
and manufacturing districts; riotous proceedings also took place on the
6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th of March, in the course of which the mob cut to
pieces many valuable pictures belonging to Mr. Robinson, destroyed and
pitched his furniture into the street, and did a variety of mischief to
the property of other well-known supporters of the measure. The riots
(which were of a most formidable character) were only quelled by the
number and determined attitude of the military and constables. In spite,
however, of the unmistakable unpopularity of the measure, and of the
strenuous opposition to it both in and out of Parliament, the bill
passed the House on the 10th of March, and the Upper House on the 20th.

The consequences of this measure were not such as were expected either
by its promoters or opposers. Fo