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

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.

496

Alas ! for his foresight. He conceded the
question without securities, and the evil
which he dreaded from resistance has since
been realised, after concession, in " The Tail,"
"Lichfield-house Compact," and the " Sad-
leirites."
Supposing, argued Sir Robert on the 12th
January, 1829, in his private memorandum, the
measure is not granted, here will be the con-
sequence :

The Parliamentary business would be impeded by the
addition to the House of Commons of fifty or sixty
members, whose only chance of maintaining their in-
tnence would be unremitting attendance in the house, and
violent and vexatious opposition to the progress of public
business.

Again, alas ! for his foresight. That very state
of things became chronic under O'Connell and
Sheil, who never forgot that they had driven
Sir Robert Peel into an ignominious defeat in
1829. Our readers must recollect the scanda-
lous debates of 1851, during the " year of the
Exhibition," when the Aggression Act was
before Parliament. Those discussions might
be described in the language of the foregoing
extract ; yet it was to prevent such results,
forsooth, that Emancipation was conceded, the
Conservative party broken up, and public
pledges set at nought !
Take the next sentence. Ho feared, in
1829, the following emergency, if the Catholic
question was not given up :
The very circumstance of severing altogether the con-
nection between the constituent body of Ireland and the
natural aristocracy of the country would be a great, per-
haps an irreparable misfortune .

Again, in that instance, the evil to be depre-
cated was brought about and exaggerated by
the manner in which the bill was conceded
" without secutities," and the " Catholic Ques-
tion" will have yet to be argued again.
Now, we recollect many severe speeches re-
flecting on the public character of Sir Robert
Peel. We recollect the language of Lord John
Russell, in 1835 ; of tho invectives of Mr.
Macaulay, in 1844; of Mr. Shell's tirades; of
the blunt accusations of Lord George Ben-
tinck ; and of the exquisitely polished irony
and wit of Mr. Disraeli; but we are bound to
say that we never heard or read anything so
damaging to the fame of Sir Robert Peel as
his own apology for his conduct in 1829.
Our space will not enable us to ex-
hibit at length the tortuous half-reasonings,
the short-sighted glances, and the strange
contradictions in this paper. It is written
without lued order ; it omits most important
facts ; and it puts the case in no new light,
except, in our opinion, to sharpen those charges
against Sir Robert Peel, to which his fame is
responsible. We observe that a critic in the
Times writes of the apology as " defending
" himself in the manner of a sinner, rathcr
" than in the spirit of a statesman." Non
roster hie sermo. The Atheneum says :—" Sir
" Robert Peel is not exhibited in this memoir
" as a statesman with an extensive political
" coup dceil, a grand and s3steinatic creed, or a
" profound knowledge of the principles of
" empire " We cite these words from our
contemporaries to show that political con-
siderations have not biassed our opinions in
this matter.
But the apology is " crumpled up " by its
unfortunate last paragraph :
It may be that I was unconsciously influenced by mo-
tives less perfectly pure and disinterested—by the secret
satisfaction of being,

when the waves went high,
A daring pilot in extremity.
nut at any rate it was no ignoble ambition which prompted
me to bear the brunt of a desperate conflict, and at the
same time to submit to the sacrifice of everything dear to
a public man, excepting the approval of his own eon-
soience and the hope of ultimate justice.

The glory of enjoying the sensations of great
political power cannot be snatched at or
engrossed without reference to party honour.
Trusts are given to chiefs of parties, and con-
nections must not be betrayed. But we shall
adjourn to next week further consideration of
this painful apology.

L'Expedition de Crime. jusqu'ci la Prise de Sebas-
topol. By the Baron de Bazancourt. Paris :
Amyot.

THE second volume of this work (the first of
which was reviewed exclusively in THE PaEss
of Feb. 16) appeared in Paris ozi Friday week.;