rd Grey) could
extort was, that the government had no _present_ intention of proposing
a tax on the importation of corn, but regarded it as a question still
open, and remaining with the intelligence of the country for solution.
Some of the high whig peers expressed their approbation of his
lordship's views in terms of warm support. On the other hand, the
Earl of Aberdeen strenuously opposed the purpose which the government
evidently contemplated, of imposing a new corn-tax.

In the commons, an adjournment to the 12th of March was proposed and
carried.

When the houses resumed their sittings, it became evident to the
government that the imprudent speech of Lord Derby had roused the
opposition to a high pitch of excitement. Demands were made as to
whether the government intended to re-impose the corn-laws. No honest
answer could be extracted in either house--experience had made the
leaders wary: the answers given were, in effect, that the government
would abide by the decision of the country. This reply made it evident
that parliament was to be dissolved on the question of free-trade and a
corn-law. After the country had reasonably concluded that the question
was settled, fierce disputes from end to end of the kingdom were
about to be raised. The old members of the Corn-law League accordingly
convoked meetings in London and Manchester, and it was determined
to resuscitate that powerful body, and with new and more effectual
instrumentalities of agitation, upon the first proposition for imposing
a tax upon the importation of corn. The uneasiness throughout the
country became very great, and a personal ill-will to the two tory
leaders began to show itself in the north of England, and throughout
Scotland.

On the 15th of March, Lord Beaumont presented a petition from certain
inhabitants of the West Biding of Yorkshire, praying the house to set at
rest the question of free-trade, as commercial enterprise was seriously
injured. Lord Derby answered that he did not consider the question
settled, and that the next general election must decide it. On the
same evening, Mr. Villiers, the leader of the anti-cornlaw party in the
commons, demanded final and explicit explanations from the government,
alleging that distrust and alarm filled the country. Mr. Disraeli denied
the statements, and resorted to the usual tricks of words to evade the
interrogatory; the inference from his reply was that a desperate effort
would be made to gain