{50

LiF& CU OOBLEN.,

fost

1889. rather than svothed, by a speech of two hours in fongth fro?
#35. the greab leader of the Conservative opposition, in which b¢
carefully abstained from committing himself to any opinio?
on the principle at issue. He devised elaborate trains of
hypothetical reasoning ; he demolished imaginary cases; hf
dwelt on the irreconcilable contradictions among the best
economists. But there was not a single sentence in the
whole of Sir Robert Pecl’s speech, that could be tuken to ti
his hands in dealing with the corn laws, while on the con
trary there was one sentence which to any one who ghould
have accustomed himself to stady the workings of tht
strong but fartive intellect, might have revealed that the
great organ and chief of the landowners was not far removed
from the Manchester manufacturer. He had at least placed
himself in the mental attitude which made him accessible
their arguments. “I have no hesitation in saying,”—$0
Sir Robert Peel told the house—— that unless the existence
of the corn law can be shown to be consistent, not only
with the prosperity of agriculture and the maintenance of
the landlord’s interest, but also with the protection and the
maintenance of the general interests of the country, and
especially with the improvement of the condition of the
labouring class, the corn law is practically at an end.” *
Although such a position was rational and political, 28
compared with the talk of those who could not get beyond
the argument that the proprietors of the soil had a right
do as they pleased with their own, still there remained #
long road to travel before Peel could be regarded as #
probable auxiliary. The repealers folt that they must depend
upon their own efforts, without reference either to SI
Robert or Lord John. They had started a little organ of
their own in the press in April; and the Anti-Oorn-La
Oiroular used language which was not at all too strong fof
¥ March 18. 1889.