Lord Heytesbury and Sir Robert Peel--The Potatoes of last year!--Is
there a stock of them?--Sir R. Peel and Free Trade--Strength of his
Cabinet--Mr. Cobden proposes a Committee of Inquiry--His speech--Its
effect--Committee refused--D'Israeli's attack on Sir R. Peel
(_note_.)--Sir Robert puts forward the Potato Blight as the cause
for repealing the Corn Laws--The extent of the Failure not
exaggerated--Sir James Graham and Sir R. Peel--Appointment of Drs.
Lindley and Playfair to investigate the Blight--Sir R. Peel
announces that he is a convert to the repeal of the Corn
Laws--States his views, but does not reason on them--The Quarterly
Review--Special Commissioners--Mr. Butler's letter--Sir James Graham
and the Premier--Proceeding by Proclamation instead of by Order in
Council--Sir James's sharp reply--Agitation to stop
distillation--County Meetings proposed by the Lord
Lieutenant--Cabinet Council--The Premier puts his views before it in
a memorandum--The Corn Laws--Some of the Cabinet displeased with his
views--On the 6th November he submits another memorandum to the
Cabinet--Lord Stanley dissents from the Premier's views--The Cabinet
meet again next day and he concludes the memorandum--On the 29th
November he sends to each of his colleagues a more detailed
exposition of his views--Several reply--Another Mem. brought before
them on the 2nd December--The Cabinet in permanent session--On the
5th of December Sir Robert resigns--Lord John Russell fails to form
a Government--The old Cabinet again in power--Mr. Gladstone replaces
Lord Stanley.
As stated in the last chapter, the deputation that waited on the Lord
Lieutenant was superciliously bowed out, the moment his Excellency had
finished the reading of his reply; so that the usual courtesy extended
to such bodies, of having some conversation and friendly discussion on
the subject of the address, was denied to the noblemen and gentlemen who
presented themselves at the Viceregal Lodge on the 3rd of November. Yet,
more than a fortnight previously, Lord Heytesbury had written to the
Premier, expressing great concern at the accounts daily received of the
blight. "The reports," he writes, "continue to be of a very alarming
nature, and leave no doubt upon the mind but that the potato crops have
failed almost everywhere."[68] This admission he took care not to make
to the deputation, although its truth had not only been verified but
strengthened by the accounts which he continued to receive between the
date of the letter and the 3rd of November. In the Premier's
communication, to which Lord Heytesbury was replying, are, amongst
others, the following queries:--"At what period would the pressure be
felt? Would it be immediate, if the reports of the full extent of the
evil are confirmed, or, _is there a stock of_ old potatoes sufficient to
last for a certain time?" The Viceroy replies, that he is assured,
"_there is no stock_ whatever of _last year's_ potatoes in the country."
That is, in the middle of October, 1845, no stock of the potatoes grown
in 1844 had remained! Such was the knowledge which the Premier of
England (once an Irish Secretary), and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
possessed of the nature and constitution of the potato!
One of Sir Robert Peel's biographers, evidently a great admirer of his,
says of him that he was a freetrader in principle long before 1845[69];
whilst his enemies assert, that having been placed by the Tory party at
the head of a Protectionist Government, he betrayed that party and
suddenly threw himself into the arms of the Corn Law League. Neither of
these views appears to be quite correct. The common, and it would seem,
the more accurate opinion about him is, that he was a politician by
profession--a man of expediency--and that on the question of the Corn
Laws he did no more than he had previously done with regard to Catholic
emancipation,--followed the current of public opinion, which he always
watched with the most anxious care,--and turning round, carried through
Parliament a measure which he had long and strenuously opposed. There
was, to be sure, this difference in his conduct with regard to those two
great measures, that, whilst up to the time he undertook, in conjunction
with the Duke of Wellington, to free the Catholics, he never advocated
their claims, on the other hand, he had been twice a party to
modifications of the Corn Laws, first in 1828, and secondly in 1842. In
the latter year he, cautiously indeed, but not unsubstantially,
legislated in the direction of free trade.
He became First Lord of the Treasury in August, 1841, and soon
afterwards brought before the Cabinet the question of the duties on the
importation of food, more especially of corn. He recommended his
colleagues to make the revision of those duties a Cabinet question; and
he further submitted "a proposal in respect to the extent to which such
revision should be carried, and to the details of the new law."[70] A
bill founded on his views was passed in the Parliament of 1842,
"providing for a material diminution in the amount of the import duties
on the several kinds of foreign grain." But these changes did not
satisfy the Corn Law Leaguers, who sought complete repeal; but they had
the effect of alarming the Premier's Tory supporters, and led to the
resignation of one Cabinet Minister--the Duke of Buckingham. His
partizans endeavoured to obtain from him a guarantee that this Corn Law
of 1842 should, as far as he was concerned, be a final measure; but,
although he tells us, that he did not then contemplate the necessity for
further change, he uniformly refused to fetter either the Government or
himself by such an assurance. Yet, in proposing the introduction of the
tariff in 1842, he seems to have foreshadowed future and still more
liberal legislation on the subject. "I know that many gentlemen," he
said, "who are strong advocates for free trade may consider that I have
not gone far enough. I know that. I believe that on the general
principle of freetrade there is _now no great difference of opinion; and
that all agree_ in the general rule, that we should purchase in the
cheapest market, and sell in the dearest."
The opposition, more especially the freetraders, received this sentiment
with rapturous applause, so the adroit statesman added: "I know the
meaning of those cheers. I do not now wish to raise a discussion on the
Corn Laws or the Sugar duties, which (I contend) are exceptions from the
general rule."[71] His exceptions were futile, because they were
illogical, which of course he must have known; they were therefore only
meant to reassure, to some extent, the affrighted Protectionist
gentlemen behind him.
The anti-Corn Law League, not accepting the concessions made in 1842 as
final, continued to agitate and insist upon total repeal. They held
meetings, made able speeches, published pamphlets, delivered lectures,
and continued to keep before the English public the iniquity, as they
said, of those laws which compelled the English artizan to eat dear
bread. Sir Robert, as a politician and statesman, watched the progress
of this agitation, as also the effect of the changes made in 1842; and
he tells us he was gradually weakened in his views as to the protection
of British grown corn. "The progress of discussion," he says, "had made
a material change in the opinions of many persons with regard to the
policy of protection to domestic agriculture, and the extent to which
that policy should be carried;"[72] while the success of the changes
made in 1842, falsifying, as they did, all the prophecies of the
Protectionists, tended further to shake his confidence in the necessity
of maintaining those laws.
Since its formation in August, 1841, Sir Robert Peel's Government had
continued to carry its measures through Parliament with overwhelming
majorities; still the question of free trade was making rapid progress
throughout the country, especially in the great towns, the anti-Corn Law
League had become a power, and thoughtful men began to see that the
principle it embodied could not be long resisted in a commercial nation
like England. The Parliamentary Session of 1845 opened with an attempt,
on the part of Lord John Russell, the leader of the Opposition, to
compel the Government to declare its policy on free trade. Sir Robert
Peel was silent, probably because, at the moment, he had no fixed policy
about it; or, if he had, he was not the man to declare it at an
inconvenient time. Great agricultural distress prevailed, a fact
admitted by both sides of the House: the Protectionist members
maintained that it was caused by the concessions already made to free
trade, the free traders, on the contrary, held it to be the result of
the continuance of absurd protective duties. Meantime, Mr. Cobden came
forward with a proposal, which, unless agreed to must necessarily put
the Protectionists in the wrong. He asked for a Committee of Inquiry
into the causes of this distress, before which he undertook to prove
that it was caused by the Corn Laws. For some time it had been whispered
abroad that Sir Robert Peel was fast inclining to freetrade, and only
looked to the country for sufficient support to justify him in declaring
his views openly: the leading members of the League were not slow to
make use of those rumours: and, in his strikingly able speech, calling
for the Committee, Mr. Cobden more than hinted that the Premier,
although not yet a free trader before the country, was one at least in
heart. "There are politicians in the House," said he, "men who look with
an ambition--probably a justifiable one--to the honors of office; there
may be men who--with thirty years continuous service, having been
pressed into a groove from which they can neither escape nor
retreat--_may be holding office, and high office_: maintained there
probably at the expense of their present convictions which do not
harmonize very well with their early opinions. I make allowances for
them; but the great body of honorable gentlemen opposite came up to this
House, not as politicians, but as the farmer's friends, and protectors
of the agricultural interests. Well! what do you propose to do? You have
heard the Prime Minister declare that, if he could restore all the
protection which you have had, that protection would not benefit the
agriculturists. Is that your belief? If so, why not proclaim it; but if
it is not your conviction, you will have falsified your mission in this
House by following the right hon. baronet into the lobby, and opposing
inquiry into the condition of the very men who sent you here. I have no
hesitation in telling you, that if you give me a Committee of this House
I will explode the delusion of agricultural protection. I will bring
forward such a mass of evidence, and give you such a preponderance of
talent and of authority, that when the Blue Book is published and sent
forth to the world your system of protection shall not live in the
public opinion for two years afterwards." And again he said with
irresistible logic: "I ask you to go into this Committee with me. I will
give you a majority of county members. I ask you only to go into a fair
inquiry as to the causes of the distress of your own population. Whether
you establish my principle or your own, good will come out of the
inquiry; and I do therefore beg and entreat you not to refuse it."
The effect of this speech in the House and throughout the country was
very great. The anti-Corn Law League printed it by the million and
scattered it broad-cast over the land; it was even said that it had no
inconsiderable effect on Sir Robert Peel himself, and many of his
friends believed that Mr. Cobden exercised, on the occasion, "a real
influence over him." The Premier refused the Committee, but remained
silent; Sidney Herbert it was whom his chief entrusted with the arduous
duty of replying to the great Leaguer. In the course of his speech he
said, "it would be distasteful to the agriculturists to come whining to
Parliament at every period of temporary distress; but in adverse
circumstances they would meet them manfully, and put their shoulder to
the wheel."[73]
On the 9th of August the Parliamentary Session of 1845 closed, leaving
Sir Robert Peel still at the head of that imposing majority which had
sustained him since 1841. Not long after commenced those gloomy reports
of potato blight which continued to increase, until the fact was placed
beyond the possibility of doubt.
It was not originally Sir Robert Peel's desire to propose a repeal of
the Corn Laws in the session of 1846; he would have much preferred the
postponement of the question for a year or so, in order to prepare the
public mind for his altered opinions; besides, he not unreasonably hoped
that the success of the changes of 1842 would have so enlightened his
party as to induce them to accept further and greater changes in the
commercial tariff. Meantime, he could be feeling his way with them by
the aid of trusted friends, and be making them, in various ways,
familiar with the new sacrifices he was about to require at their hands.
Hence, the potato blight was, in more senses than one, an untoward event
for himself and his Cabinet, since it hurried him into the doing of
that, which he hoped to have done without giving any very violent shock
to the opinions or prejudices of his Tory supporters.
Sir Robert, if not a man of great forecast or intuition, was certainly
one to make the most of circumstances as they arose, provided he had
time for reflection. When the news of the potato failure in Ireland
became an alarming fact, he recast his plan, and put that failure
foremost amongst his reasons for repealing the Corn Laws; in fact, in
his own adroit way he left it to be understood, that this was the
immediate and urgent cause for dealing with the question--nay more, that
the real, the _only_ question he was dealing with was the potato blight,
and the threatened famine in Ireland; and that, in anxiously seeking for
an adequate remedy for such terrible evils, he could find but one--the
total repeal of the Corn Laws. Some in his own Cabinet, and numbers of
thoughtful people throughout the country, saw a variety of plans for
meeting the failure distinct from such repeal; very many even, so far
from regarding it as a remedy against Irish famine, considered it would
be a positive injury to this country, under existing circumstances; but
Sir Robert Peel, with that charming frankness and simplicity, the
assumption of which had become a second nature to him, could see but one
remedy for poor Ireland--a repeal of the Corn Laws. Others, which were
hinted to him by some of his colleagues, he dexterously avoids
discussing, and only repeats his own great conviction--repeal the Corn
Laws and save poor, famine-threatened Ireland.
From the end of August to the beginning of October several
communications passed between the Premier and Sir James Graham, relative
to the failure of the potato. During that period the accounts were very
varied, partly from the disease not having made very much progress, and
partly because there was not as yet sufficient time to examine the crop
with care; but a perusal of the correspondence which reached the
Government, so far as it is given in Sir Robert Peel's Memoirs, and his
speeches in Parliament, prove that the accounts in newspapers, and above
all in letters received and published by the Mansion House Committee,
did not overstate the failure, but rather the reverse--this fact is more
especially evident from the joint letter of Professors Lindley and
Playfair already quoted.
Of all the ministers, Sir James Graham seems to have had the greatest
share of the Premier's confidence; Sir Robert thus writes to him from
Whitehall on the 13th of October:--"The accounts of the state of the
potato crop in Ireland are becoming very alarming. I enclose letters
which have very recently reached me. Lord Heytesbury says that the
reports which reach the Irish Government are very unsatisfactory. I
presume that if the worst should happen which is predicted, the pressure
would not be _immediate_. There is such a tendency to exaggeration and
inaccuracy in Irish reports, that delay in acting upon them is always
desirable; but I foresee the necessity that may be imposed upon us at an
early period of considering whether there is not that well grounded
apprehension of actual scarcity that justifies and compels the adoption
of every means of relief which the exercise of the prerogative or
legislation might afford. _I have no confidence in such remedies as the
prohibition of exports or the stoppage of distilleries. The removal of
the impediments to import is the only effectual remedy_."
Sir James Graham wrote to the Premier from Netherby on the same day
enclosing a communication from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, _which is
not given_ in the Peel Memoirs, but which Sir James says, "conveys
information of the most serious kind, which requires immediate
attention." He goes on to give it as his opinion that the time had come
when speculation was reduced to certainty, as the potatoes were being
taken out of the ground; it was therefore the duty of the Government to
apply their attention without delay to measures for the mitigation of
this national calamity. He refers to Belgium and Holland, and says it is
desirable to know, without loss of time, what has been done by our
Continental neighbours in similar circumstances. Indian corn might, of
course, he says, be obtained on cheap terms, "_if the people would eat
it_," but unfortunately it is an acquired taste. He thinks the summoning
of Parliament in November a better course than the opening of the ports
by an Order in Council.[74] On receipt of the above Sir Robert again
wrote to the Home Secretary: "My letter on the awful question of the
potato crop will have crossed yours to me. Interference with the due
course of the law respecting the supply of food is so momentous and so
lasting in its consequences, that we must not act without the most
accurate information. I fear the worst. I have written to the Duke
also."
It was about this time that the Premier appointed Drs. Lindley and
Playfair to come to Ireland for the purpose of investigating the causes
of the blight, and if possible to apply remedies. He summoned the latter
to Drayton Manor before leaving, and both were struck by the very short
time in which the blight rendered the potato worthless for food. Sir
Robert says to Sir James Graham on the 18th of October: "We have
examined here various potatoes that have been affected; and witnessing
the rapidity of decay, and the necessity of immediate action, I have
not hesitated to interrupt Playfair's present occupation, and to direct
his attention to this still more pressing matter."[75] Two days later
Sir James sends his chief a desponding letter in reply, and, with much
good sense, says he is not sanguine about any chemical process, _within
the reach of the peasantry_, arresting the decay in tubers already
affected; besides the rainfall continues so great that, independently of
disease, he feels the potatoes must rot in the ground from the wet,
unless on very dry lands. He then mentions a matter of the utmost
consequence which had not been alluded to before. "There are many
points," he says, on which a scientific inquiry may be most useful,
"particularly the vital one with respect to the seed for next year."[76]
In his letter of the 13th of October, given above, the Premier opened
his mind to his friend, the Home Secretary, that he was a convert to the
repeal of the Corn Laws, but even to him he put forward the potato
blight in Ireland as the cause. Some days afterwards, in a very
carefully worded letter to Lord Heytesbury, he introduces the same
business. "The accounts from Ireland of the potato crop, confirmed as
they are by your high authority," says Sir Robert, "are very alarming,
and it is the duty of the Government to seek a remedy for the 'great
evil.'" Of course it was, and he had made up his mind to apply one which
he knew was distasteful to most of his colleagues; but time was
pressing, and he must bring it forward, so making a clean breast of it,
he states his remedy in a bold clear sentence to the Protectionist Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland. "The remedy," he writes, "is the removal _of all
impediments_ to the import of all kinds of human food--that is the total
and absolute repeal for ever of all duties on all articles of
subsistence."[77] Sir Robert Peel seldom penned so clear a sentence, but
its very clearness had an object, for he seems to desire to shut out
discussion on any of the other remedies which were put forward in
Ireland. He then goes on to join the _temporary_ relief of Irish
distress with the _permanent_ arrangement of the Corn Law question. "You
might," he says, "remit nominally for one year; but who will
re-establish the Corn Laws once abrogated, though from a casual and
temporary pressure? I have good ground therefore for stating that the
application of a temporary remedy to a temporary evil does in this
particular case involve considerations of the utmost and most lasting
importance."
These passages were indited by a minister who, coolly, and without any
sufficient authority whatever, assumed that there was no other remedy
for the failure of the potato crop in Ireland but a repeal of the Corn
Laws, and that it was the remedy the Irish public were calling for, to
meet the threatened danger. And yet so far from this being the case, it
was never propounded by any one as a principal remedy at all. What the
Irish public thought about the impending famine, and what they said
about it was, that the oat crop was unusually fine and more than
sufficient to feed the whole population, and that it should be kept in
the country for that purpose. A most obvious remedy; but the Premier had
other plans in his head, and could not see this one, because he would
not. Like Nelson on a memorable occasion, he persisted in keeping his
telescope to the eye that suited his own purpose. He does not condescend
to give a reason for his views, he only expresses them. He had no
confidence in the old-fashioned remedy of keeping the food in the
country, but he did put his trust in the remedy of sending 3,000 miles
for Indian corn--a food which, he elsewhere admits he fears the Irish
cannot be induced to use. He thought it quite right, and in accordance
with political science, to allow, or rather to compel Ireland,
threatened with famine, to sell her last loaf and then go to America to
buy maize, the preparation of which, she did not understand. Political
economists will hardly deny that people ought not to sell what they
require for themselves--that they should only part with _surplus_ food.
But to sell wheat and oats, and oatmeal and flour with one hand and buy
Indian corn with the other to avoid starvation could be hardly regarded
as the act of a sane man. "There had been--it was hinted, and we believe
truly, in Lord John Russell's letter from Edinburgh--some talk in the
Cabinet, and there was some discussion in the press, about opening the
Irish ports by proclamation. _Opening the Irish ports!_ Why the real
remedy, had any interference with the law been necessary, would have
been to _close_ them--the torrent of food was running _outwards_."[78]
So did the leading Tory periodical put this obvious truth some months
later.
The Viceroy, replying to the Premier's letter on the 17th of October,
says he is deeply impressed with the extent and alarming nature of the
failure of the potato crop, and has no doubt on his mind that it is
general. The Premier had, sometime before, suggested Special
Commissioners to collect information, but the Lord Lieutenant does not
think they would be able to collect more accurate information than that
_already_ furnished by the county inspectors. He suggests that when the
potato digging is more advanced it would be well to move the Lieutenants
of counties to call meetings of the resident landholders, with a view of
ascertaining the amount of the evil, and their opinion of the measures
most proper to be adopted. He sees no objection to such a course, though
he dutifully adds that the Premier may.
There could be no objection whatever to such a course. It was, so far as
it went, the right course, because it would have called upon the
proprietors of the soil to discharge the duties of their position, and
to take counsel as to the best mode of doing it. In his after
correspondence with Lord Heytesbury the Premier _never alluded to this
suggestion in any way!_ Of course it fell to the ground.
On the 19th of October, Mr. Buller, Secretary to the Royal Agricultural
Society of Ireland, wrote to Sir Robert Peel that he was after making
the tour of several of the counties of the Province of Connaught, and
the result was, that he found the potato crop affected in localities
where people thought the blight had not reached. Mr. Buller's was a
private letter to the Premier in anticipation of a more formal report
from the Society, because, as he says, he "did not wish a moment to
elapse" before informing him of the extent of the fearful malady, in
order that no time should be lost, in adopting the necessary measures of
precaution and relief for Ireland. He concludes by announcing, that a
panic had seized all parties to a greater extent than he ever remembers
since the cholera; which panic, he thinks, will go on increasing as the
extent of the failure becomes better known.
Subordinates like Lord Heytesbury and Sir James Graham, writing to their
chief can only hint their views. Both did so more than once with regard
to the immediate action to be taken in securing food for the Irish
people, to replace the potatoes destroyed by the blight. In one of the
Viceroy's letters to the Premier, he quotes some precedents of what had
been done in former years by proclamation in Ireland, especially
referring to proclamations issued by Lord Cornwallis in 1800-1. He also
refers to some Acts of Parliament, no longer, however, in force. Sir
James Graham writing some days later to the Premier, says: "The
precedents for proceeding by proclamation from the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, and not by Order in Council, _are directly in point_;" adding
of course that such proclamations should be followed by an Act of
Indemnity. Surely, anybody can see, that for a Government to meet an
extraordinary evil by an extraordinary remedy, would not only be
sanctioned by an Act of Indemnity, but would be certain to receive the
warm approval of Parliament.
Sir Robert Peel wanted neither county meetings nor proclamations; so,
writing to Sir James Graham on the 22nd of October, he says,--all but
misstating Lord Heytesbury's views on proclamations:--"Lord Heytesbury,
from his occasional remarks on proclamations, seems to labour under an
impression that there is a constitutional right to issue them. Now there
is absolutely none. There is no more abstract right to prohibit the
export of a potato than to command any other violation of law.
Governments have assumed, and will assume, in extreme cases,
unconstitutional power, and will trust to the good sense of the people,
convinced by the necessity to obey the proclamation, and to Parliament
to indemnify the issuers. The proclamations to which Lord Heytesbury
refers may be useful as precedents, but they leave the matter where they
found it in point of law; they give no sort of authority. I have a
strong impression that we shall do more harm than good by controlling
the free action of the people in respect to the legal _export_ of these
commodities, or the legal use of them."[79]
The above passage naturally drew from Sir James Graham the following
remarks: "I enclose another letter from the Lord Lieutenant, giving a
worse account of the potato crop as the digging advances, but stating
that we are as yet unacquainted with the full extent of the mischief. _I
think_ that Lord Heytesbury is aware that the issue of proclamations is
the exercise of a power beyond the law, which requires subsequent
indemnity, and has not the force of law. _The precedents which he cites
illustrate this known truth_; yet proclamations remitting duties, backed
by an order of the Custom-house not to levy, are very effective
measures, though the responsibility which attaches to their adoption is
most onerous, especially when Parliament may be readily called
together."[80]
Some days later the Lord Lieutenant announced to the Premier that
Professors Lindley and Playfair had arrived in Dublin, and also gave a
set of queries which he had placed in their hands--all very useful, but
one of special importance--"What means can be adopted for securing seed
potatoes for next year?" This communication contained the following
passage:--"There is a great cry for the prohibition of exportation,
particularly of oats. With regard to potatoes, it seems to be pretty
generally admitted that to prohibit the exportation of so perishable a
produce would be a very doubtful advantage. Towards the end of next week
we shall know, I presume, the result of the deliberations of her
Majesty's Government; and as by that time the digging will be
sufficiently advanced to enable us to guess at the probable result of
the harvest, I shall then intimate to the several Lieutenants the
propriety of calling county meetings, unless I should hear from you that
you disapprove of such proceedings. The danger of such meetings is in
the remedies they may suggest, and the various subjects they may embrace
in their discussions, wholly foreign to the question before them."[81]
Three days later (Oct. 27) he again writes to the Premier: "Everything
is rising rapidly in price, and the people begin to show symptoms of
discontent which may ripen into something worse. Should I be authorized
in issuing a proclamation prohibiting distillation from grain? This is
demanded on all sides." There is no reply to this letter given by Sir
Robert Peel in his Memoirs, and yet he must have written one. He
certainly wrote to the Lord Lieutenant between the 3rd and the 8th of
November; for the Mansion House deputation was received at the Viceregal
Lodge on the 3rd, and we find the Viceroy in a letter to the Premier on
the 8th explaining what he had said to the deputation on the 3rd; so
that the Premier must, in the meantime, have put him on his defence; "it
is perfectly true," writes Lord Heytesbury, "that I did, in my answer to
the Lord Mayor, say there was no immediate pressure in the market; but
you must not give too wide a meaning to that observation, which had
reference merely to his demand that the exportation of grain should be
prohibited and the ports immediately thrown open." But neither this
passage, nor anything in the subsequent part of the letter, sufficiently
explains what he had written eleven days before, namely, that everything
was rising rapidly in price.
During the last days of October two very desponding reports were made to
the Premier by Dr. Playfair, in the latter of which he says that Dr.
Lindley was after making a tour of the potato shops of the city; that he
had examined the potatoes, "carefully picked as good," and warranted to
be sound, and that he had found "nineteen bad for fourteen good."
The first Cabinet Council assembled at the Premier's house on the 31st
of October, on which occasion he read for his colleagues all the
information received either by himself or the Home Secretary, after
which the sitting was adjourned until next day, November the 1st, when
he put his views before them in the shape of an elaborate memorandum. He
begins by calling their attention to the great probability of a famine
in Ireland consequent upon the potato blight. The evil, he thinks, may
be much greater than the reports would lead them to anticipate, but
whether it is or is not, the Cabinet cannot exclude from its
consideration "the contingency of a great calamity." He tells them that
he has sent eminent men of science to Ireland to examine and report on
the question; that they are proceeding cautiously, but will suggest at
the earliest period the simplest and most practical remedies which
their inquiries and scientific knowledge may enable them to offer.
Inquiries have also been addressed to the consular agents in different
parts of Europe as to the available supply of potatoes for the purpose
of seed. The noticeable fact in this, the first portion of the
memorandum, is, that the Premier keeps his Cabinet in ignorance of the
private reports made to himself by the "scientific men," assuring him
that half the potato crop in Ireland had ceased to be fit for the food
of man. Sir Robert next proceeds to discuss measures of relief to meet
the danger. His first suggestion is a commission to be appointed by the
Lord Lieutenant to inquire into the mode of giving relief, the head of
the Board of Works to be a member of the Commission. The Commissioners
are to see how money can be advanced, and employment given, and also how
remote outlying districts can be relieved, where no employment exists;
the power of calling this Commission into existence to be immediately
given to the Lord Lieutenant, who could nominate its members after
consulting with others, or immediately if he thought it necessary. In
the third and last part of his memorandum the Premier comes to the
really delicate and dangerous question--the repeal of the Corn Laws. He
thinks the potato blight and the measures he proposes to meet its
probable consequences would necessitate the calling of Parliament before
Christmas--a very important step, as "it compels," he says, "an
immediate decision on these questions--'Shall we maintain
unaltered--shall we modify--shall we suspend--the operation of the Corn
Laws?'" The first vote the Cabinet proposes, say a vote of £100,000, to
be placed at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant for the supply of food,
opens the whole question. Can the Government, then, vote public money
for the sustenance of the people and maintain existing restrictions on
the free importation of grain? He thinks not, and he goes on to give the
example of other countries threatened with scarcity, which are opening
their ports for foreign grain, and prohibiting their own to be exported,
thereby closing some of our ordinary sources of supply. If, he asks, the
Corn Laws are suspended, is it to be done by an act of prerogative, or
by legislation at the instance of the Government?
Such were the leading points placed before his Cabinet by Sir Robert
Peel in his memorandum of the 1st of November. "In the course of the
conversation which followed the reading of the above memorandum, it
became evident," he says, "that very serious differences of opinion
existed as to the necessity of adopting any extraordinary measures, and
as to the character of the measures which it might be advisable to
adopt."
The Cabinet broke up to meet again on the 6th of November, on which day
the Premier submitted to his colleagues the following memorandum: "To
issue forth an Order in Council remitting the duty on grain in bond to
one shilling, and opening the ports for the admission of all species of
grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day named in the Order. To call
Parliament together on the 27th instant, to ask for indemnity and a
sanction of the Order by law. To propose to Parliament no other measure
than that during the sitting before Christmas. To declare an intention
of submitting to Parliament immediately after the recess, a modification
of the existing law, but to decline entering into any details in
Parliament with regard to such modification. Such modification to
include the admission at a nominal duty of Indian corn and of British
Colonial corn--to proceed with regard to other descriptions of grain
upon the principle of the existing law, after a careful consideration of
the practical working of the present machinery for taking the
averages."[82] These proposals were rejected by a very decided majority
of the Cabinet, only three ministers, Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham
and Mr. Sidney Herbert, supporting them. Sir Robert tells us that he
would, at this juncture, have felt himself justified in resigning
office, but that on weighing all the circumstances of his position, he
resolved to retain it until the end of November, when the Cabinet would
meet again, as he thought by that time new information would be
forthcoming, and in all likelihood new phases of the crisis would have
arisen, to induce his colleagues to change or modify their views. He
also thought his immediate resignation, if not a cowardly, would be an
undignified course, as it would be sure to create excitement and even
panic in the country.
The most decided opponent of the Premier's views was Lord Stanley. After
the Cabinet Council of the 1st of November, he wrote a memorandum
detailing his objections to those views, and sent it to his chief, who
says "it contained a very detailed, clear, and able exposition of the
grounds on which Lord Stanley dissented from the proposals he had
submitted to the Cabinet."[83]
The Cabinet re-assembled on the 25th of November, and agreed to the
instructions which were to be issued to the Lord Lieutenant, and by him
given to the Commission which had been appointed, to consider and adopt
such measures as they deemed useful to mitigate the apprehended
scarcity. In these instructions the opinion of Drs. Lindley and
Playfair, that half the potato crop was destroyed, is not only given,
but emphatically put forward. Apprehension is expressed at the
difficulty of substituting a dearer for a cheaper food, the probability
of fever closely succeeding famine, and the formidable danger of not
having a sufficiency of sound seed for the ensuing crop. "The
proportion," say the instructions, "which seed bears to an average crop
of potatoes is very large; it has been estimated at not less than
one-eighth; and when we remember that a considerable portion of this
year's crop in Ireland is already destroyed, and that the remaining
portion, if it be saved, must supply food for nine months as well as
seed for next year, it is obvious that no ordinary care is required, to
husband a sufficient quantity of sound potatoes for planting in the
spring. Unless this be done, the calamity of the present year is but the
commencement of a more fatal series."[84] No prophecy was ever more
accurately and terribly verified.
The Cabinet met again next day, and the Premier read to them a
memorandum, which opened thus: "I cannot consent to the issue of these
instructions, and undertake at the same time to maintain the existing
Corn Law." And again he says, towards the close, "I am prepared, for
one, to take the responsibility of suspending the law by an Order in
Council, or of calling Parliament at a very early period, and advising
in the Speech from the Throne the suspension of the law." On the 29th of
November, the Premier sent to each of his colleagues a more detailed and
elaborate exposition of his views, in order that they might be prepared
to discuss them at the next Cabinet Council.
According to the course he had evidently laid down for himself, he made
the whole question of the repeal of the Corn Laws turn on the impending
Irish famine. He begins with the question he intends to discuss in this
manner:--"What is the course most consistent with the public interests
under the present circumstances, in reference to the future supply of
food?" His answer to his own question is, "that the proper precaution,
though it may turn out to be a superfluous one, is the permission, for a
limited time, to import foreign grain free of duty." He repeats that
several of the countries of Europe have taken precautions to secure a
sufficiency of food for their people. He goes into a history of what
the English Government had done on former occasions, when a scarcity of
food was imminent, admitting that, while, in 1793, it opened the ports
for food supplies, it also prohibited their exportation. He goes on to
show the advantages to be derived from the opening of the ports. He
touches the repeal of the Corn Laws but slightly, knowing full well that
the other points treated in the memorandum must raise a discussion on
that question in the Cabinet. However he does say enough to show it must
be treated. He asks, "is the Corn Law in all its provisions adapted to
this unforeseen and very special case?" He sums up his views in these
words: "Time presses, and on some definite course we must decide. Shall
we undertake without suspension to modify the existing Corn Law? Shall
we resolve to maintain the existing Corn Law? Shall we advise the
suspension of that law for a limited period? My opinion is for the last
course, admitting as I do that it involves the necessity for the
immediate consideration of the alterations to be made in the existing
Corn Law, such alterations to take effect after the period of
suspension. I should rather say it involves the question of the
principle and degree of protection to agriculture."[85]
Several of the Cabinet Ministers sent replies to the Premier's
memorandum before the day for their next meeting, which replies he
thought might lead to long discussions without any practical result, so
on the 2nd of December he brought before them, in another memorandum,
what he calls a specific measure--the announcement, in fact, that if the
ports were once opened the Corn duties could not be re-imposed; and
whether the ports were or were not opened, he said the state of those
laws must be re-considered--nay more, that they must gradually, but, "at
no distant day," be repealed. He finally stated in this paper the
principles on which he was ready to undertake that repeal.
When this last memorandum was prepared, the Cabinet was in a sort of
permanent session: Sir Robert Peel tells us its discussions continued
from the 25th of November to the 5th of December. With the exception of
the Duke of Buccleugh and Lord Stanley, his colleagues gave their
consent to his proposal; in some instances, however, he felt it was a
reluctant consent. Under such circumstances, he considered he could not
succeed in a complete and final adjustment of the Corn Law; so, on the
5th of December, he repaired to Osborne and placed his resignation in
the hands of the Queen.
Lord John Russell was summoned by the Queen on the 8th of December; he
was still at Edinburgh and was unable to present himself before her
Majesty until the 11th. He was in the unfortunate position of being in a
minority in the House of Commons. However, being empowered to form an
administration, he asked for time to consult his political friends;
besides which he also opened a communication with the late First Lord,
to see how far he could reckon on his support, at least with respect to
the question of the Corn Laws. He received from Sir Robert Peel what
seemed a kind and re-assuring answer; but although Sir Robert, in his
letter to the Queen of the 8th of December, told her Majesty he would
support the new Government in carrying out the principles, to carry out
which a majority of the members of his own Cabinet refused to aid him;
still he did not, when interrogated on the subject, pledge himself to
support Lord John who then saw the promised aid could not be relied on;
for any change in the programme might be regarded as a change of
principle, and no minister takes up the precise programme of his
predecessor. Still, on the 18th Lord John undertook to form a
Government; on the 20th, he writes to the Queen to say he found it
impossible to do so. It was no secret, that Lord Grey's objection to
_one_ appointment was the immediate cause of this failure, nor was it a
secret, that the person objected to was Lord Palmerston.[86] Some,
however, thought that this incident was cleverly laid hold of by Lord
John, to free himself from an untenable position. On the same day Sir
Robert Peel found himself again in the Queen's presence, who at once
announced to him, that instead of taking leave of him, she must request
him to continue in her service. On his return to town he immediately
summoned his late colleagues to meet him. All but two agreed to enter
the Cabinet again. These were Lord Stanley and the Duke of Buccleugh;
the former stood firm to his principles of protection, the latter asked
time for consideration, which resulted in his re-accepting his former
place; the rapid changes and events since the 6th of December giving, he
said, such a new character to things, that he was now of opinion that a
measure for the absolute repeal of the Corn Laws, at an early period,
was the true policy. Thus, after an interregnum of fifteen days, the old
Government, Lord Stanley excepted, was back in power. Mr. Gladstone
replaced Lord Stanley at the Colonial Office, giving "the new
administration the weight of his high character, and great abilities and
acquirements."[87]
FOOTNOTES:
[68] Letter of 17th October: Peel Memoirs, part 3.
[69] Writer of the article Sir R. Peel, in Encycl. Brit.
[70] Memoirs, part 3, page 100.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Memoirs, part 3, page 98.
[73] A short time after this speech was delivered, Mr. D'Israeli
commented upon it with great severity, and made it the ground work of
one of his most bitter attacks on Sir Robert Peel, in the course of
which he made use of the celebrated phrase, "organized hypocrisy."
"Dissolve if you please," said Mr. D'Israeli, "the Parliament you have
betrayed, and appeal to the people, who, I believe, mistrust you. For me
there remains this at least--the opportunity of expressing thus publicly
my belief, that a Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy." It
was Sir Robert Peel who had set aside the word "Tory" for that of
"Conservative,"--hence the point. Sir Robert, who was neither quick nor
brilliant at repartee, rose and replied with dignity, yet with the style
and manner of one who felt keenly the arrows of his adversary, steeped,
as they were, in gall. His closing observations were telling:--"When I
proposed the Tariff of 1842, and when the charge which the honorable
member now repeats was made against me, I find the honorable gentleman
got up in his place, and stated, that 'that charge had been made without
due examination of the facts of the case, and that the conduct pursued
by the right honourable baronet was in exact, permanent, and perfect
consistency with the principles of free trade as laid down by Mr. Pitt.
His [Sir R. Peel's] reason for saying this much was to refute the
accusation brought against the Government, that they had put forward
their present views in order to get into power.' These sentiments I find
attributed to Mr. D'Israeli. I do not know whether they are of
sufficient importance to mention them in the House; but this I know,
that I then held in the same estimation the panegyric with which I now
regard the attack."
[74] Memoirs by Sir Robert Peel, part 3, page 113.
[75] Sir Robert Peel's Memoirs, part 3, page 119.
[76] Ibid.
[77] Memoirs, part 3, page 121.
[78] Quarterly Review, Sept. 1846
[79] Memoirs, part 3, page 131.
[80] Sir R. Peel's Memoirs, part 3, page 132.
[81] _Ib._ 134.
[82] Memoirs, part 3, page 158.
[83] It is a great pity we have not this Mem. before us. It was returned
to Lord Stanley at his request, and Sir Robert says he kept no copy of
it.
[84] Memoirs, part iii, p. 181.
[85] Memoirs, part 3, page 185.
[86] "You will have heard the termination, of our attempt to form, a
government. All our plans were frustrated by Lord Grey." T.B. (Lord)
Macaulay's letter to J.F. M'Farlane, 22nd Dec., 1845.
[87] Sir R. Peel, in his Memoirs, part 3, p. 259.