ty, it would
be almost impossible to believe that such abusive language as was then
poured forth could have been used towards them, were it not on record.

The Duke especially was charged with a treble treachery; to Mr. Canning,
on account of the transactions previously referred to; towards the
Protestant party, of whom he had been the chosen leader, and whom he was
about to betray; and lastly a personal treachery in the concealment of
his design until the moment of execution, by which he prevented others
from coming forward and taking the station he had abandoned, as leader
of the opponents of emancipation.

The Duke's replies to all these charges will be found at length in the
following pages. But the charge of personal treachery was afterwards put
in a shape which compelled the Duke of Wellington to take a very
different notice of it. The Earl of Winchelsea wrote a letter to the
secretary of King's College, in which, after adverting to the support
which the Duke had given on Protestant principles to that institution,
he stated that he now believed that the Duke's conduct had been only a
blind to the high church party, and that he was about, under the cloak
of the Protestant religion, to carry into effect his insidious designs
for the infringement of our liberties, and the introduction of Popery
into every department of the state. This letter the Duke found himself
bound to notice; but the earl refused to retract. A correspondence took
place, which ended in a duel. Neither party was hurt, and the earl
subsequently made a public apology for the original expressions.

In the meanwhile the Emancipation Bill was steadily progressing. On the
19th of February, in introducing the bill for the suppression of
dangerous associations, the Duke of Wellington declared that there had
been no previous bargain or compact with the Roman Catholic party while
the Emancipation Bill was in the House of Commons. Short discussions
took place almost every night in the House of Lords upon its merits, in
which whenever the Duke joined he did so with the greatest reluctance.
At length, on the 2nd of April, he moved the second reading of the bill
in the House of Lords, in a speech which reflected credit upon him for
moral courage, if not for consistency.

In fact, great moral courage is one of the most striking features in the
character of the Duke of Wellington. Some of his supporters will doubt
this assertion; and will point to the Emancipa