the want of proper
forethought and decided policy in its preparation. This was the
case with most whig measures. On the 23rd of April Mr. Hemes again
endeavoured to defeat the bill, securing a very large minority, which
further annoyed the ministry, but failed to obstruct the progress of the
measure. In the lords the bill was opposed vehemently by Lord Brougham,
who denied that it was based upon the principles of free trade. By a
majority of ten only the government succeeded in carrying it, and it
was generally believed that it would have been lost, only that the
government raised a report of intended resignation if the bill had
been lost. This decided the opposition of Lord Brougham, who desired
to produce such a result, and influence the doubtful among the
Conservatives, as they were not prepared at that moment to resume the
reins of power. The Bishop of Oxford proposed an amendment intended, by
securing the anti-slavery lords, to defeat the measure by a "side wind;"
but his object was transparent, and his end was not attained. The bill
was carried, and ordered to take effect from the beginning of 1850.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS--MOTION FOR GOVERNMENTAL RELIEF.

The agricultural interest was as discontented as it had been since the
repeal of the corn-laws. It was still hoped that the greater part of
the public burdens would be shifted to the shoulders of the commercial
middle classes; and the party calling itself "the agricultural
interest," but in reality adverse to the prosperity of the farmers and
farm-labourers, clamoured for public relief. Mr. Disraeli had now fairly
succeeded Lord George Bentinck as the leader, and he on the 5th of March
proposed a resolution for a committee of the whole house, to consider
such measures as might relieve the owners and occupiers of real
property, and establish a more equitable apportionment of the public
burdens. Sir Charles Wood, in an awkward and clumsy speech, confuted Mr.
Disraeli, no difficult matter even in such a speech, for the honourable
leader of "the country party" had collected his statistics carelessly,
and used them illogically. His speech was also deficient in the
eloquence so striking generally in his elaborate orations. It failed to
produce any effect upon any party, even upon his own, and he could
only muster the support of seventy members against three hundred and
ninety-four. This motion greatly damaged the prestige of Mr. Disraeli:
it was thought that he