stituency which he represented, but although he made the Corn Law the main subject of his remarks, and although Mr. Labouchere warned the house that "the markets once lost would be lost for ever," the tory chiefs would not be drawn into discussion, preferring to put forward Mr. B. D'Israeli, nothing loath, to rail against the general policy of the government. Mr. Stuart Wortley moved an amendment similar to that which had been passed in the other house.
On the second night's debate the same very cautious policy was observed. Mr. Ewart, Mr. Ward, Dr. Bowring, Mr. P. M. Stuart, and Mr. Sharman Crawford successively addressed the house most effectively, so far as argument and statement went, but without drawing out any leading defender of the monopoly. Mr. Cobden then made his first appearance, and by his obvious sincerity, his earnestness, his declared independence of all parties, his straightforward arguments, and his undeniable statements, made a powerful impression on a house disposed to receive him unfavourably, and little believing that the out-of-doors agitator would at once take rank amongst the most effective debaters there. Still the opposition leaders held back. A Mr. Bailey, one of their underlings made faint play, but his argument was demolished by Mr. Brotherton. Lord Worsley alone attempted to controvert the arguments of Mr. Cobden, but without success—and the second night's debate terminated.
The third night's debate was opened by Lord Sandon, who deprecated any discussion on the Corn Laws, the great question, he said, being whether ministers had or had not the confidence of the house. Mr. Milner Gibson assured him that the great question was not thus to be stifled. Mr. Borthwick (formerly the paid advocate of the slave owners in our colonies), with due humility, followed in the wake of Lord Sandon, and Colonel Sibthorp followed, appropriately, in the wake of Peter Borthwick. The main
