Clive called at Apsley House with my letter before he came to me, and was desired by the Duke to ask who I considered my friends. I said the friends with whom I was politically acting were Melbourne and Grant; but that, to say the truth, I should be unwilling, and I believed they would be so too, to join the Duke unless Lansdowne and Grey were to form part of his Government. We knew that we differed on many points with those who were then in office, and we could have no security that our opinions could have due weight and consideration unless Grey and Lansdowne were in the Cabinet. Clive protested against this as an unreasonable demand, amounting to a surrender on the part of the Duke, but said that there would be no objection to Melbourne and Grant, and that Goderich was understood to be a friend of mine, and would be taken in also if we liked.

I said I had not lately had any political communication with Goderich, and could not by any means consider him as an equivalent for Grey and Lansdowne.

To cut the matter short, and to avoid further communications, I set off immediately for Paris, to spend there the fortnight previous to the meeting of Parliament. A few days after my return from Paris I got in the morning a note from the Duke, asking me to step to him at Apsley House. I went immediately. He said he wished to speak to me on the subject on which Lord Clive had communicated. That I had talked about friends, and he wished to know who were my friends. I said, as before, Melbourne and Grant, but that even with them I should be disinclined to enter unless his Cabinet was to be reconstructed. He said that he thought that for them he could find room, but that it was not as easy to get people out of a Cabinet as to put them in, but that as to a larger change of his Cabinet, that did not enter into his intentions, and would be attended with too many difficulties. I said on leaving him-which I did at the end of the six minutes which our interview occupied-that what I had intended to say was, that I was flattered by his proposal, and

was obliged to him for it, but that it would not suit me to join him unless he meant to reconstruct his administration, and that I purposely abstained from mentioning the names of any persons whom I might have in view in saying so.

Croker called on me a few days afterwards to try to persuade me to reconsider the matter. After talking some time he said, "Well, I will bring the matter to a point. Are you resolved, or are you not, to vote for Parliamentary Reform ?" I said, “I am." "Well, then," said he, " there is no use in talking to you any more on this subject. You and I, I am grieved to see, shall never again sit on the same bench together."

Melbourne, the two Grants, Binning, Littleton, Graham, Warrender, Denison, and one or two others, had met at my house a few days before to consider what we should do on the motion which Brougham was to make in favour of Parlia mentary Reform, and I and the Grants and Littleton had quite determined to vote for it.

As soon as Lord Grey was commissioned by the King to form an administration he sent for me.

MEMORANDUM BY THE LATE LORD PALMERSTON WHEN
SECRETARY AT WAR.

See 6 & 7 W.

War Office, 16th August, 1811.

Sir David Dundas having submitted to H.R.H. the Prince Regent certain papers and memoranda relative to discussions which have taken place between him and Lord Palmerston, Lord Palmerston humbly avails himself of the permission given him, to state on his part such circumstances as he may think necessary to explain and justify his conduct.

Sir D. Dundas states that for a considerable time past the Secretary at War has assumed powers and exercised an authority which do not of right belong to his office, derogatory to the dignity of the Commander-in-Chief, and subversive of the discipline of the army. The immediate ground and foundation of this charge are three circumstances which have occurred since the appointment of Lord Palmerston as Secretary at War; and it might, therefore, perhaps appear sufficient for Lord Palmerston to give that explanation of these three cases which he trusts would exculpate him from any blame on those points; but as Sir D. Dundas's memorandum contains some general positions respecting the re lations of the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary at War, it will be necessary in the first instance to give a short summary of the history and progress of the office of the Secretary at War, and a view of the nature and extent of the duties which that officer has heretofore discharged.

Sir D. Dundas seems to imagine that the Secretary at & M., c. 8, sec. War is, like the Adjutant and Quartermaster-General, subor to "the Secre- dinate to, and dependent upon, the Commander-in-Chief, Commander-in- and he founds this idea chiefly upon the wording of the Chief of the Commission of the Secretary at War, which directs him "to Army."

tary of the

"observe and follow such orders and instructions as you shall "receive from Us or the General of Our forces, according to "the discipline of war." It is, however, conceived that there will be no difficulty in proving that, in the first place," the "General of Our forces" does not mean a Commander-inChief, but a Captain-General; and that in point of practice, in matters of finance, and as a civil servant of the Crown, the Secretary at War never has been in the habit of receiving orders and commands from any person but the King himself.

Lord Palmerston has, with this object, examined with great care the records of the War Office from the earliest times, particularly directing his attention to those periods when there existed Captains-General, or Commanders-in-Chief; the substance of the information which he has collected will be stated in this memorandum; but he has added as an appendix, more particular notes taken from the perusal of upwards of fifty folio volumes of records of the office.

Although much stress cannot be laid upon precedents previous to the revolution in 1688, yet it appears that even as early as the reign of Charles II. the civil and financial business of the army was understood to be distinguished from that which was purely military; and we find accordingly, that warrants and orders connected with the former were countersigned and issued by one of the Secretaries of State. There are in the War Office numerous documents of this sort, signed by the King himself, and countersigned by Arlington, Clifford, Coventry, Williamson, and Sunderland; one of the most remarkable of which is a Warrant ordering that "no military establishment, or alterations thereof shall 21st Jan., "be presented for Our signature without having been previously approved by Our Lord High Treasurer, and one of "Our Secretaries of State, to whom We have referred the "care and consideration thereof:" and this Warrant, which makes no mention either of the Captain-General or Commander-in-Chief, has been annually renewed down to the present time.

VOL. I.

2 C

1669.

June, 1666.

27th Sept., 1676.

3rd June, 1679.

18th Aug,

The first Secretary at War, or as he was at that time indiscriminately called, Secretary to the Forces, was Mr. Locke, who is supposed to have been detached from the office of the Secretary of State, with a view of relieving that officer from a part of his labours. Mr. Locke's commission cannot be found, but it seems that he did not at first countersign the King's Warrants, which still for some time bore the signature of the Secretary of State.

But by a Warrant addressed to the Duke of Monmouth who was Commander-in-Chief at the time, the King directe that "Whereas We continue to issue from Ourself some "kinds of Warrants and Military Orders which did belong to "the office of Our late General, and which he was wont t

66

despatch and sign, We being desirous to distinguish such "Warrants and Orders from other affairs of Our Crown. "passing our Signet and Sign Manual, have thought fit, an: "it is Our will and pleasure that all such kinds of Warrants "and Orders as formerly issued from George Duke of Albe "marle, Our late General deceased (in regard of that ofcel "and which we continue to issue from Ourself, shall pass Our "Sign Manual only, and shall be countersigned by the Secre "tary to Our forces, as by Our command."

And accordingly from that period downwards there is instance of any Warrant or Order, signed by the King, being countersigned by any military officer, but always by th Secretary at War, a Secretary of State, or the Lords of the Treasury.

In 1679, the Duke of Monmouth, then Commander-inChief, was, by a Warrant addressed to the Attorney-General. appointed Captain-General, with powers of a very ample and extraordinary nature, which have never been granted since.

He was authorized to arm, muster, apportion, quarter, and pay the army; to disperse and pardon rebels; and all officers, soldiers, and persons whatsoever were required to be obedient and assisting to him.

On the 18th August, 1683, and as it should seem during

1683.