Page:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf/239

Rh On Thursday, May 27th, Sir Robert moved: "That her Majesty's ministers do not sufficiently possess the confidence of the House of Commons to enable them to carry through the house measures which they deem of essential importance to the public welfare; and that their continuance in office under such circumstances is at variance with the spirit of the constitution." The animated debate was adjourned until next day, and then until Wednesday, and then until Thursday. On Friday (June 4th) the house divided, when the numbers were:—For the motion, 312; against it, 311, Majority, ONE. This was a small majority to drive the whigs from office, but it was sufficient, viewed in connection with former defeats, to convince them that they could do nothing if they remained; and on the following Monday, Lord J. Russell, on rising to declare what were the intentions of ministers, said it was apparent from the division that the business of the country could neither be carried on by the then government nor by the right honourable baronet. The only course, therefore, was to appeal to the country, and with a view of so doing, it was his intention to demand only such votes of the civil contingencies as were indispensable for the public service, until the meeting of the new Parliament. In reply to a question from Sir Robert Peel, his lordship added that no time should be lost in calling the new Parliament, and it was not the intention of himself or his colleagues to bring forward the question of the Corn Laws during that session. My comment at the time, on this position of affairs, was: "The country knows how to estimate the movement. There was no proposal of a want-of-confidence vote while the ministers did nothing. It was only when they announced their intention to do something for the public benefit that Sir Robert Peel mustered his forces to drive them from office. The motion was in consequence of their defeat in the attempt to reduce the heavy duty on foreign grown sugar, and their announcement that they intended to reduce the duty on foreign grown corn.We will not say that all who voted with ministers were friends of free trade, but it is obvious that every person who voted in the majority