MODERN POLITICAL HISTORY.* • TnouGn holding in one sense an
eminent place in the region of contemporary English literature, Mr. Henry Reeve is more dis- tinguished as a translator and skilful retailer of other men's thoughts, than by any original literary power of his own. But for the occasional epigrammatic turn of a sentence, we should say his style is wanting in liveliness and picturesqueness. He has made himself master of modern French historical literature, and speaks with a certain authority when he says of the Revolution of 1830, which dethroned Charles X., that "the crown was disposed of by a handbill and the [Orleans] dynasty enthroned by a placard." Again, he pithily describes Louis Philippe as "one of the greatest (kings who-ever reigned by little means." Still, it is heavy work reading old Edinburgh articles over again, though the collection and republication of these special essays, all bearing more or less on -one topic—the development of the revolutionary spirit in France —admits of justification. We cannot indeed but regret the re- printing in 1872 of some expressions applied in 1844 to M. Louis Blanc in a review of that gentleman's Histoire des Dix Ans. It is absurd to say that "nothing gives a meaner opinion of the politi- Royal and Republican France. By Henry Reeve. 2 vole. London: Lougmans. 1872. Memoir and Correspondence relating to Political Occurrences in June and Jaly,1834. By the Right Hon, Edward John Littleton, First Lord Hatherton. Now first pub- lished trom the Original MSS., by H. Reeve. London: Longman& 1872. earnest writers. The questions that now most profoundly agitate society, and threaten or promise, -as the case may be, to give it an entirely new aspect, are those to which M. Louis Blanc has de- voted his acute and powerful mind with unswerving fidelity from the beginning of his career to the present time. Most unpardon- able, therefore, do we think Mr. Reeve's sneering foot-note, dated 1872, in which he says that M. Louis Blanc "has subsided for the present into total obscurity, being generally supposed in Francs to have more violence in his opinions than courage in defence of them." As for obscurity, we venture to think that posterity may choose between the " reviewer " and the "labour theorist" in a way that Mr. Reeve does not seem to expect. Strangely enough, the aristocratic Tocqueville is cited with admiration when he utters opinions that form the key-note of the History of Ten Years, as when "he viewed with satisfaction any event which seemed likely to raise the politics of the day above the 'pot-it-feu demo- eratigue' of the Chamber." Or again, when he _says, in 1847, "The system practised by the administration for the last seven- teen years has so perverted the middle-class, by making constant appeals to its personal cupidity, that this class is gradually coming to be regarded by the rest of the nation as a little aristocracy, so vulgar and so corrupt that it is shameful to be governed by it. If this feeling were to spread in the masses, it might one day bring about great calamities." What more or less said the historian of Les Dix Ans? Mr. Reeve's volumes are pervaded throughout by one 'un- changeable tone that does honour to the consistency of the writer's political principles. A staunch Whig of the old school, he sees the safety of society only in a class of liberal aristocrats, who shall deliver the multitude from the excessive tyranny of their superiors, but yet shall maintain such a control over the people as will lead them in the right way, and will bind the various ranks of men into one strong and patriotic nation. In a very able essay, entitled "France in 1870," a masterly analysis is given of the state of French society before and after the Revolution of 1789. The mischievous influence of democratic principles is strongly insisted upon. They exert, it is here-said, a corrosive disintegrat- ing force that severs the various links of the social chain, and reduces man to a condition of personal independence or indi- vidualism, that must result in primeval barbarism. A people that has reached this condition is indifferent to the discharge of public or municipal duties, and the only form of government that can preserve national cohesion is that of absolute authority. In favour of absolute authority the French gave their voices on more than one occasion. The following pregnant passage is a favourable example of Mr. Reeve's style :— "Should that absolute authority fail in the discharge of the public duties devolving upon it, there is nothing to protect such a people from anarchy or subjugation. The life of man is so short, and the powers of a single generation so limited, that it is only by adding together the efforts of several generations, and by securing permanence and perpetuity to the results of human labour, that great institutions are created. Trusts and settlements which give permanence to family property, endowments, chartered corporations, and hereditary rank are all legal contrivances for the purpose of securing and perpetuating the benefits of labour and success. They give strength and stability to society, by creating interests and powers more lasting and comprehensive than those of the present time. They are to the moral energy of man what mechanism is to force, by preserving and applying what it cannot pro-. dtwe. But to all institutions of this permanent nature the spirit of democracy is opposed." Who that did not see the name of Mr. Reeve attached to the work would believe that these eloquent words were written by one who is reckoned among the literary leaders of the party of progress and reform ? The article on "Communal France,,' having appeared in the Edinburgh Review so recently as July in last year, will be in the recollection of our readers. The most interesting feature of the essay is a parallel drawn between the condition of France in 1356, after the loss of the battle of Poitiers, and her condition in 1871, after the capitulation of Sedan. After the capture of King John by the Black Prince,— " Whatever remained of France was within the walls of Paris, where Stephen Marcel, Provost of the Trades, still held his ground, and dictated terms to the Dauphin. The red and blue hoods of the citizens then first appeared in political history—for those are the colours of Paris—one day to be allied with the white cockade of the Bourbons in the tricolour of France. The power which conceived and imposed the conditions of the celebrated Ordinance of 1356 was essentially the municipal, though revolutionary strength of Paris. 'The dream of Etienne Marcel and his friends,' says Thierry, was a confederation of sovereign cities, having Paris 11t their head, and governing the country through a Diet, under the sovereignty of a Sing.'" Mr. Reeve adds significantly, "These words might -have been written yesterday." So much for the two volumes -which, as we have said, justify by their substance their republication as a con- tribution to the history of Royal and Republican France. We turn to another part of modern political history, and to the consideration of Mr. Reeve's edition of Lord Hatherton's memoir. It is very characteristic of the political litterateur to be fond of private memoirs. He gloats over the hitherto unseen manu- script that is to reveal to him the secret spring of some unexplained political action; perhaps half a century old, and the privilege of publishing to the world documents of this kind is of priceless value to him. We hope Mr. Reeve will one day give us a volume of his collected biographies and private memoirs of this kind, in- cluding that of Lord Kingsdown and others. They are lost in the voluminous Review, and are not to be found elsewhere. The memoir before us relates to an incident that had passed into oblivion when the appearance of Lord Brougham's auto- biography revived the interest of the few surviving political heroes of 1834. In that year Earl Grey's ministry was broken up by the unexpected resignation of Lord Althorp, followed by that of the Premier himself. Many surmises were made as to the real cause of this catastrophe—a serious one for the Whigs—but the precise circumstances of the case have never been made fully known until now. The story exhibits in a striking manner the fine sensitiveness of character which belongs to the high-minded gentle- men who, happily for the country, are generally selected to form the British Cabinet, whatever party may have the majority of votes. One act of perfidy on the part of a man who set this feeling at naught was enough to shake, dislocate, and eventually destroy the Ministry. Our readers are aware that in 1834 Daniel O'Connell was a power in Ireland and in the British Parliament. He had attained such a magic influence over his excitable fellow- countrymen that he could, by a word or even by a wave of his hand, rouse the spirit of agitation to a degree of madness, or subdue it to a perfect calm. Great lawlessness prevailed in Ireland in 1833 and 1834, one of the exciting causes of which was the exac- tion of tithes for the benefit of the Protestant clergy. It was necessary to pass a Bill through Parliament for the regulation of this matter, and in 1834, Lord Hatherton, then Mr. Littleton, the newly appointed Secretary for Ireland, had charge of the measure. A formidable obstacle, however, to the progress of the Tithe Bill was found in the necessity that was felt for the renewal of the Coercion Bill that had been passed in the previous session, in order to give the Lord-Lieutenant power not only to suppress agrarian outrages, but to prevent large public meetings in towns that were hot-beds of agitation. The clauses against public meetings were aimed at O'Connell, and he with his friends determined to resist all Government measures connected with Ireland, if those clauses were renewed. Now it turned out upon inquiry that no case for the application of the clauses against public meetings had occurred since the passing of the Act in 1833. Mr. Littleton felt that the renewal of the unconstitutional powers they gave was unnecessary, and he had learned from private sources that his Tithe Bill would not be opposed by the Irish Members if the Coercion Bill could be made more acceptable to them. In a conversation with Lord Brougham, who quite agreed with him on the subject, Littleton learned that the Chancellor had written to Lord Wellesley, the Lord-Lieu- tenant, urging him strongly to give up the clauses. Brougham added that "he thought I should do well to write to the same effect. He particularly requested that I would ask him, if he acquiesced, to address his letter to Lord Grey." Oddly enough, though this suggestion of Brougham's was the source of all the mischief that ensued, the impulsive Chancellor had totally for- gotten his share in the transaction when he wrote his own memoirs. His letter and Littleton's letter to Lord Wellesley drew from the Lord-Lieutenant an epistle addressed to the Prime Minister, strongly recommending the withdrawal of the obnoxious clauses from the new Coercion Bill. This WAS the famous letter upon which the fate of the Government hung, and which never saw the light until it appeared in the Edinburgh Review for July, 1871. Lord Brougham, totally oblivious of what he himself had done, writes thus upon the subject :—" The letter which Littleton had written to Lord Wellesley, and which had produced Lord Wellesley's letter to Grey of June 21, was concocted, as Grey entirely believed, by Edward Ellice. Certainly he blamed him more than he blamed Durham, or anyone else ; and afterwards, in referring to this painful subject, he exclaimed to me :—'But to think of Ellice, mine own familiar friend, who did eat of my bread, to think of him, of all men, thus conspiring against me!" Surely the author of Albert Ltutel had powers that might have brought him renown in the field of fiction, had he only applied himself. Mr. Edward Elliot) knew nothing at all of the matter in question, nor had he anything to do with it, and if Lord Grey suspected any- one of prompting Wellesley, it was Brougham himself, though he- knew the Chancellor could have no motives of interest in disturb- ing a Ministry with which his strongest interests were bound up. Be that as it may, Littleton, when he heard that Lord Wel- lesley had written to the Premier, felt convinced the meeting clauses would be abandoned, and was fortified in this opinion by hearing that Lords Althorp and Melbourne con- curred in it. Hereupon, with the verbal sanction of I.end Althorp, he went so far as to assure O'Connell under the of confidence that the precise form of the new Coercion Bill was not determined upon. The agitator, underatauding this to. mean that the meeting clauses would be omitted, was very amiable, and went so far as to say, " Oh 1 you know Lord Anglesey used to confide in me ; you may do so equally.' This was on the 23rd June. On the 1st July, Lord Grey,. who had overruled the objections of his Cabinet to the public- meeting clauses, introduced the Coercion Bill unchanged, and O'Connell, who was standing under the throne in the House of Lords, was loud in his indignation at this failure of what he chose- to think was a promise made by the Government to him through Littleton. He further vented his anger in the House of Commons. on the 3rd July, and the Ministry was brought into so much dis- credit by the appearance of double-dealing, that on the 9th, Lord Althorp, who remembered by this time that he had told Littletom he would, after Wellesley's letter, rather resign than agree to the. unconstitutional clauses insisted on by Lord Grey, did resign,. dragging the whole Cabinet after him. The letters, as we have said, are worth reading, as illustrating the high tone of mind which regulates the conduct of men in the high positions the writers occupied. They have that noble charity which we call gentlemanliness, which believeth all things good of a neighbour till the contrary has been proved. The conduct of O'Connell is stigmatised by all parties in unmeasured terms. Sir W. Gosset must express "the disgust he felt, in common with every honourable man, at the black act of the Political Fiend who has so shamefully betrayed your secret communications." Lord Wellesley writes, "I should have dissuaded all confidential inter- course with a person who has cast off all the ties of human society, and is under no restraint of civil, moral, or religious obligation.' The agitator's friends, the Irish Members, upbraided him so. severely that he endeavoured to conciliate Littleton by fulsome adulation in the House of Commons. The blarney failed of its effect, however. One or two passages in the book throw a curious light upon the character of eminent individuals. When Ministers. resigned, "Lord John Russell was very angry with Althorp for stating in the House which of the Cabinet Ministers had sided with him. He positively cried with vexation : we had hard work. to prevent his coming down to make a statement." Again, " Althorp's face is joy itself. He was dreadfully nervous about his last statement, which he wrote and learnt by heart. But as he- was walking out of his room to the House he brightened up, cry- ing out, "Well, there is heaven beyond !" He was perhaps at the time unconscious that four months afterwards he would be in his grave. When King William IV. consulted Lord Melbourne ots the resignation of Lord Grey, "It seems," writes Mr. Littleton,. "that he is not thinking of the Tories. He was so frightened when he made the last attempt with the Duke of Wellington, that. those who live with him have always said he would never again disregard a majority of the existing House of Commons." Other- illustrative bits of anecdote might be culled from the volume, but. we are compelled to desist.
Previous page
