retaining the Exchequer; the Marquis of Wellesley and the Earl of Liverpool replaced the two duellists, and Lord Palmerston entered official life as Secretary at War.

Wilberforce has taken a fair view of this celebrated duel: in a letter to Mr. Babington, he says-"I own, that as far as Castlereagh is concerned, I think Canning has made almost a satisfactory defence; but the reflection which forces itself on my mind, throughout the whole transaction, is, that the public interest seems to have been forgotten by almost all parties. I really felt a good deal for Castlereagh, till I found that the challenge was sent, not, as I had conceived, from the impulse of the first angry feelings, but after having chewed the cud of his resentment for twelve days. This, with the consideration, that in that time he must have learned that Canning was not so much in fault as others, as to the concealment, makes the challenge appear a cold-blooded measure of deliberate revenge, prompted by the resentment arising from Canning's having shown that he thought lightly of his talents and powers, and thereby degraded him in the public estimation. The duel was evidently, in part, the expression of this revengeful anger; in part, an expedient for restoring him in some degree to his level, and putting him in humour with himself, as a man who had obtained satisfaction for the insult."

Percival, feeling that these untoward events had greatly weakened his cabinet, made overtures to Earls Grey and Grenville, which they at once declined. He had, therefore, to prepare for meeting parliament, in 1810, with a cabinet which had lost much, both in character and efficiency, and with an opposition having such an admirable case as the disastrous expedition to Walcheren. Two months before the commencement of the session, circulars were sent to all the ministerial adherents, requesting their personal attendance on the 23d of January, 1810, and Mr. Peel, not quite twenty-two years of age, was chosen to second the address. Public attention was

G

excited; the galleries were full to overflowing; and the Princess of Wales, accompanied by Lady Charlotte Lindsay, was present at the debate.

The king's speech was unusually vague and uninteresting. Lord Bernard, who moved the address, said nothing to the purpose; indeed, failed most miserably; and on Mr. Peel was thrown the early responsibility of the debate. He spoke with great liveliness, and some point: referring to the precipitate declaration of war by Austria, he said-"A new crisis appeared to be approaching. There were evidences before her eye, of the vigour which might be displayed by a people in defence of their privileges. Spain was immediately within her view. She saw that great and unfortunate country rising against the treachery of France; she saw her, suffering as she was, under all the visitations of a desperate and sudden violence, nobly rise, and repel its ravage, prefer a glorious and uncertain struggle to a silent and dastardly dependence, and drive the invader before her rude heroism. Was it to be imputed as a folly to Austria, that she admired so glorious an example?"

But the speaker felt that the real difficulty of his case, was the delay in sending out the Walcheren expedition. Intelligence of the war between Austria and France had reached ministers in September, 1808; but the expedition did not sail until July, 1809, when it was known that the fate of the contest was virtually decided. He managed this difficulty with considerable oratorical skill: "While the expedition was on the point of sailing," he said, "intelligence arrived, that damped the ardour of the warmest, and clouded the hopes of the most sanguine; but it still remained for his Majesty to fulfil his part; and though one object might be lost, there remained one of importance to be attained. Austria suffered a defeat, but she was not undone; she had an armistice; she was still not unable to struggle, and struggle successfully, for empire.

The armament in the British ports might still protract the evil day. Even in the final defeat of Austria there was much to be done; it was not unsuited to a wise government to break a hostile force, which was growing up on the opposite shores; there was no additional expense to be incurred, no further deduction from the strength of the British people. The force which had been assembled for the aid of Austria was directed to the coasts and arsenals of the enemy; thus attracting the attention of the hostile forces, and at once operating as an important diversion in favour of Austria, and an essential service to the security of Great Britain."

Having paid a warm tribute of applause to the skill and heroism of Lord Wellington, he turned to a subject very characteristic of the future statesman: "England," he said, "desired neither peace nor war; but she would suffer no indignity, and make no unbecoming concessions. With every engine of power and perfidy against us, the situation of this country had proved to Buonaparte, that it was invulnerable in the very point to which all his efforts were directed. The accounts of the exports of British manufactures would be found to exceed, by several millions, those of any former period. With regard to our internal condition, while France had been stripped of the flower of her youth, England had continued flourishing, and the only alteration had been the substitution of machinery for manual labour."

The debate on the address was very animated, but ministers triumphed by a large majority. On the 26th of January, however, they suffered a sudden defeat; Lord Porchester's motion for a committee to inquire into the policy and conduct of the expedition to the Scheldt, was carried by a majority of nine; and on the question of producing the narrative which Lord Chatham laid before the king, they were again defeated, by a majority of seven. But after the committee of inquiry had terminated its labours, Lord Porchester's resolutions, con

demning the conduct of ministers, were rejected by a majority of forty-eight; and a resolution in approbation of their policy, was carried by a majority of twenty-three. Mr. Peel took a part in the debate, but his speech was not so effective as that which he delivered on seconding the address. He also supported, but rather feebly, the rejection of the petition presented by the livery of London, respecting the committal of Sir Francis Burdett, on the ground that the House of Commons had a clear right to repel an insult. He, however, raised his parliamentary reputation in the debate on the Peninsular war, March 18, 1811, when he paid the following brilliant compliment to Lord Wellington: "He could not help reminding the House, that, perhaps at this very hour, while they were deliberating on the vote they should give, Lord Wellington might be preparing for action to-morrow; and when he reflected on the venal abuse which had been disseminated against that illustrious character, he felt a hope, that if a momentary irritation should ruffle his temper on sceing those malicious effusions, he would console himself by the general feeling which existed in his favour; for his country would remember, that he had resigned every comfort, in order to fight her battles, and defend her liberties; nor would his glory be tarnished by the envy of rivals, or the voice of faction. He cherished the sanguine expectation, that the day would soon arrive, when another transcendent victory would silence the tongue of envy, and the cavils of party animosity; when the British commander would be hailed by the unanimous voice of his country with the sentiment addressed, on a memorable occasion, to another illustrious character-Invidiam gloriâ superasti."

The premier was so pleased with the zeal and ability displayed by his young supporter, that he appointed him UnderSecretary of State for the Colonial department; a situation which he held till the death of Percival. It was unfortunate

that he entered official life under a minister so thoroughly imbued with anti-Catholic prejudices as Spencer Percival; he was led to commit himself in hostility to emancipation, before he had studied the bearings of the question; and though, in opposing Lord Morpeth's motion respecting the state of Ireland, he carefully guarded himself against giving any pledge on the Catholic question, yet his speech consisted of the usual common-places urged against concession. In this debate, there was a very marked distinction between the political and the religious arguments adduced against emancipation: the political opponents of the Catholic claims rested their case chiefly on the difficulty of providing for the security of the Protestant church when Romanists would bear a part in the administration of the state, and on the danger of the duty of submission to the Pope interfering with the duties of allegiance. Percival, Lord Sidmouth, and some others, took a different ground; they declared that the professors of a false creed ought not to be allowed to take a part in the legislation of a reformed country; their resistance was unconditional; for they held that no securities would compensate for belief in the sacrifice of the mass. Mr. Peel appears to have been anxious not to identify himself with this extreme party; but, to some extent, he adopted their course of reasoning, when he described the previous relaxations of the penal code as boons, for which the Catholics ought to be grateful-not as tardy acts of justice to men undeservedly placed outside the pale of the constitution.

Though Mr. Peel had many advantages at the commencement of his career—an independent fortune, university reputation, and a mind disciplined by study―he had to encounter much that must have discouraged a rising statesman. He was overshadowed by the established reputations of the great men already on the stage. It was his misfortune to be generally compared with Canning, whose powers, as an intellectual