that it must be ascribed to free-trade. But he did not
understand why the right hon. gentleman confined himself
to the working classes, and did not admit that
producers and consumers, and every class, were alike
benefited. It was for that reason that he proposed that
the right hon. gentleman should accept the principle
and doctrine that the property and industry of the
country would be better able to bear their respective
burthens under the principles of free-trade than under
that of protection. He denied that any class required
compensation, for all classes were flourishing. In
conclusion, Mr. Villiers expressed his hope that every information
would be given from the other side towards the
solution of the great question—whether or not the
abolition of protection had caused the present prosperity
of the country?—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved the following amendment:—"That this
house acknowledges, with satisfaction, that the cheapness
of provisions, occasioned by recent legislation, has
mainly contributed to improve the condition and increase
the comforts of the working classes; and that
unrestricted competition having been adopted, after due
deliberation, as the principle of our commercial system,
this house is of opinion that it is the duty of the government
unreservedly to adhere to that policy in those
measures of financial and administrative reform which,
under the circumstances of the country, they may deem
it their duty to introduce." He began by saying that
the real question before them was not one of protection
or free-trade, but one of confidence in ministers. If, as
Mr. Villiers said, such enormous injury had been done
to the country by the Protectionists, it was the duty of
the house to say so, and deny them their confidence.
But, on reviewing their conduct since the repeal of the
corn law in 1846, he maintained that it would be found
that those same Protectionists had never once attempted
to obtain the abrogation of that law. As it was with
corn, so it was with the sugar duties and the navigation
laws. The party with which he acted had opposed the
repeal of all those laws; and when they lost the fight,
they had demanded inquiry into the working and effects
of the changes which had taken place. In this respect
they could not be said to have done so much mischief
as the Whigs themselves in their conduct with regard
to the sugar duties. The Protectionist party had but
one object in the course they took—the welfare of the
labouring classes; and it was because they believed that
these classes generally, and one interest in particular,
would suffer from these changes, that they opposed
them. Mr. Disraeli proceeded to trace the course of
political events up to the year 1851, when Lord Derby,
under the altered circumstances of the country, was for
a countervailing duty simply, and did not attempt to
reverse the commercial policy of the country. The
only measures which the Protectionists proposed were
of a remedial character. They came into office without
any party feeling; and, without changing their course
at all, resolved that the great question of protection or
free-trade should be settled, as they had previously
foreseen it must be, by the country. The premier's
programme was one of compromise and conciliation.
But before parliament could be dissolved it was necessary
to pass some important and necessary measures—
measures that met with every impediment that party
feeling could suggest from the other side of the house.
The principal result, however, had been the triumphant
success of a highly valuable measure for the defence of
the country. Reverting to the relative amount of
mischief done to the commercial interests of the country
by the Protectionist and Free-trade parties, Mr.Disraeli
next alluded to the conduct of a third party—the party
originated by Sir Robert Peel—taunting them generally,
but with especial reference to Mr. Gladstone, with
inconstancy and inconsistency on various important
questions—particularly agricultural and colonial
distress and the navigation laws. The party in question
had approved of the course of the Protectionists on all
these questions; and if one had done mischief, the
other must surely share in the responsibility. He
reminded Lord John Russell of his own share in the
same responsibility, his Lordship having, with regard to
the same three questions, admitted that injury had
been inflicted on particular interests. The Protectionists
in their later proceedings, therefore, had met with the
approbation of all parties in the house. Mr. Disraeli
next came to the conduct of the Protectionists towards
the interests that they professed to represent. After
commenting upon the altered circumstances which found
him and his friends in office, he was not ashamed to
own that they found themselves, by the general verdict
of the country, beaten and discomfited, and had
accordingly taken the only course which lay open
to them. The manner in which this conduct was
received by the other side of the house was neither
liberal nor graceful; and as for the present motion, he
would not call it "bullying," because that was not
a parliamentary term, but it was certainly impolitic
and unwise. The government would not interfere
with what, in the language of the platform, was called
free-trade—with unrestricted competition. He
considered the motion of Mr. Villiers a vexatious proceeding.
If to that resolution he had moved the previous question,
he believed he would have received the support of the
house. But this course he had not taken, because he
was resolved that the present question should be tried;
and because he and his colleagues would never retain
power upon sufferance. He appealed to his friends
in the house for support, and especially to those
new and younger members whom he warned not
to become the tools or victims of exhausted factions
and obsolete politics.—Mr. BRIGHT supported the
original resolutions. After alluding to the significant
circumstance that Mr. Disraeli had described
himself and his party throughout his speech as
"Protectionists," reminded the right hon. member of various
occasions on which his friends—if not himself—had
brought forward motions directly against the present
commercial system of the country. Mr. Disraeli's
argument was mainly one of recrimination; he had sought
simply to show that others were as bad as himself.
The government now chose to call themselves Free-
traders; but he reminded them that it was upon
principles of protection—as far as the counties were
concerned—that they gained their places in the house.
Referring to the free-trade opinions now held by the
government, he read (amidst the laughter and cheers of
the house) a long list of protectionist professions made
by several of those gentlemen to their constituents at
the last election, as well as similar professions from a
large number of their supporters. After taunting Mr.
Disraeli with not having contributed a single feather's
weight towards the present prosperity of the country,
while men whom he had reviled had spent the whole
of their political lives towards that end, Mr. Bright
concluded by expressing his sincere hope that the
important question before them would that night be
settled for ever.—Mr. KER SEYMER supported the
amendment: and Mr. F. PEEL supported Mr. Villiers'
resolutions.—Lord PALMERSTON concurred in the
substance of Mr. Villiers' resolutions. At the same time
he could not forget that there was a large party in the
house who had surrendered their own convictions for
the good of the country; and it appeared to him that
it would be ungenerous on the part of a majority to
endeavour to compel unwilling persons to subscribe to
opinions which they did not share. He, therefore,
suggested a middle course, and proposed the adoption
of a resolution which, while it fully recognised the
doctrine of free-trade and the permanent establishment
of that doctrine, was not liable to the objection of
requiring those who might agree to so much, to recant
opinions which they might formerly have honestly
entertained. The debate was then adjourned.

The adjourned debate was resumed on Thurday the
25th; but a desultory discussion took place before it
commenced. Sir W. CLAY desired to know whether
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be willing to
withdraw his amendment, and Mr. Villiers his motion,
upon the understanding that the house would acquiesce
in the proposition of Lord Palmerston? Sir James
GRAHAM interposed, and, as a point of order, to give
an opportunity for discussion, moved the adjournment
of the house. He congratulated them upon the circumstance
that Mr. Villiers had brought forward a motion
upon so important and deeply interesting a subject; and
stated that he himself had drawn the original draft of the