DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16542#0006
Vol. X.]
[January to June, 1846.
page
of mine on the 26th of November would have appeared to be a servile acqui-
escence in his views. I would not have abandoned the post of danger if I
Ijild been supported by a unanimous Government ; but that was not the
result of our deliberations. Uiie of my colleagues—one for whom i feel the
sincerest regard, for whose public qualities 1 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 suf-
ficient 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 beheving, as i did, that their resignation would be fol-
lowed 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 set-
tlement of the question, i felt it my duty humbly to tender my resignation.
That resignation was accepted by her Majesty ; and her Majesty, of/ur own
a/mice, immediately sent for the noble lord the member for Londoa 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 ranks—that 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."
■
Lord John Russell then entered upon the difficulties he
had found in the formation of a Cabinet, and although Sir
Robert Peel had offered a conditional support, he did not
feel sufficiently secure of a majority in the House of Commons
to justify him in attempting to carry a measure for the partial
6 abolition of the duty on Corn. [Not Strong Enough, for
7 the Place] and [Never Mind Losing.] Sir Robert Peel
resumed the Premiership with Mr. W. E. Gladstone as
Secretary for the Colonies, vice Lord Stanley resigned. Mr.
Disbaeli began those onslaughts, more spiteful than effective,
on Sir Robert Peel, and which made more enemies for the
242 speaker than they did for the object of his attack. [An Old
Fable.] Whatever may be thought of the conduct pursued
by Sir Robert Peel on the Corn Law question during the
many years it was debated, it would seem difficult for any
one not blinded by resentment to impugn the honesty of the
motives of Sir Robert in sacrificing all that he gave up to
procure the acceptance of a measure calculated to prove the
error of all his former conclusions.
On the 27th of January, 1846, Sir Robert Peel detailed
to the House his great scheme of commercial and financial
policy, and after recapitulating the good results of reduced
tariffs of former years, declared that his opinion on the Corn
Laws had changed greatly. Having given manufacturers free
access to every kind of raw material, he called upon them to
prove the sincerity in their desire for Free Trade by relin-
quishing the protection given to the articles of their manu-
factures.
The Right Honourable Baronet then described at great
length the reduction of duties which he intended to make
upon the importation of paper-hangings, manufactured metals,
dressed hides, boots, shoes, hats, straw plat, carriages,
candles, soap, brandy, geneva, sugar, and various other
articles : and then proceeded to review the articles connected
with agriculture on which import duties were levied. He
proposed to reduce the duty on all seeds to 5s. per cwt. Indian
corn or maize, which was of such importance in the fattening
of cattle, he proposed in future to introduce duty free. In
removing that duty he was not depriving agriculture of any
protection, but absolutely conferring a benefit upon it. Hs
also proposed that buckwheat, and maize, and buckwheat
flour, should be admitted duty free. If any gentleman would
ascertain the price which had been recently paid by farmers
for linseed-cake and rape-cake, they would agree with him
thai the removal of the duty on maize was not a disservice to
PAOJt
the agricultural interest. The Right Honourable Baronet
then described the reduction of duty which he intended to
propose on the importation of foreign butter, cheese, hops, and
cured fish, stating that in each case the duty would be re-
duced to half its present amount. On all articles of agricul-
tural produce which constituted food as distinct from corn, he
proposed an immediate repeal of duty. Every kind of vege-
table and animal food would be admitted at once free of duty.
All animals from foreign countries would also be introduced
on the same terms. He then proceeded to describe the nature
of his proposal with respect to the importation of foreign corn :
he had already stated that he intended to exempt some
articles now included in the Corn Laws, as maize, from duty
altogether. It might, therefore, be as well for him to inform
the House at once, that though he did not intend to propose
the immediate repeal of the Corn Laws, yet, in the hope of
making a final adjustment of the question, and for the sake
of giving time for adjustment to the agricultural interest, he
did intend to propose that their continuance should only be
temporary. The bill which he should, therefore, introduce
on this subject would contain an enactment that, after a
certain date, grain of all kinds should come in duty free. He
proposed, however, that a considerable reduction should be
made at once in the existing amount of duty, and that the
duty so reduced should be limited in its continuance to three
years. His bill would contain a provision that at that period,
when the change would be least felt—namely, on the 1st of
February, 1S49—oats, barley, rye, and wheat, should be only
liable to that mere nominal duty wliich lie intended to apply
to maize, for the purpose of procuring statistical returns of
the quantity imported. The main question, then, for the
House to consider was this—what is to be the intermediate
state of the law ? He proposed that there should be an enact-
ment for three years to this effect, that till the 1st of February,
1849, the following duties should be levied on all wheat im-
ported into this country from foreign ports. Whenever the
average price of wheat should be under 48s. a quarter in this
country, the duty should be 10s. a quarter; that above 48s.
and under 49s., it should be 9s. a quarter; that above 49s.
and under 50s., it should be 8s. a quarter ; and so on till the
price reached 54s. a quarter, when he intended to impose an
invariable duty of 4s. a quarter. The enactments which he
proposed for all other descriptions of grain would follow the
scale of duties upon wheat. There would, therefore, be levied on
wheat at its present price a duty of 4s., instead of the present
duty of 16s. a quarter ; and every other grain taken out of
bond for consumption in the home market would be liable to
little more than a nominal duty. Such was the arrangement
for the adjustment of this great question which Her Majesty's
Government now offered to the House.
He then reviewed some of the burthens upon land, and pro-
posed certain ameliorations, and suggested a new Law of
Settlement whereby an individual having for five years an
undisturbed residence in any place became chargeable to that
place, and not as formerly, returnable to the parish of his
birth, when unfit for further labour. Other important changes
were proposed, including £30,000 for the purposes of education.
Several of the usual enpporters of the Government spoke in
opposition, and the discussion was adjourned to the 9th' of
February. An amendment was then moved by Ms. John
Miles "that the House go into Committee that day six
months," and seconded by Sir W. Heathcote. The debate,
after repeated adjournments, terminated on the twelfth night,
[January to June, 1846.
page
of mine on the 26th of November would have appeared to be a servile acqui-
escence in his views. I would not have abandoned the post of danger if I
Ijild been supported by a unanimous Government ; but that was not the
result of our deliberations. Uiie of my colleagues—one for whom i feel the
sincerest regard, for whose public qualities 1 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 suf-
ficient 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 beheving, as i did, that their resignation would be fol-
lowed 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 set-
tlement of the question, i felt it my duty humbly to tender my resignation.
That resignation was accepted by her Majesty ; and her Majesty, of/ur own
a/mice, immediately sent for the noble lord the member for Londoa 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 ranks—that 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."
■
Lord John Russell then entered upon the difficulties he
had found in the formation of a Cabinet, and although Sir
Robert Peel had offered a conditional support, he did not
feel sufficiently secure of a majority in the House of Commons
to justify him in attempting to carry a measure for the partial
6 abolition of the duty on Corn. [Not Strong Enough, for
7 the Place] and [Never Mind Losing.] Sir Robert Peel
resumed the Premiership with Mr. W. E. Gladstone as
Secretary for the Colonies, vice Lord Stanley resigned. Mr.
Disbaeli began those onslaughts, more spiteful than effective,
on Sir Robert Peel, and which made more enemies for the
242 speaker than they did for the object of his attack. [An Old
Fable.] Whatever may be thought of the conduct pursued
by Sir Robert Peel on the Corn Law question during the
many years it was debated, it would seem difficult for any
one not blinded by resentment to impugn the honesty of the
motives of Sir Robert in sacrificing all that he gave up to
procure the acceptance of a measure calculated to prove the
error of all his former conclusions.
On the 27th of January, 1846, Sir Robert Peel detailed
to the House his great scheme of commercial and financial
policy, and after recapitulating the good results of reduced
tariffs of former years, declared that his opinion on the Corn
Laws had changed greatly. Having given manufacturers free
access to every kind of raw material, he called upon them to
prove the sincerity in their desire for Free Trade by relin-
quishing the protection given to the articles of their manu-
factures.
The Right Honourable Baronet then described at great
length the reduction of duties which he intended to make
upon the importation of paper-hangings, manufactured metals,
dressed hides, boots, shoes, hats, straw plat, carriages,
candles, soap, brandy, geneva, sugar, and various other
articles : and then proceeded to review the articles connected
with agriculture on which import duties were levied. He
proposed to reduce the duty on all seeds to 5s. per cwt. Indian
corn or maize, which was of such importance in the fattening
of cattle, he proposed in future to introduce duty free. In
removing that duty he was not depriving agriculture of any
protection, but absolutely conferring a benefit upon it. Hs
also proposed that buckwheat, and maize, and buckwheat
flour, should be admitted duty free. If any gentleman would
ascertain the price which had been recently paid by farmers
for linseed-cake and rape-cake, they would agree with him
thai the removal of the duty on maize was not a disservice to
PAOJt
the agricultural interest. The Right Honourable Baronet
then described the reduction of duty which he intended to
propose on the importation of foreign butter, cheese, hops, and
cured fish, stating that in each case the duty would be re-
duced to half its present amount. On all articles of agricul-
tural produce which constituted food as distinct from corn, he
proposed an immediate repeal of duty. Every kind of vege-
table and animal food would be admitted at once free of duty.
All animals from foreign countries would also be introduced
on the same terms. He then proceeded to describe the nature
of his proposal with respect to the importation of foreign corn :
he had already stated that he intended to exempt some
articles now included in the Corn Laws, as maize, from duty
altogether. It might, therefore, be as well for him to inform
the House at once, that though he did not intend to propose
the immediate repeal of the Corn Laws, yet, in the hope of
making a final adjustment of the question, and for the sake
of giving time for adjustment to the agricultural interest, he
did intend to propose that their continuance should only be
temporary. The bill which he should, therefore, introduce
on this subject would contain an enactment that, after a
certain date, grain of all kinds should come in duty free. He
proposed, however, that a considerable reduction should be
made at once in the existing amount of duty, and that the
duty so reduced should be limited in its continuance to three
years. His bill would contain a provision that at that period,
when the change would be least felt—namely, on the 1st of
February, 1S49—oats, barley, rye, and wheat, should be only
liable to that mere nominal duty wliich lie intended to apply
to maize, for the purpose of procuring statistical returns of
the quantity imported. The main question, then, for the
House to consider was this—what is to be the intermediate
state of the law ? He proposed that there should be an enact-
ment for three years to this effect, that till the 1st of February,
1849, the following duties should be levied on all wheat im-
ported into this country from foreign ports. Whenever the
average price of wheat should be under 48s. a quarter in this
country, the duty should be 10s. a quarter; that above 48s.
and under 49s., it should be 9s. a quarter; that above 49s.
and under 50s., it should be 8s. a quarter ; and so on till the
price reached 54s. a quarter, when he intended to impose an
invariable duty of 4s. a quarter. The enactments which he
proposed for all other descriptions of grain would follow the
scale of duties upon wheat. There would, therefore, be levied on
wheat at its present price a duty of 4s., instead of the present
duty of 16s. a quarter ; and every other grain taken out of
bond for consumption in the home market would be liable to
little more than a nominal duty. Such was the arrangement
for the adjustment of this great question which Her Majesty's
Government now offered to the House.
He then reviewed some of the burthens upon land, and pro-
posed certain ameliorations, and suggested a new Law of
Settlement whereby an individual having for five years an
undisturbed residence in any place became chargeable to that
place, and not as formerly, returnable to the parish of his
birth, when unfit for further labour. Other important changes
were proposed, including £30,000 for the purposes of education.
Several of the usual enpporters of the Government spoke in
opposition, and the discussion was adjourned to the 9th' of
February. An amendment was then moved by Ms. John
Miles "that the House go into Committee that day six
months," and seconded by Sir W. Heathcote. The debate,
after repeated adjournments, terminated on the twelfth night,