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 be lief 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 dissolution 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 constitution.

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 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 settlement 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 morę 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 ground-a difference about the Catholic

question. It was true that, during the five years that followed, under the ministry of Mr. Perceval, government resisted the consideration of this question: but the resistance did not proceed on permanent grounds: for, during great part of that interval, lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning were members of the government, and consented to act only in deference to the conscientious scruples of his late majesty. So soon as the restrictions on the regency had expired, the same parliament, which had been elected in 1807, determined, by a very large majority, to take the question into consideration. Since then, up to the commencement of the present session, the Catholic question had been made what was called a neutral question: any member of every government, was allowed to take his own course with respect to it; the consequences of which had been most unfortunate, though perhaps unavoidable. During the whole of that period the cabinet was divided sometimes equally; sometimes the proportion was seven to six against concession; sometimes it was six to seven in favour of concession. Usually, however, the cabinet was equally divided. This divided government had been but an apt representative of the divided opinion of the branch of the legislature which he was addressing. Four out of the five Houses of Commons which had sat in the five last Parliaments, had at some time or other come to a decision in favour of the Catholic question. One House of Commons did resist the consideration of the question, but that single House, out of five, resisted its consideration by a majority of only 243 to 241. From a list of the divisions during the last ten years, he found,

And

that, in 1819, there was a majority, of two against the question; in 1823, there was a majority of six in its favour; in 1821, a bill was passed by a majority of nine; in 1822, the bill for the admission of Roman Catholic peers into the House of Lords was passed by a majority of five; in 1824, the question was not brought forward; in 1825, a bill was passed by a majority of twenty-one; in 1826, there was a general election; and in 1827, the present House of Commons decided against the question by a majority of four; but in the last session, they decided in its favour by a majority of six. was the present House of Commons, elected in 1826, an unfair representation of the public opinion with respect to the Catholic question? Was not this House elected, when the public mind was sufficiently alive to the question? Its predecessor had twice carried bills for the removal of disabilities. It was elected immediately after the discussions in Parliament with respect to the Catholic Association. The proceedings of the Association were manifest. It had been found necessary to introduce a bill having for its object the suppression of that Association, and that bill had been passed. The discussion upon that bill in the House of Commons lasted five nights. He mentioned these circumstances to prove, that public attention had been called to the state of the question; and if the public had determined to prevent its future agitation, then was the time when the public might have practically given effect to its views. That it did not do so, however, was manifest from numerical details, into which Mr. Pecl now entered, and which shewed that, out of the members

returned by fifteen principal counties, fifteen voted against concession, and seventeen for it; and of the members returned by twenty principal towns and cities, eighteen voted against concession,and twenty-eight for it. In these circumstances, continued Mr. Peel, it was somewhat hard to be compelled to fight the battle of constant resistance without being furnished with the materials for doing it effectually; to be made responsible for not being able to carry on an administration on the principle of resistance with a Parliament so nicely balanced,the House of Lords opposed to the House of Commons, and the latter equally divided within itself. When he heard it stated that the feeling of the country was almost unanimous against the attempted settlement of the question, he must declare that this was a very recent discovery. The opposition of the country ought not to have been manifested by public meetings in every parish, but by the exercise of the elective franchise. It was not fair for the country to expect (supposing its feelings to be truly described), that one minister should take upon himself the whole responsibility of resistance, and yet to exercise their privileges in such a way as absolutely to render resistance powerless. How could any human being engage to conduct the administration of Ireland upon the principle of the exclusions which pressed upon the great body of the people of that country, if the removal of those disabilities was prayed and pressed for by the Protestant population of England? An inference, too, in regard to public opinion might be drawn from the debates in that Housefrom the number of speakers, and the zeal which they had displayed VOL. LXXI.

on either side. Had the younger members, the youthful talent of the House, been enlisted in opposition to the claims of the Roman Catholics? He must say, when the whole responsibility was cast upon him, that, on looking back, he found it impossible not to declare, that almost every young man, who had come forward in parliament during the last ten years, had come forward, actively and eloquently, as the advocate for concession. It was unreasonable, therefore, that individuals, who for ten years had permitted the question to pass over without opening their mouths to express their sentiments; who had seen, during that period, speakers in favour of concession, urging their arguments with the utmost ability, three or four consecutively, without having assisted, on any one occasion, to oppose their reasonings, should come forward in 1829, and say, that there had been a want of zeal for the Protestant cause,-that the arguments in its favour were triumphant,—and that they only needed to be stated to have their truth admitted. Now, when the battle was almost won,when the spirits of those who had fought it were exhausted,—he was told that a vigorous defence must be made; though those, who told him so, had themselves allowed every opportunity of making a defence, which had occurred during the last ten years, to slip away. Many important conclusions might be drawn from the facts which he had stated to the House. In the face of all these facts, how long could resistance be maintained? That was the question which those who resisted, and those who were responsible for advising resistance, must consider.

Next, what had been the result

[C]