power-indeed such a portion as it was now proposed to vest for a time in the government of Ireland. Now he would ask, whether the House was prepared to place such power in the Irish government permanently? He was not at liberty to state to the House what passed in his majesty's councils, during the period in which he had the honour of enjoying a seat at the council board, neither was it necessary that he should do so: he was at liberty, however, to state this, that, having come to the conclusion which he had just declared to the House, he could not help coming to another conclusion also; and that was, that, consistently with his public duty, he could not grant to the government that arbitrary power which was necessary to put down the Catholic Association, without putting an end, at the same time, to the cruel system of exclusion which called that Association into existence. Either in or out of office, he never would have agreed to such a measure of coercion, if assured it was to be a permanent measure, unless it had been accompanied at the same time by an assurance, that the evil system, which the Association sought to remedy, was going to be abandoned.

Catholic relief, which, though lost in the upper House, must yet have shown the people, that conciliation was intended to accompany coercion. The act, then, of 1825, was not the only measure, upon which the House of Commons depended for the tranquillity of Ireland, when they had recorded its accompaniment by the admission that Catholic disabilities ought to be removed. These were the causes, which had prevented the effectual operation of the law of 1825.

The act passed: but the Association rendered it unnecessary to make use of the powers which it bestowed. Their parliamentary friends had pointed out to them, that, as matters stood, with the government pledged to emancipation, their continuing together as a body could only do mischief; and the Association, even before the bill had completed its hasty progress, declared itself dissolved. It was plain, however, even from the explanations given by ministers themselves, that the Association had been allowed to bully the government into submission, and that the present act for its suppression was mere legislative mockery-the ridiculous assumption of a threatening gesture to cover and conceal their impotence. The Association had demanded emancipation, unqualified emancipation, and nothing else. It had said to the government, give us emancipation, and we exist no more; refuse us what we ask, and we defy your power either to restrain or to resist us. The question between it and the government had never been, whether it would be quiet, if the government gave all that it demanded-but whether or no the govern

even though it should get nothing. In such circumstances, when one

hand held a bill for suppressing the Association, while the other contained a bill granting all that the Association demanded, to speak of having suppressed the Association was an abuse of words. It was as if a man should boast of his victory over a highwayman, to whom he exclaims, when the pistol is at his breast, "down with your pistol, sir, for there are my purse and my watch." The robber would have the best of it, and so had the Association.

The bill, which commemorated this wretched triumph, received the royal assent on the 5th of March; and on the same day Mr. Peel moved in the House of Commons, that the House should go into a Committee on the laws which imposed disabilities on the Catholics. But he no longer rose as member for the University of Oxford. That honourable rank he had reached, and had retained, as the firm opponent of Catholic encroachments; the University had sent him forth to defend the civil and religious institutions to which she was attached, and hitherto he had done his part faithfully and well. A few short months had converted him into a leader of Catholic aggression, and found him zealously employed in creating every one of those dangers, which his life had been spent in detecting and resisting. If the change was justified by his duty as a statesman, he could not, in common decency or honesty, retain his seat as member for Oxford. On the 4th of February, the day before the meeting of parliament, he addressed a letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University, announcing the new views of policy by which he was about to be guided, acknowledging that his resistance to the Catholic

claims had been one main ground on which the University had made him its representative, and tendering his resignation. His resigna

The following is Mr. Peel's letter: -To the reverend the vice-chancellor of Oxford.

Whitehall, Feb. 4.

My dear Sir, I take the very first opportunity of which I am at liberty to avail myself, to make a communication to you which is most distressing to my feelings.

I have considered it to be my duty, as one of the responsible advisers of the king, humbly to signify to his majesty the opinion which I have formed, in entire concurrence with all my colleagues in the government, that the period is arrived when his majesty's servants must take, in their collective capacity, some decisive line with regard to the state of Ireland, and to the various subjects affecting the tranquillity of that country, which are involved in what is called the Catholic question.

After maturely weighing the present position of affairs, and the prospects of the future-adverting to the opinions repeatedly expressed by majorities in the House of Commons-to the difficulties which must arise, in the present state of Ireland, from continued division in the councils of his majesty, and disliament-it has appeared to his majesty's government that there is less of evil and less of danger, under the existing circumstances of the country, in the attempt to make some satisfactory adjustment of the Catholic question, than in any other course which we can suggest. In the offer of my advice to his majesty, as one of his confidential and responsible servants, I have been compelled to exclude every consideration but that of the interests and necessities of the country.

union between the two Houses of Par

No sooner, however, had I fulfilled the obligations of my duty to his majesty, than I began maturely to reflect

on the relation in which I stand to the University of Oxford.

I cannot doubt that the resistance which I have hitherto offered to the claims of the Roman Catholics has been one of the main grounds upon which I have been entitled to the confidence and support of a very large hody of my con

tion was accepted; Mr. Peel vacated his seat, and was immediately proposed as a candidate at the new election. His opponent was sir Robert Harry Inglis, who had not yet seen the expediency of changing his opinions. Mr. Peel, in trusting that the University would return him, must have counted on

stituents; and although I discontinue that resistance solely from the firm belief that perseverance in it would be not only unavailing, but would be injurious to those interests which it is my especial duty to uphold, yet I consider myself bound to surrender to the University, without delay, the trust which they have confided to me.

I take the liberty of requesting that you will communicate this letter to those leading members of the University with whom you may think proper to confer, and that you will consult with them as to the period at which it will be most convenient to the University that my seat in parliament should be vacated.

I will be guided by the suggestions with which you may favour me in this respect, in making my application to the crown for some nominal appointment, which may vacate my seat.

By this painful sacrifice-by the forfeiture of that high distinction which I have prized much more than any other object of ambition, I shall at least give a decisive proof that I have not taken my present course without the most mature deliberation, and that I have

not suffered myself to be influenced by

any other motive than that of an overpowering sense of public duty.

My present relation to the University will be terminated-but, believe me, that to the latest hour of my existence,

I shall never be unmindful of the confidence with which I have been honoured, and of the kindness and indulgence which I have invariably experienced; and that I shall study to maintain, with unabated zeal, the privileges and interests of the University and of the Church of England, notwithstanding the disso

lution of those ties which have more immediately bound me to their service. I have the honour to be, my dear Sir, with every sentiment of respect and regard, your most faithful servant, ROBERT PEEL.

a blind disposition in the University to receive their opinions from the minister of the day, or an excess of personal attachment which would render political opinions matters of indifference. In both expectations he was disappointed. Never were greater exertions made in the course of any election. The united influence of the government and of the Whigs was pushed to its utmost limit in behalf of the Home Secre

tary.

On the other hand, sir Robert H. Inglis was supported by some of the dignitaries of the church, and, with great zeal, by the parochial clergy, as well as by many who, without any predilection for the cause itself, were satisfied with any issue which should defeat a candidate whom they did not. merely consider an apostate, but who came among them expressing an opinion that the University would wheel round at the word of command; for not many days had elapsed since the presentation of the University petition against concession to the House of Lords, which had been carried by a majority of three to one in the most numerous convocation ever assembled in Oxford. After a contest of three days, during which 1364 voters polled, Oxford rejected Mr. Peel by a majority of 146. He was immediately returned for the borough of Westbury; and, in this character, he was charged with introducing into the House of Commons those measures, which he had been teaching the country for twenty years would be ruinous to its interests and its freedom, and in regard to which he was even now to express his unaltered conviction, that they were pregnant with danger to the con

stitution.

He and his colleagues had no

reason to fear the result. During the interval which had already elapsed, the country had covered the tables of both Houses of parliament with petitions against the proposed innovation; but but the people were left without leaders capable of representing the public voice in the House of Commons. All the talkers of the ministry were now joined to all the talkers of the opposition: the whole mass of ministerial influence was brought into play to gain votes, without even seeking to cover the change of opinion with any other excuse than the threat of dismissal or displeasure. In short, it now was a ministerial measure, as well as an opposition one; and where both ministers and their adversaries unite in a fixed determination to carry one great point, cost what it may, of what value is the parchment opposition of petitions, however strongly and however truly they may speak the real sentiments and wishes of the country? Feeling that defeat would be utter ruin, ministers resolved at once that no one, whose hopes or fears they could control, should be allowed to perplex himself with any freedom of opinion. If they could justify their own change, they could justify that of all their adherents. The revolutions of sentiment, which accordingly took place, were ridiculously sudden, and, in many instances, mean and disgraceful,but the cheers and the votes of such persons were as useful as those of better men. The victory was secured, before the battle was begun. The country felt that it would be vain to struggle against the coalition of parties, and the accumulation of influence, which was now brought into play, all on one side.

It felt little anxiety as to the issue, because no doubt could be entertained what that issue would be ; but it felt much anxiety to learn, on what grounds all the doctrines, which but six months before, had been held essential to the integrity of the constitution, and the welfare of the country, were now to be made out, by the very same men, to be injurious to the freedom and prosperity of the empire.

On the 5th of March, for which day a call of the House had been ordered, Mr. Peel moved, "that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the laws imposing civil disabilities on his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects." He began with stating, that he rose, as a minister of the king, to vindicate the advice which an united cabinet had given to his majesty, to recommend to the consideration of parliament the condition of the Catholics, and to submit to the House those measures by which government proposed to carry that recommendation into effect. He was aware that the subject was surrounded by many difficulties, which were increased by the relation in which he himself stood to the question; but having come to the sincere conviction that the time was arrived, at which an amicable adjustment of the disputed claims would be accompanied with less danger than any other course which he could suggest, on that conviction he was prepared to act, unchanged by any expression of opinion of an opposite nature, however general or deepunchanged by the forfeiture of political confidence, or by the heavy loss of private friendship. He had long felt, that, with a House of Commons favourable to emancipation, his position as a

minister opposed to it was untenable. Under this feeling, when a bill passed the House in 1825, he had intimated to Lord Liverpool his wish to resign, that he might thereby remove one obstacle to the settlement of the question. His resignation, he was informed, would occasion that of Lord Liverpool, and dissolve the ministry: he had agreed, therefore, to wait the decision of a new House of Commons. The new House of Commons, elected in 1826, decided in 1827 against the Caholics; but in 1828 it adopted a different course, and came to a resolution determining the principle of the question. After that decision he was prepared to follow the

course

which he had proposed to himself after the decision of 1825, with this addition that he notified to the duke of Wellington, not only his readiness to retire from office, but that, seeing the current of public opinion, he was ready to sacrifice consistency and friendship: and, by whatever parties the settle ment of the question was undertaken, he for one was prepared, in whatever post he might be, to support the measure, provided he thought it was undertaken on principles safe for the Protestant establishment. He was aware that he was called on to make out a case for this change of policy: and he was now to submit to the House an argument of fact which proved to his mind, with the force of demonstration, that it was imperative on ministers to recommend the measure which he was about to introduce, however inconsistent it might seem to be with their former tenets.

The argument by which this case was to be made out resolved itself into the following proposi

tions. First, matters cannot continue as they are: the evils of divided councils are so great, that something must be done, and a government must be formed with one common opinion on the subject. Secondly, a united government once formed must do one of two things; it must either grant further political rights to the Catholics, or recall those which they already possess; but, thirdly, to deprive the Catholics of what they already had would be impossible, or at least, would be infinitely more mischievous than to grant them more, and therefore no course remained to be adopted, except that of concession.

His first proposition, viz. that something must be done, to gain a ministry united in opinion on this question, was proved, he said, by the mischievous influence which the diversity of sentiment had exercised on the general government of the country, the state of parliament, and the government of Ireland. For thirty-five years the state of government in this country on the Catholic question had been disunion. Lord Fitzwilliam had gone to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant in 1794, and his government came to a termination -on account of a difference about the Catholic question. In 1801 Mr. Pitt's government came to a close, and on the same ground—a difference about the Catholic question. He resumed the government in 1804, composing his cabinet in a manner which showed that it was not formed on the principle of unqualified resistance. After his death succeeded a new ministry, which endured about eighteen months, and then came to a termination, still on the same grounda difference about the Catholic