[102] [Lord and Lady Francis Egerton, afterwards Earl and Countess of Ellesmere.]
[103] Thus coming events cast their shadows before. Peel says: 'I had adopted at an early period of my public life, without, I fear, much serious reflexion, the opinions generally prevalent at this time among men of all parties as to the justice and necessity of protection to British agriculture....'—Memoirs, p. 98. 'Between the passing of the Corn Bill in 1842 and the close of the Session in 1845 the opinions I had previously entertained had undergone a great change.'...(101).
[104] [The Memoirs of Madame de Rémusat (published in 1879) prove that M. de Talleyrand was strongly opposed to the Spanish policy of Napoleon. But M. Thiers was always disposed to judge Talleyrand harshly.]
[105] [It was in the middle of August that the alarm first began, and the Ministers became uneasy, as is stated in Sir R. Peel's Memoirs, p. 111. In October the accounts from Ireland became alarming. On October 17th Graham first started the question of a suspension of the Corn Laws. The Cabinet assembled on October 31st and November 1st, because immediate decision had become necessary on these questions: 'Shall we maintain unaltered, or modify, or suspend the operation of the Corn Laws?' 'Can we vote public money for the sustenance of the people on account of actual or apprehended scarcity, and maintain the existing restrictions against importation of grain?' 'I am bound to say my impression is we cannot.' (Sir R. Peel's Memoirs, p. 145.)]
[106] [From what passed at the Cabinet of October 31st it became clear there was no chance of a common accord as to the means to be adopted. At another Cabinet on November 6th, Peel proposed to issue an Order in Council remitting duty on grain in bond to one shilling, and to open the ports at a smaller rate of duty till a day named; to call Parliament together and declare an intention of proposing a modification of existing laws. The Cabinet rejected these proposals by a large majority. Sir Robert Peel was only supported by Aberdeen, Graham, and Sidney Herbert.]
[107] [I went to see this performance with Lord Melbourne, Mrs. Norton, and my cousin Lady Duff Gordon, who gave me a place in their box. Lord Melbourne said before the curtain rose that it was a dull play, 'with no μυθος in it,' that was his expression. Between the acts he exclaimed in a stentorian voice, heard across the pit, 'I knew this play would be dull, but that it would be so damnably dull as this I did not suppose!'—H.R.]
[108] All this was true as to the Duke, Ripon, and Wharncliffe, but it is odd no mention was made of Stanley and his opposition: vide letters of the Duke, Ripon, and Wharncliffe.
[109] [Such was the information we had at the time of what had occurred, but from the Memoir since published by Sir Robert Peel this turns out to be a very incorrect and imperfect statement. A Cabinet took place on Tuesday, December 2nd, at which Peel read to the Cabinet a Memorandum (p. 214), in which he said: 'I wish to reconcile the gradual approach towards sound principles with a full and cautious consideration of the relations which have been established, and the interests that have grown up under a different system;...from the principle...that protective duties are in themselves evils, I cannot withhold my assent, but the retrospect from a system long established requires caution and great consideration.... If, in order to meet an unexpected calamity, the import duties on foreign grain were suspended, it would become necessary to avow the course we intended to pursue with reference to the state of the law, when suspension would expire.... It would be quite out of my power, consistently with my recorded opinions and present convictions, to guarantee the existing amount of protection...on the termination of the suspension.... The choice in my opinion is between resistance to alteration in the existing law, and the proposal of a new law that involves...the principle of progressive reduction of protective duties.... I will undertake to propose such a law, and should hope to...to carry it, if it meets with the cordial and unanimous sanction of my colleagues.' The discussions in the Cabinet lasted from November 25th to December 5th. At length Lord Stanley and the Duke of Buccleugh declined to support such a measure, while all the other members of the Government waived their objections. On December 5th Peel resigned, and Lord John Russell was sent for the same day.]
[110] [This was quite true; we did not know what was going on, for the Government had resigned the day before.]
[111] [The article in the Times was not skilfully expressed, and would have been equally effective in more guarded language. I am not sure who wrote it, but I am inclined to think it was Mr. Delane himself (though he seldom wrote anything), and I afterwards heard him express dissatisfaction with it. To a certain extent he was misled, for though Lord Aberdeen made known to him the intentions of the Free Trade party in the Cabinet, he omitted to communicate the all-important fact that the Ministry had resigned on the day after their first conversation, and that the Free Trade party was for the moment defeated.]