The Press. — London, England, 1856-05-24 00:00:00

MAY 24, 1856. fittraturt. SIR ROBERT PEEL. I, Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel, Bart., M.P. Published by the Trustees of his Papers, Earl Stanhope and Right Hon. E. Card well, M.P. Part I.—The Roman Catholic Question. London : Murray. 2. The Political Life of Sir Robert Peel. An Analytical Biography. By Thomas Double• day, Esq. Two Vols. London : Smith, Elder, and Co. Is we were asked to say in what period the greatest Ministerial mistakes had been made in the Cabinet of England since the American War, we should point to the years between the death of the Earl of Liverpool, and the intro duction of the Reform Bill. For the acts of that time, both of omission and commission, Sir Robert Peel incurred a grave historical responsibility, and, recollecting how momen tous were the results of the extraordinary course taken by that eminent person, we turn with interest to his papers, in order to see his private justification of his conduct. Before noticing it, let us remind our readers of what occurred after the death of Lord Liverpool. In those days, the Catholic question was a leading subject in domestic and Parliamentary circles. The country, like the Cabinet, was divided on it, and England had been governed by Lord Liverpool's Cabinet from 1812 to 1827 on the principle of leaving that question " open." Mr. Canning was made Prime Minis ter, and he proposed that the Catholic question should remain in state quo. A grave charge still lies over the memory of Sir Robert Peel in relation to this matter, and we shall be pre cise in stating how it originated, and upon what facts it is based. Mr. Canning, in telling the Duke of Wellington of the King'e com mands, thus wrote :—" In executing these " commands it will he as much my own wish, as " it is my duty to his Majesty, to adhere to the " principles on which Lord Liverpool's Govern ment has so long acted together in Parlia ment."* But Sir Robert Peel was then so in tense a Protestant in his politics, that he thought the fact of a Premier being favorable to the Catholics would render such a proposal on the part of Mr. Canning quite impracticable Sir R. Peel therefore left Mr. Canning solely because he thought the concession of the Ca tholic claims was so excessively dangerous, and the fact of Mr. Canning being placed at the head of the Cabinet was so alarming that he could not act with him. " The Catholic " question, and my position with respect to it," said Sir Robert Peel in 1827, " constituted my " only objection to embark under his (Mr. Canning's) pilotage."—(" Mr. Peel's Exposi tion," May 1, 1827 ; Hansard, N.S., vol. xvii., p. 408.) Let us mark what followed. Sir R. Peel left Mr. Canning, who was driven into a coalition with the Whigs. Like every other Coalition—" a name that England does not love,"—it failed. Mr. Canning died—Lord Goderich succeeded, then succumbed, and a Cabinet was farmed of those who seceded from Mr. Canning. In the next Ministry Sir Robert Peel gained the object of his ambition—he led the House of Commons, and in that capacity he yielded in fear more to the Catholics than their most zealous champion, Grattan, had thought prudent. Emancipation without securi ties was conceded to the Catholics, and by the very man who led the seceders from Mr. Canning! During his life Sir Robert Peel often tried, as we think fruitlessly, to vindicate his con duct. His account of his conduct in his " Papers" is, as we shall prove to our readers, one of the most contradictory documents ever published. He defends himself from his ex travagant inconsistency by saying he feared a rebellion in Ireland ; but in every one of his aisertions he answers himself. He says, in o rcumlocutory style, that he dreaded lest the army in Ireland would have joined the Agitators 41 *0 Lake chose word* Irom We original copy of We Duke of *d im s Von's explanation in 1827. (flatebard and Son.) •; THE PRESS. I deliberately affirm that a Minister of the Crown, responsible at the time of which I am speaking for the public peace and the public welfare, would have grossly and scandalously neglected his duty if he had failed to consider whether it might not be possible that the fever of political and religious excitement which was quickening the pulse and fluttering the bosom of the whole Catholic population —which had inspired the serf of Clare with the resolution sal energy ( f a freeman—which had in the twinkling of an eye made all considerations of personal gratitude—ancient family connection—local preferences—the fear of worldly injury—the.hope of worldly advantage, subordinate to the one absorbing sense of religious obligation and public duty ; whether, I say, it might not be possible that the contagion of that feverish excitement might spread beyond the barriers which, under ordinary circumstances, the habits of military obedience and the strictness of military discipline oppose to all such external influences. That is one view of the case, but we deny that he cites evidence to prove his insinuation. It is a very singular fact, that under his own hand, in a private document not before published, he showed at the time that he did not dread any rebellion in Ireland. So late as January 12, 1829, he wrote as follows in his " Memorandum " (the italics are our own) : Fourthly—Though I have not the slightest apprehension of the result of civil commotion—though I believe it could be put dwell at once—yet I think the necessity of being constantly prepared far it while the Government is divided, and the two houses of Parliament are divided, on the Catholic question, is a much worse evil than its actual There is one opinion against another from the same man ; but, what is still more extraor dinary, at the end of his apology Sir Robert takes credit to himself for having acted with disinterestedness, because, if he had been actuated by selfish ambition, he might (says he) have called upon the country to rally round Protestantism and tho Throne ! If I had been stimulated by personal ambition—that sort of ambition, I mean, which is content with the lead of a political party, and the possession of official power— I might have encouraged and deferred to the scruples of the Sovereign, and might have appealed to the religious feelings of the country to rally round the Throne for the maintenance of the Protestant religion and the protection of the Royal conscience. Then, if such a course would have been avail able to him, how is it possible that he could have been compelled to succumb before the threat of a rebellion which he did not fear? If he could have triumphed in the latter case, how could he have been made to recede in the former one? We entreat of our readers to re peruse the first extract, and contrast the singular contrariety of opinion between the various portions of this apology. The truth is, that the case never could be justified. " Oue such change (as that of Sir "R. Peel in 1829) is enough in the life of one " public man," said Mr. Macaulay, in 1846 Sir Robert Peel seems to forget that the Protestant side of the case had many claims on him, and that he made an unhappy compromise of a case, which must have to be reopened before it can be said to be finally adjusted. He offers no explanation, worthy of the name, of the startling contrast between the intense feeling that shrank from a continuation of Lord Liverpool's system with Mr. Canning as a Premier, and his rapid whirl in 1829. Nor does he give even a glance at the painful fact that the course followed by him in 1827 did immensely serve the cause of the Catholics. The secession from Canning did not prevent the King from choosing a pro-Catholic Premier in the person of Canning, and another in that of Lord Goderich. He avoids any explanation of the reason for choosing a military Viceroy in the person of Lord Anglesey, and he throws all his defence on the " great interests " having broken down in the Clare election of 1829. Now, there is something unfair in the sup pression of the fact that, the Waterford elec tion of 1826 (before the death of Canning) was an equally significant sign of the times in Ireland. The great family of Beresford, with their territorial estates, and their princely re sidence at Curraghmore, had vastly greater resources against Mr. Villiers Stuart than Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald against O'Connell and the priesthood. But there is something really miser able (we have no other word) in the humilia ting confession that Sir Robert Peel had re mained deaf to the counsel of Mr. Pitt, the practical sense of Lord Castlereagh, the eloquence of Grattan, the wisdom of Burke, and the various arguments of other not less gifted men, while his ears upon it remained open 495 only to the threats of O'Connell and Shell, and the shouts of the peasantry of Clare ! Sir Robert Peel does not condescend to consider the serious effect upon public opinion in England produced by the manner of the concession of the Act of 1829. The people were astounded at the facility o f tergiversa tion shown by men who had given such sacred. pledges. They recollected that the Pro testant side of the " Catholic Question" had been the " platform " on which " Mr. Peel " had been enabled to have the honour of being publicly ranged in debate against Canning, Plunket, and other great orators. They saw his secession from Canning; they heard of his anti-Catholic speech in 1828, and they read his pro-Catholic one in 1829. Such conduct disgusted the public and broke up the Tory party. The Wellington Cabinet fell, and there was no proper opposition to the revolutionary projects of the Whigs. " Carry everything by clamour" was the policy of the Liberals, who took a lesson from the conduct of Sir Robert Peel in 1829. Nor does Sir Robert in his posthumous apology examine what effect that mode of concession had upon the Irish We say with emphasis, " that mode of concession." Were not O'Connell and his followers more furious than ever? Did not their tone become more full of bluster? What of " Repeal?" Of the " Tail?" Of the " Lichfield house Compact ?" Of the system of sacerdotal tribunes patented and acted on to our time ? Of Ireland, " the difficulty " of Sir Robert in. 1839? Of the monster meetings, and O'Con nell's prosecution in 1844? Of " Young Ire landistu ? " To say nothing at all of the yell raised against the Protestant Establishment, of the "Appropriation clause,"—of English parties, broken, shaken, and confused by the anomalous elements introduced by Emancipa tion " without securities." None of these are even glanced most important at by Sir Robert Peel! He never, even once, looks at the fact cf the prodigious gains of the Church of Rome since " unqualified" Emancipation " without securities"! When Cardinal Wiseman made his aggres sion, the policy of the Court of Rome, and the acts of the Cardinal, were extenuated and de fended by the followers of Sir Robert Peel. None of that section made a more able piece of special pleading than Sir James Graham, winding up his speech with a disorderly men tion of Parliamentary names—" Is this that " Russell, who " &c. &c.—" Is this that Grey, " the kinsman of the patriot peer, who " &o. &c.—" Is this that Romilly, the son of" &c. &c. Our readers may remember that harangue, and we cannot forget the reply of Lord John Russell, who quoted the pregnant remark of Mr. Grattan in 1817, " If Emancipation without " securities be conceded, the result must be " that the British and Irish Catholics will be " incorporated with Rome, and discorporated " from England." The quotation told upon the House, and was loudly cheered. The ag gression justified the anticipation of Grattan (a zealous advocate of qualified Emancipation), and the conduct of Sir Robert Peel in grant ing unconditional concession of the Catholic claims, in 1829, enabled the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman to make their aggression. The editors do not indicate these grave points. And, further, it is most remarkable that under his own hand in this apology Sir Robert Peel has shown how egregiously erro neous were his calculations in 1829. He raises the following question in his " Memo randum " of January 12th, 1829, on the suppo sition that the question would not be con ceded : What would be the effect on that (the Irish) repre- sentation, supposing an exclusive Protestant Government to be formed, and a dissolution of Parliament to take place, the constituent body in Ireland remaining the same ? He answers it thus:— The effect, I apprehend, would be increased excitement in Irelapd—a confirmation of the influence of the priest hood over the fortyshilling freeholders—the further ex clusion of members in the Protestant interest, and of mo derate and reasonable advocates of the Roman Catholics. and the return of persons neither connected with nor re presenting the landed aristocracy or property of the country, but selected purely for their Mtradevotion to Roman Catholic interests. ~r:~y.