years confirmed him in his new views; that he could not conceal the
knowledge of his convictions, however much it might lay him open to the
charge of inconsistency; that, though accused of apathy and neglect, he
and his colleagues were even then engaged in the most extensive and
arduous inquiries into the true state of Ireland; and that, as these
inquiries progressed, he has been forced to the conclusion that the
protection policy was unsound and consequently untenable.

It is worthy of note that Mr. Disraeli, the future Parliamentary rival
of Mr. Gladstone, took part, as a member of the House of Commons, in the
discussion of the question under consideration. The following words show
his attitude: "To the opinions which I have expressed in this House in
favor of Protection I adhere. They sent to this House, and if I had
relinquished them I should have relinquished my seat also." "It would be
an unprofitable talk," writes Barnett Smith, "to unravel the many
inconsistencies of Lord Beaconsfield's career; but with regard to this
deliverance upon Protection, the curious in such matters may turn back
to the records of 1842, when they will discover that at that time he was
quite prepared to advocate measures of a Free Trade character. But we
must pass on from this important question of the Corn Laws, with the
angry controversy to which it gave rise. Sir Robert Peel brought forward
his measure, and after lengthened debate in both Houses, it became law,
and grain was admitted into English ports under the new tariff."

After all their success in carrying through the important Corn Law
Repeal scheme, the ministry of Sir Robert Peel was doomed to fall upon
an Irish question. The very day that brought their victory in the
passage of the Corn Law Repeal Act in the House of Lords saw the defeat
of the ministry in the House of Commons on their bill for the
suppression of outrage in Ireland. Sir Robert Peel found himself in a