eli accordingly proposed, "That the severe distress which
continues to exist among the owners and occupiers of land, lamented
in her majesty's speech, renders it the duty of the government to
introduce, without delay, measures for their effectual relief." In his
speech he advocated the remission of taxes from the landed interest, as
the alternative to protection, attributing the distress complained of
to the repeal of the corn laws. The chancellor of the exchequer, in a
matter of fact speech, refuted Mr. Disraeli's allegations that land was
taxed disproportionately to other property, or that the repeal of the
corn laws had failed of its object. Sir James Graham, in a clever _ad
captandum_ speech, called upon the house and the country to beware that
the real object of Mr. Disraeli and his party was to re-impose the corn
laws. Mr. Labouchere argued upon the same view of the policy of Mr.
Disraeli's party, which Sir James Graham had exposed. Mr. Cardwell and
Mr. Cobden in very eloquent terms adopted the same strain. The latter
gentleman said that there could be no doubt of the meaning of Mr.
Disraeli's motion, for whether a duty on corn, or compensation for the
loss of it, were the object immediately aimed at, the result would be
the same--the advantage of a class at the expense of the country. He
threatened the renewal of a national agitation against the exclusive
selfish policy of the landlord class. Lord John Russell declared that
he considered Mr. Disraeli's motion as fraught with more dangerous
consequences than any motion which in the course of his public life he
ever recollected. Mr. Disraeli's resolution was negatived by a majority
of only fourteen.

At this juncture in the agricultural agitation political affairs in
parliament assumed peculiar and various complications. On the 20th of
February Mr. Locke King, the member for East Surrey, asked for leave to
bring in a bill to make the franchise in counties, in England and Wales,
the same as in boroughs--the occupation of a tenement of the value of
L10 a year. Lord John Russell refused the assent of his government,
pledging himself to bring in a bill to improve the representation, a
promise which through many succeeding years his lordship was in no hurry
to fulfil. The motion of Mr. King was carried against the government by
a majority in the proportion of nearly two to one. It was generally
felt that this vote virtually sealed the fate of the government. The
agricul