Page:The Annals of Our Time - Volume 1.djvu/119

FEBRUARY served with deep regret the continued distress in the manufacturing districts—a distress, she said, which was borne with exemplary patience and fortitude. "I feel assured that your deliberations on the various important matters which will occupy your attention will be directed by a comprehensive regard for the interest and permanent welfare of all classes of my subjects, and I fervently pray that they may tend in their result to improve the national resources, and to encourage the industry and promote the happiness of my people." So great was the crowd within and around the House on this occasion, that two hours elapsed before it could be cleared of spectators. The Address was agreed to without a division, Sir Robert Peel intimating that he would introduce the Government scheme relating to the importation of corn on the 9th, and explain, as soon thereafter as possible, the complete financial arrangements for the year.

3.—New writ moved for Liverpool, in consequence of Sir Cresswell Cresswell's elevation to the bench.

4.—Lord Stanley introduces a bill to provide better security to poor emigrants against frauds and inconvenience on their passage, and another to obviate the fluctuating system of alienating land in certain colonies.

7.—Arrival of the Indian mail with news of the outbreak at Cabul on the 2d November, and subsequent reverses of the British army stationed there. Despatches were received at the same time announcing the capture of Chusan, Shanghal, and Ningpo.

9.—Sir Robert Peel introduces his new sliding scale of corn duties to the House of Commons. A duty of 20s. to be levied when wheat is at 51s. per quarter, descending to 1s. when the price was 73s., with rests or stops at 53s., 54s., 66s. and 68s., designed to diminish the possibility of tampering with the averages. With respect to the duty on other kinds of grain, he proposed to preserve the same proportion between them and wheat as was maintained in the existing scale: a maximum duty of 8s. on oats, and 11s. on barley, rye, &c. Sir Robert said he considered the present not an unfavourable time to discuss the question of the Corn Laws. There was no great stock of foreign growth on hand to alarm farmers; the recess, notwithstanding the distress, had been marked by universal calm; there was no popular violence to interrupt legislation, and there was a disposition to view any proposal for the adjustment of the question with calmness and moderation.—Mr. Cobden denounced the scheme as an insult to a suffering people. During the sitting great excitement was manifested both within and around the House of Commons. A number of Anti-Corn Law delegates attempted to take possession of the lobbies, but after some resistance they were induced by the police to retire outside.

10.—The largest meeting of the Anti-Corn Law delegates which had yet been held took place this day in the Crown and Anchor, London. Sir Robert Peel's new sliding scale was spoken of as altogether unsatisfactory, and in no way calculated to relieve the distresses of the people.

14.—Grand ball in the Park Theatre, New York, in honour of Charles Dickens. About 2,500 people were present.

—Replying to Lord Brougham's motion for papers on the Creole affair, Lord Aberdeen said that, after the most serious consideration, Government had come to the conclusion that by the laws of this country there was no machinery or authority for bringing the refugee slaves to trial for murder or mutiny, and still less for delivering them up. Lord Denman, on behalf of the Judges, expressed their concurrence in this view.

—On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair preparatory to a discussion in committee on the Corn Laws, Lord John Russell proposed "That this House, considering the evils which have been caused by the present Corn Laws, and especially by the fluctuation of the graduated or sliding scale, is not prepared to adopt the measure of her Majesty's Government, which is founded on the same principles, and is likely to be attended by similar results." The opposition to the amendment was led by Mr. Gladstone, who said, whatever misrepresentation Government might incur, they would be content with the reflection that they had conferred on their country a great boon, certain to secure ultimately the universal approbation which it merited. The debate was protracted to the following evening, when Lord Dalmerston closed the argument on the Opposition side. "Why," he asked, "is the earth on which we live divided into zones and climates? Why do different countries yield different productions to people experiencing similar wants? Why are they intersected with mighty rivers, the natural highways of nations? Why are lands the most distant from each other brought almost into contact by that very ocean which seems to divide them? Why, sir, it is that man may be dependent upon man. It is that the exchange of commodities may be accompanied by the extension and diffusion of knowledge—by the interchange of mutual benefits engendering mutual kind feelings—multiplying and confirming friendly relations. It is that commerce may freely go forth, leading civilization with one hand and peace with the other, to render mankind happier, wiser, better. Sir, this is the dispensation of Providence, this is the decree of that Power which created and disposed the universe. But in the face of it, with arrogant, presumptuous folly, the dealers in restrictive duties fly, fettering the inborn energies of man, and setting up their miserable legislation instead of the great standing laws of nature." On a division there voted for the original motion, 349; for the amendment, 226. Majority for Ministers, 123. There (99)