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 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.  He finally stated in this paper the principles on which he was ready to undertake that repeal.

When this last memorandum was prepared, the Cabinet was in a sort of permanent session:  Sir Robert Peel tells us its discussions continued from the 25th of November to the 5th of December.  With the exception of the Duke of Buccleugh and Lord Stanley, his colleagues gave their consent to his proposal; in some instances, however, he felt it was a reluctant consent.  Under such circumstances, he considered he could not succeed in a complete and final adjustment of the Corn Law; so, on the 5th of December, he repaired to Osborne and placed his resignation in the hands of the Queen.