Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, whom O'Connell had ousted from Clare, made a smart speech in answer to Sir Robert Inglis, amid the increasing impatience of the House, an impatience which became tumultuous in its manifestations, when Mr. Trant wished to lengthen the debate. Good humour was however restored by Sir Joseph Yorke, who said—“ Mr. Speaker, I hope I may conclude the discussion on this bill with a parliamentary toast-May the SISTER-kingdoms be united, and may they live hereafter like two BROTHERS! Amid the laughter occasioned by this humorous but intentional blunder, the House divided, when there appeared for the third reading 320, against it 142; majority 178.

The bill for the disqualification of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, went on concurrent with the Relief Bill, and encountered but trifling opposition. Mr. Brougham expressed the general feelings of the liberal party, when he described it as the price the almost extravagant price of the inestimable good which would result from the other measure," and as such yielded it a very reluctant assent. It did not, however, pass altogether unresisted-Lord Duncannon, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Huskisson, and many others, opposed it as a measure not called for by any necessity, and as a penal law against electors, whose great offence was that they had exerted their franchise honestly and independently, according to the dictates of their conscience. The abuses, however, of this franchise were so notorious to all who had any acquaintance with Irish elections, that only seventeen persons could be found to vote against its abolition. Out of doors, even in Ireland, there was almost complete apathy on the subject.

Little more than three weeks had elapsed from the introduction of the two great measures we have described, to their perfect adoption by the Lower House of Parliament. They involved greater changes in the spirit and frame of the constitution, than had taken p'ace in England since the

Revolution; and hence the chief opponents of Emancipation were perplexed by the apathy and acquiescence of the people of England. During these three weeks, Peel evinced the policy of a consummate statesman: though daily reviled and denounced, he could not be provoked to retort; rejected by the church at Oxford, he continued to defend the establishment whenever it was asssailed; advocating a measure of which he had been the most eminent opponent, he did not quite abandon consistency; thrown on new supporters, he did not commit himself too deeply; separated from old friends, he kept the way open for a future, and not distant reconciliation. The crisis was one which demanded no ordinary share of tact and temper, and in these qualities, Peel proved that he had no superior.

That there were many defects in the Emancipation measures, must be conceded. The personal exclusion of O'Connell was paltry and unmeaning, as his re-election for Clare when rejected, was a moral certainty. The abolition of the forty-shilling freeholders, was not compensated by the establishment of a sound county constituency in Ireland. And worst of all, there was no effort made to bring the Catholic hierarchy of Ireland into amicable communication with the state, by renewing diplomatic connections with the court of Rome, and giving to Irish Romanism something of the character of an establishment. It is, however, doubtful, whether these propositions might not have endangered the safety of the great measure itself.

During the discussion of the bill in the Commons, public attention was diverted, in every sense of the word, by a duel between the Duke of Wellington and Lord Winchilsea. The latter wrote a letter to the secretary of the committee for establishing King's College, in which he imputed to the Duke, in no measured terms, the most hypocritical and disgraceful motives for the share he had taken in forming

that institution; Wellington, temperately but firmly, demanded that such an imputation should be retracted; Lord Winchilsea refused to make any concession, and a challenge was of course the consequence. The parties met on Wimbledon Common, and Lord Winchilsea having received the Duke of Wellington's fire, discharged his own pistol in the air,—after which he retracted the offensive expressions he had used.

On the last day of March, Mr. Peel accompanied by a large body of members, brought up the Catholic Relief Bill to the House of Lords, where, as a matter of course, it was read a first time. The measure thus passed from his hands to other guidance; but it is not the less necessary to the completeness of his history, that we should record the circumstances of its progress, until it reached its final issue.

3 N

CHAPTER XVIII.

CONCLUSION OF THE STRUGGLE FOR CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.

HITHERTO the most steady and uniform resistance to the demands of the Catholics had been found in the House of Lords. Whenever the Commons passed a bill or adopted a resolution favourable to emancipation, the peers had always refused to concur in a measure which would weaken that Protestant ascendancy which they regarded as characteristic of the British constitution. Even in 1828, when the Lower House had passed resolutions intended to be the foundation of a relief-bill, they had been rejected in the Upper House by a majority of forty-five, and this fortunate number had become as favourite a toast with Anti-Catholics and Brunswick Clubs, as it had been with the followers of John Wilkes in the preceding century. Twelve months had not elapsed, and yet it was believed that a change had come over their lordships, and that the hereditary legislators were prepared to follow the example of the representatives of the people. There were, however, some strenuous opponents of the Catholics, who believed almost against hope, that the measure would either be rejected by the Lords, or so mutilated in committee, as to be rendered worthless. All parties anticipated a very close struggle, and it was hoped on one side, and feared on the other, that vigorous resistance might give the king courage to interfere by dismissing the ministry and dissolving the parliament.

On the 31st of March, the bill was brought up from the

Commons by Mr. Peel, attended by an unusual crowd of members from both sides of the House, and, according to etiquette, read a first time without opposition. The Duke of Wellington then moved that the second reading should take place on the 2nd of April. Lord Bexley, with some show of reason, complained that so short a period as two days should be allowed for the consideration of a measure of such importance, and begged that the delay of a week, at least, should be granted. The Duke of Wellington, in reply, made a personal appeal to the feelings of the House, which manifestly took their lordships by surprise. He spoke with unusual animation, and obviously under the influence of excited feelings. As it was his first declaration of the course he had resolved to pursue, he was heard with marked attention ::

My Lords,-Respect for the importance of this question, respect for the dignity of this House, respect for the declaration made by his Majesty, in his most gracious speech at the opening of the session-respect for the address which the House presented to his Majesty, in reply to his most gracious speech, and I hope I may be permitted to add, respect for my own character, would induce me to avoid acting with precipitation on this measure. But I must be permitted to say, that the House has now been sitting for nearly two months, and that this measure has been under our discussion, day by day, upon the presentation of petitions; and it having been publicly put to your lordships, that the question for your consideration is, whether popery shall or shall not be established in this kingdom, I am anxious to state to your lordships the grounds on which I rest this measure for your consideration, and on which I call upon you to rest your decision. I beg that your lordships will recollect, that the second reading of this bill is the first stage at which you can deliberate on the principle of this question, for, although, on the presentation of petitions,