House of Commons. Thursday, January 22.

New Zealander, Volume 2, Issue 56, 27 June 1846, Page 4

House of Commons. Thursday, January 22.

Sir Robert Peel apologised for rising at so early a period, as he was anxious to put the House and the country in possession of the circumstances attending the late ministerial changes, and of explaining the motives which had actuated him, and the principles on which he had acted. He had been condemned without a hearing; but even after condemnation he hoped that they •would allow him to explain the ipasons'of his conduct. The immediate cause of the dissolution of the Government was the calamity, so sudden, and so mysterious, which had befallen the food of a large portion of the people of this country and of Ireland ; but though that was the immediate and proximate cause, it would be unfair if he did not state that it was connected with a larger and more important question, the laws ■which govern the importation of food. On that subject his opinions had undergone a change. (Loud cheers from the Opposition benches). It might be supposed that there was humiliation in making that avowal. He did not feel it to be so. There was indeed humiliation in the fact of a man •whose opinions had undergone a change on a vital question, carefully concealing it, and acting as if he did not feel it." He now felt that all the grounds on which protection to native industry had been advocated were untenable. For instance, it was not a question involving theinterest of the labouiing population, lor the experience of the last three years, as compared with the three preceding, contradicted that assumption. High prices did not produce high wages, nor vice versa. In the last three years, with low prices and abundance of food, wages were comparatively high, and labour was in demand j in the three years preceding, with high prices and scarcity, wages were low and employment was scarce. Experience thus proved that wages ■were ruled by abundance of capital and demand for labour, and did not vary like the price of provisions. Again, increased freedom of trade was favourable to the prosperity of our commerce. In three scaice and dear years — namely, from 2839 to 1841, our foreign exports fell from fiftythree millions in value to forty-seven millions. But in three years of reduction of duties and low prices — namely, from 1842 to 1844, the value of our exports rose from forty-seven millions to fifty-eight millions. Even deducting the amount of the China trade a similar result was shown. 2Vor was the reduction in the Customs' duties unfavourable to the revenue. In 1842, there was an estimated loss of a million and a half; in 1843, a smaller one of two hundred and se-Tenty-three thousand pounds ; but in 1845 there ■was a reduction, at an estimated loss to the revenue, of no less than two millions and a half. The total amount of the rai ions reductions effected in three years exceeded four millions sterling} and many of the duties were totally abolished, the loss, thei efore, not being compensated b) any increased consumption. Had four millions been lost to the revenue? He believed that on the sth April next, the revenue would be found to be more buo)unt than ever. But there •was a higher test than that. Criminal statistics showed a connexion between increase and decrease of crime, and a declining or prosperous state of the country. In 1843, there had been a decrease of crime to the extent of five and a half per cent ; in 1844, of no less than ten per cent.; m 1845; of five and a half per cent. ; and the decrease last year was especially marked in all the great manufactuiing districts. Thus, during the time that they had been engaged in reducing Customs' duties— in other words, gradually destroying protection to native industry— the interests of me labouring classes, of commerce, and of morality had been promoted ; and it was impossible to resist the inevitable conclusion that reso axation of protection was favourable to all the •Ncial relations and concerns of the country, dor was relaxation unfavourable to native inlUstry, however much it might hitherto have s elied on protection. Flax was a striking injtance in point. Foreign flax was now freely mported ; yet, in the face of a rapidly increasing amount of foreign importation, the price of flax was higher. Foreign cattle was another instance. Tliey all remembered the predictions of ruin in 1842, when prohibition was removed, and foreign cattle were admitted at a small fixed duty — piedictions which created an unfounded though temporary panic. What was the case now ? In the face of a rapidly augmenting importation of foreign cattle, slieep, and swine, piices had not been directed, and the contracts for the supply of provisions were now neatly double what they w<jie even in 1544. Nay, on the subject of lard, about which there was so much alarm last year — (Joud laughter) — with an impurfatiuii running up fiom a nominal amount to eighty thousavd hundred-weight, prices had risen from 48s. to 625. Another example was afforded by wool. The total abolition of the duty has been followed by a largely augmented importation, and a rapidly mci easing price ; as he showed by giving the quotations for several years. In the face of all these facts— the advancement of the comfoits of the working classes; the diminution of crime ; the improvement even of the public health ; increase of trade; and the advance in price concunent with an increase in importation, he felt he could no longer stand up in the House of Commons as the advocate of protection. It would be impossible for him, w ith these convictions on his mind, an> longer to meet the annual motion of Mi. Villiers with a direct negative. The change in his views had been broug.it about by observation and experience; a.'id he now frankly stated to his usual supporters that he couUl no longer support the corn-laws. He could have wished that the set tleinent of the question had been deferred to

another Pailidiuentj but the sudden and mysterious blight in the potatoes— the food in Ireland of four millions of people— rendered necessary immediate action. Sir Robert Peel then read copious extracts from the mass of communications which had been forwarded to the Government on the subject ; mentioned the appointment of the Government commission of inquiry j and detailed the proceedings of the Cabinet meetings fro n time to time to consider the subject. His own Mish was either at once to open the poits by an Order in Council, of which he was ready to lake the responsibility, or else to call Parliament together. But at the same lime he fell that though a temporary opening of the ports was not essentially connected with a consideration of the Corn-law, yet that it must, on the pi esent occasion, be necessarily involved. His propositions were opposed by his colleagues in the Cabinet; Lord Stanley especially consider ing that there was much exaggeration in the alleged failure of the potato and jjiaiu crops. Meantime, agitation increased 5 and though he might have evaded responsibility, under the fact of his colleagues having oven uled bi» opinions*, he felt it impossible to continue at the head of the Government with the strong convictions he/ entertained of an impending danger, and the necessity for meeting it. His position also was changed by the publication of Lord John Russell's letter. Any movement after it would be misinterpreted ; and feeling that he could not biing the matter* to a buccessful issue without the support of a united Cabinet, he determined to place bis resignation in the hands of. her Ma jesly. Lord John Russell was sent for; and he (Sir Robeit Peel) piomised that, in hispiivate capacity, he would give the noble lord all the aid in his pow er to effect a settlement of the question. The noble lord having failed in his endeavour to form an Administration, the Queen asked him if he peisisted in his resignation? He replied, no ; as the noble lord Lad not succeeded, he would resume the Government, and endeavour to bring his colleagues into his views. He had given notice of his intention to bring the subject generally before the House, and would not therefore anticipate discussion. But he trusted that he had shown that his motives were honourable. He was charged with #t treason" to agriculture. It would indeed be "treason" to agriculture to butter it to incur the odium of so great a calamity as a failure in the sustenance for the people j to call upon the House to vote money to purchase oats, and refuse to ask them to make any relaxation in the laws which restricted supply. He would not touch the existing law on any slight pretence, as for instance, the introduction of Indian corn, which was urged as a boon to the agriculturists. It was urged over and over again that he was under some personal obligation to the agriculturists, and he was told that the power which placed him in his present position could remove him. But he did not fee] himself under any obligation to any man or body of men for submitting to the sacufices of office. He did not undervalue the distinction, but the value of power did not consist in the invidious office of selection for the distribution of patronage. He had now served four Sovereigns: under three he held high office j but the highest reward he had ever asked was the assurance of his having been a faithful and loyal subject. His power be had never used for unworthy purposes ; he hud tried to use it for the advancement ot national interests ; and as a Conservative leader, or a Conservative Minister, he had thought it consistent with high Conservative policy to reconcile an ancient monarchy and a ptoud aristocracy with a Reformed House of Commons. The burden of olhce was far above his physical and mental poweis ; relief would be a favor, not a penalty. But he wuuld not retain office with shackled power and mutilated authority ; the helm he would not hold, especially in such stormy nights as he had seen in the House of Commons, unless it had liberty to traverse ; if Minister of England, he must be unshackled in his efforts to provide for the public aalety . Lord John Russell, after stating that he had applied for and received the permission of the Ctowu to make known his share in the recent transactions, proceeded to explain the circumstances out of which originated his celebrated letter. In his speech at Edinburgh, on being presented with the freedom of the city, he avoideu the corn-law question; and the Lord Provost expressed his regret at the omission. He re: plied that he had tttrong convictions on the subject, but abstained from btating them, lest it might embarrass the course of the Executive. But when the public prints informed him that the Ccibinet hdd met and had separated, without adopting measures to meet the emergency, he then, under a strong sense of public duty, put forth his views. People of low minds termed this an advertisement for office. Nothing was farther from his thoughts. When snmmoned by the Queen, in» first determination was respectfully to decline the task offered lo him j for, looking to the numerical force of the party with which he was connected in the House of Commons, and recollecting that even when they had a majority, their motives were misinterpieted, and uieir measures obstructed, he saw the great difficulties and dangers of the attempt. But his views weie changed when the Queen placed in his hands a paper, drawn up by bir Rooeit Peel, in which he assigned his reasons foi resigning, and proffered hi» assistance, in his private capacity, to his successor. He then felt his duty to consult with his friends ; and after much anxious deliberation, it was felt that they would be justified in encountering great risks for the sake of such an object as the settlement of the corn-laws. The noble lord then read copies of correspondence with her Majesty, in which he hud stated his acquiescence in Sir Roteit Peel's propositions of an immediate temporary opening of the ports, lo be followed by a repeal of tho cornlaw, but in which he demuned to a compensation of the landed interest, as carrying with it advantages more apparent than real. He undertook the task of forming an Administiation un the principle of carrying out commercial freedom ; though conscious that, even with the support of Sir Robert Peel, many who would support his plans, would oppose similar ones pioceeding from them. In the course of attempting to construct an administration, an insuperable ob-

jection arose in the mind of one of bis pioposed colleagues, Earl Grey, for whom he had a high esteem, admiring his coinage and his honesty. Under ordinary circumstances, he could haveaffoided to have gone on, even without his aid ; but looking at the difficulties by which he was surrounded, and the necessity for united action on the part of all with whom he was associated, he felt compelled to resign his undertaking. He hoped that the corn-law would be settled at the present tune ; and warned the agriculturists against the folly of protracting it. Did these gentlemen never look forwatd? The time might arrive when circumstances might compel a humiliating capitulation to an excited multitude. Did they consider the law of 1842 sufficient to provide for the susteuance of the people ? They had heard what the author of that law had himself said ; he had shrunk from the grave and alarming responsibility which its maintenance threw upon him. On the subject of Ireland, the noble lord blamed the policy of the Government. He himself had hoped to have framed a large .and comprehensive measure for its pacification, and on that gtound alone he regretted the frustration of his attempt to form an administration. Whether in office or out of it, he would give his hearty support to measures which would tend to the improvement of that divided country, one of these, he trusted, would be a measure for extending the freedom of commerce.