him; and one, than whom no man was more worthy to wield the arms of Achilles."

The honourable candour, and generous feeling, of this eulogy, won on the House even more than its eloquence; and favour was further conciliated, by Mr. Peel's expression of modest doubt, declaring, that to him the question presented only a choice of evils. In alluding to the great names which Plunkett had quoted, he said, "Does he suppose, that I view the existing state of things with perfect complacency? No: I never could hear those names mentioned, which were ranged in high authority against me, as they have been cited in this instance, and feel altogether satisfied. I do not stand here to take any sophistical advantage of the arguments of my opponents: it is not the love of victory, but the sincere desire to state my honest conviction, which makes me come forward; and if I could be actuated by any base spirit of opposition, I would be ashamed, with those great names against me, to look the House in the face. The authorities which have been referred to, make it the paramount duty of every man to examine the grounds of his opinion, and to ascertain that no interested views-no ideas of visionary danger-no irrational hostility to a great class of his fellow-subjects, influence his decision. But if, after such a close and scrutinizing examination of our motives, my friends and I find it necessary still to retain our opinions, I will trust to the liberality of the right honourable gentleman for doing us the justice to suppose, that it is in the fair and candid exercise of a free judgment, concerning matters most important to the religion of the state, that we venture to differ from him, and the great authorities which he has cited."

The deprecatory style of this exordium shows that Mr. Peel already felt the weight of authority against him; and it is remarkable, in reference to his future career, that his first argument against Catholic emancipation, was, that it would necessarily be followed by the more dangerous measures, of

the "repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts;" for, under his own administration, the latter measure had the precedence, as infinitely the less perilous of the two. A second reason for continuing exclusion is so curious, in reference to later times, that we give it in his own words: "If the Roman Catholics are admitted to a seat in parliament, and to other offices, so also must the Quakers; and the principle which would be asserted by such an admission, would lead to such innovations upon the British constitution, that I, for one, must be permitted to oppose it." We have since seen Quakers sitting in the House of Commons, and eliciting compliments to their legislative assiduity, from Mr. Peel himself. Some hesitation is evident in the winding up of this part of the argument, for the orator puts his case hypothetically: "The present motion," he said, "is to introduce into the statute-book a new set of laws, conceding privileges, and granting rights, to those who do not now possess them: as such, it is entitled to our most serious consideration. The House should recollect, that we are legislating for posterity; and I, in doing so, cannot shut my eyes to the danger in which such a proposition as the present may possibly involve the country." He then restated his argument of 1817, founded on the danger to which the Church of Ireland would be exposed, and concluded with the following very remakable peroration::

"These are my honest sentiments upon this great and important question. They are uninfluenced by any motive but an ardent anxiety for the durability of our happy constitution. I speak my own sentiments, without attending to the apprehensions of others; for I have taken no pains to collect what may elsewhere be the feelings of persons who think upon this subject. Of these, or the impressions which they diffuse, I am perfectly careless; and, upon this point, I shall say, that if this bill succeeds, and eventually revives hostile feelings among the people of this country, against the

concessions which it involves, I, for one, shall not appeal to that angry spirit, if it arises against the principle of the bill. If the people of England become roused by its success, I shall deprecate upon this, as well as I have done upon any other occasion, an appeal to their excited passions, upon the wisdom or the justice of the measure. Against such appeals, I shall always set my face, believing, as I do, that the deliberative wisdom of parliament is better calculated to weigh maturely the important bearings of any great question, than the general opinion of parties elsewhere. If I thought the claims contended for were formed to promote the good of the state, the whole voice of England out of doors, should not dissuade me from admitting the necessity of their adoption. It is, however, because I think the motion not calculated to promote any good purpose, that I am prepared to oppose it to the utmost of my means. My opinions and my duty here coincide, and upon them I mean consistently to act. Upon this occasion, I have declined resorting to any influence to counteract the fair consideration of the question. I have been, it is true, consulted about the means of opposing it; and I now solemnly declare, that my advice was against, rather than for, petitioning, to impede the progress of the bill. I have told the parties by whom I have been consulted, that I care not for their petitions; I value them not; for, in my view, the House of Commons is fully competent to decide upon the whole merit of the case, without any external assistance. I think we require no illumination from without, to enable us to form a sound decision upon whatever question is submitted to our consideration. This being my opinion, I have given no encouragement to counter-petitioning upon this great question. I can most conscientiously assure the House, that no result of this debate can give me unqualified satisfaction. I am, of course, bound to wish, that the opinions which I honestly feel, may prevail; but their prevalence must still

T

be mingled with regret at the disappointment which I know that the success of such opinions must entail on a large portion of my fellow-subjects. If, however, on the contrary, the motion succeeds, no man who hears me will more cordially rejoice, if my predictions prove unfounded, my arguments groundless, and that the result should exemplify the sanguine expectations of the right honourable mover, and give increased confidence to all classes of his Majesty's subjects in that interesting country, in which such union and harmony are most desirable."

There was a yielding tone in these concluding sentences, which led many to hope, that the time was not distant, when Mr. Peel himself might be won over to the cause of concession, and which was as odious to the bigots of his own party, as it was pleasing to the friends of emancipation. As a reply to Plunkett, it was undeniably a failure; Peel was no match for him, whom Bushe enthusiastically, but not inappropriately, denominated the "Wellington of the senate;"

Infelix puer atque impar congressus Achilli;

but, in fact, Peel deprecated direct combat, and his speech was, to a great extent, an apology for advocating the cause of exclusion and ascendancy. It was said, by some of the more violent opponents of emancipation, that they had been more injured by Peel's defence, than by Plunkett's attack; and the popularity which he had acquired with the Orangemen was totally destroyed. Certainly, his manifest timidity and hesitation in opposing the motion, not a little contributed to its unexpected success; it was carried by a majority of six, though, only a few minutes before the division, Lord Castlereagh had predicted a very different result. This event made an important change in the aspect of the Catholic question, and in the political condition of Mr. Peel; and we shall, therefore, examine its influences and probable causes, in a separate chapter.

CHAPTER IX.

MR. PEEL AND THE CATHOLIC QUESTION, IN 1821.

A LITTLE before Mr. Plunkett brought forward the motion, of which we have recorded the unexpected success, those who carefully watched the symptoms of change in the political world, thought that they saw some indications on the part of a section of the ministry, to strengthen themselves by a coalition with the Grenville party. Lord Grenville had given the weight of his authority to the proceedings against Queen Caroline, and had voted for the second reading of the Bill of Pains and Penalties: his friends, in the House of Commons, had supported the ministerial measures for the Suppression of Seditious Meetings, and the rest of the coercive system, known under the name of the Six Acts, and had thus completely severed themselves from the Whig opposition. On the other hand, Lord Liverpool was known to feel very acutely the loss of Mr. Canning, who quitted office on account of his reluctance to take part in the proceedings against Queen Caroline, and whose exclusion from place seemed likely to be perpetual, in consequence of the personal dislike which his conduct had excited in the breast of the King. Catholic emancipation had been what is called an "open question," in the cabinet; but its chief opponents, Lords Eldon, Sidmouth, and Bathurst, with Mr. Vansittart, had formed a strong and compact party, resolved not only to oppose concession, but to prevent any new advocate of the measure to obtain that influence which participation in ministerial power would confer. This party, at first, regarded Mr. Plunkett's motion as a