SIR ROBERT PEEL.

After the Design by R. Scanlan. Engraved by W. Mote.

irs portrait of Peel is by no means the most youthful of those extant. He entered Parliament at 21 in 1509, and after retiring was reelected in 1817. In 1822 he became Home Secretary under Lord Liverpool, and it is probable that he sat for this portrait during that period of his career.

highly valued-that I must interrupt political relations in which I felt a sincere pride; but the smallest of all the penalties which I anticipated were the continued venomous attacks of the Member for Shrewsbury [Mr. D'Israeli.] Sir, I will only say of that honorable gentleman, that if he, after reviewing the whole of my public life-a life extending over thirty years previous to my accession to office in 1841-if he then entertained the opinion of me which he now professes; if he thought I was guilty of these petty larcenies from Mr. Horner and others, it is a little surprising that in the spring of 1841, after his long experience of my public career, he should have been prepared to give me his confidence. It is still more surprising that he should have been ready- as I think he was-to unite his fortunes with mine in office, thus implying the strongest proof which any public man can give of confidence in the honor and integrity of a minister of the Crown.

Sir, I have explained more than once what were the circumstances under which I felt it my duty to take this course. I did feel in November last that there was just cause for apprehension of scarcity and famine in Ireland. I am stating what were the apprehensions I felt at that time, what were the motives from which I acted; and those apprehensions, though they may be denied now, were at least shared then by those honorable gentlemen who sit below the gangway [the Protectionists]. The honorable Member for Somersetshire [Sir T. Acland] expressly declared that at the period to which I referred he was prepared to acquiesce in the suspension of the Corn Laws. An honorable Member also, a recent addition to this House, who spoke with great ability the other night, the honorable Member for Dorsetshire [Mr. Seymer] distinctly declared that he thought I should have abandoned my duty if I had not advised that, considering the circumstances of Ireland, the restrictions on the importation. of foreign corn should be temporarily removed. I may have been wrong, but my impression was, first, that my duty towards a country threatened with famine required that that which had been the ordinary remedy under all similar circumstances should be resorted to-namely, that there should be free access to the food of man from whatever quarter it might come. I was prepared to give the best proof which public men generally can give of the sincerity of their opinions, by tendering my resignation of office, and devolving upon others the duty of proposing

this measure; and, sir, I felt this, that if these laws were once suspended, and there was unlimited access to food, the produce of other countries, I, and those with whom I acted, felt the strongest conviction that it was not for the public interest- that it was not for the interest of the agricultural party, that an attempt should be made permanently to reimpose restrictions on the importation of food.

I know the penalty

These are the motives on which I acted. to which I must be subject for having so acted; but I declare, even after the continuance of these debates, that I am only the more impressed with the conviction that the policy we advise is correct. An honorable gentleman in the course of this evening, the honorable Member for Sunderland [Mr. Hudson], informed us that he had heard that there was excitement about the Corn Laws; but he undertook to give a peremptory contradiction to that report, for he never recollected any public question being proposed involving such great interests, which, on the whole, was received by all classes concerned-by the manufacturing and by the agricultural classes-with less excitement and with a greater disposition to confide in the wisdom of the decision of Parliament. Well, if that be so-if this question is proposed at such a time-[Mr. Hudson-No, no!] I certainly understood the honorable Member to make that statement. [Mr. Hudson-I will explain later.] I may be mistaken, and of course I am, if the honorable Member says so; but I understood him to say that so far from there being any undue excitement, he thought that there was much less than could have been expected, and that all parties were disposed to acquiesce in the decision of Parliament.

[Mr. Hudson-What I stated I believe was this: that there was no excitement in favor of the bill. - not that there was a deep feeling on the part of the agriculturists against it, but that there was no public excitement in its favor.]

That varies very little from the expressions I used, and entirely justifies the inference which I drew. If there be no excitement in favor of the bill, and no strong feeling on the part of the agriculturists against it, it appears to me that this is not an unfavorable moment for the dispassionate consideration by Parliament of a subject otherwise calculated to promote excitement on the part of one class and to cause great apprehension on the part of the other; and the honorable Member's statement is a strong confirmation of my belief that it is wise to undertake