The Press. — London, England, 1856-05-31 00:00:00

MAT 91, 1856. Mr. Doubleday, the author of " The Political Life of Sir Robert Peel," belongs to a class of writers nearly extinguished by the modern or ganisation of journalism. He is a political s pectator, and not a partisan ; he is a philoso pher of the closet, and he does not seem to h ive a practical appreciation of the volcanic nature of political passions. He thinks and writes like a sober disciple of the school of William Cobhett, though his intellect has r ceived much scientific culture. He exag g Tates the importance of mere economical doses connected with the currency, and he rigards the financial legislation of 1819 as the m ester-cause of modern political effects in E igland. His biography is rather financial th in " analyti ;al." Mr. Doubleday reminds us of double entry. He never suffers us to escape from the influence of the ledger. Let him discourse on what topic he may, we are sure that reference will be made ere long to " fiscal considerations," and to paper currency and gold payments. We are to attribute the Re- formation to the fiscal necessities of Henry VIII., and the great social changes of Eliza. I beth's reign to the influx of the precious metals from America. The Great Revolution was caused by the eagerness of the members of the Long Parliament to relieve themselves of their feudal burdens, and the Restoration was brought about by the hatred of the people to Parliamentary taxation. The progress of the Dutch funding system introduced by William 111. necessitated the attempt to tax our American colonies ; the added burden thus caused compelled the invention of spin ning jennies, and hence the origin of the Peel family. The bullion committee of 1809 led to the Currency Act of 1819, and to the corn laws. whence followed the agitation for corn-law repeal, the division of the Conservative party, and the rise of Mr. Disraeli. In all this Mr. Doubleday has obviously over stated his own side of the case. The civilisation of England is too complex to be affected exclusively by any one class of moral causes. Neither is he well " up" in the personal history of the contemporaries with whom Sir Robert Peel had to deal, as friends or rivals. In his estimate of the special characteristics of his subject Mr. Doubleday is sometimes quite wrong. He is perfectly right when he enumerates " wonder " ful adaptation to business of every sort," and " industry," amongst the resources of Sir Robert Peel ; but it. is simply ridiculous to give that eminent man credit for " unmateh " able knowledge of character;' a gift which is rarely found in men without an apprehensive imagination, and which certainly did not belong to Sir R. P*'el. It was, indeed, remark able how often Sir R. Peel underrated some of his most formidable antagonists. Many public men must still remember the air of super cilious toleration with which Sir Robert Peel regarded Lord John Russell when the noble lord obtained the lead of the House of Coin mona. He notoriously underrated the pro digious powers of political effect possessed by Mr. O'Connell ; he never discovered the de bating talent of Mr. Ccbdeu until overthrown by his " unadorned eloquence ;" and we might cite many more instances. The following passage teems with errors : That Sir Robert Peel himself felt, and deeply felt, the want of high birth and a noble descent, and was aware bow far even talents like his own night be neutralised by the want of aristocratic pretensions, is very evident. He himself always said that the House of Com mons was his "element," and that in the Commons' House he should remain; and he kept his word; and by his last will forbade his heir to accept of a peerage, and directed that his own funeral should be that of a private gentleman merely. in this is to be discerned that innate and true dignity of mind which involuntarily recalcitrates against all distinctions, excepting those of talent and virtue ; which made him know that the plain denomina tion of Robert Peel would he more illustrious in the page of history and the eye of posterity than would have been the Earl of Tamwortb or the Duie of Drayton ; and which forced him to feel that, dressed in his plain blue frock nn blazoned with stars, or orders, or conventional decorations of any sort, he was a more conspicuous personage than the tinselled beings by whom he was surrounded. The tone of that passage is altogether wrong. Sir Robert Peel had many adventitious dis tinctions to enhanc e t h e f orce o f " t h e ta l en t and virtue " mentioned by Mr. Doubleday. He inherited a baronetcy and vast wealth; he wt.s placed early in the House of Com- Molls; b 7 h.i father's influence 110 was made THE PRESS. Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he exulted in having a long " tail" of Irish members follow ing at his heels. In those days the Irish representation was filled by a more aristocratic class than at present, and many old politicians still remember the personal gratification shown by young Mr. Peel, when distinguished commoners of far-descended birth, like the Knight of Kerry and Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, were his constant companions. One would suppose from Mr. Doubleday's tone that Sir Robert Peel was marked by republican severity of style. There never lived a man (and we do not say it to his disadvantage) who more enjoyed the pride of being the leader of the country representatives of England than Sir R. Peel. He admitted the fact Wins .1f when in 1840 he proudly contrasted his position," at the " head of the gentlemen of England," with that of Lord John Russell. Is it not beyond doubt that Sir Robert Peel delighted to have young noblemen looking up to him as a Gamaliel ? That there was some serious defect, some absent element from the character of Sir Robert Peel, is admitted by nearly all his critics. Mr. Doubleday writes : As a statesm•n, his political character will be to future historians, as it his been to most of his contemporaries a puzzle, save and except to those who may be fortunate enough to possess and appreciate the only key to the mystery. To the ordinary observer the course of Sir Robert Peel must ever appear both tortuous and inconsis• tent; and by every observer it mist. at best, be viewed as a policy wanting those requisites which critics maintain every series of dramatic action ought to possess, " a beginning, a middle, and an end." To those who are inclined to approve of it and to those who are inclined to blame it, as a fragment only can it be viewed. Contemplate it as we will, it must ever appear as an arch without a keystone, or as a dramatic series of acts without a catastrophe; in short, as an acted enigma never finished. in which the obscure is never cleared nor the dark illuminated. The apology for 1829 corroborates under his own hand the truth of the foregoing descrip tion. We aie convinced that Sir Robert Peel's fame will suffer in the verdict of poste rity when contemplated, not as a public charac ter, but as a statesman His career had no unity, and the acts associated with his name were not originated or perfected by himself. It was one time said by a keen observer of men that " Sir Robert Peel's position since " the Reform Bill was to act as the diploma " tist to a capitulating aristocracy:" and we see that the Atheneum, in a cool review of his career, observes, " He was always in the front "of the battle, and always surrendering." He has himself in the last paragraph of his apology tried to extenuate his conduct by saying. "It " was no ignoble ambition " which actuated him. But we consider that a chief of party must not, after acquiring power by a connec tion, thus seek to gain popularity at the ex pense of his friends. Mr. Doubleday writes : It seems quite certain that his fame can never be that of a great Minister : although in his owls time he has been styled " great," by those who compared him with the lesser men who were his opponents. When compared with the leaders of toe Whig party his superiority is at once manifest : but calm reflection will show that this au• periority rested on his possession of two or three highly available but not great qualities, of which his rivals were destitute, or nearly so. There is much truth in that remark. Neither Lord Pahnerston nor Lord John Russell were politicians of the station of their predecessors. Canning died in 1827, and at the same period a consummate orator, Mr Plunket, was removed to the House of Peers. In a short time after Mr. Brougham was also raised to the Woolsack. and Mr. Huskisson had met his death in 1830 So that when the new Reformed Parliament met in 1833, Sir Robert Peel in political knowledge and variety of Palliatnentary knowledge was superior to his adversaries. It was observed at that time how vaunting his manner became, and if Mr. Brougham or Mr Copley had remained in the Lower House, he would not, perhaps, have assumed such a dictatorial tone. It must, also, be recollected that neither Walpole, Chatham. Pitt, nor Fox, had the enormous advantages of alliance with such an over powering reputation as that of Wellington. We doubt whether without the alliance with that great man Sir Robert Peel ever could accomplish so great a position in the eyes of the country. 521 Mr. Doubleday, though a Radical, is a hearty admirer of Sir Robert Peel, and gives him much praise throughout his pages. Yet the conclusion of his " analyti2al biography" is is the following strain . The real springs of his actions he never could disclose nor did he ever divulge (if he knew them) the ultimate and dual results to be expeeted from his policy. That policy has, therefore, ostensibly neither beginning nor end ; nor dues it possess any features which can make it generally intelligible. To future historical students Sir Robert Peel's character, therefore, must ever appear to be one of those the extraordinary nature of which all men admit, but upon every other portion of which the clouds of doubt must continue to rest. Like St. Thomas k Racket, Cromwell, Machiavelli, the Emperor Julian, Ignatius Loyola, and others, be will be variously esti mated as his character is contemplated from various points of view; whilst the time key to his character and career remains hidden from the great majority of those who in future time shall think, or speak, or write concern ing him. That passage reads strangely by the aide of the apology for 1829. Sir Robert Peel puzzled even himself ! But we see no " enigma " in his career. "He had not," it was rightly said, "a grand and comprehensive creed ;" and a statesman must have some moral support if he has to play a first part in a country swayed so powerfully by " opinion "as England. He was intelligible neither to himself, to his friends, nor to his foes, except on the supposi tion that his rule of action in politics was "to " look to the last state of the poll." A states man of the second, a Parliamentary oelebrity of the first class, would appear to be his rank in our historical senators. We have read some parts of the work of Mr. Doubleday with pleasure It is often crotchetty, and it is not free from errors of a political kind. but it is manly and indepen dent, and contains much information. It deserves a plaice in the politician's library, as it is a summary of contempo►ary changes, and contains some passages of vigorous reflection. But it is sometimes excessively unjust, and some of its dicta are delivered with the flippancy pardonable to a journalist working against time, but culpable in an author the master of his own pen. The Crown Ward. By Archibald Boyd. Three Vols. London : Bentley. Ir is exhilarating to read a romance which, without servilely imitating Scott, represents that free and buoyant spirit of adventure which is the charm of his narratives. We are not sure that the iefects alleged against Scott are not to be reckoned amongst his merits. It was Lecause be was so purely objective, and because he did not write with any higher motive thane to present a panorama of stirring human action, that we seek in his pages relief from the intellectual strain of real life His fictions we know did not satisfy himself ; he was un eatt, if he beheld them in his house, or in the hands of his family ; he wrote them as a means of making money, and cared very little fur them when they were out of his hand ; but the judgment of the world has approved them as admirable for mental recreation, and we may he quite sure that as physical tastes commonly guide us rightly in what is wholesome for the body, there is a principle in mental taste to guide us in what is healthful nourishment for the mind. Scott's novels do not throw the mind back upon itself; they charm the mind from itself, and rest and exercise it at the same time. Were they less skilful, the rest would not be so refreshing; were they more powerful, the exercise might be too severe. It is in constant and sustained adventure that Mr. Boyd makes good a claim to be classed with Scott He has not the higher qualities of the great romancist. In " The Crown Ward " we miss the poetical descrip• Lions of Scott, and the vigour which seized on the dark and terrible characteristics of mediEeval times, to impart shade and nerve to his pictures and to raise an impression of sublimity. He often sacrificed pity to terror, and embodied action in shapes of vengeance. Of this form of dr.imatic power Mr. Boyd does not appear capable. He creates suspense by the progress of his narrative, but in no in stance does he venture beyond the pleasing in results. He engages the mind, but does not thrill it, though without such thrill the fascination of fir** can seldom be oomplete.