“Whenever it is once determined that an attempt should be made by the

Government to settle the Catholic question, there can be, I think,

but one opinion--the settlement should, if possible, be a complete

one.”[131]

The Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst, without difficulty, adopted

these views. The rest of the Cabinet accepted them.

Sir Robert, however, whilst expressing himself thus clearly as to the

necessity of dealing without delay with the Catholic question, and

offering, in the most unequivocal way, his personal support to the

Government in doing so, desired to retire from the Administration, and

it was at first settled he should do so, but finally, at the Duke of

Wellington’s particular and earnest solicitation, he remained.

The King’s speech at the opening of Parliament spoke of the necessity

of putting down the Catholic Association, and of reviewing the laws

which imposed disabilities on his Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects.

The authority of the Government was to be vindicated, the constitution

was to be amended. Mr. Peel did not say he had altered his opinions:

he did not deny the possibility of future dangers from the changes

which the Government meant to propose; but he added that those distant

dangers had become in his opinion less pressing and less in themselves

than the dangers which, under present circumstances, would result from

leaving matters as they were.

He takes as his defence upon the charge of inconsistency “the right,

the duty, of a public man to act according to circumstances;” this

defence is the simple, and almost the only one he uses throughout the

various discussions now commencing. To Mr. Bankes, on one occasion, he

replies pertinently by an extract from a former speech made by that

gentleman himself:

“Mr. Bankes hoped it would never be a point of honour with any

Government to persevere in measures after they were convinced of their

impropriety. Political expediency was not at all times the same. What

at one time might be considered consistent with sound policy, might at

another be completely impolitic. Thus it was with respect to the Roman

Catholics.”

On another occasion he quotes that beautiful passage from Cicero, which

was the Roman orator’s vindication of his own conduct:

“Hæc didici, hæc vidi, hæc scripta legi, hæc sapientissimis et

clarissimis viris, et in hâc republicâ et in aliis civitatibus,

monumenta nobis, literæ prodiderunt, non semper easdem sententias ab

iisdem, sed, quascumque reipublicæ status, inclinatio temporum, ratio

concordiæ postularent, esse defendendas.”--_Orat. pro Cn. Plaucio_,

xxxix.

It had been arranged that a bill for suppressing the Catholic

Association should be passed, before the bill for removing Catholic

disabilities should be brought forward.

On the 5th of March, the Catholic Association Bill passed the

House of Lords, and on the same day the Catholic Disabilities Bill

was introduced into the House of Commons--admitting Catholics to

Parliament, and to the highest military and civil offices, save those

connected with church patronage and with the administration of the

Ecclesiastical law, on taking an oath described in the Act; and Mr.

Peel, in opening the debate, repeats with earnestness and solemnity his

previous declaration:

“On my honour and conscience, I believe that the time is come when

less danger is to be apprehended to the general interests of the

Empire, and to the spiritual and temporal welfare of the Protestant

establishment in attempts to adjust the Catholic question than in

allowing it to remain in its present state. I have already stated that

such was my deliberate opinion; such the conclusion to which I felt

myself forced to come by the irresistible force of circumstances;

and I will adhere to it: ay, and I will act on it, unchanged by the

scurrility of abuse, by the expression of opposite opinions, however

vehement or general; unchanged by the deprivation of political

confidence, or by the heavier sacrifice of private friendships and

affections.”

He shows the difficulties that had existed since the time of Mr. Pitt,

in forming a cabinet united in its views with respect to the Catholics;

the state of things that experience had proved to be the consequence

of a divided one; the final necessity of some decided course. The

authority which those who were hostile to English rule had acquired,

and were acquiring amidst the distracted councils of the English

Government; the power already granted by previous concessions; and the

dangers which could not but follow the exercise of this power for the

purpose of counteracting the law, or procuring a change in it.

It had been argued that the elective franchise already gave

parliamentary influence to the Catholics. In reply to this it had

been suggested that we could withdraw that source of influence. “No;

we cannot,” replies Mr. Peel, with some eloquence, “replace the Roman

Catholics in the condition in which we found them, when the system

of relaxation and indulgence began. We have given them the means of

acquiring education, wealth, and power. We have removed with our own

hands the seal from a vessel in which a mighty spirit was enclosed;

but it will not, like the Genius in the fable, return to its narrow

confines and enable us to cast it back to the obscurity from which we

evoked it.”

He does not say who is to blame for the state of things he thus

describes. He does not seem to care. He describes a situation which it

is necessary to deal with, and never stopping to burthen the argument

with his own faults or merits, thus continues:

“Perhaps I am not so sanguine as others in my expectations of the

future; but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I fully

believe that the adjustment of this question in the manner proposed

will give better and stronger securities to the Protestant interest and

the Protestant establishment than any that the present state of things

admits of, and will avert dangers _impending and immediate_. What

motive, I ask, can I have for the expression of these opinions but an

honest conviction of their truth?”

It was this general impression that he was honest, and that he was

making great personal sacrifices, which, no doubt, rendered his

task easier; and when, after opening the way to a new election by

the resignation of his seat, he was defeated in a contest for the

University of Oxford, the eulogy of Sir James Graham spoke the public

sentiment:

“I cannot boast of any acquaintance with that right honourable

gentleman (Mr. Peel) in private life. I have been opposed to him on

almost all occasions since I entered into public life. I have not

voted with him on five occasions, I believe, since I entered into

Parliament. I think him, however, a really honest and conscientious

man; and considering the sacrifices which he has recently made--the

connections from which he has torn himself--the public attachments

which he has broke asunder--the dangers which he might have created

by an opposite course--the difficulties which he might have created

by adhering to an opposite system--the civil war which he has avoided

by departing from it,--and the great service which he has rendered to

the State by the manly avowal of a change of opinion:--considering all

these circumstances, I think the right honourable gentleman entitled

to the highest praise, and to the honest respect of every friend of the

Catholics.”

One hostile feeling, however, still rankled in the heart of the Liberal

ranks;--the party whose opposition had wearied out the generous and

excitable spirit of Mr. Canning, was about to enjoy the triumph of Mr.

Canning’s opinions.

The dart, envenomed with this accusation, had more than once been

directed at Mr. Peel’s reputation. He felt it necessary to show that it

made a wound which he did not consider that he deserved. He had been

praised by many for having settled the long-pending differences which

his propositions were to compose.

In answering Sir Charles Wetherell, he says: “The credit of settling

this question belongs to others, not to me. It belongs, in spite of

my opposition, to Mr. Fox, to Mr. Grattan, to Mr. Plunkett, to the

gentlemen opposite, and to an illustrious and Right Honourable friend

of mine who is now no more. I will not conceal from the House that,

in the course of this debate, allusions have been made to the memory

of that Right Honourable friend, which have been most painful to my

feelings. An honourable baronet has spoken of the cruel manner in which

my Right Honourable friend was hunted down. Whether the honourable

baronet was one of those who hunted him down I know not. But this I do

know--that whoever joined in an inhuman cry against my Right Honourable

friend, I did not. I was on terms of the most friendly intimacy with

him up to the very day of his death; and I say, with as much sincerity

as the heart of man can speak, that I wish he was now alive to reap the

harvest which he sowed.”

It was a consummate touch of art on the part of the orator thus to

place himself in the position of the conquered, when others proclaimed

him the conqueror; in this way smothering envy, and quieting reproach.

The Bill passed through the House of Commons on the 30th of March; by a

majority of 320 to 142; and was carried in the House of Lords on the

10th of April, 1829, by a majority of 213 to 109. On the 19th of April

this great measure received the Royal assent.

It is useless to protract the narrative of this memorable period; but

I will not close it without observing that there was one still living

to whom the end of the battle, which had begun so long ago, was as

glorious and as gratifying as it could have been to the illustrious

statesman who was no more. Justifying, more, perhaps, than any

statesman recorded in our annals, the classical description of the just

and firm man, Lord Grey had, through a long series of disappointing

years--with an unaffected scorn for the frowns of the monarch, and

the shouts of the mob--proclaimed the principles of civil equality of

which his bitterest opponents were at last tardily willing to admit the

necessity.

“Justum et tenacem propositi virum

Non civium ardor prava jubentium,

Non vultus instantis tyranni

Mente quatit solidâ.”

But the feelings of the great peer were in bitter contrast with those

of the humiliated sovereign.

The change of George IV. from the friend to the enemy of the Catholic

cause had been sudden; up to the formation of the Liverpool ministry,

he was supposed to be favourable to it--ever afterwards he was most

hostile. It is not to be supposed that he had not understood at an

early period of life the value of the coronation oath, and all that in

the later period of his life he drivelled over, as to the Protestant

Constitution and the Protestant Succession. But the fact is, that

the haughty bearing of Lord Grey, during those various questions

which arose as to the formation of a new Government, shortly after

the Regency, had deeply wounded and irritated the Regent. Out of his

animosity to Lord Grey had grown up his animosity to the Catholics. The

politician and his policy were mixed up together in the royal mind.

He had kept the politician out of his cabinet; but that politician’s

policy now stormed it.

The mortification was severe.

From the summer of 1828 till the beginning of 1829 it was impossible

to get from his Majesty a clear adoption of the principle that the

Government should treat the Catholic question with the same freedom

as any other. When this was granted, another battle was fought over

the opening speech, and finally, on the 3rd of March, when the great

ministerial propositions were to be brought before Parliament, he

refused his assent to them, and the Wellington ministry was for some

hours out of office.

The struggle continued throughout the Parliamentary discussions, the

King’s aversion to Mr. Peel became uncontrollable, and he did not

attempt to disguise it.

But the leader of the House of Commons bore the sulky looks of the

Sovereign with as much composure--a composure that was by no means

indifference--as he bore the scurrility of the press, and the taunts of

the Tory Opposition.

The conviction that he was acting rightly in a great cause made him a

great man: and he faced the storm of abuse that assailed him with a

proud complacency.

PART IV.

Mr. O’Connell’s opposition in Ireland.--The general

difficulties of the Government.--The policy it tried

to pursue.--Its increasing unpopularity.--Its policy

towards Don Miguel.--William IV.’s accession.--The

Revolution in Paris.--The cry now raised in England for

Reform.--The King’s opening speech on convocation of new

Parliament.--The discontent against the Government it

excited.--The Duke of Wellington opposed to any change in

the Constitution.--Postponement of Lord Mayor’s dinner to

the new Sovereign.--Impressions this created.--The Duke’s

administration in a minority in the House of Commons.--His

resignation.--Earl Grey’s appointment as Premier.--Personal

description of Sir Robert Peel at this time.--The Reform

Bill.--Sir Robert Peel’s conduct thereon.--Its success in the

country.--The large majority returned by new elections in

favour of it.--Its opposition in the House of Lords.--Lord

Grey’s resignation and resumption of office.--The passing of

his Reform Bill through both Houses.

I.

I have said that Sir Robert Peel was proud of having made great

sacrifices for a great cause. There can be little doubt that he had

prevented a civil war in which many of the most eminent statesmen in

England and all the eminent statesmen of foreign countries would have

considered that the Irish Catholics were in the right. At the same

time he did not derive from the course he had taken the hope which

many entertained that all Irish feuds would henceforth cease, and that

it would become easy to establish in Ireland the satisfaction and

tranquillity that were found in other parts of our empire. He did,

however, deem that if the great and crying cause of grievance, which

had so long agitated and divided the public mind were once removed,

there would be no powerful rallying cry for the disaffected, and that

in any dangerous crisis the Government would find all reasonable men in

Ireland and all men in England by its side.

He saw, however, more clearly than most people, and in fact it was

this foresight that had made him so long the opponent of the measure

which he had recently advocated, that to bring the Irish Catholics into

Parliament was the eventual transfer of power from the Protestant to

the Catholic.

The great policy would, no doubt, have been to accept at once this

consequence in its full extent, and to have conciliated the Catholic

majority, and the Catholic priesthood, by abandoning everything which

under a Protestant ascendancy had been established. But no one was

prepared for this. The Whigs would have opposed it as well as the

Tories. The English Protestant Church would have made common cause

with the Irish Protestant Church,--the English Protestants in general

with the Irish Protestants. In short, it was not practicable at the

moment on which our attention had been hitherto concentrated to do more

for the Irish Catholics than had been done; and this was not likely,

as Mr. Peel himself had said in 1817, to satisfy them: “We entered,

therefore, inadvertently on a period of transition, in which a series

of new difficulties were certain to be the result of the removal

of the one great difficulty.” Under such circumstances, Mr. Peel

conceived he had only to watch events; it was not in accordance with

the natural tendency of his character to anticipate them, and to act in

the different situations that might arise as a practical view of each

particular situation might suggest.

He was right, no doubt, in considering that the Catholic Belief Bill

would not realize the expectations of its most ardent supporters, and

it must be added that the state of things amidst which it was passed

was alone sufficient to destroy many of those expectations. Agitation

had evidently obtained for Ireland what loyalty and forbearance had

never procured; and though the fear to which our statesmen had yielded

might be what Lord Palmerston asserted, “the provident mother of

safety,” a concession to it, however wise or timely, gave a very

redoutable force to the menacing spirit by which concession had been

gained. That force remained with all its elements perfectly organized,

and in the hands of a man whom it was equally difficult to have for a

friend or an enemy. His violence shocked your more timid friends if he

supported you, and encouraged your more timid enemies if he attacked

you.

The Government, which had in reality yielded to him, did not wish to

appear to have done so. It consequently provoked an altercation which

it might as well have avoided. Mr. O’Connell had been returned for

Clare, when by law he could not sit in Parliament, but when by law he

could be elected. It was not unfair to say his election should not

give him a seat in Parliament, because when he was elected he could

not have a seat. But, on the other hand, it might be contended that,

having been elected legally, he was entitled to take his seat when no

legal impediment prevented it. The better policy would doubtless have

been, not to fight a personal battle after having yielded in the public

contest.

The Government, however, compelled Mr. O’Connell to undergo a new

election; and considering this a declaration of war, he adopted a

tone of hostility to the Ministry, far too extravagant to do them

harm in England, but which added greatly to their difficulties

in Ireland--where a thorough social disorganization rendered the

Government impotent for the protection of property and life against

robbery and murder, unless it could count amongst its allies patriotism

and popularity themselves.

But besides the weakness of the Government in Ireland, it was generally

weak, for it had lost by the change in its Irish policy much of its

previous support, and could hardly hope to maintain itself any length

of time without getting back former partisans, or drawing closer to new

allies.

To regain friends whom you have once lost, owing to a violent

difference on a great political principle, is an affair neither

easily nor rapidly managed. It requires agreement on some question as

important as that which created disagreement.

On the other hand, for the Tories, under the Duke of Wellington, to

have coalesced with the Whigs, under Lord Grey, called for sacrifices

on both sides too great to be accepted by either with honour or even

propriety.

The Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel tried, therefore, a moderate

course. Detaching able men from the Whig ranks where they could secure

them, carrying out administrative reforms, opposing constitutional

changes, doing, in short, all which could be done to conciliate one

party without further alienating another, and carrying on affairs,

as in quiet times a despotic Government can do, even with credit and

popularity. But a free Government rarely admits, for any lengthened

period, of this even and tranquil course; it generates energies and

passions that must be employed, and which concentrate in an opposition

to the rulers who do not know how to employ them.

Some administrative improvements were nevertheless worthy of notice.

The watchman’s staff was broken in the metropolis. The criminal code

was still further improved, and punishment by death in cases of forgery

partially abolished and generally discountenanced.

Taxes also were repealed, and savings boasted of. But the nation had

become used to strong political excitement, and had a sort of instinct

that the passing of the Roman Catholic Bill should be followed by some

marked and general policy, analogous to the liberal spirit which had

dictated that measure.

Nor was this all. Mr. Canning, when he said that he would not serve

under a military premier, had expressed an English feeling. The Duke

of Wellington’s treatment of Mr. Huskisson was too much like that of

a general who expects implicit obedience from his inferior officers.

The very determination he had displayed in disregarding and overruling

George IV.’s anti-Catholic prejudices, evinced a resolve to be obeyed

that seemed to many dangerous. His strong innate sense of superiority,

the language, calm and decided, in which it was displayed, were not

to the taste of our public in a soldier at the head of affairs,

though they might have pleased in a civilian. At the same time, this

undisguised and unaffected superiority lowered his colleagues in the

public estimation, whilst the general tendency of many minds is to

refuse one order of ability where they admit another.

An act of foreign policy, moreover, did the administration at this

time an immense injury. We had cordially, though indirectly, placed

Donna Maria on the throne of Portugal, and endowed that country with a

constitution. Don Miguel, Donna Maria’s uncle, afterwards dispossessed

her of that throne and ruled despotically. We had not, however, as yet

recognized him as the Portuguese Sovereign. We still honoured the niece

residing in England with that title, when accident occurred which led

to grave doubts as to whether the great commander was also a great

minister.

The Island of Terceira still acknowledged Donna Maria’s sway; and an

expedition, consisting chiefly of her own subjects, had embarked from

Portsmouth for that Island, when it was stopped and prevented from

landing there by a British naval force, the pretext being that the

expedition, though first bound to Terceira, was going to be sent to

Portugal, and to be employed against Don Miguel.

But no sufficient proof was given of this intention; the force arrested

in its passage was a Portuguese force, proceeding to a place _bonâ

fide_ in the Queen of Portugal’s possession. If it were eventually to

be landed on the territory held by the usurper, it had not yet made

manifest that such was its destination. Its object might be merely to

defend Terceira, which had lately been attacked. Arguments might be

drawn from international law both for and against our conduct. But

the public did not go into these arguments; what it saw was, that

Mr. Canning had favoured the constitutional cause, that the Duke of

Wellington was favouring the absolute one. “He did not do this,” said

people, “to please his own nation; no one suspected him of doing it to

gratify a petty tyrant. He did it then to satisfy the great potentates

of the Continent who were adverse to freedom.” This suspicion, not

founded on fact, but justified by appearances, weighed upon the Cabinet

as to its whole foreign policy, and reacted upon its policy at home.

So strong were its effects, that when Charles X. called Prince

Polignac to the head of his counsels, it was said, “Oh, this is the

Duke of Wellington’s doing!” and even when the ordinances of July were

published, it was supposed that they had been advised by our military

premier. Feelings of this sort have no limit. They spread like a mist

over opinion.

At this time occurred the death of George IV. (June 26th, 1830), and a

new era opened in our history.

William IV., who succeeded, had not the same talents or accomplishments

as the deceased monarch, his brother, nor perhaps the same powers

of mind. But he was more honest and straightforward; took a greater

interest in the welfare of the nation, and was very desirous to be

beloved by his people. He retained the same Ministry, but a new reign

added to the impression that there must ere long be a new Cabinet, and

the circumstances under which the forthcoming elections took place

confirmed this impression. Parliament was dissolved on the 23rd of

July, and on the 30th was proclaimed the triumph of a revolution in

Paris; whilst immediately after the fall of the throne of Charles X.

came that general crash of dynasties which shook the nerves of every

prince in Europe.

The roar of revolution abroad did not resound in England and obscure

the lustre of the brightest reputations; nevertheless, it was echoed in

a general cry, for constitutional change, and accompanying this cry,

there was, as winter approached, an almost general alarm from the

demoralization that prevailed in the rural districts and the excitement

that existed in the great towns.

The country wanted to be reassured and calmed.

The King’s speech (Nov. 2, 1830) was not calculated to supply this

want. With respect to home affairs, it spoke of the dangerous state of

Ireland, and said nothing of the one question which began to occupy

men’s minds in England--the question of Reform. Abroad, our policy had

been weak against Russia when on her road to Constantinople; timid and

uncertain towards Greece, when the time was come for her recognition;

and now we announced the intention of opening diplomatic relations with

Don Miguel, in Portugal, and made the insurrection in Belgium popular

by taking the King of the Netherlands under our protection.

In short, there was hardly one word our new Sovereign was made to

say which did not add to the unpopularity of his ministers. These

ministers, indeed, were in a critical position.

Some plan of Parliamentary Reform had of necessity to be proposed. The

true Conservative policy would have been to propose a moderate plan

before increased disquietude suggested a violent one. Nor was this

task a difficult one at that moment; for if a Parliamentary Reform was

proclaimed necessary, there was no definite idea as to what that Reform

should be. Many of the Tories were willing to give Representatives to

a few of the great towns, and to diminish in some degree the number of

close boroughs; a large portion of the Whigs would have been satisfied

with Reform on this basis.

It is probable that Sir Robert Peel (Mr. Peel had succeeded to his

father’s title in March of this year) would have inclined, had he been

completely his own master, towards some course of this kind.

But, whilst a general incertitude prevailed as to what would be the

best course for the Government to pursue, the Duke of Wellington,

who felt convinced that we should be led step by step to revolution

if we did not at once and decidedly declare against all change,

determined to check any contrary disposition in his followers before

it was expressed, and surprised all persons by the declaration that

the Constitution as it stood was perfect, and that no alteration in it

would be proposed as long as he was Prime Minister.

I have reason to believe that his more wary colleague was by no means

pleased with this hasty and decided announcement; and, although

he could not directly contradict the speech of his chief, he in a

certain degree mitigated its effect by saying: “That he did not at

present see any prospect of such a measure of safe, moderate Reform

as His Majesty’s Government _might be inclined to sanction_” which,

in fact, said that if a moderate, safe Reform were found, it would be

sanctioned. But the party in office, after the significant words of the

Premier, were compromised; and the line they had to follow practically

traced.

Those words were hazardous and bold; but in times of doubt and peril,

boldness has sometimes its advantages. One must not, however, be bold

with any appearance of timidity. But the Government was about to show

that it wanted that resolution which was its only remaining protection.

The King had been invited to dine with the Lord Mayor on the 9th of

November. There are always a great many busy people on such occasions

who think of making themselves important by giving information, and the

Lord Mayor is precisely the person who is most brought into contact

with these people. It is not in the least surprising, therefore,

that his Lordship was told there was a plot for attacking the Duke

of Wellington on his way to the city, and that he had better be well

guarded. On this somewhat trumpery story, and not very awful warning,

the Government put off the Royal dinner, saying, they feared a tumult.

It is evident that a set of Ministers so unpopular that they thought

they could not safely accompany the sovereign through the City of

London to the Mansion House, were not the men to remain in office in a

time of trouble and agitation. Thus, the days of the Government were

now numbered; and being on the 15th of November in a minority of 29, on

a motion respecting the arrangements of the civil list, they resigned.

Lord Grey succeeded the Duke of Wellington, and announced his intention

of bringing forward a measure of Reform.

I had been elected for that Parliament, and returned from abroad but a

few days after the change of Government.

I then saw Sir Robert Peel for the first time, and it was impossible,

after attending three or four sittings of the House of Commons, not to

have one’s attention peculiarly attracted to him.

He was tall and powerfully built. His body somewhat bulky for his

limbs, his head small and well-formed, his features regular. His

countenance was not what would be generally called expressive, but it

was capable of taking the expression he wished to give it, humour,

sarcasm, persuasion, and command, being its alternate characteristics.

The character of the man was seen more, however, in the whole person

than in the face. He did not stoop, but he bent rather forwards; his

mode of walking was peculiar, and rather like that of a cat, but of

a cat that was well acquainted with the ground it was moving over;

the step showed no doubt or apprehension, it could hardly be called

stealthy, but it glided on firmly and cautiously, without haste, or

swagger, or unevenness, and, as he quietly walked from the bar to

his seat, he looked round him, as if scanning the assembly, and when

anything particular was expected, sat down with an air of preparation

for the coming contest.

The oftener you heard him speak the more his speaking gained upon you.

Addressing the House several times in the night on various subjects, he

always seemed to know more than any one else knew about each of them,

and to convey to you the idea that he thought he did so. His language

was not usually striking, but it was always singularly correct, and

gathered force with the development of his argument. He never seemed

occupied with himself. His effort was evidently directed to convince

you, not that he was _eloquent_, but that he was _right_. When the

subject suited it, he would be witty, and with a look and a few words

he could most effectively convey contempt; he could reply also with

great spirit to an attack, but he was rarely aggressive. He seemed

rather to aim at gaining the doubtful, than mortifying or crushing the

hostile. His great rivals, Canning and Brougham, being removed, he no

doubt felt more at his ease than formerly; and though there was nothing

like assumption or pretension in his manner, there was a tone of

superiority, which he justified by a great store of knowledge, a clear

and impressive style, and a constant readiness to discuss any question

that arose.

Lord John Russell had not then the talents for debate which he

subsequently displayed. Lord Palmerston had only made one or two

great speeches. Sir James Graham was chiefly remarkable for a weighty

statement. Mr. Charles Grant had lost his once great oratorical powers.

Mr. Macaulay was only beginning to deliver his marvellous orations.

O’Connell, mighty to a mob, was not in his place when addressing a

refined and supercilious audience. Mr. Stanley, the late Lord Derby,

surpassed Sir R. Peel and every one else in vivacity, wit, lucidity,

and energy. But he struck you more as a first-rate cavalry officer than

as a commander-in-chief. Sir Robert, cool and self-collected, gave

you, on the contrary, the idea of a great, prudent, wary leader who

was fighting after a plan, and keeping his eye during the whole of the

battle directed to the result. You felt, at least I felt, that without

being superior to many of his competitors as a man, he was far superior

to all as a Member of Parliament; and his ascendancy was the more

visible as the whole strength of his party was in him.

He profited, no doubt, by the fact that the Whigs had been (with the

exception of a short interval) out of office for nearly half a century,

and showed at every step the self-sufficiency of men of talent, and

the incapacity of men without experience. Every one felt, indeed, that

in the ordinary course of things their official career would be short,

and none were more convinced of this than their leaders. They acted

accordingly. Under any circumstances they were pledged to bring forward

a Reform Bill; but under actual circumstances their policy was to

bring forward a Reform Bill that would render it almost impossible for

their probable successors to deal with that question. Such a Bill they

introduced, destroying at one swoop sixty small boroughs, and taking

one member from forty-seven more.

Mr. John Smith, an ardent Reformer, said that the Government measure

went so far beyond his expectations, that it took away his breath. I

myself happened to meet Mr. Hunt, the famous Radical of those days, in

the tea-room of the House of Commons, just before Lord John Russell

rose. We had some conversation on the project about to be proposed, no

one out of a small circle having any conception as to what it would

be. Mr. Hunt said, if it gave members to a few of the great towns,

and disfranchised with compensation a few close boroughs, the public

would rest contented for the moment with this concession. In fact,

the Government plan was received with profound astonishment. Lord

John continued his explanations of it amidst cheers and laughter.

It almost appeared a joke; and had Sir Robert Peel risen when Lord

John sat down, and said that “he had been prepared to consider any

reasonable or practical plan, but that the plan of the Government was

a mockery repugnant to the good sense of the House, and that he could

not therefore allow the time of Parliament to be lost by discussing it;

moving at the same time the order of the day, and pledging himself to

bring the question in a practical form under the attention of the House

of Commons at an early opportunity,” he would have had a majority of at

least a hundred in his favour.

It was a great occasion for a less prudent man. But Sir Robert Peel was

not an improvisatore in action, though he was in words. He required

time to prepare a decision. He was moreover fettered by his relations

with the late premier. Could he reject at once a project of Reform,

however absurd, without taking up the question of Reform? Could he

pledge his party to take up that question without being certain of his

party’s pretty general acquiescence?

He persuaded himself, not unnaturally, that the Government measure had

no chance of success; that nothing would be lost by an appearance of

moderation, and that time would thus be gained for the Opposition to

combine its plans.

Nine men out of ten would have judged the matter as he did, and been

wrong as he was. But the magnitude of the Whig measure, which appeared

at the moment its weakness, was in reality its strength. It roused the

whole country.

Much, also, in a crisis like the one through which the country had

now to pass, depends on the action of individuals whose names are not

always found in history. There happened, at the moment of which I am

speaking, to be a man connected with the Whig Government who, by his

frank, good-natured manner, his knowledge of human nature, his habits

of business, his general acquaintance with all classes of persons, and

his untiring activity, gave an intensity and a direction to the general

sentiment which it would not otherwise have attained.

I allude to Mr. Edward Ellice, Secretary of the Treasury. He was

emphatically a man of the world, having lived with all classes of it.

His intellect was clear, and adapted to business; and he liked that

sort of business which brought him into contact with men. Naturally

kind-hearted and good-natured, with frank and easy manners, he entered

into other people’s plans and feelings, and left every one with the

conviction that he had been speaking to a friend who at the proper time

would do him a service. He took upon himself the management of the

Press, and was entrusted shortly afterwards (when Lord Grey, finding

his ministry in a minority in the House of Commons, obtained the

King’s permission to dissolve Parliament) with the management of the

elections. He knew that the great danger to a Reform party is almost

always division, and bound the Reform party on that occasion together

by the cry of “The bill! the whole bill, and nothing but the bill!”

All argument, all discussion, all objection, were absorbed by this

overwhelming cry, which, repeated from one end of the country to

another, drowned the voice of criticism, and obliged every one to

take his place either as an advocate of the Government measure, or an

opponent of the popular will.

The general feeling, when, after the elections in 1831, the shattered

forces of the Tory party gathered in scanty array around their

distinguished leader, was that that party was no more, or at least had

perished, as far as the possession of political power was concerned,

for the next twenty years. People did not sufficiently recognize the

changeful vibration of opinion; neither did they take sufficiently into

account the fact that there will always, in a state like ours, be a set

of men who wish to make the institutions more democratic, and a set of

men who do not wish this; though at different epochs the battle for

or against democracy will be fought on different grounds. The Reform

Bill now proposed having been once agreed to, it was certain that there

would again be persons for further changes, and persons against them.

Sir Robert’s great care, therefore, when our old institutions sunk, was

not to cling to them so fast as to sink with them. He defended, then,

the opinions he had heretofore asserted, but he defended them rather

as things that had been good, and were gone by, than as things that

were good and which could be maintained. The Tories in the House of

Lords were in a more difficult position than the Tories in the House of

Commons. They were called upon to express their opinions, and to do so

conscientiously. They were in a majority in the upper assembly, as the

Whigs were in a majority in the lower one. According to the theory of

the Constitution the vote of one branch of the Legislature was as valid

as that of the other. Were they to desert their duties, and declare

they were incompetent to discharge them? They considered they were not.

They, therefore, threw out the Government bill when it was brought

before them for decision, and thus it had again to be introduced into

the House of Commons. Again it arrived at the House of Lords, which

displayed a disposition to reject it once more.

Lord Grey, in this condition of things, asked the King for the power

of making peers, or for the permission to retire from his Majesty’s

service. His resignation was accepted, and the Duke of Wellington was

charged with forming a new Government, which was to propose a new

Reform Bill. He applied to Sir Robert Peel for assistance, but Sir

Robert saw that the moment for him to deal with the question of Reform

was passed, and declined to give that assistance, saying that he was

not the proper person to represent a compromise. That any Reform Bill

that would now satisfy the momentary excitement must comprehend changes

that he believed would be permanently injurious. He felt, indeed, that

it would be better to let the reformers carry their own bill than to

bring forward another bill which could not greatly differ from the

one which the House of Commons had already sanctioned, and which,

nevertheless, would not satisfy, because it would be considered the

bill of the House of Lords. The Duke of Wellington consequently was

obliged to retire, the Lords to give way. Lord Grey’s Reform Bill was

carried, and Sir Robert Peel took his seat in a new Parliament formed

by his opponents, who thought they had secured thereby the permanence

of their own power.

PART V.

Effects of Reform.--Changes produced by reform.--Daniel

O’Connell.--Lord Melbourne.--Choice of Speaker.--The

Irish Tithe Bill.--Measures of Lord Melbourne.--The Irish

question.--The Queen’s household.--The Corn Law League.--Whig

measures.

I.

The great measure just passed into law was not calculated to justify

the fears of immediate and violent consequences; but was certain to

produce gradual and important changes.

The new constitution breathed, in fact, a perfectly different spirit

from the old one. The vitality of our former government was drawn from

the higher classes and the lower ones. An election for Westminster

was not merely the return of two members to Parliament: it was a

manifestation of the feeling prevalent amongst the masses throughout

England; and the feeling amongst the masses had a great influence in

moments of excitement, and in all matters touching the national dignity

and honour. On the other hand, it was by the combinations of powerful

families that a majority was formed in Parliament, which, in ordinary

times, and when no great question was at issue, ruled the country.

The populace, by its passions--the aristocracy, by its pride--gave

energy to the will, and elevation to the character of the nation,

disposing it to enterprise and to action. The government we had

recently created was, on the contrary, filled with the soul of the

middle classes, which is not cast in an heroic mould. Its objects are

material, its interests are involved in the accidents of the moment.

What may happen in five years to a man in trade, is of comparatively

small consequence. What may happen immediately, makes or mars his

fortunes. Moreover, the persons likely to replace the young men,

distinguished for their general abilities and general instruction, who

had formerly represented the smaller boroughs, were now for the most

part elderly men with a local reputation, habits already acquired, and

without the knowledge, the energy, or the wish to commence a new career

as politicians.

A writer on Representative Government has said, that the two important

elements to represent are intellect and numbers, because they are

the two great elements of force. The new Reform Bill did not affect

especially to represent either. But it represented peace, manufactures,

expediency, practical acquaintance with particular branches of trade.

It established a greater reality. A member of Parliament was more

likely to represent a real thing concerning the public than a mere idea

concerning it. The details of daily business were more certain to be

attended to, useless wars to be put on one side.

On the other hand, that high spirit which insensibly sustains a

powerful nation, that devotion to the permanent interests of the

country, which leads to temporary sacrifices for its character and

prestige, that extensive and comprehensive knowledge of national

interests, which forms statesmen, and is the peculiar attribute of an

enlightened and patriotic aristocracy, that generous sympathy with

what is right, and detestation for what is wrong, which exists nowhere

with such intensity as in the working classes, who are swayed more by

sentiment, and less by calculation, than any other class--all those

qualities, in short, which make one state, without our being able

exactly to say why, dominate morally and physically over other states,

were somewhat too feebly implanted in our new institutions; and these

institutions generated a set of politicians who, with a very limited

range of view, denied the existence of principles that were beyond the

scope of their observation.

There were also other considerations, probably overlooked by those

who imagined they were building up a permanent system by the bill of

1832. The middle class, which is perhaps the most important one for a

government to conciliate, is not a class that can itself govern. Its

temporary rule nearly always leads to a democracy or to a despotism; it

must, therefore, be considered as a mere step, upwards or downwards,

in a new order of things. Besides, if you destroy traditional respect,

and that kind of instinct of obedience which is created by the habit

of obeying spontaneously to-morrow, what you obeyed without inquiry

yesterday--if you begin by condemning everything in a constitution

which reason does not approve, you must arrive at a constitution

which reason will sanction. You cannot destroy anomalies and preserve

anomalies. The tide of innovation which you have directed towards

the one anomaly as absurd, will, ere long, sweep away, as equally

ridiculous, another anomaly. There is no solid resting-place between

custom and argument. What is no longer defended by the one, must be

made defensible by the other.

It is only by degrees, however, that the full extent of a great change

develop es itself; for the peculiarities of a new constitution are

always modified when that new constitution is carried out by men who

have grown up under the preceding one; and in the meantime the vessel

of the State, struggling between old habits and new ideas, must be

exposed to the action of changeful and contrary winds.

Thus, the Reform party, temporarily united during the recent combat,

split into several sections at its termination.

First, Lord Durham quitted the administration, because he thought it

too cautious; secondly, Mr. Stanley and Sir James Graham quitted it,

because they each thought it too fast; finally, Lord Grey himself

quitted it, because he deemed that his authority was diminishing,

as his generation was dying away, and younger men absorbing old

influences. In the meantime Mr. O’Connell continued to be a great

embarrassment. He represented the majority of the Irish people, who

contended for a supremacy over the minority, a contest in which it was

natural for the Catholics to engage after they had been declared as

good citizens as the Protestants; but in which it was impossible for

the British Government to concur, so long as there was a feud between

the Protestant and the Catholic, and that the Protestant majority in

England were disposed to sustain the Protestant minority in Ireland.

Hence, the reformed Parliament had met amidst cries for the repeal of

the Union, and those savage violations of social order which, in the

sister kingdom, are the usual attendants on political agitation.

The Ministry first tried coercion, but its effects could only be

temporary, and they alienated a portion of its supporters. It then

tried conciliation. But it was found impossible to conciliate the

Irish Catholics without conciliating their leader. That leader was not

irreconcilable, for he was vain: and vain men may always be managed

by managing their vanity; but to gratify the vanity of a man who was

always defying the power of England, was to mortify the pride of the

English people.

Lord Melbourne had succeeded Lord Grey. He united various

accomplishments with a manly understanding and a character inclined

to moderation. There could not have been selected a statesman better

qualified to preside over a Cabinet containing conflicting opinions

and antagonistic ambitions. But no body of men, acting together under

a system of compromises, can act with vigour or maintain authority.

All these circumstances gave an air of feebleness and inferiority to

an administration which contained, nevertheless, many men of superior

ability. But that, perhaps, which tended most to discredit the

ministry, was the credit which Sir Robert Peel was daily gaining as its

opponent.

Carefully separating himself from the extreme opinions to be found in

his own party, condemning merely the extreme opinions on the opposite

one; professing the views and holding the language of a mediator

between opinions that found no longer an echo in the public mind,

and opinions that had not yet been ripened by public approbation;

contrasting by his clear and uniform line of conduct with the apparent

variations and vacillations of a Cabinet that was alternately swayed

by diverging tendencies; professing no desire for power, he created

by degrees a growing opinion that he was the statesman who ought to

possess it: and thus, when the Reform Ministry had to add to its

former losses that of Lord Althorpe, who by the death of Lord Spencer

was withdrawn from the House of Commons, which he had long led with a

singular deficiency in the powers of debate, but with the shrewdness

and courtesy of a man of the world, the King thought himself justified

in removing a Cabinet which he considered deficient in dignity, spirit,

and consideration.

The Duke of Wellington, to whom he offered the post of Premier,

declined it, and recommended Sir Robert Peel. Sir Robert had not

expected, nor perhaps wished for, so sudden a summons. He was, in fact,

at Rome when he was offered, for the first time, the highest place in

the Cabinet. Returning to England instantly, he accepted the offer. His

object now was to organize a new Conservative party on a new basis,

and to come forward himself as a new man in a new state of affairs,

neither lingering over ancient pledges nor fettered by previous

declarations. As the first necessity for a new system, he sought new

men, and wishing to obliterate the prejudice against himself as an

anti-Reformer by a union with those who had been Reformers, hastened to

invite Sir James Graham and Lord Stanley to join him. This invitation

being declined, he had to fall back on his former associates; but being

unable to change the furniture of the old Conservative Cabinet, he

repainted and regilded it. In a letter to the electors of Tamworth,

which engrafted many Liberal promises on Conservative principles,

he went as far towards gaining new proselytes as was compatible with

retaining old adherents. This letter was a preparation for the great

struggle on the hustings which was now about to take place. Parliament

had been dissolved, and the appeal made to the country was answered

by the addition of one hundred members to the new Conservative party.

Such an addition was sufficient to justify King William’s belief that

a considerable change had taken place in public opinion, but was not

sufficient to give a majority in the House of Commons to the ministry

he had chosen. It was beaten by ten votes on the choice of a Speaker,

Mr. Abercrombie having that majority over Mr. Manners Sutton.

But if Sir Robert Peel had not a sufficient majority to insure his

maintenance in office, the Whigs were not so sure of a majority as to

risk a direct attempt to turn him out, unless on some specific case

which called for a vote to sanction a specific opinion. Sir Robert’s

policy was to avoid a case of this kind, knowing that, if he could once

by his tact, prudence, and ability, increase his numbers and establish

a tendency in his favour, the fluctuating and uncertain would soon join

his standard. This policy was contained in the speech with which he

opened the campaign:

“With such prospects I feel it to be my duty--my first and paramount

duty--to maintain the post which has been confided to me, and to stand

by the trust which I did not seek, but which I could not decline. I

call upon you not to condemn before you have heard--to receive at least

the measures I shall propose--to amend them if they are defective--to

extend them if they fall short of your expectations; but at least to

give me the opportunity of presenting them, that you yourselves may

consider and dispose of them. I make great offers, which should not

be lightly rejected! I offer you the prospect of continued peace--the

restored confidence of powerful states, that are willing to seize the

opportunity of reducing great armies, and thus diminishing the chances

of hostile collision. I offer you reduced estimates, improvements in

civil jurisprudence, reform of ecclesiastical law, the settlement of

the tithe question in Ireland, the commutation of the tithe in England,

the removal of any real abuse in the Church, the redress of those

grievances of which the Dissenters have any just grounds to complain. I

offer you those specific measures, and I offer also to advance, soberly

and cautiously, it is true, in the path of progressive improvement.

I offer also the best chance that these things can be effected in

willing concert with the other authorities of the State; thus restoring

harmony, ensuring the maintenance, but not excluding the Reform (where

Reform is really requisite) of ancient institutions.”

It was difficult to use more seducing language, but the Opposition

would not be seduced. From the 24th of February till the beginning

of April, Sir Robert struggled against its unsparing attacks. It was

not easy, however, to catch him exposed on any practical question; at

last, however, he had to deal with one--he had promised to settle the

tithe question in Ireland. How was he to do so? He thought to balk his

assailants by bringing forward a measure this year very similar to one

which they themselves had brought forward the year before. But once

on Irish ground, he was pretty sure of being beaten. The difference

between Lord John Russell and Mr. Stanley, which had led to the

secession of the latter, was a difference of principle as to the nature

of Church property: the former contending that if the revenue possessed

by the Protestant Church in Ireland was larger than necessary for the

decent maintenance of the Protestant clergy, the State might dispose of

it as it thought proper; the latter asserting that the State could not

employ it for any purposes that were not ecclesiastical.

This was a great question; it was brought to an issue in a very small

manner. Lord John Russell proposed as a resolution that no Irish tithe

bill would be satisfactory which did not contain a clause devoting any

surplus over and above the requirements of the Church establishment

to the purposes of secular education. A committee was then sitting to

determine whether there was any such surplus as that alluded to or not,

and it would have been, doubtless, more regular first to have got the

surplus and then to have determined about its use. Besides, if we were

to deal with so great a principle as the alienation of the property of

the Protestant Church, it would surely have been worth while to do so

for some great practical advantage. The majority, nevertheless, voted

for Lord John Russell’s proposition, partly because it established

a public right, partly because it answered a party purpose. Thus

Parliament decided against the inviolability of Church property--a

decision certain to affect the future; which did affect the present;

and Sir Robert Peel was forced to resign the seals of the Treasury.

But let us be just. Never did a statesman enter office more

triumphantly than Sir Robert Peel left it. His self-confidence, his

tact, his general knowledge, his temper, filled even his opponents with

admiration!

It was impossible not to acknowledge to oneself that there was a man

who seemed shaped expressly for being first minister of England. But,

on the other hand, a sense of justice compelled one to consider that

Lord Melbourne had done nothing to justify the manner in which he had

been dismissed; that the party he represented had but two years since

achieved a popular triumph which rendered the reign of William IV.

almost as memorable in our annals as that of William III.--that it had

added to this triumph in the name of Liberty, a triumph quite as great

in the cause of Humanity; and that it would have inflicted a stigma

of fickleness on our national character to pass by with indifference

and neglect the author of the Reform Bill and the Negro Emancipation

Bill--condemning a party still possessed of a majority in the most

important branch of the Legislature, on the ground that the late

Earl of Spencer was no more, and that it was necessary to replace

Lord Althorpe--an honest man of respectable talents--by Lord John

Russell--an honest man of very eminent talents.

Sir Robert’s attempt, in fact, though made bravely and sustained with

consummate ability, was premature; made a few years later,--when the

Stanley party had joined and were conformed with the Peel party,

and made in consequence of some parliamentary measure, not as the

consequence, which it then appeared to be, of Royal patronage and

favour,--the result would have been different.

At the same time, it made an immense change in the condition of the

Tory party. That party, after this attempt, was no longer a shattered

band of impossible politicians, placed by public opinion without the

pale of political power.

It became a compact, numerous, and hopeful party, considered by the

country as prudent and practical, and having at its head the man most

looked up to in that House of Parliament, which he declared publicly he

would never quit.

For four years after this struggle Sir Robert Peel remained at the head

of the powerful opposition he had gradually collected around him; the

Whig Government having in the meantime to perform the very difficult

and ungrateful task of carrying out changes which it deemed necessary,

against Conservatives, and opposing innovations which it deemed

dangerous, against Reformers. The friends of Liberal institutions and

of religious toleration, and even of administrative improvement, owe it

a debt of gratitude which they have never fully paid. The introduction

of popular suffrage into the system of municipal government; the

removal of various grievances that still existed and were mortifying

and harassing to the Dissenters; the reduction of newspaper stamps;

the commutation of tithes, are the footprints which Lord Melbourne’s

administration left on those times. On the other hand, Lord John

Russell resisted in its name vote by ballot (a question of which both

its advocates and opponents exaggerated the importance); any further

extension of the suffrage, and also the re-establishment of triennial

Parliaments. His great antagonist aided him in respect to all measures

which the public, irrespective of parties, were prepared to adopt, and

supported him against all demands which the more democratic portion of

his adherents put forward, but depreciated his general authority by

showing that, though invested with the functions of Government, he and

his colleagues had not the power of governing.

The great battle-field, however, between Whig and Tory, or as the

latter now called themselves “Conservatives,” was, as it had long been

and seems always destined to be,--Ireland; for there was still to

settle that Irish Tithes Bill, into which the Whigs had insisted for

some time on inserting the principle of appropriation; and there was

also another question at stake, more pressing and more practical,--that

of the Irish corporations.

The Whigs were for applying to the municipalities in Ireland the same

principles of popular election which had been applied to municipalities

in England and Scotland. The Conservatives contended that Irish society

was not constituted like English and Scotch society, and would not

admit of the same institutions. They urged that the old municipalities

had been constituted on the basis most proper to keep up an exclusive

Protestant ascendancy; they contended that the new municipalities,

according to the Government plan, seemed likely to create an exclusive

ascendancy for the Catholics; and they asserted that under such

circumstances it would be wise and just to establish an order of things

that would preserve some balance between the two great divisions of the

Irish community. They entered, in fact, upon that difficult ground, a

ground made difficult when the Irish Catholic was placed on an equality

with the Irish Protestant, and commenced the transfer of power from

a long predominant minority to an ambitious and irritated majority.

But it was after carefully weighing immediate peril against contingent

difficulties, that Sir Robert Peel had already taken his choice; and he

ought now to have accepted its consequences. The worst way of arguing

for a legislative union between two countries is surely to question

that they will admit of the same laws. The best way of removing

religious passions from political affairs, is to forget in political

questions religious distinctions.

By not acting on these convictions, he re-opened the sore which he had

made such sacrifices to heal, but this error, which was certain to bear

its punishment in regard to Ireland at a later season, did not affect

his immediate position in the rest of the Empire.

II.

We have said that anything like an alliance with a man who assumed an

attitude of defiance towards English power would arouse the instincts

of English pride. Besides, nothing at all times injures and lowers a

government more than the appearance of being counselled by a private

individual who is not publicly responsible for his advice. The mere

fact that the Whig policy was more congenial to Mr. O’Connell’s views

than the Tory one, would have naturally created a sort of link between

this singular man and the Whig Government. To keep his followers

together, he wanted the influence of patronage; to obtain the aid of

his followers, the Government did not show itself unwilling to bestow

patronage upon him. In the meantime the independence of his attitude

and language--an independence which the peculiarity of his position

obliged him somewhat ostentatiously to display--apparently justified

the accusation that the Premier was his _protégé_, and not he the

_protégé_ of the Premier. Hence, though the House of Commons still

maintained by a small majority the Whig policy in Ireland, there was a

growing coolness amongst the English at large towards Irish grievances,

and a disposition to accuse Lord Melbourne of a mean desire to retain

place, when in reality he was undergoing many personal mortifications

from public motives.

The Conservatives in Parliament had, moreover, increased, and were

become impatient. A difference between the Colonial Office and the

Jamaica Legislature offered the opportunity of adding some votes to

that number. A battle was fought, and the ministry only gained a

majority of five. Being oppressed by a long catalogue of questions

which it had undertaken to settle, and had not the power to deal with,

the Ministry not unwillingly resigned; and, by the Duke of Wellington’s

advice, Sir Robert Peel had the same commission confided to him by

Queen Victoria which he had received previously from William IV.

A difficulty, however, here intervened with respect to certain leaders

in the highest position at Court, whom the Premier desired to remove,

and from whom the Queen would not consent to part. The question ought

not to have arisen, but once having done so, concession could not

be made with becoming dignity, either by the sovereign or by the

statesman, who had acted too much as a man of business, and too little

as a man of the world.

III.

Lord Melbourne resumed for a time the position he had abandoned, but,

by doing so, he rather weakened than strengthened his party, and gave

his opponents the advantage of maturing their strength by a prolonged

contest against a ministry which had confessed its incapacity to master

the difficulties which beset it.

These difficulties were not a little increased by combinations which

betokened an insurrectionary disposition amongst the working classes,

who, in some cases, proceeded to riot, and set forth their general

plans and devices on the project of a constitution called “the people’s

charter,” a project which was generally considered as subversive of

credit, property, and order.

The Conservatives attributed these doctrines, however denounced by the

Whigs, as deducible from Whig tendencies, and profited by the mistrust

which a weak government and an agitated commonalty naturally suggested.

One hostile motion succeeded another, each manifesting an increasing

decline in the strength of the Whigs, and an increasing confidence on

the part of their opponents, until a new opportunity arose for bringing

together the same parties that had, by their union, brought about Lord

Melbourne’s previous resignation.

The doctrines of Free Trade had of late made rapid progress; they were

principally directed by the Corn Law League, recently established,

towards a free trade in corn, and against a free trade in this

commodity Sir Robert Peel had emphatically declared himself; but they

were also applicable to all articles of commerce, and to the general

principles of Free Trade in dealing with the greater number of these

articles the Conservative leader gave his assent. As, however, he made

an exception with respect to corn, so he made an exception as to sugar;

his argument being, that the state of our West Indian colonies merited

our special consideration, for we had deprived them of slave labour,

and thereby placed them in an unequal condition as to their products

with countries which employed slave labour.

For this inequality, he said, it is fair that you should compensate by

imposing a heavier duty on sugar produced by slave labour than on the

sugar cultivated by free labour. The Government, on the other hand, not

daring as yet to declare decidedly in favour of a Free Trade in corn,

was disposed to lower and fix the duty, which was then variable, and

to abolish the differential duties on timber and sugar. In this state

of things, Lord Sandon gave the following notice:--“That, considering

the efforts and sacrifices which Parliament and the country have made

for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery, with the earnest

hope that their exertions and example might lead to a mitigation and

final extinction of those evils in other countries, this House is not

prepared (especially with the present prospect of the supply of sugar

from the British possessions) to adopt the measure proposed by her

Majesty’s Government, for the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar.”

After a long debate, the opposition had a majority of thirty-six. The

ministers did not resign, meaning to dissolve, but intending first to

renovate their claims to public sympathy by an exposition of Free Trade

policy, which, though it might not go so far as Mr. Cobden and his

friends might desire, would still go far enough to place them at the

head of the movement which they foresaw would soon agitate the country.

Sir Robert, however, little disposed after his recent victory to afford

a respite to his adversaries, declaring that he did not think it for

the advantage of the monarchy that the servants of the Crown should

be retained, when unable to carry those measures which they felt it

their duty to advise, moved, on the 27th of May, a vote of want of

confidence, and obtained a majority of one. A dissolution followed,

in which the party which still held office was more unsuccessful than

could have been expected, and, at the opening of Parliament, ministers

were in a minority of ninety-one. This closed their existence, but it

might be recorded on their grave that they had finally given Ireland

elective municipalities, and conferred on the three kingdoms the

benefit of a penny postage.

PART VI.

Differences in the country.--Sir Robert Peel’s programme.--A

new Conservative party.--Peel’s commercial policy.--Catholic

education.--The Maynooth grant.--Corn Law agitation.--The

Irish distress.--Peel resumes the Government.--The Corn Laws

repealed.--Review of Peel’s career.--Character of Peel.--Peel

and Canning contrasted.

I.

The great interest which attaches to Sir Robert Peel’s life is derived

from the period over which it extended, and his complete identification

with the spirit and action of that period. It is difficult to point out

in history any time at which such numerous changes in the character and

Government of a country took place peacefully within so small a number

of years. We are now at the sixth epoch in this remarkable career.

The first ended by Mr. Peel’s election for Oxford, and his quitting

Ireland as the especial champion of the Protestant cause. The second,

with his rupture with Lord Eldon, and his formation of a moderate

administration, in which he stood as the mediator between extremes.

The third, in which he effected the abrupt concession of the Catholic

claims. The fourth, in which he opposed the reform or change in our

system of representation. The fifth, in which, planting his standard

on the basis of our new institutions, he carried into power the party

most hostile to the principles on which those institutions had been

remodelled. The sixth, as we shall see, concludes with the momentary

destruction of that party.

The characteristic features of our Government when Mr. Peel began

political life were the supremacy of Protestants, the peculiar and

anomalous condition of nomination boroughs, and the predominant

influence of our landed gentry. Such was what was called the English

Constitution. The Protestant supremacy was, as a principle, abolished;

the close boroughs were done away with; the landed influence was now

beginning to be in jeopardy.

The elections that had just taken place were in some degree a trial of

the comparative popularity of free trade and protectionist principles,

the Protectionists being for the most part country gentlemen, voting

generally with the Tories, and the Free Traders, who were chiefly

from the mercantile and manufacturing classes, with the Whigs. But

the opinions between the leaders of the two parties with respect to

commercial principles were not so wide apart. Other causes affected

their struggle for power.

The country had been for some time perplexed by the differences which

prevailed amongst the liberals, and the discordant and heterogeneous

elements of which their body was composed. It had a general idea that

many of the questions under discussion were not ripe for a solution,

that Sir Robert Peel, though adverse to change, was not blind to

improvement; that his followers were more united than his opponents,

and composed of a less adventurous class of politicians; above all,

he himself considered that he was the person who, by his practical

knowledge, was the most capable of restoring order to our finances,

long since deranged by an annual deficit, which the late government had

done nothing to supply. In short, the large majority in the country and

in Parliament which brought Sir Robert Peel into office did so far more

in homage to his personal prestige than in respect to the principles

which his adherents represented. He stood, in fact, in the most eminent

but in the most difficult position which an individual could occupy. It

is worth while to consider what that position was.

From the time that the Reform Bill of 1832 had been carried, in spite

of the aristocratic branch of our Legislature, there had been a natural

and continuous difference between the two Houses of Parliament, a

difference that was in itself far more dangerous to the form of our

constitution than any decision on any question on which they differed.

In a celebrated speech which Sir R. Peel delivered at Merchant Tailors’

Hall (in 1839) he had stated that his endeavour was to form such a

party as might bring the House of Commons and the House of Lords into

harmonious working. “My object,” said he, “for some years past, has

been to lay the foundations of a great party, which, existing in the

House of Commons, and deriving its strength from the popular will,

should diminish the risk and deaden the shock of collisions between

the two deliberative branches of the Legislature.” This could not be

effected by a party which merely represented the feelings of the most

democratic portion of the democratic assembly; it could still less

be effected by a party only representing the feelings of the most

aristocratic portion of the aristocratic assembly. A party was required

that should draw strength from the moderate men of both assemblies.

The Whigs had not been able to form a party of this kind; Sir Robert

undertook to do so, stating then, and frequently afterwards, the course

he should pursue with this object.

In Ireland he proposed to act up to the spirit of the Catholic Relief

Bill, in his distribution of patronage to the Catholics, but to

maintain the Protestant Church. In the rest of the empire he promised

a careful attention to material interests and administrative reforms,

and an unswerving opposition to further constitutional changes. As

to commercial policy, he admitted the general theory of free trade,

but contended that its application should be relative to existing

circumstances and long-established interests, any sudden overthrow

of which would interfere with the natural progress of events, and

the gradual and safe development of national prosperity. For his own

position he claimed an entire liberty, protesting that he did not

mean to fetter the opinions of others, but that at the same time no

consideration would induce him to carry out views or maintain opinions

in which he did not concur.

“I do not estimate highly the distinction which office confers. To any

man who is fit to hold it, its only value must be, not the patronage

which the possessor is enabled to confer, but the opportunity which is

offered to him of doing good to his country. And the moment I shall be

convinced that that power is denied me, I tell every one who hears me

that he confers on me no personal obligation in having placed me in

this office. Free as the winds, I shall reserve to myself the power of

retiring from the discharge of its onerous and harassing functions the

moment I feel that I cannot discharge them with satisfaction to the

public and to my own conscience.”

This liberty he foresaw was necessary, for the object he had to effect

was a compromise between conflicting extremes, in which he must expect

to dissatisfy all those whose views were extreme. But it is public

opinion which establishes extremes. What is extreme one day may not

be so another. A certain latitude in accommodating himself to public

opinion was therefore a natural claim.

But though Sir Robert Peel’s intention was thus to form a new

Conservative party, he was obliged to use old and recognized

Conservative materials. The Protestants in Ireland, the country

gentlemen in England, were the backbone of any Conservative party. He

might endeavour to mitigate their prejudices and to popularize their

opinions, but he could not have a Conservative party without them. The

difficulties which this situation presented were not conspicuous when

he had merely to criticise in opposition. They were certain, however,

to become so when he began to act in office, and was exposed in his

turn to criticism.

Years, however, had to pass before his plans could be developed or

their tendency discovered. The distress was great; the finances were

disordered; but the mere fact that Sir Robert Peel was at the head of

affairs tranquillised the public mind. In this period, when confidence

was required, the power of character was felt.

On the meeting of Parliament in the following year, the general

scheme of the ministerial policy was explained. The intentions of the

Government as to the corn trade were confined to the imposition of

more moderate duties, graduating according to a sliding scale, which

made the duty imposed depend on the average price of corn. The mode

adopted for equalizing the revenue with the expenditure was an Income

Tax, accompanied by a reduction in certain articles of consumption;

and finally came a new tariff which had for its principal object the

lowering the price of essential articles of food, and admitting raw

materials applicable to manufactures. The proposed arrangements as to

the corn duties were attacked by the Whigs, who were in favour of a

fixed instead of a varying duty, and by the Free Traders, who contended

that there should be no duties at all. It was attacked also by a

certain number of country gentlemen, who considered that it afforded

insufficient protection to land; but it was considered at the moment by

the country at large as a tolerably fair compromise between conflicting

demands. As to the Income Tax, it was submitted to as a disagreeable

necessity, affording the simplest and surest method of rescuing the

country from the degrading position of constant loans, whilst the

tariff was hailed with general delight as increasing the value of

income, thus affording a compensation for the reduction imposed on it.

It was on this tariff, indeed, the principles of which were gradually

developed, that Sir Robert Peel’s commercial policy was based. In

the meantime the beneficial effects of his practical and active

administration were soon apparent. The Poor Law was amended, a large

saving was gained by the reduction of the Three and a Half per Cents.,

the currency was satisfactorily regulated by the Bank Charter Bill;

the insolvent law was improved, above three millions of taxes were

remitted. Here was fair subject for legitimate boast.

But whatever consideration these facts might procure for the Premier

in the country, they did not add to his strength in the House of

Commons, for there you can rarely conciliate opponents, whilst the

appearance of an attempt to do so irritates supporters. It is true

that the accusations brought against him by the Protectionists were

as yet unjust. He had never declared himself a Protectionist in

principle. From the days when Mr. Huskisson commenced his commercial

policy he had accepted Mr. Huskisson’s opinions. He had, to be sure,

made some exceptions to the general theory which he then adopted,

and these exceptions he still maintained. The persons interested in

abolishing them declared at once that as the principles on which they

might be defended had been disavowed, it was absurd that they should

be afterwards maintained. The persons, however, who were interested in

them, saw not only that they could not stand alone, but that they could

not last long after the principles on which they had hitherto defended

had been given up.

In the meantime, Ireland caused even more than its usual amount of

disquietude and annoyance. Vague complaints violently expressed,

monster meetings militarily organized, alarmed the peaceful, encouraged

the disaffected, and crushed all hopes of industrious tranquillity.

The agitators demanded the repeal of the Union. The Government seized

the arms of the peasantry. Mr. O’Connell and his son were arrested,

and convicted by a jury on a charge of conspiracy, and though their

sentence was subsequently set aside by the House of Lords, this

exhibition of vigour produced some effect.

The perfect tranquillisation of Ireland, whether by Whig or Tory, is,

I fear, impossible, until the united Legislature shall be disposed to

give the majority in Ireland, under the restraint which the influence

of property may justly create for the minority, what that majority

would be able to obtain if Ireland had a Legislature of her own; but at

the same time, the more the Imperial Government manifests its desire to

conciliate those interests it cannot satisfy, the more it is likely to

maintain in that long-distressed country a state of peace, if not of

content.

Sir Robert Peel brought forward at this time a measure in conformity

with these views. Up to the year 1795, the Catholic clergy had been in

the habit of seeking their education abroad. The state of the continent

at that time suggested the advisability of offering the means of such

education within the British empire. It might have been well, perhaps,

if a college for this purpose had been established in England, where

the Catholic clergy would have been educated in some degree without the

sphere of Irish politics and passions; but such a college was founded

in Ireland at Maynooth. It is so clear, that if we undertook to create

an institution of this kind we should have done so generously and

munificently, that it seems superfluous to waste an argument upon the

subject. We had not, however, acted in that large and comprehensive

spirit which the occasion demanded; the sum we had dedicated (£9,000

per annum) to the maintenance of an establishment most important

to the welfare of so large a portion of our population, was wholly

inadequate for its object. Sir Robert Peel now proposed to increase the

allowance, and thus to give a proof that the English Government was not

indifferent to any class of British subjects, whether within or without

the pale of the dominant Church.

It is terrible to find recorded in any page of our modern history

that the attempt to provide decorously for the education of the

Catholic, was regarded as a grievance by the Protestant; but so it

was. Although the principle involved in the Maynooth grant was already

conceded,--although neither George III., nor Lord Eldon, nor the

Protestants at the Protestant epoch of 1795, had objected to this

principle,--it was now assailed as if it had been for the first time

propounded, and a bigotry displayed by fanatics, which almost justified

agitators. The Premier said, “Abuse me if you will, but let my measure

be carried.” He was abused, and his measure was carried.

I have said that when he undertook to form a new Conservative party he

was obliged to use the old Conservative materials, and that these were

the Irish Protestants and the English country gentry. In his endeavour

to give to these two bodies a more national character, he had already

lost his prestige with the one, and damaged it with the other. Another

crisis, however, had yet to arrive, before the career he had entered

upon was closed. I approach the repeal of the Corn Laws.

II.

A most rapid change had taken place in public opinion within but a few

years about the laws concerning corn. From the earliest period of my

public life I had considered them untenable and dangerous to the class

which fancied itself interested in their maintenance. Thus, I voted for

their total repeal as early as 1832, but only two persons (Mr. Hume and

Mr. Cobbett) voted with me.

Almost every statesman, in fact, up to 1840, had considered, as a

matter of course, that home-grown was to be protected by a duty on

foreign corn. They might differ as to the manner in which that duty

should be imposed, as to what should be its amount, but no one doubted

that there should be a duty sufficient to procure a remunerative

price to the English grower. Mr. Charles Pelham Villiers has the

credit of first bringing this subject before the serious attention of

politicians. Ere long the Corn Law League was formed, and produced, no

doubt, a great effect on the public mind; but this was in consequence

of the fact that when the Corn Law League commenced its labours,

people’s thoughts had been subjected to an influence different from

that which had formerly governed them.

Previous to the Reform Bill and the Municipality Bills everybody in

England looked up: the ambitious young man looked up to the great

nobleman for a seat in Parliament; the ambitious townsman to the

chief men of his borough for a place in the corporation. Subsequently

to these measures, men desirous to elevate their position looked

down. The aristocratic tendency of other days had thus become almost

suddenly a democratic one. This democratic tendency, which has gone on

increasing, had made itself already visible at the period when the Corn

Law agitation began. It had been natural until then to consider this

subject in relation to the interests of the upper classes; it was now

becoming natural to consider it in relation to the interests of the

lower classes. The question presented itself in a perfectly different

point of view, and politicians found, somewhat to their surprise, that

all former arguments had lost their force. It was this change in the

spirit of the times which had occasioned within such a very few years

a total change in the manner of looking at matters affected by the

Legislature. We must, whether we wish to do so or not, breathe the

atmosphere that is around us. Directly it was shown them that low wages

did not necessarily follow a low price of corn, and that the labourer

did not earn more because his living was dearer, the only argument

that was still listened to against foreign competition disappeared.

Statesman after statesman felt himself gliding into the conviction that

all attempts to maintain the existing state of things, because it was

thought favourable to the country gentry, was impracticable.

Lord John Russell and other leading members of the Whig party, who had

been supporters of a Corn Law, underwent year by year a modification in

their former opinions, and were arriving in 1845 at the determination

of abandoning them. Sir Robert Peel had been undergoing precisely the

same influences, and was arriving precisely at the same conclusions.

The country gentlemen amongst the Whigs had quite as much cause to

reproach their leader for an alteration in his views as the country

gentlemen of the Tories had a right to reproach theirs. But neither the

one statesman nor the other had as yet gone so far as to make common

cause with Mr. Villiers and Mr. Cobden. An important and alarming

incident hastened the decision of both. That incident was the failure

of the potato-crop. Unless some measure was taken for bringing food

from foreign countries into England, and especially into Ireland,

there was legitimate cause for apprehending a famine. An apprehension

of this kind involves no ordinary responsibility. Lord John Russell

and Sir Robert Peel felt this almost at the same moment. But whilst

the responsibility of the one was far greater than that of the other,

his course was far more embarrassed. Lord John did not rely chiefly on

those persons who fancied that their income depended on upholding the

value of home produce. Sir Robert Peel did. The first might gain office

by declaring that the moment was come for putting Protection altogether

on one side; the other could only lose it.

Such a consideration might in many cases fairly weigh with a public

man. A change of administration, a dislocation of parties, may affect

a variety of questions, as well as the one which at the moment may

be most prominent. But when the matter which presents itself before

you is the death by starvation of hundreds or thousands of your

fellow-creatures, and you think, whether rightly or wrongly, that your

decision can save or condemn so many existences, is there any one who

could counsel you for any reason whatever to sanction wholesale murder

by suppressing your convictions? There were persons who did not think

famine imminent. To them, of course, the question presented itself in a

different point of view. But Sir Robert Peel seems to have been finally

convinced that nothing short of a suspension of the Corn Laws, and

the proposal of measures tending to their ultimate abolition, would

meet the urgency of the case. He had already lost his confidence in the

policy of protecting corn under ordinary circumstances; and now came

circumstances which, even if his general opinions had been the same as

formerly, would have created an especial reason for putting them on one

side.

What was he to do? Some of his colleagues dissented altogether from his

views. They did not see the crisis he foresaw so clearly as he did,

and therefore were not for meeting it by a temporary suspension of a

permanent duty. They did not recognise the necessity for eventually

repealing that duty, and therefore were not for proposing measures

that would lead to its ultimate abolition. The Premier might have

attempted the policy he had in view with the remainder of the ministry,

but he wisely resolved on not making such an attempt; and tendering

his resignation to her Majesty, and indicating the causes, he stated

his readiness to support Lord John Russell if he were willing, and

able, to form a Cabinet that would undertake to carry out the views

which he believed Lord John and himself entertained in common. The

Whig leader failed in executing the commission with which, after this

communication, the Queen intrusted him; and Lord Stanley, now at the

head of the Protectionist party, considering it was not in his power

to form a Government, Sir Robert Peel had as a matter of duty and

necessity to resume his post.

It appears to me that the fact that he had resigned office on

changing his policy, and that he did not return to it until every

other ministerial combination had failed, rendered his course on this

occasion more clear than on the Catholic question. To accuse him

under such circumstances of changing his views in order to retain his

office is as absurd as unjust. He is not even subject to the charge of

retaining power after changing the opinions that he entertained on

receiving it. His conduct appears to me to have been dictated by the

purest patriotism, and the most complete sacrifice of personal ambition

to public motives. Nor was his ability ever more conspicuous than

during the ordeal he had now to undergo.

It is not, however, my intention to follow him through the

Parliamentary contest in which he was soon engaged, and out of which he

came triumphant, though not without, for the second time in his life,

having been submitted to the severest obloquy, and having exposed his

friends, which must have been his most painful trial, to accusations as

bitter as those which he had himself to support.

The event which he must have anticipated was now at hand.

We know that, according to Mahomedan superstition, a man walks through

life with his good and his bad angel by his side. Sir Robert Peel had

at this moment his good and his bad angel accompanying his political

fortunes with equal pace.

“During the progress of the Corn Law Bill,” he says in his Memoirs,

“through the two Houses of Parliament, another bill, entitled a Bill

for the Protection of Life in Ireland, which at an early period of the

Session had received the assent of the House of Lords, was brought

under discussion in the House of Commons, and encountered every species

of opposition.”

* * * * *

On the 21st of January, 1846, the two bills, the Corn Law Repeal

Bill, and the Bill for Protection of Life in Ireland, were in such a

position in the two Houses respectively, that there appeared every

reason to calculate on the double event,--the passing of the first bill

unmutilated by the House of Lords, and the rejection of the second by

the House of Commons. These two bills were indeed his guardian and

destroying angels. The one crowned him with imperishable fame--the

other ejected him for the last time from power.

On the 19th of May, 1846, the Corn Law Repeal Bill was carried by a

majority of 98. On the 25th of June, by a concerted union between the

Protectionists and Whig parties, the Irish Life Protection Bill was

rejected by a majority of 75, and the Premier retired, the shouts of

congratulation at his victory mingling with the condolence at his

defeat. One farther triumph, however, yet remained to him, that of

supporting the Whig Government, when, but a short time afterwards,

it deemed itself obliged to bring forward a bill almost similar to

the one which when proposed by an opposite party it had denounced.

The most triumphant portion of Sir Robert Peel’s political career was

indeed that which followed his exclusion from official life. I know of

no statesman who ever occupied so proud a position as that in which a

greater commoner than even the first William Pitt stood from 1846 to

July, 1850, when an unhappy accident filled with patriotic sorrow every

heart in England. Above all parties, himself a party,--he had trained

his own mind into a disinterested sympathy with the intelligence

of his country. He never during this period gave a vote to court

democratic influence or to win aristocratic favour. Conscientiously

and firmly attached to the religion of the State, he flattered none

of its prejudices, and repudiated boldly its exclusive pretensions;

and his speech on the Jewish Disabilities Bill, considering that it

was delivered towards the close of a career which had begun under the

intolerant patronage of Lord Eldon, is perhaps the most notable and the

most instructive that he ever delivered, as marking the progress of

opinion during forty years in the history of England.

III.

If it could be said of any man, indeed, it could be said of this

statesman, that time in its progress turned him inside out. But the

process was a gradual one, and it was only when you put the Peel

of 1810 by the side of the Peel of 1850, that the totality of the

change appears distinct. And yet, though the end of Sir Robert

Peel’s career was at such variance with the commencement, there is a

certain consistency that may be traced throughout it. Formed on those

official habits which incline a minister to postpone or oppose the

consideration of all questions which cannot be successfully dealt with,

he never exposed a theory until it could be realized, nor brought

forward a measure which he did not think he could carry. At the same

time his tendencies were liberal whenever the object brought under his

consideration became practical. It must also be said that in the matter

on which these tendencies came most strikingly into view his objects

were Conservative.

He was converted with respect to the Catholic question, and was

converted to Liberal views, but when he professed this conversion, it

was to save the country from civil war. He was converted with respect

to the Corn Law, and was converted to Liberal convictions; but when he

professed this conversion, it was to save the country from famine.

Those who have asserted that his natural bent was towards a change

in established institutions and ancient customs, were, I think,

decidedly wrong. His natural disposition was rather to maintain what

he found existing, but he sacrificed old things without scruple when

he considered them decidedly incompatible with new ideas. He had not

that order of mind which creates and forces its creations on the

minds of others. His mind was, on the contrary, a recipient which

opened gradually to growing opinions, and became another mind as these

opinions got by degrees possession of it. His changes were thus more

sudden in appearance than in reality, because they always went on

for a certain time, silently, and to a certain degree unconsciously

to himself as well as to the world before they were fully felt; nor

were they ever publicly announced till, having passed through a stage

of doubt, they arrived at the stage of conviction. His convictions,

moreover, were generally simultaneous with those of the public,

when the public formed its convictions gradually. But any sudden and

unexpected leap of opinion, as in the case of the Whig Reform Bill of

1872, took him unprepared. His manner in personal intercourse, however

intimate your relations might be, were nearly always formal, though not

cold; but in correspondence he was easy, natural, and remarkable for

the simplicity and frankness of his letters.

I speak at least from the result of my own experience. In all matters

of home policy he was thoroughly master of every subject that could

interest an English statesman. In foreign matters he had general

notions, but not much knowledge of particulars, nor any special plan

or theory of policy; but a high idea of the power of England and the

expediency of maintaining her dignity and prestige.

In the early part of his life I have no doubt that ambition, and the

personal motives of ambition, had a certain influence over his actions.

At a later period, in his last administration, and after quitting

office, I believe he had no personal view that separated him in the

slightest degree from an entire and disinterested devotion to the

interests of his country. He was a scholar in the highest sense of the

term; nor did the attention he could give to the driest details of

business damp his sympathy for the elegancies of literature, or his

appreciation of what was beautiful, whether in painting or sculpture.

He had no hatred--no inveterate prejudices against persons or things.

His domestic virtues are too well known to make it necessary to allude

to them.

In short, without pretending to raise him above the defects and

littlenesses of human nature, I do not know where to point to any one

who united such talents for public business with such qualities in

private life.

IV.

A comparison which suggests itself naturally to those who study the

history of their times, is one between the practical statesman,

the sketch of whose career I am concluding, and his more brilliant

contemporary, of whom I have previously spoken. Though for a long

period rivals, they both entered political life under the Tory banner,

and gained their reputation by adopting Whig principles. In canvassing

their separate merits, it is just to say that Sir Robert Peel’s great

acts were the development of Mr. Canning’s principles. The former

hatched the latter’s ideas, and for one triumph especially, which Sir

Robert tardily but nobly achieved, the Catholics of the British empire

must feel even more grateful to their early champion than to their

subsequent benefactor.

Sir Robert Peel had the talents for giving a prosperous issue to a

popular cause, Mr. Canning the genius that makes a cause popular.

The one had the courage to advocate an opinion before it was ripe

for realization. The other, the fortitude when the advantage and the

possibility of a measure became apparent, to make unhesitatingly every

personal sacrifice for the public welfare. If we praise the one for his

prescience as a statesman, we bend with admiration before the other as

a patriot.

The brilliant talents, the genial and generous spirit of Mr.

Canning procured him partisans who served him with their heart, and

animating his country by a sympathy with his spirit, inspired a

sort of affectionate interest in his fortunes. The calm and steady

prudence, the sober and moderate language, the punctilious devotion to

business, the constant attention to practical and useful improvements,

the comprehensive acquirements, the gradual abandonment of early

prejudices, won by degrees for Sir Robert Peel a sort of judicial

pre-eminence which made men obey his decisions who were displeased

with his manners, and who even differed from his opinions. Thus was he

finally elevated to a height in the general esteem which was the more

remarkable from its being gained by qualities which neither charmed

individuals nor dazzled the public.

Each left a school. In the one we may learn how to sustain our renown

and our power abroad; in the other how to advance our prosperity at

home. Both were the citizens of a free state, but if I might venture to

distinguish the peculiarities of these two illustrious Englishmen by a

reference to classical examples, I would say that the one resembled a

Greek in the most glorious times of Athens, the other reminded you of a

Roman in the noblest epoch of the city of Romulus.

APPENDIX.

TWO MEMOIRS, READ BY M. DE TALLEYRAND AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE.

_Essai sur les avantages à retirer de colonies nouvelles dans les

circonstances présentes. Par le CITOYEN TALLEYRAND. Lu à la séance

publique, de l’Institut national, le 25 messidor, an V._

Les hommes qui ont médité sur la nature des rapports qui unissent les

métropoles aux colonies, ceux qui sont accoutumés à lire de loin les

événements politiques dans leurs causes, prévoyaient depuis longtemps

que les colonies américaines se séparaient un jour de leurs métropoles,

et, par une tendance naturelle que les vices des Européens n’ont que

trop accélérée, ou se réuniront entre elles, ou s’attacheront au

continent qui les avoisine: ainsi le veut cette force des choses qui

fait la destinée des états, et à laquelle rien ne résiste.

Si de tels événements sont inévitables, il faut du moins en retarder

l’époque et mettre à profit le temps qui nous en sépare.

Des mesures désastreuses ont porté dans nos colonies la dévastation.

L’humanité, la justice, la politique même, commandent impérieusement

que, par des mesures fermes et sages, on s’efforce enfin de réparer ces

ruines.

Mais, en même temps, ne convient-il pas de jeter les yeux sur d’autres

contrées, et d’y préparer l’établissement de colonies nouvelles, dont

les liens avec nous seront plus naturels, plus utiles et plus durables?

car il faut bien que le système de notre gouvernement intérieur amène

dans nos rapports étrangers des changements qui lui soient analogues.

L’effet nécessaire d’une constitution libre est de tendre sans cesse

à tout ordonner, en elle et hors d’elle, pour l’intérêt de l’espèce

humaine: l’effet nécessaire d’un gouvernement arbitraire est de tendre

sans cesse à tout ordonner, en lui et hors de lui, pour l’intérêt

particulier de ceux qui gouvernent. D’après ces tendances opposées, il

est incontestable que rien de commun ne peut exister longtemps pour

les moyens, puisque rien de commun n’existait pour l’objet.

La tyrannie s’irrite des regrets alors qu’ils se manifestent;

l’indifférence ne les entend pas: la bonté les accueille avec intérêt;

la politique leur cherche un contre-poids: or le contre-poids des

regrets, c’est l’espoir.

Les anciens avaient imaginé le fleuve de l’oubli, où se perdaient, au

sortir de la vie, tous les souvenirs. Le véritable Léthé, au sortir

d’une révolution, est dans tout ce qui ouvre aux hommes les routes de

l’espérance.

“Toutes les mutations,” dit Machiavel, “fournissent de quoi en faire

une autre.” Ce mot est juste et profond.

En effet, sans parler des haines qu’elles éternisent et des motifs de

vengeance qu’elles déposent dans les âmes, les révolutions qui ont tout

remué, celles surtout auxquelles tout le monde a pris part, laissent,

après elles, une inquiétude générale dans les esprits, un besoin de

mouvement, une disposition vague aux entreprises hasardeuses, et une

ambition dans les idées, qui tend sans cesse à changer et à détruire.

Cela est vrai, surtout quand la révolution s’est faite au nom de la

liberté. “Un gouvernement _libre_,” dit quelque part Montesquieu,

“c’est-à-dire, _toujours agité_,” &c. Une telle agitation ne pouvant

pas être étouffée, il faut la régler; il faut qu’elle s’exerce non aux

dépens, mais au profit du bonheur public.

Après les crises révolutionnaires, il est des hommes fatigués et

vieillis sous l’impression du malheur, dont il faut en quelque sorte

rajeunir l’âme. Il en est qui voudroient ne plus aimer leur pays, à qui

il faut faire sentir qu’heureusement cela est impossible.

Le temps et de bonnes lois produiront sans doute d’heureux changements;

mais il faut aussi des établissements combinés avec sagesse: car le

pouvoir des lois est borné, et le temps détruit indifféremment le bien

et le mal.

Lorsque j’étais en Amérique, je fus frappé de voir qu’après une

révolution, à la vérité très-dissemblable de là nôtre, il restait aussi

peu de traces d’anciennes haines, aussi peu d’agitation, d’inquiétude;

enfin qu’il n’y avait aucun de ces symptômes qui, dans les états

devenus libres, menacent à chaque instant la tranquillité. Je ne

tardai pas à en découvrir une des principales causes. Sans doute cette

révolution a, comme les autres, laissé dans les âmes des dispositions à

exciter ou à recevoir de nouveaux troubles; mais ce besoin d’agitation

a pu se satisfaire autrement dans un pays vaste et nouveau, où des

projets aventureux amorcent les esprits, où une immense quantité

de terres incultes leur donne la facilité d’aller employer loin du

théâtre des premières dissensions une activité nouvelle, de placer des

espérances dans des spéculations lointaines, de se jeter à la fois au

milieu d’une foule d’essais, de se fatiguer enfin par des déplacements,

et d’amortir ainsi chez eux les passions révolutionnaires.

Heureusement le sol que nous habitons ne présente pas les mêmes

ressources: mais des colonies nouvelles, choisies et établies avec

discernement, peuvent nous les offrir; et ce motif pour s’en occuper

ajoute une grande force à ceux qui sollicitent déjà l’attention

publique sur ce genre d’établissements.

Les diverses causes qui ont donné naissance aux colonies dont

l’histoire nous a transmis l’origine, n’étaient pas plus déterminantes;

la plupart furent beaucoup moins pures; ainsi l’ambition, l’ardeur

des conquêtes, portèrent les premières colonies des Phéniciens[132]

et des Égyptiens dans la Grèce; la violence, celle des Tyriens à

Carthage[133]; les malheurs de la guerre, celle des Troyens fugitifs

en Italie[134]; le commerce, l’amour des richesses, celle des

Carthaginois dans les[135] îles de la Méditerranée, et sur les côtes

de l’Espagne et de l’Afrique; la nécessité, celles des Athéniens dans

l’Asie mineure,[136] lorsqu’ils devinrent trop nombreux pour leur

territoire borné et peu fertile; la prudence, celle des Lacédémoniens

à Tarente, qui, par elle, se délivrèrent de citoyens turbulents; une

forte politique, les nombreuses colonies des Romains[137], qui se

montraient doublement habiles en cédant à leurs colons une portion des

terres conquises, et parce qu’ils apaisaient le peuple, qui demandait

sans cesse un nouveau partage, et parce qu’ils faisaient ainsi, des

mécontents mêmes, une garde sûre dans le pays qu’ils avaient soumis;

l’ardeur du pillage et la fureur guerrière (bien plus que l’excès de

population), les colonies ou plutôt les irruptions des peuples du

Nord[138] dans l’empire romain; une piété romanesque et conquérante,

celles des Européens[139] dans l’Asie.

Après la découverte de l’Amérique, on vit la folie, l’injustice, le

brigandage de particuliers altérés d’or, se jeter sur les premières

terres qu’ils rencontrèrent. Plus ils étaient avides, plus ils

s’isolaient; ils voulaient non pas cultiver, mais dévaster: ce

n’étaient pas encore là de véritables colonies. Quelque temps après,

des dissensions religieuses donnèrent naissance à des établissements

plus réguliers: ainsi les Puritains se réfugièrent au nord de

l’Amérique; les Catholiques d’Angleterre, dans le Maryland; les

Quakers, dans la Pensylvanie: d’où Smith conclut que ce ne fût point

la sagesse, mais plutôt les vices des gouvernements d’Europe, qui

peuplèrent le nouveau monde.

D’autres grands déplacements sont dus aussi à une politique ombrageuse,

ou à une politique faussement religieuse: ainsi l’Espagne rejeta de

son sein les Maures; la France, les Protestants; presque tous les

gouvernements, les Juifs; et partout on reconnut trop tard l’erreur

qui avait dicté ces déplorables conseils. On avait des mécontents; on

voulut en faire des ennemis: ils pouvaient servir leur pays; on les

força de lui nuire.

Cette longue expérience ne doit pas être perdue pour nous. L’art de

mettre les hommes à leur place est le premier, peut-être, dans la

science du gouvernement: mais celui de trouver la place des mécontents

est, à coup sûr, le plus difficile; et, présenter à leur imagination

des lointains, des perspectives où puissent se prendre leurs pensées

et leurs désirs, est, je crois, une des solutions de cette difficulté

sociale.

Dans le développement des motifs qui ont déterminé l’établissement d’un

très-grand nombre de colonies anciennes, on remarque aisément qu’alors

même qu’elles étaient indispensables, elles furent volontaires;

qu’elles étaient présentées par les gouvernements comme un appât, non

comme une peine: on y voit surtout dominer cette idée, que les états

politiques devaient tenir en réserve des moyens de placer utilement

hors de leur enceinte cette surabondance de citoyens qui, de temps

en temps, menaçaient la tranquillité. Ce besoin, au reste, était

fondé sur une origine vicieuse: c’était, ou une première loi agraire

qui suscitait de menaçantes réclamations qu’il fallait calmer, ou

une constitution trop exclusive qui, faite pour une classe, faisait

craindre la trop grande population des autres.

C’est en nous emparant de ce qu’ont de plus pur ces vues des anciens,

et en nous défendant de l’application qu’en ont faite la plupart des

peuples modernes, qu’il convient, je pense, de s’occuper, dès les

premiers jours de la paix, de ce genre d’établissements, qui, bien

conçus et bien exécutés, peuvent être, après tant d’agitations, la

source des plus précieux avantages.

Et combien de Français doivent embrasser avec joie cette idée! combien

en est-il chez qui, ne fût-ce que pour des instants, un ciel nouveau

est devenu un besoin! et ceux qui, restés seuls, ont perdu, sous le

fer des assassins, tout ce qui embellissait pour eux la terre natale;

et ceux pour qui elle est devenue inféconde, et ceux qui n’y trouvent

que des regrets, et ceux même qui n’y trouvent que des remords; et

les hommes qui ne peuvent se résoudre à placer l’espérance là où ils

éprouvèrent le malheur; et cette multitude de malades politiques, ces

caractères inflexibles qu’aucun revers ne peut plier, ces imaginations

ardentes qu’aucun raisonnement ne ramène, ces esprits fascinés qu’aucun

événement ne désenchante; et ceux qui se trouvent toujours trop

resserrés dans leur propre pays; et les spéculateurs avides, et les

spéculateurs aventureux; et les hommes qui brûlent d’attacher leur nom

à des découvertes, à des fondations de villes, à des civilisations; tel

pour qui la France constituée est encore trop agitée, tel pour qui elle

est trop calme; ceux enfin qui ne peuvent se faire à des égaux, et ceux

aussi qui ne peuvent se faire à aucune dépendance.

Et qu’on ne croie pas que tant d’éléments divers et opposés ne peuvent

se réunir. N’avons-nous pas vu dans ces dernières années, depuis qu’il

y a des opinions politiques en France, des hommes de tous les partis

s’embarquer ensemble, pour aller courir les mêmes hasards sur les

bords inhabités du Scioto? Ignore-t-on l’empire qu’exercent sur les

âmes les plus irritables, le temps, l’espace, une terre nouvelle, des

habitudes à commencer, des obstacles communs à vaincre, la nécessité de

s’entr’aider remplaçant le désir de se nuire, le travail qui adoucit

l’âme, et l’espérance qui la console, et la douceur de s’entretenir du

pays qu’on a quitté, celle même de s’en plaindre? etc.

Non, il n’est pas si facile qu’on le pense de haïr toujours: ce

sentiment ne demande souvent qu’un prétexte pour s’évanouir; il ne

résiste jamais à tant de causes agissant à la fois pour l’éteindre.

Tenons donc pour indubitable que ces discordances d’opinions, aussi

bien que celles de caractères, ne forment point obstacle à de nouvelles

colonies, et se perdront toutes dans un intérêt commun, si l’on sait

mettre à profit les erreurs et les préjugés qui ont flétries jusqu’à ce

jour les nombreuses tentatives de ce genre.

Il n’entre point dans le plan de ce mémoire de présenter tous les

détails d’un établissement colonial, mon but n’étant que d’éveiller

l’attention publique, et d’appeler sur ce sujet des méditations plus

approfondies et les connaissances de tous ceux qui ont des localités à

présenter.

Toutefois je ne m’interdirai point d’énoncer quelques-uns des principes

les plus simples, sur lesquels ces établissements doivent être

fondés; j’ai besoin de me rassurer moi-même contre la crainte de voir

renouveler des essais désastreux. Je pense qu’on sentira le besoin de

s’établir dans des pays chauds, parce que ce sont les seuls qui donnent

des avances à ceux qui y apportent de l’industrie; dans des lieux

productifs de ce qui nous manque et desireux de ce que nous avons, car

c’est là le premier lien des métropoles et des colonies. On s’occupera,

sans doute, à faire ces établissements vastes, pour que hommes et

projets y soient à l’aise; variés, pour que chacun y trouve la place

et le travail qui lui conviennent. On saura, surtout, qu’on ne laisse

pas s’embarquer inconsidérément une multitude d’hommes à la fois, avant

qu’on ait pourvu aux besoins indispensables à un premier établissement;

et l’on se rappellera que c’est par la plus inepte des imprévoyances

que les expéditions de Mississipi en 1719, et de Cayenne en 1763, ont

dévoré tant de milliers de Français.

Jusqu’à présent les gouvernements se sont fait une espèce de

principe de politique de n’envoyer, pour fonder leurs colonies, que

des individus sans industrie, sans capitaux et sans mœurs. C’est

le principe absolument contraire qu’il faut adopter; car le vice,

l’ignorance et la misère ne peuvent rien fonder: ils ne savent que

détruire.

Souvent on a fait servir les colonies de moyens de punition; et l’on a

confondu imprudemment celles qui pourraient servir à cette destination,

et celles dont les rapports commerciaux doivent faire la richesse de la

métropole. Il faut séparer avec soin ces deux genres d’établissements:

qu’ils n’aient rien de commun dans leur origine, comme ils n’ont rien

de semblable dans leur destination; car l’impression qui résulte d’une

origine flétrie a des effets que plusieurs générations suffisent à

peine pour effacer.

Mais quels seront les liens entre ces colonies nouvelles et la France?

L’histoire offre des résultats frappants pour décider la question.

Les colonies grecques étaient indépendantes; elles prospérèrent au

plus haut point. Celles de Rome furent toujours gouvernées; leurs

progrès furent presque nuls, et leurs noms nous sont à peine connus.

La solution est encore aujourd’hui là, malgré la différence des

temps et des intérêts. Je sais qu’il est difficile de convaincre des

gouvernements qui ne savent pas sortir de l’habitude, qu’ils retireront

le prix de leurs avances et de leur protection sans recourir à des

lois de contrainte: mais il est certain que l’intérêt bien entendu

de deux pays est le vrai lien qui doit les unir; et ce lien est

bien fort lorsqu’il y a aussi origine commune: il se conserve même

lorsque la force des armes a déplacé les relations. C’est ce qu’on

aperçoit visiblement dans la Louisiane, restée française quoique sous

la domination espagnole depuis plus de trente ans; dans le Canada,

quoiqu’au pouvoir des Anglais depuis le même nombre d’années: les

colons de ces deux pays ont été Français; ils le sont encore, et un

tendance manifeste les porte toujours vers nous. C’est donc sur la

connaissance anticipée des intérêts réciproques, fortifiés par ce lien

si puissant d’origine commune, que l’établissement doit être formé,

et sur la force de cet intérêt qu’il faut compter pour en recueillir

les avantages. A une grande distance, tout autre rapport devient, avec

le temps, illusoire, ou est plus dispendieux que productif: ainsi,

point de domination, point de monopole; toujours la force qui protège,

jamais celle qui s’empare; justice, bienveillance; voilà les vrais

calculs pour les états comme pour les individus; voilà la source d’une

prospérité réciproque. L’expérience et le raisonnement s’unissent enfin

pour repousser ces doctrines pusillanimes qui supposent une _perte_

partout où il s’est fait un _gain_. Les principes vrais du commerce

sont l’opposé de ces préjugés: ils promettent à tous les peuples des

avantages mutuels, et ils les invitent à s’enrichir tous à la fois

par l’échange de leurs productions, par des communications libres et

amicales, et par les arts utiles de la paix.

Du reste, les pays propres à recevoir nos colonies sont en assez grand

nombre; plusieurs rempliraient parfaitement nos vues.

En nous plaçant dans la supposition où nos îles d’Amérique

s’épuiseraient, ou même nous échapperaient, quelques établissements le

long de la côte de l’Afrique, ou plutôt dans les îles qui l’avoisinent,

seraient faciles et convenables. Un auteur recommandable par les vues

qui se manifestent dans ses ouvrages, tous inspirés par l’amour du bien

public, le citoyen Montlinot, dans un très-bon mémoire qu’il vient

de publier, indique le long de cette côte un archipel d’îles dont

plusieurs, quoique fertiles, sont inhabitées et à notre disposition.

M. le duc de Choiseul, un des hommes de notre siècle qui a eu le plus

d’avenir dans l’esprit, qui déjà en 1769 prévoyait la séparation de

l’Amérique de l’Angleterre et craignait le partage de la Pologne,

cherchait dès cette époque à préparer par des négociations la cession

de l’Egypte à la France, pour se trouver prêt à remplacer par les mêmes

productions et par un commerce plus étendu, les colonies américaines

le jour où elles nous échapperaient. C’est dans le même esprit que le

gouvernement anglais encourage avec tant de succès la culture du sucre

au Bengale; qu’il avait, avant la guerre, commencé un établissement

à Sierra-Leona, et qu’il en préparait un autre à Boulam. Il est

d’ailleurs une vérité qu’il ne faut pas chercher à se taire: la

question si indiscrètement traitée sur la liberté des noirs, quel que

soit le remède que la sagesse apporte aux malheurs qui en ont été la

suite, introduira, tôt ou tard, un nouveau système dans la culture des

denrées coloniales: il est politique d’aller au-devant de ces grands

changements; et la première idée qui s’offre à l’esprit, celle qui

amène le plus de suppositions favorables, paraît être d’essayer cette

culture aux lieux mêmes où naît le cultivateur.

Je viens à peine de marquer quelques positions; il en est d’autres que

je pourrais indiquer également: mais, ici surtout, trop annoncer ce

qu’on veut faire est le moyen de ne le faire pas. C’est d’ailleurs aux

hommes qui ont le plus et le mieux voyagé, à ceux qui ont porté dans

leurs recherches cet amour éclairé et infatigable de leur pays; c’est

à notre Bougainville, qui a eu la gloire de découvrir ce qu’il a été

encore glorieux pour les plus illustres navigateurs de l’Angleterre

de parcourir après lui; c’est à Fleurieu, qui a si parfaitement

observé tout ce qu’il a vu, et si bien éclairé du jour d’une savante

critique les observations des autres; c’est à de tels hommes à dire

au gouvernement, lorsqu’ils seront interrogés par lui, quels sont les

lieux où une terre neuve, un climat facilement salubre, un sol fécond

et des rapports marqués par la nature, appellent notre industrie et

nous promettent de riches avantages pour le jour du moins où nous

saurons n’y porter que des lumières et du travail.

De tout ce qui vient d’être exposé, il suit que tout presse de

s’occuper de nouvelles colonies: l’exemple des peuples les plus sages,

qui en ont fait un des grands moyens de tranquillité; le besoin de

préparer le remplacement de nos colonies actuelles pour ne pas nous

trouver en arrière des événements; la convenance de placer la culture

de nos denrées coloniales plus près de leurs vrais cultivateurs; la

nécessité de former avec les colonies les rapports les plus naturels,

bien plus faciles, sans doute, dans des établissements nouveaux que

dans les anciens; l’avantage de ne point nous laisser prévenir par une

nation rivale, pour qui chacun de nos oublis, chacun de nos retards en

ce genre est une conquête; l’opinion des hommes éclairés qui ont porté

leur attention et leurs recherches sur cet objet; enfin la douceur de

pouvoir attacher à ces entreprises tant d’hommes agités qui ont besoin

de projets, tant d’hommes malheureux qui ont besoin d’espérance.

_Mémoires sur les relations commerciales des Etats-Unis avec

l’Angleterre, par le CITOYEN TALLEYRAND. Lu le 15 germinal, an V._

Il n’est pas de science plus avide de faits que l’économie politique

L’art de les recueillir, de les ordonner, de les juger la constitue

presque tout entière; et, sous ce point de vue, elle a peut-être plus

à attendre de l’observation que du génie; car, arrive le moment où il

faut tout éprouver, sous peine de ne rien savoir; et c’est alors que

les faits deviennent les vérificateurs de la science, après en avoir

été les matériaux.

Toutefois il faut se garder de cette manie qui voudrait toujours

recommencer les expériences; et ne jamais rien croire, pour avoir

le droit de tout ignorer; mais on ne doit pas moins repousser cette

témérité qui, dédaignant tout ce qui est positif, trouve plus commode

de deviner que de voir.

Que faut-il donc? Unir sans cesse les produits de l’observation à ceux

de la pensée; admettre, sans doute, les résultats que donnent certains

faits généraux bien constants, bien d’accord, et vus tout entiers;

mais en même temps, savoir appeler, dans les nouvelles questions et

même dans les profondeurs de quelques-unes des anciennes, le secours

de faits nouveaux ou nouvellement observés. Il faut se défendre des

premiers aperçus, ces axiomes de la paresse et de l’ignorance; et

enfin se défier beaucoup de ces principes ambitieux qui veulent tout

embrasser; ou plutôt, corrigeant l’acception d’un mot dont on a tant

abusé, n’appeler du nom de principe que l’idée première dans l’ordre du

raisonnement, et non l’idée générale; que ce qui précède, non ce qui

domine.

Plein de ces vérités auxquelles tout nous ramène, j’ai cru pouvoir

présenter à la classe de l’institut à laquelle j’ai l’honneur

d’appartenir quelques observations que j’ai été à portée de faire en

Amérique, et dont les conséquences m’ont plus d’une fois étonné.

Je me suis persuadé que quelques-unes de ces observations, vérifiées

sur toute l’étendue d’un pays longtemps encore nouveau, pourraient

être apportées au dépôt de l’économie politique, et y être reçues avec

l’intérêt qu’on accorde en histoire naturelle à la plus simple des

productions ramassée par un voyageur sur sa route.

Malheureusement, l’esprit de système est dans les sciences ce que

l’esprit de parti est dans les sociétés: il trouve les moyens

d’abuser même des faits; car il les dénature, ou il en détourne les

conséquences; raison de plus, non pour les dédaigner, mais pour

apprendre à bien connaître et ce qu’ils sont et ce qu’ils prouvent.

On dit proverbialement qu’il ne faut pas disputer sur les faits. Si ce

proverbe parvient un jour à être vrai, il restera bien peu de disputes

parmi les hommes.

Un fait remarquable dans l’histoire des relations commerciales, et que

j’ai été à portée de bien voir, m’a fait connaître particulièrement

jusqu’à quel point il importe d’être observateur attentif de ce qui

est, alors qu’on s’occupe de ce qui sera et de ce qui doit être. Ce

fait est l’activité toujours croissante des relations de commerce

entre les Etats-Unis et l’Angleterre; activité qui, par ses causes

et ses résultats, n’appartient pas moins à l’économie politique qu’à

l’histoire philosophique des nations.