the board of trade.' He was not always as careful as
Peel, and sometimes came near to a scrape.

In my speech, on Lord Howick's motion (Mar. 10, 1843) I was
supposed to play with the question, and prepare the way for a
departure from the corn law of last year, and I am sensible that I
so far lost my head, as not to put well together the various, and,
if taken separately, conflicting considerations which affect the
question.... It so happens that I spoke under the influence of a
new and most sincere conviction, having reference to the recent
circumstances of commercial legislation abroad, to the effect that
it would not be wise to displace British labour for the sake of
cheap corn, without the counteracting and sustaining provisions
which exchange, not distorted by tariffs all but prohibitory, would
supply.... This, it is clear, is a slippery position for a man who
does not think firmly in the midst of ambiguous and adverse
cheering, and I did my work most imperfectly, but I do think
honestly. Sir R. Peel's manner, by negative signs, showed that he
thought either my ground insecure or my expressions dangerous.

AN ARTIFICIAL SITUATION

The situation was essentially artificial. There was little secret of the
surrender of protection as a principle. In introducing the proposals for
the reform of the customs tariff, Peel made the gentlemen around him
shiver by openly declaring that on the general principle of free trade
there was no difference of opinion; that all agreed in the rule that we
should buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest; that even if
the foreigner were foolish enough not to follow suit, it was still for
the interest of this country to buy as cheap as we could, whether other
countries will buy from us or no.[161] Even important cabinet colleagues
found this too strong doctrine for them.

'On Tuesday night,' says Mr. Gladstone, 'Peel opened the tariff anew,
and laid down, in a manner which drew great cheering from the
opposition, the doctrine of purchasing in the cheapest market. Stanley
said to me afterwards, "Peel laid that down a great deal too broadly."
Last night he (Lord S.) sat down angry with himself, and turned to me
and said, "It does not signify, I _cannot_ speak on these subjects; I
quite lost my head." I merely answered that no one but himself would
have discovered it.' Yet it was ab