them to consume more largely. More wheat, he doubted not, was consumed in a state of comfort than in a state of poverty; and even if more wheat were not consumed, the amount of wheat was increased by foreign importation, no doubt there would be a further increase of and demand for other articles of agricultural commerce. He had not the least hesitation in declaring that that admission might save a great deal of time in that house; it was a proposition that could not be disputed."
Yet, with such admissions, alarming as they were to the agricultural interest, Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues refused to give that encouragement to trade which would follow an explicit avowal that they intended to act op the principles of free trade. Mr. Labouchere made a smart speech but not a very effective one; for while he said he wanted a permanent measure, it was known that he was for a fixed duty which would possess no more permanency than the sliding scale. Mr. Ferrand made a speech, full, as usual, of abuse of the mill-owners; in which, in reference to the last general election, he said: "The great contest between the two parties had been between the rival principles of free trade and restriction. This had been the question expressly brought before the electors of Yorkshire by Lord Morpeth: the hand writing was said to be on the wall, and it was for the electors of England to read it for or against protection. Thus it was that Sir Robert Peel obtained office—pledged to protect the best interests of the country; but what he had done? He had attacked those interests by undermining them through the principles of free trade. The measures of the right hon. baronet had given a great shock to the great interests of the country: and it was the duty of those who had pledged themselves in the most solemn manner to their constituents, to stand firm to their promises." After the blows of Mr. Ferrand's fail bad been impartially administered to both ministers and free traders, the debate was adjourned.
