BOOKS.

SYMONS ON SIR HOBERT FEEL'S STATESMANSHIP.* .Poixrreei, discoveries are not a statesman's vocation.. A minis- ter who should attempt to carry out " original views " in politics, would soon find that he had undertaken an impossible task, un- less he held his office under a despotism. Even then he might find that he had sacrificed his power, unless his discovery was merely a development of latent popular opinion. Peel had no pretensions to original discovery. Neither had he the dra- matic force of character, and the power of impressing mankind with an idea of their "genius," which give to some men, as to the younger Pitt, a preeminence and repute fax beyond what their actual success in affairs would justify. Tried by a more practical test, the late Sir Robert Peel will be found to equal if not indeed to excel any Minister of this country, except the great statesmen of the Tudors and the Commonwealth. With the exception of the Reform Bill, his name was identified with all the measures which indicate the advance of the age, which still affect the wellbeing of the people, and which are cal- culated to exercise a permanent- influence on the country. One of his earlier measures, of which little is said, the organi- zation of the Polite in Ireland—followed at a later period by a similar organization in London, now gradually spreading over the kingdom—was perhaps the most onginel and spon- taneous thing he ever did. Some writers, and Smollet among the number, had commented on the want of protection.furnished by Government to the public ; but general opinion was sluggish ; nay, notwithstanding the immense increase of portable wealth, the growth of large towns with their facilities for harbouring criminals, the change in the habits of life—the discontinuance of arms, for instance—and that the police formally remained pretty much as it was in the middle ages, while its vitality had decayed, the ajority of Britons still entertained the prejudice in favour of m freedom to be plundered. On the other hand, "Peel's Bill" of 1819, which was and still is the cause of so much obloquy from a certain sect, was in itself the least original thing he ever under- took. Public faith was pledged to the restoration of the metallic currency ; the practical and scientific wisdom of 'the country had agreed upon its necessity ; the Bank of England, by " applying the screw," in 1816 and 1817, had filled its cotters, and re- duced the difference in value between its notes and gold. to a. small percentage ; the evils, whatever they might be, which attended a return to cash payments, had passed with the great crashes of 1816-'17 and their consequences. There was nothing to do but to pass the bill. A great merit of Peel was that he did this, while others would only have talked about it, or postponed it to that " more convenient season" which never comes ; and he did it, as was his wont, thoroughly, in a way to settle the matter. The greater merit of Peel was the firmness with which he ad- hered to the sound view of the Currency question, against cla- morous interests, and amid temptations that might have swayed a weaker man, and the consistency with which he carried out the principle, through the Small Notes Abolition Bill and the com- pulsory restriction on the Bank to proportion its paper issues to its gold. It would be ridiculous to ascribe to any individuals the sound condition of our financial system that has carried us so un- injured through the recent war, or the sensible state of the public mind which looks with such coolness on foreign projects pro- mising large profit. The vast difference between the public mind of 1816-'26 and of 1856 is to be traced to a dissemination of the principles of political economy, and the frequent ventilation of the Currency question in Parliament, pamphlets, and the news- paper press. But so far as positive law or any single person can claim the merit of the present state of things, the merit is due to Sir Robert Peel. Those who consult his speeches on the Currency will find great soundness and a wonderful depth with the utmost clearness of expression. His connexion with the abolition of the Corn-laws and the virtual establishment of Free-trade is matter of too immediate notoriety as a fact or in its effects to need dwell- ing upon. If his currency and commercial measures stood alone, we apprehend it would not be easy to point out a single and al- most an isolated Minister who exercised such a direct influence on the material interests of a country, or stamped such an impress on one class of legislation. It is the custom to consider Hominy as the originator of Cri- minal Law Reform. Strictly, such is not the fact. During the last century, men occasionally noted the cruelty of the laws ; Fielding sometimes with mingled pathos and humour, Voltaire with wit and satire. Sir William Meredith, when Romilly was a youth, vainly attempted to effect some amelioration in our then Draconic code. Thirty years later, Romilly attempted the same thing with the like practical unsuccess ; but with a new generation, and the regular publication of debates, he had a wider field and a more receptive audience. His merit consists not in originating, but in. ripening the subject with the public, by his zeal, his learning, and the general respect attaching to his high character. It was a personal defect which Peel shared with Addison, that he could " bear, like the Turk, no brother near his throne." A compliment to Romilly would have been quite as appropriate as to a corn-law agitator. But this omission being passed over, great praise must be assigned to Peel as a reformer of the criminal law. The re- form concerned a class of people from whom he had nothing to

• Sir Robert Peel, as a Type of Statesmanship. By Jelinger Symons, Esq., Barrister-at-law. Published by Longman and Co.

hope or fear ; the change was misliked by such influential classes as judges, bishops, and that large number of persons who are averse to improvements that do not benefit themselves; no party interest could be rallied in support of it ; from the gradual way in which it was necessary to proceed the measures could produce no striking eclat; and the author had considerable difficulties to surmount with some of his colleagues. But he saw that the improvement was desirable, and he made it. Many people speak as if Peel be- fore the Catholic Emancipation Bill had been looked upon as a bigoted Orange leader. This was by no means the case. Peel was never the object of such odium as Canning, till, towards the close of Lord Liverpool's Administration, excited ; for Peel was not a pro- voking and insolent man, nor did he ever cut poor verbal jokes on human afflictions or infirmities, as " the reverend and ruptured Ogden." He was rather looked up to and popular among the more thoughtful Liberals, for his currency views and his legal reforms. The Catholic question, like the Corn-laws, is even yet so pro- minently before the public mind that it needs not be dwelt upon. Peel avowedly yielded not to conviction but necessity. Except in the exclusion of O'Connell, "by particular desire,' the measure itself was as large and all-embracing as it could 'well be made; but it was not so conclusive in its results as his other measures. Various causes contributed to this, but a main cause was priestly ambition and religious fanaticism, which will not let people be quiet.

In all these great measures, bearing so immediately upon the wants or wellbeing of society, and leaving upon it so perma- nent an impression, party hostility only instances two as having been carried under discreditable circumstances these are the re- peal of the Corn-laws and Catholic Emancipation. The charge as regards the Corn-laws is much the slighter of the two. There was no treason, for there was no trust. When the first heat of the Reform contest was over, Liberals resumed and ex- tended their former confidence in Peel. The old or more bigoted Tories muttered or growled their distrust, threatening ven- geance if he again deceived them. He himself, with an un- usual openness, declared, in answer to taunts that he would have to obey his party, that if he took office it would be to

out his own views of public policy, not those of other Pearorple. " Consistency," in the ancient sense of the term, had passed away. The rapid progress of the world rendered per- sistence in old ideas impossible to thinking men, who would act in or influence affairs. No man of any mark in his own circle entertained the same opinions in 1846 as he did in 1816 or even 1826, though he might say he belonged to the same side. The Reform Bill, especially, had broken up the old limits. If any practical public man were taken and tested, his change would be found to have been quite as great as Sir Robert Peel's. For instance, Lord John Russell had expressed opinions in fa- vour of the born-laws perhaps stronger than Sir Robert's. He changed as rapidly, without that knowledge of coming evil which the Minister possessed; without higher motive, it was universally supposed, than that of clutching a party advantage; besides dis- turbing when he could not settle, and wanting the courage even to attempt a settlement. No doubt, there is a class of mind winch, speaking with exactness, cannot be said to have an opinion, though it may hold fast by an inherited prejudice. But who

can control his fate Thursday the 16th December 1852, the avenging Nemesis achieved a triumph: the larger part of the as- sailants of Peel wheeled round with more rapidity than ever he did, and abandoned the only distinctive " cry " they had, without any other motive than that of keeping "in." Catholic Emancipation is a more difficult point to agree upon. The public danger was perhaps less than from the Corn-laws, as hunger is harder to deal with than party differences or even religious zeal ; though the immediate political pressure would Tome more home to Peel than the distant risk of revolt. But in 1829 party consistency and party ties were of a stronger kind than in 1846. Neither had Peel created the old Tory party, as he did the Conservative party pretty much on the understanding that he was to be master ; nor was the maxim, that a statesman was to be independent of mere party so much received as after the break-up by the Reform Bill. Whatever blame may attach to a rupture of party ties under such circum- stances attaches to Peel. Men will apportion the blame in accord- ance with their preconceived opinions, or the view they take of the circumstances. Let us look at them.

Apostacy in the sense of abandoning an opinion there was not. Peel only professed to obey a necessity which he had resisted as long as he could. From the movement in the country afterwards, it is possible that he might have got an Anti-Papal majority on a dissolution ; but it is not clear that sufficient voting strength existed; the men who shouted, and spouted, and formed proces- sions, might not be electors. It is still less clear that any com- mon appeal—anything short of the actual bill—would have brought them out. From a well-known speech of the Duke of Wellington, a civil war seems to have loomed before him ; Peel in his " Memoirs" expresses a doubt of the fidelity of the Irish Soldiers. How far these apprehensions were well-founded, or really believed in, it is impossible to ascertain. We may be quite sure that a Parliamentary danger was distinctly visible to Peel.- In the then balanced state of parties on the question, he might in

new House of Cominons, perhaps in the old, have got a (' measuring-cast" majority but to work the Government in a time of confusion or rebellion, gainst such an Opposition as he must have met, led by Hnry Brougham and aided by Huskisson and Palmerston, with the Catholic question colouring everything, was impossible. The final upshot no one could foresee; it might have been revolution, it might have been anarchy. Some dim impression of these difficulties, and of the fact that Peel bets in 1829 and in 1846 really laid a rising storm at the expense of much personal pain to himself and of immediate political damage seems to have influenced the public mind—to have produced that confidence in his prudence and-safe-steering through any difficult). which undoubtedly existed in society at large, even among active opponents who had no personal interest in opposition. His pope. laxity is otherwise inexplicable ; for the public at large are no favourers of dishonesty and treason. It is now generally admitted that the Catholic question must have been settled in 1829 ; and much of the dispute really resolves itself into the manner of doing it. If we look at a measure merely as a thing to be done out of hands Peel took the right mode. He undoubtedly disregarded the feelings of his fol- lowers ; and perhaps it was here, after all, that the shoe really pinched. • " To think one thing and another tell," is " between man and man" highly blameable if not base. Practically, a species of untruth is recognized as unavoidable in public affairs or in any large business. If a man fighting a desperate cause were to avow his own opinion of it, he would encourage his adversary and secure his own defeat. A barrister may strenuously advise one course at consultation, yet openly argue against that advice, A Minister of State who opposes a measure in Council is permitted by public ethics to advocate it in Parliament : if he " spoke the truth" on the business, everybody would cry out against him and say he was deservedly dismissed. Any man contemplating a change in any thing continues his old course till he sees his way clearly and has made up his mind. Yet Mr. Jelinger Symons at- tacks Peel because he did not allow his opinion to be known as soon as he suggested his ideas on Emancipation to the Duke, be- fore the Premier, the Cabinet, and the King, had agreed upon anything. Such a course, besides its folly, would have been worse treason than any that has been alleged against him.

Resignation has often been suggested as an alternative. It was perhaps the proper course ; it was undoubtedly the course which a prudent man looking only to himself would have taken. Its pa- triotism may be doubted. The Pro-Catholics could not have Flossed an Emancipation Bill through a new House of Commons, though they might with the old House. They could never have overcome the Peers backed by the Crown. Once snugly hi place, however, it may be doubted whether the Whigs and Irish agi- tators would much have concerned themselves about the settle- ment. They might have brought forward measures for rejection; or they might have repeated the Canning farce that (Government being " friendly " to the measure) his Majesty should not be " troubled " about it. A somewhat similar course, it may be re- membered took place with the Appropriation-clause, after it had served its turn.

Peel's inconsistencies, however, appear greater in him than in others quite as inconsistent, from his House of Commons train- ing, his rhetorical skill and power, and perhaps too great a desire for House of Commons applause.

" His verses rarely wanted their due feet, And for his theme he seldom sang below it."

He always made the most of the present subject without regard to the future ; as if, like a lawyer, his responsibility ended with the immediate case. This spirit of triumphing advocacy was a vice in him, and carried to an extreme. We think, however, that the true ground of dissatisfaction among his more respect- able adherents was that already indicated—a wounding of their " amour propre." Both Peel and the Duke seemed to entertain a contempt for their political followers, as of men without souls they could call their own. Both appear to have expected their adhe- rents to wheel round at the word of command, and to take opin- ions as soldiers would take orders from their chiefs.

" If this were so, it were a grievous fault; , And grievously bath Gasser answered it.'

When a man has filled so large a space in the public mind for so many years, has settled such great questions, and exercised such an influence on his age and beyond it, his statesmanship would. seem to be unquestionable, though his particular grade or character might be open to discussion. The author of the book before us thinks otherwise. To determine whether Peel was or was not a statesman, is the object of his publication ; and he decides in the negative, without hesitation or misgiving.

"To regard him as entitled for a moment to the character of a statesman, is to degrade the attrihedes of statesmanship into capacities for commanding Parliamentary majorities, by ministering to the ascendant passions and pre-

judices ofthe hour. • • •

"To the fame of an historic statesman who shall live in the great gallery of some future Macaulay, he never had any title, or even the germ of a chance: So that as regards the future, Mr. Peel would have lost nothing by eschewing pretensions to principles, and the other qualities of great men ; whilst he would far more effectually, usefully, and honourabl1 have ful- filled his destiny and performed his mission. * *

"Though we are removed from the vices and fatuities of the Liverpool and Newcastle Cabinets, and the minor profligacies of later dynasties, we are .bereft of the elements of any order of power essential to the fruits of legislation and the functions ofgovernment. This is' the natural result of that subjugation of principles to the chances of Parliamentary majorlPes of which Sir Robert Peers career was a type and a sanction. It is the har- vest we must expect to reap from the misjudgment which attempts to rage_ that able administrator, that dexterous debater, and useful man, to a rep u. tation, which history and the maturer wisdom of other times will hold sacred to an order of statesmanship characterised by the greatness of Chatham, the talents of Burke, and the consistent probity of Lansdowne." These extracts, brief as they are, will indicate the tone of the book, and the spirit in which the writer sets about his self-imposed task. Of all that has been written upon Sir Robert Peel after the fury of the immediate- conflict was past, it seems to us the narrowest in its tests, and the, least measured in its tone. Points may be occasionally made, though perhaps not new ; there are bits where Peel. is fairly reader appreciated-; and there are passages which, though the re may not altogether agree with them, possess a merit. of the pamphlet or the article order. In the grasp of mind, the critical acumen, the dispassionate judg- ment necessary to treat the subject of Sir Robert Peel and his necessarily large concomitants, Mr. Iermger Symons is deficient. Ile begins with a review of the political condition of England just before the entrance of Peel into public life, which is as poorly reasoned as may be ; the real conclusion from the premises being the self-evident proposition, that the times were favourable to a man fitted to take advantage of them. The plan of the remainder of the publication consists in passing under review the successive stages of Peers career,—as his government of Ireland, the Cur- rency Bill, Catholic Emancipation,—winding up with a sort of summary or " character." In these chapters there is often an at- tempt at largeness, which mostly falls into looseness ; so strange a neglect of precision, that there appears the greatest ignorance about facts which the writer must know to be wrongly stated ; at times a Ninute cavilling, where the hypercritic turns out to be incorrect. A large portion of the earlier censure rests upon the (perhaps unconscious) unfairness of looking at Peel's influence in his later days —assuming that he always had a similar power, and censuring inn: for not exercising what he had not got. Neither does Mr. Symons allow anything for growth or experience, except in the personal bearing of Sir Robert. A spirit pervades the whole which mostly renders trustworthy judgment impossible. When Peel's views are those of Mr. Symons, he praises ; when they are opposed to him; he blames, These characteristics, and some others, could be illustrated by instances were it worth while, which it is not. The book is less remarkable for any inherent merit, than for the nature of its subject, its pretentious charac- ter, and often a strange rabidness of feeling.

There are, as we have intimated, fair things in. the book ; but unless the conclusion is very obvious, the author seems rarely to arrive at accuracy. Take this passage from the close.

"It is one of the prepossesaions which swinging from shallow ground often takes fast hold of the English mind, that the liberal acts of the later policy of Sir Robert Peel were the result of pride ; that it was the practical resentment with which he visited the alleged slight of the old families of the country, whose patrician prejudices and distant bearing towards the offspring of plebeian enterprise had established the feud of mite between them. This is probably an error • and if not wholly devoid of truth, is at least too little substantiated and probed to have a place in the estimate of his public career. There are two facts alone which militate against the belief. In the first place, Sir Robert Peel was not thus distanced by the aristoeratical families of the country. He enjoyed as much of their society and intercourse as a man of his temperament, pursuits, and habits, was likely to avail himself of, even if his descent were direct, from the Planta- genets. Long before he had incurred the political odium of his former al- lies, and previous even to his entry on public life, the unsociability of cha- racter had been manifested, which is illustrated in the way in which Lord Byron mentions him when at Harrow. ' He was my form-fellow, and we were at the top of our remove. We were on good terms, but his brother was Ing intimate friend.' He is said never to have lived on close terms of inti- macy with any of his acquaintances even in his college days, when friend- ships are usually formed with more freedom, and flourish with less restraint than at any other period of life. " Nor is it moreover credible that a gentleman of such wealth and acquirements was excluded from noble society because he owed his fortune to the industry of his father. Patrician scruples are not so punctilious even where no adjuncts of education or character have compensated for want of lineage. In fact, where low breeding survives the concomitants of low birth, and no moral merit or mental power atone for either, we have had but too recent an instance in London society how little these have deterred aris- tocratic idolatry of mere wealth in its coarsest and most repulsive develop- ment, Sir Robert Peel had few patrician friends, not because they slighted

him, but because he shunned "- - -

Of Of course no proof can be had on such a subject when the man himself is silent. But the popular opinion seems as well founded as the doubt of Mr. Symons. Few suppose that when a man be- comes a powerful minister and leader of his party he is subject to social rebuffs :

—" if in Downing Street Old Nick should revel

England's Prime Minister—then bless the Devil."

But there was a time, nearly fifty yearn ago, when " young Peel," a cotton-spinner's son, was promoted over the heads of expectants of better birth- Ld higher social position, and of which time the: successful chief might entertain unpleasant re- miniscences. If. 7 there is any truth in the popular opinion, i3,

dating as far back as the time of Emancipation at east, it would tend partly to explain the contemptuous treatment of his follow- ers, which is otherwise inexplicable in so prudent a man. Some feeling whether of rankling soreness or philosophic disdain seems to have endured to the last, else why his refusal of all personal honours, and the posthumous veto to his family ?