unsettled state when it met
parliament at the beginning of May. It there encountered a storm of
unsparing criticism even in the house of commons, but still more in the
house of lords. Lord Stewart, who had succeeded his brother as Marquis
of Londonderry, and the Duke of Newcastle denounced Canning in the most
intemperate language; and the veteran whig, Lord Grey, who had not been
consulted, delivered an elaborate oration against him not the less
virulent because it was carefully studied and measured. This attack was
so keenly felt by Canning that he was supposed to meditate the
acceptance of a peerage, that he might reply to it in person. The climax
of his vexations was reached when a corn bill, prepared by the late
cabinet, and passed by the house of commons, was finally wrecked in the
house of lords through an amendment introduced by Wellington. There was
some excuse for the duke's action in letters which had passed between
him and Huskisson, but Canning naturally resented his mischievous
interposition, and unwisely declared that he must "have been made an
instrument in the hands of others". So ended the session on July 2,
amidst discords and divisions which boded ill for the future, but threw
a retrospective light on the rare merits of Liverpool.

[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF CANNING._]

The days of Canning were already numbered. Before the end of July he was
unable to attend a council, and retired for rest to the Duke of
Devonshire's villa at Chiswick. As in the case of Castlereagh, the king
had noticed the symptoms of serious illness, and on August 5 the public
was informed of his danger. On the 8th he died of internal inflammation
in the room which had witnessed the death of Fox. His loss was deeply
felt, not only by the king who never showed him confidence, but also by
the best part of the nation, and his funeral was attended by a great
concourse of mourners, both whigs and tories. No one doubted that he was
a patriot, and his noble gifts commanded the admiration of his bitterest
opponents. He belonged to an age of transition, and it must ever be
deplored that he missed the opportunity of showing whether his mind was
capable of further growth in the highest office of state; for the
inconsistencies of his opinions, obstinately maintained for years, would
have demanded many changes of conviction or policy. He was as stout an
enemy of reform at home as he was a resolute friend of constitutional
liberty abroad. He de