The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-27 00:00:00

THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 27,1858.

persisted in maintaining it, adding, that the repeal would
be moved in the House of Commons by Sir. R. Peel, and
in the House of Lurd' by the Duke of Wellington. This
excited a very great sensation, the more especially as it
was known that the journal in question had very peculiar
sources of information, and enjoyed the confidence, either
directly or through the intervention of a third party, of
more than one member of the Cabinet.
Now, there is a most peculiar passage entirely
within the scope of a contemporary historian,
and Sir A. Alison throws no light on it. His
authorities cited in the margin are 'the Times,
the Annual Register, and Miss Martineau's
" History of the Peace "! Sir A. Alison does
not appear to know that other journals besides
the Times "had very peculiar sources of infor
m ition," and that on many other points in
dispute at that period those journals had been
as well, if not better, informed than the dis-
tinguished journal in question. Surely
readers of a "popular" history in "eight"
volumes would like some light on so curious a
subject. " Was it," they might he supposed
to ask, " from a Cabinet Minister, or a foreign
" ambassador, or a first clerk at an embassy,
" that this knowledge was got, or was it "
but we shall not specify the interrogatories of
legitimate inquisitiveness which might be
made by the readers of this work. It is not
our business as reviewers to clear up what
Sir A. Alison has left in darkness.
His account, also, of Sir R. Peel in the
opening passages of this volume is tedious and
tautologous. Several eminent pens and
eloquent tongues have attempted to describe
Sir R. Peel, amongst which we may mention
M. Guizot's biography, Mr. Disraeli's brilliant
characterisation in the " Life of Lord G.
Bentinck," Count Cavour's celebrated speech
in the Piedmont Parliament, and some notable
and elaborate essays on Sir R. Peel in various
periodicals Sir A. Alison's views of Sir R.
Peel's character are threadbare and obvious,
and they want closeness. He says :

In private life, Sir Robert's character was altogether
unexceptionable. Inheriting from his father, the first
baronet, who made the fortune, immense wealth, he made
a noble use of it. Simple and utiostentatimu in his
habits, his tastes were refined, and he expended largely
in the encouragement of the arts which elevate the mind
and purify the taste. A kind and affectionate husband,
a liberal father. he never deviated from correctness either
in oonduct or decorum, and his bitterest political enemies
( and no man latterly hail more) were unable to find one
blot in his escutcheon, so far as domestic relations were
concerned.

Sir R. Peel loved the pomp and splendour of
wealth, as shown in his large picture gal-
leries, and his constant receptions. He liked,
also, to have many young noblemen about him.
We do not blame him in the least for such
tastes, but they were not devoid of " ostenta-
tion," and traits of character should be pre-
served. On the opposite page Sir A. Alison
quotes from M. Guizot

Hors de la maison, entre le proprietaire et la population
environnante, une grande distance, marquee dans les
maniere', raids comblee par des rat:ports frequents, pleins
d'equite et de bienveillance de la part de superieur, sans
apparence d'envie ni de servilite cbcz les inferieure.

This statement by M. Guizot does not agree
with the absence of "ostentation," as stated
by Sir A. Alison, and in many other particulars
the able writer shows that he had not close
knowledge of Sir R. Peel. The " first baronet"
had certainly an " immense" fortune, but that
was divided amongst several children. The
great statesman inherited an extremely large
fortune, but it was scarcely shat would be
called "immense." We shall not comment
on the loose writing of " finding a blot in an
"escutcheon, as far as domestic relations were
" concerned." We have read better and
more brilliant descriptions of Sir It. Peel than
that here before us.

Sir A. Alison on the breaking up of parties
says :

It is remarkable that the breaking up of the two great
parties which have alternately ruled the State ever since
the Revolution was in neither case owing to the hostility
of its opponent, ho.vever ably directel or perseveringly
applied. It was neither Mr. Pitt nor Lord Castlereagh
that overturned the Whigs ; it was not Mr. Fox or Mr.
Burke that paralysed the Tories. From the assaults of
those great men, strongly supported as they were, their
opponents on both sides entirely recovered, and they never
were so powerful as after those periods when the strife
had been most violent. Witness Mr. Pitt in 1784, after the
desperate struggle with the Coalition ; Earl Grey in 183'2,
after the close of the long•continued strife consequent
on the French Revolution. Even the Reform Bill, how.
ever skilfully directed to that end, did not destroy the
Tory party ; the Opposition was never so united or so ably