Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/340

 326 History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1841 gave rise to some curious cross-firing. They were opposed by some Liberals because they admitted the system of protection into Canada, and by some Tories because they reduced the amount of protection in England. They were, however, carried by large majorities, and a bill founded on them passed the second reading on the 2nd of June by 209 to 109. In the House of Lords the same confusion of parties took place. On the 4th of July, on the vote for going into committee on the bill, a debate took place. The Duke of Richmond opposed the measure, because it diminished the protection to the British farmer, and Lord Teynham because it was not a free- trade measure. It passed by a majority of fifty-seven to twenty-five, and became law. Much of the time of Parliament was thus occupied in debates on the corn laws and on subjects related to them. A great part of the remainder was taken up by the discussion of an Arms Bill for Ireland. It did not much matter which of the English parties was in power so far as the treatment of the Irish people was concerned. Now under the Tories, as formerly under the Whigs, the substantial grievances remained. The land laws were unaltered ; the municipal institutions were based on principles different to those of England ; and the alien Church maintained its supremacy. Practical efforts were devoted to the suppression of the disturbances which bad government rendered inevitable. This Arms Bill of 1843 came up for second reading in the Commons on the 2Qth of May ; it was debated step by step and clause by clause, the English Radicals assisting in the opposition, and it was not until the 9th of August that it was read a third time and passed. It was of course carried much more rapidly through the House of Lords coercion has never met with prolonged opposition there and only two nights were spent in debate over this specimen of the policy. There was thus little opportunity, even if there had been any great desire, to press forward in Parliament the subject of constitutional reform. The desire, however, was not strongly manifested ; and there has scarcely ever been a time when