MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE. VOLUMES I. TO XXXI., COMPRISING NUMBERS 1-186, HANDSOMELY BOUND IN CLOTH, PRICE 78. 6d. EACH. Reading Cases for Monthly Numbers. One Shilling. Sold by all Booksellers in Town and Country. MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE. NOVEMBER, 1874. SIR ROBERT PEEL AND THE COMTE DE JARNAC. THE Comte de Jarnac has published a very valuable article in the Revue des Deux Mondes on the late Sir Robert Peel. From the frequent intercourse which he had with that statesman, from the lengthened period that he passed in England during Sir Robert's career, few persons were in a position to form a juster or more accurate opinion on the merits of Sir Robert's political life. Nothing, therefore, that the Comte de Jarnac says in praise of his friend need be gainsaid; and yet, taking Sir Robert's political course as a whole, it ought to be held up to future statesmen rather as a warning than as an example. In introducing Sir Robert Peel to bis readers the Comte de Jarnac observes that "ses manières, toujours froides et compassées, n'ont jamais cessé d'éloigner de lui ses émules "—an observation, the truth of which no one was more conscious of than himself, as is shown by the following anecdote told to me at the time by Mr. George Alexander Hamilton,1 to whom Sir Benjamin (then Mr.) Hawes had just told it. In much of the eulogy which the Comte de Jarnac bestows on Sir Robert Peel few would hesitate to acquiesce. That he was endowed with transcendent ability; that by his influence and authority very many beneficial legislative measures were carried; that he was a great orator (though hardly one of the greatest); that he was ambitious to contribute to his country's welfare; and that to all this was added a truly virtuous private life, with a heart prompt to perform generous and noble actions; is what every one must be willing to affirm-but all this may be true, and yet his career as a statesman may not only not be worthy of approbation, but may have been more fraught with in-pointed, Mr. Hawes was ushered in, jury than with benefit to the nation whose destinies he long ruled, and which, at all times during his long political life, he materially influenced. It may seem paradoxical to say that almost all the political measures which he carried are deserving of much approbation, and yet that the most important ones were productive of a counterbalancing mischief which served materially to neutralize their good effects. The measures were excellent-the way he dealt with them disastrous. Mr. Hawes was chairman of a committee of the House of Commons, before whom a certain witness gave important testimony. The committee expressed their opinion to their chairman that the government ought to do something to reward the man. Mr. Hawes (who was in opposition) accordingly sought an interview with Sir Robert Peel, then Premier. A day being ap was very civilly received, and proceeded to state his case. When he had concluded, Sir Robert looked steadfastly at him without uttering a word, and continued to do so for so long, that Mr. Hawes grew quite uncomfortable, and taking up his hat, said "I beg your pardon, Sir Robert, I see that you think I have been taking too great a liberty in coming to you as I have done. I wish you good morning." On which Sir Robert started up and said, "Good gracious! 1 M.P. for Dublin University. you are quite mistaken. I was only thinking how best I could comply with your request. It is my unfortunate manner, which has been my bane through life." There is a frankness and sincerity in such a confession, on such an occasion, by such a man, which certainly gives a very favourable impression of his character. But it is just because he was richly endowed with so many good and admirable qualities that his example was so dangerous. A man notoriously unscrupulous in the use of means for attaining ends, whose character for integrity affords no shelter to others in justification for wrong, does far less mischief by an evil deed than the good man who goes astray, and whose reputation may be appealed to by those who would follow in his wake. ing Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Charles Grant in the cabinet, and compelling the adoption of a sliding-scale far less favourable to the consumer than the one proposed by Mr. Canning, thereby laying open the law to attacks much more difficult to resist. In 1842, when bringing in a new Corn Law, refusing to listen to the suggestions of Lord Fitzgerald, his colleague in the cabinet, to adopt a plan which would have secured the due sliding of the scale in wet seasons of harvest; 2 in 1845 sweeping the whole fabric ruthlessly and permanently away! It is true that M. de Jarnac is not led away by his admiration of the man to approve of all that he did, and notably he deplores and condemns his having made himself the instrument for abolishing the Corn Laws; but he condemns his course on that point rather as politically wrong from the effects which followed it, than as a grievous moral error tending to the demoralisation of future statesmen. It is a curious fact, that on every great question with which Sir Robert had to deal, he set out with avowing and acting upon opinions directly the reverse of those to which in the end he came round. In 1810 he was a decided antibullionist; in 1819 he brought in and carried the Currency Act known by his name, based on the strictest principles of the bullionists. In 1827 a stern supporter of the Test and Corporation Acts; in 1828 the author of their repeal. Up to 1828 a vehement opponent of Roman Catholic Emancipation; in 1829 the minister who carried it by his authority and influence. In 1837, out of office, talking strong Protestantism; in 1845 endowing Maynooth, and treating with scant courtesy the Protestant Primate of Ireland. In 1827 backing the Duke of Wellington in his opposition to Mr. Canning's Corn Bill, although framed on the instructions of their common col Now it need not be denied that most of these measures were beneficial ones; but it is very certain that by his previous opposition to them he aggravated all the evils which they were intended to remedy, whilst by carrying them as he did, he neutralized many of the chief advantages which might reasonably have been expected from them. Take, for instance, his conduct on the Roman Catholic question. His long and persevering opposition to concession had, as both he and the Duke of Wellington admitted, brought Ireland to the verge of rebellion. The choice which they then had to make was between yielding and civil war. Who can for a moment doubt that in deciding to yield they acted rightly? But how disastrous was the effect on Ireland! They conceded to fear what they denied. to justice. They both offended, most unwisely, the great Agitator, by compelling him to be re-elected; and the measure conceded to menace, so far from tranquillizing the country, only gave encouragement to agitation and all the evils of turbulent disloyalty. The course which Sir Robert ought to have pursued, was to surrender power to those who could have granted the boon on the ground of justice, and who could not have been accused of having had it extorted from them by threats. In reply, it is said that had they done so it could not have been carried: no one but the great Duke, aided by Sir Robert, could have succeeded. This 1 This Mr. Huskisson told me. may have been so, although it seems difficult to believe that a Whig government, supported by the Duke and Sir Robert, could not have accomplished it. But fully adopting this view, and admitting that, in the crisis with which they had to deal, the only alternatives which offered themselves were either sacrificing their convictions and their consistency, or delivering up Ireland. to the horrors of a civil war-and giving Sir Robert full credit for entertaining these opinions-then it must be conceded that he acted as a patriot and as a true statesman: his conduct was fully justified, and deserves all approbation. There can be no doubt, then, but that Sir Robert, in the first volume of his Memoirs, written by himself, establishes this part of his defence, and his country owes him a debt of gratitude for this abnegation of self-for he was well aware of the sacrifice which he was making. "I have," he said, in his letter to the Duke (August 11, 1828), "been too deeply committed on this questionhave expressed too strong opinions in respect to it, too much jealousy and distrust of the Roman Catholics, too much apprehension as to the immediate and remote consequences of yielding to their claims-to make it advantageous for the king's service that I should be the person to originate the measure." And when he had reluctantly brought himself, in consequence of the Duke's urgent entreaties, to undertake its origination, he wisely and honourably determined to resign his seat for Oxford University rather than have it "said with truth that he was exercising an authority derived from the confidence of the University to promote measures injurious in her deliberate opinion either to her own interests or to those of the Church" (p. 312). But where Sir Robert's vindication fails, taking his own view, is, not as to what he did in 1829, but as to what he did for the three or four years that preceded 1829. Could a man who saw and reasoned as he did in 1829 have seen and reasoned as he did in the years preceding 1829? One cannot help asking, had he not too long gone on oppos ing claims which he felt sure could not be long resisted? When he abandoned Mr. Canning in 1827, did he really think that Mr. Canning was wrong? These were the questions to which, for the sake of his fame, he was especially bound to give a satisfactory answer, but which in his Memoirs he has left wholly untouched, save by an assertion at the outset, which, giving him full credit for having persuaded himself that it was true, is assuredly not borne out by the facts. "The unvarying and decided opposition which I had offered to the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities certainly did not originate in any view of personal political advantage. When in 1812 I voted against the resolution in favour of concession -moved by Mr. Canning after the death of Mr. Perceval, and carried by a majority of 235 to 106-I could not expect by that vote that I was contributing to my political advancement." Now it is very certain that by taking this course Mr. Peel did at once place himself, with his great talents, at the head of that large Protestant party, which was then the most powerful in the country he really had no rival. Had he supported concession to the Romanists, he would have found himself amongst a host of rivals; by resisting it he at once became a leader. Had he taken the same side with Mr. Canning, the University of Oxford would not have preferred him for its representative instead of that statesman. He at once mounted to influence and power on the shoulders of the AntiCatholic party, and the course which he then adopted was the one cause which so rapidly brought him into notice. If, then, the obligations which he "contracted when he entered into the service of the crown, that he would in all matters to be treated and debated in council, faithfully, openly, and truly declare his mind and opinion according to his heart and conscience," enforced upon him the line of conduct which he pursued in 1829, why, if having changed his opinions, did he neglect "openly to declare his mind " during the preceding years? The anB 2 swer to this question may be that he had not changed his opinions. Be it so; but his Memoir affords no explanation of the difficulty. To reconcile the language which he used in 1829 with his previous conduct that was the riddle which he had to expound; but he makes no attempt to do so. What is here remarked was contained in the notes which I made at the time when I read his book. Lord Macaulay had lent it to me. Within an hour after writing them I called on him to return it. Without my saying anything, he expressed precisely the same sentiments as I had recorded. He said, "Sir Robert never could be got to defend himself against the accusations really brought against him, which referred to his conduct previously to 1829-he invariably met it with a justification of his conduct in that year, which was not impugned." Macaulay added, "He has done the same in this Memoir." 1 This all-important episode in Sir Robert's career the Comte de Jarnac disposes of in a single sentence : "Après la mort de M. Canning, Robert Peel n'avait plus de rival dans les rangs parlementaires de son parti. Il eut justifié pleinment son eminente position dans les débats sur l'affranchissement des Catholiques, mésure dont le principal honneur lui revient" (p. 286). But whatever amount of "honour" or discredit may attach to the Tory leaders, one thing is certain-that their conduct on this occasion broke up the Tory party. The feeling of a large section was that they had been betrayed; and impressed with the idea that an open foe was better than a pretended friend, they resolved, wisely or unwisely, to destroy the government in which they had previously trusted. The year after Roman Catholic emancipation was carried, the government of the Duke of Wellington was dismissed with Tory aid. Whether this was a good or an evil is a question which it is needless here to discuss. For years the reforming government had it all their own way, and dealt with reckless audacity with the venerable fabric of the British constitution. The brightest era of Sir Robert's career was during those years. With a skill and judgment unequalled in parliamentary annals, he contrived to reunite the scattered elements of his party. He acquired the respect of all sides, and regained the confidence of his own. The country was with himit was wearied with the policy of those in power. Sir Robert forced on a dissolution, and the result of the elections was to replace him in office with the immense majority of 91! He was then undoubtedly the most powerful minister that the nation had had since Mr. Pitt was in the zenith of his fame. He was all powerful for good. Had he learnt wisdom from the past? Who could have anticipated that he would again shiver into fragments the great party which he led, and that he would fall, "like Lucifer, never to rise again." Yet such was his fate. A lesson to all future statesmen ! M. de Jarnac makes no reference to any other cause for this catastrophe but the repeal of the Corn Laws; but two years before that repeal he had alienated from him a large section of his party by an additional grant to the college of Maynooth. Founded by a great and good man, in order to remove the education of the Roman priests from the demoralising influences of the principles which were then in the ascendant in France, where they were previously educated, Mr. Pitt had looked forward to the institution which he founded as about to prove a nursery of loyalty and peace. Ever since its foundation it had been the hotbed of turbulence and disaffection, and had fallen into the hands of the Jesuits-an order which the Roman Catholic Relief Act had, eo nomine, banished from the realm. Such was the institution on which Sir Robert Peel deemed it advisable to bestow special marks of his favour, fancying, by some strange obliquity of vision, that he was sending what he called "a message of peace to Ireland." It is doubtful whether it conciliated one solitary individual in |