He goes on to
show the advantages to be derived from the opening of the ports. He
touches the repeal of the Corn Laws but slightly, knowing full well that
the other points treated in the memorandum must raise a discussion on
that question in the Cabinet. However he does say enough to show it must
be treated. He asks, "is the Corn Law in all its provisions adapted to
this unforeseen and very special case?" He sums up his views in these
words: "Time presses, and on some definite course we must decide. Shall
we undertake without suspension to modify the existing Corn Law? Shall
we resolve to maintain the existing Corn Law? Shall we advise the
suspension of that law for a limited period? My opinion is for the last
course, admitting as I do that it involves the necessity for the
immediate consideration of the alterations to be made in the existing
Corn Law, such alterations to take effect after the period of
suspension. I should rather say it involves the question of the
principle and degree of protection to agriculture."[85]
Several of the Cabinet Ministers sent replies to the Premier's
memorandum before the day for their next meeting, which replies he
thought might lead to long discussions without any practical result, so
on the 2nd of December he brought before them, in another memorandum,
what he calls a specific measure--the announcement, in fact, that if the
ports were once opened the Corn duties could not be re-imposed; and
whether the ports were or were not opened, he said the state of those
laws must be re-considered--nay more, that they must gradually, but, "at
no distant day," be repealed.
Pages:
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187