Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/90

 ably exposed the inconsistency between the Mr. Gladstone of free trade opinions and the Mr. Gladstone of parliamentary evasions. Captain Maurice held that free-trade would convulse the land to its farthest end. Sir C. Napier said he would vote for the motion, if nobody moved for a fixed duty, which he would prefer. Mr. B. Cochrane gave the League credit for energy and boldness, but counselled that they should be met boldly and energetically. Sir George Strickland said that unless the house showed some sympathy with the people it would forfeit their affections. Mr. H. J. Bailey, described as of Inverness, never afterwards heard of, did not believe that any government would be ever induced to withhold protection from agriculture. Mr. Gisborne, as a practical farmer himself, denied that protection benefited agriculture. Mr. Colquhoun, of course, opposed the motion. Lord Howick would have preferred a small fixed duty, but would vote for the motion. Mr. Blackstone made some commentaries on the advantage of protection, which much amused the house. Mr. Wallace counselled the free-traders to accept of no compromise. Mr. A. Campbell had no fears of free-trade, if brought about gradually. And so the second night's debate terminated.

The debate was resumed on the third night by Mr. P. Borthwick, who accused the League of practising delusion on the people. Mr. Wrightson said the Corn Law was the most anti-national that could have been devised by Mr. Robert Palmer did not believe that the farmers were beginning to be advocates of free-trade. Mr. Marsland said that the farmers had no confidence in the ministry, and none in the stability of the present law. Sir E. Knatchbull, one of the ministry, contended that the existence of the League was unconstitutional; and that certain burdens had been entailed on land, marriage settlements for instance, which could not be liquidated if the Corn Law were repented! Lord John Russell said he