TWO:It appeared to be the design of the Whigs to agitate this Session a series of questions connected with freedom of opinion, which, from the spirit of the times, they could not have the slightest chance of carrying, but merely to maintain the cause of liberty and liberality against the spirit of alarm and the spirit of tyranny that dogged its steps. On the 11th of May Fox moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal certain old statutes affecting the Dissenters, but his principal remarks were directed against the outrages perpetrated on Dr. Priestley and the Unitarians at Birmingham, his tone being taken from a petition from that body presented a few days before. Burke replied to[393] him, and asserted that this body of so-called Religionists was rather a body of political agitators. He noticed, in proof, the close connection of Drs. Price and Priestley, and their adherents, with the French Revolutionists. He quoted Priestley's own writings to show that they avowed a desire to destroy the National Church. He expressed his conviction that, from the intolerance shown by this party in the prosecution of their views, they would, did they succeed in destroying the Church and the Constitution, prove worse masters than those whom the English nation then had. He had no desire to see the king and Parliament dragged after a National Assembly, as they had been by the admired reforms of Priestley, Price, and that party, and much preferred to live under George III. or George IV. than under Dr. Priestley or Dr. Kippis. Pitt expressed his unwillingness to give more power to a party that declared its desire to overturn both Church and Constitution; and Fox, in reply, attacked Burke's "Reflections on the French Revolution," saying that Paine's "Age of Reason" was a libel on the Constitution of Great Britain, but that Burke's book was a libel on every free Constitution in the world. The motion was rejected by one hundred and forty-two votes against sixty-three.Mr. Villiers's annual motion, brought forward on the 25th of June, was scarcely more successful than that of Mr. Cobden. Lord John Russell still harped upon his fixed idea of a fixed duty. In his view the country suffered not from the Corn Law, but only from the form in which it was administered. He said he was not prepared to say either that the Corn Law should be at once abolished, or that the existing law should be maintained. While such was the feeble policy of the leader of that Whig party which had set up a claim to a sort of monopoly of Free Trade principles, it was no wonder that the country began to look for relief to the Minister who had introduced the tariff of 1842; but Sir Robert Peel as yet moved too slowly to rouse the enthusiasm in his favour of the Anti-Corn-Law League. "There were not," he remarked, "ten reflecting men out of the Anti-Corn-Law League, who did not believe that a sudden withdrawal of protection, whether it were given to domestic or colonial produce, would cause great confusion and embarrassment. In the artificial state of society in which we lived we could not act on mere abstract philosophical maxims, which, isolated, he could not contest; they must look to the circumstances under which we have grown up, and the interests involved. Ireland, dependent on England for a market for her agricultural produce, was a case in point. He was not prepared to alter the Corn Law of 1842, and did not contemplate it. Seeing that Lord John Russell had avowed himself a consistent friend to Protection, and was opposed to total repeal, he thought he was somewhat squeamish in flying from his difficulty, and declining to vote against the motion. As to the Corn Law, the Government did not intend to alter it, or diminish the amount of protection afforded to agriculture." On the division the numbers for the motion were[512] 124, and against it, 330. On the whole, the cause of Free Trade made but small progress in Parliament in this year, though out of doors the agitation was carried on with ever-increasing vigour. As regards Mr. Villiers's motion, the progress made was shown principally in the decrease of the majority against it. In 1842, when he first put the question of total repeal on issue before the House, he had 92 votes, and 395 against him; in 1843 he had 125 votes, and 381 against him; in 1844, 124 votes, and 330 against him.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Molestiae, quia. Obcaecati quod ab mollitia maiores ducimus, dolor natus qui quaerat illum praesentium iste quia voluptate delectus distinctio blanditiis sit totam.
