show that the Duke of Wellington took a narrow, and, so to speak,
technical, view of the relative positions of himself and Mr. Canning;
that the latter expected a more conventional and generous construction
of his position and proposal from one with whom he was on terms of
intimate friendship.

In answer to this, it may be as well to remind the reader that, where
the slightest movements of public men may be construed into a compromise
of public principles, a rigid attention to etiquette becomes a matter of
duty. Many acts of the Duke of Wellington, not merely as a civilian, but
even as a military commander, have been misjudged, because this obvious
principle has been overlooked.

In answer to the second charge--that of hostility to the new
administration on personal grounds--the Duke referred to the known
opinions of Mr. Canning on the Catholic question. How could he be in
office under a minister whom he must oppose on, at least, one vital
question of domestic policy? How could he give the right honourable
gentleman that fair support which one member of a cabinet had a right to
expect from another? The principles of the new government could not be
those of that of the Earl of Liverpool. The principle of the latter was
to maintain the existing laws; of the former, to change them in a
fundamental particular. The absurd calumny that he had threatened the
king to resign, unless he were prepared to make him prime minister,
hardly deserved an answer; and then came his celebrated _nolo
episcopari_ speech, which created against him in a year after, so much
ridicule and rancour. He said--"Was it likely that he would resign the
office of commander-in-chief," a situation so consonant to his feelings
and his habits, "for the mere empty ambition of being placed at the head
of the government. I know," continued the Duke, "I am disqualified for