gether to any interference. It was something, in his own language, "so novel, so extraordinary, and likely to lead to such consequences,' "that he could not attempt to answer it off-hand. He applied on the subject to Mr. Perceval, advancing as his theory, that though the payment made to the colonels was public money, to be applied for a public purpose, they were to deal with it as private money; owing the persons they employed for regimental clothes as they would for their own clothes; and that the War Office, if the clothes, etc. were approved, had no business to inquire as to whether the persons who furnished them were paid

or not.

He complained, moreover, generally that the War Office was becoming too arrogant and independent. The Secretary at War, however, would not recede. He maintained that with respect to the clothiers he was merely fulfilling his duty according to a recent Act of Parliament, and that as to his general position he held, as the representative of Parliamentary control over the military expenditure, and as the civil servant of the Crown in military matters, an independent post, which, though inferior to that of Commander-in-Chief, was not subordinate to it.

"I have always understood," he says, " and the doctrine seems also recognized in the sixth report of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry, that the Commander-in-Chief presides over the discipline, and the Secretary at War over the finance, of the army; that each are responsible and competent to act independently on matters which concern their respective provinces; but that on questions in which the two are blended, previous mutual communication should take place." On the one hand, Lord Palmerston referred for his independence to an order, November 1, 1804, which says, "All applications relative to military disbursements or to pecuniary claims to pay allowances, etc., and

all letters which have for their object the construction and explanation of Acts of Parliament regarding the military service, or which have reference to the civil police of the country, are as formerly to be addressed to the Right Hon. the Secretary at War."

On the other hand, Sir David Dundas founded his superiority on the instruction given in the Secretary at War's commission under the sign manual: "You are to observe and follow such orders and directions as you shall from time to time receive from us or the general of our forces for the time being, according to the discipline of war, in pursuance of the trust reposed in you and your duty to us."

There were certainly two sides to the shield. But Mr. Perceval refused to decide which was the right one, and contented himself with begging both parties to pocket their differences. This Sir David, however, refused to do; and though when the Duke of York returned to his post* he was more moderate and courteous in his language than Sir David, he persisted in the same theory; and the views of the parties were ultimately brought before the Prince Regent, to whom Lord Palmerston clearly stated that he considered himself placed as a sort of barrier between the military authority of the officers in command of the army, and the civil rights of the people," stating that "no alteration could take place in this situation without the interference of Parliament."

This consideration, in fact, regulated his Royal Highness's decision, which was to leave things as they were, without saying what they were; adding, that if anything new was suggested by the Secretary at War relative to his functions, then it should be communicated to the Com

* In May, 1811.

mander-in-Chief, and adopted if the two authorities were agreed; whilst, if they disagreed, the nature of the disagreement should be placed before the First Lord of the Treasury, who would take the pleasure of his Royal Highness the Regent thereupon.

This, in fact, solved none of the questions that had been raised; but it prevented the entire subordination of the civil authority to the military one-a result of which Lord Palmerston may fairly claim the merit.

An explanation that he wrote at this time of the historical character and position of the Secretary at War is one of the ablest papers in the War Office, and will be found in the Appendix

BOOK III.

Perceval's death-Palmerston remains in Lord Liverpool's government-Speaks in favor of Catholic Emancipation-Turn in the war-Speech on army estimates-Policy as to coloniesState of England-Alarm-Escape from assassination-Correspondence at Horse Guards-Speeches in Parliament-General position-Without party friends-New party formed-Election for Cambridge separates him from the old Tories-Correspond

ence.

A CONSIDERABLE space now intervenes in the pri

vate correspondence in my possession. Meanwhile the ministry of Perceval, which, as may be seen by one or two of the letters I have quoted, was but a rickety one, terminated by the melancholy death of that statesman, May 11, 1812. The general desire produced by this event was to see a government formed equal to the critical situation of affairs; this desire the public and private differences existing at that time among leading statesmen rendered abortive, and the country was disappointed by the advent of an administration universally considered the weakest that ever undertook to hold the helm of a great state, but which suffered less from opponents, and was more favored by events, than almost any other that has conducted the affairs of England. In this administration Lord Palmerston, having refused-before the offer was made to Mr. Peel-the Secretaryship for Ireland, maintained, without rise or fall, during fifteen years, the post which he had received in 1810 from Mr. Perceval, uniting during this period the pleasures of a man of the world

No one went more

with the duties of a man of business. into what is vulgarly termed "fashionable society," or attended more scrupulously to the affairs of his office; no one made better speeches on the question, whatever it was, that his place required him to speak on, or spoke less when a speech from him was not wanted. His ambition seemed confined to performing his peculiar functions with credit, without going out of the beaten track of his office as a volunteer for distinction. To this general rule, however, there was one exception; when Mr. Grattan, in 1813, brought forward the question of Catholic Emancipation, he made an eloquent oration in support of it. Still, the line he took was cautious. He did not assert that the state had not the right to exclude the Catholic body from participation in its affairs;-a consideration for the public interests was, according to him, supreme over all other considerations; but in this case he contended that the state imperiled itself by the measures it adopted for its security.

"If I think," he said, "that there is no real danger in the removal of these disabilities, accompanied by such other corresponding regulations as the House may ultimately adopt, I do think there is both inconvenience and danger in the continuance of the present anomalous state of things.

"Is it wise to say to men of rank and property, who, from old lineage or present possessions, have a deep interest in the common weal, that they live in a country where, by the blessings of a free constitution, it is possible for any man, themselves only excepted, by the honest exertion of talents and industry in the avocations of political life, to make himself honored and respected by his countrymen, and to render good service to the state;-that they alone can never be permitted to enter this career; that they may