LORD LIVERPOOL.*
To the generation born since the first Reform Bill Lord Liverpool has ever been a mogul nominis umbra. With these three ponderous volumes tied round his neck, he will not be much better known than before. Some favourable points in his character are brought out by Mr. Yonge, and some of the more unfavourable ones are firmly established. But after reading through 1,427 pages with as much steadfastness as can be expected of a man and a reviewer, we have no clear picture of Lord Liverpool engraved upon our mental retina. We are told by Mr. Yonge, and we have no means of testing his statements, that Lord Liverpool was the very last of all ministers who can be said to have governed England, that he brought the country into a state of unexampled prosperity, that he had a large share in abolishing the slave trade, that his eloquence only fell short of being of the very highest order, that he deserved the praise given by Burke to Walpole without either the abatement assigned by the one or that belonging to the other, and that among those who governed the country in the same office, "Pitt alone has achieved a more brilliant, no one has left a more spotless fame." But vague declamation such as this does noillhelp us to understand Lord Liverpool's character, or his success. We can hardly take Mr. Yonge's random conclusions as gospel. The way in which he obtrudes his own opinions about Reform and Disestablishment looks as if he was praising Lord Liverpool for being the Yonge of fifty years back, and praising him all the more because the Yonge of fifty years back was First Lord of the Treasury. "Lord Liverpool was a very great man. (See my life of him passim.) He said this in such a year. I say it now." That is apparently Mr. Yonge's syllogism, but with becoming modesty he suppresses the deduction.
It might seem as if we were following the same line of argument, should we commend Lord Liverpool for possessing some Liberal opinions. But though we are glad to find that the Tory Premier was in favour of free trade, of general education, of curtailing the hours of child-labour, of a relaxation of the game laws, and of the admission of Roman Catholics to the elective franchise and to the magistracy, we do not think such principles the more sound because one particular statesman supported them, nor do we think that statesman the more enlightened because he happens to offer us some points of contact. To us the most remarkable feature in Lord Liverpool's character is that on purely political subjects he was as stubborn as a rock, while he thought for himself, and thought liberally, on questions to which his party was not committed. It may not always be easy to distinguish his personal convictions from those which were forced upon him. This is one of the main obstacles to our appreciation of him as a man, to our forming a clear view of his conduct as distinguished from his career. But much may be explained by a reference to that necessity of carrying on the Ring's Government which was afterwards stated by the Duke of Wellington. It is clear that Lord Liverpool regarded political life as a campaign. He may have inherited this view from his father, who warned him once against accepting an office in which no man yet had gained credit, and pointed out to him another time that from concurring circumstances the ball would be at his feet. We see throughout these volumes that Lord Liverpool's treatment of the country was based upon statecraft. Almost every great question teaches this lesson. On Catholic Emancipation he might be coupled with Lord Eldon. It is remarkable that he urged the claims of Lord Eldon to the Chancellorship of the University of Oxford mainly on this ground, and he must have been very much surprised at his failure. But though he maintained that "a Protestant Government alone was consistent with the
laws and constitution of the British Empire," and that the oath which kept Roman Catholics out of Parliament was "a test with which consistently with the security of the Protestant Government and Protestant Establishment it was impossible to dispense," he opposed Lord Eldon on the question of giving votes to the Roman Catholics and opening to them some of the inferior offices. This he considered a mere question of degree, while to Lord Eldon no doubt it was a matter of principle. But Lord Liverpool argued sagaciously enough that it was useless to prolong contests on immaterial points which made the Government appear weak without producing any countervailing advantage. The grand Tory principle of resisting all reform not on account of what it is, but of what it may lead to, could hardly have been present to the Prime Minister's mind. The speech given us on that occasion is daring in its defiance of tradition. "His learned friend hinted at indefinite dangers ; he required something intelligible and tangible. He thought that in order to maintain the Protestant ascendancy, it was necessary to have a Protestant Parliament, a Protestant Council, and Protestant Judges ; but it could not be denied that there was a wide distinction between such high securities and the privileges granted by the present bills. He even believed that the granting of such privileges to the Catholics of England would.strengthen the Protestant Establishment by removing a cause of discontent, and that by conceding these little things they should acquire strength to resist further encroachments." It is evident that on this principle it would be easy to defend any sort of innovation. So long as the admission of Roman Catholics to the privileges of free citizens is a question of degree, the amount may be varied by each successive Parliament. Lord Liverpool thought a Protestant Parliament indispensable. But that was only Lord Liverpool's opinion. Another man might have attached as much importance to a Protestant magistracy, a Protestant electoral body. Lord Eldon may have thought for a time that the world would come to an end if the Duke of Norfolk was allowed to exercise his hereditary functions without incurring the penalties of a misdemeanour. But:when a separate bill was passed for the relief of the Duke of Norfolk, the first principle of obstruction was abandoned. According to a very favourite simile with some people, this was the thin end of the wedge. But the people who are always employing that simile forget that it is the nature of the opposition which renders such an implement necessary.
Lord Liverpool did not live long enough to shift his ground on the question of Parliamentary Reform. It might be interesting for his admirers to speculate on the line which he would have pursued in 1832. We need hardly say that his views on the Reform question were those of an"ultra-Tory. In 1810 he "believed there never was a period in our history when the representation of the people in parliament was less unequal. That it was unequal in theory he would admit, but that theoretic inequality he regarded as one of the greatest advantages of our Constitution." In 1821 he considered that "giving the right of election to the populous manufacturing towns was the worst remedy which could be applied. In the first place, it would be the greatest evil conferred on those towns ; it would subject the population to a perpetual factious canvas, which would divert more or less the people from their industrious habits, and keep alive a permanent spirit of turbulence and disaffection amongst them. Against such a measure all the most respectable inhabitants of those towns would, I am convinced, protest. If reference is made to the discussion on Parliamentary Reform at the time when Mr. Pitt brought forward his plan, it will be found that with all the attempt that was made to obtain petitions from different parts of the country, the towns of Manchester and Birmingham could never be induced to petition for this advantage ; and I have had, many years ago, conversations with the late Mr. Bolton and Mr. Garbett (the friend of the late Lord Lausdowne, and the most important person in Birmingham) on this matter, and though neither of them was adverse to Parliamentary Reform, they were decidedly adverse to Birmingham returning members to Parliament. In the next place, I think the proposed transfer would be the one most injurious to the Constitution that could be devised." Is not this rather an "indefinite danger"? It must strike us as singular that till the Constitution was finally overthrown, which happened some time last year, we are not quite certain when, the representation of manufacturing towns had not been actually fatal. That must be a slow poison which takes thirty-six years to work.
Perhaps the true policy of Lord Liverpool's government is more clearly seen in measures of leas practical moment than the two great ones we have just discussed, and in measures bound up with less party feeling. The conduct of England towards Canada in 1810 is most significant. Lord Liverpool declined to take the feeling of the colony into account, or to adopt any measures for its pacification, unless he could command a majority by getting up a cry against France. "We are clearly of opinion," he says, "that the great object ought to be to keep the subject of Canada out of Parliament as long as possible, unless a connection could be proved between the popular party in Canada and the Government of France. In that case, I am convinced there would be no difficulty in carrying the most effectual measures, even the abolition of the Constitution of 1791." This is what Mr. Yonge calls a wide view. But even Mr. Yonge does not defend his hero's conduct in 1807. A year before that the Grenville Ministry had dissolved a Parliament of four years' standing, and Lord Liverpool (who was then Lord Hawkeabury) was so indignant at this attempt to get a majority, that he wrote to urge the King not to consent to the dissolution. In 1807 Lord Hawkesbury himself came into power, and one of his first steps was to dissolve the Parliament of one year's standing in order to take advantage of popular excitement "before the country had time to cool." These acts, coupled with the expression in a subsequent letter about the prevailing mania for peace, and the difficulty for screwing up the country to a war spirit, serve in some degree to explain Lord Liverpool's long lease of power. He availed himself of a national frenzy against the spectre of French revolution to keep his party in power, and to stave off all reform. He governed cleverly, and he was not afraid of governing. But he left behind him a distaste for the art which he had overdone, and great arrears of reform which had to be made up all at once. A writer like Mr. Yonge may look back with regret to the days when a Tory Government could remain for more than twenty years in office. Yet those twenty years have greatly affected the forty years which have come after, and the steady course of victory which marked the life of Lord Liverpool has not been without its effect on his successors.
The passage in Lord Liverpool's history which damages him most is his conduct towards Napoleon after Waterloo. In three letters to Lord Castlereagh lie expresses his decided conviction that the right course to pursue would be to let the Bourbon Government deal with the Emperor as a rebel. "The most easy course," writes Lord Liverpool coolly, "would be to deliver him up to the King of France, who might try him as a rebel ; but then we must be quite certain that lie must be tried in such a manner as to have no chance of escape ; indeed, nothing would really be necessary but the identification of his person." Again, "to conclude, we wish that the King of France would hang or shoot Buonapiirte as the best termination of the business." With regard to Ney, too, Lord Liverpool thought the punishment of death desirable as a sign of courage. "One can never feel that the King is secure upon his throne till he has dared to spill traitors' blood." We may compare with this a passage in a letter on Ireland :— "I am happy to find that you have been so successful in your convictions under the special commission. Though it is dreadful to think of so many executions as must take place in consequence, yet I am thoroughly persuaded there is no chance of peace for the country except by so extensive an example as cannot fail to strike terror into the minds of the disaffected." We do not dwell willingly on these passages, which after all are isolated, but they are a necessary. corollary to Lord Liverpool's theory of government. It is that theory which distinguishes the Minister from the statesman, and it is perhaps the result of it that neither Lord Liverpool's work nor his fame have proved durable, that what we admire in him are his less conspicuous qualities, and that we have least sympathy with him when he is most successful.
Previous page
