for having dismissed his former ministry; but censured the dissolution of parliament as unnecessary, and calculated to interrupt and endanger the progress of the reform of abuses, more particularly those which existed in the church of England and Ireland. The Duke of Wellington justified his conduct by stating, that having declined to accept the office of Prime Minister, and recommended his majesty to send for Sir Robert Peel, it was necessary that some person should be in the government until the return of the latter. He had, therefore, advised his majesty to constitute a provisional government, by appointing him (the duke) First Lord of the Treasury, and Secretary of the Home Department. In the latter capacity he certainly held the seals of three secretaryships; but whoever was appointed to any one of them, was competent to hold the seals of the other two, in the absence of those to whom they were confided. During the time he held the seals, there was not an office disposed of, nor was there an act done by him, that was not essentially necessary for the public service: he, however, disclaimed all responsibility for the dissolution of the late government. He was followed by Lord Brougham, who also attacked ministers. It appears that his lordship very reluctantly resigned his exalted office; and when he had ascertained that Lord Lyndhurst, who then held the office of Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, was raised to the woolsack, Lord Brougham offered to accept the office of Chief Baron, in order, as he said, to give the public the benefit of the pension to which, otherwise, he would become entitled as retired Lord Chancellor. Lord Lyndhurst replied to Lord Brougham, and stated, that after the latter had virtually ceased to be Chancellor, he sent for the commissions of the peace of six counties, and caused fiats to be made out for the insertion of certain names as magistrates, not only without the concurrence, but against the wishes of the Lord-Lieutenants-a proceeding contrary to all precedent. The amendment was negatived without a division.

In the Commons a stormier conflict took place. A similar amendment to that of the Lords occupied the attention of the House two nights. Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham were among the most efficient supporters of the address; and Lord John Russell and Mr. O'Connell of the amendment. The latter concluded the debate in a speech of great force, and said, that by choosing all their officers from the Orange party in Ireland, the government had rendered it utterly impossible for the Irish people to give them their confidence. The subordinate Irish appointments, we may observe here, were the result, not of choice, but of necessity. No one could more disapprove of the conduct of the Orange party, or be more sensible of their selfishness, than Sir Robert Peel; but he could not afford to dispense with their support; and it could not be obtained without a valuable consideration. No one was more sensible than Mr. O'Connell of the feelings of Sir Robert; but when he learned that overtures had been made to Lord Stanley, he resolved to leave nothing undone which it was in his power to do, in order to effect the destruction of the new government. O'Connell often endeavoured-if we may believe Mr. Maley-to conciliate the great body of the Orange party; and lived on terms of friendship with many of their leaders; but between him and Lord Stanley there existed feelings, not merely of political, but of personal hostility. The debate was carried against ministers by a majority of seven-that is, by the Irish members. The Irish difficulty had unseated the Whigs: it was now to unseat their successors.

Nor was their conduct entirely free from blame. The readers of the Buckingham Correspondence must remember how the Marquis of Londonderry was always complaining of the neglect he received from the Duke of Wellington. The marquis appears to have been a vain, shallow, and impracticable man; and to have thought a great deal more of himself than he was warranted in doing. In an evil hour the duke sacrificed the claims of public utility to private importunity, and appointed the marquis ambassador to the Court of St. Petersburg. Mr. Shiel, in order to bring the subject before the House of Commons, moved an address to the

crown for a copy of any appointment, made within the last four months, of an ambassador from the Court of London to that of St. Petersburg, and a statement of the salary and emoluments attached to such office. Sir Robert Peel did all in his power to justify the appointment; but his efforts were vain: it was a gross outrage on public feeling, in every point of view. Even Lord Stanley concurred in its condemnation. The result was, that the marquis came to the aid of his friends by promptly relinquishing the office; but he could not repair the injury he inflicted on his party, whose most prominent leaders it exposed to the imputation of being influenced in their distribution of official patronage-not by a desire to promote the public good, but to gratify the vanity, ambition, or cupidity of their aristocratic supporters, of whom the Marquis of Londonderry was one of the most deservedly unpopular. Another damaging debate, as regarded ministers, took place on the appointment of a committee to inquire into the charges made against Colonel Tremenhere (who held a public situation at Chatham), for using his official influence to secure the return of the government candidate for that borough. Ministers opposed, of course; but they were beaten by 160 to 130. On the 26th of March they sustained a further defeat, by opposing a charter of incorporation to the University of London.

Before this important division took place, Sir Robert Peel began to doubt the policy of his any longer retaining office; indeed, he clearly saw that little remained for him to do but to decide upon what question he should finally join issue with his adversaries. On the 20th of March, Sir Henry Hardinge, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, brought forward a motion preparatory to the introduction of the bill which government had framed for the settlement of the Irish tithe question. Lord John Russell had previously given notice of a motion on the subject for the 23rd; but, on the 18th, intimated an intention to postpone it; and then, on the 19th, fixed it for the 30th of March. The resolution of Sir Henry was to the effect, that it was expedient to abolish tithes in Ireland, and to authorise a composition in lieu of them, charged upon the land, and payable to the tithe-owner-such rent-charge to be redeemable, and the redemption money invested in land, or otherwise, for the benefit of the persons entitled to such composition; and that the arrears of tithes, due in the year 1834, should be made up from what remained of the one million advanced by parliament to the clergy of Ireland in 1833. This motion gave rise to a protracted debate; but the resolution was adopted, after an amendment, moved by Mr. Rice, had been negatived.

At this time Sir Robert Peel drew up a statement intended for the perusal of his colleagues before the next meeting of the cabinet. It commenced by stating that he felt it to be his duty to call the serious attention of his colleagues to the position of the government in the House of Commons, and to the great question, whether it was consistent, either with the credit and character of public men, or the interest of the king's service, to contiuue the attempt of conducting a government with a minority in the House of Commons? "Let us," said he, "calmly review what has taken place. The government has been beaten, since the meeting of parliament, on the choice of a Speaker, and on the amendment of the address. I was obliged to name Mr. Bernal for the committee of ways and means, from inability to secure the election of any one in the confidence of government." He then referred to the feeling of the House respecting the appointment of the Marquis of Londonderry; the effective opposition given to the progress of the public business in parliament; the majority against the government on the Chatham election inquiry; and the proposition which was about to be made respecting the supposed surplus of ecclesiastical property in Ireland. Sir Robert Peel continues

"If, after the defeats to which I have referred-after the failure to conduct satisfactorily the public business, in ordinary matters, through the House of Commons-we are beaten upon that principle in maintaining of which Lord Stanley and his friends retired from office last year, what course shall we pursue? Shall we continue responsible for the government of Ireland ?-and shall we proceed with

measures relating to the church of Ireland, founded on an opposite principle? What is our prospect of carrying these measures in defiance of a majority? What

is our prospect [after a defeat on a great principle] of commanding larger numbers and a better attendance, and of being enabled to carry on satisfactorily the public business of the country, and to defeat the attempts, either directly or indirectly, to obstruct it?

"It may be said, wait till you have evidence that you cannot conduct the public business with satisfaction.

"I ask, in reply, what additional evidence can we have, and where is the point at which a government is to confess its inability to conduct public affairs? Nothing can, in my opinion, justify an administration in persevering against a majority, but a rational and well-grounded hope of acquiring additional support, and converting a minority into a majority. I see no ground for entertaining that hope; but I do see the greatest prejudice to the cause of good government, to the character of an administration, and of the public men who compose it, and to the prerogatives of the crown, in a long-continued course, either of acquiescing in what you believe to be wrong, for fear of being in a minority, or of exhibiting the executive government without control over the House of Commons, and attempting [after a sufficient proof of their failure] to govern with a minority." Sir Robert then states his opinion to be, that there was not anything to justify a second appeal to the people, or any prospect of acquiring any great additional strength from the result of it; and that the ministry ought to resign if defeated on Lord John Russell's motion.

It was all along suspected by the public that Court influences were in favour of the Tories, against the Whigs: and this is now made clear by the publication of Sir Robert Peel's Memoirs. On the 28th, he received from his majesty a communication with reference to the motion, in reply to which the former addressed a written statement to the latter. By this important state-paper, after acknowledging the receipt of the communication, Sir Robert Peel expressed his fears, that the effect of a majority against the government would be more prejudicial and serious than his majesty anticipated, as it could only be defended and supported upon the ground of want of confidence in his majesty's advisers; that the House, if it should assent to the resolution intended to be proposed by Lord John Russell, would take, in effect, the conduct of the Tithe Bill out of the hands of government, and would destroy all hope of being enabled to carry that bill into a law; that this vote would follow a succession of others adverse to the views of his majesty's ministers; and that there was a great public evil in permitting the House of Commons to exhibit itself to the country free from any control on the part of the executive government, and usurping, in consequence of the absence of that control, many of the functions of government: and, after adverting to the then unsatisfactory state of tithe property in Ireland, the statement proceeds as follows:

"Sir Robert Peel humbly assures your majesty that he is not influenced, in submitting these important considerations to your majesty's serious attention, by any feeling of personal dissatisfaction or mortification at his own position in the House of Commons. He would be proud to make any sacrifice, consistent with honour, that could relieve your majesty from embarrassment, and would be amply repaid for it by his own sense of public duty, and your majesty's kind and gracious approbation.

"The apprehension he entertains, from continued perseverance in the attempt to govern by a minority, is, that it will be difficult for any administration, however composed, to recover a control over the House of Commons. That the House, having been habituated to the exercise of functions not properly belonging to them, will be unwilling to relinquish it; and that the royal prerogatives, and the royal authority, will inevitably suffer from continued manifestation of weakness on the part of the executive government."

On the 30th of March, and without waiting for the report of the commissioners of public instruction, Lord John Russell proposed, for the consideration and adoption of the House of Commons, a resolution as follows:-"That this House resolve itself into a committee, in order to consider the present state of the established church in Ireland, with the view of applying any surplus of the revenues not acquired for the spiritual care of its members, to the general education of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion." His lordship stated his intention, if this resolution were carried, to move an address to the crown embodying that resolution, and entreating his majesty that he would be pleased to enable the House to carry it into effect, as a measure of the kind could not be introduced into the House without the consent of the crown. The motion was sustained by Lord John Russell, Mr. Ward, Lord Howick, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. S. Rice, Sir John Campbell, and Mr. O'Connell; and opposed by Sir E. Knatchbull, Sir James Graham, Sir W. Follet, Mr. Praed, Sir Henry Hardinge, Lord Stanley, and Sir Robert Peel. At three in the morning of April the 3rd, a division took place, when the resolution was adopted by a majority of thirty-three. The important character of that division is made clear by looking at the numbers who voted on it. It was a trial of strength, for which considerable efforts had been made. No less than 611 members divided. Of the English members, there was a majority of nine against the resolution; but, of the Scotch, there were thirty-two in favour, and seventeen against; of the Irish, sixty-four were for, and thirty-seven against: so that, of the majority of thirty-three, no less than twenty-seven were supplied by Ireland, or rather by Mr. O'Connell. Flushed with success, and with the prospect of place before them, the Whigs pressed forward. On the evening of the same day, the resolution was considered in committee. A debate, however, arose, and was adjourned to the 6th, when the resolution was affirmed by a majority of 262 against 237, in a House of 499 members.

After this division, Lord John Russell stated his intention to be, not to move an address to the crown until he should have previously taken the opinion of the House upon a resolution, to the effect-"That it was the opinion of that House, that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland could lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, which did not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution." When his lordship gave this notice, he stated, that if the government did not act in accordance with it, in the event of its adoption by the House, he should, on a succeeding day, move an address to the crown. To this, Sir Robert Peel replied, that he would take the sense of the House on the resolution, but that there was not the slightest change in the minds of ministers respecting it. Having moved his new resolution, Lord John Russell, in order to sustain it, intended that the former resolution would be not only useless, but mischievous, unless the House declared that the principle of the resolution should be embodied in any bill which might be passed with a view to the settlement of the Irish tithe question. It was true, he admitted, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a declaration, that, consistently with his opinion, he could not agree to any such resolutions being introduced into the bill framed by his government; but, if his government thought proper to take its stand against this principle, it was better that the principle should succeed, and the ministry fall, than that the ministry should triumph, and the principle fall. If the House should adopt the resolution then under consideration, it would not be difficult, when the report of the commissioners of public instruction should be received, to frame clauses to be introduced into the Tithe Bill, sufficiently comprehensive to contain the principle adopted, and make such a distribution of the revenue of the church of Ireland, as, after providing for that church, would carry a very large sum for the purposes of education. Sir Robert Peel objected to the form of the resolution, and the principle of it. He further objected to it as furnishing a precedent, with respect to the propriety of which, the noble lord himself must entertain very grave doubts; for it was very different from the course he originally gave notice it was

his intention to pursue. By agreeing to that resolution, the House would declare, that the only satisfactory arrangement of the tithe question must be founded upon the basis of that principle, from which (having regard to those who voted, and those who paired off) at least 300 members of the House of Commons dissented. On the vote being taken, there were 285 for, and 258 against. The game was up. Sir Robert could hold office no longer. On the following day, being the 8th of April, he informed the House that he and his colleagues had tendered their resignations to his majesty; and, as he accepted them, ministers held office only until their successors should be appointed. In making this communication, Sir Robert Peel did not hesitate to state, that the course which he and his colleagues had taken was one to which they were reluctantly compelled. Being in the enjoyment of the confidence of the king, from whom they had received the most cordial support; looking to the position of public affairs, and the state of political parties; looking, also, not only to the numerical strength, but the moral strength of the great party by whom they had been supported-they felt it was their duty, under existing circumstances, to continue the attempt to administer public affairs, as the responsible advisers of the crown, to the latest moment that was consistent with the public interests, and with the honour and character of public men. When he did not hesitate to announce that reluctance, he said he believed he should have credit with a great majority of the House, that it arose from public considerations alone, and was wholly unconnected with everything of a personal nature. “I have," he said," a strong impression, that when a public man, at a crisis of great importance, undertakes the public trust of administering the government of this country, he incurs the obligation to persevere in it as long as it is possible for him to do so; that no indifference to public life, no disgust with the labours which it imposes, no personal mortification, no deference to private feelings should sanction a public man in withdrawing, on light grounds, from the post in which the favour of his sovereign has placed him. But, at the same time, there is an evil in exhibiting to the country the want, on the part of the government, of that support in the House of Commons which would enable it satisfactorily to conduct the public affairs, and to exercise over the House the legitimate and necessary control conferred by the possession of its confidence. Although I sincerely regret the necessity which has compelled me to abandon his majesty's service at the present moment, yet, upon the balance of public consideration, I feel that I have taken a course which is more likely to sustain the character of a public man, and promote the ultimate interests of the country, than if I had persevered in what I believe would have been a fruitless attempt in the face of the opposition which has hitherto obstructed the satisfactory progress of public business while I and my colleagues have been in office."

Sir Robert, at the close of this address, was greeted with the applause which his character had won. It was felt that his inability to retain office did not result so much from the course pursued by his adversaries, as by that of his professed supporters; and more particularly of those of them around the throne. Had his accession to office been caused by the dissolution of the preceding government, resulting from the inability to conduct the public affairs, or from the elements of internal discord which were daily gaining strength in the cabinet, he would have acquired office without being encumbered with any obligations to yield obedience to the prejudices of his sovereign; and his position would have been very different from what it was. His political adversaries knew well the terms implied upon which he accepted office, and they shaped their attacks accordingly. As to the very subject on which he went out the secularisation of Irish church property-it is evident Sir Robert was quite as well able to deal with it as the Whigs: but he was hampered by the position in which he was placed; and they acted accordingly. Hence their zeal, which soon wonderfully cooled when they returned to office themselves in the preceding year, with reference to this very question. Sir Robert had truly stated it to be, "whether parliament has the right-not the abstract legal