288 REPLY TO MR. GRATTAN. and Cabinet to appoint the Bishops, and a Catholic LordLieutenant at Dublin to dispose of Irish Church patronage, would be an impracticability. He referred, in conclusion, to the refusal of the Catholics to grant the Crown a veto on the appointment of Catholic bishops in Ireland: "We are told," he said, "we are not to treat with, but legislate for, Catholics; yet when the right honourable gentleman [Mr. Grattan] is asked what securities he will propose, he answers that he has not any to propose, and that to one he will not consent; that is, to the veto. But what sort of legislation is this? Why is the veto abandoned? Because the Catholics will not consent to it. And if we abandon it on these grounds, upon what principle can we insist on domestic nomination, which we have every reason to believe to be equally objectionable to Catholics? There was a time, Sir, when, by Catholic prelates themselves, the veto was admitted not to be incompatible with the Catholic religion. That admission they have retracted; but they have not accompanied that retractation with any admission that domestic nomination is more consistent with it. If, then, you think securities absolutely necessary; and if these prelates have recently issued a formal declaration that, in the present state of their church, no alteration, at this time, can take place in the mode of their appointment, I should think that every person-save those who wish to see all privileges granted to Catholics without any restriction whatever— must see the utter impossibility of coming to any final THE CATHOLIC QUESTION. 289 or conciliatory adjustment of Catholic claims at the present moment.”* The motion was carried, however, by 264 to 224 votes; and Mr. Grattan afterwards brought in a bill for the admission of Catholics to Parliament on taking a single oath, instead of the oath of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy, and the declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints. It passed a second reading; but when in Committee the Speaker, Abbot, moved the omission from the first clause of the words "to sit and vote in either House of Parliament," and carried it by the small majority of four.† This success led to the abandonment of the bill,—and a revival of the agitation in favour of the Catholic claims. In May, 1815, Sir Henry Parnell took up the subject, and introduced into the House of Commons a motion of the usual character. It was opposed by Peel with the usual arguments; but he strengthened them by a reference to the intemperate and disloyal language of some of the Catholic leaders, especially Mr. O'Connell, and by quotations which produced a marked effect upon the House, though the justice of a cause is not weakened by the folly of its advocates. The motion was defeated by a majority of 80. Goaded into a fit of ungovernable passion by Peel's sarcasms, O'Connell, at a public meeting held shortly afterwards, launched against him a furious invective. "I said at the last meeting," exclaimed O'Connell, "in the presence of the note * These last four words should be noticed. They indicate that Peel did not believe in a policy of permanent resistance. † 'Diary of Lord Colchester,' ii. 453, et seq. VOL. II. 19 290 PEEL AND O'CONNELL. takers of the police, who are paid by him, that he was too prudent to attack me in my presence. I see the same police-informers here now, and I authorize them carefully to report my words, that Mr. Peel would not dare in my presence, nor in any place where he was liable to personal account, to use a single expression derogatory of my interest or my honour!" Such language, nowadays, if any public man could condescend to use it, would be treated with contemptuous indifference by its object. But in 1815 tempers were hotter, and the arbitrament of the duel was still in fashion. Peel regarded the insult as reflecting on his courage, and authorised Sir Charles Saxton, as his "friend," to take the necessary steps for vindicating it. Sir Charles had an interview with O'Connell's friend, Mr. Lidwill; but these two gentlemen, either from a desire to avoid a public scandal, or from too rigid an interpretation of the laws of honour, could not agree on the indispensable preliminary of "the challenge." They found it impossible to decide whether it should come from O'Connell or from Peel; and, exchanging some fierce retorts in the course of the negotiations, eventually challenged one another. O'Connell hastened to represent this affair as an evasion on the part of Peel and Sir Charles Saxton, and thus again brought Peel to the front. Employing Colonel Brown as his agent, the Irish Secretary now challenged the Irish agitator. By this time the quarrel had become a public matter. The AttorneyGeneral interfered, and O'Connell was arrested, and bound over to keep the peace. It was then proposed that the aggrieved parties should go abroad; but AN ABORTIVE CHALLENGE. 291 O'Connell, on his way to Dover, was again arrested, and not released until he had given securities not to quit the kingdom. Meanwhile, Saxton and Lidwill met at Calais, and the latter declining to return the former's fire, the affair ended without bloodshed, Peel, in his novel capacity of a fire-eater, vainly endeavouring to claim a meeting with Lidwill, as O'Connell's representative. A storm of well-deserved ridicule broke upon the two would-be belligerents for their conduct in this unworthy episode, the chief result of which was a feeling of personal antipathy between them, that found expression upon too many occasions. In his Irish Secretaryship, Peel first gave evidence of his remarkable administrative capacity. He viewed with dislike the constant employment of the military in the repression of civil outrages and popular disturbances; and proceeded to organise a new police-force as a better security for the prevention and detection of crime. This force has always been distinguished for its loyalty, steadiness, and admirable discipline. In 1817 Mr. Grattan again brought before the House of Commons the grievances of the Catholics, and was answered by Mr. Peel in a speech of indisputable power. The majority against the motion was 24. Mr. Wilberforce records in his Diary, on the 9th of May :"Roman Catholic question decided. I would not speak. Canning poor-Peel excellent-Lord Castlereagh very good." In the following year, Mr. Abbott, on resigning the Speakership, was called to the House of Peers by the title of Lord Colchester, thereby vacating his seat as member for the University of Oxford. The membership 292 PEEL RESIGNS OFFICE. for the University was regarded as the blue ribbon of Parliament; and both Peel and Canning aspired to win and wear it. But with the strong support of Lord Liverpool and Lord Eldon, Peel completely distanced his illustrious rival, and was elected almost without opposition. Immediately afterwards he resigned the Irish Secretaryship. For this step, a variety of reasons may be and have been assigned; as, for example, the tottering condition of the Government, which, in Lord Dudley's words, "had fallen into a state of discredit and insignificance," a feeling of rivalry with Canning, or his sense of the many evils then afflicting Ireland for which he was not empowered to propose the necessary remedies. For three years Peel remained out of office; but he was rapidly attaining to an influential position in the House, and was recognised as one of the leaders of the Tory party, second only, indeed, to Mr. Canning. His well-known mastery of financial questions, and of the doctrines of political economy, led to his appointment in 1819 to the chairmanship of the Bank Committee, appointed by the House to inquire into the advisability of the resumption of Cash Payments. In the early days of April, the Committee presented a report, recommending that, in order to facilitate the final and complete restoration of such payments, a bill should be passed, prohibiting the continuance of the payment in gold by the Bank of its notes issued previous to the 1st of January, 1817. This was intended to check the large exportation of gold that was taking place to France. Mr. Peel accordingly introduced a bill, which was |