ated from Sir Robert's government a very large portion of the loyal Protestants of Ireland; whilst by the Roman priesthood it was regarded as another concession to fear. Moreover, it was SO clumsily arranged that it greatly aggravated every evil which it was intended to remedy.

The grounds on which this additional grant was justified, were that it was necessary to raise the character of the students destined for the Roman priesthood, who, from the low nature of the education then afforded at Maynooth, had considerably deteriorated from the old priests who had received a more refined and expensive education abroad. For this object it was argued that it was necessary to do two things-(1), to secure better professors (2), to secure a higher grade of students.

The plan for obtaining the first object was to attach larger salaries to the professorships, such as would induce better men to accept and to continue to hold them, since it was asserted that the chairs were inadequately filled, and that if by chance a good occupant was found he would not stay. The grant, however, was made without confining it to new appointments, so that the very professors, on account of whose unfitness the grant was to be made, and who in the ordinary course remained only for a short time, received suddenly such an increase of salary as made it worth their while to remain as long as they could. And, accordingly, they did remain.

The scheme for obtaining a higher grade of students consisted in giving to each 157. in addition to what was already given to them out of the public funds. Prior to this additional grant no student could go to Maynooth unless his family or his friends provided for him about 301. a-year, and this necessity on the part of the student to contribute something from resources independent of the college ensured something approaching to respectability of position in the social scale.

Had the student been thrown upon his own resources to a still greater extent had 40l. or 50l. been the sum required, his position in society would

But the course which was adopted produced the very opposite results to those which its author intended. To every student an additional allowance of 157. a year was given-the effect of which has been (as ought to have been foreseen) that the students, having only to provide one half of what they provided before, have just to that amount sunk in the scale of society, so that it is not too much to say that since the grant a general deterioration has taken place in the character of the student.

In the political world Sir Robert thus again destroyed, with a large number of his earnest Protestant friends, all reliance on his judgment and consistency. The cry was raised, "He has betrayed us a second time, he will be sure to betray us a third."

It was during the prevalence of this state of feeling amongst so many of his former supporters that the failure of the Irish potato crop, in 1846, took place, whereby hundreds of thousands of the Irish poor were reduced to a state of positive famine. In 1834 Lord Devon's commissioners had placed on record that there existed in Ireland " 2,356,000 of its inhabitants always bordering on starvation, and sometimes dying by hundreds from its effects." From that day to the time of the famine, twelve long years, almost nothing had been done by the Legislature, or had been attempted by the government to remedy so disastrous and disgraceful a state of things; and the appalling calamity came upon the unhappy island without any preparations having been made by their rulers to alleviate or to meet it. Had Sir Robert known how to send a real message of peace to that country, he would have devoted all his energies to remedy its physical evils. As it was, the awful crisis came upon him unprepared, and, with his genuine tenderness of heart, afflicted him with an agony of distress. To add to the intensity of the alarm, a bad harvest in Great Britain, occasioned by a wet season, had made corn nominally cheap, but bread extremely dear. This paradoxical state of things was owing to the light quarters of corn

produced less bread, keeping down the averages of the quarters at so very low a figure, that the duty was as high as 16s. to 18s. a quarter, with a famine in Ireland and a dearth in Great Britain. This had been predicted to him by Lord Fitzgerald" His sliding scale would not slide!" It was a state of things which no minister, however deeply pledged he might have been, could allow to continue. The complete and immediate suspension of the law was a matter of sheer necessity. Had he confined himself to that course, every human being must have approved it. Unhappily for himself he went beyond it. "Suspension of the law," he said, "will compel a very early decision on the course to be pursued, in anticipation of the period when the suspension will expire. Suspension will compel a deliberate review of the whole question of agricultural protection. I firmly believe that it would be better for the country that that review should be undertaken

by others. Under ordinary circumstances I should advise that it should be so undertaken; but I look now to the immediate consequences and to the duties which it imposes on a minister. I am ready to take upon myself the responsibility of meeting that emergency, if the opinions of my colleagues as to the extent of the evil and the nature of the remedy, concur with mine."Memoir, p. 184.

"The nature of the remedy" was immediate suspension and total repeal in the short space of three years! Suspension alone would obviously have met the immediate emergency, without the absolute repeal for the future; but Sir Robert resolved that the two should not be disjoined. Notwithstanding his "firm belief that it would be better for the country that such a step should be taken by others," he blinded himself by the phrase "the duties which the emergency imposed on a minister;" and instead of at once revealing to his colleagues the views which he entertained, and telling them that those views were so incompatible with his past career, and the pledges by which he was bound

resign, he actually came down to his Cabinet, and proposed that they should use the power they had obtained by supporting agricultural protection to put an end to it for ever-and thus violate all their pledges by joining him in carrying a total repeal! It was in vain that his friend and colleague Mr. Goulburn tried to deter him from this course. "I am convinced," said that honest adviser, "that the amendment of the Corn Law will be taken by the public generally as decisive evidence that we never intended to maintain it, further than as an instrument by which to vex and to defeat our enemies. The very caution with which we have spoken on the subject of corn will confirm this impression. . . the public will, with few dissentient voices, tax us with treachery and deception, and charge us from our former language with having always had it in contemplation."-Memoir, p. 203. The Cabinet were astounded by the Premier's proposal, and the great majority (all, I believe) differed from Sir Robert, and were of opinion, with Mr. Goulburn, that having so recently obtained power by their support of agricultural protection, they would be "taxed with treachery and deception" if they used the power so obtained in abolishing the system which they pledged themselves to preserve. Sir Robert had reasoned himself out of this honest and straightforward view of the crisis, and, deserted by his colleagues, he had no option but to resign. He accordingly tendered his resignation to the Queen. It was graciously accepted, and Lord John Russell was empowered by her Majesty to construct an administration. Against him and his party there was still, however, a majority of ninety-one ; for although the Maynooth grant had sown division amongst the Tory party, the offended sections had not gone over to the Whigs. Under these circumstances Lord John declined the task, and the Queen again summoned Sir Robert Peel to her aid. He accepted the commission, and returned to his colleagues, now in a very different position to that which they held when the first proposal

ample which Sir Robert had given (as already mentioned) in resigning his seat for the University on the occasion of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, had been followed; the power which they had acquired by professing certain principles had been laid down, and they therefore felt themselves at liberty to accept power, which, so acquired, they could no longer be charged with treacherously using. To have refused would have been to leave the country without a government at one of the most alarming periods of its history. Those therefore of the Cabinet who had objected to Sir Robert's proposal not because of its unfitness, but because they declined to commit an act of treachery, consented to remain; but Lord Stanley and one or two more, who stood up for protection, resigned.

The sequence of these events is of the first importance in judging of the course which Sir Robert pursued. Had the resignation been made in the first instance because he "firmly believed that it would be better for the country that the review of the Corn Laws should be undertaken by others," and that he had returned to office on the failure of Lord John Russell's attempt, "the public could not have charged him with treachery or deception." Mr. Goulburn was a true prophet; the public did as he predicted they would do; and a sentence which is to be found in the Memoir (p. 98) too clearly shows that in thus taxing him they have done him no injustice--"I had adopted," he observes, "at an early period of my public life, without, I fear, much reflection, the opinions generally prevalent at the time, among men of all parties, as to the justice and necessity of protection to domestic agriculture." But were all the able speeches in favour of protection during his long career from 1810 to 1844 made "without much serious reflection?" or rather was not the "caution" with which Mr. Goulburn affirmed that he spoke on the Corn Laws the result of such reflection? In fact, had he not during many years their repeal in contemplation, especially when he

which he brought in and carried in 1841 in a way which would have secured the "sliding of his scale" in years when the season was wet at the time of harvest? Does not the pertinacity with which he insisted on joining suspension and total repeal create the idea that complete repeal was not suggested by the urgency of the crisis, but that the crisis was gladly urged to secure the realization of the idea? Did he not covet the fame which he thought must attach to the statesman who abolished the Corn Laws?

"In

These are questions which must be left to be answered by those who will take the trouble to ascertain and to form a deliberate judgment on the actual facts of the case. But there can be no doubt that Mr. Goulburn's "alarm" as to the effects of his conduct on the public interests was well founded. my opinion," said Mr. Goulburn, in a letter to Sir Robert, "the party of which you are the head is the only barrier which remains against the revolutionary effect of the Reform Act. So long as that party remains unbroken, whether in or out of power, it has the means of doing much good, or at least of preventing much evil. ing much evil. But if it be broken in pieces by a destruction of confidence in its leaders (and I cannot but think that an abandonment of the Corn Laws would produce that result), I see nothing before us but the exasperation of class animosities, a struggle for pre-eminence, and the ultimate triumph of unrestrained democracy" (p. 203). One main result here predicted came to pass. For at least a quarter of a century the Tory "party was broken in pieces, and all confidence in their leaders was destroyed." But so baneful was the effect of Sir Robert Peel's example, that confidence in public men of all parties was also annihilated, and the standard of honour and good faith permanently lowered with British statesmen. keenly this was felt even by those of his colleagues who continued with him is shown by Lord Lyndhurst's reply to a friend, to whom he gave a different opinion on some trifling matter from

How

produced less bread, keeping down the averages of the quarters at so very low a figure, that the duty was as high as 16s. to 18s. a quarter, with a famine in Ireland and a dearth in Great Britain. This had been predicted to him by Lord Fitzgerald" His sliding scale would not slide!" It was a state of things which no minister, however deeply pledged he might have been, could allow to continue. The complete and immediate suspension of the law was a matter of sheer necessity. Had he confined himself to that course, every human being must have approved it. happily for himself he went beyond it. Suspension of the law," he said, "will compel a very early decision on the course to be pursued, in anticipation of the period when the suspension will expire. Suspension will compel a deliberate review of the whole question of agricultural protection. I firmly believe that it would be better for the country that that review should be undertaken

Un

by others. Under ordinary circumstances I should advise that it should be so undertaken; but I look now to the immediate consequences and to the duties which it imposes on a minister. I am ready to take upon myself the responsibility of meeting that emergency, if the opinions of my colleagues as to the extent of the evil and the nature of the remedy, concur with mine."Memoir, p. 184.

"The nature of the remedy" was immediate suspension and total repeal in the short space of three years! Suspension alone would obviously have met the immediate emergency, without the absolute repeal for the future; but Sir Robert resolved that the two should not be disjoined. Notwithstanding his 66 'firm belief that it would be better for the country that such a step should be taken by others," he blinded himself by the phrase "the duties which the emergency imposed on a minister;" and instead of at once revealing to his colleagues the views which he entertained, and telling them that those views were so incompatible with his past career, and the pledges by which he was bound

resign, he actually came down to his Cabinet, and proposed that they should use the power they had obtained by supporting agricultural protection to put an end to it for ever-and thus violate all their pledges by joining him in carrying a total repeal! It was in vain that his friend and colleague Mr. Goulburn tried to deter him from this course. "I am convinced," said that honest adviser, "that the amendment of the Corn Law will be taken by the public generally as decisive evidence that we never intended to maintain it, further than as an instrument by which to vex and to defeat our enemies. The very caution with which we have spoken on the subject of corn will confirm this impression. . . . . the public will, with few dissentient voices, tax us with treachery and deception, and charge us from our former language with having always had it in contemplation."-Memoir, p. 203. The Cabinet were astounded by the Premier's proposal, and the great majority (all, I believe) differed from Sir Robert, and were of opinion, with Mr. Goulburn, that having so recently obtained power by their support of agricultural protection, they would be "taxed with treachery and deception" if they used the power so obtained in abolishing the system which they pledged themselves to preserve. Sir Robert had reasoned himself out of this honest and straightforward view of the crisis, and, deserted by his colleagues, he had no option but to resign. He accordingly tendered his resignation to the Queen. It was graciously accepted, and Lord John Russell was empowered by her Majesty to construct an administration. Against him and his party there was still, however, a majority of ninety-one; for although the Maynooth grant had sown division amongst the Tory party, the offended sections had not gone over to the Whigs. Under these circumstances Lord John declined the task, and the Queen again summoned Sir Robert Peel to her aid. He accepted the commission, and returned to his colleagues, now in a very different position to that which they held when the first proposal

ample which Sir Robert had given (as already mentioned) in resigning his seat for the University on the occasion of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, had been followed; the power which they had acquired by professing certain principles had been laid down, and they therefore felt themselves at liberty to accept power, which, so acquired, they could no longer be charged with treacherously using. To have refused would have been to leave the country without a government at one of the most alarming periods of its history. Those therefore of the Cabinet who had objected to Sir Robert's proposal not because of its unfitness, but because they declined to commit an act of treachery, consented to remain ; but Lord Stanley and one or two more, who stood up for protection, resigned.

The sequence of these events is of the first importance in judging of the course which Sir Robert pursued. Had the resignation been made in the first instance because he "firmly believed that it would be better for the country that the review of the Corn Laws should be undertaken by others," and that he had returned to office on the failure of Lord John Russell's attempt, "the public could not have charged him with treachery or deception." Mr. Goulburn was a true prophet; the public did as he predicted they would do; and a sentence which is to be found in the Memoir (p. 98) too clearly shows that in thus taxing him they have done him no injustice--"I had adopted," he observes, "at an early period of my public life, without, I fear, much reflection, the opinions generally prevalent at the time, among men of all parties, as to the justice and necessity of protection to domestic agriculture.' But were all the able speeches in favour of protection during his long career from 1810 to 1844 made "without much serious reflection?" or rather was not the caution" with which Mr. Goulburn affirmed that he spoke on the Corn Laws the result of such reflection? In fact, had he not during many years their repeal in contemplation, especially when he

66

which he brought in and carried in 1841 in a way which would have secured the "sliding of his scale" in years when the season was wet at the time of harvest? Does not the pertinacity with which he insisted on joining suspension and total repeal create the idea that complete repeal was not suggested by the urgency of the crisis, but that the crisis was gladly urged to secure the realization of the idea? Did he not covet the fame which he thought must attach to the statesman who abolished the Corn Laws?

These are questions which must be left to be answered by those who will take the trouble to ascertain and to form a deliberate judgment on the actual facts of the case. But there can be no doubt that Mr. Goulburn's "alarm" as to the effects of his conduct on the public interests was well founded. "In my opinion," said Mr. Goulburn, in a letter to Sir Robert, "the party of which you are the head is the only barrier which remains against the revolutionary effect of the Reform Act. So long as that party remains unbroken, whether in or out of power, it has the means of doing much good, or at least of preventing much evil. But if it be broken in pieces by a destruction of confidence in its leaders (and I cannot but think that an abandonment of the Corn Laws would produce that result), I see nothing before us but the exasperation of class animosities, a struggle for pre-eminence, and the ultimate triumph of unrestrained democracy" (p. 203). One main result here predicted came to pass. For at least a quarter of a century the Tory "party was broken in pieces, and all confidence in their leaders was destroyed." But so baneful was the effect of Sir Robert Peel's example, that confidence in public men of all parties was also annihilated, and the standard of honour and good faith permanently lowered with British statesmen. keenly this was felt even by those of his colleagues who continued with him is shown by Lord Lyndhurst's reply to a friend, to whom he gave a different opinion on some trifling matter from

How