ment. He differed altogether from Lord Grey in the view he had taken respecting the effect of a moderate duty in raising the price of corn in general, and declared that he had heard almost the whole of Lord Derby's speech with considerable satisfaction. He was especially glad to find that the noble Earl was prepared to resist the invasion of constitutional rights, for if such rights were continually attacked, he believed a large portion of the community would come to the opinion that it would be better to live under a mild and tranquil despotism.

The Marquis of Clanricarde defended Lord Grey, and pressed Lord Derby for an early statement respecting his commercial policy.

The Earl of Aberdeen was anxious to take the very first opportunity which presented itself, to declare, as the intimate colleague of the late Sir Robert Peel, his determination to adhere to the free-trade policy of that lamented

statesman. He thought the distinctions drawn by Lord Derby on this subject were shadowy and unreal, and for his part he should oppose a duty on corn, whether for revenue or protection. The foreign policy laid down by the noble Lord met with his unqualified approbation, and he might rely on his cordial support.

After a few words from Lord Brougham, the discussion terminated.

In the House of Commons a number of new writs were moved for in respect to seats vacated by the new Ministers. On it being moved that the House do adjourn to the 12th March, Mr. Spooner took occasion to say that he should not abandon his intention of moving for an inquiry into the system of education pursued at Maynooth, which he pledged himself to bring under the notice of Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

The House then adjourned to the 12th of March.

vernment a distinct declaration, whether they had or had not abandoned the policy of Protection, anticipating, that whatever answer might be given to this question, the effect would be to damage the Ministry with one or another portion of the public. If, on the one hand, an abandonment of the cause of commercial restriction were proclaimed, it was reasonably expected that the staunch adherents of that policy in the country, and a large section of the agricultural interest, might take offence at such a desertion of their cause. If, on the other hand, a reversal of the free-trade system were held out, such was the popularity of those principles throughout the country, that it was confidently hoped that an appeal to the people against the reactionary policy of the Government would create a great diversion in favour of their opponents. While, with these views, the Whig leaders laboured earnestly to extract a decided and categoric statement of the Ministerial intentions, the Earl of Derby and his colleagues, on the other hand, exerted all their caution and address to avoid falling into a dilemma. The Premier stood firm to his originally declared intention of abiding by whatever verdict the country might pronounce at the forthcoming general election on the merits of free trade. If that verdict were favourable, he avowed his intention, notwithstanding his own opinions on the subject remained unchanged, to accept and adhere to the decision of the country. If the issue should be different, he was equally prepared to give effect to the public wishes. This resolution was announced by the noble Earl, and his colleagues in the House of Commons, on several occasions,

when the intended policy of the new Government was made the subject of discussion. We shall give a summary of some of the more important debates that took place on this interesting question.

The first of these occasions was on the 15th of March, upon the presentation of a petition by Lord Beaumont, from certain inhabitants of the West Riding of York shire, praying that they might be relieved from the uncertainty which existed as to the maintenance of free trade. The noble Lord having stated at some length the opinions he entertained on that important question, concluded by imploring Lord Derby to declare distinctly whether or not it was the intention of the Government to recommend an alteration of the present policy with respect to the importation of corn, as soon as a new Parliament could be assembled.

Lord Derby, having apologized for his inability to answer categorically a question which it had taken so long to propose, and having disposed very happily of the thirteen persons, holding together 1800 acres of land, who had signed the petition presented by the noble Lord, went on to deny that there was any greater necessity for the solution of the freetrade question now than before the accession to power of the present Government. A great party in the country had declared that the question could only be solved by a general election, and in proportion as the formation of the present Government rendered the prospect of such an election more immediate, in the same proportion did its accession to power render the solution of the question more

certain. For his own part he thought that the appeal to the constituencies ought to be made as speedily as was consistent with the great interests of the country, but at the same time he must declare that neither taunts, nor calumnies, nor mortifications, would induce him to recommend a dissolution one moment sooner than he thought it expedient. He had assumed, he would not say office, but its responsibilities, from no party motive of his own; the late Government fell by their internal weakness, by their notorious in capacity, by the lukewarmness of their friends, and by their own quarrels. They had declared a dissolution inexpedient for themselves, and he wished to know with what face they now came forward in factious opposition, and sought to drive him to appeal to the country after his declaration that the system of free trade should not be altered during the present session, but that the attention of the Government would be solely directed to those great measures of legal and social reform on which the heart of the nation was set. If the business of the country were factiously interrupted, the evil that might result would be visited, and justly visited, on the heads of those demagogues and agitators who caused that interruption. Though he desired to repair the injustice which certain classes of the community had sustained by the repeal of the Corn Laws, and though he thought it might be possible to do this by imposing such a duty on corn as would realize a large revenue, while it enhanced the price of the food of the people in an almost inappreciable degree, such a step could only be taken after careful

deliberation, and then not by a bare majority, but after an expression of very general concurrence on the part of the country. He would even go further, and declare that when he appealed to the country it would be on far higher grounds, and not on such a comparatively paltry question as that of free trade. He had seen with great regret a sort of renewal of the Lichfield House compact in a meeting at Chesham Place, in which an alliance had been made for the purpose of impeding and thwarting the measures of the Government. The question he would then ask the country would be,

Will you give your confidence to the men who deserted the helm of the State in the hour of danger, and then joined in factious opposition to render all government impossible? Or will you rely on the Government which did not shrink from the post of danger, which is determined to uphold the Protestant religion, to strengthen religious and moral education, to resist the aggression of those demagogues who employ their power over the masses only to mislead them, and to maintain the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of Parliament?" These were the principles on which he should appeal to the country, and he would, therefore, conclude in the words put into the mouth of the meanest criminal, but not unworthy of the First Minister of the Crown, "I elect to be tried by God and my country." (Loud cheering.)

Earl Grey, in answer to Lord Derby, insisted mainly on two points. He said that it was an unprecedented course for men who had made Protection a battle-cry for years, to take office, and then

to refuse to state whether they intended to propose an alteration in the Corn Laws or not. It was the accession of Lord Derby to office that had created the prevailing uncertainty, and Lord Grey contended at great length that the plea of having been forced into office was a pretence-seeing that the Protectionists had diligently and actively sought to come into power -attacking the late Ministers, and joining with their assailants on many occasions. Lord Grey asserted, that the reason why Lord Derby did not openly abandon Protection was, that he intended to canvass the counties as a Protectionist and the towns as a Freetrader.

The other speakers were Lord Abinger, Lord Clanricarde, the Earls of Harrowby and Powis, and Lord Wodehouse. Lord Harrowby warned the Ministers against attempting to impose a protective duty in very emphatic words.

He believed that there was not the slightest chance of success for a protective policy; and if they went to the country upon that, he felt sure that the result would be that the Conservative interest would be put upon a false issue, and that instead of trying the question of "Protection or not?" the real question that would be tried would be "Democracy or not?" ("Hear, hear.")

In the House of Commons on the same evening, on the order of the day for going into a Committee of Supply,

Mr. C. Villiers rose to make an inquiry of Her Majesty's Ministers as to the principles of policy which the present Government intended to pursue for the regulation of our foreign commerce, and especially that portion engaged in supplying

The country,

food for the people. he observed, had been more perplexed by the information which had been furnished upon this subject than if it had received none. It wished to know whether, and in what way, and how soon, Her Majesty's present Ministers were pre, pared to bring forward the policy they had advocated when in opposition, in order that it might be relieved from suspense. He expatiated upon the recent prosperity of the trade, the navigation, and the revenue of the country, upon the abundance of capital and of employment for labour, and observed that the change of Ministry had inspired an apprehension of a change of policy, which would disturb all the material interests of the country; peace and comfort had given place to uncertainty and alarm. Even if the people were indifferent to privileges which had rendered their condition so prosperous, that House should not be silent, but should tell them that the precious gift was about to be taken from them. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, to make a candid, manly, and open avowal of the intentions of the Government upon the subject of their policy in relation to foreign commerce, and especially whether they meant to reimpose a duty upon foreign corn.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Benjamin Disraeli) replied to the inquiry of Mr. Villiers. Though he questioned the reality of the alarm and distrust to which Mr. Villiers had referred, he was ready to respond fairly and frankly to his challenge. Casting a rapid retrospective glance upon the course he had taken with respect to the question of Protection-which, he said, he had distinctly declared, as