children, not the parents; the effect, not the cause, of commerce." It is universally admitted that freights were raised and commerce restricted by the monopoly which was conferred on British vessels. The rule which compelled British owners to employ a majority of British seamen in every ship made it difficult for them, in time of peace, and impossible in time of war, to man their vessels. A serious disadvantage was thus thrown on British shipowners.

Nor was there wanting another reason against the perpetuation of the monopoly. A Navigation Act was possible when the chief rival in the carrying trade had comparatively few commodities of her own to export. But a Navigation Act became simply ruinous when other nations engaged in trade threatened to retaliate. It was perfectly easy for America to say that, if England would not admit American goods in American bottoms, America would not admit British goods in British bottoms. The absurdity of a system which forced vessels trading between Britain and America to make every alternate voyage in ballast was visible to an unreformed Parliament, and Wallace and Huskisson, by a series of measures, which have been described in a former chapter,1 replaced a Navigation Act founded on prohibition by a Navigation Act founded on reciprocity. The amended system which these statesmen originated practically remained unquestioned for more than twenty years. The Budget of 1842, however, paved the way for a different policy; and in 1844 Mr. Gladstone, speaking with the experience of a Vice-President of the Board. of Trade, and with the knowledge which he derived from his connection with a great port, declared that the shipping interest was "exceedingly depressed," and assented to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Navigation Act. The Committee was appointed, but it made no report; and three years elapsed before a fresh Committee renewed the inquiry. Its report led to the introduction of a measure late in 1847 and to its re-introduction in 1848. The measure

1 Vol. ii. p. 155 seq.

2 Hansard, vol. lxxv. p. 275, vol. lxxxix. p. 1007, vol. xcviii. p. 992.

formed in 1849 the main feature in the ministerial programme, and the chief battle-ground of party.

One reason existed for legislation in 1849 which protectionists found it difficult to dispose of. On the subject of the Navigation Laws, the most important colony was urgent in a demand for free trade. The Canadians declared that the repeal of the Corn Laws had given the United States a decisive advantage in the competition for the corn trade. Canada could grow wheat as cheaply as the neighbouring republic, she could carry the produce of her fields down the St. Lawrence to the coast at least as cheaply as the American farmer. But on the coast she found herself cramped by the restrictions which the Navigation Act imposed on her. None but British vessels could trade to her ports, and the British shipowner, enjoying a monopoly, raised the freights. If the necessities. of Britain required a free trade in corn, common justice demanded that Canada should receive free trade in ships. So keenly did she feel on the subject that the Governor-General warned the Colonial Office of the consequences which would result from the defeat of the Navigation Bill; and the Colonial Secretary, speaking with the full responsibility of office, declared that its loss would destroy the best security for the attachment of the North American Colonies to the British Crown.1

To grave arguments of this description the protectionists replied that the difficulty arose, not from the existence of a Navigation Act, but from the institution of free trade in corn; and that a return to protection would once again afford the Canadians an advantage which would enable them to compete successfully with their neighbours. The true remedy, therefore, was not to advance towards the demon free trade, but to return to the paradise of protection. The protectionists. could not have raised a more hopeless issue. Many of the

1 See Lord Grey's argument, Hansard, vol. cv. p. 71. 2 Disraeli, in replying to a speech of Graham's, in which he declared the Navigation Bill to be the battlefield on which the struggle must take place between reaction and progress (ibid., vol. civ. p. 675), said, “ Progress where? Progress to paradise or progress to the devil?" Ibid., p. 698.

wisest members of the Conservative party saw that the policy of dear food, to which their leaders were again reverting, placed them at a disadvantage with the electors. Wellington, as usual, had the good sense to refrain from opposing a reform which was approved by Court and populace; and the Navigation Bil passed through all its stages and became law.

Yet the victory which was thus achieved was won by the slenderest of majorities. On the second reading in the Lords 105 peers voted for the measure, while 119 gave their votes against it. The passage of the bill was only secured by the circumstance that the ministry had more proxies than its opponents to rely on, and that the Whigs were in this way enabled to turn a minority of 14 into a majority of 10. It used to be a remark of Russell's, that the majority was secured by the votes of the bishops; and it is true that, out of 25 bishops who either recorded their votes or paired on the occasion, 16 supported the bill. It is only fair to a body of men who have withstood most of the great reforms which have been accomplished in the present century, to record the fact that, as a class, they were in favour of one great measure of reform. But it is obvious that the measure was not carried by the bishops, but that the bishops only swelled the numbers of the majority. The utmost that they did was to raise a majority of two into a majority of ten.1

A victory secured so hardly naturally encouraged the protectionists. Proxies could not be used in committee, and the Conservatives therefore concluded that they would obtain an advantage at this stage. Stanley, with this object, moved an amendment in favour of reciprocity. But the ministers again succeeded in defeating their opponents. Wellington, true to his principle of maintaining the Queen's Government, again gave them his assistance; the bishops supported their policy. Clarendon came from Dublin, Normanby from Paris, for the express purpose of voting for the measure, and Stanley, to the

1 The numbers were 173 votes to 163. In addition to the sixteen bishops included in the 173, Lord Auckland, who voted as a peer, but who was Bishop of Sodor and Man, also voted for the bill. Hansard, vol. cv. pp. 117, 118. Excluding his vote, the lay peers were only in a majority of one.

disappointment of his followers, sustained a more decisive defeat than he had received on the second reading.1

This great measure, the consequence and complement of free trade, was the chief outcome of the session of 1849. Except for its discussion, the time of Parliament was almost entirely occupied with Irish subjects. When Disraeli, in his best novel, wished to emphasise the distinction The state of between rich and poor, he chose, as an alternative Ireland. title of his book, "The Two Nations." There had been, unhappily, two nations for centuries in Ireland. In the presence of a common distress, a decreasing attention had been paid to their differences. The summer of 1849 again afforded fresh illustration of the chronic quarrel between Protestant and Catholic.

The battle

Brae.

An Act passed by Stanley in 1832 forbidding party processions in Ireland had been suffered to expire in 1845, the ministry vainly hoping that the time for exceptional legislation of this character had passed. In 1849, however, the Orangemen of Down decided on paying an armed visit to their Grand Master, Lord Roden, on the 12th of July. Their road to Tollymore Park, where Roden lived, ran through a defile in the Maughan Hills, known as Dolly's Brae. The pass, around which a large number of Roman Catholics resided, had been the traditional battle of Dolly's field of Ribandmen and Orangemen. An armed procession of Orangemen, on the anniversary of the battle of the Boyne, to one of the most intemperate of Orange peers, was a challenge which Irish Roman Catholics were not likely to refuse. The Ribandmen thronged the heights of the defile through which the Orangemen had to pass, and nothing but the presence of a large force of military and police, and the exertions of the priests, enabled the Orangemen to thread their way without a conflict. The narrow escape from disaster in the morning ought to have induced responsible persons to persuade them to return by a different route in the evening.

1116 votes to 103. Hansard, vol. cv. p. 756; cf. Campbell's Life, vol. ii. pp. 252, 253.

A nearer and better road, running round instead of over the hill, would have enabled them to avoid the defile. But Irishmen are not fond of shunning strife. Elated with singing party songs, with waving party banners, with listening to Roden's eloquence, and with drinking Roden's whisky, the. Orangemen reached Dolly's Brae on their homeward march in the evening. A squib fired by some one was the signal for an action. The Ribandmen fired on the police who escorted the procession, the police charged the Ribandmen. The Orangemen, seeing an action in progress, joined in the fray. Four of the Ribandmen were shot dead, forty others were wounded. Excited by their victory, the Orangemen sacked and burnt the homes of their opponents, and wantonly murdered at least one inoffensive person.

This deplorable incident excited a profound sensation. Irish members of Parliament indignantly denounced the massacre of Irish men and women. Clarendon, the Viceroy, directed a laywer of experience to inquire into the causes of the affray, and, on his report, instituted proceedings against several of the Orangemen who were concerned in it. The magistrates, however, refused to take the information; Roden himself— though indirectly implicated-had the indiscretion to preside on the occasion, and Clarendon, concluding that a magistrate was not justified in sitting on what the public regarded as his own case, directed the removal of his name, and of the names of two other justices, from the Commission of the Peace.1

visit to Ireland.

Fresh evidence was thus given in July of the eternal differences which distract the Irish; a happier occasion in The Queen's August afforded an opportunity of showing how all parties among the Irish could share a common enthusiasm. Eight-and-twenty years had passed since George IV. had paid his short and memorable visit to Dublin. Since then no British sovereign had set foot on Irish soil. But the queen had long desired to see this part of her

1 See for these proceedings Lord Clarendon's speech, vol. cviii. p. 923; and Lord Stanley's account, ibid., p. 886. Cf. Ann. Reg., 1849, Chron., p. 73; and Hansard, vol. cvii. pp. 603, 1004, 1129.