THREE:The year 1844 brought little progress to the Free Traders in Parliament. The members of the House of Commons had been elected in 1841, in the teeth of the Free Trade cry raised by the Whigs, and before the League had made its power felt in the elections. Unless the Minister were compelled to dissolve Parliament, they were irremovable for four years longer, and could safely wait. Parliament met on the 1st of February. The Queen's Speech congratulated the country on the improved condition of the trade and manufactures of the country, and the increased demand for labour, from which it was easily prognosticated that no further concessions were intended that Session. Sir Robert Peel declared that the Government "did not contemplate and had never contemplated any change in the existing Corn Laws." At recent public meetings influential members of the Tory party had openly threatened the Minister with expulsion unless he maintained those laws for their benefita fact which drew from Mr. Villiers the remark that he regretted that the Prime Minister had not "the spirit to turn round upon these people, and show them their utter helplessness without him, their utter inability to administer, without him, the government upon their own system." Indeed, it began now to be assumed by all persons favourable to Free Trade that the Minister's opinions were really far in advance of his own party, and that he needed only a favourable opportunity to declare himself openly at variance with their views. The great meetings at Covent Garden Theatre, immediately before the opening of Parliament, kept the subject before the public.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Read Details
THREE:The examination of the witnesses for the defence continued till the 24th of October, and then powerful speeches were delivered by the Attorney-General, Sir Robert Gifford, and by the Solicitor-General, Mr. Copley. The speech of the former was considered so effective, that William Cobbett threw off one hundred thousand copies of an answer to it. Sir Archibald Alison, the Tory historian, admits that it was not the evidence for the prosecution that told against the queen, "for it was of so suspicious a kind that little reliance could be placed on it, but what was elicited on cross-examination from the English officers on board the vessel which conveyed her Majesty to the Levantmen of integrity and honour, of whose testimony there was not a shadow of suspicion. Without asserting that any of them proved actual guilt against her Majesty, it cannot be disputed that they established against her an amount of levity of manner and laxity of habits, which rendered her unfit to be at the head of English society, and amply justified the measures taken to exclude her from it."
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Read DetailsLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur nec nisl odio. Mauris vehicula at nunc id posuere. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Read DetailsLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur nec nisl odio. Mauris vehicula at nunc id posuere. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Read DetailsLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur nec nisl odio. Mauris vehicula at nunc id posuere. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Read DetailsLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur nec nisl odio. Mauris vehicula at nunc id posuere. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur nec nisl odio. Mauris vehicula at nunc id posuere.