Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 44.djvu/225

Peel Westminster Hall for the last time, they talked arm-in-arm with cordiality and good will. On 8 Aug. Canning was dead. Goderich became premier. Peel since his retirement had taken little part in politics, but he now worked energetically to reunite the two sections of the tory party. His efforts met with success, and on Goderich's resignation Wellington was able, in January 1828, to form a ministry out of the reunited party. Peel joined the new government as home secretary for the second time, and as leader of the House of Commons for the first time.

An extraordinary drama followed. On 26 Feb., and again on 12 May, the government was beaten—first, on a motion for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and, secondly, on a motion for the settlement of the catholic question. Peel resolved to resign; but Huskisson and the other Canningites anticipated him by themselves resigning when the majority of the cabinet declined to enfranchise Birmingham at the expense of East Retford. Had Peel withdrawn too the government would have fallen at once. He therefore determined to support the duke. Such was Peel's position when, at the end of June, Fitzgerald, who had sought re-election at Clare as the new president of the board of trade, was defeated by O'Connell. Fitzgerald at once wrote to Peel that ‘the country is mad.’ Lord Anglesey, the lord lieutenant [see, first ], also wrote, on 26 July, that Ireland was on the verge of rebellion, and urged concession to the catholics. The mind of Peel soon arrived at a like conclusion; for he held, with his master Pitt, that to maintain a consistent attitude amid changed circumstances is to be ‘a slave to the most idle vanity’ (, Speeches, iv. 77). During nearly twenty years he had opposed emancipation on ‘broad and uncompromising grounds.’ Those grounds may be summed up in a sentence of his own: ‘May I not question the policy of admitting those who must have views hostile to the religious establishments of the state to the capacity of legislating for the interests of those establishments?’ He now, on 11 Aug., felt that the crisis overrode all such arguments, and wrote to Wellington that, though emancipation was a great danger, civil strife was a greater. At the same time he stated that he felt bound to resign on his change of policy. Again he was thwarted; a new factor entered into the case. Though the duke thoroughly agreed with Peel, the king was violently opposed, so much so that the duke informed Peel on 17 Jan. 1829 that ‘I do not see the smallest chance of getting the better of these difficulties if you should not continue in office.’ On the same date Peel consented to remain. From that time till the opening of parliament Peel was engaged in preparing three bills—one for the suppression of the Catholic Association, another for catholic emancipation, and the third for the regulation of the franchise in Ireland. When the first of these bills had been read a third time, Peel placed himself in the hands of his constituents by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds (20 Feb.). He was defeated on seeking re-election at Oxford by 146 votes, but was elected for Westbury, and took his seat on 3 March. Next day the king saw the leading ministers, informed them in an interview lasting five hours of his disagreement with their policy, gave them ‘a salute on each cheek,’ and accepted their resignations. But the same evening he changed his mind, and recalled them to office. On 5 March Peel, in a great speech of over four hours' duration, introduced his bill for catholic emancipation. As he moved from point to point in his exposition, cheers broke out so loud as to be heard in Westminster Hall. For the measure was broadly based on equality of civil rights, and Peel assigned the honour to those to whom honour was due. ‘The credit belongs to others, and not to me. It belongs to Mr. Fox, to Mr. Grattan, to Mr. Plunket, to the gentlemen opposite, and to an illustrious and right hon. friend of mine, who is now no more.’ All three bills passed eventually into law, but the author of them was overwhelmed with abuse as a traitor and an apostate. Yet, having changed his policy, he had acted rightly—first, in offering to resign his place in the cabinet; secondly, in seeking re-election from his constituents; and, thirdly, in justifying his course before the House of Commons by submitting a practical proposal. His own words best describe his conduct: ‘it was no ignoble ambition which prompted me to bear the brunt of a desperate conflict.’

Emancipation disposed of, he hastened to accomplish three other signal reforms. In 1828 he revised and consolidated the laws of offences against the person, and in 1830 dealt in the same way with the laws of forgery. Secondly, he created the metropolitan police force in 1829, thus solving a difficulty that had been felt by English statesmen for more than half a century. With true foresight he stated that by thus preventing the increase of crime he was paving the way for a still further mitigation of the criminal code. Thirdly, he carried in 1830 two important measures of law reform, notable as the first successful attempts in this country to improve the judicature.