The Press.
London, England, 1857-09-05 00:00:00

ment in that year. Without the aid of 'WEL-
LINGTON could PEEL ever I►nve played the part
he did? The essayist in the New Quarterly
forcibly presses this point against the degree
of magnitude which ought to be assigned to
PEEL. It is true that neither WALPOLE nor
CHATHAM had a Wellington behind them.

" Had PEEL.," says the Saturday Review,
" not lived to repeal the Corn Laws, he would
" have left behind him the reputation of a con-
" summate debater, a masterly financier, and a
" sound constitutional statesman, but he would
"never have held a place in the heart of the Eng-
" lish people." This latter assertion is too
strong. Sir It. PEEL brought the Funds up
to par, and repaired the gross blunders of the
Whig Government; and, in eventful times, he
was the first debater in Parliament. His lead-
ership of the Conservatives from 1833 to
1841 deserves all that the New Quarterly
says of it, and Sir ItoBERT PEEL deserves
particular praise on this head, as many
public characters (including the late Lord
TENTERDEN and Mr WmsoN CHOKER) were
panientricken. " The heart of the English
" people " is a big phrase. Has it no
emotions for the long, secret, and un-
cheered toil of WILLIAM HUSKISSON—for Pou•
LETT THOMSON'S early and eloquent advocacy
of Free Trade—for the writings of General
THOMSON, and the triumphant energies of Mr.
COBDEN and Mr. BRIGHT?

" Did any one," continues the Saturday Re-
view, " ever think that PEEL was a man who
" anticipated and promoted sweeping and
" grave changes?" That is giving up the
whole case. A statesman of the first order
should contemplate and foresee changes. He
should be prescient, and not he a waiter upon
events. In this, and some other issues, the
.:.iaturday Review rather confirms than confutes
the argument of the New Quarterly.

But we shall not act as moderators between
the respective writers. They are both, doubt-
less, able to fence cleverly. For ourselves wo
feel high respect for much of Sir ROBERT
PEEL'S career; and his private character was
most estimable, though his manner was
rather stiff and ungracious. We do not
blame him, or any other man, for changing
his opinions, or altering his line of con-
duct. We only deeply disapprove of the
peculiar mode in which he thought proper to
deport himself towards his party and sup-
porters. He was a great Englishman, with all
his errors ; and the best part of the essay in
the New Quarterly ( which certainly well de-
serves perusal) is the effective way in which
the extent of Sir R. PEEL'S unrivalled attain-
ments is impressed on the reader.
There is one point, however, in connection
with the memory of PEEL which deserves
notice. Between Pirr and CANNING there was
much personal and political identification.
Both were " anti-Jacobins " abroad, and " anti-
Whigs " at home, while in domestic policy
they were pro-Catholics and anti-Reformers.
Pirr brought CANNING into Parliament, and in
the first instance helped to make his fortune.
No analogous relations existed between Sir
ROBERT PEEL and Mr. GLADSTONE. The latter
made his own way and his own course. On
the Maynooth Bill of the Peel Cabinet, the
Right Hon Member for the University actually
resigned. Between the tastes, habits, and
aspirations of those two eminent persons
there was great dissimilarity. Sir R. PEEL
never could find his way in a theological maze.
We can imagine Sir R. PEEL thinking of school
divines in the same fashion as SCALIGER
did of the people of the Basque provinces.
" It is said that they understand each other,
" but I do not believe it." CANNING was bound,
almost in honour, to call himself a " Pittite,"
and during his too frequent misunderstand-
ings with his party (in 1810, 1812, and 1819)
the designation was a shield for him. But
Mr. GLADSTONE'S individualism, his cast of
character, his love of reasoning a priori, his
indifference to mere precedents, and the
Greek subtlety of his electric temperament, so
broadly distinguish him from " Peelism " in
any intelligible sense, as to justify the em-
phatic apostrophe which winds up the curious
essay in the New Quarterly Review.