repudiated the latter. Mr. Peel, upon his change of conduct, placed his seat at the disposal of the university, failed to obtain his re-election, took his seat for Westbury; and, on the 10th of February, commenced by introducing a bill to suppress the catholic association. This bill passed with ease and speed through both houses; but before it reached its last stage had become superfluous. Upon the arrival in Dublin of the recommendation from the throne, at the opening of parliament, the association dissolved itself. The same packet which brought to Dublin the commissioners' speech, also brought letters from the best friends of the catholics in London recommending this course. Mr. Sheil proposed, in the most urgent terms, that the association should immediately declare itself dissolved. Mr. O'Connell wrote letters from England earnestly deprecating the dissolution; but his opinion was overruled, the proposition of Mr. Sheil was agreed to, and the association ceased to exist.

A call of the house of commons was ordered for the 5th of March. On that day Mr. Peel rose to move a committee of the whole house to consider of the laws imposing civil disabilities on his majesty's Roman catholic subjects." The speech with which he introduced his motion was a clear, ample, and able exposition of the progress of the catholic question until at last it reduced the government to a choice of dangers, the lesser of which, in the opinion of an unanimous, united cabinet, was that of conceding. They could not, he said, stand still; they must re-enact or repeal. He next

It

stated the nature of the ministerial measure. was, he said, concerted with no party. It was prepared and confined within the bosom of the cabinet. The abolition of civil distinctions, and the equality of civil rights, were assumed as its principle and basis. This declaration was profoundly felt, and received by the house with a burst of applause. It amounted to declaring that the measure would be simple, enlarged, and liberal,—not a pettifogging contract, rendered ungracious by suspicions, and trammelled by securities. A new oath was proposed to be taken by catholic members of parliament, of which the only material article was, that they would not employ their privileges against the protestant church or state: and catholics were to continue disqualified for the offices of lord lieutenant of Ireland and keeper of the great seal.

The whigs must, of course, have supported the measure; but they did so in a spirit of disinterested co-operation. It was but feebly opposed. One of its chief opponents was sir Robert Inglis, the successful competitor for the representation of Oxford with Mr. Peel. He distinguished himself by exaggerated high church notions of ecclesiastical polity and supremacy. After an adjourned debate, the motion was carried by a majority of 348 to 188. Resolutions proposed by Mr. Peel in the committee were immediately agreed to, and a bill founded on the resolutions was introduced by him, and read a first time on the 10th of March.

Mr. Peel, on the 17th of March, moved the second reading of the bill. The speeches on both sides were, for the most part, dull and trite to the

last degree of weariness, unless when relieved by personalities. Mr. Sadler, the representative of Newark and of the duke of Newcastle, in a maiden oration, opposed to the measure sound principles and humane views respecting the state of Ireland, ingeniously misapplied in argument. Lord Palmerston and sir George Murray should also be especially excepted. They supported the bill without originality of topics, but with the stirring animation of true eloquence. Sir Charles Wetherell, the attorneygeneral, had refused to draw the bill. Still in office, under warning, until a successor should be appointed, he hurled around him upon the measure, its framers and advocates, furious fragments of declamation and personality, some of which reached the lord chancellor in the other house, and drew from that high authority an opinion of the speech and the speaker, which, if pronounced by him in a different place, would be of very grave consequence. The bill was ultimately read a second time, by a majority of 353 to 180. After three days in committee it came out as it went in; and on the 30th of March was read a third time, and passed.

Mr. Peel next day, with an unusual escort of members, presented his bill at the bar of the house of lords it was, in the course of the evening, read a first time unopposed. The second reading was moved by the duke of Wellington on the 2d of April. It is the property of a superior mind to rise with the occasion. The duke of Wellington's speech on this, the greatest parliamentary occasion of his life, was not only his best effort as a speaker, but combined facts, reasoning, and eloquence. One

.my

passage, spoken by him in a tone of deep feeling, was heard with emotion. After going over the state of Ireland, and the extremities to which adverse factions there were likely to proceed, he said, "It has been my fortune, my lords, to have seen much of war more than most men. I have been constantly engaged in the active duties of the military profession from boyhood until I have grown grey. My life has been passed in familiarity with scenes of death and human suffering. Circumstances have placed me in countries where the war was internal, between opposite parties of the same nation; and rather than a country I loved should be visited with the calamities which I have seen, with the unutterable horrors of a civil war, lords, I would run any risk,-I would make any sacrifice, I would freely lay down my life." The archbishop of Canterbury, more fortified against consequences than the veteran warrior, opposed the motion, and moved an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. The debate was continued by adjournment through four nights. Of the bishops the great body supported the amendment. Lloyd, bishop of Oxford, was the only marked exception. His position was curious and painful. He had to refute his own speech on the same subject in the preceding session; and his change of sides in the train of his ministerial patron subjected him to the reproaches of his party. The speeches against the bill were like so many epitaphs on the penal laws, and, like other epitaphs, consisted of hollow eulogies upon the good which the deceased had performed in their generation. The most laboured and lachrymose was that of lord Elden.

read a second

On the 7th and committee; on

On the 6th of April the bill was time, by a majority of 217 to 112. 8th it passed intact through the the 10th it was read a third time and passed; on the 13th it received the royal assent, and became a monument of the adroit and energetic genius of the duke of Wellington.

The relief bill having passed, Mr. Peel brought in a bill to disfranchise the Irish forty shilling freeholders and raise the qualification to ten pounds. It was part of the general measure recommended from the throne, and passed with little opposition through both houses: even in Ireland it met no serious resistance. The association was no more; the peasantry were tired of the privilege; and the landlords willingly parted with instruments of jobbing and bribery which had recoiled upon themselves.

On the 13th of May, Mr. O'Connell presented himself to take his seat for Clare. The clerk produced the old oath, which the relief bill had repealed. Mr. O'Connell proposed to take that prescribed to catholics by the new act. The speaker informed him that he was returned before the passing of the act, and was therefore excluded in express terms from its operation. Mr. O'Connell was heard at the bar, and argued ingeniously and ably in support of his right; which, after a long discussion, was negatived by a majority of 190 to 116. He next day presented himself at the bar, was informed of the decision, and asked whether he was prepared to take the old oath. Having requested leave to look at the oath, and having examined it for a moment, he said, "I see in this oath an assertion of fact