330 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



L2-"i S. VI. 147., Oct. 23. '58. 



in a few years people may wish to know exactly 

 what a musquet was ? A. A. 



[A spontoon is a weapon much like a halbert, formerly 

 used instead of a half-pike by the officers of British regi- 

 ments of infantrj'. Witli its motion certain commands 

 were understood ; thus, when planted, the regiment 

 halted; when pointed forwards, it raai-ched; and when 

 pointed baclvwards, it retreated. — Meyrick's Ancient 

 Armour. ] 



LORD WELLESLET's RESIGNATION. 



(2°'^ S. vi. 247.) 



The " Statement," respecting which your cor- 

 respondent L. inquires, may be found in the Times 

 of May 20, 1812, Courier of same date, and 

 Monnng Chronicle of the following day. It had 

 previously been circulated privately, as appears 

 from the second leader of the Courier of May 20, 



1812. The publication of the " Statement" in 

 the newspapers seems to have been precipitated 

 by a reference to it in the Morning Chronicle of 

 May 18, 1812, which reference is noticed in the 

 Courier of the same evening. The subject came 

 subsequently before the House of Lords, in the 

 angry debate of June 8, 1812 (Hansard, yoI. xxiii. 

 col. 365) ; and the " Statement " itself again ap- 

 pears in Hansard, being appended in a note. It 

 is very plainly alluded to in the Edinburgh Re- 

 view of July, 1812, p. .37., as also in Napier's 

 Peninsular War (ed. 1851, iv. 155): and Lord 

 Wellesley's sentiments, though not so plainly set 

 forth as in the " Statement," are distinctly trace- 

 able, to a certain extent, in" a pamphlet entitled, 

 Authentic Correspondence and Documents explaining 

 the Proceedings of the Marqxiess of Wellesley and 

 of the Earl of Moira, 5th ed. 1812; a loosely 

 printed pamphlet of 87 pages, price 3s. 6d., evi- 

 dently published in the interest of Lord Wel- 

 lesley. 



The " Statement," though not an official docu- 

 ment, is a paper of great historical importance. 

 Its private circulation, whether in foul play or in 

 fair, by Lord Wellesley's '■'■friends" and its con- 

 sequent publication in the newspapers of the day, 

 evidently had the effect of preventing his Lord- 

 ship's return to ofKce after the assassination of 

 Mr. Perceval, perhaps as premier. He missed 

 that chance, and never recovered it. As one 

 ground of his resignation was dissatisfaction at 

 the insufficient aid afforded by the Perceval ad- 

 ministration to Lord Wellington in Spain, had 

 the Marquis returned to office with power to 

 carry out his own ideas, and had he retained that 

 power at the period of the battle of Vittoria in 



1813, the probability is that his illustrious brother, 

 instead of having to wait till the spring of 1814, 

 would have been able to invade France ere the 

 year 1813 had terminated, in which case the af- 



fairs of Buonaparte might have been brought to a 

 speedier crisis, and no small expenditure both of 

 life and treasure spared. 



The manner in which the " Statement " came 

 under the notice of the House of Lords is curious. 

 Lord AVellesley had complained that in his at- 

 tempts to form an administration after Mr. Per- 

 ceval's death he had been met by " personal ani- 

 mosities " of a " dreadful " kind (on the part of 

 the surviving members of Mr. Perceval's ministry, 

 who refused to hold office with him). The Earl 

 of Harrowby says in justification {Hansard, June 

 8, 1812), " We offered to form an administration 

 with the noble Lord" [AVellesley] . . . "himself 

 to have the distinguished place." But "was there 

 not a Statement published in the newspapers, in 

 which the noble Lord accused his late colleagues 

 of incapacity " &c. ? This unlucky Statement was 

 more particularly an attack on Mr. Perceval, 

 who had fallen by the hand of an assassin not 

 long before. " Was this a moment for attack on 

 that right hon. gentleman, when he was no 

 longer in existence to answer it ? AVas it fitting 

 that, when we had just returned from the melan- 

 choly duty of following his hearse, the publica- 

 tion of such a Statement should be thrust upon 

 us ? " — Lord AVellesley replies, " The fact is, that 

 many of my friends, who were very anxious with 

 respect to the causes of my resignation, took down 

 in luriting expressions which I dropped in the 

 heat of conversation, some of which I would now 

 recal, hut ichich I ivould not .mbstatitially retract." 

 He would have given any money, Lord W. added, 

 that the Statement bad not been published just 

 then. He might well say that. No wonder that 

 Pearce, in his Life of Lord Wellesley, leaves the 

 subject untouched. 



It may be as well to bring the dates into one 

 view. Lord Wellesley tendered his resignation 

 to the Prince Kegent, Jan. 16; surrendered the 

 seals of office Feb. 19. Mr. Perceval was assas- 

 sinated May 11, buried May 16. Ileference to 

 the statement reflecting on Mr. P , in Morning 

 Chronicle and Courier, May 18. Publication in 

 Times and Courier, May 20, in Moiiiing Chronicle, 

 May 21. Debate in House of Lords, June 8. 

 (All in 1812.) TiioMAs Boys. 



the works of FRANCIS QUARLES. 



(2-"' S. vi. 201.299.) 

 Your Dublin correspondent, 'AKuvs, has now 

 placed beyond debate, I think, the authorship of 

 the Loyall Convert, as well as verified another 

 very interesting political tract by Quarles — The 

 Profest Royallist : his Qvarrell loith the Times — 

 which is not to be found in the library of the 

 British Museum. He states, however, that the last- 

 mentioned was published at Oxford, whereas 

 Lowndes assigns London as the place of its publi- 



