much less of separation, and as to our carrying
it, or preventing its being carried, the question rests so entirely
on the House of Lords, that it is there and there only that it will
be decided; and as long as we have the present Chancellor and Lord
Liverpool, it is out of the question, unless the King were to take
a part, which he certainly will not. Why, then, what would be the
result? We should separate, the Government would go on, and we
should have another sixteen years of opposition. I am arguing only
on the idea of our taking a line different or more violent than the
other best supporters of the measure. I mean Plunket, Londonderry,
Canning, &c. &c. My idea is that the latter does not mean mischief
so much as the regaining some little character and importance which
he has so justly lost.--The King comes to the Cottage here as early
as he possibly can after Easter. I believe him to be _decidedly_
ill; his legs swell, and when they are reduced, he has violent
attacks in his chest and head. His appetite is bad, and he is very
low about himself.

Faithfully yours,

W. H. F.

P.S.--In looking at Bloomfield's letter again, I see he says _the
King said he had given the necessary orders_. Surely this would
justify you in writing to the Duke of Montrose to ask the question.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

East India Board, April 12, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

I yesterday communicated your sentiments on the proposed manner of
bringing forward the Catholic question to Plunket, who expressed
himself highly flattered by the confidence which you placed in his
opinion. He has to-day gone down to Dropmore, and returns
to-morrow. The outline of the plan which he is disposed to
recommend to remedy the most pressing grievances on the subjects of
the tithe, is to enable incumbents to agree for a composition for
twenty-one years with the _landlords_, and the tithes then to
be collected as county rates, and the receipts to be good in
payment of rent. This is the outline; but the detail must be matter
of great difficulty, since, though this may apply to future
contracts, I fear that as the majority of the peasantry are for
election purposes life tenants, it will not be easy to increase
their rent to the landlords by the amount of what will be payable