Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir James Graham, and Lord Aberdeen, together with the Whigs, who for half a century have held the position of Her Majesty's Ministers and Her Majesty's Opposition, together with Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, and many Radical Members of the House of Commons, have laboured to destroy the restrictions which fettered British industry and British trade, and have thereby conferred immense benefits on their country. An old French merchant said to Colbert, when he was imposing restrictions on the entry of Dutch manufactures, and thereby cramping the silk manufactures of France, Laissez faire, et laissez passer,' meaning thereby that he should not prescribe the length and breadth of the loom, or impose penalties on workmen who did not adhere to the Ministerial measurement; that he should not forbid the entry of Dutch toys into France, or indirectly discourage the exportation of French wines to Holland.

6

These facts, which have been much misunderstood, contain the very simple secret of Free Trade. In speaking to my constituents of the City of London of the repeal of the Corn Laws, I said that it was barbarous to prevent the manufacturer of Lancashire from sending his yard of cotton cloth to Ohio, or to prevent the farmer in Ohio from sending his bushel of corn to Lancashire.

Nor can I foresee a time when the British manufacturer will no longer find a market for his goods in

other parts of the world. The population of Great Britain is so cabined, cribbed, confined to the land of the British Isles, that our manufacturing towns will always be very populous, and there will exist for a long time vast territories in North and South America, in the plains of Buenos Ayres, in the hills and dales of Australia and New Zealand, where herds of cattle may find plentiful pasture, and the grower of corn receive an ample remuneration for his labour. The evil genius of protection may prevail in the Senate and the Congress of the United States, may animate selfish parties in the Legislatures of the British colonies, but these obstacles must be overcome. Poets have sung the advantages of trade. Virgil has said, that on one soil the growth of corn may flourish, and that on another the grape will find its proper nutriment: 'Hic segetes, illic veniunt felicius uvæ.' Waller has said, speaking of English commerce :—

The taste of hot Arabia's spice we know,

Free from the scorching sun that makes it grow;
Without the worm, in Persian silks we shine;
And, without planting, drink of every wine.1

Pope, in a later age, has said :

The time shall come when, free as seas or wind,
Unbounded Thames shall flow for all mankind;
Whole nations enter with each swelling tide,
And seas but join the nations they divide.

Panegyric to my Lord Protector,'

Man has contrived, not only, by sanguinary wars, but by the poison of commercial duties and vexatious prohibitions in time of peace, to bar the intercourse between nations. It belongs to benevolent humanity and friendly policy to find a remedy for these evils, to make the commandment, to fill the world,' the source of new blessings, and forge a chain of love which shall unite all the races of mankind.

CHAPTER IV.

DEFEAT OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL RADICALS.-SUPPRESSION OF THE CHARTIST RIOTS, 1848.

QUESTIONS still more urgent, if not more important, than those debated in 1846 were agitated in 1848. A strong attack was made by the Economists, headed by Mr. Hume, and by the Philosophers, led by Sir William Molesworth, upon the expenditure of the State. The motion made by Mr. Hume on the 25th of February was exceedingly vague; it was to this effect:

That it is expedient that the expenditure of the country should be reduced, not only to render an increase of taxation in this Session unnecessary, but that the expenditure should be further reduced as speedily as possible, to admit of a reduction of the present large amount of taxation.'

The circumstances in which this motion was brought forward were somewhat critical for me. During the winter I had been afflicted with an illness, which, although not alarming, was a warning to me to be cautious in regard to my health. My medical

adviser insisted on my having rest and change of air. I went to St. Leonards, and after a few days' repose there returned much restored to London with Charles Buller.

I spoke in the debate on Hume's motion, and said that among the opponents of the Government were some who wished to see the prevalence of low establishments, low estimates, and low views.' On a division the majority who supported the Government were one hundred and fifty-seven, the Noes in the minority, fifty-nine; giving a majority of ninety-eight in favour of the Government. In the majority were Mr. Gladstone, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel; in the minority were Sir William Molesworth, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Cobden. Most people felt that the majority of ninety-eight showed the adherence of the House of Commons to the cause of constitutional freedom, hereditary monarchy, and national independence. The Opposition received the support of members who were not really their allies, but the undisguised abetters of violence, anarchy, and disorder. This question requires further elucidation.

The events on the Continent, in the early part of this year, were striking and calamitous. In Paris, King Louis Philippe, who had reigned for eighteen years, was compelled to abdicate, and a Republic was by popular violence installed at the Hotel de Ville. At Vienna the Imperial Government was overthrown,