YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIFE
OP IHE
RT, HON. SPENCER PERCEVAL.
VOL. .1.

' ^^:.J-^^ ''^

/\^

THE LIFE

OP THE

RT. HON. SPENCER PERCEVAL
INCLUDING
HIS CORRESPONDENCE
WITH NUMEROUS DISTINGUISHED PERSONS.
BY HIS GEANDSON
SPENCEE WALPOLE.

m TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.

LONDON:
HUEST AND BLACKETT, PUBLISHEES,
13 GEEAT MAELBOEOUGH STEEET.
1874.
All Rights reserved.

3.H&

LONDON:
PMSTED by JCHS SlKAirGEWAY3,
Castle St. Leicester Sq,

PREFACE.

MoEE than- sixty years have elapsed since the
subject of this memoir was assassinated in the
lobby of the House of Commons. Two gene
rations have, in the interval, passed away. The
great men with whom Perceval was thrown into
communication have, one by one, dropped off the
stage. The youngest member and last survivor of
his Ministry died in a green old age, in the full
enjoyment of the power he had used so well,
seven years ago. Nor are the actors alone changed.,
The scene is altered too. The policy which was in
favour in Perceval's lifetime has long since been
discarded for the more generous opinions which
have been adopted since the first Eeform Act.
Language which, sixty years ago, commanded the
assent of the majority of the House of Commons,

VI PEEPACE.
would not be uttered now by the most reactionary
Tory. ,The great men of that time have, nearly with
out exception, had their biographies written. Pitt
has found an able biographer in Lord Stanhope ;
Fox, a warm admirer in Lord Eussell; Addington
in Pellew; Lord Eldon in Twiss; Lord WeUesley
in Pearce ; Lord Liverpool in Yonge ; Canning in
Stapleton ; Castlereagh in Sir A. AKson. The
Duke of Buckingham's ' Courts and Cabinets '
furnishes us with a memoir of Lord GrenviUe.
Wilberforce, Eomilly, Abbot, live in their diaries.
Of the great party-leaders of the day, two alone
— Perceval and the Duke of Portland — have never
had their lives written. The action of the Duke's
son, in destroying his father's papers, has probably
made it impossible to supply the defect in the one
case. This memoir is an attempt to supply it in
the other.
The task has been undertaken under some
difficulty. Perceval's contemporaries — the men who
might have imparted information — are passed away ;
and the author has been compelled to rely on
published testimony and the correspondence which
he found among his grandfather's papers. The

PREFACE. VU
correspondence contains letters to and from the
King, the Prince Eegent, and the Duke of Cumber
land ; the Duke of Wellington, Pitt, Addington,
Lord Liverpool, Lord Grenville, Lord Grey, and the
Duke of Portland ; Lord Loughborough and Lord
Eldon ; Lord Spencer and the Duke of Eichmond ;
Canning, Castlereagh, Lord Lonsdale, Lord Wel
lesley, and other distinguished men. Some of
these letters have already been published in other
works ; others are entirely new, and not only
illustrate the life of a great and good man, but
also throw, as the author hopes and believes,
additional light on one of the most interesting
periods of English History.

CONTENTS or
THE FIEST VOLUME.

CHAPTEE I.
EARLY LIFE.
1762-1796.
Origin and History of the Perceval Family — The Earldom of
Egmont — Birth of Spencer Perceval — Career at School and
College — Verses addressed to Perceval on leaving College —
Adopts the Bar as a Profession — His Marriage — Opinions of
Able Men respecting Perceval — Nominated a King's Counsel —
Official Appointments held by him — Impeachment of Warren
Hastings — Introduction to Pitt — Eetained by the Government
for the Trials of Paine and Horne Tooke — Letter from Lord-
Chancellor Loughborough — Declines the Chief Secretaryship
of Ireland — Oratorical Practice at the ' Crown and Eolls ' —
Elected M.P. for Northampton . . . Page 1
CHAPTEE IL
IN PAELIAMBNT.
1796-1798.
Mutinies of the Fleet — Punishment of the Chief Offenders — First
Appearance in Parliament — Debate on the Subsidy to the
Emperor of Austria — Perceval a Supporter of the War with
France — Termination of Negotiations with that Country —
Fox's Motion for Eepeal of the Treason and Sedition Bills —
Question of Parliamentary Eeform — Eetained for the Prosecu
tion of Binns — Pitt's Scheme for trebling the Assessed Taxes
— Opposition of Fox — Eeply to Sir F. Burdett's Speech on the
War — Pitt's Opinion of Perceval — Land Tax Eedemptiou Bill
— Irish Outbreak of 1798 — Official Appointments . 30
VOL. I. a

X CONTENTS.
CHAPTEE III.
IN PAELIAMBNT (CONTINUED).
1798-1800.
Eeassembling of Parliament — Pitt's Proposed Income Tax — De
bate on Tiemey's Address to the Crown respecting Negotiations
for Peace — Forfeiture for High Treason Bill — Eejection of
Napoleon's Overtures for Peace — Prophetical Studies — Sheri
dan's Motion for Inquiry into the Causes of the Failure of
the Duke of York's Expedition to Holland — Debate on the
Conduct of the French Eoman Catholic Emigres — Projected
Company for the Manufacture of Flour and Bread — Singular
Scene — Bill for the Better Prevention of Adultery — Various
Parliamentary Appearances — Union with Ireland — Conclusion
of the First Period of Perceval's Political Career — Professional
Advancement — Emoluments at the Bar — Peter Plymley's
Amusing Description of Perceval's Family . Page 60
CHAPTEE IV.
ADDINGTON 'S MINISTRY.
1800-1802.
Position of Pitt — Change of Ministry — The Addington Administra
tion — Perceval appointed Solicitor-General — Eemoves to the
Chancery Bar — Speeches on the State of Ireland — Negotiations
with the First Consul — Fox's Speech at the Shakespeare Club —
Session of 1802 — Debts of the Prince of Wales — Appointed
Attorney-General — Political Situation — Prosecutions of Colonel
Despard and Jean Peltier — Eenewal of War with France —
Parliamentary Proceedings — Emmett's Insurrection in Ireland
— Murder of Lord Kilwarden — Napoleon's Threatened Inva
sion — Volunteer Movement ~ Juverna's Letters — Prosecutions
of Cobbett and Justice Johnson for Libel ... 85
CHAPTEE V.
Pitt's second ministry.
1802-1806.
Pitt's Eupture with Addington— Declaration of War— Perceval's
Defence of Addington— Eefusal of the Chief-Justiceship of the
Common Pleas— Talents as a Debater— Change of Views on

CONTENTS. XI
the Question of Catholic Disabilities — Marriages in Perceval's
Family — Thomas Walpole — Lord Eedesdale — A Volunteer
Question — Prosecution of Trades' Unions — Correspondence
with Lord Eedesdale — Eeconciliation of Pitt and Addington —
Wilberforce and the Slave Trade — War with Spain — Catholic
Claims — Commission of Naval Inquiry — Impeachment of Lord
Melville — Eesignation of Lord Sidmouth — Duke of Athol's
Lordship of the Isle of Man — ^Battle of Trafalgar — Death of
Pitt  Page 127
CHAPTEE VI.
ALL THE TALENTS.
1806-1807.
Pitt's Debts and his Friends — Ministerial Arrangements — So
lution of an Official Difficulty — Formation of a Cabinet —
'All the Talents' — Correspondence with Lord EUenborough
— The Opposition — Windham — Military Service Scheme —
Case of Miss Seymour's Guardianship — Inquiry into the Con
duct of the Princess of Wales — Charges against Perceval —
Death of Fox — Grenville 's Application to Perceval — Dissolution
of Parliament — General Election — Unsuccessful Negotiations
with France — Napoleon's Continental System and the Orders
in Council — Increase of Maynooth Grant . . .174
CHAPTEE VII.
THE FIRST YEAR OF THB DUKE OF PORTLAND'S MINISTRY.
1807-1808.
Political Eumours — ^Wilberforce and the Abolition of the Slave
Trade — The Portland Administration — Perceval's Professional
Emoluments — ^Appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer — Ee-
elected for Northampton — Brand's Motion and Ministerial
Victory — Dissolution of Parliament — Eesult of the General
Election — Meeting of Parliament — The King's Speech — Tactics
ofthe Opposition — Debates of the Session — Perceval as Leader
of the House of Commons — Maynooth Grant — Treaty of Tilsit
— Expedition to Copenhagen — Orders in Council — Fiscal Policy
— Boman Catholic Claims — The Clergy Eesidenoe Bill . 234

Xll CONTENTS.
CHAPTEE VIII.
THE SESSION OF 1809.
1808-1809.
Continental Affairs— The Peninsular War— Sir Arthur Wellesley
—Battle of Vimeira— Sir H. Burrard— Sir H. Dalrymple—
Convention of Cintra— Sir John Moore's Expedition to Portugal
—Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke— Mr. Gwyllym Lloyd Wardle—
Inquiry respecting Military Appointments — Mrs. Clarke's Exa
mination by the House of Commons— Proposal made by Lord
Melville— Lord Mulgrave's Advice— Debate in the House of
Commons— Traffic in Public Offices— Charges against Castle
reagh and Perceval — Parliamentary Eeform Bill — Quintin
Dick's Eesignation — Eomilly's BiU on Corrupt Practices —
Budget for the Year  Page 289
CHAPTEE IX.
CANNING AND CASTLEREAGH.
1809.
Ministry of the Duke of Portland — Lord Castlereagh — George
Canning — Dissatisfaction with the Arrangements for the Con
duct of the War — Sir John Moore's Appointment to the Com
mand in Portugal — Correspondence of Canning and Perceval —
Serious Illness of the Duke of Portland — The Political Situa
tion — Negotiations — News from the Seat of War — Difficulties
ofthe Government — Lords Camden and Castlereagh — Eesigna
tion of the Duke of Portland — Canning's Statement of his
Position and Views — Delicate Position of Perceval — State of
the Administration ... ... 344

EERATA.— Vol. I.
Page 3.'^9, line 16, for ' thirty-six ' read ' thirty-one.'
Page 211, line 17, for 'Edveni' rrad 'Edocui.'
Page 211, line 33, for ' conspicuere ' read ' conspiciere.
Page 262, lines 31 and 23, omit the inverted commas.
Page 331, note, for ' Pari.' read ' Pict.'
Pages 223, 343, and 376, notes, for ' Sidney ' read ' Sydney.
Note. — Through an inadvertence, which I regret, I liave in the ninth chap
ter of this volume described Canning as ' the son of a needy and dissolute
actor.' The description is not" quite accurate. Canning's father died when
his son was of a very tender age ; and his mother, who went on the Stage,
remarried. Her second husband was ' a performer of celebrity in his day,
but of wild habits.' — A-im. Eeg. vol. Ixix. p. 478.

THE LIFE
OF
THE RIGHT HON. SPENCER PERCEVAL.

CHAPTEE L
EARLY LIFE.
1762-1796.
Origin and History of the Perceval Family — The Earldom of
Egmont — Birth of Spencer Perceval — Career at School and
College — Verses addressed to Perceval on leaving College —
Adopts the Bar as a Profession — His Marriage — Opinions of
Able Men respecting Perceval— Nominated a King's Counsel —
Official Appointments held by him — Impeachment of Warren
Hastings — Introduction to Pitt — Eetained by the Government
for the Trials of Paine and Horne Tooke — Letter from Lord-
Chancellor Loughborough — Declines the Chief Secretaryship
of Ireland — Oratorical Practice at the ' Crown and EoUs ' —
Elected M.P. for Northampton.
Among the numerous barons who accompanied Duke
William of Normandy in his great expedition to
England, none "was of more importance than Eobert,
Lord of Breherval, Montiuney, and Villariis Vastatis.
Son, as there is some reason for concluding, of Eudes,
Sovereign Duke of Brittany, and Lord of the stoutest
VOL. I. B

EARLY LIFE.

fortress in all Normandy, Eobert was an ally whose
assistance could be hardly spared. The value of
his , services may perhaps be measured by the extent
of his reward. The Lord of Breherval in Normandy
was invested with the Lordships of Karry and Har-
petree, in Somersetshire. But great wealth could not
avert other misfortunes. The Lord of Breherval
sickened of a serious iUness, entered the Abbey of
Bee, and died a monk, leaving his vast estates to
his three sons, Ascelin, Gouel, and William.
Ascelin, the eldest of the three, had also accom
panied the Conqueror in his expedition to England.
He, too, had received his share of the spoU. He
had been invested "with many large manors in Som
ersetshire. It is more interesting to note that, in
Hollingshead's roll of Battle Abbey, he is mentioned
by the future name of one branch of his descend
ants, — ' Perceval.' His ungovernable temper had
gained him the nickname of ' Lupus,' or the wolf,
which, in its turn, has been corrupted into ' Level,'
the patronymic of the other branch.
This Ascelin, who was created Earl of Yvery,
was successively succeeded by his two sons Eobert,
and William Gouel or Lupellus. Eobert left no
issue ; Lupellus, the wolf's cub, rebelled against
Stephen, and defended the Castle of Karry against
that king. ' The cub ' had five sons. William, the
eldest, inherited the Norman estates and title ; Ealf,
the second, left no issue, and was succeeded by the
third brother, Henry. This Henry was the an-

EARLY LIFE. 3
cestor of the Barons Lovel of KaiTy, a title which
became extinct in A.D. 1351. The fourth brother,
William, who also assumed the surname of Lovel,
was the ancestor of the Barons Lovel of Dockinges
and Minster Luvel, ' an eminent race, of the greatest
alliances and highest employments of the realm, but
determined' about the beginning of the reign of
Henry VIII.
Eichard, the youngest of the five brothers,
adopted the original name of his family, ' Perceval.'
He crossed over to Ireland "with Strongbow, and
lost a leg in the Holy Land, serving "with distinction
under Lion Heart. Eichard's grandson, Eobert de
Perceval, crossed also over to Ireland, ' where he
carried himself so valiantly that he acquired great
possessions, and was made a Baron of that realm.'
This barony, thirty-one years older than the oldest
surviving barony in Ireland, became extinct on the
death of Eobert's grandson, Thomas Lord Perceval,
in 1322 ; and the Perceval family was not again
ennobled for more than four centuries afterwards.
Eobert Perceval, however, had two brothers,
Hugh and John, and the honours of the family,
the Barony excepted, devolved on them. Hugh died
without issue ; John's son. Sir Eoger Perceval, was
summoned as a Baron to the Parliaments held in
1290 and 1296. Eoger's son. Sir John Perceval,
represented Warwickshire in Parliament in 1300.
Sir John was succeeded by Walter Perceval,
knighted, when only nineteen years of age, for

BARLY LIFE.

gallantry at Crecy. Sir Walter's grandson, Eichard
Perceval, left in 1433 three sons. John, the eldest,
died without issue. The posterity of the second be
came extinct at the commencement of the eighteenth
century. Ealf, the younger, 'being a person of
great address, was employed by the Duke of Buck
ingham, after the death of King Edward IV., to
engage the Duke of Gloucester to usurp the throne,
promising to assist him with a thousand brave fel
lows, if need were, from the western and southern
parts ofthe kingdom.' But Buckingham, disgusted
at Eichard's brutality in putting his nephews to
death, ' soon after endeavoured to level the King
he had thus made, in which attempt having failed,
he was taken prisoner, whereby Ealf was defeated
of that advancement he had promised himself.' ^
Ealf, however, espoused the cause of the Earl of
Eichmond ; and, though he himself fell at Bosworth,
his family was confirmed in its fortunes by the new
King. From this Ealf was lineally descended the famous
Eichard Perceval, who began his singular career
by marrying a penniless girl against his father's
wishes ; and raised himself to opulence and favour
by deciphering the Spanish dispatches, which had
fallen into Burleigh's hands, and gave that great
statesman the first intimation of the formidable de
signs of Spain. This Eichard, according to his
epitaph,' 'having passed through various fortunes,
1 House of Yvery, vol. i. p. 15. 2 In Dublin.

EARLY LIFE. .5
good and e-vil, did exercise diverse memorable em
ployments in the court of Wards and Liveries, under
that renouned Lorde, Eobert Steele, Erie of Salis
bury .... was called away to pay another
service before the throne of the Almighty Kynge of
Kynges upon the 4th September in the year of our
Eedemption one thousand six hundred and twentye,
and of his owne age the sixty and nintlie.' Eichard's
son. Sir Philip Perceval, was a still more distin
guished man. He served as Commissary General
of the Irish army, and Providore General of the
Horse, at the very time at which he was in com
mand of troops. He distinguished himself, in these
capacities, by his exertions against the rebels ; and
only reluctantly assented to Lord Ormonde's Ces
sation with the Irish in 1643. Dissatisfied with
the Irish policy of Charles, he subsequently passed
over to the Opposition ; served as Member for New
port in Cornwall ; was Chairman of the Committees
appointed to manage the defence of the City and
Parliament ; and, on his death in 1647, was buried
at the public expense at St. Martin's-in-the-Fields.
Dr. Maxwell, Bishop of Kilmore, composed his
epitapL* ' Philip lies bere, at length subdued by fate :
By birth illustrious, and by fortune great.
Capricious chance long taught him to explore
By turns her fickle fondness and her power.
1 House of Yvery, vol. i. p. 24.

6 EARLY LIFE.
Could the remembrance of his virtues sleep
Envy herself at the sad loss would "w^eep.'
A far better poet thus described him, —
' Patriot, without pretence, from faction free —
Just to his prince, and true to liberty.
Who, high in ofiice, bore no public curse ;
Who drew no profit from the public purse ;
With private arms his country's foes withstood ;
From private stores supplied her hosts with food.'
'" ' Of various posts endured the various ^oil.
In view of glory, not in thirst of spoil ;
In Council faithful ; in the Senate bold ;
Nor bribed by favour, nor by power controlled.
Great in himself, the guilty title scorned ;
By birth ennobled, and by worth adorned.'
Philip's son. Sir John Perceval, served also with
distinction under Cromwell. NotAvithstanding these
services, he succeeded, after the Eestoration, in se
curing a patent of special pardon, and a baronetcy,
with a remarkable clause in the patent, never inserted
before or since : ' That the eldest son and heir, or
grandson and heir, of the family, should,- upon
demand, at the age of twenty-one years, be knighted
by the king; and, by virtue of that knighthood,
enjoy the place and rank of a baronet, during the
lifetime of the father or grandfather, with the same
precedency.' Philip's great-grandson. Sir John Per
ceval, was created, in 1 714, Baron Perceval, of Burton,
1 Sir Philip is said to have advanced large sums of money for
the food of the army, of which he was the Commissary and Pro
vidore General.

EARLY LIFE.

in the County of Cork, and, in 1727, Viscount Per
ceval, of Kanturk, in the same county. He repre
sented Harwich in the reign of George the Second,
was appointed the first President of the Colony of
Georgia in 1 732, and made Earl of Egmont in the
following year.
Lord Egmont, who married Catherine, the daugh
ter of Sir Phihp Parker h, Morley, in Sufiblk, was a
nobleman of considerable distinction, both in politics
and literature. He is best known now perhaps by
the genealogical history of the House of Yvery — an
antiquarian work, in two large volumes, dedica,ted to
the glorification of the Perceval family. Pompous in
his manner, proud of his pedigree, jealous on such
trivial matters as the precedency of Irish peers,'
Lord Egmont united to his pomposity and pride
more genial and desirable qualities. One, who was
said to have known him well, wrote of him, ' In
a course of sixty-five years from his cradle to
his grave. Lord Egmont was never found to have
injured the living or the dead either in word or in
deed. Honest and rational in his principles of
government ; dutiful and affectionate to his prince ;
void of all ambition and every vain desire ; free from
any anxious care to increase his own fortune ; desti
tute of envy at the advancement of other men ; a
father rather than a landlord to his tenants ; liberal
without profusion ; generous without ostentation ;
charitable in secret to a transcendent degree ; just
' Lord Egmont published a pamphlet on the subject.

8 EARLY LIFE.
and punctual in all his dealings with the world;
benevolent to all riiankind ; a great example of virtue
in his youth, of moderation in the -vigour of his age,
of patience during a long illness in the decline of
years, of philosophy in a manly support of the loss
of those whom he tenderly loved, of fortitude and
resignation in the last moments of his life.''
John, the second Earl of Egmont, was born in
1710; was elected, in 1731, for Dingle; and, ten
years later, for the great city of Westminster. He
took an active part in Parliament, held on more
than one occasion high office, and is described
' as a fluent and plausible debater ; warm in his
friendship, and violent in his enmity.' Like his
father. Lord Egmont occasionally indulged in
literary pursuits. His 'Faction detected by the
E"vidence of Facts,' which is attributed by Horace
Walpole to Lord Bath, is commended by Archdeacon
Coxe as ' one of the best political pamphlets ever
published.'^ Lord Egmont was twice married;
first, to a daughter of Lord Salisbury's, by whom
he had two sons, whose descendants are, however,
entirely extinct ; and, second, to a daughter of Lord
Northampton's — subsequently created Baroness Ar
den, in her own right — by whom he had two sons
' Lodge's ' Peerage of Ireland,' vol. ii. p. 167. Quoted in Parke's
enlarged edition (London, 1806) of Horace "Walpole's ' Eoyal and
Noble Authors,' vol. v. p. 254.
2 Coxe's 'Memoirs of Lord Walpole,' p. 377. Quoted in Parke's
edition of Horace Walpole's ' Eoyal and Noble Authors,' vol. v.
p. 275.

EARLY LIFE. 9
and four daughters — Lord Arden, born in 1756,
whose correspondence will occasionally be produced
in the following pages ; Spencer, born in his father's
house in Audley Square, on the 1st of November,
1762, the subject of this memoir ; Mary, who mar
ried Mr. Drummond, of Cadlands, in Hampshire ;
Elizabeth, who was never married ; Frances, who
married the first Lord Eedesdale ; and Margaret,
married in 1803 to Mr. Thomas Walpole, a nephew
of the first Earl of Orford, a country gentleman of
Whig proclivities, who had served as minister at
Munich. The name which had been given to the second son,
was a favourite one in the Northampton family. It
had been originally introduced into it by the marriage
of William, first Lord Northampton, to the daughter
and heiress of Sir John Spencer — Eich Spencer, as
he was called — the owner of Crosby Place. The
wealth of this lady, and the curious stipulations
which she made, on her marriage, for her own com
fort, will be found described in a letter' which Mr.
Jesse has inserted in his ' Memorials of London.'
Her son Spencer, the second Earl, gained consi
derable distinction, as a gay courtier and a gallant
soldier, in the reigns of the , two firsti Stuarts. ' The
mingling of the ancient blood of the Comptons,' as
Mr. Jesse puts it, ' with that of the plebeian mer
chant, Eich Spencer, appears in no degree to have
contaminated the chivalry of the race.'
» Jesse, voL i. p. 267-276.

10 EARLY LIFE.
Soon after his second marriage. Lord Egmont
took a lease of Charlton House, near Woolwich, and
young Perceval consequently passed the few first
years of his life in a house from which, by a singular
coincidence, he subsequently took his wife. Charlton
at that time was the property of a Miss Maryon, a
rich heiress married to a Mr. Weller ; Mr. Weller's
daughter, also an heiress, was married to Sir Thomas
Wilson. Lord Egmont died when Perceval was
only ten years of age. About the time of his
father's death he was sent to Harrow. From Har
row he was subsequently moved to Trinity College,
Cambridge. Nothing at all is kno"wn of Perceval's career at
school, and we have only a little information of his
subsequent career at college. Dr. Mansel, whose
name will occasionally be met "with in these papers,
was his tutor. Lord Harrowby, then Mr. Eyder,
and Mathias, the Italian scholar, two of his firmest
friends. During his residence at the University he
gained the English Declamation Prize ; and he ob
tained his M.A. degree, when he was only nineteen
years of age, on the 16 th December, 1781. But the
opinion which had been formed, at this early period
of his life, of his disposition and abilities by some
of those who had had the best opportunity of
judging him, will be more evident from the grace
ful verses addressed to him, on leaving college, by
Mr. Ward,'—
' 'Mr. Ward took his degree in 1769; was Senior Opt. and

EARLY LIFE. 1 1
' 0 Isetioris quae comes ingeni
Et apta blandis Musa leporibus,
Te dulcis ornet Percevalle,
Delicias decus et tuorum.
Proh ! quanta morum gratia, quae fides,
Candorque, et expers fraude protervitas
Maj or que quae conspectiorque
Ingenuo venit ore victus.
0 digne tu qui Socraticus puer
Ires, Athenae quem legerent suum
Omnisque jactaret repostum
Populeis Academus umbris.
En! ipse te quam Granta colit Deam
Yotisque, et alm^ prosequitur prece ;
Fallorne ? vel te jam morantem
Yoce pia tenet allocuta :
'At, 0 beatis sedibus exiens
Dilecte, nostri sis merito memor
^des relicturus, togamque, et
Plena meis loca disciplinis.
Sis semper olim qualis es ! Artium
Sciens bonarum ! Sit pietas tibi !
Sit Musa cordi ! teque, sive
Patribus annumerat senatus,
Sive otiosus fallis, idoneus
Sponsae, et fideli conjugio, Tuus
Yirtute dices, veritate
Granta fui, studiisque totus.'
This elegant tribute was probably composed in
1781, the year in which yoimg Perceval took his
degree. Two years afterwards his mother, Lady
Arden, died ; and his elder brother, now Lord Arden
First Medallist, a fellow of his College and probably classical tutor.'
Letter, dated 7th January, 1843, from Mr. Miller to Mr. Dudley
Perceval, enclosing the Alcaics, among the Perceval papers.

12 EARLY LIFE.
in his own right, took a residence at Charlton.
Their old home at Charlton House was naturally an
attraction to Lord Arden ; but his lordship must
soon have had a stUl stronger inducement to con
tinue his new residence. Sir Thomas Wilson, who
had married Miss Weller, the heiress, had had by
her three unusually pretty daughters. Lord Arden
was attracted by the charms of the elder sister.
Spencer, who we may suppose was a frequent "visitor
at his brother's house, was captivated by the at
tractions of the second sister, Jane. Lord Arden
was comparatively rich, and he was a peer. There
can, therefore, be no surprise that Sir Thomas
Wilson should have readily accepted his addresses.
Spencer, on the contrary, was a younger son, and a
briefiess barrister with some 2001. a-year ; so that
perhaps, as this world goes, there can be stiU less
wonder that Sir Thomas should have regarded his suit
as inadmissible. Lord Arden was married in 1787.
Spencer waited till 1790, when Miss Jane Wilson
came of age ; and, as the young lady was stiU reso
lute, and Spencer stiU constant. Sir Thomas "wisely
determined to wink at a marriage of which he did not
entirely approve. Jane was sent on a "visit to East
Grinstead, in Sussex. At this place she was ac
tually married ; being dressed for the ceremony — as
she used herself to acknowledge — in her riding
habit. Yet, if Sir Thomas Wilson had been as discri
minating as he was rich, he might perhaps have seen

EARLY LIFE. 13
stuff* in the young lawyer which would have induced
him to give a warmer welcome to Perceval's ad
dresses to his daughter. Windham, who had met
him accidentally in a coxmtry house, had been struck
with his acuteness and ability, and had recorded, in
his diary, a remarkable opinion that ' he was likely
some day or other to become a distinguished man.'
Eomilly, who had lately joined the Midland Circuit,
writes in his autobiography, ' The society of the
cucuit had much improved, within a few years after
I first entered upon it, by the addition of several
men for whom I had a great regard. The principal
of these were Ayscough, Perceval, and Bramston.
Ayscough, though possessed of a large property, and
though generous to a degree which amounted to a
perfect contempt for money, followed the profession
with as much ardour as if his subsistence had de
pended upon his success. He had read a great deal ;
always brought many books with him upon the
circuit ; and was possessed of much general know
ledge, in which English la"wyers are generally so
deficient. He was cheerful, warm, friendly, and was
a great acquisition to the society of the circuit. So
too was Perceval. With much less, and indeed
very little reading, of a conversation barren of in
struction, and with strong invincible prejudices on
many subjects, yet, by his excellent temper, his
engaging manners, and his sprightly conversation,
he was the delight of all who knew him.''
' 'Memoirs of Sir S. Eomilly,' vol. i. p. 91.

1 4 EARLY LIFE.
Nor were these opinions of singularly able men
the only e"vidence of Perceval's position. In 1790,
the very year of his marriage. Lord Northampton's
interest secured him the Deputy-Eecordership of
Northampton. Early in the following year he was
given a sinecure office in the Mint — ' the Surveyor-
ship of the Meltings.' ' The Surveyorship of the
Meltings and Clerkship of the Irons,' for the two
places went together, had previously been held by
that great wit, George Augustus Sel^wTTi, by whose
death, on the 25th of January of that year, they had
become vacant. The duties of the two offices were
performed by deputy ; the net emoluments derived
from them only amounted to I23l. per annum.' The
Surveyor of the Meltings is the title under which
Perceval was, later in his career, more than once
attacked by the inimitable ' Peter Plymley.' Small as
the proceeds of the post were, they were no doubt
acceptable. Perceval had taken his young bride to
comparatively poor lodgings over a carpet-shop in
Bedford Eow. But the poverty of his position served
as an incentive to fresh exertions. The two steps he
had already gained had been due to the interest of
others ; his subsequent advancement was, in almost
every instance, attributable to his o"wn exertions.
The dissolution of Parliament in 1790 had raised a

1 Select Committee, House of Commons, on Finance Eeport,
Hansard xxiv., Supplement B ; but the proceeds are placed at
only 103^. in the return published in the Appendix to Hansard,
vol. xiii.

EARLY LIFE. 15
great constitutional question. Warren Hastings'
impeachment, already protracted over many Sessions,
was still undetermined ; and, on the assembly of the
new Parliament, the greatest authorities were in
doubt whether it had been concluded by the disso
lution. 'Erskine contended that the point was one
for the Lords, in their judicial capacity, to determine.
.... The Speaker, on the contrary, advised the
House that the impeachment was in full force."
The Speaker's opinion was ultimately adopted : but
the debates had extended over so large a portion of
the session that there was little time, during the
remainder of it, to proceed with the trial. The real
drift of the arguments had been partially obscured
by their constant repetition.
Perceval, in consequence, determined on diminish
ing this obscurity by publishing what he termed, ' A
Eeview of the Arguments in favour of the con
tinuance of Impeachments notwithstanding a Dis
solution.' '^ The pamphlet was anonymous; but its
author was widely known, and the abihty displayed
in it is said to have been the first cause of the
' Massey, Hist, of England, iii. 437.
^ The point turned on the proper application of certain pre
cedents. In 1673 the Lords had appointed a Committee to
consider ' whether an appeal to this House (either by writ of error
or petition), or any other business wherein their Lordships act as
in a court of judicature, and not in their legislative capacity, being
depending and not continued in one session of Parliament, con
tinue i-n statu quo unto the next session of Parliament without
renewal ;' and the Committee, whose report was adopted by their

16 EARLY LIFE.
writer's introduction to Pitt. In consequence, per
haps, Perceval was retained by the Crown on the
trial of Paine in 1792; as well as on the more
Lordships, had answered the question in the affirmative. ^ The
next precedent was more in point. Lord Straffiard's impeachment
had been interrupted in 1678 by a dissolution; and, on the
assembly of the new Parliament, the Lords referred the original
question of 1673 to another Committee, desiring them also to con
sider the state-of the impeachment ; and resolved, on the recom
mendation of the Committee — the resolution actually led to Lord
Straffi)rd's execution — ' that in all oases of appeals and writs of
error, they continue and are to be proceeded upon in statu quo
as they stood at the dissolution of the last Parliament, without
beginning de -novo : and that the dissolution of the last Parliament
does not alter the state of the impeachment brought up by the
Commons in that Parliament.'-
These two precedents would probably have been complete, if it
had not been for the course adopted on the impeachment of Lord
Danby in 1685. At the commencement of a new reign, and in
deference to the wishes of a new king, their Lordships had then
resolved that 'the order ofthe 19th March, 1678, shall be reversed
and annulled as to impeachments.' The precedent, therefore, in
Lord Danby's case seemed to neutralise that in Lord Strafford's in
1678 ; and the confusion became greater in consequence of the
action in 1689. Lords Salisbury and Peterborough were im
peached, towards the close of that year, for departing from their
allegiance, and for being reconciled to the Church of Eome. On
the 6th of the following February Parliament was dissolved ; and
a new Parliament assembled on the 20th March. On the 2nd of
the following October, on a petition from Lord Peterborough, the
judges were asked for their opinion whether his lordship's offence
had been committed before the 13th February, 16|| — on which
date an act of free and general pardon had been passed — and a com
mittee had been appointed to inspect precedents, and to see

' Lords' Journals 29, March 1673. Quoted in pamphlet,
pp. 8. 9.
2 Ibid. 17, March 1678. Quoted p. 23 of pamphlet.

EARLY LIFE. 1 7
famous occasion, in 1794, of the trial of Horne Tooke.
In the latter of these years he was made, by Lord
Chatham, Counsel to the Board of Admiralty (an
whether impeachments continue in statu quo from Parliament to
Parliament. The judges on the Gth answered the question which
had been proposed to them in the affirmative ; and the Committee,
on the 30th, reported that they had examined precedents of im
peachments, none of which ' are found to continue from one
Parliament to another, except the lords who were lately so long in
the Tower. After a long debate, Lord Salisbury and Peterborough
were discharged.' i
The next precedent was that of the Duke of Leeds, who was
impeached in 1695 ; and who, six years afterwards, in 1701 — two
dissolutions having taken place in the interval — was discharged ;
the Commons not prosecuting. ' Clearly an instance,' as Perceval
properly points out, ' of the Lords proceeding upon an impeach
ment after a dissolution : for the dismissal must be considered as
part of the proceedings : and, therefore, to that extent in direct
disregard of the precedents of 1685 and, perhaps, of 1690.'
But, though the precedents of 1673, 1678, and 1701 were
apparently opposed to those of 1685 and 1689, Perceval subse
quently showed that it was impossible to rely on Lord Danby's
case. In the first place, the resolution of 1685 was ' almost the
first act of the first Parliament of a new reign, ingratiating them
selves into favour with a new monarch, annulling proceedings
against Popish peers upon the supposed ground of a Popish plot ;'
and therefore ' some little is to be deducted from its authority on
account of the temper of the men who vote the resolution : but, in
the next place, though the Lords in 1673 had a right to declare
what the law was, it by no means follows that they were at liberty
in 1685 to alter that law :' as the Court in making a rule act upon
their discretion of what they think the law ought to be ; in giving
their judgments, they act upou their conviction of what they
think the law is.' And it is a curious fact that, though, iu
consequence of the release of the Popish peers, the Lords brought
in a Bill to reverse Lord Danby's attainder, the bill was thrown
1 Pamphlet, pp. 55-57.
VOL. I. C

18 EARLY LIFE.
appointment which he had previously soHcited in
1791),' and at the beginning of 1796 he received hie
silk gown.
out by the Commons ; while the Lords themselves did not venture
on inserting in the preamble of the measure the resolution of their.
house on which it was founded.^
It seemed necessary to enter at some length into the argu
ment of this pamphlet, because later historians (Lord Stanhope
and Mr. Massey) have apparently attached equal importance to
each of the two precedents. ' It might be argued,' writes Mr.
Massey for instance, ' that the latter decision was not entitled to
much weight ; but it was equally open to observation that the
resolution of 1679 was biassed by the strong prejudice against
the Popish lords.' ^ It is evident that, in such language as this,
the historian forgets that the Lords, in dealing with an impeach
ment, are acting as judges, and not as legislators ; and that, while
in their legislative capacity, it would no doubt have been open
to them to modify a rule, they were not at liberty, as a court of
law, to depart from a rule to which they on a previous occasion
had committed themselves.
' The appointment in 1791 had been given to Brodrick.
' Brodrick,' Perceval writes to Lord Arden, ' has been appointed
Counsel to the Admiralty. It is odd that I never thought of him
before. I am persuaded it is a greater object for him than it was
for me ; and that he is in every way most deserving. I am most
perfectly reconciled to my disappointment, and sincerely glad that
he has got it.' In 1794 Brodrick, however, resigned; and Perceval
again applied for the appointment. ' Lord Chaiham,' wrote Lord
Arden to him on the 20th July, ' has, in the kindest manner, told
me that, if Brodrick resigns you shall succeed him. He said that
he had very little doubt that he would ; and in that case he would
direct the appointment to be made out immediately. He spoke
as if some of Brodrick's friends thought that he might have held
the place together with his new situation ; but that, I conceive,
will not be so. So I wish you joy.'
"¦ Pamphlet, pp. 40, 42.
^ Massey, iii. 437, referred to in Stanhope's Pitt, ii. 82.

EARLY LIFE. 19
' Though I have no precise recollection,' wrote the Lord
Chancellor (Lord Loughborough) to him, on the 24th of
January, ' of the conversation which has made some impres
sion upon you, I can assure you that you have not miscon
ceived my sentiments with respect to yourself. The number
of King's Counsel at the bar has been to my observation too
much extended, with some prejudice to the rank itself. The
Midland circuit (unless it has increased much since I knew
it) does not appear to be an adequate reason for enlarging
the number. But I have so strong a persuasion that your
talents require only the opportunity of being more displayed
to be respected and admired, that, whenever your own judg
ment requires you to take an higher rank in the profession,
I shall have great pleasure in submitting your application to
His Majesty, with a very confident hope that the promotion
will prove advantageous to the public as well as to your
self Perceval's desire to be made a Kmg's Counsel,
which produced this extremely complimentary letter
from the Chancellor, was probably at this time the
greater from the circumstance that he had just
dehberately refused the attractions of a political
career for the sake of the prospects which his pro
fession held out to him. Pitt, on the 2nd January,
had offered him, in a remarkably gratifying manner,
the post of Chief Secretary for Ireland. The post
was one which had been frequently held by the most
distinguished men ; it had constantly led directly to
high political advancement ; and the offer of it on
this occasion was accompanied, as a perusal of the
correspondence wiU show, with a proposal which
must have ob"viously tended to gUd the prize. Yet
Perceval, a mere junior at the bar, with a profes-

20 EARLY LIFE.
sional income of only a few hundreds a-year, had so
much confidence in his o"wn abilities that he con
ceived his yoimg and increasing family would derive
more advantage from his refusal than from his ac
ceptance of the office. The circumstance, however,
that the offer was made enables us to see the opinion
which the highest persons had at this time formed of
the abilities of the young la"wyer ; and for this
reason it is necessary to insert the correspondence
between Pitt, Lord Spencer, and Perceval, on the
subject. 1. Mr. Pitt to Mr. Perceval :
' Wimbledon, Jan. 2nd, 1796.
' My Dear Sir, — I wish much to have an opportunity of
conversing with you on a subject which I feel to be very
interesting to the public service. As it is one on which I
cannot expect an answer from you without some time for
consideration, I think it best to mention it to you before we
meet. Mr. Pelham's declining to return to Ireland has pro
duced a vacancy in the situation of the Secretary to the
Lord Lieutenant. You will easily believe how important an
object it is to us to find a successor whom we think qualified
for the post ; and, on the fullest consideration, the Duke of
Portland and Lord Camden, as well as myself, are fully
satisfied that such an object cannot be more completely ob
tained than if you can be prevailed upon to undertake the
task. I do not know how far you may have formed a deter
mination to adhere to your professional pursuits, or whether
there may be any other considerations to prevent your
listening to this proposal. But, if that should not be the
case, I can with great sincerity assure you that your accept
ance would, in all our opinions, contribute very essentiaUy
to the public service, as well as to the personal satisfaction of
all those with whom you would have to act. It would be im-

EARLY LIFE. 21
possible to propose to you to exchange your present situa
tion and prospects for anything so precarious as the line of
politics, if there were not at the same time the means of
ensuring to you some provision of a permanent nature. On
that point, and on any other particulars which may re
quire explanation, I shall be happy to converse with you
fully ; and, for the purpose, if you do not feel any insuper
able objection to that proposal, I would beg the favour of
seeing you at Mr. Dundas', from whose house I write this
letter, any time that may suit you either in the course of
to-day or to-morrow.
' The earliest time that will suit you will be the most
convenient, as the near approach of the Irish session presses
for a decision. I send by this messenger a letter from Lord
Spencer, which has been forwarded to me this morning by
the Duke of Portland, and which I believe is on the same
subject. ' Believe me, my dear Sir,
' Yours very sincerely,
(Signed) ' W. Pitt.
'Honble. S. Perceval.'

2. Enclosure from Lord Spencer referred to in
Mr. Pitt's letter : ' St. Albans, 30 Dec. 1795.
' Dear Perceval, — I feel so much interested in the suc
cess of a proposal, which I understand is to be made to you
from the Duke of Portland by Mr. Dundas, that I cannot
resist the temptation of obtruding upon you with a word or
two on this subject.
' I recollect that, on a former occasion some time ago,
when a hint was thrown out to you from the same quarter,
pointing to a situation of great confidence, but very difierent
in many respects from the one now thought of, you were
(very justly, I think,) induced to decline it on reasons
derived from the well-founded attachment to and promising

22 EARLY LIFE.
expectations of your profession. The present offer, however,
points at prospects so much more distinguished, and of so very
different a class from those of the former case, that, though I
have no doubt all I can say upon it will suggest itself much
better to yourself, and though I risk a little your thinking
me impertinent in saying anything, I really feel too strong
an interest in seeing the situation in question properly filled,
not to incur that risk by pressing you on this occasion rather
more earnestly than I have any right to do, to consider well
before you allow any misplaced diffidence of yourself, or any
other than the very strongest motive indeed, to prevent you
from embracing an opportunity from which every one who
knows you must be convinced you will be likely to derive so
much credit and the public service so much benefit.
' I trust that you will excuse the liberty I am now taking
and place it to its true account. If I had not happened to have
been out of town, I should have endeavoured to see you that
I might have had a better opportunity than a letter can afford
for prevailing on you to undertake this charge. I am well
aware that there may be circumstances about it which at
first sight may appear a little in the shape of objections ;
but I know too well the great anxiety the Duke of Portland
feels on the event of this offer, as well as the importance to
our common friend. Lord Camden, to have in that situation
a person like yourself, not to feel it my duty to them to use
what little influence I may have with you for the accom
plishment of their wishes ; and I shall experience very great
satisfaction if I should hereafter have reason to flatter my
self that anything I have said has contributed to obtain from
you a favourable determination.
' Believe me, my dear Perceval,
' "With great truth,
' Yours very faithfully,
(Signed) ' Spencek.'
3. Mr. Perceval to Mr. Pitt :

EARLY LIFE. 23
' Dear Sir, — When your letter, proposing my acceptance
of the office of Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
was brought to me I was not at home, nor did I return for
some time after it had been delivered. This circumstance,
together with the nature of the proposal itself, which opened
objects so extremely different from what I had been accus
tomed to consider, and so vastly beyond what I could have
imagined would ever have been submitted to my choice, will,
I hope, afford a sufficient excuse for my not having returned a
more immediate answer. I felt it my duty, however, to lose
no time in forming my determination ; and now it is formed
I take the earliest opportunity of acquainting you with it.
I shall not attempt to express, because it is far beyond my
power, how much I am flattered by this strong mark of your
good opinion, as well as of that of every other person con
cerned in the proposal. And I do assure you most sincerely
that the principal uneasiness which I feel in being obliged
to decline it, arises from the apprehension of appearing in
sensible to so much kindness, and indifferent to the interests
of that public service which you are obliging enough to say
would be so much advanced by my accepting it.
' Much as I should be hurt to lose any part of your good
opinion, I had much rather, if you should be dissatisfied
with my determination, that you should attribute it to a
want either of gratitude itself or of a disposition to manifest
it by real service. If I had no interests to consider but my
own, I should not from any private motive hesitate to accept
it. My present circumstances and situation would be so
infinitely improved by it ; my vanity so much flattered ;
my pride and ambition so highly gratified, that I should
certainly submit myself entirely to your disposal. I should
state, indeed, and state sincerely, that I feared that you would
be disappointed in the expectations you had formed of my
ability to serve you, but, such as it was, it should be com
pletely at your service. But the consideration of my family,
already considerable in number, and in all human proba
bility likely to be increased, makes it necessary for me to pay

24 EARLY LIFE.
a very inferior regard to my own feelings and my present
interests; and, without affecting to represent my professional
situation as particularly elevated at present, or particularly
brilliant in prospect, yet I think that I may consider it as
affording very reasonable grounds of expectation that I may
be able to make by means of it a comfortable provision for
my family in future.
' For myself I could be easily satisfied ; for my family I
could not ; and I could not for this reason. If you were
prepared, — which don't suspect me of supposing to be the
case, — but, even if you were prepared to offer me such terms
as I should think sufficient to answer the claims of my
family upon me, I would not accept them ; because I should
feel they would be so much too great for any service I could
render to the public, that you could not grant them with
any degree of predit to yourself, or indeed without the impu
tation of inexcusable profusion of the public money. This,
now I have written it, sounds so extravagant that I fear you
may think it insincere ; but, however, I must incur the risk
of that thought ; because, in refusing so great an offer, it
seems absolutely necessary to state the real reasons, which,
I am satisfied, if you once believe them to be sincere, you must
admit to be sufficient. I entreat you again and again that
you will not think this another way of asking you to offer
me the security of some compensation which might extend
to my children ; and with a view to avoid any such conclu
sion I do assure you, after having given myself a whole night
to think of it, I feel the objection which I have stated abso
lutely insurmountable.
' As your wish to see me at Wimbledon was only on the
supposition of my being inclined to accept and treat upon
your proposal, I have thought that, in the event of my
declining it, you would be better pleased to receive my re
fusal in a letter than by myself.
' I despatch this letter I confess with some considerable
fears, but yet not without some hope that you will be satis
fied with the reasons it contains ; and if you are so I hope it
will not seem too much in me to request that you will have

EARLY LIFE. 25
the goodness to communicate to the Duke of Portland, Mr.
Dundas, Lord Spencer, and every other person concerned in
the proposal, how deeply sensible I am of the great kindness
and honour which they intended for me.
' I am, dear Sir,
' With great sincerity,
' Your most obliged and faithful servant,
(Signed) ' Sp. Perceval.
' Sunday Morning, Jan. 3, 1796.'
The reply to Lord Spencer was couched in such
similar language that it seems hardly necessary to
quote it.
4. Mr. Pitt to Mr. Perceval :
' Wimbledon, Sunday, Jan. 3, 1796.
' My dear Sir, — The sentiments which led (me ?) to form
an earnest wish that you should be induced to undertake the
situation which my former letter proposed to you, must cer
tainly make it a matter of great regret to me to find that
you decline it. But I hope you will believe that I am not
on that account less sensible of the kind and liberal manner
in which you express yourself on the subject ; and I will
very fairly own to you that, however strong my wish might
be with a view to the public service, I must admit the justice
and force of the considerations which have led you to decide
as you have done. ' Believe me, my dear Sir,
' Yours faithfully and sincerely,
(Signed) ' W. Pitt.'
Lord Spencer followed on the Sth with an equally
flattering rejoinder.
Other changes had in the meanwhile occurred in
Perceval's condition. His "wife had presented him

26 ' EARLY LIFE.
with a daughter in 1791 ; another daughter in 1792 ;
a third early in 1794 ; a son in 1795 ; and another
son in 1 796. After the birth of the two first of these
children he moved from his lodgings in Bedford Eow
to a house which he purchased in Lincoln's Inn
Fields; the increase of his family necessitating a
change, which his wife's fortune and his own pro
fessional advancement justified.'
Like many other eminent men, Perceval, at this
period of his career, availed himself of the preparation
which a debating society affords, for the strife and
conflict of parliamentary warfare. Every Monday
evening the members of this club were accustomed
to meet at the ' Crown and EoUs ' in Chancery Lane.
Th,e majority ofthe members — Perceval himself tells
us — were staunch Tories. Some of them — Mr.
Yorke, Mr. Eyder, Mr. Frankland, Mr. Sturges
Bourne, and Mr. Vansittart, — achieved afterwards
more or less political celebrity. Perceval was an
unfailing attendant and a constant speaker. The
drafts of some of these earlier efforts are stUl in
existence, and strikingly illustrate the industry and
zeal of the young lawyer. There is, indeed, some
reason to suppose that Perceval occasionally threw life
into a one-sided debate by adopting the view fi'om
which he in reality differed. On no other principle
J Sir Thomas Wilson, though he had objected to Mrs. Perceval's
marriage, made the same settlement on her as on his other daugh
ters. The house in Lincoln's Inn Fields seems, from a note among
Perceval's papers, to have been purchased from Mr. Baron Parry's
executors for 4500^,

EARLY LIFE. 27
is it easy to account for some of the opinions which
he expressed at the ' Cro"wn and EoUs.' We find
him, for instance, arguing with great eagerness
against the policy of endo-wing a Church, and in
sisting that it would be an advantage to the Church
of England if her ministers were solely dependent on
the voluntary contributions of their congregations.
We find him earnestly advocating the surrender of
Gibraltar to Spain, and contending that its retention
was only a source of considerable burthen to this
country. His speech on this occasion, which was
evidently prepared with some care, affords a good
example of the young lawyer's style. Ingeniously
omitting the circumstance that Gibraltar was in
reality not a colony, but a naval station, he re^viewed
the different circumstances under which the possession
of colonies could be advantageous, and of course
easily showed that none of the necessary conditions
were fulfiUed in Gibraltar. Was it then desirable to
retain it as a monument of national glory ? Enthu
siasm does not depend on a monument, but on the
history the monument commemorates. ' Consider
the Egyptian Pyramids ; the wonder and admiration
of all ages ! When we find the learned, of all de
scriptions, puzzHng their ingenuity to discover, amidst
inconsistent and contradictory stones, the real cause
for which they were erected, and the real name and
event which they were intended to perpetuate — this
alone is clear, that the true credit and character and
fame, of what was intended to be recorded by them,

28 EARLY LIFE.
has not been much assisted by the perpetual dura
bility of those vast pUes. When, on the other hand,
one sees TuUy hunting, amidst fragments and ruins,
and rubbish and weeds, for the lost and neglected
tomb of Archimedes, one sees how little the fame of
that man was indebted to his monument, and how
much more his monument to his fame.'
But the occasion was at length arriving when
Perceval was to take part in a very different con
troversy to any of those in which he had been so fre
quently engaged at the ' Crown and EoUs.' The death
of Lord Northampton, in AprU 1796, raised his son.
Lord Compton, to the House of Lords. A vacancy
consequently ensued in the representation of the
Borough of Northampton ; and Perceval, a near kins
man, the Deputy-Eecorder of the borough, and a
young man of capacity and promise, was selected as
Lord Compton's successor. The election was on the
eve of a dissolution, and it was not apparently
thought worth while seriously to contest a seat,
when a general election would immediately after
wards afford a better opportunity for disputing it.
Perceval's return was consequently in the first in
stance unopposed ; but Parhament was almost imme
diately afterwards dissolved, and the young la"wyer
found himself under the necessity of again appealing
to his constituents.
The second election, which occurred immediately
afterwards, was of a different character. Three can
didates contested the two seats, Edward Bouverie, a

EARLY LIFE. 29
son of Lord Eadnor, a Whig ; Mr. Walcot ; and
Perceval. Each candidate was apparently inde
pendent of the other, and Bouverie and Perceval
were ultimately returned ; Perceval, on his part
professing himself grateful even for the trouble and
expense which the contest had occasioned ; because
it had enabled him to distinguish those ' summer
sunshine friends, who lend their notes of acclamation
and voices of applause when the sky is clear and the
prospect around is cheerful, but who in a change of
season are not to be found.'

30

CHAPTEE II.
IN PARLIAMENT.
1796-1798.
Mutinies of the Fleet — Punishment of the Chief Offenders — First
Appearance in Parliament — Debate on the Subsidy to the
Emperor of Austria — Perceval a Supporter of the War with
France — Termination of Negotiations with that Country —
Fox's Motion for Eepeal of the Treason and Sedition Bills-
Question of Parliamentary Reform — Retained for the Prosecu
tion of Binns — Pitt's Scheme for Trebling the Assessed Taxes
— Opposition of Fox — Reply to Sir F. Burdett's Speech on the
War — Pitt's Opinion of Perceval — Land Tax Redemption Bill
— Irish Outbreak of 1798 — Official Appointments.
The new Parliament was opened on the 27th Sep
tember, 1796 : but it was not tiU the 20th of the
foUo"wing May that Perceval's name first occurs in
the pages of Hansard. The successive mutinies of
our fleets, both in the Channel and at the Nore, were
then exciting a widespread consternation throughout
the country. The offer of a free pardon and in
creased wages had had, indeed, the effect of restoring
some of the crews to their allegiance ; but others
still held out, and persisted in the most violent
and treasonable conduct. There was reason to be
lieve that they were encouraged in their disobe-i

IN PARLIAMENT. 31
dience by secret incendiaries ; and it was against the
latter that the Government wisely determined to
proceed. Pitt proposed that any attempt to excite
sedition or mutiny in His Majesty's service, or to
withdraw any part of His Majesty's forces by sea or
by land from their duty and aUegiance, should be an
aggravated species of misdemeanour ; lea-ving to the
discretion of the Court the power of inflicting not
only the penalty of a fine and imprisonment, but,
as circumstances might require, the punishment of
banishment and transportation also. Serjeant Adair,
on the contrary, desired to make the offence felony,
by a temporary Jaw ; arguing with much good sense
that, as it was in the power of the offender on the
charge of misdemeanour only to delay trial, there
would be difficulty and delay, if Pitt's proposal were
carried in its integrity, in bringing the delinquents
to justice. The objection was evidently forcible,
and carried weight tiU Perceval rose. ' A mean,' he
pointed out, ' might be adopted between the propo
sitions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that
of his honourable friend. He thought that it would
be better if the offence was denominated felony, but
within the benefit of clergy, and that there should
be a discretionary power either of transportation or
imprisonment, or, if necessary, of death.' ' The sugges
tion was adopted, though the adoption of the pro
posal was not the only effect of the speech. ' The
speaker's figure,' "wrote the 'National Advertiser'
1 Pari. Hist, xxxiii. 810.

32 IN PARLIAMENT.
fifteen years afterwards, ' was not commanding, but
graceful ; his delivery not dignified, but easy : the
clearness and melody of his voice ; the unaffected
placidity of his manners ; and the benevolent nature
of the sentiments he expressed gained upon the ear
and heart of all parties. He did not enforce, he
won conviction. The propriety of his suggestions
was admitted ; and the beneficial amendment, which
he proposed, was adopted.'
' The satisfaction with which he had been heard,'
the "writer goes on, ' and the attention paid to his
suggestions, induced him to dedicate more of his
time to political matters. He became, in conse
quence, one of the chief supporters of the adminis
tration; and, in the subsequent session, opposed,
with the spirit of true loyalty and aU the power of
eloquence, the introduction of French Eevolutionary
principles. He vindicated the policy of the war,
and the propriety of the measures, to which the
necessity of carrying it on with vigour gave birth ;
and frequently defeated and sUenced the most "vio
lent members ofthe Opposition.''
Such, on the indirect authority of Hansard, and,
according to the more direct statement of the me
moir, which was published immediately after his
death, was the first occasion on which Perceval
spoke in Parliament. The writer of the memoir,
however, probably derived his facts from the His
tory, while it is certain that the History did not
1 ' National Advertiser,' 20th May, 1812.

IN PARLIAMENT. 33
attempt to report all the speeches that were made in
Parliament. There are good grounds for assuming
that Perceval had previously spoken in more than
one debate. Towards the close of the previous ses
sion, Pitt had applied for a vote of credit to meet
unforeseen expenditure : and, immediately after the
dissolution, had devoted some portions of it to sub
sidising the Emperor of Austria. The subsidy,
strictly speaking, was, to say the least, irregular. The
irregularity became the greater from the omission
of any mention of it on the assembly of the new
Parliament in the speech from the throne. An
account was ordered, on the 28 th November, of the
manner in which the vote of credit had been
expended ; and, on the presentation of the account
on the 7th of the foUowing month, the transaction
for the first time became known. The ferment,
which its publication created, might, perhaps, have
been foreseen. On the evening of the 13th De
cember, Fox attacked the Ministry in the House.
On the morning of the same day, a resolution, con
demning its conduct, was adopted by the City.
Backed by this authority. Fox made one of his
bitterest and most brilliant speeches. Studiously
abstaining from discussing the abstract expediency
of the grant, he based his arguments on the safer
ground that the House of Commons had alone the
power to make it. The Ministry, he insinuated,
must have adopted the more irregular course for the
VOL. I. D

34 IN PARLIAMENT.
sake of creating ' a precedent against the Consti
tution.' '
Perceval certainly prepared and probably deli
vered an elaborate reply to this speech. He began
it by complaining of the difference between the
right honourable gentleman's arguments and the
language of his resolutions. If he was justified in
saying that the transaction had been deliberately
planned for the purpose of introducing a principle
and a precedent, he was not justified in ' calmly
and coldly ' dropping in his resolution ' all these
circumstances of aggravation.' The necessities of
the occasion • were, he insisted, sufficient to justify
the expediency of the grant. It is impossible to
doubt ' that the measure was for the pubhc good ;
that it was wisely and honestly adopted in the
common cause ; and that every man in this nation,
who has at heart the success of his country in the
present contest, does at this hour sincerely rejoice
that it was taken.'
That this speech (unquestionably the first wliich
Perceval prepared for delivery in Parliament) was
actually spoken is certainly probable. It is, in the
first place, very unlikely that a young lawyer -with
a large and increasing practice should have been
at the pains to elaborately write out a long speech
and then refrain from making it ; but, in the next
place, the debate commenced on the Tuesday and
• Hansard's Pari. History, vol. xxxiii. 1297, &c.

IN PARLIAMENT. 35
was not concluded tiU 3 a.m. on the following
Thursday, when Fox's motion was rejected by 285
votes to 81. It is certain, therefore, that many
speeches must have been delivered of which no
record now exists. It is fair to presume that one
of these may have been the speech which, as the
rough draft stUl in existence proves, Perceval cer
tainly prepared for delivery on the occasion.
Such, then, notwithstanding the indirect testi
mony of Hansard, was in all probabUity the first
occasion on which Perceval addressed the House.
It is interesting to see that, in the first speech
which he prepared, and, in all probability, in the
first which he delivered, he committed himself to
an uncompromising support of the great war with
France, which was the distinguishing feature of his
policy from the commencement to the termination
of his parliamentary career. About a fortnight after
this speech had been delivered, the King sent a
message to the House, announcing the termination
of the negotiations with France.' There can at
this time be very little question of the extreme
moderation which the Enghsh government had dis
played throughout these negotiations. Our original
advances through Mr. Wickham, our envoy at Basle ;
our subsequent negotiations through the neutral
government of Denmark ; the despatch of our pleni
potentiary. Lord Malmesbury, to the French frontier,
in accordance with the suggestion of the French
1 Commons Joui'nals, 26th Dec, 1796.

36 IN parliament.
Directory ; and our offer to cede some of our most
important conquests — St. Domingo, Martinique, St.
Lucia, and Tobago — and to retire from the territory
which our troop swere occupying in Italy, stipu
lating only that France should yield to Austria the
line of the Moselle, contrast favourably with the
resolution of the Directory that any further nego
tiations should be conducted on the basis that any
territory which had, even temporarily, been occupied
by France should be regarded as part of the indi
visible Eepublic. Even if Lord Malmesbury had
not been dismissed from Paris, the arrogance ofthe
French Eepublic would have sufficiently demon
strated the impossibility, at this juncture, of con
cluding an honourable peace.
But the Opposition thought otherwise. Erskine
immediately rose to oppose the Ministry. PoUen, on
the 1 Oth AprU, again urged the conclusion of peace ;
whUe, on the 19th May, Alderman Coombe followed
up the attack with an address to the King, praying
him to dismiss his present ministers, ' as the most
likely means of obtaining a speedy and permanent
peace.' '¦ Notes stUl exist of a brilliant and charac
teristic speech prepared by Perceval for delivery on
the occasion. He denied in it every proposition
which the mover of the Address had advanced. The
ill-success of our aUies in Germany and France had,
he showed, been compensated by our o-wn happier
fortune at sea. Though the Bank had been com-
' Pari. Hist, xxxiii. 554.

in parliament. 37
pelled to suspend cash payments, its credit could
not be said to have gone : indeed — and the argument
deserves quoting— 'it is rather odd that, when the
paper circulated under circumstances which enabled
the holder to convert it immediately into gold, it
should be proof of the great credit and reliance
which was given to the solidity and solvency of the
Bank ; and that now, when it cu-culates under cir
cumstances which compel the holder of it, if he
takes it at all, to take it under an inability of
converting it immediately into gold — that this
should prove that the credit of the Bank was
gone. To contend this must be to contend that it
is a less proof of credit to be trusted for an inde
finite period than to be trusted for an hour and a
day." The main object ofthe motion he resisted on the
ground that the removal of Pitt would necessarUy
involve the installation of Fox in office. The latter
was pledged to a policy of Parliamentary Eeform,
and to the Eepeal of the Treason and Sedition BUls
of the previous year. Such a policy was so objec
tionable that it was impossible to pave the way for
it ; and those who agreed "vsdth him on this point —
whatever opinions they might entertain of the con-
1 The argument of course is far more ingenious than sound.
It was an exaggeration to imply that our credit was better, though
cash payments were suspended. But the exaggeration was the
best possible illustration of the incorrectness of the argument that
our credit was lost because our paper could not at any moment be
exchanged for cash.

38 IN parliament.
duct of the war — had, consequently, no alternative
but to support the Ministry.
An opportunity almost immediately occurred for
the direct statement of his opinion on the two points
which thus chiefly influenced him in desu-ing to
retain Pitt's Ministry in power. Immediately after
the di-vision on Alderman Coombe's motion. Fox
moved for the repeal of the Treason and Sedition
BUls. The motion had been long on the notice
paper, and had been postponed from time to tirae
on the ground that it would not have had a fair
reception when men could think and talk of nothing
but the suspension of cash payments.' The speech
in which Fox commended his proposal was unusually
powerful. Even in his speeches it is difficult to find
more stirring language than in the grand passage
in which he called on Pitt to teU him, ' If freedom is
not as conducive to order and strength as it is to
happiness ? Say so ! and I will enter the lists with
you and contend that among all the other advan
tages arising from liberty are the advantages of order
and strength in a supereminent degree. Liberty is
order ! liberty is strength ! Good God, Sir ! am I to
be called upon on this day to Ulustrate the glorious
and soothing doctrine ? '
It is easy now to see that Fox was in the right,
and that Pitt's repressive acts were unjustifiable
because they were unnecessary. But, however clear
this may be to us now, it is fair to remember that
1 Pari. Hist, xxxiii. 615-619.

IN PARLIAMENT. 39
contemporary statesmen had less opportunity of
arri-ving at a correct judgment. The sailor, who,
with a falling glass and a threatening sky, 'lowers
his topmasts and stands out to sea, may possibly
be over-cautious ; but we do not blame him for
wasting time from an excess of caution. The Habeas
Corpus Act has certainly been suspended without
necessity on more than one occasion ; but the histo
rian, writing after the event, has rarely ventured to
find fault with the minister who was obliged to act
in the presence of it. So, too, with Pitt's Eepressive
Acts. We can see now that the storm might have
been weathered without any recourse to exceptional
machinery, but it does not foUow that the extent
of the danger could have been ascertained at the
time. ' I defend these acts,' wrote Perceval in the draft
speech which he prepared and probably delivered in
the debate, ' as a temporary sacrifice of one of the
means of constitutional security for the preservation
of that constitutional security itself The House
adopted the same view : Fox was beaten by 260 votes
to 52 ; and the Eepressive Acts remained in force.
Four days afterwards the second of the two
subjects, which had induced Perceval to resist a
change of ministry, came before the House. For
the first time since 1793 Grey introduced the subject
of ParKamentary Eeform : his scheme was a very large
one, — the enfranchisement of copyholders and lease
holders of a certain value in counties, and the insti-

40 IN PARLIAMENT.
tution of household suffrage in boroughs.' And here,
again, we must remember that there is some danger
of our sympathies running away with our judgments.
Now that the county franchise, which Grey sug
gested, has been in operation for forty years, and
that we have succeeded in establishing in boroughs
the extended suffrage, which the Eeformers of 1797
merely suggested as a possibility, it is no doubt
easy to assume that Grey's proposal was moderate.
But, if it be an error in statesmanship to be too late
in conceding a reform, it is a still graver mistake to
be too early in initiating it. The real test of the
necessity of a reform is the strength of the demand
for it ; and in the few rough notes, which stiU exist
in Perceval's handwriting, of a speech evidently
prepared for delivery on this occasion, he properly
placed the question on this footing. ' I am told,' he
wrote, 'that it wUl concUiate a large majority: I
believe that those who wish for it are not a large
majority, but, on the contrary, a minority. And,
when gentlemen talk of doing this to concUiate,
you should consider how many you wUl alienate,' —
language which has, of course, been repeated by a
long succession of reactionary statesmen, but justified
in 1797 by the circumstance that for more than
thu-ty years afterwards — the lifetime of an entire
generation — no signs were visible of any real popular
desire for reform.
Perceval probably on this occasion felt the more
1 Pari. Hist, xxxiii. 667.

IN PARLIAMENT. 41
strongly, because he had been lately retained by
the Government to conduct the prosecution of a man
named Binns, an emissary of the Corresponding
Society of London. Binns had deUvered an inflam
matory speech at Birmingham on the 11th March,
1796. The speech was ostensibly directed to the
promotion of Parliamentary Eeform. In the course
of it Binns, according to the indictment, had stated
that His Majesty and His ministers are weU convinced
that annual parliaments and household suffrage are
most conducive to the happiness of the people ; that
they had granted this very remedy in Corsica which
they were refusing to the King's natural subjects ;
that it was consequently the duty of aU citizens to
use every peaceful means in their power to secure
these legitimate ends ; but, if the King and His
ministers continue obstinate, 'there should be a
time when force is necessary to be used : then he
hoped, that every man in that room would be ready
to shed blood.' The trial was originally fixed for
the spring assizes, but was ultimately postponed
till the following summer. Binns was defended by
EomUly with considerable ingenuity. The two wit
nesses subpcBnaed on behalf of the Cro-wn did not, he
showed, agree in their statements. One swore that
Binns had stated that household suffrage and annual
parliaments were most conducive to the happiness of
the people ; the other that these reforms were not
inconsistent with such a result. The one swore that
Binns had referred to the opposition of the King

42 IN PARLIAMENT.
and ministers as justifying a resort to bloodshed;
the other that he had only alluded to the opponents
of Parliamentary Eeform. Perceval replied, -with
much good sense, that these variations were not
inconsistencies : no two men could be expected to
describe a speech made a year before in precisely the
same way. Eomilly, upon this, called six witnesses
for the defence, all of whom agreed precisely in their
account of what had passed. The meeting, they
said, was solely in favour of Parliamentary Eeform.
Peaceful means were the only machinery which
Binns had recommended for obtaining it. There
had, indeed, been one reference to the necessity for
bloodshed, but it had solely related to the possibiUty
of a bad minister doing away with the liberty of the
press and trial by jury. Sir W. Ashurst, who tried
the case, told the jury that, should any minister
attempt to do away with these privUeges, it would
be the duty of every peaceful citizen to take up
arms.' The trial had already lasted twelve hours,
when the judge concluded his charge. After deli
berating for three hours more, the jury retumed a
verdict of Not Guilty.
It is impossible to read an account of this trial
1 So, at least. Sir W. Ashurst is reported to have said. If he
really did say so, he can hardly have thought out his speech with
the care whicli would have been becoming to him. Peaceful
citizens, Sir W. Ashurst must have known, should act through
their representatives in Parliament. The proper course with a
bad minister is to turn him out, and a judge should be the last
person to advise an appeal to force.

IN PARLIAMENT. 43
without perceiving that the Ministry was ill-advised
in hazarding a prosecution. However reprehensible
Binns' language may have been, his speech was con
temptible. The meeting, at which it was delivered,
was only attended by fifty or sixty persons ; and
Binns was an obscure man, whose reputation would
not have extended beyond the narrowest of circles,
if a fictitious importance had not been imparted to
his proceedings by the action of the ministry. But,
on the other hand, we must remember that, how
ever much we may be disposed to blame the Govern
ment, Perceval was not responsible for their de
cision. His only connexion with the cause was his
brief; his only duty to use every effort to obtain
a conviction. He faded, partly because the case
had been badly prepared by the Treasury ; and
partly, we may presume, from the natural reluctance
of a jury to convict the obscure emissary of a power
ful society of a political crime.'
Parhament was prorogued on the 11th July, and
did not reassemble till the 2nd of the following
November. Early in December Pitt proposed his
famous scheme for trebling the Assessed Taxes. The
scheme was so regulated ^ as to fall only partially
1 Binns was subsequently indicted for treason at Maidstone, in
common with O'Coighley, Connor, &c. But fortune again be
friended him. O'Coighley \ras hanged ; Connor transported ; but
Binns was again discharged. The trial, on which Perceval was
engaged, will be found fully reported in Howell, vol. xxvi. p.
595. * The tax was not literally trebled. In those cases in which

44 IN PARLIAMENT.
on the poorer classes of tax-payers. It was calcu
lated to raise the yield of the Assessed Taxes from
2,,700,000Z. to 8,000,000?. a-year. The plan met
with the warm approval of the majority of the
House ; but it was assailed with unusual bitterness
by the Opposition. Fox, in deference to a request
from his constituents, returned from his secession
to oppose it. His r-eturn was marked by an unusual
incident. Wigley was speaking ; and a burst of
applause, which interrupted the speaker, announced
the great man's approach. Fox spoke late in the
evening ; and naturally was at pains to account for
his retirement. ' No services,' he argued, ' which
any individual can render by his attendance, wiU
counterbalance the mischiefs which must arise from
giving countenance to an opinion that the decisions
of this House are always the resiUt of full discussion.
. . . Nothing short of a total reform of our late
system ; nothing short of our reverting to the prin
ciples of the constitution, to the popular maxims
of our ancestors, can save us from utter ruin. See
ing that by my attendance I was unable to prevail
on the House to adopt these principles, I omitted
to attend ; but I attend this night in consequence
of what to me at least is an important sentiment —
it only amounted to 11. it was raised to IZ. 10s. Where it amounted
to 21. it was increased to 31. Payments of 31. and upwards were
trebled ; those of il. and upwards quadrupled. The scheme was,
according to modern notions, in many ways imperfect ; it was
abandoned in the following year.

IN PARLIAMENT. 45
the propriety of yielding to the request of my con
stituents.'' Perceval seems to have intended to have spoken
immediately in reply ; for there is a draft speech
still in existence in which, in reference to some of
Fox's arguments, he deprecated the discussion of
detaUs untU the House was in committee. For
some reason or other, which it is impossible to as
certain now, the intention was not carried out ; and
the opportunity, which Perceval desired, never oc
curred till the third reading of the bUl on the 3rd
and 4 th of January, 1798. The long interval,
which thus elapsed, afforded him unusual time for
preparation. The rough notes for the speech on
the second reading, and the more careful draft of it
which he had subsequently prepared, were both dis
carded ; and a new speech, occupying forty pages
of foolscap (part of which, however, was a nearly
literal transcript of the previous one) was prepared.
Primed with this carefully considered document,
Perceval went down to the House on the 3rd Jan
uary. On that evening, however, Burdett made a
bitter attack on the Ministry,' ' I would oppose the
granting of supplies,' he said, ' because I detest the
purposes they are intended to promote, — the pro
secution of this disgraceful war ; and the support
of an infamous system of corruption. These are the
accursed ends for which the people of this country
are to groan beneath a load of increased taxes.' The
1 Pari. Hist, xxxiii. 1100 and 1110. ' Ibid. p. 1156.

46 IN PARLIAMENT.
partakers of the present system of abuses were
aware that the establishment of a wise and frugal
'government in France might possibly infect the
people of this country with a desUe to see their
affairs admuiistered m. a wise and frugal manner.'
Perceval determined, -before replying to Fox, to
notice this wild declamation of Burdett. The ad
journment of the debate, from the 3rd to the 4th
January, afforded him the opportunity, which at this
period of his career he seems to have uniformly
desired, of committing his speech to paper. He
accordingly drew up four pages of foolscap to pre
cede the deUvery of the forty which he had pre
viously prepared. After noticing Burdett's attack
on the war, he went on to ask, ' In what stage of
it does the Honourable Baronet feel himself im
pelled by his duty to declare against the war ? when
there is an army of England embodied on the op
posite coast ; when a French invasion, — with all the
train that attends a French invasion, — is openly
threatened, and directed against the existence of
this nation.' With stiU more force he proceeded to
deal -with Burdett's argument that the Ministry had
plunged into the war from a fear of the consequences
which the prudent and frugal administration of
affairs in France might entaU on this country.
'What, sir,' he asked, 'is the fact? WhUe the
government of France was provisional, while their
theories of economy were left untried, this govern
ment was at peace with them ; and it was not until

IN PARLIAMENT. 47
their theories were brought into practical operation,
and the promise of economy was kept in the most
extravagant profusion, that this country did go to
war.' From replying to Burdett, Perceval proceeded
to deal in detaU with Fox. He did not, he pre
mised, think this a fitting opportunity for entering
into many of the topics which had been brought
forward in that debate ; though he admitted that
honourable members on the other side of the House
had an excuse for doing so which did not apply to
himself ' The attendance of the right honourable
gentleman seems to depend upon this question, —
how far he shaU think it right, in obedience to his
constituents, to do what he thinks wrong. . .
But other gentlemen, whose attendance does not
depend upon any instructions of their own consti
tuents, but upon some sense of duty, best known
to themselves, of following the example of the right
honourable gentleman, cannot be expected to be
able to conjecture what it may be their duty to do
on any other day. Upon the propriety of gentle
men seceding from their duty in this House, and
particularly at the present moment, I do not feel
disposed to detain the House with many observa
tions .... One ground, stated by the right
honourable gentleman, seems to me to be the very
last that should be urged by a man of any serious
thought in defence of such conduct. He says that
his absence is justified because his opinions, had he

48 IN PARLIAMENT.
been present, would have been overruled by the
majority of this House. If the very reverse of this
statement were the truth, it might afford, perhaps,
some excuse for their absence. If they felt that
those they left behind them expressed their senti
ments, gave effect to their opinions, acted upon their
principles, they might then find an excuse for their
absence in saying and feeling that the country lost
nothing by it. . . . But to withdraw their
light from the country when they think she is in
darkness without it ; to withhold their ad-vice when
they think that the counsels that are pursued are
wrong ... is not reconcUable with any prin
ciple of enlightened duty. If indeed their opposi
tion is not directed against the measures but the
men ; if all their opposition aims at, is not the pub
lic advantage of the country, but the indi-vidual
advancement of themselves, then indeed it is no
difficult matter to account for their abandoning a
course of service, in which their expectations have
been soured by disappointment, and in which they
are supported by no strong sense of duty or of con
science. . . . But, had the objects of their pur
suits been of a more enlightened nature, such dis
couragement could not have had the same effects ;
then the great incitement to their exertion would
have been a sense of duty, its great reward the
consciousness of having discharged it.'
From dealing in this manner with Fox's seces
sion, Perceval went on to consider his demand for

IN PARLIAMENT. 49
reform. ' What then,' he asked, in a passage which
became famous in the debate, ' is this total radical
and fundamental reform of the whole system, which
is the price we must pay for the right honourable
gentleman's assistance ? . . . The right honourable
gentleman is fertile in explanation when any phrase
that he has adopted seems to be rather too strong
and hard for the public ear, too highly seasoned for
the public taste ; and perhaps this ingenuity and
adroitness may be exercised on this very phrase.
Perhaps we may hear that a reform of the whole
system means an alteration only in some of its parts ;
that a radical reform meddles only with the branches
and the trunk, and has no concern with the roots ;
that a fundamental reform leaves the foundation
entirely untouched. But, sir, put it for the moment
that it is capable of this innocent interpretation, the
mischief and danger of this ambiguous expression
. . . arises from this — ^that it is capable of, and most
easily offers, an interpretation of a very different
description ; and — let the right honourable gentle
man 'explain away the meaning of it as much as he
can — every reformer in the country, be his plan ever
so wUd ; let it reach to whatever extent of revolu
tionary -violence and subversion — wUl find in these
words of the right honourable gentleman countenance
for his opinions.'
It seemed necessary to give some comparatively
long extracts from this speech, because it is charac
teristic of the peculiarly antithetical style of Per-
VOL. I. E

50 IN PARLIAMENT.
ceval's earlier efforts ; and because at the time it
unquestionably made a considerable impression on
the House. Sheridan rose almost immediately to
reply. ' The honourable gentleman, who has been
celebrated for epigram, has made a very pretty play
upon these (Fox's) words.' A remark which suf
ficiently shows that Perceval had pre-viously achieved
a reputation for epigrammatic speaking, and which is
wholly inconsistent with the indirect testimony of
Hansard that this speech was, -vsdth one exception,
the first that Perceval had delivered in Parliament.
Later in the evening. Fox foUowed in a similar
strain. ' I now come,' he said, ' to complain a little
of the conduct of an honourable and learned gentle
man who has made a very ingenious speech this
night. . . . He complained of the ambiguity of my
words on a former occasion. Why did he not make
the complaint earlier ? Why take three weeks to
make an epigram on my speech ? ' The debate was
protracted tUl a late hour ; the di-vision did not take
place till 5 a.m. on the following morning : the third
reading was then carried by 202 votes to 75 : Per
ceval — the fact affords additional e"vidence of his
increasing weight — being a teller for the majority'
The indirect praise of Sheridan and Fox suf
ficiently proves the degree of estimation in whicli
Perceval's abUities were at this time held by Ms
1 Commons Journals, 4th January, 1798. Perceval had pre
viously been a teller on a comparatively unimportant division on
the Stamp Duty Acts. Ibid. SOth Dec. 1797.

IN PARLIAMENT. 51
political opponents. The character of the speaker
was beginning to rise ; his political knowledge was
rapidly increasing; his original diffidence was dis
appearing with success ; and he was acquiring ease
and confidence in debate. But the expectations which
were formed of the young lawyer at this period may
be gathered stUl more accurately from the following
anecdote. Five months after this speech, Pitt fought
his famous duel "with Tierney. Eyder, subsequently
Lord Harrowby, was the great minister's second ;
and, perhaps naturaUy, spoke to him of the conse
quences to the country should Pitt fall. ' Whom did
he consider capable of filling his situation in case the
country should have the misfortune to lose him?'
Pitt paused ; but, after a little reflection, rephed,
' He thought Mr. Perceval was the most competent
person, and that he appeared the most equal to cope
with Mr. Fox.' ' The opinion is very remarkable ;
but it tallies -with the prediction which Perceval's
widow frequently related that Pitt on one occasion
had made, ' That young man wUl be the leader of the
House some day.'
The present seemed the proper place for intro
ducing these anecdotes, as Pitt's opinion was pro
bably formed on this particular speech. According,
' The remark will be found in the anonymous Memoir of Per
ceval (p. 8), published after his death, but suppressed by Lord
Arden. The anecdote was related by Lord Harrowby to Jlr.
Dudley Perceval, and published by the latter in his Reply to
Napier.

52 IN PARLIAMENT.
indeed, to Hansard, Perceval did not again address
the House untU after Pitt's duel. But, notwith
standing the silence of Hansard, there can be little
question that he had frequently spoken. One of
these occasions, it maybe inferred from the papers
he left behind him, was on the Land Tax Eedemp
tion BUI. The main features of Pitt's proposal are
famUiar to most persons. The Land Tax, at is. in
the pound, produced a revenue of 2,000,000?. a-year.
The assessment, notwithstanding the alterations in
the value of land, had remained unaltered for a
century ; and there was practicaUy Uttle chance that
it would ever be varied. Pitt proposed to offer the
proceeds of the tax for sale ; the price to be paid for
it to vary with the rise and faU of consols. If, for
instance, consols were at 50, the tax was to be sold
for twenty years' purchase ; an arrangement which
would have the effect of cancelling lOOl. of 3Z. per
cent stock by the sacrifice of 2l. 10s. of land-tax.
The objection, which a modern critic would pro
bably raise to the proposal, is that it has practicaUy
prevented future governments from imposing fresh
burdens on real property ; or, to put it in the
language of popular economists, ' from intercepting
the unearned increase in the value of land.' It
is probable, indeed, if a new land-tax were sug
gested to-day, that the majority of landowners
would regard the proposal as a violation of the
settlement of 1798. But the objection would have
been impossible at the time because Pitt expressly

IN PARLIAMENT. 53
reserved the right of Parhament to impose firesh
burdens on real property.' The opposition, then,
to the measure arose from the disinclination of the
landed interest to acknowledge the necessity of per
petuating a tax which they fondly hoped it might
be possible some day or other to repeal. Lord
Sheffield took a peculiarly prominent part in op
posing the bUl. It was unjust and oppressive, he
argued at one moment ; it was not likely to have
any effect, he insisted on another, because the land
owners would be unable to raise the money to
enable them to redeem. ' I am at a loss,' replied
Perceval, in a speech prepared for, and probably
delivered on, the third reading, 'to conceive what
the noble lord can mean.' If he ' should prove that
the measure wUl be inoperative, it requUes a great
deal more of prejudice than understanding to be
convinced at the same time that it is oppressive.'
Perceval went on to examine the effect of the
three cases possible under the BUl — of the landlord
who redeemed himself ; of the landlord who aUowed
some one else to redeem ; and of the landlord where
no redemption took place. The third case would
obviously leave matters where they were ; the
second would only involve the transfer of an exist
ing payment to the Government to some other
person ; the first would secure the landlord an an
nuity for twenty years' purchase : none of these
would consequently be oppressive. Nor was there
' Pari. Hist, xxxiii. 1366.

54 IN PARLIAMENT.
any force in the argument that the bill was per
petuating a temporary tax ' Let any gentleman
who urges this argument seriously consider what
thought he has that this tax will be reduced, and
then he may estimate the weight of this alteration
in it.' Perceval seems subsequently to have spoken a
second time on this Bill. Some one appears to have
raised an objection, which has' not been recorded in
any history, that, as the abstraction of stock "jvould
tend indirectly to benefit the fundholder, members
who held stock ought to refrain from voting upon
it. ' If it be tnie,' replied Perceval, ' that the ex
pected benefit to be derived by the stockholder from
this measure disqualifies liim from voting for it,
any expected detriment to be experienced by the
landowner would equaUy disqualify him from voting
against it. In short, sir, this mode of reasoning
would tend to establish an opinion .... that the
only persons that are so free and unprejudiced in
their circumstances as to be capable of legislating
are those who have no property at all.'
But a greater question than the redemption of
the land-tax was at this time ripe for consideration.
It is unnecessary in the present place to enter into
the causes which led to the Irish outbreak of 1798.
It is sufficient to say that the convulsion, which had
shaken society in France to its foundations, was
more or less acutely felt in every country of Europe.
Its effects were, of course, most visible where a

IN PARLIAMENT. 55
corrupt and unjust government had created a deep-
seated desire for change ; and unhappUy in Ireland an
unjust and corrupt administration was supported by
a corrupt and unreformed Parliament. Whether
the different policy, which was inaugurated by Lord
Fitz"wUliam in 1795, would have averted the troubles
of 1798, it would be difficult to decide. We may at
least admit that the conscientious scruples of the
King, which led to Lord FitzwiUiam's recaU, has
tened the actual revolt. But the rebeUion might have
occurred if the reforms had been carried out. We
have in our o-wn time seen that the memory of a
grievance fingers long after its removal. The
smouldering discontent, which religious inequality
had created, might possibly have been fanned into
a flame, if the Eomanists had been previously re
Ueved of their most conspicuous disabUities.
The effect of the revolt in this country was
striking. The English were thoroughly alarmed ;
energetic measures were at once seen to be ne
cessary ; stirring debates took place in Parliament ;
and Fox, who since the passage of the Assessed
Taxes BUl had again absented himself from the
House, returned to take part in the proceedings of
Parliament. Unfortunately for his reputation, the
conduct which he pursued at this juncture was un
worthy of a great statesman. The e"vident duty of
every Englishman — whatever pohtical opinions he
might profess — was to assist in the suppression of a
rebelhon which was threatening the integrity of the

56 IN PARLIAMENT.
empire. Fox, on the contrary, seems to have re
garded the insurrection as a fitting opportunity for
embarrassing the Government. Three important
debates took place on Irish matters in the month of
June.' The first, on a motion of Sheridan's that a
committee be appointed to take into consideration
the state of Ireland; the second, on an off'er com
municated to the House of some militia regiments
to serve in Ireland ; the third, on a motion of Lord
G. Cavendish's for a change of system in Ireland.
On the first and third of these occasions strangers
were excluded from the House. On aU three of
them, Perceval seems, from the drafts in his papers,
to have spoken. He resisted Sheridan's motion
on the obvious ground that its success would
strengthen the position of the insurgents. He ex
amined, in the second debate, what was termed the
constitutional objection to the mUitia going to
Ireland : the service in Ireland, he concluded, was
' -within the spirit of the MUitia Act, without being
within the letter of it.' His speech on the third
occasion was of more importance. Lord G. Caven
dish had repeated the objections which had been
advanced a few nights before to the employment
of the mUitia in Ireland. ' It appeared to me, I
must confess, strange,' replied Perceval, ' that the
noble lord should have thought it necessary to recaU
this subject to our attention so soon after the former
discussion  I cannot but suppose that his
' Pari. Hist, xxxiii. 1487 and 1513.

IN PARLIAMENT. 57
principal object was to give the honourable gentle
man (Mr. Fox) an opportunity of deUvering his
sentiments upon it, which, important as it seems to
him now, was not of importance enough last Wed
nesday to induce him to give himself the trouble of
attending his duty in this House. . . . Many gentle
men, I have no doubt, who heard -with regret the
violent language of the honourable gentleman, have
felt some considerable satisfaction in remembering
that there were no strangers in the House when it
was uttered. I own, sir, I feel differently on this
occasion. I wish the gallery had not been cleared.
I should have wished to have enlarged the waUs of
this House, and should have been glad that every
man in England had heard the speech of the right
honourable gentleman  Because I think it is
now too late for such language, or any language, to
do mischief in Ireland  But, though it might
have no effect of mischief in Ireland, it might
have the effect of good, both in Ireland and Great
Britain .... by its being known that the most
strenuous advocate for the measure was one who
would not aUow that the rebeUion of the present
hour was any rebellion at aU.' After this charac
teristic attack on Fox, he went on to notice the
argument that the 12,000 mUitia could not be spared
from Great Britain. Even if a French invasion were
probable that contention woidd not be just, 'because
the force of this country, though reduced by the
12,000 men, would be better able to contend against

58 IN PARLIAMENT.
the French, -with the rebellion in Ireland suppressed
and kept under, than it would with the 12,000 men in
this country, whilst Ireland was a rendezvous for the
French invader.' In the rest of his speech Perceval
endeavoured to show that the insurrection was
directly connected with the French Eevolution, and
promoted by the influence of the French. In the
mterests of the rebels themselves he concluded that
it was desirable that the rebeUion should be put
do-wn, and this could not be done effectually except
by an exertion of Enghsh strength.^
The notes for the second of these three speeches
were written on the back of a private letter, in which
the writer had commented on a technical difficulty,
of no general importance, which had arisen in the
appointment of Perceval's old tutor. Dr. Mansel, to
the mastership of his coUege. Mansel owed this ad
vancement to the solicitations of his old pupU, and
the circumstance is worth mentioning, because it
illustrates the latter's gro-wing influence. 'Don't
raise your hopes too high,' he -wrote to Dr. Mansel,
after an inter-view with Pitt on the 10th May, 'I
am hy no means sanguine in my expectations, but
the application has been most kindly received in
point of manner, and certainly not in any degree so
as to discourage another if this should faU. God
bless you !'
Mansel obtained the appointment he was seek
ing. Perceval himself, in the course of 1798, re-
' Perceval Papers. Cfr. Pari. Hist, xxxiii. 1518.

IN PARLIAMENT. 59
ceived two fresh offices. He was appointed Solicitor-
General to the Queen, and he was made SoUcitor to
the Board of Ordnance. ' I am more immediately
indebted,' he wrote to Lord Arden, ' to the King's
own special favour for this piece of preferment (the
Solicitor-Generalship to the Queen) ; yet I think it
proper for me to write to Pitt on the occasion, and
perhaps also to the Chancellor.' The second of these
appointments he owed to Lord Cornwallis, who se
lected him for it on Serjeant Adamson 's retirement.
' Nothing,' he wrote to Lord Arden, ' could have
been more unexpected by me, for I really did not
know that there was such a place ; and had I kno-wn
it, I certainly should not have expected it to be
given to me.'

60

CHAPTEE III.
IN PARLIAMENT (continued).
1798-1800.
Reassembling of Parliament — Pitt's Proposed Income Tax — De
bate on Tierney's Address to the Crown respecting Negotiations
for Peace — Forfeiture for High Treason Bill — Rejection of
Napoleon's Overtures for Peace — Prophetical Studies — Sheri
dan's Motion for Inquiry into the Causes of the Failure of
the Duke of York's Expedition to Holland — Debate on the
Conduct of the French Roman Catholic Emigres — Projected
Company for the Manufacture of Flour and Bread — Singular
Scene — Bill for the Better Prevention of Adultery — Various
Parliamentary Appearances — Union with Ireland — Conclusion
of the First Period of Perceval's Political Career — Professional
Advancement — Emoluments at the Bar — Peter Plymley's
Amusing Description of Perceval's Family.
Parliament had been prorogued within a week after
the conclusion of the debate on Lord G. Cavendish's
motion. It did not again assemble till the 20th of
the foUowing November. The circumstances, under
which it then met, were more favourable than those
under which it had separated. The great victory,
which Nelson had gained on the first of the pre
ceding August at the mouth ofthe NUe, had definitely
checked the progress of French arms in the East.
The suppression of the Irish rebellion had rewarded

in parliament. 61
the vigorous efforts of the Ministry. The earUer
days of the Session were occupied -with congratu
latory addresses to the Cro-wn ; the voting of thanks
to Lord Nelson ; and the discussion of the Estimates.
The real struggle of the Session did not commence
tUl the 3rd of the following month, when Pitt pro
posed his famous Income duty. ' The natural desire,'
he told the Committee, ' to mitigate the pressure of
the treble Assessed Taxes, had made the measure of
last year slightly less productive than he had origi
naUy anticipated ; and,' as our leading principle
should be to guard against aU evasion, and ' to
endeavour by a fair and strict application to realise
that full tenth which it was our original purpose
to obtain,' he thought it better to get rid of the
Assessed Taxes altogether, and to substitute for
them a plain tax on income. Incomes of 200?. a-
year and upwards he proposed should be taxed 10
per cent ; incomes of 60Z. a-year and under he sug
gested should be excused altogether. For interme
diate incomes he contemplated a graduated scale,
varying in accordance -with their amount. Placing
the income ofthe country at 102,000,000?. a-year, he
felt himself justified in relying on a revenue from
the tax of a little over 10,000,000?. ; or of more
than sufficient to cover one-third of the entire deficit
of the year, which, it had been estimated, would
slightly exceed 29,000,000?.'
The proposal excited a fainter opposition than
• Pari. Hist, xxxiv. 1-23.

63 IN PARLIAMENT.
that of the previous Session. Hobhouse, indeed, on
the report of the Committee being brought up on
the following day, briefly recapitulated the leading
objections to taking income alone as a basis for taxa
tion.' But the first and second readings of the BUl
were passed on the 5th and 6th of December, with
out attracting sufficient attention to induce the com
pUer of the ' ParUamentary Histoiy ' to notice them.
The BUl was committed on the 7th ; discussed more
or less feebly on the 22nd and on the 2 7th ; and
read a third time on the closing day of the year;
only two members voting against the third readuig.
Perceval wound up the debate on this occasion, con
tending that ' the measure would cut up by the
roots all the hopes the enemy entertained from the
downfaU of our funding system ; ' and was a teUer
for the majority in the division that foUowed.
While these debates on the income duty were
progressing, Tierney proposed on the ] 4th December
an address to the Crown : ' That it is the duty of
His Majesty's Ministers to advise His Majesty in
the present crisis against entering into engagements,
which may prevent or impede a negotiation for
peace, whenever a disposition shaU be shown by the
French Eepublic to treat on terms consistent with
the security and interests of the British Empire.'^
The debate is only partially reported in Hansard ;
Tierney's speech, which was chiefly occupied in
replying by anticipation to the constitutional objec-
' Pari. Hist, xxxiv. 24, 26. ^ Ibid. 33.

IN PARLIAMENT. 63
tions which might ob-viously be urged against his
motion ; a most exhaustive and brilliant reply by
Canning ; and a short argument of Jekyll's being
alone given. A carefully prepared draft, however,
among Perceval's papers justifies the assumption
that he spoke early in the debate. He referred, in
this draft, to the explanation which Tierney had
endeavoured to give to the language of his motion.
' I scarce ever recollect,' he wrote, ' a motion
brought forward, which the mover was so disposed
to rest on its negative merits. " I have not stated
that no treaty was to be made ; but only no such
treaty as would impede the negotiation for peace
upon proper terms. I have not said what those terms
are ; but have adopted such a description of them as
must be agreeable to every possible description of
man. I have, in short, so neutralised my motion ; I
have so qualified it ; I have so softened and lowered
it from what I should have liked to have had it ;
that I do hope the House wUl receive it." '
The qualified and cautious language of the re
solution, however, did not lessen its mischievous
tendency, which could only be measured by ' the
inferences which must be drawn from it, not only in
this country, but throughout Europe.' In substance,
the resolution only bound the Ministry to refrain
from advising the Crown to enter into engagements
which might possibly impede the negotiation of a
peace consistent with the security and interests of
the empire. But the Ministry alone could judge

64 IN PARLIAMENT.
whether terms, with which they only were ac
quainted, woidd be consistent with our security and
interests : the literal meaning of the resolution,
therefore, was that the Ministry ' are not to disable
His Majesty from making peace upon the terms
they would approve themselves. . . . Does the
honourable gentleman really mean this, and no
more ? Does he propose a question upon long
notice and after much deliberation ? Does he argue
with the utmost exertion of his talents and his elo
quence to prove it ? Does he disturb the repose
and quiet of his friends, break in upon their retire
ment, interrupt their secession, that they may sup
port him in discussing a truism which no man ahve
can dispute ? ' It is ob-vious that the meaning of the
resolution must be sought beyond the expression,
and that ' it wUl be unquestionably understood to
mean either that this country shoiUd enter into no
treaty at this moment — as any treaty might impede
the making of a separate peace — or at least to enter
into no treaty which could in any event prevent the
conclusion of such a peace. And can any man be
so blind to the events of this period ; can he so shut
up his mind to the lesson which the history of every
separate peace, that has been made by this enemy,
is calculated to impress, as to believe for a single
moment that Great Britaui, in any former period
of the war, at this or any future conjuncture of
it, could have obtained for herself the least particle
of security from insult or injury by a separate

IN PARLIAMENT. 65
peace ? . . . There is no safety for Europe but
by the union and combination of aU against France.
. . . It is under our standard that the Eu
ropean powers may stUl successfuUy raUy for their
own preservation. But if we, who have stood firm
while they have been retiring, shaU show a disposi
tion to retire when they are beginning to raUy, they
wUl abandon themselves in despair to the enemy.''
The few extracts, which have been given from
this speech, wUl be perhaps sufficient to prove that
Perceval was stiU consistent in his determination
to support at any cost the great war -with France.
His resolution in this respect was so strong that he
seems to have uniformly regarded every question of
the day as desirable or the reverse in proportion to
its probable effect on the campaign. Eepressive
legislation, oppressive taxation, became equaUy in his
judgment tolerable if they were directed against
French principles and French interests. It was to
some extent with such a view as this that he seems
to have approached the discussions which took place
in the session of 1798-9 on the Forfeiture for High
Treason BUl. From the earUest periods of our
history a conviction for high treason had involved
the forfeiture of the property of the traitor. An
attempt had been made in the reign of Anne to
modify the law. It was, it had been contended,
cruel to -visit on the chUdren the offence of the
' Perceval's Papers. For the Debates see Pari. Hist, xxxiv.
73. VOL. I. F

66 IN PARLIAMENT.
parent ; and the property ought consequently to be
restored on the traitor's death. It was an obvious
answer to this argument that treason was a capital
offence ; and that, therefore, a stipulation that the
traitor's property should be restored on his death to
his descendants was really equivalent to an enact
ment that there should be no forfeiture at all. But
feeling in politics has in aU ages been a stronger
power than reason ; and the feeUng was so strong
that Somers was unable to resist the proposal on
principle, but only succeeded in postponing it tUl
after the death of the Pretender. Hard-wicke in
1 745 took the same view. The change, he persuaded
Parliament to enact, should be deferred until after
the death of the Pretender's sons. In 1799 one of
them. Cardinal York, was stUl aUve. But he was
an old man ; his death might have occurred at any
moment ; and its occurrence would involve the
termination of a law which his existence did not
certainly warrant. For the dangers of 1799 were
very different from those of 1745. The fear of a
Jacobite insurrection had long since past away.
But the existence of treasonable societies was an
acknowledged fact.
Abbot, on the 9 th May, brought up a BUl for
retaining the forfeiture of goods as part of the punish
ment for treason. The readers of Lord Colchester's
diary wUl be familiar -wdth the interest which the
future Speaker took in the matter. The debates are
only shortly reported in Hansard. The fact that

IN PARLIAMENT. 67
Perceval took part in them is not recorded. But
the draft speech, which is stiU among his papers, is
at once so characteristic and able that it seems
desirable to insert some extracts from it in this
memoir. ' The law for which we now contend,' he
began, in replying to an objection that the prin
ciple of the BUl was new, ' has been the law of
this country ever since the period of the Norman
conquest ; it has been the law of almost all civUised
nations in aU ages ; . . . not that I mean to contend
that its antiquity should be its sufficient support,
but only that its antiquity affords a fair presumption
in its favour.' The real question for consideration,
however, ' is not whether our ancestors have done
wisely or not, but whether the law which indicts
forfeiture upon the crime of treason is a wise law,
and as such ought to be permitted to prevaU. Some
thing must unquestionably be done. So long as we
continue to be so unenUghtened as to consider
treason an offence that should be punished, and not
a venture to be encouraged ; so long as we suffer it
to continue at the head of our criminal code — an
offence more heinous than common felony — for the
sake of our own consistency we must either continue
forfeitures in treason, or discontinue them in felony.'
It is indeed urged ' that it is contrary to the
first principles of justice to punish the innocent
child for the crimes or foUy of his father ; ' and ' to
make this objection more strong, it has been argued
that inheritance is a natural right  Those who

68 IN PARLIAMENT,
think it a natural right -wiU do well to ask them
selves what that right is  If the law of inhe
ritance is a law of nature, which reason indicates
to all mankind .... there would be no room for
those varieties which positive law introduces. Eeason
would probably dictate the same succession to what
our law calls "personal property" as to land 
WiU these persons, therefore, teU us what the
natural law of inheritance prescribes ? _ Does it give
the succession to one son, or to all? to the eldest
or the youngest ? to the sons only, or jointly with
the daughters ? Does it give personal property ia
the same manner as real ? I care not how these
questions are answered, because, .... by the mere
proposing of them, I suggest enough to any thinking
mind to satisfy him that either the law of inherit
ance is the mere creature of positive law .... or else
that he has a great deal more to do, besides opposing
this bUl, before the law of England can be made
consistent with natural justice .... If, then, these
gentlemen wUl follow up their own arguments, they
cannot stop short of rendering property inalienable.
If it be said that they wUl not render property
inalienable, because the interest of society requires
that .... it should be liable to aUenation ; . . . . that
admission concedes and demonstrates that every
claim of the child upon the property of the parent
must be taken subject to all such modifications as
considerations of policy and wisdom render it neces
sary to interpose  The law marks out the heir,

IN PARLIAMENT. 69
when the possessor does not mark him out for himself,
in order to prevent that disturbance of the public
peace which must necessarUy arise upon every con
test for succession ; and the law, on the other hand,
allows the possessor to dispose of his property,
because the great value of it arises from the power
of disposing of it, and that power creates the
greatest stimulus to the industry and exertion of
all individuals.' Parliament was prorogued on the 12th July, and,
with the exception of a three-weeks' session in Sep
tember and October, did not meet again tUl the
21st January, 1800. On the preceding Christmas-
day, Buonaparte had taken the unusual course of
addressing a letter to the King containing a distinct
overture for peace. The Ministry very properly
determined that the answer to the proposal shotdd
be sent through the Foreign minister. Lord Gren-
¦ville, but very unnecessarily directed the latter to
recapitulate in his reply the numerous points in
which the French Government had offended, and
to intimate that the most natural pledge for peace
would be the restoration of the Bourbons. Notwith
standing the discourtesy of our answer. Napoleon
again renewed, through Talleyrand, the overtures
wliich we had refused when made by himself. The
Ministry again rejected the proposal. Its rejection
gave the Opposition in this country an unusual
opportunity. Fox again returned from his retire
ment, wound up the debate in one of the greatest

70 IN PARLIAMENT.
of his speeches, and succeeded in mustering the
unusual number of sixty-four votes in the lobby.'
Though the debate occupies nearly 160 pages in
Hansard, the report is obviously confined to the
three leading speakers on each side — Dundas, Can
ning, and Pitt, on the one ; Whitbread, Erskine, and
Fox, on the other. But it is absurd to suppose that
one ofthe most important questions that ever occu
pied the attention of Parliament was really discussed
by only six speakers ; and we must consequently
assume that the report in Hansard furnishes only
partial e-vidence of particular speeches. That Per
ceval prepared voluminous notes for the debate is
certain, for the notes are stUl in existence. He
based, in them, his defence of the Ministry on the
plausible ground that the propriety of rejecting the
overture really turned on the probability which its
acceptance would have offered of the conclusion of
peace. France would obviously gain, we should as
certainly lose, from a temporary suspension of hos
tilities. It was consequently undesirable to suspend
the operations of war, unless there was reason to
beheve that an armistice would lead to its con
clusion. The probabUity of peace depended partly on the
sincerity of the First Consul — partly on his power.
A ' mere offer to negotiate to my mind proves
nothing .... because the advantage to be derived
by the enemy from the mere fact of negotiation is
Pari. Hist, xxxiv. 1397.

IN PARLIAMENT. 71
quite sufficient to account for his offer  The
professions of sincerity "wUl not weigh much more
when those professions are examined. We are told,
indeed, that the First Consul of the EepubUc has
given many proofs of his determination to maintain
the rigid observance of treaties.' But, ' if this First
Consul of the Eepublic is kno"wn to Europe for
anything besides his military successes, it is for his
breach of faith. His conduct towards Venice, gua
ranteeing the Eepublic on one day, transferring it
to the Emperor the next ; his affected prostration to
the Pope in Italy ; his hypocritical prostration to
Mahomet in Egypt ; bespeak him void of all prin
ciple.' Nor was there any assurance of the stabUity
of the new French Government ; whUe there was
every prospect that its successors, should it be over
thrown, would disown its policy. ' I do not believe
that this Corsican adventurer, brought into the
situation as he has been, can continue possibly to
hold it. I do not believe that a people, who have
now for some years been enthusiasticaUy devoted to
a representative government, "wiU contentedly acqui
esce in that tyranny which is founded on the very
destruction of aU ideas of representation. I do not
beheve that that nation, which has for so many years
been enthusiasticaUy pursuing the idea of liberty,
wUl be contented to kiss the rod of that usurper
who has dismissed their representatives by an armed
force.' It seems possible that Perceval's opinion ofthe

72 IN PARLIAMENT.
instability of Napoleon's government may have been
partly increased by the very singular but charac
teristic study on which he was engaged at the time.
Early in 1800 he published, for limited circulation
among his o-wn friends, a pamphlet, suggesting the
possibUity that the concluding verses of the eleventh
chapter of the book of Daniel ' had been fulfilled by
Napoleon's career in Italy, Egypt, and the Holy
1 The passage in Daniel is as follows : —
' And the king shall do according to his will ; and he shall
exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall
speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall pros
per till the indignation be accomplished : for that that is deter
mined shall be done.
' Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire
of women, nor regard any god : for he shall magnify himself above
all. ' And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push
at him : and the king of the north shall come against him like a
whirlwind, with- chariots, and with horsemen, and with many
ships ; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow
and pass over.
' He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries
shall be overthrown : but these shall escape out of his hand, even
Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
' He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the coimtries : and
the land of Egypt shall not escape.
' But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver,
and over all the precious things of Egypt : and the Libyans and
Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
' But tidings out ofthe east and out ofthe north shall trouble
him : therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and
utterly to make away many.
' And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the
seas in the glorious holy mountain ; yet he shall come to his end,
and none shall help him.' — Dan. xi. 36, 37, 40-45.

IN PARLIAMENT. 73
Land. The King, who shaU neither ' regard the
God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor
regard any God, for he shall magnify himself above
aU,' might, Perceval suggested, be the power of
Papal Eome ; ' the time of the end,' the faU of
the Papacy — which there certainly seemed to be
good grounds for anticipating — 'the King of the
South,' the King of Naples, who had been engaged
in a contest with the Pope ; the King of the North,
the French nation. ' Buonaparte had come against
the Pope;' and, such was the violence of 'his' con
quest, that it might well be compared to a whirlwind :
it ' overflowed ' . . . . his territories, and ' passed over'
to Egypt, and actually invaded the glorious land,
Palestine. Nor did the application of the prophecy
end here. Napoleon did, as a matter of fact, hear
' tidings, out of the East and out of the North,' of a
projected aUiance between England and Turkey,
which did ' trouble' him ; and ' therefore,' or, as Ber-
thier's despatch put it, ' accordingly,' he resolved to
march into Syria, and ' destroy ' the preparations
which had been made for the invasion of Egypt.
At this point, too, he did reach — as the prophecy
had foretold — the end of his expedition, even if the
expression ' his end ' had not a wider meaning, and
did not ' apply generally to the French power.' ' We
may hope,' -wrote Perceval — the -wish, no doubt, being
father to the thought — 'that we shaU date its faU
from the period of its faUure' at Acre.
It is, of course, apparent that neither of the two

74 IN PARLIAMENT.
extracts which have just been given from a speech,
and from a pamphlet, are likely to increase Perceval's
reputation for poUtical perspicuity. But it seemed
necessary to insert the passages ; first, because it is
the obvious duty of biography to present the subject
of it as he ready was ; and, second, because the view
of the prophecy partially explains the opinion
expressed in the speech : the latter affords a key to
Perceval's policy during this portion of his career.'
Seven days after the debate on the rejection of
Napoleon's overtures, Sheridan moved for an inquiry
into the causes which had contributed to the faUure
of the Duke of York's expedition to HoUand. The
motion was resisted by the Government on the
double ground that publicity was undesirable ; and
that two ofthe chief objects of the expedition — the
capture of the Dutch fleet, and the making of an
effective diversion, — ^had been accomplished. Posterity
has not endorsed the view which Mr. Dundas thus
expressed ; but most persons -wUl probably agree
that the iU success of the movement afforded a good
reason for resisting the inquiry. No nation can
afford, during the progress of a war, to investigate
publicly the causes of each faUure. Perceval wound
up the debate for the Ministry in a few sentences, in
which he justified the termination of the expedition,
• The pamphlet was entitled ' Observations intended to point
out the Application of a Prophecy in the Eleventh Chapter of the
Book of Daniel to the French Power.' London : Printed by E.
Cox and Sons, Great Queen Street, 1800.

IN PARLIAMENT. 75
and expressed himself satisfied -with its results ; and
was a teUer for the majority (216 votes to 45) in the
subsequent division.
Perceval certainly spoke on three other occa
sions during the remainder of the Session. The first
and third of these speeches are reported in Hansard ;
the second is expressly referred to in the anonymous
memoir of him, which was pubhshed after his death.
Some of the French refugees, who had fled to this
country from the disorders which were desolating
their own, had devoted themselves to the secluded
hfe which has always found favour with devout
Eoman Catholics. They established monasteries in
several of our most considerable to-wns. The inmates
applied themselves to the education of the young ;
and, perhaps pardonably, though unwisely, attempted
to repay the protection which England afforded them
by an endeavour to propagate their own tenets. The
Protestant portion of the community became alarmed ;
the jealousy of Papal aggression, which is always
dormant among Englishmen, was excited. Was it
to be endured that, in Protestant England, Eoman
Cathohc emigrants should abuse our hospitaUty by
perverting our chUdren ? Had not the patience ot
England been sufficiently tried when two Eoman
Catholic establishments were sheltering themselves
at Winchester under the shadow of the venerable
cathedral ? Sir H. MUdmay, with such language as
this, introduced a Bill into Parhament for the pur-
' Pari. Hist, xxxiv. 1418 and 1419,

76 IN PARLIAMENT.
pose of regulating the societies which were being
estabhshed among us. Angry debates ensued;
Windham and Sheridan exerted all their eloquence
in opposition to the proposal. Perceval summed up
the debate, on going into committee, in a few cha
racteristic sentences. ' It was the spirit of the
Catholic persuasion to make as many converts as pos
sible ; it was our business to be on our guard against
it. There was not a man who had more esteem for
toleration than himself ; but that did not compel him
to lay aside all precautions against the overgro-wth of
Popery in this country. He would not see the hair
of a man's head injured on account of his religious
opinions ; but that did not compel him to think that
Catholics were the best subjects of this country. He
thought that the BUl ought to go into committee ;' '
and into committee the House resolved to go by 52
votes to 24. Perceval and Sir H. MUdmay being
tellers for the majority.
The second occasion, during the remainder of the
session, on which a speech of Perceval's was reported,
was peculiar. A bad harvest had involved great
scarcity and high prices. Many remedies were sug
gested for the difficulty. One, with which we are
immediately concerned, was the incorporation of a
great company ' for the manufacture of flour, wheat,
and bread.' The advocates of the proposal insisted
that the high price of bread was due to a combi
nation among the millers ; and that the combination
' Pari. Hist. xxxv. 367.

IN PARLIAMENT. 77
could only be broken by a powerful company. Its
opponents contended, on the contrary, that the price
of bread was dependent on ordinary economical laws,
which no company, however wealthy, cotdd perma
nently alter. Lord Hawkesbury, Dundas, Eose, and
other Tories, earnestly advocated the BiU. Perceval
was the only conspicuous Tory who joined the Whigs
in resisting it. It was, he contended, ' impolitic,
un-wise, and unseasonable.' The scarcity, there was
reason to hope, would vanish -with the present har
vest ; so that the BUl would only begin to operate
when the e-vU had ceased. He thought it -wrong to
trust any body of men with a monopoly which would
drive the present dealers out of the market, and
throw the necessaries of Ufe into the hands of those
who would have the power to oppress the public,
whenever they should think proper.
The BiU was carried by a majority of four ; and
the division was foUowed by a scene which was
probably unique. Sheridan drew attention to the
circumstance that several members of the majority
had a direct interest in the BUl, and appealed to the
Speaker whether, under the circumstances, their
votes should be aUowed. The Speaker intimated a
pretty strong opinion that they were indecorous, and
ought to be disallowed. Eose, Hawkesbury, and
Browne, argued against the Speaker's ruling. Per
ceval again deserted his friends, and took part with
the opposition. Three votes were actually disallowed;
a fourth was chaUenged, and only admitted in con-

78 IN PARLIAMENT.
sequence of the absence of the member who had
given it. The narrow majority was, in this way,
reduced to only one vote.'
It is, of course, easy to depreciate the merit of
Perceval's conduct on this occasion. Economical
questions are, in the present day, so thoroughly un
derstood, that a mere tyro in politics can perceive
that he was in the right, and his usual friends were
in the -wrong. But it is only fair to remember that,
at the close of the last century, the lessons of poh
tical economy were imperfectly understood ; a young
lawyer might have been excused for gi-ving a sUent
vote with his own friends on such a subject.
The third occasion on which Perceval spoke
during this session was on the bUl for the better
prevention of adultery. Introduced early in AprU
into the House of Lords by Lord Auckland, it had
led to stormy and protracted debates, and had finaUy
been sent do-wn to the House of Commons on the
26th May.^ Its leading provisions were, first, that it
constituted the act of adultery with a married woman
a misdemeanour punishable in the Court of King's
Bench, either by fine or imprisonment ; and, second,
that it prohibited the person, ' on account of whose
adultery such marriage shall be so dissolved,' from
intermarrying with the man or woman ' named in
such act to have committed adultery with the party
complained of The bUl was warmly supported by
Wilberforce and Erskine ; and strenuously resisted
• Pari. Hist. xxxv. 463-465. ' Ibid. 225-235.

IN PARLIAMENT. 79
by Sheridan, Sir GUbert Heathcote, and Perceval's
own coUeague at Northampton, Bouverie. It was
ultimately thrown out by 143 votes to 104 on the
10th June. The short reports of the debate in
Hansard make no mention of Perceval's speech ; but
the elaborate draft, which is stUl among his papers,
would alone have gone a long way to prove that he
spoke in favour of the bUl. The matter is, however,
placed beyond doubt by the express mention of this
speech in the anonymous memoir which appeared
after his death ; and by his o-wn aUusions to it in the
debates which took place on the investigation, in
1809, into the charges against the Duke of York.
It would probably be useless to reproduce a document
which deals with one of the most unpalatable of
subjects. It is sufficient to say that it is at least as
vigorous and logical as any of those earher efforts
to which reference has already been made in this
biography.' Parliament was prorogued on the 29th July ; but
was reassembled on the 11th November. During the
1 There is a good story, which is perhaps worth preserving,
that Perceval was on one occasion retained for the defence of an
honourable baronet, a member of Parliament, who was accused of
this very offence. At one of the consultations before the trial
came on, Perceval told the defendant that he should like to know
before he went into coiu-t whether there was any criminating cir
cumstance which the other side would be likely to be able to bring
forward. ' Nothing at ail, I assure you,' was the reply. ' There
was indeed one occasion when I was found locked up in a cupboard
in the lady's bedroom. But that is nothing. Ladies, you kno-w, are
always locking one up in cupboards.'

80 IN PARLIAMENT.
short autumn session, which then ensued, Perceval is
known to have spoken on three occasions. The first
and most interesting of them was in a debate raised
by Mr. Jones on the evacuation of Egypt; the
second was in defence of the Attorney-General, Sir
John Mitford, from a charge of Tierney's, that he
desired the continued suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act to shelter himself from the consequences
of his refusal to Uberate the persons whom he had
committed ; the third was on a mischievous and
libellous petition from a prisoner in Coldbath Fields.
It affords a striking proof of Perceval's gro-wing in
fluence, that on the fiurst of these three occasions he
wound up the debate for the Government, and that
on the second and third of them he was a teUer
for the majority; the Attorney - General at one
time. Lord Hawkesbury at the other, being the
other teller.'
The Parliament of 1796 had now lasted for a
little more than four years ; but circumstances had
arisen which soon afterwards necessitated its disso
lution. Early in 1799, Pitt had carried in West
minster a proposal for a union between Great
Britain and Ireland; but the scheme had been re
jected by the Irish Parliament. The proposal had
been renewed with more success in the following
year ; and the legislatures of both countries had
been prevailed upon to assent to it. During the
debates on the Union, in the spring of 1799, Per-
' Pari. Hist. xxxv. 598-730.

IN PARLIAMENT. 81
ceval had certainly spoken once. His speech is only
shortly reported in Hansard,' but the fuller draft
among his papers contains one passage which it would
be improper to omit. ' My mind is satisfied,' he con
cluded his arguments by saying, ' that the present
situation of Ireland is most deplorable ; and that the
removal of their legislature, and the removal of it
from the scene and seat of the jealousies and ani
mosities which now distract that unhappy country,
would promise a fairer and speedier remedy to its
distractions than any other measure which could be
suggested. Not that I entertain a hope that this or
any other measure, within the reach of human
"wisdom to de"vise, can operate like a charm ; . . . .
but that, by removing the influence of some of its
worst evUs, hy diminishing, perhaps, the necessity for
keeping alive the political distinction heticeen the
Catholic and Protestant, and hy thus giving to them
all the fldl hlessing of the English C'on,stitntion, ivhich
they at present imperfectly enjoy, the most sanguine
hopes may naturaUy be entertained that the best
and siuest foundations will be then laid, not only for
the permanent connexion between that country and
this, but also for the internal security and prosperity
of that island !'
The close of the century marks the conclusion of
the first period of Perceval's political career. The
perhaps too copious extracts which have been given
from his writings and speeches, -wUl, it is thought,
' Pari. Hist, xxxiv. 406.
VOL. I. G

82 IN PARLIAMENT.
have sufficiently Ulustrated his earUer opinions.
From the time in which he had been retained on the
trial of Horne Tooke and Paine, he had been actuated
by a sincere horror of revolutionary principles, which
had led him to a strenuous support of the great war
with France. The circumstance that the London
Corresponding Society, and other agitators, endea
voured to secure the introduction of those principles
into this country, under the pretext of promoting
parUamentary reform, induced him, in common with
Pitt, to resist the demand for the latter. But,
though in these matters, he was a Tory among Tories,
the passages that have been quoted from his speeches
on the Monasteries' BUl, the Bread BiU, and the
Union, prove that, under other circumstances, he
would have been "wiUing to have supported a more
generous policy. It has been commonly stated that
Perceval was the narrowest and most prejudiced of
statesmen. It is only fair to remember that the
narro-wness of his views, and the prejudices he en
tertained, were equally due to circumstances which
have long ceased to influence our judgments and
affect our conduct.
It has been necessary to notice, during the fore
going chapters, his growing influence in pohtical
matters. His attention to politics had not inter
fered with his professional advancement. We have
already seen that he had been selected for the
Deputy-Eecordership of Northampton, the offices of
Counsel to the Board of Admiralty, Solicitor to the

IN PARLIAMENT. 83
Board of Ordnance, and Sohcitor-General to the
Queen. Towards the close of the century Sir Eobert
Graham, the Counsel to the University of Cam
bridge, was made a Baron of the Exchequer ; and
Perceval was appointed to succeed him.
' I have just received your letter,' he -writes on the 25th
October, 1800, to his old tutor. Dr. Mansel, ' announcing
the honour done me by the University of Cambridge in elect
ing me into the office of their Counsel. The situation is a
very honourable one ; and, therefore, I cannot but be proud
to hold it ; and I should certainly be much more dead to the
sentiments of vanity than I can pretend to be, if I -were not
very much gratified by the flattering manner to myself, in
which it seems your wishes were seconded by the body at
large.' During the same period his emoluments at the
bar had been graduaUy increasing. In 1795, the
year before he received his silk gown, they had
amounted to 1012?.; in 1796 to 1014?. In 1797
they had risen to 1249?.; in 1798 to 1255?. In
1799 they were no less than 1504?. ; and in 1800
they were further increased to 1807?. The sums,
of course, according to modern notions, are not large ;
but, in the first place, it must be remembered that
the profits ofthe bar were, at the close of the last
century, considerably less than they are now ; and,
in the next place, Perceval was stiU a young man,
whose professional life had only extended over four
teen years. ' Erskine in aU his glory,' -writes Camp
bell, 'never realised 10,000?. a-year.' Under such
circumstances a professional income of 1800?. a-year

84 IN PARLIAMENT.
was no inconsiderable reward for a comparatively
young la-wyer.
The gradual increase of his professional profits
must have been doubly gratifying ; for the demand
was growing at least as rapidly as the supply. Mrs.
Perceval had brought him, it is true, a considerable
fortune. But she had also presented him with a very
large famUy. The tenth anniversary of his marriage
had occurred in 1800 ; and in the ten years she had
bome him, at regular intervals, eight chUdren —
seven of whom were li"ving. The three eldest were
girls. The four youngest were boys. 'Peter Plym
ley's ' amusing description of the twelve sons of his
0"wn begetting, walking two and two before Per
ceval to church at Hampstead, -with their faces
nicely washed and their hair neatly combed, was an
exaggeration. But it must be conceded that Per
ceval's famUy was already large ; and that there was
every probabiUty that it would become larger. His
emoluments at the bar were, however, gro-wing so
rapidly, that the circumstance probably occasioned
him no serious anxiety. The change in his position,
which wUl be noticed in the next chapter, must have
removed, tiU his final retirement from liis profession,
any apprehension for the immediate future.

85

CHAPTEE IV.
ADDINGTON's MINISTRY.
1800-1802.
Position of Pitt — Change of Ministry — The Addington Administra
tion — Perceval appointed Solicitor-General — Eemoves to' the
Chancery Bar — Speeches on the State of Ireland — Negotiations
with the First Consul — Fox's Speech at the Shakespeare Club —
Session of 1802 — Debts of the Prince of Wales — Appointed
Attorney-General — Political Situation — Prosecutions of Colonel
Despard and Jean Peltier — Renewal of War with France —
Parliamentary Proceedings — Emmett's Insurrection in Ireland
— Murder of Lord Kilwarden — Napoleon's Threatened Inva
sion — Volunteer Movement — Juverna's Letters — Prosecutions
of Cobbett and Justice Johnson for Libel.
Pitt's position had never been stronger than at
the prorogation of the last' Parhament of Great
Britain on the closing day of the eighteenth century.
He had had a majority in the House ; there was
reason to assume that he had a majority in the
country. If the war had involved great sacrifices,
it had strikingly Ulustrated the extent of our re
sources. If on land our troops had only gained
small successes, the victories of Duncan, Hood,
St. Vincent, and Nelson had added a brUUant page
to our naval history. The rebeUion in the sister

86 addington's ministry.
kingdom had been suppressed ; a union between
Great Britain and Ireland had been effected ; the
career of Napoleon in the East had been checked by
Sir Sidney Smith ; the threatened blow to our
supremacy in India had been averted ; our colonial
empire had been largely extended ; our fiag waved
in undisputed supremacy on every sea. England
was the mainspring of the coalition against France ;
the hope on which every nation in Europe de
pended. Her position was due to the policy of Pitt.
Notwithstanding much suffering and considerable
scarcity, the country rewarded the success of the
Minister by extending to him her confidence.
Yet the danger was greatest when its likeUhood
was least apparent. The very success, which the
Minister had achieved, was the direct cause of his
fall. Towards the close of January, 1801, the poli
tical world was excited by a memorable rumour.
The King had angrily asked Dundas, at a levee,
' What is it this young Jacobinical lord has brought
over in his pocket from. Ireland ? ' The news spread
quickly. Pitt had resigned : Addington had heen
sent for. Though, on the opening night of the
session, Pitt was stiU technicaUy the Minister, and
Addington occupied the chair, weU-informed poli
ticians were aware that arrangements were already
made for the transfer from the one to the other of
the Seals of Office.
Of this unprecedented crisis in English history,
it is unnecessary to say more now. This biography

addington's ministry, 87
has more concern with the arrangements consequent
on the change of Ministry than with the causes
which led to it. The new Ministry was in every
way inferior to its predecessor. Without reckoning
the disparity between Addington and Pitt, Lord
Hawkesbury was unequal to Lord Grenville ; Lord
Hobart to Dundas ; Charles Yorke to Windham.
Addington himself seems to have felt the defects ol
his colleagues. The aid in debate, which they could
hardly be expected to afford him, he hoped — the
result proved "with reason^ — to obtain from his law
officers. In this respect his administration was at
least as strong as Pitt's. Eldon had replaced Lough
borough in the Chancellorship. Pitt's Attorney-
General, Mitford, had succeeded Addington in the
chair. The Solicitor -General, Sir W. Grant, was
made Master of the Eolls in succession to Lord
Alvanley ; with an understanding that he was to
assist the Ministry in debate. Eoom was thus
made for the introduction of Law and Perceval as
Attorney and Solicitor-General. The ' Government
was greatly strengthened,' -wrote Eose, who was
himself retiring, ' by opening the Attorney-General
ship for Mr. Law, -with Perceval as Solicitor-General.'
' We must soon,' -wrote Addington himself to
Abbot,^ ' have a meeting with the Attorney and
Sohcitor-General, Yorke, Grant, &c., and talk over
the three great questions, — 1. Cathohc Emanci-
' Lord Colchester's Diary, &c., vol. i. p. 307.

88 ADDINGTON S ministry.
pation ; 2. Neutral Powers ; 3. Peace and War ;
and prepare for some stout debate.' '
There was one circumstance in connexion with
Perceval's appointment as Solicitor-General which
deserves to be recorded. The King had made a
rule — to the outside world a very absurd one — -that
his law officers should always receive the honour of
knighthood. Since 1 783, when Lord Kenyon had been
Attorney-General, no exception had been aUowed to
this rule. Since 1806, when Perceval resigned the
Attorney-Generalship, no exception to it had been
permitted by George the Third and his successors.
Perceval, however, as an earl's son, had aheady
higher rank than knighthood would have conferred
on him. He was consequently permitted to decline
the inappropriate and unwelcome dignity. EomUly,
in his Diary, has an amusing passage on his o-pm
knighthood five years afterwards. ' I was this day,'
he writes, ' sworn in together with Pigott, the new
Attorney-General. His Majesty was pleased to
knight us both, greatly against our inclination.
Never was any City trader, who carried up a loyal
address to His Majesty, more anxious to obtain than
we were to escape this honour. . . . Perceval, the
last Attorney-General, had been permitted to decline
knighthood because he was an earl's son.'^
'Perceval, on receiving the appointment of So-
icitor- General, relinquished the Court of King's
' Lord Colchester's Diary, vol. i. p. 348.
2 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 136.

addington's ministry. 89
Bench, and practised only in that of Chancery. In
taking this step he was influenced chiefly by the
wish of having more time to devote to his political
duties. But it is doubtful whether he succeeded in
this view. In the King's Bench, though he was
occasionally engaged in conducting causes of great
importance, his business had never been so great as
whoUy to occupy his time. Nor is this to be won
dered at, when it is considered that he had at that
time to contend -with, as competitors in that court,
Mr. Erskine, Mr. Mungay, Mr. Law, Mr. Garrow, and
Mr. Gibbs — aU of them King's Counsel, much older
than himself, and established in great practice before
ever Mr. Perceval was caUed to the bar. But when
he came into Chancery he found competitors less
powerful, and though his disadvantages in entering
a court, in the practice of which he had never been
regularly initiated, were great, he rapidly advanced
in practice, and long before his abandonment of the
bar he had begun to be considered as the most
powerful antagonist of Sir S. Eomilly, the Coryphaeus
of equity draftsmen."
Though Addington, in his letters to Abbot,
had contemplated stout debate, the necessity for it
' Chalmers' ' Biographical Dictionary.' Perceval, it is said, made
the change on the advice of Lord Kenyon. His wisdom in making
it has been doubted. On the one hand, the opinion, which is
quoted in the text, is supported by the circumstance that the
profits at the bar rose rapidly afterwards. On the other, the author
of the ' Recollections of a Welsh Judge ' records a different opin-

90 addington's ministry.
in the first instance was not great. The King's
illness interfered "with the completion of the new
arrangements ; and, though the members of the
new ministry were seated on the front bench,
the real business of Government was conducted by
Pitt, from a back bench behind them. Nor when
the debates actually began is it easy to ascertain
the part which Perceval played in them. On the
one hand, the reports in Hansard are meagre in the
extreme ; on the other, Perceval's gro"wing business
left him less leisure to write out the speeches which
he had intended to make. There are, for instance,
only five occasions on which Perceval is recorded to
have spoken during the session of 1801. Three of
them had reference to the precautions which the
state of Ireland necessitated — two of them to. the
election of Horne Tooke to a seat in the House of
Commons ; on only one of them was any elaborate
preparation made. The speeches on Horne Tooke's
election do not require any specific notice in this
memoir.^ The first of "the three speeches on Ireland
was elicited by an amendment of Whitbread's to
Castlereagh's BUl to continue Martial Law in Ire
land f the third, towards the close of the session,
was in support of a proposal to indemnify officials
who since 1793' had apprehended persons under the
Habeas Corpus Acts. The intermediate speech was
of more importance. Pelham, on the 13th AprU,
brought up the report of a select committee, recom-
' Pari. Hist. xxxv. 1342-1401. = Ibid. 1049. ' Ibid. 1527.

addington S ministry. y ±
mending the renewed suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act, and on the following day had submitted
a resolution to the House to give effect to the report.
The proposal was violently opposed by Burdett and
others, and of course supported by Addington,
Perceval, and Law. ' It can hardly,' Perceval began,
' be a matter for surprise that the arguments of
those who are in favour of this bill should have
little effect on those who are opposed to it. We
have no common feelings on these subjects. . . . On
this side of the House we have uniformly thought
Jacobinism .... a calamity the most serious that
the world ever witnessed ; . . . . whUst, on the
other side of the House, it is stUl a matter of doubt
whether this Jacobhiism is anything but a spirit of
liberty. . . . Differing .... upon all these import
ant points, it is not to be expected we should agree
upon the proper measures to be taken in respect of
them. . . . Because if they think that meritorious,
or at least innocent, which I think highly criminal
and dangerous ; if they think that genuine pa
triotism, which I think genuine treason, the mea
sures which I support .... could never, by any
possibiUty, be approved by them.'
Perceval went on, after this spirited exordium,
to show that ' there is no such alteration in the cir
cumstances of this country or of Europe as to justify
the same House of Commons, which last year en
acted this bUl, suffering it this year to expire.' ' It
is said,' indeed, 'that the loyalty of the people is

92 addington's ministry.
insulted by these laws. I am astonished to hear
such an observation. Did any honest man ever
think himself insulted because a law was passed
against robbery and housebreaking ? Certainly not.
In such a law he sees nothing of insult to his cha
racter ; nothing but protection to his property and
person. The loyal subject also in these laws sees
nothing of insult, everything of protection and
security, to his loyalty and affection.'
Some gentlemen, however, demanded the repeal
of the law, ' because the cncumstances are different
from what they were when the measure was origin
aUy proposed. . . . But to what is this difference to
be attributed ? If the appearances of sedition had
been the same, notwithstanding this law, it might
afford some argument .... to let it expire ; but to
us, who enacted it "with the hope .... that it would
check that disposition to treason which it would
have very little tendency to subdue, it is rather an
argument of doubtful effect to say. You have found
from experience the benefit you have expected, and
therefore do what ? therefore continue it would be
the natural conclusion; but therefore repeal it is
the conclusion of the honourable gentleman.' ^
Before the session of 1801 was terminated, it
was known that negotiations had been opened by
Addington -with the First Consul ; their success was
confidently anticipated when Parliament reassembled
I Pari. Hist. xxxv. 1284, and Perceval MSS. But I have
followed the MSS. in preference to the poor report in the History.

ADDINGTON S ministry. 93
on the 29th October. It was natural that Fox
should rejoice at the conclusion of a war which he
had consistently condemned ; it was imnatural that
his chief cause for rejoicing should have been the ad
vantage of the peace to France. Yet, in a speech at
the Shakespeare, in October, he rested his chief
defence of the peace on the circumstances of the
enemy. Even his friends deprecated his language.
' I do not know,' he wrote to Grey, * whether my
speech was or was not misrepresented ; but I think
it very likely that it really was liable to the inter
pretation you deprecate, and in that respect it was
no doubt indiscreet.'' Here is what his enemies
thought of it : —
'As for Mr. Fox's speech at the Shakespeare,' wrote
Perceval to Lord Arden, ' I think it very abominable. I
think that for an Englishman to say " he liked the peace the
better, because it was a glorious one for France," is a state
ment as disgraceful and as little English as can be uttered.
And when this is attempted to be disguised by considering
it as a triumph of the cause of liberty over the despots of the
earth — when that triumph is distinguished by the success of
a usurper, who is trampling upon every idea, principle, and
feeKng of liberty and independence, by giving new consti
tutions at pleasure and assigning over whole countries to
his nominees — it is such a mockery as to make it next to
impossible to give him credit for thinking what he says ;
and leaves one nothing to do but to believe that it is the
success of Revolution against old-established government,
and the example which that success recommends, which is
really and at bottom the thing that pleases him. Yet why
' Correspondence of C. J. Fox, vol. iii. p. 347.

94 addington's ministry.
this should please him, at his time of life, and with his good
nature . . . it is extremely difficult to determine.'
It is as difficult to ascertain the part which
Perceval played in the Session of 1802 as it is to
appreciate his share in the debates of 1801. In
1801 he had on one important occasion at any rate
renewed his old habit of parUamentary preparation.
In 1802 he does not seem to have prepared a single
speech. The only one of his speeches to which
reference need be made now was that which he
delivered on Manners Sutton's motion on the re
venues of the Duchy of Cornwall The creditors of
the Prince of Wales were, for the second time in
his life, becoming urgent. It was apparent that
some steps must be taken to defray His Eoyal
Highness's debts. But his friends were afraid of the
unpopularity which he would incur if the burden
of his extravagance was again thrown on the nation.
They conveniently discovered that, if the Prince
was compelled to have recourse to the people, the
people were at any rate in debt to the Prince.
Each Prince of Wales was bom Duke of CornwaU.
As such he was presumably entitled to the revenues
of the Duchy during his minority. But His Eoyal
Highness had never received a shUling of them till
he came of age. He was entitled now to recover
the. arrears of which he had been defrauded during
the first twenty-one years of his life. So argued
the Prince's advocates. Perceval, on the contrary,
contended that ' if the Prince had any legal right,

addington's ministry. 95
the proper mode of proceeding, in the first place, was
to ascertain that right in a regular manner. . . .
It had been said that the Prince came forward as
a creditor of the public ; but that was the very
point to be proved. How could he be a creditor,
if he had no right to the sums for which he sought
repayment ? The revenues of the Duchy were in
tended for the support of the Prince of Wales. If
the Prince was living with the King, His Majesty
had a right to the revenues ; and could be no more
asked for an account of the manner in which they
had been appUed, than a guardian could be desired
to account for the expenditure of the sum allowed
him for the support of a minor of large property.'
The House adopted the same view, and supported
the Ministry in a division, in which Perceval was a
teUer, by 160 votes to 103.'
Soon after this speech Perceval obtained a new
promotion. Lord Kenyon, the Chief Justice of the
King's Bench, died in AprU, 1802. Law, as At
torney-General, was selected as his successor. Per
ceval was made Attorney-General vice Law ; and
Manners Sutton succeeded Perceval as Solicitor-
General. ' Poor Lord Kenyon dead,' -writes WUber-
force in his diary, ' and Ned Law succeeding him.
I have hopes Perceval wUl still prove a public bless
ing in a high station. He is to be Attorney-
General'^ Another alteration in the Ministry, which
' Pari. Hist. vol. xxxvi. pp. 438 and 441.
- Diary, vol. iii. p. 46.

9 6 addington's min istry,
in its ultimate consequences, perhaps, affected Per
ceval stiU more closely, happened about the same
time. Lord Clare, who had held the Great Seal
of Ireland during the whole of Pitt's ministry, died
in January, 1802. The new Speaker, Sir John
Mitford, now made Lord Eedesdale, was appointed
to succeed him. Abbot was selected as Sir John's
successor in the chair.
Parliament was prorogued on the 28th June, and
dissolved on the foUowing day. The new Parliament
met on the 16th November, Perceval continuing
with Bouverie to represent the Borough of North
ampton. The position both of the country and of the
Ministry was essentially different from what it had
been during the previous Session. It was no longer
possible to anticipate that the peace, which had been
concluded with France, was likely to endure ; the
nations of Europe were arming, and excusing them
selves from fulfiUing the provisions of the Treaty
of Amiens. Pitt's friends, with Canning at their
head, were secretly urging him to break with Ad
dington and terminate an arrangement, which they
had never relished, and to which they had only
agreed on the supposition that it was pro-visional.
Both of these circumstances became apparent on the
debate which, early in the Session, was raised on
the navy estimates. The Ministry asked for a vote
of 50,000 men. The number seemed large if peace
was likely to be maintamed ; it was too small if war
was probable. Canning wrote to Eose to ascertain

ADDINGTON S MINISTRY. 9 7
Pitt's views on the question. Pitt, who was stay
ing at Bath, advised him to support the Ministry.
Canning refrained from disregarding the advice of
his great leader ; but he was e-vidently dissatisfied.
' Addington,' he wrote to Eose, ' shirked, in the
meanest and most pitiful manner, the whole of the
questions which T. GrenvUle addressed to him ;
indeed, his whole exhibition was as contemptible as
I could wish. His o-wn troops were heartUy ashamed
of him. Perceval spoke late and weU.' ' The At
torney-General's speech,'' he writes in a later letter,
'was a very good one of its kind.' Perceval, in
fact, had taken the honest line, and had spoken out.
' The Ministry proposed this vote,' he said, ' on a
state of things known to every man in the country. '"
It was impossible to censure him at any rate, as he
epigrammaticaUy declared that the government had
been ' censured ; for being sUent on what had been
already spoken ; reserved on what had been already
communicated ; and for concealing what was already
notorious.' ' Our House of Commons politics,' wrote Perceval to
Lord Eedesdale two days afterwards ' in a letter, part only
of which has unfortunately been preserved, 'just now pre
sent a curious scene. I cannot pretend to describe it. There
is Mr. Fox and his friends hot from Paris, who think that
the next danger to be apprehended from France must arise
from that great nation being disposed to enter into any state
1 Rose, vol. i. p. 464. = Pari. Hist. vol. xxxvi. p. 1043.
^ 4th December, 1802.
VOL. L H

98 addington's ministry.
of rivalry with us in which we set them the example. If
we only think of commerce and manufactures, they will only
think of rivalling us in commerce and manufacturing ; but,
if we affect to arm, then they will direct their rivalry in
that line, and meditate hostility against us. . . . Wind
ham and his friends, seeing the danger of the country, and
the mode of avoiding it, in a much truer light, carry, how
ever, things to an absurd extreme in their language. They
feel themselves obliged to admit that they cannot advise a
renewal of hostilities ; and this, coupled with a very eager
wish to remove Mr. Addington from the government, he-
trays them into violence and hostility, which, though it may
be thought to do the Grovemment harm, does themselves, at
least directly, no good in the public opinion. But Mr.
Canning and his friends act the part which is perhaps the
most interesting now. Pitt, as you know, has been pre
vailed upon to go to Bath for his health ; and, thank God !
by all accounts he has derived very decisive benefits from the
waters. Whether his stay is prolonged there to this period
purely on account of his health, or in consequence of some
naore public and political reason, I am not in the secret
enough to know ; but those who are most about him and
most with him, spare no pains to alienate him from the pre
sent Government. Addington, in particular, is most dis
tasteful, to none more than Canning.'^
The political situation was, in fact, excessively
interesting. But, so far as Perceval is concerned,
more interest attaches to the trials, on which he
was engaged, than to the Parliamentary proceedings
in which he is recorded to have taken part. It was
his duty early in 1803 to conduct two important
prosecutions for the cro-wn. The first was that
> The rest of this letter is lost.

ADDINGTON S MINISTRY. 99
of Colonel Despard and his associates for high treason ;
the second, and more famous, that of Jean Peltier,
for a Ubel on Buonaparte. Colonel Despard was a
gentleman of some age ' distinguished in the service,
and amiable in character and manners.'' Five years
before he had been arrested on suspicion, and thrown
into the prison at Coldbath Fields. The attention
of Parliament had at the time been called to his
sufferings. It was alleged that he had been placed
in a bare ceU, without fire, candle, -window, or
furniture ; that he had been denied every comfort ;
refused all intercourse with his friends ; and that
his health had become seriously impaired. The
prison, in which he was confined, had acquhed so
e-vil a reputation that a member of Parliament, on
asking a hackney coachman whether he knew the
English BastiUe, was immediately told that 'every
body knows the Bastille in Coldbath Fields.' The
government, however, had a complete answer to the
charge, in which they were supported by the inde
pendent testimony of Wilberforce, who had person
ally "vdsited the prison. It was well managed, clean,
healthy ; the food was good, and the honourable
gentleman (Mr. Courtenay) had, in fact, been im
posed upon. Perceval, himself, to judge from some
notes among his papers, had taken pa,rt in the
debate, and had caUed on Courtenay to withdraw
a charge which had been so completely disproved.
Despard had been released ; but his release had
' !Mi'. Courtenay in 1798. Pari. Hist. vol. xxxiv. p. 113.

100 addington's ministry.
enabled him to involve himself in a more serious
affair. He had placed himself at the head of some
wUd conspirators, who seem to have seriously pro
posed to themselves to stop the King's coach on his
way to open Parliament, to shoot the horses, and
kill the King. Despard, who was at once the
maddest and shrewdest of the gang, had himself
offered to do the deed, and declared that ' his heart
was caUous.' After the murder of the King, the
coaches were to be stopped ; the stoppage of the
maUs would, it was assumed, act as a signal for the
revolt of the provinces. The defence, which was
conducted by Serjeant Best, was based on the double
ground that Despard's previous services entitled
him to favourable consideration ; and that his pre
sent scheme was so "wUd that it was e-^dently the
creation of a disordered inteUect. Despard, twenty-
three years before, had served with Lord Nelson ;
and the latter himself came forward to bear testi
mony to the services of his old friend. ' We went,'
said the great admiral, ' on the Spanish main
together; we slept many nights together in our
clothes on the ground ; we have measured the height
ofthe enemy's waU together.''
Lord Nelson's testimony was not of course in
point. The question for the jury to decide was
1 The account of the trial will be found in Howell, xxviii. 359.
That of the execution iu the 'Annual Register,' xlv. 369. It is
only fair to Addington to say that Lord EUenborough was strongly
in favour of the execution of the prisoners.

addington's MINISTRY. 101
whether Colonel Despard had been guilty of high
treason in 1802 ; and not whether he had served
with distinction in 1779. Perceval removed the
sUght impression Lord Nelson had made by asking
first, whether the facts, to which his Lordship had
refeiTod, had not happened twenty-three years before ;
and second, whether he had had any communication
with the prisoner since ? Lord EUenborough summed
up dead against the accused ; and the jury returned
a verdict of GuUty, supplementing it, however, with
a recommendation to mercy.
In happier times the Government would pro
bably have gladly adopted the recommendation of
the jury, and have concluded that the success ol
their prosecution had alone accomplished every
object in undertaking it. Unfortunately, as most
persons wUl now think, Addington conceived that a
serious example was necessary. Despard and his
associates were executed. But the responsibUity
of their execution must rest "with the executive, and
not with the law officers. The latter only discharged
the obvious duty of their position in securing the
conviction of the prisoners.
The other trial, on which Perceval was engaged,
has been more widely remembered. Points of con
stitutional importance were involved in it, which will
secure for it a place in every future history. There
are, perhaps, few more striking instances of the
irony of events than is found in the circumstance
that it should have fallen to Perceval's lot to conduct

102 addington's ministry.
a prosecution against Napoleon's libeUer. Few
Englishmen had inveighed more bitterly against
Buonaparte than Addington's Attorney - General.
Few Englishmen had more earnestly supported the
war against the French nation, or resisted more
actively Napoleon's overtures to this country. But
Perceval was Attorney-General ; Peltier's libel was
very gross ; and the Ministry were satisfied that it
could not be left unnoticed. ' The King, upon the in
formation of the Attorney-General,' took proceedings.
It can hardly be necessary to refer to riiore than
two or three of the facts on which the prosecution
was based. Peltier, a French emigrant, had, in the
preceding summer, started a paper 'called the "Am-
bigu," or atrocious and amusing varieties. It has,'
to quote Perceval's own words, ' on its frontispiece
a sphinx, with a great variety of Egyptian emble
matical figures, the meaning of which it may not be
very easy to discover. . . . But there is a cir
cumstance that marks this publication — the head
of the sphinx, which has a crown on it. It is a
head, which . . . from the different pictures of him,
one cannot faU at the first blush to suppose was
intended as the face of the First Consul.'
Two numbers were made the subject of prosecu
tion — the first and the third. ' The third has for its
title the harangue of Lepidus against SyUa parodied,
and is addressed to the people of France. " This
tyger, who dares to call himself the founder or the
regenerator of France, enjoys the fruit of your

ADDINGTON S MINISTRY. 103
labours. . . . His -wickedness increases every
day ; in spite of the security he enjoys, he enters
into new passions. . . . You must act, citizens !
You must march ! You must oppose what is passing
if you wish that he should not seize on all that you
have. . . . You must resolve to serve or to
command, to receive terror or to inspire it. Are we
not reduced to extremities ? What human institu
tion can stop the tyrant ?"' Such is a fair sample of
a long passage which Perceval read to the jury, and
which he characterised as ' a gross libel against the
chief magistrate of France,' and ' a direct exhorta
tion to that country to rebel against him.'
The first number of the ' Ambigu ' was stUl more
scandalous. There were two odes in it. In one of
them were the following lines : —
' Dieux du peuple que Ton opprime
Yengez cette auguste victime
De I'audacieux attentat.
Qu'aux jours malheureux de Brumaire
Les lois ont dans leur sanctuaire
Yu consommer par un soldat.'
The ' Voeu d'un bon Patriote ' in the same paper
was concluded by a prayer for Napoleon's apotheosis: —
' Enfin, et Romulus nous rappelle la chose
Je fais voeu . . . des demain qu'il ait I'apoth^ose.'
If the tradition of Eomulus' death be remem
bered, the lines seemed a direct invitation to
assassination. It was probably impossible for Government to

104 addington's MINISTRY.
avoid noticing a pamphlet of this description. But
the task, which was consequently imposed on Per
ceval, was very distasteful to him. ' It was a
general opinion at the Exchange,' -wrote Peltier,
' that my acquittal would be considered in France
as tantamount to a declaration of war against the
First Consul. The aide-de-camp and the secretary
of the ambassador of the First Consul were placed,
in some sort en faction, beneath the box of the jury
men.' ' Curiosity,' said Perceval, in opening his
speech, ' has assembled an audience of a description
and appearance which does not ordinarily attend the
investigation of cases in courts of justice.' The law,
as the result proved, was with Perceval; but the
sympathy of the pubhc was unquestionably with the
prisoner. Perceval's part in the trial is nearly for
gotten ; Mackintosh's defence is stUl remembered as
' one of the finest essays ever composed.' The result
was no doubt partly due to Perceval's o-wn deter
mination to avoid every sensational point in the
speech which it was his duty to make. ' Perceval
was e-vidently ashamed of the task imposed on him,'
-vtrrites Lord CampbeU. ' On this occasion,' said
Perceval himself, ' my duty, as weU as my inchna-
tion, -wUl not only lead me, but confine me to adliere
strictly to the dry and duU examination of the in
tention, of the meaning, and of the tendency of the
libel now under prosecution.' ' Perhaps,' he con
cluded his short speech, ' I may hear of publications
in the "Moniteur," reflecting on our Government;

addington's ministry. 105
what have we to do with that ? I am standing here
for the honour of the English law, and of the English
nation. I state this to be a crime, and as such have
brought it before an English jury. And, if any
other country think they can prosper by such pub-
hcations as this, let them have the benefit of it, but
do not let us have the disgrace.''
The jury retumed a verdict of GuUty -without
retiring from the jury-box. But the outbreak of
war prevented the punishment of Peltier. It had
for months past been e-vident that the truce, which
the treaty of Amiens had estabhshed, was certain to
be broken. No other result could have ensued from
Napoleon's poUcy. Immediately after the peace he
had sent persons to this country, under the osten
sible pretext of establishing commercial relations
between the two nations, who had busied themselves
with obtaining the soundings of our harbours, and
-with procuring mUitary surveys of the places in
which they resided. He ' had contumed a French
army in Holland against the -wUl and in defiance
of the remonstrances of the Bata-vlan Government.'
' He had violated the independence of the Swiss
> HoweU's State Trials, vol. xxviii. p. 520-619 ; Life of Lord
EUenborough in CampbeU's Chief Justices, vol. iii. p. 180. Mack
intosh afterwards received the Recordership of Bombay ; Perceval
exerting himself for his opponent on the occasion. On his return
to England, Perceval offered him, in the most hberal way, a seat
in the House of Commons. The manner in which the offer was
refused was as creditable to Mackintosh as the manner in which
it was made was to Perceval. — Yide Life of Mackintosh.

106 ADDINGTON S MINISTRY.
nation ;' 'annexed to the dominions of France, Pied
mont, Placentia, Parma, and Elba;' 'and denied
the right of this country to interfere on any point
which did not form a part of the stipulations of the
treaty of Amiens.'
The immediate rupture, however, arose from
another cause. We had undertaken, in the treaty
of Amiens, ' to abandon, and to restore to the order
of St. John, the island of Malta, on condition of its
independence and neutrality ;' the French, on the
other hand, ' stipulating the integrity of the Turkish
Empire, and the independence of the Ionian Islands.'
But there was e-vidence that the French did not
intend to adhere to their side of the arrangement.
Colonel Sebastiani had been sent on a mission to
Egypt, and the publication of this officer's report
proved that Napoleon was contemplating the dis
memberment of the Turkish Empire. It contained,
moreover, ' the most unwarrantable insinuations and
charges against His Majesty's Government ; against
the officer who commanded the forces in Egypt, and
the British army in that quarter.' In consideration
of these circumstances, the English Government did
not feel justified in evacuating Malta ; and, after a
protracted, but fruitless, negotiation, the great war
was renewed.'
Both the pohcy of the war, and the conduct of
the preliminary negotiations by the Ministry, were
questioned in Parhament. Government, however,
wisely determined to separate as far as possible the
' Pari. Hist. vol. xxxvi. p. 1379.

addington's ministry. 107
one question from the other. On the first of them
Englishmen were, with few exceptions, unanimous.
On the second even the ordinary supporters of the
Ministry were divided. The debate on the renewal
of the war took place on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th
May. Lord Hawkesbury, on behalf of the Ministry,
moved an address to the Crown assuring ' His
Majesty of the just sense we entertain of his anxious
and uniform endeavours to preserve to his people
the blessing of peace, which have been frustrated
by that restless spirit of ambition and domination
by which the Government of France have been led
to advance pretensions the most extravagant and
injurious.' Grey, on behalf of a small but persistent
opposition, wished simply to declare ' the satisfaction
with which his faithful Commons have received His
Majesty's gracious declaration that he is wUling to
afford . . . every facUity to any just arrange
ment by which the blessings of peace may be restored
to his loyal subjects.'
The debate, which was unusuaUy long, is only
briefly reported in Hansard. A large portion of the
Eeport, too, is devoted to the briUiant speech which
Fox ' dehvered on the second day. Perceval spoke
towards the close of the debate. The record of his
speech oidy occupies in the History ten short Hues.
But this deficiency is partly remedied by the notes
1 'Mr. Fox,' writes Abbot, ' spoke from ten o'clock tiU one;
and in these three hours delivered a speech of more art, eloquence,
wit, and mischief, than I remember to have heard from him. His
principles were rather protested against than argued against by
the Attorney-General and Windham.' — Lord Colchester, i. 421.

108 addington's ministry.
for it which still exist in his hand"WTiting. The
following passage wUl serve as a sample of the whole :
' It is said that peace is consistent with the honour
of this country. I wUl put it to any candid and
impartial man whether peace — a state of things that
deserves that name — could be maintained "with
France by any other means than those which shaU
demonstrate to her that her injustice, her arrogance,
and her insolence wUl not be with impunity endured.
I wUl put it to any man whether there is any hope
that any sense of justice, of moderation, of character,
in the opinion and estimation of mankind, wiU restrain
the Government of France .... wUl check any single
step which the inordinate and inextinguishable spirit
of ambition, domination, aggrandisement, and ty
ranny may suggest to an inflamed and heated mind,
to be calculated to advance his interest, to establish
his power, and to extend his dominion. If that be
so, the only hope for peace is through honourable
resistance and war.' Perceval was more at home in
attacking than in defending the First Consul.'
The conduct of the Ministry was questioned in a
series of lengthy resolutions by Mr. Patten, on the 3rd
of June. Lord Temple and Canning were especially
bitter in their charges against the Ministry. Pitt
himself, in a half-hearted speech, evidently un-vdUing
to offend Canning by voting for Addington, endea
voured to evade the real question by passing to the
orders of the day. Hansard makes no mention of
1 Perceval MSS. and Pari. Hist. vol. xxxvi. pp. 1390-1491.

addington's ministry. 109
Perceval's speech. But there are two reasons for
assuming that he spoke on the question. In the
first place he prepared a speech, which is stiU ex
tant, and, in the next place, he was a teller in the
division for the Ministry. * Whatever may be the
critical import of the honourable gentleman's words,'
Perceval began, ' censure is his meaning ; and, the
stronger and more general the censure, the more
agreeable to the honourable gentleman. ... A vote
of censure is undoubtedly natural and proper for
the honourable gentleman and those who act with
him to propose. AU those who have the sense these
gentlemen entertain of the insufficiency of His Ma
jesty's Government, and the sufficiency of them
selves .... act wisely and patriotically, if not dis
interestedly, in proposing such resolutions as the
present. . . . But, unless the House concurs in all
these views .... they "will pause considerably ....
before they consent to a proceeding which, in em
barrassing the existing Government, .... would
cripple the exertions of the country in the arduous
contest in which it has been unavoidably embarked.
' I agreed entirely with those gentlemen who
thought .... that the question of the justice of the
war might weU be determined without affecting the
merits of His Majesty's Government during the nego
tiation. . . . Yet, I am satisfied that it wUl not turn
out so in fact. . . . For what is it that so completely
puts this country in the right, and the enemy in the
"wrong? The clear and distinct proof which these

110 addington's ministry.
papers exhibit of the pacific spirit of Govern
ment ; the striking contrast, which is here displayed,
between English moderation and French aggran
disement; English faith and French perfidy; English
temper and French arrogance. . . . Indeed, it "wUl be
hard if that which puts this country clearly in the
right, — that conduct which we gladly lay hold of as
justifj'ing our country against the enemy, ^ — ... we
should immediately afterwards employ to condemn
the Government which held it !
' The point respecting the commercial agents is
that which seems to have weighed the strongest
with the honourable gentleman  I freely con
fess that it appears to me that it was perfectly open
to His Majesty's Ministers to have dismissed these
gentlemen from our shores. . . . But what should we
have heard if they had done so ? WTiy, that they
had acted peremptorUy ; that they ought to have
given opportunity for explanation ; . . . . and that
resentment, before such opportunity was given, was
at least premature and precipitate.
' The point, which next to this of the commercial
agents has been most pressed, is the conduct of this
Government in respect to Switzerland. ... I do not
rightly comprehend whether Government is blamed
for having done too little in favour of Svdtzerland,
or too much. If they show that, as long as there
was a particle of humanity or generosity, they could
not have done less, their adversary is prepared to
agree with them, and to say, " True ; but we com-

ADDINGTON S MINISTRY. Ill
plain of you for not ha"ving done more." And, when
they turn the argument, and show that, in the state
and temper of Europe, they coiUd not have done
more, their adversaries are prepared again to agree
"with them, and to say, " True ; but we complain of
you for ha"ving done so much." . . . But what was to
be done ? Are these great politicians censuring the
conduct of the Government, and yet not prepared to
teU us what ought to have been done ? They say
they are not sufficiently informed to know. Are
they then sufficiently informed to condemn ? '
Pitt's proposal to pass to the orders of the day
was rejected on a division by 333 votes to 56 ; and
Pitt and his more immediate friends left the House.
Patten's resolutions were then negatived ; a division
only taking place on one of them, which was rejected
by 275 votes to 34.'
During the month in which this debate had
taken place, Perceval's sister, Frances, had been
married to the ChanceUor of Ireland, Lord Eedes
dale. The Chancellor and his bride had, after their
marriage, returned to Dublin. Within a few weeks
of their return, very alarming news had reached this
country. ' Extremely disagreeable news from Ire
land,' Perceval wrote hurriedly to Lord Arden ; ' an
insuri'ection has broken out in Dublin ; and it is said
that Lord KUwarden and his sister have been assas
sinated .... I can hear nothing of the Chancellor
and my sister ; but, generally, that the principal
' Perceval MSS. and Pari. Hist. vol. xxxvi. p. 1570.

112 addington's MINISTRY.
people of DubUn (which I trust includes them) are
said to be safe m the Phoenix Park with a large body
of mihtary.'' 1 Some days afterwards Perceval received a detailed account
of the insurrection from Lord Redesdale. ' It is utterly untrue,'
wrote the latter, ' that the Government was surprised on the 23rd
July. Early on that day the civil government was fuUy on its
guard; the intended attack on the Lodge was known ; and a large
additional guard sent to prevent it, which was effectual for the pur
pose. It is utterly false that forty, fifty, or five hundred rebels could
have seized the person of the Lord-Lieutenant, unless the force
placed to guard his person had neglected their duty. The arrival
of a number of persons from the country was known, and disturb
ance expected. The force to resist them, I believe, was three or
four times as numerous as that of the rebels, and might have
crushed them in the instant. Sir Charles Asgill, who had the com
mand of Dublin under General Fox, had full notice of the intended
attack, and was at the Castle to enable him to discharge the duty
¦when required by the civil government. Information was sent to
General Fox ; he saw Mr. Marsden ; and, although he did not
appear to feel so much alarm as Marsden did, yet he gave no rea
son to think that he did not apprehend danger. He retumed, how
ever, to Kilmainham, which, if you will look at the map, and con
sider that the passage from Kilmainham to the Castle was through
the worst part of Dublin, through that part where all the disturb
ance happened, you will scarcely think wise. The tumult rising,
information was sent to him, and at half-past eight he sent for Sir
Charles Asgill, General Dunn, and Colonel Varsall, the three principal
oificers of the garrison, to attend him at Kilmainham at a quarter
past nine. They went to him at the hazard of their lives, being
repeatedly shot at as they passed. They were ordered to go to
the Royal Barracks, and wait for the General. The General did
not come. Message after message went from Marsden to the
barracks. The officers thought they must wait for the General.
Thus time was lost ; and Lord Kilwarden, unfortunately passing
along the very streets which lead from Kilmainham to the Castle,
was met by a small body of rebels, not two hundred in number,
armed principally with pikes, and was killed. Even then had the
force at Kilmainham and at the barracks been detached to intercept

ADDINGTON S MINISTRY. 113
The first report of the insurrection had in fact
been exaggerated. The outbreak had been easUy
suppressed ; and, had it not been for the unfortunate
accident of Lord KUwarden's murder, would have
been long since forgotten. It was natural, however,
that a riot which had resulted in the murder of the
Chief Justice should attract considerable attention.
Government immediately proposed, on the 28th July,
a biU to enable the executive 'to declare martial
law in Ireland, in districts where insurrection exists ;'
and followed it up by suspending the Habeas Corpus
Act. Hutchinson, on the closing day of the session,
moved ' an address for information respecting the late
rebellious outrages in Ireland, and the present state
of that kingdom.' At an earlier period of the session
the situation would have thoroughly justified the
demand : on the eve of the Prorogation it was
obviously impossible to concede it. Perceval insisted,
on behalf of the Ministry, that the motion was ready
them all the rebels must have fallen ; but there was still delay ;
the troops at the James Street Barracks, a small body, dispersed
them and killed about a hundred. The rest fled. I do not believe
any of the Volunteers fired a shot. The Liberty Rangers were not
engaged, though two of their body were killed going to join their
corps. Thus all the surprise consisted in the surprise of my poor
friend, Lord Kilwarden, who fell, however, I believe, a sacrifice to
the obstinacy or stupidity of his postilion, who either did not hear,
or could not or would not understand those who attempted to
warn him out of danger time enough to have turned his carriage,
or at least to have driven it into the yard of a considerable court-
iiouse, which the people to whom it belonged had purposed them
selves to defend, and which the rebels could not easily have
forced.' VOL. I. I

114 addington's ministry,
equivalent to an address to advise the Crown not to
prorogue Parliament. The motion was negatived,
and Parliament was prorogued.'
The discussion, however, which had thus heen
practicaUy stopped, was renewed on the reassembling
of Parhament in the foUowing November. Adding
ton proposed to renew the Irish Martial Law BiU ;
and the proposal to renew it met "with a de
termined opposition. The Irish Attorney-General,
in conducting the prosecution of the rioters, had
described the insurrection as ' contemptible in the
extreme ;' as having ' ended where it began.' If this
language was justifiable, the circumstances of Ireland
could not, it was argued, necessitate a recourse to
martial law. 'His Majesty's ministers,' exclaimed
Windham, 'stopped the Constitution as a miller
would stop a "wind or a water-mUl, and with as httle
consideration  He would not say that this was
wrong ; but he wanted to know why it was right.'
'The right honourable gentleman,' replied Perceval,
' was a member of His Majesty's Government when a
measure exactly simUar to the present was intro
duced, and was himself one of its most strenuous
advocates and defenders.' Windham was not the
first statesman who had opposed in opposition mea
sures similar to those which he had promoted in
office. In grave national crises the Ministry must be
given exceptional powers, without being subjected to
2 Pari. Hist. vol. xxxvi. p. 1711.

.addington's ministry. 115
a too nice investigation of the reaso"ns which prompt
the demand for them.'
The particulars, however, of Emmet's insurrection
were forgotten in the presence of the greater danger
which the country had to face. The Army of Eng
land was encamped on the opposite coast ; the very
day on which the_ expedition was to saU had, it was
supposed, been fixed. The effect in this country of
Napoleon's preparations had proved extraordinary.
A prodigious Volunteer force of 380,000 men had
been enrolled ; aU the chief men in the country had
taken part in the movement. Pitt had organised a
corps in the Cinque Ports ; Addington another at
Woodley ; Eose three corps in Hampshire ; Erskine
commanded the Inns of Court ; and Perceval had
himself joined the Light Horse Volunteers.'^ The
success of the movement necessitated the interpo
sition of Parhament ; and Perceval, who had had a
large share in the preparation of the measure, seems
' Pari. Debates, vol. i. p. 1647.
' Authority for this statement will be found in Lord Colches
ter's Diary. 'This day,' he writes, February 11, 1797, 'I desired
Perceval to propose me for the Volunteer Light Horse.' ' The
Light Horse "Volunteers,' he writes again on the 28th July, 1797,
' assembled on Clapham Common. . . . Amongst our corps were
the following :— The Duke of Montrose, the Hon. Spencer Perceval,
Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. Vansittart, Mr. Garrow, Mr. Launcelot
ShadwcU, Mr. C. W. "Wynn, and Sergeant Adair.'— Colchester, vol. i.
83 and 114. The corps, therefore, must have included on that
day a duke, a future prime minister (Perceval), a future speaker
(Abbot), a future Lord ChanceUor of Ireland (Manners Sutton),
a future Cliancellor of the Exchequer (Vansittart), a future Baron
ofthe Exchequer (Garrow), and a'future Vice-ChanceUor (ShadweU).

116 addington's ministry.
to have taken a considerable part in its conduct
through Parliament. The speech, which he de
livered on the same subject, on the Eeport of the
Army Estimates, was characteristic of him.' Wind
ham, when the estimates were brought forward,
inveighed -with some bitterness against the force,
which he described as ' a corps for ever unsuited to
the sort of service on which it was intended to em
ploy them.'^ On the debate on the Eeport he had
renewed the charge. The force ' was very Ul adapted
to the principal and more immediate purpose for
which it was wanted,' and increased ' most mate
riaUy the difficulty of recruiting for the army.' Per
ceval, whose speech is reported at greater length than
usual, repUed with some care, 'The effect of the
arguments of the right honourable gentleman was
to degrade the Volunteers in their own eyes 
No man could read the words of the right honour
able gentleman, but must look upon the Volunteer
corps as a body of very low estimation.' Some of
the men might, no doubt, have behaved improperly.
' But was it fair to argue against the whole of such
an immense body as this, on account of the conduct
of a few who might have disgraced themselves ? . . .
As well might the right honourable gentleman go to
the gaol of Newgate, and insist upon taking out of
the eells there characters from which to form a
general impression of human nature.'
Parliament separated for their short Christmas
» Pari. Debates, vol. i. pp. 1843 and 1850. ^ Ibid. p. 1688.

addington's ministry. 117
hoUday under the fuU impression that Napoleon
would attempt his long-threatened invasion during
the recess.
'The Government here,' wrote Perceval to Lord Redes
dale on the 27th of December, ' are fully convinced by the
information they have received from the Continent that
Christmas-day was fixed for the sailing of the French forces
against us. The storm that we had on that day must have
necessarily prevented their sailing if it had been so intended ;
but, if that information is at all to be relied upon, we are
certainly now to expect them the first time the weather per
mits. In this country we begin to think the suspense of
expectation worse than the attempt, and there are more
wishes expressed for their making than for their delaying it.
I hope by this time that you are so well circumstanced, in
point of naval and military defence in Ireland, as to begin
to consider the attempt upon that country also as nearly as
desperate as on this. The circumstances of the two countries
are no doubt widely different ; but the difiiculties in their
way to you are probably greater, at least as great, as those
which they must surmount in their way to us.'
The preparations of the Government seein, in fact,
to have been complete. They had been anxiously
considering the steps which, in the event of invasion,
it would be necessary to take, and had been in
close communication with the law officers on the
subject. The elaborate opinion, which Perceval pre
pared on the chcumstances under which martial law,
or the supercession of aU law, was permissible, stUl
exists in his hand-writing, and iUustrates the precau
tions which had been taken to meet every difficulty
beforehand. HappUy the cloud which was lowering

118 addington's ministry.
on the horizon passed away ; the extreme measures,
which the Government contemplated, became unne
cessary, and the proclamation which the Attorney-
General had prepared was never issued.
Another matter was, in the meanwhile, attracting
Perceval's attention. Cobbett in the pre-vious year
had started the Political Register ; and, on the 5th
November, 1802, a letter signed ' Juverna' had ap
peared in it, traducing all the leading members of
the Irish Government. The attack on the Lord-
Lieutenant, Lord Hardwicke, was the most gross,
and is the best remembered.
' Equo ne credite, Teucri, was the ad-pice which in a danger
ous moment Laocoon gave to the Trojans. It -will be remem
bered that the equus against which that sagacious adviser
cautioned his countrymen was a wooden one. His country
men did not regard Laocoon. They received the wooden
representation of wisdom . . . But, though the machine
itself was innoxious wood, the credulous Trojans found ita
hollow head and exalted sides were nothing less than recep
tacles for greedy peculators and blood-thirsty assassins.
The ingenious author of the story did not mean to confine
the lesson which it inculcates to the fall of Troy alone. . . .
He meant to tell that any people who submitted to be
governed by a wooden head would not find their security in
its supposed innoxiousness, as its hollowness would soon be
occupied by instruments of mischief. ... I do not mean to
assert that the head of my Lord Hardwicke is actually built
of timber. My application, like that of the original author of
the tale, is only metaphorical. . . . This, sir, is the Lord
Hardwicke of Doctor Addington, against wliose Government
"not a murmur of complaint has been heard." . . . The
Government of a harmless man is not therefore a harmless

ADDINGTON S MINISTRY. 119
Government. Inquiry and research,' the letter went on,
' are the duty and resource of the ignorant, and therefore I
did inquire. The result of no small attention bestowed in
this pursuit was that 1 discovered of our Viceroy that he was
in rank an earl, in manners a gentleman, in morals a good
father and a kind husband, and that he had a good library
in St. James' Square. Here I should have been for ever
stopped, if I had not by accident met with one Mr. Lindsay,
a Scotch parson ; since become (and I am sure it must be by
divine providence, for it would be impossible to account for
it by secondary causes) Bishop of Killaloe in Ireland. From
this Mr. Lindsay I further learned that my Lord Hardwicke
was celebrated for understanding the modern method of
fattening sheep as well as any man in Cambridgeshire.'
The Ubel against Lord Eedesdale was in another
letter. The attack on him was made by ingeniously
supposing what Lord Kenyon would or would not
have done if he had been Chancellor of Irelaiid.
' It is said of Lord Kenyon that he loved money. If so
he loved his own money only, and not the money of another
man. Lord Kenyon, therefore, as Chancellor, never could
have made any rule or order by the effects of which the
secretary of a Master of the Rolls would be deprived of all
fees for the purpose of throwing those fees into the hands of
the secretary to the Chancellor. The professional pride and
the inborn honour of Lord Kenyon would never have suffered
him to enter into a combination to stop by underhand means
the independence of his brethren the judges. He never could
have suffered the Great Seal in his hands to be used for the
purpose of garbling the bench, in order to gratify those who
might be contented publicly to eulogise that government
which privately they must have despised. Nor would he
have employed any of his leisure in searching into offices
for practice by which he might harass the domestic arrange-

120 addington's MINISTRY.
ments of others whose pride and integrity would not bend
to his views.'
Such are only a few extracts taken nearly at
random from the information read at the trial. Lord
Eedesdale had, in the first instance, objected, -with
characteristic dignity, to any prosecution for the
Ubel on himself.
' I have read Mr. Cobbett,' he wrote to Perceval on the
17th December, ' and I have not a moment's hesitation in
desiring that no prosecution may be attefQpted upon the
libel. If my character here will not bear down such a pal
try attempt to injure it, it is not worth preserving. But of
all things I should be sorry to have you the prosecutor.'
Perceval submitted his brother-in-law's letter to
the ChanceUor and Addington. ' They both seem
to think that, though you as Lord Eedesdale may he
well satisfied at the Ubels not being prosecuted, it is
a matter of grave question whether they, as the
Government of this country, can permit such a hbel
to be published -with impunity against the ChanceUor
of Ireland ; and they are to let me know the plea
sure of Government upon that point.'
The Cabinet ultimately decided that a prose
cution was' necessary, and Lord Eedesdale himseh
acquiesced in the decision of the Government.
'I have again,' he writes on the 2nd January 1804,
' perused the fourth letter of Juverna. For myself I should
feel better pleased that there should be no prosecution ; but
there is a circumstance attending that letter which makes
prosecution absolutely necessary. It is, I think, now clear,

addington's MINISTRY. 121
beyond the possibility of doubt, that the writer of the four
letters signed Juverna is one of H. M. Judges. The man
who would have been the sixth in the first commission,^
if it had not been confined to five — and there's the rub!
. . . He was one of those members of the House of Com
mons who deserted to Lord Castlereagh from their old pa
trons on the Union question, and who have been most
extravagantly rewarded, and are still insatiable. ... If this
man shall not be compelled to resign, and if Mr. Justice
. . . shall not be brought to the same situation, the adminis
tration of justice in Ireland will be for ever disgraced. . . .
If Cobbett should be prosecuted he would probably give up
the letters, and the author if he knows him. But, if he does
not know him, with the letters there would be found evi
dence to bring the matter home. The bench cannot stand
under the stain now resting upon it. If these two men
shall be driven from it, and men appointed, not from interest,
but because they are proper men, it will give a lustre and
purity to the bench which it has not yet had. In this point of
view I think the prosecution of Cobbett highly proper. In
any other I exclaim against it.'
The trial took place before Lord EUenborough
on the 24th May ; Perceval, -with the Sohcitor-
General and Erskine, appearing for the Crown ;
Adam for Cobbett.'' One or two extracts from Per
ceval's speech can alone be given ; and for evident
reasons it may perhaps be desirable to select his
reference to Lord Eedesdale, and his description of
Cobbett. ' The next point I come to is the Ubel upon
Lord Eedesdale, and here I cannot help saying that
' The Commissions to which Lord Redesdale refers were issued
for the trial of rebels in the North of Ireland.
' HoweU's State Trials, vol. xxix. p. 1-54.

122' addington's MINISTRY.
it would have been an unpleasant part of my duty
had I been caUed on to prosecute for this alone ; not
that there is not in this part of the publication
abundant matter for prosecution, but, personaUy, I
should have found the task a very unpleasant one,
on account of my known connexion with that noble
lord. I shall, therefore, say of him less on that
account, and less, I am incluied to believe, than any
of my learned friends around me would have said of
him, had it faUen to their lot to manage this pro
secution. That noble lord is weU known to aU the
bar in this country, and I leave it to that bar to feel
"for his character as it deserves to be regarded ; but
I am sure it wUl not be said that, because the Chan
cellor of Ireland happens to be brother-m-law to the
Attorney-General of England, he is therefore to go
unprotected.' The description of Mr. Cobbett is in
a different vein. ' Gentlemen, Mr. Cobbett either
is, or conceives himself to be, the ablest, best, and
most consummate pohtician, and the most pure and
disinterested editor of a newspaper whom the world
ever saw. . . . Gentlemen, who is Mr. Cobbett ? Is
he a man writing purely from motives of patriotism ?
Quis homo hic est? Quo patre tiatus? He seems
to imagine himself a species of censor, who, elevated
to the solemn seat of judgment, is to deal out his
decisions for the instruction of mankind. He casts
his eye downward, like the chaxacter represented by
the poet of nature, from Dover chff, and looks upon
the inferior world below as pigmies beneath bim-

ADDINGTON S MINISTRY. 123
Perhaps, in the proud contemplation of his o-wn
abUities, he supposes he is not to submit to the
laws and institutions adapted to the Aoilgar herd of
society. But, gentlemen, whatever may be our in
clination to forgive what comes from such a censor,
I am afraid we must be content to consider him in
this court as a common being, and to subject him to
the restrictions which he wiU admit to be accom
modated only to our inferior capacities.'
The jury immediately retumed a verdict of
GuUty,' but the object of the Government was the
punishment of the author, not of the publisher, of
the libels. How strongly Lord Eedesdale felt on
this subject the extract which has been given from
one of his letters has already proved.
' It is extremely important,' he writes again on the 11th
June, ' to fix the letters under the signature of Juverna on
their author, if that author be the person suspected. That
a person of the disposition manifested by those letters should
be in the situation of the supposed author must be dangerous
to any government.'
Cobbett made the detection of the author the
easier by giving up the original MS. to Perceval.
The latter, however, ' protested against any engage
ment or understanding, direct or indirect, that such
surrender is to alter the consequences of the con
viction.' ' Tt appears,' adds Lord Colchester, from
whose diary this extract has been taken, 'that the
' HoweU's State Trials, vol. xxix. p. 54.

124 addington's MINISTRY.
original is in the hand-writing of Judge Johnson, of
Ireland, and that it came by post to Cobbett.''
It can hardly be necessary to 'refer to the very
complicated proceedings which ensued on the de
cision of the ministry to prosecute the author. Mr,
Justice Johnson was indicted for the libel in Mid
dlesex. Upon the indictment Lord EUenborough
issued his writ for the apprehension of the prisoner ;
the writ was endorsed by W. BeU, a magistrate for
Dubhn, and Mr. Justice Johnson was arrested at his
house at MUltown. The efficacy of the warrant,
which the defendant denied, turned on the constmc
tion of an act of the pre-vious session, the 44 Geo. 3,
c. 92, 'to render more easy the apprehending and
bringing to trial offenders escaping from one part of
the United Kingdom to the other,'^ and a long cor
respondence is stUl in existence between Lord Eedes
dale and Perceval on the construction of the statute.
Mr. Justice Johnson insisted that his case was not
' Lord Colchester, vol. i. p. 518.
" It was stated by Mr, Justice Johnson that ' this act had been
brought into Parliament by the brother-in-law of the person in
whose name and at whose instance he was to be prosecuted.' —
(HoweU's State Trials, vol. xxix. p. 91.) Perceval subsequently
defended himself from the charge in the House of Commons.
' The charge that he had framed the measure of last session with
a view to bring Mr. Justice Johnson a prisoner to attend his trial
in this country, would fall before the statement of the facts. The
bill had been prepared, by order of the Secretary of State, the
preceding session, though from the advanced stage of the sessioii
it had been deferred till the last session.' (5 Hans. Pari. Debates,
119.) The act under which Mr. Justice Johnson had been ar
rested was amended and extended by the 45 Geo. 3. c. 93.

addington's MINISTRY. 125
' within the pro-vince of the law,' and appealed for
his discharge to each of the superior courts in
DubUn. The Court of King's Bench decided in
favour of the Cro-wn, the Lord Chief Justice
(Downes) and Mr. Justice Daly composing the ma
jority of the court ; Mr. Justice Day, on the other
hand, siding -with the prisoner. The Court of Ex
chequer, seven days afterwards, gave a simUar
decision, three out of the four learned Judges being
in favour of the Crown ; and the Court of Common
Pleas also subsequently decided against Mr. Justice
Johnson, though there does not appear to be any
record whether in this instance the decision was
unanimous or not. Mr. Justice Johnson subse
quently demurred to the jurisdiction of the Court
of King's Bench, but his plea was overruled on the
29th June, and the trial consequently took place on
the 23rd of the following November. Perceval
again appeared for the Crown. His speech, of which
a fuU draft stUl exists among his papers, is carefully
reported in Howell.' The proceedings lasted through
an entire day, but at nine o'clock at night the jury,
after a quarter of an hour's consultation, agreed on a
verdict of GuUty. The change of government, how
ever, affected Mr. Justice Johnson's position. The
new Attorney-General, Sir Arthur Pigott, entered a
nolle prosequi upon the indictment in the early
part of 1806, and Mr. Justice Johnson retired from
the bench upon a pension for life.^
' HoweU's State Trials, vol. xxix. p. 423. ' Ibid. p. 502.

126 addington's MINISTRY.
It seemed so desirable to present in one place i
summary of the whole of these proceedings that I
have had no hesitation in postponing for the purpose
the narrative of events which from a chronological
point of -view should have interrupted it. It is,
however, necessary now to retrace our steps, and
consider Perceval's share in the stirring events for
which the year 1804 is notorious.

127

CHAPTEE V.
Pitt's second ministry.
1802-1806.
Pitt's Rupture with Addington — Declaration of War — Perceval's
Defence of Addington — Refusal of the Chief-Justiceship of the
Common Pleas — Talents as a Debater — Change of Views on
the Question of Catholic Disabilities — Marriages in Perceval's
Family — Thomas Walpole — Lord Eedesdale — A Volunteer
Question — Prosecution of Trades' Unions — Correspondence
with Lord Redesdale — Reconciliation of Pitt and Addington —
Wilberforce and the Slave Trade — War with Spain — Catholic
Claims — Commission of Naval Inquiry — Impeachment of Lord
Melville — Resignation of Lord Sidmouth — Duke of Athol's
Lordship of the Isle of Man — Battle of Trafalgar — Death of
Pitt.
Addington's administration had now lasted for
more than two years. It seemed to be in a fair
way of iUustrating the truth of the old saying,
'Threatened lives last long.' On its first formation
few men regarded its existence as otherwise than
a provisional arrangement. It was useful that some
person representing Pitt's opinions should hold the
seals of office till Pitt himself should be able to
settle his differences with the King, and retum to
Downing Street. The position which Pitt assumed

128 PITT'S second MINISTRY.
favoured this view. He was the apologist, the ad
viser of the Ministry. Though he was no longer
seated on the Treasury Bench, there were fair
grounds for saying that he in reality conducted the
Government, of which he was the main support. The
country was reconcUed to the mediocrity of Adding
ton, because it recognised him as the locum tenens of
the great minister.
The peace of Amiens altered the relative posi
tions of the two statesmen. Addington was now
identified with a distinct policy. Pitt had empha
tically been the minister of the war. He was so
seriously committed to it that he would hardly have
been able, had he desired to do so, to have concluded
it. Addington, on the contrary, had signalised his
accession to office by terminating the struggle. The
theorists, who desired peace for its own sake ; the
patriots, who thought some short respite necessary,
to enable us at a future period to resume the
struggle; the economists, who revolted from the
heavy taxation which the war had made unavoid
able — all these classes welcomed the change. Pitt's
return to power seemed less necessary, and therefore
less likely. If his genius was required to pUot us
through the dangers of the contest, Addington was
a sufficiently safe leader during the interval of peace.
It was hardly fair, too, on the minister, who had
secured us the breathing time we needed, to super
sede him immediately after his achievement. Can
ning and some of the younger men murmured at

PITTS SECOND MINISTRY. 129
their forced exclusion from office ; but Addington
was more securely seated than ever.
Towards the close of 1802 this state of things
was, however, again changed. The peace had only
lasted for a year, but it seemed certain to be broken.
The ministers themselves shared the general alarm,
and proved their participation in it by a partial
increase of the army and na-vy estimates. Canning,
who had never tolerated the interregnum, seized
the opportunity for inveighing more bitterly than
ever against Addington. The administration shoiUd
at such a time, he argued, be in the ablest and
fittest hands. Pitt himself, however, staying on at
Bath, made no sign. The Ministry were shaken by
the onslaught, but weathered the storm, Perceval
had interposed between Canning and Addington,
and had succeeded in the defence in which his leader
had signaUy failed.
When, however, in the following spring war
was actually declared, the absurdity of the existing
arrangement became more obvious. It has been
the fashion among later historians to denounce Pitt's
conduct of the war from 1793 to 1801. But nothing is
more certain than that among contemporary pohticians
he was regarded as the only possible war-minister.
Contemporary politicians forgave the uniform failure
of his Continental campaigns, and remembered only
the successes which he had achieved in more distant
efforts, and the unvarying good fortune which had
made this country the first naval power in the world.
VOL. L K

130 PITT'S second MINISTRY.
They openly desired the retum to power of the
statesman by whom such results had been secured.
Addington himself half yielded to the cry. He was
ready to admit Pitt to a share in the government,
but he could not bring himself to serve under that
minister. Both, he suggested, should occupy equal
positions as Secretaries of State under a common
leader. Pitt gave the only answer which would
have been worthy of him to such a suggestion. The
negotiation terminated, and the cabinet of medio
crities secured one more year of power.
In the foUo-wing year, however, this anomalous
state of things was doomed to be terminated. Pitt's
rupture with Addington had been more and more
complete ; he was no longer prepared to treat the
minister of his creation with the same consideration.
He had either persuaded himself, or had been per
suaded by his friends, that his own retum to power
was desirable for the country. He was ready to
take any constitutional opportunity for effecting it.
The opportunity soon arrived. Fox, on the 23rd
April, moved for a committee ' to revise the several
bUls for the defence of the country, and to consider
of such further measures as raay make that defence
more complete.'
' Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Windham, for the
motion,' wrote the Speaker.' ' Mr. Pitt made a
long speech of great hostihty towards the admi
nistration. Addington, Yorke, and Perceval were
' Diary, vol. i. p. 496.

PITT S SECOND MINISTRY. 131
the chief speakers for the ministry.' The latter had
prepared his speech on this occasion with some care,
and spoke, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of
Horner, then a young man of twenty-six, with
strong Whig procUvities and unusually precocious
abiUties, with much effect.^ The finest passages in
the speech are a commentary on the alliance be
tween Windham and Fox, and an apology for the
position of this country. ' What is it,' he asked oi
Windham, ' that he wUl do ? WUl he join to destroy
the present Government, and leave its vacant seats
to be fought for among themselves ? Is that the
sort of strength to Government the success of this
motion is to procure ? . . . or has the honourable
gentleman taken up, with his new habits and his new
friends, some of their old opinions, and, borrowing
the thought and the language of one of the apostles
of the rights of man, is he only consenting to travel
in the same coach to Hounslow with those who
are going on to Windsor ? How have we sat, sh,
listening with admu-ation to that right honourable
gentleman's eloquence in this House. . . . How have
> Horner, who was under the gallery, wrote to his father : —
' The speeches of the ministers were confined, till the Attorney-
General rose, to the defence of the different parts of their military
measures that had been attacked. Perceval took a much more
judicious view of the debate, aud treated the motion as if it had
been in terms for the dismissal of ministers. This was the true
mode of treating it, if he had executed his idea with skill ; but his
want of talent drove him to violence and extreme personality, so
as to betray the fuiy and despair of his friends, or rather their
convulsions in death.' — Homer's Life, vol. i. p. 250.

132 PITT's second MINISTRY.
we been warmed with his patriotism, inspired by
his enthusiasm, enlightened by his wisdom in the
stand which he has made against the favourite
principles of the honourable gentleman (Fox) ! Sir,
in proportion as I admired him, as I respected him,
as I looked up to him then, ... I lament him
now !
' It is said that we have been degraded in the
eyes of Europe both by the peace and the war 
I should be glad if the honourable gentleman could
point to any one . . . state in Europe . . . which can
look do-wn with contempt at Great Britain . . . When
we are the only nation in the world that dares to
lift up a hand against her (France) inordinate am
bition; when we stand up — and stand up alone —
against that power before whom the rest of the
world lies prostrate and bleeding, is it possible for
the violence and exaggeration of the strongest party
spirit to describe us as the objects of contempt and
degradation in the eyes of Europe ? . . . I recollect,
sir, the vaunts of the enemy, the threats of our
annihilation, the delenda est Carthago. . . . How
does he now menace our destruction ? Why, by
fleets that dare not quit his shores beyond the pro
tection of those batteries that line his coast from
Dunkirk to Boulogne." Windham, who rose im
mediately to reply to Perceval, gave the learned
gentleman credit for his endeavours to rouse the
House from the languor into which it had been
' Perceval MSS. and Hansard Debates, vol. ii. p. 233.

PITT S second MINISTRY. 133
insensibly sinking. He had chanted the funeral
obsequies of the ministry in melodious strains —
' He sang Darius great and good.
Fallen, fallen, fallen, fallen.
Fallen from his high estate.
And welt'ring in his blood.'
But he did not seem to think the cause altogether
desperate, and he proceeded to
' Break his bands of sleep asunder.
And rouse him like a rattling peal of thunder.'
Fox, later in the evening, occupied a great por
tion of his reply with a consideration of ' the learned
gentleman's vehement invective.' The debate was
continued tUl four o'clock on the following morning,
when, in a very full House, the Government ob
tained a majority of 52 — 256 votes to 204. ' Mr.
Addington,' wrote the Speaker on the foUowing
day, 'was in very good spirits, and perfectly at ease
about the consequences of these divisions.'^ Yet
even then the coming change must have been suffi
ciently apparent. ' After such a division,' -wrote
Horner, ' nobody conceives that the Doctor can any
longer remain at the head.' Wilberforce, imme
diately after the debate, busied himself in a hopeless
attempt to effect a reconciliation. He must have
seen, within a very few hours, the utter impracti
cability of the task. That very evening a question
was raised on the position of the subscribers to the
' Colchester's Diary, vol. i. p. 494.

134 Pitt's second ministry.
Loyalty Loan, Pitt and Fox were again agreed in
opposing the minister ; and the majority of the
latter dwindled in a small House to 24 — 100 to 76.'
On the foUowing evening the contest was once more
resumed. Pitt avaUed himself of the opportunity,
which the motion for going into Committee of Supply
on the Army Eeserve Suspension BUl afforded, to
unfold a long scheme for recruiting the army and the
reserve. Fox again spoke in his favour. Addington
criticised Pitt's speech in strong language. Can
ning, in his tum, accused Addington of a desire to
throw every odium and obloquy upon Pitt. J. H.
Bro-wne attempted to defend the minister ; but the
House would not hsten to him. Perceval was more
successful. ' The pain I feel,' he began, ' in intrud
ing myself upon an unwUling audience can only be
equalled by the pain I should feel, when I lay down
my head, were I to suffer the most unjust, the most
uncharitable interpretation of my right honourable
friend's speech to pass -without notice.' ' Perceval's
warm and feeling defence of Addington,' wrote Wil
berforce in his Diary, 'was much to his honour."'
Addington again obtained a majority, 240 votes
to 203. But the Speaker told him the next day
that ' these successive divisions obliged him either
1 Pari. Deb. vol. ii. p. 258 ; Cf. Lord Colchester, i. 497.
"^ Ibid. ii. 310; Wilberforce, iii. 154. According to the dates
in the Diary the remark had reference to the previous speech. But
this is evidently a mistake ; Perceval, in the previous speech, had
not made a warm defence of Addington ; Wilberforce must have
alluded, then, to this speech.

PITT S SECOND MINISTRY. 135
to give up the Government, or exert the utmost
power of the Cro-wn to support it.' Only three
days afterwards Addington told the Speaker that
he had determined to resign ; while, five days later
stiU, Eose stated formally in the House that Pitt
had received His Majesty's commands to form a new
administration. The formation of the new Ministry
was, for the moment, delayed by an ineffectual
attempt to combine in it both Fox and Pitt. Per
ceval was, from the first, determined that, in the event
of such a combination, he would have nothing to
do with the new Ministry. But, singularly enough,
he had just cut himself off from the most honour
able method of retirement. Lord Alvanley, the
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, had lately died.
' Some people fancy,' wrote Fox to Lord HoUand,
' he will be succeeded by Erskine. Not I. If the
King should be well enough to appoint a successor,
it wUl be Perceval'' This opinion might have been
given by a statesman with less knowledge of the
ordinary rules of office than Fox. Perceval was
Attorney-General. As such, according to the in
variable practice of both political parties, he had
obviously the right to have the offer made to him.
He might, in short, have succeeded to the Chief Jus
ticeship ofthe Common Pleas in 1804, just as Law
had succeeded to the Chief Justiceship of the King's
Bench in 1802. As a matter of fact the offer was
not only made to him, but it was proposed to
' Correspondence, C. J. Fox, vol. iii. p. 244.

136 PITT's SECOND MINISTRY.
gild the prize by the addition of a coronet. Per
ceval, at once, refused ; and his refusal met with
the approval of a very competent judge, — Lord
Eedesdale. ' I think you have done right,' wrote the latter to him
on the 26th April. ' At a later period of your life, the
Common Pleas would have been a highly respectable retreat,
and the peerage of little consequence to you personally. At
present it would have thro-wm you out of your habits into an
uncomfortable line of life, and a society you would scarcely
have relished. I know that Lord Eldon felt this very much
while he was in the Common Pleas -with a peerage ; and I
think it would have been more strongly felt by you.'
On Perceval's refusal of the Common Pleas, the
Chief Justiceship was offered to . and accepted by
Mansfield. The latter was, at the time. Chief Jus
tice of Chester, and Perceval, though he had refused
the higher position, was certainly inclined to accept
the lower one. The Chief Justiceship of Chester
was a dignified appointment, which might reasonably
excite the ambition even of an Attorney-General.
Abbot, with the prospect of the Speakership before
him, had mentioned it to Addington as the object
of his ambition ;' and, when the possibiUty of a co-
aUtion government seemed to involve Perceval's ovra.
retirement, the latter certainly was inchned to take
the office. ' The Attorney-General told me,' wrote
the Speaker, ' that he had the offer of the Chief
Justiceship of Chester, and should take it ; although
if Mr. Pitt -wished him to continue in office, and did
' Colchester, vol. i. p. 229.

PITT S SECOND MINISTRY. 137
not join Mr. Fox,^ he should not object to serve
under him.' Pitt, on his part, could Ul afford to lose
Perceval's support in the House, for Eose distinctly
states that he reckoned on Lord Castlereagh, the
Attorney-General, Sturges Bourne, -with one or two
more of that class, for his speaking power in the
House of Commons.''
A student of the meagre reports of Perceval's
speeches in Hansard, supplemented indeed -with the
shght additions which, in this memoir, it has been pos
sible to make to them, will perhaps be surprised that
so much importance should have been attached to
Perceval's co-operation. But Perceval's reputation as
a debater was at this moment nearly as high as that
of any man in either House of Parhament. No
partial advocate, but the man who has perhaps done
most to detract from Perceval's reputation, who
was bitterly opposed to him on more than one oc
casion, teUs us that ' Ministers were opposed by a
factious league of Pittites, Foxites, Gren-viUes, and
Windham, and only defended by two la-wyers, Mr.
Perceval in the House of Commons, Lord Eldon in
the Lords. Nothing could exceed the zeal or spu-it
of the battle, which both, especiaUy Mr. Perceval,
made in defence of the citadel.' On another oc
casion he -writes even more strongly, —
'As Attorney-General to Mr. Addington, and bra-ving
almost the whole of the imequal debate, while the forces of
Pitt, Fox, and Windham combined to assail the meagre
' Colchester, vol. i. p. 502. ' Rose, vol, ii. pp. 119 and 120.

138 pitt's second ministry.
Treasury Bench, his talents sparkled with peculiar bright
ness. His dexterity in any great or any personal conflict ;
his excellent language, always purely but unaffectedly
English, nor ever chargeable with incorrect taste ; his
attention continually awake and his spirit ever dauntless,
gained him the greatest reputation as a great and powerful
debater.' '
Nearly seven years afterwards, when Perceval,
by his astounding exertions in the Eegency debates,
had acquired an even higher position, Plumer Ward
told Fremantle that, if Lord GrenviUe had alhed
himself in 1806 with Perceval instead of Fox, he
would have been minister for ever. Fremantle
answered that ' No one in 1806 could have foreseen
that Perceval was capable of such efforts.' It ought
to have been foreseen, was Ward's remarkable reply,
for the same powers which he has displayed now
were called forth to shield Addington in 1804.
If, then, these were the opinions which Perceval's
abUities had created, we can hardly feel surprised
that Pitt should have desired to avaU himself of the
assistance of Addington's Attorney- General. But,
if Pitt was anxious to secure the services of Per
ceval, Perceval was determined that he would only
join the minister on his own terms. Pitt chose the
best possible negotiator. Lord Harrowby was one
of Perceval's earliest and most constant friends ; and
Lord Harrowby was selected to bear the message.
Its acceptance may be given in Perceval's own lan
guage. ' Lord Brougham's ' Statesmen,' vol. i. p. 248 aud ii. 58.

PITT S SECOND MINISTRY. 139
'Yesterday,' he wrote to his brother-in-law. Lord Re
desdale, on the 10th May, ' Mr. Pitt sent my friend. Lord
Harrowby,' to me to request that I would continue in my
present situation, and my answer was, " Certainly ; if
things were as I conceived them to be upon three points.
1st, That Mr. Fox was to have nothing to do with the
Government ; 2nd, That there was to be no criminatory
retrospect on Addington's Government ; and, 3rd, That there
was to be no support to the Catholic question." On the first
Lord H. said that he conceived that there was not the least
idea of Mr. F. forming a part of (the) administration, though
he had no authority to say, nor any means of foreseeing,
what might eventually happen : to which I subjoined, Nei
ther had I any such means, and therefore I only begged
that my acceptance might be understood as conditional, and
that, if such an event were to take place, I should withdraw.
With respect to the 2nd, Lord H. said that he did not quite
understand me, but he supposed that I did not mean that
Mr. Pitt should not find fault with those measures of the
preceding Government which he had found fault with before.
I said that I certainly did not mean any such thing, but
merely that there should be no -vindictive retrospect ; and, if
there was ever any fault to be found, that such friends as he
got from the friends of the former Government could not be
expected to join in it — which he seemed to consider as quite
reasonable. Then as to the Catholic question ; he said he
understood perfectly that Pitt had assured the King that he
would not only not bring forward such a question, but
would oppose it as long as the King lived. To this I said
that I so understood it, but that I should not be satisfied to
leave this point merely in this way ; and that I must beg
that he would explain fully to Mr. Pitt that I would put
myself in no situation in which I should not feel myself at
liberty (if I thought it expedient) to oppose that question
' Perceval gave a very similar account of the interview to the
Speaker. — Cfr. Colchester, vol. i. pp. 511, 512.

140 PITT'S second MINISTRY.
upon its principles and upon its consequences, and on
grounds which would go against its being adopted at any
time : and, if his mode of opposing it would be confined only
to the time, perhaps he might think that it would open him
to the suspicion of meaning more hostility ultimately to the
question than he would wish to have it supposed, if the
Attorney-General under his Government took it up on dif
ferent grounds. He agreed that this was very fit to be
explained to Pitt ; he was to see him in the course of the
morning ; and I offered to wait upon Pitt in the evening if
he wished to see me. Not having heard anything from him
from that time, I conclude that these explanations and con
ditions of mine are not objected to, as I desired that I might
hear early from him if they were.'
There is one observation in this letter which
naturally suggests itself Perceval not merely com
mits himself to an uncompromising opposition to aU
concession, but he actuaUy refuses to take office
unless he is aUowed to object to concession in this
thorough way. Yet, only a few years before, he
had certainly contemplated the possibUity of a more
generous policy. In the debates on the Union he
had boldly looked forward to a time when it might
be possible to reUeve the Catholics from their exist
ing disabUities. What had happened in the interval
to induce him to modify his previous opinion ? AVhy
were the more liberal -views, which he had con
templated in 1800, exchanged for the policy of re
sistance which he expressed in 1804 ?
No explanation of the change has ever been
made ; and the change itself has, in fact, attracted
no attention. That it had occurred seems clear.

PITT S SECOND ministry. 141
though it may be doubtful whether it is possible
to explain it. In the preceding year, however, two
marriages had taken place in Perceval's famUy. His
elder sister. Lady Frances, had been married to the
ChanceUor of Ireland ; and a younger sister. Lady
Margaret, to Mr. Thornas Walpole. The latter
was the eldest son of the Honourable Thomas
Walpole, and grandson of the first Lord Walpole
of Wolterton. Walpole's father, therefore, was the
nephew of the great Sir Eobert, and cousin to
Horace. Like every member of his famUy, Wal
pole was, in politics, a Whig. But he had chosen
diplomacy for a profession, and his career had re
moved him from any active interference in political
matters. Singularly enough, he was equaUy in
debted for his professional advancement to each of
the great parties in the State. The Duke of Port
land, immediately before his fall, had made him
minister at Munich ; and Pitt, immediately after his
accession to office, had good-naturedly ad-vised him
to start for Bavaria, before he had time to cancel
the appointment. He had now permanently retked
from his profession, and had settled himself down to
the life of an Enghsh gentleman. Though he took
considerable interest in history and pohtics, he de
rived more pleasure from literature and art. His
taste in art was excellent ; his knowledge of our
Uterature great. A moderate fortune prevented him
from actively indulging the one ; but his well-fiUed
Ubrary contained many proofs of his knowledge of the

142 pitt's second ministry.
other in the numerous annotations which he made in
the margins of his books, and which sufficiently prove
his wise discrimination and his extensive reading.
Lord Eedesdale is better known, and deserves to
be even better known than he is. The Mitfords
were a plain, undistinguished family. Their father,
a plain, undistinguished man. But he gained a far
greater distinction than a long pedigree would have
afforded him from the merits of his chUdren. He had
only two sons : WUliam, the historian of Greece ;
John, who was successively Solicitor and Attorney-
General, Speaker of the House of Commons, and
Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
John Mitford was bom in 1 748 and applied him
self, after leaving Oxford, to the study of the law. He
soon gained great reputation, both as an advocate
and as a writer on abstruse questions in equity.
Like other successful barristers, he sought his pro
fessional advancement in Parhament. He was re
turned for Beeralston in 1789; was made a Welsh
judge in 1790, succeeded to the Solicitor-generalship
in 1793, and became Attorney-General in 1799. On
Addington's becoming Premier, he was advanced to
the Speakership, but on Lord Clare's death in 1802
was promoted to a peerage and the Chancellorship of
Ireland. That these successive promotions were
well deserved may be inferred from the opinions both
of his contemporaries and his successors : Warren
styles him, ' That consummate Master of Equity, the
late Lord Eedesdale.' Sir Thomas Plumer said of

PITT S second ministry. 143
his Treatise on Pleadings, ' To no authority, li-ving or
dead, can reference be made -with more propriety for
correct information respecting the principles by
which courts of equity are governed, than to one
whose knowledge and experience enabled him fifty
years ago to reduce the whole subject to a system
¦with such universally acknowledged leaming, accu
racy, and discrimination, as to have ever since
been received by the whole profession as an authori
tative standard and guide.' Shiel, in his book on
the Irish Bar, says of his Chancellorship, ' That great
lawyer introduced a reformation in Irish practice.
He substituted great learning, unvaried dihgence,
and a spirit of scientific discussion for the flippant
apothegms and irritating self-sufficiency of the
late Lord Clare.' While, on the other side of the
Atlantic, Judge Story, speaking of the same period,
dubs Lord Eedesdale ' one of the ablest judges that
ever sat in Equity.' ^
In politics Lord Eedesdale had uniformly attached
liimself to the Tory party. His Toryism was of that
extreme kind which has been associated with Lord
Eldon and Perceval. He went to Ireland the enemy
of the Catholics ; he returned from that country the
firm opponent to their claims. His whole mind was
concentrated on the gross abuses which disgraced
both the Castle and bench in Dublin ; the whole end
and object of his statesmanship was to purify and
reform both the one and the other. This object he
' See AUibone's ' Diet, of Eng. and Am. Authors.'

144 pitt's second ministry,
fancied could be best attained by a close alliance
with the Protestant faction. The Eoman Catholics
he regarded as the enennes of all government,
and therefore obstacles to the cause of order and
reform. Such were Lord Eedesdale's opinions. He ad
vocated them with great force and great abUity,
in a series of letters which he addressed to Per
ceval, and which give a striking picture of the
corrupt state of Irish society. It was natural that
Perceval should be more or less influenced by his
brother-in-law's opinions. Lord Eedesdale was the
great equity la-wyer, whose steps he had been fol
lowing at the bar. On more than one occasion he
had been his future kinsman's junior. He was a
statesman of the same party as that to which Per
ceval had attached himself; and he was now capable,
from residing among them, to judge more closely,
than would otherwise have been possible, the needs
and requirements of the Irish. Was it not natural
that Perceval should have regarded Ireland through
Lord Eedesdale's spectacles ? that his own distrust
of his Eoman Catholic feUow-subjects should have
been intensified by the bitterness of his brother-in-
law's opposition to them ?
Such is possibly the explanation of the gradual
strengthening of Perceval's -views on this particular
subject. Pitt did not object to his explanations.
Perceval joined the Ministry ; and became, as Eose
had anticipated, one of Pitt's most useful Ueutenants.

PITT S SECOND ministry. 145
The remaining events of the Session of 1804 were
not of importance. One, perhaps, need alone be
aUuded to ; less from its importance than from its
singularity. James Morison, a Scotch farmer in
Banffshire, had a servant named Garrow. The man,
contrary to his master's wishes, and indeed to the
latter's orders, had joined a Volunteer corps. His
master refused to allow him to attend driU ; he dis
obeyed, and was dismissed for his disobedience ; Mori-
son declining to pay him the wages that were due to
him. The Sherifi'-substitute of Banffshire thought
it his duty to represent to the Lord Advocate the
bad effect which Morison's proceedmgs had produced
at a moment when invasion seemed imminent, and
Scotland was almost destitute of troops. The Lord
Advocate, in an intemperate and indefensible reply,
styled Morison's conduct ' most atrocious,' and desired
that ' on the first Frenchman landing in Scotland you
do immediately apprehend and secure Morison as a
suspected person ; and you -will not liberate hirn
without a communication from me ; and further I
shall do aU I can to prevent him from receiving any
compensation for any part of his property which
may either be destroyed by the enemy or by the
King's troops, to prevent it from fallmg into the
enemy's hands.' The publication of this correspond
ence naturally created a great impression. Whit
bread drew the attention of the House to Hope's —
the Lord Advocate's — conduct. The latter pleaded,
as an excuse for it, the circumstances of the time, and
VOL. I. L

1 46 pitt's second ministry.
the responsibUity tbey threw on him. Perceval, on be
half ofthe Government, moved to pass to the orders of
the day. ' If we were not to be dragooned into volun
teering,' he said -with reference to an expression of
Whitbread's, ' we certainly ought not to be dragooned
out of it.' The Government on a division secured
a considerable majority, 159 votes to 82.' 'Whit
bread's motion,' wrote WUberforce that evening in
his Diary, ' Pitt's and Perceval's honest, manly, and
moderate way of taking it.'
Parliament was prorogued on the last day of
July. During the recess Perceval's attention was
drawn to a subject as important as at that time it
was novel. An application had been made to Lord
Hawkesbury, the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, to institute proceedings against the
Managers of one of the earliest Trades Unions that
were formed in this country. The Union consisted
of London Shoemakers ; and the interference of the
Government was requested by their employers.
Lord Hawkesbury, very naturally, referred the apph-
cation to the law officers ; and Perceval, -without
waiting for the Solicitor-General, replied to it.
After observing that, in point of law, the combina
tion was Ulegal, he proceeded, ' If the effect of pro
secuting or not prosecuting by Government was to
begin and end with this case alone, it might perhaps
be immaterial who carried on the prosecution. . . .
But, as it will be viewed as a precedent of what the
1 Pari. Debates, ii. 788-818.

PITTS SECOMD MINISTRY. 147
masters in this trade, and in others, -wiU expect
Government to do in future, it seems to me to
deserve very serious consideration. For it is not
only to be collected from these papers, but it is
otherwise too notorious, that similar combinations
exist in almost every trade of the kingdom ; and, if
Government attends to this application on the part
of the boot and shoemakers, similar applications
must be expected from every other trade. . . . Be
sides, in all these cases, there are always, whether
well founded or not, complaints on both sides ; and
the impartiality of Government would be awkwardly
tested if, after undertaking a prosecution at the
instance of the masters against the conspiracy of the
journeymen, they were to be appUed to, on the part
of the journeymen, to prosecute the same masters for
a conspiracy against their men.'
' Mr. Perceval's opinion,' writes Lord Liverpool's
biographer, in whose work the letter from which
these extracts have been taken will be found in full,'
' was almost, as a matter of course, acted on by the
colleague who had invited it. Lord Hawkesbury
declined to institute such a prosecution as had been
requested.' Perceval continued throughout the autumn the
correspondence which he had already commenced
with his brother-in-law. Lord Eedesdale. The
majority of the letters, whatever intrinsic interest
they may possess — and the interest of some of them
' Yonge's 'Life of Liverpool,' i. 166-199.

148 pitt's second ministry.
is very great indeed — cannot properly be considered
as germane to this memoir. The earlier of them
relate to the want — of which Lord Eedesdale
bitterly complained — of communication between the
Irish and English Governments, and to the diffi
culties which had arisen in the execution of Lord
EUenborough 's warrant for the arrest of Mr. Justice
Johnson. Late in the session, however, a far more
important matter was mentioned. Pitt and Adding
ton were again brought together. As the resrdt of
the meeting they agreed to forget and forgive their
recent differences, and to shake hands -with each
other. Such a reconcUiation could not have been a
matter of indifference to Perceval. Pitt was the
object of his admiration; Addington had introduced
him to office. For Pitt he had certainly the highest
esteem ; for Addington great regard.
' Tou will have heard by this time,' he wrote to Lord
Eedesdale late in December, ' that Mr. Pitt and Mr. Ad
dington have shaken hands. I lament extremely that I
cannot furnish you with any particulars. I heard (very
confidentially) before it took place that there was reason to
hope for a reconciliation. But I have not been able to find
any one who has been able or willing to tell me anything
about it. I believe that some reconciliation has certainly
taken place. I conclude it must necessarily be political as
well as personal ; but what arrangement it is to lead to, or
whether to any, I know not. To the mutual friends of both,
in which number I class both myself and you, I think it a
very agreeable circumstance indeed. The opposition will, I
think, be maddened by it to an extreme ; but I think,
though their disposition to hostility may be increased by it.

pitt's second ministry. 149
their means, both within the house and out of it, will be
much diminished. ... I have seen Mr. Pitt,' he adds later on
in his letter, 'for ten minutes. He had little more than
time to tell me that the reports relative to his and Adding
ton's reconciliation were true ; that all awkwardnesses what
ever between them were removed, and that both to public
and private questions.'
'The reconciliation,' he wrote to Lord Arden the next
day, ' is as cordial and satisfactory as the mutual friends of
each could wish. I was particularly glad to hear him (Pitt)
express himself so very stronglj^ as he did upon it ; and
having heard before that Addington, to those friends whom
he met, expressed himself with equal strength, it left no
room to doubt but that the reconciliation was complete.'
On the 14th January he again wrote to Lord
Eedesdale, chiefiy on the proceedings to which
reference has already been made in regard to Mr.
Justice Johnson : —
'You will probably have heard,' he adds, 'before this
reaches you that Hotham is about to resign, and that our
friend the Solicitor- General is to succeed him. Who will be
Solicitor-General I don't know; but, by conjecture, I expect
Gibbs. To the Mastership in Chancery, vacant by Ridley's
death, the Chancellor has appointed our friend Bob Steele,
who has made up his mind, considering his health and com
fort, most wisely to accept it, and, having done so, he seems
delighted with it. Of the people who are talked of to suc
ceed Nepean,! Bra gge, I think, would suit you best. If you
should have him, you will find him a man of sterling worth,
as a man of business, as well as a gentleman. I don't think
the House of Commons holds a man, who would, under all
circumstances, suit the situation so well.'
' Sir E. Ncpean was Secretary to Ireland. Bragge of coui-se
is Bragge Bathurst, Addington's brother-in-law.

150 pitt's second ministry.
The day after this letter was written. Parliament
reassembled. There is good reason for thinking that
Perceval took a prominent part in the proceedings
of the session. The atrocities of the Guiana slave-
trade were occupying at the time WUberforce's
attention, and he had succeeded in persuading Pitt
to promise to issue an Order in Council on the
subject. But Pitt was unaccountably dUatory in
the matter, and WUberforce found a warmer friend
in Perceval. ' Guiana slave-trade,' he -writes in his
Diary, ' Attorney-General Perceval honest, warm,
steady, and intelligent on the subject.' ' Busy -with
Stephen and Attorney -General,' he writes, a few
days afterwards, ' on Order in CouncU.' ' The
extracts would have hardly been worth giving, if it
had not been that Mr. Earle, in the category of
charges which he has thought fit to prefer against
Perceval, has included his consistent opposition to
WUberforce's liberal proposals on the slave-trade.
It is in such ways as this that history is written,
and that the characters of great men of a previous age
are vUified ! The extract was perhaps also worth
quoting because, from this date, the terms of inti
macy between Perceval and Wilberforce became
apparently closer. The two friends had much in
common with each other. Each of them had marked,
perhaps peculiar, views on religious questions. The
bond of sympathy, which, under any cu^cumstances,
would have drawn them together, became the
' Diary, iii. 216, 231.

PITT S SECOND ministry. 151
stronger from the close intimacy which Perceval
had formed with WUberforce's brother-in-law and
great friend, Stephen. This able la-wyer ultimately
exercised a considerable infiuence on the progress of
events, and on the character of the two men with
whom he was intimately associated.
The first debate of any importance in 1805 arose
on the war with Spain. Few wars were ever less
avoidable than that which this country was com
pelled to declare against Spain in 1805. By the
treaty of St. Ildefonso in 1796, Spain had covenanted
to furnish a stated contingent of naval and mUitary
force for the prosecution of any war in which the
French Eepublic might think proper to engage.
The character of such a treaty gave Great Britain
an incontestable right to declare to Spain that she
would not be considered as a neutral power. For
prudential reasons,, however, and from motives ot
forbearance, the right was not exercised ; and untU
July 1803, no demand for succour was made by
France to Spain. In October of that year a con
vention was signed, by which the latter of these
countries agreed to pay the French a certain monthly
sum in lieu of the naval and mUitary succours which
they had stipulated to provide. The British minister
at Madrid was directed to remonstrate, and to assure
the Spanish Government that war would be ' the
infalhble consequence ' of ' a continuance of such
pecuniary succour.' ' The assurances of Spain that
' I have chiefly followed in this summary of the causes which

152 pitt's second ministry.
the subsidy was only a temporary expedient gave
the English a momentary excuse for refraining from
pushing matters to an extremity. But the naval
preparations in the Spanish ports in the following
year left this country hardly any alternative. The
English envoy withdrew from Madrid ; the charge
d'affaires was directed to present an ultimatum to
the Spanish court. Instructions suited to the occa
sion were issued to the commanders of the English
fieets ; and, before war actually occurred, a Spanish
squadron returning from South America with trea
sure was intercepted, and, on the refusal of its
commander to submit to detention, captured. These
events naturaUy gave rise to important debates in
both Houses of Parliament. Pitt moved an address
to the King on the 11th February, which, after a
discussion extending over two nights, was agreed to
by a majority of 313 to 106 votes. The report in
Hansard gives no mention of Perceval ha-ving spoken.
Notes, however, for a speech on this occasion stUl
exist among his papers ; and, having regard to his
official position, and the deficiency of the Govern
ment in debating power, the balance of probability
is in favour of his having spoken.
A debate on the Eoman CathoUc Petition de
manded higher powers. Lord Eedesdale had already
primed his brother-in-law with the proceedings of
the Eomanists ; and the successive pictures, which
led to the war the declaration of the English Government. — Vide
Hansard, iii. 124.

PITT S SECOND MINISTRY. 153
he had sent him from Ireland, of the designs of the
members of that Church, had, there are good grounds
for assuming, induced Perceval to reconsider the
opinion, which he had previously expressed, of the
possibility of some concessions.
' Our attention,' wrote Lord Eedesdale, ' has been
somewhat engaged of late by the meetings of the
Eoman Catholics in Dublin for the purpose of
petitioning Parliament. The meetings have been
promoted by some -violent and ambitious men, who,
ha-ving acquired large fortunes, outweigh the infiu
ence of the ancient nobUity and gentry of their
persuasion  The question of Catholic Eman
cipation, considered as a question of religious toler
ance, as necessary from tenderness to the consciences
of men, is a mere farce. Those who are the leaders
aim at the repeal of the legislative union of Great
Britain and Ireland, a separate legislation for Ire
land, and a new municipal Government, — founded on
the system of the first French Eevolution, — an inde
pendent Irish nation, and a nominal king. .... The
Irish consider themselves as a conquered people,
their lands as taken from them by fraud or force, the
Government as throughout a usurpation, and resist
ance to it as highly meritorious, its overthrow and
the expulsion of the Enghsh a consummation
devoutly to be -wished. Unless ministers shall act
-with firmness and -vigour, that overthrow and that
expulsion wUl happen.' '
» The letter, which viewed in the light of subsequent events

154 pitt's SECOND MINISTRY.
The petition, to which Lord Eedesdale referred
in this letter, was presented to the House of Lords
by Lord GrenvUle ; by Mr. Fox to the Commons,
on the 25 th March. The latter appointed the 9th
of May for taking it into consideration. The de
bate was ultimately fixed for the 13th of that
month ; and the evening was mainly occupied with
four great speeches. Abbot sums it up with cha
racteristic conciseness. ' Fox, three hours ; Duige-
nan, two hours ; Grattan, one hour forty minutes ;
Attorney-General, one hour. Fox spoke with great
abUity ; Grattan initiated his Parliamentary career
with a speech of extraordinary eloquence.' ' The
short newspapers of those days had already devoted
so much space to these orators, that they were com
pelled to compress Perceval into two or three lines.
The report in Hansard is, comparatively speaking,
not much fuUer. But a verbal report of the speech
was published many years after its delivery, by
Mr. Dudley Perceval, from his father's draft of it,
and it is therefore possible to obtain an accurate
record, not, indeed, of Perceval's best manner, but
of his views on the Eoman CathoUc Question.^
is certainly a remarkable one, is printed nearly in exte-nso by Mr.
D. M. Perceval, 'The Church Question in Ireland,' Blackwood,
1844, Mr. D. M. Perceval confirms my conclusion that Lord
Redesdale's influence with his father induced the latter to withhold
the concessions he was previously inclined to make to the Roman
Catholics. ' Colchester, ii. 2.
2 The Church Question in Ireland,' London, Blackwood, 1844.

pitt's SECOND MINISTRY. 155
Perceval based his argument on the hypothesis, ' That
a nation has a full and unquestionable moral compe
tency to give and intrust its pohtical power, or any
portion of it, its authority, executive or legislative,
its offices of trust, of power, or of infiuence, to such
persons, and in such degree, on such terms and on
such conditions, as it may judge most expedient to
the general security of the Constitution at large ; to
the security of any part of its establishments ; or to
the general tranquiUity or happiness of its subjects.
 Neither the Eoman Catholic, nor any other
dissenter, nor any other description of man, be he
what he may, has any right to any share of political
power beyond what the Legislature thinks proper to
give him ; the Legislature, which made the office, being
the judge of the qualifications which fit a man to fiU
it.' The propriety, therefore, of conceding the Cathohc
claim turned not on any question of right, but on one
of expediency ; and Perceval devoted a considerable
portion of his speech to showing that it was inex
pedient to make the concession. First, because it
would fail to concUiate the Irish ; and, second, be
cause the concession would be the stepping-stone to
further demands.
After a two nights' debate, the House rejected,
by a large majority,' Fox's motion. 124 members
voted in favour of it ; no fewer than 336 against
it. There can be no question as to the opinion
of the present generation on the merits of that
' Pari. Hist. iii. 1060.

156 pitt's second ministry.
decision. It may, perhaps, be worth wMle to cite
one instance of the -view which Perceval's contem
poraries formed on the subject. Lord Eedesdale
had come over to England to attend the debates on
the petition in the House of Lords. On his retum
to Ireland he naturaUy -wrote to his brother-in-law.
After a long exordium, which it is unnecessary to
quote here, on the corruption of the Irish Govern
ment, he goes on: — 'With the Protestant part of
the country, the Union has gained considerably by
the manner in which the Cathohc Petition has
been rejected. They think they may now have
some reliance on the Imperial Parliament ; and the
Catholics are generally said to be more down, or
rather less up, than at any time since 1793. I
believe that if Government would give due attention
to Irish affairs, and make the Irish Government
truly respectable, .... the country might soon
be brought to order. I am clearly of opinion with
the Speaker that it depends only on the Govern
ment of England whether Ireland shall be a
Catholic or Protestant country  Give us good
bishops and good judges, and twenty years wUl do
much.' It is hardly, however, within the natural pro
vince of this memoir to refer to the abuses in the
Irish government, and it wUl, therefore, be necessary
again to revert to the state of affairs in the House
of Commons. Great as was the interest excited
by the debate on the first Eoman Catholic petition,

pitt's second MINISTRY. 157
the revelations of the Naval Inquiry Commissioners
soon caused it to be forgotten. The Commis
sioners of Naval Inquiry had been appointed in
1803, to examine into any irregularities, fi^auds, or
abuses, which are, or have been, practised by per
sons employed in the several naval departments.
Nine reports were made in the course of 1803 and
1804. The tenth ' on the office of the Treasurer of
His Majesty's Navy' was completed on the 13th
February, 1805. The Commissioners first directed
their attention to the balances in the Treasurer's
hands at the conclusion of each year ; and they ' dis
covered that the sums standing in the name of the
Treasurer of the Navy at the bank were, for the
most part, considerably less than his unappropriated
balances,' They therefore deemed it their ' duty to
enquire minutely into the cause of these deficiencies ;
and, with this view, examined Mr, Trotter, who had
been promoted by Lord MelviUe from a Clerkshi.p
in the Navy Pay- Office to the Paymastership.'
Mr. Trotter acknowledged that he had been in the
practice of drawing money from the bank in large
sums, and lodging it in the hands of private
bankers, previously to its being issued to the sub-
accountants for the public service. The practice, he
stated, had been introduced in 1786, with the know
ledge and approbation of the Treasurer. Money
applicable to Navy services had been advanced to
Lord MelvUle, and employed by his lordship in the
pubUc service of the State. The Commissioners,

158 PITTS SECOND MINISTRY.
having extracted this information from Mr. Trotter,
next addressed themselves to Lord MelvUle. His
lordship declared his inabUity to furnish them with
an account. ' Being often in the practice of employing
•occasionally some time in assorting my papers, and
destroying those that were useless, I am satisfied
that there does not exist any one material by which
I could make up such an account as you specify.
But, independently of that circumstance, I think it
right to remind you that, during a great part of the
time I was Treasurer of the Navy, I held other very
confidential situations in Government  So
situated, I did not decline giving occasional accom
modation from the funds in the Treasurer's hands to
other services  If I had materials to make up
such an account as you require, I could not do it
without disclosing dehcate and confidential trans
actions of Government, which my duty to the pubhc
must have restrained me from revealing.' But Lord
MelvUle was not satisfied with imposing a reserve
on himself where the public ser-vice would have beqn
injured by his speaking. ' He also declined,' -wrote
the Commissioners, ' to inform us whether he had
derived any profit or advantages from the use or
employment of money, issued for carrying on the
current service ofthe Na-vy between January, 1786,
and May, 1800, However,' they add, 'the appre
hension of disclosing delicate and confidential trans
actions of Government might operate with Lord
Melville in withholding information respecting ad-

PITT S SECOISD MINISTRY, 159
vances to other Departments, we do not perceive
how that apprehension can at aU account for his
refusing to state whether he derived any profit or
advantage from the use or employment of money
issued for the services of the Na-vy,"
The proceedings which ensued are well known.
Whitbread, on the 8th of April, moved a series of
resolutions, affirming the conclusions at which the
Commissioners had arrived ; and insisting that ' Lord
Melville, having been privy to, and conniving at the
withdrawing from the Bank of England, for purposes
of private interest or emolument, sums issued to him
as Treasurer of the Navy, has been guilty of a gross
violation of the law, and a high breach of duty ; and
that, in applying money issued for the service of
the navy to other services, stated to have been of so
delicate and confidential a nature, that in his opinion
no account can or ought to be given of them, has
acted in a manner inconsistent with his duty, and
incompatible with those securities which the legis
lature has provided for the proper apphcation of the
public money.' Pitt defended his old friend and
coUeague with the full force of his abUity, and
moved an amendment to refer the tenth report to a
Select Committee, ultimately consenting, on a sug-
gustion of Fox's, to substitute for his motion the
previous question. Lord Henry Petty replied to Pitt,
and Perceval, m his turn, answered Lord H. Petty.
' The Tenth Naval Report will be found in Hansard's Debates,
iii. 1147-1212.

160 pitt's SECOND MINISTRY.
Early on Tuesday morning the House di-vided.
216 members, it was found, had voted for Whit
bread's motion, and the same number for the pre-vious
question. The Speaker gave his casting vote' in
favour of the motion ; and the House passed the
first ten of the thirteen resolutions. The eleventh
provoked so much opposition, that it was found
necessary to adjourn the debate ; and it was ulti
mately determined to report the ten resolutions
alone. Whitbread then carried a motion that the
resolutions should be laid before his Majesty by
the whole House ; and the House subsequently
adjourned for the Easter Eecess. Immediately after
the holidays Whitbread followed up his success
by moving for a Select Committee to make further
inquiry into the matters contained in the Eeport of
the Commissioners. Pitt met the motion with an
amendment to limit the inouiries of the Committee
to certain specified points. Perceval again took a
prominent part in the debate ; the Minister's amend
ment was carried by 229 to 151 votes ; and a subse
quent proposal that the Committee should be ap
pointed by baUot, endorsed by 251 votes to 120.*^
The rest of the proceedings during the Session of
1805 can easily be recapitiUated. On the 29th of
' No historian, so far as I am aware, has ever criticised this
vote of the Speaker's ; but it seems clear that it was -wrong. It is
the Speaker's duty in the case of a tie to give a vote which shall
allow the question to be raised agaiu. The Speaker, therefore, on
this ground should have voted for the previous question.
^ Pari. Debates, iv. 255, 327, 398, 427.

Pitt's second ministry. 161
AprU Mr. Spencer Stanhope proposed that the Attor
ney-General be directed to take such measures as may
appear most effectual for ascertaining and securing,
by a due course of law, such sums as may be due
to the public from Lord MeMUe and Mr. Trotter.
Bankes, on the part of the Opposition, met the mo
tion with an amendment, that ' the Attorney-General
be directed to prosecute the said Lord MelviUe and
Mr. Trotter for the said offences.' Perceval again
spoke in support of the original motion, which was
carried by 223 votes to 128.' The nomination, on
the last day of the month, ' of the committee which
Whitbread had obtained led to another hot debate,
in which Perceval again took part. Lord Castle
reagh was one of those who had secured a majority
of votes ; and the Opposition endeavoured to substi
tute for his name that of Mr. Baker, on the
ground, as Whitbread put it, that the noble Lord
was not ' only a placeman, but a perpetual place
man.'- But they were beaten by a large majority :
219 members supporting the minister, and only 86
voting for Wliitbread's motion.
The Opposition, however, were not satisfied. The
report of the Select Committee was laid on the table
on the 2 7th of May ; and Whitbread immediately
gave notice that he should, on the first open day,
submit to the House a motion for the impeachment
of Lord MelvUle; and on the 11th of June the
motion was actuaUy proposed.^
1 Pari. Debates, iv. 504, 506. ^Ibid. 536. ' Ibid, v 121.
VOL, I. M

162 pitt's second ministry,
' We hope,' wrote Perceval to Lord Eedesdale on the
previous evening, ' we shall be able without much difficulty
to prevent the impeachment of Lord Melville, which is to be
moved for on Tuesday (to-morrow). He is to appear at the
bar and be heard in his defence. We have no fears at all
on the subsequent question respecting Mr, Pitt, There
seems with regard to Lord Melville^s impeachment to be a
strong sentiment arising that, after ha-ving resolved, ha-ving
applied to the King, and having directed a ci-vil prosecution
for the recovery of money, &c., — that after all this to im
peach is persecution, which no temperate -view or considera
tion of justice would require or countenance.'
The result of the debate confirmed Perceval's
¦view. 272 members voted against the impeachment,
while only 195 supported Mr. Whitbread. But, on a
subsequent division, an amendment of Mr. Bond for
a criminal prosecution was carried by 238 votes to
229. Perceval spoke, late on the second night, wind
ing up the debate on behalf of the Government, and
deprecating the injustice of proceeding against any
person twice for the same offence. ' If the House
wished to be governed by analogy, and to proceed as
in any other place would be a matter of course, the
civil proceedings,' which had been already instituted,
' would form a complete and invincible obstacle ' to
any further action. ' Those, who wish Lord Mel-viUe
to appear on his trial for what they have already
punished him, forget the principles of British justice —
moderation and mercy — and I hope the House wUl
not proceed in a way by which an ordinary prose
cutor would disgrace himself '
• Pari. Debates, v. 376 and 377.

PITT S SECOND MINISTRY. 163
The subject was partiaUy renewed on the 20th
of June. Bond inquired of Whitbread whether
the Attorney-General had power to exclude from
the prosecution he had been desired to institute
any of the matters contained in the tenth Eeport ;
and Perceval took advantage of the opportunity to
point out the inconvenience of the course which
the House had adopted, and to ask for specific
instructions for his guidance. Should the civil
suit which he had been directed to institute be
wholly suspended, or should he endeavour to carry-
it on against Mr. Trotter singly ? If he proceeded
civUly against Mr. Trotter, was he at liberty to use
him as a -witness against Lord Melville ? Was he at
liberty to bring in proof against Lord Melville what
had fallen from him in that House at the bar ?
Under the old system, when prosecutions were made
the subject of address, these difficulties would not
have occurred, as the law officers coiUd have apphed
to the Secretary of State for instructions in any
dUemma. But now that prosecutions were instituted
at the immediate command of the House, the At
torney-General was compelled to ask the House ' to
instruct him specificaUy by vote as to what it wished
him to make matter of particidar charge."
The difficulties, which Perceval pointed out in
this speech, he was no doubt able to expose from the
circumstance that the Government had made up
their minds that an impeachment would be prefer-
' Hansard, v. 484.

164 pitt's second ministry.
able to a criminal prosecution. Pitt probably hoped,
on the 11th of June, to be able to defeat both pro
positions. The small majority in favour of Mr.
Bond's motion proved the miscalculation he had
made ; and he determined to retrace his steps.
Leycester gave notice, on the 24th, that he would
move that an impeachment be substituted for the
proceedings which had been agreed upon. And,
upon the following day, after a speech, in which
Perceval again expressed aU the difficulties in which
the Commons had involved themselves, the im
peachment was carried by a majority of 23 in a
comparatively thin House of about 300 members.'
The proceedings against Lord MelvUle were in
every way unfortunate for the Ministry. Pitt's re
putation was lowered by the degradation of his old
coUeague, and dissensions arose in the Cabinet
itself. Addington, who after his reconcUiation
with Pitt had been made Lord Sidmouth, and had
joined the Ministry, regarded Lord MelvUle's posi
tion from the first with disfavour. The appoint
ment of Sir C. Middleton, as Lord MelviUe's suc
cessor 'at the Admiralty, increased Lord Sidmouth's
displeasure. He resigned his new office, and was
with difficulty induced to withdraw his resignation.^
A slight matter increased the difference which had
thus arisen. Lord Sidmouth desired that Bond,
1 Hansard, v. 607, 615.
¦^ Pellew's ' Life of Lord Sidmouth,' ii. 354, 364.

pitt's second MINISTRY. 165
one of his closest friends, should be made Judge-
Advocate. Pitt, on the contrary, felt that the line
which Bond had taken made his appointment im
possible. Lord Sidmouth thereupon retired from
the Ministry.
' The immediate cause,' wrote Perceval to Lord Arden
on the 11th July, ' of the resignation was Pitt's refusal to
make Bond the Judge-Advocate. It has been understood
for some time as settled and arranged that Bond should suc
ceed to that office. But Mr. Pitt felt that, if so immediately
after Bond had taken so forward, and. in manner and ap
pearance so hostile, a part upon the proceedings against
Lord Melville, the next act of government was to place him
in this situation, it would have the effect of degrading and
lowering Pitt in public opinion ; Lord Sidmouth thought
that, as the part taken by Bond was perfectly -with his con
currence, if he were to acquiesce in having it understood that
such a part was a sufficient cause for his promised arrange
ment to be set aside, that he would be degraded and lowered,
and therefore he could not submit to it. This I believe to
be the immediate cause ; but, what I feel as the real one,
is the manner in which the friends (as they chose to term
themselves) of Mr. Pitt — but I think their distinctive cha
racteristic and description should be the enemies of Lord
Sidmouth ^ have constantly spoken of Lord Sidmouth and
his friends. This it is that has created that feeling on each
side, which has led to the supposition that every measure is
to be considered with a view to the efiect it is to have, in
the public opinion, upon the question whether Mr. Pitt or
Lord Sidmouth was really the person to dispose of the influ
ences and patronage of Government.'
The resignation of Lord Sidmouth was not the

166 pitt's second ministry.
only consequence of the Parliamentary proceedings
on the Tenth Eeport. Grey, on the 25th April,
drew attention to an article in the ' Oracle,' in which
the proceedings of the House of Commons had been
criticised in strong language. The article, which
was prefaced by a notice of Sir Charles Middleton's
appointment, professed to regret that ' party rancour
and popular clamour have at this time deprived our
King and country of the great and powerful abi
lities of Lord MelvUle. . . , We cannot help again
aild again declaring that Lord Melville has faUen a
victim to confidence misplaced, to prejudice mis
judged, and to indignation misapplied,' This passage
and some others in the article were perhaps in the
strict sense of the term Ubellous ; but neither it nor
they were worse than many -with which this genera
tion is famUiar, and which are probably the natural
and necessary result of a free press. Grey moved
that the publisher of the paper — a Mr. Peter Stuart
— be called to the bar. Pitt insisted that the hbel
was no worse than many others which had passed
unnoriced. Perceval pleaded for dehberation and
the delay of a day, and Stuart was directed to
attend on the morrow.' On the morrow Mr. Atkins
Wright protested with much good sense against the
adoption of severe measures. ' His peace of mind
was not destroyed, because his conduct had been
censured ;' and ' the honour and dignity of Parha
ment would best be maintamed by passing over in
' Hansard, iv. 381, 382, 387.

PITT S SECOND MINISTRY. 167
sUence such trifling indiscretions.' Sheridan fol
lowed shortly afterwards in the same strain, pro
testing that the article, UbeUous as it undoubtedly
was, compared -with others he had seen, was mere
milk and water. The Opposition were determined to
press their point. After strong speeches from both
Fox and Grey, Stuart was summoned to the bar;
and the apology that he offered was so far a defence
of Lord Melville that it made the matter worse.
Grey moved that Peter Stuart had been guUty of a
high breach of the privUeges of the House, and
Perceval rose to attempt to defend him. His apology
deserves to be quoted for the inimitable manner
in which he carried the war into the enemy's
quarters. ' I stated before,' he began, ' that I had
no doubt that this came under the description of
a libel, and I think so stUl ; but I also said that
I did not think that the House ought to interfere in
the business. This is stUl my opinion. Many things
come before me which I cannot hesitate to pro
nounce Ubels ; but from the circumstances that at
tend such cases I should not advise that any notice
should be taken of them. . . , An honourable gen
tleman over the way said that he had great difficulty
in finding any libel simUar to the present one. Sir,
libels do not make such lasting or strong impressions
in other cases as they do when they are directed
against ourselves, I recoUect, sir, wlien public
prints made that honourable gentleman (Fox) state
at clubs and meetings that the House of Commons

168 pitt's SECOND MINISTRY.
was so lost to everything that was just and proper
that there was no use whatever in attending in it ;
and I remember, too, that the honourable gentle
man was absent from his duty in the House at the
time; yet, sir, I do not say that the honourable
gentleman absolutely held this language, but I do say
that the prints made him say so, and adopted that
mode of conveying their sentiments with more
weight. But after all this, sir, there was no inter
ference on the part of the House.' ' This Uttle
page,' writes the author of the ' Pictorial History,'
' from the history of Fox's secession, made a great
impression, and called up Fox, who, however, could
not deny a single iota of it. Stuart himself, the
cause of this, was, on Pitt's motion, taken into
custody, and was only discharged on payment of
his fees on the 2nd May." Perceval again took the
opportunity to say that ' the great zeal, that some
gentlemen now showed to punish a hbel on the
majority of the House, appeared difficult for him to
account for in any other way than he had already
done by supposing that they were attached to
majorities or minorities, exactly as they themselves
happened to belong to the one description or the
other. Having now found a hbel on a majority to
include themselves, they were ready to vote for in
creasing the punishment."^
' Hansard, iv. 441 ; Plot. Hist. viii. 156.
'^ Hansard, iv. 551.

PITT S SECOND MINISTRY. 169
So far we have been considering the more pro
minent events of the session, in which Perceval took
part. This memoir of him would, however, hardly
be complete if no reference were made to one
subject, on which he was conspicuously silent. The
restoration of Pitt to power induced the Duke of
Athol to revive the claim which at intervals he had
constantly made for further compensation for his
lordship of the Isle of Man. The case was peculiar.
In 1765 Parliament, on the recommendation of the
administration, had passed the Mischief Act, as it
was technically called, to remedy the Ulicit trade be
tween that island and this country. The Duke of
Athol, as lord of Man, petitioned against the BUl.
The smuggling, which had reduced the custom dues
in this country, had swelled the receipts in that
island. The Duke and Duchess were heard by
counsel ; but Parliament determined to turn a deaf
ear to their prayer, and passed the BUl. A natural
fear, that their revenue would in consequence be
largely diminished, induced them to offer to sell
their rights in the island to the Cro-wn for 70,000?.
If the revenue was legitimate, the sum was mani
festly small. If the trade, on which it depended,
was fairly liable to be stopped by this country,
it was sufficientlj liberal. That the latter view
was correct may be inferred from the offer having
been made by the Duke. That Parliament was
not disposed to treat him Uliberally may be

1 70 ' pitt's second ministry.
gathered from the circumstance that on his Grace's
petition an annuity of 2000?. a-year was added for
the joint lives of the Duchess and himself
The bargain, however, had been no sooner made
than one of the parties to it began to disown it. In
1780, in 1783, and in 1790, petitions were presented
to Parliament by the Duke complaining of the loss he
had experienced from the transaction. In 1801^ —
soon after the change of Ministry — a new petition
was presented to the Privy CouncU, and referred by
it to the Attorney-General (Law), and to the Solicitor-
General (Perceval). The elaborate report, on which
these officers agreed, was subsequently published as
a Parliamentary paper. The original, with nume
rous alterations in Perceval's o-wn handwriting, is
stiU in the possession of the representatives of the
latter. ' It is the most satisfactory discussion,' said
Curwen in the House of Commons four years after
wards, ' of a mixed matter of law and fact, which ever
came under my consideration. . . . Able and masterly
as that report is, it cannot but produce conviction
with every man who brings an unprejudiced mind
to its perusal.' In conformity with the recommenda
tion of their legal advisers, Addington's ministry re
jected the Duke's claim. His Grace appealed. Pitt
referred the appeal to the Privy Council. The latter
neglected to take the law officer's opinion a second
time ; and recommended, in opposition to their pre
vious decision, that further compensation should be

pitt's SECOND MINISTRY. 171
given.' A bUl was brought in for that purpose.
Pitt's ministry, not very much to their credit,
actively supported it ; and, not-withstanding the
opposition of Curwen in one House and Lord EUen
borough in the other, it was passed through aU its
stages. It seemed necessary to refer in detaU to the
circumstance, because Lord CampbeU, in his life of
Lord EUenborough, assumes that, had it not been
for the praiseworthy opposition of that noble lord, the
bUl would have been smuggled, midiscussed and un
opposed, through Parliament — an allegation which
seems speciaUy unjust to Mr. Curwen, who strenuously
resisted it on every stage. Perceval, as Pitt's At
torney-General, could hardly have ventured on open
opposition. His opinion of the matter may, however,
be safely inferred from the circumstance that he
was consistently absent firom aU the debates on it.
' One of the subscribers of that report,' said Curwen
on the 7th of June, ' now fiUs a more elevated situa
tion. . . . The other subscriber (Perceval), I sin
cerely regret, sir, not having the satisfaction of seeing
this night in his place ; but we aU know him to be
a man too honourable to permit me to reason from
his report, if he had changed the opinions on which
it is founded.' ' It must be taken for granted,' said
Windham on the 19th of June, 'that the learned
gentleman still retained that opinion ; at least the
' Pari. Hist. V. 215.

1 72 pitt's second ministry.
House had some reason to lament he did not attend
to support his former opinion or to announce his
conversion.' '
The BUl was ultimately passed on the 10th of
July. T-wo days afterwards Parliament was pro
rogued by commission. During the earlier portion
of the recess rumours were rife that Pitt was at
tempting to strengthen his government by a coali
tion -with the Opposition.
' I heard yesterday,' Perceval wrote to Lord Arden on
the 28th September, ' that Mr. Pitt at Weymouth had freely
expressed to the King the weakness of the present govern
ment, and his idea of the difficulty which might be ex
perienced in the next Session ; and proposed to him the
alternative of either attempting to go on as we are, or to
make overtures to the Opposition. The King did not hesi
tate to prefer fighting it out as we are ; in consequence of
which no offer will be made to the Opposition.'
Later in the autumn the year was memorable
for two great battles. The naval supremacy of
Great Britain was confirmed at Trafalgar, the mUi
tary predcminance of Napoleon ensured at Aus-
terlitz. Lord Arden's second son, the present Lord
Egmont, a young middy of eleven years of age, was
at the first of these great engagements.
'I congratulate you and Lady Arden most heartily,'
wrote Perceval to his brother, 'on the way that George
speaks of his share in the great day of Trafalgar. He is
evidently most decidedly attached and riveted to his pro
fession, which has opened upon him under the most favour-

' Hansard, v, 215, 457.

pitt's second ministry. 1 73
able impressions. I should fear that there was great doubt
whether he would realise his expectations of dining -with you
at Christmas ; but that is of little consequence compared
with his health and general attachment to the service.'
The battle of Austerlitz imfortunately dispeUed
the hopes which Trafalgar had naturally excited.
Pitt, wearied with the cares of office, worried beyond
measure with the pending impeachment of Lord
MelvUle, with a constitution physically weaker from
the strain of continual mental labour, was unable to
bear up against the new blow. When Parliament
met he was lying seriously iU at Putney. Before it
had sat for many days he was dead.
' I wrote to you a single line yesterday from the House
of Commons,' Perceval wrote to Lord Redesdale on the 23rd
January, 1806, ' announcing to you the near approach of
the death of poor Mr. Pitt. It is now over. He died this
morning about half-past four. The Bishop of Lincoln was
with him in the house from the time that he came to Put
ney. And I understand that, upon Mr. Pitt being apprised
of his danger, he had the Bishop with him, arranged some
private affairs, and that they prayed together, in short, that
his mind was quite composed as it ought to have been.
' On what is to follow from this event, either here or in
Ireland, I have no means of furnishing you with any inform
ation. In my humble opinion the state of parties renders
the attempt of forming a government out of the remains
of the present totally impracticable ; and therefore the true
wisdom seems to me to point out the necessity of the King's
immediately sending for whatever person in the Opposition
he may think unexceptionable, and making the best arrange
ments which he can by means of him.'

174

CHAPTEE VI.
ALL THE TALENTS.
1806, 1807.
Pitt's Debts and his Friends — Ministerial Arrangements — So
lution of an Official Difficulty — Formation of a Cabinet —
'AU the Talents' — Correspondence with Lord EUenborough
—The Opposition — Windham — Military Service Scheme —
Case of Miss Seymour's Guardianship — Inquiry into the Con
duct of the Princess of Wales— Charges against Perceval —
Death of Fox — Grenville's Application to Perceval — Dissolution
of Parliament — General Election — Unsuccessful Negotiations
with France — Napoleon's Continental System and the Orders
in Council — Increase of Maynooth Grant.
The death of Mr. Pitt introduces us to a new era
in Perceval's history. The latter, indeed, had never
lived on terms of particular intimacy -with the great
minister. Pitt was, by three years, Perceval's senior
at Cambridge. He was Prime Minister of England
before Perceval had held a brief He was sur
rounded by his own followers when Perceval was first
elected for Northampton. The succession of Ad
dington to power made a great intimacy less probable
than before. And, when Perceval became Pitt's chief
laAv officer, declining health and increasing cares
left the latter little leisure or disposition for social
intercourse with a comparative stranger.

ALL THE TALENTS. 1 75
Yet no one had recognised more clearly than
Pitt the great abUity of the young la-wyer. Fif
teen years before his death a political pamphlet
had first introduced the latter to his notice. Five
years afterwards he had offered Perceval, in the
most complimentary manner, the Chief Secretary
ship for Ireland. Nine years before he died he had
recommended him to Lord Harrowby as the most
fitting successor to himself He is even said, by
no favourable critic,^ to have had so great an ad
miration of Perceval's style of speaking that he
never missed an opportunity of hearing him. The
time was now arriving when the justice of this
opinion was to be confirmed. The Tory party in
the House of Commons was without a leader.
Though Perceval had the disadvantage of his pro
fessional avocations to contend against ; though he
had as a competitor Pitt's favourite pupU, the
eloquent Canning, it became more apparent every
day that he was the most fitting successor to Mr.
Pitt. From the mere accident of his position he
became less of a lawyer and more of a politician.
It would, consequently, be unfair if in the rest
of this work his conduct were not judged by a totally
different standard to that which has hitherto been
applied to it. Up to this time, we have been con
sidering the successful career of an able la-wyer,
whose business both in and out of Parhament was
to defend the Ministry -with which he had aUied
' WiUiams's ' Life of Perceval.'

176 ALL THE TALENTS.
himself Unexceptional testimony has been adduced
in proof ofthe stirring manner in which he fulfiUed his
task. But it must not be forgotten that, during the
whole of the period, he was practicaUy irresponsible
for the policy of which he was the ablest advocate.
Henceforward the case wUl be different. From the
date of Mr. Pitt's death in 1 8 0 6, Perceval was the most
prominent member of the Tory party in the House
of Commons. He must be held therefore responsible
for the policy that party pursued. From the spring
of 1807 he was the leading member of the Portland
administration. From that date till his death, he
must be held more or less responsible for the pohcy
of Great Britain.
Parliament had met on the 21st of January.
The fact that Pitt was dying was kno-wn on both
sides of the House ; and Fox abstained from the
opposition on which he had agreed vdth his friends.
Two days afterwards Pitt was dead. On the 25th,
the House of Commons, on Lascelles' motion, voted
funeral honours to his memory. It would hardly be
within the province of this memou- to give a detaUed
account of the ceremony. It is sufficient here to
state that Perceval was selected to bear the banner
of Emblems, with Eose as one supporter and Can
ning as the other.^ But a more practical question
remained for solution. Pitt, it was well known,
had died heavUy in debt ; and WUberforce was un
ceasingly employed in endeavouring to get people
' Kose's Diary, Ji, 257.

ALL THE TALENTS. 177
to agree to a subscription to pay them. ' Tried
many,' he writes in his diary on the 29th of January,
' but cold in general except Attorney-General Per
ceval, who warm and generous as always.' ' That
warmth of sentiment,' Perceval said to him, ' which
opens and softens the heart, has a tendency to
remove all strictures even those of the purse ; but
the frame has a tendency to return to its habitual
contraction.' But, though Wilberforce adopted Per
ceval's advice, and lost no time in soliciting the
great minister's friends, his applications were appa
rently with few exceptions unsuccessful. The
Bishop of Lincoln even desired to be repaid the loa.n
which he had advanced four years previously. Per
ceval alone, ' with a large family and a moderate
fortune, at once offered 1000?. to the proposed sub
scription.' '
But the rest of Pitt's friends were less generous.
Nothing like the necessary amount was forthcoming;
and application had ultimately to be made to Par
liament for the liquidation of debts which ought to
have been defrayed by private generosity. The
House, on the .3rd of February, decided nem. con.
to vote the money. **
Perceval does not appear to have taken part
in this debate. But he prepared and probably
delivered a strong speech in favour of Lascelles'
motion, which some of the more cautious mem
bers of the party apparently desired to tame
¦ Wilberforce, iii. 248 and 249. ''Han. Debates, vi. 128.
VOL. I. N

178 ALL THE TALENTS.
down. The notes are very short, but the following
passage is so spirited that it deserves to be pre
served : — 'It is said that you should have unani
mity. Why ? The only unanimity that his measures
ever had was by the secession of his opponents.
They have that choice left. But, if they are here,
the probabUity is that many of them wUl vote
against it. They have the opportunity of being
consistent by absenting themselves and not opposing.
But we have no opportunity of being consistent by
compromising our real sentiments and adopting any
expressions of our admiration of the statesman as
weU as of the man.'
More important matters, however, required
attention than the payment of Mr. Pitt's debts
or the arrangements for his funeral. His seat for
Cambridge had to be filled ; a new minister to be
appointed. It was perhaps natural that Perceval
should have been more than half tempted to offer
himself as a candidate for the University. Before
Pitt had been dead a day the Opposition had started
two candidates. Lord Henry Petty and Lord
Althorpe. ' My vanity,' said Perceval in a letter to Lord Redesdale,
from -which an extract has already been given, ' has much
tempted me to offer myself for the same seat. But consider
ations, which I think my friends must admit to have been
weighty, and which I have now no time to detail to you,
determined me not to put in hazard the seat I have for the
chance of one which would only be better in idea and not in
reality.'

ALL THE TALENTS. 1 79
The ministerial arrangements were more difficult.
The King seems, in the first instance, to have sup
posed that it would have been possible for Lord
Hawkesbury to carry on the government ; but his
Lordship was satisfied with securing for himself the
substantial advantages of the Wardenship of the
Cinque Ports, and joined the cabinet in a unanimous
recommendation to the King to send for Lord Gren
vUle. But here a fresh difficulty arose. Lord
Grenville held the lucrative office of Auditor of the
Exchequer, and had Uttle inclination to give up the
emoluments of such a post. But it was obviously
Ulegal for the same person to hold that office and a
commissionership of the Treasury. Fox, indeed, on
the 3rd February, represented the matter as one of
doubtful legality. ' He was not aware of that
iUegality, nor did he very clearly see the foundation
of that doubt ; but the better way would be to
remove aU doubts by an Act of Parliament.' He
would move for leave to bring in a bill, which might
be read a first and second time that evening, and
committed on the morrow. At this point the
Speaker interposed. It was the recent practice of
the House that notice should be given of any subject
which it was intended to bring forward. Fox, in
return, admitted that the Speaker had correctly
described the recent custom, but doubted 'whether
the House ought to make so low a bow to modern
practice as not in any instance to deviate from it,
however urgent the case might be.' Perceval, speak-

180 ALL THE TALENTS.
ing as Attorney-General, rose to support the chair.
'The question was whether the practice should be
attended to, or whether it should be given up to
gratify the wishes of the honourable gentleman ? If
no notice was necessary, a bUl might actuaUy be
passed through all its stages in one day, and the
House would have no guarantee against being
taken by surprise on the most important measures.'
Fox gave way ; but renewed his motion, of which
formal notice was immediately given, the next day.
Eose opposed it on this occasion with all the weight
which his long experience at the Treasury imparted
to his opinion. The auditorship of the Exchequer
was a check upon the Treasury, and the appointment
could not properly be held either by the First Lord
or his deputy. The House doubted whether to be
guided by the wishes of the Ministry or the expe
rience of Eose, when Perceval suggested that Parha
ment should itself appoint a trustee to act for the
noble lord. Fox and Eose both assented to ' the
arrangement proposed by the honourable and
learned gentleman ; ' and the necessary addition was,
in consequence, made on the 5th February to the
bUl.' George Eose implies, in his diary, that the credit
of stopping a scandalous arrangement was enthely
due to himself It is certainly tme that the merit
of exposing the inconsistency ofthe same person hold
ing the two appointments belongs to him ; but the
' Han. Debates, vi. 141, 143, 151, 153.

ALL THE TALENTS. 181
solution of the difficulty was obviously attributable
to Perceval's readiness. It seemed necessary to detail
the course of events in this memoir, in order that
the share which the subject of it had in their
management might be placed beyond question.
Lord GrenvUle, in his new position, had the
confidence of both sides of the House. Fox had
selected him as his leader; Pitt's friends, as wUl
be immediately shown, were ready to support him
against Fox. Notwithstanding, however, the com
parative strength of his position. Lord Grenville
was anxious to found his ministry on ' a broad
bottom,' and to include in it ' all the talents.' It
was ob-viously, under such circumstances, desirable
to apply to Lord Sidmouth. This noble lord enjoyed,
in a peculiar degree, the confidence of the King.
His integrity had surrounded him with a respectable
following of his own ; his secession from the late
Ministry had undoubtedly weakened Pitt's parlia
mentary position. But Lord Sidmouth naturally
objected to come alone. Lord EUenborough was
the most brilliant of the public men who had been
specially connected with Addington's administration ;
and, though his reputation had been earned at the
common law bar. Lord EUenborough was offered the
Great Seal. But his lordship had a family, and he
hesitated to abandon the permanent advantages of
the Chief Justiceship of the King's Bench for the
dazzling but less lasting attractions of the Chan
cellorship. His hesitation was the greater, because

182 ALL THE TALENTS.
he had the good sense to doubt his own capacity for
dealing with Chancery cases. Lord EUenborough
consequently refused the tempting offer. But Lord
Grenville conceived that, if the noble lord was
un-wiUing to accept the Chancellorship, there was no
reason why the cabinet should not have the advan
tage of the Chief Justice's counsel. Either from a
desire to please Lord Sidmouth, or from satisfaction
at the brilliancy of the position, Lord EUenborough
unfortunately accepted the offer. The opinion of
the public on the appointment at the time was
distinctly unfavourable. No one wordd probably
even attempt to defend it now. But Lord EUen
borough was one of Perceval's greatest friends ; and
the latter communicated to his lordship, through a
common friend, his misgivings on the subject.
' I met Bond to-night,' wrote Lord EUenborough, in
reply on the Sth February, ' at the ancient music ; and, from
the communication he made to me of your kind anxiety
on a certain subject respecting myself, I should be glad of
two or three minutes' conversation -with you. In yielding,
with considerable reluctance to the wishes of others that I
should become a member of the Cabinet, in the qualified way
in which T shall allow myself to be one at all, I do not feel
that I can possibly incur the risk even of inconsistency with
those duties to the due discharge of which I am not only
ready but determined to sacrifice every other consideration.
I have stipulated expressly not to be present at the con
sideration of any criminal questions, or questions in any
degree connected with the particular subjects of my jurisdic
tion. You know, I daresay, that the Cabinet is only a Com
mittee of the Privy Council, and that there is no subject.

ALL THE TALENTS. 183
which comes before them, upon which the Crown might not
already require me to advise in my capacity of privy coun
sellor. I have disposition little enough to devote myself to
politics ; and have no curiosity to gratify in reading dis
patches. To the extent to which my convenience may be
broken in upon, by allowing myself to be occasionally sum
moned to extraordinary councils (as Lord Mansfield, I un
derstand, for a long time was), I make a sacrifice to the
request of one, who has a right to ask of me any sacrifices
which are not inconsistent with public duty. I shall be
glad if, on considering the matter further you shall see it in
a different light, for I should be extremely sorry to act, in a
matter of decorum and propriety, and much more in point
of duty, against the opinion of a person whom I esteem so
correct a judge of them, and whose practice is as correct as
his judgment.' The interview which he had with Perceval had
not, however, the effect of inducing Lord EUen
borough to reconsider his decision. He accepted
Lord GrenvUle's offer. Strong opinions were ex
pressed on the appointment on all sides, and Lord
Bristol and Spencer Stanhope gave notice of their
intention to move resolutions in either House of
Parliament on the subject. On the eve of the
debate Perceval ventured on a second remonstrance
with his Lordship. The correspondence which en
sued, and which is in the possession of Perceval's
representatives, is printed by Campbell, in his ' Life
of Lord EUenborough.' It is of sufficient importance
to justify its insertion in a note here.' But Lord
' ' My dear Lord, — I believe Mr. Spencer Stanhope wiU certainly
give notice to-morrow in the House of Commons of his intention to

184 ALL THE TALENTS.
EUenborough again declined to give way ; and
debates, on the 3rd of March, took place in both
submit some motion to the House, on the subject of your Lordship's
situation in the Cabinet. Feeling as I do upou the subject, and
convinced as I am, after a great deal of reflection upon it, that the
propriety of the appointment cannot be maintained in argument, I
should think that I acted unkindly, if not treacherously, by you
(especially as I shall myself with these feelings be obliged to take
part in the debate), if I did not once more, with great earnestness,
recommend to you the expediency of reconsidering the subject, and
of retiring willingly, in deference to the public sentiment, from the
situation in question. I advise it the more readily, because I am
sure you do not court the situation yourself, and that you are risking
your own character, which is too important a public possession to be
risked lightly, out of deference to the feelings and wishes of others
rather than your own. However unpleasant it may be, either to
you or your friends, to take a step which apparently acknowledges
that you have fallen into an error, yet, as you may depend upon
it, it will come to this at last, or else raise a ferment of which you
at present have no conception, and in which your friends will leave
you to yourself, it is clearly less unpleasant to you when the
implied acknowledgment will only be that you have committed an
error, into which under the circumstances any person might very
naturally have fallen, than to wait till the time when this implied
acknowledgment will not only be that you have committed an
error, but that you have tried to persevere in it after it was pointed
out to you, and against, if not the force of argument, at least the
weight of public opinion. Your friends, who advise you against
the step which I now recommend, cannot, I am certain, see this
subject in all its bearings, or they could not as your friends so
advise you. You and they both, living perhaps encircled a good
deal by your own friends (who borrow their impressions upon such
subjects in great measure from yourselves, and do little more than
reflect back upon you your own opinions), do not come in contact
with the opinion of the public. The confidences and kindness
with which you have ever favoured me, have drawn from me this
frank exposure of my sentiments. I trust you are not off'ended at
it. As far as party feeling against the Government could go, I
assure you that I should court the discussion ; and I cannot trace

ALL THE TALENTS. 185
Houses. In the House of Lords no division oc
curred, and Lord Sidmouth conceived that the pro-
in my own mind any improper bias which actuates me, unless,
indeed, the disinclination which I feel to be forced into a situation
where my duty will oblige me to take part in a debate, possibly
unpleasant to your feelings, may be deemed an improper bias.
' I am, &c.
' Lincoln's Inn Fields, ' Sp. Perceval.
'Feb. 23rd, 1806.'
' My dear Sir, — I should not truly state my own feelings upon
the occasion if I did not say that, on many accounts, I received very
great pain from the perusal of your letter.
' You will no doubt conscientiously pursue your own line of
conduct. I have only to request that you will have the charity to
suppose that I am equally guided by principles of duty, when I
declare my intention of abiding and conforming to the sense
which the Houses of Parliament may think fit to express on my
subject. ' I would, as you advise me to do, retire in deference to tiie public
sentirnait, if I was perfectly satisfied that the sentiment of the
unprejudiced part of the public did not accord with my own ; but
I am yet to learn that the judgment of those who consider the
question without party bias is against me ; and am wholly at a
loss to discover what duties, in respect of advice to the Crown, are
cast upon me in the character of what is called a Cabinet Coun
sellor, which do not already attach upon me as a member of the
Privy Council under the oath I have taken, in case His Majesty
should think fit to require my advice as a Privy Counsellor (as he
has frequently done that of others) upon subjects relative to the
Executive Government of the country.
' However, as you tell me you are convinced tliat tlie propriety
of tlie appointment cannot be maintained in argument, I will forbear
to waste my time or your own in unavailing discussions, and
remain, with thanks for the frankness and explicitness of your
communication, and a strong sense of former kindness,
' Very sincerely yours,
' Bloomsbury Square, ' Ellenborough.
' February 24:t/i, 1806.'

186 ALL THE TALENTS.
priety of the appointment had been indisputably
established. In the House of Commons the Talents'
'My dear Lord, — I cannot possibly permit the letter which I
received from you this morning to be the last which shall pass
between us upon the subject to which it relates. I cannot fail to
see that you are much ofi'ended by my former letter ; and I must
endeavour to remove, as far as I can, the grounds for that ofi'ence,
which any objectionable expressions in it may have afforded. If
there is any word in it which intimates or insinuates the slightest
or most distant opinion that you will not act, or that you have not
acted, upon this occasion, as upon all others, upon what you con
ceive to be the true principles of duty ; or which conveys the least
ground for your thinking it necessary to request that I have the
cluirity to suppose you will do so ; I can only say that I have been
most unfortunate in the language which I have used, and have
conveyed a sentiment directly the reverse of what I felt, as well as
of what I intended to convey. From some expressions of my
letter, which you repeat underlined, I fear that, in expressing
Strongly what I strongly felt, I have used language which you have
thought disrespectful. If I have done so, I am extremely sorry
for it, and ask your pardon most readily for the manner in which I
have executed my purpose. But for the matter of it, I am so
conscious that I never acted by you or anybody under a more
sincere impression of personal regard than in writing that letter,
that, though I must be sorry for my failure, I should even now
reproach myself if I had not sent it.
' When I referred to the sentiments of the public being against
the Government upon this question, I ought certainly to have
been aware that nothing is more difficult than to collect with any
accuracy the public opinion. But I did so refer to them, because I
have conversed with and collected the sentiments of many persons,
some of them members of our own profession (whose judgments
form no unimportant criterion), and also of several ^ersims friendly
to tlie present Government, and I have not met with a single one
who has doubted of the impropriety of the appointment. You
state "that you are yet to learn that the judgment of persons who
consider the question without party bias is against you." I fully
believe that you are so, and it was my belief of this which is my
only justification for troubling you with my letter. Your situation

ALL THE TALENTS. 187
Administration were so powerful that they were
supported by 222 votes to 68. Perceval spoke on
is so elevated that you have no chance of obtaining information
upon such a subject, unless some real friend will, as I have done,
risk with the hope of serving you the chance of offending. I have
exposed myself to that chance, and I fear have been unfortunate.
Even now I doubt whether you disting'iish between the illegality,
which you certainly may contest, and the impropriety of this ap
pointment ; its inexpediency, its tendency to diminish, not the
true upright and independent administration of justice (for in your
instance I am sure that will never be), but the satisfactory ad
ministration of it in the opinion, or, if you please, the prejudices
of the public. It was this impropriety that I stated (in terms
which I wish I had not used, because they offended you) could not
be maintained in argument. I will, however, trouble you no
further upon it, and should be ashamed of having troubled you so
long, but for the concluding sentence of your note, in which, in
expressing a strong sense of vnj former kindness, you too plainly
imply that in this instance you suppose me to have departed from
it, and I thought it but due to that kindness and friendship which
I wished still to retain, or recover, not to spare myself any trouble
in endeavouring to remove, as far as I can, the unfavourable im
pression you have received. I hope, however, you will do me the
favour to keep what I have written ; and if, when temporary
feelings have passed by, you will fairly ask yourself what possible
motive I could have had to have written an unpleasant letter to
you, on this or any other subject, except that which I profess, I
thiuk you will be convinced that you can find no trace of any
intentional departure from the most friendly kindness and good
will in anything I have done. ' I am, (fee.
'Sp. Perceval.
' Tuesday Morning.'
' My dear Sir, — I received your letter this morning as I was
setting out for Guildhall, or would have immediately thanked you
for the kind terms in which it is written, and the friendly spirit it
breathes. Nothing wiU give me, I assure you, greater concern
than that any event should in the collision and conflict of parties

188 ALL THE TALENTS.
the motion. His speech was evidently prepared with
unusual care, as the rough notes for it, and a complete
draft of it, which are stUl in existence, prove.
Whatever opinion may be formed of the terms
in which Perceval's first remonstrance to Lord
EUenborough was couched, there can, in these days,
be no doubt that the former was entirely in the
right, the latter completely in the wrong. Since
happen, which might occasion even a temporary interruption of
that confidence and regard between us, from which I have derived
so much satisfaction, and which I had hoped would endure as long
as we both lived. I cannot help acknowledging that the admo
nition to retire from my present situation, and some other ex
pressions contained in your first letter, appeared to me of an
harsher tone and temper than I thought you would on consider
ation have been pleased with yourself for having adopted in any
communication with me. But the sensations they excited in my
mind were more those of sorrow than of anger. Upon the prin
cipal question between us, I forbear to say a word. The position
in which that question now stands precludes the possibility of my
adverting to it with any degree of delicacy. I have, therefore,
only to add that I remain with a sincere regard, founded upon
approved circumstances of character and conduct, which I trust no
events can change, nor time efface, ' Most faithfully yours,
' Ellenboeough.
' Bloomsbury Square,
'February 2btli, 1806.'
N.B. I have corrected Perceval's letters, of which only the
drafts are in the possession of his representatives, by Campbell,
who has clearly taken them from the original. Lord Ellen-
borough's letters, on the contrary, are copied from the originals,
and differ in some degree from those which Campbell, who pro
bably copied only the first drafts, has published. ^

See 'Lives ofthe Chief Justices,' vol. iii. pp. 189-192.

ALL THE TALENTS. 189
the propriety of the appointment was affirmed in the
one House without a division, and in the other by a
preponderating majority, no minister has ever ven
tured to suggest the possibUity of a Judge holding
a cabinet office. Lord Sidmouth's complacency has
not even commended itself to his biographer ; his
example has not found a solitary imitator.'
Lord EUenborough's refusal of the Great Seal,
from which this difficulty had practicaUy arisen, led
to a new dUemma. The Chancellorship had to be
filled up ; and there was no Whig la-wyer with evi
dent qualifications for the office. Mansfield was first
thought of; but his chUdren were Ulegitimate, and
he did not choose publicly to advertise the fact by
accepting a peerage. Erskine was then resorted to.
Like Lord EUenborough, he was at home in common
law. But, unhke Lord EUenborough, he did not
think his ignorance of chancery practice an insuper
able disquahfication. Perceval sent his formal con
gratulations through a common friend.
'I flatter myself,' Erskine wrote in reply, 'I shall not
be placed at a greater distance from you, because I have the
greatest satisfaction in assuring you that I have always re
garded your talents with admiration ; and the many virtues
which adorn you in private life, as a man and a gentleman,
with the greatest possible respect.' -
' Lord EUenborough himself is said later in his life to have
regretted the appointment. Horner considered 'Lord Ellen-
borough's nomination to the cabinet as a foul stain upon the
new system of Government.' — Letter to A. J. Murray.
'^ Perceval Papers.

190 ALL THE TALENTS.
It has been necessary to deal in some detail with
the arrangements of the new Ministry. It is time
now to revert to the position of the Opposition.
Pitt's death had given a fatal blow to the organisa
tion of his party. Lord Carrington told Lord
Malmesbury that ' we were now all free to act as we
pleased. Every bond of union was dissolved ; and
no obligation remained with any one to abide by a
party which had lost its leader, and with its leader
everything.'' The consequence of such sentiments as
these was perhaps perceptible in the crushing defeat
which the Opposition sustained on Lord EUenbo
rough's position. That such sentiments should have
been expressed can hardly be considered a matter for
surprise. The leaders were at variance ; and it was,
therefore, natural that the foUowers should differ.
Lord Camden, Lord Castlereagh, and Lord Hawkes
bury thought that Pitt's friends should cling toge
ther, and watch the Ministry, prepared only to
oppose if its conduct were subversive of Pitt's prin
ciples ; and ready to support Lord Grenville, should
it be necessary, against Fox. Eose approved the
advice, but resented the interference of the three
Lords. Canning, who was carefJly spreadiog a
report that Pitt had intended him for cabinet office,
was, on the other hand, indignant with Castlereagh's
premature acti-vity, and suggested the selection of
Lord Lowther, the Duke of Beaufort, or some other
• Malmesburv, iv. 350.

ALL THE TALENTS. 191
considerable peer, as a point d'appui : avowing that
he would not submit to the lead either of Castlereagh'
or Hawkesbury in the House of Commons. Eose
endeavoured to pacify him, suggesting ' Charles
Yorke and Perceval. Canning did not raise so
strong an objection to these as to the others, and
seemed to think that either of these two might do
tolerably weU.''
The passage is of importance, because it distinctly
proves that, at the very commencement of 1806, the
possibility of Perceval's leadership was distinctly
foreseen. His detractors have been fond of assuming
that his subsequent elevation was due to the peculiar
part which he played in the delicate investigation.
But the inquiry into the conduct of the Princess of
Wales had not, at the beginning of 1806, been even
commenced. Yet, at that time, Canning and Eose
were both prepared to accept Perceval as their leader.
It is obvious, therefore, that the accidental position, in
which his defence of the Princess subsequently placed
him, cannot be regarded as the sole or chief cause of
his promotion in the following year.
The Session of 1806 was not remarkable. The
GrenvUle-Fox Administration was consistently sup
ported by large majorities. The Opposition, disunited
and distrustful, hardly attempted to interfere se
riously with their proposals. Perceval was a con
stant speaker. The Parliamentary History records
¦ Eose, ii. 227, 246, 249, 262, 264.

192 ALL THE TALENTS.
no less than sixty-nine occasions on which he ad
dressed the House. But it would be both tedious
and useless to dUate on these in detaU in this Me
moir. The more important of them were those in
which he criticised Windham's proposals for army
reform. This able but eccentric politician, who had
been the chief opponent to Pitt's mUitary plans, and
was now responsible for our war policy, had akeady
avowed a strong preference for Umited service, and
an unusual distaste for the volunteer movement.
' The right honourable gentleman,' Perceval once
amused the House by saying, ' had taken all his
ideas of the Volunteers from the corps which he him
self commanded — the Felbrig Volunteers. That
corps in itself united everything which the right
honourable gentleman had been so accustomed to
condemn. Of aU the corps that subsisted in the
county of Norfolk, this was the only one in which
the commander had taken the title of colonel. The
composition of the corps was also singular. There
were seventy-three privates, but no staff, no field-
officer, no captain, no subalterns, no drummer;
and only two Serjeants. The right honourable gen
tlemen seemed to wish to exemplify in his own corps
all the imperfections which he complained of in the
Volunteer system. If at any time, he saw in Hyde
Park, or elsewhere, such an appearance of discipline,
as staggered his opinion, he immediately comforted
himself with the recoUection of his own corps m

ALL THE TALENTS. 193
the country, and of their indiscipline and want of
subordination.'' Early in March, the Secretary-at-War brought in
estimates for the army for two months,^ with the
avowed object of giving Windham time to mature his
plans. The latter, a month later, brought forward
his great scheme. Though his speech was founded
on the assumption, which the victories of Germany
have proved to be inaccurate, that ' an army must be
a class of men set apart from the general class of the
community,' it is impossible to deny its great merits.
The injurious effects of the high bounties which the
Additional Services Act had indirectly occasioned,
the encouragement which had thus been given to
desertion, the consequent necessity for some re
form, the wisdom of relying on voluntary enrolment,
the inec[ualities and injustice of a mUitia ballot,
the preference of Umited service to enlistment for
life, are established with remarkable clearness. But
his proposals were less satisfactory. Though there can
now be little question that short service in the army
is preferable to long enlistments, there was, to say
the least, great doubt whether the- period of a terrible
war was the proper moment to make the change.
Though the volunteer force had unquestionably im
posed considerable expenses on the country, it was
obviously undesirable to select a time of war for
> Hansard, vi. 21.
' Additional estimates for another month were subsequently
proposed on the 8th May. — Ibid. ii. 62.
VOL. I. O

194 ALL THE TALENTS.
depreciating the usefulness of the movement. Yet
Windham deliberately determined to substitute short
for life enlistments in 1806 ; to starve the volunteers
by reducing their estimate ; and to attempt to sub
stitute for them what was incorrectly termed a levy
eyi masse; in other words, to train a specified pro
portion ofthe population selected by lot — 'a term
which I prefer to the odious one of ballot' — to
mUitary exercises.
The Opposition met the proposal, in the first
instance, by moving for any reports which the
Government had received from mUitary officers on
the feasibility of short enhstments, and for returns
of the cost which the volunteer movement had
involved. Perceval supported the first of these
motions in a short speech. He moved the second
of them himself More active opposition soon
became necessary. On the l7th AprU, six weeks
after his great speech, Windham brought in a bill
to repeal the Parish Quota Act. On the SOth AprU
the BiU was read a second time without a division ;
on the 6th May the House went into committee on
it ; and on the 13th May it passed its third reading.
Perceval opposed it on each of these four occasions,
insisting strongly on the preference -which ought to
be given to the Parish Act over the ballot, and
inveighing against the folly of repealing one plan
before the alternative had been practically intro
duced. For, though two months had elapsed, Wind-
' Hansard, iv. 652, 777, 790, 840.

ALL THE TALENTS. 195
ham stUl hesitated to bring in a bUl to give effect to
his plans.
' A more incompetent Government,' -wrote Perceval, ' for
the detail of business, I believe, was hardly ever seen. They
expose themselves at every turn. "We have had two Mutiny
Bills for six weeks or two months for the purpose of giving
Windham's military plans time to digest themselves.
Though it is now eight weeks since he opened the whole of
them, and he now declares he has not altered a syllable of
them, yet not one of his Bills as yet has he ventured to
produce. His plan of military service for the whole army,
with the right of the soldier to demand his discharge, is
reprobated by almost everybody. The friends of the Go
vernment are almost as loud against it as any other ; yet
they are, I understand, to persevere and drive it down if
they can. It is understood that the King, the Prince of
Wales, and the royal dukes are all against it, and the per
severance in it seems to be most unaccountable, as one can
not conceive the useful object which is hoped to be obtained
through so much unpopularity and iU will.'
The temporary Mutiny BUls were the logical
consequence of temporary estimates. The introduc
tion of the Mutiny Act for the year gave Windham,
at last, an opportunity for legislation. The limita
tion ofthe period of service necessitated an alteration
in the oath of the recruit ; and the discussion on the
merits of the new plan had, consequently, to be
taken on an amendment to Schedule A in the
Mutiny Act, and on a new clause to give effect to
the scheme introduced into the Bill. Perceval, who
wound up the debate for the Opposition, ' complained
much of the predicament' into which the House was

196 ALL THE TALENTS.
throvra. ' If the other House of Parliament should
exercise a privUege -with that clause, which they had
been often in the habit of assuming, the ine-vitable
consequence would be that the BUl would be thro-wn
out by this House, the existing Mutiny BiU would
expire, and the army of the country be de facto
disbanded.' But the most teUing part of the speech — Han
sard's very imperfect report of which it is possible
to supplement from the draft among Perceval's
papers — was that in which, under pretext of insist
ing on what Windham might have done, he dUated
on the difference between Fox's pohcy in opposition
and in office. ' For myself, at first and for a httle
time, having great confidence in the right honour
able gentleman's magnanimity and patriotism, I had
indulged a hope that he might have met the difii
culties and embarrassments of his situation in
another manner, and have left behind him all those
wUd and ruinous ideas which he has now let loose
on our mihtary system. His situation would not
have been singular amongst his colleagues. It
would have been nothing to the changes of opinion
which we have -witnessed in others. How much
better would it have been for him to have foUowed
the example, so well and so successfuUy set him by
the noble lord the ChanceUor of the Exchequer and
the right honourable gentleman the other Secretary
of S'tate (Fox). It must, no doubt, have been
unpleasant for them the other day, and particularly

ALL THE TALENTS. 197
embarrassing for the Secretary of State, to have
been the advocates not only for the property-tax,
but for an extension of it. But the right honourable
gentleman sacrificed any little awkward feeling
which he might have had of wounded pride and of
blemished consistency, and manfuUy supported the
¦tax — nay, stUl more, manfully doubled it — because
the exigencies of his country and his duty towards
his country required it of him. A simUar example,
equally praiseworthy and equally imitable, was
afforded the other day by the same right honourable
gentleman : I mean the opinion, which he so use
fully and so distinctly delivered, that, if we could
possibly procure a peace, such as the honour of the
country could accept, that the security of the
country would require of us that we should keep
up an army at least as large, if not larger, than that
which we have at the present moment. This, no
doubt, was in the plainest contradiction to the
mistaken pohcy with which, after the peace of
Amiens, that right honom'able gentleman recom
mended that our mUitary estabUshments should be
reduced to the lowest possible scale. Change of
circumstances had changed the right honourable
gentleman's opinions. It matters not whence his
conviction came, or how late, if it be but come in
time to rescue the country from the inevitable ruin
to which his former opinions would have con
signed it.' ' ' Pari. Deb. vu. 479.

198 ALL THE TALENTS.
The Mutiny Act, notwithstanding the unusual
addition to it, passed both Houses. Its passage
afforded Windham an opportunity for introducing
the rest of his scheme. For this purpose he brought
forward two bUls : one, known as the Chelsea
Hospital Bill, was intended to give the troops a
parUamentary security for the higher pension he
contemplated for them on their discharge; the
other, the Training Act, for training a certain
number of persons annuaUy in mUitary exercises.
The Opposition seized the opportunity which these
measures afforded of renewing the struggle, and
Perceval again became the chief exponent of its
policy. On the third reading of the first of these
measures he delivered a speech which occupies
sixteen columns of Hansard,' and in which he
reviewed in detaU the entire policy of the admi
nistration. He seems constantly to have spoken
in committee on the second of them, though the
Government were always able to command sufficient
majorities to give effect to their proposals. '^
Windham's military proposals deserve the first
place in any review of the parUamentary history of
1806.' Lord H. Petty 's finance afforded another
• Pari. Hist. vii. 622. = Ibid. 825, 845, 854.
3 Windham's other legislative proposals consisted of a Militia
Ballot Suspension Bill, intended to give his levy en masse a fair
trial ; a Volunteer Ofiicers' Eank Bill, to prevent field officers of
volunteers taking command of regular troops ; and a Militia
Officers' Bill to extend the additional Allowance to Line Officers to

ALL THE TALENTS. 199
opportunity for the Opposition. Lord H. Petty
introduced the Budget on the 28th March before, in
other words, the Army Estimates had even been pro
posed ; and Perceval seems at once to have adverted
strongly to the impropriety of voting ways and means
before the supplies had been agreed on.' The war
had naturally created a large deficit, which it was
proposed to meet by raising the property-duty — or
income-tax, as we should caU it — from 6j to 10
per cent; by a tax of 40s. a- ton, which it was hoped
would produce 500,000^., on pig-iron ; and a duty
only estimated to yield 66,000?. on appraisements.
The Budget was universally unpopular ; the two
last proposals admittedly unsound ; and the Oppo
sition were accordingly afforded a new opportunity
for attack. But delay in voting the supplies might
have been disastrous to the country ; and Perceval
abstained from opposing the two proposals he could
not support. To the increase in the property-duty
he lent a warm advocacy, suggesting, however, that
the Government should exempt the smaller incomes
from the operation of the tax. Wilberforce, who
acknowledged that he had listened ' with great
pleasure to the sentiments of his honourable and
learned friend,' heartUy seconded him; and, though
Subalterns of MUitia. The part that Perceval took in the debates
on these measures will be found in Hansard's 'Debates,' vii. 1020,
1037, 1043, 1141, and 1184.
1 Pari. Hist. vi. 581.

200 ALL THE TALENTS.
Lord H. Petty declined at the moment to give way,
he adopted, later in the session, Perceval's sugges
tion ; and thus admitted the admirable principle that
the holders of smaU incomes are entitled to some
indulgence from any government.'
It can hardly be necessary -(,0 allude in detail, in
this memoir, to the other events of the session of
1806. Though the share which Perceval took in
them was a prominent one, there would be no in
terest in reviewing the history of the parUamentary
year. There were two other matters, however, in
which Perceval was engaged, which require more
attention. The first was the famous case of Miss
Seymour's guardianship ; the second, the stUl more
notorious investigation into the conduct of the
Princess of Wales. Miss Seymour, the daughter of
Lord Hugh Seymour, had lost both her parents at
a very early age. When they had left England — ¦
the one in command of his ship, the other for the
sake of her declining health — they had temporarUy
entrusted the care of their daughter to Mrs. Fitz
herbert. There were clear reasons for desiring, on
the parents' death, to remove the daughter from
that lady's care. Mrs. Fitzherbert was, in the first
place, a Eoman Catholic, and her religion would
have constituted an objection in the opinion of most
persons. Her peculiar connexion with the Prince
of Wales made her, on other grounds, an ob-viously
1 Pari. Hist. vii. 53 and 482.

ALL THE TALENTS. 201
undesirable guardian for a young girl. The Master
in Chancery appointed two near relatives. Lord Eus-
ton and Lord Henry Seymour, joint guardians ; and
Lord Eldon, as ChanceUor, affirmed the Master's
decision. The Prince, who took an extraordinary
interest in the case, determined on carrying it to
the House of Lords, proposing to substitute Lord
and Lady Hertford — who, he knew, would not move
the child from Mrs. Fitzherbert — for Lord Euston
and Lord Henry Seymour. The case was argued
before their lordships in June, and led to a ' pubhc
and indefatigable' canvass among the peers for their
votes ; which even Eomilly, who was retained for
the Prince, reprobates strongly in his diary.' Per
ceval, who was engaged on the other side, took — -
if we may believe Lord Brougham — the bold and
extraordinary course of denying that any gua
rantee given of payment for the Prince's conduct
could be available : first, because there was no reason
to beUeve that he would keep his promise ; and
second, because, if he did, he was insolvent, — an
argument which so enraged the Prince that, accord
ing to the same authority, ' His Eoyal Highness
exclaimed to Sir Samuel EomUly, -with most offensive
personal abuse, and an oath which cannot be recited,
that he felt as if he could jump on him (Perceval) and
stamp out his life with his feet."' It is due to EomUly
to say that, if His Eoyal Highness did really use any
• Eomilly, ii. 153. ' 'Statesmen,' ii. 63.

202 ALL THE TALENTS.
such expression, he had the good taste to omit any
allusion to it in his diary. The story, therefore,
such as it is, must rest on Lord Brougham's second
hand authority.
His Eoyal Highness's distrust of Perceval was in
all probabUity at this moment the greater from the
circumstance that the latter was known to be the
Princess's warmest advocate. In the autumn of
1805, Sir John and Lady Douglas had preferred
their famous charges against the conduct of the
Princess of Wales ; and, on the 29th May 1806, the
King had issued a commission to ' four Lords,' the
Chancellor, Lord Erskine ; the Secretary of State,
Lord Spencer ; the First Lord of the Treasury, Lord
GrenvUle ; and the Lord Chief Justice of the King's
Bench, Lord EUenborough ; ' to inquire into the
truth ofthe same.' EomUly was the chief adviser on
the one side ; Perceval on the other.
' I attended,' wrote the former on the 7th June, ' at Lord
Grenville's from between one and two o'clock in the day
till half-past eleven at night. The whole of our time, -with
a short interval for dinner, was occupied in examining wit
nesses. The four lords of the Council had granted an order
to bring before them six of the Princess's most confidential
servants from her house at Blackheath to be examined. . . .
In addition to the servants, Sophia Austin was examined.
The result of the examination was such as left a perfect
conviction on my mind, and I believe on the minds of the
four lords, that the boy in question is the son of Sophia
Austin ; that he was born in Bro-wmlow Street Hospital on
the 11th July, 1802 ; and was taken by the Princess into
her house on the 15th of November in the same year. The

ALL THE TALENTS. 203
evidence of all the servants as to the general conduct of the
Princess was very favourable to Her Eoyal Highness, and
Lady Douglas' account was contradicted in many important
particulars.'' The four lords reported on the l4th July. As
EomUly had anticipated, they found that there was
' no foundation whatever ' for the grave charge
which had been preferred against Her Eoyal High
ness. But they added that they were unable to
form a similarly favourable opinion in respect to
' the other circumstances,' ' particularly those stated
to have passed between Her Eoyal Highness and
Captain Manby,' into which they had been com
manded to inquire. In plain English, therefore,
the Commissioners acquitted the Princess of the
grave charge of having been delivered of a chUd ;
but judged her guilty of grossly indeUcate con
duct. This Eeport, which was signed on the 14th
July, was only delivered to the Princess on the
11th of the foUo-wing month by Lord Erskine's
footman. The Princess immediately acknowledged
its receipt to the King ; and, on the 1 7th, in a
peculiarly able letter, evidently composed by Per
ceval, requested that the Eeport might be authen
ticated by some competent person ; and some addi
tional information supplied to her. Her Eoyal
Highness's request was almost immediately complied
with ; the ChanceUor apologised for ha-ving pre-
» Eomilly, ii. 150.

204 ALL THE TALENTS.
viously sent his footman, and transmitted the addi
tional information through the principal officer in
attendance upon him. And on the 2nd October — or
little more than a month afterwards — the Princess
addressed her famous letter to the King. If we
remember that the letter occupies 155 octavo pages
of ' the book,' we shall not be surprised at the shght
delay that occurred in its transmission.
This famous letter, which was wholly the work
of Perceval, is familiar only to the deeper students
of the history of the country. But its abihty has
been recognised by every one who has had occasion
to refer to it. The opinion of persons Uving at the
time of its merit may be gathered from one or two
extracts. EomiUy, the leading counsel on the other
side, who imagined, in the first instance, that
it was. drawn up by Plumer, -wrote on the 27th
November, —
'I received from Lord Grenville a copy of the letter,
which the Princess of Wales has addressed to the King, as an
answer to the report of the four lords of the Privy Comicil,
and a justification of her conduct . . . It is a long,
elaborate, and artificial pleading of an advocate. . . .
As a pleading, however, it is conducted -with great art and
ability. It is manifestly intended to be at some time or
other published ; and is likely, when published, to make a
strong impression in favour of the Princess.' ' ' The answer
is finished,' writes Sir Vicary Gibbs to Mr. Rose, ' Perceval
has done it most incomparably.'*

EomUly, ii. 170, 171. = Eose, Diary, n. 298.

ALL THE TALENTS. 205
Two charges have, however, been preferred
against Perceval in connexion with this letter. It
has, in the first place, been asserted that he caused
a large number of copies of ' the book ' to be privately
printed, and suppressed them after the retum of the
Tories to office as inconvenient. It has, in the next
place, been almost as positively affirmed that he
used the book as his own stepping-stone to power.
The first of these charges is, in one sense, well
founded. There can be no doubt that the Princess's
defenders contemplated, at one time, the publication
of her letter to the King ; there can be equaUy no
doubt that an issue of the book, subsequently pub
Ushed surreptitiously, was suppressed by Perceval's
direction.' But, in the first place, there is no proof
whatever that 'the book' was originaUy printed
under Perceval's supervision. The ordinary story,
that it was printed at a private press in Lord
Eldon's house, was subsequently denied, and, even
Lord Brougham admits, has never been established
by any decisive proofs. ** But, even if this report
were true, the charge would stiU be an idle one.
For the circumstances under which the book was
suppressed were entirely different from those under
which its pubhcation had been contemplated. When
' In 1809 the Court of ChanceiT' granted an injunction to re
strain the publication of the book. — Attorney-General v. Blagden,
Eomilly, ii. 171.
2 '.Statesmen,' ii. 63.

206 ALL THE TALENTS.
it was contemplated, the Princess was vainly de
manding that she should be received at court, and
treated in a manner suitable to her position.
'There was,' as Perceval himself wrote to Eose on the
3rd of October,' ' so much disposition to be hostile to her
manifested in the whole course of the proceedings, that,
looking forward to a new reign; there could be no possible
security for her being permitted to hold her rank and station
in this country, but from the existence of a strong sentiment
in her favour throughout the kingdom ; and therefore her
letter to the King should be so prepared that, if published,
it would have the effect of encouraging that sentiment.'
But, when the publication was suppressed, the
letter had already accomplished its purpose : the Prin
cess had been received by the King. There was no
longer any occasion to pubUsh a letter which it was
obviously on public grounds desirable to 'suppress.
' Lord Eldon and Mr. Perceval,' ^ writes Twiss, in
his life of the former, ' had always felt that the pub
hcation of matter so objectionable in its nature
could have been justified only by extreme exigency'
The Opposition revenged itself by ' the imputation
that their advocacy of the Princess's cause had been
a mere hoUow manoeuvre of party.'
If, however, the first charge against Perceval —
that he sanctioned the printing of a book which
ought never to have been pubhshed, and subse
quently took steps to suppress it because its publi
cation was inconvenient to himself— falls through,
' Eose's Memoirs, u. 301. ' Ibid. 128.

ALL THE TALENTS. 207
what shaU be said of the second, that he used the
book as his o-wn stepping-stone to power ? So vague
and unfounded a charge was, perhaps, never pre
ferred against any other statesman. George the
Third, in 1806, was an old man, whose life was
apparently fast drawing to a close ; and who had
already been on two occasions the victim of mental
derangement. As a mere question of political expe
diency, the favour of the Prince of Wales was of
more importance to a rising statesman than that of
the King ; and yet Perceval deliberately went out
of his way to place his reconcUiation with the Prince
beyond the bounds of probability. So far, too, from
his using the position which the book had secured
him to aid him in his subsequent career, his strong
desire, both at this time, and in 1807, was to stick
to his own profession and reject the temptation of
political advancement. We shall have occasion to
see that his subsequent promotion was thrust on
him against his will. It is idle, under such circum
stances, to pretend that the promotion would never
have been gained if it had not been for the infiuence
of ' the book.'
Another charge, indeed, connected with the pre
ceding one, has been preferred against Perceval.
Lord Brougham insinuates in his ' Statesmen,' that
Perceval and Lord Eldon were the Princess's friends,
only so long as her friendship was useful to them ;
and that tbey deserted her when their reconcUiation
with the Prince made it inconvenient. The best an-

208 ALL THE TALENTS.
swer that can be given to this charge by Lord
Brougham, the Historian, consists in an extract from
a speech by Mr. Brougham, the Counsel. ' Mr. Pitt
was one of the Princess's earliest defenders and
friends in this country. He died in 1806, and, but
a few weeks after, the first inquiry into the conduct
of Her Eoyal Highness began. He left her a legacy
to Mr. Perceval, her firm, dauntless, and most able
advocate. And no sooner had the hand of an as
sassin laid Mr. Perceval low, than she felt the cala
mity of his death, in the renewal of the attacks
which his gallantry, his skill, and his invariable
constancy had discomfited.' What becomes of the
charge in the History after this eloquent tribute to
the Minister's constancy in the Speech ? '
The letter of the Princess of Wales to the King
was dated on the 2nd October. Nineteen days before
Fox had died. He had been taken iU on the 1st of
the preceding April ; and the inevitable termination
had long been foreseen. Lord GrenviUe naturaUy
desired to seize the opportunity for strengthening
his tottering administration ; and, perhaps as natu
rally, turned to one of the more prominent members
of Addington's administration. In the previous
June or July, while Fox was stiU aUve, his Lordship
had appUed unsuccessfully to Canning." Fox's death
suggested a similar application to Perceval; and
Lord EUenborough^ was selected as the most fitting
1 Brougham's Speeches, i. 110.
' See the latter's letter to Eose, ii. 311. ' Ibid. 302, 303.

ALL THE TALENTS. 209
channel through whom it could be made. The ac
count, which Perceval -wrote of the offer to Eose,
wUl be found in the latter's diary. In nearly simUar
language he wrote to Eyder —
' You have probably heard in the course of the summer
of overtures to Canning, which through him extended, with
strong expressions of general good will, to Pitt's friends,
to a more direct tender of office to me, to Sir W. Grant, and,
I rather believe, to Eose ; but I am not quite sure of the
last. These, however. Canning thought so unsatisfactory
that nothing came of them.
' After this Lord EUenborough came to me, and told me
as a friend of mine it had occurred to him that, now Fox
was dead, I might no longer have any objection to join the
administration. I stopped him immediately by saying that,
if his object was addressed to me only individually, it was
so impossible that I could listen to it, that it was more cor
dial and fair by him to stop him, before he had explained
himself. . . . He said that, if that was my feeling and
determination, it was not necessary to go any further ; and
there the matter rested without my knowing what he had
conceived it was possible might have tempted me ; and
indeed without my knowing whether he made the communi
cation with Lord Grenville's privity or not.'
Lord Gren-ville therefore failed in his application
to Perceval, just as he had previously failed in his
addresses to Canning. He was more successful in
his determination to dissolve Parhament. Eumours
of a dissolution had been rife throughout the Session.
But the majorities by which the Ministry was nearly
uniformly supported afforded them no just excuse for
hastening the end of the Parliament. The conviction,
however, that they could obtain a substantial ad-
VOL. I. P

210 ALL THE TALENTS.
vantage by a general election overcame their
temporary scruples, and Parliament was dissolved
on the 24th October. Perceval and Bouverie were
quietly re-elected for Northampton, a slight show of
opposition towards the latter commg to nothing.
Lord Northampton, we may suppose, as usual, paid
the expenses of the election, and Perceval had con
sequently to decline a similar offer from Lord Arden.
The quiet which characterised the Northampton
election was not visible in other places. The
Ministry gained considerably by the result. Eose
-wrote rather enigmatically to Perceval : —
'I went over the returns to the new Parliament with
Bourne a few days ago, and we made the Administration
gain 29 and the Oppo'sition 22 in England and Wales ; with
5 hopeful for us, and 14 doubtful ; of which 19 all but 3
were against us in the last Parliament.'
Perceval's account of the result to Eyder is less
specific, but more interesting.
' Between ourselves the dissolution of Parliament, a great
blow no doubt to our strength and our means of public ser
vice, has yet, I think, flung greater dismay into our ranks
than is in any degree reasonable. It seems to me to be
quite clear that those who wish to preserve a retreat to Lord
Grenville from his new friends, or a retreat to the King
from both, must be desirous that we should keep together ;
and that individuals going to Lord Grenville with tenders
of their services will go unthanked and unthought of. One
means of preserving our strength is by keeping a good
countenance, and showing, if not by voting, for that pro
bably except upon some extraordinary occasions would not
be politic, yet by the number of friends who make their
appearance together that we are still together.

ALL THE TALENTS. 211
'Eeports of dissension and disagreement among the
friends of Government are to be received with great caution,
no doubt. But they say the elections have given as much
cause of difi'erence among themselves as they unquestion
ably have to others. Lord Grenville has been unwise enough
personally (by letter) to interfere against Lord Eliot at Lis-
keard. . . . Sir W. Pulteney they opposed at Wey
mouth. The Duke of Northumberland is very angry about
Westminster. . . . The Foxites had prevailed upon Lord
Duncannon to stand for Middlesex, but, while they were
engaging him. Lord Grenville had engaged -with Mellish.
Lord Grenville could not give up Mellish, but it was
thought tliat a seat should be found for Lord Duncannon
somewhere else. A borough in Ireland was found, but in
the mean time Tierney was defeated in the borough, and
his Parliamentary services are thought of more importance
than Mellish's, and therefore the Irish borough is trans
ferred to him. . . . All these things seem to promise no
great improvement in the good humour and cordiality of
their strength, however much numerically it may have
been improved.'
The new Parliament met on the 15th December.
There had been rumours in Westminster Hall that
Abbot's re-election to the chair was to be opposed ;
but the report was either unfounded, or the Ministry
hesitated to carry out their earher intentions, and
the Speaker was re-elected. Four days later the
Lords Commissioners read His Majesty's speech.
' Canning moved a long amendment ' to the address.
Lord Howick answered in a powerful and eloquent
speech ;' after which Lord Castlereagh was very
indifferently heard. Perceval did not speak on the
' Colchester, ii. 84.

212 ALL THE TALENTS.
occasion ; but on the following evening, on the
report being brought up, he warmly defended his
own friends from the charge which Lord Howick
had brought against them of ' Uttle thwarting and
harassing opposition ;' and ridiculed the contention
that the late election had afforded any proof that
the Ministry was popular.' Even the hon. member
for Westminster had been completely beaten by
Mr. PauU, ' until the Government coursers were
harnessed to the chair.' The expression, four days
afterwards, drew out Sheridan : — ' The learned
gentleman had talked a great deal of his want
of popularity, and had observed with a degree of
wit, correspondent with its candour, that it was not
tUl the Government horses had been yoked to his
car that he had been brought in.' ' The expression,'
explained Perceval, amidst the laughter of the
House, ' the wit of which the right hon. gentleman
had described as equal to its candour, arose from the
accident of his having seen the right hon. gentleman
parading the streets in a sort of triumphal car
decorated with laurels.' ^
These, however, were only the preliminary skir
mishes of the Session. The first great party debate
took place, at the beginning of the new year, on the
negotiations which Fox had conducted -with France.
Soon after the formation of the Talents Adminis
tration, a Frenchman, calling himself GuUlet de la
Guerillifere, waited on Fox, and disclosed to him a
» Hansard, viii. 83. 2 Ibid. 234.

ALL THE TALENTS. 213
plan for the assassination of Napoleon. Fox thought
it his ' duty as an honest man ' to communicate im
mediately with TaUeyrand, and TaUeyrand replied
that the Emperor's first words on reading the com
munication were, ' I recognise here the principles of
honour and virtue by which Mr. Fox has ever been
actuated.' Talleyrand enclosed in the reply, which
was dated the 5th March, an extract from the
French Emperor's speech, in which he professed to
desire peace on the basis of the Treaty of Amiens.
Fox rejoined, professing his true anxiety for peace,
but insisting that ' England cannot neglect the in
terests of any of her aUies,' especially of Eussia ;
and Talleyrand thereupon urged the appointment of
a suitable plenipotentiary. A long correspondence
ensued between the two ministers. Lord Yarmouth,
who had been detained by Napoleon at Verdun, was
accredited to the French Emperor. Lord Lauder
dale was subsequently sent to Paris to assist him ;
but the negotiation, after being protracted for seven
months, was ultimately broken off. The King, in
his declaration, accused the French Government of
departing from their original pledges. M. Talley
rand, in three important matters which -wiU be seen
below, disputed the accuracy of the declaration.
Perceval, immediately after reading the correspon
dence, saw the force of TaUeyrand's contradiction.
' I certainly do think,' he wrote to Lord Arden, on
the 30th December, ' that in aU three of the asser
tions in which TaUeyrand gives the lie to the

214 ALL THE TALENTS.
declaration, the truth is not with the declaration.'
The letter is an important one ; but its arguments
are so closely repeated in the subsequent speech that
they need not be quoted here.
' House of Commons,' wrote Abbot in his diary,
on the 5th January, 'debate on the Negotiation
papers till five in the morning. Lord Howick
moved an address. Lord Yarmouth, Whitbread,
Canning, Lord H. Petty, Perceval, and others spoke,
and Lord Howick closed the debate. No division,
but an amendment moved by Mr. Whitbread for
treating with France was rejected." The reporters
were tired out long before the close, and Perceval,
who was the last speaker on his o-wn side, was con
sequently very imperfectly reported. This circum
stance is of less importance, however, because the
greater part of the speech exists in Perceval's owa
handwriting, evidently prepared by him, after its
deUvery in the House, for publication. ' Challenged
as I have been,' he began, ' to make good the charge
that from the beginning to the end of the negotia
tion His Majesty's ministers have been the mere
dupes of France, I would beg leave. Sir, to remind
the House that the negotiation lasted for seven
months, and that at the end of those seven months
these able negotiators were just as far advanced, and
not one whit further, than they were at the be-
ginnmg. I would ask the noble Lord whether he
would pretend to say that the French Government
• Colchester, ii. 89.

ALL THE TALENTS. 215
were ever once sincere in their professions to wish
for peace during the whole of this period ? I am
aware that I cannot compel an answer from the
noble lord. The only answer, which his honourable
regard for truth would enable him to give,' would be
' too obviously conclusive to make it probable that
he woidd volunteer to give it. But fortunately.
Sir, the answer has already been practically given.
Ministers have themselves advised His Majesty to
say that "negotiations for peace appear to be en
tered into for no other object than that of deluding
the neighbouring powers whUe France is herself
preparing, arraying, and executing her unremitted
projects of encroachment and aggression." Can the
noble Lord, after this, suppose or contend that I have
any difficulty in proving that they have been dupes
to the artifices of France in this negotiation?'
Perceval then went on to notice the contradiction
which Talleyrand had brought to the truth of the
declaration. Talleyrand had given the declaration
the lie on three points : — ' 1. It is false that the
French Government had made any of those over
tures which the negotiation supposes. 2. It is false
that the French Government had adopted the pre
tended basis stated in the declaration, or that His
Britannic Majesty reserved to himself, before enter
ing into the negotiation, the principle that he could
not treat except in concert -with his allies. 3. It is
not true that the Cabinet of the TuUeries found the
powers of Lord Yarmouth insufficient.' Perceval

216 ALL THE TALENTS.
compared these extracts from Talleyrand with th6
foUowing passages in the declaration to which they
had reference : — ' The negotiation originated in an
offer made by the French Government of treating
for peace on the basis of actual possession. . . . Such
a proposal appeared to His Majesty to afford a just
foundation for negotiations ; it was therefore ac
cepted, with this reserve — that the negotiation
should be conducted by His Majesty in concert
with his allies. . . . At the same time a difficulty
was started on account of the want of fuU powers in
the person entrusted by His Majesty for opening a
regular negotiation.' ' If a jury,' Perceval Avent on,
' were empannelled to try the truth of these issues
on the evidence contained in the papers and docu
ments laid before Parliament, aU these issues must
be determined against this Government and in favour
of France.' The last point was of comparatively
slight importance. ' With respect to the second
point, upon which the two Governments are at issue,
the language of the declaration is equivocal. If it
means only to assert that His Majesty entered into
the negotiation with the reserve of conducting it in
concert with his allies, the assertion is borne out
completely by the document. But if it means to
assert, which I certainly conceive to be the case,
that the right of treating in concert with his alhes
was expressly reserved and communicated to the
French Government, then I must contend that these
papers do not prove it. As far as appears by Lord

ALL THE TALENTS. 217
Yarmouth's despatch to Mr. Fox, in which he gives
the account of his first communication with M.
Talleyrand, no mention appears to have been made
of it upon this subject ; and Mr. Fox himself, in his
reply, remarks " that it does not appear that there
has been any conversation between your Lordship
and M. Talleyrand on the point which was men
tioned to you, and which appears to be of consider
able importance — I mean the future admission of
Eussia and Sweden to become parties in a definitive
treaty ? None of the subsequent despatches of Lord
Yarmouth prove that any such communication was
made to M. Talleyrand ; and as His Majesty's
ministers, when they produced these documents,
must have known that this fact was peremptorily
denied by the French Government, they ought, if it
had been possible for them to do so, to have pro
duced the proof which would have maintained its
truth.' Upon the remaining point, ' the first offer did
unquestionably, I admit, come from France. But
that is not the question at issue. The issue is not
upon the question who made the first offer, but
whether that offer proposed the basis of actual
possession. The offer originated in M. Talleyrand's
letter of the 5 th March, which inclosed a copy of the
Emperor's speech ; and the passage referred to in the
speech is, "I desire peace with England. On my
part, I shall never delay it for a moment. I shall
always be ready to conclude it on the basis of the
Treaty of Amiens." There is no trace in this of

218 ALL THE TALENTS.
the uti possidetis, and indeed it seems fairly to be
admitted that there is none. The first passage in
the correspondence which is noticed as having that
bearing is the letter of M. Talleyrand of the 1st
April. There are three passages in that letter which
are adduced to prove it. The first, " The Emperor
desires nothing that England possesses." The second,
" We only ask for equality." The third, " The
Emperor is ready to make every concession which,
from the extent of your naval forces and of your
preponderance, you may desire to obtain." Can it
be contended from any one of these passages that
there is a tender of the basis of actual possession or
of any other basis whatever ?"
It seemed necessary to enter in some detaU
into the arguments of the speech ; because his
torians have imiformly founded their account of the
transactions on the declaration of the English Mi
nistry ; and have apparently no notion that the
accuracy of this document is open to serious ques
tion. A still more important debate took place
immedately afterwards. Napoleon, in the previous
autumn, had promulgated his famous Continental
system, under which he had endeavoured to ex
clude British commerce from the entire Continent.
The Talents Administration retaliated on the 7th of
January with ' an order in CouncU,' directing that ' no
vessel shall be permitted to trade from one port to
another, both of which ports shaU belong to or be
' Hansard, vii. 414.

ALL THE TALENTS. 219
in possession of France or her aUies.' The order
was published in due course in the Gazette ; and
Perceval gave notice of his intention to move that it
should be laid on the table. Immediately before the
motion came on. Lord Howick, the Foreign Minister,
gave hun private notice that he should object to the
production of the order. It could only be desired
for the sake of instituting some undefined proceed
ing ; and, as the Ministry would necessarily have to
resist the latter, they intended to refuse compliance
with the motion.' Perceval, under these circum
stances, postponed his motion for a time. But, on
the 4th of February, he moved his promised address.
It was an unparliamentary and unconstitutional doc
trine, he argued, that no papers should be offered to
the House unless it should be shown that no pro
ceeding was to be founded on them, but such as
Government would countenance. Then, after dUating
for some time on this point, he went on to contend
that the order would in reality be ineffectual. It
was not the coasting trade of France, but her trade
with the French and Spanish colonies with which
we should endeavour to interfere. The coasting
trade could be carried on by land carriage. Our
cruisers might have practically intercepted at sea
the produce of foreign colonies.^ Lord Howick, how
ever, stood firm ; the supporters of the Ministry
mustered in full force ; and Perceval's address was
negatived without a division.
> Hansard, viii. 451. * Ibid. 620 and 655.

220 ALL THE TALENTS.
There are two reasons for referring to this debate.
In the first place, it affords the first indication of the
policy, which Perceval subsequently embodied in his
famous orders in Council ; and which wiU require
more detailed notice in the subsequent portions of
this memoir. In the next place, it deserves recol
lection, because, whatever may be thought of Perce
val's policy, there can be very little question, that,
on the point immediately at issue, he was in the
right. No minister is entitled to refuse Parliament
information, which may be published without injury
to the State. The publication of the order in the
Gazette decisively proved that no injurious effects
could result from its stiU wider circulation. It was
therefore the duty of the Minister to lay it on the
table of the House ; and thus facilitate the very dis
cussion, which his refusal to produce it rendered
difficult and irregular.
A fortnight after this debate, the Estimates for
the Irish Miscellaneous Ser-vices came on for dis
cussion. Among the minor grants which the Miais-
try proposed was one of 13,000/. for the Eoman
Catholic College at Maynooth. The sum exceeded
by 5000/. that which the House had been previously
in the habit of voting for the purpose ; and Perceval
at once rose to take exception to the increase. The
vote was agreed to ; but a fortnight afterwards, on
the report,' Perceval again rose to oppose the vote.
The grounds on which his opposition was founded
' Hansard, vni. 937.

ALL THE TALENTS. 221
were twofold. In the first place, it was not the
grant itself, but the gro-wing nature of the demand,
that excited his alarm. In the next place, the insti
tution of Maynooth interfered with the prosperity of
the University of Dublin. The truer policy would,
he thought, have been to have promoted the joint
education of Eoman Catholics and Protestants at the
same institution. The Eoman Catholics, indeed, by
sending their sons to Dublin, had sho-wn that they
were themselves conscious of the advantages this
collision of opinion would produce. By a wise
relaxation of their rules, the University of Dublin
had ¦ encouraged the admission of Eoman Catholic
students ; and, but for the foundation of May
nooth, the Irish might, in consequence, have had
the advantage of a common university for the edu
cation of all Irishmen.
Most persons wUl think at the present day that
Perceval was wrong in opposing a moderate increase
to the Maynooth grant. But, whatever opinion they
may form in this respect, it is only fair to remember
the grounds on which his opposition was founded.
Very different was the account of it which 'Peter
Plymley ' gave to his brother ' Abraham :' —
' When it was proposed,' he writes, ' to raise this grant
from 8000/. to 13,000/., its present amount, this sum was
objected to by that most indulgent of Christians, Mr.
Spencer Perceval, as enormous ; he himself having secured
for his own eating and drinking, and the eating and drinking
of the Master and Miss Percevals, the reversionary sum of

222 ALL THE TALENTS.
21,000/. a-year of the public money; and ha-nng just failed
in a desperate and rapacious attempt to secure to himself
for life the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster.'^
And again : —
' In the second year of that Union four million Catholics
are forced to squabble with such a man as Mr. Spencer
Perceval for 5000/. with which to educate their children in
their own mode of worship ; he, the same Mr. Spencer,
having secured to his Protestant self a reversionary sum
of the public money amounting to four times that sum.'
No one knew better than ' Peter Plymley ' that
this style of -writing was teUing. No one, at the
same time, knew better that it was neither logical
nor accurate. The system of granting places in
reversion was, no doubt, mischievous in the extreme.
The Eegistrar of the Court of Admiralty was un
questionably overpaid -with his 12,000/., not 21,000/.
a-year. But the fact that Mr. Perceval's brother
was Eegistrar of the Court of Admiralty, and that
Perceval himself, under a certain contingency which
never occurred, was entitled to succeed to the office,
had ob-viously nothing whatever to do with the
propriety of increasing the Maynooth grant. ' Peter
Plymley ' must have kno-wn too that, when Perceval
opposed the Maynooth grant, on the 20th of Febru
ary, the Talents Administration was stUl in office ;
Perceval was stUl at the bar ; and the offer of the
Duchy of Lancaster for life had not been made to
him. ' Sidney Smith's Works, ed. 1840, iii. 398.

ALL THE TALENTS. 223
Before, indeed, either of these discussions had
taken place, it was tolerably well known that a great
ministerial crisis was imminent. On the 7th of Feb
ruary the Duke of Bedford, the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, sent a remarkable despatch to the Govern
ment, in which he advocated the admission of Eoman
Catholics into the army ; and the employment of
Catholic gentlemen as sheriffs. The Cabinet consi
dered the despatch at a meeting on the 9th, and
agreed to recommend compliance with the first,
and a refusal of the second of these requests.
Lord Spencer was entrusted by his colleagues with
the task of laying the decision of the Cabinet
before the King. His Majesty expressed, in reply,
on the 1 Oth, ' the most serious concern ' that the
proposal should have been made to him. The Cabinet
met immediately on the receipt of this reply, and
appear to have sat late into the night, for Lord
GrenvUle's next letter to the King is dated 1 a.m.
on the morning of the 11th. The letter, and the
Cabinet minute enclosed in it, were both of them very
lengthy apologies for the course the Ministry were
pursuing ; and in which they imphed their deter
mination to persevere. The Cabinet, they write, —
' Had persuaded themselves that in the clauses to be pro
posed for the Mutiny Bill your Majesty would be of opinion
that they were oni}- fulfilling the engagements which had
been formerly entered into under your Majesty's authority,
and carrving into efiect a principle which has already
received the fuUcst and most formal sanction by the Act

224 ALL THE TALENTS.
passed in the Irish Parliament in the 32nd year of your
Majesty's reign. That Act enabled your Majesty's Eoman
Catholic subjects in Ireland to hold commissions in your
Majesty's army, with no other restriction than is there
pointed out ; and, if a similar provision be refused with
respect to this part of the United Kingdom, it appears
obvious that the grace conferred by your Majesty on that
large body of your people must be rendered wholly illusory,
and an appearance given of a conduct on the part of your
Majesty's Government not consistent with your Majesty's
uniform and paternal beneficence towards your people, or
with that openness and good faith with which your Majesty
wishes that your servants should conduct themselves.'
With this explanation before him the King wrote
on the foUowing day that —
' He will not, under the circumstances, and adverting par
ticularly to what took place in 1793, prevent his ministers
from submitting for the consideration of his Parliament the
propriety of inserting the proposed clause in the Mutiny
Bill. Whilst, however, the King so far reluctantly con
cedes, he considers it necessary to say that he cannot go
one step further, and he trusts that this proof of his forbear
ance -will secure him from being at a future period distressed
by any further proposal connected with the question.''
With this permission before him Lord Howick,
on the 20th February, postponed the second reading
of the Mutiny BiU. ' It was now proposed,' he
explained, as a reason for the temporary postpone
ment, ' to make general a clause in the Irish Mutmy
' I have abstracted this account from the copies of the original
documents which are among the Perceval papers : an abstract of
them will be found in Eose, ii. 321.

ALL THE TALENTS. 225
BUl, aUowing Catholics to hold a certain rank in the
army. It was also proposed that all Catholics in
the army should be aUowed the free exercise of
their religion. This was, no doubt, the practice
already ; but it was understood that it would afford
much more satisfaction if it were made the law.'
The adjournment Lord Howick seemed then to
think necessary was for less than a fortnight ; but,
when that date was reached, the Ministry had
changed its mind. It was deemed more proper to
bring in a separate bUl for the purpose ; and Lord
Ho-wick intimated that he should move for leave to
bring it in on the morrow. ° On the morrow, however,
it was found, as indeed had been anticipated, that the
Ministry proposed to do much more than follow the
example of the Act of 1793. The latter had only ap
plied to the army ; the Cabinet proposed to extend it
to the navy. The Act of 1 793 had precluded Catholics
from holding the appointments of commander-in-chief,
master-general of the ordnance, and general on the
staff; and the Ministry proposed to repeal this dis
tinction. It wUl perhaps always be a matter of some
doubt how far the King acquiesced in this altera
tion. It seems certain that Lord Howick submitted
the proposed measure to the King, and that he
understood His Majesty to consent to its introduc
tion. It seems equaUy certain that the King
imagined that his Ministers were only asking leave
to alter their procedure, and were not suggesting
' Hansard, viii. 932. "¦ Ibid. 1073. Q

226 ALL THE TALENTS.
an extension of the principle which he had reluct
antly conceded.' But, whatever explanation may
be ultimately given of this misunderstanding, it
wUl always be marveUous that practical men should
have placed themselves in so pecuUar a position.
Sheridan, naturaUy annoyed at the probable loss of
his own office, ' said upon this occasion that he had
known many men knock their heads against a waU,
but he had never before heard of any man who
collected the bricks and built the very wall -with an
intention to knock out his oivn brains against it.'*'
Wilberforce said they were -without excuse, ' for they
had run upon a rock which was above water.' The
Speaker before had warned Lord Howick against
the course he was pursuing ; and two of the ablest
of the cabinet ministers, Lord Sidmouth and Lord
EUenborough, opposed it at every s-fage.'
Notwithstanding, however, these various warn
ings, the Ministry persevered. Lord Ho-wick had
no sooner sat down, on the 5th March, than Perceval
rose to state his objections to the measure. Lord
Mahnesbury tells us that ' -with great force and
ability he showed the House the radical alterations
such a measure would make in our constitution, and
the dangerous innovations, with which it would be
attended, both in Church and State.'* The ablest
part of the speech, however, is rather that which is
1 Eose, ii. 324 ; Colchester, ii. 99 ; Perceval MS.
2 Moore's Sheridan, iii. 349 ; Colchester, ii. 109 and 110.
3 Ibid. 95. * Diaries, iv. 359.

ALL THE TALENTS. 227
directed to the necessity for than to the principle
of the measure. ' If the grievances which had been
stated by the noble lord ever existed in possibihty,
they had at least never been experienced in practice.
There was not an instance of a single indi-vidual
having been injured or prosecuted in consequence
of them. Besides, these grievances, if there were any,
had existed not only since the union of Great Britain
and Ireland, but since the union of England and
Scotland ; for there was no difference between the
inconvenience sustained by the Cathohc of Ireland
and the Presbyterian of Scotland. But, setting this
aside, he denied, in point of law, that a Catholic who
obtained a commission in Ireland was liable to any
penalties if called out to exercise his military duties
in Great Britain. If this was so, we should have an
Act which compelled a man to perform a certain
duty, and which yet did not protect him in the
execution of that duty which he was called upon
to perform. Such an Act was not to be found in
the code of British and Irish jurisprudence. Did
not the United Parliament, which must be supposed
to be as well acquainted with the laws of Ireland
as with the laws of Great Britain, pass every year a
Mutiny BiU, which enabled the King to require the
ser-vices of any man in his army in any part of his
dominions to which he might think proper to summon
him ? And was it to be supposed that a man was
insecure in doing that, the refusal to do which would
subject liim to be shot ? This was not, therefore.

228 ALL THE TALENTS.
a substantive grievance, and to forward the proposed
measure on such a supposition was a mere pretence."
A spirited debate ensued. The Ministers for the
moment carried their point : leave was given to
introduce the bUl, and it was brought in and read
a first time. But, though the majority of the
Cabinet had gained a nominal success, the attention
of the King, of their coUeagues, and of the country,
had been pointedly directed to the measure. In
consequence, three most extraordinary steps were
taken. The Duke of Portland, the veteran premier
of 1783, resolved on a course which his o-wn expe
rience should have taught him was improper : he
wrote direct to the King, asking His Majesty to
acquaint him with his real -wishes on the subject,
and to allow him to make them kno-wn. He con
cluded by placing his own services, in the event of
a change of Ministry, at His Majesty's disposal.
Lord Malmesbury seems to have been the Duke's
chief if not sole, counsellor in this extraordinary
proceeding, which, however, had the effect of ehciting
from the King the assurance 'that he never had
assented, and never would assent, to Lord Howick's
BUL'- But, before the Duke of Portland had com
mitted himself to this extraordinary proceeding,
one of Lord GrenvUle's own coUeagues, Lord Sid
mouth, had taken a scarcely less irregular course.
He, too, had sought an intei-view with the King,
stated to His Majesty his own objections to the
' Hansard, ix. 9, 20. ^ Malmesbury's Diaries, iv. 359, 363.

ALL THE TALENTS. 229
measure, acquainted Lord Grenville with his reso
lution to oppose the bUl, and left it to the latter
to say whether he should or should not, under such
circumstances, remain a member of the Adminis
tration. So far there had been nothing very unusual in
Lord Sidmouth's conduct. His subsequent pro
ceedings were more irregular. Two , days after
his Lordship had offered his resignation to Lord
Gren-vUle, though in the interim he had had an
amicable interview with the Prime Minister, Sid
mouth, through Lord Arden, intimated to Perceval
his desire to oppose the Bill. Perceval sent a written
answer immediately : —
' It has given me unfeigned pleasure,' he wrote, ' to find
that you have taken so distinct and so decided a part in
opposition to a measure which in my judgment is as ruinous
as any which can be proposed.'
He then went on to express his reasons for
thinking that, for the present at any rate, any
communication between them should be made in
-writing ; and he added, —
' I cannot close this without suggesting to you what
occurs to me, and has occurred to others of my friends. It
appears to me of infinite importance to the cause that the
King should take care to set himself quite right with his
ministers. That, pre-vious to their committing themselves
on the second reading of the bill in the House of Commons,
he should distinctly tell them (Lord Gren-ville at least, if
not others) in the manner however the most concihatory

230 ALL THE TALENTS.
and the least ofi'ensive, that, whatever might be their con
clusions from anything which had passed from him before,
he never would give his consent to the bill. . . . This com
munication may perhaps bring the ministers — if they are
not as mad as I fear they will make the King — to re
consider this absurd measure of theirs, and give the King
a chance of retaining them in his counsels. ... If it has
not that efiect ... it will make his case complete with the
country. ... It will show a plain case of an honest mind,
feeling sensibly and sincerely, and acting honestly and
openly on a great question, upon which his conscience will
not enable him to surrender his opinion. . . . Nobody can
suggest this line to the King so advantageously as yourself;
and as he does not leave town till after the drawing-room
to-morrow, perhaps you may have the opportunity of
communicating it.''
Perceval -wi-ote the letter from which these
extracts have been given on the evening of Wed
nesday the 11th March. No communication seems
to have passed between him and Lord Sidmouth
on the foUo-wing day ; but, late on the evening of
the Friday, the latter wrote to Lord Arden that
'in consequence of communications which I have
received from Bond and Bathurst, I shall be happy
to see Perceval either here' (his o-wn house in Glou
cester Place) 'or at your Lordship's house at any
time that may be most convenient to himseK' But,
before Perceval had even received this letter, Lord
Howick had postponed the second reading of the
obnoxious biU.^ Lord Sidmouth repented of the
course he had taken, and postponed the interview.
' Draft of letter in Perceval papers. « Hansard, ix. 109.

ALL THE TALENTS. 231
Perceval very naturally seems to have asked for
some explanation ; and Lord Sidmouth hurriedly
replied, ' I have but a moment to acknowledge your
letter, and to assure you that I had no motive what
ever for declining the pleasure of seeing you, but an
opinion that the meeting would be premature and
improper tUl I was fuUy apprised of the final deter
mination ofthe Government.' Lord Sidmouth pro
bably felt, by this time, that he had gone too far.
If an inter-view -with Perceval was improper and
premature on the Saturday, it was obviously difficidt
to justify the desire for a meeting on the preceding
Wednesday. He seems, therefore, to have ex
pressed a -wish that the correspondence should be
kept secret. Such, at least, is the natural inference
of the concluding letter of the series, which seems,
from a passage in Lord Malmesbury's Diary, to have
been in reality composed at a meeting of Perceval's
friends :' —
' I ought to apprise you,' he writes, ' that your desire
for secresy, to a certain extent at least, is impossible. I did
not feel myself at liberty with regard to my character -with my
nearest friends to have had this meeting without apprising
them, and therefore they must know that for some reason,
which you do not communicate, you thought it right to
decline it.'
It must by this time have been obvious to the
duUest comprehension that, whatever might be the
ultimate fate of the BUl, that of the Administration
' Mahnesbury, iv. 368.

232 ALL THE TALENTS.
was in perU. But Lord Grenville seems to have stUl
hoped that it was possible, by sacrificing the BUl, to
preserve the existence of his Ministry. He collected
on Sunday those of his colleagues who were favour
able to the proposal, and drew up conjointly with
them a minute to the King, stating that ' they judge
it on the whole more consistent with their pubhc
duty not to press forward any further discussion of
the present Bill.' If the minute had stopped here
it is possible that the Talents Administration might
have sur-vived the crisis. But the Ministers thought
it necessary to add that ' it is essential to their o-wn
character . . . that the deference, which they have felt
it their duty to show on this occasion to the opinions
and feelings expressed by your Majesty, should not
be understood as restraining them from time to time
from proposing, as their duty is, for your Majesty's
decision such measures respecting that part of your
United Kingdom (Ireland) as the nature of circum
stances shall appear to require.'
The consequences might have easily been foreseen.
The King regarded the latter part of the minute as
a threat, insisted that it left ' the matter in a state
most embarrassing and unsatisfactory to him,' and
added that ' his mind ' could not be at ease unless
he ' received a positive assurance which shaU effec
tually relieve him from aU future apprehensions.'
The Ministry were naturaUy compelled to remind
the King ' of the absolute impossibUity of their thus

ALL THE TALENTS. 233
fettering the free exercise of their judgment." It
does not seem to have occurred to them that the
assurance would never have been demanded, if it
had not been for their o-wn indiscretion in threatening
the subsequent re-vival of the question.
' Eose. ii. 325-329.

234

CHAPTEE VII.
THE FIRST YEAR OF THE DUKE's OF PORTLAND'S
MINISTRY.
1807-1808.
Political Eumours — Wilberforce and the Abolition of the Slave
Trade — The Portland Administration — Perceval's Professional
Emoluments — Appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer — Ee-
elected for Northampton — Brand's Motion and Ministerial
Victory — Dissolution of Parliament — Eesult of the General
Election — Meeting of Parliament — The King's Speech — Tactics
of the Opposition — Debates of the Session — Perceval as Leader
of the House of Commons — Maynooth Grant — Treaty of TUsit
— Expedition to Copenhagen — Orders in Council — Fiscal Policy
— Eoman Catholic Claims — The Clergy Eesidence BiU.
The town, on the 19th of March, 1807, was ahve
with rumours. Lord Sidmouth had retired from the
Ministry ; the Ministry had itself resigned ; the
Duke of Portland had been sent for ; Lord Eldon
and Lord Hawkesbury were -with the King ; Perce
val was to be ChanceUor of the Exchequer ; Charles
Yorke had declined office ; Lord Chichester wanted
the Duchy of Lancaster for life. Such were only a
few of the confiicting rumours which the public men
of 1807 were gravely recording in their Diaries.

duke op Portland's ministry. 235
More anxious, yet more undecided than any of
them, WUberforce was hstening to the various reports
which were being brought to him. On the one hand,
he had no love for the Administration that was dying ;
but, on the other, the chief business of his life was in
peril from their faU. The Talents Administration
had, much to their credit, done — what Pitt had pro
mised to do a score of times — effectively aided him
in his Abolition BUl. Under Lord Gren-viUe's aus
pices, it had passed through nearly every stage. Was
it to be lost, at the last moment, from the change of
Government ? The King was supposed to be unfa
vourable to it ; the princes of the blood certainly
disliked it ; many peers on the Tory side were
avowedly hostUe to it. Was it then to share the
fate of other and less useful proposals? In sore
perplexity WUberforce repaired to Perceval, who, it
was already announced, would receive a high office,
and opened himself to him. Perceval, ' whose at
tachment to the cause was beyond a doubt,' saw
Lord Eldon, and arranged for the passage, under any
eventuality, of the BUl. His great project safe,
WUberforce no longer hesitated ; he was bound by
his general principles to support the new Ministry.
' It is in one grand particular the same question as
in 1784,' he -writes; 'my then principles would
govern my vote, even if I did not think so favourably
of their leader, Perceval, as I do.''
» Diary, ui. 307.

236 the first year of the
More than sixty years after WUberforce made
this entry in his diary, Earle published his work on
British Premiers.' He necessarily includes in it an
account of Perceval, which he must have supposed
to be impartial. Yet he gravely adds to the long list
of charges which he fhngs against the Minister that,
during his Ministry, WUberforce received no encour
agement in his efforts to abolish slavery. It is now
possible to contrast WUberforce's o-wn account of the
matter -with Earle 's. In subsequent passages of this
book it will be necessary to show that the other
charges of the latter are equally unfounded.
But to turn from this digression which Earle's
statement made necessary. Amidst the confused
rumours, which were rife on the 19th of March, one
or two things soon became known. The King had
sent on that day for Lord Eldon and Lord Hawkes
bury ; and had desned them to charge the Duke of
Portland -with the task of forming a new Adminis
tration. The circumstance contrasts strangely with
the entry, which has already been quoted, in WUber
force's diary. Wilberforce had based his support of
the new Ministry on the identity of the question at
issue -vrith that in 1784. Yet, in 1784, Pitt and
Gren-vUle were the leaders of the Opposition which
was driving the Duke of Portland from power. In
1807, the Duke of Portland was rallying the rem
nant of Pitt's friends against Lord GrenvUle. So
strangely had the position of political men been
altered in the interval.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 237
The Duke of Portland was the grandson of the
Dutch Count Bentinck, the favourite of WUliam the
Third. Born in 1738, he had, after sitting for a
short time in the House of Commons, succeeded, at
twenty-four years of age, to the Dukedom. He, at
once, associated himself, in accordance with the tra
ditions of his famUy, with the Whig party ; was
Lord Chamberlain in the first of Eockingham's Ad
ministrations ; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the
second ; and, after the short interval of the Shel
burne Ministry, was promoted to the post of Prime
Minister. His short-lived Administration is famous
for the Ul-judged India BUl, which Fox proposed — a
measure which indirectly led to the exclusion of the
Whigs from office for more than twenty years. On
the accession of Pitt to power, the Duke of Portland
became the acknowledged head of the Whig party.
But the French Eevolution modified his views. Like
Burke, he revolted from the course which Fox pur
sued ; supported Pitt ; and was made Secretary of
State for the Home Department — an office which he
held tiU Pitt's resignation in 1801. On the forma
tion of Addington's Ministry, he became President of
the CouncU, and continued to act in that capacity
tUl Pitt's death, m 1806, dissolved the Tory
Government. Such had been the career of the veteran states
man, to whom George the Third confided, in the
spring of 1807, the difficult task of forming a new
Government out of the shattered remains of Pitt's

238 the first year of the
friends. In some respects he was well qualified for
the task. His great rank raised him above the petty
jealousies of his associates ; his long experience gave
him a claim for a position, for which his abiUties were
hardly equal. Nor, indeed, were his abilities in their
fuU vigour. He had for some years been the -victim
of a painful and dangerous malady, which naturally
indisposed him to vigorous exertion. As a conse
quence, he became Uttle more than the nominal head
of the Ministry. His colleagues conducted the busi
ness of their own departments in their own way, and
according to their own views. The Duke rarely
superintended anything, and stUl more rarely inter
fered. Those, who were best acquainted with the
interior arrangements of the Ministry, caUed it ad
visedly a mere ' government of departments.'
A Ministry, under such circumstances, could not
have been anything but weak. Yet, so far as the
individual powers of its members were concerned, it
was one of the strongest that ever governed the
country. No Ministry ever contained in the Cabinet
and subordinate offices so many future premiers. In
addition to the Duke of Portland, the Cabinet com
prised Perceval, the Duke's immediate successor ;
Lord Liverpool, who succeeded Perceval ; and Can
ning, who succeeded Lord Liverpool. For more than
twenty years, then, from the spring of 1807, Great
Britain was governed by the members of the Port
land Cabinet. From the death of Canning, in 1827,
to the death of Palmerston, in the autumn of 1865,

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 239
only thirty-eight years elapsed. Nine different per
sons held the office of First Lord of the Treasury in
this period. Two of these — the Duke of WeUington
and Lord Palmerston — held subordinate offices in the
Portland Administration ; and the Ministries of these
two men lasted for eleven of the thirty-eight years
in question. From the accession, then, of the Duke
of Portland, in 1807, to the death of the youngest
member of his Ministry, in 1865, a httle more
than fifty-eight years elapsed. During that in
terval, England was governed by thirteen different
Prime Ministers. Of these thirteen, four were
members of the Duke of Portland's Cabinet. Two
more were subordinate members of the Adminis
tration ; and these six men governed England
between them for thirty-six years !
The task of forming the new Government was not
difficult. Canning, who had married a sister of Lady
Titchfield, the Duke's daughter-in-law, received the
Foreign Office ; Lord Liverpool, the Home Office ;
Lord Castlereagh, the Colonial Office. ' The main
difficulty,' -wrote the Speaker on the 21st, ' is how
and where to place Perceval, who professes to wish
to be only Attorney-General.' It was very easy to
see that the wish was not a mere profession, but
sincere. In the six years, which had elapsed since
the formation of Addington's Ministry, Mrs. Perceval
had presented him with five chUdren, in addition to
the eight which had been borne to him in the first
ten years of their married life. His eldest son was

240 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
on the eve of going to Harrow ; ' his youngest was
only a few hours old. Ten others were living. To
support and educate so large a famUy a considerable
income was obviously necessary ; and Perceval's pro
fessional income was considerable. His emoluments
in 1800 had only amounted, as we have already seen,
to 1807/. His fees, in 1801 — the year in which
he was made Sohcitor-General — rose to 4021/. ; in
the following year he succeeded Law as Attomey-
1 Perceval, on his eldest son going to Harrow, addressed to him
the foUowing verses. Some of them are particularly neat, and
worth keeping on their own account ; while the whole copy de
serves preserving from the circumstances of the writer. They
were written out for me from memory by my late uncle, Mr. Dudley
Perceval, soon after I went to Eton. The seventeenth line is left
blank in my copy, as Mr. Perceval was unable to remember it. I
may perhaps take this opportunity of acknowledging my gratitude
to Mr. Dudley Perceval for the assistance which his labours have
afforded me in this work. Mr. Perceval had some intention, at one
time, of writing his father's life ; and he actually published, with
copious annotations of his own, his father's speech on the Catholic
question, and an elaborate reply to Napier's charges against his
father's conduct of the war.
' Ille puer studiis Musarum impendere mentem
Quem juvat, et Latiis nectere verba modis,
Adsit, et ingenuas facilis mihi prsebeat aures
Dum cadat in proprios syllaba quseque pedes.
Lsetus et exhilarans ubi Dactylus exoitat auram,
SyUaba longa duas urget ubique breves ;
SpondoBus, firmans versus vi et pondere, binis
Arotatus longis, nescit habere brevem.
Dactylus Hexametri quintum, sextumque requirit
Spondfeus simili jure tenere locum
Ast alios, sine lege, locos nunc occupat omnes
Ille vel hic, varium vatis ad arbitrium.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 241
General, and his profits reached 6600/. In 1803, he
made 7540/. ; in 1804, 9723/. In 1805, his profits
declined to 7779/.; and his loss of office, in 1806,
reduced them to 4558/. He cotdd obviously, there
fore, rely on a professional income of from 4000/. to
5000/. a-year; while, in the event of his obtaining
the Attorney-Generalship, he might fairly anticipate
that this amount would be doubled. A man then
in Perceval's position, with a large famUy, and no

Dividit in geminas partes, divisus et ipse,
Melliflui librans Carmina Pentametri,
Spondseus ; carmen nam quod tibi dividit ejus
Syllaba prima, notes, altera claudit idem.
Alterutrosque tamen parte priore loces.
Nunc qua lege modes et qua componere versus
Edveni, et vati regula certa patet.
Ergo vale, dilecte Puer, carique Parentis
Ingenuo docilis pectore verba fove !
Ergo vale ! tibi restat opus, tibi restat agendum,
Eespuit invitas Musa colenda preces :
Audit at, auxiliumque dabit, flammamque Poetse
Spirabit pleno numine, Musa volens ;
Si modo des animum studiis, et ApoUinis artes
Pieridumque petas ambitiosus opes.
Hfe tibi erunt artes quse te prsecellere rebus
Omnibus ornatum, conspicuumque dabunt ;
Hse tibi eruut et opes, quarum tu munere dives
Despicias auri quidquid in orbe nitet :
Artibus his, opibusque instructus, amicus amicis
t'tilis evenies ; eivibus et patrite
Splendescens decus et columen celebrabere, et altos
Inter honoratos conspicuere viros.
VOL. I. R

242 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
private fortune of his own, might weU have hesitated
to abandon so large a professional income.
But Perceval had attained a position in his party
which made his retum to his former office impos
sible. He had been 'the chief, if not the sole,
head' of his party in opposition. His speech on
the Catholic question ' had infiicted the death-blow
to an already tottering administration ; ' ' and the
Duke of Portland, in consequence, naturally desired
to place him in the most prominent position. But
the terms ofthe offer must have increased Perceval's
reluctance to abandon the bar. The ChanceUorship
of the Exchequer was then, as now, the most im
portant office in the cabinet. But, at that time, the
emoluments were whoUy disproportioned to the
responsibility. Now the Chancellor of the Exche
quer enjoys the same salary as a Secretary of State,
5000/. a-year. Then the Secretary of State had
6000/. a-year; the ChanceUor ofthe Exchequer only
1323/. and a house. The Duke felt such an office
could hardly be pressed on a successful la-wyer. He
saw Perceval on the 20th March ; formally offered
him the place ; and suggested, as Perceval wrote to
Lord Arden, —
' An arrangement to increase its salary. I have peremp
torily refused for these two reasons (over and above my
strong and repeated wish to remain in the profession).
First, that the salary of the office is so low that it would be
absolute ruin to me to accept it ; and, second, because I
1 'National Advertiser,' May 20, 1812.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 243
would not have the administration begin by an increase of
the salary of any officer, and particularly not by any such
increase on my account, ' I have left his Grace strongly
impressed with the idea that he can do me no greater
favour than by appointing me Attorney- General.'
But it was not to be so. Three days afterwards,
on the 23rd March, he wrote again :
' My fate is determined. I have consented to take the
office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the Chancellor
ship of the Duchy of Lancaster for life. I shudder as much
as you do at the financial and other labours, but, with this
annexation, and against the pressing urgency of all my
friends, I did not think myself at liberty to resist. So pray
make your mind up to it.'
There were only two precedents for the arrange
ment. Lord Lechmere had been granted the office
for life in 1717 ; Lord Ashburton in 1782 ; but the
offer had been contemplated on numerous occasions.
Addington thought of offering the office for life to
Grant, to induce him to abandon his profession ; Pitt
positively made the ofler to Addington ; and Lord
Chichester, who had hardly any claims, was anxious,
as we have seen, to obtain it in 1807 for himself^
Perceval, therefore, had some substantial grounds
for conceiving that no serious objection would be
made to the arrangement. The event, however,
' It is worth while comparing this with 'Peter Plymley's' sneer.
' It is contended by the well-paid John Bowles, and ilr. Spencer
Perceval wlw tried to be -well -paid.' — Sidney's Smith's Works.
2 Colchester, i. 223, 503 ; Malmesbury, iv. 376.

244 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
proved otherwise. On the day after he had accepted
the ChanceUorship, Bankes, according to notice, pro
posed a resolution condemning the grant of offices in
reversion ; and Plumer took occasion of the discus
sion to notice the report of Perceval's appointment :
— ' I have heard, sir, that the new Government
which is now forming, have agreed to give to an
honourable and learned member of this House an
appointment to the Duchy of Lancaster for hfe, ia
order to tempt that gentleman to take a place in the
new Government. Upon this I may observe that,
if men of great abUities are not satisfied with the
rewards attached to the situations which His Ma
jesty chooses to appoint them to hold in the
Government of their country, they ought not to
accept of office at all. I do, however, at all events,
enter my protest most solemnly against the mea
sure of gi-ving a man a situation for life, in order to
entice him to occupy another, which may be more
fieeting and temporary.''
The House received these remarks -with cheers ;
and Henry Martin, the member for Kinsale, foUowed
them up with a notice that, on the morrow he
would move an address to the Crown praying ' that
His Majesty would be graciously pleased not to
grant any place in the Duchy of Lancaster, or else
where, for life.'
Perceval was not in the House when these
speeches were made. But he took care to be pre-
¦ Hansard, ix. 181.

DUKE OF PORTLAND S MINISTRY. 245
sent on the succeeding evening. Immediately after
the motion had been proposed and seconded, he rose
to give the House an accurate statement of what
had occurred. When he had understood that notice
of the motion had been given, ' instead of ap
proaching his Sovereign for the purpose of receiving
his appointment to office, he had approached him
"with a request that the appointment might not take
place on that day, that he might have an oppor
tunity of addressing the House on the subject ; and
that His Majesty might not be fettered, in conse
quence of any advice the House might think proper
to offer to him. He had gone,' he said, 'to assure
the King that, whatever address the House of Com
mons might agree to, his services would be at His
Majesty's disposal. Though, in the first instance, he
had not felt justified in neglecting his duty to his
family by abandoning a lucrative profession, since he
found that his services were thought advantageous
he felt that he had no longer an option. Whatever
might be the consequences to himself, he should
place his services at his Sovereign's disposal.' ' Per
ceval, when he had made his speech, bowed, and left
the House. A long and angry discussion ensued ;
and eventuaUy Martin's motion was carried by 208
to 1 1 5 votes ; and Perceval became ChanceUor of
the Exchequer, and ChanceUor of the Duchy during
pleasure.^ The accession of a new ministry necessitated, of
1 Hansard, ix. 197. ' Ibid. 219.

246 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
course, a short recess. Lord Ho-wick intercepted the
motion for adjournment -with a lengthy commentary
on the change of administration. But the new
ministers had, of course, vacated their seats ; no
reply was possible from the Treasury Bench ; and a
languid and desultory conversation was the only
immediate result of Lord Howick's explanatory de
clamation.' On the very foUo-wing day Perceval
issued his address to the Northampton electors.
Though it was merely published in a local news
paper, and no steps were taken to give it a wider
circulation, he was immediately charged with an
attempt to raise the ' No Popery ' cry. Even
EomUly repeated the assertion.^ Yet, if the circum
stances connected -with the change of ministry be
remembered, it is difficult to see how Perceval could
have said less. After briefly stating the fact of his
appointment, he went on to say: — 'I cannot per
mit myself to suspect for a moment that the circum
stance of my ha-ving quitted my profession, at the
call of my Sovereign, to afford him my ser-vices in
this important office, can have any tendency to
diminish your former confidence. I have the firmest
reliance that my pretensions to the good opinion of
every subject attached to the Cro-wn, the Estabhsh
ment, and the Constitution of our country, -wiU be
increased, rather than impaired, in consequence of
my coming forward in the ser-vice of my Sovereign,
and endeavouring to stand by him at this important
1 Hansard, ix. 261. ^ Diary, ii. 198.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 247
crisis, when he is makuig so firm and necessary a
stand for the religious establishment of the country ;
and, though it is a pecuharly sacred duty in His
Majesty to defend the established religion of his
kingdom from aU approach of danger, yet it must,
I am persuaded, be felt by you to be the common
duty and interest of us aU.' '
Perceval was, of course, re-elected. The House
re-assembled on the 8th AprU, and, on the foUowing
day. Brand brought forward his famous motion that
' it is contrary to the first duties of the confidential
servants of the Crown to restrain themselves by any
pledge, expressed or implied, from offering to the
King any advice which the course of circumstances
may render necessary for the welfare and security of
any part of His Majesty's extensive dominions.' The
Ministry met the motion by an amendment to pass
to the orders of the day. The debate was warm.
Perceval insisted that the motion was practicaUy an
attack on the Sovereign himself ; smee no advice, so
far as he knew or believed, had been given to him
on this point. Sir Samuel EomUly, who endea
voured to reply to him, but who made, to use his
own account of it, a very bad speech,^ after pro
nouncing 'an eloquent panegyric on the virtues of
his right hon. friend, whose worth and sincerity he
weU knew,'^ charged him with exciting reUgious
animosities in the country. Whitbread and Lord
' Anonymous Memoir, 18. ^ Diary, ii. 202.
' Hansard, ix. 330.

248 THE FIRST YEAR OF THB
Howick repeated the charge, but omitted the com
pliments ; and the angry debate wore on tUl six
o'clock on the Friday morning. The crowded lobbies
were unusually excited. The Opposition, to the last
moment, relied on a majority. The Ministry were
equally confident that they were on the eve of a
defeat. To the surprise of both parties, in a House
of 489 members, the new Government had a ma
jority of 32. For the orders ofthe day 258 ; against
226.' ' Perceval,' the Speaker teUs us, ' wrote to the
King (as usual) an account of the debate. The
King's answer was short ; saying, " it confirmed the
opinion he had always entertamed of the good sense
ofthe country."'^
Though, however, the Ministry had won an unex
pected -victory, they had obviously no prospect of a
working majority in the existing House. Before
even the late Ministry had been dismissed, the pro
priety of a dissolution had been discussed by some of
the more active Tories.
' With Canning to his rooms in the Albany,' wrote
Lord Malmesbury on the 16th March. ' Settling adminis
trations. Castles in the air. He for a dissolution. I not.
Huskisson for it.'^
Before the 9th of AprU we may assume that the
question had been decided in the affirmative; for
Lord Malmesbury again writes, —
I Hansard, ix. 284-348. " Colchester, ii. 120.
' Diaries, iv. 369.

DUKE OF PORTLANDS MINISTRY. 249
' At Court. Spoke to Perceval about his standing for
Cambridge : he is doubtful for himself, but is ready to
support, if he does not join. Lord Palmerston.'' •
Still, however, the date was not fixed ; and the
Ministry, perhaps, contemplated the possibUity of
tiding over the session ; and this opinion may have
been strengthened by the events ofthe 15 th of April
Lyttelton on that day proposed a motion that this
House, considering a firm and efficient Administration
as indispensably necessary in the present important
crisis of pubhc affairs, has seen with the deepest
regret the late change in His Majesty's Councils.^
The Ministry again met the motion by a proposal to
pass to the orders of the day ; and a long debate
ensued. Abbot tells us, in his diary, that the
Government reckoned on a majority of only ten.
But the defaulters from the Opposition were so
numerous, that they actually obtained a majority of
forty-six. 'A dissolution,' the Speaker adds, 'is
probable towards the end of May.' ' But the e-vidence,
which was daUy received of the strong feeling the
constituencies were evincing, probably suggested an
earher appeal to them. On the 25th of AprU
Lord Malmesbury -writes, ' Dissolution resolved on,
and communicated in the evening to the confidential
friends of the Government.' On the same evening,
Perceval privately acquainted the Speaker with the
fact. On the 26th, it was generaUy kno-wn. On the
1 Diaries, iv. 382. ^ Hansard, ix. 435.
' Ibid. 475 ; Colchester, ii. 121.

250 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
27th, while the Speaker was preparing to count the
House, Black Eod knocked at the door, and Parha
ment was prorogued; whUe, on the 30th, it was
dissolved by proclamation.'
The King's speech on the prorogation was deh
vered by commission. The original draft was pre
pared by Perceval, who characteristicaUy prefaced it
with a long defence of the motives by which the
King had been actuated, and by a detaU of the
reasons which had induced him to change his Minis
try. The Cabinet seem to have struck out the pass
age, and to have wisely contented themselves with
a general statement, that ' His Majesty is anxious to
recur to the sense of his people, whUe the events
which have recently taken place are fresh in their
recoUection.' Of the pohcy of the dissolution there
could be little question. The consternation with
which the news was received by the Opposition is
the best proof of it. On the Speaker's return from
the Lords, Lord Ho-wick, ' who, it seems, had been in
great wrath,' stepped up to the chair, ' to know if he
could say anything.' ^ Abbot, of course, told him
it was impossible. EomUly, who was in sore dis
tress for a seat, repeats the old charge of the ' No
Popery ' cry.' ' The deed is done,' -writes Lord Gren
vUle to Lord Buckingham, ' and in the most violent
of all possible ways.'* These accusations came, per-
' Eomilly, ii. 205 ; Colchester, ii. 122, 123; Hansard, ix. 554.
2 Diary, i. 123. ' Eomilly Diary, ii. 205.
* Courts and Cabinets, Geo. III. iv. 172.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 251
haps, naturaUy from men who felt that they had lost
the move, and with the move aU hope of the game.
Both sides, in the meanwhUe, were preparing actively
for the contest. Lord Malmesbury was not the only
person who had contemplated the possibility of Per
ceval's candidature for Cambridge. The rumour that
he would stand was so general that it became at
last necessary to contradict it to his o-wn consti
tuents. ' The report,' he began his address to them,
' which has been circulated of my intention to stand
for the University of Cambridge, is wholly -without
foundation. The offers of support which I have
received from many of the most respectable members
of that body were certainly such as to have encou
raged me with a fair prospect of success ; and a seat
for the university is so proud and honourable a
distinction that, under almost any other circum
stances, I should have been eager to accept it.' . . .
' I should not have thought it necessary,' he goes on,
' to have lengthened this address by any additional
observations, had it not been for the manner in which
the object and purpose of my advertisement upon the
last election have been misrepresented.
' A measure had been proposed to Parliament by
the late Administration, which, opening to the Eoman
Catholics the highest commands in the army and
na-vy, appeared to me in itself highly objectionable
and alarming. But the great alarm, which I felt and
expressed, has ever been distinctly stated by me to
arise, not so much from the measure itseF, as from

252 THE FIRST "YEAR OF THE
the consequences necessarily to be apprehended from
it. . . . Under these circumstances. His Majesty had
caUed to his councUs other ministers — myself among
the number — and, offering myself to you unexpect
edly and in a new character, I, naturaUy and neces
sarUy, referred to the circumstances which had led to
these events. . . . But, true as all this is, it is not a
convenient truth for the late Administration. They
endeavour, therefore, to mislead the country from
perceiving it. For it is found that the measure to
which I have alluded, the principles on which it -was
recommended, and the conduct by which it was
supported, have excited a strong feeling, manifesting
itself throughout the country by expressions of the
strongest disapprobation of their conduct ; of loyal
devotion to the establishments of the country ; to
the person of the King and his constitutional pre
rogatives. It has been the object of the late
Government to describe this feeling as proceeding
from religious bigotry and clamour, inflamed into vio
lence by court intrigue, and aided by my advertise
ment to my constituents ; and thus those, who, by a
wanton, uncaUed-for and unnecessary agitation of a
question most interesting to the feelings and senti
ments of the people, find that they have raised a
spirit of resistance to this measure and to themselves
.... are anxious to ascribe to anything but their
o-wn precipitancy, absurdity, and folly, the resent
ment and indignation which they have brought upon
themselves.'

DUKE OF PORTLAND S MINISTRY. 253
The result of the general election decisively
proved that Perceval had not exaggerated the feeling
of the country. The ministerial candidates met with
unusual success. The Opposition experienced a signal
defeat. So chagrined were the latter with the
result, that the most temperate among them ascribed
it to a profiigate expenditure. The Ministry, they
-wrote, are buying every avaUable borough ; and the
King is himself supplying from his privy purse
funds for the purpose. The purchase of seats in
those days was an ordinary expedient to which both
parties had commonly recourse ; so that there is no
doubt a substratum of truth in the charge. But
there is no evidence whatever that the Portland
Administration did more in this way than the most
-virtuous of their predecessors. The insinuation that
the King lent his purse for the purpose is one of
those charges which disappointed persons are apt to
make, but which it is fair to disbeUeve tUl some
primd facie evidence of its truth is received. Nor
should it be forgotten that the small boroughs were
not the only constituencies which revolted from the
Talents lead at the General Election of 1807. PauU
was turned out of ParUament. Sheridan was com
pelled to return to Ilchester ; Lord H. Petty to
Camelford ; Sir J. EomUly to Horsham. The most
prominent men on the Whig side of the House suf
fered, in short, fi:om the excitement which their own
leaders had provoked. The largest constituencies, as
weU as the smaUest boroughs, were equally influenced

254 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
by the dislike of the whole country to make any
concessions to the Eoman Catholics.
The new Parliament met on the 22d June :
Abbot was re-elected to the Chair, the formal
business of swearing-in members transacted, and
the King's Speech delivered by commission on the
26th.' Perceval, who had not yet moved to the
official residence in Downing Street, which he occu
pied continuously from this time untU his death,
gave on the preceding evening the ordinary par
liamentary dinner. ' Dined at Perceval's, in Lincoln's
Inn Fields,' writes the Speaker in his Diary, ' where
he read the King's Speech, after dinner, to his com
pany. N.B. Mr. Secretary Canning excused himself
(the Italics are the Speaker's), ' and dined with a
private invitation at Mr. W. Booties'.' If it had not
been for this passage in Lord Colchester's Diary, it
would have been thought that Canning had had too
great and generous a mind to have avenged his
disappointed ambition in so petty and pointed a
manner. The King's Speech may perhaps be di-vided into
four parts. The first — which must have been gaU
to the Opposition — notified His Majesty's satisfaction
at ha-ving received, ' in numerous addresses from his
subjects, the warmest assurances of their affectionate
attachment to his person and government, and of
theh firm resolution to support him in maintaining
the just rights of his crown and the true principles
' Hansard, ix. 565, 576.

DUKE OF PORTLAND S MINISTRY. 255
of his constitution ;' the second recounted the
rupture between Eussia and the Porte ; the third
had reference to the supplies ; and the fourth stated
His Majesty's desire to conduct the great contest
in which he is engaged to a peace ' in which Europe
and the world may hope for safety and repose.'
The address naturally gave rise to a great trial of
strength in both Houses. In the Lords the new
Ministry had a majority of 93 — 160 to 67 votes.'
In the Commons, after a debate which lasted from
five o'clock in the afternoon tiU five in the following
morning, the Ministry, in the fuUest House that
had ever been known, had a majority of 95 — 350
votes to 255^ — so thoroughly had the dissolution
strengthened the position of the Government.^
The tactics, which the Opposition adopted in the
two Houses, were simUar. In each a long amend
ment was moved to the Address, condemning in
strong terms the recent dissolution. Lord Ho-wick
himself proposed the amendment in the Commons,
in what seems to have been an unusuaUy intem
perate speech. Perceval immediately replied to
• Hansard, ix. 607. ' Ibid. 657 ; and Colchester, ii. 123.
' The new Ministei-s obtained a still more striking victory on
the 6th July. Whithead drew attention on that day to the state
of the nation ; and, roundly asserting that the late dissolution de
manded an enlarged inquiry, moved for the appointment of a
Committee. The records of the debate are meagi-e, as Denis Browne
insisted on the exclusion of the reporters ; but Perceval seems to
have beeu the chief ministerial speaker, and the Government had
a majority of 322 votes to 136.

256 THE FIRST YEAR OF THB
him: 'The great object ofthe noble Lord — the
sole point to which he seemed to wish to call
attention — was the dissolution of the last Parlia
ment. The noble Lord had admitted that there
was no doubt of the prerogative of the Crown to
dissolve the Parliament at any time : the propriety
of the exercise of the prerogative must ever depend
upon the circumstances. The noble Lord, whUst in
office, -with a parliament in which he encountered no
formidable opposition, felt it necessary to dissolve.
He would appeal to the House and the country if
any reason existed for the dissolution recommended
by the noble Lord which did not in reaUty apply
more strongly to that which had been ad-vised by
the present Administration.' What would be the
situation of the King if his Ministers had not made
this appeal to the sense of his people? Had not
His Majesty been held up as the sole obstacle to an
extension of indulgences to a great portion of his
subjects ? Under these cncumstances nothing was
so necessary to the character of the King as such
an appeal to his people, in order to show that it was
not the King alone who was the obstacle to these
indulgences, but the great majority of the nation.'
Four days afterwards a very different debate
arose. On the 10th of the preceding February a
committee had been appointed, on the motion of
Myddelton Biddulph, 'in respect to controls and
> Hansard, ix. 627.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 257
checks of expenditure, and reduction of offices.'' The
committee had already investigated some portion of
their subject, and had made a report, which had led
to a debate, against the grant of offices in reversion."
Lord Howick, in his speech on the 26th, had
grounded one of his charges against the new
Ministry on the suspension of the labours of the
committee by the dissolution. Perceval had imme
diately rejoined that the committee would be re
appointed ; and on the 30th June he rose to move
its re-appointment. But the late committee had
consisted almost entirely of nominees of Lord Gren
viUe and his colleagues. Perceval naturally deter
mined to engraft fresh blood in it by substituting,
for some of the original members, some gentlemen
on his own side ; and he justified his determination
by recounting certain questionable appointments
which the late Ministry had made. The Opposition
was furious, objecting to what Lord H. Petty called
this ' gross and partial statement of facts which the
committee was to decide upon.' Canning retorted,
with admhable humour, that the noble Lord 'had
upon a former occasion told a story of a Eoman
moralist who wished to hve in a house of glass that
all his actions might be seen. The noble Lord had
expressed a wish to live in such a house himself
He could not, however, help repeating to him the
vulgar proverb, " Those who have a house of glass
ought not to begin by throwing stones." Those by
1 Colchester, ii. 91. ' Hansard, ix. 178.
VOL. L S

258 THE first year of the
whom this principle of parliamentary practice had
been not long since laid down were now unwUling
that the house of glass, which this inquiry was to
constitute, should be enlarged by a bow window, so
as to include themselves.'
Perceval and his coUeagues have been frequently
blamed for their conduct in respect to this com
mittee ; but it is difficult to see how they could
have acted otherwise. The late Ministry had taken
the nomination of the committee into their own
hands ; had refused even to aUow one or two of
Biddulph's own friends to be upon it ; and had, in.
short, constituted a tribunal notoriously favourable
to themselves.' Could it be seriously anticipated
that a new Ministry would not remodel such a
body ? Is it even reasonable to find fault -with
them for doing so ? '^
Exception has also been taken to the course
which Perceval, a few days later on, took on a
kindred subject. Lord Cochrane moved for a com-

1 Hansard, ix. 632.
2 A bill founded on the previous report of the committee was
brought in and passed through all its stages in the House of Com
mons. It was, however, rejected in a very thin house by the
Peers on Lord Arden's motion. The Opposition attempted to con
nect the rejection of the bill with Perceval ; and the circumstance
that every cabinet minister had been absent on the occasion of the
debate from the Lords added force to their theory. Perceval took
an opportunity late in the session to contradict the report ; aud
assented to an address praying the king to grant no more offices
in reversion ' until six weeks after the commencement of the next
session of Parliament.' — Hansard, ix. 1046* and 1164.

DUKE OF PORTLAND S MINISTRY. 259
mittee to inquire into all places held by members
of parliament in reversion. Perceval narrowed the
motion by excluding from it commissions in the
army and na-vy ; extended it to all other places,
whether held by members of parliament or not ;
and, in lieu of appointing a fresh committee, assigned
the duty to the Committee of Finance.' The Oppo
sition, which had really desired to bring out in black
and white the fact of Perceval's reversion to Lord
Arden's office, complained that he had overwhelmed
the motion and strangled the inquiry. Wilberforce
had the courage to interpose. ' The motion,' he
contended, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ' was
completely adapted to the object, and the evidence
to be obtained by it might also be of importance in
other respects.' The House again supported the
Mmisters by 101 votes to 60.'^
There are only two other debates in the Session to
which any reference need be made here. In Com
mittee of Supply, on the 15th July, the Ministry
acceded to the policy of their predecessors in raising
the grant for Maynooth to 13,000/. The increase
was proposed on the very intelligible ground that
Parhament was practically pledged to the larger
sum. Its proposal afforded Perceval an opportunity
for protesting against the notion that he desired ' to
withhold instruction from the Eoman CathoUcs of
Ireland. All he wished to do was to protect the
Protestants against the increased and increasing
1 Hansard, ix. 740 and 740*. » Ibid. 743*.

260 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
influence ofthe priesthood." A month later, on the
13th August, Sheridan drew attention to the state
of affairs in Ireland, and proposed that the House
should promise early in the ensuing session to take
' the state and condition' of that country into their
most serious and solemn consideration. Perceval
replied, and, in a thin House, had a majority of
76 to 33. On the following day Parliament was
prorogued.^ There can be very little doubt that Perceval,
during the Session of 1807, had disappointed the
expectations of his friends. Though a constant
speaker — probably the most frequent speaker — he
had in no pre-vious session spoken so Ul. This
is what his enemies said : ' Perceval,' wrote Fre
mantle, ' seems to want nerves ; he has not yet
attempted that sort of boldness and decision, which
was the feature of his former speeches ; but he hesi
tates and stammers, and certainly as yet is quite
different in his manner.' ' Perceval,' -wrote Lord
Temple, ' was very weak, and proved, for the fourth
time, that a chattering lawyer in Opposition does not
necessarUy make a good manager of the House of
Commons as Minister.'^ This is what his Mends
said : — ' Perceval ill, and below himself, owing, as we
suppose, to his wife's Ulness fagging him and keep
ing him up at night.'* It is not impossible that
' Hansard, ix. 821. " Ibid. 1200, 1218.
' Buckingham Correspondence, Geo. III. iv. 167 and 250.
* Wilberforce, iii. 342.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 261
WUberforce may have hit upon the true reason.
Mrs. Perceval had been lately confined of her thir
teenth child ; and her recovery had been slow. But
there can also be very little doubt that the labour of
his new office prevented him from devoting so much
time as usual to Parliamentary preparation. On
previous occasions he had compUed rough notes, and,
in some instances, careful drafts, of his more consi
derable speeches. The Session of 1807 is the first
in which he apparently spoke consistently without
prepai'ation. Nor should it be forgotten that the
circumstances of the Session were not calciUated to
bring out Perceval's peculiar powers. His eloquence
was never so brUliant, his sentences were never so
pointed, as when he was leading a forlorn hope, or
defending an over-matched ministry. When the
combined forces of Pitt and Fox were assailing
Addington's tottering administration, he alone car
ried on the combat. When the Duke of Portland
had a preponderating majority, he failed to maintain
the brUliancy of his reputation.
The prorogation brought no repose to the Minis
ters. Napoleon's successive victories at Eylau and
Friedland had led to the negotiations of TUsit. The
British Government had received expUcit informa
tion of a secret article in that Treaty for the inflic
tion of a great blow on the naval power of this
coxmtry. For carrying out this object Napoleon
cliiefly reUed on the combined navies of Denmark
and Portugal. The Cabinet determined to anti-

262 THE first year OF THB
cipate the blow by seizing the fleet of the first of
these powers ; and with this object, the famous
expedition to Copenhagen was planned. Only one
opinion is possible of ' the secresy, promptitude, and
efficiency with which the Copenhagen business was
planned, conducted, and completed.' ' The morality
of the proceeding is, perhaps, more open to question.
It depended on the secret articles of the Treaty of
TUsit ; and, as the Ministers were unable to pubhsh
the information they possessed, they were neces
sarUy unable to justify their conduct. No one, pro
bably, put the case of this country more tersely than
the Speaker, when he insisted that, ' if the Danes
would not, or coxUd not, preserve their fleet, this
country had no security but in taking possession of
it.' ^ One of the calmest judgments of our own time,
has termed the expedition an ' extreme exercise of
the rights of war ; ' an expression which involves the
conclusion that, in the writer's judgment, it was,
'according to the rights of war, a justifiable pro
ceeding.'^ The expedition left this country at the beginning
of August ; the news of the successfid bombardment
arrived home in the middle of September. Early in
October the fieet returned with the Danish vessels
as its prize. Before it returned the Ministry had
justified the proceeding by a declaration in the
1 Lord Auckland to the Speaker. — Colchester, ii. 131.
^ Ibid. 135.
3 Sir J. C. Lewis's Administrations, 30.

DUKE OF PORTLAND S MINISTRY. 263
King's name. Perceval himself drew up a minute
with this object, which is still among his papers ; the
one which was ultimately agreed upon will be found
in the Parhamentary History.' ' His Majesty,' this
declaration stated, ' had received the most positive
information of the determination of the present ruler
of France to occupy -with a mUitary force the terri
tory of Holstein for the purpose of excluding Great
Britain from all her accustomed channels of com
munication -with the Continent ; of inducing or com-
pelhng the court of Denmark to close the passage of
the Sound against the British commerce and navi
gation ; and of availing himself of the aid of the
Danish navies for the invasion of Great Britain and
Ireland.' But the expedition to Copenhagen was by no
means the only subject which occupied the new
Ministry during the recess.
'The business,' wrote Perceval to the Speaker towards
the close of it, ' of recasting the law of trade and navigation,
as far as belligerent principles are concerned, for the whole
world, has occupied me very unremittingly for a long time;
and the subject is so extensive, and the combinations so
various, that, even supposing our principles to be right, I
cannot hope that the execution . . . must not in many
respects be defective. The short principle is that trade in
British produce and manufactures, and trade either from
a British port, or with a British destination, must be
protected as much as possible.'-
The sentence deserved, for many reasons, to be
1 Hansard, x. 115. ^ Colchester, ii. 134.

264 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
quoted ; though in reality, whUe it testifies to the
excessive labour the writer had undergone, it ex
presses only inaccurately the object of the famous
' Orders in Council.' We have already seen that
Napoleon, in the previous autumn, had promul
gated his Continental system ; that the Talents
administration had retaliated on the 7th January by
an order practically directed against the coasting trade
of France ; and that Perceval had condemned in
debate the insufficiency of the order. Early in the
recess he prepared a very long paper on the subject,
which he circulated among the Cabinet on the
12th October. ' The enemy,' this interesting paper
begins, ' having issued decrees prohibiting the com
merce of all neutral nations with Great Britain ; and
also prohibiting such nations from trading with any
country in any articles the growth, produce, or
manufacture of Great Britain ; and having taken
upon themselves, with a view to enforce these prohi
bitions, to declare Great Britain in a state of siege ;
the question is, in what degree is it just, and, if
just, in what degree is it politic, for Great Britain to
retaliate ?
' With respect to the justice, as far as France is
concerned, there can be no doubt ; but it is asked
whether the violence and injustice of France, in
oppressing the trade of neutral nations by prohi
bitions contrary to the usages of war, give any right
to Great Britain to oppress them also by corre
sponding prohibitions ? The order of CouncU, issued

DUKE OF PORTLAND S MINISTRY. 265
by the late Government . . . expressly asseits a fuU
right .... to retaliate .... Independent, how
ever, of their opinion, there cannot, as I conceive, be
any doubt that such right does exist.
' The enemy prohibits trade -with us, and in arti
cles of our growth, produce, and manufacture. We
prohibit, in retum, trade with the enemy, and in
articles of their growth, &c. . . . The measure is not
adopted to injure the neutrals, but the enemy . . .
The neutrals may complain ; but if they complain
justly they will direct their complaints against those
whose proceedings against us and our trade make it
indispensable, for our security and protection, to
retahate against them and theh trade 
' Besides, as the law of nations could never have
prevailed, and been submitted to as such, except upon
the principle of its being universally and reciprocally
acknowledged by all nations which Uve within the
civUised world .... when an enemy arises, who
declares to aU the world that he wUl trample upon
the law of nations, and hold at naught all the privi
leges of neutral nations, when they do not suit his
beUigerent interests  it is evident that if
those powers, with which he is at war, should con
tinue to hold themselves bound by rules and obhga-
tions of which he wUl not acknowledge the force,
they cannot carry on the contest on equal terms ;
and the neutral, who would control their hostUity
by those rules and laws which the enemy refuses
to recognise, and which such neutral does not compel

266 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
that enemy to observe, ceases to be a neutral by
ceasing to observe that impartiality which is the
very life and soul of neutrality  When a
neutral nation is forced to submit to let a beUigerent
pass through her neutral territory, she can, on no prin
ciple, refuse to the other belligerent a simUar passage.
. . . Nay . . . the passing through one province of a
neutral nation not only justifies the other belUgerent
in passing, in his tum, through the same province,
but through any other of the same neutral. So
the infraction of one principle of neutral navigation
by one belUgerent, if submitted to by the neutral,
must justify, as in equal justice it must often re
quire, an infraction of another by the other belh-
gerent. Otherwise, one belligerent nation might
make its own choice ; and, where a neutral right was
in any degree advantageous to her trade, and not at
all advantageous to that of her enemy, might, -with
religious scrupulosity, refrain from infringing upon
that right ; whUe aU other neutral rights (the
balance of advantage resulting from which might be
the other way) she might overbear and despise . . .¦
.... The question, therefore, as respects the right,
I conceive, to have very Uttle difficulty in it. The
question is of much greater nicety and difficulty as
far as it respects the policy.
' The order is issued by France and her aUies or
dependants, in order to injure and destroy our trade.
It woxdd not be revenge, bxit reward to retahate in
such a manner as should injure our trade more than

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 267
it would injure that of the enemy. ... To retahate
to the extent of actually prohibiting aU intercourse
by neutrals with the enemy, would be, as it seems to
me, highly impolitic and injurious to ourselves.
We ought to encourage our commerce with the enemy,
at least to such extent as may enable us to take
advantage of neutral navigation, to convey to the
enemy's market articles of our growth and produce,
which they want to have and which we wish to part
-with ....
'After these observations, suggesting the propriety
of retaliating sub modo, it remains to be seen in what
degree it wUl be wise so to retaliate. The only thing
which we can do, which wUl to any great extent
inconvenience the enemy, and confer advantage upon
ourselves, is to prevent the importation into the
enemy's countries of all East and West Indian com
modities, except from the ports of this country. But,
if we actually prohibit all intercourse between neu
trals and the enemy's colonies, or between neutrals
and the enemy's Continental possessions, it would be
such a severe blow upon the trade of America, as
might make it no unreasonable choice on her part to
prefer the dangers and chances of war to such a
restriction upon her trade. 1 should, therefore, wish
to leave such advantages stUl to neutral trade, as to
make it quite clear to be the pohcy of America to
prefer the neutral trade which is left to her to the
total stoppage of her trade with the enemy, and with
ourselves too, which a war might occasion. . . .

268 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
' With this view, therefore, I would recommend to
relax thus far in the rigour of our retaliatory pro
hibitions as to leave to neutral nations the right of
trading directly in articles of their own growth,
produce, and manufacture, exported in theh own
vessels to the enemy's countries ; and of importing
from the enemy's countries for their o-wn use articles,
the growth, produce, and mamffacture of such ene
my's countries ; that is, leaving to them free the
direct trade between the enemy and themselves in
articles of their respective growths. . .
' It is obvious, indeed, that these relaxations
would render the measure of retaliation less destruc
tive to the trade and comforts of the enemy than if
the prohibition were absolute ; and that it wiU also
be the means of evading very frequently such of the
prohibitions as shaU be adopted ; but, when the
degree, in which the prohibition wUl by these means
be reached and its effect counteracted, is set in
comparison with the advantage to be gained by
keeping America out of the war, I think there can be
no doubt in admitting the poUcy of this or some such
relaxation.' '
The Cabinet concurred generaUy in Perceval's
paper. ' The right of retaUation,' wrote the Duke of
' I have compressed this from the original of the minute circu
lated through the Cabinet, which I found among Perceval's papers.
The original is very long and very closely argued ; so that I am
not even now" sure that I have done full justice to the reasoning of
the writer in the shorter argument I have given in my text.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 269
Portland, ' appears so obvious, that the only question
for consideration is the extent to which it should be
exercised.' 'I have never for a moment,' -wrote
Canning, ' doubted the justice of retaliation to the
fuU extent ; and the right of retaliating to the full
extent unquestionably includes the right of partial
retaliation.' ' It seems open to us clearly,' wrote
Lord Hawkesbury, 'to do what France has done;
that is, to make prize of all ships sailing to and from
France.' ' I have no doubt,' wrote Lord Westmore
land, ' about the question of right.' ' I concur en
tirely,' wrote Lord Castlereagh, ' in the principles of
the proposed measure, and very much in the details ;
as weU as in the reasoning contained in the accom
panying paper.' But, while on the principles there
was a general agreement, there was some difference
of opinion as to the manner in which the measure
should be carried out. The Duke of Portland
doubted the pohcy of extending the order ' beyond
the actual dominions of France.' Canning preferred
to ' confine the measure to a part of the countries in
the occupation of the enemy — (a large part to be»
sure — France and Holland for instance) — and apply
it in aU its rigour to that part, than extend it to the
whole, and relax it by complicated exceptions and
regulations.' Lord Hawkesbury, on the contrary,
could ' not see the propriety in principle of not
extending our order to all countries who have issued
the decree of making prize towards us.' And Lord
Castlereagh ' formed a strong impression that, with a

270 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
view to render the measure effectual towards the
enemy, it would be essential to make every vessel
entering the ports of France liable to seizure, that
had not previously touched at a British port, and
which did not proceed -with a British licence.' '
Armed with these opinions, Perceval seems to
have proceeded to draw the order ; the draft of which
was again circtdated among the Cabinet. As it was
ultimately issued, it practically gave eftect to Perce
val's original suggestion. It began by declaring that
' aU the ports and places of France and her alhes, or
of any other country at war with His Majesty; and
all other ports and places in' Europe, from which,
although not at war -with His Majesty, the British
fiag is excluded ; and all ports or places in the
Colonies belonging to His Majesty's enemies ; shaU
be henceforth subject to the same restrictions as if
the same were actually blockaded by His Majesty's
naval forces .... and every vessel trading to or from
the said countries or colonies .... shall be captured
and condernned as prize to the captors.' The order
then went on to specify certain exceptions in accord
ance with the suggestions Avhich Perceval had made.
The orders were dated on the 11th November.
On the 21st of the following January Parliament
met. It was at once seen that the Opposition in
tended to impugn, with all their force, the policy
ofthe Copenhagen expedition, and ofthe Orders in
' Perceval Papers.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 271
Council. The speech was a very long one ; and,
though no actual opposition was offered to the
Address, the propriety of the Ministers' conduct was
loudly questioned. Lord MUton declared that ' to
attack a neutral country as we had attacked Copen
hagen was, primd facie, unjustifiable ;' and that ' the
Orders of CouncU would probably produce a rupture
¦with America.' Ponsonby, though he reserved his
opinion tUl the papers were produced, thought it
' impossible to concur in that part of the Address
which pledged him to an approbation ' of the
expedition. Whitbread insisted that the attack on
Denmark was 'cruel and unjust,' and that 'the
Orders in CouncU would be found to produce great
inconvenience to the great mass of the people.' Lord
H. Petty foUowed in the same strain. Windham,
in much more violent language, talked of the time
' when Ministers would be caUed upon to pay the
penalty of their misdeeds — when they, the perpe
trators of the acts in question, would be left only
with the shame of that they had done, and the
serious and lasting consequences which that shame
would bring along with it.' Perceval then rose, and
rested the defence of the expedition on the ante
cedent conduct of Buonaparte, and insisted that the
existence of the secret Article in the Treaty of TUsit
had been confirmed by the subsequent attack of France
on Portugal. Sheridan followed with a violent attack
on Perceval, and insisted that the Ministers were

272 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
bound to produce the substance, at any rate, of the
information on which they had acted.^ The debate
was renewed seven days afterwards. Windham
desired to refuse the usual vote of thanks to the
troops who had been engaged in the expedition : he
rested his opposition on the double ground that the
ser-vice was one which demanded sympathy, not
exultation, and had required qualities in the troops
engaged which, however useful in themselves, it was
not usual to reward with thanks. Perceval replied to
Windham with a long list of precedents which were
more or less applicable to the occasion ; and thanks
were ultimately voted by 100 votes to 19.*^ On the
3rd February the attack was again renewed. Pon
sonby moved for the substance and date of aU
information transmitted by His Majesty's Minister
at the Court of Copenhagen during the past year
respecting the naval force of Denmark ; but the
motion was rejected by 253 votes to 108 ; while on
the 8th February, in a further motion for a despatch
of Lord Howick's, which Canning was alleged to
have misrepresented in his speech on the 3rd, the
Ministers were again in a majority by 157 votes
to 73.^ Though Canning, having defeated the Op
position, immediately granted the despatch asked
for, to prove that the extract which he had read
was supported by the context.*
On the 25th February Sheridan again drew
1 Hansard, x. 37, 71, (fee. ^ Ibid. 175 and 182.
' Ibid. 310 and 396. ¦• Stapleton's ' Canning, 136.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 273
attention to the subject, and called for papers ; but
the Ministry was again in a majority of 184 votes
to 85 ; on the 26th February another debate took
place, on Canning's own motion for the papers
which he desired to produce ; and finally, on the
21st March, Sharp moved a vote of censure on the
Ministers, but was defeated by 224 votes to 64;'
while a subsequent motion of Mr. Stuart Wortley's,
thanking them for their conduct, was carried by
216 votes to 61.'
The Orders in CouncU were far more stoutly
contested. Perceval, on the 5th February, moved
that the House should go into committee upon them,
and delivered the first of his numerous speeches on
this subject. Lord H. Petty commenced the debate
by questioning the legaUty of the order. ' The Privy
CouncU,' he contended, ' was limited by the law of
nations  It was the opinion of Lord Eldon,
expressed on an appeal in the last war, that the
Orders of CouncU were nothing but a definition of
what was at that time held to be the law of
nations ; that it was not consistent -with the law
of nations to seize the ships of neutrals, nor could
a mere principle of retaliation upon a third party
justify such a seizure.' Perceval rephed in a very-
spirited speech. If the order ofthe 21st November
was Ulegal, that of the 7th January, to which Lord
H. Petty had himself been a party, was equaUy
iUegal ; for the principle of both orders was the
' Hansard, x. 735, 755. ' Ibid. 1236.
VOL. I. T

274 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
same. But the true fact was that the Orders in
CouncU were ' measures of war, which the King
was entitled by prerogative to take, and with
which it was never intended by any statute to
interfere.' A debate which lasted tUl two in the
following morning ensued. The Ministry obtained
the support of the Master of the EoUs.' The
House assented to Perceval's motion, and went pro
fcn-md into committee. A BUl, framed on the
orders, was directed to be brought in; but its in
troduction was the signal for the renewal of the
struggle. The second reading was opposed on the
isth February by Mr. Eden, but carried, on a di-vi
sion, by 214 votes to 94.' On the Eeport being
brought up, Tierney took a technical point. The
BUl, he contended, consisted of two parts : the one
proposed the regulation of trade ; the other the
imposition of certain duties. There was also a clause
for remitting forfeitures which coiUd not be regu
lated by the Crown. But ' there was a standing
order of the House that no BUl for the regulation
of trade shoxUd originate except in a committee of
the whole House, caUed a Committee for the Eegu-
lation of Trade and Navigation.' The proper com-se,
he argued, would have been to have referred one
part of the present BUl to the Committee of Trade,
the other to a Committee of Ways and Means.
Perceval consented to recommit the Bill for the
purpose of dividing it accordingly ; but he success-
1 Hansard, x. 321, 340. ^ Ibid. 684.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 275
fuUy resisted the proposal to revive a Committee
of Trade and Navigation.'
On the 3rd March another opportunity for debate
occurred. General Gascoigne presented a petition
from the Liverpool merchants against the measure ;
and the Speaker at once stated that the usage of
the House was ' not to receive any petition against
a Duty BUl.'^ Perceval supported the Speaker,
and the motion for the reception of the petition
was rejected. Seven days afterwards a petition of
the London merchants to be heard by counsel was
rejected by 99 votes to 66 ; and, after repeated
motions for adjournment, made with the avowed in
tention of creating delay, the BiU was read a third
time on the 1 4th March.-' On the 1 8th March, Alder
man Combe moved that counsel should be heard
on the orders, and Brougham was, for the first
time, heard at the bar.
During these lengthened debates Perceval had
been a constant speaker. ' The ministerial side of
the House was then considered,' wrote his anony
mous biographer, ' as not affording many able
speakers ; and it was, therefore, a pomt of pohcy
to harass it by incessant debates. But the ready,
vigorous, and pointed rephes of Mr. Perceval, dis
tinguished by a strong sense and a thorough
knowledge of business, together with his unshaken
firmness, xUtimately left his opponents very little
> Hansard, x. 678, 726. ' Ibid. 889, 896.
» Ibid. 1066, 1076, 1183.

276 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
advantage from the most violent and persevering
attacks.' The Orders in CouncU prohibited the exportation
to France of all articles which were not carried
from this country and had not paid an export-duty.
There were, however, certain articles which the Mia-
istry determined the enemy should have on no
terms ; and accordingly, on the 22nd February, Per
ceval moved for leave to introduce a BUl to prohibit
the exportation of cotton-wool, and Jesuits' bark.
The Jesuits' Bark BUl, as it was termed, was opposed
by Whitbread, but it was easUy carried.
It seemed necessary to notice these measures,
because their introduction has, on three different oc
casions, been made a distinct charge against Perceval
Whitbread epigrammaticaUy insisted that they con
stituted a war against hospitals. ' Peter Plymley'
put the same thing in another way : ' You cannot
seriously suppose that the people care for such men
as Lord Hawkesbury, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Perceval,
on their own account. You cannot really beheve
them to be so degraded as to look to their safety
from a man who proposes to subdue Europe by
keeping it without Jesuits' bark.' ' In the midst of
this unparaUeled anxiety,' he writes to his ' brother
Abraham' on another occasion, ' we are told that the
Continent is to be re-conquered by the want of
rhubarb and plums.'' Many years afterwards Napier
repeated the charge in his ' History ofthe Peninsular
' Sidney Smith's Works, iii. 452.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 277
War,' in less guarded language, ' His ' (Perceval's)
' bigotry taught him to oppress Ireland ; but his
religion did not prevent him from passing a law
to prevent the introduction of medicines into France
during a pestUence.' ' Napier subsequently admitted
that the three last words were not borne out by
the facts, and that there was no pestilence in France
in the summer of 1808. But, even if there had
been, its existence would not have stamped the
measure as inhuman. AU wars necessarily involve
suffering, not merely to the combatants, but to the
people who engage in them. And, if the right of
war be once admitted, it is a mere maudlin senti
mentality to object to the suffering it occasions.
No general ever hesitated to blockade a town
because a great number of inoffensive persons would,
in consequence, be brought to the brink of starva
tion. And, if it be legitimate to starve a town, it
must obviously be legitimate to cut off the supply
of a single commodity. ' The object of this BUl,'
wrote Cobbett in the ' Political Eegister ' at the
time, ' and of aU the regulations in question, is to
retaliate upon the Emperor of France for his decree
declaring England in a state of blockade  Mr.
Whitbread's logic is this : ' If you prevent the
removal of disease, you must, on the same principle,
wish its increase ; and this principle -wiU lead to
the promotion of poisoning and assassination 
' Remarks on the character ascribed by Col. Napier to the late
Right Hon. S. Perceval, London, 1835, p. 14.

278 THE first year of the
No, sir : for, though I approve of this BUl, I would
not approve assassination any more than you would ;
though I approve of the BUl, I do not wish to
prevent the removal of disease any more than you
wish to prevent the removal of thirst by charging
sixpence a pot for your porter, when you see many
poor wretches who cannot possibly get it at that
price. You cannot, I dare say, seU your porter
cheaper without danger to your fortune : nor can
we suffer the bark to go to France -without danger
to our fortune as a nation.' '
There are only two or three other matters to
which aUusion need be made in the history of the
Parliamentary Session of 1808. First, perhaps, in
importance was the fiscal pohcy of the Minister.
The supplies of the year, exclusive of the charges
on the Consolidated Fund, amounted to 48,653,170/.
5,713,566/. of this sum was the proportion which
would faU on Ireland. The balanceof 42,919,640/. it
was Perceval's duty to provide. The war-taxes were
estimated at 20,000,000/. ; malt and pensions at
3,000,000/. ; the unappropriated surplus of the Con
solidated Ftmd at 766,870/. ; and the yield of the
Lottery at 350,000/. These items together produced
a revenue of 24,076,870/. The probable snrplus of
the Consolidated Fund was estimated at 3,500,000/.
The residue was obtained in four ways. 3,000,000/. was
advanced -without interest as a loan by the Governors
of the Bank, in return for the advantage which they
' 'Political Register,' 1808, 368.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 279
derived from the large pubhc balances in their hands ;
500,000/. was taken from the Unclaimed Dividends
Fund, which amounted to nearly twice that sum ;
4,000,000/. of Exchequer BUls were issued in return
for a simUar amount which had been funded ; and a
loan of 8,000,000/. was contracted. These sums in aU
produced a revenue of 43,076,870/., or of 137,000/.
more than the amount actually required. It was
stUl necessary to pro-vide for the interfest and
Sinking Fund of the new debt. 750,000/ was
required annually for the purpose ; 380,000/. of the
amount was avaUable by the falling-in of some short
annuities; 125,000/. was obtained by an addition of
about 2 per cent, to the assessed taxes, and 220,000/.
by an extension and consolidation of the Stamp
Duties. Even in our own time, with our better
knowledge of finance, it is impossible to apply any
criticism to the first fiscal scheme of the Minister
who, Sheridan once said, was utterly unkno-wn to
the House as a financier.'
In the May foUowing Perceval made another
financial proposal. Persons possessing stock in the
3 per cents should, he suggested, be permitted to
transfer it to the Commissioners for the Eeduction
of the National Debt, ' -with the view of obtaining
in its stead eqxuvalent annuities.' Windham,
Tierney, and Lord H. Petty objected, in the first
instance, to the plan, on the singular ground that
' many parents would be found who would be
' Hansard, x. 232 and 1302; xi. 11.

280 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
wUling to sacrifice the future interests of their
chUdren to their own immediate gratification.' Later
in the session Tierney contended that the plan
would interfere with the operation of the Sinking
Fund ; whUe Lord H. Petty denounced it as ' objec
tionable in a political, moral, and financial point of
-view.' The value of these criticisms may perhaps
be tested by the circumstance that the Sinking
Fund has long since been abandoned; while Per
ceval's plan is stUl in operation. The former has
been almost universally condemned ; the latter has
been nearly as generally supported.'
Some of the other events of the session -wUl, at
the present time, be considered more questionable.
The Ministry, for instance, proposed the reduction
of the Maynooth grant from 13,000/. to 9,250/.
Perceval himself contended that the latter sum
was sufficient.' He declined, too, to aUow the
petitions from the Eoman Catholics of Ireland for
the removal of their disabilities to be referred to
a Committee of the whole House. ^ ' Catholic peti
tion,' wrote the Speaker in his Diary : ' Mr. Grattan,
in a very able speech of two hours, moved to refer
it to a Committee of the whole House. He was
supported by Ponsonby, Whidham, Lord Henry-
Petty, Whitbread, Maurice Fitzgerald, &c. Opposed
by Canning and Lord Castlereagh upon the score
of time, and by Perceval in toto. Opposed also by
Wilberforce and Yorke. Two divisions : first, for
' Hansard, xi. 261, 697. = Ibid. 93, 123. = ibid. 638.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 281
adjourning the debate, 118 to 298; secondly, upon
the main question for the committee, 128 to 281.
Adjourned at six in the morning.' '
The Speaker's description of Perceval's speech is
only partiaUy accurate. Perceval opposed the peti
tion, less from any objection to comply -with the
requisition than from the conclusion that a com
pliance with ' it would operate as a stimulus to
greater demands.' ' If you mean to satisfy the
Cathohcs by concession, you should make up your
mind to estabhsh the Eoman Cathohc religion, and
then you -wUl satisfy the Catholics ; but, short of
that, you never can satisfy them by concession.' '
While Perceval was thus resolutely opposing the
Eoman Catholic claims, he was earnestly supporting
the interests of the poorer clergy of the Church of
England. Seven years before, in the Session of
1801-2, Sir W. Scott had introduced a measure to
remedy some of the grievances of the Church. The
Clergy Non-Eesidence BUl, as it was called, prac
tically proposed the repeal of the penal laws of
Henry VIII. and Elizabeth. By these laws clergy-
' Diary, ii. 150.
' Perceval distinctly hinted that he was not opposing the
removal of these disabilities in toto. 'I beg to be distinctly
understood that, if there should be such an alteration in the
aflfairs of the world, or in the nature of this religion itself, as
to put this question in a different shape hereafter, then, consist
ently with what I have done and am now doing, I may assent to
the propriety of adopting some measure for the purpose of granting
what the Catholics may theu seek.' — Hansard, xi. 624.

282 THE FIRST -YEAR OF THE
men were compelled to live in their own parishes ;
they were not allowed to engage in any industry;
they were even debarred from the ordinary pursuits
of buying and selling. A clergyman living in the
City was fined for residing beyond his parish, though
there was no sufficient residence within it for his
famUy and himself A clergyman buying a pig or
a cow rendered himself Uable to a fine three times
as large as the value of the animal Special in
formers wandered about the country, seeking out
offenders, in the hope of earning for themselves a
share of the penalty. It was under these circum
stances that Sir W. Scott proposed his measure of
relief The clergy, he proposed, should be permitted
to engage in the ordinary pursuits of a country
gentleman's life, and with the consent of the
bishop to reside beyond the limits of their own
parish. Perceval certainly prepared and probably
delivered a speech on the motion for leave to intro
duce the BUl. ' All that part of the BUl,' he said,
' which respects the power of the clergy over their
o-wn property, which relates to the leasing their own
property, and enables them to take on lease certain
lands commodious for them, which removes from
them the most oppressive regulations which the
statutes of EUzabeth have imposed on them, ....
has my most unreserved and unqualified approba
tion. Perceval went on to say that he regarded
the other part of the BUl, affecting the residence
of the clergy, with different feeUngs, because ' the

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 283
presence and example of a resident clergyman,
exhibiting in his life the Christian virtues which
he preaches, can never fail to produce the most
important benefits -within the sphere of his infiu
ence.' ' Non-Eesidence BUl,' wrote WUberforce in
his Diary, 'Windham, Addington, Sir W. Scott,
and Grant earnest for giving the bishops unqualified
discretion and power. Attorney-General Perceval
contra.' ' Perceval in earnest,' he writes again,
' on Sir W. Scott's Bill ; yet almost all agree in
wishing the bishops to be absolute in authority.' '
Sir W. Scott's BUl made only slow progress, and
was ultimately abandoned.'^ It was, however, carried
much in its original shape in the following year;
and in 1803 its author foUowed it up with his
Stipendiary Curates Bill. As his previous measure
had increased the facUities for non-residence, the
object of the new one was to compel the non
resident incumbent to provide a suitable salary for
the curate in charge. The proposal excited con
sternation among pluralists ; and Scott, who was
member for the university, became half afraid of
the clamour he had himself created. The BUl was
rejected in 1803 on a technical point ; and, though
it was again introduced in 1804, the session was
far advanced and Scott permitted it to drop. ' Now
in 1805,' -wrote the Speaker on the 4th AprU, 'he
hesitates, and thinks his constituents at Oxford -will
disapprove it.' Abbot, who was himself really
' Diary, iii. 49 and 102. » Hansard, xxxiv. 463, 890.

284 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
anxious for the success of the proposal, took an
opportunity, three days afterwards, of speaking to
Pitt on the subject. ' Mentioned the Curates BiU,
which Sir W. Scott had abandoned ; but he said the
Attorney-General, who was not so easily intimidated,
had undertaken it.' ' On the last day of AprU
Perceval introduced the BUl. It ' was the same,'
he explained, ' as one which had already received
the sanction of the House, though, from its having
had, when it passed before, a clause in it for the
making pro-vision for such curates as should be
deprived of their curacies by the Eectors' Eesidence
Bill, it had been treated in the other House as a
money bill, and on this ground rejected.' .... He
did not propose ' to alter the laws as they stood
with respect to livings under 400/. a-year, the bishops
having power in those cases to enforce a residence;
but, when the h-ving exceeded that sum, he thought
that there could be no objection to compelling the
rector to provide a resident clergyman with a salary
of 200/. a-year.' Incredible as it may seem, this
moderate proposal was unpopular.^ The Whigs
raised the cry of vested interests against it; and,
though it passed through all its stages in both
Houses, it was crippled with amendments in the
Lords, which the Speaker declared to be 'of such
a nature that the House could not, consistently
with its peculiar privileges, concur in ; ' and Per-
' Colchester, i. 545, 546.
" Pari. Deb. iv. 5, 612; v. 154, 737.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 285
ceval was, in consequence, himself compeUed to
move the rejection of the measure.
Perceval again brought forward the Bill in 1806,
and again it was received with the old alarm.
'The university,' -wrote his friend Mansel to him
from Cambridge on the 25 th April, ' is in consider
able agitation about your BUL' The Whigs renewed
theh opposition to it in the Lords ; Fox lent the
aid of his great authority to the Opposition, and it
was thrown out in a thin House on the second
reading.' Perceval was so discouraged at these successive
defeats that he did not renew his proposal during
the succeeding session. In 1808,* however, he
again brought in the BiU. ' The curate,' he pro
posed, ' should in ordinary cases have a salary
one-fifth of that of the incumbent, but that in no
case it should exceed 250/. per annum.' The mea
sure was -violently opposed by Lord Porchester and
Mr. Windham in the House of Commons, as well
as by Lord Lonsdale in the House of Lords. It
passed through all its stages in the Lower House,
but was rejected on the third reading, without a
division, by the Peers ; and Perceval was again
disappointed of the success which he had secured
on the very eve of achieving.'
' Pari. Deb. vi. 741, 922.
^ On this occasion he published, in the shape of a letter to
Dr. Mansel, a pamphlet reviewing the arguments in favour of
the BiU.
' Hansard, xi. 54, 835, 1135.

286 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
Though Perceval, in subsequent sessions, renewed
the attempt to carry this measure, it did not become
law tiU the year after his death ; when Lord Har
rowby ' accomplished, what his late virtuous friend
and colleague, Mr. Perceval, had greatly at heart, and
which, from regard to his memory, as weU as from a
cordial approbation of the measure, he entered upon
as a sacred trust.' ' That a question of wide extent,'
said the same writer, ' and of a nature purely eccle
siastical, should originate with laymen professedly
friendly to the Church Establishment, and that it
shoxUd derive no assistance or support from an order
of men whose office and station requhe them more
especially to watch over the interests of the Church,
and who seldom address the assembly in which they
sit on any other occasions ; that most of them, on the
contrary, should have opposed it in every stage,
without denying the existence ofthe evU complained
of, and without offering any better remedy ; that, in
spite of these obstacles, and of the general though
suppressed murmur ofthe holders of Church property,
it should have passed into law, are circumstances so
strange as to excite more than ordinary surprise and
curiosity.'* At the present time the opposition to
1 The interest which Perceval took in the poorer clergy
received a fresh Ulustration in 1809, when he proposed and carried
a grant of 100,000^. to raise the incomes of those who had less
than 50^. a-year to that sum. Wilberforce on this occasion ob
served that 'it was highly honourable in his right honourable
friend to have attended to this subject amidst such a variety of
avocations.' — Hansard, xiv. pp. 920 and 921.
2 'Quarterly Review,' Oct. 1813, 41, 49.

DUKE OF Portland's ministry. 287
the bUl by the whole bench of bishops, and its re
jection by the House of Lords, may be spoken of in
stronger language.
It is only fair to remember that this discreditable
policy was promoted by such men as Fox, Windham,
and others, who are deservedly regarded as the pio
neers of reform ; that the more generous course was
persistently recommended by the statesman who has
been termed ' narrow, harsh, factious, and iUiberal in
everything relating to public matters."
Parhament was prorogued on the 4th July. ' The
most laborious session for hours of sitting ever known
within living memory of the oldest members or officers
of that House,' -wrote the Speaker.* ' The debates,'
wrote Wilberforce, ' are poor, compared with former
times ; yet Perceval improved, and Canning exceed
ingly clever.'^ During the earlier years ofthe century,
Perceval had leased a country-house at Hampstead,
from whence, during the recess, he had ridden up to
his chambers in Lincoln's Inn, or his office in Down
ing Street. After Mrs. Perceval's iUness in 1807,
he left Hampstead, and took a house at Clap-
ham. In 1808 he resolved on purchasing a small
property in the immediate neighbourhood of London.
After some hesitation, he decided on Elm Grove, a
place at Ealing belonging to Lord Kinnaird. It con
sisted of a fair house and thhty-six acres of land ;
and Perceval gave for it, without the timber, 7000
1 Napier's Peninsular War, 142.
^ Colchester, ii. 158. ' Ibid. iii. 360

288 DUKE OF Portland's ministry.
guineas. The timber cost him £500 more. SmaU as
the sum was, Perceval hesitated whether he could
afford so much. But the place was healthy, it was
within an easy ride of Downing Street, and the
purchase was accordingly concluded.

289

CHAPTEE VIII.
THE SESSION OF 1809.
1808-1809.
Continental Affairs — The Peninsular War — Sir Arthur Wellesley
— Battle of Vimeira — Sir H. Burrard — Sir H. Dalrymple —
Convention of Cintra — Sir John Moore's Expedition to Portugal
— Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke — Mr. Gwyllym Lloyd Wardle —
Inquiry respecting Military Appointments — Mrs. Clarke's Exa
mination by the House of Commons — Proposal made by Lord
Melville — Lord Mulgrave's Advice — Debate in the House of
Commons — Trafl&c in Public Offices — Charges against Castle
reagh and Perceval — Parliamentary Reform Bill — Quintin
Dick's Resignation — Romilly's Bill on CoiTupt Practices —
Budget for the Year.
The year 1808 was, in many respects, a remarkable one
for England. It was chiefly so because it witnessed
the commencement of that great struggle in the Pe
ninsula, which ultimately resulted in the sxxccessive
defeats of the ablest marshals of France, and the in
vasion by the victorious British army of the French
empire. News of a very satisfactory nature had
reached England before Parliament was prorogued.
Napoleon, in the early period of the year, had com
peUed Charles IV. to resign the Crown of Spain ; and
had sent his o-wn brother, Joseph, as king to Madrid.
But Napoleon had miscalcxUated the temper ofthe
VOL. I. U

290 THE SESSION OF 1809.
people on whom he was thus imposing his own dy
nasty. Though Murat was in their country with a
powerful French army ; though their strongest for
tresses and their capital were in the hands of the
enemy ; though the foremost men of their nation
had recognised at Baylen their new Sovereign, the
Spanish nation revolted from the dictation of the
conqueror of the world. The people rose ; they
murdered, where they were able, their new masters ;
they appealed to England for succour, and proclaimed
Ferdinand their king. The news of the insurrection
was received in this country -with unmistakable joy.
The Spanish rising was welcomed as a new element
in the great struggle. The Ministry shared the en
thusiasm of the people, and determined on granting
the assistance that the Spaniards had demanded.
The Portland Cabinet was as happy in the choice
of a commander as they had been in their decision.
Sir Arthur Wellesley had already gained distinction
in our Indian empire ; he had only lately received
the thanks of Parliament for the part which he had
played in the expedition to Copenhagen ; he had
held a subordinate position in the Portland adminis
tration as Secretary for Ireland. Now, on the 12th
of July, he was sent with a force of 12,000 men
from Cork to the Peninsula. Before Sir Arthur had
arrived at his destination, news was received in this
country well calculated to rouse the hopes of the
people. The Spaniards, unaided, had won a great
victory. Dupont had been compelled to lay down

THE SESSION OF 1809. 291
his arms at Baylen. Joseph Buonaparte had, in con
sequence, retreated from Madrid. Before another
month was over, stUl more gratifying intelligence
had arrived. Wellesley had landed on the coast of
Portugal ; and had defeated Junot at Vimeira. The
French army was in a critical position ; its capitula
tion might momentarUy be anticipated. Since the
date of Nelson's crowning victory, no such news had
been received in England. But the lustre of Nel
son's victory had been tarnished by the great loss
which his death had occasioned. The battle of
Vimeira had no such foU. Long, too, before Trafalgar,
Duncan, Hood, St. Vincent, and Nelson himself had
taught their fellow-countrymen to regard England
as invincible at sea. But the most confident Eng
lishman could hardly venture to maintain the supe
riority of the British army. With one short interval
of peace, we had been for twelve years at war. With
the exception of two isolated victories in Egypt and
SicUy, our army had won no great battle. England
was the undisputed mistress ofthe seas ; but Napoleon
was the undoubted master of the Continent. The
sun, which had smiled on his arms at Austerhtz, had
never set ; the success, which had attended his earlier
efforts, had never failed him. Every nation had stood
in arms against France ; and men of all races and
of all languages had acknowledged the superiority of
the French soldier. England, alone, had never grap
pled seriously on land with the conqueror of the
world. But there was no reason for supposing that

292 THE SESSION OF 1809.
the Englishman would succeed where the Eussian,
the Prussian, the Austrian, had aU failed. Compared
with the forces which these powers had at their dis
posal, the English army was small ; it was scattered
over distant possessions, which it was necessary to
defend ; it could hardly be said to have achieved a
history; it was doubtful whether it possessed a
general. The battle of Vimeira changed all this in a
moment. An English army had been opposed, on
equal terms, to a French force. An English general,
with only an Indian reputation, had been pitted
against one of the ablest of Napoleon's lieutenants ;
and the Enghsh soldier had proved a match for the
veteran of the empire. Wellesley had shown himself
superior to Junot.
The nation was intoxicated with joy. Was the
fiood of French conquest at length beginning to re
cede ? Was the dawn of a better day breaking on the
coast of Portugal ? The very greatness of the news
led aU parties to expect still greater. More news
came. The great victory had been foUowed by a
barren convention. Junot had been defeated by
Wellesley; but WeUesley and his superior officers
had been outwitted by Junot.
Though the Ministry had exercised a wise dis
cretion in selecting Sir A. Wellesley for the com
mand of their new expedition, they had unwisely
concxirrently instructed other officers, who were his
seniors, to co-operate with him. It would, no doubt,
have been- difficult to have.....done otherwise. Sir

THE SESSION OF 1809. 293
Arthur Wellesley was low down in the hst of
generals ; his senior officers were at that moment
serving in Spain ; and it was not easy, therefore, to
utilise the whole English force in the Peninsula
without sooner or later superseding Sir Arthur.
As a matter of fact, before the battle had been won,
Wellesley was superseded in his command. The
north -wind brought Sir H. Burrard ; the south wind,
two days later, brought Sir H. Dalrymple. Dal
rymple and Burrard were both WeUesley 's seniors.
Burrard actually arrived on the eve of the battle ;
and, though he allowed Wellesley to carry out his
own dispositions, he stopped the pursuit of the enemy
at the close of the day. Junot made overtures for
a convention. Dalrymple, who by this time had
superseded Burrard, just as Burrard had superseded
Wellesley, in a weak hour listened to them. The
convention of Cintra was signed ; the French army
was allowed to evacuate Portugal ; and England
was deprived of the advantages she had hoped to
gain from her fhst great victory on the Continent.
Perceval was in London when the news arrived ;
Canning was passing his vacation at Hinckley.
Perceval wrote to him ; and Canning, in the first
instance, hardly knew what to do. On the one
hand, he could not ' swallow the article of property
to be carried off by the French army. What
property can they have but plunder ? ' On the
other hand, ' There can be no doubt that we ought
to take this as a great event, and accordingly I

294 THE SESSION OF 1809.
am about to make the bellringers here drunk —
they cannot ring worse after that encouragement
than they have been doing of their own account.'
His doubts were partially explained by a fuller letter
he wrote the next day : — '
' I had been placed, as I believe I told you, in a most
perplexing situation by the arrival of the news by the mail
a couple of hours before my messenger thought proper to
make his appearance. The news, as reported by the guard,
was all glorious, and the place was in an uproar, bells
ringing and mobs shouting, before I had the means of con
firming or qualifying one word of what they all took for
certain. When your note came, I hardly knew what to do.
However, upon the whole I thought it much better to do as
little as I could. The Hinckleyans are not very likely to
enter into nice distinctions, and the surrender of a fleet and
an army was reasonable ground enough for making a noise.
And upon the whole, though a few hours' reflection has
shown me all the disgrace and disaster of this transaction,
(or at least enough to make me regret it as sincerely as I
ever regretted any public transaction that I remember — all
I will not say I yet see), I yet think that you did right to
fire the guns, because not to have done so would have
precluded all fair judgment and explanation.
' But, having said this, I think that there is not the least
chance or probability of the transaction turning out to be such
as we can approve. And, if we do disapprove of it, I cannot
foresee any circumstances which could reconcile me to our omit
ting to mark our disapprobation of it in the strongest manner.
' I am sure that it is a case in which compromise wHl
not do. I stood nearly alone last winter in my opinion that
Lord Gambier ought to have been seriously censured for his
scandalous mismanagement of the Baltic fleet after the
lir of Copenhagen. It was thought better to hush the
' Canning to Perceval, 16th Sept. 1808.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 295
matter up ; and the general good- will towards us, or rather
the ill-will towards our opponents, and their mismanage
ment of their game in Parliament, saved us a question upon
the losses sustained by British trade, which might otherwise
have overturned us. We are not to look for any such
management of our feelings or popularity now. This con
vention must be distinctly ours, or our commanders. We
must judge them, or the public will judge us. And, I
confess, unless there are circumstances to come out, of which
I can form no conjecture, I shall not be prepared to consent
to take an atom of the responsibihty for this work upon
our own shoulders.
' The mischief to result from it appears from every point
of view, and from every quarter of the world.
' Portugal (as I said yesterday) must hate us for the
article giving up their plunder. Instead of hailing us as
deliverers, they must consider us as having interfered only
to sanction and secure French robbery. By no other pro
bable combination of circumstances could the French not
only have kept what they had stolen, but have carried it
out of the country unmolested. I should imagine the Por
tuguese themselves will rise against the execution of this
article, and attempt themselves to seize their property
before the embarkation of the French troops. What are
we to do in this case ? To cut down our allies — the pro
tected Portuguese — in order to save their spoils to the plun
derers? It makes one sick with shame to think of it.
And in what country after this — in what part of Italy, of
Spain, or the North, shall we be received with open arms
as deliverers ? When it is said that the French are to
be sent back to France, I take it for granted that we are
to find transports at our expense to carry them back ; yet,
with respect to the Russian sailors, this must necessarily be
so, I am afraid. And if with respect to the French too
(which God forbid !), could the malice of all our enemies
combined suggest a more shameful and ridiculous exhibi
tion, a more degrading caricature of our maritime power

296 THE SESSION OF 1809.
than to see it employed in the transport of seventeen or
eighteen thousand enemies — half to fight against Spain, and
half to fight against the King of Sweden ?
' Oh ! how our allies must curse our seafaring faculties,
without which they would each of thera have had at least
eight or nine thousand fewer enemies to contend -with.
' And then poor Castlereagh, too, who has been working
night and day to get transports to convey our troops to the
scene of action ; who will have to plead (and most truly)
that all his exertions (and no man ever made greater) were
inadequate to enable him to do ali that he -wished — to send,
for instance, the cavalry, which would have made Wel
lesley' s victories victories of extermination — he is all at
once to find tonnage for this precious freight, for which I
suppose our own expeditions must stand stUl.
' Then — but even that is a minor consideration — -with
what face are we to persist in our instructions to Lord
Collingwood respecting the transport of Dupont's army?
What are we to say to the Spaniards ? What are we to say
to Sweden ? One thing we must say to Sweden, that we
will hold an army of 10,000 men at her disposal, for it will
be monstrous to set 8000 men upon her without any aid on
our part to counterbalance the pressure.
' In short, in whatever way one looks at this unfortunate
business, there is nothing but discredit and mischief to be
seen in it. I still think Cotton meritorious, for I have no
doubt that he saved us from the utter ruin of the original
convention, though even that would perhaps have been
better, for that we certainly would have broJcen.
' Of this I feel more doubtful ; but as yet I am in
perfect ignorance of anything but what your note has
told me.
' If it were yet possible to replace things as they were
before the Convention was signed, I should have no hesita
tion in doing so, rather than consent to the endless detailed
disgrace which we have to undergo in the execution of it.'

THE SESSION OF 1809. 297
In the evening of the same day he wrote stUl
more strongly : —
' Since I wrote to you this morning I have received the
extraordinary " Gazette," and I confess that it is even worse
than my expectations. The substance, to be sure, I could
not expect to be different ; but I did not think that I should
find every sore place touched in the coarsest manner, and
all the shameful parts of the transaction brought forward
with such studious and laboured particularity. That British
officers should have signed and approved such a paper is most
grievous ; but they cannot have had any hand in its compo
sition. The pen must have been held by a Frenchman, and
by one who was determined to use his advantage with the
most unsparing triumph. For the tone of France is tri
umphant a.nd dictatorial throughout ; and England never
speaks except to promise a baseness, to undertake a bur
densome obligation, or to sacrifice her allies.
' Wherever I had found an expression in your note of
yesterday to hang a little hope upon, I find myself disappointed.
The article about the private property of the French army is
too carefully guarded to admit of any mistake or miscon
struction. No, no ! there is no loophole for what may be
" recognised" The French soldier may sell the plate, that
he stole from the loyal Portuguese, to a known traitor before
the loyal man's face ; and the traitor's sideboard may display
it ever after with the British army for the guarantee of the
transaction ! and we went there as allies ! Traitors of all
descriptions, who have contributed to the enslavement of
their country, and shared in its plunder, may take their
choice, either to carr)'- off what they have stolen,^ or to re
main rioting in it at home in defiance of its owners, and in
contempt of their Prince's lawful government ; and this too
guaranteed by a British army !
' Note in Perceval's handwriting : — ' Surely this cannot be. If
capable of proof.'

298 THE SESSION OF 1809.
' What right had the British army to stipulate for the
impunity of traitors ? ' Wliy was not the commander of the
Portuguese troops called in to consider of tliis stipulation ?
Depend upon it we shall be detested and despised, not in
Portugal only, but all over Europe, for this most unwarrant
able concession. Every nation will feel — and it is the unde
niable truth if this convention should be approved — if it
should not be loudly and unequivocally scouted at home —
that there is no protection in British friendship — that there
is no comparison between the efficacy of French and British
alliance — that the beaten French are enabled to make terms
for their adherents, by which they in all countries may play
in velvet ; whereas they too well know that, if England had
been the evacuating party, the vengeance of France would
not have been warded off from the partisans of England.
' Struggling, as the two nations are, in the eyes of Europe
against each other, this single trait is enough to decide the
preponderance. I would not myself, if I were a rascally
Portuguese, or Prussian, or Dutchman, hesitate one moment
to prefer the French — under all its present disadvantages —
as the safer side, upon this single article only. Or, if I
wanted any further motive, I should only have to look to the
next article, which relates to the Spanish troops detained ia
Lisbon, to make up my mind completely. We bind our
selves to obtain from the Spaniards the release of ci-vil pri
soners detained in Spain in consequence of civil tumults.
We, who have been fighting the question of the exchange of
troops against civil prisoners this whole war ! Who have
now hundreds of our countrymen languishing in France
because we will not release military for ci-vil persons, but
who have not had the spirit to detain civil persons in return !
We interfere to help the French in getting this obnoxious
principle acknowledged ; and to take out of the hands of the
Spaniards — who have had the spirit to deal with the French
in their own way — a number of hostages (for such they were)
> Note in Perceval's handwriting : — ' This might well be one
of the points on which the King should be satisfied.'

THE SESSION OF 1809. 299
for the release of ci-vil persons detained in France ! We
agree to obtain of the Spaniards the release of these ci-vil
rioters ! But suppose the Spaniards -will not give them up ?
I hope they will not — not a man of them. What are we to
do then ? to send back the Spanish troops to France ? or to
endeavour to force the Spaniards to compliance ? Pleasant
allies to the Spaniards we are too ! and well this engagement
will square with our grand protest against the right to bind
us by Dupont's convention.
' It is sickening to examine this calamitous instrument
any further. Every word seems to have been weighed with
"a view to making it as mortifying as possible. The stipu
lation on our part for the security of our transports from
French capture is harmless ; but perhaps it is as base, as
unnecessarily humiliating, as any indifferent thing could be.
They will not be taken the more nor the less.
' If the better opinion is that the thing must be executed,
I cannot help it. But a Government cannot be so utterly
helpless as to be obliged to submit to be dragged through the
dirt by the acts of its officers. There must at least be some
means of sho-wing that we are not parties to it ; that we
disclaim and abjure it. Otherwise by this expedition to the
Tagus, in return for the lease (a repairing lease I suppose)
of nine Russian hulks, we shall have lost Portugal, Spain,
Sweden, and our character.'
The Cabinet met. They objected, at least as
much as Canning, to ' the thing ' to which their
officers had committed them ; but their disapproval
took a different form. Canning was so occupied
with lamentations on the past that he had no hope,
no thought for the future. Castlereagh only saw, hi
the disgrace of the convention, a fresh incentive to
new exertions. Perceval, it is plain from the
foUo-wing letter from Lord Castlereagh, took the
same -view. The letter is only dated Sunday even-

300 THE SESSION OF 18C9.
ing, but there is internal evidence to prove that it
was written on Sunday the 27th September, or
ten days after the date of the last letter from
Canning. ' St. James's Square,
' Sunday Evening.
' Dear Perceval, — Many thanks for your letters and their
enclosures, which I return. I had one to the same effect
from Canning, stating his opinion that our draft, as settled
at our last Cabinet, was in his judgment too like an approval.
I am sure that I do not wonder that Canning, in his turn,
should have the hot as well as the cold fit of this desperate
ague which has visited us all so lamentably ; but I quite
agree with you that we ought to deal with the past, now that
it is irrevocable, only as it bears upon our future means of
rendering service ; and that in that sense we ought well to
weigh how we can best save, together with our own cha
racter and that of the country, the instrument, which of all
others seems capable, if we can rally round him the requisite
amount of support, of consoling us and the world for any
faults which he himself or others have committed.^ In this
view I quite agree with you that we can only justify our
selves to Spain by increased and accelerated exertions, and I
follow all your reasoning as to the mode. I had despatched
Dalrymple last night with our draft as amended yesterday.
It appeared to me, however, and to Mulgrave, that a good
understanding amongst ourselves was much more important
> Castlereagh was not so clear a writer as Canning ; and it is
not very easy to say who he means by the instrument. The words
which immediately follow would almost imply that he was refer
ring to the King ; but the mention of faults committed makes
that suggestion impossible. On the whole it is fair, therefore,
to infer that Perceval and he had recognised Sir A. Wellesley's
abilities, and were anxious to shelter him from the consequences
of having been a party to the convention.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 301
than the communication of ovir decision to Dalrymple a few
hours sooner. I have by telegraph ordered him not to sail
without further orders. Canning will be in town to-morrow
evening ; and, if he wishes to have the point reconsidered, a
portion of Tuesday must be allotted to that purpose, though
I much lament that it is not wholly applicable to prospective
exertions. ' Canning seems prepared to break the whole agreement,
rather than permit any admitted or alleged plunder to pass.
Turn our rights in this respect in your mind. He also is
desirous of an avowed disapproval, in the first instance, of
Articles 16, 17, and 18, of the Definitive Convention. I see
much less difficulty in this disapproval to any extent ; and
the proceeding against our own officers, in any way we think
fit, can only be a question of expediency and individual
justice ; but can we go the length of saying that these
stipulations were beyond the mere competence of the con
queror : the legitimate object of his conquest being the
restoration of the country to its own sovereign, in as short a
time and in as perfect a manner as was consistent with the
best means of doing so ? Not defending the means, I should
doubt the soundness of them as a principle. ' Yours very truly, 'C
Very much in accordance with the opinion
expressed in this letter, the Ministry adopted two
courses : they appointed a Board of General Officers
to investigate the subject ; and they decided on at
once sending a new expedition to the Peninsula.
The Coiu't of Inquiry met at Chelsea, and, after
some deliberation, agreed on a Eeport which
practically whitewashed all the generals. The expe
dition was intrusted to an officer, who had not
been engaged at Vimeira, but whose reputation was

302 THE SESSION OF 1809.
already high. This commander. Sir John Moore,
was directed to advance into the heart of the
country, and co-operate with the Spaniards for the
expulsion of the French. Various opinions were
entertained in this country, both of the expediency
of the movement and of the qualifications of Moore
himself for the command of it. The General was
personally opposed to the plan, and protested
against it. Canning seems to have concluded
from the protest, not that the expedition was in
itself unwise, but that Moore was unfitted for the
command of it. Strong words passed between him
and Castlereagh. The two ministers had already
differed on the course which the Convention of
Cintra necessitated. Their differences became wider
now. ' Good God ! ' said Canning, ' do you mean
that you allowed a man holding such views to go
out in command of the expedition ? ' It was well
known in pohtical circles that Canning was dissa
tisfied : his dissatisfaction was even commented on
by the leaders of the Opposition.
Moore's expedition, it is well known, resulted
in a disastrous retreat and a glorious -victory. The
battle of Corunna was fought on the 16th January.
Parliament met on the 19th: the circumstances of
Moore's retreat were already known ; the news of
the triumph, with which it had been concluded, had
not reached England. The meeting itself had been
postponed for a few days. Parliament had been
summoned for the Monday, and WUberforce wrote

THE SESSION OF 1809. 303
to Perceval to remind him that, if it met on that
day, the members would be tempted to break the
Sabbath by Sunday travelling.
' I thank you for your note of yesterday,' was Perceval's
reply on the 10th January, ' and am really sorry that I have
given occasion for it. I feel mj^self the more to blame
because, upon the receipt of your note, it brought back to
my recollection (what till then I had forgot) some obser
vations which the Speaker made to me some time ago on the
same subject. If they had been present to my mind when
we settled the meeting of Parliament, I would not have fixed
it on Monday. We were, however, almost driven into that
day  Notwithstanding all these considerations, how
ever, if I had thought, as I ought to have done, of the
Sunday travelling which the meeting on the Monday will
too probably occasion, I would have preferred meeting on
the Friday in the Sessions week, with all its inconveniences.
You have the whole stal e of the case before you. I am open
to your judgment — habes confitentem — for inadvertence is
certainly never felt by me as an excuse.'
WUberforce seems to have persevered. Perceval
yielded. ' The House,' writes the former in his
Diary, ' nobly put off by Perceval, because of the
Sunday travelling it would have occasioned.' '
The King's Speech, as originaUy dra-wn, ' men
tioned the Convention with strong expressions of
disapprobation of its character and stipulations.' -
' The manner of speaking of the Convention ap
peared,' however, so likely to 'produce warm and
troublesome discussion,' that, at the last moment,
the draft was altered, and the disapprobation con-
¦ Diary, iii. 397 and 398. ' Colchester, ii. 163.

304 THE SESSION OF 1809.
fined to some of the articles of the treaty. The
opposition, however, was not averted by the change.
Ponsonby attacked the Ministry in a long speech, and
threatened further proceedings ; and on the 21st Feb.
Lord H. Petty rose to move a vote of censure on
the ministers for their misconduct of the matter.
The line which Lord H. Petty took is probably
famUiar to most readers. The Convention, he
argued, had ' disappointed the hopes and expecta
tions ofthe country ;' but the Convention was forced
on the generals by the inadequate preparations which
had been made for the expedition. Our troops were
insufficiently pro-vided with artUlery and cavalry;
they were consequently unable to follow up the
victory they had gained ; and, from sheer inability
to complete their success, they were driven' to make
the best terms with Junot that were avaUable. The
whole blame of the Convention rested, then, -with
those who had limited the cavalry at Sir A. WeUes
ley 's disposal to seven hundred men. The debate
was chiefly remarkable from the fact that Sir A.
Wellesley himself took part in it, and gave the best
reply to Lord H. Potty's strictures by insisting that
the victory might have been followed up with advan
tage. As Perceval himself subsequently put it, ' How
coxUd Ministers be blamed for not providing means
for carrying a campaign to a satisfactory issue, when
it was acknowledged that, if the opinion of one
general who commanded in the battle had been
followed, it would have termioated so gloriously to

THE SESSION OF 1809. 305
the British arms ? ' The House adopted the same
-view : the Ministry obtained a majority of 203 to
153 votes.'
The discussion, which had thus taken place, had
been necessarily postponed in consequence of the
protracted, and happUy unexampled, inquiry on
which the House had been almost continuously
engaged. Mr. GwyUym Lloyd Wardle was a Welsh gen
tleman, a colonel of mUitia, and a member of Parlia
ment. He had begun life as a strong Tory, and
had been distinguished by the zeal with which he
had offered the services of his Welsh mUitiamen to
put down the Irish EebeUion. But an acquaintance
with Sir Francis Burdett and other members of the
Opposition had induced the gaUant Welshman to
reconsider his original opinions. He had become
what we should term now an extreme Eadical, and,
like most converts, was anxious by his conduct to
display his zeal for his new faith. PecuUar chcum-
stances enabled him to do so. Wardle had married
a very rich lady, and had been returned to Parlia
ment in 1807 for the borough of Okehampton. ' He
was now living in very splendid style, and spending
his wife's fortune with proportionate rapidity.'^ To
aid him in this task he had formed an acquaintance
with a very clever, but a very immoral woman, Mrs.
' Pari. Hist. xii. 897-971.
= Pict. Hist, book iii. p. 364. I am indebted to this work for
the preceding details.
VOL. I. X

306 THE SESSION OF 1809.
Mary Ann Clarke. This lady was the daughter of a
Mr. Farquhar, and had been married, in the last
decade of the preceding century, to a man named
Clarke, the son of a Kettering buUder, who at the
time of the marriage was, to use her own words,
' nothing — but a man ;' and who subsequently
worked as a mason in Hoxton and in Golden Square.
Clarke seems to have hved with her for some years,
and to have had by her three chUdren. In the
course of 1798, either four or five years after the
date of their marriage, Mrs. Clarke left Golden
Square, and went to reside, on her o-wn account, in
Tavistock Place. Either there, or, as she herself
affirmed, previously, she became acquainted with the
Duke of York. She lived with His Eoyal High
ness, if her own account may be trusted, in Park
Lane. Towards the commencement of 1804, he pro
vided her with a separate establishment of her o-wn
in Gloucester Place. The Gloucester Place estabhsh
ment was maintained in great magnificence. Mrs.
Clarke's plate alone cost her upwards of 2000/. ;
and, though the Duke only nominally aUowed her
1000/. a-year, it was proved that, in one way or ano
ther, he spent on her house, her furniture, her -wine,
and her allowance, some 20,000/. in two years and a
half Mrs. Clarke, however, was extravagant ; she was
continually in debt, and constantly embarrassed by
her creditors. Much of the 20,000/. which the Duke
had spent on her had gone to redeem the bUls which
she had fioated, and the jewelry which she had

THE SESSION OF 1809. 307
pledged. Under these circumstances she hit upon
a happUy unexampled expedient for raising money.
Her infiuence, she gave out, was aU-powerful -with
the Duke ; the royal road to promotion lay through
Gloucester Place ; the surest way to obtain pro
fessional advancement was to fee Mrs. Clarke. The
impudent story obtained credit : Mrs. Clarke's draw
ing-room was besieged with persons of aU ranks
and classes, who desired preferment for themselves or
their relatives. Eeverend gentlemen, who desired
to preach before His ^ajesty, were not ashamed
to apply to the Duke of York's mistress. When
such practices were in fashion hi the Church, we
can hardly wonder at the corruption which went on
in the army.
In the course of 1805, Mrs. Clarke's husband,
however, appeared on the scene. He had the impu
dence to threaten the Duke of York with an action
for mm. con.. The Duke consulted Mr. Adam,
and Mr. Adam in his turn made inquiries about
Mrs. Clarke. The lawyer learned enough, in these in
vestigations, to induce him to warn the Duke agamst
his -witty mistress. Mrs. Clarke's conduct had not been
as correct as it might have been ; it compromised the
Duke's " interest, and his name with regard to
money." But the Duke was unwUling to hsten to
any story against his mistress. Adam had to renew
the investigation before he could induce His Eoyal
Highness to part from her. When he separated
himself from her in the course of 1807, he agreed to

308 THE SESSION OF 1809.
settle on her a pension of 400/. a-year. Mrs. Clarke's
business was hi a fair way of being irretrievably
ruined. But she had the xmcommon audacity to
intimate that she had the same kind of influence
with the Duke of Portland which she had for
merly exercised -with the Duke of York. Bene
ficed clergymen offered her large sums of money for
deaneries, which she professed herself able to obtain.
She, in the meanwhUe, had formed a new connexion.
A man named Dowler had given her some years
previously 1000/. for a situation in the Commissariat.
Mr. Dowler was now her most favoured lover. She
passed, in the course of 1807, as his wife at a lodging-
house in Hampstead, and at an hotel in St. Martin's
Lane. Such had been the history of this intriguing
and impudent woman. The Duke of York had made
the annxuty dependent on Mrs. Clarke's good be
haviour. There cannot, therefore, be much surprise
that in the course of 1808 he should have discon
tinued the aUowance which he had agreed to make
her. Mrs. Clarke immediately threatened His Eoyal
Highness with exposure. The acquaintance which
she formed with Wardle enabled her to put her
threat into execution.
Wardle was probably a ready listener to the tale
which Mrs. Clarke had to tell. So much of it was
undoubtedly true that a less gullible person might
have been excused for accepting the whole of it.
There was no doubt that Mrs. Clarke had received
large sums of money from various officers ; there was

THE SESSION OF 1809. 309
no doubt that, in certain instances, these officers had
obtained the promotion they desired. Here were a
cause and effect ready made. What was easier than
to suggest that the one had been due to the other :
that the Duke of York was pri-vy to his mistress's
corrupt transactions ? Wardle was now in even
greater favour than Dowler. A row of new houses had
lately been erected to connect the old suburban town
of Chelsea with the palatial residences which were
being constructed north and south of the King's
Eoad, in what is now known as Eaton Square. The
row had been caUed after the little brook which, in
finding its way to the Thames, crossed the spot,
Westbourne Place. Mrs. Clarke had moved from
Gloucester Place into one of these houses. Her
credit was so low that she was unable to pay for
the necessary furniture. Wardle undertook to pay
for it, -while she in her turn promised to supply him
with materials for the investigation.
On the 27th January, everything was ready.
Wardle moved in the House for the appointment of
a committee to investigate the charges which he de
taUed. The Secretary-at-War, "speaking for the Com
mander-in-Chief, assented to the inquiry. Yorke sug
gested that a parliamentary commission, -with large
powers, should be appointed to undertake it. Adam,
who had been His Eoyal Highness's chief ad^dser, in
sisted ' on a pubhc investigation before the world
at the bar of the house.' Perceval at once endorsed
Adam's -view. Canning and Whitbread subsequently

310 THE SESSION OF 1809.
took the same line, and the House unanimously
assented to this particular method.
On the foUowing Wednesday, the inquiry com
menced. For more than three weeks the House was
almost entirely occupied with the examination of
witnesses. After an interval of a fortnight, during
which the evidence was being printed, ten days more
were devoted to the longest debate which has pro
bably ever taken place in any Legislature. Wardle
made his original charge on the 27th January. The
final decision took place on the 20th March. During
the whole of that period the House was occupied -with
investigating the audacious tale of a lying woman.
During the whole of that period the business of the
nation was practically at a standstill.
The scene which the House presented during these
seven weeks was as extraordinary as it was unfortu
nate. At the end of January there was a strong
sympathy for the Duke of York. His Eoyal High
ness was the second son of the King. He was a
married man. He had been entrusted with the com
mand of the most important expedition that had yet
saUed from this country to the Continent. He had
been for more than fourteen years Commander-in-
Chief of the British army. Whatever judgment
might be formed of his capacity as a general in the
field, there was only one opinion of his quaUfications
for his present office. His Eoyal Highness had ia-
troduced many salutary reforms into the army. He
had promoted the comfort of the private soldier, en
couraged army education, and framed regxUations with

THE SESSION OF 1809. 311
the express object of preventing the very corruption
in which it was now said that he had himself parti
cipated. But, as the inquiry wore on, the sympathy
which had originally been felt for the Duke, was
transferred to his accuser. Mrs. Clarke was examined
for the first time on the 1st of February. The House
was captivated -with her pretty face and ready wit.
' House,' wrote Wilberforce in his Diary, ' examin
ing Mrs. Clarke for two hours. Cross-examining her
in the Old Bailey way ; she, elegantly dressed, consum
mately impudent, and very clever. Colonel Gordon's
e-vidence woxUd have been sufficient, and I would not
have asked one question of Mrs. Clarke." But the
House kept examining Mrs. Clarke for many days.
She was recalled once on the 7th, twice on the 9th,
once on the 10th, once on the 13th, t-wice on the
15th, three times on the 16th, and once on the 22nd
Februany. On the 7th, when she pleaded exhaustion,
the House at once adjourned, though it was evident
that their adjournment would afford her an oppor
tunity for conferring with a witness whose evidence
had just been given, and which she had not heard.
On the 9th, when she displayed agitation, the whole
House called out for a chair for her. On the 10th,
when Perceval insisted that in any other place her
' attempt to evade, andtrifie, and shuffle,' would have
led to her committal for contempt. General Matthew
gravely suggested that such a manner of treating a
witness ' was a violation ofthe hberty of the subject ;'
and the House apparently was -with the woman, and
' Pari. Hist.

312 THE SESSION OF 1809.
not with the minister. In short, the sympathy was
so marked that Wilberforce admitted . that it did
some good, as, ' by fascinating the House, she pre
vented its degradation, by appearing to stifle the
inquiries, and take too strong a part with the Duke
of York.' The chief charges which the House investigated
were founded on Captain Tonyn's promotion to a
majority. Colonel Brooke's exchange, Colonel Shaw's
appointment to the staff, her own footboy's to a first
commission, and Colonel French's levy. Captain
Tonyn it was proved gave her 500/. ; but his
name had been selected for a majority before the
date on which she alleged that she had applied for
him. Colonel Brooke had given her 100/. for an ex
change with Colonel Knight ; but it was proved that
the exchange had followed the ordinary course, and
that she had herself begged that the fact of her
receiving money for it might not be commxmicated
to the Duke. Colonel Shaw had given her 500/. for
an appointment on the staff; but it was proved
that, so far from being successful in his apphca
tion, the Duke had refused to accede to it in its
entirety. The cases, however, which perhaps elicited
most attention were those of the footboy's appoint
ment, and of Colonel French's le-vy. Mrs. Clarke
had in her house in Gloucester Place an orphan boy,
Samuel Carter, who, though he wore no Uvery
and received no wages, was occasionaUy employed to
go out with her carriage or wait at her table. He

THE SESSION OF 1809. 313
had been introduced to her as the orphan of an
officer who had lost his life in the ser-vice of his
country ; and her patronage of him, it is only fair to
say, apparently arose from feehngs of pure humanity.
The boy had been mentioned to the Duke of York be
fore His Eoyal Highness's intimacy -with Mrs. Clarke
began. He had been reminded of the application
when he saw the boy in his mistress's house, and he
had consented to give him a commission in the army.
The Duke of York had the satisfaction of knowing
that his kindness was not misplaced. The boy had
already won the esteem of his superior officers ; and
his good conduct had gained him, -without any
favourite's interference, an appointment on the staft
in the West Indies. ' I would appeal,' said Per
ceval, ' to the feelings of the House and the country,
whether an act like this is to be imputed to the
Duke of York as a crime ! If a man is to be punished
for his vices it may be weU ; but let him not be
punished for his virtues.' '
The case of Colonel French's levy was widely
different. Colonel French had received a letter of
service in the ordinary way, authorising him to raise
recruits for the army. The le-vy had been a faUure.
Each man it brought in cost the country on an
average 150/. ; and the scandal attendant on it was
consequently so great that the Duke was compelled to
' I have instanced this case because the author of the ' Pictorial
History,' to whose admirable account of these proceedings I am
much indebted, seems to have thought that Mrs. Clarke's footboy
was an improper person for a commission.

314 THE SESSION OF 1809.
stop it. But, if the le-vy in a public sense had failed,
Mrs. Clarke had at any rate made a good thing out
of it. Colonel French had given her from first to
last 1300/. on account of her supposed interference
with the Duke in his favour ; and the Duke, it was
alleged, was aware of the transaction. A certain
Miss Taylor, the illegitimate daughter of one Chance,
a disreputable stockbroker, was a warm friend of
Mrs. Clarke's. Miss Taylor swore that she had heard
her friend complain to the Duke that Colonel French
was always bothering her about the le-vy, and that
the Duke had replied, ' How does he behave to you,
darling f Mrs. Clarke answered, ' Middling — not
very well ;' on which the Duke rejoined, ' Master
French must mind what he is about, or I shaU cut up
him and his le-vy too.'
The House laughed at the conversation ; the
country laughed at it. ' The joke in the streets,' wrote
the Speaker, 'is not tp cry heads and taUs when
they toss up half-pence, but Duke and darling." Yet
the conversation itself was improbable. Miss Taylor's
character detracted from her credibUity as a witness.
She swore that her father's name was Taylor ; and it
was proved that her father's name was Chance. She
kept a boarding-school for young ladies, and her chief

1 Colchester, ii. 174. The Speaker clearly ought to have
written Heads or Tails, Duke or Darling. His editor, too, writes
always Jenyn for Tonyn, Trench for French, Dawler for Dowler.
He has, however, preserved a capital parody on Horace's Ode to
Barine on the subject.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 315
Mend was the Duke of York's mistress. When Per
ceval brought out these facts, there was some disposi
tion to resent his questions. The House seems to
have thought that he was harsh to her ; they com
plained that the revelations had destroyed her school.
Perceval's reply on this point is a fair instance of the
masterly manner in which he dealt with the whole
subject : ' Sir, Miss Taylor was brought here as a
-witness whose testimony was to confirm Mrs. Clarke,
and to establish — falsely establish, as on my con
science I believe — ^the charge of infamous corruption
against the Duke of York. It was necessary to know
who Miss Taylor was ; what were her connexions ;
what her habits of life. In tracing these particxUars
it turned out that her parents were not married ;
that they had for some time been going from place to
place changing their habitations ; . . . But this cross-
examination has ruined her school, and involved her
with her creditors ! I am sorry, and I feel as
much as any- man for the distress of any fellow-
creature — Miss Taylor, as well as any one else. But
I cannot believe that her cross-examination rxuned
her school. It was enough to ruin her school that
she appeared as the friend and companion of Mrs.
Clarke. And I confess that I cannot bring my mind
to lament that Miss Taylor's business, as a school
mistress to young ladies, is put an end to. I have
some feeUng for the parents. I have some feeling
for the children. My feehngs are not wholly absorbed
by Miss Taylor.'

316 THE SESSION OF 1809.
At length, on the 22nd February, the last -witness
was examined. Three days before Lord MelvUle
had sent the Duke of Portland a very remarkable
letter and proposal on the subject. The impossibUity
of ' any person being an indifferent spectator of the
proceedings which are going on in the House of
Commons ; ' ' the long habits of confidential intimacy
in which ' he had ' lived with His Eoyal Highness ;'
his ' anxiety from not being enabled to form a con-
jecture what line of conduct is meant to be adopted
by His Majesty's servants on the occasion,' induced
him to forward to the Duke of Portland ' the
rough sketch of a very crude idea' ' last night
committed to paper.'
The crude idea was a draft address. ' The two
first paragraphs contained the judgment of the House
of Commons upon the substance of the charges
which have been brought against the Duke of York.'
. . . . ' If the address were to stop here, it could
not -with strict propriety be objected against their
proceedings that the House of Commons had not
exhausted the subject of the only charges exhibited
before them against the Duke of York ; but, strongly
impressed as I am with this conviction, that, if the
House of Commons were totally to overlook and
be silent upon the other disagreeable circumstances
which have come out in the course of this investi
gation, it woxUd diminish in the estimation of the
great body of the public the weight of their autho
rity in the decision they pronounced in favour of the

THE SESSION OF 1809. 317
Duke of York upon the charges exhibited agaiast
him in his official capacity, it appears to me highly
expedient, if not essentiaUy necessary, that the
House should anticipate the feelings of the country,
and should stamp with their authority the full
extent to which they conceive those feelings are
warranted to go upon this coUateral circumstance,
which has unfortunately blended itself with the
other parts of this investigation. It therefore
occurs to me to be prudent on the part of the House
rather, in the manner I have attempted to do it, to
anticipate the decision of the public, than to leave
the consideration qiute open to the speciUation of
every individual, wrought upon, perhaps, by the
wicked and designing instruments of mischief
In accordance with this opinion. Lord Mel-viUe
proposed that the Address should conclude with a
paragraph that the ' faithful Commons feel it an
indispensable duty, which they owe to His Majesty,
to state that the charges brought against His Eoyal
Highness the Duke of York, and the unpleasant cir
cumstances attending them, have originated from
an unfortunate and unworthy connexion which
His Eoyal Highness had permitted himself to
form with one of the material witnesses above
described, and who seems to have availed herself
of her intimacy with His Eoyal Highness to have
converted it to the most nefarious and corrupt
practices ; and it is the earnest prayer of His
Majesty's faithfxU Commons that the circumstances

318 THE' SESSION OF 1809.
of the unfortunate transaction may produce the
salutary effect of convincing all the branches of His
Majesty's illustrious family that nothing can conduce
so much to the prosperity of His Majesty's reign
and the welfare of his people, as that those nearly
connected -with the throne should exhibit in theh
own persons the same bright examples of decorous
and regular conduct which has characterised His
Majesty's reign ; and with heartfelt satisfaction
His Majesty's faithful Commons can express their
con-viction that such a line of conduct has not only
tended essentially to endear His Majesty in the
hearts of his subjects, but has in critical and arduous
moments essentially contributed to the security of
that happy constitution under which the nation
enjoys so many invaluable pri-vUeges and so many
important blessings.'
' It is scarcely necessary to observe,' wrote Lord Melville,
' that, if the concluding paragraph of this Address were in
any shape to be carried to the throne, it could not lead to any
beneficial consequences, unless His Majesty shall be ad-vised,
and will determine, to act up to the spirit of the admonition
contained in the expressions which are adopted in this sketch
of an address.
' The Princess of Wales must no longer reside in any
other apartments than those which belong to her in Carlton
House. ' The public must never again hear of a Mrs. Clarke
or ... .'J * # * #
The Duke of Portland sent Lord MelvUle's letter
' Perceval Papers.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 319
to Perceval. Perceval had been just engaged in
dra-wing up a draft letter for the Duke of York
to send to the Speaker ; and he circulated Lord
Mel-vUle's paper and his ' own draft together, ex
pressing at the same time a conviction that Lord
MelviUe's hint was most valuable. Lord Liver
pool very much approved Lord MelviUe's sugges
tion. Lord Castlereagh agreed with Lord Liver
pool ; and the Duke of Portland thought the
hints thrown out by Lord Melville highly valuable
and worthy of being adopted. The proposal was in
a fah way of being adopted, when it reached Lord
Mulgrave, who, ' with great hesitation,' happUy
arrived at a different conclusion. If the suggestion
were adopted, ' it wUl be necessary that an imme
diate and unequivocal pledge of the comphance of
every branch of the royal family, with the conditions
annexed by Lord MelviUe to the adoption of his
plan, should be secured ; for, should those conditions
faU, the House of Commons would have been urged
to a solemn but fruitless charge against the whole
body of the royal famUy ; the public murmurs would
then be sanctioned and inflamed by the deliberate
and formal declaration of the popular branch of the
constitution, conveyed in a direct and indiscriminate
complaint to the sovereign. . . . Such an imputation,
conveyed by the Commons of the United Kingdom,
-without an immediate, exemplary, and steady reform
of conduct, would authorise clamour and discontent,
and extend to the mass ofthe people in the most

320 THE SESSION OF 1809.
distant quarters ofthe empire, where the impression
may have been yet but sUghtly if at all received
of the scandal arising here."
Lord Mulgrave's most sensible advice was hap
pily adopted ; and Lord MelvUle's proposal negatived.
The Duke of York's letter met -with a somewhat
simUar reception. The Cabinet thought it too long ;
the Duke thought it too humiUating. It became —
as the Speaker, who had seen the original draft,
said — ' very much shorter, and less explicit.' ^ In
its amended shape it expressed the Duke's concern
that his ' name had been coupled with transactions
the most criminal and disgraceful,' and his regret
that ' a connexion should have ever existed which
has thus exposed my character and honour to pubhc
animadversion ;' and it denied, ' upon my honour as a
prince,' not only ' all corrupt participation in any of
the infamous transactions which have appeared in
evidence at the bar of the House of Commons, or any
connivance at theh existence, but also the slightest
knowledge or suspicion that they existed at aU.'
The rejection of Lord Melville's proposal at the
close of February necessitated, of course, the adop
tion of some pther course. Perceval prepared two
draft resolutions, asserting that the charges had not
been proved, and a draft address, presenting the
resolutions to the King. Canning thought, at first,
that the 'measure had best be confined to resolu
tions or address —address comprising the substance
> Perceval Papers. ' Colchester, ii. 168.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 321
of the resolutions — or resolutions to be merely sub
mitted -with an address;' but he ultimately altered
this opinion.
The Cabinet met on the foUowing day, and ap
proved substantiaUy the proposal. Four days later,
however. Canning re-viewed the whole procedure in
a letter, which is of such importance that it must be
given in fuU : — ' Bruton Street,
' Sunday, March 5, 1809.
' Dear Perceval, — In returning to you the draft, which I
have looked through according to your desire, I cannot for
bear wishing to state to you, a little more in detail than I
have hitherto had the opportunity of doing, my view of the
whole of this painful subject, and of the situation in which it
places the Government. I have willingly lent mj' aid to make
the measure, which it was determined to try, as unexception
able as possible ; and I am quite as ready to use my utmost
personal exertion, and risk myself altogether upon it in
Parliament, as if I approved of it and expected it to succeed.
But I do neither expect its success, nor do I think its success
would be at all less fatal to the Government and to the
country than its failure.
'I think we have taken a wrong course, or rather (to
speak more correctly) I think a wrong course has been
taken ; for, once engaged, I do not see how u-e could help
ourselves, without either abandoning, or appearing to aban
don, the King — which God forbid ! But I think we have
been forced into a course the most dangerous for the peace
of the country, and the most impolitic for the Duke of York
himself. ' What is the relation in which we the Government stand
to the Duke of York ? Has he put his defence into our
hands, and therewith the regulation of his conduct with a
VOL. I. Y

322 THE SESSION OP 1809.
view to that defence, also ? or, has he only stated his expect
ation that we shall defend him — but reserving to himself to
act as he shall think proper ?
' These are questions which we certainly ought to have
put to. ourselves at a much earlier stage of the business ; but
there is enough still remaining of it to make it very im
portant that they should be answered. When we discussed
the letter to be written by H. R. H. to the Speaker, I cer
tainly thought that we were advising him (perhaps thought
so mistakenly) ; but it is the essence of ad-nce, given by per
sons responsible for gi-ving it, that it should be either accepted
or rejected in toto. Otherwise there is no safety for the
ad-visers, and will probably be no consistency in the conduct,
which is only partially guided by their advice. Yet on
Wednesday, at Lord Camden's, I learnt to my great surprise
that there were certain things which the Duke of York was
determined not to do, if advised ; and certain other things
which he was inclined to expect should be ad-vised in certain
supposable cases. No matter, for the principle, what these
things are. They will occur to your recollection. But are
we right, are we justified, as the ministers of the Crown, in
shaping our conduct and our advice to the King according to
these determinations and expectations ?
' My opinion was from the beginning (as you must
remember) — I mean frotn the time when the letter became
necessary, that H. H. H. had best retire. I thought it the
best way to secure him ultimately, where no man wishes
more ardently to see him than I do, at the head of the
army. I thought that to have added a sentence to his
letter, stating that, " though conscious of his innocence, he
did not think himself competent to the due discharge of his
office while under the stigma of such an accusation, and that
he should therefore retire till he was cleared," would have
heen not only not humiliating, but dignified. The policy of
that measure appeared to me most evident. It would, I
think, have driven Parliament to the alternative of either

THE SESSION OF 1809. 323
proceeding to trial, or of abandoning the charge silently.
In the latter case the Duke might have been restored as
soon as the Session was over. If there was a third course
which his accusers could have attempted it would have been
an address of thanks for his removal, and that there could
have been no difficulty in resisting. In the meantime, out-
of-doors, the efiect would have been to tranquillise and pro
pitiate the country ; and, in a very few weeks, say by this
time, the tide of public opinion would have turned in his
favour. At the very worst this mode of proceeding would
have avoided the convulsion which will infallibly follow a
vote of acquittal, carried with a view to keep the Duke in
his place.
' The Cabinet thought otherwise upon this subject, and I
acquiesced in the decision. But I did by no means under
stand that decision to be founded in any degree on a notion
that the Duke of York would not resign, if the Cabinet had
thought it right. If I had so understood it, I should un
doubtedly have protested against our ha-ving any cognisance
whatever of the letter.
' It was not, as I said, till Wednesday that I had any
apprehension of this sort ; and, after such an intimation, it
appeared to me quite useless to discuss the question of the
Duke of York's conduct any further.
' My opinion as to the expediency of the resignation is
not now altered. Were I consulted by the Duke of York
as a private friend, I should still advise it (as a Minister
I could sav nothing and advise nothing), but I confess with
much diminished confidence in the efficacy of the step now
for avoiding the evils, and producing the good efiects, which
I should have expected from it.
' But that, in the way in which we are now going, the
Duke of York will be turned out of office probably hy a vote
of the House of Commons, — but most assuredly by the voice
ofthe country, — I have not the smallest doubt. I think it
possible we may carry the first resolution ; the address — in

324 THE SESSION OF 1809.
exclusion of an address to remove, — never; — in addition to it
perhaps; or with an appendix for removal subjoined to it.
With this feeling I confess I a little doubt the propriety of
mixing the King's name in this address. Ought it to be
so used and used up for the chance, — and so small a chance,
— of success ? If we fail in this, is not the time near at
hand when it may probably be the only stay of the
country ?
' I have thought it right to explain to you thus openly
the whole of my opinions ; and I have only to conclude, as
I began, with assuring you that they will not abate my
endeavours to do the utmost for the success of the course
which has been adopted, on Wednesday. ' Yours sincerely.
' G. C
Such — in the opinion of, perhaps, the ablest
member ofthe Cabinet — was the prospect of success
on Sunday the 5th March. On the foUo-wing Wed
nesday, the 8 th of March, the debate began. The
House was fuU. ' Wardle opened the debate in a
plain, distinct speech of three hours, concluding with
an address for the removal of the Duke of York.' . . .
' Folkestone followed in a clear and powerful speech
of two hours and three-quarters ; on the other side
Curwen, for the address, half an hour. At a quarter
before twelve Perceval rose, and, after a masterly
speech of three hours — calling upon the House to
pronounce an express verdict of guUty or not gxiUty
upon the charges of personal corruption or con
nivance at the corrupt practices of others, and
demonstrating the prevaricating falsehoods which
discredited Mrs. Clarke's evidence, and refuting

THE SESSION OF 1809. 325
each of the specific charges — stated the three sepa
rate motions which he meant to propose instead of
Wardle 's address : —
' 1. That this House wUl give a distinct opinion
upon the corruption charged.
' 2. That this House is of opinion that the charge
is not proved.
' 3. To address the King, communicating this
last resolution, and stating their satisfaction to have
observed, in the course of the inquiry, the Duke's
exemplary conduct in the discharge of his official
duties, and the regret and concern which His Eoyal
Highness has expressed for that connexion and
its consequences, which have involved his name in
those disgraceful practices, from which they are
confident that his future life wUl demonstrate the
value which he sets on that -virtuous example of
His Majesty which, through his long reign, has
endeared him so much to his people.
* The House then loudly called for an adjourn
ment. Perceval stated that he had more to offer
in concluding, and would go on or stop as the House
pleased. The adjournment of the debate tUl the
next day passed by acclamation.
' N.B. The first instance in my time of adjourn
ing in the middle of a speech.
' 9th. House of Commons debate continued.
Perceval, Whitbread, and the Attorney- General
spoke. Adjourned at half-past three."
I Colchester, ii. 171, 172.

326 THE SESSION OF 1809.
Such was the Speaker's account of what he
terms Perceval's masterly speech. The speech was
subsequently published from the short-hand vsriter's
notes, and therefore exists in a very different form
from that in which Perceval's other speeches have
been preserved. It woxUd be impossible to give
•within reasonable compass any idea of a speech
which dissected every portion of the e-vidence in
turn, and discussed the character of nearly every
-witness. The effect which it made at the time is
beyond aU question. ' Perceval's speech was a most
able one, and does him great credit,' -wrote Lord
Temple to his father. ' Perceval's capital speech,'
wrote WUberforce, ' softening, yet not quite con
vincing me.' ' In the speech,' said Whitbread in
the House, ' which he concluded this evening, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has surpassed himself.
I can with truth say that, in my opinion, a better
speech has never been deUvered by any li-ving mem
ber of the House of Commons. Greatly as I differ
from him on the subject now under dehberation,
I could not withhold my tribute of applause and
admiration to (sic) the talents which he has dis
played.' ' Sir Arthur WeUesley said the same thing
more concisely : ' We have had,' he wrote to the
Duke of Eichmond, 'three days' debate upon the
Duke of York's concerns. Perceval made the best
speech I ever heard in Parliament.'^
' Hansard Debates, xiii. 159.
" Civil Con-espondence, 604.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 327
But three days were far from constituting the
whole of the time the debate occupied. It was
renewed on the 10th, resumed on the foUowing
Monday, the 13th, and continued through the 14th
and the 15th. Late on that evening, or rather in
the small hours of the following morning, the House
decided by 294 votes to 199 to proceed by resolution,
and not by address. Immediately afterwards they
vetoed Wardle's motion by 364 votes to 123, and
adjourned at half-past six o'clock on Thursday
morning. Long debates and two divisions took
place on Friday ; and on Monday, the 20th, the
weary business was at last concluded. Perceval
announced to the House that the Duke had re
signed, and that his resignation had been accepted.
A motion of Bathxirst's ' for a censure upon the
immoral connexion and influence was negatived
without a di-vision, and amended by a motion of
Lord Althorp's to say that, " after His Eoyal High
ness's resignation, it was not noiv necessary to enter
into any further consideration of the e-vidence." To
this an amendment was proposed by Cartwright, by
leaving out the word " now ; " and a division ensued :
for keeping it ha, 112 ; for leaving it out, 234. And
so the main question passed."
The inquiry, however, which had thus termhiated,
had revealed a state of things of which few people
had probably been previously aware. Mrs. Clarke,
it was discovered, was not the only person who
» Colchester, ii. 176 ; Hansard's Debates, xiii. 712, 715.

328 THE SESSION OF 1809.
made a profit out of a traffic in public offices.
Mr. Donovan, who had been examined at the bar,
expressly stated that he had offered to obtain a
writership in the East India Company for a Mr.
O'Hara, who in his turn was to pay him some 3000/.
for his trouble ; whUe some grounds were elicited for
believing that public patronage was simUarly abused
in other departments of the State. Public indig
nation was aroused ; a strong reaction against cor
ruption set in ; and politicians busied themselves,
not merely in foUo-wing up the abuses which had
been detected, but in unearthing others which had
not hitherto been discovered. Perceval himself gave
orders for the prosecution of a firm — Messrs. Kyloch,
in the City — who it was alleged were openly engaged
in the corrupt traffic. On the motion of Mr. Smith
the House assented, on the 10th February, to the
appointment of a Committee to inquire into the
existence of corrupt practices in the patronage of
the East India Company ; and Lord Folkestone
endeavoured to obtain a similar committee for the
investigation of the like abuses in the army and
other departments of the State. Lord Folkestone's
motion was resisted by all parties, and rejected by
a very large majority. The Ministers themselves
coxUd hardly have adopted any otber course, since no
good could have resulted from the institution of a
vague inquiry into the possibiUty of abuses which
were only suspected to exist ; and they themselves
were taking the best means for their prevention by

THE SESSION OF 1809. 329
introducing a BUl with this object. Singularly
enough the BUl, which was in Perceval's charge,
found its chief opponent in Lord Folkestone himself
At one time his Lordship complained that no law
would do any good, and that exposure, and not
prevention, was in reality required ; at another he
insisted that the BUl did not go far enough, as it
did not deal with the traffic which was carried on
in seats in Parliament. Notwithstanding, however.
Lord Folkestone's disparaging criticisms, the Bill
was carried.' But the insinuations which his Lord
ship had thrown out led to the introduction of
another charge. On the Sth May a Mr. Madocks, a
friend of Wardle's and Burdett's, broxxght forward
in vague language a charge against Perceval and
Castlereagh, ' for ha-ving, through the agency of the
Hon. H. WeUesley, late Secretary to the Treasury,
and late a member of this House, and also by other
agents, been guUty of corrupt and criminal practices
in order to procure members to be elected into this
Parhament,' and moved that ' these charges be heard
at the bar' on the following Tuesday. Perceval,
'rising under e-vident agitation,'* said that he had
nothing to say to the nothing that had been said,
and vrithdrew.^ ' A very warm debate ensued :
grave indignation was expressed at the impropriety
of preferring vague charges against a member, and
not specifying them ; and the motion, which Madocks
¦ Hansard, xii. 503 ; xiii. 822; xiv. 47, 113, 268, 573.
- Ibid. xiv. 381. ' Colchester, ii. 181.

330 THE SESSION OF 1809.
wished to withdraw, was negatived -without a divi
sion. Perceval walked home from church, two days
afterwards, with the Speaker. He had seen — he
told the Speaker — ' WUberforce, from whom he un
derstood the cases on Madocks' paper to be Eye,
Queenborough, Cashel, Hastings, and Cambridge.
Of Queenborough he actually knew nothing ; of
Cambridge he coxUd not conceive what was referred
to ; Eye and Hastings had always been more or
less on the recommendation of the Treasury, which
Henry WeUesley might very possibly know about;
but about Cashel he remembered a distinct conversa
tion with Quintin Dick, after his objection to vote
for the Duke of York's entire acquittal was declared,
and that he had pressed Dick nevertheless to con
tinue in Parliament.' '
On the llth May Madocks renewed the charge.
He instanced Eye, Queenborough, Hastings, and Cam
bridge as corrupt places, where Government agents
had exercised considerable influence. But Dick's
resignation, which he insisted was due to Lord
Castlereagh's suggestion, and to which he contended
that he could prove that Perceval was privy, was the
only express charge which he produced against either
minister. The moment Madocks sat down Perceval
rose. The motion, he submitted, reaUy pointed to
Parliamentary Eeform. His own defence he must
reserve tiU the House had determined on the
propriety of entertaining the charge. After his
' Colchester, i. 182.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 331
speech he made his obeisance to the Speaker, and
left the House amidst such general cheering that
Madocks must at once have been convinced of the
popularity of the minister, and of the little hope
of his own success. Lord Castlereagh foUowed Per
ceval's example. A hot debate again ensued, in the
course of which Tierney endeavoured to separate the
two charges, and to induce the House to proceed
against Castlereagh, but abandon the case against
Perceval, which ' was so vague that he should be
ashamed to receive it in its present shape.' ' But
the House had made up its mind to reject the whole
motion, and was not, consequently, disposed to be
previously at the trouble of amending it. Tier
ney's amendment was rejected -without a division ;
Madocks' motion by 310 votes to 85.
Though, however, Madocks' motion was summa
rUy disposed of, a much more serious demand arose
for parliamentary reform. The report of the East
India Patronage Committee had been presented
early in March, and had disclosed numerous abuses.
Among others it had been discovered that Lord Castle
reagh had, four years before, as President ofthe Board
of Control, placed a writership at a friend's — Lord
Clancarty's — disposal to enable him to procure a seat
in ParUament. '^ Fortunately for Lord Castlereagh,
> Hansard, xiv. 486, 527. The Speaker (or his editor) spells
Madocks Maddocks; the author ofthe 'Pictorial History' Madox.
I have followed the spelling in Hansard.
' Pari. Hist. viii. 370 ; Hansard, xiv 204.

332 THE SESSION OF 1809.
the transaction was never completed ; and, in conse
quence, when Lord Archibald HamUton drew atten
tion to the circumstance, the House agreed by a com
paratively smaU majority, 214 votes to 167, to pass to
the orders of the day. The transaction and the di-vi
sion attracted so much attention, that Canning, who
was already intriguing against his coUeague, told the
Speaker that he thought Lord Castlereagh ought to
have resigned before the last question, and stUl more
since.' The Opposition thought the moment favour
able for the introduction of a measure of ParUamentary
Eeform. Curwen's Parliamentary Eeform Bill was
in reality a measure for preventing the sale of seats
in Parliament.^ Curwen moved for leave to introduce
it on the 4th May, and Perceval assented to its intro
duction. The BUl was read a second time on the
19th May, Perceval again assenting to the principle,
though objecting to some ofthe detaUs. It passed
through committee after protracted debates, and ulti
mately became law.
Such is the short account of Curwen's BUl, which
may be found in nearly every history. In this bio
graphy, however, it is necessary to enter into more
detaU. The sale of seats in Parliament was notorious.
• Colchester, ii. 180.
2 Towards the close of the session Burdett introduced a plan of
Parliamentary Eeform. It was on this occasion that Perceval
made the statement that the people ' were more united against
Reform than almost upon any other question.' (' Pari. Hist. xiv.
1087) — an assertion which Williams, in his ' Biography of him,'
p. 159, states was made in the debate on Curwen's motion.

THE SESSION OF 1S09. 333
Curwen proposed to prevent it, Istly, by requiring an
oath from the representatives, as well as from the
electors, against bribery and corruption ; 2ndly, by
the imposition of penalties on persons selling, or con
tracting to seU, seats in the House ; 3rdly, by extend
ing the bribery laws so as to punish agents and other
persons for giving, and electors for recei-ving, corrupt
consideration for their votes, not only both imme
diately before and after the election, but at any
period. Curwen was followed by Windliam, who op
posed the measure on principle, and by Perceval, who
assented to its introduction, but necessarily reserved
his opinion on its details till he had had the oppor
tunity of seeing it in print.' Ten days afterwards,
the Speaker wrote in his diary, ' Called on Yorke, by
appointment, upon Curwen's BiU for preventing sale
of seats in Parliament ; and upon Lord Harrowby ;
both of whom were strongly incUned to agree with
me upon the principle of the BiU and its main pro-vi
sions ; but neither liking the proposed test of an
oath. Of the ministers for the Bill, are Lord Liver
pool, Lord Harrowby, Long, Yorke, Huskisson, and
Attorney-General. Against it — Eose, Perceval, Lord
Arden, and Lord Castlereagh. Disposed towards it,
but not declared. Canning. '-
' Hansard, xiv. 353, 367, 374.
' Colchester, ii. 186. — The Speaker here unconsciously lets us
into a good insight of the Ministry of Departments — two parties,
in the Cabinet, each taking different sides, and a Prime Minister
of so little importance that his opinion is not thought worth
giving. The list, of course, is neither one of the Cabinet nor of

334 THE SESSION OF 1809.
The Bill was read a second time on the 18th
May ; and, on the subsequent motion that it be com
mitted, Perceval took the opportunity of explaining
the nature of his objection to it. He objected to the
BUl, because, as it was dra-wn, it would ' apply not
only to the sale of seats, but also to the sale of
property or interests which might give influence in
the return of members to that House.' If it were
to pass no bxirgage tenures could be sold, nor any
property that could carry with it influence at an
election.' ' His next objection was to the oath. ' If
an oath was to be introduced, it ought to be precise,
so that what members were to swear shoxUd be pre
cisely kno-wn.' Curwen at once admitted the force
of these criticisms. ' What the right honourable
gentleman said had certainly considerable weight
with him. It was never in his intention to destroy
the right of disposing of burgage tenure, because
that would lead to the destruction of the right to
dispose of freeholds. But, when the Bill should come
into committee, he hoped that means would be de
vised to get rid of all the difficulties stated by the
right honourable gentleman." It was fast becoming
clear that all parties were sincerely anxious to effect
some arrangement. Though a long debate arose on
the 19th, and 20th, and 26th May, on the motion
the Ministry. It includes the name of one noble Lord who was in
neither. Besides the Duke of Portland, it excludes Lord Eldon,
Lord Bathurst, Lord Camden, Lord Westmoreland, Lord Mulgrave,
and Lord Chatham.
' Colchester, 617.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 335
for the Speaker to leave the chair, and a good deal of
intemperate language was used on both sides, there
was abimdant evidence of the coming end. Canning,
on the 19 th, came to teU the Speaker of Curwen's
readiness to give up the oath and penalties of his
BUl, if any enactment coxUd be made to forbid the
buying and seUing. Eose, on the 20th, called on
the Speaker to state that his original apprehensions
had much subsided ; and that he was very anxious
that the amendments which the Speaker had him
self suggested should be adopted. Perceval, on the
23rd, returned these amendments to the Speaker in
a long explanatory letter, and called upon him sub
sequently to say that he thought some biU must
pass. On the 1st of June, the House was at last in
Committee, and the Speaker himself took the unusual
com'se of personaUy explaining his own views. He
objected to the lax language of the BiU as it was
drawn ; he objected to transfer to the courts of law
below the power of deciding on the ' tenure of seats
in this House ;' and he was not disposed to insist on
any oath whatever being administered to the member.
But he strongly advocated a declaratory law on the
whole subject, and that the briber should forfeit the
money he had paid ; the bribee the sum he had re
ceived, with any further penalty which it might be
thought right to superadd ; and that both parties
should, by positive law, be declared guUty of a niis-
demeanoxir. The moment the Speaker sat down.

336 THE SESSION OF 1809.
Perceval rose. He agreed that the law should be
a declaratory one, and not merely an enacting one ;
and, practically, with the other suggestions which the
Speaker had thrown out. But he strongly contended
that the Bill should not extend to the promise of
offices. Offices there must be ; the business of the
State could not go on -without them. The disposal
of offices must rest somewhere, and here that power
was vested in the Cro-wn. That this power must
create influence was beyond all question ; and every
body agreed that it was proper that such influence
should exist in the Crown. But the effect of such a
regulation, as that which was proposed with respect
to offices, would be that none would either ask or
receive an office without risk of a con-viction for mis
demeanour, however innocent. The only evidence
that a jury would have to decide upon woxUd be that
a member had procured an office for a friend who had
voted for him at an election ; and the probability in
many such cases would be so great, and the difficulty
of disproving all corrupt motives so considerable, that
the most innocent men coxUd hardly escape convic
tion. Perceval's view naturally excited strong criti
cism. The Opposition contended with some force
that, after the proofs which had been eUcited of the
cormpt disposal of pubUc patronage, it was absurd to
exclude the grant of offices from the measure. Per
ceval, however, carried his point. The BiU was
amended in the sense which he desired ; and in con-
" Hansard, xiv. 338.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 337
sequence of these amendments, the Opposition turned
round, and endeavoured to throw it out. They di
vided against it on the third reading, mustering 83
votes to 98 ; they risked immediately afterwards a
second division on the question that the BUl do pass,
and were only beaten by 97 votes to 85 ; and Lord
Folkestone subsequently proposed to amend the pre
amble, by styling it ' a BUl for more effectually
preventing the sale of Seats in Parliament for money,
and for promoting a Monopoly thereof to the Treasury
hy the means of patronage ;' and succeeded in mus
tering 28 votes, in a house of 161 members, to
support his amendment.
There is much difficulty at the present time in
weighing the value of these different opinions. Now,
for instance, that election trials have been referred
with great advantage to the ordinary courts, we
are in danger of insufficiently appreciating the ob
jections which the Speaker himself entertained to
this very change ; now that the Ministry have volun-
tarUy denied themselves the disposal of pubhc patro
nage, we are liable to attach too little importance to
Perceval's contention, that ' the disposal of offices
must rest somewhere.' But, at the same time, there
are two broad conclusions, which it seems both pos
sible and easy to form. In the first place, the BiU, in
the ultimate shape in which it left the House, was
unquestionably a vast improvement on the existing
law, and as such ought to have received to the last
the support of its original friends. Curwen himself
VOL. L Z

338 THE SESSION OF 1809.
thought SO ; and Curwen's opinion on such a point
deserved consideration. But, in the next place, it
seems clear that Perceval took what may, perhaps, for
want of a better word, be termed the ' official ' -view
ofthe subject too strongly. That his objections had
great technical force, cannot be denied; but, on
the other hand, it is impossible to overlook the
great practical abuse which the East India patronage
report had revealed. The Minister would have done
better after such revelations to have assisted the
Opposition to remove any technical difficulties, than
to have pleaded the latter as an insuperable bar to a
salutary reform.
That it would have been better for Perceval's
reputation, if he had done so, there can be no
question. There is not a tittle of e-vidence that
he was ever engaged in any corrupt transaction ;
and yet, in consequence of his policy on this occa
sion, a host of critics, who apparently have taken
no pains to examine the facts for themselves, have
assumed that his Government was founded on a
system of organised corruption. It is perfectly true
that, during the Portland and Perceval administra
tions, a certain number of seats were really only the
nomination boroughs of the Minister of the day. It
is also true that the Duke of Portland and Perceval
usually nominated their own friends. But it woxUd
be as unjust to blame the Duke of Portland or
Perceval on this account as it would be to condemn
Mr. Gladstone for preferring Dr. Temple to the see

THE SESSION OF 1809. 339
of Exeter, or for appointing Lord Northbrook Go
vernor-General of India. Mr. Gladstone naturaUy
fUls the great offices both of the State and of the
Church with persons professing his own political
opinions ; and the Duke of Portland and Perceval
simUarly filled the Treasury seats with then o-wn
supporters. What they did in this respect had
been done before them by GrenvUle and Fox, by
Addington and Pitt, by every Minister since the
days of the Eevolution. Occasionally, indeed, we
meet with instances when the ordinary rxUe was
disregarded. But where is the most conspicuous
instance of the disregard of it ? In the offer by
Perceval to Mackintosh — a political opponent — of a
seat in Parliament.
So far for the general accusation which has been
brought against the Minister. But there are some
more particxUar charges which it may be desirable to
consider. Foremost among them are the chcum-
stances of Quintin Dick's resignation, and a general
statement of EomiUy's. Of Quintin Dick's resigna
tion little need be said. Madocks' original charge
was only that Perceval was privy to the transaction.
Tierney, a political opponent, declared that the
evidence was so ' vague that he should be ashamed
to receive it ;' and Perceval told the Speaker that,
so far from being a party to Dick's resignation, ' he
had pressed him to continue in Parhament." It
woxdd be an insult to Perceval, under such chcum-
1 Colchester, ii 182.

340 THE SESSION OF 1809.
stances, even to offer a defence for him from such a
charge ! The second charge may deserve a few
words of criticism. Earle, in his book on British
Premiers, has pronounced a very adverse opinion on
Perceval's character, and, amongst other matters, some
of which wUl be noticed elsewhere, includes the
foUowing. ' He (Perceval) and his coUeagues were
SO committed to the scandalous traffic in boroughs,
that EomUly used to complain that there was no
other way in which a man could sit in Parliament as
an independent member, except by purchasing his
seat. Tierney once offered 10,000/. for the two
seats of Westbury, and offered it in vain, for the
Minister had bought up all the seats that were in
the market at any price asked.' '
Earle in this passage, it wUl be seen, supports
his charge -with two distinct facts. The first is
RomUly's complaint ; the second is Tierney's offer.
The latter is also taken from a passage in EomUly 's
Diary. But what does it prove ? That Tierney, a
member of the Liberal party, made a most corrupt
and improper offer; and inferred that he was un
successful because the Minister had been more adroit
or more prompt than himself The charge, therefore,
is hi reality one against Tierney, not against Perceval.
It can only be accepted as a charge against the
Minister when the grounds of EomUly 's inference are
known. That this inference is not entirely true is
certam. Curwen, in introducing his BiU, told the.
' Earle, ii. 120.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 341
House that a lady in his own neighbourhood re
ceived firom one Eeding an offer of 10,000 guineas —
the sum suspiciously resembles Tiemey's offer — for
two seats in which she had influence. She refused ;
hut why ? Because she had pre-vioxisly sold them to
the Minister ? No. Because , she had never ' dis
graced' herself '-with such practices.'^
But EomiUy's complaint stUl requhes considera
tion. His character was so pure, his reputation is
so high, that such a complaint from such a man
cannot be lightly passed over. And it is unques
tionably true that Eomilly did say and think that
the only course open for an independent man, who
desired to enter Parliament, and at the same time
preserve his independence, was to purchase a seat.
The mere fact, indeed, that such a man as EomUly
should have deliberately recorded this opinion, should
have made subsequent -writers hesitate before they
included everyone engaged in the practice in one
sweeping accusation. A practice, which EomUly
thought the most honourable an honourable man
coxUd pursue, deserves at any rate to be understood
before it is condemned. But when did EomiUy fhst
make this statement which Earle cites to prove that
Perceval was committed to the corrupt practice ?
When the latter was Minister, and contending with
the remnant of a di-vided party against a persistent
opposition ? When the Duke of Portland had gained
office and was meditatiag the dissolution which
> Hansard, xiv. 358.

342 THE SESSION OF 1809..
procured him so strong a following ? No ! Incredible
as it may seem to any impartial person, the com-
jDlaint which Earle deliberately cites as a proof that
Perceval was ' committed to a corrupt practice,' was
first made when Pitt's second Ministry was totter
ing to its fall — eighteen months before Perceval was
Chancellor of the Exchequer : four years before he
was Prime Minister. If the statement had not been
made, it would have been thought impossible for
political partiality to have founded such a charge on
such evidence !'
It is a relief to tum from such criticisms as these
to matters of more general interest. On the 12th of
May, Perceval brought forward the Budget for the
year. The supplies he placed at 47,588,074/. The
Ways and Means at 47,718,052/. '^ 11,000,000/. of
this sum was provided by a new loan, which was
raised on more favourable terms than had ever been
previously known. No fresh tax was imposed ; and
all parties agreed in approving the general features
of the Budget, and in congratulating the country and
themselves on the prosperity which the terms, on
which the loan had been raised, revealed. One
feature of the Budget, however, attracted criticism.
Perceval estimated that he would receive 300,000/.
from a lottery. A Committee during the previous
' The passage in Eomilly wiU be found in his ' Memoirs,' ii.
122. ^ The debate on the Budget will be found in Hansard, xiv.
530-553. The loan was raised at il I2s. lOd per cent.

THE SESSION OF 1809. 343
Session had reported against lotteries ; and Wilber
force, Whitbread, and EomUly loudly demanded their
discontinuance. Whitbread subsequently made a
specific motion on the subject ; and was beaten
by 90 votes to 36. Perceval, of course, de
fended the system, because he coiUd not spare the
profits he derived from the practice. Can any Mi
nister be blamed for using such language at such a
time ? In the middle of a great war, when unpre
cedented loans are necessary, the worst taxes must
evidently be endured. Yet EomUly writes as if the
lottery was a new tax which Perceval had himself
introduced. It is only fah to remember that the
Minister really only continued a tax which his pre
decessors in office had left him.

344

CHAPTEE IX.
CANNING AND CASTLEREAGH.
1809.
Ministry of the Duke of Portland — Lord Castlereagh — George
Canning — Dissatisfaction with the Arrangements for the Con
duct of the War — Sir John Moore's Appointment to the Com
mand in Portugal — Correspondence of Canning and Perceval —
Serious Illness of the Duke of Portland — The Political Situa
tion — Negotiations — News from the Seat of War — Difficulties
ofthe Government — Lords Camden and Castlereagh — Resigna
tion ofthe Duke of Portland — Canning's Statement of his
Position and Views — Delicate Position of Perceval — State of
the Administration.
With the single exception of the subject of this
memoir, the two most important members of the
Duke of Portland's administration were Lord Cas
tlereagh and George Canning. Lord Castlereagh,
the representative of a considerable Irish famUy, the
heir to an Irish Peerage, was a statesman possessed
of most of those qualities in which his feUow- coun
trymen are usually deficient ; and, on the other hand,
singularly devoid of those with which Irishmen are
usually largely endowed. His strong good sense, his
clear judgment, his great industry, and his steady
perseverance, combined to make him an exceUent man

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 345
of business. But he was deficient in the power of
describing, in grammatical or even inteUigible lan
guage, the policy which no one was more competent
to devise. The deficiency was the more remarkable,
because he had many personal advantages to set off
his oratory. He had an eminently patrician figure,
and a courage that was prepared for any emergency.
He was ignorant of the fear which personal danger
inspires in some men ; he was ready, at the risk of
certain discomfiture, to grapple -with the most
formidable antagonist on the floor of the House of
Commons. George Canning was cast ia a dUFerent mould.
The son of a needy and dissolute actor, he had, as a
mere child, attracted notice from his abUities, and
friends had interfered to rescue him from the ine
vitable consequences of a training in his father's
house. He had not deceived the promise of his
chUdhood. He had achieved a reputation as a brU-
hant writer at an age when clever lads are usuaUy
only known for proficiency in Greek and Latin.
Brought, at an early age, into Parhament, he had
fulfiUed from the first the expectations of his ad-
imrers, and merited the favour which Pitt extended
to him. A subaltern in Pitt's Ministry, he had
rethed on the fall of his chieftain. But his am
bitious temperament had brooked rehxctantly the
rethement which the great Minister had courted.
It was his influence that forced^Pitt into opposition
to Addington. It was the brilhancy of his pen that

346 canning and CASTLEEEAGH.
drove Addington into an estrangement from Pitt.
The political history of 1804 might possibly have
been different if it had not been for Canning.
Canning and Castlereagh were of the same age.
Both of them were a few years younger than Per
ceval On Pitt's death, in 1806, the latter had con
sulted Canning on the conduct which Pitt's friends
should pursue ; and Canning had stated broadly the
points on which he conceived that he differed from
Perceval. During the Session of 1 806, the two men
had moved in difierent circles, but Perceval had
practically gained on his rival ; and become, to aU
intents and purposes, the leader of the Opposition.
The crisis of 1807 stUl further deranged Canning's
ambitious plans. Perceval was opposed to the Ca
tholics on principle : Canning was opposed to them
on the score of expediency. The King, under such
circumstances, naturally preferred Perceval to Can
ning. Perceval was reluctantly compeUed to accept
the Chancellorship of the Exchequer and the leaa
in the Commons : Canning was forced to content
himself with the seals of the Foreign Office.
That Canning's acquiescence in this arrangement
was not warm may probably be inferred from his
refusal in 1807 of Perceval's official dinner. No
signs, however, of a rupture took place ; and, during
the whole of that year, as well as during a portion
of 1808, there were no visible dissensions in the
Ministry. The Convention of Chitra was the first
cause of difference. Canning's views on the subject

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 347
have been detailed in a preceding chapter. He
thought that the Ministry shoxUd not attempt to
defend it. The Cabinet concluded that they were
boxmd to stand up for their generals. The difference
was partially increased by the circumstances of
Sir John Moore's expedition. Castlereagh told his
coUeagues that Moore had raised every objection
to the plan, and had parted from him with a
prediction of certain failure. ' Good God 1 ' replied
Canning, ' and do you ready mean to say that you
aUowed a man, entertaining such feelings with
regard to an expedition, to assume the command
of it ?" The differences which thus existed became
greater when the Ministry decided to defend the
Duke of York. Canning thought that the Ministry
should not undertake the Duke's defence at aU,
unless it was wholly entrusted to them. The
Cabinet, on - the contrary, xmdertook the defence,
though His Eoyal Highness declined to follow the
advice which they gave him."
With these views Canning, on the 24th March,'
» Stapleton's ' Canning,' 160.
« Colchester, ii. 179 ; Perceval Papers.
» Some weeks afterwards Canning forwarded a copy of this
letter to Perceval, in justification of his own conduct. In justice
to the former, it may be desirable to insert it here. — Cfr. Colches
ter, ii. 220 ; Ward, i. 241. ' Foreign Office, March 2Uh, 1809.
'My dear Lord, — I do not know whether the conversations
which I had with your Grace at Bulstrode in October or Novem
ber, and afterwards at Burlington House, just previously to the

348 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
wrote to the Duke of Portland to say that, in his
opinion the Government, as then constituted, was
opening of the session, will have prepared your Grace for the
communication which I have now to make to you.
' It was my intention so far to prepare your Grace for it by
these conversations, as that when the period for making it should
arrive your Grace might not be taken by surprise ; at the
same time, while it was yet possible that events might occur to
render the communication itself unnecessary, I was not desirous
of giving your Grace the trouble of a discussion which might
be to no purpose.
' The period does appear to me to be now arrived when I can,
with the least possible chance of any imputation or suspicion of
other motives than those which really actuate me, state to your
Grace in the utmost confidence and without any reserve my
sincere opinions as to the situation of your Grace's Government,
and the conclusions to which those opinions lead me.
' In doing this I trust your Grace will understand me not as
presuming to blame or to criticise the conduct of others, but
simply as wishing to explain, in the fullest and clearest manner,
the motives of what may possibly be my own.
' No man, I apprehend, can shut his eyes to the plain fact that
the Government has sunk in public opinion since the end of the
last session of Parliament. The Convention of Cintra was, accord
ing to my judgment and belief, the primary cause of this change.
The unfortunate result of the Spanish campaign confirmed it.
' Probably neither the Convention (which was not our work) nor
the failure in Spain (which was not our fault) would have had
this effect upon the character and popularity of the Government
had we not, in both instances, made ourselves responsible in
public opinion for transactions of which the blame did not, in fact,
rest upon ourselves, — a conduct of which, in both instances, the
evil appears to me to have arisen from a spirit of compromise,
from a desire to avoid meeting difficulties in front, and a hope of
getting round them by management — principles of action utterly
unsuited, in my humble opinion, to a Government acting in such
times as these. I wish I could see anything in our present pro
ceedings which promised to repair the past But your Grace need

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 349
inadequate to the requirements of the times. As
the resxUt of the last year's counsels was now wound
not be informed how little we have been doing ; nor (to omit
other subjects) need I remind your Grace how often, within the
last two months, I have ventured to press the situation of
Portugal upon the attention of the Cabinet, aud how slow the
progress has been to any decision on that subject.
' It is not for me to point out to your Grace the causes of
this state of things ; but I feel it a duty to your Grace, as well as
to myself, fairly to avow to your Grace that the Government, as at
present constituted, does not appear to me equal to the great task
which it hats to perform. With this conscientious persuasion upon
my mind, my first wish is certainly that the defects, wherever
they be, should be remedied ; but, if that should be impracticable,
my next wish is that your Grace may not take it unkindly if I
desire to withdraw myself from a share in the responsibility for a
system in my own judgment so little adequate to the crisis in
which this country and the world are placed. I will not disguise
from your Grace that this desire first arose out of that decision
respecting the Convention of Cintra which was taken by the
Cabinet in my absence, and my reasons for dissenting from which
I felt it incumbent upon me most humbly to lay before the
King. ' I was diverted from my purpose at that time by the dispo
sition which I found in the Cabinet subsequently to adopt and to
act upon many of the views which I had taken of particular parts
of the Convention. While the discussion upon that subject was
going on, the march of the British army into Spain, under the
command of Sir John Moore, was decided, — a measure in which,
under the circumstances of the moment, I was induced to concur
(how reluctantly, and with how little hope of good, your Grace
well knows), and in which having once concurred, I felt myself
bound in honour to take my full share of all its consequences.
' Soon after the meeting of Parliament, and before the ques
tions arising out of the Portuguese and Spanish campaigns had
been disposed of, that relating to the Duke of York was brought
forward, — a question on the one hand deeply interesting the
personal feelings of the King, and supposed on the other hand to

350 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH,
up, and the policy and plans of the approaching
summer not yet entered upon, he desired to rethe
before the Houses of Parliament should reassemble
after the Easter recess. The Dxike of Portland
naturally laid the letter before the King. His
Majesty understood it as a complaint against Lord
Castlereagh, and suggested his Lordship's transfer
to some other office. The Duke assented; but
recommended that the arrangement shoxUd be con-
threaten the stability of the Administration, and of which, there
fore, I was determined by every sentiment of duty and affection
to His Majesty, and of honour toward my colleagues, to wait the
termination. That question is now at an end. There is now a
pause between the winding-up of the results of last year's counsels
and the commencement of operations for the year to come. The
questions of future policy with respect to almost all the powers of
Europe, and those of the plans of the campaign, both in the North
and in the South, are open ; aud it is, before the decision upon
these most important points is taken, and before, therefore, any
pledge of responsibility for the future is incurred, that I have
thought it right to avail myself of this opportunity fairly and
explicitly to lay before your Grace opinions, in the formation of
which, I can honestly say, regard for the interest of the country
has had by far the largest share, and in considering and deciding
upon which I request your Grace to have no further regard to me
personally than may be sufficient to induce you to come to some
conclusion, if possible, before business in Parliament recommences
after the holidays. I shall be most happy to converse with your
Grace upon the subject of this letter whenever your Grace desires
it; but it is obviously a subject which I could not, in the first
instance, have opened to your Grabe as fully and clearly as I
wished in conversation. ' Ever, my dear Lord,
' Your Grace's most faithful
' And affectionate Servant,
' G. Canning.'

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 351
cealed from Castlereagh, that its execution should
be postponed tUl after the prorogation, and that
Lord Wellesley should then have the War-Office.
This plan he subsequently communicated to Lord
Camden, Lord Castlereagh's chief friend and uncle ;
as weU as to Lord Bathurst and the ChanceUor.'
With this arrangement Canning was satisfied
at the time. Late in the following month he took
both Eose and the Speaker into his confidence.
' The Government,' he said, ' could not go on ;
Castlereagh ought to have resigned before the last
question," and stUl more so since. That it was in
vain to be waiting tUl the session ended.' Eose
seems to have been staggered by the inteUigence,
and replied simply that he should resign -with
Canning. The Speaker, on the contrary, assented
to the necessity for a strong Government, and
insisted that the Prime Minister ought to be in
the House of Commons.'
Nothing, however, came of these explanations.
On the 2 1st Jxxne Parliament was prorogued ; and a
Cabinet Council was held, at which the Walcheren
expedition was finally determined on. The Duke
of Portland, when the Cabinet broke up, desired
Perceval to call on him the next day. Perceval
complied ; and then received, for the first time, an
accoxmt of the intrigue. He at once expressed his
¦ Colchester, ii. 220 ; Ward, i. 213.
2 The motion about East India patronage, vide supra, p. 331.
» Rose, ii. 368 ; Colchester, ii. 179.

352 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
surprise, both at the transaction itself, and at
its concealment; and insisted that the arrange
ment, which had been made in AprU, must neces
sarUy be modified by the decision of the previous day.
'For that Castlereagh should have been permitted, by
those -who hnew ho-w this discussion was likely to termi
nate, to be preparing and arranging one of the most import
ant and extensive military expeditions which this country
ever set on foot ; and that he should be told, just as it is
about to be executed, that he must resign his situation,
remaining responsible, in great part at least, for the arrange
ment, and being deprived of the superintendence of the
execution, is -what I think cannot be intended.'
So he wrote to Canning three days after the
Duke's communication to him : —
' I kno-w now,' he -went on, ' how long this business has
been pending, and how it has been drawn on ; and I enter
folly into the motives which induced you to consent to the
delay, and give you the greatest credit for them. But the
delay, however reluctantly consented to on your part, has
been permitted by you to take place ; and the consequence
has been that Castlereagh's situation, connected -witli this ex
pedition, has been and is one from which he has had a right
to presume and imply that all his colleagues who knew of
this expedition, and consented to its being arranged by him,
consented also to its being executed under him.'
Canning's reply was concise : —
' Having stated to the Duke of Portland all that I had
or have to say, so long ago as last Easter ; considering his
grace as the proper depository of such a statement, and the
proper channel for the communication of such part of it as
he might think fit to communicate to the King; I con
ceived that I was not only not bound, but that I was hardly
at liberty, to enter into partial discussions with individual

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 353
members of the Administration, unless the Duke of Port
land desired me to do so ; and I see no good to which such
discussions can now lead.
' Here I should conclude, were it not for two points in
your letter in which you seem to have misapprehended the
true state of the case to a degree wholly unaccountable after
the communications which you describe yourself to have had
upon it.
' First, you express yourself as if you imagined that
the proposed arrangement with respect to Lord C. ori
ginated with me. Nothing like it. So far from pro
posing it, I have urged some of those very objections to it
which you urge yourself. And, so far from wishing it, I
have distinctly declared that I was prepared to acquiesce in
it, not because I had any personal liking to it, not because I
thought it cured all the evil, but simply out of deference to
a suggestion of the King's.
' Secondly, you speak of " concealment." So far as I am
concerned, I have only to say that when, in my letter to the
Duke of Portland three months ago, I requested to be
aUowed to retire before the recommencement of business
after the Easter holidays, I can hardly have had any pur
pose of concealment. But neither can I think the imputa
tion fair as against the Duke of Portland, knowing, as I
do, that the second person with whom he communicated was
Lord Camden ; that he has been in constant and regular
communication with him • ever since ; and that he selected
him expressly as the fittest person to communicate with
Lord C, If Lord Camden has not done this, I dare say
he had good reasons for it. But it is needless to say that
it is no fault of mine ; and I cannot believe it to be any fault
of the Duke of Portland's.'
' I have expressed myself,' Perceval replied dn the same
daj', ' very ill, and far difierent from what I meant, if my
expressions convey the idea that the proposed arrangement
VOL. L ^-^

354 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
in ofiice commenced with you. I understood perfectly that
it was suggested by His Majesty ; and that you considered
it, as well as myself, little calculated to remove any diffi
culties which Castlereagh's feelings might occasion.
' As to the word " concealment," perhaps it was impro
perly used. "Non-communication" more correctly ex
presses my idea. It was not, however, on your part that
I conceived communication to be necessary, at least in the
first instance, even towards Castlereagh, and at no time
towards other members of the Government.
' But, as to Castlereagh, it strikes me very strongly, but
perhaps very erroneously, that by some one or other, who
may have known that his early removal was intended, he
ought to have had notice of it before the subject of the
expedition had gone the length it has. And I cannot but
think also that some communication was due to the other
members of the Government.
****** ' As to the main subject I readily acquiesce in what ap
pears to be your view upon it, that any further observations
or opinions should perhaps be better communicated by either
of us to the Duke of Portland.'
With this agreement Perceval and Canning both
wrote to the Duke himself Perceval's letter is
little more than a recapitulation of his arguments
to Canning, and of the substance of the latter's
reply. Canning's letter to the Duke has not been,
apparently, preserved. He enclosed a copy of it,
indeed, to Perceval in a note, in which he took the
opportunity of assuring him, —
' That whate-ver momentary impressions your former
letter may have made, and my answer to it -may have ex
pressed (if it did express them), are entirely done away ;

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 355
and indeed would have vanished, upon a little refiection,
even without your second letter.'
But, as he asked for the return of the enclosure,
Perceval ' did not feel justified in keeping a copy
of it.' Its substance may be inferred, however, from
Perceval's reply. After expressing his gratification
that his explanatory note had removed the impres
sion made by his former letter, he goes on : —
'Your letter to the Duke of Portland certainly does
no more than convey what I felt assured must be your feel
ings with respect to the idea of remo-ving Castlereagh from
the management of the expedition ; my fear is that, if the
management of the war is taken from him in any other
quarter, though left with him as to the present expedition,
he would necessarily ascribe it to such a want of confidence
in him, on the part of the King or of his coUeagues, as
would lead him to resign his situation altogether ; and then
my doubt is whether, if this is the probable consequence of
such an arrangement, it wUl not in effect be doing the same
thing which, from feelings of delicacy if not of justice to
him, we have agreed should not be done.
' As to the arrangement itself as proposed by the King,
however well it may do at the present moment, I think it
is a very imperfect one for the public ser-vice ; and that,
if your ofiice is to have the management of war in any part
of the -n^orld, it should have it in every part ; that the direc
tion of the whole force of the country should be with the
Minister who is to direct any part of it. But this is a subject
which, I am happy to think, may be discussed and con
sidered without any individual feelings, and perhaps does
not press very much."
It seems clear, from this letter, that Camiing
' Perceval Papers.

356 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
had consented to take no further steps for the
moment against Castlereagh ; or, to use the
Speaker's expression, ' Perceval obtained a respite
of the projected removal, untU at least the issue
of this expedition shoxUd take place.' But Canning
was not apparently debarred, or did not at any
rate feel himself pledged to desist, from suggestiug
the arrangements which would eventually be neces
sary. It seems ultimately to have been decided,
between the Duke of Portland and Cannhig at any
rate, that Lord WeUesley should have the War-
Office ; that Castlereagh should be transferred to
some other department. Lord Camden offering his
resignation to make way for him.
' I have written to the Duke of Portland,' writes Lord
Camden to Perceval on the llth July. ' I confined my con
versation yesterday and my letter to-day to the statement
I propose to make, viz., that time should be given, and that
time not earlier than the issue of the expedition, to make
such an arrangement as would give the chance of persuad
ing Castlereagh that he ought to consent to it in the view
of strengthening Government ; and, under that idea, I have
offered my office, — but decidedly declining to offer it under
any other conditions.'
'Canning,' wrote the Duke himself late on the same
evening, ' has just left me ; satisfied with the state to which
the business is brought ; and requiring only that, if Lord
"WeUesley is to have the seals, or is to have any other
ministerial emplo3rment, he should be acquainted with it
before he sets out for Spain ; and that his departure may
not be unnecessarily deferred after the sailing of the expedi
tion, or after to-morrow sennight, supposing that he is able

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 357
to set out by that time which he himself expects he shaU be
able to do on Monday.'
It is not clear how far Perceval may have, in
the first instance, assented to this arrangement.
It seems certain that on the following day he talked
the matter over confidentially with the most inti
mate of his political friends. Lord Harrowby, and
that the latter pointed out to him the extreme
treachery it involved.
' This cursed business,' Perceval wrote to Lord Harrowby,'
twenty-four hours later, on the 13th July, ' haunts me. And
why ? Because I have been endeavouring to reconcile my
self to it by some expedient which is not satisfactorily jus
tifiable and honourable towards Castlereagh. Your argu
ments, which I could not answer last night, have left me in
a precious state ; they showed me that there was no distinc
tion in substance between what I was ready to have ac
quiesced in, and what I thought wholly irreconcilable with
any principles of sincerity, integrity, and honour. But, in
dissatisfying me with what I was prepared for, they have
not satisfied me in the least with your suggestions. I am
writing to the Duke to prevent his undertaking to pledge
me. It is not whether Wellesley knows this arrangement
or not before Castlereagh. That makes no difference. But
it is that vnder all the circumstances .... the making
a conclusive arrangement with respect to Lord C.'s fate, and
pledging ourselves to stand by it, previously to his knowing
anything of it, is unjust and dishonourable to him.
*«***• ' My pledge as at present advised cannot go further than

X ' Plumer Ward says this letter was to the Duke of Portland.
('Memoirs ' i. 226.) Another and similar letter on the same day
vm~toUie^uke. Ward has confused the two.

358 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
this. That I will do anything in my power, submit to any
arrangement which can be proposed, however affecting myself;
I mean by that contentedly to remain with any first Lord
of the Treasury over me from amongst ourselves, not ex
cluding Lord "Wellesley, provided Castlereagh by such
arrangement could be kept amongst us ; but I cannot pledge
myself to consent to any arrangement, decisive of Lord
Castlereagh's fate, until I know how Lord Castlereagh
himself will receive it. And I will pledge myself to use my
best endeavours to prevail upon him to acquiesce in it.'
Thus ended the first part of the proceedings.
Lord Wellesley was permitted to go to Spain ; Lord
Castlereagh was kept at the War-Office ; and, not
withstanding a further remonstrance from Canning
on the 18th July, the Duke of Portland refused to
inform his Lordship of what had occurred. But, be
fore the close of August, matters had again changed.
The Duke of Portland had become seriously Ul ; he
had had a fit in his carriage near Bulstrode ; his hfe
had been in considerable danger ; and, though he
had raUied, it was obvious that he could not long
continue to be minister. Under these circumstances
Perceval renewed his correspondence with Canning
on the 28th August : —
' Although I thought,' he began, ' the Duke of Portland
on Thursday last . . . considerably better than I have seen
him for many weeks, yet the precarious state of his health
necessarily warns us that it is not likely he can long con
tinue to hold his present situation. If therefore we are
desirous, as I conceive we are, of preserving the Government
in the hands which at present hold it, it is next to madness
not to be considering whether any arrangement in the event

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 359
of his resignation could be made, which would be at once
acceptable to the King and ourselves. ... I confess I am
the more anxious not to delay any longer opening this sub
ject to you, because, after all that has passed respectiag the
situation in the change of one of our coUeagues, combined
with the wish, I beUeve felt by us aU, to retain him amongst
us, it appears to me that, under the cover of so general an
arrangement as that which would comprehend the office of
First Lord of the Treasury, this change might possibly be
effected in the manner least unpleasant to any of us.'
*****
' "With respect to myself, . . I should not object to con
tinue in any office, under anyone whom it appears to me at
present to be at all likely you and the rest of my colleagues
would be satisfied to see at our head. I must, however,
premise that he must, by public exertion, and in public esti
mation, partake a little more of the responsibility of the
Treasury than I conceive the Duke of Portland to do. For I
cannot consent upon any change, or under any one except
the Duke of Portland, to be in the sort of situation which I
hold at present, with almost all the power of the Department
in another, and with almost, if not entirely, the whole of its
responsibUity in myself
Canning replied very shortly to this letter by
asking two questions : —
' First, Is the Duke of Portland aware that his resigna
tion is in contemplation, or has he himself intimated a dispo
sition to resign ? . . . Secondly, As you state yourself to be
confident that an arrangement might be made in the event of
the Duke of Portland's retirement, -will you allow me to
inquire whether this confidence proceeds from your own -new
of things, or from any communications with any, and with
whom, of the members of the Government ?'
' The Duke of Portland,' repUed Perceval the next day.

360 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
29th August, ' is not in any degree privy to the subject of
my note to you ; nor has he to my knowledge intimated any
disposition to resign since his last Ulness. Nor does a single
soul know that I have written to you, or communicated with
you, upon this subject. Harrowby alone knew that I in
tended it. I mentioned it to him, as he happened to come
into my room whUe I was writing a letter to you, in which
I had specially mentioned him as the person under whom, as
the First Lord of the Treasury, if his appointment could be
satisfactory to you and others, I should be particularly ready
to act ; but, upon showing him that passage, he so peremp
torily declined ha-ving anything to do with it, and so con
vinced me that it was hopeless to attempt to prevaU upon
him, that I was obliged, though very reluctantly, to abandon
the idea, and to write to you another letter.
*****
' The onljr communication which I have had with mem
bers of the Government, besides what I have stated to
Harrowby, has been with the Lord Chancellor and Lord
Liverpool ; with whom I have agreed, since the Duke's last
illness, in general terms, that it was absurd not to be con
sidering whether any and what arrangements might be made
in the event of our losing him. But to them I have not
stated my intention of writing to you. In truth I have
thought (I would say it to anyone more readily than to
you) that it was idle to think of anything specific upon this
subject, without knowing what you thought of it.'
Canning rephed on the same day, —
'I thought it not improbable that, since the Duke of
Portland's last illness, some step might have been taken on
his part to bring the subject into discussion. But, finding
that not to be the case, I feel myself precluded from entering
into it. Do not imagine that this is from any indisposition
to meet your confidence ; or that I disagree with you as to

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 361
the importance of the subject ; or mean to insinuate that
there is the slightest impropriety in your having proposed
the discussion of it to me, or discussing it with any of our
colleagues. It is merely that, after what passed between the
Duke of Portland and myself on this subject at Easter, and
after what I heard, both from the King and from the Duke
of Portland, as ha-sdng passed between them when the Duke
tendered his resignation, I feel a peculiar and personal
difficulty in ever again originating the subject with them,
and still more in discussing it with others, unless he
shall have himself originated, or at least authorised, the
discussion.' Canning probably supposed that the correspond
ence would be concluded at this point ; but, on the
foUowmg day, Perceval met Lord Liverpool at the
levee, and, in returning home, related to him what
had passed. Lord Liverpool begged Perceval —
' To state to you (Canning), what I did not feel at liberty
without his leave to mention before that, on the levee after
the Duke's last attack, the King opened the subject to him
... by saying that it was impossible things could last long
as they were, and that it was therefore necessary that we
should be looking about us to be prepared for what might
occur to the Duke  I hardly know how to
hope that this circumstance may appear to you in some
degree to alter the state of the question, so as to remove any
of your difficulties ; but I lose no time in communicating it
that you may be aware that it is not only among ourselves
that the subject is in contemplation.'
Cannhig's answer must be given at length, —

362 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
' Gloucester Lodge,
' Thursday Morning, Aug. 31, 1809.
'Dear Perceval, — After what you said to me at the
Queen's House, and after your letter of yesterday evening, I
cannot but feel that, although I am precluded, by the circum
stances which I have explained to j'ou, from taking part in
any discussion as to the expediency of the Duke of Portland's
retirement, I owe it to the frankness, -with which you have
opened yourself to me, not to -withhold from you the commu
nication of what my sentiments would be in the event of the
Duke of Portland's voluntary resignation. In that con
fidence, then, of which you have set me the example, I have
no difficulty in stating to you that I should not agree in
thinking such a frame of Government, as that which I
rather collect from your letters you might be induced to
approve, either satisfactory or expedient. I have for some
time been con-dnced — and every month's experience tends to
confirm that conviction more and more, — thut a. Minister —
and that Minister in the Souse of Commons — is indispensable'
to the weU-carrying-on the King's Government in these times.
I cannot venture to conjecture how far others, our colleagues,
may concur in this opinion. I, of course, cannot mean to
pretend to disguise either from you, or from myself, that the
choice of such a Minister, in the present administration,
would be to be made between us two. I am not so pre
sumptuous as to expect that you should acquiesce in that
choice faUing on me. On the other hand, I hope and trust
> Canning's conduct was so inconsistent that it hardly admits
of explanation. Lord Mulgrave tells us distinctly that Canning
' had expressed himself ready to hold office under Lord Chatham,
as head of the Government.' The failure of the 'Walcheren
expedition rendered that arrangement now impossible, and Can
ning will hear of no other third person as head.' (Plumer Ward,
i. 215.) If, then, Canning was ready to serve under Lord Chat
ham, it is obvious that he did not originally think a minister in
the House of Commons indispensable.

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 363
that you wUl not consider it as any want of esteem and kind
ness on my part towards you personally (than which I do
assure you nothing could be more entirely foreign to my
real feelings) if I should not think it possible to remain in
office under the change which would necessarily be pro
duced in my situation by the appointment of a first Minister
in the House of Commons — even in your person.
' I have thus declared my sentiments to you without
reserve. You may, possibly, differ from them ; you wUl, I
hope, give me credit for their being the result of a sincere,
and (on many grounds) unwilling con-viction, and you will
now be at no loss to account for any backwardness which
you may have thought I have shown to enter upon this very
delicate question of eventual arrangements.
' Believe me, dear Perceval,
' Very sincerely yours,
'Geo. Canning.'
'Downing Street, Aug. 31s^, 1809.
' Dear Canning, — I hasten to acknowledge with thank
fulness the frankness of your communication. I concur
entirely with you in thinking that the most advantageous
arrangement for the King's Government is, clearly, to have
the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. I never
disguised from myself or from any one that, if that Minister
in the House of Commons was to be looked for amongst the
members of the present Government, it would be pretty
generally agreed that it should be one of us two. I always
thought it actually out of the question to suppose that you
would acquiesce in the choice falling on me ; I therefore
thought it necessary to look to the other members of Parlia
ment, not from a disinclination to have that superiority
marked by office which I unaffectedly feel to be so strongly
marked in every other way, but because I conceived that it
would not only be attended, in the detail of the arrange
ment, with much practical difficulty ; but certainly, as far as

364 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
change of situation is concerned, because I felt that it would
be greater in my person on the latter supposition, than in
yours on the former.' For it could not be otherwise brought
about, as I conceive, than by my actual removal from my
present office. You could not continue Secretary of State
and be Prime Minister. You must be First Lord of the
Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. This (I mean
my actual supersession) would be the thing that I should
feel principally painful ; and, I cannot disguise from you,
that I certainly should feel it so. I therefore looked to the
other members of ParUament for a Minister who would leave
us where we were, and consequently make the least practical
change in either of our situations. A positive and per
emptory opinion, however, one way or the other, upon what
my disposition would be under the circumstances above sup
posed, you wiU not expect from me so expeditiously as I am
desirous of answering your letter. Indeed, it is a point on
which I should not feel justified in forming a determiaate
opinion without consulting other judgments than my own,
or my own more maturely than I have time to do at present
before I answer your letter. This much I can say at the
moment, that it would be a very painful consideration, and
one that I would yield to with the greatest reluctance, to
think that any feelings of mine should stand in the way of
an arrangement which might otherwise preserve to the King
his present servants. Once more thanking you for the
frankness of your letter, ' I am, dear Canning,
' Yours very truly,
' Sp. Pekceval.'
'Dear Canning,^ — Having since I last saw you communi-
1 Note in Perceval's handwriting. ' This is extremely awkwardly
expressed. It means the other alternative, viz. the arrangements
which would place Canning at the head of the Treasury.'
'^ This letter has no date to it. It was probably written either

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 365
cated very fully with my brother, whom I saw this morning,
upon the subject of our late correspondence, I am now fully
satisfied in my own mind that I should be considered by my
friends as suffering a degree of degradation, by my removal
from my present office and situation in the House of Com
mons, which I ought not to acquiesce in. I beUeve I left
you strongly impressed with the opinion that such would
probably be my determination (which indeed I collected to
be your own also) ; but, as I had not fuUy and decisively
expressed it to you before, I thought it necessary to trouble
you -with this Une. This being the case, I therefore earnestly

on the 4th or 5th September, as a letter is extant among the
Perceval papers of the 3rd September to Lord Arden, from which
it is evident that, on that day, Perceval had not decided to re
sist Canning's pretensions. ' My own conviction,' he writes to
his brother, ' is that to attempt to form a Government without
Canning would be to deceive the King and to do injustice to the
country and to ourselves. I know it is the opinion of many of us
(in which, however, I do not agree) that it would be equally
hopeless to make the same attempt under Canning without me.
Unless, therefore, Canning will consent to have the First Lord of
the Treasury in the House of Lords, or I will consent to be Secre
tary of State for the Home Department (the only office I could
possibly hold while he is First Lord of the Treasury and Chan
cellor of the Exchequer), it appears to me impossible for the
King's Government to continue in the present hands a moment
longer than we can keep our precarious keystone in his present
place. It is not only that I should have to give up my present
office, but I should have also to relinquish my station in the
House of Commons. I think I am ready, for the King's service,
to sacrifice every feeling of personal pride or vanity which might
be wounded by such an event. But public men are, for their means
of public utility, the creatures, in great measure, of public opinion ;
and if as I much fear would be the case, such a sacrifice would be
felt by my friends and the public as a degradation which I ought
not to submit to, the submitting to it might much abridge my
means of futm-e service to the King and the country.'

366 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
hope that, though the arrangement under a third person
would not appear generally expedient or satisfactory, yet
that, under present circumstances, and difficulties, which
really come oiit of our situation without any fault of either
of us, it is preferable to that total overthrow of the present
Government which otherwise is likely at no great distance
to ensue. ' I am, dear Canning, &c.
' Sp. Perceval.'
The negotiation had thus arrived at a stage
which very much resembled a stale mate. Cannhig
would not yield an inch to Perceval ; Perceval
could not forego a jot for Canning. The Prime
Minister was seriously Ul at BxUstrode ; the two
most prominent members of the Cabinet were agreed
that some arrangement for replacing him was neces
sary ; but neither of them was willing to yield his
o-wn pretensions to the other. On the 2nd Sep
tember bad news reached England. Sir Arthur
Wellesley had retreated across the Tagus ; Lord
Chatham had announced his determination to return
without attacking Antwerp.' The circumstances
which had led to Castjlereagh's ' respite' were, in
other words, ended. The Walcheren expedition was
concluded, and had terminated with discredit and
disaster. Canning -wrote to the Duke of Portland —
' The pressure in point of time is become so much more
urgent, and the prospect of saving the Government by any
' Colchester, ii. 199.

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 367
change, if longer deferred, so doubtful, that he should think
himself wanting to His Majesty, to the country,' to the
Duke, ' as well as to himself, if he were not on that day to
remind him that the period was arrived, according to His
Majesty's gracious promise .... that Lord "WeUesley
was to be caUed to the office of Secretary of State for the
"War Department.'
The Duke of Portland, evidently in sore distress
at this letter, unburdened himself to Perceval : —
' What may be the apprehensions or expectations which
have led Canning to take this step, I will not attempt to
conjecture ; but no consideration will induce me to proceed
further in this most unfortunate transaction untU I shaU
receive the King's further commands, which I shaU not ask
for till I pay my duty to His Majesty in person on next
Wednesday. I deemed it, however, incumbent upon me to
give you the earUest possible notice of this importunity.'
Perceval, after expressing his regret at Canning's
action, replied to the Duke : —
' Under all the important and unpleasant circumstances of
this unhappy business, I should not feel that I did my duty
to your Grace, or to the King, or our colleagues, if I did
not venture to recaU to your Grace's consideration your
general idea of a more extended arrangement, as promising
to afford some facUities to get rid of our difficulties ; and if
I did not suggest, as just possible, that His Majesty might
now, when the difficulties are more near and more embar
rassing, consent to listen to your Grace's proposal of endea-
vourino- to recommend and superintend some arrangement,
which might at once have the effect of covering from Lord
Castlereagh the unpleasant circumstances which occasion
his removal ; and of reUe-dng your Grace from a situation
which I am sure nothing could have induced your Grace to

368 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
have endured so long, but a most determined resolution to
sacrifice aU those considerations of personal ease and com
fort and quiet which your health so imperiously required,
to what you have seen and felt to be the essential interests
of the King's service and the public welfare 
' If I did not feel satisfied, from your Grace's having
tendered your resignation before for the same object, that I
was suggesting nothing but what, if it really appears to
afford a prospect of securing the King's Government in the
hands of his present servants, would be gladly embraced, I
certainly should have felt it impossible to have found any
apology or excuse which could have justified my offering
the present suggestion.'
' You certainly,' was the Duke's very warm reply, ' do
me no more than justice in the opinion you express of my
readiness to lend myself in any and every way that can be
imagined likely to prevent the explosion that threatens us,
and to secure the King's Government in the hands of his
present servants; and I heartily thank you for it. There
was a time when such a step would have been considered by
Canning as leading to means which would have prevented
a change of Government, and might have contributed to
strengthen it ; and as he, even to this moment, or at least
till very lately, has professed a desire upon no account to
remove any person, but only to add one person more to the
Cabinet, I am willing to hope that he may stiU be found in
the same disposition that he professed at Easter ; and, should
that be the case, I trust that His Majesty would not object
to that which in my conscience I believe to be the only
means by which the fate of his Government is to be
obviated.' On the 6th September, after writing this letter,
the Duke of Portland saw Canning. The subsequent
correspondence makes it possible to infer what
passed at the interview. The Duke told Canning

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 369
that, if Castlereagh's resignation were insisted upon,
other members of the Cabinet woxUd resign with
Castlereagh ; and he consequently proposed a more
extended arrangement, under which he should him
self retire, and Castlereagh be moved to some other
office. Canning replied that, under these chcum-
stances, he should not press for an execution of the
Khig's proroise ; but that he must beg the Duke to
tender his (Canning's) resignation to His Majesty,
as weU as his own.' Canning repeated the substance
of this communication in writing to the Duke ; and
the latter sent the letter to Perceval. Perceval,
on recei-sdng it, wrote again to Canning : —
' The Duke of Portland has just shown me your letter of
this morning, in which you refer to a declaration of the
Duke's to you yesterday, that the execution of the King's
promise would be followed by the resignation of some of the
members of the Cabinet ; in consequence of which you think
yourself bound voluntarily to forego an arrangement, the
difficulties of which are thus unexpectedly increased since
His Majesty entered into it. I am certainly very anxious,
if I am one of the persons to whom you allude, distinctly to
assure you that, as the Duke of Portland's resignation has
appeared to me to open a reasonable way out of the diffi
culties which might otherwise have attended the arrange
ment proposed -with respect to Lord C. and Lord "W., I
have not ever had, under that state of things, the least
intention of considering the arrangement, which the King
had promised, as one which should in any degree caU for my
resignation.'

' So Canning himself said to Perceval, in a letter dated 1st
October, which is among the Perceval papers.
VOL. I. B B

370 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
Canning replied on the Sth. Perceval, he said,
was quite right in supposing that he had referred to
him in his communication to the Duke.
' Your letter of yesterday evening does not at all vary
my view of the case or my determination upon it. You teU
me that you shall not object to the execution of his promise
as part of an arrangement upon the Duke of Portland's
resignation. The necessary inference from this statement,
thus qualified, must be that, without that quaUfication, you
would have objected to the execution of the promise; and
that, if anything should happen to prevent or retard the
Duke of Portland's resignation, you would still object to it.
' Now, the promise having been made, two months ago,
¦without any reference whatever to that event, which you now
state as the condition of your consent to the execution of the
promise, I do feel myself placed, by this conditional acqui
escence in a positive engagement, in a situation which I
certainly did not foresee, and out of which I still think
there is no way (-without stirring very delicate and embar
rassing questions), but by my voluntarily foregoing an
engagement, the difficulties of which are thus unexpectedly
increased since His Majesty entered into it.'
Perceval, on the receipt of this communication,
forwarded, in his own justification to Canning, a
copy of his letter of the l3th Jxdy to the Duke of
Portland. ' The contents,' was the reply, ' of your letter ofthe 13th
of July to the Duke of Portland, were entirely new to me.
' If without any knowledge of them, I acquitted you of
all blame, I, of course, can only say, after becoming ac
quainted with them, that I regret their not having been
communicated to me earlier. I do not mean that I could

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 371
have expected that communication from you. And I feel, as
I am sure you wiU, that the Duke of Portland could have
had no other than the kindest intention towards aU parties
in -withholding it. But I do not the less regret the
misunderstanding.' Canning's letter was dated on the 9th September.
The previous day had been a memorable one. Can
ning had ' deshed that a particular subject might
be discussed in the Cabinet,' ' and absented himself
from the discussion. Castlereagh pressed Lord
Camden so much upon the subject, and ' asked
some questions which were so difficult to answer
without persisting in a concealment which has lasted
too long,' that ' Lord Camden felt himself compeUed
to open the transaction with him.' ' I fiatter myself
(so Lord Camden continued in the letter to Perceval
from which this quotation has been made) ' I set his
friends right -with him, though I fear I have not
succeeded in doing so in respect to myself as he
seems to feel I ought not to have yielded to any
reasons to conceal the state of things from him, when
the expedition was determined upon.'
Lord Castlereagh's natural irritation at the
tidings which Lord Camden imparted to him would
probably, under any circumstances, have produced a
crisis. But, as a matter of fact, the crisis had already
come. The Duke of Portland had actuaUy resigned,
and the Ministry was practicaUy without a head.
' Colchester, ii. 203, where the date, by an evident misprint, is
given the 18th.

372 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
Perceval announced the Duke's resignation to the
Speaker on the 9th: 'According to present appear
ances Castlereagh cannot stay with us, from a sense
of what is due to himself, and Canning will not;'
and, two days after this communication, he had an
interview with Abbot. The latter summed up the
matter very concisely : ' It seems to me,' he said
to Perceval, after the latter had given him the whole
history of the last few weeks, ' that Canning cannot
bring himself to serve under you, and that he has
not the conscience to propose that you should serve
xmder him.' Perceval said, 'Why, that is pretty
near the substance of the thing, although it has not
been put in that form.' The Speaker said, ' What,
then, remains to be done ? ' Perceval : ' To see
whether we cannot -find some person under whom
we may both act.' '
Perceval was therefore apparently clinging, so
late as the llth September, to the possibUity of
continuing the Government under Lord WeUesley,
or some other simUar person ; but Canning was
e-vidently opposed to any such arrangement. On
the day after 'that on which Perceval saw the
Speaker, Canning addressed a letter to the Duke
of Portland, in which he re-stated in considerable
detaU his own position and his views. The first
part of the letter is chiefly occupied with a recapitu-
' Colchester, ii. 201.

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 373
lation of what had already passed ; the second is
devoted to the assertion that ' a minister,' and that
minister in the House of Commons, is essentially
necessary. ' I have not attempted,' the letter goes on, ' to disguise
from myself or Perceval, who admits the principle of these
opinions, how directly and personally they affect himself
and me. We have discussed the matter together, however
delicate and embarrassing, with perfect good humour (as I
am sure your Grace wUl have heard from him), and as
nearly as possible as if we had been talking of a third per
son. ' The easiest arrangement on this principle would be the
devolution of your Grace's office on Perceval. I should see
this arrangement without the smaUest dissatisfaction or
regret. I trust, indeed, that neither your Grace nor His
Majesty would think the worse of me if I avow those
ordinary feelings of human nature which would preclude
my remaining in office under such a change as this arrange
ment would necessarily produce in my situation. But I
should carry out of office with me the most sincere and
undiminished good-wiU towards Perceval ; and shall retain
equally as in office the most lively sentiments of gratitude
and veneration towards His Majesty.
' For myself, I have already said to Perceval, with unaf
fected truth, that I could neither expect nor desire his
consent to act with me in office, in the House of Commons,
in a relative situation, the reverse of that in which we have
hitherto stood towards each other.
' It is not for me to presume to suggest any other alter
native. But of this I am entirely convinced, that the
situation to which I have referred, either in Perceval's
hands or in mine, or in those of any third person whom

374 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
His Majesty might select to honour with his confidence,
would be better for the public service, and better especially
for any part of that service in which the authority of the
Cro-wn is concerned, than a Government of compromise, of
imcertain preponderance, and of divided responsibUity.''
So far it has been possible to trace this extra
ordinary passage in pohtical history nearly entirely
from the correspondence ; but the most singular part
of it must be gathered from other sources. While
Canning was professing in his letters that ' the
easiest arrangement was the devolution of your
Grace's office upon Perceval,' it is certain that he
was moving heaven and earth to secure its devolu
tion upon himself. It would be wrong to make
such a charge if it were not supported by most
undoubted evidence ; but the testimony on which
it is based is so strong that it is impossible to dis
regard it. The King's account of Canning's inter-vdew
-will be given later on ; but additional evidence is also
forthcoming. Rose tells us that Canning himself
assured him 'that he had no desire to suppress
Mr. Perceval ; on the contrary, he had proposed his
being made a Peer and President of the CouncU,
with the Duchy of Lancaster for life.'^ But this
was only the least of Cannhig's proposals. Lord
1 Perceval papers, Colchester, ii. 208, where 'divided' is erro
neously printed 'decided.' This letter probably gave rise to
the rumour that Canning had -written to the King. — Confer
Rose, ii. 383.
' Eose, ii. 379.

CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH. 375
Bathurst told Rose subsequently that Canning had
'suggested to the Duke of Portland, by way of
satisfying Mr. Perceval, that he should be made
Lord ChanceUor ; which the Duke, in the simplicity
of his heart, had actually proposed to the Chancellor,
who was outrageous at it.'^ The story sounds so
incredible that it would be natural to assume that
Bathurst had misunderstood his colleague. But this
explanation is impossible ; for Twiss, in his ' Life
of Lord Eldon,' inserts a letter from the Chancellor
himself to his wife, in which he repeats the story,
and adds, ' Perceval treated this as he ought.' ^
Well might Perceval exclaim, as he did in Arbuth-
not's hearing, 'However he attempted to gUd and
decorate the ornament, I am persuaded that he
meant only to put an extinguisher on my head in
the shape of a coronet.' '
Of these proposals, unconstitutional in them
selves and treacherous to his colleagues, there was,
however, no trace in Canning's letter of the 12th
September to the Duke. The Duke forwarded this
letter immediately to the King. It ' was put into'
Perceval's ' hands by His Majesty on the day he
received it from the Duke of Portland, when His
Majesty' (so the copy of the letter is indorsed in
Perceval's handwriting) ' was pleased to command
me to lay it before the Lord ChanceUor, Lord
1 Rose, ii. 382. ¦" Twiss' Eldon, ii. 90.
» Ward, i. 280.

376 CANNING AND CASTLEEEAGH.
Liverpool, Lord Camden, Lord MiUgrave, Lord
Harrowby, and such other of his confidential ser
vants as were not about to retire from their offices,
in order that they should ad-vise His Majesty what
steps he should take with regard to this letter,
and also -with regard to the situation of his Admi
nistration.'

THE END OP THE FIEST VOLUME.

I

LONDON :
Printed by Johm Stbanoewats, Castle St. Leicester Sq.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08886 9426