tm) STATE OF THE QUESTION IN 1843. 8o1
9% commerce, and for its discernment of the channels in
Which it would expand. On the immediate question, Mr. Zr. 56.
Disracl gave a definite opinion in support of the Minister.
In forming connexions with the states of Europe,” he
Said, “it was obvious that we could only proceed by negotiationg,
 Diplomacy stepped in to weigh and adjust conbending
 interests, to obtain mutual advantages, and as-“ertain
 reciprocal equivalents, Our commerce with Europe
“ould only be maintained and extended by treaties.” *
Cobden supported Ricardo’s motion, not on the rather
Wbstract grounds of the mover and others, but because it
"88 a way of preventing a Government * which was the
Creature of monopoly, from meddling with any of our com-Wercial
 arrangements.” The envoy to Brazil, he said,
bad been sent out to obtain the best terms for the West
Indian sugar monopolists, and he quoted the description by
8 Brazilian senator, of the people of Great Britain as the
daves of corn, sugar, coffee, and timber oligarchy.
Was it fit, Cobden asked, that the executive government
should be allowed to go all over the world to seek for im-Pediments
 to Free Trade abroad, in order to excuse them in
*osisting the removal of impediments at home? It might
be very well to talk of a commercial treaty with Portugal,
but abolish the monopolies of sugar, corn, and coffee, and
the vast continents of North and South America would be
Pened to the manufactures of Great Britain. Characteristically
 enough, he kept close to the immediate and
Particular bearings of the discussion, and nothing was said
by him in 1848 that was inconsistent with his position in
1860. Ricardo, again, in 1844 brought forward a resolution
© the effect that our commercial intercourse with foreign
“ations would be best promoted by regulating oar own
' Fob, 14, 1843. “Sign the treaty of commerce with France,” Mr.
Disraeli oried, © that will give present relief”

}