Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/206

192 History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1822- necessary to force on a decision for fear that the next occupant of the throne might attempt to interpose his veto between the decision of Parliament and its proper result. There was every appearance, therefore, that a quiet and business-like session would be held. Never were appearances more strikingly falsified by events. In accordance with the terms of the adjournment, Parlia- ment met on the 8th of February, and Lord Liverpool gave notice that on the ipth of that month he would introduce the Corn Bill in the House of Lords. On the I2th the Premier moved the address to the King on the death of the Duke of York, but a few days after he was attacked by a paralytic stroke, from the effects of which he never recovered. Some relief of the more acute symptoms was obtained, but it soon became evident that his public life was closed. This sudden event precipitated that division of the Ministry and disruption of the Tory party which had long been preparing, and which no other influence than that of Lord Liverpool was able to prevent. Length of office, respectability of character, and equability of disposition, made it possible for him not only to unite in his Cabinet men of divergent and even of conflicting opinions, but to induce them to work together in the pursuit of a common policy. It was on his persuasion that Canning had consented to enter a Cabinet in which the chief and the majority were opposed to him on the Catholic question. There was no one left who could do as Liverpool had done ; no one under whom the differing sections of the Ministry could all be induced to work. From his position in the Cabinet and in the confidence of the House of Commons, Canning had the first claim to the premiership. But Eldon and Wellington and Peel were all resolved not to serve under him, with his views on the great subject. It was true that he offered to leave emancipation an open question, as it had been under the late Prime Minister ; but they replied that it was one thing to have it left in that position with a Premier agreeing with them, and another to enter a Cabinet under a chief who was the leading and most active advocate of the