From Mr. Croker's Note Book.

Strathfieldsaye, December 16th, 1846.

I have had a great deal of confidential talk with the Duke on late and future political events. He had no reason to think that Peel had any arrière pensée, but was really alarmed at the failure of the Irish potato crop, and wished towards the end of October to have suspended the Corn Laws by proclamation, but was overruled, and when Lord J. Russell's letter came out was very much piqued that he had been thus forestalled; and then he pressed it again without effect, and at last had some scheme by which the Corn Laws were to be successively changed, in three periods of seven years each, till totally reduced.* It would seem as if he had had no one with him in the Cabinet but Sidney Herbert and perhaps Aberdeen, but he (the D.) was not at all in the secret of this change of opinion, and knew very little of what was going on or intended. He was much surprised to hear that I had long suspected that Peel had modified his opinion on his own Corn Law. My suspicion-I might indeed say my proofs-were_long anterior to the alarm about the potato crop, but the Duke had no suspicion of any other motive at the time. mentioned to him that before the potato failure was known, some time in August or very early in September, I had been surprised at hearing from Sidney Herbert some free trade observations, which confirmed my previous suspicions about Peel's change. "Well," said he, "it is odd that the first inkling I had of what was intended was also from Sidney Herbert. We had been attending a Cabinet at Peel's house, where he was confined by the gout, and as we were walking the short step between that and our offices (he was then Secretary at War) he dropped a few words which gave me. the first hint that any one was dreaming of such a thing. That fit of the gout depressed Peel exceedingly-to a greater degree than was suspected, and I think it had its influence on his mind and on his measures. But as to the wheel about on the Corn Laws, I was no more prepared for it than any gentleman who was walking in Whitehall the day I crossed it with Sidney Herbert. It looks to me like what Sheridan

I

[The word is "reduced" in the original; "abolished" was doubtless meant.]

said of the Whigs, building up a wall to knock their own heads against.' Nor do I comprehend how the repeal of the Corn Laws can remedy the potato famine in Ireland, where the want is not of food, but of money to buy it."

As I had come down by his invitation on purpose to talk with him on these matters, I urged him with all the earnestness that I could, not to associate himself to so great a shock on confidence and character as this would be-that he might remain at the head of the army, though not in the Cabinet, but that it would never come to that point, for his opposition would assuredly stop it for the present; or at all events, that if · it were carried, it would be without any loss of character to him, which I dreaded more even than the measure itself. He took all I said in very good part, fully agreed in all I said about the measure itself, but could not persuade himself to break up the Government which would fall into the hands of the Radicals. I said that really if Radical measures were to be carried, I thought it fairer, and in fact better, for the country that they should be carried by Radical men. Admitting as he did that these measures were dangerous in their principle and even more so in their detail, did he not see the vast difference that must result from the ministers being halloo'd on and stimulated by the charge of their political opponents, instead of being restrained and checked by a bona fide and sincere opposition, with whom they would naturally endeavour to keep some measure. He agreed in all I said, and in as strong terms, but he could not persuade himself to go into opposition.

-

CHAPTER XXV.

1847.

The Differences between Mr. Croker and Sir R. Peel-The Duties of a Party-Leader towards his Followers-Miss Martineau's CalumniesLast Letters between Peel and Croker-Mr. Croker's Articles in the Quarterly Review-His Criticisms of Peel-And of the "Free Trade" Policy-State of Ireland in 1847-No such thing as "perfect Free Trade"-Lord George Bentinck and "his Jew "-Proposed Payment of Roman Catholic Priests-Letter from Lord Stanley-Pamphlet on Peel's Commercial Policy-Lord Stanley's Reply - Lord George Bentinck His rapid Advance in Political Life-The Rallyingpoint of the Protectionists-Lord George's Character-His letters to Mr. Croker-The Duke of Wellington and his Statue-His Strong Feeling against its Removal from Hyde Park Corner-Complains of his "Persecution by all Factions" in 1808-Lord George Bentinck on Free Trade-Expediency of raising Revenues from Duties on Imports -Colonial Produce-The Question of Jewish Disabilities-The Potato Famine-Lord George on his own Career-His Impatience of the Apathy of "Vested Interests "The Bank Charter Act of 1844-The Coercion Bill-Resignation of Lord George Bentinck as Leader of his Party-Continued Activity in Public Life-His Sudden and Mysterious

Death.

We have seen that one of the closest and most valued of all the friendships of Mr. Croker's life was sundered in 1846. He had been on terms of the most affectionate intimacy with Peel for nearly forty years, and the final separation cost him a deep and bitter pang. Peel had been faithless to his party, but Mr. Croker felt that he had been specially unfaithful to him; for many of the articles which had appeared in the Quarterly Review on Protection had been written

"under the eye," and at the suggestion of Peel himself. In deserting his followers, Peel had not only left them without a leader, but had divided them into irreconcileable sections. There was no longer a Conservative party at the opening of the Session of 1847. Some of its members still followed Peel, and were called after his name; others owned no allegiance to any leader; a third section looked for a rallying point to Lord John Manners, Mr. Disraeli, or Lord George Bentinck. But the historic Tory party was dissolved.

Whether it was wise or unwise to abolish the Corn Laws, it has since been acknowledged that Sir Robert Peel betrayed his followers pitilessly when he made himself the means of accomplishing the work. He was pledged to the support of the principles of Protection, and never gave the slightest ground for the supposition that he had changed his opinions until he was ready to produce the measure which violated all his promises, and left his supporters humiliated and crushed. No writer of any authority has attempted to defend this want of good faith. "As the leader of a party," writes a Liberal historian,* Peel "was unfaithful and disloyal." Sir Erskine May goes on to lay down principles which would perhaps scarcely be received in the present day by Liberal politicians without material qualifications:

"The relations between a leader and his followers are those of mutual confidence. His talents give them union and force; their numbers invest him with political power. They tender, and he accepts the trust, because he shares and represents their sentiments. Viewing affairs from higher ground, he may persuade them to modify or renounce their opinions in the interests of the state; but, without their concurrence, he has no right to use for one purpose that power which they have entrusted to him for another. He has received a limited authority, which he may not exceed

*Sir Erskine May, History of England,' chapter viii.

without further instructions. If, contrary to the judgment of his party, he believes the public welfare to demand an entire change of policy, it is not for him to carry it out. He cannot, indeed, be called upon to cancel or disavow his own opinions; but he is no longer entitled to lead the forces entrusted to his command-still less to seek the aid of the enemy. Elected chief of a free republic-not its dictatorit becomes his duty, honourably and in good faith, to retire from his position, with as little injury as may be to the cause he abandons, and to leave to others a task which his own party allegiance forbids him to attempt."

These were the very opinions which were expressed by Mr. Croker after Sir Robert Peel's "apostacy," but he expressed them without personal bitterness towards the friend of former days. The world has, indeed, received from Miss Martineau a different account.* "When he had been staying at Drayton Manor," so ran her story, "not long before Sir R. Peel's death, had been not only hospitably entertained, but kindly ministered to under his infirmities of deafness and bad health, and went home to cut up his host in a political article for the forthcoming Quarterly-his fellow guests at Drayton refused as long as possible to believe the article to be his." There is not a word of truth in this statement from beginning to end. Any one who was likely to be a guest at Drayton Manor knew perfectly well who wrote the articles in the Quarterly Review; Peel himself knew; and Mr. Croker was not at Drayton Manor for several years prior to Peel's death. The following letters-melancholy enough, considering the affectionate intimacy which had existed between the writers for so many years-are conclusive on these points; they show that Miss Martineau, like some

The account published in the Daily News (afterwards copied into the Gentleman's Magazine) the day after Mr. Croker's death, in which he was spoken of as the "unhappy old man who has just departed," with "a malignant ulcer" in his mind, &c.