Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

It had been said that those who had placed him in power could remove him, and he was threatened with being displaced. There was a material mistake as to his position-both as to the extent of his obligation and the severity of the threatened penalty. Without undervaluing the the distinction of his position, he might say that he owed no personal obligation to any man, or to any body of men, for being compelled to submit to the toil and to make the sacrifices which official duty exacts. He had served four sovereigns: under George the Third his situation was so subordinate that it was impossible for him to attract the notice of his sovereign; but under his three successors he had held some of the highest offices in the state.

'I have served them in critical times, and under difficult circumstances. They have each taken far too favourable a view of any services I have rendered; but

to each of those sovereigns I have said, with every feeling of dutiful and grateful acknowledgment, that there was but one favour, one dis tinction, one reward they had it in their power to confer the simple assurance that I had been a loyal and faithful servant. If power have any value, it is because it gives increased opportunities for rendering public service. It is this which constitutes the real value of official power; and I think I can say with truth, that in intention, at least, I have not abused it. I and those with whom I act have tried to use it for the promotion of the public interest and the advancement of

the common good. We cannot charge ourselves with having acted at variance with the true principles of Conservative policy. We cannot think that it was at variance with Conservative policy that we attempted to repair the disasters of Cabul, and to restore in the Indian army a spirit which had been checked by the misfortunes of Affghanistan. We cannot think it inconsistent with Conservative policy that we laboured to assuage the animosities which have so long prevailed between this country and our powerful neighbour. It surely is not inconsistent with Conservative policy that we have laboured to increase the foreign trade of the country by removing prohibitory duties that we have reduced taxation and yet have increased revenue. Is it inconsistent with a true Conservative policy that we have discouraged agitation and extinguished sedition, not by coercive laws, but by creating an impression on the part of the great body of the people? that we, the rich and powerful, are ready to take our full share of the public burdens, and relieve them of oppressive taxation? The conduct of

Government is an arduous and a difficult undertaking. I may without irreverence be permitted to say, that, like our physical frame, our ancient constitution is fearfully and wonderfully made'-that it is no easy task to insure the harmonious and united action of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and a Reformed House of Commons. These are the objects which we have attempted to accomplish, and I can. not think they are inconsistent with a pure and enlarged Conservatism. Power for such objects is really valuable; but for my own part, I can say with perfect truth, that, even for these objects I do not covet it. It is a burden far above my physical, infinitely beyond my intellectual strength. The relief from it with honour would be a favour, and not a punishment. But while honour and a sense of public duty require it, I do not shrink from office. I am ready to incur its responsibilities, to bear its sacrifices, to confront its honourable perils; but I will not retain it with mutilated power and shackled authority. I will not stand at the helm during the tempestuous night, if that helm is not allowed freely to traverse; I will not undertake to direct the course of the vessel by observations taken in the year 1842. I will reserve to myself the unfet. tered power of judging what will be for the public interest. I do not desire to be the Minister of England; but while I am Minister of England I will hold office by no servile tenure; I will hold office unshackled by any other obligation than that of consulting the public interests and providing for the public safety."

Sir R. Peel's speech elicited considerable cheering, both during its continuance and at the close, but

the more emphatic portion was received from the opposition benches.

Lord John Russell then rose to explain his own conduct in the recent events. He stated that he

had applied through Sir R, Peel for her Majesty's permission, and had not only received it, but also an assurance from Sir R. Peel that it would perfectly accord with his convenience that the explanation should be made at the commencement of the session. Lord John Russell then began by stating the circumstances attending the writing of his letter to the electors of London, to which Sir R. Peel had referred.

"It happened to me, in consequence of private affairs, to go to Edinburgh at the latter end of October last. Early in November, the Lord Provost and Corporation of Edinburgh did me the honour to confer on me the freedom of that city, and invited me to a public meeting to receive it. I addressed those who conferred on me that honour; at the same time I took especial care not to refer in my speech to any measures that might at the time be under consideration, The Lord Provost expressed to me immediately afterwards his regret that I had not expressed my opi nions on the subject of the Corn Laws; and he added, that it was the wish of a number of the citizens of Edinburgh to give a public dinner, to which I should be invited to attend. I told him I was unwilling to receive that honour; and that, among other reasons, having formed a

very strong opinion as to the course which ought to be pursued as to the Corn Laws, I could neither be silent in justice to my own opinion, nor could I declare fully and freely that opinion without some risk of embarrassing the publiq

councils of my Sovereign. But I found, by the public prints and by the London Gazette, that her Majesty's servants had met; that they had been in consultation for many days; that no result appeared; that it was confidently reported that no proposition had been adopted, or even made; and there was also the regular announcement in the Gazette of the further prorogation of Parliament. Under these circumstances, I did think that the Ministers were not performing their duty to their Sovereign and to their country."

His own opinion at that time was, that Parliament ought to be called together to consider the Corn Laws; the case of Ireland as regarded the supply of food being particularly pressing. Sir Robert Peel, according to the statement made that evening, had entertained the same opinion, and in conjunction with three of his colleagues had expressed that opinion in the Cabinet. From the inaction of the Government he supposed that no decision had been come to, and he considered it necessary to publish his letter. It had been supposed by some persons of low minds that his letter was intended as an advertisement for office; but nothing was farther from his thoughts. Shortly after its publication, the Ministers resigned; and he received her Majesty's commands to proceed to Osborne House in the Isle of Wight. He felt that, in ordinary circumstances, the only thing he could do was to decline the commission; the party to which he belonged being in a minority of from 90 to 100 in the House of Commons.

"Sir, I was no sooner admitted to an audience of her Majesty, than she informed me she had sent for me to undertake the formation of a new

Administration. I at once stated to her what I now state, that those I acted with were in a minority. Her Majesty replied by putting into my hand a paper, which she said the right honourable gentleman had given to her just before-the day before, I believe; stating generally the reasons why he had resigned, and stating also that he would be ready, in his private capacity, to give every assistance and support to whatever new Ministry her Majesty might choose for the settlement of the question of the Corn Laws. Sir, I immediately stated to her Majesty, that the perusal of that paper altered the state of the question; and that if her Majesty would permit me I would consult those I was in the habit of acting with, and ascertain from them what their sentiments were as to our duty to her Majesty. I immediately came back to London; where I consulted a few persons who were within reach, and they were of opinion that it was very desirable, if possible, to know exactly the nature of the measure which the right honourable gentleman had in contemplation. The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was good enough to call on me, and to inform me generally of the state of this country and of Ireland, and to give me all the information it was desirable for me to know. I stated to him the wish of my colleagues. He next day stated to me that the right honourable Baronet, now at the head of the Government, did not think it would be convenient for the public service that he should state the details of the measures he proposed on the subject of the Corn Laws. I then again called together those with whom I am in the habit

of acting, and stated that I would endeavour to frame an outline of a measure on the Corn Laws, and communicate it to the right honourable gentleman, in order to ascertain whether it was a measure which would meet with his support. Now, I may be asked, and therefore I will state it at once, what prospect I could have of carrying any measure of the kind.” Although fully aware of the difficulties which beset any attempt on his part to carry on the Government, he considered that the settlement of the Corn Laws would be of so much advantage to the country that he should be justified in encountering great risks to attain it. But there was another point to be considered. Supposing he were to propose the settlement of the Corn Laws, should he do so without endeavouring to get such a majority as would influence the House of Lords; or should he resort to a dissolution of Parliament? It appeared to him, that if it were possible to obtain the wished for settlement without having recourse to a general election, it would be much better to do so. But it was impossible that he could obtain such concurrence in this House, unless he had not only the support of those who agreed with him, and of those who support the cause of absolute free trade, but also that of the right honourable baronet and a considerable number of those who usually supported his measures. Sir Robert Peel had declined, for cogent reasons, to state the details of the measures he intended to bring forward under the responsibility of his own Government; and therefore Lord John Russell had to consider what kind of measure it would be the duty of his Government to propose, should he succeed in forming one. "The VOL. LXXXVIII.

grounds on which, in the letter to which the right honourable Baronet has referred, I stated my opinion that the Corn Laws ought to be settled, were first, that the proposal of any duty at present, without a provision for its extinction in a short period, would only prolong a contest, already sufficiently fruitful of animosity and discontent. I stated also, that neither the Government nor the Legislature could ever regulate the corn markets with the benefit that would result from entire free trade; but I also said, let the Ministers propose such a revision of taxation as would, in their opinion, render the public burdens more just and equal, and let them add any other regulation which a cautious and scrupulous forbearance might suggest. Those were the general principles on which I proposed the consideration of the question as to the Corn Laws."

Perhaps his views would be best explained by reading a letter which he addressed to Her Majesty—

66

"Chesham Place, 16th Dec. 1845.

'Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and has the honour to submit to your Majesty the following considerations.

"Sir Robert Peel's letter to your Majesty, communicated to Lord John Russell at Osborne House, offers the support of Sir Robert Peel to his successors, provided their measures should be founded on certain principles which are there explained, and framed in a spirit of caution and forbearance towards the interests to be affected.

"The measures which Sir Robert Peel had in contemplation appear to have been the present suspension of the duties on corn; a repeal of the Corn Laws at no remote period, preceded by a [C]

diminution of duties; relief to the occupiers of land from burdens by which they are peculiarly affected, as far as it may be practicable.

"Upon full consideration of these proposals, Lord John Russell is prepared to assent to the opening of the ports, and to the fiscal relief which it was intended to afford.

"But upon maturely weighing the second proposal, that by which duties would, after a suspension or temporary repeal, be reimposed and again diminished, there appear to him to be grave objections to such

a measure.

"The advantage given thereby to the land appears to him more apparent than real; the uncertainty of prices in future years would be aggravated, and the prospect of a complete free trade would be still kept in the distance; the prospect alarming the farmer, and the distance irritating the merchants and manufacturers.

"In this view he finds that many persons deeply engaged to the maintenance and support of the agricultural class entirely participate.

66

So great an object as the settlement of this question might indeed have been held sufficient to justify the support of Sir Robert Peel's Administration, had they proposed such a measure. But, as Lord John Russell is placed at present, he could not himself propose a measure against which the weight of argument, as well as public opinion, appears to him to preponderate.

Had the harvest been plentiful and corn cheap, it might have been very advisable to have diminished the duties gradually; but the restoration of a duty after suspension has all the appearance of the re-enactment of a protective law.

"Lord John Russell humbly submits to your Majesty, that should the proposal of an immediate repeal, instead of immediate suspension and ultimate repeal of the Corn Law, preclude Sir Robert Peel from affording that support to the new Government which he so spontaneously and handsomely offered in his letter of the 10th of December, Lord John Russell must humbly decline the task so graciously confided to him by your Majesty.

"Lord John Russell concurs with the reasoning of Sir Robert Peel, which shows the inexpediency of pledging him to the outline of a series of measures.

"The measures for fiscal purposes, therefore, would have to be considered in detail by those alone who may be in your Majesty's service.

"Lord John Russell trusts that your Majesty will attribute the reluctance which he feels to undertake the Government, without a previous knowledge of the opinion of Sir Robert Peel, to his very deep sense of the injury the country may sustain from the rejection of a measure of such vital importance; and not to a desire to obtain a security for those who may be in power.

"Her Majesty," continued Lord John, "was graciously pleased to answer my letter the same evening, informing me that she had sent to Sir Robert Peel, and that she understood the motives by which I was guided in endeavouring to procure support for the great measure which I had undertaken to propose. All I shall say in this place is, that those rumours which were circulated, that I was unable to bring those I consulted to an agreement on the subject of the Corn Laws,

« EdellinenJatka »