Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/442

 came back to office as the minister of the sovereign, as the minister of the people, and not again as the minister of a class who made him such for their own selfish objects." It was observed by those who sat near Sir Robert, that the tears started into his eyes at this unexpected generosity. Mr. Bright was followed by Mr. Hudson, a coarse man, who was at that time celebrated for his railway successes, and had been returned by Sunderland, in preference to Colonel Thompson, because the constituency expected him to build some docks there. His defence of monopoly was such as might have been expected from such a person. The debate was again adjourned.

On Thursday, the debate was resumed by Lord Duncan, who was followed by Alderman Thomson; Sir William Molesworth, who made an excellent speech; Mr. Benet, who said that a mortal blow was aimed at the agricultural interest; Mr. Henry Berkeley, for the motion; Mr. John Tollemachc, against it; Mr. Thomas Duncombe, in a tone of banter directed against both promoters and objectors; Sir T. D. Acland, who could not very well tell what he wished to be done; Lord A. Paget, who would rather have immediate than prospective repeal; and Mr. W. B. Baring, who said that protection now was unnecessary. Again the House was adjourned.

There was nothing in the Friday night's debate worth notice, except a long speech by Mr. Disraeli; noticeable only for its virulence against Sir Robert Peel. Again there was an adjournment. Monday night's debate had more diversity, for Sir George Clerk, vice-president of the board of trade, emancipated, like his leader, made a good speech. Another adjournment took place. On Tuesday, Mr. Goulburn, the chancellor of the exchequer, also emancipated, made a better speech than any one would have expected of him. Before another adjournment, Mr. Ferrand, substituting abuse, in which he excelled, for argument, of