PEEL AND CANNING.
LORD GEORGE BENTINCK'S charge against Sir Robert Peel is, that although in 1825 he had acknowledged the necessity of 'Catho- lic Emancipation, in 1827 he abandoned Canning on a pretence of opposing Emancipation, and joined in " hunting?' that statesman "to the death." Sir Robert Peel totally denies the alleged himting, and also denies the alleged acknowledgment in 1825. Mi. Dis- raeli comes to the aid of his leader with evidence of various kinds; consisting of an admission made by Sir Robert Peel himself, allu- sions to that admission by Sir EclWard Knatchbull in a subse- quent debate, allusions in newspapers and in Quarterly Revieivs, and a letter said to have been written by Sir Roberip the Earl of Liverpool, and said to be still in his possession. Sir. Robert Peel suspends his full reply,* but meanwhile he 'denies the whole story—the acknowledgment and the letter. The subject has been eagerly and universally dismissed throughout the week ; and as a piece of historical biography, of which the Materials LORD GEORGE BENTINCK'S charge against Sir Robert Peel is, that although in 1825 he had acknowledged the necessity of 'Catho- lic Emancipation, in 1827 he abandoned Canning on a pretence of opposing Emancipation, and joined in " hunting?' that statesman "to the death." Sir Robert Peel totally denies the alleged himting, and also denies the alleged acknowledgment in 1825. Mi. Dis- raeli comes to the aid of his leader with evidence of various kinds; consisting of an admission made by Sir Robert Peel himself, allu- sions to that admission by Sir EclWard Knatchbull in a subse- quent debate, allusions in newspapers and in Quarterly Revieivs, and a letter said to have been written by Sir Roberip the Earl of Liverpool, and said to be still in his possession. Sir. Robert Peel suspends his full reply,* but meanwhile he 'denies the whole story—the acknowledgment and the letter. The subject has been eagerly and universally dismissed throughout the week ; and as a piece of historical biography, of which the Materials
i
are still in their crude and growing state, it is wortli,a careful scrutiny. The self-inculpatory passage imputed to Sir Robert Peel is said to have been uttered on the 5th March .1829 ; it is not reported in Hansard; but the omission is made part of the evidence. It is to be observed that Sir Robert was not speaking against Emancipation, but was justifying his resignation,. and showing, that the reasons for it were not unprecedented in his case. In Hansard the context runs thus— "So far as I am personally concerned, I.beg to say, my own coarse is the same as that which suggested itself to my mired in 1825, when I was his Majesty's Principal Minister for the Home Department, and found myself in a minority up& the Catholic question in this House. I felt that, looking at the numbers arrayed against me, my position as a Minister was untenable. . The moment that-] found I was in a minority on that question, I felt that it was no.longer advisable that should continue to be charged with the responsibility of Irish affairs: • I siated to the Earl of Liverpool,' who was then at the hehd of 'the Administration, that, in consequence of the decision given against me in 'this house, it was my anxious wish to be relieved from office." . . . . .
This official report, it is presumed, had been corrected by Sir Robert Peel himself : the report in the Mirror of Parliament concurs with Hansard until it comes to the words "I stated to the Earl of Liverpool," where it turns off into a differentrversion of the Minister's avowal : it reads thus, as quoted in the papers- - • Snide last night, since this was writhe. I stated to the Earl of Liverpool, who was then at the head of the Adminis- tration, that, in consequence of the decision against me by the voices of the Re- presentatives of that country (Ireland), the time was come when something re- ' specting the Catholics ought, m my opinion, to be done, OR that I should be relieved from the duties of the office I held, as it was my anxious wish to be." A correspondent of the Morning Chronicle says that in the Mirror the "or" is "and" The " and " makes better sense. 'These words Sir Robert Peel repudiates. To prove that he uttered them, Mr. Disraeli adduces passages to the same effect from the 'London morning papers of the 6th March 1829, and from the Edinburgh Review for April 1829; and also the following passage from a speech made by Sir Edward Knatchbull on the 6th of "March-
" If Sir, at that period the policy of conceding the Catholic question were
clear to the right honourable gentleman, I say, in justice to himself, in justice to his friends, in justice to his country, in justice to Mr. Canning, who was the able, the powerful, and the consistent advocate of the question, he ought to have conceded it. If the right honourable gentleman had, as he now says, dis- covered in 1825 that the question ought to be conceded, I ask why did he not -think so in 1827, when Mr. Canning was in office, and give it his support when .the sup difference between him and Mr. Canning upon that question had for him most powerful and unqualified support from those two who only differed from Mr. Canning on that one point, which Lprofess to have been the .ease with me? If the right honourable gentleman's opinions had at that time 'Undergone a change, that was the time for concession, for the measure would have 'come with a better grace, with better effect from Mr. Canning; and if we are to .4sly upon the gratitude of Roman Catholics as a .und of security, I say that their. .gratitude would be increased by receiving the hands of Mr. Canning -that which they would consider as a boon when conferred by him, but which they Cannot look upon in the same light when coming from a Government which has for years invariably opposed them, and which now admits that it concedes from qty" 'Here is an imposing accumulation of circumstantial evidence : let us see how it will stand the test of scrutiny. -First, it is to be :observed that it all occurred a very long time ago—seventeen, 'nineteen, and twenty-one Tears ago. The Times justly remarks `that the words imputed are in themselves very vague : to say that -"something ought to be done," was only admitting a political -necessity, not a favourable opinion. Another conjectural solution 'cif the suppressed passage, which we have heard in private con- 7versation, is, that Sir Robert's account in 1829 of what occurred is 1825 was verbally inaccurate to the extent of the difference pointed out; and that when the official report from the editor of Hansard came before him, he struck out the inaccurate words,— -not 'the less willingly because they had already provoked cen-, ,sure.
.A correspondent of the Times, who signs his letter "C. V. L ," 'and describes himself as one of Cannmg's adherents, brings a ;good deal of striking evidence to invalidate the quotation from "the 'Mirror of Parliament. He declares, of his own knowledge, -that. Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Canning remained on terms of good fellowship. He testifies that. Sir -Robert uniformly declared -his opposition to the Roman Catholic claims ; and he surmisea that Sir Robert was misconstrued by the reporters—not at all an `impossible thing. Indeed, the passage bears internal evidence of 'incorrectness. As it stands above, Sir Robert Peel is made to, utter nonsense. He took a decided position in resisting the 'Homan Catholic claims, and his resignation on that score was in- telligible but according to the passage quoted above, he declared his having come round to a conviction of the necessity, as the rea- son why his position was untenable, and he offered to his colleagues the alternative of doing something or suffering him to resign. If you read " and" instead of " or," it prevents the particular line :from being such palpable nonsense, but leaves the whole of the -second part of the passage inconsistent with the beginning: the 'tarlier portion making his position untenable because he was sin- ,gular in opposing the measure ; the latter making him concur in ---Ze necessity. Now it is very possible, that without any change of opinion on ' the subject, Sir Robert Peel, with his habitual deference to formal 'Parliamentary decisions, may have bowed to political necessity ; -turd 'his desire to leave office accords with that conjecture. But if so, he would have retired, not to facilitate the measure, but to avoid having any share in what he disliked. There would be no :political inconsistency in that. On -the contrary, it would very well accord also with his opposition to Canning on the special point, though he agreed with him in general. It appears very ,possible that the ablest reporters may have mistaken what Sir Robert said ; he himself may even have said something with his tongue which he did not with his mind mean to say,—a common =thigh "absence of mind"; but that he can deliberately have uttered the sheer nonsense imputed to him, is quite incredible. So much as to the special evidence : as to the general assertion that Sir Robert Peel "hunted Canning to the death," it is but claptrap rhetoric, not worth grave notice. Canning's premature death had no such sentimental cause. He and Sir Robert Peel Were both rising statesmen : Sir Robert started with the advan- -tage which wealth gives in this country ; Canning was of older political standing, and had the prestige of showy talents. A mea- sure of a very doubtful and embarrassing kind came before them. Sir Robert Peel at that time objected to it on principle, and did • not think it inevitable. In 1825, he might have thought it more imminent, less easy to be avoided; buthe wished to avoid sharing in it: In 1827, after a general election,-lie found his view sup- , ported by a majority, and he saw, na.present cause for waiving resistance. Canning came into power unpledged ; he endea- voured to increase his political resources by-inviting to himself those who supported Catholic,Emancipation,—that is, he thought .to-make use of the Emancipation interest. The manceuvre in- volved him in more -trouble than .1e.e/ipected the Premiership, too, was more harrassing to a parvenu than he had supposed ; there was. then as well -as now a fierce Corn-law controversy ; Canning did not fit himself for the irritations of the time by pecu- liar temperance of living ; he caught cold, was seized with inter- nal inflammation, and died from the joint 'effects of the acute attack, of a full irritable habit of body, and of worry. His con- duct was not that of pure transparent singlemindedness in co- quetting with the Catholic question -as he did in 1827, he had an eye to his own success ; he was boldly speculating in -the trade of politics ; and the wear-and-tear of anxiety in his new position was too much for his enfeebled health. But there was little sentiment -in the inception • of the enterprise, none in its issue. On the other hand, his competitor in the race of statesmanship neither approved of-Emancipation -as a matter of opinion nor anticipated advantage from it; and he declined to share in the venture. There was no breach of fine sentiment in that. At a later day, Sir Robert Peel became convinced that the measure was inevitable, and he yielded. Canning, -an older man and an older politician, had the start of him in sagacity on that point ; but Canning was -a less scrupulous man than Peel, and less trammelled by a -sense of duty to political adherents. We believe that Catholic Emancipation was in itself a great lesson to Sir Robert: it-taught him the fallacy of precepts which had early been instilled '-into him, respecting the terrible danger of political changes. He -knows better now -on such questions than he did in 1827 ; but it does not follow-that he then violated any duty towards the political-adventurer-who stepped forward before him.
Previous page
