HISTORY OF EUROPE. CHAPTER XLI. ENGLAND FROM THE ACCESSION OF SIR R. PEEL TO POWER IN NOVEMBER 1841, TO THE PASSING OF THE BANK CHARTER XLI. 1841. 1. of Sir R. represented. SIR ROBERT PEEL, who was now, by a concurrence of CHAP. parties, and the experienced weakness of former governments, again elevated by a decisive majority to power, was one of those men who have been so variously painted Character by their contemporaries, and so differently mirrored by Peel, so their actions, that their real character will for ever variously remain a perplexing enigma to future ages. All public men, whose deeds have left a permanent impress on the surface of public affairs, are of course represented in opposite colours by party writers of opposite principles; and it is generally from a comparison of both, as from the conflicting evidence in a criminal trial, that the verdict of posterity is formed. But in Sir R. Peel's case this ordinary difficulty is enhanced by the singular circumstance that he has been variously represented, not only by writers of different parties, but by writers of the same party at different times. In the early period of his career he was the chosen champion of the Church and High Tory principles, and in a similar degree the object of obloquy to the Whigs in his late years he VOL. VII. A XLI. 1841. CHAP. was a still greater object of laudation to the Liberals and vituperation to the Conservatives. It is difficult to say whether, prior to 1829, the "bigot Peel" was more vehemently denounced by the Irish Catholics and English Liberals, than the "apostate Peel" was, after 1846, by his early friends and supporters; while the blame of this latter party has been since that time almost drowned in the loud and impassioned applause of the ruling Liberal majority in the State. 2. this diver sity. No one need be told to what this singular and almost Causes of unprecedented change of opinion, in both the parties. which divide the country, has been owing. Sir R. Peel, at different times of his life, was not only actuated by opposite principles, but he was a different man. The steady, uncompromising opponent of Catholic claims became their most decided and successful supporter; the resolute enemy of free trade in corn turned into its unqualified advocate; and on both occasions he exerted the powers with which he had been intrusted by those hostile to the alteration to insure its unqualified adoption. Changes so prodigious occurring in one so highly gifted, and wielding, in a manner, the whole political power in the State, excited more than the ordinary amount of political enmity and antagonism; they engendered a feeling of disappointed expectation, and awakened the pangs of betrayed affection. Confidence not only in him, but in all public men of the age, was shaken by so flagrant a deviation from declared principles; and all parties—even those most benefited by the sudden and unexpected conversion-concurred in the melancholy conclusion, that the time was past when consistency of political conduct was to be expected in public men; that frequency of change had produced its usual effect in destroying fixity of purpose; and that we had fallen into such days as those when a Marlborough was elevated to the height of greatness by betraying one sovereign, and Ney suffered the death of a traitor for attempting to betray another. XLI. 1841. 3. these ex nions on It is not surprising, when the circumstances of these CHAP. two memorable conversions are considered, that feelings of this warm and impassioned kind should have arisen. in the party which, twice over, saw their most cherished Injustice of system of policy overturned by their chosen champion; treme opibut a calm consideration of the case must, in justice to both sides. Sir R. Peel, very materially modify these opinions. The analogy seems at first sight just between a political chief altering his policy in government, and a general betraying his sovereign in the field of battle; but in reality it is not so. There is no parallelism between the situation of a soldier and a statesman. Fidelity to king and country will admit of no equivocation; but adherence, under changing circumstances, to preconceived opinions, so far from being always a political virtue, may often be the greatest political fault, for it may lead to public ruin. Prince Polignac was quite consistent through life, and, as such, he must command the respect of every honourable mind; but what did his consistency lead to? A great general is not he who always takes the same position, but he who, in all circumstances, takes the position most likely to be attended at the time with success. this world of change, and in an age pre-eminently distinguished by it, undeviating adherence to expressed thought is impossible in a statesman; for his power being built on opinion, he must go with that opinion, or it will be immediately shattered. Consistency of opinion may be expected in an author who treats of past events, or a philosopher who discourses on their tendencies, for they address themselves to future ages, when the immutable laws of nature will be seen to have been unceasingly acting in the mighty maze; but a statesman, who must act on the present, can only wield power by means of the multitude, and to do so with effect he must often. share their versatility. Mr Pitt and Mr Burke themselves changed the former was at first a parliamentary reformer; the latter, in early life, a strenuous supporter In XLI. 1841. CHAP. of revolution in America. The real reproach against Sir R. Peel is, not that he changed his views, but that he made use of power conferred by one party to carry through the objects of their opponents; a course which, however it may be attended with success, it will be no easy matter for his warmest panegyrists to defend. 4. want poli age. It is commonly said, in explanation of this tendency He did not to change, which formed so remarkable a feature in his tical cour character, that Sir R. Peel, though personally brave, was politically timid; that he entertained a nervous dread of revolution, and that the moment he saw a course of policy was likely to be attended with danger, he relinquished it, and passed over with all his forces to the victorious side. There can be no doubt that at first sight this seems a very plausible theory to explain the phenomenon. But a closer examination of his political career will show that it too is erroneous, and that a want of moral courage can by no means be justly imputed as a failing to Sir R. Peel. On the contrary, he frequently exhibited firmness and resolution in the very highest degree, both in external and internal affairs. Witness his noble conduct on learning the Affghanistan disaster in 1841, which, after a calamity unparalleled since the destruction of the legions of Varus, again chained victory to the British standards in India; and his intrepid self-sacrifice to what he deemed the good of his country in the emancipation of the Catholics in 1829. Even his crowning act of self-immolation, when he repealed the Corn Laws, in opposition to the tenor of an entire lifetime, in 1846, was anything but an indication of political weakness. To a man of his sensitive temperament, and so passionately desirous of preserving the lead of the noble party he had so long headed in the House of Commons, the averted eye, the unreturned pressure of the hand, were more terrible than the most signal political defeat; and the ambition of a lifetime was more thoroughly sacrificed by a change which necessarily XLI. alienated the warmest friends, than if he had been con- CHAP. signed, like Strafford, to the dungeon and the scaffold. But he felt, doubtless, a yet nobler ambition than that of leading a party or ruling an empire. His feeling was 1841. 5. no original leader of Sir Robert Peel was not a man of original genius or inventive thought there is not a singular idée mère can He had be traced to him through his whole career. Register, genius, aud register, register," was not his own, he borrowed it from was not a a celebrated political journal, generally in opposition to thought. himself, where it is to be found years before he ever gave utterance to the counsel.* His mind was adoptive, not creative he was the mirror of the age, not its director: his leading ideas and principles were taken from others. In monetary affairs he only elaborated the ideas of Mr Horner and Mr Ricardo, first enunciated in the Bullion Report. In supporting the Corn Laws he adopted the arguments of Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh; in assailing them, those of Mr Bright and Mr Cobden. It was the same with Catholic Emancipation: his arguments, admirable on both sides, were alternately adopted from those of Lord Liverpool and Mr Perceval, of Mr Canning and Mr Plunkett. It was this which suggested to Mr * "A considerable proportion of the present voters are, from their occupations and habits, democratical, and will ever continue so. They must be outvoted, or the constitution is lost. The mode in which this must be done is obvious; and it is here that the persevering efforts of property can best overcome the prodigious ascendancy which the Reform Bill, in the outset, gave to the reckless and destitute classes of the community. IT IS IN THE REGISTRATION COURTS THAT THE BATTLE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO BE FOUGHT AND WON. It is by a continued, persevering, and skilful exertion there that education, worth, and property may regain their ascendancy over anarchy, vice, and democracy. By a proper organisation in this way, it is astonishing what may be done. It is thus, and thus only, that the balance of society can be restored in these islands."-Blackwood's Magazine, 1st May 1835, vol. xxxvii. p. 813. The capitals are in the original. Sir R. Peel's speeches to the same effect were in 1837 and 1838. |