a peer of no
personal importance, but a stalwart upholder of Church and State,
published in the _Standard_ newspaper of March 16, 1829, a virulent
letter, describing the whole transaction "as a blind to the protestant
and high church party," and accusing the prime minister of insidious
designs for the introduction of popery in every department of the state.
The duke at once sent Hardinge with a note couched in moderate language,
demanding an apology. Winchilsea made no apology, but offered to express
regret for having mistaken the duke's motives, if the duke would declare
that when he presided at the meeting in question he was not
contemplating any measure of catholic relief. Whereupon the duke
demanded "that satisfaction which a gentleman has a right to require,
and which a gentleman never refuses to give". A hostile meeting took
place on March 21 in Battersea fields. The duke intentionally fired
wide, and Winchilsea, after discharging his weapon in the air, tendered
a written apology, in conformity with the so-called rules of honour. The
duke was conscious that his conduct must have "shocked many good men,"
but he always maintained that it was the only way, and proved an
effectual way, of dispelling the atmosphere of calumny in which he was
surrounded. It is probable that he judged rightly of his contemporaries,
and that he gained rather than lost in reputation by an act which, apart
from its moral aspect, risked the success of a great measure largely
depending on the continuance of his own life. It may be noticed that he
afterwards became not only the personal friend of his antagonist, but
the most influential member of the Anti-Duelling Association.[92]

[Pageheading: _EXCLUSION OF O'CONNELL._]

Another episode, or rather sequel, of the great contest on catholic
relief had more serious political consequences. Though O'Connell was the
undoubted leader of the movement, and might almost have claimed to be
the father of the act, he was most unwisely but deliberately excluded
from its benefits. His exclusion was effected by a clause which rendered
its operation strictly prospective, for the very purpose of shutting out
the one catholic who had been elected under the old law. It had been
decided by a committee of the house of commons that he was duly
returned, the only question being whether he could take his seat without
subscribing the oath now abolished. This question was brought to a test
by the appearance of O'Conne