party to resist a change, and to defend protection. I think, on both occasions, he came to a wise conclusion, and to a decision beneficial to his country; first, when he repealed the roman catholic disabilities; and secondly, when he abolished protection. But that those who had followed him-men who had committed themselves to these questions on the faith of his political wisdom, on the faith of his sagacity, led by the great eloquence and ability he displayed in debate that when they found he had changed his opinions, and proposed measures different from those on the faith of which they had followed him, that they should exhibit warmth and resentment was not only natural, but I should have been surprised if they had not displayed it."

Not the least curious circumstance connected with this episode is, that, six months after it had occurred, and when it was already forgotten in the important result which had immediately followed, Mr. Barrow, whose existence even was denied by Sir Robert Peel, called at Harcourt house on Lord George Bentinck. He had just returned from India, where he had been on an important mission from a London newspaper, as "our own correspondent," and not a little indignant that he was described by the highest authority as being dead, unable to write short-hand, and never a mem

ber of that distinguished body, the parliamentary reporters of England, in whose brotherhood although a barrister-at-law he was justly proud of having been once enrolled and as one of its ablest members, Mr. Barrow wished his case to be brought before the house, and the honour and accuracy of the Mirror of Parliament vindicated on certain representations which he was prepared to make, and Lord George Bentinck was very inclined to undertake the office, but he was persuaded that, on the whole and under the existing circumstances it were better not to revive the controversy, and if the writer of these pages had any influence in that resolution, and thus deprived Mr. Barrow of his opportunity, he has tried to compensate a very respectable and intelligent gentleman for this deprivation by recording his name and merits in a volume which perhaps may live as long as a personal debate.

The truth about the question which so conveniently occasioned this interesting episode in the debates on the coercion bill appears to be this: that Sir Robert Peel, in 1829, having to make a complicated and very embarrassing statement respecting his change of opinion and policy with regard to the roman catholics, and to refer by dates to several periods, both as to his positive and his contingent conduct upon that subject, conveyed by some expres

sions a meaning to the house of a very perplexing character and quite different from that which he intended; that the reporter of the Times caught the sentence and although it was inconsistent with the reputation of Sir Robert Peel perhaps imperfectly preserved it; that the reporters of the other journals, not comprehending the remark and deeming it quite incongruous and contrary to received impressions, omitted it, as under such circumstances is not unusual; that Sir Robert Peel, when he corrected the version of his speech, which he did from the report of the Times, finding a sentence which conveyed a false meaning, and which was authorised by no analogous expressions in the other papers, very properly struck it out; that the reporter of the Times, who, after due comparison and consultation with the reporters of some other principal journals, prepared with them the matured version, for the Mirror of Parliament, adhered to his text with the general concurrence of his colleagues, and thus embalmed the error. Perplexing as it is, we have no doubt that the speech of Sir Edward Knatchbull can be explained to the entire vindication of Sir Robert Peel; the solution of this, however, as far as we are concerned, must be left to Edipus, with a full admission that though Lord George Bentinck was perfectly justified in making the particular charge which he

advanced it was without real foundation. For the rest, those who are well-informed of the political history of this country, know that between Mr. Canning and Mr. Peel there existed an antipathy. They disliked each other: Mr. Canning was jealous of Mr. Peel, and Mr. Peel was a little envious of Mr. Canning.

CHAPTER XVI.

The

THERE are few circumstances more remarkable in parliamentary history than the suspense which attended the fate of the Peel government. opposing hosts were drawn up in array for three weeks without the possibility of a general engagement. The return of the corn bill from the house of lords was to be the signal for a general battle and a bill of such vast importance could not be hurriedly passed by either house of parliament. Had it not been for the Canning episode, it is difficult to see how the evenings devoted to the adjourned debate on the coercion bill could have been filled up.

But that episode was now concluded, and it was said that another week must inevitably elapse before the corn bill could come down. The friends of the government, elate with the last rally of their chief, and encouraged by several circumstances which then