Page 92, Line 29, for "necessity," read "security." Page 129, Lines 8 & 9, for "never did the eye light," read Page 232, Line 11, for "church," read "state." PRECIS OF THE PUBLIC CAREER OF THE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT PEEL. Born at Bury, Lancashire, February 5, 1788. Married to Julia, daughter of Lieut.-Gen. Sir J. Floyd, June 8, 1820. 1809. First returned to Parliament for Cashel. 1810. Appointed Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. 1812, August. Made a Privy Councillor.- September. Appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland. 1817. Returned for Oxford University. 1818. Resigns Chief Secretaryship of Ireland. 1819, Jan. 14. Proposes Mr. Manners Sutton for the Speakership.-Feb. 4. Chosen Chairman of the Currency Committee.-May 24. Introduces the Currency Bill. 1822, Jan. 17. Appointed Home Secretary v. Lord Sidmouth. 1826, Feb. 22. Introduces his Measures for the Reform of the Criminal Code. 1827, April 12. Resigns Office on Mr. Canning's appointment to the Premiership. 1828, Jan. 25. Reinstated in Office under the Duke of Wellington. 1829, Feb. 4. Declares in favour of Catholic Emancipation, and resigns the representation of Oxford University.-Contests Oxford University, opposed by Sir R. H. Inglis, and defeated by a majority of 146.-Elected for Westbury.-March 5. Introduces the Catholic Relief Bill. 1830, May. Succeeds to the Baronetcy, and is first elected for Tamworth. -Nov. Resigns office with the Duke of Wellington's Administration. 1834, Nov. Summoned from Italy to form a new Administration, and accepts office as Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer. 1835, April 8. Resigns Office. 1836, Nov. Elected Lord Rector of Glasgow University. 1839, May 7. Receives the Queen's command to form an Administration, but relinquishes the task on receiving a refusal from Her Majesty to allow any alterations in the principal Household Appointments. 1841, May 27. Submits to the House of Commons a vote of Want of Confidence in Ministers, which after eight nights' debate is carried by a majority of one.-Aug. 30. Prime Minister. 1842, Feb. 9. Introduces his Measure for the Modification of the Corn Laws.-March 11. Proposes an Income Tax, and an extensive Modification of the Tariff. OPINIONS &c. &c. ADMINISTRATIONS. Mr. Canning's Administration-The Duke of Wellington's AdministrationMr. Huskisson's Resignation-The Conservative Administration of 1834 -The Unsuccessful Attempt of 1839-The Whig Administration-The Present Administration. RECURRING to the History of Administrations, we find that a minister invariably, or at least with scarcely an exception, whatever may have been his power, however confined his influence, however long the duration of his authority, has felt it incumbent upon him, when deprived of the confidence of the House of Commons, to conform to the principle of representative government, and to abdicate his functions as minister of the Crown.I begin with Sir Robert Walpole.-He held office, I think, for the long period of twenty-five years. If I mistake not he was appointed in 1715, and the termination of his power took place about 100 years from the period at which I am now speaking, namely, in 1741. Sir R. Walpole was deposed from power under these circumstances:-A motion was made by Mr. Pulteney which implied the withdrawal of the confidence of the House of Commons. That motion was negatived in favour of ministers by a majority of three; and upon Sir R. Walpole being in a minority upon the Chippenham Election-(the determination of election questions was then exclusively influenced by party spirit, and they were looked upon as convenient modes of testing the strength of ministers)-notwithstanding the slight majority which he had on the question of confidence, Sir R. Walpole relinquished office after having been minister for twenty-five years. In 1782, Lord North yielded to the same influence. In that year two motions were submitted to the House of Commons. The first was brought forward by Sir John Rouse, and the second by Lord George Cavendish. One motion declared that it was impossible for the House to place confidence in the government, and the other was couched in terms very nearly similar. One was ne gatived by a majority of nine, the other by a majority of ten; but Lord North, nevertheless, yielded to the necessity implied by the withdrawal of the confidence of the House of Commons; and B |