The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-28 00:00:00

opinion, they were incapable of appreciating the wis.lom that
dictated such a change, yet the Right Hon. Gentleman might
rest assur:scl that h would receive his reward from a grateful
country and an admiring posterity.--(Hear, Naar. )
The Marquis of WORCESTER wished to know what the
consequence would be if the present measure should, as it
undemntecily would, reduce the lower order of farmers to
labourers ?—( Hear, hear.) In his opinion they w:.uld be
driven to rmigra ion Or to the workhouse, when the taxation
f-r their maintenance would increase to so extrordinary a
degree that the landholders could not pay it.—( Hear, hear.)
He could make every allowance for au alteration in political
opinion, but he certainly fclt deep sorrow that the Right Hon.
lia.rofo-t had given way at the very first attack on the conititu-
tion of this country.

Mr. GA 11.DNIfit said that he considered the report of the
f lilure in the potato crop as a panic and nothing but a panic.
He had taken tae trouble to look at the special returns made
the last six years, and comparing those returns with the prices
of this year. On counting the number of parishes mention-
ing the returns, he found that the whole number to which
reference was made, was 401. He found that in 107 towns
the ordinary prices were not increased; and that lelt 295 out of
the 404 in which the prices had arisen. There were eleven
towns in which the prices had increased ens farthing per stone.
In fifteen towns the prices had increased one halfpenny ; in
10 towns, three farthings ; and in 53 towi.s, one penny. He
believed it was the duty of the Government to have given
some compensation to the landed interest by the removal of
the burdens on land, before lowering the prices of agricultural
produce. Besides, if free trade were to be given to this coun-
try, it should also be accorded to the colonists, who had as good
a right to benefit by the alteration as we have. He had no
doubt that if the present measure was passed, plenty of
corn would be imported from America, the continent of
Europe, and all other countries. (The Hon. Member here had
quoted from Mr. AP Gregor'a report, showing the great amount
of corn which was raised in the United States in 1d42.) It was
stated that the country in the United States west of the Ohio,
raised in that year 26,000,000 of bushels of wheat, one-half
of which was grown for exportation. The amount of Indian
corn raised in that country was also enormous. He (Sir. D.
Gardner) was satisfied that the home market would be seriously
affected by. the large amount of corn that would be imported
from the United States, if the measure before the House was
carried. The Hon. Member concluded by intimating his in-
tention of voting against the motion.
Mr. MILDM AY and Lord PALMERSTON rose together,
but the former, having caught the Speaker's eye, proceeded to
address the House, amidst considerable manifestation of im-
patience, and tries of " Palmerston." The Hon Member said
he only wished to offer a few words, and he would not disap-
point the Noble Lord in addresiing the House for any length of
time. It was not his intention to go into a long discussion on
the corn-law. He merely rose at that stage of ihe debate, for
the purpose of expressing his reasons for taking a different
course now to what he had formerly taken, or that he ever
thought to take, namely, that of opposing the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government, whom he had previously
supported. He had not opposed the going into Committee on
the question, on account of the expressions employed by her Ma-
jesty in the opening speech from the throne, but they had now
arrived at a stage on the discussion in which he must declare
whether he should support or oppose it.—( Hear, hear.) He
would take a straightforward course and that would be in op-
position to the measure.—(Cheers.) He must express him-
self against the laudatory view of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) respecting the changing of
opinion. It would seem to that Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
that the oftener a man changed his opinion the better it was.—
( Leud cheers from the Conservative benches.) If Hon.
Members were so fond of turning round, he at least could
not se easily change his opinions. There ought to be some
principle in the matter, and changes should not be made upon
such siieht grounds as in the question before the House. It
seemed Hon. Gentlemen wanted a pretext to turn round, and
they jumped at the potato failure in Ireland felt that purpose.
And what were they doing ? Importing Indian corn into the
country duty free. Why did not they do that at first,
to relieve the people of Ireland, without altering the
whole laws relating to agricultural protection? But
the Right Hon. Baronet had a foregone conclusion,
arid required only such a pretext for making a
change. For this purpose they had joined together two
things that were not necessarily connected; and it must be
admitted that Ireland could not be benefited by the measure
which was now before the House. Nor did the state of the
country require the measure. In 1845, the country was in
a general state of prosperity; and all experience went to show
that the repeal of the corn-laws was unnecessary. The Right
Hon. Baronet assured them, that the agricultural interests of
the country would not be injuriously effected, but his (Mr.
Mildmay's) experience convinced him, that the measure must
operate most injuriously. He was satisfied, the greatest injury
would be inflicted on the agricultural interests of
the country, if the present Bill passed.—(Hear, hear.)
What, he apprehended, regulated the production of any article
was its being remunerative, and, supposing that there was not
capital in that country to go on increasing their products, they
must get their supplies from other parts. Let them look at
cotton. ,t the end of the last century they had not a bile of
cotton from the United States. Now, such was the peculiar
capability ot the Southern States that cotton from America
regu'ated the price of cotton from the East Indies, and
indeed from all parts of the world. —( Hear, hear.)
So with indigo; and, in the same way, they would be ex-
posed to a competition in corn, which would completely ruin
the home grower. With these views, he would give his vote
against the second reading of this Bill, because he felt that a
sufficient caution had not been exercised to prevent injurious
consequences to the revenue. Before he sat down, he should
like to refer to the petition presented on that night by the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, from
the merchants ot Liverpool and Manchester, who
stated that the stagnation in their business was
attributable to the prolongation of this debate. But
was there not stagnation in every interest over the country?
and why, therefore, should those Gentlemen attribute this
depression to the delay which had been thrown in the way of
passing this measure? He thanked the House for the attention
with which they had listened to him, and he would conclude
by expressing his determination to vote against the measure of
the Government.

Sir It. PEEL and the Marquis of Gaa.NBY rose together to
address the House, but their being loud cries for Sir R. Peel,
the Ma:quis of Granby gave way to the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir R. PEEL said, Sir, I did not intend to have again in-.
truded myself upon the attention of the House, in the
course of the present debate, but since I last had an oppor-
tunity of addressing the House, I have been accused with wil-
fully betraying the agricultural interests of the country—(The
Hon. Baronet was here interrupted by a remark from a pro-
tectionist Member, which was inaudible in the gallery). Well
then, take it that it is your impression that 1 have done so;
but, at least, after the accusation you have preferred against
me, you cannot refuse to concede to me the privilege of a
defence, and to listen to what I have to say in answer to the
charges you have made. In the observations I have
made throughout this debate, I have not quarrelled
with any man for offering his decided opposition
to the opinion I have lately enunciated. No, I have respected
the opinions of others, and endeavoured to secure the mainte-
nance of their co-operation. I knew not by whom the mea-
sure which I have proposed would be supported on this side of
the House, and I tried to influence no man. I have listened
to the charges which have been made ausinat me with sorrow,
but not with anger. I think it natural that you should have
made a resistance to this measure, and that some Hon. Gen-
tlemen should retain their former opinions. I entreat them,
however, to extend to me the privilege which I conceded to
them, and fur the sake of courtesy, to hear with patience my
answer to what they have said against me, If I were a private
individual, strong in the conviction that I have acted from
nothing but a sense of
',lnty—(Loud cheers)—strong in the
cons iction that I and acted from pure and honour able motives
would I::.,ve let these accusations pass by ; but I am not In
t 5 e situation of a private individual, and it is right asa Minis-
ter of the Crown that I should vindicate the course I have
taken as an executive Minister of the Sovereign.—(Loud
cries of ,‘ Hear, hear.") Sir, it is irregular under ordi-
nary circumstances to refer to what has passed in a former
debate, hut I am sure the House will permit me to refer in
general to the questions that were put to me, and the charges
that were made a,iainst me, after I had the opportunity of last
addressing the House. It was said in the course of the last
discussion that I had expressed an opinion that the charge of
this rasa:tire for the adjustment of the corn-laws would have
been ciimineted with much greater propriety to other hand,'
thin mine; and yet at the same time J observed that I pro-
posed to the Cabinet to undertake the conducting of this mea-
sure, and that the Cabinet had been unanimi us in deciding
hat the conducting of such a measure ought to be committed
to my hands; and therefore it is said that there is an apparent
inconsistency between the opinion that it would have
been better to • have committed the measure to other
hands, and my undertaking to make a permanent
adjustment of this question after the suspension of the corn-
laws. Now the tacts are most correctly stated. 1 did give
an opioion that it. would have been better had it been intro-
due. d under all ordinary circumstances by others more entitled
to the credit of such a measure, rather than that I should have
the conduct of it. Yet it is perfectly true that in the Cabinet
I proposed, and the Cabinet confrmed, that I should undertake
ihe proposition of this measure. I did so under these
circumstances. On the Ist of November 1 proposed,
with the concurrence of my Right Hon. Friend who
has spoken before, on • account of the reports from
Ireland, to take precaution against • the impending
danger—what I thought
.. was the natural precaution,
namely, the suspension, either by order in Council, or by Act
of Parliament, of those laws which prohibited the importation
of foreign corn. I renewed that proposition towards the close
of the same month, and if the measure I proposed to
Government had been simply a suspension of the law, with a
guarantee that the existing corn-law should be revived, I do
not believe that there would have been any very serious oppo-
se ion to it. There must have been a difference of opinion as
to the extent of the danger in Ireland; but I think that if the
measure proposed had been merely the suspension, with a gua-
rantee on my part that I would, at the termination of the sus-
pen-ion, propose a continuance of the existing law, I am not
aware that there would have been any difference of opinion
about the measure. But I distinctly refused to undertake or tee
guarantee the revival of the existing law at the termination o'
the suspension, and I did so upon these grounds. As
I have said before, I thought suspension was become a
necessary act.—( Hear, hear.) But the Right Honourable
Gentleman the Recorder for the city of Dublin says, we were
deluded by the accounts which we received from Ireland. He
says he was alarmed himself by these accounts ; but after in-
quiring into the matter, he found, from the representation of
parties connected with the agricultural interest of Ireland, that
the alarm was but ill-founded. Why, it is easy for an indi-
vidual to collect these reports, but what is a Government to do,
responsible as they are for the well-being of the country—
deeply responsible for famine and disease, should they come
and no precautions taken? What was Government to do in
circumstances like these—receiving reports from all quarters—
from the highest auihorities, from private individuals, from
parties Most interested? It was no easy or enviable position
for a Government to be placed in. Their alarm may be un-
founded, their precautions may be superfluous. What, do you
think, where there are good grounds fir expecting a general
and wide-spread famine, that Government ought to neglect
to take precautions, even should those precautions ultimately
turn out to be superfluous ?—( Cheers.) I, for one, would not
undertake the responsibiltty of the Government, if I thought I
should be compelled to neglect taking precautions until the
famine and disease had become evident. But the Right H in.
Gentleman the Recorder of the City of Dublin says we were
deluded. I deny it altogether. I formed my impressions
in November last —my convictions are still the same.
Why, how are we to ascertain with accuracy the utmost extent
of the disease—bow are we to decide upon the very moment
when the Hon. Gentleman would have us take precautions?
Are we to sit calculating in the Cabinet how much diarihcea.,
d3sentery, and reflux the whole people of Ireland can bear
before it was necessary to find food for them?— (Cheers.) The
precautions may be superfluous, but look at the danger that
might arise if these precautions were not taken. Is it not
better to err on the side of precaution • than to err on the side
of neglect?—(Cheers.) I say, then, that with the reports we
had received, Government would have been deeply culpable had
they not provided fir the emergency, and therefore it was that
1 aovised a suspension of the core-law ; but then arose the
que4t i9n, what will you do when the pt riod for terminating the
suspension shalt come? That was an important question indeed,
and I was asked, will you undertake to guarantee the revival
of the corn-law? I said, I cannot for many reasons.—(llear.)
In the first place, in the last session of Parliament, I expressed
a decided opinion that you could not long continue a different
pti<xiple, in respect of p:otection to agriculture, from tha•
which you have applied to other articles of trade. I am told,
however, that I have made a sudden change in my opinions.

Now hear my defence to that charge. I made a speech on the
corn-laws in the course of last year, when the resolution of the

Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was under consideration.
Well, I opposed that resolution, but I stated that I could not
defend the existing law upon many of the grounds of former
days. I could not say that I thought wages varied with
the price of corn ; nor could I defer d the law upon
the ground that we ought' to be indeeendent of foreign
supplies. I stated then, that in my opinion, the same principle
that governed your ordinary commercial policy must be ap-
pliee, at no remote period, to corn. I was followed on that
occasion by the Noble Lord, the then Member for Sunderland,
who seated expressly that I had made no objection to the
first resolution. les iii quote the Noble Lord's very words:—
" There was not one word in the speech of Sir R. Peel taking
any objection to the first resolution. To the last resolution, if
worded to the effect that it was expedient that all restrictions
on importatien should be gradually abolished, the Right Hon.
Baronet's speech would have heen an unanswerable speech in sup-
port of the lion. Gentleman, the Member for Wolverliameton s
motion." Now, that was a speech made by Earl Grey, then
Lord Howick. But what was the resolution of the Protection
Society, passed in December, when the declaration I have
made was never expected? I find the Protection Society, in
the month of December, came to this resolution, " That, in
consequence of the declarations made by several leading mem-
bers of the Government in the last session of Parliament, in-
timating that future reductions would be made, at no dis-
tent period, in the already greatly diminished protection
now afforded to agriculture ; and in consequence of
the interpretation put upon these declarations, whether
well or ill-founded, being calculated to destroy all confidence ice
the stability of the present corn-laws, and to resist the progress
now making in the permanent improvement of the inferior soil
of the country, it was resolved to the utmost to oppose any
change in the laws " That was the resolution of the Protec-
tion Society in December, before they were in the slightest
degree aware of the measures about to be proposed
by the Government. I say, then, there is no foundation
fe. the charge that I have changed my opinions suddenly ; and
I say, therefore, that when the question, whether I would un-
dertake to guarantee a revival of the existing law at the termi-
nation of the suspension, I said distinctly, that such a guarantee
on my part would be inconsistent with the previous declara-
tions I had made in this House. Besides, the revival of the ex-
isting law at the termination of the suspension must have in-
volved the permanent maintenance of the law, and you must
have roused all your energies in its defence, both
in Lords and Commons, and amongst the constituencies.
It was impossible that I could be prepared for such a course,
and I declined to give the guarantee, thinking at the same time
that it would be impossible for Parliament, under existing cir-
cumstances, to revive a law which had worked tolerably well
during three favourable seasons, but which was in the first
period of pressure compelled to be suspended. Had the pro-
posal for the revival of the law been made, I am sure it would
have been impeached on the ground of its inefficacy. It was
suggested by a Noble Lord, when proposir'e a,fixed duty, seeing
the difficulty of maintaining a permanent duty in the event of
scarcity arising, that power should be given to the
Cabinet to suspend the duty in a time of scarcity.
I stated then that in the present state of opinion
upon the subject of the corn-laws it would be difficult to
attempt to impose the law again upon the country after its sus
pension. Suppose now the law had been suspended—say till
September—what would be their position in the month of
July? What would be the opinion of the House as to whether
or no the suspension should be continued or whether there
should be a revival of the old law ? Suppose there should be
good grounds, not certain,
,but probable grounds for believing
that next year the potato crop would be defec-
tive—suppose there should be, as there may and
will be, disease in Ireland in July, in consequence
of scarcity. Suppose you were to have such a July in this year
as you had last, with continued and invariable rains, that made
the boldest hold his breath for the time—do you think that,
under such circumstances, I should have been able to fulfil the
guarantee of reviving the old law ?—( Loud cheers.) Well,
then again, I was not insensible of the progress of public opi-
nion. Ido not say that you should yield to public opinion
against your own conviction, but I say that that man is un-
worthy of holding office if he totally disregards the current of
public opinion. Placed in these circumstances, end knowing
the advanced opinion of the public upon the corn-laws, I re-
fused to give the guarantee. Hut it is said that the corn-laws
were suspended in 1765 and re-enacted in 1793, and it was
urged that this was a precedent in favour of a re-
enactment now. Why, can any man be so blind
to the progress of public opinion as to suppose that, because
there was a precedent of the law being re-enacted in 1793,
we ought to adopt that course now ? I say, if you pay such
regard to these technical Parliamentary precedents in the pre-
sent state of public opinion, you will involve this country, in
the course of time, in inextricable difficulties. Now, lam
unwilling to make statements with regard to the past pro-
ceedings of the Government, having already, with the permis-
sion of my Sovereign, detailed to the House the circumstances
in which we were placed, and the measures which we thought
it advisable to adopt ; but, after the charges which have been
made against me, it is important that I should put the House
in possession of a letter which I read to the Cabinet in No-
vember last, when it was determined to issue instructions to
a Commission with respect to taking precautions against the
anticipated scat city. In that letter I stated my opinion, and
the same opinion I hold now. The letter detailed the
circumstances attending the failure of the potato
crop in Ireland, and recommended that the ports
should be thrown open, either by an order in council or by
calling Parliament together at an early period to pass an Act
for the purpose. (The Right Hon. Baronet, in this letter, de-
clared distinctly that the suspension would involve the per-
manent settlement of the corn-law; and while he could not
take upon himself to guarantee its revival he was prepared to
propose a measure for its adjustment, although, under ordinary
circumstances, he would have preferred leaving this to be
effected by another hand.) Therefore, continued the Right
Hon. Baronet, I thought that the adjustment of the corn-laws
would be one of the natural consequences of its suspension,
and I felt it would be inconsistent with my duty, seeing that I
was prepared to incur the legitimate consequences of such a
suspension, not to offer to attempt immediately the settle-
ment of the question, notwthstanding my declaration that
under ordinary circumstances it would be better for
other hands to undertake it.--(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
I think that the course I took on this question was one which
a Minister of the Crown ought to take in such cicumstances.—
( Hear, hear.) But other Right Hon. Members of the Cabinet
differed from rile, and the Cabinet was therefore dissolved.
And now, an Hon. Friend of mine, the Member for Dorsetshire,
blamed me for the course which I have taken. He said that
that course was a most unconstitutional, and a most unusual
one.—( Hear, hear.) Unusual, I admit it to be, but the cir-
cumstances were altogether constitutional. Un-
constitutional ! I cannot admit that a privy councillor, stating,
under very peculiar circumstances, the course which he be-
lieves it is proper to pursue—l cannot admit that there is any-
thing unconstitutional in a privy councillor, in cases of
emergency claiming his right to seek an audience of her
Majesty, for the purpose of giving his advice. A privy coun-
cillor has a right to do that. I was no longer her Majesty's
Minister, but as a privy councillor I had a perfect right to
intimate to her Majesty the course which I thought should
have been adopted. I did it with that view, for the purpose of
preventing embarrassment, and I conceive that I had a perfect
right to intimate to her Majesty the opinions which I enter-
tained upon the emergency.—(Hear, hear.) I had, I con-
ceive, a perfect right to state to her Majesty, that I was pre-
pared to support, as a private Member of Parliament, those
measures which I had proposed whilst I was a Minister ol
the Crown. Had I not a right to say that I was prepared to
give those measures a cordial support ?—(Hear, hear.) My
Hon. Friend says I prevented the formation of a Conservative
Government. I did no such thing.
Mr. BANKES —Of a protection Government.
Sir R. PEEL—I did no such thing.
Mr. BANKES—I beg pardon, Sir. What I said was, that
you prevented a dissolution of Parliament.
Sir It. PEEL—The,Hon. Member also states that the course
which I took was unconstitutional.
Mr. BAN KES—I beg pardon, I did not say unconstitutional.
I said it was unprecedented, and would afford a dangerous ex-
ample.

Air R. PEEL—WeII, but that is very like unconstitutional,
—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) My Hon. Friend could not
say that it was mean-spirited, but that it was unprecedented.
and would be a dangerous example.—(Laughter.) Unprece-
dented ! and were not the circumstances unprecedented ?
( Hear, hear ) I have felt it to be my duty to take precisely
that course which has been taken on previous occasions, and in
similar circumstances. I felt it to be my duty to give up the
service of her Maj aty, and I distinctly intimated that those of
my colleagues, who differed in opinion from me, were not pre-
pared to form a Government themselves that would advise the
continuance of the principles of protection.—( Hear, hear. )
Why, the Noble Lord (Lansdowne) declined to undertake the
formation of a Government until the majority of the Cabinet
were prepared to support the principles of protection. Her
Majesty sent for the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord was in a
minority, and he therefore declined to undertake the formation
of a Government. Well, now the circumstances were rather
unusual ; but I ask any man whether, under the circumstances,
the course which I took should not have been taken by a Mini-
ster of the Crown? I resigned my trust into the hands of bet
Majesty, when I found that the measures which I proposee
were rejected by the Cabinet ; and I afterwards proposed that,
if those measures were brought before Parliament, I, as a pri-
vate Member of Parliament, was prepared to give theist my
cordial support.—( Hear, hear.) I ask any man to judge
whether that was unconstitutional or unprecedented—( Hear,
hear )—and whether I was justly deserving of blame? Why,
when the Noble Lord proposed to accept the reins of Govern-
ment, I induced him to accept office, for the purpose of bring-
ing the question of the corn-laws to a speedy settlement.
enabled her Majesty to inform the Noble Lord of the course
which I myself had taken, and that I intended to give my cor-
dial support to the measures which I suggested. I see no-
thing unprecedented in that ; but the circumstance were
nnprecedented, but I see nothing in that course which was, in
the slightest degree, dangerous to the Government. Wel
but my Hon. .Friend says that that course has prevented
dissolution of the present Parliament; and my Hon. Friend
and others have blamed me for not advising a dissolution of
Parliament. Sir, in my opinion it would have been utterly
inconsistent with the duty of a Minister to advise a dissolution
of Parliament under the particular circumstances under which
this question has come before us. Well, why should it be
utterly impossible for this Parliament to deal with the pre.
sent proposition of the Government ? After its election in
1841, this Parliament passed a law for the reduction of pro-
tection of agriculture.—( Hear, hear.) This Parliament
passed a tariff—( Hear, hear)—to destroy altogether the sys-
tem of prohibition with respect to the question of corn.—
( Hear, hear.) This Parliament passed a general Corn Bill,
(Hear, hear,) Why, then, should it be utterly inconsistent
witk the functions of this Parliament to entertain the present
proposition of her MajestY's Government ?—(Cheers. ) But
I would not consent to the dissolution upon much higher
grounds than those I have mentioned. That I think would be
a "dangerous hear)—for a Minister to
admit
i
sinompetent to the entertain-
ment of any such proposal as that which is now before us.—
( Hear, hear.) Sir, that, indeed, is a precedent which I will
the present
"—(Hear,
not establish.—( Hear, hear.) I never will admit, whatever
may have been the circumstances that may have taken place,
I never will sar ction the doctrine that any House of Com-
mons is incompetent to entertain a measure which is neeesary
for the public good.—(Cheers.) If you were to admit that doc•
trine, you would shake the foundation on which a Legislature
should be based. Why that doctrine was not maintained at
the time of the union between England and Ireland. It
was not maintained in this country by Mr. Fox. It was
slightly alluded to by Mr. Sheridan, at the time when
the message about the union was delivered. Parliament
was elected without having the slightest respect to the
principles maintained by the constituencies. Mr. She-
ridan slightly hinted Isis objection to the competence of Par-
liament to deal with the question that came before it, in his
time, respecting Ireland. But Mr. Pitt met that objection at
the onset—he met it in the following manner :—Mr. Pitt said,
" the first objection that I have heard made by the Hon, Gen-
tleman odposite was that the Parliament of Ireland was in-
competent to entertain the discussion of the question, or rather
to act upcsa the measure proposed, without having previously
obtained the consent of the peodle of Ireland, anti the whole
constituents of the Irish l'arliamentary representatives. Thi-
is a point, Sir, of cc, much importance, that I think, if we did
not possess the power of dealing with these questions without
first appealing to the country —I submit that if you recognise
this principle it would be a most dangerous one; indeed a more
dangerous one could not be adopted in a civilised state.
What a state of things we should have if this principle were
adopted I It that principle be a true one, look to the extent
to which it may be carried. If such an argument be held to
be good, then the dealing of the question of the Principality