East India Office, Jan. 6, 1823. MY DEAR B----, Canning not having come up to town, I have not been able to speak to him on the subject of your letter, but after communicating with Lord Liverpool, I can, I believe, say with certainty, that though of course no part of the King's speech has yet been framed or considered, you may depend upon its containing such a recommendation of relief from taxation as will satisfy the principle upon which Lord C---- wishes for information. I have much pleasure in telling you that a change will, I trust, take place by the retirement of Bragge Bathurst, which will enable us to take the field with better auspices at the meeting of Parliament. It is proposed that Vansittart shall succeed to the Chancellorship of the Duchy, with a _Peerage_; Robinson to the Exchequer; Huskisson, Board of Trade and Treasurer of the Navy, without Cabinet; Arbuthnot, Woods and Forests; Herries, Secretary to the Treasury. As yet, this is completely a secret even to the Cabinet, but as the King has approved it, it probably cannot long so continue. One consequence I apprehend will be, that Peel and I must stand the pelting of the first fortnight of the Session by ourselves, which probably your kindness will admit as an additional reason for my wishing C---- to listen favourably to Canning's request. I really do not think that there is the least ground for your supposition of intentional neglect on the part of Government towards you. Nothing which I have seen looks at all like it. It is possible that you may think that you ought to have been written to oftener, but it has naturally been supposed, that as I was in constant communication with you, it was not necessary for anybody else. I have to-day heard from Dublin that the Grand Jury has thrown out Bills preferred against the rioters for a misdemeanour, very much in consequence of the feeling originally excited by the first design of proceeding against them capitally for a conspiracy to assassinate. Plunket has, I understand, immediately declared that he would file an _ex officio_ information against them. Whether this is wise or not depends, I think, wholly on the nature of his evidence; if he can produce sufficient to warrant a conviction it will be quite right, and expose the Orange spirit of Dublin; but if it is deficient, it will have a most mischievous effect to subject them to such a proceeding, after the Grand Jury has thrown out the Bill.