that the new Corn Law had not yet had a fair trial, and that he had no present intention of altering it.”1

Peel probably could not have given a different answer. But his reply had only the effect of alarming his supporters

Peel declines to modify the Corn Law of 1842.

without conciliating his opponents. Instead of defending the relics of protection to which they still clung; instead of denouncing "the rapid growth of that monstrous giant which had risen up in the form of the Anti-Corn Law League," 2 Peel used evasive language which did not pledge him to adhere to protection for his own murder on the 3rd of March. It became tolerably clear during the trial that he had mistaken Drummond for Peel, and that he had intended to kill not the secretary, but the minister. His counsel, who rose afterwards to eminence as Sir A. Cockburn, successfully pleaded that his mind was unsound; and the jury acquitted the prisoner on that account. For the murder, Ann. Reg., 1843. Chron., p. 6. For the trial, ibid., p. 345; and Townsend, Modern State Trials, vol. i. p. 314. The questions which were raised by M'Naughton's acquittal, respecting the criminal responsibility of persons who were insane, were subsequently referred by the House of Lords to the judges. Hansard, vol. lxvii. p. 714. A sort of epidemic of assassination passed over Western Europe in the middle of the present century. In France seven attempts were made on the life of Louis Philippe; and the King of the French drove about the streets of his capital in a bullet-proof carriage. Raikes's Journal, vol. iii. p. 134. In England, Oxford, Francis, and Bean fired, or pretended to fire, at the queen. Oxford fired at the queen twice on Constitution Hill. Ann. Reg., 1840, Chron.. p. 245. He was proved to be insane (ibid., p. 263), and confined in a lunatic asylum for the rest of his life. Two years afterwards, Francis, "a little, swarthy, ill-looking rascal" (Martin's Prince Consort, vol. i. p. 139), fired at the queen on the same spot. He was convicted of high treason, and sentenced to death; the sentence was not carried into effect, but Francis was sent to a penal colony where the labour was the most severe. Hansard, vol. lxv, p. 80.

"

Francis made his attempt on the 30th of May 1842. On the 3rd of July, Bean, a hunchbacked wretch" (Martin's Prince Consort, vol. i. p. 141), presented a pistol, which missed fire, at the queen's carriage. It was plain enough by this time that the epidemic was infectious, and that new measures were necessary to prevent its spread. Dastardly attempts like those of Francis, Oxford, and Bean would have been sufficiently detestable if the sovereign had been a man; they were doubly atrocious when the sovereign was a young girl, a young wife, and in expectation of becoming a mother. Peel proposed, and Parliament agreed, that future attacks should be punishable by transportation and whipping, and Lord Abinger, in passing sentence on Bean, hinted that in any future case the whipping would be inflicted. Ann. Reg., 1842, Chron., p. 142. The debate on Peel's bill will be found in Hansard, vol. lxv. pp. 19, 80, 101, 166. Sir T. Martin says that Bean was tried "under it." Martin's Prince Consort, vol. i. p. 143. But this is a mistake. The law was not retrospective. 1 Hansard, vol. lxvi. p. 178. 2 Lord Beaumont, ibid., p. 285.

lifetime, or even for the lifetime of the existing Parliament. The alarm which the country gentlemen felt was increased a few days afterwards. Lord Howick, expressing the general view of his own friends, drew attention to the distress of the country, and urged the extension of free trade as the only appropriate remedy. It fell to Mr. Gladstone's lot to reply to Lord Howick. Mr. Gladstone had always contended that the tariff of 1842 involved and established a principle of protection. He had tried to show that the sliding scale of his leader was a wiser measure than the fixed duty of his opponents. He was ready in 1843 with an epigram as an argument, and stigmatised the fixed duty as a tab'eland terminating in a precipice. But the warmth which he threw into his speech when he was criticising the Whigs died out when he passed on to the defence of his own measures. Corn, he argued, had been the subject of exceptional legislation for nearly 200 years. The special legislation could not be withdrawn without occasioning a violent shock, the effects of which would be chiefly felt by the wage-earning classes. This consideration, he contended, furnished a conclusive reason against dealing with the Corn Laws, and displacing, by doing so, a large amount of agricultural labour; but this consideration, he was careful to add, though conclusive, was only temporary. Such a speech naturally emphasised the impression which Peel's reply to Mr. Villiers had made. Peel had declared that he had no present intention of altering the Corn Laws; Mr. Gladstone had defended them on grounds which he had taken pains to show were only temporary. All his arguments, it was wittily said, were in favour of free trade; all his parentheses were in favour of protection. Alarmed at the prospects which were thus afforded to them, the country gentlemen again endeavoured to draw from Peel some explanation of his real meaning; they again received only scant consolation. "I do not undertake to say I will abide by any law," replied Peel; "but I will say that I do not now contemplate any alteration in the law." 1

1 For Lord Howick's motion, Hansard, vol. Ixvi. p. 448. For Mr. Gladstone's reply, p. 479. It was in this debate that Graham admitted that the

of 1843.

Yet, notwithstanding the fears of Tories and country gentlemen, Peel and Mr. Gladstone meant precisely what they said. They did not wish to trammel themselves with pledges which might prove inconvenient in an indefinite future; but they had no intention of altering the laws which they had made. The The Budget State of the revenue, indeed, justified a minister in declining to embark on further changes in the tariff. In 1842, when he had rearranged the tariff, Peel had personally introduced the Budget; in 1843, when he had nothing to propose, he allowed Goulburn, the titular finance minister, to bring it forward. The story which Goulburn had to tell was simple enough. Peel, the year before, had expected a revenue of £51,450,000 to meet an expenditure of £50.819,000. The expenditure had increased to £51,167,000; the revenue had shrunk to £48,745,000. Instead of a surplus of £631,000, the year had closed with a deficit of £2,422,000. Fortunately for the country two circumstances reduced the significance of this deficit. In the first place the deficit itself would have been avoided if the whole of the income-tax imposed in 1842 could have been collected before the 5th of April 1843. In the next place peace in East and West made large reductions possible. The expenditure of the nation, which had amounted to £51,167,000 in 1842-43, was placed at only £49,388,000 in 1843-44. The revenue of the year which had just closed had amounted to £51,450,000; the revenue of the year which was just beginning was placed at £50,150,000.1

principles of free trade were by most men acknowledged to be the principles of common sense. Hansard, vol. lxvi. p. 687. 1 The figures were as follows:

or, with fractions, £49,388,000

Hansard, vol. lxviii. p. 1391. Cf. Northcote's Financial Policy, p. 737.

A balance-sheet of this character made it almost certain that no new financial proposal would be made. The Government was compelled to watch the effects of its previous policy, and await a possible revival of trade. The good harvest The revival of the previous year had not produced any immediate of trade. effect on the industrial classes. But at the commencement of 1843 signs of a happier state of things were already visible. The weather was, on the whole, fine; the price of wheat was unusually low. The good harvest of 1842 was followed by a good harvest in 1843. The agricultural classes gathered hope; the labouring classes, blessed with cheaper food and more. employment, ceased to despair. In March the textile industries of Lancashire and Cheshire showed signs of improvement; in April Manchester was obviously regaining its old position; in May "the revival of business had extended to the woollen trade;" a month or two later still the hardware manufacturers of the midland counties were sharing the general improvement. Glorious summer weather in August and September stimulated the revival. It was everywhere felt that the lean kine had been succeeded by the fat kine; that the ebb was over and that the flood had begun.2

These influences made a marked impression on the revenue. Goulburn had expected £50, 150,000, he received £52,835,000.3 He had estimated the expenditure of the year at Its effect on £49,388,000, and he only spent £48,669,000. In the revenue. round numbers, therefore, the country had received £2,700,000 more, and expended £700,000 less, than had been anticipated. Its position in 1844 was better by £3,400,000 than had appeared probable in April 1843. In the preceding year, however, Goulburn had set aside a surplus of £762,000. Altogether, therefore, in the twelve months he had received

1 The price of wheat fell to 48s. 3d. in January, and to 46s. 2d. in April. The declared value of the exports increased from £47,284,988, the lowest point which it had touched since 1837, to £52,205,447.

2 Tooke's History of Prices, vol. iv. pp. 14, 50.

3 The chief additions were in the Customs duties, which had yielded £21,426,000, instead of the £19,000,000 expected of them. Hansard, vol. Ixxiv. p. 353.

£4,160,000 in excess of his requirements. He was able to pay off the deficit of 1842-43, and still retain a substantial surplus of £1,400,000.1

Conversion of stock.

It happened, moreover, that a great financial operation increased this surplus. The value of the funds had been steadily rising since the accession of Peel to office. The price of Consols stood at an average of 899 in 1841; it rose to 92 in 1842; to 95 in 1843; and to 993 in 1844. It was obviously unnecessary for Government to give a larger sum than 3 per cent. as interest for the money which it required. It so happened, however, that nearly £250,000,000 of the debt bore 3 per cent. interest. The greater part of this sum consisted of the old 5 per cent. stock, which had been converted into a 4 per cent. stock by Vansittart in 1822, and had been reconverted into a 3 per cent. stock by Goulburn in 1830. But, in addition to the stock of £157,000,000, there was a further sum of £67,500,000 of reduced 3 per cent. annuities, the remnant of the old 4 per cents. which had been dealt with by Robinson in 1824,3 and some smaller sums of £14,600,000 and £10,000,000 respectively created in Ireland in 1787 and in England in 1818. Goulburn proposed to convert these stocks into a new stock bearing 3 per cent. interest for ten years, and 3 per cent. interest afterwards. The holders were, of course, offered the alternative of repayment at par. The new 3 per cent. stock was, however, worth rather more than £100, and nearly every holder, therefore, preferred the £100 in stock to the £100 in money. The success of the operation effected an immediate saving of £625,000, and an ultimate saving of £1,250,000 a year. was the largest of the schemes which had, as yet, been offered for the reduction of the debt, and it avoided the mistake, which Vansittart had committed in 1822, of increasing the capital while reducing the interest.

2 Ante, vol. ii. pp. 119, 443.

It

1 The original deficit of 1842-43 was £2,422,000, ante, p. 28; but this deficit was increased by subsequent charges to £2,749,000. Hansard, vol. lxxiv. p. 365. 3 Ibid., p. 165. For the scheme, Hansard, vol. lxxiii. p. 729; Northcote's Financial Policy, p. 53