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

1 - • , i
Now hear coy defence to that charge. I made aspeecboa the
corn-laws in the, course of last year, when this resolution -of.1":
Hon. Member for - Wolverhampton was under considers
of
Well, I opposed that resolution, blit I stated that I could or
defend the existing law upon many of the grOunds of Werth
days. I could not say that I thought wages varied o'o
the price of corn ; nor could I defend the law ul!°,
the ground that we ought to be independent Of foreigi;
supplies. ' I stated then, that in my opinion, the same prine'P„,
that governed yogi. ordinary commercial policy must be it
plied, p!ied, at no remote period; to cornS I was followed on ("ad
occasion by the Noble Lord, the then itiember for Sunderlanb;
who stated expressly that I had made no objection to 1.
first resolution. 1 will quote the Noble Lord's very vrords(.,
ii There was not one word in the speech of • f,ir R. Peel t,ilitaF,
any objection to the first resolution. To the last resolutiori,:,
worded to the effect that it. was expedient that all restrietili;
on importation should be gradually abolished, ti.e Right „p
Baronet's speech would haveheen an unanswerable Weech'n'-':
port of the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wolvevhainst,l4
motion." Now, that was a speech made by Earl GNI', ta-1, es
Lord Howick. But what was the resolution of the Protet:os
Society, passed in December, when the declaration I "'i
made was never expected? 1., find the Protection Soeleti,_' '''s
the month of December, came to this resolution, " Tua"011.
' consequence of the declarations made by several leading tueio,
hers of the Government in the last session of Parliament, ~,
timating that future reductions would be made, at no
lollop
S'''.„
tant period, in the already greatly diminished proteetof
now afforded to agriculture ; and in consequence sr
the interpretation put upon these declarations, vt is
.._
well or ill-founded, being calculated to destroy all confidenesto
the stability of the present corn-laws, and to resist the er,goil
now making in the permanent improvement of the inferio%ni
of the country, it was resolved to the utmost to oppose ter
changesin the laws " That was the resolution of the Plot
Lion Society in December, before they were in the sbg cod
degree aware of the measures about to be, Tito
by the Government. I say, then, there is no fouills',o4
fur the charge that I have changed my opinions suddenly VOO,
I say, therefore, that when the question, whether I wos.urios
dertake to guarantee a revival of the existing law at the vote
nation of the suspension, I said distinctly, that such a guar to
on my part would be inconsistent with the previous dee es.
tions I had made in this House. Besides, the revival of tb? i 0:
isting law at the termination of the suspension must hareous
volved the permanent maintenance of the law, and YPuletli
have roused all your energies in its defence, ries
in Lords and Commons, and amongst the constituesure,
It was impossible that I could be prepared for such a °too
and I declined to give the.guarantee, thinking at the same+ es.
that it would be impossible for Parliament, under existing 01
cumstances, to revive a law which had worked tolerably slit
during three favourable seasons, hilt which was in tbe.„sr
period of pressure compelled to be suspended. Had th,sfoll
posal for the revival of the law been made, I am sure it Tt i,ig
base been impeached on the ground of its inefficacy.
..a,ripi
suggested by a Noble Lord, when proposing asfixiid duty' '''.,t e
the difficulty of maintaining a permanent duty in the eve' oil
scarcity arising, that power should be given t°oit),
Cabinet to suspend the duty in a time of scars•ot
I - stated --then that in the' present state of orr,',,
upon the subject of the corn-laws it would be difficu'is
attempt to impose thelaw again upon the country after its a 0
pension. Suppose now the law had been suspended-4'loi,
September—what would be then. position in the WA tot
July ? What would be the opinion of the House as to svbfebeo
or no the suspension should be continued or whether,s4 to
should be a revival of the old law ? Suppose there sbleeisi
good grounds, not certain, ;but probable grounds for belideff
that next year the potato crop would be .at
tive—suppose there should be, as there lug oest
will be, disease in Ireland in July, in cons'i vest
0
of scarcity. Suppose you were to have such a July in '52,00
as you had last, with continued and invariable rains; that,7b,s
the boldest hold his breath for the time—do you drill,' dunder such circumstances; I should have been able to Miro l
guarantee of reviving the old law ?s:-(Loud cheers.),.e op
then again, I was not insensible of the progress of puba oilt
nion. Ido not say that you should yield to public 1,01;
against your own conviction, but I say that that tea° st
worthy of holding office if he totally disregards the car cane
public opinion. Placed in these circumstances, and I`,n 10'
the advanced opinion of the public upon the corrislau',;,llo'
i
fused to give the guarantee. But it is said that the c°ts?
were suspended in 1765 and re-enacted in 1793, 'spud r.,
urged that this was a precedent in favour of aost
enactment now. Why, can any man be 5° ~,,rso,
to the progress of public opinion as to suppose that,. w-i;g,
there was a precedent of 'the. law being re-enacted In .0s!
we ought to adopt that course now ? I say, if you Ili pct'
regard to these technical Parliamentary precedents il t tri v
sent state of public opinion, you will involve this coati • iit
the course of time, in' inextricable difficulties. Ilete; sr'
unwilling to make statements with regard to the Pas epait.
ceedings of the Government, having already, with the Pope,
sion of my Sovereign, detailed to the House the circuut.:oo,4
in which we were placed, and the measures which we ' be
it advisable to adopt; but, after the charges which hayellollP„
made against me, it is` important that I should put tsheio itit
in possession of a letter which I read to the Cabineictisal
vernber last, when it was determined to issue iestrg ;es t 'l'
a Commission with respect to taking precautions agaSso sla
anticipated scarcity. In that letter I stated my, oPieles° ; s'T
the same opinion I hold now. The following states's
ri
read previous to the dissolution of the Cabinet:— „ ~„ciertai.
" I cannot consent to the issue of these instructions, and "iii itit•
at the same time to maintain the existing corn-law. ShP;igcticlo
cations of the existing law, as the consequence of these ins‘wrill..
or immediately following them, would in my opinioa A'aoleq,
good em'. The proposal of them would add to the , soq i
of defending that portion of the corn-law which it ,7, of
.; .
to maintain. I think we ought to suspend- the operat'°"eide"s.
existing law for a limited period. There is conflicting there..
that
as to the degree of pressure from the scarcity of fopd, 1
§til'loo,l,,,
that probability of severe pressure a few months hence the",k
my opinion amply justify the precautionary measure of oil; .0,0,4
import. We have written authority that would justify' iti:4l9o
authority which, should the anticipations of those front re,pol,v
receive it prove correct, would impose on us a beau' tslio y
bility for having neglected a precaution which has heenotfics.4
former periods of scarcity in this country, and by some ootoe vii
Europe within the last few weeks. But, independently 'li does f,' I
siderations, the issue of these instructions fully justl,fle°, I'o,-1001
require, the temporary removjel of impediments to the: fre' itotv"
corn. They contain a proof not only,that the crisis is gre_estrel/0
that there Is the probability of severe suffering from the lc,
food, but the proof that we are ourselves convinced of iiiteirowi,
pears to me that the suspension of the core la would be 1; r to 4.
most consistent with these instructions. I will not role 44
preceding discussions In the Cabinet, but the issue of these ,(4.:i
lions, placing on record our deliberate conviction as to the 0
extent of the evil with which. we may have to contend, If veti
event. By acting now, the lapse of time since we las'oet
Cabinet would be accounted for. lam prepared, for one, toil or,'
responsibility of suspending the law by an order in C00017,4r,1
calling Parliament at a very early period, and advising in 5",,, of,'
from the throne the suspension of the law. I conceal fre"-gasr:'
none of the difficulties that attend a suspension of the law. p,e to,
sion of the law will compel a very early decision on: the ctoolast,
pursued in anticipation of the period when the muspensloo pie (iti,
pire. Suspension will compel a deliberate review of the Vi've De',
tics of agricultural protection., I firmly believe that it ivoillitio otlie
for the country tha: that review should be undertaken
~.ia lis,,
Under ordinary circumstances., I should advise that it sin to `e
undertaken, but I look now to the immediate emergencY, i'''„001!:
duties it imposes on a Minister. lam ready to take the:ZA,,
bility of meeting that emergency, if the opinions of rof cur
1'
as to the extent of the evil and the nature of the remedy CO i - ,
Is,
mine." . ,
000°'" 4
rii
(Loud cheers.) • Therefore, continued the Right ri raslai
Baronet, 1 thought that the adjustment of the eu__.,,,,i.1
would be one of the natural consequences of its su.eribsts
and I felt it would be inconsistent with my duty, seelgeuell,;
was prepared to incur the legitimate consequences! solidi
suspension, not to offer to attempt immediately the
, 0 t"
ment of the question, notwthstanding my declaratt:er , 1
under ordinary circumstances it would be be best,
other hands to undertake it.—(Cries of " Hear' soli
I think that the course I took on this question TsSie %wee, 0
a Minister of the Crown ought to take in such clean° osbte',
( Hear, hear.) • But other Hight Hon. Members of th°ooll4
differedfroto me, and the Cabinet was therefore...„%etsblD
'• And now, an Hon. Friend of mine the Member for ,oft,jd 9
blamed me for the. course which 'I
have taken. raest, analdo
that course was a most unconstitutional,. and a In the of
one.—( Hear, hear.) Unusual, I admit it to be, u",,i, .0
cumstances were - altogether constitutiots. . 401
constitutional ! I cannot admit that a privy,couneillohi, ilf,
01/iri
under very peculiar circumstances, the -course svhierels a :1'
lieves it is proper to pursue—l cannot admit that the -eoesbei
thing unconstitutional in a privy councillor,' in
,e'ef sr.
emergency claiming his right to 'seek an cud
riot/ r0.t...,
,Majesty, for the purpose of giving his advice: A Pr' ,spie,O,
cillor has a right to do that. I was no longer her right
Minister, but as a privy councillor I had a perfect ht 00,1
intimate to her Majesty the course which I, thoagburpn'e(!
have heen adopted. I did it with that view, for the!. rari
preventing embarrassment, and I conceiiethat I had i eOO.
right to intimate to her Majesty the opinions %chic:a, 1 e
tc`
tamed upon the emergency.—(Hear, hear.) I 1 wss sros,
ceive, a perfect right to state to her Majesty, that ,t, tp s,
pared to- support, as a private Member of Parliaroe!llo ioteregi st
• 1
measures which, I had proposed whilst I Was a a tees' )11
the Crown. Had I not a right to say that I was ~.! Par,)
.tife
give those mea-ures a cordial support ?—( Hear, ~",e;sero
Hon; .Friend says I prevented the formation of a l''
Government. 1 did no such thing.
Mr: BANKES-LOf a prbtection 'Government. tint
Sir.R. PEEL— dd,no su tin. co*
Mr. BANKES I I 'i
beg pardoch n,h Sirg. What 1 said t oil
you Sir prll evented
PEEL a dissolution o
Member aho states thattb"
f Pliament. AO
. .
Oal '
which I took was unconstitutional. titut' es'
Mr. 1:-1ANKES-1 beg pardon, I did not say unconsoss
I said it was unprecedented, and would afford a dal* 001,
ample. stitati°Ost
Sir R. PEEL—WeII, but that is very like unean sold led,
—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) My Hon. Friend "cede',
say that it was mean-spirited, but that it was unprevater:,
and would be a dangerous example.—(Laughter.)eriented;or
dented ! and were not the circumstances unpree,,e pree'e
( Hear, hear. ) I have felt it to be my duty to ta` s, sn 00
that course which has been taken on previous oceal; se e of
similar circumstances. I felt it to be my duty to gft th°9tes
service of her Majesty, and I distinctly intimated olio- potsise
my colleagues, who differed in opinion from me, 0,, „seis,,,,)
pared to form a Government themselves that wow" r. lie"ise
continuance of the principles of protection.---(°eSertavbiset
Why, the Noble Lord (Lansdowne) declined to unrhe C' ilex
formation of a Government until the majority 01 tion. it, $
were prepared to support the principles of protect, 0 .60,
Majesty sent for the Noble Lord. The Noble Le r,„ sornsa,ser
minority, and he therefore declined to undertake t'',;ess raess,
of a Government. Well, now the circumstances c
_rotsaies
unusual ; but I ask any man whether, under
the course which I took should not have been taker elrcif di esl
ster of the Crown? I resigned my trust into theLer proS:bo,
Majesty, when I found that the measures whie•'' r' 9ri#
were rejected by the Cabinet ; and, I afterwards Pr°, a, • 0/
if those measures were brought before Parlianseal.te thets.tuage
vale Member of Parliament, was prepared to 8' ri to los,
cordial support.—(Hear, hear.) I ask any ,efres--(Whyt
whether that was unconstitutional or unpreesos" e ? re
the eir
._u
~ s idler
hear )—and whether I was justly deserving of b. 13,tad 60ceipg:
when the Noble Lord proposed to accept the reinosse of lir,. 1
merit, I induced him to accept office, for the Purisettiellieson nr"
ing the question of the corn-laws to a speedy
°f 4 the et'
enabled her Majesty to inform the Noble Lora ' oil po'
which I mys-lf had taken, and that -I intended to gavel. see ,ertt
dial support to • the measures which I suggec'uteindstance ; iiil
thing unprecedented in that ; but the cir.,e
_so) W orel,
nnprecedented, but I see nothing in that coursnit'',, l,d
the slightest degree, dangerous to the Gov lultres.strirttil
dbiustsnmlnyti spathriaitamtheantt c;o
aund rohya4,:sesnoi.arritsernl Of
and others have blamed vein for not advising a ",,' eee
,t.tiee
dissolution of iFheriepnrdeseinati
Parliament. Sir, in mypon it would have i_i dtool",icti
inconsistent with the duty of a Minister to adviseuaser isle be
of Parliament under the particular circumstancess,ould i
„r,
this question has come before us. Well, wblywiuth th%l irl
utterly impossible for this Parliament to des ..., eiesti..%.o.
sent proposition of the Government ? After 11.,:o or Sept
1841, this Parliament passed a law for the red.ac",ooo,4,
tection of agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) This , ; the
_'..//
passed a tariff—( Hear, hear)— to destroy altog!tu'd coroviii,
tern of prohibition with respect to the questn Cote. tent
( Hear, hear.) This Parliament passed a genera iriceosiseoeot
(Hear, hear,) Why, then, should it be utter!): _ the Pr istit
with the functions of this Parliament to entertisreers,? .
_bet
proposition of her Majesty's Government?—(Couch bli be
I would not consent to the dissolution ul'?..a.s,ls Ow r to
grounds than the se I have mentioned. That,' tniieiste,oiss
a „dangerous precedent "—(Hear, hear)—
to 43t0 the enter'
4..1
admit the present Legislature is inconspetentn__ be for ,iu,sll
ment of any such proposal as that which is U2t which), 'tog
( Hear, hear.) Sir, that, indeed, is a pieced.._rautsit, vs lose,
not establish.—( Hear, hear.) I never wit;
save take', t. Arg
may have been the circumstances that may, Dt,.,liie o .
I never will sanction the- dootritie that any sau