II.

SIR ROBERT PEEL AND MR. CHAMBERLAIN.

1845-1903.-A CONTRAST.

ON December 6th, 1845, the Times electrified the world by announcing that Sir Robert Peel intended to repeal the Corn Laws. On May 28th, 1903, Mr. Chamberlain astounded the House of Commons by unfolding a policy, which can, if successful, only end in their re-enactment. In less than sixty years the wheel has come full circle. The two crises seem to round off an epoch. In 1845 a Government pledged to Protection suddenly became a Government of Free Traders. In 1903 a Government pledged to Free Trade suddenly became a Government whose strongest member was working for Protection.

There are some minor differences. Sir Robert Peel was Prime Minister, and Mr. Chamberlain is, or rather was, Colonial Secretary. But by shifting the political centre to the Colonies, Mr. Chamberlain had made his post in some ways more commanding than that of the British Prime Minister. The two crises, then, stand in close and vivid resemblance. In both cases the cause of the conversion must be sought outside Great Britain. In 1845, it was Ireland that provided the argument. In 1903 it is the Colonies. In both cases the conversion of an individual led to a Cabinet crisis which sent its ripples of disturbance far through the whole sea of politics. In both cases a small group of Ministers held aloof who threatened to thwart the purpose of the converted.

So far for the resemblance-but from that point onwards it gives way to contrast. Sir Robert Peel had not discovered the blessed word "inquiry." He still held to the view that the Cabinet must have a common policy. When his Cabinet differed, Peel resigned; and he did not resume office until he found that no other Government could be formed.

In meeting the present crisis, it may be of some use to look back to the last. Faced by similar difficulties sixty years ago,

how did English Ministers behave? What views of Cabinet and personal responsibility prevailed then?

Let us see.

The story naturally falls into three acts:—

I.

Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man's hand."

At the end of the Session of 1845, Sir Robert Peel's Government, which took office in 1841, was still as strong as it ever had been. The Whigs seemed still totally demoralised, and the only movement that counted in England-Cobden and Bright's, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws-seemed for the moment to have lost some of its strength.

But in August the little cloud was already rising out of the sea. It was at the beginning of that month that Peel first heard of the appearance of the potato disease in the Isle of Wight.1

From that moment onward the whole sky began to become overcast. The same news came from all parts of England, Scotland and Ireland-especially Ireland.

At first it seemed that the potatoes were only touched, but as August grew to September, and September to October, it became clear that at least half the crop was ruined.

The situation was indeed enough to appal the strongest rulers. At that moment there were, thanks to the Corn Laws, some six millions of people in the United Kingdom subsisting on the potato, of whom four millions lived in Ireland. If half the crop failed, as seemed almost inevitable, food would be wanted for three millions of people-that is, at least three million quarters of wheat. But wheat at the moment was being sold at 64s. a quarter, and the duty upon it was 8s. Could it be seriously proposed that the Government should first starve the people by excluding corn, and then buy up corn at its own enhanced price? Throughout October an active correspondence went on between the three Ministers responsible-the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, Sir James Graham, and the Viceroy of Ireland, Lord Heytesbury. Anxiety deepened into fear: and fear into something like panic. Throughout that terrible autumn the rain fell incessantly, and imprisoned Ministers looked out from their country houses on the steady, ruthless downpour which was sweeping away the Corn Laws.

Sir Robert Peel gave the Irish Government a free hand in

(1) Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel. Published by his Trustees in 1856. (John Murray.) This is still the first authority for Peel's life. Vol. ii., p. 109.

relief, and early in October sent over several experts, of whom the chief was Dr. Lyon-afterwards Lord-Playfair. Their report, promptly given, was that things were even worse than rumour had represented.

Faced with this terrible reality, the minds of Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham worked along the same groove to the same conclusions. It is a singular and impressive fact that the letters in which each of these great men proposed to the other the final and total Repeal of the Corn Laws crossed in the post.1

"The removal of impediments to import is the only effectual remedy."

That was the note struck by Sir Robert Peel from the very outset as early as October 13th-and never again did he drop to the semi-tone of compromise.

Peel may have been a Free Trader in theory already, and the State Corn Law League may have prepared the way by converting the people. But it was Nature that struck the final blow."

"It is awful to observe," writes Sir James Graham, in a style not then out of fashion with English statesmen, "how the Almighty humbles the pride of nations." Of nations-aye, and of statesmen too. For the Peel who wrote so convincingly in Oetober about the need of total and final Repeal was the same man who, as Disraeli was soon to remind him, had for five years led a Government pledged to the protection of agriculture by placing taxes

on corn.

Once resolved on his course of action, Peel pursued it with the unswerving swiftness of the great administrator and Prime Minister that he was. He had a cause the saving of a nationand it filled him with a fiery and righteous zeal very disturbing to dukes and landed colleagues. He sent constant letters to all his Ministers, arguing, pleading, appealing: and on October 31st he called the Cabinet together at his own house in London: he asked them, in somewhat peremptory fashion, to make their final choice between "maintenance, modification and suspension," of the Corn Laws.

It was the first of Peel's Titanic struggles-the first and in some ways the hardest. Face to face with his Cabinet, he found himself among men unmoved by the far-off distresses of the Irish

(1) See Memoirs, vol. ii., p. 113-115. On October 13th, 1845.

(2) The best case for this view is made out by his grandson in Mr. C. S. Parker's Life. (A Summary of the Life of Sir Robert Peel, pp. 561-623, vol. iii.) This volume, published in 1899, gives the documents held back in 1856, and forms the best supplement to the Memoirs.

1

peasants,1 and attached to the Corn Laws as the Israelites to the Ark of the Covenant. To Peel, Free Trade in food had become an administrative necessity: to them it was a sacrifice of caste, rent, comfort-almost of life itself.

Four times they met; and four times they parted, without agreeing. The rumour of their dissensions reached Greville, who spoke of "long and anxious consultations." Disraeli, in his picturesque and exaggerated way, speaks of these as the four Councils which "agitated England, perplexed the sagacious Tuileries, and disturbed even the serene intelligence of the profound Metternich." Europe had no need to be troubled. It was a purely "internal question" that was agitating the Cabinet, the struggle of a class to tax the food of the people.

2

At the fourth Council Peel was no nearer to a settlement than at the beginning. He was supported by only three colleagues out of the whole Cabinet-Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Sidney Herbert. The others seemed unalterably opposed. His task seemed hopeless.

But Peel's resolution only strengthened with opposition. He would not resign. He trusted that the strength of his case would finally conquer opposition; the Court and the people were on his side; nature was fighting for him. He knew that "God's fruit of justice ripens slowly." His vast patience and sweet tolerance were still unexhausted. He simply adjourned the next meeting of the Cabinet until November 25th.

In the interval an event occurred which entirely changed the situation. Perceiving the terror of the Irish people and the paralysis of the Government, Lord John Russell issued his famous letter from Edinburgh. Without consulting his colleagues, he committed the whole Whig Party to complete and final Repeal of the Corn Laws.

"Let the removal of restrictions on the admission of the main articles of food and clothing used by the mass of the people be required, in plain terms, as useful to all great interests, and indispensable to the progress of the nation."

So spoke Lord John Russell from Edinburgh, and the letter fell like a thunderbolt on the dissentient Ministers. The Corn Laws were now doomed. The only question was, who should carry on the Government while they were being repealed-Sir Robert Peel or Lord John Russell--a Tory or a Whig?

(1) The Duke of Portland wrote to Peel, "Considering their conduct, which is very near a state of rebellion, I cannot think the Queen's Government ought to show them any favour, or give them assistance in any way." (Memoirs, vol. ii, p. 151.)

(2) Life of Lord George Bentinck.

Party feeling and the deeper conservatism of imperilled interests came to the help of Peel.

The Duke of Wellington, still a Protectionist, became a Peelite. "A good Government for the country is more important than Corn Laws or any other consideration," he wrote in his rough, plain way.1 With him came the centre party-Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Ripon, and Mr. Goulburn-who came over in the few days after the Cabinet of November 25th.

Thus strengthened, Peel met his December Cabinets. There was still no flinching in his attitude. The only way out that he could see was still the suspension of the Corn Laws, ending in their final and gradual abolition.2

The letters which Peel wrote to the Queen during these Cabinets show that from day to day he still hoped for a unanimous decision. But on December 4th there was a change for the worse. The Opposition had dwindled to two-the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Stanley-but they were irreconcilable. Very firmly and calmly, they both declared their intention to resign.

Peel did not hesitate. With the Lords doubtful, and the Commons divided, he did not believe, at that moment, that he could repeal the Corn Laws with a mutilated Cabinet. On December 6th, he repaired to Osborne, and placed his resignation in the Queen's hands.

On December 4th, the whole crisis was known to the world.

It was announced, with considerable fulness of detail, in the Times newspaper.

Happily for us, Charles Greville arrived in town on the very day of this great journalistic sensation:

"I came to town yesterday (he writes on December 5th), and found political affairs in a state of great interest and excitement. The whole town has been electrified in the morning by an article in the Times, announcing, with an air of certainty and authority, that the discussions and disputes in the Cabinet had terminated by a resolution to call Parliament together early in January, and propose a total repeal of the Corn Laws."

Inaccurate as it was, this statement let out the great secret; and we can shift our view from the Cabinet to the people.

Looking through the spectacles of that shrewd, Argus-eyed observer, who knew everybody and heard everything, we can see the amazement of a nation and the consternation of a class.

"It is impossible to describe the agitation into which all classes of persons have been thrown by the announcement about the Corn Laws(1) The Duke's Memorandum, Nov. 30th, p. 200, vol. ii.

(2) Memorandum of Dec. 2nd. (Memoirs, vol. ii., pp. 214-220.) The duties were to be reduced a shilling a year down to one shilling.