ABSTRACT
THE achievements of the Reformed Parliament in other directions have served to obscure its weakness in the management of finance. This was present from the first, but became obvious from 1837 onwards. By that time only the most strenuous efforts could have availed to re-establish public confidence, for then a series of bad harvests and acute depression in trade created a position which demanded heroic measures. The crisis, however, revealed the incompetence of the Whigs and called into being an opposition, official and other, before which they at last succumbed. Sir Robert Peel was summoned to grapple with problems of the first magnitude. The manner in which he dealt with them invested fiscal and financial questions with a dramatic interest which has never been paralleled in our history. He entered upon his task backed by a strong majority, but determined that he would not remain in power unless it allowed him freedom to pursue his own course. At the moment the triumph of the Tories, or Conservatives as they now came to be called, seemed sufficiently decisive to crush all misgivings as to what their leader’s assertion of independence might eventually mean. Lord John Russell had declared in favour of amending the Corn Laws by adopting a fixed duty and had been hopelessly defeated. The victory at the polls was generally regarded by the agricultural interest as a guarantee against any such change of policy. The agitation of the Anti-Corn Law League, which, under the leadership of Cobden, had been making alarming progress in the north, seemed to have been successfully countered. The general situation in the country was 84admittedly bad ; but Peel was particularly strong in finance and would doubtless find a solution. What was not realised was that Peel would not be hampered by any prejudices when he came to deal with the facts. His past record was a proof of this. He had voted against the adoption of the recommendations of the Bullion Report in 1811, and yet in 1819 was responsible for the Bill which required the resumption of cash payments by the Bank of England. Nor did he avail himself of the specious plea that circumstances had changed and that he was enlightened enough to recognise the fact. He said frankly that he had been wrong ; that he had now read the Bullion Report with the same attention as he would read the proof of a proposition in mathematics and could find no defect in the argument. This example of his candour might have appeared quixotic to politicians, but it did not constitute any breach of party understandings. There was a more serious change of opinion. Peel had differed from Canning on the question of Catholic Emancipation and had refused to serve under him on this ground. Yet he had changed his mind by 1829, and was a prominent member of Wellington’s Ministry when this reform was carried. He might have voted against the resumption of cash payments in 1811 because he had not closely considered the question. But he had been the most notable opponent of Catholic Emancipation, and had allowed that issue to govern his public conduct. In this case he did not admit a change in his convictions, but pleaded that it was no longer expedient to oppose the demand. And, had his supporters examined with attention his utterances on the Corn Laws, they would have been somewhat shaken in their confidence that this was a question on which he could be trusted to resist amendment. It is true that he had been in office when the 1815 and 1828 Acts were passed and he had fully approved of both. He voted as a protectionist and paid little attention to the theoretical basis of his belief until he was faced by a practical issue. Then on this, as on other questions, he weighed the facts without reference to his preconceived antipathies. In supporting the sliding scale in 1828 he pointed out that, with the 85growth of population, the country would come to depend more largely on foreign supplies of food. Later he justified protection to agriculture on the ground that other interests enjoyed protection and heavy national burdens fell on the land. By 1839, however, he was prepared to admit that agriculture ought not to have any advantages which were inconsistent with the general interests of the community, especially with those of the labouring classes.
