Victorian Worthies

G >> George Henry Blore >> Victorian Worthies

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28

The second question on which Peel's conduct surprised his colleagues was
that of Catholic Emancipation. Since 1793 Roman Catholic electors had
the parliamentary vote; but, since no Roman Catholic could sit in
Parliament, they had hitherto been content to cast their votes for the
more tolerant of the Protestant candidates. Pitt had failed to induce
George III to grant the Catholics civil equality, and George IV, despite
his liberal professions, took up the same attitude as his father on
succeeding to the throne. But the majority of the Whigs, and some even
of the Tories, such as Castlereagh and Canning, were prepared to make
concessions; and since 1820 the Irish agitation led by O'Connell had
been gaining in strength. Peel had several reasons for being on the
other side. His early training by his father, his friendship with Eldon
and Wellington, his attachment to the Established Church, all had
influence upon him. He saw clearly that Disestablishment would follow
closely in Ireland on the granting of the Catholic demands; and since
1817, when he became Member for Oxford University, he felt bound to
resist this. In taking this line he was no better and no worse than any
other Tory member of the day; and in later times many politicians have
allowed their traditions and prejudices to blind them to the existence
of an Irish problem.

For all that, Peel ought earlier to have recognized the facts, to have
looked ahead and formed a policy. As Chief Secretary for Ireland he had
unrivalled opportunities for studying the whole question; but he did not
let it penetrate beneath the surface of his mind. He had continued to
bring up the same arguments on the few occasions when he spoke at
Westminster, and had buried himself in administrative work. He seems to
have hoped that he could evade it. If the Whigs got a majority and
introduced an Emancipation Bill, he would have satisfied his
constituents by formally opposing the measure and would not have gone
beyond this. As he saw it gradually coming, he satisfied his own
conscience by retiring from Lord Liverpool's Government and by refusing
to join Canning, when he became Prime Minister in 1827. As a private
member he would only be responsible for his own vote, and would not feel
that he was settling the question for others. But Canning died after
holding office only a month, and a Government was formed by Wellington
in which Peel returned to office as Home Secretary and became leader of
the House of Commons. Now he had to pay the penalty for his lack of
foresight, and to deal with the tide of feeling which had been rising
for some years on both sides of the Irish Channel. At least he could see
facts which were before his eyes.

In 1828, before he had been twelve months in office, his decision was
aided by a definite event. A by-election had to be fought in Clare, Mr.
Fitzgerald seeking re-election on joining the Government. Against him
came forward no less a person than Daniel O'Connell himself, the most
eloquent and most popular of the Catholic leaders; and, although under
the existing laws his candidature was void, he received an overwhelming
majority. The bewilderment of the Tories was ludicrous. Fitzgerald
himself wrote, 'The proceedings of yesterday were those of madmen; but
the country is mad.' Peel took a careful view of the situation and
decided on his course. He certainly laid himself open to the charge of
giving way before a breach of the law, and the charge was pressed by the
angry Tories. But his judgement was clearly based on a complete survey
of all the facts. A single event was the candle which lit up the scene,
but by the light of it he surveyed the whole room. He still held to his
view about the dangers of Disestablishment ahead, but he maintained that
a crisis had arisen involving graver dangers at the moment, and that the
statesman must choose the lesser of two evils. There is no doubt that
the situation was critical. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Anglesey (a
Waterloo veteran, who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) both had fears of
mutiny in the army; and civil war was to be expected, if O'Connell was
not admitted to the House of Commons. Peel's personal consistency was
one matter; the public welfare was another and a weightier. His first
idea was to retire from office and to lend unofficial support to a
measure which he could not advocate in principle. But the only hope of
breaking down the old Tory opposition lay in the influence of the Tory
ministers; no Whig Government could prevail in the temper of that time;
and Wellington appealed in the strongest terms to Peel to remain in
office and to lead the House. Peel yielded from motives of public policy
and made himself responsible for a measure of Catholic Emancipation,
which he had been pledged to resist.

It was a surrender--an undisguised surrender--and Peel did not, as on
the Bullion Committee, profess to have changed his mind. But it was an
honest surrender carried out in the light of day; and, before Parliament
met, Peel announced his decision to resign his seat at Oxford and to
give his constituents the chance of expressing their opinion of his
conduct. The verdict was not long in doubt: the University, which in
1865 rejected another of its brilliant sons, gave a majority of one
hundred and forty-six against him, and his political connexion with
Oxford was severed. The verdict of posterity has been more liberal. The
chief fault laid to Peel's charge is that he should for so many years
have ignored all signs of the danger which was approaching, and not have
made up his mind in time. He could see the crisis clearly, when it came,
and could put the national interest above everything else: he could not
look far enough ahead.

It was a similar want of foresight that led to the fall of the Tory
Government in 1830. The Reform movement, so long delayed by the great
wars, had been gathering force again. Events in France, where Charles X
was driven from the throne and Louis Philippe proclaimed as
Citizen-king, gave it additional impetus. The famous lawyer Brougham was
thundering against the Government in Parliament, while throughout the
country the platforms from which Radical orators declaimed were
surrounded by eager throngs. The history of the movement cannot be told
here. Its chief actors were the Whigs, who on Wellington's resignation
formed a Government under Earl Grey at the end of 1830. Peel was
fighting a losing fight and he did not show his usual judgement or cool
temper. He opposed the Reform Bill to the last: he was haranguing
violently against it when Black Rod arrived to summon the Commons to the
presence of the King. William IV came down in person, at the instance of
the Whig ministers, to dissolve Parliament and so to stay all
proceedings by which, in the as yet unreformed Parliament, the Bill
might have been defeated. In the General Election of 1831 the Whigs
carried all before them, and in July, when Lord Grey carried the second
reading, he could command a majority of 136. Even then it took three
months of stubborn fighting to vanquish the Tory opposition in the House
of Commons. When the Peers rejected the Bill, the question was raised
whether a Tory Government could be formed; but Peel, however he might
dislike the Bill, could recognize facts, and his refusal to co-operate
in defying public opinion was decisive. Lord Grey returned to office
fortified by the King's promise to make any number of new peers, if
required; and the influence of Wellington was effective in dissuading
the Upper House from further futile resistance. Again Peel had shown his
good sense in accepting the situation. So far as he was concerned, there
was no talk of repeal. He explicitly said that he regarded the question
as 'finally and irrevocably disposed of', and he set to work to adapt
his policy to the new situation.

It might well seem a desperate one for the Tories. Here were three
hundred new members, most of whom had just received their seats from the
Whigs against the direct opposition of their rivals. Gratitude and
self-interest impelled them to support the Whig party; and its leaders,
who had for nearly fifty years been out in the cold shade of opposition,
might count on a long spell of power, especially as the Canningites,
stronger in talents than in numbers, joined them at this juncture.
Brougham had gone to the House of Lords, but three future Prime
Ministers--Stanley (afterwards Lord Derby), Lord John Russell, and
Palmerston--were in the House of Commons serving under Lord Althorp,
who, though gifted with no oratorical talent, by his good sense and
still more by his high character, commanded general respect. On the
other side there was only one figure of the first rank, and that was
Peel. Till 1832 he had not grown to his full stature: the Reformed
Parliament gave him his chance and drew forth all his powers. It
represented a new force in politics. No longer were the members sent to
Westminster by a few great land-holders, by the small market towns, and
by the agricultural labourers. The great industrial districts,
Lancashire, Yorkshire, and the Midlands, were there in the persons of
well-to-do citizens, experienced in business and serious in temper; and
Peel, who was himself sprung from a notable family of this kind, was
eminently the man to lead these classes and to win their confidence. It
was also a gain to him to stand alone. His judgement was ripened, his
confidence firm; and he could dominate his party, while the able and
ambitious leaders on the other side too often clashed with one another.
Above all, in the years 1832 to 1834, he showed that he had patience.
Instead of snatching at occasions to ally himself with O'Connell, who
was in opposition to every Government, and to embarrass the Whigs in a
factious party-spirit, he showed a marked respect for principle. He
supported or opposed the Whig bills purely on their merits, and
gradually trained his party to be ready for the inevitable reaction when
it should come.

By 1834 the tendencies to disruption in the victorious party were
clearly showing themselves. First Stanley, on grounds of policy, and
then Lord Grey, for personal reasons never quite cleared up, resigned
office. Soon after, Lord Althorp left the House of Commons on
succeeding to his father's earldom, and a little later Melbourne, the
new Premier, was unexpectedly dismissed by the King. At the time Peel,
expecting no immediate crisis, was abroad, in Rome; and we have
interesting details of his slow journey home to meet the urgent call of
Wellington, who was carrying on the administration provisionally. The
changes of the last few years were shown by the fact that the Tories
felt bound to choose their Premier from the Lower House. It was
Wellington who recommended Peel for the place which, under the old
conditions, he might have been expected to take himself. On his return,
Peel accepted the task of forming a ministry, and, conscious of the
numerical weakness of his own party, he made overtures to some of the
Whigs. But Stanley and Graham[7] refused to join him, and he had to fall
back on the Tories of Wellington's last Government. Before going to the
country he laid down his principles in the famous Tamworth Manifesto.[8]
This manifesto is important for its acceptance of the changes
permanently made by the Reform Bill, and for the clear exposition of his
attitude towards the important Church questions which were imminent. It
is an excellent document for any one to study who wishes to understand
the evolution of the old Tories into the modern Conservative party.

[Note 7: Sir James Graham, afterwards Home Secretary under Peel in
1841.]

[Note 8: Since his father's death, in 1830, Peel had been member for
Tamworth.]

Peel's first administration was not destined to last long. The Liberal
wave was not spent, and the Tories had little to hope for, at this
moment, from a General Election. As so often happened afterwards, when
the two English parties were evenly balanced, the Irish votes turned the
scale. Peel had been forced into this position by the King: his own
judgement would have led him to wait some years. He fought dexterously
for four months, helped in some measure by Stanley, who had left the
Whigs when they threatened the Established Church in Ireland; but it was
this question which in the end upset him. Lord John Russell, in alliance
with O'Connell, proposed the disendowment of that Church and defeated
Peel by thirty-three votes. It was a question of principle, though it
was raised in a factious way, and subsequent history showed that the
mover, after his tactical victory of the moment, could not effect any
practical solution. Peel was driven to resign. But in this short period,
so far from losing credit, he had won the confidence of his party and
the respect of his opponents; he had put some useful measures on the
Statute Book; and he had shown the country that a new spirit, practical
and enlightened, was growing up in the Tory party, and that there was a
minister capable of utilizing it for the general good.

In the Greville papers and other literature of the time we get many
references to the predominant place which he held in the esteem of the
House of Commons. An entry in Greville's journal for February 1834 shows
Peel's unique power. 'No matter how unruly the House, how impatient or
fatigued, the moment he rises, all is silence, and he is sure of being
heard with profound attention and respect.' Lady Lyttelton,[9] who met
him later at Windsor, shows us another aspect. His readiness and
presence of mind come out in the most trivial matters. When Queen
Victoria suddenly, one evening, issued her command that all who could
dance were to dance, the more elderly guests were much embarrassed. Such
an order was not to Peel's taste. 'He was, in fact, to a close observer,
evidently both shy and cross'; but he was 'much the best figure of all,
so mincing with his legs and feet, his countenance full of the funniest
attempt to look unconcerned and "matter of course".' Another time when
games were improvised in the royal circle, Lady Lyttelton was 'much
struck with the quickness and watchful cautious characteristic sagacity
which Sir Robert showed in learning and playing a new round game'. And
to the ladies-in-waiting he commended himself by his quiet courtesy.
'Sir Robert Peel', we read, 'was in his most conversable mood and so
very agreeable. I never enjoyed an evening more.'

[Note 9: _Correspondence of Sarah, Lady Lyttelton_, by Maud Wyndham
(Murray, 1912).]

Perhaps the best description to show how personally he impressed his
contemporaries at this time is given by Lord Dalling and Bulwer in his
memoir. Sir Robert Peel, he tells us, was 'tall and powerfully built,
his body somewhat bulky for his limbs, his head small and well-formed,
his features regular. His countenance was not what would be generally
called expressive, but it was capable of taking the expression he wished
to give it, humour, sarcasm, persuasion, and command, being its
alternate characteristics. The character of the man was seen more... in
the whole person than in the face. He did not stoop, but he bent rather
forwards; his mode of walking was peculiar, and rather like that of a
cat, but of a cat that was well acquainted with the ground it was moving
over; the step showed no doubt or apprehension, it could hardly be
called stealthy, but it glided on firmly and cautiously, without haste,
or swagger, or unevenness.... The oftener you heard him speak, the more
his speaking gained upon you.... He never seemed occupied with himself.
His effort was evidently directed to convince you, not that he was
_eloquent_, but that he was _right_.... He seemed rather to aim at
gaining the doubtful, than mortifying or crushing the hostile.' These
qualities appealed especially to the practical men of business whom the
Reform Bill had brought into politics. They were suited to the temper of
the day, and his speaking won the favour of the best judges in the
House of Commons. Though he disappointed ardent crusaders like Lord
Shaftesbury by his apparent coldness and calculating caution, he
impressed his fellow members as pre-eminently honest and as anxious to
advance in the most effective manner those causes which his judgement
approved. He was not the man to lead a forlorn hope, but rather the
sagacious commander who directed his troops through a practicable
breach.

He was to be in opposition for another six years; but during these years
the Whigs were in constant difficulties, and, as Greville notes, it was
often obvious that Peel was leading the House from the front Opposition
bench. Had he imitated Russell's conduct in 1834 and devoted his chief
energies to overthrowing the Whigs, he could have found many an
occasion. Sedition in Canada and Jamaica, rivalry with France in the
Levant and with Russia in the Farther East, financial troubles and
deficits, the spread of Chartist doctrine, all combined to embarrass a
Government which had no single will and no concentrated resolution. The
accession of Queen Victoria, in 1837, made no change for the moment. But
Wellington's famous remark that the Tories would have no chance with a
Queen because Peel had no manners and he had no small talk, is only
quoted now because of the falsity of the prediction; both politicians
soon came to form a better estimate of her judgement and public spirit.
It was some years before this could be fairly tested. The Tories, while
improving their position, failed to gain an absolute majority in the
elections, and Peel's want of tact in insisting on the Queen changing
all the ladies of her household delayed his triumph from 1839 to 1841.
Meanwhile he spent his energies in training his party and organizing
their resources. He studied measures and he studied men, and he
gradually gathered round him a body of loyal followers who believed in
their chief and were ready to help him in administrative reform when
the time should come. Among his most devoted adherents was Mr.
Gladstone, at this time more famous as a churchman than as a financier;
and even Mr. Disraeli, for all his eccentricities, accepted Peel's
leadership without question. Few could then foresee the very different
careers that lay before his two brilliant lieutenants.

By 1841 the power of the Whigs was spent. A vote of want of confidence
was carried by Peel, the King dissolved Parliament, and the Tories came
back with a majority of ninety in the new House of Commons. Now begins
the most famous part of Peel's career, that associated with the Repeal
of the Corn Laws, the third of his so-called 'betrayals' of his party.
No action of his has been so variously criticized, none caused such
bitterness in political circles. There is no space here to discuss the
value of Protection or the wisdom of the Anti-Corn-Law League, still
less the merits or demerits of a fixed duty as opposed to a
'sliding-scale'. We are concerned with Peel's conduct and must try to
answer the questions--What were Peel's earlier views on the subject?
What caused him to change these views? Was this change effected
honestly, or was he guilty of abandoning his party in order to retain
office himself?

The Corn Laws, introduced in 1670, re-enacted in 1815, forbade any one
to import corn into England till the price of home-grown corn had
reached eighty shillings a quarter. It is easy to attack a system based
on rigid figures applied to conditions varying widely in every century;
but the idea was that the English farmer should be given a decisive
advantage over his foreign rivals, and only when the price rose to a
prohibitive point might the interest of the consumer be allowed to
outweigh that of the producer. The revival of the old law in 1815 met
with strong opposition. England had greatly changed; the agricultural
area had not been widely increased, but there were many more millions of
mouths to feed, thanks to the growth of population in the industrial
districts. But while in 1815 the House of Commons represented almost
exclusively the land-owning and corn-growing classes, between 1815 and
1840 opposition to their policy had lately been growing and had been
organized, outside Parliament, by the famous league of which Richard
Cobden was the leading spirit. Peel, though he had been brought up by
his father a strong Protectionist and Tory, had been largely influenced
by Huskisson, the most remarkable President of the Board of Trade that
this country has ever seen, and had shown on many occasions that he
grasped the principle of Free Trade as well as any statesman of the day.
The Whigs had left the finances of the country in a very bad state, and
Peel had to take sweeping measures to restore credit. From 1842 to 1845
he brought in Budgets of a Free Trade character, designed to encourage
commerce by remitting taxation, especially on raw material; and he made
up the loss thus incurred by the Treasury, by imposing an income-tax. To
this policy there were two exceptions, the Corn Laws and the Sugar
Duties. On the latter he felt that England, since she had abolished
slave-owning, had a duty to her colonies to see that they did not suffer
by the competition of sugar produced by slave labour elsewhere. On the
former he held that England ought, so far as possible, to produce its
own food and to be self-sufficing; and as a practical man he recognized
that it was too much to expect of the agricultural interest, so strongly
represented in both Houses of Parliament, to pronounce what seemed to be
its death-warrant. But through these years he came more and more to see
that the interest of a class must give way to the interest of the
nation; and his clear intellect was from time to time shaken by the
arguments of the Anti-Corn-Law League and its orators. In 1845 he was
probably expecting that he would tide over this Parliament, thanks to
his Budgets and to good harvests, and that at a general election he
would be able to declare for a change of fiscal policy without going
back on his pledges to the party. Meanwhile his general attitude had
been noted by shrewd observers. Cobden himself in a speech delivered at
Birmingham said, 'There can be no doubt that Sir Robert Peel is at heart
as good a Free Trader as I am. He has told us so in the House of Commons
again and again.'

Among the causes which influenced Peel at the moment two are specially
noteworthy as reminding us of the way in which his opinion was changed
over Catholic Emancipation. Severe critics say that, to retain office,
he surrendered to the agitation of Cobden, as he had surrendered to that
of O'Connell. Undoubtedly the increasing size and success of Cobden's
meetings, which were on a scale unknown before in political agitation,
did cause Peel to consider fully what he had only half considered
before: it did help to force open a door in his mind, and to break down
a water-tight compartment. But Peel's mind, once opened, saw far more
than an agitation and a transfer of votes: it looked at the merits of
the question and surveyed the interest of the whole country. He had seen
that the fall of a Protestant Church was less serious than the loss of
Ireland: he now saw that a shock to the agricultural interest was less
serious than general starvation in the country. And as with the Clare
election, so with the Irish potato famine in 1845: a definite event
arrested his attention and clamoured for instant decision. Peel was as
humane a man as has ever presided over the destinies of this country,
and the picture of Ireland's sufferings was brought forcibly before his
imagination by the reports presented to him and by his own knowledge of
the country. His personal consistency could not be put in the balance
against national distress.

That the manner in which he made the change did give great offence to
his followers, there is no room to doubt. Peel was naturally reserved in
manner and in his Cabinet he occupied a position of such unquestioned
superiority that he had no need of advice to make up his mind, and was
apt to keep matters in his own hand. Whether he was preparing to consult
his colleagues or not, the Irish potato famine forced his hand before he
had done so. When in November 1845 he made suddenly in the Cabinet a
definite proposal to suspend the duties on corn, only three members
supported him. Year after year Peel had opposed the motion brought in by
Mr. Villiers[10] for repeal: only those who had been studying the
situation as closely as Peel and with as clear a vision--and they were
few--could understand this sudden declaration of a change of policy.
After holding four Cabinet councils in one week, winning over some
waverers, but still failing to get a unanimous vote, he expressed a wish
to resign. But the Whigs, owing to personal disagreements, could not
form a ministry and Queen Victoria asked Peel to retain office: it was
evident that he alone could carry through the measure which he believed
to be so urgent, and he steeled himself to face the breach with his own
party. As Lord John Russell had already pledged the Whigs to repeal, the
issue was no longer in doubt; but Peel was not to win the victory
without heavy cost. Disraeli, who had been offended at not being given a
place in the ministry in 1841, came forward, rallied the agricultural
interest, and attacked his leader in a series of bitter speeches,
opening old sores, and charging him with having for the second time
broken his pledges and betrayed his party. The Protectionists could not
defeat the Government. In the Commons the Whig votes ensured a
majority: in the Lords the influence of Wellington triumphed over the
resistance of the more obstinate landowners. The Bill passed its third
reading by ninety-eight votes.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28