Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/439

 ing one side, took the other when the case came into court. Sir Robert Peel quietly asked—"Whose counsel are you now?" Sir Howard Douglas also bestowed his tediousness on the House. A little scene ensued between Lord Northland and Ferrand the coarse, which somewhat enlivened the dulness of the debate; Lord Northland avowed his intention to support Sir Robert Peel, because he had more confidence in him than in Lord John Russell. A story had been told of his lordship that at the time of the passing of the Maynooth Act he was caught in the house as it was going to a division, and, being unwilling to vote either for or against the bill, he hid himself in a small recess, which had been formerly used as a coal-hole, and some mischievous "friend" having observed it, told the Sergeant-at-Arms, and Lord Northland was compelled to come out and vote. Mr. B. Ferrand recalled this circumstance to the recollection of the noble lord, amidst uproarious laughter. "What confidence," he bellowed, "had you in the right honourable baronet when you were dragged out of the coal-hole to vote for him?" The debate was again adjourned.

The fifth night's debate on the following Monday was opened by Lord March, eldest son of the Duke of Richmond, and about as sensible a protectionist. The House was relieved by the rising of Mr. Milner Gibson, whose easy, fluent, and agreeable style, secured him the attention of the House, notwithstanding the home truths which he uttered, to the utter discomfiture, so far as argument went, of the protectionist orators. Sir William Clay discussed several points at issue clearly and well. Lord Alfred Churchill, sent from Woodstock, was, of course, in favour of protection. Mr. James supported the motion, and so did Lord Harry Vane, brother to the monopolist Duke of Cleveland. Sir John Tyrell amused the House—it was as much as he could do for protection.

Sir Robert Peel rose about ten o'clock and spoke for