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

(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?