DEATH OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.
A record of this event properly belongs to parliamentary history. Disraeli justly described the baronet when he called him “a very great member of parliament.” It was as a member of parliament, rather than as a man or a minister, that Sir Robert Peel was great. Possessing superior culture and extraordinary talents, he was not a man of genius. His administrative abilities were of a very high order, perhaps we might say, of the highest order that this country had ever known in a minister; but he was indebted for his conceptions sometimes to his friends, often to his opponents. The great aim of his policy was conservative—conservative of class privilege and old institutions. He resisted every measure of civil and religious liberty introduced in his time, until the overwhelming pressure of public opinion rendered further resistance hopeless. Thus, he opposed Catholic emancipation, the repeal of the corporation and test acts, the reform bill, and free trade, until all these measures were forced by public opinion. It was his gift to discern more keenly than other men when the moment arrived beyond which public opinion could be no longer safely opposed, and he was then generally ready to adopt the very measures which he had before so warmly denounced, and blamed others so strongly for promoting. He had, by his timely apostasy on all great questions conciliated the masses, and by preventing the conflict of parties and classes on these occasions, he did much to promote the public welfare at the expense of his own consistency. Measures seemed to be regarded by him, not in the light of principle, but in that of political expediency. He passed bills, not because truth, freedom, and justice demanded them, but because they promoted the interests of party, or, it might be, because he thought it was expedient for the national interests at the time that they should be passed. Even the great measure of the repeal of the corn laws he retarded longer than any other man could have retarded it. He was the minister who passed it, and who hindered it from passing sooner. His whole political history was a confession of political error, and repentance. Yet he did not leave the honour of carrying out their own measures to men who had formed a public opinion concerning them, and who could with conscience and honour have conducted them through parliament; he refused them all aid in each efforts, and when his time arrived, seized the schemes and carried them, demanding the homage of the Conservatives for conceding so little to the people, and the homage of the people for conceding to them so much more than they could have obtained from anybody else.
The personal history of this eminent man contained little that was striking; a cold prudence preserved him from engaging in and personal matters that could make his life eventful. He was born in the year 1788, in a cottage near Bury, in Lancashire, where his father then lived in humble circumstances. Mr. Peel founded in that neighbourhood works for calico-printing, and laid by that means the foundation of a very great fortune. He was afterwards knighted, and having written a pamphlet entitled, “The National Debt a Source of National Prosperity,” he was frequently consulted by Mr. Pitt, and it is alleged, conceived the idea that his son might become Mr. Pitt’s successor. He sent young Robert to Harrow at an early age, where he was on the same form with Byron the poet, who thus recorded his impressions of him: “There were great hopes of Peel among us all, masters and scholars. As a scholar he was greatly my superior; as a schoolboy out of school I was always in scrapes, he never; and in school he always knew the lesson, and I rarely.” “The boy was father to the man” in both these cases, for Peel through life maintained the same cautious, industrious, and circumspect habits, which certainly never characterised his far greater schoolfellow. He left Harrow for Oxford, where he especially distinguished himself as a classic. In 1809 he became of age, and entered parliament for a rotten borough openly bought for him by his father. His first speech was a success, and although he never gave promise of becoming a brilliant orator, he grew in favour with the house by the practicability of his views, and his faculty of perceiving the tone of feeling prevailing in the assembly at the time. In March, 1811, he made a very able speech in favour of the Duke of Wellington, then fighting the battles of the Peninsula, and against whom a public outcry had been raised. Percival, then in power, was so pleased with the speech that he invited Mr. Peel to take office, and he commenced his career, before he was twenty-three years of age, as under-secretary of the colonies. Upon the death of Percival he was appointed chief secretary for Ireland, under the administration of Lord Liverpool. During his Irish secretaryship he opposed Catholic emancipation with great zeal and some bitterness. Afterwards he held office in various other situations. During the free-trade agitation of 1819, he was its warm opponent, and when the great Lancashire meeting took place at Peterloo, afterwards the site of the free-trade hall in Manchester, and the Peterloo massacre occurred, Mr. Peel defended that act, which left for so many years a deep discontent in the hearts of the operatives of Lancashire. When in 1821 Lord John Russell first brought forward his motion for a reform in parliament, he met from Mr. Peel a determined opposition, such as the honourable baronet continued to offer against all increase in the power of the people, until Lord John had the pleasure of carrying his view triumphantly through parliament in the shape of the reform bill. Even after that measure passed, Sir Robert devoted his talent to advise and lead his party in every practical attempt to defeat it. In 1822, while preparation was making to invade Spain, at the instigation of “the Holy Alliance,” Mr. Brougham called the attention of the house to the circumstance, and eloquently denounced that despotic confederacy. Mr. Peel, with his usual caution, defended “the Holy Alliance;” but notwithstanding his guarded language, he left no doubt of his sympathy with foreign as well as domestic tyranny. The defender of the Peterloo massacre and the Holy Alliance gave no promise of ever being popular with the people of England. The other leading facts and features of his political career will be found in the pages of this history, where his part in public affairs has been noticed.
Sir Robert married, in 1820, Julia, youngest daughter of General Sir John Floyd, Bart., and when his death occurred, his family consisted of Robert, his successor in the baronetcy, then secretary of legation in Switzerland; Frederick, then M.P. for Leominster; William, a captain in the royal navy; John Floyd, an officer in the Fusilier Guards; Arthur Wellesley, not then quite of age; Julia, married to Viscount Villiers; and Eliza.
The circumstances of Sir Robert’s death were as follow: On Saturday, the 29th of June, he had been to Buckingham Palace, where he had made, a call, and entered his name on her majesty’s visiting book. He then rode slowly up Constitution Hill. When he arrived nearly opposite the wicket gate leading to the Green Park, his horse suddenly became restive. The baronet was a bad horseman, and he soon lost all control of the animal, which at last threw him over its head. Several gentlemen rendered assistance immediately, and among them two medical men. Mrs. Lucas, of Bryanstone Square, was passing in her carriage, in which he was conveyed to his residence. Dr. Foucart, of Glasgow, and Sir James Clark accompanied him in the carriage. An examination of his person was immediately made, when the medical gentlemen present pronounced that he had incurred severe injury of the shoulder and fracture of the collar bone; it was hoped that no internal consequences had been produced by the fall. The fracture was compound. He continued to grow worse in spite of every surgical remedy, until the Tuesday night following, when, a little after eleven o’clock, he expired. After death it was perceived, for the first time, that the fifth rib had been fractured on the left side. It is astonishing that the faculty Were unable to discover this, for it was the region in which he had felt most pain. This was supposed to have been the cause of his death; but the family opposed a post mortem examination.
Mr. Becket Denison and Lord Villiers had ridden the horse to prove it, and it had met the bands and the omnibuses without shying, so that no apprehension was entertained that Sir Robert’s deficient horsemanship would be of any serious consequence with so quiet an animal; he had also ridden it regularly for a week without having any cause of alarm. The event seemed, therefore, one of those singular providences which so often occur, baffling human precautions, confounding calculations, and showing that that the ways and destinies of men are in the hands of an all-ruling Power.
Tidings of his death spread with great rapidity, and universal regret was displayed by the people. Shops were closed, the flags of the ships in the river and on the public buildings were lowered, and many went immediately into mourning. The funeral took place the ensuing week; the body was laid in the mausoleum of the family, at Drayton, near Tamworth, the whole population of the district manifesting every token of respect and sorrow of which the occasion allowed.
On Thursday, July the 4th, the following occurrences, in the house of commons, marked at once the estimation in which Sir Robert was held by public men, and his own singular and unostentatious character. Lord John Russell introduced to the house the circumstance of the honourable baronet’s decease, and said:—“It is impossible not to lament that hereafter this house will be no longer guided by that long and large experience of public affairs, by that profound knowledge, by those rhetorical powers, by that copious yet exact memory, with which this house was wont to be enlightened, instructed, and guided. It is not for me, or for this house to speak of the career of Sir Robert Peel. It never happened to me to be in political connexion with him; but so late as that last debate to which I have referred, I took occasion to thank him for that fair and frank support which he had given to the present government. Sir Robert Peel, sir, in that speech which preceded the one which I addressed to the house, and in which he opposed the policy of the government, spoke with such temper and such forbearance towards all those who might hold an opposite opinion to his, that it must be a satisfaction to those remaining that his last act should have been one of such candour and kindness towards those all around him. Sir, there can, I think, be no doubt that, however history may deal with the wisdom of the course he pursued, that it will be admitted that on two great occasions when he held power, undisturbed and apparently with every sign of security, and when he proposed measures to this house which shook, and, after a time, subverted his party, he did so from those motives of deep love for his country which ever distinguished him.” Having slightly adverted to the course of the late right honourable baronet on the corn-laws, the noble lord concluded by observing, “That if it should appear to the family and friends of the late Sir Robert Peel to be desirable to take such a course, though I shall not now proceed to make any motion on the subject, I will give my willing support to a proposal for conferring the same honours on his remains that was awarded to Mr. Grattan and Mr. Pitt. I may, perhaps, be permitted to add, that I thought it right to obtain the sanction of the crown before I made this proposal, and I feel assured that anything which could do honour to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, or which could add any further tribute of respect to his name, would be unhesitatingly acquiesced in by her majesty. Sir, I wish, therefore, in concluding these few words, to say that, in disposing of this proposal, I place myself entirely in the hands of the friends of the late Sir Robert Peel. Having had no political connexion with him, this proposal comes from me without the tinge of partiality; and I may say in conclusion, without any fear of a charge of insincerity, that I do feel, that this country, as well as posterity hereafter, in recognising the claims of individuals deceased to the title of eminent statesmen who have adorned the annals of this country, or contributed to its lustre, those of the late Sir Robert Peel will be amongst the foremost.”
Mr. Goulburn, while acknowledging, on the part of the family of the late lamented right honourable baronet, the high honour shown to his memory in the offer made by the noble lord, begged gratefully to decline it, as opposed to the wishes of Sir Robert Peel, as expressed in his will, which was dated May 8, 1844, and in which he stated, “I desire that I may be interred in the vault in the parish of Drayton-Bassett, in which my father and mother were interred, and that my funeral may be without ostentation or parade of any kind.” Nor did this sentiment undergo any alteration; for, not later than six weeks since, when alterations were made in that particular church to which that memorandum referred, Sir Robert Peel pointed out to Lady Peel the very spot in the vault in which he wished and trusted his body might be laid, without any of that parade or ostentation which he so strongly deprecated, and the absence of which gave him such great satisfaction in the case of the funeral of the late queen-dowager. Under these circumstances, therefore, he was sure that he (Mr. Goulburn) had but one duty to perform, and the family of the late Sir Robert Peel but one wish, and that was the thankfulness with which he (Mr. Goulburn), on their part, had to acknowledge the intentions, both of her majesty and her parliament, in wishing to confer on his late lamented friend that, the greatest honour that could be paid to a subject—a proposition which they were compelled respectfully, but thankfully, to decline. He (Mr. Goulburn) only entreated the house to add to that mark of respect which they had paid to the ability and public services of his lamented friend the further mark of respect to his simplicity of character, and give effect to his desire as to the way in which he wished his funeral obsequies to be conducted. The entry of the adjournment of the house immediately after its meeting on the previous day, out of respect to the memory of the deceased statesman, was an honour which would live for ever in the journals of that house, and an honour which was never before paid to a subject.
It was subsequently intended to make Lady Peel a peeress in her own right, but she declined the honour, her late husband having enjoined that none of his family should accept any honour or reward from his country.
When the tidings of Sir Robert’s decease reached other countries, much sympathy was expressed; the French assembly, and also the Congress of the United States, having in the most marked manner paid tributes of respect to his memory. M. Guizot, the favourite minister of Louis Philippe of France, wrote a memoir of Sir Robert, which displays much talent, but over praises the subject of the memoir, without doing justice, nevertheless, to his policy. The opinions and measures of the great statesman will long be a subject of discussion, not only in England, but in other nations. The following estimate of his political principles and career by Count Cavour, the eminent Sardinian statesman, a man intellectually superior to Sir Robert, is probably the truest and best of the many which has appeared. It was uttered in a speech during a sitting of the Sardinian senate, in the year 1857, when sufficient time had elapsed for foreign statesmen, at all events, to form a fair judgment of the man, unbiassed by the interests of their respective states. Count Cavour had been taunted with having expressed himself in very high terms of Sir Robert’s commercial and financial policy, while he at the same time refused, in many respects, to accept him as an exemplar. He, consequently, addressed to the senate the following remarkable speech:—“I entertain the highest admiration for that statesman; I believe that few men have rendered greater services to mankind than he has. Yet I do not believe that Sir Robert Peel was always infallible in his political career. It is my opinion that Sir Robert Peel would have left a much more illustrious name behind him, if, instead of having been compelled by circumstances to introduce reforms, he himself had originated them. I think that Sir Robert Peel would have left behind him a fame unequalled in history, if, instead of proposing the emancipation of the Catholics in 1829, he had proposed it in 1825. I think that his name would have eclipsed all those of ancient and modern statesmen if the reform of the corn-laws had been initiated in 1840—a good harvest year—instead of being passed in consequence of the famine which desolated Ireland, and instead of being in some measure a consequence of the potato disease. In fact, if Sir Robert Peel had been the originator of reforms, he would at his death have left to his friends a political inheritance far different from that which he bequeathed to them. If Sir Robert Peel had associated his name and his whole career with successive reforms, there would be no need of recording at the present time a strange fact which has taken place in England—namely, that a party, consisting of eminent men, including the most eloquent speaker in parliament, and the most able legislators, has been completely routed at the late elections. And this, gentlemen, is the fate of parties who allow themselves to be led by public opinion, and who wait to the last moment to carry out reforms which they have not the courage to introduce. I trust that the senate, convinced of this truth, will give its support to the present government, which, while following the example of Sir Robert Peel, nevertheless deviates from the course he adopted by making itself the originator of reforms, not waiting to grant them to any popular pressure, nor to the pressure of unforeseen circumstances.”