Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

there was nothing that tended to make my task more difficult." He was exceedingly sorry at not having been able to overcome the objections of Lord Grey: it was due to him to state that his objections were not of a personal nature, but originated in his sense of public duty.

As to the Corn Laws, Lord John Russell expressed his surprise at seeing it alleged at protection.meetings, that the danger of scarcity had been exaggerated, and that therefore the protecting laws should remain untouched. Did those who used such language never carry their thoughts forward? Was there any one who had watched events that would say the law of 1842 was sufficient of itself to provide for the food of the people in 1846 ? The House had just heard what the author of that law had stated as the result of his observation and experience.

As regarded Ireland, Lord John remarked, that he, entertained the hope, had he succeeded in removing the restrictive duties on corn and various manufactures, of being able to propose a comprehensive scheme which would have laid the foundation of future peace in that country. Allusion had been made in the Queen's Speech to the necessity of measures to meet the murderous outrages which prevailed, and he should be ready to support measures calculated to suppress such crimes. He was sorry to say, however, that he did not think that any thing had been done by the present Government to establish that peace, or procure for England that affection, which were so much to be desired.

He concluded by stating that, whether in office or out of office, he should be ready to give his

hearty assent to measures calculated to benefit the country, without reference to the proposer of them. Lord John Russell's speech was received with much cheering.

Mr. Disraeli expressed his intention of adhering to the principles of protection which had sent him into that House, and which would have compelled him to resign his seat if he had conscientiously relinquished them. He did not envy Sir Robert Peel his feelings in the apologetic address which he had that night delivered to those who were once his party in that House. The opinions which Sir Robert Peel had that night expressed might as well have been expressed when he held a position in that House scarcely less influential than his present, namely, when he was the leader of the Conservative Opposition. What could the House think of a statesman who, having served four Sovereigns, was at last compelled, by the observations which he had made in the last three or four years, to change his opinions on a subject which must have been repeatedly brought under his consideration, in every point of view, in the manifold debates of nearly twenty years? Such a statesman might be conscientious, but he was at any rate unfortunate, and ought not to address his former friends in the tone of menace. He knew of no parallel to Sir Robert Peel's conduct save that of a late Captain of the Pasha of Constantinople, who, having received the command of a fleet from the Sultan to attack Mehemet Ali, steered that fleet at once into the enemy's port. The Admiral was called a traitor; but he defended himself from the charge on the ground that he was an enemy to war, that he hated a prolonged contest, and that he had terminated

it by betraying the cause of his master. Mr. Disraeli denounced the speech of Sir Robert Peel that evening as a glorious example of egotistical rhetoric, and censured him in the severest terms for the manner in which he had turned round upon his former party. It was not the favour of his Sovereign which had placed Sir Robert Peel in office, but the sacred cause of protection, by which a Parliament had been dissolved, and a nation taken in. Sir Robert Peel a great statesman, who was always marching after the events of his age! He was just as much a great statesman as he who got up behind a carriage was a great whip. Both were the disciples of progress, and both were anxious for a good place. Who was he that dared to tell the House that an ancient monarchy, and a proud aristocracy, were useless lumber, and that he was the only man who could reconcile their action to that of a reformed House of Commons, whose reformation he had resisted to the utmost? When Sir Robert Peel said that his Conservative policy had put down agitation, notwithstanding his (Mr. Disraeli's) knowledge of the extent to which Parliamentary assurance could sometimes go, he was perfectly thunderstruck, When he said that, too, in the presence of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, he had achieved one of the first great attributes of an orator, for he had made an impression on the House. He wondered how Sir Robert could assert that his proposed legislation had no reference to the agitation on the Corn Laws; and he concluded a bitter invective against Sir Robert Peel, who, he said, had been deserted by Lord Stanley because he had deserted all the principles on which the Mi

nistry had obtained office, by declaring that he was not the Minister who ought to abrogate the Corn Laws. He hoped that, whatever might be the opinion of the House as to free trade, it would resist, to the utmost, the free politics of such statesmen as Sir Robert Peel.

Mr. Miles said, that no amendment had been moved on the Address, because on an early occasion next week an opportunity would be given to the House of expressing a decision on the extraordinary change of principle avowed that night by Sir R. Peel. What had become of those members of his Cabinet who had first objected to his plan? Were they determined to sacrifice every thing to their idol? If so, he hoped they would sacrifice their seats, and make an appeal at once to their constituents. He gave notice on behalf of himself and several other members that the strongest constitutional opposition would be given to his plan, and that every impediment would be made use of to prevent its passing into law.

After a few words to the same effect from Colonel Sibthorp, the Address was agreed to without a dissentient voice.

In the House of Lords on a subsequent day, January the 26th, the Duke of Wellington, on being asked by the Duke of Richmond whether he had received Her Majesty's permission to state the reasons which had induced the Government to resign, and again to accept office, replied in the following brief but characteristic

manner:

"My lords: When the accounts were received from Ireland and different parts of Great Britain during last autumn of the state

of the potato crop, and the inconveniences likely to result, my right honourable friend at the head of Her Majesty's Government deemed it his duty to call together his colleagues, in order to take those reports into consideration. Accordingly he did so; reports and propositions were submitted to the Cabinet; and among the rest Sir R. Peel proposed to suspend the operation of the existing Corn Law, so as to open the ports for the admission of corn duty free. It is not necessary, my Lords, that I should discuss the motives or the grounds on which that proposal was founded. I was, however, one of those who considered that it was not necessary that such a measure should be adopted at that time. I considered, that although the misfortune to which I have referred would undoubtedly have the effect of depriving millions, I may say, of a large portion of the provision they had made for their sustenance during the year, yet that there was not exactly a deficiency of food. Millions, it is true, had been deprived of their food; but still there was no deficiency of food in the country, according to all accounts. It was my opinion that it was advisable arrangements should be made, as had been done before, to find the means of employment for parties who had suffered this deprivation, and to find also the means of rewarding them for their labour, and of giving them food. My lords, it appears to me, besides, that, under the provisions of the existing Corn Law, Parliament had provided for such an emergency. If the price of corn reached such an amount that there should ap. pear to be any deficiency of supply, or any want of food in the coun

try, the law had provided that corn should be admitted at a nominal duty. Under these circumstances, it appeared to me to be unnecessary to suspend the law; and on that ground I certainly was one of those who objected to this proposition of my right honourable friend. At the same time I was most anxious-and the Government almost unanimously concurred in the same view-to adopt such measures as, under the circumstances, might seem calculated to meet the apprehended misfortune. A commission was appointed and instructed to take measures for employing the people, paying them, and procuring food for them-indeed, all the measures adopted on former similar occasions. In the course of the discussions on the subject, it was intimated that the suspension of the Corn Law might make its renewal very difficult; and subsequently, Sir Robert Peel intimated his opinion of the absolute necessity of making an essential alteration in the Corn Laws. I believe every body admitted that some alteration was necessary

that an alteration upon certain points was necessary. I think there is no doubt about that. That was admitted by all. My right honourable friend considered that it was necessary to make an essential alteration in the existing Corn Law. Many members of the Cabinet objected to this suggested alteration; and there was a strong difference of opinion on the subject. For my own part, I certainly was of opinion that it was desirable to avoid making any essential alteration in the Corn Laws. I confess also, my lords, that I considered it was essential to the safety of the Government that the differences of opinion in the Cabinet should

be reconciled. Having served the Crown of England now for above fifty years, I consider it my duty on all occasions to endeavour to promote the interests of the State; and I did every thing in my power to reconcile the differences of opinion among my colleagues-to preserve in union a Government which enjoyed the confidence of the Sovereign, of the public, and of both Houses of Parliament. I considered it my duty to make every effort to retain union in the Cabinet, and to reconcile differences of opinion, as the best service I could render to the Sovereign in the circumstances in which the Cabinet was placed with reference to this subject. My lords, unfortunately in these efforts I did not succeed; and the result was an intimation on the part of my right honourable friend, that he would submit to Her Majesty the resignation of his office, and that he would recommend Her Majesty to endeavour to form another Government. My lords, this course was adopted,

after a discussion whether it was advisable that my right honourable friend should come down to Parliament to make his proposition for an alteration of the Corn Laws as the head of a Cabinet, a majority of which was against the proposition; or whether it was not best, and more for the interest and convenience of Her Majesty, that he should at once intimate to Her Majesty the position in which he stood, and express his desire that Her Majesty would permit him to resign his office; and I certainly thought that it was desirable that my right honourable friend should resign his office, rather than make his proposition to Parliament with a divided Cabinet; and I believe every member of the Cabinet en

At

tertained the same opinion. a subsequent period a noble lord attempted unsuccessfully to form another Administration, and Her Majesty called upon Sir R. Peel to resume his duties. My right honourable friend wrote to me (I was in the country at the time) informing me of the circumstance; and stating, that if he did resume office he had determined, happen what might, if he stood alone, that, as the Minister of the Crown, he would enable Her Majesty to meet her Parliament. I highly applauded my right honourable friend on that occasion, and I determined that I, for one, would stand by him. I felt it my duty; and I did think the formation of a Government in which Her Majesty would have confidence was of greater importance than any opinions of any individual upon the Corn Law or any other law. (A laugh.) My lords, my right honourable friend wrote to me, and desired me to attend the Cabinet that evening, which I did. I admired the conduct of my right honourable friend; I was delighted with it; it was exactly the course which I should have followed myself under similar circumstances; and I determined that I would stand by him. My lords, at the same time that I did this, I knew well the position in which my right honourable friend stood in relation to the Corn Laws. knew well, that in consequence of his having resigned his office into Her Majesty's hands, because he could not prevail upon his Cabinet to support him in a material alteration of the Corn Law, those who were employed to form a Government must have had a knowledge of the particular circumstances under which my right

I

honourable friend had resigned his office; and, my lords, how could my right honourable friend go into the House of Commons, and again defend the Corn Law, as he had done only the preceding July(A laugh)-how could he go into Parliament and defend the Corn Law against those gentlemen who were informed of his opinion that it ought to be altered, and who, of course, would have reproached him with a fresh alteration of opinion? I knew well, therefore, when I told my right honourable friend that I would stand by him in the resumption of his Government, that in doing so I must be a party to the proposition for a material alteration of the Corn Law. It could not be otherwise. I knew it, and I did it." The duke went on to express his belief that the measures to be proposed by Sir Robert Peel would be satisfactory to the country, and to his right honourable friends. He observed, that the President of the Board of Control, a great landed proprietor, would scarcely propose measures that would betray the interests of agriculture. He entreated their lordships to wait and hear the measures which would be laid before them, and they would then see whether Sir R. Peel had betrayed his duty. But, at all events, my lords, whatever that measure may be, I say, that, situated as I am in this country, highly rewarded as I have been by the Sovereign and the people of England, I could not refuse that Sovereign to aid her to form a Government when called upon, in order to enable Her Majesty to meet her Parliament, and carry on the business of the country. Upon that ground, my lords, I

66

present myself now to your view; and I claim from you an acquiescence in the principle which I have laid down, that I positively could not refuse to serve the Sovereign when thus called upon. I have no doubt, when those measures come to be laid before you, that they will be found to be such as will meet your satisfaction and general approbation."

The Duke of Buckingham was not satisfied, and demanded further explanation.

The Government, it appeared, had become quite a free-trade Government; and he wished to know why, when Lord John Russell attempted to form a Government, the present Ministers had not supported him. for himself, he would join with the Duke of Richmond to defeat any measure of this or of any Govern. ment to introduce free trade.

66

As

The Duke of Wellington.-I don't know what the noble duke means by a Free-trade Government. Perhaps the noble duke will explain what he means. (Laughter.)

66

[ocr errors]

The Duke of Buckingham.'No doubt the noble duke is staggered to find himself in a Cabinet professing measures so totally different to what he formerly professed. Ministers who are now ready to carry out measures which they opposed in 1841, form, if not a free-trade Government, as nearly one as possible.'

The Marquis of Lansdowne said, that as the circumstances under which Lord John Russell had attempted to form a Government had been fully explained to the public, he did not feel called upon to recapitulate them. explained, however, how he himself had determined to abandon

He

« EdellinenJatka »