The Press. — London, England, 1857-01-17 00:00:00

paign with Marshal Wade, in 1741 ; ho was wounded at the battle of Fontenoy ; and he commanded the right wing at Culloden. If " he died insolvent " (which is true), it should in fairness be recollected that he held the ex pensive office of Ambassador to the Court of France, and that he lived magnificently at Park. Lord Dover's note on him is ridiculous. Walpole (April 29, 1742) alludes to the Cobham cousins, and the annotation is as follows : Pitts, Grenvilles, Lytteltons, all related by marriage, or female descent, to Lord Cobham. Dovaa. The boy patriots, or Cobham cousins, as Sir Robert IValpole used to call them.—CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Cunningham so often quotes from the " Peerage " that we are surprised at his laconic mode of treating " the cousinhood " Their threefold relationship should have been clearly particularised. At page 167 the " Lord Clare " of Gold smith's " Haunch of Venison " is thus de scribed : FP Robert Nugent, afterwar.ls Baron Ntwent. Viscount Clare, anti Earl Nugent, in the peerage of Ireland. He was an occasional poet, and the solitary benefactor of Gold smith, who had made him immortal by his letter of thanks for a haunch of venison. He died 13th October, 1788. [See p. InB.l CUNNINGHAM. Is it possible that Goldsmith had no other "benefactor" during ? Whether intended seriously or jocosely, the express►on is un happy; and we think that Mr. Cunningham's note shows that Goldsmith of the two was the real " benefactor." Lord Clare, we may remark, was one of the three persons supposed to be Romanists who sat in Parliament during the reign of George 111. " Nugent, you'll die with " the wafer in your mouth," said a man of the world tauntingly to him. "You may be sure," said the Irish peer, with wit " racy of the soil," " it's the very last thing that I'll do." (To be eontinued.) ..ifemoirs tfl ir Robert Peel. By M. Guizot. London : Bentley. We should have preferred a volume of " Recollections " of Sir Robert Peel from M. Guizot's pen to this volume of " Me moirs." The author was the French Am bassador in London when Sir R. Peel suc ceeded to power in 18.11 ; he had at that time much confidential communication with the great English Minister; and when the throne of Louis Philippe fell, by no one was M. Guizot received more warmly and hospitably than by Sir Robert. The work was, however, primarily addressed to a French audience, and for that reason the author has doubtless thought it necessary to enter more into the facts of Sir Roberts career than would have been advisable had he written for English readers alone. After all, the volume is rather an culogium than a memoir. and less critical than might hav^ been anticipated. We doubt whether the pailosophic and reflective mind of N. Guizot be capable of fully understanding the eminently practical character and labo riously industrial genius of the great member of Parliament. He loved work as ardently as his father, and, like him, he eared only for that kind of work which yielded great results. Sir Robert the First cast up his labours in his ledger; Sir Robert the Second cast up his labours in the statute-book, and something of the virtue post nummos (though not in a sordid sense) which is almost inseparable from the eager pursuit of material ends, was visible in the lives of both. We have turned with most interest to that part of the volume where the author considers the ethics of Sir Robert's political career. Was he justified in employing that power which he derived from certain professions— as of hostility to Roman Catholic Emancipa tion, and Corn-law Repeal—to sacrifice his party, and to carry the very measures he was pledged to oppose ? This question has been largely and most keenly canvassed, yet the public has not yet pronounced a decided ver dict. We shall presently refer to N. Guizot's argument upon it. lint first it may be conve nient to state what the charge against Sir Robert really is. irci one will eoniund that a statesman is not at liberty to keep mind open to the reeve ,. THE PRESS. tion of truth, and that he has not a right to frankly declare the convictions at which he has arrived. But he has a representative as well as an individual character. If he derives his power from certain professions, is he not bound to divest himself of his power, or to offer to do so, when his opinions change. and he feels that his course must be directly con trary to those professions? No party should attempt to coerce the opinion of its leaders, but no leader should attempt to coerce the action of his party, or, worse still, to make its confidence in his express declarations a trap for its betrayal. This was what Sir Robert Peel did. He took his followers by surprise, and so shaped his course as to insure their discomfiture. The power they gave him he employed not only to defeat their objects, but to disorganise them as a party, and to bring them into subjection to their political opponents. It is most commonly urged in his defence that when a State necessity arises we must overlook the rules of ordinary morality in favour of the man who masters the situation and fulfils the want of his time. If we were to admit a principle confessedly dangerous, the question would yet remain whether the necessity in the cases to be considered was of such a nature us to demand, a violation of good faith. In times of pressing danger a Minister may deserve the highest applause for commit ting acts which in the ordinary course of affairs would he great crimes. &this populi supremo lex. Had it been necessary to repeal the corn laws to save the country from famine or civil war, and had it been impossible for any other man to have done the work than Sir Robert, there would be no dispute on his conduct. It is because no such necessity existed that his reputation is clouded by doubt. His change of opinion might have been wise and right, yet the course he took to give effect to it have been very wrong. When Sir Robert Peel had - satisfied himself that a repeal of the corn laws was expedient, or could no longer be resisted, he might have called his party together; he might have ex plained to them his views, and have declared that he could not, in his conscience, longer follow a policy of protection. His party would then have decided to continue to him their support; or to have trusted their interests to other hands. Sir Robert would have brought forward a measure of Corn-law Repeal still at the he%d of his party ; or he would have resigned, and as a private member of the Legislature have pursued the policy he deemed best for the public advantage. In the latter event, does any one suppose that Corn-law Repeal could have been suc cessfully resisted? The opinion of Sir Robert would have had, as it was entitled to, great weight; many members of his party would have followed him. Corn-law Repeal would have been carried without heat or animosity by the Whigs, whose measure it was ; and the Conservative party, instead of being utterly broken up, would have remained compact, and ready for action at a future time. In this way the plea of State necessity is disposed of. Sir Robert Peel might have changed his opinion, and have made Corn law Repeal inevitable, without destroying his party. Usually the policy is wise as well as just which allows the party who have made certain measures their own to carry them into effect when they can no longer be resisted For in that ease, the party in Opposition is usually strong enough to moderate and soften the change, and introduce safeguards which probably may be of the highest importance, and which in any case must calm the fears and smooth down the asperity which can rarely he separated from considerable mea sures of change. It is for destroying his party, not for changing his opinion, that Sir Robert Peel's fame still stands at the bar waiting the verdict of opinion. And why the verdict is delayed is obvious. Men are not agreed whether party itself be a good or an evil. It is wonderful that a man of M. Guizot's reading and reach of mind should exhibit uncertainty on this point. His defence of Sir Robert's conduct is that parties in 1845-6 were disorganised, and that in that d ism gauisation is to be found his justification. but it is justly said, Opt Robfit himself SATURDAY, never made this defence. Dextrous, fertile, and ingenious as his mind was, it failed to suggest to him any ground of defence, either solid or plausible, and he remained silent laiten the charge of betraying his party was most strongly urged against him. We quote from M. Guizot While doing full justice to the moral character of Sir Robert Peel, many good judges nevertheless deplore his political faithlessness; after having, they say, had the merit and honour of reconstructing the Conservative party, lie dissolved it with his own hands; when he changed his opinion and recognised necessities which he had not fore- seen, lie ought to have retired from power and stated his motive for so doing, instead of making himself, as he did, the active and decisive promoter of ideas and measures which he had long opposed. By pursuing the course he did, he broke down all traditions, commingled all camps, sacrificed the policy of principles to the policy of expe- diency, and destroyed those great parties, those permanent and faithful parties which, under the representative system, are the necessary and regular instruments of free govern aunt. I may here call attention to a fact which has been too little noticed. Though taunted bitterly with this reproach, and placed unceasingly in presence of the great political question connected with it, Sir Robert Peel always evaded the charge. Instead of resisting on the precise point at which he was attacked, he transferred his defence to some other point ; he contested the extent of party obligations ; he asserted the rights of conscience; he established his sincerity, his disinterestedness, the urgency of his new measures; he invoked, in support of them, the popular distress, the maintenance of peace among the various classes in the State, the public welfare. But with regard to the necessity and the function of great and stanch political parties, with regard to the consequences of his example in reference to their disorganisation, with regard to the effects of their disorganisation upon constitutional government, he said nothing, as if he either did not feel the importance of the attack, or did not know how to repel it. M. Guizot thinks that ho can do for Sir Robert what Sir Robert could not do for him self. He proceeds : lam astonished at this. What would Sir Robert Peel's adversaries have thought and answered, if he had said to them : " You accuse me of destroying the old political parties ; they no longer exist ; they are daily dissolving of themselves, not by any act of mine. Where are the principles, the interests, the passions, which called them into being? You call yourselves Tories and Protestants par excellence; are you ready to treat the Catholics as enemies, to make war upon them, to confiscate their pro perty? Do you seriously believe the throne of the house of Hanover and the Protestant succession to be in danger? The reforms which I propose to you to make in the laws were made long ago in the minds of men, in the minds of most of yourselves as well as in those of your adversaries. Your most illustrious leader, Mr. Pitt, your boldest cham pion, Lord Castlereagh, your most eloquent orator, Mr. Canning, were all in favour of the emancipation of the Catholics. The old parties still preserve their traditions, but they no longer retain their faith; they march under the same banner, but they no longer fight for the same cause. New causes have arisen; new ideas rally men to• gether or keep them apart; new wants demand satisfaction. I follow this course of things; I consult the symptoms which develop themselves ; I enter upon the paths which are opened, and in which the generations of my time pre cede me. I change only because everything is changed— parties as well as ideas, feelings, and manners. You think you are what your fathers were ; you are mistaken ; you can persist in this error only on condition of remaining motion less ; as soon as you begin to move and act, you will feel yourselves compelled to change, you will feel that you are already changed. Do not impute to me that which is the work of time ; do not reproach me for transformations which are general, though not equally visible everywhere ; do not stigmatise as desertion and treachery that which yon will do yourselves when you are called upon to govern your transformed country." Sir Robert Peel would have been entitled to hold this language. The reason of his political changes was placed far higher than his opponents seemed to suspect ; and where they only sought a personal offence with which to taunt him, they ought to have seen the irrevocable accom plishment of a great sccial fact. Sir Robert Peel would have seen—probably he did see—that this line of defence could not bear scrutiny. It is true that political ideas change with time. Tory ideas now are not what they were a hundred years ago, any more than Whig ideas are what they were under the rule of Walpole. But such change does not affect the rew.on for the existence of political parties. liuwever greatly their forms and outward expression may change, their constitution is indestructible so long as nations cling to free institutions of government and cherish public spirit. Parties depend less on what M. Guizot calls their confession of faith than he seems to suppose. Fundamentally, no doubt, there is an essential principle of dis tinction in the two great parties which subsist in all free countries. The divisions of Con servative and of Liberal are founded in the eonstitution of the human mind, and perhaps are not, unconnected with differences of physi cal temperament. These divisions of opinion always iffttst Alla will subsist, but At tUTICE?