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

Now hear my defence to that charge. I made a speech on the
corn-laws in the ea ur-e of last year, when the resolution of the
Hon. Member for. Wolvoi I anipton was under eonsideratien•
wi.ll. I reposed that resolution, but I stated that 1 could not
defend the exiting 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 defeed the law upon
the ground that we ought to be independent of foreign
supplies. I stated then, that in my opinion, the same principle
that governed your ordinary commercial policy must be ap-
plied, at no remote period, to corn. I was followed on that
occasion by the Noble Lord, the then Member for Sunderland,
who stated expressly that I had made no objection to the
first resolution. I will 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 restricrieee
on importation should be gradually abolished, the Right Hon.
Baronet's speech would have heen an unanswerable speech in sue,'
port of the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wolverhameton
motion." Now, that was a speech made by Earl Grey, then
Lord Howick. But what was the resolutiun of the Protectioa
Society, passed in December, when the declaration I have
made was never expected? I find the Protection Society, ie
the month of December, came to this resolution, " That, in
consequence of the declarations made by several leading weig-
hers of the Government in the last session of Parliament, in'
tiinatin,g, that future reductions would be made, at no dis-
tant period; in the aleeady greatly diminished protection
now afforded to agriculture ; and in consequence ef
the interpretation put upon these declarations, whether
well or ill-founded, being calculated to de-troy all confidence is
the stability of the present corn-laws, end to resist the progress
now making in the permanent improvement of the inferior sod
of the country, it was resolved to the utmost to oppose any
change in the laws " That was the resolution of the Proteew
tion Society in Decern! er, before they were in the slight es!
degree aware of the measures about to be protegee
by the Government. I say, then, there is no foundatioe
far the charge that I have changed my opinions suddenly s and
I say, therefore, that when the question, whether I would en'
dertake to guarantee a revival of the existing law at the term''
nation of the suspension, I said distinctly, that such a guarantee
on my part would ba inconsistent with the previous declare'
tions I had made in this House. Besides, the revival of the ea•
isting law at the termination of the suspension must have le;
volved the permanent maintenance of the law, and you 1113
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 fur such a couree'
and I declined to give the guarantee, thinking at the same time
that it would be impossible for Parliament, under existing 67i
cumstances, to revive a law which had worked tolerably we't
during three favourable seasons, but which was in the fire[
period of pressure compelled to be suspended. Had the Pr%
posal for the revival of the law been made, I am sure it would
have been impeached on the ground of its inefficacy. It oil
suggested by a Noble Lord, when proposing aifixed duty. seei°l
the difficul y of maintaining a permanent duty in the event
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 opioies
upon the subject of the corn-laws it would be difficult 0
attempt to impose the law again upon the country after its ell
pension. Suppose now the law had been suspended—say d
Septernlier —what would be their position in the month _
Jury? 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:,
good grounds, not certain, .but probable grounds for behest;
that next year the potato crop would be delsej
tive—suppose there should be, as there may '""ca
will be, disease in Ireland in July, in consequee
of scarcity. Suppose you were to have such a July in this If_o
as you had last, with continued and invariable rains, that art-,
the boldest hold his breath for the time—do you think tee%
under such circumstances, I should have been able to fulfi,!,l;l,
guarantee of reviving the old law ?—( Loud cheers.) floe
then aeain, I was not insensible of the progress of public...los
nion. Ido not say that you should yield to public 0P1710..
against your own conviction, but I say that that man it at
worthy of holding office if he totally disregards the cuereeiog
Yee
fused opinion. Placed in these circumstances, and knet
the advanced opinion of the public upon the corn-laws, 1,0
fused to give the guarantee. But it is said that the coen'"os
i
were suspended in 1765 and re-enacted in 1793, and toe
urged that this was a precedent in favour of soot!
enactment now. Why, can any man be 50 get
to the progress of public opinion as to suppose that, hee
b:9l,
there was a precedent of the law being re-enacted ie 0)
we ought to adopt that course now ? I say, it you pal
regard to these technical Parliamentary precedents in the is
sent state of public opinion, you will involve this countri'so
the course of time, in inextricable difficulties. Now, no.
unwilling to make statements with regard to the pas,_,D,
ceedings of the Government, having already, with the 11.1;01
sion of my Sovereign, detailed to the House the circulnst';2lo
in which we were placed, and the measures which we th°bees
it advisable to adopt ; but, after the charges which haeltsesost
made against me, it is important that I should put the,
in possession of a letter which I read to the Cabinet t 0 10
vember last, when it was determined to issue instructle
a Commission with respect to taking precautions ageito
anticipated scarcity. In that letter stated my °Owl 0/
the same opinion I hold now. The following statenlee
read previous to the dissolution of the Cabinet:— de' ate
a ric?
" I cannot consent to the issue of these instructions, an a.
at the same time to maintain the existing corn-law.oar
cations of the existing law, as the consequence of these itlebfl
or immediately following them, would in my opinioa lopte
good eni,. The proposal of them would add to the goat
of defending that portion of the corn-law which it wa' al W
to maintain. I think we ought to suspend the operationviael
existin, law for a limited period. There is conflicting %Des,
as to the degree of pressure from the scarcity of food, butotiltel?
that probability of severe pressure a few months hence that to
my opinion amply justify the precautionary measure of ilarlaitito
import. We have written authurit) that would justify otpaool,
. vr'.l
authority which, should the anticipations of those from aa,
receive it prove correct, would impose on us a heavy' ,t`sioti
inlay for having neglected a preeaution which has been eted
former periods of scarcity in this country, and by some coa",..AC:ft
Europe within the last few weeks. But, independently ()for?
sitierations, the issue of these instructions fully justifies, if it.to4l,
require, the temporary removal of impediments to the free iSec'e ewe
corn. They contain a proof not only that the crisis is great--!:4,11
that there is the probability of severe suffering from the sa*.it
fund, hut the proof that we are ourselves convinced of it. eV,
pears to nit that the suspension of the corn-law would be ‘..„.tp" to
most consistent with these instructions. 1 will not r=iristrs
preceding discussions in the Cabinet, but the issue of th`-'1 nost'r
Cons, placing on record our deliberate conviction as to thvirs
extent of the evil with/ which we may have to conteadh,.' t ute/01
event. By acting now, the lapse of time since we '7O tag, pi
Cabinet would be accounted fig. lam prepared, for one, apte'ot
responsibility of suspending the Wyly an order in Coung,
calling Parliament at a very early period, and advising In 1;:., is*
from the throne the suspension of the law. I conceal Iree-steris
none of the difficulties that attend a suspension of the law' t°
sion of the law will compel a very early decision on the a°,001,1,/
pursued in anticipation of the petted when the ,uspensiou;:o
pire. Suspension will compel a deliberate review of the W'ol6l.
ti n of agricultural protection. I firmly believe that it wout. otro
for the country the that review should be undertaken '"0,100/
Under ordinary circumstances, I should advise that it 5110 0.0
undertaken, but I look now to the immediate emergency' se9o
duties it impo,es on a Minister. lam ready to take the se
40
bility of meeting that emergency, if the opinions of laf,,,cat'
as to the extent of the evil and the nature of the remade'
mine." BoOelset
(Loud cheers.) Therefore, continued the Right corr,,
Baronet, I thought that the adjustment of the_uvellS,il
would be one of the natural consequences of iis .01g ley
and I felt it would be inconsistent with my duty, see' f 10.71(
was prepared to incur the legitimate consequences!. otko
suspension, not to offer to attempt immediately tutloe
ment of the question, notwthstanding my declailtier s)
under ordinary circumstances it would be 1" beifrlll
other hands to undertake it.--(Cries of " 6 Hear. oDe
I think that the course I took on this question was tesoi
a Minister of the Crown ought to take in such cieuresseCsrok
( Hear, hear.) But other Hight Hen. Members of tesiool
differed from me, and the Cabinet was therefore Est
And now, an Hon. Friend of mine, the Member for 00001
blamed me for the course which I have taken. rid es tie
that course was a most unconstitutional, and a 11.00; tits tl9
one.—( Hear, bear.) Unusual, I admit it to be, but of
cumstances were altogether constitutiottrr,
constitutional ! I cannot admit that a privy coutleiltii% Pori
under very peculiar circumstances, the course voll'era Ott 01
neves it is proper to pursue—l cannot admit that t, ease bef
thing unconstitutional in a privy councillor, ti"eoce
emergency claiming his right to seek an auensiel elle
Majesty, for the purpose of giving his advice. A err 10'0
cilior has a right to do that. I was no longer het ritoale
Minister, but as privy councillor I had a Per
.`n-eet eser,
intimate to her Majesty the course which I teub,"earrrfer
have been adopted. I did it with that view, forytk-ejer ter
preventing embarrassment, and I conceive that I.."ch I enter
right to intimate to her Majesty the opinions wi"lhad,.., yr!,
tanned upon the emergency.—(Hear, tear.) .`st twerei
ceive, a perfect right to state to her Majesty, theeesestfeer 0
pared to support, as a private Member of Para ittioi_dif
measures which I had proposed whilst I was s 015
the Crown. Had I not a right to say that I ere hag' 0S
give those mea tires a cordial support 7—(Hearceder
Hon. Friend says I prevented the formation of •
Government. 1 did no such thing. t
Mr. BANK ES —Of a protection Government'
Sir R. PEEL—I did no such thing.
1 Old rit
Mr. BANKES—I beg pardon, Sir. What
you prevented a dissolution of Parliament. tbstche
Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Member also slates pre
tits
which I took was unconstitutional.
nes° eel
Mr. BAN KES—I beg pardon, I did not say u oar
601,
I said it was unprecedented, and would afford a '
ample.
nee6se.oo"
Sir R. PEEL—WeII, but that is very like enrie d - depiriter
—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) My. Hon• u:peerje
say that it was mean -spirited, but that it was
.) asdelf
and would be a dangerous exstnple.—( Laughterrrieedesresteo
dented! and were not the circumstances unP) tgkeP 001,10
( Hear, hear ) I have felt it to be my dutY t'asseele'dy
that course which has been taken on previous octeuegieethoe,
similar circumstances. I felt it to be my duty,ed thatost
service of her Majesty, and I distinctly nohow werejor ) .
my colleagues, who differed in opinion from 15:,ouie beg,per.
pared to form a Government themselves that , e
ifear'soSe."
continuance of the principles of protection.
Why, the Noble Lord ( Lansdowne) declineei tico
formation of a Government until the nutiVt` )rotectlessi,
were prepared to support the principles 01_PLesd rarely
Majesty sent for the Noble Lord. The
Nob,t:k° thesiver°l?
minority, anti he therefore declined to under
noes s 5
(if a Government. Weil, now the a-ain't:at; cirruhs
unusual ; but I ask any man whether, under talon -,porod
the course which I took should not have been the he be
ster of the Crown? I resigned my trust tote
Majesty. when I found that the measures "... pores 0,0
were rejected by the Cabinet ; and I afier
if those measures were brought before Pertlea?loegetis'e
vate Member of Parliament, was prepared
any testy j„(0,1,
cordial suppott. —( Hear, hear. ) I ask :„iente.,
fr
whether that was uneonstitutional or mire f norm['
hear )—and whether I was justly deservitegeo_eio, oelctit
nets
when the Noble Lord proposed to accept
_he AirpOSt.,o
_SO
merit, I induced him to accept office, for` h ot,i`the &ore
ing the question of the corn-laws to a Perr",:rd 0d
enabled
ieh I hermy altdlfajle,satdy
ttaokeinn,fear
nmd tthhaet IN ionbtlees (re:tel.:l7:c;
.‘,:tdi.o.
dial support to the measures which I sugegietenst'eb 001;
thing unprecedented in that ; but the
course sgeett,
nnprececiented, but I see nothing in that wive
,eeactl,tiete,
course " ti""
but,e slightest
my .d.eFa
rrieeen,
ddasnaygse rot
huast ttths a
t theco
0,3 r
so' r'ser:
dissolution of the present Parliamen I; an(! cs.ep sees:
and others have blamed me for not advisTave b-aioltof:
Parliament. Sir, in my opinion it scot
_seise seder be
inconsistent with the duty of a Minister t ad us_oie fe,
of Parliament under the particular circuinst_eb eto.ooll°
this question has come before us. Well°, j'esi triteiectl, r;
utterly impossible for this Parliament tits
sent proposition of the Government ? Ai; reductly•file or-
-1841, this Parliament passed a law for the This th,0•11,
section of agriculture.—( Hear, hear.)
alogeilstoof 0.0 pot
passed a tariff—( Hear, hear)—to destroye _aestieo. 0(1,04
ti m of prohibition with respect to the
.:I„,,erslioeot,4
( Hear, hear.) This Parliament passen.
_*:tterly oeP' PP:r
(Hear, hear,) Why, then, should it n_eentese,i'lleera4b;",
with the functions of this Parliament tu_ete.....(t'ejechoeld le
proposition of her Majesty's Governinc° upon. „ter,
I would not consent to the cussolutoelhat tni"ittito'siesiy,
grounds than those I have mentioneds.,il,,,for at be %Ott; 0,,. Pi
Hear, r t I
ll
a "dangerous precedent
_eseetent he-.ee .efee
admit the present Legislature is
inevgitCh now hies
wh'Abotiscs'
meet of any such proposal as that a
_recede.
Hear, hear.) Sir, that, indeed,aleverY itav"plc rAr
not establish.—( Hear, hear.)
I that may 101.10 u
may have been the circumstances.a spy P
never viill sanctiou the doctrine Ow