SIR ROBERT PEEL

1788-1850

The staunch, old-fashioned figure of Sir Robert Peel fills the gap between the eighteenth and the nineteenth century types of English statesmen. The son of a British manufacturer, he had the virtues and the foibles of his class; but in spite of his prejudices, his limitations, and ideas redolent of the past; in spite of his antique methods and outworn ideals, he possessed a mind with faculties far above the average, great executive and managing ability, and a knowledge of political and parliamentary business which made him invaluable in the House of Commons. Like his father before him, he was a Tory, and to the end he adhered to the faith which seemed to him the only respectable one for an English gentleman. He had the misfortune, so far as his political stature was concerned, of having to endure comparison with such giants as Gladstone, Disraeli, Bright, and Brougham, who belonged to the new order of things; but while he admitted their abilities, and gave some of them a helping hand at the outset of their career, he could not but feel misgivings as to the soundness of men who were willing to depart so far from beaten precedent as they did.

Born in 1788, while Chatham, Fox, Burke, and Sheridan were in their prime, he lived till 1850, when the modern men had already made their reputation, and changed the world before his eyes. If asked his opinion of himself, he might have said that he was far from hostile to innovations, and that no one could, consistently, be readier than he to adopt fresh opinions, if they were good enough; and in confirmation might point to his advance from Toryism to Conservatism, and from opposition to the Catholic emancipation, in 1812, to advocacy of it in 1829. He certainly was not without initiative; he was the author of the measure which reorganized the London police (the "Peelers ") in 1812, and in 1846 he actually moved the repeal of the Corn Laws, and favored the principles of free trade. And yet his heart was at bottom always with the Tories; and at the time of the Reform Bill he could not but range himself with its opponents. It was the chief mistake of his life; for when the bill was carried, he found himself with almost no following; neither party cared for him, and he seemed without a political home in the world. He partially recovered himself later; but his influence had waned, and he became at most an associate where he had originally been master.

His oratory was solid, forcible, and formal; it had few pretensions to rhetorical ornaments; but when he was warmed to his theme, he compelled attention, and rewarded it. His manifest honesty won confidence, and he contrived to make his subject interesting. The "Speech at Tamworth," given here, is a good example of his political speeches.

TH

SPEECH AT TAMWORTH

Delivered January 11, 1835

HERE never was an assumption more gratuitous and more arrogant than that of those who undertake to answer for the opinions, and to claim for themselves the authority, of the people of England. Every little knot of angry politicians speaks in the name of the people. They remind one of the story of Mr. Sheridan-that three tailors met in Tooley Street to petition Parliament, and headed their petition, "We, the people of England." They begin by excluding from their definition of the people the nobility, the clergy, the magistracy, the landed proprietary; they assume that, between those classes and the class which constitutes, in the sense of the term, the people, there is no community of interest or feeling, and that in the class so constituting the people there is perfect unanimity. Now, let them make what exclusions they please, can they make any which, with any semblance of decency, will exclude this society from its right to be considered a part of the people? I see around me magistrates, country gentlemen, the ministers of the Established Church, the ministers of Roman Catholic and dissenting congregations, farmers, manufacturers, retail dealers-entertaining, no doubt, different opinions on many points, but agreed in this-to support the King in the exercise of his just prerogative, and at least to hear before they condemn the intentions of his Government. My belief is, that in holding this opinion they hold it in concurrence with a very large proportion of that class of society which has education, intelligence, and property, and that that proportion is daily increasing in numerical and moral strength.

I am told that I am not a reformer, and that if I become a reformer I must be an apostate. Now before I determine whether I am a reformer or not I must have a definition of the

term. I see some men who call themselves reformers, who throw the greatest obstructions in the way of real reform; who consume the public time in useless motions; who make speeches for mere display; who condemn everything as wrong, and set nothing right; who soar above the vulgar task of devising practical remedies themselves, and leave no time to others to devise them. They denounce you as a defender of all abuses if you do not adopt their definition of an abuse. One gentleman thinks the legislative union an abuse; another thinks the Church of England an abuse; another thinks grand juries an abuse; another insists on vote by ballot; another on expelling the bishops from the House of Lords. I voted against all their propositions on these subjects, which were submitted to a vote; and if this be the test of an anti-reformer and a patron of abuses I must be condemned as such— but I must be condemned in company with Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell, who voted as I did. I shall continue to take the same course; shall claim for myself the right to form my own judgment, neither taking for granted that that must be an abuse which anyone may please to call an abuse, nor deterred from applying a remedy by the fear of being charged with apostasy. An apostate indeed! Why, I have done more in the cause of substantial and permanent improvement than nine-tenths of those who call themselves reformers. Who can justly charge me with the dereliction of any principle, supposing I do enforce economy, reduce unnecessary offices, facilitate commercial enterprise, or remove impediments from the course of justice? Did I lend a cold and lukewarm support to the alterations in our commercial policy? Was the Duke of Wellington's Government an enemy to retrenchment? Hear the testimony of an avowed and decided opponent of that Government, one of the late ministers-Lord Palmerston. In speaking at this very election to his constituents, after claiming that credit for economy for his own colleagues, to which, I must say, they were justly entitled, and mentioning the extent to which they had reduced expenditure and taxation, he adds, "This, it would be allowed, was doing a great deal in the way of reduction, considering that they had succeeded a Government which, he would do it the justice to say, had labored hard and efficiently in the work of economy and retrenchment."

Then as to the law, hear again the testimony of another of the late ministers, from whom I have differed in public life, but who did not withhold, on account of that difference, the honorable testimony of his applause to the course I pursued in respect to legal reform. In the year 1827 Sir John Hobhouse, then member for Westminster, made these observations in the House of Commons: "There was a practice which prevailed in the city which he had the honor to represent (Westminster), in obedience to which the representatives were obliged annually to appear before the represented, to render an account of their proceedings, and to receive such instructions with respect to their future conduct, as the circumstances of the times rendered expedient. Upon those occasions it had been usual to hold forth to their imitation such men as were considered models with regard to conduct; and he hoped it would be considered neither foolish nor improper to say, upon the present occasion, that at those times the name of the right honorable gentleman had been always declared entitled to rank amongst those of the benefactors of mankind." [The Chancellor of the Exchequer here seemed to laugh.] "The chancellor," continued the right honorable gentleman, " may smile, but although there may be prejudices of another description, they looked only on the great reformer of great abuses, and, as such, considered him entitled to the gratitude of the country."

Why do I refer to these things? Why do I appeal to the testimony thus given by competent and disinterested judges? For the purpose of showing that I can promote economy and correct acknowledged abuses, not only without a dereliction of principle, but in strict adherence to principle. My judgment of what constitutes an abuse may, and probably will, differ from that of many who require alterations in the law and institutions of this country. I may sometimes doubt whether that is abuse which is so designated. I may sometimes doubt whether the evil of the remedy is not greater than that of the disease. If I entertain that opinion I will avow it, in spite of its temporary unpopularity; but I shall approach the consideration of an alleged abuse with a firm belief that, if the allegation be true, a government gains ten times more strength by correcting an admitted evil than it could by maintaining it, if it were possible to maintain it. I have interfered much too long with the proper

object of this convivial meeting, and will bring my interruption to a close.

Notwithstanding all the ominous predictions of our inability to carry on the government I own to you that I do entertain the greatest confidence that those predictions will not be verifiedand that the representatives of the country will not refuse to give to the King's ministers a fair trial. A few weeks only can elapse before the experiment will be made. I am not alarmed at the lists that are published, dividing the members of Parliament into "Conservatives" and "Reformers." I cannot but think that many of those who are classed as reformers entertain opinions not far different from my own; and every hour that passes will, I doubt not, increase the disposition to take a calmer view of the principles upon which we propose to act. If the public and the representatives of this country are convinced that we are desirous of maintaining our national institutions, and of improving them, with a view to their maintenance, I do not believe that they will lend themselves to any factious opposition to the King's Government. The people of England are anxious, I believe, to preserve, in their full integrity, the prerogatives of their ancient monarchy. They are anxious to maintain the free and independent action of every branch of the legislature; they are anxious to maintain the Church and its connection with the State, less for any civil or secular object than because they believe the maintenance of the Established Church to be the best security for the maintenance of that faith which they profess, and the surest bulwark against infidelity on the one hand, and fanaticism on the other. They will support the Church on high grounds of religious feeling and principle, in which, even many, who do not conform to all the doctrines of the Church, may cordially and zealously concur. This object I, for one, am determined to maintain. But it is quite consistent with that object to relieve any real grievance, and to remove any civil disadvantage under which those who do not concur in the doctrines of the Established Church may labor. My opinion is that, with that course, coupled with a sincere desire to promote rational and well-matured improvement, the people of England will be content; nay, more, that of that course they will cordially approve.

As for myself, whatever may be the result, I regard it with