preserve the evil; and a quicker end than pleasant may be put to mischief, which nobody would remove by an earlier application of the prudentiai virtues.

(Recollections of Richard Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League, H. Ashworth, Lond. p. 36.)

224. Repeal of the Corn Law

Levi

The Anti-Corn-Law movement finally met with the success it merited, though not without encountering fierce opposition. The landed interest was inimical, almost as a unit. Legislation in the interest of the masses found little favour among the upper classes of England at that period, and the voice of the multitude, reduced to the borders of starvation, was long raised in vain. Sir Robert Peel's defection from the opponents of the Bill largely aided its ultimate passage, but to Cobham and Bright belong the greatest meed of praise for the final triumph of the cause of the people.

The Anti-Corn-Law agitation was one of those movements which, being founded on right principles, and in harmony with the interests of the masses, was sure to gather fresh strength by any event affecting the supply of food. It was popular to attempt to reverse a policy which aimed almost exclusively to benefit one class of society.... The economic theorists had the mass of the people with them. Their gatherings were becoming more and more enthusiastic. And even amidst Conservative landowners there were not a fewenlightened and liberal minds who had already, silently at least, espoused the new ideas. No change certainly could be expected so long as bread was cheap and labour abundant. But when a deficient harvest and a blight in the potato crop crippled the resources of the people and raised grain to famine prices, the voice of the League acquired greater power and influence. Hitherto they had received hundreds of pounds. Now, thousands were sent in to support the agitation. A quarter of a million was readily contributed. Nor were the contributors Lancashire mill-owners exclusively. Among them were merchants and bankers, men of heart and men of mind, the poor labourer and the peer of the realm. The fervid oratory of Bright, the demonstrative and argumentative reasoning of Cobden, the more popular appeals of Fox, Rawlins, and other platform speakers, filled the newspaper press, and were eagerly read. And when parliament dissolved in August 1845, even Sir Robert Peel showed some slight symptoms of a conviction that the days

of the corn laws were numbered. Every day, in truth, brought home to his mind a stronger need for action, and as the ravages of the potato disease progressed, he saw that all further resistance would be absolutely dangerous. A cabinet. council was held on October 31 to consult as to what was to be done, and at an adjourned meeting on November 5 Sir Robert Peel intimated his intention to issue an order in council remitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling, and opening the ports for the admission of all species of grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day to be named in the order; to call parliament together on the 27th inst., to ask for an indemnity, and a sanction of the order by law; and to submit to parliament immediately after the recess a modification of the existing law, including the admission at a nominal duty of Indian corn and of British colonial corn. A serious difference of opinion, however, was found to exist in the cabinet on the question brought before them, the only ministers supporting such measures being the Earl of Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Nor was it easy to induce the other members to listen to reason. And though at a subsequent meeting, held on November 28, Sir Robert Peel so far secured a majority, it was evident that the cabinet was too divided to justify him in bringing forward his measures, and he decided upon resigning office. This resolution having been communicated to the Queen, her Majesty summoned Lord John Russell to form a cabinet, and, to smooth his path, Sir Robert. Peel, with characteristic frankness, sent a memorandum to her Majesty embodying a promise to give him his support. But Lord John Russell failed in his efforts, and the Queen had no alternative but to recall Sir Robert Peel, and give him full power to carry out his measures. It was under such circumstances that Parliament was called for January 22, 1846, and on January 27 the government plan was propounded before a crowded house. It was not a immediate repeal of the corn laws that Sir Robert Peel recommended. He proposed a temporary protection for three years, till February 1, 1849, imposing a scale during that time ranging from 4s. when the price of wheat should be 50s. per quarter and upward, and 10s. when the price of wheat should be under 48s. per quarter, and that after that period all grain should be admitted at the uniform duty of Is. per quarter. The measure, as might have been expected, was received in a very different manner

by the political parties in both Houses of Parliament. There was treason in the conservative camp, and keen and bitter was the opposition they offered to their chief. For twelve nights speaker after speaker indulged in personal recriminations. They recalled to Sir Robert Peel's memory the speeches he had made in defence of the corn laws. And as to his assertion that he had changed his mind, they denied his right to do so.

... The passing of the measure was, however, more than certain, and after a debate of twelve nights' duration on Mr. Miles, amendment, the Government obtained a majority of 97, 337 having voted for the motion and 240 against it. And from that evening the corn law may be said to have expired.

(History of British Commerce, Lond. 1872, p. 292.)

CHAPTER XXXIII

AUSTRALIA

225. The Establishment of the Colony
(27 GEO. III. c. 2, 1787)

Barton

The following Act established the colony of New South Wales by extending thereto the criminal jurisdiction of the king Transportation for certain offences had already been determined upon, and Australia presented many advantages as a penal settle

ment.

ACT TO ENABLE HIS MAJESTY TO ESTABLISH A CRIMINAL JUDICATURE ON THE EASTERN COAST OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE PARTS ADJACENT

Whereas by an Act made and passed in the twenty-fourth year of his present Majesty's reign, intituled - An Act for the effectual transportation of felons and other offenders, and to authorize the removal of prisoners in certain cases, and for other purposes therein mentioned, it is enacted that, from and after the passing of that Act, when any person or persons at any Sessions of Oyer or Terminer or Gaol Delivery, or at any Quarter or other General Session of the Peace to be holden for any county, riding, division, city, town, borough, liberty, or place, within that part of Great Britain called England, or at any Great Session to be holden for the County Palatine of Chester, or within the Principality of Wales, shall be lawfully convicted of grand or petit larceny, or any other offence for which such person or persons shall be liable by the laws of this realm to be transported, it shall and may be lawful for the Court before which any such person or persons shall be convicted as aforesaid, or any subsequent Court holden at any place for the same county, riding, division, city, town, borough, liberty, or place respectively, with like authority, to order and adjudge that such person or persons so convicted as aforesaid shall be trans

ported beyond the seas for any term of years not exceeding the number of years or terms for which such person or persons is or are or shall be liable by any law to be transported; and in any such case it shall or may be lawful for his Majesty, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, to declare and appoint to what place or places, part or parts, beyond the seas, either within his Majesty's dominions, or elsewhere out of his Majesty's dominions, such felons or other offenders shall be conveyed or transported: And such Court as aforesaid is thereby authorized and empowered to order such offenders to be transferred to the use of any person or persons, and his or their assigns, who shall contract for the due performance of such transportation:

And when his Majesty, his heirs and successors, shall be pleased to extend mercy to any offender or offenders who hath or have been, or shall be convicted of any crime or crimes, for which he, she, or they is or shall be by law excluded from the benefit of clergy, upon condition of transportation to any place or places, part or parts, beyond the seas, either for term of life, or any number of years, and such extension of mercy shall be signified by one of his Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, it shall be lawful for any Court, having proper authority, to allow such offender or offenders the benefit of a conditional pardon, and (except in cases where such offenders shall be authorized by his Majesty to transport himself, herself, or themselves) to order the transfer of such offender or offenders to any person or persons who shall contract for the due performance of such transportation, and his or their assigns, for such and the same term of years for which any such offender or offenders shall have been ordered to be transported, or for such term of life or years as shall be specified in such condition of transportation:

And whereas Sir James Eyre, Knight, and Sir Beaumont cil, bearing date respectively on the sixth day of December, 1786, hath judged fit, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, to declare and appoint the place to which certain offenders named in two lists to the said several Orders-inCouncil annexed, should be transported for the time or term in their several sentences mentioned, to be the eastern coast of New South Wales, or some one or other of the islands adjacent :

And whereas Sir James Eyre, Knight, and Sir Beaumont Hotham, Knight, two of the Barons of his Majesty's Court of