_The Protection Problem_
THERE was at this time a metropolitan society for the protection of
agriculture, of which the Duke of Richmond was chairman, and which
had been established to counteract the proceedings of the Manchester
confederation. It was in communication with the local Protection
societies throughout the country; and although the adhesion to its
service by the parliamentary members of the old Conservative party had
been more limited than might have been expected, nevertheless many
county members were enrolled in its ranks, and a few of the most eminent
were actively engaged in its management. In this they were assisted by
an equal number of the most considerable tenant-farmers. In the present
state of affairs, the council of the Protection Society afforded the
earliest and readiest means to collect opinion and methodize action; and
it was therefore resolved among its managers to invite all members of
Parliament who sympathized with their purpose, though they might not be
members of their society, to attend their meeting and aid them at the
present crisis with their counsel.
A compliance with this request occasioned the first public appearance
of Lord George Bentinck, as one of the organizers of a political
party,--for he aspired to no more. The question was, whether a third
political party could be created and sustained,--a result at all times
and under any circumstances difficult to achieve, and which had failed
even under the auspices of accomplished and experienced statesmen. In
the present emergency, was there that degree of outraged public feeling
in the country, which would overcome all obstacles and submit to any
inconveniences, in order to ensure its representation in the House of
Commons? It was the opinion of Lord George Bentinck that such was the
case; that if for the moment that feeling was inert and latent, it was
an apathy which arose from the sudden shock of public confidence, and
the despair which under such circumstances takes possession of men;
that if it could be shown to the country, that the great bulk of the
Conservative party were true to their faith, and were not afraid, even
against the fearful odds which they would have to encounter, to proclaim
it, the confidence and the courage of the country would rally, and the
party in the House of Commons would find external sympathy and support.
With these views it became of paramount importance that the discussion
on the government measure should be sustained on the part of the
Protectionists with their utmost powers. They must prove to the country,
that they could represent their cause in debate, and to this end all
their energies must be directed. It would be fatal to them if the
discussion were confined to one or two nights, and they overborne by
the leading and habitual speakers. They must bring forward new men; they
must encourage the efforts of those now unrecognized and comparatively
unknown; they must overcome all reserve and false shame, and act as
became men called upon to a critical and leading part, not by their
arrogance or ambition, but by the desertion and treachery of those to
whose abilities they had bowed without impatience and reluctance. There
was a probability of several vacancies immediately taking place in
counties where the seats were filled by converts, but men of too
scrupulous an honour to retain the charge which they had sought and
accepted as the professors of opinions contrary to those which now
received their mournful adhesion. The result of these elections would
greatly depend upon the spirit and figure of the party in the House of
Commons, in their first encounter with the enemy.
These views, so just and so spirited, advanced with high-bred
earnestness by one rarely met in political turmoils, and enforced with a
freshness and an affable simplicity which were very winning, wonderfully
encouraged those to whom they were addressed. All seemed touched by the
flame which burned in the breast of that man, so lofty in his thoughts
but so humble in his ambition, who counselled ever the highest deeds,
and was himself ever prepared to undertake the humblest duties.
The business of this day was notable. Calculations were made of those
who might be fairly counted on to take a part in debate; some discussion
even ensued as to who should venture to reply late at night to the
minister; a committee was appointed to communicate with all members on
either side supposed to be favourable to the principle of Protection to
the labour of the country; a parliamentary staff was organized, not only
to secure the attendance of members, but to guard over the elections;
finally, the form of the amendment to the government measure was
discussed and settled, and it was agreed that, if possible, it should be
moved by Mr. Philip Miles, the member for the city of Bristol, and
who had the ear of the House not merely from the importance of his
constituency, and seconded by Sir William Heathcote, the member for the
county of Hampshire, a country gentleman of great accomplishments, and
so highly considered by both sides that he was very generally spoken of
as a probable successor to the chair.
All was furnished by this lately forlorn party except a leader, and even
then many eyes were turned and some hopeful murmurs addressed towards
Lord George Bentinck, who in the course of this morning had given such
various proofs of his fitness and such evidence of his resource. But he
shook his head with a sort of suppressed smile, a faint blush, and an
air of proud humility that was natural to him: ‘I think,’ he said, ‘we
have had enough of leaders; it is not in my way; I shall remain the last
of the rank and file.’
So little desirous, originally, was Lord George Bentinck to interfere
actively in that great controversy in which ultimately he took so
leading a part, that before the meeting of Parliament in 1846 he begged
a gentleman whom he greatly esteemed, a member of the legal profession,
and since raised to its highest honours, to call upon him at Harcourt
House, when he said that he had taken great pains to master the case
of the protective system; that he was convinced its abrogation would
ultimately be very injurious to this country; but although, both
in point of argument and materials, he feared no opponent, he felt
constitutionally so incapable of ever making a speech, that he wished
to induce some eminent lawyer to enter the House of Commons, and avail
himself of his views and materials, which he had, with that object,
reduced to writing. He begged, therefore, that his friend, although a
free-trader, would assist him, by suggesting a fitting person for this
office.
Accordingly, the name of a distinguished member of the bar, who had
already published a work of merit, impugning the principles of the new
commercial system, was mentioned, and this learned gentleman was applied
to, and was not indisposed to accept the task. A mere accident prevented
this arrangement being accomplished. Lord George then requested his
friend to make some other selection; but his adviser very sensibly
replied, that although the House of Commons would have listened with
respect to a gentleman who had given evidence of the sincerity of his
convictions by the publication of a work which had no reference to
Parliament, they would not endure the instance of a lawyer brought into
the House merely to speak from his brief; and that the attempt would be
utterly fruitless. He earnestly counselled Lord George himself to make
the effort; but Lord George, with characteristic tenacity, clung for
some time to his project, though his efforts to accomplish it were
fortunately not successful.
Some of the friends of Lord George Bentinck, remembering his
inexperience in debate, aware of the great length at which he must
necessarily treat the theme, and mindful that he was not physically
well-qualified for controlling popular assemblies, not having a strong
voice, or, naturally, a very fluent manner, were anxious that he should
not postpone his speech until an hour so late; that an audience, jaded
by twelve nights’ discussion, would be ill-attuned to statistical
arguments and economical details. But still clinging to the hope
that some accident might yet again postpone the division, so that
the Protectionists might gain the vote of Mr. Hildyard, who had been
returned that day for South Notts, having defeated a cabinet minister,
Lord George remained motionless until long past midnight. Mr. Cobden
having spoken on the part of the confederation, the closing of the
debate was felt to be inevitable. Even then, by inducing a Protectionist
to solicit the Speaker’s eye, Lord George attempted to avert the
division; but no supporter of the government measure, of any colour,
advancing to reply to this volunteer, Bentinck was obliged to rise.
He came out like a lion forced from his lair. And so it happened, that
after all his labours of body and mind, after all his research and
unwearied application and singular vigilance, after having been at his
post for a month, never leaving the House, even for refreshment, he
had to undertake the most difficult enterprise in which a man can well
embark, with a concurrence of every disadvantage which could ensure
failure and defeat. It would seem that the audience, the subject, and
the orator, must be equally exhausted; for the assembly had listened for
twelve nights to the controversy, and he who was about to address them
had, according to his strange habit, taken no sustenance the whole day;
it being his custom to dine after the House was up, which was very
often long after midnight, and this, with the exception of a slender
breakfast, rigidly restricted to dry toast, was his only meal in the
four-and-twenty hours.
He had been forced to this regimen, from food exercising a lethargic
influence over him; so that, in addition to some constitutional weakness
in his organ, he usually laboured, when he addressed the House, under
the disadvantage of general exhaustion. And this was, no doubt, a
principal cause of that over-excitement and apparently unnecessary
energy in his manner of speaking, of which he was himself perfectly,
and even painfully, conscious. He was wont to say, that before he could
speak he had to make a voice, and, as it were, to pump it from the very
core of his frame. One who took a great interest in his success once
impressed on him the expediency of trusting entirely to his natural
voice and the interest and gravity of his matter, which, combined
with his position as the recognized leader of a great party, would be
adequate to command the attention of his audience; and he subsequently
endeavoured very often to comply with this suggestion. He endeavoured
also very much to control his redundancy of action and gesture, when
that peculiarity was pointed out to him with the delicacy, but the
sincerity, of friendship. He entirely freed himself from a very awkward
feature of his first style of speaking, namely, the frequent repetition
of a sentence, which seemed at first a habit inveterate with him; but
such was his force of will, that when the necessity of ridding himself
of this drawback was properly pointed out to him, he achieved the
desired result. No one bore criticism more gently and kindly, so long as
it was confined to his personal and intellectual characteristics, for he
was a man absolutely without vanity or conceit, who thought very humbly
of himself, in respect of abilities, and deemed no labour too great to
achieve even a slight improvement. But though in these respects the very
child of simplicity, he was a man of almost unexampled pride, and chafed
under criticism, when his convictions or his conduct were questioned. He
was very tenacious of his opinion, almost inexorable; and it required
a courage nearly equal to his own, combined with a serene temper,
successfully to impugn his conclusions.
Not, therefore, excited by vanity, but sustained by self-respect, by
an overpowering feeling that he owed it to himself and the opinions he
held, to show to the world that they had not been lightly adopted and
should not be lightly laid aside, Bentinck rose, long past the noon of
night, at the end of this memorable debate, to undertake an office
from which the most successful and most experienced rhetoricians of
Parliament would have shrunk with intuitive discretion. But duty scorns
prudence, and criticism has few terrors for a man with a great purpose.
Unshaken by the adverse hour and circumstances, he proceeded to
accomplish the object which he had long meditated, and for which he was
fully prepared.
Reminding the House, while he appealed to their indulgence, that, though
he had had the honour of a seat for eight parliaments, he had never once
ventured to trespass on its time on any subject of great debate, he
at once took a clear and comprehensive ground of objection to the
government scheme. He opposed it not only because he objected to the
great change contemplated with respect to the agricultural interest,
but, on principle, to the entire measure, ‘a great commercial
revolution, which we are of opinion that the circumstances of the
country do not by any means require.’
Noticing the observation of the Secretary at War, that the agricultural
interest, in submitting to this great change, might now accept it with
honour, instead of its being eventually extorted by force, he happily
retorted, that vicious as he thought the measure, he should feel it
deprived of half its vice if it could be carried without loss of honour,
damage to reputation, and forfeiture of public character to a vast
number of gentlemen now present. And he proceeded to show among other
testimonies, by an appeal to the distinct language of the speech from
the throne on the dissolution of 1841, that ‘every member who occupied a
seat in this House was returned pledged either to oppose or maintain the
principle of protection to national industry.’
Adverting to the new position, that the experience of the last
three years justified the reversal of the system which the existing
administration had been summoned to office to uphold, he wisely
remarked, that ‘the country will not be satisfied with three years’
experience of any system. Three years’ experience is not sufficiently
extensive to afford a proper criterion by which we may decide the
failure or success of any description of policy whatsoever.’
Noticing that the minister had more especially founded ‘his present
belief in doctrines contrary to those which he had heretofore uniformly
maintained,’ by the assumption that the price of corn would not be more
reduced than the price of cattle and other commodities affected by the
tariff of 1842, and also by the results of previous experiments in the
instances of silk and wool, Lord George ‘accepted his challenge’
on these grounds, and proceeded in great detail to investigate these
examples.
The House listened with great attention for full two hours, during
which he treated these subjects. This attention no doubt was generally
accorded because it was felt due to the occasion, and, under the
circumstances, to the speaker; but those who, however contrary might
be the results at which they had arrived, had themselves deeply entered
into these investigations, recognized very soon that Bentinck was
master of his subject. Sir Robert Peel looked round very often with that
expression of appreciation which it was impossible for his nature to
refuse to parliamentary success, even when the ability displayed was
hostile to his projects. The minister, with reference to the wool trade,
had dwelt on the year 1842, when prices were much depressed, while they
had greatly rallied in 1844, when the importation of foreign wool had
risen from forty-five to sixty-five millions of pounds; and he had drawn
a triumphant inference that the increase of importation and the increase
of price were in consequence of the reduction of the duty. This instance
had produced a great effect; but Lord George showed the House, by a
reference to the tables of 1836, that the importation of foreign wool
had then risen to sixty-five millions of pounds, and that large foreign
importation was consistent with high prices to the domestic grower. Nor
was he less successful about the foreign cattle. He reminded his friends
on the Treasury bench how strenuously, previously to the introduction of
the tariff of 1842, they had urged upon their agricultural friends that
no foreign cattle could enter under their regulations, and that
the whole object of the change was to strengthen the hands of the
agricultural interest, as regarded more essential protection, by
removing the odium of a nominal protection: ‘Convinced by my right
honourable friends, in 1842, that their tariff would be as inoperative
as it has proved, I gave my cordial support to the measure.’
Perceiving that the House began to be wearied with the details of
the silk trade, which he had investigated with extraordinary zeal, he
postponed until the specific vote in committee his objections to the
reduction of the timber duties. The fact is, he had so thoroughly
mastered all these topics, that his observations on each of them would
have themselves formed a speech of sufficient length and interest. But
he successfully checked any interruption by what may be fairly styled
his dignified diffidence.
‘I trust the House will recollect that I am fighting the battle of a
party whose leaders have deserted them; and though I cannot wield my
weapons with the skill of the right honourable gentleman on the Treasury
bench, I trust the House will remember the emergency which has dragged
me out to intrude upon their indulgence.’
And again, when he announced that he was now about to investigate the
pretext of ‘famine in the land,’ and some impatience was exhibited, he
drew up and said, ‘I think, having sat eighteen years in this house, and
never once having trespassed on its time before in any one single
great debate, I may appeal to the past as a proof that I duly weigh the
measure of my abilities, and that I am painfully conscious of my proper
place in this house.’
It was impossible to resist such appeals from such a person, even at
three o’clock in the morning; and diffident, but determined, he then
entered into what was, perhaps, the most remarkable portion of his
speech--an investigation of what was the real position of the country
with respect to the supply of food in the past autumn and at the present
moment. Having shown from the trade circulars that, far from there being
at present ‘a wheat famine,’ the stocks in the granaries in bond were
more than double in amount to what they were in the year 1845, ‘a year
admitted by all to be a year of extraordinary abundance,’ he proceeded
to the Irish part of the question: ‘I beg leave to say, that though this
debate has now continued for three weeks, I am the first gentleman
who has at all entered into the real state of the case as regards the
allegation of a potato famine in Ireland, upon which, be it remembered,
is founded the sole case of her Majesty’s ministers for a repeal of the
corn laws.’
And this was very true. The fact is, though the Protectionist party had
made a most unexpected and gallant defence, no one was really prepared
for the contest except Bentinck. Between the end of November and the
meeting of Parliament, he had thrown all the energies of his passionate
mind into this question. He had sought information on all points
and always at the fountain-head. He had placed himself in immediate
communication with the ablest representatives of every considerable
interest attacked, and being ardent and indefatigable, gifted with
a tenacious memory and a very clear and searching spirit, there was
scarcely a detail or an argument connected with his subject which was
not immediately at his command. No speeches in favour of the protective
system have ever been made in the House of Commons compared with his in
depth and range of knowledge; and had there been any member not
connected with the government, who had been able to vindicate the merits
of British agriculture as he did when the final struggle occurred, the
impression which was made by the too-often unanswered speeches of the
Manchester confederation would never have been effected. But the great
Conservative party, exhausted by the labours of ten years of opposition,
thought that after the triumph of ‘41 it might claim a furlough. The
defence of their cause was left entirely to the ministers of their
choice; and ministers, distracted with detail and wearied with official
labour, are not always the most willing or the most efficient champions
of the organic principles of a party.
Sir Robert Peel, with respect to the disease in the Irish potato, had
largely referred to the statements of the inspectors of police. Lord
George wanted to know why the reports of the lieutenants of the Irish
counties were not given. Being well-informed upon this head, he asked
the government to produce the report of Lord Duncannon, the lord
lieutenant of Carlow; especially that of his noble father, the earl of
Bes-borough, lord lieutenant of Kilkenny. ‘Is there any man in England
or in Ireland whose opinion, from his business-like habits, his great
practical knowledge, and the warm and affectionate interest which for
a long period of years he has taken in everything which concerns the
interests of Ireland, especially of the Irish peasantry--is there
any man whose opinion would have greater weight? The opinion of Lord
Bes-borough on an Irish subject, the lieutenant of an Irish county, and
himself long a cabinet minister? Well, sir, I am assured that, having
taken the utmost pains to investigate this matter, Lord Besborough has
made an elaborate report to the Irish government. Well, then, I
desire to know why Lord Besborough’s report to the Irish government
is suppressed? Is it because that report would not assist the present
policy of her Majesty’s government?’
He alleged the names of many other individuals of high station who
had officially reported on the subject to the government: of Lord
Castlereagh, the lieutenant of Down, a member of the House; of Lord
de Vesci, whose son was sitting for the Queen’s County, over which his
father presided in the name of the queen. A murmur ran round the House,
that it would have been as well if these reports had been produced.
The last portion of this argumentative harangue referred to the most
important division of the subject. Bentinck met it boldly, without
evasion; nor was there any portion of his address more interesting, more
satisfactory, and more successful. ‘I now come,’ he said, ‘to the great
challenge, which is ever and anon put forth by the Anti-Corn Law League,
and now by their disciples, her Majesty’s ministers. How are we, they
ask, with our limited extent of territory, to feed a population annually
and rapidly increasing at the rate of three hundred thousand a-year,
as generally stated by the member for Stockport--a rate increased by my
noble friend, the member for the West Riding, to a thousand a day, or
three hundred and sixty-five thousand a year?’
He first proved in a complete manner that, from the year 1821 to the
year 1844, the population of the country had increased at the rate of
less than thirty-two per cent., while the growth of wheat during the
same period had increased no less than sixty-four per cent. He then
proceeded to inquire why, with such an increased produce, we were still,
as regards bread corn, to a certain extent, an importing nation? This he
accounted for by the universally improved condition of the people, and
the enlarged command of food by the working classes. He drew an animated
picture, founded entirely on the representations of writers and public
men adverse to the Protective System, of the superior condition of the
people of ‘England, happy England,’ to that of other countries: how they
consumed much more of the best food, and lived much longer. This was
under Protection, which Lord John Russell had stigmatized, in his
letter, ‘the bane of agriculture.’ ‘In the history of my noble friend’s
illustrious family,’ he continued, ‘I should have thought that he would
have found a remarkable refutation of such a notion.’ And then he drew a
lively sketch of the colossal and patriotic works of the Earls and
Dukes of Bedford, ‘whereby they had drained and reclaimed three
hundred thousand acres of land drowned in water, and brought them
into cultivation, and thus converted into fertile fields a vast morass
extending over seven counties in England.’ Could the system which had
inspired such enterprise be justly denounced as baneful?
To show the means of the country to sustain even a much-increasing
population, and that those means were in operation, he entered into one
of the most original and interesting calculations that was perhaps
ever offered to the House of Commons. Reminding the House that in the
preceding year (1845) the farmers of England, at a cost of two millions
sterling, had imported two hundred and eighty thousand tons of guano, he
proceeded to estimate what would be the effect on the productive powers
of the land of that novel application. Two hundred thousand tons, or, in
other words, four million hundred-weight, were expended on the land
in 1845. Half of these, he assumed, would be applied to the growth of
wheat, and the other half to the growth of turnips preparatory to the
wheat crop of the ensuing year. According to the experiments tried and
recorded in the Royal Agricultural Journal, it would seem that by the
application of two hundred-weight of guano to an acre of wheat land, the
produce would be increased by one quarter per acre. At this rate, one
hundred thousand tons, or two million hundred-weight of guano would add
one million quarters of wheat to the crop, or bread for one year for
one million of people. But as he was very careful never to over-state
a case, Lord George assumed, that it would require three hundred
hundredweight of guano to an acre to produce an extra quarter of wheat.
According to this estimate, one hundred thousand tons of guano, applied
to the land in 1845, must have added six hundred and sixty-six thousand
six hundred and sixty-six quarters of grain to the wheat crop, or, in
other words, bread for six hundred and sixty-six thousand six hundred
and sixty-six additional mouths. ‘And now for turnips,’ he continued.
The Norfolk authorities whom he quoted have in like manner proved that
two hundred-weight of guano will add ten tons per acre to the turnip
crop. But again, for fear of exaggeration, he supposed that three
hundred-weight would be requisite to create such increased fertility. In
this case, two million hundredweight of guano would add six million six
hundred and sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty tons to the natural
unmanured produce of the crop. Now it is generally considered that one
ton of Swedes would last twenty sheep three weeks, and that each sheep
should gain half a pound of meat per week, or one pound and a half in
three weeks; thus twenty sheep feeding on one ton of turnips in three
weeks should in the aggregate make, as the graziers say, thirty pounds
of mutton. But to be safe in his estimate, he would assume that one ton
of turnips makes only half this quantity. ‘Multiply, then,’ exclaimed
Bentinck with the earnest air of a crusader, ‘six million six hundred
and sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty by fifteen, and you have no
less than ninety-nine million nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand and
nine hundred pounds of mutton as the fruits of one hundred thousand tons
of guano; which, at ninety-two pounds per man--the average Englishman’s
allowance--affords meat for one million eight hundred and sixty thousand
nine hundred and fifty-five--nearly two million of her Majesty’s
subjects.’
This is a specimen of those original and startling calculations to
which the House was soon to become accustomed from his lips. They were
received at first with astonishment and incredulity; but they were never
impugned. The fact is, he was extremely cautious in his data, and no
man was more accustomed ever to impress upon his friends the extreme
expediency of not over-stating a case. It should also be remarked of
Lord George Bentinck, that in his most complicated calculations he never
sought aid from notes.
We have necessarily only noticed a few of the traits of this remarkable
performance. Its termination was impressive.
‘We have heard in the course of these discussions a good deal about an
ancient monarchy, a reformed House of Commons, and a proud aristocracy.
Sir, with regard to our ancient monarchy, I have no observation to make;
but, if so humble an individual as myself might be permitted to whisper,
a word in the ear of that illustrious and royal personage who, as
he stands nearest, so is he justly dearest, to her who sits upon the
throne, I would take leave to say, that I cannot but think he listened
to ill advice, when, on the first night of this great discussion, he
allowed himself to be seduced by the first minister of the crown to
come down to this House to usher in, to give _éclat_, and as it were
by reflection from the queen, to give the semblance of the personal
sanction of her Majesty to a measure which, be it for good or for evil,
a great majority at least of the landed aristocracy of England, of
Scotland, and of Ireland, imagine fraught with deep injury, if not ruin,
to them
--a measure which, not confined in its operation to this great class,
is calculated to grind down countless smaller interests engaged in the
domestic trades and, interests of the empire, transferring the profits
of all these interests--English, Scotch, Irish, and Colonial
--great and small alike, from Englishmen, from Scotchmen, and from
Irishmen, to Americans, to Frenchmen, to Russians, to Poles, to
Prussians, and to Germans. Sir, I come now to the reformed House of
Commons; and as one who was a party to that great measure, I cannot but
feel a deep interest in its success, and more especially in that
portion of it which extended the franchise to the largest and the most
respectable body in the kingdom--I mean the landed tenantry of England;
and deeply should I regret should any large proportion of those members
who have been sent to Parliament to represent them in this House,
prove to be the men to bring lasting dishonour upon themselves, their
constituencies, and this House, by an act of tergiversation so gross
as to be altogether unprecedented in the annals of any reformed
or unreformed House of Commons. Sir, lastly, I come to the “proud
aristocracy.” We are a proud aristocracy, but if we are proud, it is
that we are proud in the chastity of our honour. If we assisted in ‘41
in turning the Whigs out of office, because we did not consider a
fixed duty of eight shillings a quarter on foreign corn a sufficient
protection, it was with honesty of purpose and in single-mindedness we
did so; and as we were not before the fact, we will not be accomplices
after the fact in the fraud by which the Whig ministers were expelled
from power. If we are a proud aristocracy, we are proud of our honour,
inasmuch as we never have been guilty, and never can be guilty, of
double-dealing with the farmers of England--of swindling our opponents,
deceiving our friends, or betraying our constituents.’
The division was called. The West-India interest, notwithstanding
the amendment was moved by the member for Bristol, deserted the
Protectionists. Deaf to the appeals, and the remonstrances, and the
warnings of Lord George, one of their leading members replied, with
a smile of triumphant content, that ‘they had made a satisfactory
arrangement for themselves.’ How satisfactory did the West-Indians find
it four months subsequently? All the shipping interest deserted the
land. They were for everything free, except navigation; there was no
danger of that being interfered with; ‘it rested on quite distinct
grounds--national grounds.’ They were warned, but they smiled in
derisive self-complacency. Lord George Bentinck lived to have the
West-India interest and the shipping interest on their knees to him,
to defend their perilled or to restore their ruined fortunes; and with
characteristic generosity and proud consistency, he undertook the task,
and sacrificed his life in the attempt.
Notwithstanding these terrible defalcations, when the numbers were
announced, at nearly four o’clock in the morning, the majority had
not reached those three magical figures supposed necessary, under the
circumstances, to success. In a house of five hundred and eighty-one
members present, the amendment of the Protectionists was defeated only
by ninety-seven; and two hundred and forty-two gentlemen, in spite of
desertion, difficulty, and defeat, still maintained the ‘chastity of
their honour.’