The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-28 00:00:00

Titeraturt.

Memoirs of the Right honourable Sir Robert
Peel, Bart. Published by the Trustees of
his Papers, Earl Stanhope and the Right
Hon. E. Cardwell, M.P. Part IL The New
Government, 1834-5 ; Part 111. Repeal of
the Corn Laws, 1845-6. London : Murray.
THIS volume concludes the Memoirs drawn
up by Sir Robert Peel, and left by him
to be published after his decease. We may
remind our readers that the memoirs are
altogether three in number, and that they
relate to those parts of Sir Robert's political
life which have been most warmly controverted
—l. His conduct on the Roman Catholic ques-
tion ; 2. On the formation of a Conservative
Government in 1834-5; 3. On the repeal of the
corn laws. The two latter memoirs are con-
tained in the present volume ; that on the
Conservative Government of 1834-5 is but
short, and contains little information new to
the public. But that one on corn-law repeal
is full and of the greatest importance.
The editors say that the first of these two
memoirs is given exactly as Sir Robert pre-
pared it for publication, with no other altera-
tion than the omission of a single name. That
alteration indicates an affectation of reserve
which had better been dispensed with. In the
letter of the Duke of Wellington to Sir R.
Peel (Nov. 15, 1834), in which he acquaints
Sir Robert that the King had dismiss id his
Ministry, and had decided on a Conservative
Government, ho writes :
He (the King) mentioned that
threatened that he would not put the Great Seal to a com-
mission to prorogue the Parliament.
And in a postscript the Duke adds :
it appears that -- -- did not make the threat
that he would not prorogue the Parliament, but that Lord
Melbourne said here that he was in such a state of ex•
citement that he might take that course.
Now, as the Great Seal was held by Lord
Brougham, and as soon afterwards we read
in another letter from the Duke,
Lord Brougham resigned the Great Seal yesterday,
which was delivered to the custody of Lord Lyndhurst,
it must be perfectly apparent to every one
that the mysterious "-- --" can only
apply to one person. The passages should
have been omitted altogether. or have been
printed as they stood. The affected conceal-
ment suggests insult. We venture to predict
that Lord Brougham will not feel particularly
pleased on learning this very peculiar instance
of editorial delicacy. It resembles the pru-
dery of those American ladies described by
Marryat who always concealed the legs of their
pianos in muslin trousers. The second of the
memoirs is printed with some material omis-
sions, as the unexpected death of Sir Robert
placed these papers in the hands of the editors
at an earlier date than could reasonably have
been anticipated. We should like to have
known at what date these memoirs were pre-
pared by Sir Robert Peel, but on that point we
do not notice any information.
The memorandum on the Conservative Go-
vernment of 1834 is preceded by a short cor-
respondence between Lord Melbourne and Sir
Robert Peel in July, 1834, when Lords Grey
and Althorp resigned. The King, with the
anxiety natural to amiable minds, wished a
Government to be formed by a coalition of the
most considerable statesmen of the day, and
proposed to Lord Melbourne that the Duke of
Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Stanley
should be invited to join him. The noble
Viscount laid before his Majesty " some of
" those objections which press forcibly upon
" his mind to unions and coalitions of °Twos-
" ing parties." In deference to tho King,
however, he communicated the royal wishes to
the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel.
The latter instantly rejected the proposition
as impracticable. If the members of the
Whig Government could not agree when
united on general principles of policy, how
could a Government agree selected from par-
ties essentially opposed to each other? Sir
Robert concluded :---
am bound to express my opinion, with the utmost
dererence to your Majesty, that such a union could not, in
the present state of parties and the present position of

THE PRESS.

public affairs, hold out the prospect of an efficient and
♦igorous Aaministration.
The King acknowledged that his suggestion
was impracticable; waited four months longer,
and then, on the withdrawal of Lord Althorp
from the Government, consequent on the
death of his father, dismissed the Administra-
tion. " The former Ministers were sulky
" enough,•' writes the Duke, and he says,
" Lord -- [Brougham'] swears that they are
" turned out." In the correspondence it is
plain that, however reluctant they might be to
go, the Duke was not less eager to get in. His
eagerness for office is strange, considering the
position he held in the country. He was
always sanguine when office was in view—the
first to hail a prospect of acceding to power,
the last to acknowledge that resignation was
inevitable. He refused to see the difficulties
which Sir Robert perceived awaited a Conser-
vative Government in 1834. On November
the 30th, in that year, he writes to Sir
Robert :

The reports of the committee on elections are favour.
able. That is the great point of all. I reckon that we
must carry two hundred elections at least that were carried
in the last Parliament by Radicals and Whigs.

The Duke reckoned on a considerable majo-
rity in the new Parliament; and, though Sir
Robert does not detail the Cabinet proceed-
ings previous to his resignation, we imagine
from his memorandum (March 23, 1833), and
his letter to the King, that the Duke was
favourable to the experiment of a longer re-
tention of office, though the majorities against
the Government were increasing, and obstruc-
tions were accumulating to the conduct of
public business.
Still more strange appears the reluctance of
the Duke to resign after corn-law repeal had
been carried in 1846. In an elaborate memo-
randum (June 21, 1846), Sir Robert discussed
the position and prospects of his Government,
with a view to prove that no other course than
resignation remained. He wrote, in words
which a Premier of our day may ponder with
advantage :
A Government ought to have a natural support. A
Conservative Government should be supported by a Con•
aervative party. Support from the compassion of its ene-
mies, or even from the personally friendly feelings of those
who ought on public principle to oppose a Government, is
a hollow, and not a creditable support.

Discussing the chances of a dissolution, Sir
Robert showed that the Administration had no
intelligible ground to stand on, and that resort
to such a measure without prospect of advan-
tage would be unjustifiable. The Duke re-
fused to recognise his reasoning. He proposed
to go on to gain time ; he thought the Conser-
vative party might be rallied to Sir Robert's
side ; and counselled dissolution rather than
resignation
The question at the elections will be the support of
your Administration. Many wili oppose it whose support
I wish you had.
But I am very much mistaken if you should not be
supported by a majority of the thinking men of the
eutintry.

The devoted loyalty of the Duke seems to have
clouded his usually clear perception. The
question with him always was—" How can the
" Government of the Sovereign be carried on ?'
Besides, we suspect that his dislike of the
Whigs was so intense, that he always regarded
their accession to power as a great calamity.
The memoir on corn-law repeal contains
a complete history of the part taken by Sir
Robert Peel in that transaction. It was early
in August of 1845 that reports first reached
him of the probable failure of the potato crop.
One clever grower and salesman wrote (Aug.
11) to Sir J. Graham, then Home Secretary.
detailing the extent of the failure, as it had
fallen under his observation As the disease
spread the Premier and the Home Secretary
became alarmed, and both seemed to have
formed the conclusion at nearly the same time,
that the disaster would produce a corn-law
crisis. Sir Robert wrote to the Secretary at
Netherby (Oct. 13) :

I have no confidence in such remedies ns the pro-
hibition of exports, or the stoppage of the distilleries.
The removal of impediments to import is the only effectual
remedy.

On the same day Sir James wrote to the Pro.
mier at Drayton, stating his opinion of the
extent of the peril :
A great national risk is always incurred when a popula-
tion so dense as that of Ireland subsists on the potato; for

SATURDAY,

it is the cheapest and the lowest food, and if it fail, no
substitute can be found for starving multitudes.

Sir James was the first to broach the idea of
corn law repeal. In this same letter he
writes :

Indian corn might be obtained from the United States
readily, and on cheap terms, if the people would eat it ;
but unfortunately it is an acquired taste ; and if we opened
the ports to maize duty free, most popular and irresistible
arguments present themselves why flour and oatmeal, the
staple of the food of man, should not be restricted in its
supply by artificial means. while Heaven has withheld
from an entire people its accustomed sustenance. Could
we with propriety remit duties in November by Order in
Council. when Parliament might so easily be called toge-
ther ? Can these duties, once remitted by Act of Parliament,
be ever again reimposed! Ought they to be maintained
with their present stringency if the people of Ireland be
reduced to the last extremity for want of food?

It does not appear that Sir Robert had enter-
tained the idea of total repeal till this sug-
gestive passage was sent to him. He instantly
caught it up, and two days later he wrote to
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Oct. 15) :

We must consider whether it is possible by legislation,
or by the exercise of prerogative, to apply a remedy to the
greet evil with which we are threatened. The application
of such remedy involves considerations of the utmost
magnitude. The remedy is the removal of all impediments
to the import of all kinds of human food—that is, the total
and absolute repeal for ever of all duties on all articles of
subsistence.

We think it doubtful whether Sir Robert had
ever contemplated so large a measure until
Sir James Graham suggested it. On the same
day that the Premier wrote to Lord Hey-
tesbury as above, ho replied to Sir James
(Oct. 15) :
Interference with the due course of the laws respecting
the supply of food is so momentous and so lasting in its
consequences, that we mutt not act without the most
accurate information. I fear the worst—l have written to
the Duke also.

In answer, Sir James again appears as the
prompter of the Premier :

The suspension of the existing corn law on the
avowed admission that its maintenance aggravates the
evil of scarcity, and that its remission is the surest
mode of restoring plenty, would render ils re•enaclment
or future operation quite impracticable; yet if the evil be as
urgent as I fear it will be, to this suspension we shall be
driven.

At the close of this memoir, Sir Robert
says :
I should do injustice
the strongest terms, my grateful acknowledgments fn. the
zealous support and able assistance which I uniformly
received from Sir James Graham.

The acknowledgment is just. It is only
fair to Sir James to say that though his
name does not appear prominently in the
transactions covered by this memoir, his
letters convey a strong impression of his
weighty sense and clearsightedness.
The idea of repeal once planted in the mind
of the Premier rapidly developed itself. We
have seen that he gained the first hint of it as
a practical measure for Government consi-
deration from Sir James Graham on 14th of
October, 1845. A fortnight later (31st October)
the Premier called the Cabinet together to
consult on the measures to be adopted,
and on the following day he submitted to the
Ministers a memorandum, in which he pro-
posed that Parliament should be speedily
assembled. The first subject for discussion
would then be the corn laws :

We must make our choice between determined mainte•
nonce, modification, and suspension of the existing corn
laws.

He did not at this time so much as mention
total repeal. The Cabinet was divided in
opinion, and another council was appointed
for the 6th November. At this meeting, Sir
Robert submitted a distinct course of action
for the approval of his colleagues :-1.. An im-
mediate order in Council, suspending the corn
laws ; 2. The assembly of Parliament on the
27th to obtain an indemnity; 3. A statement
that a modification of the corn law would be
submitted to Parliament after Christmas, such
modification to consist of the free admission
of Indian corn and of British colonial grain,
with a revision of the existing corn law in
other respects, though still preserving the
principle of protection and the sliding scale.
As Sir Robert subsequently showed that any
such scheme was, under the circumstances,
totally impracticable, we must suppose that
ho was all this time only feeling his way
with his colleagues.. It is certain, from his sub-
sequent arguments, that at this time either ho

FEBRUARY 28, 1857.

did not perceive all the bearings of the question,
or that he designedly hid them from his col-
leagues. The Cabinet, "by a very considerable
majority," refused assent to his proposals.
He was supported only by Lord Aberdeen,
Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert.
Lord Stanley was from the first ono of the
most determined opponents of the Premier.
Some injustice is done him, as the memoir
does not contain the argument which he
addressed to the Premier against his proposals.
We gather, however, that he pierced the real
intention of the Premier, and that he con-
tended that Repeal of the Corn Laws, if ne-
cessary or essential, should be carried by the
party in opposition. Sir Robert rather hypo-
critically replied to him :

I will not enter into any controversy with you upon it at
the present moment. I must, however, observe that 1 have
not proposed to the Cabinet that we should recommend to
Parliament the repeal of the corn laws, still less that we
should offer our advice to the Queen that the corn laws
ought to be abandoned.

Tho Cabinet separated on the 6th to meet
again two or three weeks later. On the 22nd
appeared Lord John Russell's celebrated letter
to the electors of London, declaring for total
and immediate repeal. The Cabinet met
again on the 25th, and continued to sit
on subsequent days, the Premier pro-
ducing several elaborate papers stating
his sense of the necessity of corn-law
revision. On the 2nd of December
Sir Robert made a step in advance. He sub-
mitted a scheme for the total repeal of the
corn laws, something like that which ho sub-
sequently carried into effect. By this time he
had gained over many of his colleagues. The
Duke of Wellington declared:—

My only object in public life is to support Sir Robert
Peel's administration of the Government for the Queen.

And he added :

My own judgment would lead to me to maintain the
corn laws. Sir Robert Peel may think that his position in
Parliament and in the public view requires that the
course should be taken which he recommends ; and if
that should be the case, I earnestly recommend that the
Cabinet should support him, and I for one declare that 1
will do so.

The Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Stanley,
however, continued firm in opposition, and
Sir Robert, feeling that his chances of success
would be doubtful, decided on resignation.
Lord John Russell was summoned to her
Majesty's councils, and that negotiation corn
meuced in which, by dextrously concealing his
hand, Sir Robert managed to get himself
recalled. Lord John was anxious to know
what kind of support he might expect to
receive from Sir Robert and his friends. Sir
Robert replied it would be embarrassing were
he to suggest the details of a measure. He
thought there should be " liberal dealing as
"to pecuniary burdens,' and such " provi-
" sions as caution and forbearance might Bug-
" gest," to " prevent alarm and the risk of
" disturbance.'

These generalities were perplexing. Lord
John saw how easily he might be tripped up
by his rival,if he could commit him to nothing
more definite. He might hid too high or too low
for Sir Robert's support. He might promise
the landed interest too much or too little ; and
might be defeated in one case by his own free-
trade supporters, in the other by his protec-
tionist opponents. Lord John showed much
mono caution than rashness on this occasion.
He endeavoured to balance himself as care-
fully as if he were dancing on a tight rope.
He proposed through the Queen to send the
outlines of his proposed measure for Sir
Robert's approval. The wily statesman, gain-
• ing hope from Lord John's hesitation, replied
in a tone of mild indignation. He urged a
number of constitutional reasons against the
course proposed, and hinted that Lord John
would probably find he had far greater diffi-
culties to encounter than he yet thought of :
A plan of adjustment might possibly embrace a series
of measures which can hardly as yet have been carefully
considered.
After consideration they might admit of change and
modification, which your Majesty's servants ought to retain
full liberty to make.
The subsequent explanation of such changes or modifi-
cation to a person not in your Majesty's service would be
full of difficulty.
Suggestions on his part with a view to modify or
improve a measure thus communicated would be equally
tombarrassing,