Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/438

 immediate for prospective repeal. Sir R. Inglis thought the protective system gave the best security for a regular supply of food. Mr. Fitzmaurice thought the farmers might as well die by the manly open thrust of Mr. Cobden as by the mince-meat, ladylike interference of Sir R. Peel. Mr Sidney Herbert, in an able speech, supported the ministerial propositions, and then the debate was adjourned till next day.

On Tuesday, the motion was opposed by Mr. Stafford O'Brien, supported by Mr. Sharman Crawford and Mr. H. Baillie, opposed by Mr. Lefroy, supported by Lord Clemens, opposed by the Marquis of Granby, supported by Mr. Gregory and Lord Brooke, supported by Lord Worsley, and by Sir James Graham, who said that, on his conscience, he believed the measures would save a great and powerful nation from anarchy, misery, and ruin. Lord Clive opposed the motion. The debate was again adjourned.

On Thursday, the debate was resumed by Mr. Colquhoun, who opposed the motion, denying that public opinion was in its favour. Mr. C. W. Martin would support the propositions, although at variance with his former opinions. Lord Morpeth, in a speech which made a great impression on the House, spoke in favour of immediate adjustment. Mr. Gaskell saw no reason to change his opinions which were in favour of protection. Mr. Roebuck expressed a hope that the measures would pass. Mr. Hinde was not heard in the impatience of the house, and again the debate was adjourned.

The Friday night's debate would have been unbearably tedious but for a telling and pithy speech by Mr. Ward. Mr. Miles read an unwieldy and undigested mass of documents in favour of protection, exceedingly provocative of yawning, and threatened the country with an inundation of wheat from Tamboff. Mr. Francis Scott compared Sir Robert Peel to a lawyer, who, after taking a fee for advocat-