credit to anybody concerned in it; and was, perhaps, the most damaging act of Sir Robert Peel's short term of office. It was of an obstructive character which could not be mistaken, addressing the King for copies of the memorials presented against the project of a charter, together with an account of the proceedings before the Privy Council.1 This was practically a reverting to the old wrong of considering the Dissenters an inferior and disgraced body, and excluding them from any fair chance in professional life; and the wrong was too flagrant for the times, strong as was the spirit of bigotry, and the habit of prejudice among the classes from which the Legislature is selected. The time was come when either the old universities must throw their gates wide to Dissenters, or they must abstain from interference with that honorable and conscientious body, withheld by honor and conscience from winning university privileges, in obtaining justice by another mode.2 The government was left in a minority of 136 to 246. The King's reply to the address was gracious; but, for several months after the return of the Whigs to power, nothing more was heard of the matter. By the next August, the pressure of the government by the council had become such as to procure a proposal, which was at once accepted by all the parties concerned in the university,—that a body of men of science and scholarship should be incorporated by charter in London, for the purpose of examining candidates and conferring degrees in arts, medicine, and laws, on not only students educated in the one college in question, but in others in London, now specified, and also some in the country to be afterwards recognized. This satisfied all reasonable persons. The Dissenters desired justice, and not a monopoly; and the proposed extension conferred dignity, while securing enlarged usefulness. On the 28th of November, 1836, two charters were granted, one to constitute the University of London, hitherto so called, "University College, London," for "the general advancement of literature and science, by affording to young men adequate opportunities of obtaining literary and scientific education at a moderate expense," the other charter creating the "University of London." The proceeding, however, bore the ordinary character of the executive acts of the Whigs: it was imperfect, if not illegal, the instrument bearing the words, without qualification, "during royal will and pleasure." These words doomed the charter to expire within six months after the death of William IV. Queen Victoria, as advised, revoked it, and granted a new one on a better tenure, which received the great seal on the 27th of December, 1837. In this charter the object is declared to be to hold out the encour1 Hansard, xxvii. p. 279. 2 Hansard, xxvii. p. 301.

3 Penny Cyclopædia, xxvi. p. 25.

agements of the institution "without any distinction whatsoever;' a declaration so clear as deeply to discredit an attempt made in the next year to introduce, in the form of optional discipline, a test which should establish "distinctions" on account of differing modes of faith.1 It was Dr. Arnold who tried the unhappy experiment; and he failed, as the best-intentioned man must do who attempts to force his personal convictions on a public institution, in opposition to its leading principle, and the express terms of its charter. The university remains equal in its operations to all, on the broad ground of the equal rights of all, without fear or favor, to liberty of opinion.

To return to the last nights of the Peel Administration. There was a recurrence of party conflict at every Conflicts in practicable interval, the opposition leaders reproach- Parliament. ing Sir R. Peel with periling the prerogatives of the Crown, and troubling the course of legislation, by attempting to govern without a majority in the Commons; and Sir R. Peel inviting a vote of want of confidence as a ground, and as the only ground, on which he would be willing to retire before having laid all his measures before the House. Lord John Russell replied, that such a vote could not be called for before the production of the ministerial measures, without subjecting the opposition to the charge of unfairness; the obvious reply to which was, that, if the opposition intended to wait for the ministerial measures before voting want of confidence, they ought to abstain from invidious remark and construction in the mean time. The opposition - those among them who were not leaders acknowledged the truth of this, but gave an intimation that the opposition would choose their own time. After two or three weeks of such antagonism as this, the Whigs chose their opportunity. Their topic was the appropriation question; their time, the 30th of March.

struggle.

On the 2d of March, Lord John Russell had intimated that he should bring forward the whole subject of the Irish Final Church in the latter part of the month, in order to test the position of the Ministry with regard to the country. He waited till then for the reports of the commission. A fortnight later, he had doubts of receiving the reports, and declared them not necessary to his argument, but desirable for the satisfaction of members. On the 18th, he suggested that it would be well to wait for a partial report, which would soon be in the hands of members; on the 19th, he fixed his motion, with a notice of a call of the House, for the 30th; and, on the 20th, he formally relinquished every kind of demand of reports, because none would be ready, and he must proceed without them. The 30th, now, was to be the great day of assertion of the distinctive prin

1 Life of Arnold, ii. p. 121.

ciple of the Whig government, which was to serve as a test of the power of the existing Administration, and as the instrument Appropria- of their overthrow, the distinctive principle at that tion question. period, but not for long; for it was dropped presently after the return of the Whigs to power, and has never been heard of from them since. The conflict now under notice cannot be judged of without the retrospective light cast on it by this fact.

There had been an introductory debate on the ministerial resolutions which proposed to convert Irish tithe into a rent-charge, redeemable under such conditions as should secure the redemption; and in this debate the opposition were divided, some objecting to the measure, and others complaining that it was a mere reproduction of the last Whig measure on the same subject; some desiring to proceed, and others thinking it essential to have the decision of the House on the appropriation question first. In consequence of these differences, the ministers carried their resolution.1 On the 30th, Lord John Russell repeated his proposition, that the House should resolve itself into a committee for the purpose of considering the state of the Irish Church, with a view to applying any surplus left over from spiritual objects to the education of the people at large, without distinction of religious persuasion. He declared himself friendly to the principle of an establishment; adopted the ground of utility laid down by Paley; showed that the Irish Church did not fulfil the condition, and must therefore be reformed; that, in this case, reform involved reduction, and a reduction involved a surplus; and that, as to the application of this surplus, no distinct line of religious appropriation could be drawn between making additions to the incomes of individual clergymen, and developing the mental and moral capacities of the inhabitants of the country. It was necessary to advert to the difficulty which the opposition leaders found themselves in through the delay of the commissioners' report. Last year, they had voted down the appropriation question, on the ground that the requisite information could be obtained only by the inquiry of the commissioners; and yet they were now bringing up the question again, without waiting for the results of the inquiry. The facts on which the question was based were indeed patent enough; and so had they been the year before, and every year of the century: but Lord John Russell rested his excuse for his inconsistency on the broad declaration of the Premier, that, under no circumstances, would he consent to the appropriation of ecclesiastical funds to any but strictly ecclesiastical purposes. Such a declaration, prior to the reception of the reports, justified the opposition, in their own opinion, in declaring their principle in a manner equally broad. 1 Hansard, xxvii. p. 83. 2 Hansard, xxvii. p. 361–384.

Another consideration, adverse to delay, was, that it was highly desirable to come to some vote, or other decision, which should show whether or not the Administration enjoyed the confidence of the House.

Lord Howick's speech was, perhaps, the most interesting, on the side of the Reformers, delivered during the four nights of this important debate. He lamented that this question was made the test of the stability of the Administration, because he believed that the abrupt overthrow of the Ministry would be extremely disastrous to Ireland, as protracting the unsettlement of the tithequestion, and causing a confusion which no succeeding government could remedy. For his own part, he would have been glad to have been spared the necessity of declaring his views at such a juncture; but, being called upon to avow his opinion on the one side or the other, he was compelled to declare himself in favor of the principle of appropriation; and this he did in the most thorough and manly manner. Sir Robert Peel's speech was what might have been expected from the training of his life, though far from what could be desired from the Prime Minister of the empire. He dwelt upon the compact with the Church in the Act of Union with Ireland; admitted that there were cirtumstances under which all compacts must be broken, as there were circumstances under which constitutions themselves must be dissolved: but he insisted on proof to demonstration that such moral sacrifices were inevitable before they could be deliberated upon; he denied that any proof of the kind had been offered in the present case, and declared his disbelief that any such could be produced. He insisted, that, before any convulsive proceeding could be honestly proposed, the innovators should be prepared with a comprehensive and complete new policy to supersede the existing compact; he was justified in asserting, after repeated challenges to his opponents, that no such scheme was prepared; and therefore, though he might be compelled to succumb to an adverse vote, he should ever condemn the procedure of procuring that vote at the expense of the Irish Church, rather than by means of a direct motion of want of confidence in the government. He believed that, on this question, the House was not an expression of national opinion; he believed that his view was that of the large majority of the people; and he therefore felt strong to meet the decision that might ensue from his adherence to his view of duty to the Irish Church. The whole speech proceeded on the assumption that the motion involved the virtual overthrow of the Irish Church, and a consequent convulsion; an assumption which the Reformers reasonably denied; but an analysis of the division seems to show, that, with regard to the state of national opinion, 1 Hansard, xxvii. p. 454.

2 Hansard, xxvii. pp. 728-760.

the Minister was right. Sound as was the appropriation principle, in the view of the soundest thinkers of the time, it was not one which interested the general mind; and it was not long before the Whig leaders had to make bitter complaints of the indifference of the people to it. It is much to be wished that. the continued existence of the Peel Administration of 1835 had been put upon some other issue. The resolutions in favor of appropriation, proposed by Lord J. Russell, were carried by the Scotch and Irish members; the English leaving the motion in a minority of nine. Of the Scotch members, 32 were in favor of it, and 17 against it. Of the Irish members, 64 voted with the Triumph of opposition, and 37 with the government. The majoropposition. ity against ministers was 33, in a House of 611 members. The division took place at three o'clock in the morning of the 3d of April.1

In committee, Lord J. Russell moved a resolution, that no measure on the subject of tithes in Ireland could succeed which did not embody the appropriation principle; and he obtained a majority of 27. This was on the 7th of April.2 On the 8th, Resignation of Sir R. Peel announced the resignation of the Cabinet. the Cabinet. He avowed that it was with great reluctance that he retired, because his government, supported by the full confidence of the King, and by great moral strength in the country, could, as he and his colleagues believed, have speedily settled some public questions, especially that of Irish tithes, which required immediate adjustment, but must now be cast adrift. But they considered that, on the whole, it would be more hurtful still to the public service to continue the attempt to govern the country, unsupported by the confidence of the House of Commons; a confidence which, as was shown by four impressive defeats, they did not possess. There was, as Sir Robert Peel must have known, no need of protestations of personal disinterestedness; for the whole temper and conduct of the Minister during the last five months had been a consistent silent assertion of right feelings, as well as of the most eminent ability. Every one knew that he had had no option about undertaking office; and every one felt and said that he had failed only because parties had been, as yet, too strong for him. The opposition had gained nothing, during the interval, in general estimation, while he had gained as much as was possible in the time. At this day, there are many who avow that thick mists of prejudice dissolved from before their minds in the course of these five months; and that they now for the first time began to apprehend the character and appreciate the powers of Sir Robert Peel, — a character so peculiar as

1 Hansard, xxvii. p. 770.
8 Hansard, xxvii. p. 980.

2 Hansard, xxvii. p. 970.