In the following brief narrative of the principal facts in the life of
the great statesman who has just been snatched from among us, we must
disclaim all intention of dealing with his biography in any searching
or ambitious spirit. The national loss is so great, the bereavement
is so sudden, that we cannot sit down calmly either to eulogize or
arraign the memory of the deceased. We cannot forget that it was not
a week ago we were occupied in recording and commenting upon his last
eloquent address to that assembly which had so often listened with
breathless attention to his statesmanlike expositions of policy. We
could do little else when the mournful intelligence reached us that
Sir Robert Peel was no more, than pen a few expressions of sorrow
and respect. Even now the following imperfect record of facts must
be accepted as a poor substitute for the biography of that great
Englishman whose loss will be felt almost as a private bereavement by
every family throughout the British Empire:--
Sir Robert Peel was in the 63d year of his age, having been born near
Bury, in Lancashire, on the 5th of February, 1788. His father was a
manufacturer on a grand scale, and a man of much natural ability, and
of almost unequaled opulence. Full of a desire to render his son and
probable successor worthy of the influence and the vast wealth which
he had to bestow, the first Sir Robert Peel took the utmost pains
personally with the early training of the future prime minister. He
retained his son under his own immediate superintendence until he
arrived at a sufficient age to be sent to Harrow. Lord Byron, his
contemporary at Harrow, was a better declaimer and a more amusing
actor, but in sound learning and laborious application to school
duties young Peel had no equal. He had scarcely completed his 16th
year when he left Harrow and became a gentleman commoner of Christ
Church, Oxford, where he took the degree of A.B., in 1808, with
unprecedented distinction.
The year 1809 saw him attain his majority, and take his seat in the
House of Commons as a member for Cashel, in Tipperary.
The first Sir Robert Peel had long been a member of the House of
Commons, and the early efforts of his son in that assembly were
regarded with considerable interest, not only on account of his
University reputation, but also because he was the son of such a
father. He did not, however, begin public life by staking his fame on
the results of one elaborate oration; on the contrary, he rose now and
then on comparatively unimportant occasions; made a few brief modest
remarks, stated a fact or two, explained a difficulty when he happened
to understand the matter in hand better than others, and then sat down
without taxing too severely the patience or good nature of an auditory
accustomed to great performances. Still in the second year of his
parliamentary course he ventured to make a set speech, when, at the
commencement of the session of 1810, he seconded the address in
reply to the King's speech. Thenceforward for nineteen years a more
highflying Tory than Mr. Peel was not to be found within the walls of
parliament. Lord Eldon applauded him as a young and valiant champion
of those abuses in the state which were then fondly called "the
institutions of the country." Lord Sidmouth regarded him as the
rightful political heir, and even the Duke of Cumberland patronized
Mr. Peel. He further became the favorite _eleve_ of Mr. Perceval, the
first lord of the treasury, and entered office as under-secretary
for the home department. He continued in the home department for two
years, not often speaking in parliament, but rather qualifying himself
for those prodigious labors in debate, in council, and in office,
which it has since been his lot to encounter and perform.
In May, 1812, Mr. Perceval fell by the hand of an assassin, and the
composition of the ministry necessarily underwent a great change. The
result, so far as Mr. Peel was concerned, was, that he was appointed
Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. Mr. Peel had only
reached his 26th year when, in the month of September, 1812, the
duties of that anxious and laborious position were entrusted to his
hands. The legislative union was then but lately consummated, and the
demand for Catholic emancipation had given rise to an agitation of
only very recent date. But, in proportion to its novelty, so was its
vigor. Mr. Peel was, therefore, as the representative of the old tory
Protestant school, called upon to encounter a storm of unpopularity,
such as not even an Irish secretary has ever been exposed to. The
late Mr. O'Connell in various forms poured upon Mr. Peel a torrent
of invective which went beyond even his extraordinary performances
in the science of scolding. At length he received from Mr. Peel a
hostile message. Negotiations went on for three or four days, when
Mr. O'Connell was taken into custody and bound over to keep the peace
toward all his fellow-subjects in Ireland. Mr. Peel and his friend
immediately went to England, and subsequently proceeded to the
continent. Mr. O'Connell followed them to London, but the police were
active enough to bring him before the chief justice, when he entered
into recognizances to keep the peace toward all his majesty's
subjects; and so ended one of the few personal squabbles in which Mr.
Peel had ever been engaged. For six years he held the office of chief
secretary to the lord-lieutenant, at a time when the government was
conducted upon what might be called "anti-conciliation principles."
The opposite course was commenced by Mr. Peel's immediate successor,
Mr. Charles Grant, now Lord Glenelg.
That a chief secretary so circumstanced, struggling to sustain extreme
Orangeism in its dying agonies, should have been called upon to
encounter great toil and anxiety is a truth too obvious to need
illustration. That in these straits Mr. Peel acquitted himself with
infinite address was as readily acknowledged at that time as it has
ever been even in the zenith of his fame. He held office in that
country under three successive viceroys, the Duke of Richmond, Earl
Whitworth, and Earl Talbot, all of whom have long since passed away
from this life, their names and their deeds long forgotten. But the
history of their chief secretary happens not to have been composed
of such perishable materials, and we now approach one of the most
memorable passages of his eventful career. He was chairman of the
great bullion committee; but before he engaged in that stupendous task
he had resigned the chief secretaryship of Ireland. As a consequence
of the report of that committee, he took charge of and introduced the
bill for authorizing a return to cash payments which bears his name,
and which measure received the sanction of parliament in the year
1819. That measure brought upon Mr. Peel no slight or temporary odium.
The first Sir Robert Peel was then alive, and altogether differed from
his son as to the tendency of his measure. It was roundly asserted at
the time, and very faintly denied, that it rendered that gentleman a
more wealthy man, by something like half a million sterling, than he
had previously been. The deceased statesman, however, must, in common
justice, be acquitted of any sinister purpose.
This narrative now reaches the year 1820, when we have to relate the
only domestic event in the history of Sir Robert Peel which requires
notice. On the 8th of June, being then in the 33d year of his age,
he married Julia, daughter of General Sir John Floyd, who had then
attained the age of 25.
Two years afterward there was a lull in public affairs, which gave
somewhat the appearance of tranquillity. Lord Sidmouth was growing
old, he thought that his system was successful, and that at length he
might find repose. He considered it then consistent with his public
duty to consign to younger and stronger hands the seals of the home
department. He accepted a seat in the cabinet without office, and
continued to give his support to Lord Liverpool, his ancient political
chief. In permitting his mantle to fall upon Mr. Peel, he thought he
was assisting to invest with authority one whose views and policy were
as narrow as his own, and whose practise in carrying them out would
be not less rigid and uncompromising. But, like many others, he lived
long enough to be grievously disappointed by the subsequent career of
him whom the liberal party have since called "the great minister of
progress," and whom their opponents have not scrupled to designate
by appellations not to be repeated in these hours of sorrow and
bereavement. On the 17th of January, 1822, Mr. Peel was installed at
the head of the home department, where he remained undisturbed till
the political demise of Lord Liverpool in the spring of 1827. The most
distinguished man that has filled the chair of the House of Commons
in the present century was Charles Abbott, afterward Lord Colchester.
In the summer of 1817 he had completed sixteen years of hard service
in that eminent office, and he had represented the University for
eleven years. His valuable labors having been rewarded with a pension
and a peerage, he took his seat, full of years and honors, among
the hereditary legislators of the land, and left a vacancy in the
representation of his _alma mater_, which Mr. Peel above all living
men was deemed the most fitting person to occupy. At that time he was
an intense tory--or as the Irish called him, an Orange Protestant
of the deepest dye--one prepared to make any sacrifice for the
maintenance of church and state as established by the revolution of
1688. Who, therefore, so fit as he to represent the loyalty, learning,
and orthodoxy of Oxford? To have done so had been the object of Mr.
Canning's young ambition: but in 1817 he could not be so ungrateful to
Liverpool as to reject its representation even for the early object
of his parliamentary affections. Mr. Peel, therefore, was returned
without opposition, for that constituency which many consider the most
important in the land--with which he remained on the best possible
terms for twelve years. The question of the repeal of the penal
laws affecting the Roman Catholics, which severed so many political
connections, was, however, destined to separate Mr. Peel from Oxford.
In 1828 rumors of the coming change were rife, and many expedients
were devised to extract his opinions on the Catholic question. But
with the reserve which ever marked his character, left all curiosity
at fault. At last, the necessities of the government rendered further
concealment impossible, and out came the truth that he was no longer
an Orangeman. The ardent friends who had frequently supported
his Oxford elections, and the hot partisans who shouted "Peel and
Protestantism," at the Brunswick Clubs, reviled him for his defection
in no measured terms. On the 4th of February, 1829, he addressed a
letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford, stating, in many well-turned
phrases, that the Catholic question must forthwith be adjusted, under
advice in which he concurred; and that, therefore, he considered
himself bound to resign that trust which the University had during so
many years confided to his hands. His resignation was accepted; but as
the avowed purpose of that important step was to give his constituents
an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon a change of policy,
he merely accepted the Chiltern Hundreds with the intention of
immediately becoming a candidate for that seat in parliament which he
had just vacated. At this election Mr. Peel was opposed by Sir Robert
Inglis, who was elected by 755 to 609. Mr. Peel was, therefore,
obliged to cast himself on the favor of Sir Manasseh Lopez, who
returned him for Westbury, in Wiltshire, which constituency he
continued to represent two years, until at the general election in
1830 he was chosen for Tamworth, in the representation for which he
continued for twenty years.
The main features of his official life still remain to be noticed.
With the exception of Lord Palmerston, no statesman of modern times
has spent so many years in the civil service of the crown. If no
account be taken of the short time he was engaged upon the bullion
committee in effecting the change in the currency, and in opposing for
a few months the ministries of Mr. Canning and Lord Goderich, it may
be stated that from 1810 to 1830 he formed part of the government, and
presided over it as a first minister in 1834-5, as well as from 1841
to 1846 inclusive. During the time that he held the office of home
secretary under Lord Liverpool he effected many important changes
in the administration of domestic affairs, and many legislative
improvements of a practical and comprehensive character. But his fame
as member of parliament was principally sustained at this period of
his life by the extensive and admirable alterations which he effected
in the criminal law. Romilly and Mackintosh had preceded him in the
great work of reforming and humanizing the code of England. For his
hand, however, was reserved the introduction of ameliorations which
they had long toiled and struggled for in vain. The ministry through
whose influence he was enabled to carry these reforms lost its chief
in Lord Liverpool during the early part of the year 1827. When Mr.
Canning undertook to form a government, Mr. Peel, the late Lord Eldon,
the Duke of Wellington, and other eminent tories of that day, threw up
office, and are said to have persecuted Mr. Canning with a degree of
rancor far outstripping the legitimate bounds of political hostility.
Lord George Bentinck said "they hounded to the death my illustrious
relative"; and the ardor of his subsequent opposition to Sir Robert
Peel evidently derived its intensity from a long cherished sense of
the injuries supposed to have been inflicted upon Mr. Canning. It
is the opinion of men not ill informed respecting the sentiments of
Canning, that he considered Peel as his true political successor--as a
statesman competent to the task of working out that large and liberal
policy which he fondly hoped the tories might, however tardily,
be induced to sanction. At all events, he is believed not to have
entertained toward Mr. Peel any personal hostility, and to have stated
during his short-lived tenure of office that that gentleman was the
only member of his party who had not treated him with ingratitude and
unkindness.
In January, 1828, the Wellington ministry took office and held it till
November, 1830. Mr. Peel's reputation suffered during this period
very rude shocks. He gave up, as already stated, his anti-Catholic
principles, lost the force of twenty years' consistency, and under
unheard-of disadvantages introduced the very measure he had spent so
many years in opposing. The debates on Catholic emancipation, which
preceded the great reform question, constitute a period in his life,
which, twenty years ago, every one would have considered its chief
and prominent feature. There can be no doubt that the course he then
adopted demanded greater moral courage than at any previous period
of his life he had been called upon to exercise. He believed himself
incontestibly in the right; he believed, with the Duke of Wellington,
that the danger of civil war was imminent, and that such an event
was immeasurably a greater evil than surrendering the constitution
of 1688. But he was called upon to snap asunder a parliamentary
connection of twelve years with a great university, in which the most
interesting period of his youth had been passed; to encounter the
reproaches of adherents whom he had often led in well-fought contests
against the advocates of what was termed "civil and religious
liberty;" to tell the world that the character of public men for
consistency, however precious, is not to be directly opposed to
the common weal; and to communicate to many the novel as well as
unpalatable truth that what they deemed "principle" must give way to
what he called "expediency."
When he ceased to be a minister of the crown, that general movement
throughout Europe which succeeded the deposition of the elder branch
of the Bourbons rendered parliamentary reform as unavoidable as two
years previously Catholic emancipation had been. He opposed this
change, no doubt with increased knowledge and matured talents, but
with impaired influence and few parliamentary followers. The history
of the reform debates will show that Sir Robert Peel made many
admirable speeches, which served to raise his reputation, but never
for a moment turned the tide of fortune against his adversaries, and
in the first session of the first reformed parliament he found himself
at the head of a party that in numbers little exceeded one hundred. As
soon as it was practicable he rallied his broken forces; either he or
some of his political friends gave them the name of "Conservatives,"
and it required but a short interval of reflection and observation
to prove to his sagacious intellect that the period of reaction was
at hand. Every engine of party organization was put into vigorous
activity, and before the summer of 1834 reached its close he was at
the head of a compact, powerful, and well-disciplined opposition. Such
a high impression of their vigor and efficiency had King William IV
received, that when, in November, Lord Althorp became a peer, and the
whigs therefore lost their leader to the House of Commons, his Majesty
sent in Italy to summon Sir Robert Peel to his councils, with a view
to the immediate formation of a conservative ministry. He accepted
this responsibility, though he thought the King had mistaken the
condition of the country and the chances of success which had awaited
his political friends. A new House of Commons was instantly called,
and for nearly three months Sir Robert Peel maintained a struggle
against the most formidable opposition that for nearly a century any
minister had been called to encounter. At no time did his command of
temper, his almost exhaustless resources of information, his vigorous
and comprehensive intellect appear to create such astonishment or draw
forth such unbounded admiration as in the early part of 1835. But,
after a well-fought contest he retired once more into the opposition
till the close of the second Melbourne Administration in 1841. It
was in April, 1835, that Lord Melbourne was restored to power, but
the continued enjoyment of office did not much promote the political
interests of his party, and from various causes the power of the
whigs began to decline. The commencement of a new reign gave them some
popularity, but in the new House of Commons, elected in consequence
of that event, the conservative party were evidently gaining strength;
still, after the failure of 1834-5, it was no easy task to dislodge an
existing ministry, and at the same time to be prepared with a cabinet
and a party competent to succeed them. Sir Robert Peel, therefore,
with characteristic caution, "bided his time", conducting the business
of opposition throughout the whole of this period with an ability and
success of which history affords few examples. He had accepted the
Reform Bill as the established law of England, and as the system upon
which the country was thenceforward to be governed. He was willing
to carry it out in its true spirit, but he would proceed no further.
He marshaled his opposition upon the principle of resistance to any
further organic changes, and he enlisted the majority of the peers
and nearly the whole of the country gentlemen of England in support
of the great principle of protection to British industry. The little
maneuvres and small political intrigues of the period are almost
forgotten, and the remembrance of them is scarcely worthy of revival.
It may, however, be mentioned, that in 1839 ministers, being left in
a minority, resigned, and Sir Robert Peel, when sent for by the Queen,
demanded that certain ladies in the household of her majesty,--the
near relatives of eminent whig politicians,--should be removed
from the personal service of the sovereign. As this was refused,
he abandoned for the time any attempt to form a government, and his
opponents remained in office till September, 1841. It was then Sir
Robert Peel became the first lord of the treasury, and the Duke of
Wellington, without office, accepted a seat in the cabinet, taking
the management of the House of Lords. His ministry was formed on
protectionist principles, but the close of its career was marked by
the adoption of free trade doctrines differing in the widest and most
liberal sense. Sir Robert Peel's sense of public duty impelled him
once more to incur the odium and obliquy which attended a fundamental
change of policy, and a repudiation of the political partizans
by whose ardent support a minister may have attained office and
authority. It was his fate to encounter more than any man ever did,
that hostility which such conduct, however necessary, never fails
to produce. This great change in our commercial policy, however
unavoidable, must be regarded as the proximate cause of his final
expulsion from office in July, 1846. His administration, however, had
been signalized by several measures of great political importance.
Among the earliest and most prominent of these were his financial
plans, the striking feature of which was an income-tax; greatly
extolled for the exemption it afforded from other burdens pressing
more severely on industry, but loudly condemned for its irregular and
unequal operation, a vice which has since rendered its contemplated
increase impossible.
Of the ministerial life of Sir Robert Peel little more remains to be
related except that which properly belongs rather to the history of
the country than to his individual biography. But it would be unjust
to the memory of one of the most sagacious statesman that England ever
produced to deny that his latest renunciation of political principles
required but two short years to attest the vital necessity of that
unqualified surrender. If the corn laws had been in existence at the
period when the political system of the continent was shaken to its
centre and dynasties crumbled into dust, a question would have been
left in the hands of the democratic party of England, the force of
which neither skill nor influence could then have evaded. Instead
of broken friendships, shattered reputations for consistency, or
diminished rents, the whole realm of England might have borne a
fearful share in that storm of wreck and revolution which had its
crisis in the 10th of April, 1848.
In the course of his long and eventful life many honors were conferred
upon Sir Robert Peel. Wherever he went, and almost at all times,
he attracted universal attention, and was always received with the
highest consideration. At the close of 1836 the University of Glasgow
elected him Lord Rector, and the conservatives of that city, in
January, 1837, invited him to a banquet at which three thousand
gentlemen assembled to do honor to their great political chief. But
this was only one among many occasions on which he was "the great
guest." Perhaps the most remarkable of these banquets was that given
to him in 1835 at Merchant Tailors' Hall by three hundred members of
the House of Commons. Many other circumstances might be related to
illustrate the high position which Sir Robert Peel occupied. Anecdotes
innumerable might be recorded to show the extraordinary influence in
Parliament which made him "the great commoner" of the age; for Sir
Robert Peel was not only a skillful and adroit debater, but by many
degrees the most able and one of the most eloquent men in either house
of parliament. Nothing could be more stately or imposing than the
long array of sounding periods in which he expounded his doctrines,
assailed his political adversaries, or vindicated his own policy. But
when the whole land laments his loss, when England mourns the untimely
fate of one of her noblest sons, the task of critical disquisition
upon literary attainments or public oratory possesses little
attraction. It may be left for calmer moments, and a more distant
time, to investigate with unforgiving justice the sources of his
errors, or to estimate the precise value of services which the
public is now disposed to regard with no other feelings than those of
unmingled gratitude.
* * * * *
[Illustration]