Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

MR. HALLAM ON ENGLISH POLITICS.

1841-1845.

My correspondence with Mr. Hallam was very full and unreserved, and it continued for upwards of twenty years-from 1835 to 1856. Here it is designed to offer only a few extracts, which may yet suffice to show, whether or not we agree in his conclusions on all points, the upright spirit and discriminating judgment which that eminent writer applied, not only to the events of bygone ages, but also to contemporary politics.

These extracts are all derived from his letters during Sir Robert Peel's last administration, and bear a remarkable testimony to the character and conduct of that great statesman.

S.

Mr. Hallam to Lord Mahon.

Brighton, Oct. 13, 1841.

I perfectly agree with you that Peel has shown admirable judgment in the disposal of offices. Not exactly, as you say, that I think each man selected for his aptitude for the post. But we must look on Peel as a Minister who has to consult the claims of his followers. . . . As to the probable result, I look forward as

ment.

[ocr errors]

favourably as you do. And you may remember that I have several times differed from you at the beginning of a Session as to the duration of the last Ministry, which I always held to be more secure than you did; so that I may take more credit for my present judgOne thing is clear to me, that Peel is safe for this Parliament; and considering his great prudence, and the disunion of his adversaries, I do not see much probability of a reaction in public opinion, so as to destroy his majority in the next. At the same time, it is only a majority of ninety, which, though perhaps better for him in some respects than if it had been double, is liable to contingencies.

The permanent danger is from the continual growth of population, and its accumulation in great towns, and the consequent pressure of distress. The repeal of the Corn Laws would, I believe, give but a temporary relief, and even aggravate the disease. But it will probably be expedient to modify the present duties, which have always struck me as rather too high. It is particularly difficult to resist the natural prejudice in favour of buying subsistence when you can get it; and this question, so newly taken up, will be the strength of the Opposition. I do not, therefore, when I speak of looking favourably on the present state of things, or to be more accurate, of their looking favourably, mean to dissemble that I see great cause for apprehension at a period not distant in the sense in which we apply "distant period" to nations, but beyond that short time on which we usually calculate the duration of a Ministry. I dare not say that I think the country safe

for twenty years from some great crisis; but I do not think one will occur before 1850.

The remark you make that the world is likely to be more indulgent to governments in inevitable difficulties than formally, seems to be very just, and another is allied to it; that as Sir Robert Peel is rather esteemed than idolized, they will not expect wonders from him, and be better satisfied with that fair and sensible administration he is likely to give them.

Do you remember a description in Gibbon of a battle in the Archipelago between the Genoese and Venetian fleets? The Emperor lent a few galleys to one side or the other; but, says Gibbon, the weight of the Roman Empire was hardly felt in the scales of the rival Republics. Is not this like the English Monarchy in the late contest of Whigs and Tories? Was its weight felt for a moment? This opens a great field for political reflection, but I will not start new game, lest I should make you throw this into the fire. But when your party are called Tories, and I look at the effect of some late divisions on the Monarchy, I must cry out

66

Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabbed.”

I shall twit Inglis with this, who affects the name of Tory. As for me, I am an old Whig, and so must every Stanhope be.

Ryde, August 31, 1842.

I do not quite know what to think of the Northern insurrection. It does not assume a very political com

plexion, nor is it as yet attended with many outrages on property; but the duration has been too long, and we cannot but consider the simultaneous outburst and the apparent organisation as somewhat formidable for the future. But for this time it will probably be appeased; and, indeed, one might almost confide in the Star of Peel. How brilliant is his present position! I should really say, that, comparing him with the three men who have at given times shone out most conspicuously in our nearest history-Lord Chatham in 1757, Mr. Pitt in 1784, and Canning in 1827—he bids fair to culminate above them all; I do not mean in talents, nor in total reputation; but in the particular circumstances of his accession to power. He does not enjoy the popularity of these three at the precise period I have named; but is it not more glorious to do great things and establish a secure power without popularity than with its aid? Even what you allude to, his want of support from his colleagues in the House of Commons, though it does not exhibit so much strength in the government as might be desired, displays his ascendancy in the strongest manner, especially the remarkable falling to leeward (you will excuse metaphors from the coast) of Lord Stanley. Graham, I have heard, has betrayed some want of nerve during the little Chartist movements in London. Peel very cool. This I heard from one who saw them both. On the whole, these Chartists have made less of their game than I expected.

Ryde, Sept. 9, 1842.

I do not yet like the stubbornness of the Manchester weavers. Is it not to be feared that, finding they cannot gain their object by peaceable secession to the Mons Sacer, they may listen more to Manlius Duncombe and Gracchus O'Connor another time? They must do that, or give up their object; the lutte is not yet over.

41

Clifton, Bristol, Sept. 12, 1844.

I entirely agree with you that in the particular case, being one of great public importance, and where, whatever O'Connell and his friends may assert, the objection was simply technical, and left their guilt on many counts unacknowledged, the lay Lords might very properly have voted with the great majority of the Judges. It is true that their decision might have been called political, but is the present free from that suspicion? The Constitutional precedent is important. I have never been favourable to the appellant jurisdiction of the Lords, and thought it received a great blow some years back, when appeals were heard by three Peers in rotation. This was pretty well abdicating their functions; but what is the present case? Is it not a declaration that they are never to vote at all? Thus the accidental preponderance of Law Lords is to determine every question, though the Law Lords may be still fewer than at present.

If an Appellant Tribunal is required, as on account of

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »