tion under Queen Mr. Villiers's efforts. CHAP. III. to exceed 20s. when the price fell below 21s. AmendLegisla- ments in favour of a fixed duty, proposed by Lords Russell and Melbourne, were rejected by 349 to 226 in Victoria. the Commons and 207 to 71 in the Lords. The advocates of total repeal fared very badly, as the amendment in favour of abolition proposed by Mr. Villiers was defeated by 393 to 90, while Lord Brougham's amendment in the Lords for repeal only secured 5 votes to 109. The Protectionists in the Lords endeavoured to defeat the Sliding Scale Bill, but the second reading was carried by 119 to 17. Motions brought forward in 1843 by Lords Russell and Monteagle to inquire into the effects of Peel's sliding scale were rejected by 244 to 145 in the Commons and 200 to 78 in the Lords. During the same session Mr. Villiers's motion for total repeal was defeated by 381 to 125, but in the minority were prominent Whigs like Lord Howick, Mr. Edward Ellice, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Macaulay. On March 12th, 1844, Mr. Cobden moved for a committee to inquire into the effects of protective duties on agricultural tenants and labourers, but he was defeated by 224 to 133. In the ensuing June Mr. Villiers brought forward his annual motion by a series of resolutions, which were rejected by 328 to 124. During the debate Mr. Bright predicted that whenever bad harvests again occurred Sir Robert Peel would either abolish the Corn Laws, or his Government would be overthrown. In March, 1845, Mr. Cobden assured the House of Commons that if they would grant him a committee he would explode the delusion of agricultural protection; but, as the country gentlemen did not want the theory exploded, they refused him a committee by 213 to 121. On June 10th Mr. Villiers introduced for the last time his motion for total repeal. He called upon the Government to indemnify the landlords in any way they pleased, except that of making the food of the people dear. Lord John Russell said the Corn Law as it now stood was vicious in principle, and could not long be maintained in its present position. Ministers said they must proceed gradually with legislation on this subject, and the motion was defeated by 254 CHAP. III. to 122. Legislation under Queen terial The potato disease in Ireland in the autumn of 1845 alarmed the Ministry, and convinced the Premier that Victoria. something must be done in the direction of Free Trade. Minis Following upon this came Lord John Russell's manifesto crisis. to the electors of the City of London declaring for the abolition of the Corn Laws. In December Sir Robert Peel proposed to his colleagues to repeal the obnoxious laws, but meeting with opposition, especially on the part of Lord Stanley and the Duke of Buccleuch, he resigned office. The Queen sent for Lord John Russell, but he was unable to form an administration, and on December 20th Sir R. Peel returned to office, the only change in the Cabinet being the substitution of Mr. Gladstone for Lord Stanley as Secretary of State for the Colonies. Three days later the Anti-Corn Law League held an important meeting at Manchester, when it was decided to raise the sum of £250,000 to continue the agitation. Parliament met in January, 1846, and on the 27th Sir Robert Peel introduced the Government measure for the repeal of the Corn Laws in a speech which occupied three hours and a half. The Premier admitted that his opinions on the question of the Corn Laws had undergone a complete change, but honour and a sense of public duty forbade his retirement from office at this juncture. He then explained the details of his measure. The duty on corn was to be at once greatly reduced, 10s. duty being fixed when the price was under 488., decreasing by 1s. for every 1s. increase up to 53s., to remain at 48. when the price was 53s. and upwards. The duty was to cease altogether on February 1st, 1849, with the exception of a registration duty of 1s. per quarter, which was to terminate in 1869; and it was eventually abolished by the Budget of that year. The Premier was bitterly assailed by the Protectionists. More than one hundred speeches were delivered during the opening debate. The bill was stoutly contested at every stage, but on May 16th Repeal of the Corn Laws. tion under Queen Peel Ministry. CHAP. III. it passed its third reading by 327 to 229. In the Legisla Lords the third reading was carried by 211 to 164, and the measure became law on June 25th. On the same Victoria. day the Peel Ministry fell upon the Irish Coercion Fall of the Bill. In taking leave of office on the 29th, the Premier reviewed the course and policy of his Government, and paid a warm tribute to Mr. Cobden. Then, in memorable language, he observed that in relinquishing power he should leave a name severely censured by conscientious Protectionists and execrated by selfish monopolists; "but," he added, "it may be that I shall leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of goodwill in the abodes of those whose lot it is to labour and to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow, when they shall recruit their exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened by a sense of injustice." Results of Free Trade. Affairs of The policy of Free Trade has been justified as the only one under which capital and labour find their most natural and profitable fields for employment. The vast expansion of British trade witnessed during the past forty years would not have been possible under any other system. Periods of depression may give a momentary impulse to Protectionist and Fair Trade theories, but the practical difficulties in the way of the realisation of such theories are insuperable, while it is now an acknowledged axiom that for a country like England Free Trade is an absolute necessity. II. COLONIAL AND INDIAN LEGISLATION. Canada, one of the most important of British possessions, was in a greatly disturbed condition at the time. of the Queen's accession. The French party in Lower Canada, which formed the vast bulk of the population, had long complained that they could obtain no redress for their grievances. They urged that the executive and the Upper Legislative Chamber were composed of Crown nominees and in no sense represented the feelings of the majority of the inhabitants, while the tion under Queen Victoria. administration was one-sided and inefficient. As popular CHAP. III. measures were invariably thrown out by the Council, Legislathe Assembly of the Lower Province stopped the supplies for the payment of official salaries in 1833; and the Upper Province followed their example in 1836. The Upper Province demanded that the Executive Council should be made responsible to the Assembly, and the Lower that the Legislative Council should be made elective. In the Imperial Parliament, however, resolutions refusing these concessions were proposed by Lord John Russell on March 6th, 1837, and carried, after a long debate, by 269 to 46 votes. On the news becoming known in Lower Canada, the French population rose as one man. The rebellion was crushed, but the Home Government saw that they could no longer turn a deaf ear to all reforms. In 1838, accordingly, Lord Durham was sent out to Canada in the double capacity of Governor-General and High Commissioner for adjusting the differences in the Upper and Lower Provinces. The constitution of Lower Canada was suspended pending the pacification. Lord Durham, with Lord the aid of his special council, issued an ordinance banish- policy. ing such prisoners as were in his power, and ordering their transportation to the Bermudas. These prisoners, together with the insurgent leaders who had escaped to America, were forbidden to return to Canada, under pain of death, until they had leave to do so. This ordinance was severely attacked by the Opposition at home, Lord Brougham being especially strong in his denunciations. Ministers were compelled to disallow the ordinance, whereupon Lord Durham resigned and left Canada. His mission had not been without effect, however, for, acting upon a valuable report which he had prepared, the Melbourne Government passed an act in 1840 uniting the two provinces, and granting a popular constitution to Canada. The advantages of a single government and a single Parliament were gained, together with electoral and municipal reforms. These reforms were consolidated a few years later by Lord Durham's tion under CHAP. III. Elgin, an able Governor-General, though a riot occurred Legisla in Montreal in 1850, because his lordship had given his Queen assent to a bill indemnifying the inhabitants of Lower Victoria. Canada for the losses inflicted on them by the insurConfeder- rection of 1837-8. In 1867 Lord Carnarvon, the Colonial ation. Events in Jamaica. Minister, carried through Parliament a bill for the confederation of the British North American provinces, under the title of the Dominion of Canada. The plan originally suggested by Lord Durham was successfully completed by this measure. Under this new constitution, a House of Commons and a senate formed the central Parliament. The members of the House of Commons were elected by the people, and the senate consisted of seventy members, nominated for life by the Governor-General. The executive was vested in the Crown, as represented by the Governor-General. The confederation at first included the two Canadas, Nova Scotia, and Brunswick; but Manitoba, British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island subsequently joined. Newfoundland alone remained independent. There are local Legislatures for the provinces, as well as an Imperial Legislature for the whole. The Dominion is practically independent of the mother-country, the Governor-General being the only link with the Home Government. Jamaica was another English possession which had long been disturbed by rebellions. The negroes frequently rose against their masters, and in the year 1838 it was found necessary to abolish apprenticeship, in spite of the protests of the Jamaica Assembly. The island still remained in a deplorable condition, however, and in 1839 a bill was brought into the English Parliament to suspend the constitution of Jamaica for five years, in consequence of the action of the Assembly with regard to the emancipation of slaves. This Jamaica Bill led to the fall of the Melbourne Ministry. It was opposed by Mr. Hume and the Radicals, and also by Sir R. Peel, who considered that an opportunity should be given to the Assembly to withdraw from its false position. As the proposal to go into committee on the bill was |