The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-02 00:00:00

FRASER.

Fraser has an article this month on the state of
parties, which is valuable, as showing that the Protec-
tionist Tories are still the same bigotted, prejudiced, un-
reasoning set of men that they were fifty years since.
Like the Bourbons of the elder branch, " they have
learned nothing, they have forgotten nothing." Speaking
of the glorious free-trade measures of Sir R. Peer,
which (forgetting the memorable declaration of the
Right Hon. Baronet, that the corn-laws were not merely
impolitic but unjust) he endeavours to sneer at mere
fiscal arrangements ; ho says :
" We begin by expressing our unqualified regret that any
consideration whatever should have induced Sir Robert Peel,
on a mere question of fiscal arrangement, to break up the
beat and strongest Government that has sat at the helm of
affairs for a quarter of a century. Had the trade of the
country been depressed, or the public revenue fallen away—
had there been threatenings of foreign war, which only a
change of policy could avert—had there been poverty, want
of employment, discontent and incipient agitation at home—
some excuse might have been found for his proceeding,
though even then it would have been perilous. But that he
'should have chosen a season of unexampled prosperity to try
such an experiment, does, indeed, strike us as being an act
to which, on the score of absolute political madness, we can
discover ne parallel. Granting that he was right in the prin-
ciple of his measure, the time which he chose for pushing it
forward would have placed him in the wrosig."
Now this is the true old Tory dcctrine—listen not to
reason, grant not that which is "right in principle,"
because it is right—but knowingly maintain the profit-
able wrong until it is wrested from you by physical
force, or until all the world plainly perceive that you
have yielded that to threats which you would not yield
to reason ; for that is the meaning of finding fault with
Sir Robert Peel for not waiting until "discontent and
incipient agitation had afforded him some excuse for
his proceeding "—as if any excuse were needed for doing
justice. Can a party honestly maintaining such doc-
trines as these (and that they are honestly maintained
by them, we verily believe) be safely entrusted with
following passage the gist of the argument of Sir
R. Peel, derived from the failure of the potato crop, is
In
ne tandem inistration of the affairs of a mighty empire?
either misunderstood or misrepresented :
" The ostensible ground of the Minister's change of policy
was the failure of the potato crop, and an anticipated famine
in Ireland. Was it candid in him to urge such a reason for
the abandonment of opinions and principles which he had
held throughout the whole course of his previous life, and to
which the party which brought him into power was pledged?
Surely not; and, with all possible desire to avoid saying
harsh things, we must be permitted to add, that he himself
knows that it was not. The Government did not wait, it
could not wait, for the passing of its corn-bill or the ac-
ceptance of its reformed tariff, ere it provided against the
risk of destitution in Ireland. Long before Parliament met,
or the Times had said a word on the subject of the Cabinet
discussions, abundant supplies of Indian corn were poured in
from America to Ireland."
Sir Robert Peel did not put forward the failure of the
potato crop, and the anticipated famine in Ireland, as the
ostensible ground of his change of policy; what he said
was, that be might have proposed a partial suspension of
the corn-laws, to enable him to provide against that
famine (in fact the pouring in the abundant supplies of
Indian meal Was a partial suspension of the
operation of those laws), but that if he had
done so, the whole question of the policy of
those laws would have to be re-considered when
their re-enactment should be proposed—thatin the faceof
such a failtlre it would h
The 71e TRIPPSBNe to {{;e enact them-2-
rid that therefore it was bettOr to consider the question
at once, with a view to its final settlement. failure
of the potatoe crop was put forwat.d as a Teats= for tto
iinmecitate eoiisid4ration of Cue
question, not as a reason
for the abandonment of principles and opinions pre-
viously maintained.
They were abandoned because
they were found untenable, and because the experiment
of th e tariffhh
hada
dderaonstrated that those free trade doe-
tribespreviously be uclmittbd to lie ccii-
leiki
itittectionist hatred to Sir R.
Profitable 'in practice.
rTehe e
truein "t i ereasonoiY,
peeks here undisgniapl set fOr,t4. rt 1,-,c4 that ti!ey
44 f
De la of We
woefl:6t .11