Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/370

 lutious from being put to the House was gratified by 182 votes to 104, and the resolutions were consequently thrown overboard.

There was no longer any argument; Lord John Russell compared the Corn Law to an intoxicating stimulant, which could not safely be removed all at once, and his cure was to administer a smaller dose, not to become smaller by degrees, but to be fixed, unchangeable, not to "entail a change every year." Issachar was an ass, had long crouched between a heavy burthen on each side, and had grown accustomed to them. Issachar had indeed groaned under his burthens; but it would be dangerous to the constitution of Issachar, to take them off all at once, or even by degrees. The remedy was to make them less, but to "fix" them unchangeably. Argument was abandoned. Sir James Graham, who had formerly characterised the principles of free trade as the principles of common sense, now took refuge under the gabardine of Mr. Huskisson, who had said that prohibitory and protective duties should only be lowered in proportion to the increase of the population. The people had three loaves, when they could eat and required four. "When your numbers are increased by one-fourth," said Sir James, "we will add a fourth to the number of your loaves." Argument was abandoned. Sir Robert Peel vas obliged to fall back on the maxim in Single-speech Hamilton's parliamentary logic, that when two men call for the redress of a grievance, and do not agree in all particulars as to the mode, the best way is to deny the existence of any grievance. Lord John Russell had argued for a 5s, duty: Lord Howick had argued that there should be no duty at all, and therefore Sir Robert Peel would adhere to his almost totally prohibitive sliding scale. Besides, Lord Jolin had once been for an 8s. duty, and now would take one of 4s., 5s., or 6s.; and therefore things should remain as they were.

On the 3rd of June, the House of Commons came to