al demonstration, Lord Lewisham, and
Messrs. Newdegate and Spoon er, members of parliament, marshalled their
hosts, and it was intended to make such a demonstration of strength on
behalf of the agricultural interest as would awe the government, and
impress the country with an idea of the growing power of the party. The
populace, however, attacked the meeting--a severe conflict ensued;
the Protectionists were driven from the town. The vehicles of the
agricultural party were broken or thrown over Tamworth Bridge; many
persons were dangerously wounded, especially among the Protectionists;
and the issue was a fresh demonstration of the unpopularity of
protectionist doctrines, and of their chief advocates. The moral effect
of the incident throughout the country was adverse to the party who
promoted the assemblage. The riot occurred on the 28th of May, and the
strong popular hostility evinced, had its influence in parliament in
emboldening the hostile eloquence of the free-traders, and damped the
ardour of the protectionist gatherings in the coming autumn.

Throughout the parliamentary session the agricultural interest made
its complaints incessantly heard. The leaders declared that the landed
gentry and farmers were rapidly proceeding to ruin in consequence of
free-trade, and their vaticinations of frightful calamities to the
nation were singular displays of extraordinary hypocrisy, or delusions.
Amongst the most doleful prophets and lugubrious friends of agriculture
was Benjamin Disraeli. He was also the most acrimonious of advocates,
while defending claims ignored by the nation as unjust, denounced by
political economists as injurious; and, obviously in the exclusive
and selfish interests of a class, he denounced the advocates of
free commerce as without honour, honesty, or patriotism, sparing his
opponents neither as individuals nor as members of a party. The moral
effect of this unprincipled vituperation upon the country was injurious
to the party it was intended to serve, and lessened the confidence which
the people had been accustomed to repose in the integrity of public
men. Early in the session Mr. Disraeli introduced a resolution on
agricultural distress. An opening, almost an invitation, for him to
do so was given by Lord John Russell, who, with his usual mal-adroit
attempts to conciliate his opponents, inserted in the queen's speech
an expression of regret for the distress borne by the agricultural
interest. Disra