reins to tO EMIL SIR R. PEEL AS A TYPE
OF STATESMANSHIP. Gloucester, 26th November 1866. Sra—In your review in the last Spectator of the above-named book, you gay, "Any man contemplating a change in anything, continues his old course till he sees his way clearly and has made up his mind." Mr. Jelin- ger Symons "attacks Sir Robert Peel because he did not allow his opinion jade known as soon as he suggested his ideas on Emancipation to the Duke, before the Premier, the Cabinet, and the King, had agreed on anything." I am sure you will allow me to correct this entire misimpression on your part.
In his Memoirs, page 127, Sir Robert says, that just before the discussion on Lord Lansdowne's motion on the 9th of June 1828, he begged the Duke of Wellington "to take a course in debate which should not preclude him, who was less deeply committed on the question than myself, from taking the whole state of Ireland into consideration during the recess, with the view of adjusting the Catholic questimt." On the 12th of the same month, Mr. Peel is reported by Hansard to have said, that "as Sir F. Burdett had expressed a hope that the present Administration would take this question up next session, lest any misconcep- tion should go abroad respecting his sentiments, and his alone, ' &e. He then referred to the declaration and opinions which he had repeatedly uttered upon the Catholic question, and said—" To that declaration and to those opinions./ still adhere; and I conceive that in saying so, I have said enough to satisfy the House that my sentiments upon the question remain un- altered."
Such are the facts on which I condemned the conduct of Sir Robert Peel on the occasion to which you refer. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. SYMONS.
[Mr. Symons is quite correct in saying that he condemns the'bonduct mentioned in his letter. It is found at page 60 of his book ; where he also slates, that "the revelation in the Memoirs [of Sir Robert Peel] is ob- viously partial and fragmentary." The attack we spoke of is in another place. It fills nearly four pages, (61-640 and chiefly relates to proceedings, some of them adopted during the recess. It will be understood that we are not defending the practice of dissimula- tion, carried to simulation or falsehood, and sometimes to gratuitous false- hood. But the laxity of public opinion permits it to politicians, and we see no fairness in singling out one man for exclusive censure. Peel, however, did little if anything more than what Johnson defended, and Scott prac- tised when he denied the authorship of the Waverley Novels.
We have received a letter from another correspondent in refereilee to the remark that "great praise must be assigned to Peel as a reformer of the criminal law." Our correspondent, from his position and actual knowledge, is better able to form a judgment than we are, and he considers that what "we owe to Peel is his efforts at consolidation, and Ms making head against Eldon's clamour, and that of others, to put down all such proceedings, and indeed all law amendment." He holds that Peel's actual reforms merely remitted the punishment of death where it was no longer inflicted ; while he stood up for retaining it in several cases—in forgery, for instance. Our correspondent, however, seems to think that we called Peel a " great " reformer of the criminal law : but we only said he was entitled to "great praise" for what he did.—En.]
Previous page
