1827.] Death of Castlereagh to Canning's Premiership. 193 the opposite side. On the other hand, if, this being the only point of difference, Canning had consented to waive his un- doubted claims on that account, he would have ruined his own character for sincerity, since he had been more than once reproached with having taken office without making the acceptance of emancipation a condition. The decision so difficult to arrive at was naturally postponed as long as possible, under the nominal hope that Liverpool might recover sufficiently to resume his old post. Whilst affairs were in this unsettled and critical position, the subject which was the immediate cause of most of the difficulty came on for discussion in Parliament. As early as the 29th of February we know that Canning had spoken to Peel, and that the latter had refused to take office under a Premier holding Canning's views.* On the 5th of March Burdett moved " That this House is deeply impressed with the necessity of taking into immediate consideration the laws imposing civil disabilities on his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, with a view to their relief." On this resolution the two sections of the Ministry, as well as the two parties in Parliament, had to try their strength in the new House of Commons. There was no question as to the solid Tory majority on general subjects ; the question now was as to the number of those who would leave the ranks and follow Canning and his friends. It was a curious spectacle, that of official colleagues striving against each other ; not new as regarded the particular object, but with new conditions added by the state of the Cabinet. Canning and Plunkett replied to Peel and Copley, and the issue was looked forward to with great anxiety. It disappointed the hopes of the emancipa- tionists, the numbers being for Burdett's resolution, 272 ; against it, 276. This proved that, as far as the British constituencies went, the cause had lost ground by the election, for in Ireland a great effect had been produced by the priests and O'Connell. The question of the alteration of the corn laws was in a different position. There was, no doubt, considerable difference
- Peel's speech in the House of Commons, ist of May.
O
