ation of Foreign States might deprive us at some future contingency of all foreign supply. He could not think that such a general raising of bucklers against England was very probable. Indeed, the universal voice of history was against it. In 1810, when there was a fear of scarcity in England, and all Europe was almost closed against us by the power of France, we imported 1,200,000 quarters of corn from the ports of Europe, and 500,000 quarters from France itself. That it might be necessary to make some sacrifice for the legislation to which he invited the House he was not prepared to deny, but some penalty always must be paid for some time for past errors. He was convinced, however, that ultimately no class would reap more benefit from these changes than that higher class of manufacturers who were called the landholders of England. Whatever might be their throes in the interim, he believed that their remuneration would be ample, in the removal of that general dissatisfaction which was renewing the war of the roses in the reign of Queen Victoria, and which, if it were prolonged much further, must, whenever it terminated, leave the country in a state of exhaustion which would not fail to attract the notice of our enemies. The noble lord concluded an eloquent speech, which was loudly cheered throughout, by moving an address, which, as usual, was a mere echo of the Speech.

Mr. Beckett Denison, in seconding the Address, commented with satisfaction on the first heads of Her Majesty's Speech, and alluding to the state of Ireland, which had been threatened in the last few months both by famine and by

murder, expressed a hope that the danger of the first was exaggerated, though he was compelled to admit that the latter had been walking unpunished in broad daylight for some months past. It was very desirable that Ministers should propose measures which would prevent and arrest the perpetration of such atrocities in future. He then declared himself friendly, on the experience of the last four years, to a further relaxation of the protective duties now imposed on foreign commodities, and hoped that Ministers would propose a plan which would deal justly and liberally with all parties.

Sir Robert Peel hoped, that though his course might be deemed unusual in rising at so early a period of the debate, he should be considered as acting in conformity with the ordinary practice of the House in explaining at once the grounds which had led him, and those with whom he had acted, first to tender their resignation of their offices to Her Majesty. The immediate cause of their resignation was that great and mysterious calamity which had befallen Europe-the failure of the potato crop. But it would be unfair to the House if he were to say that he attached exclusive importance to that particular cause. It had gained, however, additional weight by its forcing an immediate decision upon the laws which governed the importation of grain. He would not deny that his opinions on the subject of protection had undergone great change. did not feel himself humiliated by making that confession; on the contrary, he asserted and claimed for himself the privilege of yielding to the force of reason and argument, and of acting upon his

He

enlarged experience, and upon his more matured conviction. He must confess that a change in his opinions had been forced upon him by the experience of the last three years. During that period he had watched day by day the effect of the relaxation of duties on all the social interests of the country; and the consequence was, that he thought that his former arguments were no longer tenable. He did not now think that protection of native industry was in itself right and advantageous, nor did he believe that it was impossible for this country to compete with foreigners, because it laboured under a heavy debt and severe taxation. During the last three years prices had been low, and yet at no time had wages been higher. During the three previous years prices had been high, and the lowness of wages had produced universal distress among the labouring population. He next proved, from statistical returns, that the result upon trade, of removing protective duties, had been a great increase in the foreign exports of the country, and that the result upon the revenue, though in the last four years a a reduction had been made in the Customs duties to the amount of 4,000,000l. and upwards, and in the Excise duties to the amount of 1,000,000l., had been equally satisfactory. He then adverted to considerations which he deemed of more importance than those of either trade or revenue, namely, to considerations of morality, and showed that in 1842, when high prices and high duties were in existence, there had been an alarming increase of crime, but that in 1843 things had taken a favourable turn, and that in 1844. and 1845 the decrease of

commitments had been very large;: and he inferred from the returns;, which he quoted, that low prices and comparative abundance contributed greatly to the promotion1 of morality. He showed that these advantages had not been purchased by any detriment to the agricultural interest. Protection to that interest had been diminished, and yet it had not suffered any damage in consequence of that diminution. He proved this posi tion by reference to the diminution which had taken place in the du ties paid upon foreign flax, foreign wool, foreign cattle, figs, lard, &c., and to the prices which every one of those commodities was now fetching in the markets of Great Britain. He contended that he was justified in proceeding with the further removal of protecting duties by the gratifying results produced by the removal of those which he had already repealed. It was right that he should state, that notwithstanding the conviction which was thus forced upon his mind, he had been of opinion that the charge of altering the Corn Laws ought not to devolve upon him as Minister of the Crown. He felt that with that conviction, which he could not control, he could no longer meet the annual motion of hon. members opposite with a direct negative, and that, therefore, he could no longer continue the contest on the subject with any advantage to those who had hitherto honoured him with their confidence. During the course of last autumn a great calamity had visited the United Kingdom. There was great danger of a scarcity of that article which formed a considerable portion of the food of the country. It was the duty of Government to

meet that danger; and the House should now have an opportunity of judging whether, with the information of which the Government was in possession, it was possible for them to maintain, in their present integrity, the existing Corn Laws. His opinion was, that it was quite impossible for them to do so. Sir R. Peel then described the circumstances which induced him, early in November, to think that it was necessary to meet the impending evil by a suspension of the duties on the importation of foreign produce; and read consecutively the information which Government had received from various parts of the United Kingdom, and also from abroad, and which he considered as justifying him in the conclusions to which he had come first early in November, and afterwards early in December. He next read the information which he had received from England, Scotland, and Ireland, relative to the failure of the potato crop ; and expressed a hope that those who had so precipitately condemned: the Government would now make some allowance for its difficult position. The right hon. baronet then entered into a lengthened statement relative to the resignation of the Ministry and their reinstatement in office. He said, "There were two periods [in which the dissolution of the Cabinet and its reconstruction were mooted]; one reaching from the 1st to the 6th of November, the other from the 25th of November to the 6th of December and, in justice to those who dissented from my opinions, I must say, that on any advice I gave no information derived from letters received since the 6th of December which has or could have any bearing. Now, many Cabinets

were held between the 31st of October and the 6th of December. On the 1st of November, there was no agitation, no petitions had been presented: but it appeared to me that these reports from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland-the example of foreign countries-the example of Belgium, whose merchants had cleared the market at Liverpool of rice, almost in a day-justified the Government in taking measures before it was too late, either by opening the ports by an Order in Council, or by calling Parliament together in a fortnight, to obviate the impending evil. That was the advice I gave on the 1st of November. There would have been an advantage in the plan of taking the responsibility of issuing an Order in Council, and trusting to obtain an indemnity from Parliament afterwards; and I was prepared to take that responsibility: I did not insist on that course, but stated that I was prepared to call Parliament together immediately, and advise Parliament, that for a limited period the restrictions on importation should be suspended. I did not anticipate that this would' compel a reconsideration of the tariff; but I considered that the effect of calling Parliament together during the period of the suspension of the duties would compel the reconsideration of this question: My advice at that period was not taken. Only three of my colleagues concurred with me; and we separated on the 6th of November, I reserving to myself the power of calling the Cabinet together, with the hope of convincing them, that if my alarm

was

confirmed by subsequent events, my advice ought to be taken at a later period. So far as I was concerned, that was the time for me to have tendered my resigna

tion.

I can truly say, that if I did not do so, it was upon public considerations that I acted. I felt that it was my duty to adhere to my post when there was a possibility of my advice being acceded to. I felt it was a. positive duty not to evade the difficulty. I might have said, that overruled by the great majority of my colleagues, I could not take the responsibility of continuing in office but I determined not to abandon my post. I determined to remain, that if there was a probability of an adjustment of this question I might bear my part I determined, therefore, to remain. The Cabinet reassembled on the 25th of November. The evidence I received in the interval did not in the slightest degree diminish my apprehensions. We had during the interval, with the unanimous consent of the Cabinet, taken extraordinary measures for acquiring certain information. We had issued a Commission for that purpose, and had taken precautions to prevent the spread of fever. On the 25th of November it became necessary to consider what instructions should be issued to that Commission. Those instructions were determined on. I stated at that time, that it appeared to me that the issuing of those instructions was inconsistent with a determination to maintain the present Corn Laws; and that I could not consent to the issuing of those instructions to the Commission, without reserving on my own part the power to propose to Parliament some measure of immediate relief. The instructions were issued; and again I brought under the consideration of the Cabinet what I had pressed on them on the 1st of Novembernamely, the suspension of the restrictions upon importation, either

by means of Orders in Council or by calling Parliament together. But at that period my own position, I admit, was entirely changed. The lapse of time, the increase of agitation, and other circumstances, had occurred, materially affecting my own position. I had been overruled in the Cabinet. The noble lord opposite had in the interval written his letter; and, giving him credit for the best intentions, I must say it was a letter which, after what had occurred in the Cabinet, did most materially affect my position. After that letter I should have appeared to be adopting the proposition of the noble lord. On the 22nd of November his letter appeared, and that act of mine on the 26th of November would have appeared to be a servile acquiescence in his views. I would not have abandoned the post of danger if I had been supported by a unanimous Government: but that was not the result of our deliberations. One of my colleagues-one for whom I feel the sincerest regard, for whose public qualities I felt, and now feel, the highest respect-he took from the first the most entirely opposite views. His views were most sincere, I am sure, and adopted after great deliberation; and he was convinced that the danger had been greatly magnified, and that no sufficient reasons had been brought forward for having recourse to Orders in Council. I thought that the adoption of extraordinary measures would compel the reconsideration of this question. That was my opinion. In these circumstances, my noble friend would have felt it his duty, and he was not the only member of the Government who would have felt it his duty, to resign; and believing, as I did,

that their resignation would be followed by that of others, and thinking, too, that it was highly probable that, in the attempt to settle this question, I should fail, and that, after vehement contests, and the new combinations that would be formed, probably worse terms would be made than if some other person were to undertake the settlement of the question, I felt it my duty humbly to tender my resignation. That resignation was accepted by her Majesty; and her Majesty, of her own choice, immediately sent for the noble lord the member for London. The noble lord undertook the task of forming an Administration. I believed that I was then in the situation of a private member of Parliament-that I was reduced once more to the ranksthat I was at liberty to act as I thought right: and I do not hesitate to say that in that capacity I would have done all that I could to promote the settlement of this question."

Sir R. Peel then went on to say, that there appeared every probability that the adjustment of the question would devolve upon Lord John Russell; and as a private member of Parliament, he repeated, he would have done everything to facilitate its adjustment. At the Queen's invitation, he went to Windsor, on the 20th of December, to take a final farewell. Before doing so, he learned that Lord John Russell had failed to form a Government. On meeting Sir Robert Peel, the Queen informed him, that so far from taking leave, she was obliged to require him to continue his services; and she asked whether he intended to persist in tendering his resignation. The colleagues who differed from him not having advised the formation of a Cabinet on the principles of protection, and Lord John

Russell having failed, Sir Robert Peel did not hesitate to withdraw his resignation. Accordingly, he resolved to meet Parliament prepared to submit those measures which he thought necessary to meet the emergency. Having reason to expect that the noble lord to whom he formerly referred would be precluded from lending his assistance to the Government as reconstructed, he felt it his painful duty to accept his resignation. His other colleagues felt it their duty to assist him in the arduous task he had undertaken.

He had given notice for the following week of the measures which he had to propose, and should not then anticipate that discussion. He wished to separate them from mere personal and party considerations. Those who thought he had magnified the danger he exhorted not to be too confident.

"I advise them to recollect that we have yet seven months to pass before there will be any new supply of food. Better accounts may be coming in from some quarters; but I ask them not to form too precipitate an opinion. Some persons have suggested the introduction of Indian corn as a remedy: that is impossible. At the present moment the duty on Indian corn is regulated by the duty on British barley. This might seem very odd, but such was the law. Suppose that on the meeting of Parliament a proposition had been made to admit Indian corn duty free, what would have been the consequence, supposing such a state of things to arise in Ireland which I anticipate as possible? What would be the effect upon the great agricultural interest, supposing we had agreed to touch the present Corn Laws on some slight point like Indian corn, and refuse to admit the slightest