On Monday, February 13th, Lord Howick's motion for a committee to enquire into the distress of the country, gave rise to a debate, which dragged its slow length over four nights. His lordship's speech was upon the whole effective, although he had the disadvantage of being known as favouring a sort of half-way house measure of relief, between the whig eight shilling duty and a total repeal of the Corn Law. Of this disadvantage Mr. Gladstone, a clever debater, was not slow to avail himself. His lordship had said, that Sir Robert Peel halted between two opinions.
"But," said Mr. Gladstone, "the noble lord halts between two opinions, and instead of being prepared boldly to apply his principles of freedom to trade, and to say what he would do for the country, he declares that he would not venture to determine to what degree restrictions should be maintained. What, then became of the whole speech of the noble lord? It was an able speech, but its object was to show the mischief of restrictions on commerce, and the evil tendency of the system of protection; and while he was reproaching his right hon. friend because he maintained a certain portion of restoration, the noble lord himself appeared to be ready likewise to maintain a portion of restrictions." Mr. Gladstone's admissions were those of a free trader. He said: "He would make an admission to the noble lord—that if a change in the Corn Law were to take place, and if that change were to procure an increased importation of foreign corn, and if that importation of foreign corn were to be paid for in British manufactures, he thought it would be taking a most short and false view of the interests of British agriculture to view that importation of foreign corn as so much displacement of British agricultural commerce. Why, the first effect would be that it might reduce prices, but undoubtedly it would give a demand for the labour of those now unemployed, and thereby create a new class of producers, and raise the wages of those who had now low wages, and thereby enable
