his be done, the calamity of the present year is but the
commencement of a more fatal series."[84] No prophecy was ever more
accurately and terribly verified.

The Cabinet met again next day, and the Premier read to them a
memorandum, which opened thus: "I cannot consent to the issue of these
instructions, and undertake at the same time to maintain the existing
Corn Law." And again he says, towards the close, "I am prepared, for
one, to take the responsibility of suspending the law by an Order in
Council, or of calling Parliament at a very early period, and advising
in the Speech from the Throne the suspension of the law." On the 29th of
November, the Premier sent to each of his colleagues a more detailed and
elaborate exposition of his views, in order that they might be prepared
to discuss them at the next Cabinet Council.

According to the course he had evidently laid down for himself, he made
the whole question of the repeal of the Corn Laws turn on the impending
Irish famine. He begins with the question he intends to discuss in this
manner:--"What is the course most consistent with the public interests
under the present circumstances, in reference to the future supply of
food?" His answer to his own question is, "that the proper precaution,
though it may turn out to be a superfluous one, is the permission, for a
limited time, to import foreign grain free of duty." He repeats that
several of the countries of Europe have taken precautions to secure a
sufficiency of food for their people. He goes into a history of what
the English Government had done on former occasions, when a scarcity of
food was imminent, admitting that, while, in 1793, it opened the ports
for food supplies, it also prohibited their exportation. 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 la