question with calmness and moderation.

The Premier's view of the situation did not seem to be wholly in accord
with the well-known facts, for the Queen even, on her appearance at the
London theatres, had been hooted, and the Prime Minister himself was
burnt in effigy during a riot at Northampton; great excitement prevailed
throughout the country, and Lord John Russell moved as an amendment
"That this House, considering the evils which have been caused by the
present corn laws and especially by the fluctuation of the graduated or
sliding scale, is not prepared to adopt the measure of her Majesty's
government, which is founded on the same principles and is likely to be
attended by similar results."

It was incumbent upon Mr. Gladstone to lead the opposition to this
motion. He showed that the proposed plan was not founded on the same
principle of the existing one, except that both involved a sliding
scale; that the present distress was caused by fluctuation of the
seasons and not by the laws; that high prices of food were chargeable to
successive failures of the crops; that these unavoidable fluctuations
were not aggravated by the corn laws; that Sir Robert Peel's plan of
working was far superior to that of Lord John Russell; that the drains
upon the currency, caused by bad harvests, were not to be prevented by a
fixed duty; that a uniform protection could not be given to corn, as to
other articles, because at high prices of corn no duty could be
maintained, and that, therefore, at low prices, it was but just to give
a duty which would be an effectual protection. The debate which followed
was characterized by vigorous speeches from Mr. Roebuck and Lord
Palmerston. Lord John Russell's amendment was lost by a large majority.
A motion presented by Mr. Villiers, the Free Trade advocate, for the
immediate repeal of the corn laws was also lost by a majority of over