POSITION OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY ON THE DEFECTION OF SIR ROBERT PEEL, AND THE PARLIAMENTARY SUCCESS OF HIS FREE-TRADE MEASURES.
A.D. 1846
The adoption of a free-trade policy by Sir Robert Peel disorganised the conservative party, then more frequently designated Protectionist. The chief difficulty arose from the scarcity of talent in its ranks, and, therefore, the apparent impossibility of procuring a leader. At last the commons and the country were startled by the announcement of a new conservative chief in the person of Lord George Bentinck. So unfavourable were the antecedents—at all events, the immediate antecedents—of this nobleman, that the announcement of his name as the leader of the Protectionists excited the mirth of parliament, which found a loud echo in the country. After the public press had lampooned him—the Times scarcely condescending to launch its thunders, only allowing a distant rumble to be heard—after the Examiner had exhausted its pungent and polished satire, and Punch had caricatured the noble member for King’s Lynn, and while yet his own party scarcely ventured to hope anything from his leadership, Lord George proved himself an orator and a debater, a party tactician, and an energetic, vigilant, intelligent chief of opposition. Perhaps no public man ever burst so suddenly upon the house of commons as a leading party politician. He had been well known as a member of parliament, had conciliated general esteem, and won extensive respect, as a private gentleman, from both sides of the house; but as a politician he had scarcely been noticed, nor had he taken any pains to make himself felt in debate: his irruption, so to speak, upon the ranks of the ministerialists, was sudden and effective. Mr. Disraeli has written an elaborate memoir of the noble lord, which exaggerates his capabilities and achievements, and in a style less eloquent than showy, holds up his policy to the admiration of his country. Mr. Disraeli, however, pays in many respects a tribute that is no more than just to the memory of Lord George, and his book affords material for an impartial judgment. At that period the noble lord was a distinguished patron of the turf: all England knew him as a sporting gentleman, a first-rate judge of horses, and an extensive winner on the course. In allusion to his habits in these respects, it became a popular sneer that the Conservatives required “a stable mind,” after the versatile performances of Sir Robert Peel, and they had at last found such in Lord George. But although his whole mind had apparently been given up to the turf, it was not actually so. He had been a member of parliament for eighteen years, and was a shrewd observer of party, as he was of men and things in general life. Before entering parliament he had for three years served as private secretary to Mr. Canning, whose sagacity was seldom at fault in the selection of persons of indisputable ability. The great statesman was connected with Lord George, for he married the sister of the Duke of Portland. The young nobleman’s powers of observation were such, that he was not likely to be in constant and intimate communication with such a man as Canning, without gleaning some political intelligence and experience. After Lord George entered parliament he remained for some time in the army, but gradually abandoned his military tastes for those of the turf, and his speculations in that direction were carried out on a scale of unprecedented magnitude. Politically, his sympathies and opinions appear to have been what might be designated Conservative-Whig. When the partisans of Mr. Canning left the Duke of Wellington’s administration, Lord George Bentinck ranged himself in opposition. Under Earl Grey’s administration, he sat on the ministerial side of the house. The Mends of Mr. Canning, who were associated with Lord Grey, entertained high opinions of Lord George’s talents for official and administrative service, so that he was requested to accept office, but he declined. These offers were repeatedly renewed, under the same auspices, and as often rejected. He desired to be unfettered in his parliamentary position, and freely gave up the chances of Downing Street for those of the race-course. He voted for the reform bill, and afforded a cordial and constant support to that and nearly every measure of the whig administration, until Lord Stanley abandoned the party. To that noble lord he was personally and politically much attached, and of Mr. Spring Rice, afterwards Lord Monteagle, he also had a high opinion; but no friendship nor influence was sufficient to retard what may be called his retrograde course: like his friend, Lord Stanley, he became less and less a Whig, and finally stood in the foreground of Conservatism. He was a warm supporter of the Irish Roman Catholics, but did not appear ever to have understood their political tactics. His sympathy for what is termed Puseyism may have accounted for his leanings to the Irish Romanist party, although in this respect, according to Mr. Disraeli, “he was for the Established Church, and nothing more.” According to the same author he was a Whig of 1688. It is admitted that his personal prejudices were strong; but those who allow this maintain that he had no prejudice as to things, but examined all doctrines and theories with a strong common sense and a clear judgment. His painstaking to inquire after truth is much vaunted by his biographer; but his speeches as leader of the Protectionists do not reveal this quality,—for while no orator of the time, not even Sir Robert Peel, relied more upon statistics, or at least made a larger use of them, no advocate of any cause was ever more unfortunate in the data selected as groundwork for argument. Such was the man in whom the conservative opposition found a leader, when despairing of being again able to form an effective and organised opposition. It was on the 27th of February, 1846, that Lord George made his début in his new capacity. His speech was excellent in everything but its logic. Modest yet courageous in manner, plain but not ungraceful in style, his address told upon the house. The tone, however, was too aristocratic for the place and the times, and his arguments proved that he had not mastered the controversy, into the midst of which he had so chivalrously launched. He brought forward numerous details; but his facts were, as they say in Ireland, “false facts.” He had not investigated the science of political economy, or the condition of the nation, but had only “crammed,” as they say in college phrase, for the occasion and the controversy. He had industriously read whatever was written, and listened to whatever was said on the side of protection, but had not followed the counsel of an ancient adviser—audi alteram partem; and the result was that even the most transparent fallacies of the Protectionists were uttered by him with an air of serious but honest importance, as if they were truths which he was raised up irrefragably to establish by new and original arguments. When a free trade in corn was at last sanctioned by the legislature, Lord George continued to offer an industrious, courageous, and ingenious opposition, and by the vigour of his mind and the incessant energy of his attacks, kept up the party life of the opposition, which he resuscitated and led. Lord George looked upon himself as the champion of a class; to save or serve the aristocracy, irrespective of the interests of the masses of the people, was, in his opinion, patriotism, and he was willing “to spend and be spent” in that service. Throughout the debates on the customs bill, and upon the measures of reduction of duties generally which Sir Robert Peel proposed, Lord George offered an animated and pertinacious, although unavailing opposition.
At this juncture the state of Ireland was melancholy in the extreme. Unlawful confederacies were formed among the peasantry and small farmers, and outrages of the most sanguinary character were perpetrated in the open day. Disaffection pervaded the masses of the Roman Catholic population, and language of daring menace was employed towards the government by the popular leaders of every rank, both in and out of parliament. Neither life nor property was safe, in any part of the country, except where the Protestants predominated. The loyal and peaceable petitioned for some measures of protection, and this class was indignant that the government did not propose laws which would afford security to the well-disposed. Sir Robert Peel listened to these demands, and prepared a bill, known as the “life-protection bill,” which was very stringent in its nature, and proposed utterly to disarm the whole population, except under restrictions which would not be felt by the peaceable inhabitants, but would reach effectually the disaffected masses. This bill was at first supported by both the Whigs and Tories, acting under a sense of the common danger to society in Ireland, which would exist so long as the refractory populace had easy access to arms. The efforts to procure both fire and side-arms, all over the country, were extraordinary; this fact alarmed the Whigs, and made them feel disposed to support Sir Robert: the Conservatives were always ready to entertain repressive measures for Ireland. Both parties at last perceived that the tendency of the bill was to strengthen Sir Robert’s government, and, therefore, although they supported the first reading, they determined to give it, in its future stages, a determined opposition. The ground taken by Lord John Russell, as the whig leader, was, that if Ireland was criminal she was also oppressed; that measures of coercion and redress should proceed pari passu. He would not support repression, unless accompanied by relief. Lord George Bentinck, as the conservative leader, took different ground. He admitted that the state of Ireland was such as to require extra constitutional remedies, but such ought not to be entrusted to any but constitutional ministers; that Sir Robert did not advise her majesty in the spirit of the constitution, and he (Lord George) would not therefore confide so large a responsibility to his administrative discretion. The union of the two parties ensured the minister’s defeat, although the first reading was carried after seven nights’ debate. Sir W. Somerville, then a popular and influential member of the whig party, proposed an amendment on the 9th of June, when the bill was brought up for a second reading; the amendment was its postponement for six months, and was carried by a large majority. This decided the fate of the Peel administration. During the debate Lord George Bentinck gave an unhappy proof of his inaccuracy of statement and party spirit. He accused Sir Robert Peel of having made up his mind in favour of Roman Catholic emancipation, before he turned Mr. Canning out of office on that very question. This allegation was made in terms of the bitterest reproach, and was placed in such a form and light before the house, as, if true, must have left the impression that Sir Robert was a man destitute of all principle and honour. The following Friday, the 12th of June, the honourable baronet exculpated himself in one of the happiest speeches which he ever delivered in parliament. On this occasion Mr. Roebuck defended Sir Robert, and assailed Lord George with much justice and more acrimony; but the speech was well received by the house, and by the country, and increased the honourable member’s reputation as a debater and a politician. Mr. Hume, then in the zenith of his influence, followed up the blows so heavily dealt by Sir Robert and Mr. Roebuck. The efforts of Lord George’s followers to cover his disastrous defeat were feeble and fruitless. It was not until the 20th that the amendment proposed by Sir William Somerville on the 9th was carried, and on the 29th the announcements were made in the lords and commons that ministers had resigned. The Duke of Wellington made it known to the lords, as the ministerial leader in that house, and never was a similar communication so laconically delivered. Sir Robert made a long speech, vindicating his policy and his personal consistency, and declaring his unabated confidence in the measures in favour of free-trade, which he had been enabled to carry, and which he averred would bring peace, contentment, and prosperity to the country. The farewell address of the minister was rendered still more remarkable than it otherwise would have been, by his announcing that the Oregon dispute with the United States had been amicably adjusted. This was well received by the house and by the country, although, perhaps, neither had given such attention to the nature of the differences between the two countries on that subject, or the character of the adjustment. The foreign policy of Sir Robert had neither been firm nor dignified, and the basis of the settlement of the Oregon dispute was simply concession on the part of England. There can be no great merit in a minister preserving peace by giving up everything, or nearly everything, for which he might have to go to war. On this principle our foreign politics would be easy enough to all administrations, and the only talent really necessary would be, the ability to persuade parliament that, in conceding what was justly ours, we saved the expense of defending it, and that such a course was wise, honourable, and statesmanlike. The spirit infused into our foreign policy by Sir Robert, and which the Earl of Aberdeen too faithfully represented, proved, afterwards, costly alike to our resources and our honour.
On the resignation of Sir Robert, her majesty sent for Lord John Russell, and confided to him the task of forming an administration. His lordship succeeded in this object, and presented himself to parliament as first lord of the treasury and prime-minister, with Lord Cottenham as lord-chancellor, Lord Lansdowne as president of the council, Mr. Charles Wood as chancellor of the exchequer, and the three chief secretaries of state—home, foreign, and colonial—were Sir G. Grey, Lord Palmerston, and Earl Grey.
The public were not displeased with the formation of a whig ministry, although, had the parliament been dissolved upon the question simply of Sir Robert or Lord John, the former would have had an overwhelming majority. Some discontent was expressed with the prevalence of the Grey family in the cabinet—three members of that connexion in three of the principal offices gave too much patronage and influence to a single family, especially as their nepotism had brought discredit upon the late earl, even in the height of his popularity. The chancellorship of the exchequer, and the home and colonial secretaryships, being now in the hands of this aristocratic house, the departments, it was alleged, would be overwhelmed with scions and proteges of the noble lord, the representative of the race. Some of the liberal journals sneered at the administration as “the Grey government” from the beginning, and prepared the minds of the more radical portion of the people for an administrative failure. The conservative press caught up the tone of the Radicals, and ridiculed the new whig government in similar terms, affecting to feel a constitutional alarm and jealousy at the prevailing influence of “the Grey sept.”
When Lord John appeared in the house as the head of the government, Mr. Duncombe, one of the members for Finsbury, a popular and patriotic commoner, challenged the premier to make a full and explicit statement of the principles upon which he intended to administer the affairs of the country. This appeal met with a noble response in a clear, manful enunciation of free-trade principles, justice to Ireland, peace as far as that could be maintained in justice and honour, and the “maintenance and extension of religious liberty, which, together with its civil liberty, had made England conspicuous as one of the greatest nations of the world.”
The first parliamentary measure introduced by the Whigs was a plan for the better regulation of the sugar duties. On the 20th of July Lord John introduced his plan, which he professed would meet the wishes and expectations of the producer, the consumer, and the treasury. His proposal was substantially a protective duty of twenty shillings the cwt. upon all foreign Muscovada sugar, to be diminished annually in a certain ratio, so that in 1851 it would be only fifteen shillings and sixpence, and after that year permanently fourteen shillings. This was a great advantage to the consumers as compared with the old prohibitory duty of sixty-three shillings, and the protective duty of twenty-three shillings and fourpence. Lord John met the objections of “the negroes’ friends,” as to the admission of slave-grown sugar, by showing that the exclusion of such sugar was impracticable, inasmuch as by treaty, states producing slave-grown sugar were entitled to demand its admission under “the most favoured nation clause.” To conciliate the West-India interest, his lordship announced that it was his intention to introduce a bill giving the queen power to assent to any act of the West-India legislatures, modifying or abolishing the differential duties established there in favour of British goods. As these differential duties were only five or seven per cent., the West-India interest considered that his lordship mocked them by a show of concession. The whole of that interest was “up in arms,” as their parliamentary and colonial opposition, moral and political, was described. This interest had not joined the Conservatives in resisting the repeal of the corn laws, but, nevertheless, it now supplicated conservative support in impeding the measures of the ministry. The English landed interest was anxious to strengthen itself by the aid of the West-India planters and merchants, and therefore affected to be generous, and to repay evil by good. Lord George Bentinck’s boastful words were paraded before all monopolists to induce their co-operation with his party—“If we are a proud aristocracy, we are proud of our honour, inasmuch as we have never been guilty, and never can be guilty, of double-dealing with the farmers of England, of swindling our opponents, deceiving our friends, or betraying our constituents.” The West-India party was happy to gain help from any quarter, and joined “the farmers’ friends” in adopting Lord George Bentinck as their leader. The premier had proceeded by “resolution,” as it is constitutional to do in all measures affecting the public revenue. When the resolution was reported, Lord George moved as an amendment, “That in the present state of the sugar cultivation in the East and West-India possessions, the proposed reduction of duty upon foreign slave-grown sugar is alike unjust and impolitic, as tending to check the advance of sugar produced by British free labour, and to give a great additional stimulus to slave labour.” In support of this amendment the noble mover paraded a vast array of “facts and figures,” which made a wonderful show of industry and knowledge; but his statistical statements were illusory as his logic was unsound. The awkward manner in which his amendment was expressed embarrassed his arguments and those of his party, justifying the description of him in the following passage of his memoir, written by Disraeli:—“He had not much sustained his literary culture, and of late years, at any rate, had not given his mind to political study.” Sir Robert Peel gave the government a qualified and hesitating support. He started so many objections to the government measure that the opposition might have fairly looked for his support, but he answered his speech by his vote. In the course of his oration he predicted evils which never came to pass, and after all that had occurred, even his own glorious triumph in repealing the corn laws, the speech proved that he was not only an unwilling reformer, but that he had not clear and fair convictions of the truth of the great principles of political economy, that he was still the man of mere political expediency, and almost as jealous as ever of all bold attempts at theoretical or practical reform. The support of Sir Robert, such as it was, saved the government, for on this question, at all events, he held the balance of power. The debate lasted through the nights of the 27th and 28th, the West-India interest affecting great horror of slavery, and depicting the encouragement the measure would give to that evil in terms of great and even pious alarm. Never did a party resort more scandalously to cant and hypocrisy to serve a purpose than this, on the memorable occasion of “the sugar debate.” The resolution was carried, and a bill embodying it rapidly passed the commons, but was resisted in the lords with much tenacity of purpose. This was in a considerable measure the result of a remarkable petition presented to that house by Mr. Clarkson, of whom Mr. Wilberforce had been a disciple. Mr. Clarkson was a philanthropist and a Christian, but neither a political economist nor a politician. The Bishop of Oxford proposed an amendment, on the second reading, which would have virtually destroyed the bill; but the original motion was carried, and the remaining stages were unobstructed.
This was a most important measure to the comfort of the people and the commerce of the country. The government was logically and politically right; and the Whigs left the impression upon the country, by the bill itself, and the arguments by which they conducted it through the house, that they had been of late successful students in the important department of economics. A considerable stir among the wealthy and influential body of English citizens, the Society of Friends, was created, by the support which Mr. Bright, Mr. Crewdson, and others of the Quakers of the north of England, gave to the sugar bill. The body at large considered that support inconsistent with their professed principles. Mr. Bright, and those who took his views, eloquently defended themselves against the criticisms of the Friends, and Mr. George Thompson, the celebrated anti-slavery lecturer, espoused their cause with great ardour. Mr. Bright and his fellow-labourers of the Quaker persuasion were in a minority. The great body of the Friends disapproved of his conduct, and the old anti-slavery party throughout the country joined in the disapprobation. Mr. Bright was not a man to be deterred by friends or foes from pursuing a course which he thought right, and he persisted in giving to the government a very hearty and efficient support. The Manchester school accepted the bill with great favour, and upheld the ministry in carrying it. Large assemblages were convened in Manchester and the manufacturing districts, but especially in South Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire, on behalf of the measure, and the various chambers of commerce and commercial associations passed resolutions or sent petitions in its favour. It was a good beginning for Lord John as premier, and conduced to the tenure of office which he was enabled to maintain.