nergetically opposed
by the government, and by the free-trade leaders, especially Mr. Cobden
and Mr. Sidney Herbert. The Protectionists rallied round Mr. Hume, and
the little circle of radical members who, like Mr. Hume, were suspected
of being heterodox to the free-trade doctrines. The temporary coalition
was led by Mr. Disraeli, always in the van when a political or
parliamentary trick was the hope of his party. The government was
defeated, and acquiesced in the motion. This success greatly encouraged
the Protectionists, who made a direct assault upon the government, on
the 8th of May, when Mr. Cayley proposed the abolition of the malt tax,
but was beaten by a large majority.

On the 17th of June Mr. Bass moved that half the malt tax should be
repealed in October, 1852. On a division the motion was rejected.
Various other attempts were made on isolated subjects to support the
landlord interest by the remission of taxes bearing on it. Lord Naas
repeatedly defeated the government on the mode of assessing the spirit
duties, but ultimately the ministry got rid of the resolutions of his
lordship. In June Mr. Disraeli moved a series of resolutions on the
position and prospects of the country and the policy of the government,
in which he was supported by the entire strength of the tory party. The
object of the resolutions was to oppose the application of the surplus
revenue to the reduction of taxes, such as the window, coffee, and
timber duties, until the result of a select committee on the income tax,
proposed by Mr. Hume, should be known. The object of the resolutions was
to preserve the surplus revenue for the reduction of taxes borne by a
single class, that of the landlords, and for their exclusive benefit.
It was the question of the right of peculiar advantage by the landed
interest brought out in another form. Mr. Disraeli appeared to great
disadvantage as a financier, political economist, and even as a party
leader. His speech was factious in spirit, resting upon no sound
principles of policy or economy, and altogether unworthy of the
leader of a great party, and of one who aspired to a reputation for
statesmanship. The chancellor of the exchequer made an unusually happy
speech in reply. It was not usual for that honourable member to indulge
in the witty and satirical vein which so cleverly and appropriately
pervaded that particular oration. The disingenuousness and factiousness
of Disraeli roused the spirit of Sir C