Palmer’s earliest ambitions were military. A commission in the 10th Hussars, the Prince of Wales’s regiment, secured him an entrée at Carlton House.
Palmer was an eye witness of Spencer Perceval’s assassination, which removed the major obstacle to his father’s hopes of remuneration. After the election of 1812 the Treasury were hopeful of his support. He served in the Peninsula until May 1813; on his return he voted for Catholic relief, 24 May, and finally secured a measure of compensation for his father (reduced to £50,000) at the end of the session. His troubles were not over. Since 1810 he had been acting in command of the Prince’s regiment. In that year the Prince had ordered him to investigate the regiment’s affairs and the discovery of peculation by Lt.-Col. Leigh had led to his resignation and to Palmer’s promotion. In 1812 he put in a few words in debate in favour of Col. Quentin, who had been promoted from the German Legion to the command of the Prince’s regiment. Quentin’s conduct in France in the spring of 1814 was reprehensible and, on 9 Aug., 24 of his officers requested a court martial and Palmer was called upon to act as their spokesman. They subsequently disowned their request, but the Regent commanded Palmer to surrender their letter and directed him to prosecute; the court martial (17-24 Oct.) referred Quentin’s guilt on only one of four charges to the Duke of York, while regretting the ‘want of cooperation among the officers of the regiment’. The Duke of York then announced the Regent’s pleasure that the officers, including Palmer, should be disbanded as ‘a mark of his displeasure’. He was removed from the 10th Hussars on 9 Nov. On 11 and 17 Nov. 1814 he brought the matter before the House, which refused it by 144 votes to 37.
No, it has been for subsequent conduct, and what higher crime could a military man commit against his profession, than, in such a case, to avail himself of the adventitious circumstance of his being a Member of Parliament, for the purpose of wresting from the military jurisprudence their solemn determination, and to drag it before the very tribunal on earth that an army has the strongest right to be jealous and suspicious of. Besides, when sinking under personal kindness and obligations, to deliberately expose your Royal Highness to the expected fury of a faction, and to all the vile filth of the rankest democracy. I have likewise seen Lord Liverpool ... who is also clearly of opinion that Palmer should be removed.
On 23 Nov. Palmer justified himself and his fellow officers in the House. Lord Egremont, sitting under the gallery while this ‘very long speech’ was being delivered, commented ‘that he ought to state the matter shortly, and say ‘Mr Speaker—I was a damned fool for giving up the letter to the Prince, and the Prince was a damned rascal for making use of it’. He was not dismissed, but there were other repercussions. On 28 Nov. he asked the Speaker’s advice as to whether Membership of the House would excuse him from orders to join his regiment, now the 23rd dragoons. He was placed on half-pay within a month. On 3 Feb. 1815 he fought a bloodless duel with Quentin at Paris and on 21 June he defended his disciplining of his men in a motion against military flogging, claiming that Quentin’s laxity only entailed greater severity in the long run by undermining discipline: even before Quentin was placed in command, Palmer’s severity had been drawn to the attention of the Prince Regent.
Palmer now felt no restraint about acting with opposition, though in 1815 his hostility was confined to the new Corn Law and Romilly’s motion for the disbanding of the militia on 28 Feb. On 20 Feb. 1816 he voted against foreign entanglements. He opposed the army and navy estimates and the property tax in the following month and voted for retrenchment, 3, 25 Apr., 7 May. He spoke on 25 Apr., calling his plea against the large military establishment ‘his first political opposition’. He was in the minorities on the state of Ireland, 26 Apr., and against the Bank restriction, 8 May. He was in the opposition majority of 12 June on the disqualification of the Member for Rochester. On 11 June he withdrew a motion to prevent the manufacture of small arms by the Ordnance, the expense of which he had complained of on 8 Apr: he was assured that the Ordnance now merely repaired and did not manufacture small arms. In the session of 1817 he appeared late, voting against the salt duties, 25 Apr., for Catholic relief, 9 May, for the opposition choice for the Speakership, 2 June, and against the suspension of habeas corpus, 23 June. In 1818 he voted against the Duke of Clarence’s marriage grant, 15 Apr., for the resumption of cash payments, 1 May, and for Brougham’s motion to inquire into popular education, 3 June. He opposed the Bath gas light bill on behalf of his constituents, 23 Feb. 1818. At the ensuing election, he came in for Bath on his own interest, his father having died, leaving him in charge of his theatrical concerns.
Palmer remained in opposition in the Parliament of 1818. He voted for criminal law reform, 2 Mar. 1819, for Admiralty retrenchment, 18 Mar., against the Irish window tax, 5 May, and for burgh reform, 6 May. On 18 May he voted for Tierney’s censure motion. He opposed the foreign enlistment bill, 3 and 21 June. On 6 Dec. he voted to limit the duration of the seditious meetings bill to three years. His later years were ‘embittered by the money-lenders’, following the failure of his investment in vineyards in Bordeaux.