Page images
PDF
EPUB

Government; he would have been their protector in the House of Commons; and, as soon as the fitting moment arrived, he would have dissolved this miserable Ministry and placed himself at the head of affairs. All these deep-laid schemes, and constant regard of self, form a strong contrast to the simplicity and heartiness of the Duke's conduct, and make the two men appear in a very different light from that in which they did at first. Peel acted right from bad motives, the Duke wrong from good ones.'

How (if this were true) could Peel be said to have acted right in any sense? That he should have formed such a scheme, that he should have deemed Manners Sutton equal to the emergency, that he should have entertained a momentary hope or thought of keeping such a man Prime Minister long enough to play the part of Addington to his Pitt-all this is so widely improbable, so out of keeping with his admitted sagacity, that Greville should at least have looked closely to his facts; but from a subsequent entry (January 3rd, 1833) it is clear that the suggestion to propose the Premiership to Manners Sutton came from Vesey Fitzgerald, not from Peel; the pith of the sweeping charge against Peel being that it was he who wanted to place Sutton a position to serve as his warming-pan.

in

'It is remarkable,' concludes Greville, 'that this story is so little known.' Which story? for we have been told two or three. Story! God bless you, I have none to tell, Sir.' We knew long ago all that could be known or was worth knowing about these negotiations, namely, that some of the Tory leaders tried to form a Government, which the more sagacious among them felt to be an impossibility from the first: that there were sundry meetings and conferences ending in nothing; that Peel attended none of them, holding firmly and consistently aloof: that the event did honour to his foresight; and that, instead of losing caste or credit, he was thenceforth regarded as the man on whom the future of the great Conservative party must mainly, if not exclusively, depend. That the Duke of Wellington so regarded him, is placed beyond a doubt by the mission of the hurried Hudson in 1834.

On March 22nd, 1835, Greville sets down :

'Old Sir Robert, who must have been a man of exceeding shrewdness, predicted that his (the son's) full energies would never be developed till he was in the highest place, and had the sole direction of affairs; and his brother Lawrence, who told this to Henry de Ros, said that in early youth he evinced the same obstinate and unsocial disposition, which has since been so remarkable a feature of his character.'

With reference to this paragraph (which was quoted in the Vol. 138.-No. 275. Edinburgh

D

[ocr errors]

'Edinburgh Review' as one of the gems of the book) Mr. Lawrence Peel writes thus, November 17th, 1874:

'It is impossible I could have said anything of the sort. My eldest brother being thirteen years older than myself, I could have had no opportunity of forming an opinion of his character during his boyhood; and the one attributed to me in this passage is contrary to what I remember having heard my father and other members of my family express, and to the impression made upon my mind by all I ever knew of my brother. Having always entertained the highest opinion of his public and private character, it distresses me greatly to find my name employed in support of an opinion which all who were intimately acquainted with him must know to be incorrect.'

As it is not usual to quote a living against a dead brother, we presume that Mr. Lawrence Peel's existence was forgotten, like that of Lord Conyngham and Lord Torrington.

The Reform Bill was to Greville what the red flag is to the bull. It irritated him to wildness. He saw in it the ruin of our most cherished institutions, including his sinecure and his place. He indiscriminately assails both the supporters and opponents of the measure, although we should have thought that one of the two conflicting parties must have been to some extent in the right. He does not even spare the 'waverers,' although he acted with them.

March 26th, 1832.-Ten days since I have written anything here, but en revanche I have written a pamphlet. An article appeared in the "Quarterly," attacking Harrowby and his friends. Wharncliffe was so desirous it should be answered that I undertook the job, and it comes out to-day in a "Letter to Lockhart, in reply," &c. I don't believe anybody read the last I wrote, but as I have published this at Ridgway's, perhaps it may have a more extensive sale.'

This pamphlet was a poor performance, loose in style, and weak in argument. The article to which he replied was not written (as he with characteristic haste and inaccuracy assumed) by Mr. Lockhart, but by Mr. Croker, who contended that, if the measure were to be effectually opposed, the Lords should take the decided course of throwing out the Bill and defy the Government to create peers. It would be fatal, he argued, to admit the principle by voting for the second reading. Greville counselled a different course, maintaining that, if the Bill were suffered to go into Committee, its most objectionable provisions might be struck out or neutralised, and that the Government would not venture or be permitted to create peers to carry matters of detail. His counsels were followed,

and

and a diametrically opposite result ensued. An amendment* (Lord Lyndhurst's) carried in Committee led to the resignation of Lord Grey, who urged, with irresistible force, that, the principle of the Bill having been admitted by their Lordships, they were pursuing a factious course in trying to overthrow it by a side-wind. Greville's tactics utterly failed, and he consoled himself by throwing the blame on the two noble Lords who acted on them.

'The unfortunate thing is that neither of our cocks is good for fighting, not from want of courage; but Harrowby is peevish, ungracious, and unpopular, and Wharncliffe carries no great weight.'

Greville's fussifying efforts to stop the Reform Bill irresistibly recall the image of Mrs. Partington endeavouring to keep out the Atlantic with her mop. But however slightly he was mixed up in an affair, he fancied himself the motive power in it; and he was apt to think that he was doing a great deal when he was really doing nothing. If we are to believe him, the partial support the leading journal gave to the Conservative Government of 1834-35, was entirely owing to him and Lord de Ros. He states (November 24th, 1834) that Barnes, the editor, was much gratified by an offer Lyndhurst made to see him, and proposed a meeting' that a gastronomic ratification was to wind up the treaty between these high contracting parties': that Barnes dined with Lord Lyndhurst at a dinner expressly made for him: that it was a badly composed party for the purpose; and that the dinner made a great uproar, as he (Greville) thought it would.

6

Lord Lyndhurst and Barnes were college friends of long standing, and Barnes was an active member of Lord Lyndhurst's committee, when he stood for the University of Cambridge in 1826. They had been always on the most intimate terms; and it was remarked that, in the height of the Reform conflict, nothing personally offensive to Lord Lyndhurst ever appeared in the Times. They certainly stood in no need of Lord de Ros or Greville to bring them together; the dinner was an

[ocr errors]

*The object of Lord Lyndhurst's amendment, which brought on the crisis, was the postponement of the disfranchising clauses. When Mr. Charles Wood (Lord Halifax) urged that they must be taken first, Greville says: He talked a great deal about the country expecting this, and that they would not be satisfied if it was not done, and all the usual jargon of the Reformers, which it was not worth while to dispute.' The event speedily proved that Lord Halifax had formed the correct estimate of the situation. Greville, knowing nothing of the greater public, fancied that a nation's destiny could be decided by a party manoeuvre or intrigue conducted by himself and De Ros. His summary of the beneficial results of the measure which he dreaded and decried is one of the most remarkable passages in the book. (See vol. iii. p. 29.)

D 2

ordinary

ordinary dinner; and that it made a great uproar,' is about as true as that the conciliatory tone of the all-powerful journal towards the Conservative Government was (as Greville states) adopted at the suggestion of Lord de Ros.

'No man,' we are assured in the preface, 'was more disinterested in his judgments on public affairs, for he had long made up his mind that he had nothing to gain or to lose by them.' On the contrary, he had made up his mind that he had a great deal to gain or lose by them; that half, if not the whole, of his income was at stake. He worked with might and main for the party that was least hostile to sinecures; and he came forward in due season to claim at their hands the preservation of his

own.

'June 30th.-Yesterday I went to the Duke of Wellington and gave him my case to read, requesting him to exert his influence with his Tories, and get them to attend the Committee and defend me there. He read it, approved, and promised to speak to both Peel and Herries. I had previously desired George Dawson to speak to Peel. I might certainly, after the very essential services I rendered Peel and his Government, go with some confidence to Peel or any of them and ask for their aid in my difficulty; but it is not wise to remind men of an obligation; if they do not feel it without being reminded they will not be made to do so by any hint, and an accusation of ingratitude will be implied, which will only excite their resentment; if they are sensible of the obligation they will return it without any reminder.'

The Peelites, especially Mr. Gladstone, Sir James Graham, and Lord Lincoln (the late Duke of Newcastle) bestirred themselves actively on his behalf, rather, we fancy, from personal feeling than from any sense of obligation. He intimates as much when he confesses to a kind of whispering sensation that they must be a little shocked at the cause they advocate.' When the Committee divided, he was saved by the narrow majority of ten to nine. Having already spoken of the determination of this morose and rigid millionaire to strip me of my property,' he exultingly exclaims :

'It is really amusing to see the joy with which the news of Baring's defeat has been hailed by every member of his own family, and all others who have heard of it. The goodwill of the world (a very inert but rather satisfactory feeling) has been exhibited towards me, and there is mixed up with it in all who are acquainted with the surly reformer who is my adversary a lively pleasure at his being baffled and mortified.'

Considering that Baring (afterwards Lord Northbrook, and not a millionaire) was simply carrying out the principles with

the

occa

the full concurrence of the Liberal party, it is surprising that a man of sense should be hurried into such extravagance, still more surprising that an editor, with such conclusive proofs of interested prejudice before his eyes, should assert that, in the opinions he (Greville) formed, and on sions energetically maintained, he cared for nothing but their justice and their truth.' Five out of six of the opinions he formed were warped by his personal feelings: he was impartial in nothing but the distribution of indiscriminating abuse to all parties.

For a knowing man of the world, conversant with the practices of the turf, Greville was unaccountably credulous. Again and again does he accept statements, and draw conclusions from them, without weighing either the internal or external evidence of their truth. We will give another example which should alone suffice to put readers on their guard. He is speaking of the debate on the Ministerial Explanations on February 18th, 1828:

The great event of the night was Duncombe's speech, which was delivered with perfect self-possession and composure, but in so ridiculous a manner that everybody laughed at him, although they were amused with his impudence and at the style and objects of his attack. However, the next day it was discovered that he had performed a great exploit; he was loudly applauded and congratulated on all sides, and made into the hero of the day. His fame was infinitely increased on a subsequent night, when Herries again came before the House and when Tommy fired another shot at him. The newspapers were full of his praises. The Whigs called at his door and eagerly sought his acquaintance. Those who love fun and personality cheered him on with loud applause, and he now fancies himself the greatest man going, and is ready to get up and abuse anybody on the Treasury bench. To me, who knew all the secret strings that moved this puppet, nothing can be more amusing.'

This then, we presume, is one of the revelations of the 'less known causes and details of public events' which we were promised in the Preface. Ex uno disce omnes. It is introduced with a grave reflection of a nature to invite attention and command implicit trust.

'The history of Tom Duncombe and his speech is instructive as well as amusing, for it is a curious proof of the facility with which the world may be deceived, and of the prodigious effect which may be produced by the smallest means, if they are aided by some fortuitous circumstances and happily applied. Tommy came to Henry de Ros and told him that his constituents at Hertford were very anxious he should make a speech, but that he did not know what to say, and begged Henry to supply him with the necessary materials. He advised him to strike out something new, and having received his

assurance

« PreviousContinue »