ABSTRACT
Peel intervened in the debate again on its fifth night, using his speech to defend his conduct during the period of Whig government since 1835 and setting out his position on the issues before Parliament at the time.
He contrasted the government’s financial record with that of the Liverpool and Wellington ministries before 1830 and of his own administration in 1834–1835:
I, who, on quitting office, left a clear surplus of two millions of revenue – I, who belonged to an administration which, in three years, had reduced the public debt by twenty millions – I, who belonged to a Government that had reduced the interest of that debt by one million annually – should have to deal with a state of things which presents a deficit of nearly eight millions, under an administration of five years.
Peel reiterated his belief in the inter-dependence of the manufacturing and agricultural interests and repeated his support for a graduated duty on corn (by means of a sliding scale) rather than a fixed duty, because agricultural protection was ‘perfectly consistent with manufacturing prosperity’. He concluded by criticising the government for
setting party against party, upon such a question as that of the Corn-laws; by stirring up society to its foundation; and by arraying against each other, in bitter discord, classes of the community whose harmony is essential to their own welfare, as well as to the happiness and safety of the State.
The motion was won by a majority of one vote (312–311). Eight government supporters were absent from the division.
