Such was the imprudence of the first minister, that although Earl Grey gave him an easy opportunity of withdrawing his anti-free-trade doctrines, the most in the form of concession which he (Lord Grey) could extort was, that the government had no present intention of proposing a tax on the importation of corn, but regarded it as a question still open, and remaining with the intelligence of the country for solution. Some of the high whig peers expressed their approbation of his lordship’s views in terms of warm support. On the other hand, the Earl of Aberdeen strenuously opposed the purpose which the government evidently contemplated, of imposing a new corn-tax.
In the commons, an adjournment to the 12th of March was proposed and carried.
When the houses resumed their sittings, it became evident to the government that the imprudent speech of Lord Derby had roused the opposition to a high pitch of excitement. Demands were made as to whether the government intended to re-impose the corn-laws. No honest answer could be extracted in either house—experience had made the leaders wary: the answers given were, in effect, that the government would abide by the decision of the country. This reply made it evident that parliament was to be dissolved on the question of free-trade and a corn-law. After the country had reasonably concluded that the question was settled, fierce disputes from end to end of the kingdom were about to be raised. The old members of the Corn-law League accordingly convoked meetings in London and Manchester, and it was determined to resuscitate that powerful body, and with new and more effectual instrumentalities of agitation, upon the first proposition for imposing a tax upon the importation of corn. The uneasiness throughout the country became very great, and a personal ill-will to the two tory leaders began to show itself in the north of England, and throughout Scotland.
On the 15th of March, Lord Beaumont presented a petition from certain inhabitants of the West Biding of Yorkshire, praying the house to set at rest the question of free-trade, as commercial enterprise was seriously injured. Lord Derby answered that he did not consider the question settled, and that the next general election must decide it. On the same evening, Mr. Villiers, the leader of the anti-cornlaw party in the commons, demanded final and explicit explanations from the government, alleging that distrust and alarm filled the country. Mr. Disraeli denied the statements, and resorted to the usual tricks of words to evade the interrogatory; the inference from his reply was that a desperate effort would be made to gain a corn-law majority in a new House of Commons, and, in case of success, re-impose the corn-laws. Lord John Bussell, Sir James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Palmerston, Sir A. Cockburn, and other prominent men on the liberal side of the house, expressed their determination to offer every resistance they could employ to the re-imposition of any duty, in any form, upon the importation of corn.
Rumours began to circulate, that the government would endeavour to go on with the public business in the face of an adverse majority, and on the 19th of March, the Duke of Newcastle demanded explanations in the lords from the premier. The duke presented a petition from the Commercial Association of Manchester, praying for relief from the confusion and uncertainty thrown into commercial operations by the speeches of the leading members of government, in fact, demanding that the question of a corn-law should once more be submitted to the country. Lord Derby denied the assertions of the Manchester Association, refused to dissolve parliament, or to give any explicit information as to his intentions in reference to free-trade.
In the House of Commons, the same night, Lord John Bussell demanded that the public should be at once relieved from all uncertainty by an appeal to the country. So decided and angry was the aspect of the house, and so loud the demonstrations of its determination not to be trifled with on the great subject of a corn-law, that Mr. Disraeli was compelled to give that assurance which Lord Derby refused, and pledged the government to dissolve parliament, and meet the new house within the year, and as soon after the public business necessary to the country was disposed of.
It was, however, found difficult to transact business—the house was so excited; so that the question of dissolution was again and again renewed in angry and almost boisterous terms. Mr. Cobden called the attention of the house to the fact that the country had once more a protectionist government; that the fact was indisputable, and ought to be met with that intelligence and decision which became the greatest question of the day. He urged the house to limit the rates of supply, until the country decided whether it wished a tax upon bread, to enrich the landlords. Mr. Cardwell, in language as decided as that of Mr. Cobden, urged the house to fulfil its constitutional obligations, and compel the government of the minority to give suitable assurances of an early dissolution. Lord John Bussell declared that the government had taken a course for which there was no precedent in the constitutional history of England. He followed Mr. Cobden and Mr. Cardwell in insisting upon the government adopting such a course as to a dissolution, as would remove from the house the necessity of taking measures to assert its own high prerogatives. Mr. Disraeli declined pledging the government more definitely than he had done, which drew from Mr. Bright an invective full of fire, yet marked by a dignity unusual with that honourable member; he demanded that the supplies should be stopped, or the house be assured that no effort would be made by the government to retain power by unconstitutional methods. The result of these vigorous proceedings were statements made in both houses on the part of the ministry, that it was the intention to dissolve parliament and have an autumn session to settle the question of protection. It does not appear that these promises were made in good faith;—at all events no autumn session was called, although a new parliament met in November, and the question in debate set at rest.
The government introduced a militia-bill, which Lord John Bussell and the Whigs generally opposed. Lord Palmerston supported the government, as did the Peel party, his lordship criticising the tactics of Lord John with severity. The opposition between these two statesmen kept the liberal party divided, and alone enabled the government to maintain its course.
Lord Brougham introduced a bill to enable parliament to meet thirty-five days after a dissolution. The bill was carried through both houses without opposition.
The government took up a bill of Lord John Russell’s for the disfranchisement of the borough of St. Albans, on account of gross bribery and corruption. The bill was carried, no opposition being offered except by a small number of Lord Derby’s own party in the House of Lords.