He had been returned as a Protectionist and became a Free Trader, and therefore, quite rightly, resigned his seat, appealing to his constituents unsuccessfully for re-election. He notes in his diary, "I shall resign my seat and throw up all my beloved projects for which I have sacrificed everything that a public man values, all that I had begun and all that I have designed. Nearly my whole means of doing good will cease with my membership of Parliament." He refused an offer of £2,000 from the then Whip to enable him to fight his seat, because he would not jeopardize his independence. He was very poor, and he fought and lost. But to lose like that is to win. Why could not Peel have done the same? The answer is: The Irish Famine. Just as the Emperor Nicholas during the Crimean War said that he relied most of all on his Generals January and February, so Peel's scruples were conquered by the Famine. In Ireland in 1845-6 there were millions of people within measurable distance of death from starvation; the measures of relief could, under the best of circumstances, only be partially successful; they would have been terribly hampered by the continuance, even for another few months, of the import duties on corn. The aim of the Corn Laws was to make bread dear; the pressing necessity of the moment was to make it cheap, and pour in food supplies to starving Ireland. Peel's feeling may have been, "Better endure the charge of dishonesty rather than add to the fearful total of those who will die of starvation in Kerry and Connemara." As the alarming accounts from Ireland came pouring in h, his first desire was to deal with the matter by opening the ports by an Order in Council (November, 1845). This would have been by far the best course; it would have secured a supply of cheap bread without delay, and the war of words over it in Parliament
