d not have brought forward a question tending to
create uneasiness among them. He brought it forward, in fact, only as a
boon to Canada, which he had reason to expect, and of which the refusal
would be highly injurious to her interests and feelings. His proposal
was, not to let American wheat into England, but to let into England
Canadian wheat, and flour ground in Canada, from whatever growth it
might be manufactured. That was in accordance with the broad principle
of the navigation act--"that all manufactured goods shall be deemed
to be the produce of the country in which they are manufactured." The
resolutions of Lord Stanley, after a stormy debate, were confirmed by
a majority of two hundred and forty-four against one hundred and
eighty-eight. A few days afterwards the house went into committee on
them, when Lord John Russell moved an amendment, which proposed to
omit that part of them which referred to the Canadian legislature, his
lordship objecting to the making of the legislation of the imperial
depend on that of the colonial parliament. Lord Stanley defended the
course taken by government as necessary to secure the object; and
after a desultory conversation, the amendment was negatived. Another
amendment, to the effect that no alteration should be made in the
corn-law of the preceding session, and in the degrees of protection
which it afforded to British agriculture, was moved by Lord Worsley;
but this also was negatived; and after some further discussion the house
divided on the original resolutions, which were carried by a majority
of two hundred and eighteen against one hundred and thirty-seven. On the
2nd of June, a bill founded on the resolutions was brought in when Lord
Worsley moved that it be read that day six months. This led to a renewed
debate on the measure: but ultimately the second reading was carried
by a majority of two hundred and nine against one hundred and nine. A
debate in the house of lords took place on the committal of the bill,
which was moved by Earl Dalhousie on the 4th of July. Lord Brougham
seconded the motion, not "because the measure was a step in the right
direction "--that is, towards the removal of the corn-laws--"but because
it removed an anomaly." Earl Stanhope moved, as an amendment, that
the bill be committed that day six months; and he was supported in
his opposition by the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Radnor, and Lords
Beaumont and Teynham. The amendment was, however, nega