CHAPTER III.

SIR ROBERT PEEL AND THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

HILST England in the East was attaching her name to

WH

the opium trade with the Chinese, and to the defiles of the Afghan mountains, her interior government was undergoing important modifications, and the power passed from the hands of the Whigs to those of the Tories, from Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston to Sir Robert Peel and Lord Aberdeen.

"Ever since its two restorations in 1835 and 1839," says M. Guizot in his life of Sir Robert Peel, "the Whig Cabinet had been wearing itself out by continuing in office without growing in power. During the sessions of 1840 and 1841, it began again to totter, and it was easy to foresee that it would soon fall once more. The attacks of the opposition became more pressing. Peel no longer restrained the ardor of his friends. The Whigs began to perceive that his blows were more hardly dealt, and might soon prove mortal. They endeavored to intimidate or weaken him by foretelling the difficulties which would beset him in the exercise of power. I believe,' said Mr. Macaulay, that if, with the best and purest intentions, the right honorable baronet were to undertake the government of this country, he would find that it was very easy to lose the confidence of the party which raised him to power, but very difficult indeed to gain that which the present government happily possesses, the confidence of the people of Ireland.'

"It was by the help of Ireland most of all, that the Whigs hoped to maintain themselves in power and to paralyze their

formidable opponent. They called on him to explain himself with clearness on this question, and generally to state the views and principles of conduct which would guide him if he were placed at the head of the government. Peel unhesitatingly accepted the challenge. Two demands,' he said, 'have been made by the opposite side, in the course of this discussion. The one, that he who is about to give his vote of want of confidence in the government should specify the grounds upon which this vote is given; the other, that those who from their position may be regarded as the probable successors of the government which it is sought to displace, should state upon what principles of public policy they propose to conduct the affairs of their country. The absolute justice of the first of these demands I willingly admit. The other demand, namely, that I should explain in detail my views of public policy, is perhaps not equally imperative in point of strict obligation, but it is a demand to which, from considerations of prudence, I shall most willingly accede. There shall be no limit to the fulness and unreservedness of the answers which I will give, excepting your impatience. I know too well the little value that can be placed on that support which arises from misconception of one's real opinions. I have had too much experience of solemn engagements, entered into for the purpose of overturning a government, violated when that object had been obtained. I have so little desire to procure a hollow confidence, either on false pretences or by a delusive silence, that I rejoice in the opportunity of frankly declaring my opinions and intentions on every point on which you challenge unreserved explanation.'

Sir Robert Peel spoke for two hours, passing in review all the great public questions of the time, all his own opinions regarding reform, the principles of Parliament, the Poor Law, the Corn Law, Catholic Emancipation and the Administration of Ireland.

"I have done," he said at last. "I have fulfilled the purpose for which I rose, by specifying the grounds on which I withhold my confidence from the present government, and by declaring the course I mean to pursue on the great questions of public policy on which the public mind is divided. I cannot answer the question you put me, what principles will prevail if a new government be formed? But I can answer for it, that if the principles I profess do not prevail, of that government I shall form no part. It may be that by the avowal of my opinions I shall forfeit the confidence of some who, under mistaken impressions, may have been hitherto disposed to follow me. I shall deeply regret the withdrawal of that confidence; but I would infinitely prefer to incur the penalty of its withdrawal than to retain it under false pretences. It may be that the principles I profess cannot be reduced to practice, and that a government attempting the execution of them would not meet with adequate support from the House of Commons. Still I shall not abandon them. I shall not seek to compensate the threatened loss of confidence on this side of the House by the faintest effort to conciliate the support of the other. I shall steadily persevere in the course which I have uniformly pursued since the passing of the Reform Bill, content with the substantial power which I shall yet exercise, — indifferent as to office so far as personal feelings or personal objects are concerned, ready, if required, to undertake it whatever be its difficulties, refusing to accept it on conditions inconsistent with personal honor, disdaining to hold it by the tenure by which it is at present held."

It was not until the following session, on the 27th of May, 1841, that the vote of want of confidence in the Whig Cabinet, proposed by Sir Robert Peel himself, was carried by a majority of one. Determined to try every chance, the queen's ministers obtained the dissolution of Parliament. In the debate on the queen's address, the new Parliament, assembling on the 19th