Title: Maxims and Opinions of Field-Marshal His Grace the Duke of Wellington, Selected From His Writings and Speeches During a Public Life of More Than Half a Century
Author: Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, Duke of, 1769-1852
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Maxims and Opinions of Field-Marshal His Grace the Duke of Wellington, Selected From His Writings and Speeches During a Public Life of More Than Half a Century" ***


available by BNF/Gallica (http://gallica.bnf.fr).



[Illustration: FIELD MARSHAL HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON, K.G.
COMMANDER IN CHIEF &c. &c. &c.]

MAXIMS AND OPINIONS OF FIELD-MARSHAL HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON,
SELECTED FROM HIS WRITINGS AND SPEECHES DURING A PUBLIC LIFE OF MORE
THAN HALF A CENTURY.

With a Biographical Memoir,

BY

GEORGE HENRY FRANCIS, ESQ.

"Cujus gloriae neque profuit quisquam laudando, nec vituperando quisquam
nocuit."


LONDON:

HENRY COLBURN, PUBLISHER.

GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET

1845.

ADVERTISEMENT

       *       *       *       *       *

So many works have already appeared of which the Duke of Wellington has
been the subject, that an explanation is due to the public on the
occasion of adding one more to the number.

That explanation consists in the fact, that those works have been almost
exclusively occupied with the military exploits of the Duke, which
rendered him so illustrious during the first twenty years of his public
life; while his political career, which may be said to have constituted
a second life, distinct and different from the other, has been
comparatively neglected.

To meet the want thus left unsatisfied, the Editor of the following
pages has endeavoured to supply materials, by which a just estimate may
be formed of the Duke of Wellington's claims as a minister and as a
statesman.

The volume will be found to contain the Duke's deliberate opinions as a
member of the House of Peers, and, during many years, as a minister,
upon the great questions which have agitated the public mind since the
commencement of the present century.

If there are those who hold the Duke of Wellington in light estimation
as a politician, they will not continue to entertain that opinion, the
Editor believes, after having dispassionately read the extracts of which
this work is composed.

Interspersed with the Duke's more elaborate OPINIONS, will be found his
MAXIMS on public policy, which, though few and unpretending, may be said
to have sunk into the national mind.

The Editor has added a few remarkable sentences and passages from the
dispatches of the Duke; with a cursory memoir of his life, which becomes
more elaborate from the commencement of his political career; and has
also attempted to portray some of his characteristics, as a soldier and
as a civilian.

LONDON, _February_, 1845.

MEMOIR

OF

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.


Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, is the fourth son of Garret,
second Earl of Mornington, by Anne, the eldest daughter of Arthur Hill,
Viscount Dungannon. He was borne at Dangan Castle, in the county of
Meath, Ireland, on the 1st of May, 1769.

As in the case of many of the chief nobility and landholders in Ireland,
the ancestors of the Duke were scions of an English house--the Colleys
(afterwards Cowley), two of whom, named Walter and Robert Colley,
proceeded to Ireland in the reign of Henry VIII., and located themselves
in the County of Kilkenny. The two brothers were lawyers by profession,
and in the year 1531, were invested with the office of Clerk of the
Crown in Chancery, which they were to hold jointly during their lives.
Six years afterwards, we find the elder brother Master of the Rolls in
Ireland, and the other Solicitor-General. In 1549, Walter was made
Surveyor-General of Ireland. It was from this Walter that the immediate
ancestors of the Duke of Wellington were, by the mother's side,
descended.

His eldest son, Henry, acquired some distinction as a soldier in the
reign of Elizabeth. He was also a member of the Irish Parliament for the
borough of Thomastown. He was, moreover, a Privy Councillor, and was
knighted.

Sir Henry Sydney, who was, perhaps, the wisest and most able of all the
Lords Deputy whom Elizabeth sent over to Ireland, appears to have
entertained a very high opinion of Sir Henry Colley's abilities; for, in
recommending him to his successor in the Government, he describes him as
"valiant, fortunate, and a good servant;" and speaks of him as his
"sound and fast friend." But he more especially praises the "order," in
which he kept his county.

Thus early did a member of this family earn praise for good service to
the State; and if we compare the measure of that praise with what we
know of the temper of the times, we might almost suppose that some
portion of the spirit of the "sound and fast friend," the "valiant,
fortunate, and good servant," had been inherited by his illustrious
descendant.

The immediate descendants of Sir Henry Colley were more or less
distinguished. His great-great grand-daughter, Elizabeth, married into
the family of the Westleys (afterwards Wellesleys) of Dangan, in the
county of Meath. This family also was of English extraction, having
originally come from Sussex. Richard Colley, the nephew of the Elizabeth
abovementioned, was adopted by Garret Wellesley, whose name and estates
he took in the year 1728, by patent from the Herald's office. He was
auditor and registrar of the Royal Hospital of Kilmainham, and a
Chamberlain of the Court of Exchequer. He sat in parliament several
years for Carysford, and was, in 1747 raised to the peerage by George
II., being created Baron Mornington. His son, Garret, was, in 1760,
created Viscount Wellesley and Earl of Mornington. He married, on the
6th February, 1759, Anne, eldest daughter of the Right Honourable Arthur
Hill, Viscount Dungannon, by whom he had issue, Richard the late Marquis
Wellesley, Arthur Gerald, who died in infancy, William Wellesley Pole,
Baron Maryborough, Arthur Duke of Wellington, Gerald Valerian, D.D., Sir
Henry, G.C.B., Francis Seymour, Anne, and Mary Elizabeth.

The Earl of Mornington, who was chiefly remarkable for his strong
passion for music, in which science he acquired no slight celebrity as a
composer, died in 1781, leaving his property very much encumbered. Its
management was entrusted to Lady Mornington, who appears, by universal
assent, to have been one of those remarkable women to whose care the
world is indebted, so much more than it conceives or will admit, for its
great men. Although it may have been upon severer models, and by the
lessons of more pretending teachers, that the Marquis Wellesley was
formed into the vigorous ruler, and the wise, far-seeing statesman; or
if his scarcely more illustrious brother must, from other sources, have
imbibed that stern unswerving spirit which, in his after career,
insured truth to his views and certainty to his enterprises, yet one can
scarcely allow a doubt that it is to the direction given by their
admirable mother to the minds of these two great men, while still in the
pliant season of youth, that we owe that high appreciation of truth and
honour, and that sense of the identity of virtue and duty, which, while
their wisdom and prowess were spreading our military fame, and extending
the sphere of our civilising influence, enabled them also, by the
exaltation of our national character, to secure for their country the
respect of all the world.

One of the first fruits of early lessons or of later reflection upon the
mind of the young Earl of Mornington was, that he took upon himself the
payment of his father's debts, an act entirely voluntary on his part.

Of Lord Mornington, afterwards the celebrated Marquis Wellesley, it is
unnecessary to say more in this place than that he was in the year 1797
appointed to the Governor-Generalship of India, in which high office he
was enabled to develop, without the suspicion of undue preference, the
peculiar talents of his younger brother--talents which his
discriminating mind would probably have discovered even without the
assistance of such close proximity.

To return to the immediate subject of these Memoirs:--His education
commenced at Eton, from whence he went to the military academy at
Angers, in the department of the Maine and Loire, there being at that
period no institution of the kind in this country.

On his return from the Continent, young Wellesley received (on the 7th
of March, 1787), an ensigncy in the 41st regiment, he being then in his
eighteenth year. He became lieutenant on the 25th of December in the
same year; captain, on the 30th of June, 1791; major, on the 30th of
April, 1798; and lieut.-colonel on the 30th of September following.
These promotions were chiefly by purchase, and the lieut.-colonelcy (of
the 33rd) was bought for him by his brother. He was returned to the
Irish parliament at the general election of 1790, for Trim, a borough
belonging to his brother.

Brilliant as was the reputation which, within a very few years, he
acquired as a soldier and a politician in the East, it will not excite
surprise to hear that his parliamentary displays did not in his early
life excite much attention. A friend of the writer of this memoir, a
gentleman who was in the habit of being present, almost daily, in the
Irish House of Commons, and who took critical notice of the remarkable
men of his time, states that the Duke never made any striking impression
as a speaker; indeed; there was nothing whatever to distinguish him from
the herd of young parliamentary nominees, except a certain simple,
straightforward, firm, though unassuming statement of his opinions; and
even this took place but seldom. The recollection of this gentleman
confirms the account of Sir Jonah Barrington, that--"His address was
unpolished; he spoke occasionally, and never with success; and evinced
no promise of that unparalleled celebrity which he reached afterwards."

The following anecdote is not inconsistent with that reputation for
inflexible honour which, in successive eras of his life, procured for
the Duke of Wellington the confidence of the Indian government, of the
British army, and ultimately of the whole English nation. It is taken
from the excellent detailed account of the Duke's military career,
recently published by Mr. Maxwell:--

"The appointment of Captain Wellesley to the staff of the Earl of
Westmorland, had placed him in the household of the viceroy, and as
aid-de-camp required his constant attendance at the castle. The Irish
court at that period was celebrated alike for its hospitality, its
magnificence, and its dissipation. The princely display of the lords
lieutenant of those days entailed a heavy expenditure upon the numerous
attachés of the court, and too frequently plunged young men of high
family and limited fortunes into very distressing embarrassments.
Captain Wellesley's patrimony was small, his staff appointment more
fashionable than lucrative, and it is not surprising that soon after he
had come of age he found himself involved in pecuniary difficulties. At
the time he lodged in the house of an opulent bootmaker, who resided on
Lower Ormand Quay. The worthy tradesman discovered, accidently, that his
young inmate was suffering annoyance from his inability to discharge a
pressing demand. He waited on Lieutenant Wellesley, told him that he was
apprised of his embarrassments, mentioned that he had money unemployed,
and offered a loan, which was accepted. The obligation was soon
afterwards duly repaid; and the young aid-de-camp was enabled in a few
years to present his humble friend to an honourable and lucrative
situation. Nor did death cancel the obligation; the Duke's patronage,
after his parent's death, was extended to the son of his early friend,
for whom he obtained a valuable appointment."

To enter into any detailed account of the military career of the Duke of
Wellington, would be wholly beyond the scope of a work devoted more
especially to his Grace's character and services as a civilian; but were
it not so, it would be unnecessary, after the many able biographies
which have appeared since the publication of the dispatches by
Lieut.-Colonel Gurwood. The following is, therefore only a short summary
of the Duke's proceedings from 1794, when he first entered on active
service, to 1815, when his functions as a military commander in the
field finally ceased.

It was in June, 1794, that Lieut.-Colonel Wellesley embarked at Cork, in
command of the 33rd regiment, to join the Duke of York's army in the
Netherlands. In the subsequent retreat from Holland he commanded, as
senior officer, three battalions, and conducted himself in a manner that
already drew on him the attention of military men.

In October, 1795, he again embarked, in the command of the 33rd, for the
West Indies, on board the fleet commanded by Admiral Christian. This
fleet was, however, repeatedly driven back by the strong equinoctial
gales, and in the January following it returned to port. Before it could
again sail, the 33rd regiment was ordered to India, and Colonel
Wellesley arrived at Bengal in February, 1797. When we consider the
fate of a large portion of his fellow soldiers who went to the West
Indies, and at the same time look forward to the peculiar facilities
which the service in India afforded for developing the great qualities
of mind which lay hid under the rigid exterior of the young soldier, it
may truly be said, that the moment at which the destination of the 33rd
regiment was countermanded, was the point at which the fate of the Duke
of Wellington turned. Nay more, if it be admitted that you rarely find
in one man a combination of those peculiar qualities, which enabled the
Duke to withstand, and ultimately to destroy, the military and political
system established by the contrary tendencies which ruled the mind of
Napoleon; if, too, it be conceded that the British government, even
while the Duke was winning battles in Spain, were accustomed to resort
to his counsel with regard to their more extended operations against the
common enemy; if, in fact, it is owing to the sagacity, steadfastness,
and perseverance of the Duke of Wellington, that we owe the peace of
Europe; then must it be admitted, that upon the accident of tempests
which obstructed Admiral Christian's fleet, and upon the accident of
military disposition, which altered the destination of the regiment,
depended not merely the fortunes of the Duke of Wellington, but also the
fate of nations, and the peace of the world.

By this time, the Earl of Mornington had been appointed Governor-general
of India, and the inveterate hatred of Tippoo Sultaun against the
English name was arming the natives to resistance. The first
achievement of Colonel Wellesley, that drew attention to his name, was
the storming of Seringapatam, in which he commanded the reserve in the
trenches. On the capture of Seringapatam Colonel Wellesley was appointed
governor, and at the same time named as one of the commission appointed
to dispose of the territory conquered. But an office more honourable to
his character, was his selection to superintend the removal of the
family of Tippoo Sultaun. Lord Mornington in his instructions
says:--"The details of this painful but indispensable measure cannot be
entrusted to any person more likely to combine every office of humanity
with the prudential precautions required by the occasion than Colonel
Wellesley; and I therefore commit to his discretion, activity, and
humanity, the whole arrangement."

In July, 1799, Colonel Wellesley was appointed to the sole command of
Seringapatam and Mysore; and here his capacity for civil government, as
well as in military affairs, was fully developed. He had by this time
begun to feel his own strength, and to make it felt by others. The
reader of his dispatches will perceive that, from the moment when he was
placed in a position of independent command, his mind appears to have
taken a higher stand: he recognised higher responsibilities: and one may
almost detect, in the confirmed self-reliance of his judgment even in
this comparatively limited sphere, a prescience of future greatness.

The year 1803 was signalised by Major-General Wellesley's conquests in
the Mahratta territory, and the battle of Assaye. Passing over the
details of these campaigns, in which the rising commander displayed
military genius of the highest order, we come to the more pleasing task
of enumerating the honours he received. A monument was erected in
Calcutta to commemorate the last-named battle: the inhabitants of that
city presented him with a sword of the value of £1000: the officers of
his division presented him with a golden vase, afterwards changed for a
service of plate, on which the word "Assaye" was engraved: the British
parliament voted him public thanks, he was made a Knight Companion of
the Bath: and addresses of the warmest praise were voted to him by the
inhabitants of Seringapatam, and other places, which had benefitted by
his skill and prowess in the field, and his wisdom on the seat of
government.

In February, 1805, having resolved on returning to England, he resigned
the political and military powers that had been entrusted to him in the
Deccan. On the 5th of March, a grand entertainment was given him at the
Pantheon at Madras, by the officers of the Presidency, civil and
military. On the 10th of September following, he arrived in the Downs;
and, in the following month, he was appointed to the Staff, for the Kent
District.

In the November following, Sir Arthur Wellesley, as he had now become,
commanded the brigade in the expedition to Hanover under Lord Cathcart,
which was withdrawn immediately after the battle of Austerlitz. In
January, 1800, on the death of the Marquis Cornwallis, he was appointed
colonel of the 33rd regiment; and on the 12th of April, in the same
year, he was returned to the House of Commons as member for Newport,
Isle of Wight.

In this year, Sir Arthur Wellesley married the Honourable Catherine
Pakenham, third daughter of the second Earl of Longford.

On the 8th of April, 1807, he was made a privy councillor; and on the
19th of the same month, appointed chief secretary for Ireland, under the
lord lieutenancy of the Duke of Richmond. On the 22nd, he was presented
by the corporation of the city of Dublin with the freedom of that city.
The address in which it was conveyed was most complimentary, and shows
the high estimation in which he was already held on account of his
brilliant military and civil services in India. In June of the same
year, he accompanied Lord Cathcart in the expedition against Copenhagen;
and in the only important action which took place at the affair at
Kioge--he commanded, and obtained distinction. The result of the action
was a capitulation, which Sir Arthur Wellesley was appointed to arrange.
On his return home, he received the thanks of parliament for his
services. Alluding to Sir Arthur Wellesley, the speaker said:--"But I
should indeed be wanting in the full expression of those sentiments
which animate this house and the whole country, if I forebore to notice,
that we are on this day crowning with our thanks one gallant officer,
long since known to the gratitude of this house, who has long trodden
the paths of glory,--whose genius and valour have already extended our
fame and empire,--whose sword has been the terror of our distant
enemies, and will not now be drawn in vain to defend the seat of empire
itself, and the throne of his sovereign."

A new and wider field of operations was now preparing for the rising
hero. Napoleon, the unquestioned despot of the rest of continental
Europe, had also grasped at the Peninsula. Both Spain and Portugal were
in his possession, as far as military occupation and nominal sovereignty
could ensure them to him. The hostile efforts of England were suspended
as far as regarded Europe; but an expedition had been fitted out at Cork
against part of Spanish America, and Sir Arthur Wellesley was appointed
to the command. Again a marvellous interposition of accidents prevented
this his second projected service in America. Before the troops could
set sail, the insurrection at Madrid on the 2nd of May, 1808, against
the French under Murat, drew the attention of England to the Peninsula,
where some hope of successful resistance to Napoleon began to dawn. Once
more the destination of the future conqueror was averted from the West,
and he was ordered in command to the South.

Sir Arthur Wellesley landed at the mouth of the river Mondego in
Portugal on the 3rd of August. Here he received intimation that
re-inforcements under Sir John Moore were about to be sent. Moore was
his superior officer, and there was also Sir Hew Dalrymple and Sir Harry
Burrard on their way, the former of whom would take the chief, and the
latter, the second command of the army. There was but little time for
Sir Arthur to strike the decisive blow, and although he was not the man
to force a battle for the sake of fame, he could not but feel anxious
for distinction in this new sphere before all opportunity should be cut
off, by the arrival of his superiors in command. Fortune in this was on
his side; and he had not been many days in Portugal before he was
enabled to defeat the French at the pass of Roliça, and, on the 21st of
August, to gain the battle of Vimeiro.

While this battle was at its height, Sir Harry Burrard arrived, but
would not interfere with Sir Arthur's dispositions. The French were soon
after beaten on the left, and Sir Arthur then urged on Sir Harry the
advance of our right wing upon Torres Vedras, while our left would
pursue the enemy: his object being to cut off Junot's retreat on Lisbon.
No man now doubts that this was counsel wise as well as bold; but Sir
Harry Burrard declined to take it, and the golden opportunity was lost.
Sir Arthur, who carried military obedience almost to the extent of a
chivalrous sentiment, submitted to the orders, though he did not
acquiesce in the judgment of his superior officer; but he could not help
saying to one of his officers who stood by, "well, then, we have nothing
to do but to go and shoot red-legged partridges!" the common game of
that part of Portugal.

Sir Arthur Wellesley's subsequent conduct to Sir Harry Burrard was
highly honourable. He declared voluntarily before the Court of Inquiry
that, though he still differed in opinion with Sir Harry as to the not
advancing after the battle of Vimeiro, his opinion was, that Sir H.
Burrard "had decided upon fair military grounds, in the manner which
appeared to him to be the most conducive to the interests of the
country;" and his belief, "that Sir Harry had no motive for his decision
which could be supposed personal to him, or which as an officer he could
not avow."

The untoward convention of Cintra, which followed the victory of
Vimeiro, was received in England with one universal cry of indignation.
Sir Arthur Wellesley was no farther implicated in it than that he signed
it as one of the generals, although disapproving of it from the first.
Pending the inquiry, instituted in England on the convention, he
returned thither, and his evidence was satisfactory alike to the court
and to the public.

On the 27th January, 1809, Sir Arthur received the thanks of parliament
for the battle of Vimeiro. The speaker, in delivering the thanks of the
House of Commons, said:--

   "Amidst the contending opinions which have prevailed
   upon other questions, the public voice has been
   loud and general in admiration of your splendid
   achievements. It is your praise to have inspired
   your troops with unshaken confidence and unbounded
   ardour--to have commanded, not the obedience alone,
   but the hearts and affections of your companions in
   arms; and having planned your operations with the skill
   and promptitude which have so eminently characterised all
   your former exertions, you have again led the armies of
   your country to battle, with the same deliberate valour,
   and triumphant success which have long since rendered your
   name illustrious in the remotest parts of this empire.
   Military glory has ever been dear to this nation; and great
   military exploits, in the field or upon the ocean, have
   their sure reward in royal favour, and the gratitude of parliament."

Sir Arthur, in his reply, observed:--

   "No man can value more highly than I do the
   honourable distinction which has been conferred upon
   me--a distinction which it is in the power of the
   representatives of a free people alone to bestow, and
   which it is the peculiar advantage of the officers and
   soldiers in the service of his majesty to have held out
   to them as the object of their ambition, and to receive
   as the reward of their services."

The opening allusion of the speaker to "contending opinions on other
matters," was intended to mark the sense of the house that Sir Arthur
Wellesley, at least, was free from blame as regarded recent transactions
in the Peninsula. That the government thought so also, and had at last
learned to appreciate the value of an officer whom they had so recently
trammelled, was evidenced by the appointment of Sir Arthur, on the 2nd
of April, to the command of the army in Portugal.

Towards the close of the previous year, complaint had been made, in the
House of Commons, of Sir Arthur holding the office of secretary for
Ireland while in the Peninsula. On the 14th of April, he resigned that
office, and on the 22nd, he arrived at Lisbon and assumed the command of
an army, disproportioned, indeed, to the service expected of it, and
still more to that which they afterwards achieved, but strong in its
confidence in a general who had never made a false step, or suffered a
defeat.

On the 12th of May, he carried Oporto by a _coup de main_. So complete
was the surprise, that Sir Arthur and his staff sat down to the dinner
which had been prepared for the French commander.

On the 28th July following, the battle of Talavera was fought, after
which (on the 26th August), Sir Arthur was raised to the peerage by the
titles of Baron Douro of Wellesley and Viscount Wellington of Talavera.
In the February following, he received the thanks of parliament for
Talavera, and a pension of £2000 per annum was voted to him and his two
next heirs male.

So inferior was the numerical force of his army to that of the enemy
that Lord Wellington found his operations must for some time be confined
to the defence of Portugal; and he, therefore, gave orders for the
fortification of the lines of Torres Vedras, by which the capital of the
country was covered. They extended from the sea to the Tagus, at a
point where the width of that river is such as to afford an adequate
protection.

It was characteristic of the mind of the man of whom we are writing,
that these works were planned and executed with a secrecy that baffled
the penetration of the enemy, and equally the suicidal curiosity of the
English newspapers.

Massena was now the general of the French army. Wellington, before
retiring within the lines, fought the action of Busaco (ten months after
the battle of Talavera), in which the French lost 5000 men, killed or
wounded, and as many more disabled. After this victory, the English
withdrew within the lines, to cover Lisbon. Massena took up a position
at Santaren, from whence he gradually retreated towards the frontiers,
several affairs occurring between his troops and the English, by whom he
was closely followed. At length, he crossed the frontier, and
Wellington's object was, thus far, attained. On the 26th of the same
month, he received the thanks of both houses of parliament for the
liberation of Portugal.

In the meanwhile, the army of Massena had been re-organized and
reinforced, and on the 3rd of May he again attacked the allied British
and Portuguese forces, for the purpose of relieving the fortress of
Almeida, which was under blockade. The action was fought at Fuentes
D'Onoro, and resulted in the defeat of the French. Massena was then
superseded, and Marmont appointed in his place.

The next object of the British commander was to take Badajoz and Ciudad
Rodrigo. The latter was stormed on the 19th January, and the former on
the 9th of April. For both, the thanks of parliament were voted; and
Lord Wellington, after having been created Conde de Vimeiro in Portugal,
and Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo in Spain, was raised to an earldom (of
Wellington) at home, with another vote of 2000 l. per annum to maintain
the title.

On the 22nd of July, Marmont's army, which had been strongly reinforced,
attacked the allies near Salamanca. The two armies had been watching
each other for a considerable time, waiting for the favourable moment to
attack. At length Marmont began, and having superior numbers, extended
his left for the purpose of turning the British right. Wellington, when
informed of this by one of his staff, was seated on the ground eating
some cold beef; suddenly starting up, he exclaimed, "Marmont's good
genius has forsaken him." He immediately attacked the French where they
had weakened their line, and overthrew them from left to right. The loss
of the enemy was severe, and Marmont himself lost an arm in the battle.

On the 12th of August following, Lord Wellington entered Madrid, and was
appointed generalissimo of the Spanish armies--a troublesome honour
which there was some difficulty in inducing him to accept. He was
created a marquis at home, thanks were voted to him for the battle of
Salamanca, and he received a grant of 100,000 l. to purchase land. He
was also in December of the same year made Duque da Vittoria in
Portugal.

In the meantime, the enormous force which had been brought together by
the French, the refusal of the Spanish generals to co-operate, the
failure of an attempt to capture the fortress of Burgos, and other
causes, compelled the allies to retreat to Ciudad Rodrigo, with the
determination of returning to Spain at a more fitting time. This retreat
was conducted in the most admirable manner, and closed the campaign of
1812.

The foregoing is necessarily a most meagre outline of events, on which
volumes have been written. Those who may be anxious to read the Duke of
Wellington's own account of the military operations, will find in the
public despatches his annual summaries: for 1809, in despatch No. 343;
for 1810, No. 504; and for 1811, No. 615. For 1812 there is no such
summary.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the difficulties with
which the Duke of Wellington had to contend during these the three first
years of his service in Spain, were confined to the making of military
dispositions and the winning of battles. Other causes there were,
operating as a drawback at every forward step, and obstacles sufficient
to have wearied a less stout heart or a less determined spirit. To
oppose to a skillful and veteran enemy he had but an inadequate force,
most scantily supplied with provisions, and even with money. The French
generals, restrained by no principle of honour or even of policy, were
accustomed to plunder mercilessly for the subsistence of their troops:
the English commander would take nothing from the people but what was
paid for on the spot in money or in bills on the English government.
Yet, such was the apathy (or worse) of the Portuguese authorities, that
even on these terms provisions were not forthcoming; and important
operations were constantly delayed or frustrated by the want of the
necessary subsistence for the troops.

The reader of the Duke's despatches will glean much of his character
from the letters written from time to time to these persons; and,
scattered through the extracts which form a part of this volume, will be
found characters of both Spaniards and Portuguese, (that is to say in
the civil service) that are not very flattering to the national vanity.
Well may he say, in a letter to Mr. Villiers on the 25th of May 1811,
"No man can appreciate better than yourself the difficulties with which
I have had to contend; but I believe you are not aware of all of them. I
persevered in the system which I thought best, notwithstanding that it
was the opinion of every British officer in the country that I ought to
embark the army; while, on the other hand, the Portuguese civil
authorities contended that the war ought to be maintained on the
frontier, for which they wanted not only physical force, but the means
of providing for the force which they could produce in the field. I
believe that nothing but _something worse than firmness could have
carried me through_ the nine months' discussion with these contending
opinions. To this add that people in England were changing their
opinions almost with the wind, and you will see that I had not much to
look to, excepting myself."

Nothing could be more ignoble than the conduct of the people of Lisbon
as to the billeting of the very soldiers who had saved them from the
enemy. On one occasion the Duke writes to order his wine, &c. to be
removed from the house of a Signor Bandeira, and to have a house taken
for him, "in order," he says, "to mortify the people of Lisbon a little
as to their conduct about billets. I am slaving like a negro for them: I
have saved the people, in Lisbon particularly, from the enemy, and I
take nothing from them, while they continually torment me with their
frivolous complaints on subjects on which they ought to have no feeling.
* * I shall not be sorry if the government and principal people of
Lisbon know the reason why I take this house; viz., that I will not lay
myself under obligation to any of them." Strong language this, from a
man of the Duke's impassible temperament. But unfortunately there was
too much reason for this, and indeed, for much more animadversion on
more serious subjects, as regards many of the chief men of the
Peninsula.

Nor were these the only annoyances he had to submit to. In the early
part of his service in the Peninsula, before he had by his brilliant
deeds utterly silenced for the present and the future the cavillings of
the envious, he was subjected to repeated attacks in Parliament, to
predictions of failure--to everything in short that was calculated to
dispirit him and his army. The government, too, seemed hardly to have
"backed him up" as they might have done, either with respect to the
force at his command, or their approval of his plans.

Nor were these attacks confined to parliament. On the 2nd January, 1810,
writing to Mr. Villiers, he says: "You see the dash the Common Council
have made at me![1] I act with a sword hanging over me, which will fall
upon me, whatever may be the result of affairs here; but they may do
what they please,--I shall not give up the game here as long as it can
be played." Again, two months after, he refers to what has passed in
parliament about him, and observes, "that it does not give him one
moment's concern."

[Footnote 1: They had voted an address for an inquiry into his conduct.]

Throughout the dispatches and letters will be found very interesting
passages referring to all these difficulties in his path.

In May, 1819, the British again advanced into Spain, and on the 21st of
June completely defeated the French at Vittoria, for which the thanks of
parliament were voted on the 8th of July. What was felt in another
quarter will be seen by the following letter written by the Prince
Regent.

_To Field Marshal the Marquis of Wellington, K.G._

Carlton House, 3rd July, 1818

My dear Lord.--Your glorious conduct is beyond all human praise, and far
above my reward. I know no language the world affords worthy to express
it.

I feel I have nothing left to say, but most devoutly to offer up my
prayer of gratitude to Providence, that it has, in its Omnipotent
bounty, blessed my country and myself with such a general. You have sent
me, amongst the trophies of your unrivalled fame, the staff of a French
marshal, and I send you in return that of England.

The British army will hail it with rapturous enthusiasm, while the whole
universe will acknowledge those valorous exploits which have so
imperiously rallied for it.

That uninterrupted health and still increasing laurels may continue to
crown you through a glorious and long career of life, are the never
ceasing and most ardent wishes of, my dear lord, your very sincere and
faithful friend.

G.P.R.

On the 22nd, the Regency of Spain gave the Marquis of Wellington the
estate of the Soto de Roma, in Granada, "in the name of the Spanish
nation, in testimony of its sincere gratitude."

On the 28th of July, the French, under Marshal Soult, having re-entered
Spain, the battle of Sovauren was fought; and on the 8th of September,
St. Sebastian fell. On the 7th of October, the passage of the Bidassoa
was effected; and on the 10th of November, the whole of the army
descended into France. Other battles ensued; and on the 10th of April,
1814, was fought the final battle of Toulouse, which ended the war.

On the 3rd of May, the illustrious commander was advanced in the
peerage by the titles of Marquis of Douro and Duke of Wellington; and,
soon after, a grant of £400,000 was voted him by parliament. He arrived
in England on the 23rd of June, and on the next day proceeded to
Portsmouth to the Prince Regent, who was there with the allied monarchs.

A few days afterwards, a scene took place in the House of Lords--when
for the first time the Duke took his seat there--enough to make a
nation's heart beat with gratitude, pride, and exultation. It is thus
described:

"On the 28th of June, shortly after 3 o'clock, the Lord Chancellor
having taken his seat, the Duke of Wellington was introduced, supported
by the Dukes of Richmond and Beaufort, in military uniform, and in their
ducal robes. Being arrived in the body of the House, the Duke made the
usual obeisance to the Lord Chancellor, and shewed his patent and right
of summons: these noblemen then approached the table, where his Grace's
various patents, as baron and viscount, earl, marquis, and lastly as
duke, were each read by the clerks. The oaths were then administered,
and the Test Rolls were signed by him. He then, accompanied by his noble
supporters, took his seat on the dukes' bench, and saluted the house in
the usual manner, by rising, taking off his hat, and bowing
respectfully. The Lord Chancellor then rose, and, pursuant to their
lordships' orders, addressed his Grace:--

"My Lord Duke of Wellington,--I have received the commands of this
house, which I am persuaded has witnessed with infinite satisfaction
your Grace's personal introduction to this august assembly, to return
your grace the thanks and acknowledgments of this house, for your great
and eminent services to your king and country."

"In the execution of these commands, I cannot forbear to call the
especial attention of all who hear me to a fact in your Grace's life,
singular, I believe, in the history of the country, and infinitely
honourable to your Grace, that you have manifested, upon your first
entrance into this house, your right, under various grants, to all the
dignities in the peerage of this realm which the crown can confer. These
dignities have been conferred at various periods, but in the short
compass of little more than four years, for great public services,
occurring in rapid succession, claiming the favour of the crown,
influenced by its sense of justice to your grace and the country; and on
no one occasion in which the crown has thus rewarded your merits have
the Houses of Parliament been inattentive to your demands upon the
gratitude of the country. Upon all such occasions, they have offered to
your Grace their acknowledgments and thanks, the highest honours they
could bestow."

"I decline all attempts to state your Grace's eminent merits in your
military character; to represent those brilliant actions, those
illustrious achievements, which have attached immortality to the name of
Wellington, and which have given to this country a degree of glory
unexampled in the annals of this kingdom. In thus acting, I believe I
best consult the feelings which evince your Grace's title to the
character of a truly great and illustrious man."

"My duty to this house cannot but make me most anxious not to fall
short of the expectation which the house may have formed as to the
execution of what may have been committed to me on this great occasion;
but the most anxious consideration which I have given to the nature of
that duty has convinced me that I cannot more effectually do justice to
the judgment of the house, than by referring your Grace to the terms and
language in which the house has so repeatedly expressed its own sense of
the distinguished and consummate wisdom and judgment, the skill and
ability, the prompt energy, the indefatigable exertion, perseverance,
the fortitude and the valour, by which the victories of Vimeiro,
Talavera, Salamanca and Vittoria were achieved; by which the sieges of
Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz were gloriously terminated; by which the
deliverance of Portugal was effectuated; by which the ever memorable
establishment of the allied armies on the frontiers of France was
accomplished; armies pushing forward, in the glory of victory at Orthes,
to the occupation of Bordeaux. These achievements, in their immediate
consequence infinitely beneficial to the common cause, have, in their
final results, secured the peace, prosperity, and glory of this country;
whilst your Grace's example has animated to great exertions the other
nations of Europe, exertions rescuing them from tyranny, and restoring
them to independence, by which there has been ultimately established
among the nations of Europe that balance of power which, giving
sufficient strength to every nation, provides that no nation shall be
too strong. I presume not to trespass upon the house by representing the
personal satisfaction which I have derived from being the honoured
instrument of conveying to your Grace the acknowledgments and thanks of
this house upon every occasion upon which they have been offered to your
Grace, or by endeavouring to represent the infinite gratification which
I enjoy in thus offering, on behalf of the house, on this day, to your
Grace in person, those acknowledgments and those thanks. Your Grace is
now called to aid hereafter, by your wisdom and judgment, the great
council of that nation, to the peace, prosperity, and glory of which
your Grace has already so essentially contributed; and to tender your
Grace, now taking your seat in this house, in obedience to its commands,
the thanks of the house in the words of its resolution--That the thanks
of this house be given to Field-marshal the Duke of Wellington, on his
return from his command abroad, for his eminent and unremitting services
to his majesty and the public."

The Duke answered the address to the following effect:--

"My lords, I have to perform a duty to which I feel myself very
inadequate, to return your lordships my thanks for the fresh mark of
your approbation of my conduct and of your favour."

"I assure your lordships that I am entirely overcome by the honours
which have been conferred upon me; and by the favour with which I have
been received in this country by the Prince Regent, by your lordships,
and by the public."

"In truth, my lords, when I reflect upon the advantages which I enjoyed
in the confidence reposed in me, and the support afforded by the
government, and by his royal highness the commander-in-chief, in the
cordial assistance which I invariably received upon all occasions from
my gallant friends, the general officers of the army, who are an honour
to their country, the gallantry and discipline of the troops, and in the
manner in which I was encouraged and excited to exertion by the
protection and gracious favour of the prince, I cannot but consider
that, however great the difficulties with which I had to contend, the
means to contend with them were equal to overcome them; and I am
apprehensive that I shall not be found so deserving of your favour as I
wish."

"If, however, my merit is not great, my gratitude is unbounded; and I
can only assure your lordships, that you will always find me ready to
serve his majesty to the utmost of my ability in any capacity in which
my services can be at all useful to this great country."

His Grace then retired to unrobe; he wore a field-marshal's uniform,
with his insignia of the garter. On his return into the House he sat for
a few minutes on the extremity of one of the benches, and then retired
for the evening.

In addition to the pecuniary remuneration voted by Parliament to the
Duke of Wellington for his distinguished services, the House of Commons
resolved to pay him the highest tribute of respect and applause that it
was possible to bestow on a subject, that of its thanks, accompanied
with a deputation of its members to congratulate him on his return to
this country Lord Castlereagh rose in the house, on the 27th June, to
make a motion for this purpose, which was unanimously agreed to; and a
committee was appointed to wait on his Grace, to know what time he would
name for receiving the congratulations of the house. Lord Castlereagh
having reported from the committee that it was the Duke's desire to
express to the house his answer in person, the following day, July 1,
was appointed for the solemnity.

At about a quarter before five, the speaker being dressed in his
official robes, and the house being crowded with members, some of them
in military and naval uniforms, and many of them in the court dresses in
which they had been attending the speaker with an address to the Prince
Regent on the peace, the house was acquainted that the Duke of
Wellington was in waiting. His admission being resolved on, and a chair
being set for him on the left hand of the bar towards the middle of the
house, his Grace entered, making his obeisances, while all the members
rose from their seats. The speaker then informing him that a chair was
placed for his repose, he sat down in it for some time, covered, the
serjeant standing on his right hand with the mace grounded, and the
members resumed their seats. He then rose, and spoke, uncovered, to the
following effect:--

"Mr. Speaker,--I was anxious to be permitted to attend this house, in
order to return my thanks in person for the honour they have done me in
deputing a committee of their members to congratulate me on my return to
this country; and this, after the house had animated my exertions by
their applause upon every occasion which appeared to merit their
approbation, and after they had filled up the measure of their favours
by conferring upon me, upon the recommendation of the Prince Regent, the
noblest gift that any subject had ever received."

"I hope it will not be deemed presumptuous in me to take this
opportunity of expressing my admiration of the great efforts made by
this house and the country at a moment of unexampled pressure and
difficulty, in order to support the great scale of operations by which
the contest was brought to so fortunate a termination. By the wise
policy of parliament, the government was enabled to give the necessary
support to the operations which were carried on under my direction; and
I was encouraged by the confidence reposed in me by his majesty's
ministers, and by the commander-in-chief, by the gracious favour of his
royal highness the Prince Regent, and by the reliance which I had on the
support of my gallant friends the general officers of the army, and on
the bravery of the officers and troops, to carry on the operations in
such a manner as to acquire for me those marks of the approbation of
this house, for which I have now the honor to make my humble
acknowledgments."

"Sir, it is impossible for me to express the gratitude which I feel; I
can only assure the house that I shall always be ready to serve his
majesty in any capacity in which my services can be deemed useful, with
the same zeal for my country which has already acquired for me the
approbation of this house."

This speech was received with loud cheers, at the end of which the
speaker, who had sat covered during its delivery, rose, and thus
addressed his Grace:--

"My Lord,--Since last I had the honour of addressing you from this
place, a series of eventful years has elapsed; but none without some
mark and note of your rising glory."

"The military triumphs which your valour has achieved upon the banks of
the Douro and the Tagus, of the Ebro and the Garonne, have called forth
the spontaneous shouts of admiring nations. Those triumphs it is
needless on this day to recount. Their names have been written by your
conquering sword in the annals of Europe, and we hand them down with
exultation to our children's children."

"It is not, however, the grandeur of military success which has alone
fixed our admiration, or commanded our applause; it has been that
generous and lofty spirit which inspired your troops with unbounded
confidence, and taught them to know that the day of battle was always a
day of victory; that moral courage and enduring fortitude, which, in
perilous times, when gloom and doubt had beset ordinary minds, stood
nevertheless unshaken; and that ascendancy of character, which, uniting
the energies of jealous and rival nations, enabled you to wield at will
the fate of mighty empires."

"For the repeated thanks and grants bestowed upon you by this house,
in gratitude for your many and eminent services, you have thought fit
this day to offer us your acknowledgments: but this nation well knows
that it is still largely your debtor. It owes to you the proud
satisfaction, that, amidst the constellation of great and illustrious
warriors who have recently visited our country, we could present to them
a leader of our own, to whom all, by common acclamation, conceded the
pre-eminence; and when the will of heaven, and the common destinies of
our nature, shall have swept away the present generation, you will have
left your great name and example as an imperishable monument, exciting
others to like deeds of glory, and serving at once to adorn, defend, and
perpetuate the existence of this country amongst the ruling nations of
the earth."

"It now remains only that we congratulate your Grace upon the high and
important mission on which you are about to proceed, and we doubt not
that the same splendid talents, so conspicuous in war, will maintain,
with equal authority, firmness, and temper, our national honour and
interests in peace."

His Grace then withdrew, making the same obeisance as when he entered;
and all the members rising again, he was reconducted by the serjeant to
the door of the house.

On the 7th July, when the Prince Regent went in state to St. Paul's, to
return public thanksgiving for the restoration of peace, the Duke of
Wellington was seated on the right hand of his royal highness, with the
sword of state before him.

On the 9th, the Duke was entertained by the corporation of London in
the Guildhall, and previously to the banquet he was presented with a
sword of exquisite workmanship, which had been voted him by the common
council. Four years and a half before, as will be remembered, the Duke
was publicly attacked by this same common council, and he then says, "I
act with a sword hanging over me." During the interval, the common
council had learned to apply their sword to a better purpose. In fact,
all ranks, from the highest to the lowest, now combined to do honour to
the Duke of Wellington.

When Buonaparte landed from Elba, the Duke was at Vienna, the
representative of this country at the congress of the allied sovereigns.
From that point he wrote to Lord Castlereagh, stating the interview he
had had with the sovereigns on the subject of Buonaparte's movements,
and adding that he had no doubt whatever of their support, and their
determination not to lay down their arms until Buonaparte was put down.
A numerous force was assembled, and of the whole, whether British or
foreign, in Belgium (already seen to be the point on which the fate of
Napoleon would be decided), the Duke of Wellington assumed the command.
The campaign was closed by the decisive victory of Waterloo, on the 18th
June, followed by the abdication of Napoleon, and the convention of
Paris.

During the subsequent proceedings, the Duke of Wellington was
instrumental in stopping the savage revenge of Blucher and the
Prussians, who were on the point of destroying the beautiful bridge on
the Seine, called the bridge of Jena, because it had been named in
honour of Napoleon's victory over the Prussians at that place.

The Duke, however, did not interpose to prevent another act, which was
one of real justice, the restoration to the several nations of the
various works of art of which they had been plundered by the French. It
was in answer to complaints of his conduct in this respect that the Duke
wrote his letter to Castlereagh, in which he said--"It is to be wished,
as well for the happiness of France as of the world, that if the French
people are not already convinced that Europe is too strong for them,
they may be made to feel that, however extensive for a time their
temporary and partial advantages over one or more of the powers of
Europe may be, the day of retribution must at length come. According to
my feelings, then, it would not only be unjust in the sovereigns to
gratify the French people, but the sacrifice they would make would be
impolitic, as it would deprive them of the opportunity of giving the
French nation a _great moral lesson_."

The thanks of both houses were voted to the Duke for the battle of
Waterloo, and an additional grant of 200,000 l.

From the year 1815 until 1823 the Duke of Wellington's name rarely
appears in connexion with any public transactions, with the exception
that in December, 1818, he was appointed Master-General of the Ordnance,
an office which he continued to fill for some years.

In 1819 he made one speech in parliament in which his declared his
belief that Roman Catholic Emancipation was impossible, unless there
could be a proper security for the Protestant religion, which he
doubted.

In the year 1823, on the appointment of Mr. Canning to be Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, Duke of Wellington was named as the Plenipotentiary of
the King of Great Britain at the Congress of Verona. It was supposed
that the subject matter of the discussions of the sovereigns at that
congress would be the relations of Russia and Turkey. On the Duke's
arrival at Paris, however, he found that Spain would form the main
subject. He wrote back for fresh instructions, and Mr. Canning's answer
distinctly stated that should France attempt to interfere in Spain
either by force or by menace, he was to instruct the Duke "frankly and
peremptorily to declare, that to any such interference, come what may,
his majesty will not be a party."

The words "frankly and peremptorily" could not have been better chosen,
or more agreeable to the character of the Duke. He stuck simply and
stedfastly to his text throughout the negotiations, and when at last, in
consequence of the state of affairs in Spain, the three great powers
agreed to withdraw their ministers from Madrid, the Duke told them he
should not withdraw ours but leave him there in the hope of allaying the
irritation which the measures of the others were calculated to produce.

The Duke returned to Parts in December, and found the French not
indisposed to some arrangement. When it subsequently became necessary to
send a special communication to the Spanish government, a mark of
respect was paid by Mr. Canning to the Duke of Wellington, more
gratifying perhaps to him than his titles or honours. The desire of the
British Government was to attach a special character of friendliness to
this communication, and for that purpose the Duke of Wellington was
requested to make it. This course was taken because it was believed that
the private opinions of a man who had conferred such distinguished
benefits on Spain, and who had been on terms of personal intercourse and
friendship with many of the leading men, would be listened to with more
deference than even an official communication. It is unnecessary to
pursue this subject farther, as the Duke of Wellington's connexion with
it ceased; except that he gave, in the House of Lords, on the 24th of
April, a full explanation of his share in the proceedings.

In 1826, the Duke having been appointed ambassador to St. Petersburgh,
on the anniversary of the entrance of the allied army into Paris under
his command, the Emperor Nicholas addressed a letter to him, in which he
told him that in order to testify to him his particular esteem for his
great qualities and for the distinguished services he had rendered to
the whole of Europe, he had given orders that the Smolensko regiment of
infantry, formed by Peter the Great, and one of the most distinguished
of his army, which was formerly under the Duke's command in France,
should thenceforward be called the Duke of Wellington's regiment.

In 1827, on the death of the Duke of York, the public mind pointed to
the Duke of Wellington as the fit successor of his royal highness in the
important post of Commander-in-Chief, and he was immediately appointed.
The Duke held this office until the appointment of Mr. Canning to be
Prime Minister, when he resigned it, and also the Master-Generalship of
the Ordnance.

The circumstances attending this resignation must of course hold a
prominent place in any memoir of the Duke. But there were personal
matters mixed up in the affair, which make it necessary to enter into it
at some length, for the better understanding of his Grace's character.

On the death of the Earl of Liverpool, in the beginning of the year
1827, the king called on Mr. Canning to form an administration. As Mr.
Canning had all along advocated Roman Catholic Emancipation, and as the
cabinet of Lord Liverpool had firmly opposed that measure, it became a
question how far the premiership of Mr. Canning would compromise the
position of those who had hitherto acted with him in the cabinet of Lord
Liverpool. The question very soon received a practical solution, by the
simultaneous (though not concerted) resignation of six of the most
influential members of the government, including the Duke of Wellington.

The political friends of Mr. Canning, and those of his opponents with
whom he was agreed on the Roman Catholic question, concurred in
representing this act of the seceding ministers as a cabal against Mr.
Canning; and the Duke of Wellington, more especially, was made the
subject of most unsparing abuse. The ground of this was that he had not
contented himself with resigning the office he held directly under the
government, but had also resigned the command of the army, an office
unconnected with politics. This was supposed to indicate some special
determination to crush Mr. Canning.

Now with regard to the motives of the Duke on this occasion all men will
form their own opinion, not so much with reference to facts, as to their
political feelings. It may however be fairly laid down as a principle
that where admitted facts sufficiently supply an explanation of a man's
conduct, all reference to motives are unnecessary; and the more so
because in all cases, however strong suspicion or presumptive evidence
may be, the truth with regard to a man's motives must ever remain locked
in his own breast. The open, manly and fearless character of the Duke
would however, except in the heated imagination of partisans, almost
preclude suspicion in the first instance.

But let us turn to the facts, as stated in the house of lords on the 2nd
of May, when the peers met after the Easter recess. On the 10th of April
Mr. Canning wrote to the Duke of Wellington the following letter:--

   _To his Grace the Duke of Wellington._

   Foreign Office, April 10, 6 P.M., 1827.

   My dear Duke of Wellington,--The king has, at
   an audience from which I have just returned, been
   graciously pleased to signify to me his majesty's commands,
   to lay before his majesty, with as little loss as
   time as possible, a plan of arrangements for the re-construction of
   the administration. In executing these commands it will be as much my
   own wish, as it is my duty to his majesty, to adhere to the principles
   upon which Lord Liverpool's government has so long acted together. I
   need not add how essentially the accomplishment must depend upon your
   Grace's continuing a member of the cabinet.

   Ever, my dear Duke of Wellington, your Grace's sincere and faithful
   servant,

   GEORGE CANNING.

To this the Duke of Wellington replied in a characteristic way:--

   _To the Right Hon. George Canning._

   London, April 10, 1827.

   My dear Mr. Canning,--I have received your letter of
   this evening, informing me that the king had desired
   you to lay before his majesty a plan for the re-construction
   of the administration; and that, in executing
   these commands, it was your wish to adhere to the
   principles on which Lord Liverpool's government had
   so long acted together. I anxiously desire to be able
   to serve his majesty, as I have done hitherto in his
   cabinet, with the same colleagues. But before I can
   give an answer to your obliging proposition, I should
   wish to know who the person is you intend to propose
   to his majesty as the head of the government?

   Ever, my dear Mr. Canning, yours most sincerely,

   WELLINGTON.

On the next day came the following from Mr. Canning:--

   _To his Grace the Duke of Wellington._

   Foreign Office, April 11, 1897.

   My dear Duke of Wellington,--I believed it to be
   so generally understood, that the king usually intrusts
   the formation of an administration to the individual
   whom it is his majesty's gracious intention to place at
   the head of it; that it did not occur to me, when I
   communicated to your Grace yesterday the commands
   which I had just received from his majesty, to add, that,
   in the present instance, his majesty does not intend to
   depart from the usual course of proceeding on such
   occasions. I am sorry to have delayed some hours this
   answer to your Grace's letter; but from the nature of
   the subject, I did not like to forward it without having
   previously submitted it (together with your Grace's
   letter) to his Majesty.

   Ever, my dear Duke of Wellington, your Grace's
   sincere and faithful servant,

   GEORGE CANNING.

And finally, on the evening of the same day, the Duke wrote thus to Mr.
Canning.--

   London, April 11, 1837.

   My dear Mr. Canning,--I have received your letter
   of this day, and I did not understand the one of yesterday
   evening as you explained it to me. I understood
   from yourself that you had in contemplation another
   arrangement, and I do not believe that the practice to
   which you refer has been so invariable as to enable me to affix a
   meaning to your letter which its words did not, in my opinion, convey. I
   trust that you will have experienced no inconvenience from the delay of
   this answer, which I assure you has been occasioned by my desire to
   discover a mode by which I could continue united with my recent
   colleagues.--I sincerely wish that I could bring my mind to the
   conclusion that, with the best intentions on your part, your government
   could be conducted practically on the principles of that of Lord
   Liverpool; that it would be generally so considered; or that it would be
   adequate to meet our difficulties, in a manner satisfactory to the king,
   or conducive to the interests of the country. As, however, I am
   convinced that these principles must be abandoned eventually, that all
   our measures would be viewed with suspicion by the usual supporters of
   the government; that I could do no good in the cabinet; and that at last
   I should be obliged to separate myself from it, at the moment at which
   such separation would be more inconvenient to the king's service than it
   can be at present, I must beg you to request his majesty to excuse me
   from belonging to his councils. Ever, my dear Mr. Canning, yours most
   sincerely,

   WELLINGTON.

This closed the correspondence; and it is needless to add that the Duke
continued to hold aloof from the new administration.

The Duke's explanation in the House of Lords related to two branches of
charge. The first was a charge of want of personal courtesy to Mr.
Canning, as exhibited in the foregoing correspondence; the second was a
general charge of hostility to the new premier, founded on personal
jealousy, and on every other ground, probable or improbable, which the
malice of party could suggest. The Duke began by observing, that the
House of Lords was scarcely the proper place to enter on such subjects,
but that his only excuse was the necessity of vindicating his character
against what had been said in another place, to say nothing of the
manner in which he had been treated by a corrupt press, which if not in
the pay, was under the control of the government. He then proceeded to
meet the first charge, that of personal discourtesy. It was said, that
his asking in reply to Mr. Canning's first letter, "who was to be at the
head of the new government?" was intended as an insult to Mr. Canning.
This he denied. The letter of Mr. Canning, he said gave no information
who were to form the new cabinet, or what members of the old one had
resigned, or were expected to resign. Nor was he invited, as he found
the other ministers had been, to receive personal explanations on the
subject. Under those circumstances the inquiry was made. But that was
not the first communication that had passed between them on the subject.
Early in the month of April, continued the Duke, he had had a
conversation with Mr. Canning, in which, anticipating the possibility of
his being called upon to reconstruct the government, one of his plans
was to recommend that Mr. Robinson (now the Earl of Ripon) should be
raised to the peerage and be made premier. Of this plan the Duke at the
time approved, and it was with this in his mind that he wrote the first
answer, which gave Mr. Canning so much offence. Precedent, also, he
contended, was against Mr. Canning; for it appeared that in 1812, when
Lord Liverpool, by command of the Prince Regent, waited on Mr. Canning,
to know whether he would form part of the proposed administration, the
first question Mr. Canning asked of the noble earl (then in the same
position Mr. Canning was in now) was, "who was to be at the head of the
new administration?" The Duke's letter was written on the 10th, and Mr.
Canning only kissed hands as minister on the 12th; so that, even in that
point of view, the Duke's question was, he contended, necessary.

It may be said that there is enough on the face of this communication to
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
any such office; and I, therefore, say, that, feeling as I do with
respect to the situation which I recently filled at the head of the
army; liking it as I did from the opportunity it gave me to improve the
condition of my old comrades in arms; knowing my own capacity for
filling that office, and my incapacity for filling the post of first
minister, I should have been mad, and worse than mad, if I had ever
entertained the insane project which certain individuals, for their own
base purposes, have imputed to me."

His reason for retiring from the command of the army was founded on the
peculiar circumstances of his dispute with Mr. Canning. "No political
opinions would have prevented him," he said, "under ordinary
circumstances, from continuing either at the Horse Guards or at the head
of the army in the field; but, from the tone and tenor of the
communication he had received from his majesty; from the nature of the
invitation to join the administration, contained in Mr. Canning's post
letter, and from the contents of the last letter he received from Mr.
Canning, by his majesty's commands, he saw it would be impossible to
continue his relations with that gentlemen, either with service to the
country or credit to himself. His resolution had been adopted after the
most mature deliberation."

The foregoing is the substance of the Duke of Wellington's explanation
of his own share in the general resignation of the chief members of Lord
Liverpool's cabinet.

Another circumstance occurred a few days afterwards, which still further
increased the public belief that there was a serious quarrel between the
Duke and the new premier. The former moved an amendment in committee on
the corn bill, which had the effect of defeating the new government on
that measure. This was regarded as an act of hostility on the part of
the Duke, and, shortly after, a correspondence was made public between
him and Mr. Huskisson, then President of the Board of Trade, in which
it appeared clear that the Duke had moved the amendment in the belief
that the government had agreed to it through Mr. Huskisson, and equally
clear that the Duke had been mistaken. There were not wanting those who
asserted roundly that the Duke had taken advantage of an ambiguity in
Mr. Huskisson's letters, in order to have a pretext for inflicting this
injury on the government. And, unhappily, Mr. Canning himself, carried
out of parliamentary decorum by an irritability of temper, springing
from the difficulties of his position and from his advancing illness,
went so far as publicly to declare that the Duke of Wellington, great
man as he was, had been but in instrument in the hands of others.
History, he said, afforded parallel the actions of other great men.

The Duke maintained a dignified silence with respect to this attack;
but, in the following year, long after Mr. Canning's death, and when he
had himself become prime minister, he took an opportunity of
disclaiming, in strong language, the existance of any personal hostility
on his part to the deceased statesman.

On the formation of the new administration, under Lord Goderich, the
Duke of Wellington resumed the command of the army. This was on August
the 27th.

Early in January, 1828, this administration fell to pieces, and the Duke
of Wellington was called on by the king to form another. He was at first
reluctant to do so, but ultimately gave way. He rallied round him Mr.
Peel, and most of those who had seceded on the accession of Mr. Canning;
so that his administration was nearly identical with that of the Earl of
Liverpool, except that Mr. Huskisson and some two or three of the
coalitionary whigs, were retained.

In the following May, these were got rid of. Mr. Huskisson gave a vote
on the East Retford Bill, adverse to those of his colleagues; and on
leaving the house, sat down (at two in the morning), and wrote a letter
to the Duke, which was construed into a positive resignation of office.
An amusing correspondence took place between the two statesmen, Mr.
Huskisson declaring he never meant to resign, and the Duke as positively
adhering to his original construction of the first letter. Mr.
Huskisson's place was filled up, and he resented that proceeding by
declaring in the House of Commons his belief that he had been sacrificed
as a peace-offering to gain the support of some of the old tories.

The whole of the Duke's share in this correspondence is highly
characteristic; and it was in the course of negotiations for the return
of Mr. Huskisson that the Duke uttered the sentence so often quoted of
him: "It is no mistake; it can be no mistake; and it shall be no
mistake!" Strange to say, although the Duke's mode of proceeding to Mr.
Huskisson was somewhat arbitrary, it gained him a sort of popularity, on
account of the firmness with which he stuck to his point. The laugh was
fairly on his side; and many of the vessels in the Thames hoisted flags,
and exhibited other signs of rejoicing at Mr. Huskisson's dismissal.

On his appointment to be Prime Minister, the Duke again resigned the
command of the army (Feb. 14th).

The first important measure, during the Duke's administration, was the
repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. In giving his support to that
bill, the Duke met an argument, that it was a step towards Roman
Catholic emancipation, by a declaration that, though he voted for the
measure, no man could be a more determined opponent of those claims than
he; and he added, "Until I see a great change in that question, I shall
certainly oppose it." In the June following, however, the commons having
in the meanwhile passed a resolution indicating favour to emancipation,
the Duke declared that he looked on the question as one of expediency;
and concluded his speech by recommending that the public mind should be
allowed to rest. In the end, it might be possible to do something; for
he was most desirous of seeing the subject brought to an amicable
conclusion.

Causes altogether independent of parliamentary majorities or discussions
had in the mean time been at work, and had proposed this change in the
tone of ministers. Mr. O'Connell, although a Catholic, had been returned
to parliament as member for the county of Clare; and during the summer
and autumn, the whole of the Catholic population had become so
organized, under the Catholic Association, as seriously to threaten the
continuance of the existing system in Ireland. These events produced
their effects upon English statesmen on either side of the question; and
the more moderate of the Conservative party began to think that some
concession to the Catholics would be inevitable.

Still, however, the government gave no sign of yielding. On the
contrary, a circumstance occurred, in the month of December, which led
to an opposite inference. Dr. Curtis, a Roman Catholic prelate, who had
been on terms of personal acquaintance with the Duke of Wellington at
Salamanca, wrote a letter to him on the position of the Catholic
question, to which the Duke wrote an answer, which seemed to deny all
hope of a speedy settlement. It was immediately made public by Dr.
Curtis through the Catholic Association. The effect of the letter was to
make that body redouble their efforts.

In a few days after, the Marquis of Anglesea, the lord lieutenant, who
had always been the avowed supporter of the Catholics, also addressed a
letter in reply to one he received from Dr. Curtis, in which he gave the
Catholics advice as to the best mode of proceeding in order to attain
emancipation. This conduct on the part of the viceroy, together with the
open countenance he gave to the leading catholics in Dublin, gave the
strongest offence to the king, and amounted to such a breach of duty
that the Duke of Wellington was compelled to recall the marquis from
Ireland.

The public mind was now in the greatest perplexity. On the one hand, the
state of Ireland seemed to render some measure of concession inevitable,
while on the other there was the letter to Dr. Curtis, and the dismissal
of the lord lieutenant--facts which seemed to discountenance all hope.

The year 1829 was the most eventful in the civil career of the Duke of
Wellington. He had been throughout his life the opponent of Roman
Catholic emancipation: he was now to come before the public in the new
character of a prime minister prepared to grant, as a measure of free
grace, that which he had hitherto denounced as inconsistent with the
safety of the Protestant constitution.

Up to within a few days of the opening of parliament, however, the
design of the government was wholly concealed, but in the speech from
the throne parliament was recommended to entertain the question. In the
debate on the address the Duke of Wellington announced it as the
intention of the government to introduce a measure for the emancipation
of the Catholics. And now arose a political storm almost unparalleled in
the history of party, from the effects of which we are scarcely yet
recovered.

The Duke and Mr. Peel were immediately made the objects of the most
unrelenting hostility by the opponents of emancipation. Seeing the
favour in which the two statesmen are now held by their party, it would
be almost impossible to believe that such abusive language as was then
poured forth could have been used towards them, were it not on record.

The Duke especially was charged with a treble treachery; to Mr. Canning,
on account of the transactions previously referred to; towards the
Protestant party, of whom he had been the chosen leader, and whom he was
about to betray; and lastly a personal treachery in the concealment of
his design until the moment of execution, by which he prevented others
from coming forward and taking the station he had abandoned, as leader
of the opponents of emancipation.

The Duke's replies to all these charges will be found at length in the
following pages. But the charge of personal treachery was afterwards put
in a shape which compelled the Duke of Wellington to take a very
different notice of it. The Earl of Winchelsea wrote a letter to the
secretary of King's College, in which, after adverting to the support
which the Duke had given on Protestant principles to that institution,
he stated that he now believed that the Duke's conduct had been only a
blind to the high church party, and that he was about, under the cloak
of the Protestant religion, to carry into effect his insidious designs
for the infringement of our liberties, and the introduction of Popery
into every department of the state. This letter the Duke found himself
bound to notice; but the earl refused to retract. A correspondence took
place, which ended in a duel. Neither party was hurt, and the earl
subsequently made a public apology for the original expressions.

In the meanwhile the Emancipation Bill was steadily progressing. On the
19th of February, in introducing the bill for the suppression of
dangerous associations, the Duke of Wellington declared that there had
been no previous bargain or compact with the Roman Catholic party while
the Emancipation Bill was in the House of Commons. Short discussions
took place almost every night in the House of Lords upon its merits, in
which whenever the Duke joined he did so with the greatest reluctance.
At length, on the 2nd of April, he moved the second reading of the bill
in the House of Lords, in a speech which reflected credit upon him for
moral courage, if not for consistency.

In fact, great moral courage is one of the most striking features in the
character of the Duke of Wellington. Some of his supporters will doubt
this assertion; and will point to the Emancipation Act as a proof that
the Duke wanted the firmness to act up to his avowed principles. This
involves a wrong assumption. It is one thing obstinately to adhere to an
opinion in defiance of its impracticability: another to retract that
opinion so soon as its impracticability is demonstrated. Whether the
Duke was right or wrong in his opinions, no one will deny that it
required great moral courage for him to stand up in the face of the
country, braving the anger of his old associates, and declare that he
could no longer resist the force of public opinion.

It was in the course of the speech introducing the Emancipation Bill
that the Duke made his well-known declaration "that he would sacrifice
his life to prevent one month of civil war."

One fruit of the angry passions excited during the progress of the
Emancipation Bill was a series of prosecutions against the _Morning
Journal_ for libels on the Duke of Wellington, the Lord Chancellor, and
the government collectively. These prosecutions were conducted with
unusual acrimony by Sir James Scarlet, the Attorney-General; and the
Duke of Wellington came in for a very considerable share of public
censure for having authorised such prosecutions. Probably the Duke
intended to inflict another "great moral lesson," as he has always set
his face against the unrestrained license of the press; but, looking
back with calmer feelings to the events of that excited period, and
admitting that the language used by the editor was certainly too strong,
though faithfully representing the feelings of a large class of the
public, it is certainly difficult to avoid now coming to the conclusion
that Mr. Alexander, when sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment in
Newgate and heavy fines, was treated with a severity scarcely
justifiable. It is probable that the Duke of Wellington, acting on his
rigid notions of the division of responsibility, after ordering the
prosecution, left the affair to Sir James Scarlet, and from that moment
declined to interfere.

Among the discussions to which the prosecutions gave rise, an amusing
speech of Sir Charles Wetherell, on the 2nd of March, 1830, in the House
of Commons, will repay perusal.

In a debate which took place in the House of Lords on the first night of
the session, upon the state of the country, the Duke of Wellington
delivered a speech upon the causes of the existing distress, which
proved (allowances being made for differences of opinion) that his
qualifications to deal with the most intricate questions involved in
civil government were very little inferior to his military talents.
Passages from that speech will be found in the following pages. At the
time many of his views were ridiculed by those political economists who
were destined so soon to rise to power under shelter of the reform
question; but it will be seen that the improved experience of the
country after ten years' undisputed sway of those gentlemen, confirms
many of the chief conclusion to which the astute and practical mind of
the Duke of Wellington then led him. That speech, however, raised a
hornet's nest around him in the House of Commons. Among others, Sir
Francis Burdett made a personal attack on the Duke, in which he said
that his administration showed how correct was his estimate of his own
powers when he said he would be mad to think of being prime minister.
That illustrious individual, he said, had been treated with much
tenderness, because he had conferred the greatest benefits on his
country; but if his services had been great his recompense had been
great also. Mr. Brougham, also, made a most personal attack on the Duke
on the day before parliament closed.

In the mean while, George the Fourth died (on the 26th of June), and
parliament was dissolved. The new parliament, called by William the
Fourth, was opened by the king in person on November the 2nd. It was
decidedly unfavourable to the ministry, against whom were arrayed a most
talented and unscrupulous opposition. They swayed with almost absolute
power the great mass of the people, who hoped everything from
parliamentary reform, and had not as yet had experience of the
extravagance of such hopes. A part of the tactics of the whig leaders
was to excite personal animosity against the Duke of Wellington, who was
libelled as a sort of would-be military dictator, seeking to introduce
in civil affairs the iron discipline of the camp, and to ride rough shod
over a free people.

With the clamour for reform out of doors and in the commons, it was not
to be supposed that even the impassible Duke of Wellington could avoid
referring to the subject in the debate on the address. This he did, with
more candour than prudence, by his well-known declaration against
reform, and in favour of the existing system. It will be found at length
elsewhere. The excitement it produced was enormous: so great, that in
three days afterwards ministers advised William the Fourth not to
proceed to the City to visit the Lord Mayor, lest there should be
tumults.

On the 15th, they were defeated in the House of Commons, upon a motion
of Sir Henry Parnell, for a committee to inquire into the civil list;
and on the following day the Duke of Wellington and his colleagues
resigned; being apprehensive that the same majority would vote for the
principle of parliamentary reform in a day or two after, and not wishing
to virtually give up that question by going out after being beaten on it
in the House of Commons.

During the year 1831, while the discussions on the Reform Bill were
going on, the Duke made frequent speeches against the measure, and led
the opposition in the House of Lords in a manner quite consistent with
his declaration in November. In a speech he made on the 28th March,
explanatory of the causes of his resignation, he distinctly denied that
the reform fever was owing to that declaration, and asserted that it
was to be attributed to the effect on the public mind of the revolutions
in France and Belgium.

On the 10th of October, after the Reform Bill had been thrown out in the
House of Lords, the Duke of Wellington was insulted by a mob on his way
to the house. In the evening, the windows of his mansion at Hyde
Park-corner were broken. It is to be lamented that any class of
Englishmen were to be found so degraded as to be guilty of this
ingratitude.

Fortunately, the worst of the evil was averted, by the total
indifference of the Duke to all such demonstrations. The greatest men
have been despisers of mankind, of the swaying multitude, that is to
say, the unthinking, the headstrong, and the violent--not of necessity
merely, from that intrinsic superiority and natural antagonism which
forbid their commingling; but also, and with a more hearty potency, from
the experience which they, alternately the adored or the scorned, have
had of the inconstancy of the giddy people. In this light estimation,
indeed, of the judgment of their less worthy fellows, lies the secret of
their greatness and their strength. They ride towards their goal while
the stream tends that way, and when the course of the current is
diverted, they are not dismayed. Their scorn of the means leads them to
pass on by their own strength, or to rest secure on the foundation-rock
of our moral nature--principle, and the consciousness of duty done.

In April, 1832, on the motion for the second reading of the new Reform
Bill in the House of Lords, the Duke made a speech, characterised by
unqualified opposition to the measure, at a time when many of the
conservative peers (called "waverers,") were for giving it a qualified
support. But, after a defeat of ministers in committee, on Lord
Lyndhursts motion of the 7th of May, followed by their resignation, and
when the king, rather than agree to create peers, called on the Duke of
Wellington to form an administration, he expressed his readiness to do
so upon the principle of moderate reform.

This sudden inconsistency the public could not understand; the Duke's
avowed reason was that when called on by his sovereign he could not
leave him alone in his difficulty. However, the Duke's efforts were
brought to a summary conclusion by the refusal of Sir Robert Peel to
join in the attempt.

It is amusing to see the opposite Views these two statesmen took of
their duties to their king. Sir Robert Peel considered that "his
acceptance of office pledged to carry an efficient Reform Bill, he being
a determined enemy to such a measure, would be a political immorality
which would not allow him to enter on his services with a firm step, a
light heart, and an erect attitude." The Duke said, "if he had refused
to assist his majesty, because he had hitherto given his opposition to
parliamentary reform, he would not have been able to show his face in
the streets for shame of having deserted his sovereign in circumstances
so painful and alarming." The result of Sir Robert's refusal was, that
the Duke gave up the attempt, and Earl Grey was recalled.

During the sessions of 1833 and 1834, the Duke was the leader of the
opposition in the House of Lords; always at his post, and always ready
to grapple with the different questions brought before the peers. On the
9th of June, 1834, took place his installation as Chancellor of the
University of Oxford;--a brilliant scene, at which some of the most
distinguished men of the day assisted.

In November, 1834, on the death of Lord Spencer, and the dismissal of
the whig ministry, the king called on the Duke of Wellington to form an
administration. The Duke recommended his majesty to entrust that office
to Sir Robert Peel, who, however, was then at Rome. During the interval
that elapsed before his arrival, the Duke accepted, provisionally, the
office of First Lord of the Treasury, and the seals of the three
secretaryships of state. On Sir Robert Peel's arrival, he gave up the
government, with the exception of the office of Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, which (December 9th) he retained.

Much clamour was at this time raised against the Duke by the whigs, on
the old score of dictatorship, and also as to a supposed insult offered
to Lord Melbourne.

On the meeting of parliament in the following February (on the 24th),
the Duke gave an explanation of his conduct (inserted in this volume),
sufficient to clear him in all impartial eyes of all the charges then
urged against him by party spirit.

On the 8th of April following, in consequence of the repeated defeats
sustained in the House of Commons by Sir Robert Peel, the conservative
ministry resigned, and with them of course the Duke of Wellington. From
that time until the re-accession of Sir Robert Peel to power, in 1841,
the Duke continued to lead, with his accustomed vigour and unpretending
ability, the opposition in the House of Lords. In this position, he
exercised the utmost forbearance towards the government; never using his
power except when circumstances absolutely required its exercise.

One of these instances occurred at the opening of the session of 1836,
when the principles of a particular measure were recommended in a speech
from the throne. To the address the Duke moved an amendment,
condemnatory of the practice of thus pledging the sovereign in a speech
from the throne to the principles of any measure. The amendment was
agreed to by the whigs.

During the whole interval between 1833 and 1841, the Duke is to be found
occasionally speaking in the upper house, in his capacity of leader of
opposition. The same sound practical sense which has been already
attributed to him, characterised his whole proceedings. It is needless
to particularise the different important debates in which he took part.

In August, 1839, a grand banquet was given to the Duke at Dover, as Lord
Warden of the Cinque Ports. A splendid pavilion was erected for the
occasion, in which two thousand persons, including some most
distinguished men, sat down to dinner. The gallery was filled with
ladies. The most interesting point in the day's proceedings, was when
Lord Brougham, the most active and distinguished civilian of his age,
rose to propose the health of the Duke of Wellington, the most
illustrious military commander. Eulogium could scarcely he carried
farther than it was by Lord Brougham in these words:--

"Although no man," said the noble and learned lord, "on such an
occasion, is entitled to entertain any personal feelings on his own
behalf, it would be affectation--it would be insolent ingratitude--were
I not to express the sentiments which glow within my bosom, at being
made the instrument of making known those feelings which reign
predominant in yours. Enough, however, of myself--now for my mighty
subject.--But the choice you have made of your instrument--of your
organ, as it were, on this occasion--is not unconnected with that
subject; for it shows that on this day, on this occasion, all personal,
all political feelings are quelled--all strife of party is hushed--that
we are incapable, whatever be our opinions, of refusing to acknowledge
transcendant merit, and of denying that we feel the irresistible impulse
of unbounded gratitude; and I am therefore asked to do this service, as
if to show that no difference of opinion upon subjects, however
important--no long course of opposition, however contracted upon public
principles--not even long inveterate habits of public opposition--are
able so far to stifle the natural feelings of our hearts, so far to
obscure our reason, as to prevent us from feeling as we ought--boundless
gratitude for boundless merit. Neither can it pluck from our minds that
admiration proportioned to the transcendant genius, in peace and in war,
of him who is amongst us to-day; nor can it lighten or alleviate the
painful, the deep sense which the untried mind never can get rid of when
it is overwhelmed by a debt of gratitude, too boundless to be repaid.
Party--the spirit of party--may do much, but it cannot operate so far as
to make us forget those services; it cannot so far bewilder the memory,
and pervert the judgment, and eradicate from our bosoms those feelings
which do us the most honour, and are the most unavoidable, and, as it
were, dry up the kindly juices of the heart; and, notwithstanding all
its vile and malignant influence on other occasions, it cannot dry up
those juices of the heart so as to parch it like very charcoal, and make
it almost as black. But what else have I to do? If I had all the
eloquence of all the tongues ever attuned to speak, what else could I
do? How could a thousand words, or all the names that could be named,
speak so powerfully--ay, even if I spoke with the tongue of an angel, as
if I were to mention one word--Sir Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington,
the hero of a hundred fields, in all of which his banner was waved in
triumph; who never, I invoke both hemispheres to witness--bear witness
Europe, bear witness Asia--who never advanced but to cover his arms with
glory; the captain who never advanced but to be victorious; the mightier
captain who never retreated but to eclipse the glory of his advance, by
the yet harder task of unwearied patience, indomitable to lassitude, the
inexhaustible resources of transcendant skill, showing the wonders, the
marvels of a moral courage never yet subdued. Despising all who thwarted
him with ill-considered advice--neglecting all hostility, so he knew it
to be groundless--laughing to scorn reviling enemies, jealous
competitors, lukewarm friends, ay, hardest of all, to neglect despising
even a fickle public, he cast his eye forwards as a man might--else he
deserves not to command men--cast forward his eye to a time when that
momentary fickleness of the people would pass away, knowing that in the
end the people are always just to merit."

The Duke's acknowledgement, was simple, according to his character, and
modest as became his position. He said, "The noble lord, who I hope will
allow me to call him my noble friend, has stated to you with great
truth, that there are times and circumstances in which, and under which,
all feelings of party, all party animosity, all descriptions of
political feelings must be laid aside. I must do my noble and learned
friend the justice to say, that for years and years there has been
nothing of that description in social life as between him and me,
notwithstanding which it is certainly true that I have had the
misfortune of differing in opinion with my noble and learned friend upon
many points of internal and possibly of other descriptions of policy.
But I am afraid that, notwithstanding my most anxious wish to co-operate
with all of you in the public service in which we have all been
employed, I may happen (I know it does happen) to differ with some of
you upon subjects of political interest to the country. But my noble and
learned friend judges of you correctly when he says that such feelings
of difference would not prevent you--as they have not prevented
you--from doing me the honour of inviting me to this festival, and of
bringing here to meet me not only the whole of this interesting county,
but persons from all parts of the kingdom and even from abroad.
Therefore my noble and learned friend does you as well as himself
justice when he states that there are occasions--occasions in relation
to individuals as well as in relation to public interests and
services--in which all feelings of party politics and opinions must be
laid aside, in order to carry on the public service to the greatest
point of advantage to the public interest. I have had sufficient
experience in public life to know that this must be the case. I am
convinced that it is that feeling which has induced you to pay this
tribute of respect to the person holding the situation of Lord Warden of
the Cinque Ports, in order that you might encourage others hereafter to
perform their duty honestly and conscientiously in the same honourable
office."

On the 18th November, the same year, the Duke had an attack of epilepsy,
which for a short time alarmed the public greatly for his safety, on
account of his advanced age. Sir Astley Cooper and Dr. Hume were down at
Walmer with him for a week, at the end of which time he recovered,
greatly to the joy of the whole nation. It turned out that the Duke had
brought on the attack adopting, to cure himself of a slight illness, a
mode of treatment which would not be the most wise in a man of
twenty-five, but was most dangerous to one so advanced in years. The
Duke is very determined on such points--can never be persuaded that he
is not the same man in point of constitution that he was when in the
Peninsula; and still preserves all the hardy habits of a soldier's life.
On this occasion he had sought to cure himself by fasting and cold
bathing: he then, while under this treatment, followed the hounds, the
consequence of which was that he fainted, and was soon afterwards seized
as described.

On the return of Sir Robert Peel to power, in 1841, the Duke of
Wellington again joined him; but this time he took no office, though
accepting a seat in the cabinet. He still continued to lead in the
lords, where his influence is fully felt, and where he constantly
astonishes the house and silences his detractors by displaying a degree
of knowledge on all legislative subjects scarcely compatible with his
military education, and an activity and attention to business that would
be admirable in any one, but which are still more praiseworthy as the
voluntary service of a man who has conferred such distinguished benefits
on his country.

       *       *       *       *       *

Few men have been so blessed by fortune as to have been enabled to
achieve a first-rate reputation in arms, and afterwards to arrive at as
great distinction in the arts of peace. Rarely, at long intervals in the
lapse of time, such opportunities have been afforded to great men; but
still more rarely have even the greatest men been able to use them. To
the Duke of Wellington, in our own time, has this high honour been
especially vouchsafed; and no man ever yet lived who shewed himself more
worthy the distinction, or more able to fulfill the demands of his
country, whether in peace or in war. His youth and prime were spent in
achieving victories: to preserve to posterity the fruits of those
victories, in steady government, together with free institutions; to
make England such an example for foreign nations as would render all
such victories unnecessary hereafter; this has been the still more
glorious task of his declining years.

The military reputation of the Duke of Wellington rests on so firm a
basis, that it will never be shaken. So long as military science is
necessary in the world, so long will his system of tactics be followed
by commanders responsible in their own hearts for the lives of their
soldiers, and to their country for the conduct of their enterprises.

Of the military value of his dispositions and movements, military
critics have recorded, almost universally, their unqualified praise. To
civilians, it is left to admire the constant and watchful care of the
Duke, whether in India or the Peninsula, in securing the due provision
for his troops, while he at the same time maintained the strictest
honour towards the natives who supplied them; and to respect the
clearness of his perception, the sagacity of his decisions, and, above
all, the firmness and determination of purpose which sustained him
amidst every drawback and difficulty, until by his success he compelled
his detractors to yield themselves captive to his judgment. It is only
necessary to read the dispatches and general orders of the Duke of
Wellington, in order to be convinced that he is not a mere soldier
winning battles by superior tactics, but that he is also a man of a
very high order of general talent, with an unusual insight into human
nature, and possessing almost an instinctive knowledge of how mankind
are to be governed. By that wonderful exposition of the comprehensive,
wise, and philanthropic mind of the man, even his enemies were subdued.

Much controversy has been spent upon the demeanour of the Duke towards
his soldiers, which has been stigmatised as cold, distant, at times
harsh, and even selfish. For the charges of coldness and distance there
appears to be some foundation. Unlike Napoleon, the Duke of Wellington
never appealed to the enthusiasm of his soldiers; but he always relied
upon their sense of duty. He regarded his army, organized by discipline,
as a perfect machine, upon the performance of which he could calculate
with precision, and as he never expected it to do more than it ought, so
he never looked to see it do less. The idea of duty, of absolute
responsibility and subordination from rank to rank, seems to have been
that to which he was always content to appeal. Accordingly, his troops
never failed him. Their rock-like steadfastness and constant unimpulsive
bravery, it was that enabled him to carry out his plans with such
certainty.

The contrast to Napoleon is no Where more seen than in the dispatches of
the one and the bulletins of the other. In his demeanour to his men, the
Duke was reserved; in his language, curt and laconic. If his troops felt
the moral certainty that he was leading them to victory, and honoured
him accordingly, it was not from personal enthusiasm, such as the wild
love the emperor inspired in those around him, but from a deep respect
for his character and a reliance on his talents. Nor did he condescend
to charlatantism or bombast, as his great rival too often did. There is
not the slightest trace of vanity about him. Compare the speech of the
one to his army, beneath the Pyramids, with the simple, "Up, guards, and
at them!" of the other. In these trifles, we find the key to the real
minds of great men.

The political character of the Duke, and his services as a civilian,
have never been sufficiently appreciated by the great mass of his
countrymen. His brilliant military reputation cast into the shade his
sterling but unobtrusive services as a senator and as a minister. It was
even the fashion, for a long time, to assert that his taking office at
all was a sign of defective judgment. Indeed, when he declared, in the
House of Lords, that he would be "worse than mad to think of such a
thing," he gave a colour to the supposition. His subsequent assertion,
after he had become prime minister, that he had done so "because nobody
else would," conveyed, in all probability, the simple truth. The Duke
did not know his own capacity for government, until it was tried.

Another reason why his positive worth, as a politician, has not been so
universally admitted as his military merit, is that, in the imaginations
of a large portion of the public, he has been identified with a party.
This, in a country where party spirit is so strong and so universal,
would alone be sufficient to secure his being misunderstood by all those
who are not of the party to which he is alleged to be devoted. But it
is a mistake to call the Duke of Wellington a party man; that is to say,
in the ordinary sense of the word. It is true that, during the greater
part of his life he has acted with what is called the conservative
party, because in England no man can expect to serve his country
efficiently, unless he enlists under some political banner or other. But
there is a great difference between acting generally with a party, and
the adoption of all its animosities and prejudices: and this difference
the Duke of Wellington appears always to have perceived and acted upon.
Wherever the choice has lain between the opinions of his party and the
general good of his country, the Duke has always preferred his country
to his party; and if that is the character of a party man, may all
politicians be speedily imbued with the same sentiments!

Notwithstanding this distinction, however, it is certain that the known
opinions of the Duke of Wellington, and his ultimately taking office as
the prime minister of the tory party, did lead to the belief that he was
a party man, and directed towards him all those animosities and all that
depreciating rancour which party spirit engenders, and which party
tactics perpetuate; so that during a period of some four or five years
his distinguished reputation as a soldier was obscured in the minds of
many millions of his country, who,--and this remark applies more
particularly to the years 1829, 1830, and 1831,--laid themselves open to
the charge of being guilty of that meanest and basest of all crimes,
ingratitude.

Happily, within the last ten years, a total change has come over the
public mind. Those ill-grounded animosities are forgotten: the long and
unparalleled services of the Duke are remembered: and a re-action,
produced by a sense of shame acting upon early affections, has made him
more popular, more beloved, more admired than ever he was before.

Look at the course of business in the House of Lords during the last few
years, and you will observe that the Duke of Wellington has been the
presiding spirit of that assembly. Nothing was done--nothing could be
done without him; for he carries with him the proxies of so many of the
thinking, experienced, far-seeing, influential of his countrymen.

It has been argued, that the Duke of Wellington possesses all this
influence by virtue of his leadership of a powerful party. Of course
this means that any other leader of the conservatives could possess as
much, or it means nothing. It is a fallacy. The Duke of Wellington's
claims are almost entirely personal. It is to himself alone that all
this silent homage is paid. Even were he to retire from active life
to-morrow, still would he be followed into his retirement by political
pupils, eager to imbibe those distillations of practical wisdom which
his sagacity extracts from his vast stores of experience.

The fundamental basis of this power is his high military reputation;
though that alone could not have secured it, unless accompanied by his
firm principles and habits of observation. England differs from France
in this respect,--that while our neighbours are more ready to elevate
talent above property than we are, they are less choice as to the degree
of the talent which they exalt. But if the English once know that they
possess a first-rate man, they place him from that hour securely on an
eminence, whence he may look down as from the heavens, upon wealth,
rank, blood, and every earthly distinction. The Duke of Wellington is a
first-rate man; and his countrymen acknowledge it with pride. But his
mind is _sui generis_. His qualities are eminently useful: he could
never have condescended to be brilliant. His mind is that of iron mould
that defies alike warping, meretricious polish, or demolition.

It is a conviction of the thorough and unflinching honesty of his views
and principles, and of the clear perception, the fruitful experience,
and sound practical sense which regulate his opinions, that makes the
Duke of Wellington the governing spirit in the House of Peers. There is
no man in that house, be his talents or his services what they may,
whose opinion carries so much weight with it; for there is no other man
so independent of party. All the others, however moderate their natures
or honest their intentions, have been compelled to give in at some time
or other to the spirit of party. But the Duke is above party. He entered
the House of Peers with an overpowering reputation, which enabled him
from the first to take high ground. He does not need to curry favour
with any man; nor does he fear to offend even the most powerful of his
supporters, when his cause is just.

But the Duke's ascendancy in the House of Peers is not to be referred
to the foregoing causes alone. Had he none of that personal influence
derived from services and character to which we have referred, his
abilities and information alone would enable him to take high rank. His
claims in these respects are much, underrated by those who are opposed
to him in politics. His reasoning is so simple, clear and palpable--so
much in the character of what is called common sense--and his style of
speaking so unpretending and free from ornament, that superficial
observers have set him down as a mere blunt soldier, with a few fixed
ideas, and a disposition dogmatically to insist on their adoption. This
is altogether a mistake. The Duke of Wellington has as much of the true
spirit of the statesman as any man who now affects the destinies of this
country. There is scarcely a subject that has come before parliament
since the commencement of his political career into which he has not
fully entered. The character of his mind is to grasp every question.
Less than mastery of it--so far as the formation of a decided opinion
according to the lights afforded to or by his mind--will not satisfy
him. With the exception of one or two questions of high constitutional
principle, the "_cui bono?_" is the view his mind naturally takes. He is
a practical utilitarian, seeking in every measure the utmost quantity of
good of which it is capable; not always as much as he would perhaps wish
to see, but as much as circumstances allow the hope of securing.

This mode of dealing with subjects is not well calculated for
oratorical display, or for the parade of extensive information, even if
the unaffected character of the Duke of Wellington would allow him to
avail himself of them. They are cast aside, in pursuit of a less
brilliant, but more useful, mode of treatment. Accordingly, the speeches
of the Duke are brief, clear, pointed, and in one sense dogmatical.
After having canvassed details, and brought to bear upon them his long
and varied experience, he states his conclusions, accompanying them with
the general principles that have guided their formation, in a few brief
authoritative sentences. He is very careless about catching stray
listeners, or drawing in his train the prejudiced or the inexperienced;
but rather addresses himself to those whose age and wisdom entitle them
to anticipate consequences, or to those to whom experience of the value
of his opinions may have taught a pre-disposed deference.

At other times, however--for instance, when making ministerial
statements on matters connected with finance, or foreign policy, or
important changes in the law--this short, abrupt, devil-may-care style
is changed for one eminently adapted to the object. No one can then
complain of a want of the proper information. All the historical facts,
or figures, or principles, or general details, are then marshalled
forward with a regularity and precision only to be equalled by the
military arrangements of the Duke. There is not a word too much or too
little: you are made thoroughly to comprehend the whole bearings of the
question, without being overburthened with the useless details that so
often figure in the speeches of orators of the red-tape school. The
natural superiority of the Duke's mind is never more exhibited than in
the masterly way in which he separates the wheat from the chaff, and
weaves a clear and connected statement from masses of facts, on subjects
so foreign to the military pursuits of his youth and manhood.

To many, this praise of the Duke of Wellington, in a character in which
he is so little known to the great mass of the public, will appear
exaggerated; but those who have been accustomed to observe him in the
House of Peers, will not be surprised to hear the estimation in which he
is held by his political contemporaries of all parties. Those who have
not heard and seen him in his character of politician and statesman,
will scarcely continue sceptical (even if they are so), after having
read the extracts contained in the following pages.

Much, however, as the independent spirit of self-reliance of the Duke,
fortified by his character and experience, has secured him sway in the
House of Lords, we must not blind ourselves to the fact, that this
illustrious man has sometimes, in the assertion of his opinions
(unconsciously, we believe, and unintentionally) fallen into a practice
of dogmatising, of calling on the House of Peers and the public to adopt
his views, not so much on account of reasons urged in their support, as
because they are stated by him. Rarely, however, have such instances
occurred, and in extenuation of what, in a country of free discussion,
would justly be deemed a dangerous innovation, we must bear in mind
that where a man's opinions are the result of vary long experience and
very extensive observation, it is not always possible to make the
general mind aware of the process by which particular principles or
views have been arrived at. The greatest men have often been compelled
to content themselves with the simple assertion of opinions not pleasing
to the multitude, and to appeal to time as the only test of their truth.

The Duke of Wellington looks to the practical common-sense bearing of
every subject brought under his notice. His first aim is the public
good; his next, how to attain that good with the least departure from
established principles of policy. This practical turn of mind, joined as
it is to a far-seeing and prophetic spirit, has contributed to confirm
in the minds of his countrymen the admiration and influence which his
military genius and success first created. They repose the utmost
confidence in his sagacity; he is a party in himself. Whatever is
essential to the national reputation, the welfare of the whole people,
and, above all, to the stability of property, is sure to be originated,
or, at all events, warmly supported by him.

For this reason a revolution never could have occurred under the
government of the Duke; he has too intense a horror of the evils of
civil contention, ever to have allowed matters to come to that pass.
This, it will be admitted, is a quality rarely to be found in a soldier,
and a soldier, too, of such an inflexible cast as the Duke. Not less
intense is his regard for national faith and honour. He would maintain
the honour of the state at any expense, even of his own personal
prejudices on home politics; for the Duke, like all strong-minded men,
has his prejudices. He has vanquished, and obtained the mastery of the
spirit of change, by showing that he can curb it, while he does not
affect to play the tyrant over it. He knows when to be firm and when to
yield. Many acts of the Duke of Wellington, in the course of his
political career, that have called forth unlimited censure, have been
based upon calculations which only so well-tutored and so well-stored a
mind could have made.

It is an intellectual treat of the highest order to see the Duke of
Wellington's demeanour in the House of Lords. It is essentially
different from that of every other man there. He is almost the only
unfettered man in the house. Others are fettered by obstacles which they
create for themselves, in various ways, by the too eager pursuit of
personal or party objects. But the Duke of Wellington's high reputation
and standing place him above all such considerations. He can afford to
speak the truth, and he does speak it on all occasions fearlessly. While
other speakers, on either side of the house, have been wasting their
powers in fruitless eloquence (mere personal display), or in perverting
the truth for the purpose, either of unfair attack or unfair defence,
the Duke of Wellington has appeared to be paying not the slightest
attention to the proceedings. He has sat absorbed in thought, or at
least in seeming indifference. You would almost suppose that, overcome
by fatigue, or indisposition, he was sleeping, so perfectly motionless
and silent is he, reclining, with folded arms, his legs stretched out
to their full length, and his hat over his brow. The question has been
discussed, argued, disputed upon for hours. No result seems to have been
come to, and you are as ignorant of the object and scope of the measure
as when the debate began; nor have you any clear idea what will become
of the bill.

At length, the Duke of Wellington rises, advances abruptly to the table,
wraps the tails of his coat, like a dressing-gown, over his legs, and
plunges at once _in medias res_. There is an undivided attention while
he speaks, indeed, it is sometimes absolutely necessary, for, when
indisposed, he is often with difficulty heard, even by those near to
him, as, indeed, he himself hears with difficulty, from being deaf on
one side. But in a moment you see that his mind is still as vigorous as
ever. His keen intelligence pierces at once to the very core of the
subject; no fallacy can blind or deceive the Duke of Wellington. He
knows why the measure was introduced, what it is, what it will do, and
what will become of it. He grapples with it in the spirit of a
statesman. He is a guardian of the interests of the nation; he is the
parliamentary trustee of the people; he is bound to look to their
interests as a whole, for by the people he understands, not those who
bawl the loudest about their rights, but those also who trust the
maintenance of their privileges and their interests to parliament, in
silent faith. He never forgets the _salus populi_.

On the other hand, the chap-trap maxims of liberalism, foreign or
domestic, meet from him with just as much credence and attention as
they deserve; he never allows enthusiasm to intrude among political
considerations. He measures the length, breadth, and thickness of the
bill before him; calculates with his unerring precision and practical
wisdom, the effect which it will have, either on the happiness of the
people, or on the social or political constitution of the country.
According to its value for good or for evil, does the Duke of Wellington
support or oppose it; and from that hour its fate is usually decided.
Why? because the unbending unflinching honesty of the man, and his
political sagacity, have created him a character unprecedented in the
annals of his country.

The Duke's style of speaking is what might be expected from his
character, plain, simple, straightforward. His sentences are short and
pithy, his language clear and lucid; his delivery abrupt. When he makes
a point, it falls on the mind with the force of a sledge-hammer. His
voice reminds one of that of an officer giving the word of command; he
lays emphasis, short and somewhat harsh, on the leading words of the
sentence, and speaks the rest in an under tone. Although, however, in
consequence of his age and the gradual approach of infirmity, his
utterance is not so clear as it used to be, yet you can always
understand immediately his whole meaning. He uses the plainest language
of every-day colloquy. His style is impressive from its doric
simplicity. You never entertain a doubt of his sincerity; and although
you may not always agree with him in opinion, you have, at least, the
satisfaction of knowing that his propositions are the true result of
his feelings or his thoughts; and are not merely put forward to answer
the purposes of party, or to secure a triumph in debate.

For the same reason, the Duke never attempts to impose on the house a
fictitious enthusiasm, or a pretended excitement. If he gets excited,
(and he will sometimes get into a terrible passion at any infringement
of constitutional integrity or breach of discipline), there is no
mistaking it for a mere prepared climax to a speech; he is completely
possessed by the demon. The only action he ever uses is on such
occasions, and then it is almost convulsive. His arms and legs seem no
longer to be under control, they quiver, and shake, and tremble: and the
clenched fist, violently and frequently struck upon the table, denotes
that some very potent feeling of indignation is, for the time, mastering
the usual calmness of this self-possessed man.

Yet though at times he is thus carried away by his feelings, his
ultimate judgment of a measure is not impaired by it. He can cauterise
or cut out the cankered part, and yet preserve all that was not
offensive to his sense of right and wrong.

Those who have read the speeches of the Duke, will have remarked the
intensely British feeling that pervades them. He is like the old Romans
in his admiration and love for his country and her institutions. The
same feeling breathes in all his speeches. The same magnanimous brevity
that marked the public declarations of that haughty people, dignifies
the addresses of the Duke of Wellington. Some of his sayings, as, for
instance, "that a great nation can never wage a little war," will he
embalmed in history. His denunciations are like the alarum of a war
trumpet. The same character of simplicity which marks the Duke's
speeches pervades his whole conduct, public and private. Though no man
is more capable of enjoying the refinements of modern society, luxury
has not enervated his mind or his manners. His dress, his equipage, his
habits, all partake of the same indifference to effect--all have a cast
of the hardy self-denial of the camp. A mattress bed, constant horse
exercise, rising with the lark, not unfrequently remaining up twenty
hours out of the twenty-four, and the daily use of cold shower baths,
winter and summer,--these contradictions to the usual habits of men,
when their age approaches to fourscore, bespeak no ordinary carelessness
of ease, and a singular determination of purpose. Well, indeed, has he
been named the Iron Duke.



MAXIMS AND OPINIONS OF HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

       *       *       *       *       *

INDIA.

To offer a public reward, by proclamation, for a man's life, and to make
a secret bargain to have it taken away, are very different things; the
one is to be done, the other, in my opinion, cannot by an officer at the
head of the troops.

_Dispatch, July 8, 1800._

       *       *       *       *       *

As for the wishes of the people, particularly in this country (India), I
put them out of the question. They are the only philosophers about their
governors that ever I met with, if indifference constitutes that
character.

_Dispatch, August 20, 1800._

       *       *       *       *       *

In military operations time is everything.

_Dispatch, June 30, 1800._

Articles of provision are not to be trifled with, or left to chance;
and there is nothing more clear than that the subsistence of the troops
must be certain upon the proposed service, or the service must be
relinquished.

_Dispatch, Feb. 18, 1801._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Indignant rejection of a proffered Bribe._

You inform me that the Rajah, or Dessaye of Kittoor, has expressed a
wish to be taken under the protection of the British Government; and has
offered to pay a tribute to the company, and to give you a bribe of 4000
pagodas, and me one of 10,000 pagodas, provided this point is arranged
according to his wishes.

I cannot conceive what can have induced the Rajah of Kittoor to imagine
that I was capable of receiving that or any other sum of money, as an
inducement to do that which he must think improper, or he would not have
offered it. But I shall advert to that point more particularly
presently.

The Rajah of Kittoor is a tributary of the Mahratta Government, the head
of which is an ally, by treaty, of the honourable company. It would be,
therefore, to the full as proper, that any officer in command of a post
within the company's territories, should listen to and enter into a plan
for seizing part of the Mahratta territories, as it is for you to listen
and encourage an offer from the Rajah of Kittoor to accept the
protection of, and transfer his allegiance and tribute to the honourable
company's government. In case you should hear anything further upon
this subject from the Rajah of Kittoor, or in future from any of the
chiefs of the Mahrattas on the frontier, I desire that you will tell
them what is the fact, that you have no authority whatever to listen to
such proposals, that you have orders only to keep up with them the usual
intercourse of civility and friendship, and that if they have any
proposals of that kind to make, they must be made in a proper manner to
our superiors. You may, at the same time, inform them that you have my
authority to say that the British government is very little likely to
take advantage of the misfortunes of its ally, to deprive him, either of
his territories or of the allegiance or tribute due to him by his
tributaries.

In respect to the bribe offered to you and myself, I am surprised that
any man in the character of a British officer should not have given the
Rajah to understand that the offer would be considered as an insult; and
that he should not have forbidden its renewal, than that he should have
encouraged it, and even offered to receive a quarter of the sum proposed
to be given him for prompt payment. I can attribute your conduct on this
occasion, to nothing excepting the most inconsiderate indiscretion, and
to a desire to benefit yourself, which got the better of your prudence.
I desire, however, that you will refrain from the subject with the Rajah
of Kittoor at all, and that if he should renew it, you will inform him,
that I and all British officers consider such offers as insults on the
part of them by whom made.

_Letter to an officer in India, January 20, 1803._

_Principle of Warfare in India._

We must get the upper hand, and if once we have that, we shall keep it
with ease, and shall certainly succeed. But if we begin by a long
defensive warfare, and go looking after convoys that are scattered over
the face of the earth, and do not attack briskly, we shall soon be in
distress.

_Dispatch, Aug. 17, 1803._

       *       *       *       *       *

_How to avoid Party Spirit in the Army._

It occurs to me that there is much party in the army in your quarter;
this must be put an end to. And there is only one mode of effecting
this, and that is for the commanding officer to be of no side excepting
that of the public; to employ indiscriminately those who can best serve
the public, be they who they may, or in whatever service; the
consequence will be that the service will go on, all parties will join
in forwarding it, and in respecting him; there will be an end to their
petty disputes about trifles; and the commanding officer will be at the
head of an army instead of a party.

_Letter to an officer, Sept. 16, 1803._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The power of the Sword necessary in India._

It is necessary that the political agents at the durbars of the native
princes should be supposed to have a considerable degree of power. In
this part of the world there is no power excepting that of the sword;
and it follows that if these political agents have no authority over the
military, they have no power whatever.

The natives would soon find out this state of weakness, and the
residents would lose their influence over their councils. It may be
argued if that is the case, the military commanding officer ought to be
the resident, or political agent. In answer to this argument, I say,
that the same reasoning applies to every part of the executive
government; and that, upon this ground, the whole ought to be in the
hands of the military. In short, the only conclusion to be drawn from
all reflection and reasoning upon the subject is, that the British
government in India is a phenomenon; and that it will not answer to
apply to it, in its present state, either the rules which guide other
governments, or the reasoning upon which these rules are founded.

_Dispatch, Oct. 13, 1803._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reason for the ambiguity of Treaties._

It is impossible to frame a treaty of peace in such a manner as to find
in it a decision of all questions which can arise between the parties
concerned; particularly when the parties have frequently been at war,
and have preserved a recollection of a variety of contradictory claims
arising out of the events of their wars, which they are ready to bring
forward on all occasions.

_Dispatch, Jan. 7, 1804._

_Foundation of British Power in India in 1803._

The British government has been left by the late Mahratta war in a most
glorious situation. They are the sovereigns of a great part of India,
the protectors of the principal powers, and the mediators by treaty of
the disputes of all. The sovereignty they possess is greater, and their
power is settled upon more permanent foundations, than any before known
in India; all it wants is the popularity which, from the nature of the
institutions and the justice of the proceedings of the government, it is
likely to obtain, and which it must obtain, after a short period of
tranquillity shall have given the people time and opportunity to feel
the happiness and security which they enjoy.

_Dispatch, Jan. 16, 1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

_British "Moderation" in India._

I declare that, when I view the treaty of peace,[2] and its
consequences, I am afraid it will be imagined that the moderation of the
British government in India has a strong resemblance to the ambition of
other governments.

[Footnote 2: After the Mahratta war.]

_Jan. 29, 1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Contrast between European and Asiatic Policy._

European governments were, till very lately, guided by certain rules and
systems of policy so accurately defined and generally known, that it was
scarcely possible to suppose a political event, in which the interest
and conduct of each state would not be as well known to the corps
diplomatique, in general, as to the statesmen of each particular state.
The Asiatic governments do not acknowledge, and hardly know of, such
rules and systems. Their governments are arbitrary; the objects of their
policy are always shifting; they have no regular established system, the
effect of which is to protect the weak against the strong; on the
contrary, the object of each of them separately, and of all of them
taken collectively, is to destroy the weak; and if by chance, they
should, by a sense of common danger, be induced for a season to combine
their efforts for their mutual defence, the combination lasts only so
long as it is attended with success; the first reverse dissolves it;
and, at all events, it is dissolved long before the danger ceases, the
apprehension of which originally caused it. The company's government in
India, the other contracting party to their alliance, is one bound by
all the rules and systems of European policy. The company's power in
India is supposed to depend much upon its reputation; and although I do
not admit that it depends upon its reputation, as distinguished from its
real force, as appears to be contended by some, I may say that it is
particularly desirable for a government, so constituted as the
company's, never to enter upon any particular object, the probable
result of which should not be greatly in favour of success.

Besides this, the company's government in India is bound by acts of
parliament not to undertake wars of aggression, not to make any but
defensive alliances, and those only in cases in which the other
contracting party shall bind itself to defend the possessions of the
company actually threatened with hostilities.

The company's government in India is also connected with his majesty's
government, and, as an Asiatic power, is liable to be involved in wars
with European powers possessing territories in India, whenever his
majesty shall be at war with those powers.

The picture above drawn of the state of politics among Asiatic powers,
proves that no permanent system can be adopted which will preserve the
weak against the strong, and will keep all for any length of time in
their relative situations, and the whole in peace; excepting there
should be one power, which, either by the superiority of its strength,
its military system, or its resources, shall preponderate, and be able
to protect all.

_1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

It is necessary for a man who fills a public situation, and who has
great public interests in charge, to lay aside all private
considerations, whether on his own account or that of other persons.

_March 2, 1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

When war is concluded, all animosity should be forgotten.

_March 12, 1804._

_The British character for good faith must be preserved in India._

I would sacrifice Gwalior, or every portion of India, ten times over, in
order to preserve our credit for scrupulous good faith, and the
advantages and honour we gained by the late war and the peace: and we
must not fritter them away in arguments, drawn from overstrained
principles of the laws of nations, which are not understood in this
country. What brought me through many difficulties in the war, and the
negociations for peace? The British good faith, and nothing else.

_Dispatch, March 17, 1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Civil Government in India must follow immediately on Military
Conquest._

I rather think that you and the Governor-General agree in opinion on the
subject of the affairs of Malabar. He says, "examine and report the
state of the province before you commence your military operations;
define the evils, and propose a system of government which shall afford
a remedy, towards the establishment of which system military operations
may be directed."

It would be useless to commence military operations upon any great
scale, unless the civil officers should be prepared to take possession
of the country, and to re-establish the civil government as the troops
shall conquer it. If the civil government were not re-established in
this manner, the rebels would rise again as soon as the troops would
pass through the districts; and the effect of the operations of a large
body of troops would be much the same as that of a small body. But if
the civil government is to be re-established in this manner, it would be
better to establish that system which is found to be good, and is to be
permanent, than that which is known to be had, and which is intended
should not last. Supposing that the bad system were first introduced, it
must be followed afterwards by the good one; and, supposing that the bad
system did not produce a rebellion of itself (which I acknowledge I do
not think it would, as rebellion in Malabar is to be traced to causes
entirely independent of all systems of civil government, excepting as
they are connected with a strong or weak military force), the change
from the bad to the good system would produce a degree of convulsion,
and, possibly, momentary weakness, which it is always desirable to
avoid. It is particularly desirable to avoid it in this instance, as it
will not be difficult, by an examination of all that has passed in
Malabar, to fix upon the general principles according to which that
province ought to be governed, and to form a system accordingly, in the
time which must elapse before the troops can he employed in settling the
province.

_March 20, 1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Principle of Relief to the Poor._

The principle, of the mode in which I propose to relieve the distresses
of the inhabitants, is not to give grain or money in charity.

Those who suffer from famine may properly be divided into two classes:
those who can, and those who cannot, work. In the latter class may be
included old persons, children, and the sick women; who, from their
former situation in life, have been unaccustomed to labour, and are
weakened by the effects of famine.

The former, viz., those of both sexes who can work, ought to be employed
by the public; and in the course of this letter I shall point out the
work on which I should wish that they might be employed, and in what
manner paid. The latter, viz., those who cannot work, ought to be taken
into an hospital and fed, and receive medical aid and medicine at the
expense of the public.

According to this mode of proceeding, subsistence will be provided for
all; the public will receive some benefit from the expense which will be
incurred, and, above all, it will be certain, that no able-bodied person
will apply for relief, unless he should be unwilling to work for his
subsistence, that none will apply who are able to work, and who are not
real objects of charity; and that none will come to Ahmednuggur for the
purpose of partaking of the food which must be procured by the labour,
or to obtain which they must submit to the restraint of an hospital.

_Dispatch, April 11, 1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Tactics to be pursued against Predatory Troops_.

I have served a good deal in this part of India against this description
of freebooter; and I think that the best mode of operating, is to press
him with one or two corps capable of moving with tolerable celerity,
and of such strength as to render the result of an action by no means
doubtful, if he should venture to risk one. There is but little hope, it
is true, that he will risk an action, or that any one of these corps
will come up with him. The effect to be produced by this mode of
operation is to oblige him to move constantly, and with great celerity.
When reduced to this necessity, he cannot venture to stop to plunder the
country, and he does comparatively but little mischief; at all events
the subsistence of his army becomes difficult and precarious, the
horsemen become dissatisfied, and they perceive that their situation is
hopeless, and they desert in numbers daily; the freebooter ends by
having with him only a few adherents, and he is reduced to such a state
as to be liable to be taken by any small body of country horse, which
are the fittest troops to be then employed against him.

In proportion as the body of our troops, to be employed against a
freebooter of this description, have the power of moving with celerity,
will such freebooter be distressed. Whenever the largest and most
formidable bodies of them are hard pressed by our troops, the village
people attack them upon their rear and flanks, cut off stragglers, and
will not allow a man to enter their villages; because their villages
being in some degree fortified, they know well that the freebooters dare
not wait the time which would be necessary to reduce them. When this is
the case, all their means of subsistence vanish, no resource remains
excepting to separate, and even this resource is attended by risk, as
the village people cut them off on their way to their homes.

_Dispatch, May 27, 1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Importance of Secresy in Public Affairs_.

There is nothing more certain than that of one hundred affairs
ninety-nine might be posted up at the market-cross, without injury to
the public interests; but the misfortune is that where the public
business is the subject of general conversation, and is not kept a
secret, as a matter of course, upon every occasion, it is very difficult
to keep it secret upon that occasion on which it is necessary. There is
an awkwardness in a secret which enables discerning men (of which
description there are always plenty in an army) invariably to find it
out; and it may be depended upon that, whenever the public business
ought to be kept secret, it always suffers when it is exposed to public
view. For this reason secresy is always best; and those who have been
long trusted with the conduct of public affairs are in the habit of
never making known public business of any description that it is not
necessary that the public should know. The consequence is that secresy
becomes natural to them, and as much a habit as it is to others to talk
of public matters; and they have it in their power to keep things secret
or not, as they may think proper.

Remember that what I recommend to you is far removed from mystery; in
fact, I recommend silence upon the public business upon all occasions,
in order to avoid the necessity of mystery upon any.

_Dispatch, June 28, 1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

In all retreats, it must be recollected that they are safe and easy, in
proportion to the number of attacks made by the retreating corps.

_Dispatch, Sept. 12, 1804._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Neglect of his Services in India._

In regard to staying longer (in the Deccan), the question is exactly
whether the court of directors, or the king's ministers, have any claim
upon me, strong enough to induce me to do anything so disagreeable to my
feelings (leaving health out of the question) as to remain, for a great
length of time, in this country. I have served the company in important
situations for many years, and have never received anything but injury
from the court of directors, although I am a singular instance of an
officer who has served under all governments, and in communication with
all the political residents, and many civil authorities; and there is
not an instance on record, or in any private correspondence, of
disapprobation of any of my acts, or a single complaint, or even a
symptom of ill-temper from any one of the political or civil authorities
in communication with whom I have acted. The king's ministers have as
little claim upon me as the court of directors. I am not very ambitious,
and I acknowledge that I never have been very sanguine in my
expectations that military services in India would be considered in the
scale in which are considered similar services in other parts of the
world. But I might have expected to be placed on the staff in India; and
yet if it had not been for the lamented death of General Fraser, General
Smith's arrival would have made me supernumerary. This is perfectly well
known to the army, and is the subject of a good deal of conversation.

_Jan. 4, 1805._

       *       *       *       *       *

I mistrust the judgment of every man in a case in which his own wishes
are concerned.

_Feb. 3, 1805._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Advice to a Native Ruler in India._

Let the prosperity of the country be your great object; protect the
ryots and traders, and allow no man, whether invested with authority or
not, to oppress them with impunity. Do justice to every man.

_March 2, 1805._

       *       *       *       *       *

Without distinction of religion every man ought to be called upon to do
service to the state, wherever he is particularly qualified to do that
service.

_House of Commons, May 11, 1808._

_Control of the Navy and Army._

The navy is the characteristic and constitutional force of Britain, and
may therefore be governed by regulations of the legislature; but the
army is a new force, arising out of the extraordinary exigencies of
modern times, and from every consideration of expediency and necessity,
must be left under the control of the crown.

_House of Commons, June 3, 1808._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Law-breaker always Wrong._

It frequently happens that the people who do commit outrages and
disturbances have some reason to complain; but he who breaks the law
must be considered in the wrong, whatever may have been, the nature of
the provocation which he has received.[3]

[Footnote 3: This remark, though it applies generally, was made with
respect to Ireland.]

_Ibid, July 7, 1808._

       *       *       *       *       *


THE PENINSULA.

_The Battle of Vimeiro._

The action of Vimeiro is the only one I have ever been in (1808), in
which everything passed as was directed, and no mistake was made by any
of the officers charged with its conduct.

_Dispatch, Aug. 22, 1806._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Distinction between Civil and Military Responsibility._

There is a great distinction of duty between military and civil inferior
situations. If, in a civil officer, the inferior differs materially from
the superior, he ought to resign, but in military appointments, it is
the duty of the inferior officer to assist his commander in the mode in
which that commander may deem his services most advantageous.

_Defence of his conduct with regard to the Convention of Cintra. House
of Commons, Feb. 21, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Rapidity of the French Retreats accounted for._

It is obvious, that if an army throws away all its cannon, equipments,
and baggage, and everything which can strengthen it, and can enable it
to act together as a body; and abandons all those who are entitled to
its protection, but add to its weight and impede its progress;[4] it
must be able to march by roads through which it cannot be followed, with
any prospect of being overtaken by an army which has not made the same
sacrifice.

[Footnote 4: Alluding to the rapidity of the French retreat.]

_Dispatch, May 18, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

I have long been of opinion that a British army could bear neither
success nor failure.[5]

[Footnote 5: Referring to their habits of plunder.]

_Dispatch, May 31, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Inefficiency of Spanish Officers._

Nothing can be worse than the officers of the Spanish army, and it is
extraordinary that when a nation has devoted itself to war, as this
nation has by the measures which it has adopted in the last two years,
so little progress has been made in any one branch of the military
profession by any individual, and that the business of an army should be
so little understood. They are really children in the art of war, and I
cannot say they do anything as it ought to be done, with the exception
of running away, and assembling again in a state of nature.

_Dispatch, Aug. 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Terrorism and Force, not Enthusiasm, enabled the French Revolutionary
Armies to conquer._

People are very apt to believe that enthusiasm carried the French
through their revolution, and was the parent of those exertions which
have nearly conquered the world; but if the subject is nicely examined,
it will be found that enthusiasm was the name only, but that force was
the instrument which brought forward those great resources under the
system of terror which first stopped the allies; and that a perseverance
in the same system of applying every individual and every description of
property to the service of the army, by force, has since conquered
Europe.

_Dispatch, Aug. 25, 1809._

_The Spaniards and Portuguese want the true spirit of Soldiers._

We are mistaken if we believe that what these Portuguese and Spanish
armies require is discipline, properly so called. They want the habits
and spirit of soldiers--the habits of command on one side, and of
obedience on the other--mutual confidence between officers and men; and
above all, a determination in superiors to obey the spirit of the orders
they receive, let what will be the consequence, and the spirit to tell
the true cause if they do not.

_Dispatch, Sept. 8, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Importance of good understanding between Negotiating Parties._

Half the business of the world, particularly that of our country, is
done by accommodation, and by the parties understanding each other, but
when rights are claimed they must be resisted, if there are no grounds
for them; when appeal must be made to higher powers there can be no
accommodation, and much valuable time is lost in reference which ought
to be spent in action.

_Dispatch, Sept. 20, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Popular Assemblies unmanageable._

I acknowledge that I have a great dislike to a new popular assembly;
even our own ancient one would be quite unmanageable, and in three days,
would ruin us, if the present generation had not before its eyes the
example of the French revolution; and if there were not certain rules
and orders for its guidance and government, the knowledge and use of
which render safe, and successfully direct, its proceedings.

_Dispatch, Sept. 22, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Distracted State of Spain._

I declare that if I were in Buonaparte's situation, I should leave the
English and the Cortes to settle Spain in the best manner they could;
and I should entertain very little doubt but that in a very short space
of time Spain must fall into the hands of France. At the same time I
must agree with you in thinking that affairs are now in so desperate a
situation that they cannot be worse; that there is a real want of men of
common capacity in Spain, in whose hands any form of government,
intended for vigorous action, could be placed with any hope that their
powers could he used to the public advantage; and that the Cortes, with
all their faults, and the dangers attendant upon such an assembly, will
have at least this advantage, that they will have the confidence of the
country, and the prejudices of their countrymen of the lower class in
our favour, and against France; the remark being perfectly well founded,
that there is no prejudice or jealousy of us any where in Spain
excepting by the government.

But in order to enjoy common safety under such an assembly as the
Spanish Cortes, the rules and orders for their proceedings and internal
government ought to be well defined, and to be, if possible, a part of
the constitution of the assembly. Great care should also be taken in
their formation to protect them from the effects of popular fury in the
place of their sitting; but still with all these precautions I should
prefer a wise Bourbon, if we could find one, for a regent, to the
Cortes.

_Dispatch, Sept. 22, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

Whatever may be eventually the fate of Spain, Portugal must be a
military country.

_Dispatch, Sept. 24, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Military Value of an Armed and Friendly People._

In respect to the army and armament of the people in Spain and Portugal,
there is no man more aware than I am of the advantage to be derived from
these measures; and if I had not reflected well upon the subject, my
experience of the war in Portugal and in Spain--(in Portugal, where the
people are in some degree armed and arrayed; and in Spain, where they
are not)--would have shewn me the advantage which an army has against
the enemy when the people are armed and arrayed, and are on its side in
the contest. But reflection, and, above all, experience have shewn me
the exact extent of this advantage in a military point of view; and I
only beg that those who have to contend with the French, will not be
diverted from the business of raising, arming, equipping, and training
regular bodies, by any notion that the people, when armed and arrayed,
will be of, I will not say any, but of much use to them.

_Dispatch, Oct. 11, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Difficulties in the Peninsular War. The Battle of Talavera._

You will have heard of all that has passed in this country, and I will
not therefore trouble you with a repetition of the story. The battle of
Talevera was certainly the hardest fought of modern days, and the most
glorious in its results to our troops. Each side engaged lost a quarter
of their numbers.

It is lamentable that, owing to the miserable inefficiency of the
Spaniards, to their want of exertion, and the deficiency of numbers,
even, of the allies, much more of discipline and every other military
quality, when compared with the enemy in the Peninsula, the glory of the
action is the only benefit we have derived from it. But that is a solid
and substantial benefit, of which we have derived some good consequences
already; for, strange to say, I have contrived with the little British
army to keep everything in check since the month of August last; and if
the Spaniards had not contrived, by their own folly and against my
entreaties and remonstrances, to lose an army in La Mancha about a
fortnight ago, I think we might have brought them through the contest;
as it is, however, I do not despair. I have in hand a most difficult
task, from which I may not extricate myself; but I must not shrink from
it, I command an unanimous army; I draw well with all the authorities in
Spain and Portugal; and I believe I have the good wishes of the whole
world. In such circumstances, one may fail, but it would be
dishonourable to shrink from the task.

_Letter to Col. Malcome, Dec. 3, 1809._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Buonaparte's System Hollow._

The Austrian marriage is a terrible event, and must prevent any great
movement on the continent for the present. Still I do not despair of
seeing, at some time or other, a check to the Buonaparte system. Recent
transactions in Holland shew that it is all hollow within; and that it
is so inconsistent with the wishes, the interests, and even the
existence of civilized society, that he cannot trust even his brothers
to carry it into execution.

_Dispatch, April 4, 1810._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Military Law the will of the General._

Military law, as applied to any persons excepting the officers,
soldiers, and followers of the army, for whose government there are
particular provisions of law in all well regulated countries, is neither
more nor less than the will of the general of the army. He punishes
either with or without trial, for crimes either declared to be so, or
not so declared, by any existing law, or by his own orders. This is the
plain and common meaning of the term military law. Besides the mode of
proceeding above described, laws have been made in different countries
at different times to establish and legalize a description of military
constitution.

The commander-in-chief, or the government, has been authorized to
proceed by military process--that is, by court martial or council of
war--against persons offending against certain laws, or against their
own orders, issued generally for the security of the army; or for the
establishment of a certain government or constitution odious to the
people among whom it is established.

Of both descriptions of military law, there are numerous instances in
the history of the operations of the French army during the revolution;
and there is an instance of the existence both of the first-mentioned
description and of the last-mentioned in Ireland, during the rebellion
of 1798, when the people were in insurrection against the government,
and were to be restrained by force.

_Dispatch, April 19, 1810._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Letter to a Portuguese of Rank on the Position and Duties of Persons in
his station._

I have received your letter containing a complaint against----, of the
quarter-master general's department, that he had ill-treated one of your
servants, into which I shall make inquiry, and let you know the result.


It is impossible, however, for me to interfere in any manner with a
billet, given by the magistrates of Coimbra, for an officer and his
family to be quartered in your house. I must at the same time inform
you, that I am not a little surprised that a person of your rank and
station, and quality in the country, should object to give accommodation
in your house, and should make a complaint of this officer, that he had
asked you for additional accommodation, when it appears by the letter
which you enclosed, and which I now return, that when you objected to
give him this additional accommodation for which he asked, he acquiesced
in your objection, and did not any longer require this accommodation.

The unfortunate situation in which Portugal is placed, and the desire of
the insatiable enemy of mankind to force this once happy and loyal
people to submit to his iron yoke, to plunder them of their properties
to destroy their religion and to deprive them of their monarch, has
rendered it necessary to collect in this country a large army, in order,
if possible, to defeat and frustrate the designs of the enemy. It is the
duty of those whose age, whose sex, or whose profession, do not permit
them to take an active part in the defence of their country, to assist
those employed in its defence with provisions, lodgings for officers and
troops, means of transport, &c., and at all events not to oppose
themselves to the granting of this description of assistance. These
duties are more particularly incumbent upon the rich and high in
station, who would be the first victims of, and greatest sufferers
from, the enemy's success, unless, indeed, they should be of the number
of those traitors who are aiding to introduce the common enemy into the
country, to destroy its happiness and independence.

Under these circumstances I am not a little astonished to receive these
frivolous and manifestly unfounded complaints from you, and that you
should be the person to set the example of objecting to give quarters to
an officer, because he is married and has children.

It is not very agreeable to anybody to have strangers quartered in his
house; nor is it very agreeable to us strangers, who have good houses in
our own country, to be obliged to seek for quarters here. We are not
here for our pleasure; the situation of your country renders it
necessary: and you, a man of family and fortune, who have much to lose,
should not be the first to complain of the inconvenience of our presence
in the country.

I do everything in my power to alleviate the inconvenience which all
must suffer. We pay extravagant prices with unparalleled punctuality for
everything we receive; and I make it a rule to inquire into and redress
every injury that is really done by the troops under my command, as I
shall that to which I have above referred, of which you complain, in the
conduct of----towards your servant.

_Dispatch, August 23, 1810._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Croaking Spirit in the British Army in Portugal_.

It appears that you have had a good smart contest with the government
respecting our plan of operations. They will end in forcing me to quit
them, and then they will see how they will get on. They will then find
that I alone keep things in their present state. Indeed the temper of
some of the officers of the British army gives me more concern than the
folly of the Portuguese government. I have always been accustomed to
have the confidence and support of the officers of the armies which I
have commanded; but for the first time, whether owing to the opposition
in England, or whether the magnitude of the concern is too much for
their minds and their nerves, or whether I am mistaken and they are
right, I cannot tell; but there is a system of croaking in the army
which is highly injurious to the public service, and which I must devise
some means to put an end to, or it will put an end to us. Officers have
a right to form their own opinions upon events and transactions, but
officers of high rank or situation ought to keep their opinions to
themselves; if they do not approve of the system of operations of their
commander, they ought to withdraw from the army. And this is a point to
which I must bring some, if I should not find that their own good sense
prevents them from going on as they have done lately. Believe me that if
any body else, knowing what I do, had commanded the army, they would now
have been in Lisbon, if not, in their ships.

_Dispatch, September 11, 1810._

_Note_--This passage from a letter to the British minister at Lisbon is
one of many, which explain the difficulties Lord Wellington had to
encounter from the Portuguese Government, from the opposition and the
press in England, and from the want of proper military spirit in his own
officers.

_Conduct of the Portuguese._

If we are to go on as we have hitherto; if Great Britain is to give
large subsidies, and to expend large sums in the support of a cause in
which these most interested sit by and take no part; and those at the
head of the government, with laws and power to force the people to
exertion in the critical circumstances in which the country is placed,
are aware of the evil, but neglect their duty and omit to put the laws
into execution, I must believe their professions to be false; that they
look to a little dirty popularity instead of to save their country; that
they are unfaithful servants to their master, and persons in whom his
allies can place no confidence.

_Oct. 28, 1810._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The National Disease of Spain._

The national disease of Spain, that is, boasting of the strength and
power of the Spanish nation, till they are seriously convinced that they
are in no danger, then sitting down quietly and indulging their national
indolence.

_Dec. 2, 1810._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Apathy of the Portuguese._

There exists in the people of Portugal, an unconquerable love of their
ease, which is superior even to their fear and detestation of the enemy.
Neither will they, or their magistrates, or the government, see that the
temporary indulgence of this passion for tranquillity must occasion the
greatest misfortunes to the state and hardships to the individuals
themselves; and no person in the country likes to have his tranquillity
and habits disturbed for any purpose, however important, or to be the
instrument of disturbing those of others. Thus every arrangement is
defeated, and every order disobeyed with impunity. The magistrate will
not force the inhabitants to adopt a measure, however beneficial to the
state and himself, which will disturb his old habits; and the government
will not force the magistrate to do that which will be disagreeable to
him and to the people: thus we shall go on till the end of time.

_January 3, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Takes no Notice of Newspapers._

I hope that the opinions of the people in Great Britain are not
influenced by paragraphs in newspapers, and that those paragraphs do not
convey the public opinion or sentiment upon any subject: therefore I
(who have more reason than any other public man of the present day to
complain of libels of this description) never take the smallest notice
of them; and have never authorized any contradiction to be given, or any
statement to be made in answer to the innumerable falsehoods, and the
heaps of false reasoning, which have been published respecting me and
the operations which I have directed.

_January 7, 1811._

_Indolence of the Natives of the Peninsula._

There is something very extraordinary in the nature of the people of the
Peninsula. I really believe them, those of Portugal particularly, to be
the most loyal and best disposed, and the most cordial haters of the
French, that ever existed; but there is an indolence and a want even of
the power of exertion in their disposition and habits, either for their
own security, that of their country, or of their allies, which baffle
all our calculations and efforts.

_January 16, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Different Constitution of the French and English Armies._

It may also be asked why should we spend our money, and why these troops
should not go on as the French troops do, without pay, provisions,
magazines, or any thing? The French army is certainly a wonderful
machine; but if we are to form such a one, we must form such a
government as exists in France, which can with impunity lose one-half of
the troops employed in the field every year, only by the privations and
hardships imposed upon them. Next, we most compose our army of soldiers
drawn from all classes of the population of the country; from the good
and middling, as well as in rank as education, as from the bad; and not
as all other nations do, and we in particular, from the bad only.
Thirdly, we must establish such a system of discipline as the French
have; a system founded on the strength of the tyranny of the government,
which operates upon an army composed of soldiers, the majority of whom
are sober, well disposed, amenable to order, and in some degree
educated.

When we shall have done all this, and shall have made these armies of
the strength of those employed by the French, we may require of them to
live as the French do, viz., by authorised and regular plunder of the
country and its inhabitants, if any should remain; and we may expose
them to the labour, hardships and privations which the French soldier
suffers every day; and we must expect the same proportion of loss every
campaign, viz., one-half of those who take field.

_January 26, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Character of the Marques de la Romana._

In him the Spanish army have lost their brightest ornament, his country
their most upright patriot, and the world the most strenuous and zealous
defender of the cause in which we are engaged; and I shall always
acknowledge with gratitude the assistance which I received from him, as
well by his operations as by his counsel, since he had been joined with
this army.

_January 26, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_None but the worst men enter the Army as Privates._

In respect to recruiting the army, my own opinion is, that the
government have never taken an enlarged view of the subject. It is
expected that people will become soldiers in the line, and leave their
families to starve, when, if they become soldiers in the militia, their
families are provided for. This is an inconsistency that must strike the
mind of even the least reflecting of mankind. What is the consequence?
That none but the worst description of men enter the regular service.

       *       *       *       *       *

But admitting the truth of the expense, I say that the country has not a
choice between army and no army, between peace or war. They must have a
large and efficient army, one capable of meeting the enemy abroad, or
they must expect to meet him at home; and then farewell to all
considerations of measures of greater or lesser expense, and to the
ease, the luxury, and happiness of England. God forbid that I should see
the day on which hostile armies should contend within the United
Kingdom; but I am very certain that I shall not only see that day, but
shall be a party in the contest, unless we alter our system, and the
public feel in time the real nature of the contest in which we are at
present engaged, and determine to meet its expense. I have gone a little
beyond the question of recruiting; but depend upon it that you will get
men when you provide for the families of soldiers in the line and not in
the militia, and not before.

_January 28, 1811._

_Buonaparte's "disgusting Tyranny."_

I am glad to hear such good accounts of affairs in the North. God send
that they may prove true, and that we may overthrow this disgusting
tyranny: however, of this I am certain, that whether true or not at
present, something of the kind must occur before long, and, if we can
only hold out, we shall yet see the world relieved.

_March 23, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_A French army in England would be the consequence of our withdrawal
from the Peninsula._

I shall be sorry if government should think themselves under the
necessity of withdrawing from this country, on account of the expense of
the contest. From what I have seen of the objects of the French
government, and the sacrifices they make to accomplish them, I have no
doubt that if the British army were for any reason to withdraw from the
Peninsula, and the French government were relieved from the pressure of
military operations on the Continent, they would incur all risks to land
an army in his majesty's dominions. Then indeed would commence an
expensive contest; then his majesty's subjects discover what are the
miseries of war, of which, by the blessing of God, they have hitherto
had no knowledge; and the cultivation, the beauty, and prosperity of the
country, and the virtue and happiness of its inhabitants, would be
destroyed: whatever might be the result of the military operations; God
forbid that I should be a witness, much less an actor, in the scene.[6]

[Footnote 6: At this time the clamours of the opposition regarding the
expense of the war induced a fear that the government might determine to
discontinue it.]

_March 23, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Peninsular Governments must not mind unpopularity._

I recommend to them (the Spaniards and Portuguese) to advert seriously
to the nature of the task which they have to perform. Popularity,
however desirable it may be to individuals, will not form, or feed, or
pay an army; will not enable it to march and fight; will not keep it in
a state of efficiency for long and arduous services. The resources which
a wise government must find for these objects must be drawn from the
people, not by measures which will render those unpopular who undertake
to govern a country in critical circumstances, but by measures which
must for a moment have a contrary effect. The enthusiasm of the people
in favour of any individual never saved any country. They must be
obliged by the restraint of law and regulation, to do those things and
to pay those contributions, which are to enable the government to carry
on this necessary contest.

_April 9, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Coolness in action, not headlong bravery, is required in the Army._

The desire to be forward in engaging the enemy is not uncommon in the
British array; but that quality which I wish to see the officers
possess, who are at the head of the troops, is a cool, discriminating
judgment in action, which will enable them to decide with promptitude
how far they can and ought to go, with propriety; and to convey their
orders, and act with such vigour and decision, that the soldiers will
look up to them with confidence in the moment of action, and obey them
with alacrity.

_May 15, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The battle of Albuera one of the most glorious in the War._

You will have heard of the Marshal's (Beresford) action on the 16th. The
fighting was desperate, and the loss of the British has been very
severe; but, adverting to the nature of the contest, and the manner in
which they held their ground against all the efforts the whole French
army could make against them, notwithstanding all the losses which they
had sustained, I think this action one of the most glorious, and
honourable to the character of the troops, of any that has been fought
during the war.

_May 20, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Portuguese Troops, better than Spanish._

What a pity it is that the Spaniards will not set to work seriously to
discipline their troops! We do what we please now with the Portuguese
troops; we manoeuvre them under fire equally with our own, and have some
dependence on them; but these Spaniards can do nothing but stand still,
and we consider ourselves fortunate if they do not run away.

_May 25, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Disorganized state of the Peninsular Governments._

Those unfortunate governments in the Peninsula have been reduced to such
a state of decrepitude, that I believe there was no authority existing
within Spain or Portugal before the French invaded these countries. The
French invasion did not improve this state of things; and, since what is
called in Spain the revolution, and in Portugal the restoration, no
crime that I know of has been punished in either, excepting that of
being a French partisan. Those malversations in office--those neglects
of duty; the disobedience of orders; the inattention to regulation,
which tend to defeat all plans for military operation, and ruin a state
that is involved in war, more certainly than the plots of all the French
partisans, are passed unnoticed; and, notwithstanding the numerous
complaints which Marshal Beresford and I have made, I do not know that
one individual has yet been punished, or even dismissed from his
office. The cause of this evil is the mistaken principle on which the
government have proceeded. They have imagined that the best foundation
for their power was a low, vulgar popularity; the evidence is the shouts
of the mob of Lisbon, and the regular attendance at their levees, and
the bows and scrapes of people in office, who ought to have other modes
of spending their time; and to obtain this babble the government of
Portugal, as well as the successive governments in Spain, have neglected
to perform those essential duties of all governments, viz., to force
those they are placed over to do their duty, by which, before this time,
these countries would have been out of danger.

The other evil is connected very materially with the first. The
government will not regulate their finances, because it will interfere
with some man's job. They will not lay on new taxes, because in all
countries those who lay on taxes are not favourites with the mob. They
have a general income-tax, called 10 per cent., and, in some cases, 20
per cent., which they have regulated in such a manner as that no
individual, I believe, has paid a hundredth part of what he ought to
have paid. Then, for want of money, they can pay nobody, and, of course,
have not the influence which they ought to have over the subordinate
departments.

In addition to embarrassments of all descriptions surrounding us on all
sides, I have to contend with an ancient enmity between these two
nations, which is more like that of cat and dog than anything else, of
which no sense of common danger, or common interest, or anything, can
get the better, even in individuals.

_June 12, 1811._

To write an anonymous letter is the meanest action of which any man can
be guilty.

_Dispatch, July 3, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_British Officers, as well at Soldiers, require to be kept in order._

I must also observe that British officers require to be kept in order,
as well as the soldiers under their command, particularly in a foreign
service. The experience which I have had of their conduct in the
Portuguese service has shown me that there must be authority, and that a
strong one, to keep them within due bounds, otherwise they would only
disgust the soldiers over whom they should be placed, the officers whom
they should be destined to assist, and the country in whose service they
should be employed.

_October 1, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Money in aid of Labour better than Charity._

That which would be desirable is, if possible, to aid laborious
exertions to procure a subsistence by small advances of money; and I
propose to keep this principle in view in the distribution of the money
entrusted to me, by which not only it will subsist those to whom it will
be given for a longer period, but it may be hoped that the people will
resume their habits of industry, and that they will soon again be able
to provide for their own subsistence.

_Oct. 11, 1811._

_A General Re-action against Buonaparte predicted._

I have, however, long considered it probable, that even _we_ should
witness a general resistance throughout Europe to the fraudulent and
disgusting tyranny of Buonaparte, created by the example of what has
occurred in Spain and Portugal; and that _we_ should be actors and
advisers in these scenes; and I have reflected frequently upon the
measures which should be pursued to give a chance of success.

Those who embark in projects of this description should be made to
understand, or to act as if they understood, that having once drawn the
sword they must not return it, till they shall have completely
accomplished their object. They must be prepared, and must be forced, to
make all sacrifices to the cause. Submission to military discipline and
order is a matter of course; but when a nation determines to resist the
authority, and to shake off the government of Buonaparte, they must be
prepared and forced to sacrifice the luxuries and comforts of life, and
to risk all in a contest, which it should be clearly understood before
it is undertaken, has for its object to save all or nothing.

The first measure for a country to adopt is to form an army, and to
raise a revenue from the people to defray the expense of the army:
above all, to form a government of such strength, as that army and
people can be forced by it to perform their duty. This is the rock upon
which Spain has split; and all our measures in any other country which
should afford hopes of resistance to Buonaparte should be directed to
avoid it. The enthusiasm of the people is very fine, and looks well in
print; but I have never known it to produce any thing but confusion. In
France, what was called enthusiasm was power and tyranny, acting through
the medium of popular societies, which have ended by overturning Europe,
and in establishing the most powerful and dreadful tyranny that ever
existed. In Spain, the enthusiasm of the people spent itself in _vivas_
and vain boasting. The notion of its existence prevented even the
attempt to discipline the armies; and its existence has been alleged,
ever since, as the excuse for the rank ignorance of the officers and the
indiscipline and constant misbehaviour of the troops.

I therefore earnestly recommend you, wherever you go, to trust nothing
to the enthusiasm of the people. Give them a strong and a just, and, if
possible, a good government; but, above all, a strong one, which shall
enforce upon them to do their duty by themselves and their country; and
let measures of finance to support an army go hand in hand with measures
to raise it.

I am quite certain that the finances of Great Britain are more than a
match for Buonaparte, and that we shall have the means of aiding any
country that may be disposed to resist his tyranny. But those means are
necessarily limited in every country by the difficulty of procuring
specie. This necessary article can be obtained in sufficient quantities
only by the contributions of the people; and although Great Britain can
and ought to assist with money, as well as in other modes, every effort
of this description, the principal financial as well as military effort,
ought to be by the people of the resisting country.

_Dec. 10, 1811._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The French System of Predatory War._

In the early days of the revolutionary war, the French, at the
recommendation, I believe, of Brissot, adopted a measure which they
called a _levée en masse_; and put every man, animal, and article, in
their own country, in requisition for the service of the armies. This
system of plunder was carried into execution by the popular societies
throughout the country. It is not astonishing that a nation, among whom
such a system was established, should have been anxious to carry on the
war beyond their own frontiers. This system both created the desire and
afforded the means of success; and with the war, they carried, wherever
they went, the system of requisition; not, however, before they had, by
these and other revolutionary measures, entirely destroyed all the
sources of national prosperity at home.

Wherever the French armies have since gone, their subsistence, at least,
the most expensive article in all armies, and means of transport, have
been received from the country for nothing. Sometimes, besides
subsistence, they have received clothing and shoes; in other instances,
besides these articles, they have received pay; and from Austria and
Prussia, and other parts of Germany and Italy, they have drawn, besides
all these articles of supply for their troops, heavy contributions in
money for the supply of the treasury at Paris. To this enumeration ought
to be added the plunder acquired by the generals, officers, and troops;
and it will be seen that the new French system of war is the greatest
evil that ever fell on the civilised world.

The capital and industry of France having been destroyed by the
revolution, it is obvious that the government cannot raise a revenue
from the people of France adequate to support the large force which must
be maintained in order to uphold the authority of the new government,
particularly in the newly-conquered or ceded states; and to defend the
widely-extended frontier of France from all those whose interest and
inclination must lead them to attack it. The French government,
therefore, under whatever form administered, must seek for support for
their armies in foreign countries. War must be a financial resource; and
that appears to me to be the greatest misfortune which the French
revolution has entailed upon the present generation.

_Jan. 31, 1812._

       *       *       *       *       *

I consider the Portuguese troops, next to the British, the best in the
Peninsula.

_May 3, 1812._

       *       *       *       *       *

It is very difficult to manage the defence of the kingdom of Portugal,
the whole country being frontier.

_June 11, 1812._

_How to establish National Credit._

When a nation is desirous of establishing public credit, or, in other
words, of inducing individuals to confide their property to its
government, they must begin by acquiring a revenue equal to their fixed
expenditure; and they must manifest an inclination to be honest, by
performing their engagements in respect to their debts.

_June 25. 1812._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Spaniards cry "Viva!" but don't act._

I do not expect much from the exertions of the Spaniards,
notwithstanding all that we have done for them. They cry _viva!_ and are
very fond of us, and hate the French; but they are, in general, the most
incapable of useful exertion of all the nations that I have ever known;
the most vain, and at the same time the most ignorant, particularly of
military affairs, and above all of military affairs in their own
country.

_August 18, 1812._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Imbecility of the Spanish Leaders._

It is extraordinary that the revolution in Spain should not have
produced one man with any knowledge of the real situation of the
country. It really appears as if they were all drunk, and thinking, and
talking of any other subject but Spain.

_November 1, 1812._

_Evils of uncontrolled popular Legislatures._

The theory of all legislation is founded in justice; and, if we could be
certain that legislative assemblies could on all occasions act according
to the principles of justice, there would be no occasion for those
checks and guards which we have seen established under the best systems.
Unfortunately, however, we have seen that legislative assemblies are
swayed by the fears and passions of individuals; when unchecked, they
are tyrannical and unjust; nay, more, it unfortunately happens too
frequently, that the most tyrannical and unjust measures are the most
popular. Those measures are particularly popular which deprive rich and
powerful individuals of their properties under the pretence of the
public advantage; and I tremble for a country in which, as in Spain,
there is no barrier for the preservation of private property, excepting
the justice of a legislative assembly possessing supreme powers.

_January 29, 1813._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Ingratitude of the Portuguese to the British Army._

I must say, that the British army, which I have the honour to command,
have met with nothing but ingratitude from the government and
authorities in Portugal for their services; and that everything that
could be done has been done by the civil authorities, lately, to oppress
the officers and soldiers on every occasion in which it has by any
accident been in their power. I hope, however, that we have seen the
last of Portugal.

_July 20, 1813._

       *       *       *       *       *

Jealousy of the interference of foreigners in their internal concerns,
is the characteristic of all Spaniards.

_July 12, 1813._

       *       *       *       *       *

Sound sense is better than abilities.

_August 8, 1813._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Basis of military operations against the United States from the side of
Canada._

Any offensive operation founded upon Canada must be preceded by a naval
superiority on the lakes. But even if we had that superiority, I should
doubt our being able to do more than secure the points on those lakes at
which the Americans could have access. In such countries as America,
very extensive, thinly peopled, and producing but little food in
proportion to their extent, military operations by large bodies are
impracticable, unless the party carrying them on has the uninterrupted
use of a navigable river, or very extensive means of land transport,
which such a country can rarely supply.

I conceive, therefore, that were your army larger even than the proposed
augmentation would make it, you could not quit the lakes; and, indeed,
would be tied to them the more necessarily in proportion as your army
would be large.[7]

[Footnote 7: The letter from the Duke the above is taken was written in
reply to an application by the home government for his opinion. We
frequently find the Duke applied to for his opinion on political matters
at home, while serving in the Peninsula.]

_February 22, 1814._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Morale of an Army important to Discipline._

No reliance can be placed on the conduct of troops in action with the
enemy, who have been accustomed to plunder, and those officers alone can
expect to derive honour in the day of battle from the conduct of the
troops under their command, who shall have forced them, by their
attention and exertions, to behave as good soldiers ought in their
cantonments, their quarters, and their camps.

_March 5, 1814._

       *       *       *       *       *

English officers are very strictly instructed, and those who mean to
serve their country well must obey their instructions, however fearless
they may be of responsibility. Indeed, I attribute this fearlessness
very much to the determination never to disobey, as long as the
circumstances exist under which an order is given.

_April 16, 1814._

       *       *       *       *       *

_French Feelings about the Slave Trade._

You (Mr. Wilberforce) judge most correctly regarding the state of the
public mind here upon this question. Not only is there no information,
but, because England takes an interest in the question, it is impossible
to convey any through the only channel which would be at all effectual,
viz., the daily press. Nobody reads anything but the newspapers; but it
is impossible to get anything inserted in any French newspaper in Paris
in favour of the abolition, or even to show that the trade was abolished
in England, from motives of humanity. The extracts made from English
newspapers upon this, or any other subject, are selected with a view,
either to turn our principles and conduct into ridicule, or to
exasperate against us still more the people of this country; and
therefore the evil cannot be remedied by good publications in the daily
press in England, with a view to their being copied into the newspapers
here.

       *       *       *       *       *

I must say that the daily press in England do us a good deal of harm in
this as well as in other questions. We are sure of the king and his
government, if he could rely upon the opinion of his people. But as long
as our press teems with writings drawn with a view of irritating persons
here, we shall never be able to exercise the influence which we ought to
have upon this question, and which we really possess.

_Letter to Mr. Wilberforce, October 8, 1814._

       *       *       *       *       *

The real power in Spain is in the clergy.

_October 20, 1814._

       *       *       *       *       *

Les choses neuves, surtout quand elles sont compliquées, ne vont pas
bien.

_Letter to Doumouriex, November 3, 1814._

FRANCE.

_Effects of Buonaparte's Government of France._

Ce qu'il y a de pis c'est le mécontentement général, et la pauvreté
universelle. Cette malheureuse révolution et ces suites ont ruiné le
pays, de fond en comble. Tout le monde est pauvre, et, ce qui est pis,
leurs institutions empêchent qu'aucune famille devienne riche et
puissante. Tous doivent donc nécessairement viser à remplir des emplois
publics, non, comme autrefois, pour l'honneur de les remplir, mais pour
avoir de quoi vivre. Tout le monde donc cherche de l'emploi public.

Buonaparte laissa une armée de million d'hommes en France, outres les
officiers prisonniers en Angleterre et en Russie. Le roi ne peut pas en
maintenir le quart. Tous ceux non employées sont mécontens. Buonaparte
gouvernait directement la moitié de l'Europe, et indirectement presque
l'autre moitié. Pour des causes à présent bien develloppées et connues,
il employait une quantité infinie de personnes dans ses administrations;
et tous ceux employés, ou dans les administrations extérieures, civiles,
ou dans les administrations militaires des armées, sont renvoyés, et
beaucoup des ceux employés dans les administrations intérieures; à cette
classe nombreuse ajouter la quantité d'émigrés, et de personnes rentrés,
tous mourant de faim, et tous convoitant de l'emploi public afin de
pouvoir vivre, et vous trouverez que plus des trois quarts de la classe
de la société, non employée à la main d'oeuvre ou à labourer la terre,
sont en état d'indigence, et, par conséquence, mécontens. Si vous
considerez bien ce tableau, qui est la stricte vérité, vous y verrez la
cause et la nature du danger du jour. L'armée les officiers, sourtout,
sont mécontens. Ils le sont pour plusieurs raisons inutiles à detailler
ici, mais ce mécontentement pourra ce vaincre en adoptant des mesures
sages pour améliorer l'esprit.

_Letter to Doumouriex, November 26, 1814._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Re-establishment of the Bourbons necessary to the Peace of Europe._

I have frequently told your highness, and every day's experience shews
me that I am right, that the only chance of peace for Europe consists in
the establishment in France of the legitimate Bourbons. The
establishment of any other government, whether in the person of----, or
in a regency in the name of young Napoleon, or in any other individual,
or in a republic, must lead to the maintenance of large military
establishments, to the ruin of all the governments of Europe, till it
shall suit the convenience of the French government to commence a
contest which can be directed only against you, or others for whom we
are interested. In this contest we shall feel the additional difficulty,
that those who are now on our side will then be against us, and you will
again find yourself surrounded by enemies. I am convinced that the
penetration of your highness will have shewn you the danger of all these
schemes to the interests of the emperor, and that you will defeat them
all by adhering to that line of conduct (in which you will find us
likewise) which will finally lead to the establishment in France of the
legitimate government, from which alone can Europe expect any genuine
peace.

_May 20, 1815._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Effects of Waterloo._

I may be wrong, but my opinion is, that we have given Napoleon his
death-blow: from all I hear, his army is totally destroyed, the men are
deserting in parties, even the generals are withdrawing from him. The
infantry throw away their arms, and the cavalry and artillery sell their
horses to the people of the country, and desert to their homes. Allowing
for much exaggeration in this account, and knowing that Buonaparte can
still collect, in addition to what he has brought back with him, the 5th
corps d'armée, under Rapp, which is near Strasbourg, and the 3rd corps,
which was at Wavre during the battle, and has not suffered so much as
the others, and probably some troops from La Vendée, I am still of
opinion that he can make no head against us--qu'il n'a qu'à se pendre.

_June 23, 1815._

       *       *       *       *       *

Some of the regiments (the new ones I mean) are reduced to nothing; but
I must keep them as regiments, to the great inconvenience of the
service, at great expense; or I must send them home, and part with the
few British soldiers I have.

I never was so disgusted with any concern as I am with this; and I only
hope that I am going the right way to bring it to an early determination
some way or other.

_June 25, 1815._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Waterloo described to a Soldier._

Notre Bataille du 18 a été une de géans; et notre succès a été complet,
comme vous voyez. Que Dieu me favorise assez pour que je n'en aie plus,
parceque je suis désolé de la perte de mes anciens amis et comrades.

Mon voisin et collaborateur (Blücher) est en bonne santé quoique un peu
souffrant d'une chute qu'il a faite d'un cheval blessé sous lui dans la
bataille du 16.

_Letter to Doumouriex, June 26, 1815._

       *       *       *       *       *

_If Buonaparte is to be put to Death, he will not be his Executioneer._

General----has been here this day to negociate for Napoleon's passing
to America, to which proposition I have answered, that I have no
authority. The Prussians think the Jacobins wish to give him over to me,
believing that I will save his life.---- wishes to kill him; but I have
told him I shall remonstrate, and shall insist upon his being disposed
of by common accord. I have likewise said that, as a private friend, I
advised him to have nothing to do with so foul a transaction; and that
he and I had acted too distinguished parts in these transactions to
become executioners, and that I was determined that, if the sovereigns
wished to put him to death, they should appoint an executioner, which
should not be me.

_June 26, 1815._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The "Pounding Match."_

You will have heard of our battle of the 18th. Never did I see such a
pounding match. Both were what the boxers call "gluttons." Napoleon did
not manoeuvre at all. He just moved forward in the old style, in
columns, and was driven off in the old style. The only difference was
that he mixed cavalry with his infantry, and supported both with an
enormous quantity of artillery.

I had the infantry for some time in squares, and we had the French
cavalry walking about as if they had been our own. I never saw the
British infantry behave so well.

_Letter to Marshal Beresford, July 9, 1815._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Blucher's Vandalism averted._

To Marshal Prince Blucher.--Several reports have been brought to me
during the evening and night, and some from the government, in
consequence of the work carrying on by your highness on one of the
bridges over the Seine, which it is supposed to be your intention to
destroy.

As this measure will certainly create a good deal of disturbance in the
town, and as the sovereigns when they were here before, left all these
bridges, &c., standing, I take the liberty of suggesting to you to delay
the destruction of the bridge, at least till they should arrive; or, at
all events, till I can have the pleasure of seeing you to-morrow
morning.

_July 8, 1815._

       *       *       *       *       *

The destruction of the bridge of Jena is highly disagreeable to the king
and to the people, and may occasion disturbance in the city. It is not
merely a military measure, but is one likely to attach to the character
of our operations, and is of political importance. It is adopted solely
because the bridge is considered as a monument of the battle of Jena,
notwithstanding that the government are willing to change the name of
the bridge. Considering the bridge as a monument, I beg leave to suggest
that its immediate destruction is inconsistent with the promise made to
the commissioners on behalf of the part of the army, during the
negociation of the convention, viz., that the monuments, museums, &c.,
should be reserved for the decision of the allied sovereigns.

All that I ask is, that the execution of the orders given for the
destruction of the bridge may be suspended till the sovereigns shall
arrive here, when, if it should be agreed by common accord that the
bridge ought to be destroyed, I shall have no objection.

_July 9, 1815._[8]

[Footnote 8: The Duke rarely writes or speaks twice, when once will do.
On this occasion he was anxious; and--successful.]

       *       *       *       *       *

_Summary Justice._

To the Sous-Préfet de Pontoise.--J'ai ordonné qu'on vous fasse
prisonnier, parceque, ayant envoyé une réquisition à Pontoise pour des
vivres, vous avez répondu que vous ne les donneriez pas, sans qu'on
envoie une force militaire assez forte pour les prendre.

Vous vous êtes mis dans les cas des militaires, et je vous fais
prisonnier de guerre, et je vous envoie en Angleterre.

Si je vous traitais comme l'usurpateur et ses adherens ont traité les
habitans des pays ou ils ont fait la guerre, je vous ferais fusiller;
mais, comme vous vous êtes constitué guerrier, je vous fais prisonnier
de guerre.

_July 13, 1815._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Characteristic Letter to Marshal Beresford_.

The battle of Waterloo was certainly the hardest fought that has been
for many years, I believe, and has placed in the power of the allies the
most important results. We are throwing them away, however, by the
infamous conduct of some of us; and I am sorry to add that our own
government also are taking up a little too much the tone of their
rascally newspapers. They are shifting their objects; and, having got
their cake, they want both to eat it and keep it.

As for your Portuguese concerns, I recommend you to resign, and come
away immediately. It is impossible for the British government to
maintain British officers for the Portuguese army, at an expense even so
trifling as it is, if the Portuguese government are to refuse to give
the service of the army in the cause of Europe in any manner. Pitch them
to the devil, then, in the mode which will be most dignified to
yourself, and that which will have the best effect in opening the
prince's eyes to the conduct of his servants in Portugal; and let the
matter work its own way. Depend upon it, the British government must and
will recall the British officers.

_August 7, 1815._

       *       *       *       *       *


SPEECHES IN PARLIAMENT.

_Praise of Lord Hastings and the Indian Army._

He professed his entire concurrence in the tribute of approbation
bestowed on the Marquis of Hastings, for his conduct of the late war in
India. There could not remain a doubt in the minds of those acquainted
with the facts, but that the wisdom of the plan on which it was
commenced, and the vigour of its execution, merited the highest praise.
The noble Duke said, he was pleased that an opportunity, like the
present, had occurred to do justice to the services and gallantry of our
troops in India, which were often neglected or disallowed. No troops in
the world performed their duty better, or observed a more steady
discipline. They had evinced their good qualities in all their late
transactions, whether acting in great masses or small detachments. In
all situations they had nobly performed their duty.

_House of Lords, March 9, 1819._

_Impossibility of granting Catholic Emancipation._

The whole question turned upon the degree of security which could be
given to the Protestant religion as by law established in Ireland. To
consider this, it was necessary to consider how the reformation had been
established in Ireland. It was not necessary for him to recall to their
lordships remembrance that the unreformed religion had been established
in Ireland at the point of the sword, and by means of confiscations. All
this was repeated at the revolution, and was fresh in the recollection
of the people of Ireland. Keeping in view that the Irish Roman Catholic
church, under all oppressions, continued in the same state--the pope
having the same influence over the clergy, the clergy the same power
over the people; in this state of things, he would ask, whether it was
possible that Roman Catholics could be safely admitted to hold seats in
parliament? The influence of the priesthood over the people was fostered
by the remembrance of the events to which he had alluded; and the idea
of unmerited and mutual suffering; and no doubt could be entertained,
from their present feelings, that if the Roman Catholics were admitted
to the enjoyment of political power, their first exertion would be to
restore their religion to its original supremacy; and to recover the
possessions and property of which they had been stripped by the
reformation. It was, however, said, that securities were offered on the
part of the Roman Catholics.

The pope, it seemed, had in the appointment of bishops, relinquished all
to the crown, except the mere conferring of a spiritual blessing. But
how had that concession been received by the people of Ireland? It had
excited the utmost discontent, and was regarded as an abandonment of the
essential principles of their religion, and an attack on their national
independence. Did that arise from the people of Ireland having a less
clear idea of national independence than other people? No; but they felt
if the executive power possessed any control over the appointment of the
Roman Catholic bishops, some security would be thereby obtained for the
Protestant church. Considering, then, that the whole question turned on
the degree of security which could be given, and looking at the various
securities which had at several times been proposed, he had never yet
seen anything that came up to his notion of that which ought to be
required. As to what had been said of the domestic nomination of
bishops, he did not see how the laws of the country could operate upon
it, so as to make it an adequate security. Then as to the oath of
allegiance which the bishop was to take, of what avail could it be, that
the law required this oath from a bishop, appointed God knows how, or by
whom? When all these circumstances were considered, the state of the
Irish Catholic church, the way in which the reformation had been
effected, the rivalry and enmity between the Catholics and the
established church, and the inadequacy of all securities which had been
proposed, there was in his opinion, enough to decide the question; for,
the first and greatest duty of the legislature was, to secure the
establishments as settled at the revolution.

_House of Lords, May 17, 1819._

       *       *       *       *       *

County meetings if properly regulated, are a fair constitutional mode of
taking the sense of the county; but this cannot be the case if they are
attended by a mob for the express purpose of supporting one side.

_House of Lords, January 26, 1821._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Porte our ancient Ally._

The Ottoman Porte is the ancient ally of this country. It forms an
essential part of the balance of power in Europe. The preservation of
the Ottoman Porte has been an object of importance not merely to England
but also to the whole of Europe; and the changes of possession which
have taken place in the east of Europe within the recollection of all
who hear me, render its existence as an independent and powerful state,
necessary to the well being of this country.

In the late war, had it not been for the influence of the councils of
England over the Porte, I may safely say that the disaster which finally
led to the establishment of Europe as it now is, would not have occurred
to the extent it did in 1812. Under these circumstances I think we may
term the Ottoman Porte the "ancient ally" and friend of this country,
even though the treaties upon which our alliance is founded are not of a
hundred years standing.

_House of Lords, Jan. 29, 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Battle of Navarino an untoward Event. Sir E. Codrington acquitted of
all blame._

There is one other subject to which I shall address myself, I mean the
sense in which the word "untoward" has been used. It was intended by
"untoward" to convey, that the event referred to was unexpected--was
unfortunate. The sense in which the word was used was this: in the
treaty which is not yet before the house, and which cannot, therefore,
regularly come under discussion, though all of us have read it, it is
mentioned as one stipulation, that the execution of it, if possible,
shall not lead to hostilities; and therefore, when the execution of it
did lead to hostilities, it was a consequence which the government did
not anticipate, and which it has, therefore, a right to call untoward.

It was hoped by the former government, that the treaty could be executed
without risk of commencing hostilities; and that is rendered quite
indisputable, not merely by the treaty, but by the force which the
contracting parties sent into the Mediterranean to superintend its
operation.

The late administration entertained hopes that those treaties could be
carried into execution without hostilities, as your lordships must have
perceived from what you have seen of those treaties themselves, as well
as from the nature of the force sent to see them carried into execution;
and when it was ultimately found that hostilities were likely to ensue,
every one must look upon it as an untoward event which could give rise
to such a state of things.

When the news of the affair which took place at Navarino reached
Constantinople, it was apprehended that a war would ensue, and therefore
every one was justified in looking upon it as an untoward event.

It is gratifying, however, to find from his majesty's speech, that those
appearances of hostility have ceased to exist, and that hopes are
entertained that no impediment will present itself to an amicable
adjustment of the question; this, however, does not deprive the
transaction of the character of "untowardness" which it originally
possessed.

But in making this statement, do I make the slightest charge, do I cast
the most distant imputation upon the gallant officer who commanded at
Navarino? Certainly not. That gallant officer, in doing as he has done,
discharged what he felt to be his duty to his country. His majesty's
government have taken that gallant officer's conduct into consideration,
and have acquitted him of all blame; and, therefore, it would ill
become me to cast the slightest imputation on the distinguished action
he performed. It should be recollected, that the gallant admiral was
placed in a situation of great delicacy as well as difficulty. He was
placed in the command of a combined squadron, in conjunction with two
foreign admirals; and his conduct was such, that they placed the most
implicit confidence in him, and allowed him to lead them to victory. My
lords, I should feel myself unworthy of the situation which I hold in
his majesty's councils, if I thought myself capable of uttering a single
syllable against that gallant admiral, admiring, as I do, the intrepid
bravery with which he conducted himself in a moment of much danger and
difficulty.

_House of Lords, January 29, 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reason for being Prime Minister._

When I received his majesty's commands to give my opinion respecting the
formation of a ministry, it was far from my wish to place myself at its
head, or to take any office, other than that which I already held; but
finding, in the course of the negotiation which arose out of the
commands of his majesty, a difficulty in getting another individual to
fill the place, and that it was the unanimous wish of those who are now
my colleagues, that I should take it, I determined to accept it; but
having so determined, I resigned the office of commander-in-chief.

_House of Lords, January 29, 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Doctrine of Non-interference._

Much has been said here and elsewhere, at various times, on the question
of interference by one state in the affairs of another. I do not admit
the right of one country to interfere with the internal affairs of
another country, except where the law of necessity or great political
interests may render interference absolutely necessary. But I say that
non-interference is the rule, and interference the exception. This is
the ground of the policy on which this country acts. She disdains a
daily interference with the affairs of other countries.

_House of Lords, February 11, 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_No Personal or Political Hostility to Canning._

I rise to protest against any such imputation being cast upon me, as
that I ever entertained any personal hostility to Mr. Canning. On a
former occasion I stated distinctly to your lordships, why I did not
think proper to remain in the government of which Mr. Canning was the
head. The communications that passed between me and Mr. Canning have,
unfortunately, I must be allowed to say, been made public enough, and I
defy any man to point out anything like personal feelings in those
communications. It is true, that when I found it necessary to withdraw
from the government, I also thought it my duty to lay down the military
office which I hold; but I beg leave to call your lordships'
recollection to the explanation which I gave at that time, and to my
subsequent conduct. After I left the government, I always met Mr.
Canning in the way in which I had been accustomed to meet him, and did
not depart from those habits which had marked our previous intercourse.
But I will go further and say, that I had no hostility towards Mr.
Canning's government. I did, it is true, propose that a clause should be
added to the corn-bill, but did I not at the same time beg of the
government to adopt that clause, or something like it, and not to
abandon the bill? I must again repeat, that to the day of his death I
felt no personal hostility to Mr. Canning; and that I am equally free
from the imputation of having entertained any political hostility
towards him. To whatever persons the declaration of the right honourable
gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) was intended to apply.[9] I claim to myself
the right of not being included in the number of Mr. Canning's enemies.

[Footnote 9: Referring to an angry speech of that gentleman in the
Commons.]

_House of Lords, February 25, 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Corn Law of 1828, Principle on which founded._

Your lordships are all aware that a variety of opinions exist throughout
the country respecting the introduction of foreign corn; one class of
persons maintaining that its importation should be prohibited; while
others contend for its free introduction into the markets of the
country. I have considered it my duty, and my colleagues also have
considered it theirs, in the measure which they are about to propose to
parliament, to endeavour to steer their course between the two extremes,
and to propose a measure which shall have the effect of conciliating all
parties, be at the same time favourable to the public, and shall be
permanent. Your lordships will recollect, notwithstanding the difference
of opinion which exists on this subject, all parties agree, generally,
that the corn growers of this country ought, in some measure, to be
protected.

The number of individuals, either in parliament or out of it, who
maintain that foreign corn should be altogether free of duty, are very
few indeed. Some persons, undoubtedly, think that a small fixed duty
ought to be imposed; and I, my lords, should certainly say here, that if
any such fixed duty were imposed, it ought to be a very small one; but I
repeat, that whatever may be the particular doctrines or opinions of one
class of persons or another, all agree that some protection ought to be
afforded to the agriculture of this country. This opinion is founded on
the great burden of taxation upon the country generally, as well as on
the particular burdens on the land; and on the fact that the labouring
classes here are better fed, clothed, and lodged, than the people of the
same class in other countries. It is admitted by those who entertain
this opinion in favour of a low duty, that their expectation and
intention are, that the poorer lands of this country, which have been
brought into cultivation by the application of great labour, and by the
expenditure of large capital, should at once be thrown out of
cultivation; and even the richer lands would become, comparatively,
unprofitable in consequence of the adoption of their system. I will
maintain that this country has been brought to its present high state of
cultivation, and consequent internal wealth, by the fostering protection
which has invariably been given to agriculture, and which has induced
gentlemen to lay out their capital in redeeming waste lands and bringing
them into cultivation. The result of such a system would be--to throw
out of cultivation the land thus redeemed from waste; to reduce the
extent of cultivation of the richer lands, consequently to lessen the
productive power of the country; and finally to throw us for subsistence
and support on the resources of foreign nations. My lords,--I will not
exaggerate the effects likely to be produced by the pursuing of a system
such as that to which I have alluded; but I beg your lordships to
reflect on the consequences which must result, if the powers, from whose
dominions these resources are generally drawn, should think proper to
lay a heavy tax on the export of such corn, or that it should be subject
to such an operation by any other state, in its transit to this country.
I entreat your lordships to consider what must be the consequences of
such a measure in its results to this country; a measure, too, in which
I may say, that foreign states might, from circumstances, be highly
justified. But supposing such moderation on the part of those states,
that they should continue to allow us to draw our supplies from their
dominions; supposing we could be supplied from other countries--America,
for instance; yet I entreat your lordships to observe, that this
country would be constantly, under the proposed system of fixed duty,
placed in the state in which it found itself in years of famine and
scarcity, which occurred in both the last and present century, and would
of consequence be exposed to the highest possible prices for wheat.
This, my Lords, I say, would be the inevitable consequence.

The cost of production, in Poland, for instance, would not be increased;
but the prices would be regulated here, not by the prices of that
country, but by the scarcity price of this country, and by the profits
of all those who might be, directly or indirectly, concerned in the
contemplated importation of corn, in such a state of things as that to
which I have alluded. Under these circumstances, a low duty would not be
productive of a reduction in price; indeed, so far from diminution, I am
confident it would produce an enormous increase. But, my Lords, I would
ask, even supposing it were otherwise, whether it would be proper to
adopt such a measure, in reference to its probable effect in other
respects? My Lords, look to Ireland, and consider what must by the
inevitable consequence if agriculture is not to be encouraged in that
country--a country, which, during the last year supplied England with
more than 2,000,000 quarters of grain. The quantity of wheat alone
imported from Ireland last year, was no less than 400,000 quarters. I do
therefore, beg your Lordships to consider what must be the consequence
of cutting off from that country nearly the only source of industry--the
only manufacture, with one exception, which is established in that
country. No man, whether connected with that country or not, can for a
moment think of imposing such a sacrifice on that country. On the
contrary, I am disposed to think, that many of your Lordships will be
ready to make considerable sacrifices to procure for the people of
Ireland a share of that plenty their industry affords us. But, my Lords,
I speak not only with reference to Ireland, but with reference to this
country. I am ready to state that the gentlemen of this country have, by
the extent of their capital, and the labour which they have employed on
their estates, raised the agriculture of this kingdom to its present
prosperous condition; and nothing would be more unjust than to take from
them that protection by which they have been enabled to bring
cultivation to the state in which it now is, and to deprive them of
those profits which are so justly their due, on account of the capital
laid out by them.

I will say, that the merchant, that the manufacturer, the poor, and the
whole public, are interested in the maintenance of the independent
affluence of the nobility and gentry of this country,--that the
Government are interested in supporting their influence, on account of
the assistance which has always been derived from them in every branch
of internal government, and on account of the support which they have
afforded to Government under every circumstance. If it were in my power
to make corn cheaper by diminishing the protection which the landed
gentry have always received, I would not do it at the expense of
Ireland, and of all the evils which the measure must inflict upon the
essential interests of this country.

My Lords, having expressed my opinion upon the system of importation at
a low duty, I will now offer a few observations with respect to the
other system,--that of entire prohibition; and which, I must say, has
been greatly and justly complained of. The truth is, that such a system
could not be carried into execution without exposing the country to the
greatest possible evils:--first of all, from want--next from high
prices, and also from a superabundance of corn, arising from the
introduction of a greater quantity of wheat than required being in the
country at a period when the scarcity might have been relieved by an
abundant harvest; and, lastly, from the depression of prices, affecting
not only the producers of corn in this country, but also the importers
of foreign grain. My Lords, evils like these can only be relieved by the
illegal interference of the Government, or by ministers coming to
Parliament, in order to induce it to consent to a suspension of the law.

Such, my Lords, is the history of the corn question as regards
prohibition; and there is not the least doubt that the system has
produced all the evils to which I have alluded at one period or another.

_March 31, 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reason for repealing the Test and Corporation Acts._

I fully agree that the security of the Church of England, and the union
existing between it and the state, depend neither on the law about to be
repealed by the present bill, nor upon the provisions of this measure
itself. That union and security, which we must all desire to see
continued, depend upon the oath taken by his Majesty, to which we are
all, in our respective stations, parties, and not only on that oath, but
on the Act of Settlement, and the different acts of union from time to
time agreed to; all of which provide for the intimate and inseparable
union of church and state, and for the security of both.

The question is, what security does the existing system of laws, as they
now stand, afford the church establishment? My lords, I am very dubious
as to the amount of security afforded through the means of a system of
exclusion from office, to be carried into effect by a law which it is
necessary to suspend by an annual act, that admits every man into office
whom it was the intention of the original framers of the law to exclude.
It is perfectly true it was not the intention of those who brought in
that suspension law originally, that dissenters from the church of
England should be permitted to enter into corporations under its
provisions. The law was intended to relieve those whom time or
circumstances had rendered unable to qualify themselves according to the
system which government had devised. However, the dissenters availed
themselves of the relaxation of the law, for the purpose of getting into
corporations, and this the law allowed. What security, then, I ask, my
Lords, is to be found in the existing system? So far from dissenters
being excluded by the corporation and test acts, from all corporations,
so far is this from being the fact, that, as must be well known to your
Lordships, some corporations are absolutely and entirely in the
possession of dissenters. Can you suppose that the repeal of laws so
inoperative as these, can afford any serious obstacle to the perfect
security of the church, and the permanent union of that establishment
with the state? The fact is, that the existing laws have not only failed
completely in answering their intended purpose, but they are anomalous
and absurd--anomalous in their origin, absurd in their operation.

If a man were asked the question, at his elevation to any corporate
office, whether he had received the sacrament of the church of England,
and if he said "No," he lost every vote that had been tendered on his
behalf, and there was an end of his election, but if, on the contrary,
by accident or design, he got in without the question relative to the
sacrament being put to him, then the votes tendered for him were held
good, and his election valid; so that no power could remove him from the
office which he held. I ask, is there any security in that? My noble
friend says, that the original intention of the framers of these acts,
was that the sacrament should not be taken by dissenters; but the law
requires that a man, on entering into any corporation, shall receive the
sacrament, without regard to his religious belief. Thus an individual
whose object it is to get into a particular office, may feel disposed,
naturally enough, to take the sacrament before his election, merely as a
matter of form, and thus a sacred rite of our church is profaned, and
prostituted to a shameful and scandalous purpose. I confess my Lords, I
should have opposed this bill, if I thought it calculated to weaken the
securities at present enjoyed by the church. However, I agreed not to
oppose the bill; though I consented in the first instance to oppose it,
in order to preserve the blessings of religious peace. I was willing to
preserve the system which had given us this peace for forty years, for
during that time the name and the claims of the dissenters not been
heard of. But now they have come forward, and their claims are approved
of by a great majority of the House of Commons, and the bill has come up
to this house. If it be opposed by the majority of this house, it is to
be feared, now that the claims are made, that such an opposition will
carry hostility throughout the country, and introduce a degree of
rancour into every parish of the kingdom, which I should not wish to be
responsible for.

_April 17, 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Additional reasons for repealing the Test Act._

I have not called on your lordships to agree to this bill because it has
been passed by the House of Commons; I merely assigned that as one of
the reasons which induced me to recommend the measure to your Lordships.
I certainly did allude to the feeling in favour of the bill which has
for some time been growing up in the House of Commons, as a good reason
for entertaining it in your Lordships' house,--but other reasons also
operated on my mind. Many individuals of high eminence in the church and
who are as much interested as any other persons in the kingdom in the
preservation of the Constitution, have expressed themselves as being
favourable to an alteration of the law. The religious feelings of those
venerable persons disposed them to entertain this measure, because they
felt strong objections to the sacramental test. Under these
circumstances, wishing to advance and preserve the blessings of
religious peace and tranquillity; conceiving the present a good
opportunity for securing to the country so inestimable an advantage,--I
felt it to be my duty to recommend this measure to your Lordships. It is
on all these grounds that I support the bill, and not on the single
ground, the circumstance of its having been carried in the House of
Commons, as a noble Lord has stated. I am not one of those who consider
that the best means of preserving the constitution of this country, is
by rigidly adhering to measures which have been called for by particular
circumstances, because those measures have been in existence for two
hundred years; for the lapse of time might render it proper to modify,
if not to remove them altogether.

I admit my Lords, that for about two hundred years, the religious peace
of the country has been preserved under these bills; but, when
Parliament is discussing the best means of preserving the constitution
of the country, it is surely worth while to inquire whether any and
what changes, in what have been deemed the securities of the church, can
safely be made, so as to conciliate all parties.

All I hope is, that your Lordships will not unnecessarily make any
alteration in the measure, that would be likely to give dissatisfaction;
that your Lordships will not do anything which may be calculated to
remove that conciliating spirit which is now growing up,--a spirit that
will redound to the benefit of the country, and which, so far from
opposing, we ought, on the contrary, to do everything to foster and
promote.

_April 21st 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Emancipation.--Will oppose it, (April 1828,) unless he sees a great
change in the government_.

There is no person in this house, whose feelings and sentiments, after
long consideration, are more decided than mine are, with respect to the
subject of the Roman Catholic claims; and I must say, that until I see a
very great change in that question, I certainly shall continue to oppose
it.

_April 28th, 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_State of the Poor in Ireland._

I am thoroughly convinced that no part of his Majesty's dominions so
imperiously requires the constant and particular attention of his
Majesty's servants as Ireland does. A noble earl has stated that there
are in Ireland 8,000,000 of people, the situation of 6,000,000 of whom
demands inquiry. He has told your Lordships likewise, that all the
wealth of Ireland is not sufficient to give employment to those people.
Now, certainly, I cannot but think that this is an exaggerated statement
on the part of the noble earl.

It cannot be supposed that there are 6,000,000 of the Irish population
who require employment--I cannot admit that the whole of those people
are unemployed. It is not true that they suffer this distress at all
times,--it is not true that they suffer the same degree of distress in
different years; but it is unquestionably true, that they do suffer
great distress at various periods, owing to the casualties of the
seasons, and to the particular species of food on which they subsist.
Such is the plain fact. The noble earl has stated, that the people are
able to procure that sort of food on which they chiefly live, at the
rate of three-farthings a stone. Now, really, if those people do not
suffer distress, except that which is occasioned by the untowardness of
the seasons; if those 6,000,000 of people can get provisions at the
price mentioned by the noble earl, in favourable seasons,--it does
appear to me that the case hardly calls for inquiry, except at a time
when their food has failed in consequence of an unproductive season. But
then the noble earl has asserted that the distress arises from want of
work, and that it would take more than all the wealth of Ireland to
procure employment for the people. "Let us then," said the noble earl,
"relieve the sick, the lame, the aged, and the impotent." The noble earl
has said, that one of the great evils of Ireland is want of capital; but
I must beg leave to tell the noble earl, that profusion of capital alone
will not prevent the existence of a numerous body of poor, and to prove
the fact let the noble earl look to the situation of England. There is
no want of capital in this country; the noble earl has told your
lordships that there are invested here £9,000,000 of capital belonging
to Ireland alone; and yet, with all this capital, the support of the
poor required last year amounted to no less than £7,000,000 of rates.

_May 21st. 1828._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Catholic Emancipation._

A noble friend of mine has stated to the house, that the proposed
measure is inconsistent with the constitution, as established at the
revolution; and another noble lord has concurred in that statement. If I
had been going to propose a measure which would introduce a predominant
Catholic power into Parliament, I should then be doing that which is
clearly inconsistent with the constitution. But I am not going to do any
such thing. There are degrees of power at least. Will any man venture to
say, that Catholic power does not exist at present, either here or in
Ireland? I will address myself more particularly to the noble Lords who
have so pointedly opposed me, and I will ask them whether Roman Catholic
power was not introduced into Ireland by measures of their own? Did not
some noble lords exert their influence to the utmost to produce that
very power, which has rendered a measure like that which I have
announced to Parliament absolutely necessary? As such is the case, I
implore noble Lords to look at the situation of the country, and the
state of society which it has produced. Whether it has been brought
about by the existence of these disabilities, or by the Catholic
Association, I will not pretend to say; but this I will say, that no man
who has looked at the state of things for the last two years, can
proceed longer upon the old system, in the existing condition of
Ireland, and of mens' opinions on the subject, both in that country and
in this. My opinion is, that it is the wish of the majority of the
people, that this question should be settled one way or other. It is
upon that principle, and in conformity to that wish, that I and my
colleagues have undertaken to bring the adjustment of it under the
consideration of Parliament.

_February 5, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Defence of his Conduct with respect to Emancipation._

I have repeatedly declared my earnest wish to see the Roman Catholic
question settled. I believe nothing could ever have been more distinct
or explicit than my expression of that wish; and is it a matter of
surprise that the person entertaining it should avail himself of the
first opportunity of proposing the adoption of that which, over and over
again, he declared himself anxiously to wish? On this particular
question I had long ago made up my mind, as a member of this house, to
take a particular course. It may be thought peculiar as a matter of
taste; but, for many years, I have acted upon the determination never to
vote for the affirmation of this question until the Government, acting
as a Government, should propose it to the legislature. My noble relation
(Lord Longford) knows, that ever since the year 1810, the several
successive Governments of this country have been formed upon a principle
which prevented their ever proposing, as a Government, the adoption of
any measure of relief in regard to the Catholics. In order to the
formation of a cabinet which, acting as a Government, could propose this
measure, it was, in the first place, necessary to obtain the consent of
that individual, the most interested by his station, his duty, and the
most sacred of all obligations, of any individual in the empire. It was
necessary, I say, that I should obtain the consent of that individual,
before the members of the Government could consider the question as a
Government one. Now, under such circumstances as these, would it have
been proper in me to have breathed a syllable on the subject, until I
had obtained the consent of the illustrious personage to whom I have
alluded?[10] I call upon my noble relative to answer this question, if
he can, in the negative. I beg of my noble relative to ask himself this
question, whether I was wrong in having kept secret my views, since the
month of July or August, not talking to any man upon the subject, until
I had the consent of that exalted personage, to form a Government upon
the principle of taking the question to which I have alluded into
consideration? My noble relative ought to place himself in my
situation--he ought to see what was expected of me; and then, instead of
blaming me for acting as I have done, he would see that, if I had acted
otherwise, I should have been highly blameable. When the question had
been decided--when I received the permission, so as to be enabled to
make the declaration--on not having made which, alone the accusation of
surprise can be founded--the opening of the session was so near, that it
was impossible to make known what had occurred earlier, or in any other
manner than by the speech from the Throne.

[Footnote 10: Lord Longford had accused him of concealment.]

_February 10, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Emancipation Bill not the result of Fear._

He would positively reject the charge which had been so positively made,
that those measures had been suggested to his Majesty's ministers, or
that their minds had been at all influenced by the fear of anything that
would occur in this or any other country. He totally denied the truth of
such an assertion. There never was a period during the last twenty years
in which, looking to the circumstances and relations of this country,
there was a more total absence of all cause for fear than the present;
and whatever might be the consequences of this measure, he would
maintain, that the period at which it was introduced, showed
sufficiently that its introduction did not proceed from fear; and that
such was the fact, he was ready to prove to any man upon the clearest
possible evidence. But, though these measures had not been suggested by
fear nor by intimidation, it would be found, when they were brought
forward, that they were founded upon the clear and decided opinion, that
this question ought to be settled, and that considerable sacrifices had
been made by himself and his colleagues in this, and in the other House
of Parliament, with a view to the final adjustment of it. In doing so,
he begged the noble Lord on the cross bench to believe, that not the
least considerable or the least disagreeable sacrifice on his part, was
the necessity imposed on him of differing from the noble lord on this
subject. But he would not talk of his own sacrifices--they were
trifling, when compared with the sacrifices which had been made by some
of his noble friends near him, and by his right honourable friend in
another place. He could not conceive a greater sacrifice than must have
been made by his right honourable friend, to bring his mind to the
determination of carrying this measure. It was obvious that nothing but
an imperious sense of duty had induced his right honourable friend to
make such a sacrifice; but the inconveniences and dangers which had
arisen from the present state of things in this country and in Ireland,
had left no alternative but the adoption of this measure; and now that
he had adopted it, he would use his best endeavours, in concert with his
colleagues, to carry it into effect. Under such circumstances, he would
entreat their lordships to wait until the whole question should have
come before them. When the measure should have been well considered by
them, they would then see whether it would be attended with the
dangerous consequences ascribed to it--and whether the carrying it would
not place the Protestant Constitution of these realms upon a better
footing than it had been since the union with Ireland. He would not now
enter into the discussion, whether the consequences of this measure
would be injurious to that Throne, for the maintenance of which he was
ready to sacrifice his life, or whether the measure was likely to
produce those effects which were apprehended by his noble friend on the
cross bench. Of this he was certain, that the existence of the dangers
which some noble lords seemed to apprehend from the adjustment of this
question, they were never able to establish; and whenever the discussion
of the measure came before their lordships, he would be ready to prove,
that the Protestant institutions of this country were exposed to more
dangers at present, than they would be exposed to after the adoption of
the measure that would be proposed.

_February 16, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Former Associations in Ireland could not be put down.--Mr. Pitt for
Emancipation._

He must say, he apprehended from the number of persons in the habit of
attending that Association, the nature of the speeches there delivered,
and the measures to which all alike appeared parties, that the people
of Ireland at large had been parties to the Association.

He proposed the present bill as a preliminary measure; the necessity for
which was founded on the statements already made to their Lordships. He
considered any other mode of proceeding as inconsistent with the dignity
of the Crown, and of Parliament; and as absolutely necessary, in order
to reconcile to the ulterior measure which he intended to propose, the
good and worthy men in this country, who viewed with dismay and disgust
the violent and unconstitutional acts of the Association. He entreated
their Lordships to consider, that the eyes of all Europe were upon them;
and that they should do nothing which could give any man ground to
believe that, in the steps they were about to take, they were guided by
any other motive than that of expediency and good policy.

       *       *       *       *       *

If they looked to the state in which the Roman Catholic question stood
in Parliament, from the period of the Union down to the present, they
would see the prevalence of a growing opinion in its favour. Mr. Pitt
had, in his time, considered it necessary to admit, that the laws
enforcing eligibility upon Catholics ought to be reviewed, for the
purposes of modification; and, under the repeated assurances of
different eminent statesmen, a Roman Catholic influence had undoubtedly
grown up in Ireland, which it was high time to satisfy by a reasonable
change of policy. For some years after this subject had attracted
parliamentary attention, there were reasons of a highly creditable
nature, both to individual ministers and to Parliament, why it would
have been improper and impolitic to have brought the measure forward as
a measure of government; but, since the year 1811, these particular
reasons had not been in full operation; and the subject, notwithstanding
the divided state of the Cabinet upon it, had been constantly discussed,
and during all that time, had been gaining ground. He was not prepared
to describe here the mode in which the principle of a divided government
had operated upon the Catholic question; but he defied any member of the
government, at the period to which he referred, to deny that, whether
the question before them was one of education for Ireland, one for the
alteration of the Criminal Law, or one for the regulation of tithes,
this division was felt to affect one and all of these topics; in fact,
that none of them could come to be discussed, without some reference to
the great subject which was so long in agitation. The time had, he
hoped, now arrived, when Parliament was prepared to settle it.

_February 19, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Unparalleled State of Ireland in 1829._

From all he had seen and read relative to Ireland, during the last two
years, he was forced to arrive at this conclusion, namely, that he did
not believe there was on the face of the globe any country claiming the
denomination of a civilized country, situated as that country now was,
under the Government of his Majesty and the Imperial Parliament.

_February 19, 1829._

_The Roman Catholic Association dangerous._

The true description of this Association was, in his opinion, to be
found stated in the speech which had been delivered from the Throne, on
the first day of the session. In that speech, after observing that the
state of Ireland had been "the object of his Majesty's continued
solicitude," it was further observed, "his Majesty laments that in that
part of the United Kingdom, an association should still exist which is
dangerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the spirit of the
Constitution--- which keeps alive disorder and ill-will amongst his
Majesty's subjects, and which must, if permitted to continue,
effectually obstruct every effort permanently to improve the condition
of Ireland." The speech proceeded to say--"His Majesty confidently
relies on the wisdom and on the support of his Parliament; and his
Majesty feels assured, that you will commit to him such powers as may
enable his Majesty to maintain his just authority." Such was a just
description of the recent state of the Roman Catholic Association; but
he believed he was justified in stating, that in the original
institution and formation of the society, on the subject of which it was
his duty to address their lordships, there was nothing strictly illegal.
The illegality subsequently complained of, and which it was the object
of this, as well as of a former bill, to suppress, proceeded from its
acts. Those acts consisted principally in levying a tax upon certain of
his Majesty's subjects, called Catholic Rent; and this, by means and
acts of extreme violence, which occasioned constant heart-burnings and
jealousies amongst his Majesty's subjects--by appointing persons to
collect the rent--by appointing other individuals to be treasurers of
it; farther, by adopting measures for organising the Catholic
population--by appointing persons to superintend that organisation--and
by assuming to themselves the government of the country, and still more,
affecting to assume it. Besides, they expended this rent in a manner
contrary to, and utterly inconsistent with, all law and order, and the
Constitution of the country. But this was not the least material part of
the danger occasioned by the Catholic Association. Part of the money
thus improperly obtained was spent for election purposes. And here he
called the attention of the noble and learned lord, to acts proving the
existence in Parliament of a Roman Catholic influence, and of an
influence directly derived from this Association. He would not discuss
that subject further at the present moment; but he begged noble lords
not to forget it, in discussing the details of a measure which he should
have to propose hereafter for their Lordships' adoption. Besides the
money spent in elections, there were other sums (also arising out of the
rent) spent in endeavours to contravene the due administration of
justice in Ireland. When he made this observation, he fully and freely
admitted the right, and, indeed, duty of every man, to watch closely and
vigilantly the administration of law and justice in this country; but,
at the same time, he was prepared to maintain, that that right and duty
could not be conveniently and justly exercised by the members of a
self-elected Association, having large sums at their command, and
employing the money which they possessed for the purpose of exciting a
spirit of litigation and dissatisfaction among his Majesty's
subjects--employing it for the purpose of defending some
individuals--for the purpose of prosecuting others--- for the purpose of
prejudicing the first inquiries in cases of criminal procedure, and
unduly interfering with the administration of justice by the magistracy.

_February 10, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

The people were insidiously led to believe that the proposed measures
were for the establishment of popery, and the destruction of the
protestant establishment of the country; and, acting very properly on
this unfounded delusion, petitioned against them. But while he admired
and rejoiced in the excellent motives which induced the people of this
country, in many places, to protest against the intended measures of
government; he hoped that when they saw that those measures were not of
the dangerous nature ascribed to them, and that they tended, so far from
establishing popery, to check and prevent its growth, and to promote the
influence of the protestant religion in Ireland,--he hoped, he said,
the people of England would, in their conduct, evince that loyalty to
the crown, whence the recommendation of the measure had emanated, and
that confidence in the wisdom of parliament, which had ever honourably
distinguished them. Indeed, he was convinced, that when the people of
England saw there was no fear of the extension of popery from the
measure which ministers felt it to be their duty to recommend to their
sovereign, but that, on the contrary, they would tend to strengthen the
protestant interests of the state, they would hail those measures as
beneficial to all classes.[11]

[Footnote 11: This, and the foregoing extracts on the subject of
Catholic Emancipation, are from short speeches made by the Duke in the
House of Lords after the intentions of the government had been made
known, but before the Emancipation Bill came up to that house. Although
the Duke earnestly deprecated these preliminary discussions, he was
called up almost every night by some peer or other.]

_March 2, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *


_No Compact with Rome would add to the security of the church of
Ireland._

I know that there are many in this house, and many in this country, who
think--and I am free to admit that I was formerly of the same opinion
myself--that the state ought to have some security for the church
against the proceedings of the Roman Catholic clergy, besides the oaths
imposed on them by the Act of Parliament I confess that on examining
into the question, and upon looking more minutely than I had before
leisure to do, at the various acts of Parliament by which the church of
England is constituted, and which form the foundation on which it rests,
I can think of no sort of arrangement capable of being carried into
execution in this country which can add to the security of the
established church. I beg your Lordships to attend for a moment whilst I
explain the situation of the kingdom of Prussia with respect to the
Roman Catholic religion. The King of Prussia exercises the power which
he does over the Roman Catholic church, in her various dominions, under
different concordats made with the Pope: in Silesia, under a concordat
made by Buonaparte with the Pope; and in the territories on the right
bank of the Rhine, under the concordat made by the former sovereigns of
those countries with the Pope. Each of these concordats supposes that
the Pope possesses some power in the country, which he is enabled to
concede to the sovereign with whom the concordat is made. That is a
point which we can never yield to any sovereign whatever. There is no
sovereign, be he who he may, who has any power in this country to confer
upon his majesty. We must keep our sovereign clear from such
transactions. We can, therefore, have no security of that
description,--not even a veto, on the appointment of a Roman Catholic
bishop, without detracting, in some degree, from the authority and
dignity of the sovereign, and without admitting that the Pope has
something to concede to his Majesty.

Now let us suppose another security. Suppose it were arranged that his
Majesty should have the nomination of the Catholic bishops. If he
nominated them, he must also give them a jurisdiction--he must give them
a diocese. I should like to know in what part of Ireland or England the
king could fix upon a spot where he could, consistently with the oath he
has taken, nominate a Catholic bishop, or give him a diocese? The king
is sworn to maintain the rights and privileges of the bishops, and of
the clergy of this realm, and of the churches committed to their charge.
Now, consistently with that oath, how could the king appoint a bishop of
the Roman Catholic religion; and would not the Established church lose
more than it gained by the assumption of such a power on the part of his
Majesty? Then, my Lords, there is another security, which some noble
Lords think it desirable to have,--namely, the obtaining, by government,
of copies of all correspondence between the Catholic clergy and the
Court of Rome; and the supervising of that correspondence, in order to
prevent any danger resulting to the Established church. Upon that point
I must say I feel the greatest objection to involve the government of
this country in such matters. That correspondence, we are told, turns on
spiritual affairs. But I will suppose for the sake of argument, that it
turns on questions of excommunication. Is it, then, to be suffered, that
the Pope, and his Majesty, or his Majesty's secretary of state acting
for him, should make law for this country? for that would be the result
of communications between the Catholic clergy of this realm and the Pope
being submitted to his Majesty's inspection, or to the inspection of
his Majesty's secretary of state. Such a security amounts to a breach of
the constitution, and it is quite impossible that it could be made
available. It would do more injury to the constitution and the church,
than any thing which could be done by the Roman Catholics themselves,
when placed by this bill in the same situation as dissenters.

With respect to communication with the Court of Rome, that has already
been provided against and prevented by laws still in existence. Your
Lordships are aware that those laws, like many others regarding the
Roman Catholic religion, are not strictly enforced, but still, if they
should be abused,--if the conduct of those persons whose actions those
laws are intended to regulate should be such as to render necessary the
interference of government, the very measure which is now before your
lordships will enable government to interfere in such a manner as not
only to answer the object of its interference, but also to give
satisfaction to this house, and to the country.

_April 2, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Anticipation of success for the Measure. The parallel case of the
Scotch Church instanced._

When I recommend this measure to your Lordships attention, you have,
undoubtedly, a right to ask what are the reasons I have for believing
that it will effect the purpose for which it was intended.


Note--The above extract and those which follow of the same date, are
from the Duke's speech in introducing the Catholic Relief Bill.

My Lords, I believe it will answer its object, not only from the example
of all Europe, but from the example of what occurred in a part of this
kingdom on a former occasion. If I am not mistaken, at the time of the
dispute between the Episcopalians and the Kirk of Scotland; the state of
society in Scotland was as bad then as the state of society in Ireland
is at the present moment. Your Lordships know that abroad, in other
parts of Europe, in consequence of the diffusion of civil privileges to
all classes, the difference between Protestant and Catholic is never
heard. I am certain I can prove to your Lordships what I stated when I
said, that the state of society in Scotland, previous to the concession
of civil privileges to the Episcopalians, was as bad as the present
state of society in Ireland.

I hope your Lordships will give me leave to read a petition which has
been sent to me this day, and which was presented to the Scottish
Parliament at the period when those concessions were about to be made,
and your Lordships will perceive that the petition is almost a model of
many petitions which have been read in this house respecting the
question under discussion. I am, therefore, in expectation that should
the present bill pass this house, there will be no longer occasion for
those complaints which have been expressed to your Lordships, and that
the same happy and peaceful state of things which has for the last
century prevailed in Scotland will also prevail in Ireland. I will, with
your Lordships' permission, read the petition I have alluded to, and I
think that after you have heard it, you will be of the same opinion as I
am with respect to the similarity it bears to many petitions which have
been presented to your Lordships on the Catholic question. The petition
states, that "to grant toleration to that party (the Episcopalians) in
the present circumstances of the Church, must unavoidably shake the
foundation of our present happy constitution; overthrow those laws on
which it is settled, grievously disturb that peace and tranquillity
which the nation has enjoyed since the late revolution, disgust the
minds of his Majesty's best subjects; increase animosity; confirm
discord and tumult; weaken and enervate the discipline of the church;
open the door to unheard of vices, and to Popery as well as to other
errors; propagate and cherish disaffection to the government, and bring
the nation under the danger of falling back into those mischiefs and
calamities, from which it had lately escaped by the divine blessing. We,
therefore, humbly hope, that no concessions will be granted to that
party which would be to establish iniquity by law, and bring upon the
country manifold calamities and disasters, from which we pray that
government may preserve the members of the high court of Parliament."

I sincerely hope, that as the prophecy contained in this petition has
not been fulfilled, that a similar prophecy respecting the passing of
the present bill, contained in many petitions presented to your
Lordships, will not be fulfilled. But, my Lords, I have other grounds
besides those which I have already stated for supposing that the
proposed measure will answer the object in view. There is no doubt, that
after this measure shall be adopted, the Roman Catholics can have no
separate interest as a separate sect,--for I am sure that neither this
house, nor the other house of parliament, will be disposed to look upon
the Roman Catholics, or upon anything that respects Ireland, with any
other eye than that with which they regard whatever affects the
interests of Scotland, or of this country. For my own part, I will
state, that if I am disappointed in the hopes which I entertained that
tranquillity will result from this measure, I shall have no scruple in
coming down and laying before Parliament the state of the case. I shall
act with the same confidence that parliament would support me then, as I
have acted in the present case.

_April 2, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Abolition of the Jesuits and other Monastic Orders._

Another part of this bill has for its object, the putting an end to the
order of the Jesuits and other monastic orders in this country. If your
Lordships will look at the act passed in the year 1791, you will
probably see that at that time, as well as in this, it was possible for
one person to make laws through which another might drive a coach and
four. My noble and learned friend (Lord Eldon) will excuse me for
saying, that notwithstanding all the pains which he took to draw up the
act of 1791, yet the fact is,--of which there cannot be the smallest
doubt,--that large religious establishments have been regularly formed,
not only in Ireland, but also in this country. The measure which I now
propose for your Lordships adoption will prevent the increase of such
establishments, and, without oppression to any individuals, without
injury to any body of men, will gradually put an end to those which have
already been formed. There is no man more convinced than I am of the
absolute necessity of carrying into execution that part of the present
measure, which has for its object the extinction of monastic orders in
this country. I entertain no doubt whatever, that if that part of the
measure be not carried into execution, we shall very soon see this
country and Ireland inundated by Jesuits and regular monastic clergy,
sent out from other parts of Europe, with means to establish themselves
within his Majesty's kingdom.

_April 2, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Rationale of Roman Catholic Exclusion._

My Lords in the Bill of Rights there are some things permanently
enacted, which I sincerely hope will be permanent; these are, the
liberties of the people, the security for the Protestantism of the
person on the throne of these kingdoms, and that he shall not be married
to a Papist. There is an oath of allegiance and supremacy to be taken by
all those of whom that oath of allegiance is required, which is also
said to be permanent; but it contains no declaration against
transubstantiation. There is also an oath of allegiance different from
that which is to be taken by a member of Parliament. I beg your
Lordships will observe, that although this oath of allegiance was
declared permanent, it was altered in the last year of King William.
This shews what that "permanent" act was. Then, with respect to the
oaths to be taken by members of Parliament. I beg your Lordships to
observe that these oaths, the declaration against transubstantiation,
and the sacrifice of the mass, are not originally in the act of William
III., they are in the act of 30th Charles II. During the reign of
Charles II. there were certain oaths imposed, first on dissenters from
the church of England, by the 12th or 13th Charles II., and to exclude
Roman Catholics by the 25th Charles II., and 30th Charles II. At the
period of the Revolution, when King William came, he thought proper to
extend the basis of his government, and he repealed the oaths affecting
the dissenters from the church of England, imposed by the 13th and 14th
Charles II. and likewise that affirmative part of the oath of supremacy,
which dissenters from the church of England could not take. That is the
history of the alteration of these oaths by William III., from the time
of Charles II.

But my Lords, the remainder of the oath could be taken by Dissenters,
but could not be taken by Roman Catholics. The danger with respect to
Roman Catholics, had arisen in the time of Charles II., and still
existed in the time of William III.; but the oath was altered because
one of the great principles of the Revolution was to limit the exclusion
from the benefits of the constitution as far as it was possible.
Therefore we have this as one of the principles I before stated, derived
from the Bill of Rights. The noble Lords state, that what they call the
principles of 1688,--that is to say, these oaths excluding Roman
Catholics, are equally permanent with the Bill of Rights by which the
Protestantism of the crown is secured. If they will do me the favour to
look at the words of the act, they will see that the difference is just
the difference between that which is permanent and that which is not
permanent. The act says that the Protestantism of the Crown shall last
for ever; but, as for these oaths, they are enacted in exclusive words,
and there is not one word about how long they shall last. Well then, my
Lords, what follows? The next act we have is the act of Union with
Scotland; and what does that act say? That the oaths to be taken by the
members of Parliament, as laid down by the 1st of William and Mary shall
continue and be taken till Parliament shall otherwise direct. This is
what is called a permanent act of Parliament, a permanent provision for
all future periods, to exclude Catholics from seats in Parliament. My
Lords, I beg to observe that, if the act which excludes Roman Catholics
from seats in Parliament, is permanent, there is another clause, (I
believe the 10th of cap 8. 1st William and Mary) which requires
officers of the army and navy to take those very oaths previous to the
acceptance of their commissions. Now if the act made in the first year
of William and Mary, which excludes Roman Catholics from Parliament, is
permanent, I should like to ask noble Lords, why the clause in that act
is not equally permanent? I suppose that the noble and learned Lord will
answer my question by saying, that one act was permanent and ought to be
permanently maintained, but that the other act was not permanent, and
the Parliament did right in repealing it in 1817. But the truth of the
matter is, that neither act was intended to be permanent; and the
Parliament of Queen Anne recognised by the Act of Union that the first
act, relating to seats in Parliament, was not permanent; and the noble
and learned Lord (Eldon) did right when he consented to the act of 1817,
which put an end to the 10th clause of the 1st William III., cap. 8.
Then, my Lords, if this principle of exclusion--if this principle of the
constitution of 1688, as it is called, be not permanent,--if it be
recognised as not permanent, not only by the act of union with Scotland,
(in which it was said that the exclusive oath should continue till
Parliament otherwise provided,) but also by the late act of Union with
Ireland, I would ask your Lordships, whether you are not at liberty now
to consider the expediency of doing away with it altogether, in order to
relieve the country from the inconveniences to which I have already
adverted? I would ask your Lordships, whether you are not called upon
to review the state of the representation of Ireland,--whether you are
not called upon to see, even supposing that the principle were a
permanent one, if it be fit that Parliament should remain, as it has
remained for some time, groaning under Popish influence exercised by the
Priests over the elections in Ireland. I would ask your Lordships, I
repeat, whether it is not right to make an arrangement, which has for
its object, not only the settlement of this question, but at the same
time to relieve the country from the inconveniences I have mentioned. I
have already stated the manner in which the organization I have alluded
to, works upon all the great interests of the country; but I wish your
Lordships particularly to attend to the manner in which it works upon
the church itself. That part of the church of England which exists in
Ireland is in a very peculiar situation; it is the church of the
minority of the people. At the same time, I believe that a more
exemplary, a more pious, or a more learned body of men, than the members
of that church do not exist. The members of that church certainly enjoy
and deserve the affections of those whom they are sent to instruct, in
the same degree as their brethren in England enjoy the affections of the
people of this country; and I have no doubt that they would shed the
last drop of their blood in defence of the doctrines and discipline of
their church. But violence, I apprehend, is likely to affect the
interests of that church; and I would put it to the House, whether that
church can be better protected from violence by a government united in
itself, united with Parliament and united in sentiment with the great
body of the people, or by a government disunited in opinion, disunited
from Parliament, and by the two houses of Parliament disunited. I am
certain that no man can look to the situation of Ireland, without seeing
that the interest of the church as well as the interest of every class
of persons under government, is involved in such a settlement of this
question, as will bring with it strength to the government, and strength
to every department of the state.

The bill before the House concedes to Roman Catholics the power of
holding any office in the state, excepting a few connected with the
administration of the affairs of the church; and it also concedes to
them the power of becoming members of Parliament. I believe it goes
further, with respect to the concession of offices, than any former
measure which has been introduced into the other House of Parliament. I
confess that the reasons which induced me to consider it my duty to make
such large concessions now, arose out of the effects which I observed
following the acts proposed in the years 1782 and 1793. I have seen that
any restriction upon concession has only had the effect of increasing
the demands of the Roman Catholics, and at the same time giving them
fresh power to enforce those demands. I have, therefore, considered it
my duty, in making this act of concession, to make it as large as any
reasonable man can expect it to be; seeing clearly that any thing which
might remain behind would only give ground for fresh demands, and being
convinced that the settlement of this question tends to the security of
the state, and to the peace and prosperity of the country. I have
already stated to your lordships my opinion respecting the expediency of
granting seats in Parliament to Roman Catholics; and I do not conceive,
that the concession of seats in Parliament, can in any manner effect any
question relative to the church of England. In the first place, I beg
your Lordships to recollect, that at the time those acts, to which I
have before alluded,--the one passed in the 30th of Charles II., and the
other at the period of the Revolution, were enacted--it was not the
church that was in danger--it was the state. It was the state that was
in danger; and from what? Not because the safety of the church was
threatened. No; but because the Sovereign on the throne was suspected of
Popery, and because the successor to the throne was actually a Papist.
Those laws were adopted, because of the existence of a danger which
threatened the state, and not of one which threatened the church. On the
contrary, at that period danger to the church was apprehended, not from
the Roman Catholics, but from the Dissenters from the church of England.
I would ask of your Lordships, all of whom have read the history of
those times, whether any danger to the church was apprehended from the
Roman Catholics? No! Danger to the church was apprehended from the
Dissenters, who had become powerful by the privileges granted to them
under the act of Parliament passed at the period of the Revolution. I
think, therefore, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any
justification of myself for having adopted this measure, on account of
any danger which might be apprehended from it to the church. Roman
Catholics will come into Parliament under this bill, as they went into
Parliament previous to the act of 30th Charles II. They sat in
Parliament up to that period, and were not obliged to take the oath of
supremacy. But by this bill they will be required to take the oath of
allegiance, in which a great part of the oath of supremacy is
included--namely, that part which refers to the jurisdiction of foreign
potentates; and, I must say, that the church, if in danger, is better
secured by the bill than it was previous to the 30th of Charles II. The
object for which that act was recognised at the period of the
Revolution--namely, to keep out the house of Stuart from the throne--has
long ceased to exist, by the extinction of that family. It is the
opinion of nearly every considerable man in the country (of nearly all
those who are competent to form a judgment on the question), that the
time has now arrived for repealing these laws. Circumstances have been
gradually tending towards their repeal since the extinction of the house
of Stuart; and at last the period has come, when it is quite clear that
the repeal can be no longer delayed with safety to the state.

_April 2, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *


_State of Ireland, a Reason for Emancipation._

I know that, by some, it has been considered that the state of Ireland
has nothing to do with this question--that it is a subject which ought
to be left entirely out of our consideration. My Lords, they tell us
that Ireland has been disturbed for the last thirty years--that to such
disturbance we have been accustomed--and that it does not at all alter
the circumstances of the case, as they have hitherto appeared. My Lords,
it is perfectly true that Ireland has been disturbed during the long
period I have stated, but within the last year or two, there have been
circumstances of particular aggravation. Political circumstances have,
in a considerable degree, occasioned that aggravation; but, besides
this, my Lords, I must say, although I have no positive legal proof of
the fact, that I have every reason to believe that there has been a
considerable organization of the people for the purpose of mischief. My
Lords, this organization is, it appears to me, to be proved, not only by
the declarations of those who formed, and who arranged it, but likewise
by the effects which it has produced in the election of churchwardens
throughout the country; in the circumstances attending the election for
the county of Clare, and that preceded and followed that election; in
the proceedings of a gentleman who went at the head of a body of men to
the north of Ireland; in the simultaneous proceedings of various bodies
of men in the south of Ireland, in Templemore, in Kilenaule, Cahir,
Clonmel, and other places; in the proceedings of another gentleman in
the King's county; and in the recall of the former gentleman from the
north of Ireland by the Roman Catholic Association. In all these
circumstances it is quite obvious to me, that there was an organization
and direction by some superior authority. This organization has
certainly produced a state of society in Ireland which we have not
heretofore witnessed, and an aggravation of all the evils which before
afflicted that unfortunate country.

My Lords, late in the year, a considerable town was attacked, in the
middle of the night by a body of people who came from the neighbouring
mountains--the town of Augher. They attacked it with arms, and were
driven from it with arms by the inhabitants of the town. This is a state
of things which I feel your Lordships will admit ought not to exist in a
civilized country. Later in the year still, a similar event occurred in
Charleville; and, in the course of the last autumn, the Roman Catholic
Association deliberated upon the propriety of adopting, and the means of
adopting, the measure of ceasing all dealings between Roman Catholics
and Protestants. Is it possible to believe supposing these dealings had
ceased, supposing this measure had been carried into execution--as I
firmly believe it was in the power of those who deliberated upon it to
carry it into execution--is it possible to believe that those who would
cease those dealings would not likewise have ceased to carry into
execution the contracts into which they had entered? Will any man say
that people in this situation are not verging towards that state, in
which it would be impossible to expect from them that they would be able
to perform the duties of jurymen, or to administer justice between man
and man, for the protection of the lives and properties of his Majesty's
subjects? My Lords, this is the state of society to which I wished to
draw your attention, and for which it is necessary that Parliament
should provide a remedy.

_April 2, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Emancipation claimed as the Price of the Union._

I am old enough to remember the rebellion in 1798. I was not employed in
Ireland at the time--was employed in another part of his Majesty's
dominions; but, my Lords, if I am not mistaken, the Parliament of
Ireland, at that time, walked up to my Lord Lieutenant with an unanimous
address, beseeching his Excellency to take every means to put down that
unnatural rebellion, and promising their full support, in order to carry
those measures into execution. The Lord Lieutenant did take measures,
and did succeed in putting down that rebellion. Well, my Lords, what
happened in the very next session? The Government proposed to put an end
to the Parliament, and to form a Legislative Union between the two
kingdoms, for the purpose, principally, of proposing this very measure;
and, in point of fact, the very first measure that was proposed after
this Legislative Union, after those successful endeavours to put down
this rebellion, was the very measure with which I am now about to
trouble your Lordships. Is it possible noble Lords can believe that,
supposing there was a renewal of the contest to which I have
referred--is it possible noble Lords can believe that such a contest
could be carried on without the consent of the other House of
Parliament? I am certain, my Lords, that, when you look at the division
of opinion which prevails in both Houses of Parliament; when you look at
the division of opinion which prevails in every family of this kingdom,
and of Ireland--in every family, I say, from the most eminent in
station, down to the lowest in this country;--when you look at the
division of opinion that prevails among the Protestants of Ireland on
this subject; I am convinced you will see that there would be a vast
difference in a contest carried on now, and that which was carried on on
former occasions.

_April 2, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

_No Remedy for the State of Ireland but Emancipation._

Neither the law, nor the means in the possession of Government, enabled
Government to put an end to the state of things in Ireland. Therefore,
we come to Parliament. Now let us see what chance there was of providing
a remedy for this state of things by coming to Parliament. My Lords, we
all recollect perfectly well, that the opinion of the majority in
another place is, that the remedy for this state of things in Ireland is
a repeal of the disabilities affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic
subjects. We might have gone and asked Parliament to enable us to put
down the Roman Catholic Association; but what chance had we of
prevailing upon Parliament to pass such a bill, without being prepared
to come forward and state that we were ready to consider the whole
condition of Ireland, with a view to apply a remedy to that which
Parliament had stated to be the cause of the disease? Suppose that
Parliament had given us a bill to put down the Roman Catholic
Association, would such a law as that be a remedy for the state of
things which I have already described to your Lordships as existing in
Ireland? Would it do any one thing towards putting an end to the
organization, which I have stated to your Lordships exists--towards
putting down the mischiefs which are the consequences of that
organization--towards giving you the means of getting the better of the
state of things existing in Ireland, unless some further measure were
adopted? But, my Lords, it is said, if that will not do, let us proceed
to blows. What is meant by proceeding to "blows," is civil war. Now, I
believe that every Government must be prepared to carry into execution
the laws of the country by the force placed at its disposition, not by
the military force, unless it should be absolutely necessary, but by the
military force in case that should be necessary; and, above all things,
oppose resistance to the law, in case the disaffected, or ill-disposed,
are inclined to resist the authority, or sentence of the law; but, in
this case, as I have already stated to your Lordships, there was no
resistance of the law--nay, I will go further, and will say that I am
positively certain that this state of things existing in Ireland, for
the last year and a half, bordering upon civil war (being attended by
nearly all the evils of civil war), might have continued a considerable
time longer, to the great injury and disgrace of the country, and,
nevertheless, those who managed this state of things--those who were at
its head--would have taken care to prevent any resistance to the law,
which must have ended, they knew as well as I did, in the only way in
which a struggle against the King's Government could end. They knew
perfectly well they would have been the first victims of that
resistance; but knowing that, and knowing, as I do, that they are
sensible, able men, and perfectly aware of the materials upon which they
have to work, I have not the smallest doubt that the state of things
which I have stated to your Lordships would have continued, and that you
would now have had an opportunity of putting it down in the manner some
noble Lords imagined. But, my Lords, even if I had been certain of such
means of putting it down, I should have considered it my duty to avoid
those means.

_April 2, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Would sacrifice his Life to prevent one Month of Civil War._

I am one of those who have, probably, passed a longer period of my life
engaged in war than most men, and principally in civil war; and, I must
say this, that if I could avoid, by any sacrifice whatever, even one
month of civil war in the country to which I was attached, I would
sacrifice my life in order to do it. I say, there is nothing which
destroys property, eats up prosperity by the roots, and demoralizes the
character, to the degree that civil war does; in such a crisis, the hand
of man is raised against his neighbour, against his brother, and against
his father; servant betrays master, and the whole scene ends in
confusion and devastation. Yet, my Lords, this is the resource to which
we must have looked--these are the means which we must have applied, in
order to have put an end to this state of things, if we had not made the
option of bringing forward the measures, for which, I say, I am
responsible. But let us look a little further. If civil war is so bad,
when it is occasioned by resistance to the Government, if it is so bad
in the case I have stated, and so much to be avoided, how much more is
it to be avoided, when we are to arm the people, in order that we may
conquer one part of them, by exciting the other part against them?

_April 2, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Defence of the Government from the Charge of Inconsistency._

Another subject to which I wish to advert, is a charge brought against
several of my colleagues, and also against myself, of a want of
consistency in our conduct. My Lords, I admit that many of my
colleagues, as well as myself, did on former occasions, vote against a
measure of a similar description with this; and my Lords, I must say,
that my colleagues and myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that
we should be sacrificing ourselves, and our popularity to that which we
felt to be our duty to our sovereign and our country.

We knew very well that if we put ourselves at the head of the Protestant
cry of "No Popery," we should be much more popular even than those who
have excited that very cry against us. But we felt that, in so doing, we
should have left on the interests of the country a burden, which must
end in bearing them down; and further, that we should deserve the hate
and execration of our countrymen. The noble Earl on the cross bench
(Winchelsea) has adverted particularly to me, and has mentioned in terms
of civility the services which he says I have rendered to the country;
but I must tell the noble Earl that be those services what they may, I
rendered them through good repute, and through bad repute, and that I
was never prevented from rendering them by any cry which was excited
against me at the moment. Then, I am accused by a noble and learned
friend of mine, (the Earl of Eldon) of having acted with great secresy
respecting this measure. Now I beg to tell my noble and learned
friend--and I am sorry that, in the course of these discussions,
anything has passed which has been unpleasant to my noble and learned
friend,--I beg to tell him, I say, that, he has done that to me in the
course of this discussion which he complains of others having done to
him;--in other words, he has, in the words of a right honourable friend
of his and mine, thrown a large paving stone, instead of throwing a
small pebble stone. I say, that if my noble and learned friend accuses
me of acting with secresy on this question, he does not deal with me
altogether fairly. He knows, as well as I do, how the Cabinet was
constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a
single word to any man whatsoever on this measure, until the person most
interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my speaking
out? I say, that before my noble and learned friend accused me of
secresy, and improper secresy too, he ought to have known the precise
day upon which I received the permission of the highest personage in
this country; and he ought not to have accused me of improper conduct,
until he knew the day on which I had leave to open my mouth upon this
measure. There is another point also upon which the noble Earl accused
me of misconduct, and that is that I did not at once dissolve the
parliament. Now, I must say, that I think noble Lords are mistaken in
the notion of the benefits which they think they would derive from a
dissolution of parliament at this crisis. I believe that many of them
are not aware of the consequences and of the inconveniences of a
dissolution of parliament at any time. But when I knew, as I did know,
and as I do know, the state of the elective franchise in Ireland in the
course of last summer,--when I knew the consequences which a dissolution
would produce on the return to the house of commons, to say nothing of
the risk which must have occurred at each election,--of collisions that
might have led to something little short of civil war,--I say, that
knowing all these things, I should have been wanting in duty to my
Sovereign, and to my country, if I had advised his Majesty to dissolve
his parliament.

_April 4, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *


_No Danger to the Church from the Emancipation Bill._

It has been repeatedly assumed by many of your Lordships in the course
of the discussion, but particularly by the right reverend Prelates who
have spoken, that the church of Ireland (or, as I have recently been
reminded, the church of England in Ireland) is in danger. I call on
those who apprehend that danger to state clearly whether that danger, on
this particular occasion, is more to be expected as resulting from
legislation, or from violence. If they say it is resulting from
legislation, I answer that their apprehensions are puerile. It is
impossible to suppose that a small number of persons admitted into this
house, and a small number admitted into the other house, while we have a
Protestant Sovereign upon the throne, should be productive of
legislative danger to the church of England in Ireland. I beg to
observe, with respect to the point relating to the union of the two
countries, that a fundamental article of the union is the junction of
the two Churches, called the United Churches of England and Ireland. It
is impossible, therefore, that any mischief can occur to the Church of
Ireland, without a breach in the union of the two countries. There is
another point to which I beg leave to advert for a moment. Although it
is true that we do admit into parliament members of the Roman Catholic
persuasion, yet, at the same time, by another measure brought forward
with it, and on which we equally rely, we propose regulations which will
have the effect of destroying the influence of the Catholic priesthood
in the election of members of parliament. We have carefully examined the
measure, and do expect that it will give additional security to all the
interests of the state.

_April 4, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *


_English Soldiers respect the Religion of other Nations._

Although I have served in my profession in several countries, and among
foreigners, some of whom professed various forms of the Christian
religion, while others did not profess it at all; I never was in one in
which it was not the bounden duty of the soldier to pay proper deference
and respect to whatever happened to be the religious institutions or
ceremonies of the place where he might happen to be. We soldiers do not
go into these foreign countries to become parties to the religious
differences of the people, or to trouble ourselves with their notions
upon matters of faith. We go to perform a very different kind of
duty,--one which is purely military, and has no reference to the
people's religion. I confess I never heard, however, that it was our
custom to take any part in their religious rites, nor do I believe we
have taken any such part. Indeed, I have never heard of anything like
any co-operation by our soldiers of military parade, except at Malta,
where I know it has long been the practice of the garrison to direct
some artillery officers to cause a few small guns to be fired, as some
particular procession passes the platform. And I know that certain
officers of the artillery, or military, three of them, I believe,
thought proper on military grounds, and not upon religious scruples, to
refuse to fire, according to the usual order of their commandant--for
such refusal they were brought to a court-martial, and sentenced to be
cashiered, not because they would not form a part of any religious
procession to which they were hostile--not because they would not
conform to the rites of the natives, and worship any relic that was
honoured by them; but for this plain and intelligible reason,--that they
had taken upon themselves to refuse obedience to the orders of the
commander-in-chief on the spot.

_April 8, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The real meaning of Irish Agitation._

If you glance at the history of Ireland during the last ten years, you
will find that agitation really means something just short of rebellion;
that, and no other, is the exact meaning of the word. It is to place the
country in that state in which its government is utterly impracticable,
except by means of an overawing military force.

_May 4, 1829._

_Theory of a Metallic Currency._

The restoration of the currency, my Lords, has, in truth, but little to
do with the distress of the country. Since the restoration of the
currency, the revenue has risen to the amount which has been stated to
your Lordships, notwithstanding the repeal of taxes to the amount of
27,000,000 l., since 1814. The fact is, that at the present moment, the
revenue produces, in real currency, much more than it produced when the
war was terminated. Is not that circumstance alone, I ask your
Lordships, a proof of the increasing prosperity of the country? But, my
Lords, I did not rest my argument on that fact only. Notwithstanding,
there is, at present, much distress, still, in the last year, there was
an increase of produce in every branch of manufacture, in every branch
of industry, beyond what was apparent in the three preceding years.
Under these circumstances, your Lordships must ascribe the distress of
the country to something else, rather than to the alteration of the
currency. My opinion is, that the people, during the lengthened war
which existed previously to the peace of 1815--during that period, when
there was an enormous expenditure--acquired habits which they cannot
readily throw aside. During that time, any man, of whatever description
of credit, could obtain money, or the semblance of money, to carry on
any speculation. The people then employed a fictitious wealth; they
proceeded on a system, which could not be continued, without mining and
destroying the country; and that system having been destroyed, that
fictitious wealth having been removed, they cannot immediately come down
to those quiet habits, which are required from them under that state of
things now prevailing in the empire. That, my Lords, is the real cause
of the distress under which they are at present suffering. Besides, your
Lordships will recollect, that the population of the country has
enormously increased; and it should also be taken into the calculation,
that the power of production by machinery has increased in an
incalculable degree. As much can now be produced in one year, as
formerly could be produced in five years; and the produce of one year
now amounts to more than can be taken off our hands in a year and a
half, or even two years. Distress, therefore, has occurred,
notwithstanding that the utmost exertions have been made to repel it;
and notwithstanding the great and general prosperity of trade throughout
the world. My Lords, the plain fact is, that owing to the alterations of
trade--a great demand at one time, and a want of demand at another--the
manufacturers, and those engaged in commercial pursuits, must sustain
considerable distress at different periods. It has been recommended as a
remedy, that Government should go back to the system of the circulation
of the notes. Now, my Lords, with respect to the one-pound bank
notes--it will be well to recollect what has been the proceeding of
Parliament on that subject. In 1826, Parliament having seen the facility
with which speculations could be undertaken by persons possessing no
capital, in consequence of the circulation of those one-pound
bank-notes--looking to the evils that resulted from those speculations,
and finding that a great number of banks in the country had failed in
consequence of such speculations--thought proper to pass a law to
prevent the circulation of this species of paper, after the lapse of
three years. A noble Lord has said, that this measure of Parliament
occasioned the failure of a great number of country bankers. But, I beg
the noble Lord's pardon, he has not stated the fact correctly. Most of
the banks which about that period failed, it ought to be recollected,
broke previously to the meeting of Parliament. The fact is, that it was
the breaking of the banks which occasioned the measure, and not the
measure the breaking of the banks. But we have now accomplished the
measure adopted in 1826; that measure is now carried into execution; the
currency of the country is now sufficient; bank notes, 5l., and above
5l., in value, are in circulation; and I will assert this fact, that
there is at present more of what I may call State currency in
circulation--more notes of the Bank of England and sovereigns--a greater
quantity of circulating medium of those two denominations, than there
has been at any former period before the late war, or before the Bank
Restriction Act was passed. I beg leave, my Lords, to ask, what want is
there of any additional circulation, when the circulation is at present
greater than it ever was? Is it necessary to have a more extended
circulation, to afford the means of procuring loans of money to those
who have no capital and no credit? I contend that this is a state of
things that ought not to exist in any country. Persons who really
possess credit, can raise money at the present moment with every
facility that is reasonable or proper. But, undoubtedly, those who have
no credit, are deprived of the facilities of borrowing money, which they
formerly enjoyed, because there is no longer a large class of persons
dealing in one-pound notes, to assist them in carrying on their
speculations. This is the real state of the case. It was this situation
of affairs that gave rise, and justly gave rise, to the measure of
1826--a measure which, I trust, that Parliament will persevere in, for
the purpose of placing the country in a proper state. It has been said
truly, that nothing is so desirable as to see the country carrying on
its mercantile transactions with a paper currency founded on, and
supported by, a metallic basis. Now, your Lordships must be aware, that
is exactly the sort of currency which the country has got at present;
and, in proportion as the country goes on conquering its
difficulties--the existence of that currency still being continued--we
shall see prosperity daily revive, and we shall see mercantile
transactions carried on as they ought to be, without any mixture of
those ruinous speculations, to which so much of the prevailing distress
must be attributed. But, my Lords, the noble Lord in tracing out the
sources of this distress, has omitted one of the great causes of it. He
has not adverted to the immense loss of capital which has been sustained
by the country during the last six or eight years, in consequence of
loans to foreign powers--of which neither principal or interest has been
paid, nor ever will, in my opinion, be paid. The noble Lord has not
adverted to the effect which that loss of capital must have produced,
with respect to the employment of industry in all parts of the country.
In the next place, the noble Lord has not adverted to the effect which
those loans must have had on the trade and manufactures of the country,
in consequence of the glut in foreign markets, occasioned by the forced
exportation of goods on account of such transactions. In most instances,
my Lords, no returns were made on account of those goods, and even when
returns were made, they were of the most unsatisfactory description. The
noble Lord has not adverted to the fact, that these returns, when any
were received, came home in the shape of interest, and did not, of
course, require any demand or export from this country. Surely all these
things should be considered, when the noble Lord speaks of the distress
the country is labouring under. That distress has fallen not only on the
manufacturing and commercial interests, but also on those who have
encouraged and embarked in the various schemes and speculations which
have done the country so much mischief.

_May 26, 1829._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Extended Currency means unlimited creation of Paper Money by
Individuals._

I will now say a few words upon the remedy proposed by the noble Lord
(the Earl of Carnarvon), who has totally misunderstood the argument of
the noble Viscount (Goderich). My noble Friend stated that the revenue,
in 1815, was 80,000,000 l. sterling, in paper currency; that taxes were
first of all repealed to the amount of 18,000,000 l., and afterwards to
the amount of 9,000,000 l., making in all 27,000.000 l.; and he says that
the revenue now produces, in a sound currency, as great an amount as it
produced in a depreciated currency; that is to say, that it produces now
a sum, in sound currency, which, in paper currency, would amount to
80,000,000 l. sterling. Those persons who consume the articles which
produce the revenue, must be able to purchase them, or the revenue could
not exist. The increase of the revenue is a proof, then, that
consumption has increased full one-third since the time when the taxes
were reduced. It is utterly impossible that a country in which, within a
period of fifteen years, the revenue has risen one-third, can be
suffering universal and unexampled distress. The noble Lord has thought
proper to refer the distress to a deficient circulation, and he
recommends a system which he thinks would remedy the evil. Now, I will
tell the noble Earl that the largest amount of currency in circulation,
at any time during the Bank Restriction Act, was 65,000,000 l. sterling.
The Bank of England notes were 20,000,000 l.; country bank paper,
23,000,000 l.; gold, 4,000,000 l.; and, silver, 7,000,000 l. But, in 1830,
the amount of Bank of England paper in circulation is 19,900,000 l.; and,
of country bank paper, 9,200,000 l.; of gold, 28,000,000 l.; and, of
silver. 8,000,000 l.; making a total of 65,000,000 l. It is certain,
therefore, that there is more money in circulation now, than there was
at any period of the Bank restriction. There can be no want, therefore,
of more currency. The noble Earl says he wants an extended currency; but
what he, in fact, wants, is not an extended currency, but an unlimited
currency. He would give an unlimited power to certain individuals, not
to the Crown, to coin as much money as they please. The noble Lord wants
to give them the power of lending capital to whomsoever they might think
proper thus to indulge. That is what the noble Lord recommends, but that
is what, I say, cannot be allowed, without bringing the country again to
the brink of ruin, from which it was extricated in the year 1826.

The noble Lord tells you that, heretofore, a farmer, with a good stock,
was able to borrow capital to carry on his business; but that now, let
his corn-yard be ever so full, he cannot borrow a shilling, because the
banker has not the power of giving him one-pound notes. The noble Lord
says--the banker gets no interest upon his own capital, and therefore
will not lend it. My Lords, the banker who lends his capital to a
farmer, or trader, does obtain interest for the use of it, in the shape
of discount upon the bill, or other security, which the borrower gives
him. The question with him, at present, is one of security, and not of
profit. If the banker should lend, under existing circumstances, he must
lend his own real capital, and not a fictitious capital in the shape of
one pound notes, created for the purpose. He must be certain that the
security given to him is good and available, as it ought to be; and if
he is not satisfied with the profits arising from the use of his
capital, it is because he thinks the risk is so great as not to be
covered by the profits. The noble Lord would wish to pledge your
Lordships, by your votes this night, to give the country bankers
additional profits, by enabling them to coin money, or to create
fictitious paper to any extent, and thus to create a fictitious capital.

_February 4, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Taxes reduced under a Metallic Currency._

In answer to all the declamations we have heard this night respecting
the evils resulting from a metallic currency, I beg leave to remind the
House of some facts; since the year 1815, and principally since the Bank
restriction was taken off, measures have been adopted to relieve the
country of taxes to the amount of 27,000,000 l. sterling; and measures
have been also adopted which have reduced the charges of the national
debt between 3,000,000 l. and 4,000,000 l. a year, that being the interest
on nearly 100,000,000 l. sterling. I beg your Lordships will bear this
circumstance in mind; and let me tell you, that all the advantages of a
so-called equitable adjustment will never equal the advantage already
obtained from an adherence to the principles of justice and good faith.


_February 4, 1830._

_Causes of Manufacturing Distress._

I wish to know whether the competition of machinery and the universal
application of steam which has been generally introduced since the
peace, have not occasioned a decrease in the demand for labour, and have
not lowered the wages of labour in manufactures? Must we not take into
consideration the general spirit of manufacture abroad, the competition
of foreign nations in foreign markets, and the universal use of
machinery worked by steam? How can we control the subjects of foreign
powers? We must seek foreign markets for our surplus produce. How can we
prevent steam from creating competition abroad in the sale of that
produce, as well as a fall in the wages of manufactures, and thus
occasioning a part of the distress complained of?

_Feb. 4, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Distress exaggerated._

If the exports of Great Britain have gone on increasing for some
years--if they were greater last year than in any former year--if the
amount of our exports is now greater than ever it was,--I say, not only
that these are the strongest symptoms of the prosperity of the country
increasing, but that the distress cannot be so great and unexampled as
the noble Earl (Carnarvon) would make it. There is not a rail-road, or a
common road, or a canal in the country, on which the traffic has not
increased every year during the last few years, and particularly in the
last year. It may be true that there is a diminution of profit in
commercial transactions in general; but profit there must be, or men
would not devote themselves for years to these pursuits. Money would not
be laid out in the conveyance from place to place of the produce and
manufactures of the country. The traffic being greater than ever it was
before, it is impossible but what it must be to the advantage of
somebody. The distress then cannot be so universal as represented. The
profit and advantage may not be so great as they were some years back;
but still advantage there is.

There are other circumstances well worthy the attention of the House in
the consideration of this subject. The retail dealers are a very
numerous body in this country. Consider of their profits. Look at nearly
every market town in the kingdom, and many villages in progress towards
being rebuilt. Who pays the money for re-building these houses? Who pays
the increased rents for them? Are the people ruined who require and can
pay for these new houses? My Lords, these are facts which do shew that,
notwithstanding the existing distress which every man must deplore, the
country, in spite of the pressure upon it, is upon the whole, rising.

_Feb. 4, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Proofs of National Improvement in 1830._

Among other topics of accusation, I have been arraigned for my
assertion on the first day of the session, that the distress of the
country was not of that magnitude which some persons have affirmed. The
noble Lord (Stanhope) is quite at liberty to indulge in such invectives
if it pleases him to do so, but if he supposes I do not feel for the
distresses of the people, he is utterly mistaken, as I can sincerely
aver that I have as strong sympathies on the subject as any noble member
of this house. But I am resolved to tell plainly and honestly what I
think, quite regardless of the odium I may incur from those whose
prejudices my candour and sincerity may offend. I am here to speak the
truth and not to flatter the prejudices and prepossessions of any man.
In speaking the truth, I shall utter it in the language that truth
itself most naturally suggests.

       *       *       *       *       *

I request your Lordships to look at the state of the savings banks. A
measure was sometime back adopted to prevent the investment of money in
these banks beyond a certain amount for each person, in order that the
parties not entitled to it should not derive the advantage which is
intended for the poorer classes. Large sums were drawn out of those
banks soon after; but they have since revived in some degree. Whence has
the money come? From the lower classes. This cannot be considered as a
proof of general distress. Your Lordships ought likewise not to omit
from your consideration the increased traffic carried on the railroads
and canals in the country. The noble Earl (Roseberry) has told your
Lordships, that I have availed myself of the increased traffic upon the
roads and canals by merchants and manufacturers--in despair seeking a
market--in order to represent the country in a state of prosperity;
whereas it is an additional symptom of distress. My Lords, I said that
this traffic had been increasing for years; and that it had, in some
cases, doubled in ten years. In one of the recent discussions in this
House, upon the currency, the noble Marquis opposite (the Marquis of
Lansdowne) very truly remarked,--that a large quantity of currency might
be found in a country in which there should be little riches and
prosperity; and that the facility and rapidity of the circulation of the
currency were signs of the prosperity of a country, rather than the
quantity of that currency. I entirely concur in the truth and justice of
this observation. But I would beg to ask the noble Marquis whether it is
possible that transactions can increase and multiply as they have done
in this country, in the last few years, without giving fresh scope for
the circulation of the currency of the country, fresh employment for
labour, and occasioning, in some degree, the augmentation of general
prosperity.

_Feb. 25, 1850._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Causes of Manufacturing Distress, over which Parliament can have no
Control._

There can be no doubt that there has been, of late years, a great
increase of manufactures and manufactured produce in this country. It is
true, that this produce has given to the manufacturer but little
profit, and that the wages of the manufacturing labourer are low; but,
as I will show presently, the circumstance, equally with the cause of
the agricultural distress, is beyond legislative control.

My Lords, it is impossible to consider this branch of the subject
without adverting likewise to the state of the commerce of the country.
The produce of the manufactures of the country is greater than the
country can consume; and, consequently, the price and the reward of the
labourer must depend upon the foreign demand, as well as upon the demand
at home.

In respect to the distress felt by manufacturing labourers, there can be
no doubt that the wages of manual labour have been lowered by the
successful application of steam to the movement of machinery for the
purpose of manufacture. Here, my Lords, is a cause of distress over
which the Legislature has no practical control. As I go further in my
observations upon the speech of the Noble Earl (Stanhope) who made the
motion,[12] I will point out other causes of distress equally beyond the
control of the Legislature.

[Footnote 12: For an inquiry into the state of the nation.]

My Lords, let me beg to call to the recollection of the House the state
in which the world was at the end of the war in the years 1814 and 1815.
Europe was absolutely overrun with armies, and had been so for about
twenty years. There was absolutely nothing but armies in the world, and
nothing was thought of but the means of sustaining them. Except in
France and this country, there were but few manufacturers in Europe; but
when the peace took place, all the world became manufacturers. I have
already stated, that the country manufacturing more than it consumes, is
under the necessity of resorting to foreign countries, and foreign
markets with its produce, where this produce necessarily comes in
competition with the manufactured produce of foreign countries, brought
there by cheaper labour, and by machinery worked by steam. The prices in
those foreign countries, of necessity, govern the prices in this
country. Here again is a cause of the existing distress, over which it
will be admitted, that the Legislature can have no control. Nothing that
it is in our power to do, will raise prices abroad; and till these
prices shall be raised, the prices of our produce must continue low, and
profits and wages must be low likewise.

But, my Lords, low as the prices of our produce are, compared with those
of former years, those of other countries have fallen in a still greater
proportion. My Lords, I will read, from a paper I hold in my hand, a few
extracts of prices in different parts of the country, since the peace of
1814. Raw cotton in England, in 1814 and 1815, sold at 2s. 2d. the
pound, or with duty included at 2s. 4d. In 1816 and 1817 it sold at 1s.
8d1/2., and in 1829, at 6d. This was a fall in price greater than had
taken place in any other article. Silk, in 1814, sold for 1l. 4s., or
with duty included, 1l. 9s.; whilst in 1829 it sold for 8s. 10d., or
with the duty, 8s. 11d. the pound. Spanish wool, in 1814, sold for 8s.
2d., or with the duty, at 8s. 3d.; whilst in 1829 it sold for only 2s.
3d., or with the duty at 2s. 4d. Another article, that of fir-timber,
fell in proportion. It was then 3l. 14s. 11d. the load, and with the
duty, 10l. 5s.; it is now 2l. 5s., and with the duty, 4l. 19s. This fall
in the price of foreign produce, and in our domestic manufactures, added
to the advantage which the master manufacturers derived from the use of
machinery moved by steam, and from the lowness of wages, have given them
a greater advantage; and have enabled them to make a profit,
notwithstanding the fall of prices of the produce of their manufactures
since the war.

On articles of manufacture the prices are still lower than those of corn
and other agricultural produce. Cotton yarn, which sold for 4s. 4-1/2d.
the pound in 1814, in 1830 sells for 1s. 5-1/2d.; and cotton
manufactured goods have altered in price within the same period from 1s.
5d. to 1s. 8d. and 2s. 0-1/2d., to 6-1/4d., 8-3/4d., and 8-1/2d., or
nearly a third. Irish linens have fallen from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 0-3/4d.;
woollen cloths in the same proportion. Other articles have been reduced
enormously in price by the competition with foreigners. In those
articles in which there is no competition with foreigners, prices have
been reduced, but not in the same proportion; such, for instance, as in
the iron, the pottery, and other trades. Here, then, are causes
evidently beyond the control of Parliament. Parliament cannot raise the
price of manufactured goods--the thing is impossible.

_February 25, 1830._

_Principle of Reduction in the Public Service._

When offices become vacant, the Government always consider whether the
public service could not go on without their being filled up; the next
point is, to consider whether the place could not be filled up by some
persons who already receive half-pay or pensions, so that the half-pay
or pension might be saved to the public. We have tried to reduce the
list of pensions of the army and navy, by keeping men in the service the
full time they ought to serve, according to the original institutions of
the army. I should deceive the House by saying that savings could be
beneficial if made at the expense of individuals who must be thrown on
the public as soon as they were made.

_February 23, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *


_The Corn Law of 1828 worked well._

The measure of 1828 has worked well to promote the objects which the
Legislature had in view in passing it, by preventing the price of corn
from rising so high in a season of scarcity as to be injurious to the
country at large, and particularly to that part of the population
engaged in manufacture; whilst, both in that season and the season which
followed, the price has been sufficient to give the agriculturist a
fair value for his commodity. In the second year of the existence of
that law, a greater import of corn took place than ever, to the extent
of 5,000,000 of quarters, of which 2,500,000 were from Ireland, and the
prices have not been lowered in this country, beyond what is deemed a
remunerating price to the agriculturists. With reference to another
branch of Agriculture, I have means of proving that the prices received
for other articles of agricultural produce, such as meat, timber, &c.
are equal to what they were in times when the country paid a very large
amount of taxes, and the Bank Restriction Act was in force.

_Feb. 26, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *

I am convinced the corn laws cannot be repealed without injury to the
country.

_Feb. 25, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Establishments necessary to maintain the National Honour._

It is perfectly true, that this island is but a small portion of the
globe, yet its interests are extended over all the world, and must be
maintained, though at a great expense. Now the expense necessary for the
maintenance of the honour and interests of this country (and over that
alone have we any control), is at present only 12,000,000 l. of money;
for there has been a decrease, in the present and last sessions of
Parliament of not less than 2,000,000 l. on this part of the
expenditure; and your Lordships must know that there are other portions
of the national expenditure, which cannot be touched at all. With
respect to that part which cannot be touched, his Majesty's Government
have effected all that they possibly could. Having said this, I must
claim for myself and my colleagues in office, credit for an anxious
desire to do everything in our power to diminish the expenditure. With
respect to the amount of expenses incurred on account of our Colonies, I
believe that the number of troops in the old colonies and places
occupied by a military force previously to 1792, is now reduced lower
than it was in that year. This country, however, in the course of the
last war, made very considerable conquests; those conquests require for
their maintenance large bodies of men, and, consequently, create a great
additional expense. They require for their protection very nearly as
many troops as the old colonies. Before the war we were not masters of
the Cape of Good Hope, of the Mauritius, or of Ceylon. In the
Mediterranean, we had no station, unless Gibraltar can be deemed one,
which is not the case now. My Lords, it is obvious, that all the new
stations which we have acquired, demand a larger force for their
protection. These things considered, it appears to me, that the military
establishment has been reduced as far as it can be reduced, a proper
regard being had to the interests of the empire.

_March 4, 1830._

_Difficulty of Legislating on the Poor Laws._

It should be recollected that some of the greatest men that ever lived
in England--including Mr. Pitt and Mr. Whitbread--attempted to deal with
the difficult subject of the poor laws, and failed. It is a subject
equally important, difficult, and complicated. The system, as far as
local practice and arrangements go, varies in almost every parish of
England more or less; and, I repeat, it is almost impossible to deal
with it successfully. We ought not to enter into the subject of the poor
laws hastily, or at an inopportune period like the present. It will be
better to wait till the country is restored to a state of complete
prosperity, and then investigate the subject with a proper degree of
attention.

_March 18, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Home Market is the best._

The greatest difficulty is experienced by our manufacturers in exporting
their manufactures. In some countries there is a total prohibition of
them; in others there is an extremely high duty; and in all there is
much competition and jealousy. The Government, in every one of those
foreign countries, seems to do everything in its power to prevent the
sale of British manufactures. I am convinced, if we went to the
Continent, and purchased all the corn in Poland, not an additional
article should we be able to force into France, Germany, Prussia, or
Russia, If the merchants of this country were allowed freely to purchase
grain, foreign subjects would get as much for their corn as they
possibly could; but their rulers would not allow a single article of our
manufactures to be imported in consequence of our being obliged to buy,
or in return for our buying the grain of those countries. There is,
undoubtedly, a certain quantity of manufactures in this country more
than the population itself can consume, which it would be very desirable
to get rid of. But, my Lords, is it exactly true, that taking foreign
corn would have the effect of enabling other countries to purchase them?
And even if such were the case, what are we to do with our own corn?

Now, my Lords, if the buying corn of the Pole, the Russian, or the
Prussian, enable them to give high prices for our manufactures, why do
not you give the same advantages to those nearer home? For my own part,
I believe, after all, that the home market is our best resource, and
that there we dispose of the greatest proportion of our manufactured
articles. It has, and I think with truth, been stated, that two-thirds
of the whole quantity of our manufactures are disposed of in this
country. The whole of our woollen and the whole of our silk manufactures
are consumed here; and of iron and other manufactures, a very
considerable portion. I ask, then, if such profits are to be derived
from an exchange with a foreign market, why do you not cultivate the
home, which is admitted to be decidedly the best market of all. I think
the more this matter is discussed, the more will the country see that
the interests of one class of the community involve the interests of
all. We are not to look merely to the interests of the cotton
manufacturers, or of the iron manufacturers. That which we are bound to
consider is the benefit of all; and, in my opinion, the common good will
be most effectually secured, by getting the greatest quantity of
provisions for the whole community,--by giving a proper remuneration to
those who produce such provisions,--and thus encouraging them to do that
which is most beneficial to the community at large.

_March 29, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *

_How far the principle of Equitable Adjustment should be carried._

The noble Lord (Viscount Goderich), speaking with his usual candour on
the subject of the equitable adjustment, admitted the existence of an
increase of price during some years of the war generally, and
consequently of public expense and of debt, to the amount of 20 per
cent, in consequence of the depreciation of the currency; and he has
made a calculation of a supposed equitable adjustment, founded upon his
estimate of the expense of the war for some years, and of the debt
created by the excess of price. It is true that there was a very large
increase of prices in England during the war; that this increase of
prices increased the expense of the war; and the amount of debt
successively raised. But it is not true that the excess of prices was
occasioned solely by the paper currency. Many other circumstances
occasioned it; and in my opinion, my noble friend has admitted too much
in admitting that the annual payment on account of the debt has been
increased to the amount of 3,500,000 l. in consequence of the paper money
circulated during the war.

Having frequently heard of an equitable adjustment, which, however, is
absolutely impracticable as a measure to be applied solely to the
national creditor, it has always appeared to me, that such an
arrangement could be calculated only on the foundation of the difference
between the currency, or the market price of gold, and the mint price of
gold, at the period at which the Bank restriction was repealed, or in
the year 1812. That difference was at that period about 4 per cent; or
the difference between 3l. 17s. 10-1/2d., and 4l. 1s. The annual payment
on account of the debt at that time, amounted to about 30,000,000 l.
sterling; upon which what is called an equitable adjustment might, at
that time, have been made to the amount of 5 per cent., or 1,200,000 l.
In making this supposed equitable adjustment, we should have betrayed
the honour of the country; we should have destroyed its credit and
reputation for fair dealing, justice, and honesty; and, for this paltry
diminution of the annual expense of the debt in 1819, we should have
lost the advantages since acquired, as detailed to the House by my noble
friend, amounting to a diminution of the annual charge of the debt, not
of 1,200,000 l., but nearly of 5,500,000 l. or the interest of
150,000,000 l. of capital at 3 per cent. This is a fair calculation of
the comparative advantage of what has been done, and what might have
been done, by a supposed equitable adjustment.

_May 6th, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Shipping Interest has not been Neglected._

These reciprocity treaties were adopted with a view to decrease the
price of freight in this country to our merchants, and with a view to
their taking in abroad, and bringing home, their commodities at a
cheaper cost of transit. These treaties were, my Lords, framed with a
foresight of the state of commerce which was likely to ensue in the
world in future times which were then immediately before us. We were,
therefore, to diminish the expense of shipping to meet the new
contingencies; and to enable those engaged in commerce to carry on their
trade under all the difficulties of a new situation; and the object of
those laws was to lower the price of commodities for that purpose. What
was the result?--profits upon specific articles became reduced; but
since the year 1814 the trade in them has nearly doubled. What the
shipping interest then lost in the reduced amount of freight per
tonnage, they regained in the greater number of voyages which commerce
opened to them.

_May 13th, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Eulogium on George IV._

My lords, our late Sovereign received the best education which this
country affords. He had, also, the singular advantage of having passed
all the earlier period of his life, and the greater part of his manhood,
under the superintendence of the King, his father, and subsequently in
the society of the most eminent men whom this country possessed; and he
likewise enjoyed the society of the most distinguished foreigners who
resorted to this country. His Majesty's manners accordingly received a
polish, his understanding acquired a degree of cultivation, almost
unknown in any other individual. My Lords, he carried those advantages
to the Government to which he was afterwards called, first as a Regent,
and afterwards as reigning sovereign. During the whole course of his
government no man ever approached him without having evidence of his
dignity, his condescension, his affability, and his fitness for the
exalted station which he occupied. But these advantages, which shewed so
conspicuously the polish of manner which he possessed, were not only
observed by persons immediately around him, for I appeal to many of your
Lordships who have transacted the business of the country which required
an interview with the sovereign, whether his Majesty did not upon every
occasion display a degree of knowledge and talent not to be expected of
an individual holding his high station, and a profound acquaintance with
public business even in its most minute details. But this is not all, he
was a most munificent patron of the arts in this country and the whole
world. He possessed a larger collection of the eminent productions of
his own country's artists, than any individual, and it is as an
individual, of him I here speak. The taste and judgment he displayed in
these collections have never been excelled by any sovereign.

I would also beg to call to your Lordships' recollection the situation
in which he found England and Europe in the year 1810, when he became
Regent, and the situation in which he has left Europe and this country.
If your Lordships look upon the great and stirring events of his reign,
under what circumstances it commenced and terminated, I think you will
agree with me in the sentiment, that we have reason to feel proud of
such a sovereign.

_June 29th, 1830_

       *       *       *       *       *

_Principle of advances of Money for Public Works._


A noble Lord has cited an opinion of mine with respect to the advance of
money for public works; to the principle laid down in the letter to
which he alludes, I still adhere,--that no money should be advanced as a
grant, for works of that description, even though they may be very
useful; but, my Lords, I repeat, that there is a great distinction
between on advance of money and a loan. The application of the
proprietors of the Thames Tunnel, was for an advance of money, and not a
loan; the parties, there, were not in a condition to pay the interest
even of the money to be advanced, and therefore the application was
refused, but my Lords, in the present case the money is advanced on the
security of the tolls payable on a canal; yet even on that ground it
would not be advanced, unless it were shown that the work will be of
advantage not only to the province, but to the empire at large.

_July 2nd, 1830_

       *       *       *       *       *

_Declaration against Parliamentary Reform._

I now come to another point touched upon in his Majesty's speech, from
which, as well as the allusions to it to-night, I have experienced
considerable pain; I allude to the state of the public mind in Kent.
Upon this point I cannot help agreeing in what fell from the noble
Marquis, (Camden) the Lord Lieutenant of that county, who spoke early in
the evening, namely,--that it is not to be exactly attributed to the
distress prevailing there. It certainly does appear, from all I have
heard, that the outrages are carried on by two different sets of people;
one of which attack machinery, which they think interferes with their
labour; and the other of which are engaged in burning and destroying
property. What the immediate cause of these disturbances is, the
government know no more than the magistrates and gentlemen of the
county. We shall do all in our power in concert with these magistrates,
and the Lord Lieutenant, to discover it; and, in the mean time, we shall
afford them aid to put the law in force in order to prevent them.

This brings me to the recommendation which the noble Earl (Grey) has
made, not only to put down these disturbances, but to put the country in
a state to meet and overcome the dangers which are likely to result from
the late transactions in France, namely,--the adoption of something in
the nature of parliamentary reform. The noble Earl has stated that he is
not prepared, himself, to come forward with any measure of the kind; and
I will tell him that neither is the government. Nay, I will go farther,
and say, that I have not heard of any measure, up to this moment, which
could in any degree satisfy my mind, or by which the state of the
representation could be improved or placed on a footing more
satisfactory to the people of this country than it now is.

I will not now enter upon the discussion of this subject, as I dare say
we shall have plenty of opportunities for doing so; but I will say, that
I am thoroughly convinced that England possesses, at this moment, a
legislature which answers all the good purposes of a legislature, in a
higher degree than any scheme of government that ever has been found to
answer in any country in the world;--that it possesses the confidence of
the country--that it deservedly possesses that confidence--and that its
decisions have justly the greatest weight and influence with the people.
Nay, my Lords, I will go yet farther and say, that if, at this moment, I
had to form a legislature for any country, particularly for one like
this, in possession of great property of various descriptions, although,
perhaps, I should not form one precisely such as we have, I would
endeavour to produce something which would give the same
results--namely, a representation of the people, containing a large body
of the property of the country, and in which the great landed
proprietors have a preponderating influence.

In conclusion I beg to state, that not only is the government not
prepared to bring forward any measure of this description, but that as
far as I am concerned, whilst I have the honour to hold the situation I
now do amongst his Majesty's councillors, I shall always feel it my duty
to oppose any such measures when brought forward by others.

_November 2, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Irish Absenteeism deprecated._

I can assure your Lordships that there is not any man, either there or
here, who is more aware of the poverty of Ireland, and the dangers to
the empire from the state of the lower orders, than he who has now the
honour of addressing you. But I would have noble Lords to observe that
it is not by coming here to talk of the poverty of that country that we
can remove it. If noble Lords will endeavour to tranquilize the country,
and persuade those who have the means to buy estates and settle there;
by holding out to them a picture of industry and tranquility with its
other advantages, they will soon find the country change its aspect, and
complaints of the dangers arising from its poverty will no longer be
heard. The influence of the presence and fortunes of the proprietors of
land in Ireland spent in that country, would do more to serve it than
any legislative enactment parliament have it in their power to pass.

_November 2, 1830._

_Repeal averted by Emancipation._

The repeal of the union is opposed by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke
of Leinster) and all his friends in Ireland: it is opposed by all the
proprietors in Ireland, by the great majority of the Roman Catholics, by
nearly all the Protestants of Ireland, and with one exception by the
unanimous voice of the other House of Parliament.

Such is the present state of this question, but how would it have stood
had not that other to which he alluded been carried two years ago? And
how did that one then stand? Why, the noble Duke and all his friends,
and a large proportion of the Irish people, were anxious that that
question should be carried. Such, also, do we know to a certainty was
the desire of the majority of the other House of Parliament, whilst at
the same time there was in this House a minority in its favour, daily
acquiring greater strength; and at present, I presume, no one will deny
that a large body of the best informed people of this country were also
decidedly for conceding this point. We do not now stand on worse ground
on the question of the repeal of the union than we should have done had
not the Catholic question been carried. I do not see the advantage,
therefore, of repeating reproaches against me for having given way on
that occasion from fear. I gave way because I conceived the interests of
the country would be best answered by doing so; I gave way on the
grounds of policy and expediency, and upon those grounds I am at this
moment ready to justify what I did. The noble Lord must forgive me for
saying that the state of irritation which has continued to exist in
Ireland since that question was carried must not be attributed to the
King's Ministers: they have done every thing in their power to
conciliate, and heal the divisions which distracted that country for so
many years previously to the settlement of that question. It is not my
duty, any more than my inclination, to cast imputation on any man; but
this I will say, that if the King's Ministers had been supported as
strongly as they have been opposed in their endeavours to heal those
divisions, Ireland would have been in a very different state from what
it now is.

_November 2, 1830._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Magistrates should be appointed by Lords Lieutenant._

Lords Lieutenant of counties are generally chosen in consequence of
their possessing large properties, and from their weight and
consideration in the counties over which they preside. They must,
therefore, be the most highly interested in selecting proper persons,
and a proper number of persons, whom they know will do their duty well
as magistrates.

In choosing magistrates, in my opinion, it is essentially necessary that
local knowledge should operate. Before any man should venture to
recommend another to be appointed to the commission, he should have
knowledge of his character, and of other circumstances, which can only
be discerned by local knowledge.

_Nov. 29, 1830._

_The Agrarian Outrages of 1830._

It appears to me that the outrages which have taken place in the country
are of two descriptions--the first is that open description of outrage,
which there is no doubt, may be got the better of by the operation of
the ordinary process of law; the second is that description of
crime--the destruction of property by fire,--of the perpetrators of
which Government have not hitherto been able to discover any trace
whatever. I do not know what information the Noble Earl may have
received on the subject within the last week, but up to that period we
had discovered no traces whatever of these incendiaries.

It is supposed by some noble Lords, that the perpetrators of the second
description of crime--the destruction of property by fire--are
foreigners, and that they are following the example set in another
country. I believe, however, there is no evidence whatever that
foreigners have been engaged in the perpetration of those crimes. It is
certain that they have been effected by a conspiracy of some kind or
other; but whether the conspirators are foreigners or Englishmen, I
believe that no man can at this moment possibly say. As to foreigners
being in gaols, I can only say, that with reference to one county--the
county of Hants--in which outrages of the most flagrant kind have
occurred, there is not one foreigner among the persons with whom
Winchester gaol is filled.

_Nov. 29, 1830._

_Our Portuguese Relations affected by the State of Ireland._

In reference to Ireland, it is of great importance that we should be on
good terms with Portugal. Unfortunately, the great measure which I had
the honour to prepare three years ago, has not answered so as to
produce--I will not say all the advantages I expected from it, as I was
never sanguine in my expectations, but the amount of advantage which
some of your Lordships and part of the public expected. To use a vulgar
expression, a new hare has started, and we must probably look to a
length of time ere the agitation excited in Ireland by the new question
shall have subsided. Now, I want to know, whether Portugal will not be
as important to us during the agitation of that question as it has been
previously? Will not our reception in the Tagus, and friendly occupation
of it, be as important to England now, as it has been heretofore? I do
not now wish to discuss the claims of Don Miguel and Donna Maria--this
is not the occasion for it--I only mean to convey my decided opinion,
that the friendship of Portugal is necessary to this country. If we
deprive Portugal of the advantages of this wine trade for a revenue of
100,000 l., putting political economy and commerce out of the question,
we shall make the greatest political blunder that has been seen for a
long time past.

_Feb. 21, 1831._

_How is the Government to be carried on after the Reform Bill?_

With respect to another subject (Reform) which must occasion discussion,
I quite agree in the determination which has been adopted of postponing
all discussions upon it till a future period; but when that period shall
arrive, I hope that his Majesty's ministers, who, upon their own
responsibility, have brought the question under discussion, will be so
kind as to explain to the House in what manner, and by what influence,
they propose that the Government of this country--the Monarchical
Government of this country--shall be carried on, according to the
principles and practice established at the Revolution.

_March 3, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Downfall of the Constitution predicted as the Consequence of the
Reform Bill._

It is far from my wish to impute to the noble Earl (Grey) or his
colleagues any desire to introduce revolutionary measures into
Parliament; but, I must say this, that having looked at the measure
which has been brought into the other House of Parliament under their
auspices, I cannot but consider that it alters every interest existing
in the country,--that in consequence of its operation, no interest will
remain on the footing on which it now stands, and that this alteration
must lead to a total alteration of men--of men intrusted with the
confidence of Parliament. I am of opinion that this alteration must have
a serious effect on the public interests,--an effect which, I confess, I
cannot look at without the most serious apprehension. I do not charge
the noble Earl and his colleagues with a desire to overturn the
institutions of the country, but I cannot look at the alterations
proposed by the bill without seeing that those alterations must be
followed by a total change of men, and likewise by a total change of the
whole system of Government. Why, I ask--for what reason--is all this to
be done? I will not now enter into the question of what is the opinion
of the other House of Parliament--but I will say again, as I have said
before, in the presence of your Lordships, that I see no reason whatever
for altering the constitution of Parliament.

It is my opinion that parliament has well served the country, and that
it deserves the thanks of the country for a variety of measures which it
has proposed, particularly of late years. I see no reason for the
measure now proposed, except that stated by the noble Earl--namely, his
desire to gratify certain individuals in the country. It is possible
that a large number, nay, even a majority of individuals, in this
country may be desirous of this change, but I see no reason, excepting
that, for this measure being introduced or adopted.

Whilst I thus declare my sentiments, I beg your Lordships to believe
that I feel no interest in this question, excepting that which I have in
common with every individual in the country. I possess no influence or
interest of the description which will be betrayed by the measure now
proposed. I am an individual who has served his Majesty for now, I am
sorry to say, nearly half a century; I have been in his Majesty's
service for forty-five years--for thirty eventful years of that period I
have served his Majesty in situations of trust and confidence, in the
command of his armies, in embassies, and in his councils; and the
experience which I have acquired in the situations in which I have
served his Majesty, enables me, and imposes upon me the duty, to say,
that I cannot look at this measure without the most serious
apprehensions, that from the period of its adoption, we shall date the
downfall of the constitution.

_March 24, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Under the Reformed System, how is the King's Government to be carried
on?_

I have, myself, examined the bill, with reference to its effects on the
county of Southampton. In that county there are several
towns--Winchester, Christchurch, Portsmouth, Southampton, and the
borough of Lymington. Several boroughs in that county are struck out of
the representation by the bill, and there are, besides, a vast number of
considerable towns left unrepresented, but the voters of these places
are to come into the county constituency. According to the old system,
the voters of the towns had votes for the county; now, copyholders and
50l. householders are to vote for the county. In the towns, these two
classes are, for the most part, shopkeepers.

I am convinced that there are no less than 4000 or 5000 such inhabitants
of towns in Hampshire, who will have votes for the county, as well as
the freeholders. Now, of whom does this class of electors consist? As I
before stated, they are shopkeepers--respectable shopkeepers--in the
towns. I beg to ask, are they fit persons to be the only electors to
return county members to a Parliament, which Parliament is to govern the
affairs of this great nation, consisting of 100,000,000 of subjects, and
so many various relations, foreign, domestic, colonial, commercial, and
manufacturing? Men of the description I have mentioned, with their
prejudices and peculiar interests, however respectable as a body, cannot
be fit to be the only electors of members of the House of Commons. But,
I beg to say that, however respectable this, or any other class of
electors may be, there is a strong reason against any uniformity of
system in the representation of the country. I have heard already of the
establishment, in this town, of a committee formed for the purpose of
recommending candidates for the representation to the different towns
throughout the country. I confess, I do not believe that this committee
has been established more than a few days; but I beg to say that, taking
into consideration the means of combinations, and the facilities of
communications in the country, such a body is dangerous. I know that
such committees, in other countries, have been found to be effectual in
putting down the Government. And I ask whether you should allow such a
uniform system of election--it matters not in whose hands it is
placed--that a committee, sitting in London, shall have the power to
dictate what members shall be returned for Leeds, or for Manchester, for
instance? I wish to know what security noble Lords have for their seats
in this House, if such a committee as this should exist at the first
general election of a reformed Parliament? But, my Lords, these are not
all the objections which I entertain to this measure; I have others,
founded upon facts, which I know to have existed in other countries. I
was in France when the law of election was passed, in the year 1817; and
this circumstance deserves your Lordships' attention, because the
situation of the two countries is not dissimilar. At that period there
were, in each department 300 persons, who, paying the highest amount of
taxes, were chosen to manage the representation. The King and Government
altered this, and gave the power of choosing representatives to persons
paying taxes to the amount of 300 francs. Two years afterwards, they
were obliged to alter the law again, and form two classes of electors.
Since then, there have been two general elections, one more unfavourable
than the other to the Government; and the matter ended in the formation
of a Parliament, the spirit of which rendered it impossible for a
Government to act.

My Lords, I do not mean here to justify the Government of Charles X.;
and I trust the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) will allow me, on
this occasion, to declare that I never wrote to Prince Polignac in my
life (much as I have been accused of encouraging the proceedings of that
person), and I have never written to Charles X. from the time that
monarch lost his son, and his grandson was born. In fact, I have never
corresponded with any French minister without the knowledge of my
colleagues. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack may rely on it,
that I had no more knowledge of Prince Polignac's proceedings, than the
noble and learned Lord himself; or, most probably, still less. I am not
the apologist of Prince Polignac; but, I say, that things had been
brought to that state in France, that it was impossible but there should
be a revolution.

When I see a similar mode of election established in this country--when
I see the adoption of a uniform system of election--when I see the
election placed in the hands of shopkeepers in boroughs all over the
country--I think that we incur considerable danger, and put the country
in such a situation as that no minister can be certain that any one
measure which he brings forward will succeed, or that he will he enabled
to carry on the Government. The circumstances of France and England are,
in many particulars, alike, and we ought to take warning by the dangers
of the neighbouring country.

I wish the House to advert to what the business of the King's Government
in Parliament is. It is the duty of that Government to manage
everything. I heard the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in a
speech of admirable eloquence and knowledge, propose a new judicial
system at the commencement of the Session; but I tell him, that it is
impossible for the Government ultimately to decide on that question; and
that if a Parliament be constructed on the new plan, it will be too
strong for Government on that question. So, also, in matters affecting
commerce and manufactures, Government would depend entirely upon
Parliament.

I want to hear how Government is to carry any measure, on the
appointment of a new Parliament? There is a great question now before
the House of Commons on the subject of tithes. How is any Government to
meet that question? A Government may submit to the will of a majority
opposed to its own view on other questions, but on the question of
tithes and the Church, the duty of any Government is clearly pointed
out--the King's Coronation Oath, and the Acts of Union with Scotland and
Ireland, guaranteeing the integrity of the Church Establishment, and the
protection of the estates and prosperity of the Church. But I want to
know how Government is to maintain the safety of the Established Church,
after placing Parliament on the footing proposed. I really do not wish
to carry this argument farther than it will go; but, looking round, and
considering the operation of the proposed measure in towns, as well as
in counties, and forming the best judgment I can on affairs so
complicated, I must infer, from every thing I see, that the
Constitution of the country cannot be carried on as hitherto, if this
plan be adopted. In such an event, you would alter your whole system of
Government. I do not say the Crown cannot last. You may still permit the
King's interference in the management of the army, the navy, and the
ordnance; and the rest of the Government may he carried on by the House
of Commons. Things may go on under such a system; but this will not be
the British Constitution. It will not be the same England, which has
been, for so many centuries, prosperous and glorious under our present
Constitution.

_March 28, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Unreformed House a complete Legislative Body._

As to the present House of Commons, I maintain that it is as complete a
legislative body as can be required; and that the House of Commons,
since the peace particularly, has shown itself to be the most efficient
legislative body that ever existed in any country in the world, not
excepting this. I say, that it has rendered more services than any
Legislature ever did in the same period--I say, it has continued those
great services up to the present moment, and that those services have
only been interrupted by the introduction of this discussion upon the
Reform Bill.

_March 28, 1831._

_Reasons why the Duke resigned Office in November, 1830._

It is quite true, that when the late Government brought forward the
Catholic question, they were supported by many noble Lords who were
usually opposed to the Government; but it is not correct that the
disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders was made a _sine qua
non_ to ensure the support of the noble Lords to the Relief Bill. I
certainly had the misfortune, on that occasion, to lose the support and
regard of a great number of friends, both here and in the other House of
Parliament--a misfortune I have never ceased to lament; yet I have the
consolation of knowing, that in what I then did, I did no more than what
my duty required of me; and I was not justified in relinquishing that
measure by any intimidation, or by any imaginary circumstance of
danger--which I had no right to apprehend. But I own that things were
going on in Ireland which induced me to think they might lead to a civil
war, in the event of our continuing to refuse the settlement of the
question; and I am satisfied that I should have been wanting in duty,
both as a man and a Minister, if I had hesitated to give up those
opinions which I had previously entertained with regard to that measure.
I afterwards had some difference with a noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey),
but notwithstanding I felt called upon to retain the position I held in
the Government as long as I enjoyed the approbation of my Sovereign, and
the confidence of the Legislature.

Then came the Revolution in France, followed by that of Belgium; and
like the former revolutions of Naples and of Spain, they naturally
excited a strong sensation here; that excitement, increased by speeches
made in various parts of the country, created a strong desire for
Parliamentary Reform. But I did not think then, any more than I think
now, that that desire was irresistible. If Parliament should see reason
to decide that the proposed alteration in the Constitution is not
necessary, and ought not to be made, I am confident the country will
acquiesce in that decision. I believe that the wish for reform is strong
and growing; but if the people see that the subject is fairly discussed,
and honestly determined here, I am sure they will submit without a
murmur. Already the sensation produced by the French and Belgian
Revolutions has subsided; the natives of the country have seen the
deplorable results by which those commotions have been followed, and are
wisely warned by the sufferings of their neighbours.

       *       *       *       *       *

Upon the defeat on the Civil List, finding I had the misfortune no
longer to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, I thought proper
to resign the situation which I held in his Majesty's service. Upon that
occasion, the question of Parliamentary Reform had no more to do, as far
as I was concerned, with the resignation which I tendered to his Majesty
on the day following the defeat on the Civil List, than anything else
in the world. I admit I resigned next morning, because I did not wish to
expose his Majesty and the country to the consequences that might result
from the Government going out on the success of the question of
Parliamentary Reform. This is the truth; but, to say I resigned on
account of Parliamentary Reform, is wrong; I resigned upon the ground
before stated; and I resigned at that particular moment on the Tuesday,
because I did not choose to expose his Majesty and the country to the
consequences that might ensue from the occurrence of the case just
mentioned. This is the real fact of the story. But the noble and learned
Lord has said, that the late Ministry gave up the principle of
Parliamentary Reform by their resignation; no such thing--we resigned
because we did not possess the confidence of the House of Commons, and
we thought that the same majority which defeated us on Monday on the
Civil List, might defeat us Tuesday on Reform; and then we should have
sacrificed (as the noble Lord says), the principle of Parliamentary
Reform in the Commons. We did not think it worth while to make any
farther struggle in order to retain office a day or two longer.

_March 28, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Civil List principle, on what arranged._

My Lords, the principle on which I and my colleagues drew up the Civil
List, was always directed to enable the Sovereign, so far as was
practicable, to defray all the expenses necessary to be incurred in
supporting the dignity, splendour, and comforts of the Crown, without
mixing them up with the other expenses of the Government. For this
purpose, it was formerly the practice to grant a considerable sum for
those various, but necessary expenses. Certainly, the Crown enjoyed
great advantage in supporting its dignity, influence, and efficiency, as
long as the system of supporting itself on its hereditary revenues
remained in practice. That system, my Lords, was departed from at the
commencement of the reign of Geo. III.; and a further departure from it
has since taken place, into which I shall, with your Lordships'
permission, examine presently, and compare that departure with those
proposed by the late Government. From the accounts I have seen of the
hereditary revenues enjoyed by Geo. II., I have reason to believe that
were they now enjoyed by our Sovereign, and employed in defraying the
civil expenses of the Government, and sustaining the dignity and
splendour of the Crown, they would amount to a sum larger than would be
necessary to meet those expenses, notwithstanding the increase which has
been made in them by the increased salaries of the judges, the increased
number of the public officers, and the vast increase of the royal family
of England. I say, my Lords, that these hereditary revenues would be
more than adequate to defray all these charges. I believe that these
revenues, independent of droits and West Indian duties, amount, at the
present moment, to 850,000 l. a-year; and these revenues, my Lords, I
consider as much the King's property, as I hold the possessions of your
Lordships to be yours. I make this statement, because it is important
that your Lordships should recollect it, and the public should know that
notwithstanding the magnitude of the expenses of the Sovereign, the
Sovereign has as much right to the sum which I have mentioned, as any of
your Lordships to your own estates. The system of giving the Sovereign
the amount of certain taxes to defray the expenses of the civil
government, was first departed from at the commencement of the reign of
Geo. III., when a fixed sum was appointed, instead of that mode of
payment, for its support. In process of time the expenses of the civil
government increased, and the Civil List became a debt. The consequence
was, that in the year 1815, an inquiry was instituted into the
circumstances which had caused this increase of charges upon the Civil
List, up to the period of the Regency. What was the course then adopted
by Parliament? Why, it was to bring certain charges--as, for instance,
the charges for ambassadors and ministers abroad--under the annual vote
of Parliament; and the immediate object was to avoid thereby the fixing
of any fresh debt, for which no estimate could be previously made, upon
the Civil List. In 1820 it was determined that nothing whatever should
be brought before Parliament, in connexion with the Civil List, that was
a casual expense, or for which a regular vote could not be submitted.

The original system, I have already stated, had been departed from in
the reign of George III., and the late Government in presenting their
civil list made a still further departure from it, and upon this
principle;--wherever a part of a salary was to be paid out of the civil
list, and part out of the consolidated fund, it was resolved to pay all
out of the consolidated fund. The course was adopted with regard to the
salaries of the Judges, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the
House of Commons, and also of various other offices, some of which have
been since abolished. This was thought a less objectionable mode than
that of subjecting those salaries to an annual discussion in the
Committee of the House of Commons. We wished my Lords to place those
salaries upon the consolidated fund, in order to prevent the possibility
of the country being left without a proper and efficient administration
of public affairs. We did not wish to leave the Government to the chance
of being impeded by a small majority, in the House of Commons, which,
according to other proposed plans, might diminish the salaries of public
officers at pleasure. If my Lord we look to the period of the Revolution
we shall find that there were long discussions respecting the right of
the crown to its hereditary revenues, which ended in a concession of the
principle that these revenues did belong to the crown. At that time
nobody ever dreamed of separating the expenses of the crown from those
of the civil government, and of making a separate provision for the
support of the state and dignity of the crown, which should be subject
to the controul of parliament. The plan of separation, my Lords, is one
of modern invention altogether, and I totally dissent from it. Because,
let us look to the situation in which the crown is placed under the
operation of such a system, and we must observe that it will place the
crown in a situation such as it ought not to be reduced to; namely that
it will render it liable to be deprived of the assistance--say of a
public officer, whose salary may be lost by a single vote in a committee
of supply.

_April, 19th, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Expenses of Ministers ruinous, unless they have large Private
fortunes._

With respect to the reduction in the salaries of the great officers of
state, I have only to observe, that even under the existing rate of
salaries, unless a First Lord of the Treasury, (and the remark will
apply to the other state officers) possesses a large private fortune, he
must be ruined in consequence of the heavy expences entailed on him by
his situation, and the inadequacy of the sum allowed by the public for
the maintenance of those expenses. In proof of this, I may instance the
case of three prime ministers--Mr. Pitt, Mr. Percival, and Mr.
Canning,--all of whom were almost ruined by their being in office. I
took upon myself to propose a provision for the family of Mr. Canning in
consequence.

_April, 19th. 1831._

_The Roman Catholic Relief Bill settled the question of the Repeal of
the Union._

It is not my intention at present to enter into the question, as to the
expediency of granting the Roman Catholic claims; for I hope that
question is for ever set at rest. The former government of this country
derived some advantage from the settlement of that question; and I
believe that this advantage will at least be admitted to have flowed
from it,--that now there is no question either in this or the other
House of Parliament, or among the public, respecting the necessity or
expediency of repealing the Union. When I introduced the Catholic Relief
Bill, I stated that political power already existed in the hands of the
Roman Catholics, and that was a statement, generally admitted by noble
Lords on both sides of the House. What the Bill effected was to give the
capacity of enjoying political power to the higher classes of the Roman
Catholics, and to take it out of the hands of those of the lower classes
who did not exercise it themselves for their own purposes, and according
to the suggestion of their own sentiments, but at the dictation of a
body among the Catholic people, who, it will be admitted by everybody,
ought not to possess any political power whatever,--I mean the Roman
Catholic priesthood.

_April, 21st. 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_If the Reform Bill be passed, it will be impossible to preserve
inviolate the Union with Ireland._

My opinion is, that your Lordships will find it difficult, indeed,
after having passed the Bill under discussion of the other House of
Parliament, to maintain inviolate that Union which now exists between
the two countries. I mean to say, that in the event of that bill
passing, it would be impossible to maintain that article of the Union
which recognises the Church of England as a branch of that Union, and
which guarantees its safety. I beg to call to your Lordships'
recollection, that his Majesty is sworn to maintain that Union
inviolate; and that, in adopting the Reform measure, the Parliament do
actually expose his Majesty to the risk of consenting to a bill
calculated to break down the Church Establishment in Ireland. This is
the impression I have always entertained--and it is an impression which
I cannot remove from my mind; and, I must confess, that when I heard the
other night the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Brougham)
assert that the Reform Bill had put down agitation in Ireland, on the
subject of a Repeal of the Union, I was much surprised.

_April 22, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Importance of Portugal to England._

There is no country in Europe whose alliance is so important to England
as Portugal; there is no country, the preservation of whose independence
is so important to us, as that of Portugal.

_July 26, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_A preventive Police checks Crime._

In all foreign countries there exists a preventive police,--but there
is no such thing in England,--which preventive police has the effect of
checking crime in a very great degree. We have nothing of the sort in
England, neither can there be, according to the principles of our law
and constitution. Such being the case, your Lordships must use great
caution in drawing comparisons between convictions in this and foreign
countries; if that is not done, the most erroneous conclusions will be
arrived at.

_September 6, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_A War of Opinions the worst of Wars._

The truth is, that the government of Portugal has, for the last ten
months, been looked upon with inimical feelings and with passion by the
King's servants; and this measure[13] is not brought forward with any
view to revenue, but for the purpose of opposing and embarrassing the
existing Government of that country. The noble Lords opposite do not
like the situation of the Government of Portugal; it is not to their
mind; and they are anxious, either by revolutionary measures, or any
other, to overthrow it. Let them, however, look well at the
responsibility they are incurring. Let them consider the frightful
consequences in which their planning may involve this country, and the
whole of Europe. If their designs even met with a temporary success,
they would inevitably lead to a war of opinion, to a war of
religion--the worst of wars, and the most deplorable consequences for
all Europe would ensue.

_September 30, 1831._

[Footnote 13: The Wine Duties Bill; for regulating the tariff as
regards Portugal.]

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Duke's Declaration against all Reform._

But, my Lords, if I wanted an example of the value of the House of
Commons, I should find it in the opinion of the noble Earl (Grey) the
last time, I believe, the last time that he spoke of the House of
Commons. In the month of February, 1817, the noble Lord said,
"constituted as it now was, he, in his conscience, believed that the
House of Commons was, of all other institutions, in all the other
countries of the world, the institution best calculated for the general
protection of the subject. Supported by the people, in temperate and
firm claims for redress, it was not only able, but certain to remedy
every wrong. It was capable of acting as the most efficient control upon
the executive, by diminishing the means of consumption, and reducing the
pressure of a severe and grinding taxation." That was the opinion of the
noble Earl himself, in 1817; and what, I would ask, has the Parliament
done, subsequently, to deserve the disapprobation of the noble Earl?
What had it done between 1817 and the moment when I pronounced that
approbation of Parliament, of which my noble friend (Earl Winchelsea)
and the noble Earl (Grey) have so much disapproved? When the noble Earl
quoted what I said not quite a twelvemonth ago, he might, I think, quote
it correctly. What I said was, that Parliament had done its duty by the
country, and enjoyed its confidence. I said, that if I had to create a
constitution of Parliament, I could not create that which now existed,
because I did not believe the art of one man could invent such a system;
but I said, that I would do my endeavour to establish one like it, in
which property in land should be preponderant. That was what I said; and
I afterwards had the satisfaction to hear the noble Marquis (Lansdowne)
deliver a similar opinion. He stated that, in any system of
representation which he could support, property and learning must be
preponderant. I said that I should consider it my duty to resist the
adopting of any plan of reform that should be brought forward. I spoke
as a minister of the Crown; I meant to resist reform. The noble Lords
say, that this statement of mine caused great enmity to me, and created
that spirit of reform which has since pervaded the whole country. I beg
the noble Earl's pardon; but the spirit of reform in this country was
the consequence of the French revolution. It is true, that ever since
the American war, a desire for Parliamentary Reform has been manifested,
particularly when any disturbance or insurrection has occurred in any of
the neighbouring foreign countries--above all, since the French
revolution; and when there has been any extraordinary distress or
difficulty in the country. At the same time, I believe that, from year
to year, the manifestations of such a desire have been less frequent. I
have, indeed, the authority of those most friendly to reform for saying
that the manifestations of the desire for reform were less frequent,
till the period of the revolution of July, 1830, than they had formerly
been for a number of years.

_October 4, 1831._

_Electoral Pledges Unconstitutional._

It is on the ground of the dissolution, and of the Speech from the
Throne,[14] that I charge the noble Lords with having excited the spirit
which existed in the country at the period of the last general election;
and with having been the cause of the unconstitutional practice,
hitherto unknown, of electing delegates for a particular purpose to
Parliament--delegates to obey the daily instructions of their
constituents, and to be cashiered if they should disobey them, whatever
may be their own opinion; instead of being, as they have been hitherto,
independent members of Parliament, to deliberate with their colleagues
upon matters of common concern, and to decide according to the best of
their judgment, after such deliberation and debate. This is an evil of
which the country will long feel the consequences, whatever may be the
result of these discussions.

[Footnote 14: The Whig ministry dissolved the Parliament in April, 1831.
A new Parliament met in June; and, on the 21st of that month, the King
made the speech alluded to. In the interval there had been great
excitement in the country.]

My Lords, this measure, thus delegated by the people, and thus brought
forward by the Government in Parliament, for the decision of members
thus delegated to give it the force of a law, alters every thing; and
requires, as the noble Secretary of State (Lord Melbourne) says, new
powers, in order to render it practicable to carry on the Government at
all.

_October 4, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_A Democratic Assembly of the worst description will be elected under
the Reform Bill._

Throughout the whole of the empire, persons of the lowest condition of
life, liable to, and even existing under, the most pernicious
influences, are to have votes; or, in other words, are to exercise
political power. Persons in those stations of life do exercise political
power already; but, in a few places, in large masses; preponderating
over the influence of other classes of society. What must we expect when
these lower classes will preponderate everywhere? We know what sort of
representatives are returned by the places I have described. What are we
to expect, when the whole will be of the same description?

We hear, sometimes, of radical reform; and we know that the term applies
to universal suffrage, vote by ballot, annual parliaments, and their
consequences. But, I declare, that looking at these changes pervading
every part of the representation, root and branch, destroying or
changing everything that has existed, even to the relative numbers of
the representatives from the three kingdoms fixed by treaty, I should
call this a radical reform, rather than reform of any other description.

       *       *       *       *       *

I cannot but consider that the House of Commons returned by it will be a
democratical assembly of the worst description; that radical reform,
vote by ballot, and all the evil consequences to be expected from the
deliberations of such an assembly, must follow from this establishment.
I entreat your Lordships to pause before you agree to establish such a
system in your country.

_October 4, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The popular Will no ground for conceding Reform._

But we are told that the people wish for this measure; and when we
express our sense of the danger which attends it, on account of the
democratical power which it tends to establish, an endeavour is made to
calm our apprehensions, by the assurance that the people are attached to
the Government of King, Lords, and Commons.

If we are to rely upon that feeling of the people--if we are to adopt
this measure because it is the pleasure of the people, and because they
are attached to the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, why do we
not, at once, adopt the measure which we know the people prefer--I mean
radical reform; that is to say, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and
annual parliaments? If we are to make a change, there can be no reason
for not going the full length that the people wish, if we can be sure
that the measure will not injure the Government--that to which they are
attached--of King, Lords, and Commons.

_October 4, 1831._

_Necessity of the Influence of Property in the House of Commons._

But before we go further, it is desirable that we should examine what is
the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, as established in this
kingdom. In this Government the King is at the head of everything. All
the power is in his hands. He is the head of the Church, the head of the
law. Justice is administered in his name. He is the protector of the
peace of the country, the head of its political negociations, and of its
armed force--not a shilling of public money can be expended without his
order and signature. But, notwithstanding these immense powers, the King
can do nothing that is contrary to law, or to the engagements of himself
or his predecessors.

       *       *       *       *       *

Every act of the Government, or of the King, is liable to be brought
under discussion in, and is in fact controlled by, the House of Commons;
and for this reason alone, it is important that we should consider of
what description of men the House of Commons is likely to be composed,
when we are discussing a question of Parliamentary Reform, in order
that we may be quite certain that they will exercise their high function
with wisdom and discretion.

It was on these grounds, that I, some time ago, called upon the noble
Earl (Grey) to state by what influence he intended to carry on the
King's Government in Parliament, according to the principles fixed at
the period of the Revolution, and in practice from that period to this,
when this Reform Bill should be passed. The noble Lord answered
immediately--not by means of corruption. I am aware of that, my Lords. I
am convinced that the noble Lord is incapable of resorting to such
means, as I hope he believes that I am incapable of resorting to them. I
did not consider this any answer to my question, which I repeated in a
subsequent discussion, on the motion of my noble friend, the noble Baron
behind me (Lord Wharncliffe). The noble Earl said, that the Government
had nothing to do with such questions; that Parliament was to decide for
itself; and that there was no necessity for the interference of
Government.

I beg your Lordships to consider what are the questions which in every
week, and on every day, are brought under the discussion of the House of
Commons--questions affecting the honour, the interests, the rights, the
property, of every individual in the country, which the King is bound by
his oath to protect, and in the protection of which, all are equally
interested. They are questions regarding the proceedings of Courts of
Justice, regarding the use of the public force, and hundreds of others,
which occur daily, in which every individual is interested. I put
legislation out of the question; but can the King from that Throne give
to his subjects the necessary protection for their rights and property?
No, my Lords. It is only by the influence of property over the election
of Members of the House of Commons, and by the influence of the Crown
and of this House, and of the property of the country upon its
proceedings, that the great powers of such a body as the House of
Commons can be exercised with discretion and safety. The King could not
perform the duties of his high station, nor the House of Lords, if the
House of Commons were formed on the principle and plan proposed by this
bill.

_October 4, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Sacrifice of the Established Church will follow the Reform Bill._

There is one institution which would become peculiarly liable to attack
in such a House of Commons, to which I wish to draw the attention of the
Right Reverend Bench, and that is, the Establishment of the Church of
England in Ireland. This Church is the object of a fundamental Article
of the Treaty of Union between the two countries, and is secured by Acts
of both Parliaments; and the King is, besides, sworn to maintain its
right and possessions: can any man believe that, when the
representatives for Ireland come to be elected in the manner proposed by
the bill, the Church of England in Ireland can be maintained?

I have already shown that these representatives must be elected under
the influence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Who are those who now
show the greatest hostility to the Church, its rights, and
possessions?--the Members for populous places. The reason is, that the
deprivation of the Church of their property is one of the popular
objects of the day. The object of the bill is, and its effects will be,
to increase the number of this description of Members in Parliament, and
to render the influence of this party predominant and irresistible.

I believe that the noble Earl (Grey) has already found the Members
returned by Ireland, under this influence, very inconvenient to himself,
upon more than one occasion; and it appears, that the right honourable
Gentleman who conducts the affairs of Ireland in the House of Commons,
was under the necessity, very lately, of giving up a measure which he
thought important for the benefit and peace of Ireland, because the
Members from Ireland, of this party, were opposed to it. How can the
noble Lord suppose, that the Church of England can be protected, or even
the Union itself preserved in a Reformed Parliament? There is no man,
who considers what the Government of King, Lords, and Commons is, and
the details of the manner in which it is carried on, who must not see,
that Government will become impracticable, when the three branches shall
be separate--each independent of the other, and uncontrolled in its
action by any of the existing influences.

_October 4, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Danger of a Democratic House of Commons._

A noble earl (the Earl of Winchelsea) who has spoken on this side of the
House, has made an observation to your Lordships, which well deserves
your attention. The noble earl has told you, that if you increase but a
little the democratic power in the state, the step can never be
withdrawn. Your Lordships must continue in the same course till you have
passed through the miseries of a revolution, and thence to a military
despotism, and the evils which attend that system of government. It is
not denied, that this bill must increase beyond measure the democratic
power of the state--that it must constitute in the House of Commons a
fierce democracy: what must be the consequences, your Lordships will
judge.

I will not detain your Lordships by adverting to the merits of the
system of government which has existed up to the present moment, upon
which my opinion is by no means altered. No man denies that we have
enjoyed great advantages; that we have enjoyed a larger share of
happiness, comfort, and prosperity, for a long course of years, than
were ever enjoyed by any nation; that we have more riches, the largest
fortunes, personal as well as real, more manufactures and commerce, than
all the nations of Europe taken together; the richest, most extensive,
most peopled, and most prosperous foreign colonies and possessions, that
any nation ever possessed. There is not an important position in the
world, whether for the purpose of navigation, commerce, or military
defence, that does not belong to us.

If this democratic assembly should once be established in England, does
any one believe that we should continue to enjoy these vast advantages?
But a democracy has never been established in any part of the world,
that it has not immediately declared war against property--against the
payment of the public debt--and against all the principles of
conservation, which are secured by, and are, in fact, the principal
objects of the British constitution, as it now exists. Property, and its
possessors, will become the common enemy. I do not urge this argument as
one in which your Lordships are peculiarly interested: it is not you
alone, nor even other proprietors, who are interested in the protection
of property; the whole people, middling classes as well as the lower
orders, are interested in this subject. Look at the anxiety prevailing
in every part of London, in respect to the great revolution to be made
by this bill. My noble friend, the noble baron (Lord Wharncliffe) has
been ridiculed for adverting to the opinions of tradesmen in Bond-street
and St. James's-street. Those in Bond-street consist of more than 200
respectable persons, who are well able to form an opinion of the effect
of this bill upon the resources of themselves, the middling classes, and
the poor, as they supply the luxuries of persons in easier
circumstances, residing in that quarter of the town. Anything which can
effect the resources of their customers, must be interesting to them,
and they do feel that this bill must affect property, private
expenditure, and the resources of themselves, and of those whom they
employ. A noble lord on the other side, who adverted to this topic,
greatly underrated the wealth of these tradesmen. I know of one,
residing in Bond-street, who employs at all times from 2,000 to 4,000
workmen, whose trade depends, as well as the employment of this body of
people, upon the expenditure of his customers: is he not interested in
upholding the public faith, and the system of property now established
in England? Are not the people, of all classes and descriptions, down to
the lowest, interested in the maintenance of our extensive manufactures
and commerce, in the conservation of our enormous dominions abroad, and
the continued respect of all nations?

If I am right in thinking that this fierce democracy will be established
in the House of Commons, does any man believe that that harmony can
continue between the king and his government and the House of Commons,
so necessary to insure to both general respect, and to the king's
government the strength which is necessary to enable his Majesty to
protect and keep in order his foreign dominions, and to insure the
obedience of their inhabitants? We shall lose these colonies and foreign
possessions, and with them our authority and influence abroad.

There is no instance of any country having maintained its strength or
its influence in its foreign possessions, or the respect of foreign
nations, during the existence of internal troubles and disturbance; and
there is no case of the existence, without such troubles, of a
Government consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, independently of each
other, and the members of the latter depending solely upon the popular
choice, and being delegates of the people. We have had an example in
England of a House of Commons which was independent of the influence of
the Crown; and of this House, turning the Spiritual Lords out of it,
murdering their Sovereign, and voting the House of Lords useless. I will
read your Lordships the account given by a man, who was knowing in his
time (Oliver Cromwell), of what this House became.

"The parliament, which had so vigorously withstood the encroachments of
the royal power, became themselves too desirous of absolute authority;
and not only engrossed the legislative, but usurped the executive power."

"All causes, civil and criminal, all questions of property, were
determined by committees, who, being themselves the legislature, were
accountable to no law, and for that reason their decrees were arbitrary,
and their proceedings violent. Oppression was without redress, unjust
sentence without appeal; there was no prospect of ease or intermission.
The parliament had determined never to dissolve themselves."

"At length the army interfered. They soon perceived that, unless they
made one regulation more, and crushed this many-headed monster, they had
hitherto ventured their lives to little purpose, and had, instead of
assuring their own and their country's liberty, only changed one kind of
slavery for another."

This is the account of the state of a house of Commons acting
independently of all influence; and of the state to which it brought the
country.

_October 4, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Contempt of intimidation by popular meetings._

I do not deny that I always felt strongly the attempts that were made to
intimidate your Lordships by public meetings. For all such meetings, I
feel the greatest contempt; and I am perfectly satisfied that the house
is superior to any intimidation founded on the proceedings of any such
assemblages. I feel no concern for all those threats, whether proceeding
from Birmingham or elsewhere. I have always thought, and I think still,
that the law is too strong to be overborne by such proceedings. I know
further, that there does exist throughout this country a strong feeling
of attachment to the government of the country, as by law established. I
know that the people look up to the laws as the best means of
protection, and those laws they will not violate in any manner to
endanger the government of the country, or any of its established
institutions. I am afraid of none of these, but I will tell your
Lordships what I am afraid of, I am afraid of revolution, and of
revolutionary measures, brought in and proposed by his Majesty's
government. I assert, and I believe that history will bear me out in the
assertion, that there has been no revolution in this country, or any
great change, which has not been brought about by the parliament, and
generally by the government introducing measures, and carrying them
through by the influence of the Crown. I would therefore entreat your
Lordships to do all you can to defeat this measure--use every means of
resistance which the just exercises of your privileges will warrant; and
trust to the good sense of the country to submit to the legal and just
decision you come to.

_October 5,1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Comparison of the Finance Administration of the Wellington with that of
the Grey government._

I believe we find ourselves in this singular situation: we have an
increased expenditure, (increased within this year,) and have, at the
same time, a reduction of taxation, and no overplus whatever (or one not
amounting to more than 10,000 l.) of revenue. I say we are in that
peculiar situation, because I put out of the question those occasions on
which ministers of the crown have thought it their duty to propose and
effect loans, to carry on the public service of the country. Even in
these cases, those who have made such propositions have thought it their
duty to provide a surplus over revenue, in order to meet the unforeseen
casualties in the amount of revenue, which every man knows must occur
in so large a revenue as this country has the happiness to boast of.
This principle of having a surplus revenue over the expenditure, has
been considered advantageous with a view to the diminution of the
national debt. I am aware that this is a part of the subject on which a
difference of opinion exists. I am aware that many great authorities are
of opinion that no surplus is necessary for the express purpose of
reducing the national debt, and I perfectly agree with them that it is
not desirable that a surplus should be created by borrowing, and thus
creating new liabilities for the purpose of getting rid of the old. But
I cannot look to what has taken place of late years, even in my own
time, when I filled the situation of first Lord of his Majesty's
Treasury,--cannot look to what took place then without seeing the
advantage of having an overplus of income over expenditure, such as
would tend to the gradual diminution of the public debt.

I am considerably within the truth when I state, that since the peace
the interest of the public debt has been decreased by an amount more
than sufficient to pay the interest of 100,000,000 l. of stock; and your
Lordships will therefore see that some surplus of revenue, in order to
lead to a diminution of the public debt, is highly desirable. I think it
is a principle of the financial policy of this country that there should
be such a surplus, and that it should be so applied. Besides, much of
the revenue of this country depends on the seasons, and almost all on
consumption; and the amount of consumption depends upon taste and
fashion; and the change of taste and fashion, and other circumstances
over which no man can have control, and which are liable to variations,
may tend to a variation in the amount of the revenue, which nothing can
provide against except a surplus revenue. It is on this principle that
the government to which I had the honour to belong proceeded.

We should not think that an individual provided for his expenses who
should leave a part of them to be paid within a future period, neither
can we think all the expenditure of the country is provided for, leaving
a part to be paid for in the next year. The sum expended for the service
of the year is the sum to be paid, whether within the year or at any
other period, for this sum provision ought to be made within the year,
or debt is incurred. It is a new principle introduced into the financial
system of this country; it is a principle which at any other time than
the present, would never have been listened to, much less tolerated by
parliament for a moment.

_October 17, 1831._

       *       *       *       *       *

_King Leopold must be independent of Foreign Powers._

I entertain the highest respect for Prince Leopold, and I trust that
that Prince will take upon himself the character of an independent
sovereign, and I know that that illustrious person possesses all the
talents and disposition calculated to form a great and excellent
sovereign; but I must say, that in order to be so, he must be not only
independent of this country, and of the Germanic states, but above all
he must be independent of France.

_January 26, 1832._

_The Grey policy tends to War, Foreign and Domestic._

I say that the foreign policy of his Majesty's ministers is more likely
to produce war abroad than any other system; and in the same manner
their domestic policy is of all others, the best calculated to produce
war at home.

_January 26, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Irish Agitation deprecated._

My Lords, the main cause of the present excitement is the encouragement
given in Ireland to agitators to disturb the country. I can tell the
noble Earl, (Grey), that so long as encouragement is given to agitators,
you may double and treble the regular army in Ireland,--you may heap
measures of severity upon measures of severity, but you will not succeed
in putting down agitation upon this question, or upon any of the others
which may follow it.

_February 27th, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Tithes the most sacred kind of property._

A noble Lord, the other night, in discussing the question of tithes,
observed that the people of Ireland are ready to pay that for which
they receive value, to pay their rent, and to pay all the taxes on the
land, and that they wished not to deprive any man of his property. I say
then my Lords, is any property held so sacred by our laws as tithes? In
the first place, the King is sworn--his Majesty was sworn a few months
ago--to protect the property and rights of the clergy, above all classes
of men. I desire also, to bring to your Lordships' recollection, that in
two recent Acts of parliament, in which we conferred notable advantages
on the Dissenters from the Church of England, we endeavoured as far as
we might by oaths, to secure the property of the church. If any
principle, indeed, can secure property to any portion of his Majesty's
subjects, the property of the church ought to be safe. It is a principle
of the constitution that tithes, above all other property, should be
secured to the owner.

_February 27th, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Grey Government charged with encouraging Political Reform._

My Lords, I never have made, and I never will make, a charge which I am
not ready to repeat, and able to substantiate, and I will forthwith
prove that which the noble Earl calls upon me to explain. In doing this
I beg leave to remind your Lordships, that some months ago I suggested
to the noble Earl, (Grey) that an Act of Parliament, which had been
passed for the purpose of suppressing illegal associations in Ireland,
was about to expire, and I asked him, if he intended to propose a
renewal of that act. The noble Earl replied that he did; but my Lords,
you will recollect that parliament was dissolved without any further
notice of the act, and of course it expired. The result of this was,
that the noble Earl stated in the House, when it met again, that the
noble Marquis at the head of the Irish Administration felt that he could
carry on the government of that country without any additional powers;
and the consequences of the noble Earl having declined to apply to the
legislature for any authority beyond the existing laws were, that
agitation began again, and that meeting after meeting has been held,
from that time to the present moment. This is not all, my Lords; the
great agitator, the prime mover of the whole machinery, escaped the
execution of the sentence of the law in consequence of the expiration of
the Act of Parliament to which I have referred. Well my Lords, what has
since taken place. This very person, the great agitator, whom the
government had prosecuted to conviction, was considered to be a person
worthy of the honours which the crown could bestow, and he received the
highest favour which any gentleman of the Bar ever received from the
hands of the noble Earl and his government; he received a patent of
precedence, which placed him next the Attorney General, and above a
gentleman who was once Attorney General, but was still a member of the
same Bar. If this was not a premium given to that gentleman to continue
his course of disturbing the country, I do not know what else could be
so considered. I feel that no more effectual mode could be found to
encourage agitation than to reward the promoter of it. But it is not
alone in this respect that his Majesty's Government has encouraged
agitation. What was the meaning, I ask, of the friends of government
taking the course they have taken out of doors, with reference to the
Reform Bill? What was the meaning of the letter of the noble Lord in
another house, addressed to the Political Union of Birmingham, in which
that noble Lord designated the sentiments of noble Peers on this side of
the House as the "whisper of a faction?"--What was the meaning of two
friends of government collecting a mob in Hyde Park, and the Regent's
Park, on one of the days on which the House of Lords was discussing the
Reform Bill? What was the meaning of those individuals directing the
line of march of the assembled multitude upon St. James's, and
publishing their orders in the papers devoted to government? And what
was the meaning of the publications in the government newspapers,
libelling and maligning all those who opposed the Bill? What was the
meaning of all these deeds being allowed by government, and why did they
tolerate and abet them, unless they calculated upon some advantages to
themselves in encouraging such agitation? I don't accuse the noble Earl
of instigating those mobs--I do not mean to say, that he was delighted
at seeing my house assailed, or any other work of destruction
committed; but I say some of his colleagues, and some of the friends of
government, have encouraged and incited the people to works of violence.
I must say, I have long felt on this subject very strongly. I feel that
the country is in a most dangerous state. I find the country is in a
most dangerous state, on account of government not taking the proper
measures to put a stop to confusion and agitation; and on the contrary,
in place of putting a stop to such scenes, allowing some Lords of his
Majesty's household, to encourage and instigate the people to lawless
acts.

_February 27th, 1832._

[Earl Grey had risen and denied that the Government had encouraged
agitation upon which the Duke made the previous short but energetic
speech.]

       *       *       *       *       *

_Mr. O'Connell ought not to have had a Patent of Precedence._

It has been urged, that professional honours should not be withheld from
a gentleman who is entitled to them, on account of political offences. I
beg to set the noble Lord right on that point. The offences of which Mr.
O'Connell was convicted, were not political or professional, but legal
offences. They were pronounced such by the law of the country; and it
was to an individual who had been convicted of such offences, that his
Majesty's Government thought it right to give a patent of precedence in
Ireland.

_February 27, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Opinion of the "National" System of Education in Ireland._

I agree in opinion with the noble and learned Lord (Plunkett), who has
declared that opinion with so much eloquence, that any system of
education, to succeed, must be founded on religion; and that it cannot
stand on any other foundation. The noble and learned Lord has truly
said, that this is to be desired, not simply from the advantages to be
derived from religious instruction, but for the promotion of those
habits of obedience and discipline which it is necessary to instil into
the mind of youth. I admit that the system proposed by Ministers is
founded on, and justified by, the reports of the commissioners and of
committees of the other House of Parliament; but the doubt I entertain
is this--whether the system laid down in the reports, and in the letter
of the Right Honourable Secretary for Ireland, is a system which would
inculcate those habits of discipline and obedience which are required by
the noble and learned Lord, and which would alone satisfy my own mind,
that in adopting it we should be doing that which we ought to do: this
is my apprehension. What I feel is this--that there is much doubt
whether the new system of education in Ireland will apply to the
education of nearly 500,000 persons, in the same advantageous way as is
now the case with the existing Societies--the London Hibernian Society,
the Sunday School Society, and the Kildare Place Society. What I would
say is, that there is already going on a system of religious education,
extending its operation to nearer 500,000 than 400,000 persons--a system
of real religious education, founded on the Scriptures, which can be
interfered with by nobody--neither by priest nor by any other man--and
which is so directed by this Kildare Place Society, as not to give
offence to anybody; and now, when the Government is about to establish
another system, (which I have admitted they are justified by the reports
in doing), I doubt much whether it will not be attended with less
advantage than that which already exists.

I am, myself, by no means satisfied that the system which is to be
substituted is as good as that which it is proposed to abrogate. If the
system is to be changed, I consider that it would be better, perhaps, to
have separate schools for the Protestants and Roman Catholics. Although
I allow that this would be attended with many inconveniences, still I am
inclined to think it would be better than the scheme proposed.

I really cannot see the difference between public and private education;
or why causes of dispute should arise between two classes of persons, if
educated by favour of public grants, rather than between the same
classes if educated by private means. All classes of persons who are
educated together, here, by their private means, agree quite well
together, as Englishmen; and I do not see why they should not in like
manner agree, if they happen to be educated by public grants.

_February 28, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Character of the Irish Agitation._

The present state of things in Ireland is to be attributed to the system
of agitation, established by persons who will never be quiet as long as
the noble Lord at the head of the Government shall permit them to
proceed. It is not, I repeat, to be attributed to the practices or
conduct of the clergy, or to the Tithe Corporation Act, or even to the
want of enforcing that Act, but to that system of agitation, combined in
the most artful manner, and carried on with a perseverance unequalled on
any other occasion; and the noble Lords may rely upon it, that the state
of things which now prevails in Ireland[15] will continue to exist even
after this measure shall have been adopted, if that system of agitation
is not put an end to.

[Footnote 15: Resistance to the payment of tithe.]

_March 8, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Protection, not Free Trade, the Principle of our Commercial Law._

Nothing can be more absurd, than to assert that there is free trade in
this country; there is no such thing--there can be no such thing. Our
manufactures and our produce have been at all times protected. We have
always given protection to the productions of our own soil, and
encouragement to our domestic labours; and we have, therefore, rather
discouraged, than otherwise, the rivalry of other countries. That has
been our system; and I should be sorry to see any measure adopted by
this House, opposed to that system under which this country has so many
years thriven and prospered. We have always proceeded on the principle
of protecting our manufactures and our produce--the produce of our
labour and our soil; of protecting them against importation, and
extending our home consumption; and on that universal system of
protection it is absurd to talk of free trade.

_March 9, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Lord Chancellor's Patronage. Its Private Disposal Defended._

My noble and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon) has been attacked for
having, in the exercise of the patronage of his office, not overlooked
the interests of his own family. To be sure he did not, and he ought not
to have done so; if he had, he would only have been departing from the
practice of all his predecessors. Let me remind your Lordships, that for
at least a century and a half back, the Lord Chancellor and Judges have
invariably dispensed the patronage attached to their offices in favour
of their own immediate relations; so that my noble and learned friend,
in providing for his own family as well as he could, was only acting
according to the uniform and acknowledged practice of all his
predecessors. The fact is, that the office of Lord Chancellor would be
very inadequately remunerated, unless the individual filling it procured
the means of providing for his family; and I believe it will be found
out ere long, what with this inadequate remuneration, and what with
stripping off so much of the Chancellor's patronage, and what with the
surrendering up so much of his bankruptcy fees,--that the remuneration
will be so inadequate to the labour and change of habits, and expense
consequent upon the assumption of the office,--that few eminent
gentlemen at the bar will, in future, be disposed to accept of it.

       *       *       *       *       *

For the reason by which I justified my noble and learned friend, I will
say that the noble and learned lord opposite, (Lord Plunkett) was
justified in the exercise of his official patronage. That noble and
learned lord has a large family, and was perfectly right in placing them
in those situations to which their abilities and pretensions were
adequate. The only blame in such a case would be if he placed them in
situations to which their abilities were not equal. I will therefore say
that the learned lord was perfectly justified in the course he has
pursued; and I will say more, that his high office and his great
intellectual influence, fully entitled him to expect that the
government, of which he was a member, should give his family a
preference in filling up any situations to which, as I have stated,
their abilities were equal. I agree with the noble Earl at the head of
his Majesty's government, in hoping that this will be the last we shall
hear of this senseless outcry against public men for this mode of
disposing of the patronage of office. The time of the house is but ill
spent with such discussions; indeed, I am sure that nothing can tend
more to injure its character in public estimation, than these
investigations of the family affairs of men in high stations; at all
events, they tend more to lower the house than benefit the public, and
the sooner we put an end to them the better.

_March 12, 1832._

_Peace with France desirable, but difficult to maintain._

There does exist in the minds of the people of France, a sentiment,
which their government at the present day are but too prone to flatter.
I allude to that morbid desire of extended conquest, which, at least for
the last forty years, has so much influenced the character and
proceedings of that people.

There is no man who would be more ready than I should in taking every
step calculated to promote a good understanding between that country and
this. I consider quite as much as the noble Earl (Grey) opposite can
possibly do, that every measure tending to that end is a measure of
necessity--is a measure of such urgency and importance, that I consider
it second only to the honour and interests of this country,--those I
take to be the very first objects to which a British Minister should
direct his attention, regardless of every consideration which might
interfere with them. Well then, admitting as fully as any noble Lord can
desire, that it must be at all times a leading object with this country
to preserve peaceful relations with France, I will tell the noble Earl
opposite, that if he would remain at peace with France, peace must be
preserved by this country in union with the other powers of Europe, and
not by this country singly. I tell him that the affair at Ancona is but
a trifling warning of that which will soon follow, unless a constant
system of precaution be kept up. I tell him that if that affair be
passed over without notice, new attempts will be made, every one of them
more and more dishonourable and disadvantageous to this country. When I
am told that we should not utter remonstrances against the French
government lightly, nor too readily impute a disposition to disturb the
amicable relations at present subsisting between the two countries, I
answer that no one more earnestly desires peace than I do. There is no
one entertains a higher estimate than I do of the resources--the
immensity of the resources--possessed by that country both in peace and
in war--no man living estimates more highly than I do the wisdom of her
statesmen and the skill of her generals--no man is more ready than
myself to concede to the French people the possession of a large amount
of talent and of virtue, of physical and of moral resources, and of all
that renders a state respectable or formidable in the eyes of other
nations. But in proportion as we admit these facts, we are bound to
watch closely that nothing be done or said derogatory from British
honour or injurious to British interests.

_March 16, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Opinion of the Reform Bill, 1832._

I beg your Lordships to recollect that this is the point which the
House will have to consider:--the question is not whether alterations
have been made in this part or that part, or in many parts of the bill
which your Lordships objected to last session, but the question you will
have to consider is this--Whether this bill, if passed and accompanied,
let it be recollected, with the other bills at present in the other
House of Parliament, will afford to the country a prospect of having a
government under which the country can go on--under which it will be
practicable that this or any other can be governed--or which, in the
words of the noble Earl who addressed your Lordships first this evening
employed last session--if practicable, would not be pernicious. That is
the question which your Lordships will have to consider, when you come
to the second reading of the bill. The principle of this measure is not
reform, but the disfranchisement of some places and the enfranchisement
of others, and also the granting of votes to large bodies of persons on
a new qualification. The total alteration of the representation of this
country, coupled with an alteration of the representation of Scotland,
amounting there to a complete revolution, and the overthrow in Ireland
of all the measures which were adopted in that country three years
ago--these, and not reform, are what your Lordships must consider as the
principles of the bill. I entertain the same opinion as the noble earl
near me as to the necessity of reform. My opinion on this point is now
as it was originally. But how comes the question now before your
Lordships? it has been altered considerably, and is no longer what it
was before.

The noble Earl has thrown out some imputations with respect to party
motives--if the noble Earl meant them to apply to me he is much
mistaken, I have no party views to serve. I believe there is scarcely an
individual in this house, or in the country, who has so little to do
with borough interests or county interests, or any sort of Parliamentary
interests as I have. I have the same interest in the country as any
other individual, that is to say, I wish to see the representation
established on such a basis as will give the country a prospect of a
practicable system of government.

If the bill should go into committee, I will lend my best assistance to
render it as consistent with the true interests of the country as it can
be made, keeping in view always this great point--that on the nature of
the representative system depend the character and form of government.

_April 10, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The House of Commons that carried Reform was an Assembly of Delegates._

The noble Baron, (Lord Wharncliffe) in a memorable speech delivered to
this house in the month of March, 1831, previously to the last general
election, stated to this house, in the strongest terms, that the result
of that election must be to secure the return to the House of Commons of
delegates of the people; not members of the House of Commons to
consider de Adrias Regni, but to decide upon a measure of parliamentary
reform proposed to them in a moment of excitement, and the result would
be, to place this house in the situation in which it was placed last
year, and in which it stands on the present occasion.

My Lords, is all to be lost, because the noble Lords opposite have taken
this course? Is this House to be destroyed? Or is it to lend its aid to
destroy the constitution, because Ministers persevere in this course?
Would it not be more wise to call upon his Majesty to place things as
they were, previous to this unfortunate and ill-advised revolution of
parliament; to advise his Majesty to remove his ministers from his
confidence, in order that things might be placed in the same situation
in which they stood before, and that this house and the country might
have an opportunity, if possible, of having a fair discussion on the
measure of reform. What! my Lords, is it to be said that the country is
to be tied down to be governed by a system which no man can say is
practicable? and can any body deny that the House of Commons, which
consents to such a proposition, is a delegated House of Commons? All the
arguments regarding the decisions of the House of Commons must come to
the same end. There would, no doubt, be ten decisions of the same kind,
if it were left to the same house, because the house is pledged and
returned for the purpose. But the country is not to be abandoned on this
account.[16]

[Footnote 16: This and the other succeeding passages on the subject of
Reform, were delivered on the second reading of the final reform bill,
after the Earl of Harrowby and other Tory peers had resolved on giving
way to the House of Common and the Crown.]

April 10, 1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Means by which the Reform Fever was excited and kept up._

There can be no doubt whatsoever that there was no opinion existing in
the country, in the year 1829, and the beginning of 1830, in favour of
parliamentary reform. I believe this is a fact which was fully admitted
in the discussions of the House of Commons at that time. Then my Lords,
came the French Revolution, which occurred at the period of the
commencement of the elections of 1830, followed by the insurrection in
Belgium; and there can be no doubt that these events occasioned a very
great excitement at the elections of members of parliament. There were
many declarations in favour of parliamentary reform; and all that passed
on the subject of parliamentary reform on that occasion, was calculated
to influence, and did very considerably influence, the opinions of that
parliament upon that question. The noble Lords opposite then came into
power, and I will say, my Lords, that they met a parliament ready to
pass a measure of moderate parliamentary reform. But the noble Lords
opposite thought proper, instead of carrying such a measure, to dissolve
that parliament, and a new parliament was called under a degree of
excitement in the public mind such as had never before been witnessed.
The excitement has continued, to a certain degree, ever since, and it
has been kept up by the strong opinion put forward and entertained, that
it is the King who wishes for parliamentary reform in the manner
proposed by this bill. Now, my Lords, I say it is no such thing; for my
part, I do not believe one word of any such assertion. My opinion is,
that the King follows the advice of his servants; but I believe that it
is the idea thus engendered which renders it difficult that there should
not be some reform. It is not, however, to be supposed that the King
takes any interest in the subject. I entertain no doubt that the cause
of the great excitement upon this subject is, that it is the King's
opinion that the bill ought to be carried. The noble Earl would find the
country cool upon the subject if the King's mind were altered. He would
not be able to pass this bill; and indeed, I am sure, from experience,
that if ministers, on any great constitutional question, were not
convinced that the King would go through with them, it would be
impossible for any set of ministers to carry any such measure.

_April_ 10, 1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The best part of the Public do not wish the Reform Bill_.


The opinion of the gentlemen of the country,--I speak from my own
knowledge with respect to the southern counties, and from sure report as
to other counties generally,--but I do say that the opinion of the
gentlemen, of the landed property, and of the learning of the country,
is against this bill. The bill is, on the other hand, supported by the
noble Lords opposite, and by their adherents, certainly not a numerous
class; it is also supported by all the dissenters from the church of
England, and by all who wish it should pass, as a means of their
obtaining votes, but I will repeat, that it is, in fact, opposed to the
sentiments of all the real English gentlemen, of the yeomanry, and of
the middle classes throughout the country. Yes, my Lords, I will say,
that there is a change of opinion, and that the best part of the public
are not desirous for the bill, but are, on the contrary, apprehensive of
its effects. But the noble Lords will say;--"We hear none of this." No
my Lords; and why do we hear none of this? Because there is scarcely a
gentleman in the country who can believe that, if he were to attend a
public meeting for the purpose of expressing his sentiments on this
question, he would be secure or protected from the attacks of the mob.

_April_ 10, 1832

       *       *       *       *       *

_No Compromise_.


My Lords, I must now advert to what has fallen from another noble Earl
(Harrowby), who opposed the bill strongly last year, but who last night
came to a different conclusion, and asked if there was no hope of
effecting a compromise? and he particularly called upon me to come to
such a compromise. My Lords, these noble Lords have been trying a
compromise for the last six months; if they have made no progress in
effecting a compromise, what encouragement can they hold out to me and
others to follow them upon this occasion. We know the evils of this
bill; we know that it will consign the country to evils from which it
cannot recover. Agree to a compromise! Why, he has not been enabled to
advance one single step from last October up to the present moment. He,
and his noble Friends who act with him, have remained perfectly
stationary. If this be the case, I hope that those who intend to act
with my noble Friends, will understand that there is no more chance of
compromise on the present than on the last occasion; and that if they
agree to the second reading, they agree to a bill with which the country
cannot be governed. I beg then that the noble Lords will look to the
responsibility they take upon themselves, in giving support to this
bill. The Government are now decidedly responsible for that bill--they
are responsible for the election of the House of Commons, that passed
it--they are responsible for the excitement which caused these
events--and they are, moreover, responsible for any evil consequences
which may occur, if this House reject it. But when noble Lords change
their sentiments, and are followed by many who voted against it last
time, I beg them to recollect, that they will partake of a large portion
of this responsibility, and that the country will look to them as
responsible for whatever may occur.[17]

[Footnote 17: The bill was soon after carried by a species of
compromise, Peers staying away from the division.]

_April_ 10,1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Revolutions may be effected by Laws as well as by Violence._

The noble earl (Grey) yesterday challenged me with saying that this bill
is revolutionary. What I have always said is, that it has a
revolutionary tendency; and I think it has a tendency so strong in that
way that it must lead to revolution. The noble earl has said there is no
violence; but, my Lords, revolutions may be effected by laws as well as
by violence. I know there is no violence. Why, my Lords, there can be no
violence,--the King's Government and the House of Commons are leagued
with those who call out for change,--and there can be no occasion for
resorting to violence. But, my Lords, this is not the only objection.
One of the great and leading objections in my mind to this measure is,
that it is one which goes to destroy that most invaluable principle of
our existing constitution, the principle of prescription, which
sanctions the descent and secures the possession of all kinds of
property in this country.

_April_ 10,1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Demagogue will drive the Gentleman from the Representation._

The noble Earl has told us, that men possessing property in these
boroughs will continue to possess their just influence in them--that
they will have political influence in the elections--that it will
continue, and that it ought to continue. But I would appeal to your
Lordships, whether your own experience, in matters of this description,
confirms the correctness of this statement? It is true that, in some of
these boroughs, noblemen possessing large properties in the
neighbourhood will still possess a great and paramount influence; and,
indeed, in some places, in consequence of the effect of the double
franchise, the influence of the great proprietors in the vicinity may be
raised greatly beyond what it is at present. But in those towns in
general, it will be the demagogue, and not the nobleman or gentleman of
property, who will possess the influence over the elections there. The
latter cannot command such an influence, unless through the means of a
constant expenditure which it would be impossible for any one to
support. The demagogue will obtain his influence by other means, and
will ultimately drive the gentleman out of the field. I beg your
Lordships to observe what will be the effect of such a state of things
in the constitution of the House of Commons; and I beg to ask whether,
with such men the representatives of those boroughs, it will be possible
to carry on anything like a government or a steady system of policy,
through the means of this assembly.

_April_ 10, 1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Prophetic Contrast of the New with the Old System._

I know that according to the constitution of this country, a member of
the House of Commons when he goes there is a member for all parts of
England, and not a representative for the particular town or place for
which he is elected; he is in fact looked upon as a member for all the
Commons of England. This was hitherto the meaning which was attached to
the character of a Member of the Commons House of Parliament. But the
case will be widely different should this Bill be passed, and should
Members of Parliament be subjected to a system of instruction on the
part of their constituents. That system, however, already exists in
parts of England, and more especially in the Metropolis, and in the
Borough of Southwark. Your Lordships will remember that an honourable
and gallant officer, formerly connected with the noble Lords opposite,
was obliged to retire from the representation of Southwark, last summer,
because he happened to differ with his constituents; and also that a
worthy Alderman was in a similar manner reprimanded by his constituents
in the city of London, for a similar offence. What then, I would ask
your Lordships, is to be expected hereafter, should the system laid down
in this Bill be established in this country? Why every member of the
House of Commons would become the mere delegate of his constituents,
instead of representing the people at large. It has been observed that
such representatives would in every case merely consult the wishes of
their respective constituents, instead of looking to the advancement of
the interests of all classes. I have before me a letter written by a
gentleman to some of his constituents in this neighbourhood, in which he
desires not only that the electors shall direct the votes of their
representatives, and point out the course which they should pursue in
parliament, but goes much further. The letter, which is directed to the
parishioners of St. Georges in the East, says, "there ought to be an
union formed in every parish between the middle classes and the
operatives,--first for the protection of person and property; and
secondly, to be ready to express the opinion of the parish on any public
measure, and in case the minister or the House of Commons are lukewarm
in the cause of the people." The extract which I have just read is taken
from a letter written by a great advocate of the Reform Bill, not for
the sake of the Reform Bill itself, but because it would lead to
something further. This letter affords a proof of the kind of system
which will be put into operation with respect to the members of the
House of Commons, should this Bill be passed. Let your Lordships, then,
for a moment, compare the system this Bill would establish, with the
system of representation which has so long existed in this country, and
under which this country has been raised to such an eminence of glory,
and power, and prosperity.

We have, under the existing system, the county representation, and the
representation in cities and boroughs. The county representation
consists principally of freeholders, and the members for counties
represent not only the lower classes, but the middle and higher orders.
The representatives for the great maritime towns, and for the larger
description of towns in the interior of the country, represent likewise
the lower and middle classes. The representatives for the pot wallopping
boroughs, for the scot-and-lot boroughs, and for the single borough of
Preston, where the franchise is vested in the inhabitants at large,
represent the lowest orders of the people; and in this manner this
borough representation represents all classes and descriptions of
persons, who have any thing to do with the business transacted in the
House of Commons. Instead of this system, which has raised this country
to its present elevation, we are called upon to establish by this Bill a
system of elections which will be confined to one single class of the
community; and as the county representations will be no check upon this
class of persons, the voters in the counties being mostly of the same
description, and as the united representation of Scotland, and of
Ireland, will be a check upon them, such a system will tend at once to a
complete democracy. This, then, is the system which we are called upon
to establish in the place of that which at present exists, and under
which all classes and interests of the country are represented in
Parliament, and it is under such a system as this that it is pretended
the general business of the state can be carried on, and the government
maintain sufficient power to preserve existing institutions.

_April_ 10,1832.

_Popular tendency of the Old System of Representation._

I would call the attention of your Lordships to the changes which have
taken place in the government of the country during the last twenty
years,--to go no further back,--and to the improvements which have taken
place in what is called the popular sense. A noble friend of mine, last
night, truly stated that the influence of the Crown was decreasing from
the period of the revolution up to the year 1782; and that it has been
still further diminishing from that period up to the present time, till
at last there are not more than fifty persons in the House of Commons
holding public offices. In that period, and more especially in latter
years, the influence of the crown in this respect has been greatly
diminished. First of all, there has been a large reduction of all such
kinds of offices; and in the next place, in consequence of the different
constitution and regulations of the customs and excise, and other public
departments; and thus the influence formerly possessed by the Crown has
gradually passed away.

       *       *       *       *       *

With the influence of the Crown, then, thus diminished, if a Bill of
this description should pass, to make such an extensive change in the
constitution of this House, it would be impossible to carry on the
government of the country. But there has also been another most
remarkable alteration with respect to the constitution of Parliament
within the last four years. In the year 1828, the Test Act was repealed;
and this I beg your Lordships to recollect, that the effect of the
repealing this Act was immediately to bring into operation a large body
of electors, who must of course have had considerable influence in
subsequent elections. Again, in the following year, the disabilities of
the Roman Catholics were removed, which made another important
difference in the constitution of Parliament. Has sufficient time been
given to those measures to ascertain their effect? Is it not reasonable,
is it not right, that we should try the effect of those measures on the
constitution, before we proceed further, before we adopt a measure which
will effect such extraordinary changes as this proposed Reform Bill?
There can be no doubt but that those measures to which I have alluded,
must have had considerable effect in the elections which have since
taken place, and more especially when any measure of Parliamentary
Reform has been adopted, of the same extensive character as that
contemplated in the Bill.

_April_ 10, 1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Gradual Reform Recommended._

There can be no doubt that there is a general desire in the country,---
I do not deny the existence of it, for it is stated in all the
addresses and all the petitions on the subject;--that there is a general
desire in the country that some Reform in Parliament should be taken
into consideration, to do away with the abuses in the system of
elections of Members of the House of Commons. Without enquiring into the
cause, if the fact be as I have stated, which I believe no one will
dispute, it is the duty of Parliament to proceed steadily and gradually
in making amendments in the representation. We should consider maturely
every step that we took,--we should not proceed all at once to do every
thing, we should go on gradually and deliberately; and thus in process
of time, we might arrive even at the measure which has been recommended
by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's government; but this must
be in process of time. After a considerable length of time had elapsed,
and after we had maturely considered every step that we had taken, it
would be only after we had done all that, that we could adopt a measure
to the extent of that recommended by the noble Earl. This we must do, if
we desire to maintain the venerable monarchy under which the country has
flourished for so long a time. The effect of this measure, if carried
now, will be to establish such a government as exists elsewhere, (in
France) which the noble Earl has described as a government which no man
could think fit for the administration of affairs in this country.

_April_ 10,1839.


       *       *       *       *       *

_Effect of Agitation on Business_.

I believe that as soon as this Bill was proposed, and as soon as the
excitement which it occasioned was apparent, all expenditure of all
descriptions ceased,--men ceased to lay out money in great
enterprises--and those who expended their incomes to the full amount,
began to consider whether it was not expedient to make provision for a
future day, for a period of trouble and difficulty, which might be
anticipated from these changes. It is to these circumstances that I am
induced to attribute the want of commerce and trade in the country. If
your Lordships look to the situation of our neighbours it will appear
that the same causes have produced precisely the same effects, and that
these causes have proceeded further amongst them, than they have with
us, because they have existed for a longer period of time. Among them
popular delirium has been carried nearly to its full extent; among us it
has only begun. I particularly complain of the system of agitation which
now prevails in England, for this reason, that it falls upon the poorest
and lowest classes of the community. The expenditure of the rich gives
comfort and ease to the middle classes, but it gives subsistence to the
poor; and it is for want of this subsistence and comfort for the lower
classes, that agitation has been carried to such an extent.

_April_ 10, 1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Military Force will be required to Govern the Country if the Reform
Bill is carried._

The noble Viscount, one of his Majesty's Secretaries of State, who spoke
yesterday upon the subject, admitted that he did not expect that the
Reform measure would relieve any of the distresses of the country. It
certainly does appear most extraordinary, that a Minister, particularly
a Secretary of State, should say of a measure, which he is supporting
himself, and which he knows must have such extensive consequences as the
measure now proposed, that he does not believe that it will tend to
relieve any of the existing distresses of the country. But I say not
only that it will not relieve any of the distresses of the country, but,
on the contrary, that it will deeply aggravate them. But let us go a
little further, and see whether this system is good; and whether the
system of cheap government, which it is to introduce, is likely to
produce good to the country. And here, again, I would wish to call the
attention of your Lordships to what is passing in another country. If
your Lordships will take the trouble of examining what has passed in
France in the course of the last two years, you will see that, during
that period, that country has expended 50,000,000 l. sterling beyond its
usual expenditure. Its ordinary Budget, notwithstanding every
description of saving that could be made from the Civil List, and in
other establishments, which have been cut down as low as possible--still
its ordinary Budget exceeds the Budget of the former reign--the
extravagant reign of the Bourbons--to the amount of 10,000,000 l.
sterling; and, including those laws for two years, there is the
extraordinary expenditure of 50,000,000 l. in that space of time. To say,
then, that popular excitement tends to cheap government, is monstrous
and absurd, and it is impossible for any man who regards these facts to
arrive at that conclusion. We are called upon to adopt a system which is
to lead to these results. I ask, then, whether such a system can be more
effectual in this country, than that under which we have so long
prospered? I ask, whether the Civil Government will have more
power--whether it is possible that the Government can be carried on with
a smaller proportion of the army? I beg your Lordships to observe the
transactions which have occurred at Paris within the last two years, and
you will see that, while Louis XVIII, and Charles X. were able to
maintain the peace and tranquillity of the capital with a gendarmerie of
from 500 to 1000 men,--since the period of the revolution of July, 1830,
the Government has not had less than 60,000 once a month put into
requisition to maintain the peace of the city. I say once a month, upon
an average, not to exaggerate the facts; being convinced that upon not
less than twenty-four occasions the army has been under arms.

If the system now proposed to your Lordships is adopted, will any man
tell me that it will be possible for any Government to be carried on, as
the Government of this country has hitherto been, by a civil power,
aided by a small military force? In the course of this last summer,
events of a fearful character occurred, nearly at the same time, in this
country and in France. I allude to the disturbances at Bristol and at
Lyons. The riots at Bristol were put down by ninety men, as soon as an
officer was found who would employ the force entrusted to him. But what
happened at Lyons--were the disturbances there so easily quelled? The
events at Lyons--a larger town, I admit, but not much larger than
Bristol--required 40,000 troops to be brought against the town, under
the command of a Marshal of France, the present Minister-at-War, and a
Prince of the Blood, before tranquillity could be restored. I entreat,
then, your Lordships to consider well, first of all, the causes of this
difference,--to see that it is the sovereignty of the people that you
are called upon to establish in this country,--and whether it is
possible to carry on the civil Government of England, as it has hitherto
been, under such a Government as you would establish, if you pass this
Bill.

_April_ 10,1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Fiscal Regulations for the Extinction of Slavery not defensible._

I can hardly bring myself to believe that any Government can think of
forcing the Colonies to adopt Orders in Council, by holding out, at
once, promises and threats; by saying that those Colonies which adopted
them should not pay taxes, and that those which did not adopt them
should continue to pay them. Did any man ever before hear of taxes
being imposed, for any purpose whatever, excepting to supply the
necessities of the State? If taxes be necessary for the purposes of the
State, in the name of God let them be paid; but, if they be not
necessary, they ought not to be imposed at all, nor allowed to continue.
Parliament is not justified in imposing taxes for a specific purpose of
punishment.

_April_ 17, 1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_West India Property not to be Sacrificed to the Fancies of
Abolitionists._

It is really desirable that this question should be well understood in
this country. West Indian property is as much entitled to protection as
any other property which exists in Great Britain. Petitions are sent up
from all parts of England, praying for the immediate abolition of
slavery; and the execution of that measure is urged as a duty incumbent
upon us. Those persons who take a part in these proceedings, forget the
enormous amount of property belonging to his Majesty's subjects which is
involved in the question; and it is necessary to bring back their
attention to the consequences which will result, not only to the
colonists, but to the public, from the annihilation of that property, by
the prosecution of any of their fancies respecting the abolition of
slavery. In truth, it is absolutely impossible to derive any advantage
from that property except through the medium of slavery; and through
slavery alone can the individuals interested in the occupation of that
property be sustained in life.

_April_ 17, 1832.

_Speech explaining the Negociations, in May, 1832, for the formation of
a Tory Government on the principle of Moderate Reform._

My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a petition from
the inhabitant householders of Cambridge against the Reform Bill; and,
as this is the first time I have had occasion to address your Lordships
since I have been charged by his Majesty with a most important
commission, I conceive that your Lordships, or, at least, some of you,
may be desirous that I should avail myself of this, or some other early
opportunity, to explain the nature and termination of the transactions
in which I have been engaged; and I confess, my Lords, that having been
exposed to extreme misrepresentation, and having been vilified in the
most extraordinary manner, in respect of these transactions, by persons
in another place, who, with the exception of their conduct in this
instance, have some claim to be considered respectable, I am anxious to
take the first opportunity of stating to your Lordships, and the
country, the nature of the transactions in which I have been engaged,
and the grounds on which I have proceeded. Your Lordships will
recollect, that in the course of the last week--I think it was on
Wednesday--his Majesty's ministers informed your Lordships that they had
offered certain advice to his Majesty in reference to the important
subject of the Reform Bill; and, as his Majesty had not thought proper
to follow that advice, they had considered it their duty to tender their
resignations to his Majesty, and which resignations his Majesty was
pleased to accept. His Majesty was graciously pleased, on that day on
which he was so left entirely alone by his ministers, to send for a
noble friend of mine--a noble and learned Lord (Eldon), who had held a
high place, as well in the service as in the confidence of his Majesty,
to inquire whether, in his opinion, there were any means, and if so,
what means, of forming a Government for his Majesty on the principle of
carrying into execution an extensive reform in the representation of the
people. Thus it appears that when his Majesty had the misfortune of
disagreeing with his servants, respecting the advice which had been
tendered to him, he happened to have had so little communication with
other men, and was so little acquainted with their opinions on public
affairs, that he felt it necessary to send for my noble and learned
friend, who was out of the immediate line of politics, in order to
obtain his assistance, and to seek for information at his hands. My
noble and learned friend came to me, and informed me of the difficulty
of his Majesty's situation, and I considered it my duty to inquire from
others what their opinions were, because, I confess to your Lordships,
I was equally unprepared with his Majesty for the consideration of such
a question.

Upon inquiry, I found that a large number of friends of mine were not
unwilling to give confidence and support to a government formed upon
such a principle, and with the positive view of resistance to that
advice which was tendered to his Majesty. Under these circumstances I
waited on his Majesty on Saturday, and submitted to him my advice. That
advice was not to re-appoint his late ministry, nor was it to appoint
myself. I did not look to any objects of ambition. I advised him to seek
the assistance of other persons well qualified to fill the high
situations in the state, expressing myself willing to give his Majesty
every assistance, whether in office or out of office, to enable his
Majesty to form an administration to resist the advice which had been so
given to him. My Lords, these were the first steps of the transaction;
and if ever there was an instance in which the Sovereign acted more
honestly by his former servants--if ever there was an instance in which
public men kept themselves most completely apart from all intrigues, and
from all indirect influence--using only those direct and honourable
means of opposition, of which no man has reason to be other than proud,
this is that instance. And when I came to give my advice to his Majesty,
instead of advising him with a view to objects of personal ambition, as
I have been accused of doing upon high authority,--I gave that advice
which I thought would best lead to another arrangement, and I stated
that I was ready to serve his Majesty in any or in no capacity, so as
best to assist him in carrying on a government to resist the advice
which had been given him by his late ministers. And here, my Lords, I
beg your Lordships to examine a little what was the nature of the advice
which was tendered by his Majesty's ministers to his Majesty, which his
Majesty thought proper not to follow, and which I considered it my
bounden duty to enable his Majesty to resist. I do not ask any man to
seek any further explanation of this advice, than that which was given
by the ministers themselves. It was neither more nor less than this. The
Government, feeling some difficulty in carrying the Reform Bill through
this House, were induced to advise his Majesty to do--what?--to create a
sufficient number of peers to enable them to carry their measure, to
force it through this House of Parliament. Now, my Lords, before I go
further, let me beg you to consider what is the nature of that
proposition? Ministers found, in the course of last session, that there
was a large majority in this House against the principle of the bill.
Now, my Lords, what is the ordinary course for a minister, under such
circumstances, to pursue? My Lords, it is to alter the measure, to
endeavour to make it more palatable to that branch of the legislature
which was opposed to it. Such is the usual course; but, in this case,
the minister says "no. I will next session bring in a bill as efficient
as that which has been rejected." And what did he do? My Lords, I have
no hesitation in saying that, notwithstanding the opposition of this
House, he brought in a measure stronger and worse than any of the
measures before introduced; and this measure he wishes to force upon the
House by a large creation of peers. How many peers, it is not necessary
to state--it has not even been stated, by the noble Lords opposite: it
is enough to say, a sufficient number to force the Reform Bill through
the House. It is only necessary for me to state the proposition. If this
be a legal and constitutional course of conduct--if such projects can be
carried into execution by a minister of the crown with impunity--there
is no doubt that the constitution of this House and of this country is
at an end. I ask, my Lords, is there any body blind enough not to see
that if a minister can, with impunity, advise his Sovereign to such an
unconstitutional exercise of his prerogative as to thereby decide all
questions in this House, there is absolutely an end put to the power and
objects of deliberation in this House--an end to all means of decision;
I say, then, my Lords, thinking as I do, it was my duty to counsel his
Majesty to resist the following of this advice; and, my Lords, my
opinion is that the threat of carrying this measure of creation into
execution, if it should have the effect of inducing noble Lords to
absent themselves from the House, or to adopt any particular line of
conduct, is just as bad as its execution; for, my Lords, it does by
violence force a decision on this House--and on a subject, my Lords, on
which this House is not disposed to give such a decision. It is true, my
Lords, men may be led to adopt such a course, by reflecting, that if
they do not adopt it, some 50 or 100 peers will be introduced, and thus
deliberation and decision in this House be rendered impracticable; or
men may be led to adopt it with the view of saving the Sovereign from
the indignity of having so gross an alternative imposed upon him. But I
say, my Lords, that the effect of any body of men agreeing publicly to
such a course, will be to make themselves parties to this very
proceeding, of which I say, we have so much reason to complain. The only
course of proceeding at this eventful crisis, worthy of the men with
whom I have the honour to be connected, was to advise his Majesty--was
to counsel his Majesty--to resist the advice which had been given him,
if he could find means of carrying on the government of the country
without acceding to it. But this part of the transaction, my Lords,
requires particular explanation upon my part--his Majesty insisted that
some "extensive measure of reform" (I use his own words) "in the
representation of the people" should be carried. I always was of
opinion, and am still of opinion, that the measure of reform is
unnecessary, and will prove most injurious to the country. But on the
last occasion when I addressed your Lordships,--in the committee on
Monday se'nnight,--I stated my intention to endeavour to amend the bill
in committee, and to do it honestly and fairly. Still, however, I
thought that, amend it as we might in committee, it was not a measure
which would enable the country to have a government capable of
encountering the critical circumstances and serious difficulties to
which every man must expect this country to be exposed. This was, my
Lords,--this is, my opinion. I do not think that, under the influence of
this measure, it is possible that any government can expect to overcome
the dangers to which this country must be exposed. But my Lords, this
was not the question before me; I was called on to assist my Sovereign
in resisting a measure which would lead to the immediate overthrow of
one branch of the legislature--a measure which would enable the ministry
to carry through this house the whole bill unmodified, unimproved, and
unmitigated. I had then, my Lords, only the choice of adopting such part
of that bill as this house might please to send down to the House of
Commons, suffering the government hereafter to depend upon the operation
of that part of the bill rather than upon the whole bill, or else of
suffering the whole bill to be carried, and the House of Lords to be
destroyed. My Lords, my opinion is not altered; no part of the bill is
safe; but undoubtedly, a part of the bill is better, that is to say,
less injurious, than the whole bill; and, certainly, it must at least be
admitted that it is better than the destruction of the constitution of
the country by the destruction of the independence of this house. Under
these circumstances, my Lords, I gave my consent to assist his Majesty
in forming a new government. I know many may be of opinion that I should
have acted a more prudent part if I had looked to anterior
circumstances, and if I had regarded the opinions and pledges I had
given, and if, placing my attention exclusively upon the desire of
acting a consistent part in public life, I had pursued a different
course, and refused my assistance to his Majesty, I should have done
better and more wisely.

I do not mean to detract from the merits of those who thought proper to
pursue a course contrary to mine upon the occasion. I am grieved that it
should have been my misfortune to differ with some right honourable
friends of mine, with whom I have been for many years in habits of
cordial union, co-operation, and friendship, and from whom I hope this
momentary separation will not dissever me. Nay, my lords, their position
was different from mine. I was situated in a position very different
from that in which they felt themselves to stand. They regretted that
they could not take the same course with me; but for myself, my Lords, I
cannot help feeling that, if I had been capable of refusing my
assistance to his Majesty--if I had been capable of saying to his
Majesty, "I cannot assist you in this affair, because I have, in my
place in parliament, expressed strong opinions against a measure to
which your Majesty is friendly," I do not think I could have shewn my
face in the streets for shame of having done it--for shame of having
abandoned my Sovereign under such distressing circumstances. I have,
indeed, the misfortune of differing from many noble Lords, but I cannot
regret the steps I have taken. If I have made a mistake, I regret it;
but I am not aware that I have made any mistake. It was impossible that
I could shrink from his Majesty in the distressing circumstances under
which he was placed. I will not detain your Lordships longer with a
detail of the circumstances which led to the dilemma in which we are now
placed. But, my Lords, if you will only look back to the commencement of
those transactions--if you look to the speech which his Majesty made
from the throne to this and the other house of Parliament, in June
1831,--if you recollect that his Majesty stated, in very strong terms,
that that important question should receive the earliest and most
attentive consideration, saying, "--Having had recourse to that measure
for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency
of a reform in the representation, I have now to recommend that
important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration,
confident that, in any measure which you may propose for its adjustment,
you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the
constitution, by which the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of
both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people,
are equally secured."

Now, my Lords, I ask, could it be believed, at the time his Majesty made
this speech, that the rights of this house--the power of deliberating
and deciding independently upon such a question as this--would be
destroyed by a creation of Peers, and by a creation to an extent which
could not be much less than one hundred? If any man at the time foretold
this, it would have been said he was dreaming of things that were
impossible. But to this state, my Lords, have we been brought by this
measure. When I first heard of this bill being proposed to be carried by
a creation of Peers, I said it was absolutely impossible. I could not
believe that any minister of England would be led by any considerations
whatsoever to recommend such a measure to his Majesty. The first time,
indeed, I heard the matter mentioned with any degree of authority, was
when a Right Rev. Prelate thought proper to write upon the subject to
some people in a town in the county of Sussex. I could appeal to those
sitting near me if this be not the fact--if I did not uniformly declare
that the thing was impossible--that the very idea of it ought not to be
mentioned. That it should never be imagined that any minister could be
found who would recommend such an unconstitutional--such a ruinous--such
an unjust exercise of the prerogative of the crown; for, my Lords, I do
maintain that the just exercise of the prerogative of the Crown does by
no means go to the extent of enabling his Majesty to create a body of
Peers with the view to carry any particular measure. Under the
circumstances, then, I think your Lordships will not think it unnatural,
when I consider his Majesty's situation, that I should endeavour to
assist his Majesty to avoid the adoption of such a recommendation. But,
my Lords, when I found that in consequence of the discussions on Monday
in another place,--which by the way proved so clearly what the
sentiments of the leading men then were, that Peers should not be
created for such a purpose:--when I found from these discussions that it
was impossible to form a government from that house, of such a nature as
would secure the confidence of the country, I felt it my duty to inform
his Majesty that I could not fulfil the commission with which he was
pleased to honour me, and his Majesty informed me that he would renew
his communications with his former ministry.

_May 17, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The state of Ireland under Lord Grey, a Conspiracy against Law and
Government._

The noble Lords at the head of the Irish government have a most
particular objection to these extraordinary measures, adopted to enable
the government to afford protection to the lives and property of his
Majesty's subjects. If I do not mistake--and I am sure that I am in the
recollection of many noble Lords present--I myself reminded the noble
Earl that the association act would terminate at the end of the session
of Parliament of 1831; and the answer of the noble Earl was, that it was
intended to bring in a bill to continue that act. My Lords, Parliament
was dissolved unfortunately, and the association act was not only not
continued, but the convictions which had already taken place under it
were not carried into execution.

It might naturally be supposed that, when the Lord Lieutenant found that
he could not give protection to his Majesty's subjects even when he had
the association act, it would, at least, have been continued. No such
thing. When Parliament reassembled, the question was again put by one of
the noble Lords near me, whether it was intended to propose a renewal of
that act; and the answer was, that the noble Lord at the head of the
Irish government thought that he would tranquillize the country without
having recourse to extraordinary measures. From that day to this there
has been no security to property--no security for person; there has been
no enjoyment of peace or tranquillity in Ireland. That is the state in
which it has continued from that time to the present. Now, my noble
friend stated most truly that this is the result of a conspiracy; I say
the same; and before I sit down, I will prove that it is a conspiracy,
and nothing but a conspiracy, which tends to deprive a large class of
his Majesty's subjects of their property,--which renders their lives
insecure,--a conspiracy which tends to the overthrow of all government,
if they do not adopt some measure to put it down. On this ground alone I
address your Lordships; I wish to warn the people and the government of
the real nature of that which exists in that part of the United Kingdom.
We have heard of an attempt, which was lately made by a clergyman, to
avail himself of a sale under a distress, for the purpose of obtaining
payment of a part of what was his due. A body of troops were assembled,
by direction of the magistrates, for the purpose of protecting the sale.
It appears, from an account of a nature usually tolerably accurate,
that, on the first day appointed for the sale, an assemblage of 20,000
people collected together; on the second day the number was 50,000; and
on the third it amounted to 100,000. I will take an unit from each of
these numbers, and even then I defy any man to shew me how that body
could have been assembled but by a conspiracy. Who led them there? My
Lords, the Priests. I have seen a letter from an officer who commanded
one of the bodies of troops employed on the occasion, in which such is
stated to be the fact.

When, my Lords, I know that that conspiracy exists, and that it goes to
prevent a large proportion of his Majesty's subjects from enjoying their
property--when I know that the same conspiracy may be applied to any
other description of property--to any man's life, to his house, to his
honour, or to anything else that is most dear to man, I do say, it
becomes the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government to adopt
some measures, in order to do that which Government can do, to get the
better of that conspiracy. It must not be said that, under the British
Constitution, there is no power to prevent such a conspiracy: I say,
there is a power, and that power resides in Parliament, which can give
the Government, under this best of all Constitutions, the means which
shall at the same time protect the property and the liberty of every
individual in the state. Yes, my Lords, Parliament possesses the power
to bestow on the Government the means of putting down this conspiracy--a
conspiracy not against the Government itself, but against those whom the
Government is bound in honour to protect. I take this question of tithes
to be one of the most serious questions that can be brought under the
consideration of Parliament. I do not object to the noble Earl's
measure--indeed, I really do not know what that measure is--but what I
say is, that the noble Earl is bound, and the King is bound by his oath,
to protect the property of the Church--yes, his Majesty is sworn
especially to protect that property. But it is not the property of the
Church alone--what do you say of the lay impropriator? Is a man to be
robbed and ruined, because he possesses property in tithe?

There is no public grievance in Ireland. Tithes are no public grievance.
Tithes are private property, which a deep laid conspiracy is attempting
to destroy. The noble Lord knows that he cannot get the better of it. I
tell the noble Lord that he will be, at last, obliged to come to
Parliament for a measure to enable him to put down the conspirators. I
recollect the famous affair at Manchester; and remember perfectly well
to have heard a most able and eloquent speech made by the noble and
learned Lord in another place, upon the subject of collecting large
numbers of persons together; and I well remember his able and eloquent
justification of the magistrates for the part they assumed upon that
occasion. I want to know why the magistrates at Carlow and at Cork did
not obtain the same support when pursuing a similar course? I know I
shall be told in answer to this, that I am a person very desirous of
spilling blood. My Lords, I am not recommending the spilling of blood; I
want to save human life by Legislative means. I do not want to have
recourse to arms against crowds and mobs of people; but what I want is,
that the real conspirators should be got the better of, and not that the
mere instruments and victims of their wicked work should be punished.
But if the course pursued at Manchester against the collection of large
bodies of armed people was correct--if the attack was rightly made upon
those armed people--I want to know why the same was not done at Cork and
at Carlow, where the troops stood in the midst of the people three days,
who at last were suffered to carry off the distress, without the
clergyman being able to satisfy his claim?

The noble Lord has said, that Ireland is in a state of great
tranquillity. Now, I certainly must say, that as far as I have heard, I
cannot believe in the existence of that tranquillity. It may be
perfectly true, by moving a large body of troops from the country into a
particular district, together with a great number of police and
magistrates, that, for a moment, tranquillity may be restored to that
district; but there is no gentleman in the country feels himself in a
state of security. There is, however, one test, to which I wish to
bring the noble Secretary of State. I want to know this--has he, in any
one case, carried into execution the provisions of the Tithe Act? Is
there a single instance of any tithe having been collected by Government
under that Act? If the clergy are to be paid out of the Consolidated
Fund, and that Act is not to be enforced, I must say that the noble Lord
may make what boast he pleases as to the state of Ireland; but there is
no man who will believe one word about the tranquillity of Ireland,
until the noble Lord can produce evidence of the collection of some
tithes under that Act.

What I want to see is, the affording of some security to property--some
protection to life; and that some assurance should be given to the peace
of the country being established and preserved.

_July 3, 1832._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Necessity of conciliating the Protestants of Ireland._

I come now, my Lords, to that part of the subject which is certainly
very painful to me, because I conceive it to be that in which I may say
the Government has been much to blame; and that is, their treatment of
the Protestant Church of Ireland. My opinion is, that in the treatment
of that Church they have certainly thrown the Protestants of Ireland
entirely aside. There is no doubt whatever that the Protestants, who,
like other classes of men, were more or less divided amongst themselves,
are now nearly unanimous in their opinions upon the subject of the
Government. They are nearly all of them, at the present moment, opposed
to the Government--irritated by a strong sense of the injury done to
them, and the insecurity of their situation, which is certainly most
painful to everybody who wishes well to the union between the two
countries.

_July 3, 1832._

_The Church should Educate the People._

We have the Established Church--we have the Established clergy; and the
whole law of the country is, that the clergy of the Established Church
should have the charge of the education of the people, particularly of
Ireland. But, under the proposed system, the schoolmaster is simply to
teach the obligations which are due to society from every individual,
and the pupil is not to refer to divine authority for those
obligations--he is not without permission to refer to that alone which
can render those obligations binding.

July 3,1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Duke of Wellington's Government opposed to the Appointment of Otho
as King of Greece._

The late government were no parties to the selection of Prince Otho; on
the contrary, he was a person to whose appointment they had objected, as
appears on the face of the protocols; and the objection exists at the
present moment, though not to such an extent as it did, a year and a
half having elapsed since it was first made. I object to the
arrangement now, because the interests of this country have been
essentially altered in the Mediterranean. His Majesty has now essential
duties to perform in the Adriatic. When I see France remaining in
possession of Algiers, notwithstanding the provisions of the treaty, and
when I observe what has been done by her at Ancona, I must say the
interests of this country have been grossly neglected in that quarter.
July 18, 1832

       *       *       *       *       *

_The giving the Town-franchise to the Catholics, will lead to the
Destruction of the Protestant Church._

The reason assigned for getting rid of the freemen is, because they
would support the Protestant interest in towns. Now, I have no
hesitation whatever in stating, that the interest connected with the
Church and the Protestant institutions of the country must give way it
the franchise is transferred into the hands of the Roman Catholic
population. It is easy to say that there ought to be no difference
between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I wish to God it could be so;
but the circumstances of Ireland are such as to render it necessary,
that a counterpoise should be given to counteract the influence which
the Roman Catholics will acquire by the bill. I wish to carry the
principles of 1829 into effect, and that can not be done if both parties
are placed upon an equal footing. I think it most unfair to give the
Catholic population of towns the power of returning Roman Catholic
Members of Parliament; and I shall, therefore, seeing that the rights of
freemen are to be abolished, object to the 40s. freeholders being
retained.

July 20, 1832

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Albocracy._

In this country (India), as in all others, there are certain established
qualifications for justices of the peace and for jurymen, and no
disqualification, in any part of the world, is equal to that of colour.
The white man has an influence which the black man has not. This
distinction prevails most in those countries in which a liberal system
of Government has been established, as in the United States of America,
and the various states existing in the southern portion of that
continent. Indeed, a term has been invented to designate it in Columbia,
in which express laws have been made for the support and maintenance of
the "Albocracy."

_August_ 14, 1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Effect of the Savings of the Grey Government_.

I give the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government full
credit for the diminution in the expenses of the country which has been
effected by the Government, but I cannot help thinking that such
diminutions will prove to be generally detrimental to the country,
inasmuch as they are effected merely for the purpose of meeting a
deficiency in the revenue for the moment. But the fact is, that many of
these reductions are applicable to the army, to the navy, to the
militia, and other most essential services of the country, which,
although not estimated for this year, must be provided for at a future
period. For instance, one branch of these savings is that for training
the militia; the saving, under this head, is 190,000 l.; but it is quite
clear that this sum must again be expended when the militia shall be
trained in future years. Another saving is that of freight, transport,
and provisions of soldiers from one part of the world to another. Now,
it is very true, that during the present year this reduction may be
made, because it does not happen that the change of regiments in the
West India colonies and India takes place; but such will not be the case
in another year, and the expenditure of 45,000 l. on that head, which
does not appear in these estimates, must again occur.

Another item of reduction is in the purchase of timber for the navy
service, which amounts to the very considerable sum of 400,000 l. It is
evident that the magazines of this country must be kept up, and all that
is really done by this apparent saving, is to throw the burden, to this
extent, on future years. With a view to a secure and adequate supply,
and to the proper seasoning of stores, and with a view to the
probability that it may become necessary for his Majesty's service to
make some great exertion, it is impossible that less than double the
amount of the estimate of the present year under this head, can
permanently suffice. Now, it is impossible to look upon these savings in
any other light than as temporary, and I will go so far as to say that
it would have been a much better principle of economy to spend this
money than to save it, if the distressed state of the finances had not
absolutely required the reduction of the expenditure. But I cannot help
taking another view of the subject. It is necessary for the country, and
essential to the character of the Government, that they should look
beyond a mere balance of income and expenditure, with a view to be
prepared for unforeseen emergencies which may arise. Can any body say,
that the Government is now left in the situation in which it ought to be
left with respect to finances? This is the last session of the present
Parliament. A reformed Parliament will meet next session, and it is
impossible for any man to say what will be the conduct of that
Parliament with respect to finance. But this is not the only ground on
which it is desirable that the finances of the country should be in a
more satisfactory state.

I say, my Lords, that I regard these financial difficulties with the
greater apprehension, when I remember that occasions may arise, and are
in fact, likely to arise, in which it may be necessary for his Majesty
to call forth all the resources of the country. When I look to the state
of Ireland, when I turn my attention to our foreign relations, and above
all, when I call to mind the present condition of the Peninsula, I find
it impossible to shut my eyes to the alarming truth, that events are on
the eve of occurring, which may call forth to the utmost, every
exertion which Englishmen are capable of making, and may demand, as I
have said before, all the resources of the empire.

_August_ 15, 1832.

_Policy of the Wellington Administration towards Portugal_.

The noble Earl (Grey) has stated, that the late government was the cause
of the usurpation of Don Miguel. Now that is a mistake in point of time;
for it will be found that Don Miguel was brought to Portugal, when the
noble Viscount opposite, (Viscount Goderich) was at the head of the
government. It is true that I was in office when Don Miguel landed in
Portugal, and when he usurped the government over which he was placed as
Regent. The noble Earl has stated, that at that time the British army
was there, and might have prevented the usurpation. I deny the fact; the
British Army had been withdrawn before the usurpation. It is true that,
before the army was withdrawn, Miguel had dissolved the Chambers, and
had given indications that it was not his intention to carry into effect
the constitution of the country; but he had given no indication of a
resolution to usurp the Sovereign power; and that usurpation was
occasioned by a decree of the Cortes, acquired for that purpose. In
point of fact the army was withdrawn; and even if it had not been
withdrawn, what was its force? Why it only amounted to 5,000 men, which
would not have been enough to effect anything. I deny therefore, that
the government has been the cause of the usurpation. When Don Miguel did
usurp the sovereign authority, the late government did all they could;
they ceased their diplomatic relations with Portugal, and then brought
away the minister from thence.

Then the noble Earl says, that the state of things just mentioned
existed when he came into office; and that the late government was
willing to recognize Don Miguel, provided he would grant a general
amnesty. The noble Earl has omitted to state all. It would have been
fair, had the noble Earl stated what had previously occurred. The first
thing we did was to advise a reconciliation between the two branches of
the House of Braganza, and we referred the question to Brazil. The
Emperor of Brazil was perfectly ready to go to war if we would make war
for him, but he would not go to war himself, because, in fact he had no
resources of his own to do so. What then became our duty? Our duty was
to place Portugal in the society of nations as soon as we could, and to
endeavour to induce Don Miguel to do that which would have the effect of
attaining that object. For that purpose, we called on Don Miguel to
reconcile the country to him, by some act of grace towards those who had
been connected with the former government of the country. But it is not
true that we desired to impose any condition with respect to that act
of grace. The principle on which we invariably acted was to make an act
of amnesty be given without any condition whatever, because it was our
wish not to interfere in any manner whatever with the government of
Portugal; and it would have been interfering, had we made any condition
which we might have been afterwards called upon to enforce. We would not
make ourselves responsible for that amnesty. We urged him repeatedly to
grant it, and if he had done so, he would most undoubtedly have been
recognized; and we fully expected, when that paragraph was inserted in
the King's Speech, that he would have given the amnesty, and have
enabled us to recognize him. I have no hesitation in saying, that I was
exceedingly anxious at that time to recognize this Prince, not because I
disputed the claim or right of the other branch of the House of
Braganza, nor because I ventured to decide upon that right, but I wanted
to do that which was done by the government of this country in a similar
case with respect to France,--I wanted to recognize the authority of the
king _de facto_, in order to enable him to carry on the government of
the country with advantage, not only to himself, and his country, but
also to Europe. If I had remained in office much longer, I would have
done it in order to remove from that country, and from Europe, the
inconveniences which have resulted from the existing state of things in
Portugal. It was not done before, because the amnesty was not given.

Much has been said about the cruelty of this Prince, and the hatred
borne towards him by the people of Portugal; but I think there has been
some extraordinary exaggeration upon that subject. The noble Earl states
that we left things in this state when he left office. It is perfectly
true; but we have, over and over again, pressed upon the noble Earl the
necessity of taking Portugal out of the state in which it was placed,
and of recognizing that government, with a view to prevent that state of
affairs which has since come to puss. The Emperor of Brazil has no power
to enter into a war in favor of his daughter, nor can she be put in
possession of Portugal, except by revolutionary means,--namely, by
employing bands of adventurers, collected in various quarters, and paid
by God knows whom.

_August_ 15, 1832.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Civil War in Portugal fomented by Earl Grey's Government_.

I believe if there be any country in the world in which it is both the
duty and interest of England to prevent the existence of hostilities,
that country is Portugal. We are bound by treaties to defend her, as she
is, in case of need, to defend England. It is affirmed that we are under
engagements to preserve a strict neutrality towards the two Princes now
opposed to each other in Portugal; but we are bound in honour and good
policy to protect that country, in which his Majesty's subjects have
such interests invested, and with which they carry on such extensive
commerce: yet the present government have hazarded all these interests
by permitting this war to be carried on there by a foreign power. The
king, in his speech, calls it, indeed, a "civil war." My Lords, it is a
revolutionary war--a war carried on by means furnished in this town, and
for the advance of which the inducement is the hope of plunder. It is
carried on by persons who have no interest in the war excepting plunder.
Yet this is the war which his Majesty has been advised by his servants
to call, upon the assembling of his parliament, "a civil war between the
two branches of the house of Braganza in Portugal." The king is made, by
his Ministers, to declare that he is anxiously desirous to put an end to
this war. "I shall not fail to avail myself of any opportunity that may
be afforded me to assist in restoring peace to a country with which the
interests of my dominions are so intimately connected." Now, I know
something of war, and I know something of war in that country; and I
will tell noble Lords how they can put an end to it at once. Let them
put forth a proclamation recalling his Majesty's subjects from the
service of both parties engaged in the contest,--let them, at the same
time, carry into execution the law of the country; let them, when the
commissioners of the customs, in the execution of their exclusive duty,
seize vessels carrying out troops, ammunition and officers, who, I am
able to prove, are at this moment serving in those armies, leave the
adjudication of such seizures to the proper tribunals; and let not the
King's ministers interfere, and let them employ the British fleet in the
Levant, and other places, to which the attention of his Majesty's
government ought to be directed, instead of being employed in watching
the shores of the Douro and the Tagus--let them do all this, and they
will soon find that peace will be restored to Portugal without any
further sacrifice. But I am sorry to say these are not the measures
adopted by his Majesty's government, nor is the law carried into
execution by that government. My Lords, I engage to prove, that though
the commissioners of the customs did, in the autumn of 1831, detain
certain vessels in the Thames, having on board the very troops,
ammunition, and arms which have been since employed in this war; and
although these commissioners are, by the act of parliament, the persons
appointed to carry it into execution,--they were ordered, by a superior
power, not to interfere.

_February_ 5, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Don Miguel de facto King of Portugal_.

Don Miguel having been appointed Sovereign by the Cortes, it was not the
business of the British government to offer any opposition to their
choice; and as long as we continued in office, we were seeking for the
means of recognizing Don Miguel as Sovereign, _de facto_, of Portugal.
In point of fact, I have no doubt, if we had remained in office a
fortnight longer, we should have effected that recognition; for it was
never intended to make the proposed amnesty an indispensable condition
of that step. Our object in recognizing him, was to prevent those
disasters which I apprehended must arise from the conflict of extreme
opinions in the Peninsula.

_February_ 5, 1833.

_The Catholic Oath is a Principle_.

His Majesty has sworn to maintain the established Church of England in
Ireland; and secondly, that in the very last arrangements made to remove
the disabilities, as well of the Dissenters from the church of England
as of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, words were inserted in the oaths
to be taken by them, for the security of the Protestant establishment. I
consider those oaths as principles; and that we ought not to run counter
to them in any manner whatever.

_February_ 5, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Protestants of Ireland are the friends of order in Ireland, and they
are the natural friends and connections of England. I entreat you never
to lose sight of this important truth.

_February_ 5, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Game Laws increase Poaching_.

Since the passing of the Game Act, poaching has enormously increased. It
is consistent with my own knowledge, also, that as regards my own
estate, until this law passed, there was little or no poaching upon it,
but that evil has greatly increased since that period. In fact, not long
since, I lost a servant in an affray with poachers, and I at once
determined to give up preserving game; but I was induced to relinquish
my intention in consequence of learning that the keeper, whom I was
about to discharge, could not get employment in any other part of the
country. This, alone, is the reason why I still preserve my game. I am
thoroughly convinced that, in the neighbourhood in which I reside,
poaching has increased threefold since the passing of the present Act. I
think that result is entirely owing to the circumstance that the person
who is in possession of the game is entitled to carry it away and sell
it, and cannot be questioned as to the manner in which it came into his
possession.

_May 31, 1833._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Importance of Portugal to England._

If there be any nation in the world for which more than another this
country feels--and justly feels--an interest, it is Portugal. The
alliance between this country and Portugal is among the most ancient to
be found in the history of nations; it is an alliance repeatedly
recognised by all Europe; it is one from which this country has derived
advantage almost from a period beyond memory; and for the preservation
of which, in better times than these, and in order to rescue that
country out of the hands of her enemies, she has expended her best blood
and treasure.

_June 3, 1833._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Emancipation Act of 1833 a Premature Measure_.

In the discussions on the abolition of the slave trade, it was more than
once declared by the advocates of that measure, that they had no
intention of following it up by an attempt at the abolition of slavery;
but, on the contrary, those who contended most strenuously for the
abolition of the slave trade, declared that it was not intended that it
should be followed up by the abolition of slavery in the colonies, but
that their intention was, by means of the abolition of the slave trade,
to ameliorate the condition of the slaves, and improve the state of
society in the colonies. But I will not believe, from all that I have
heard and read, that even the most earnest advocates of the abolition of
the slave trade intended, immediately, to follow up the amelioration of
the condition of the slave, by the total abolition of slavery. That men
should look forward to the abolition of slavery in the colonies as
consequent on the improvement in the state of society, and the state of
slavery, is probable; and there is no doubt that a great improvement has
resulted from the abolition of the slave trade, coupled with the
measure, but that the one step should be considered as an immediate
consequence of the other, I altogether deny; and I appeal with
confidence to the discussions which formerly took place.

       *       *       *       *       *

In all countries, where it is proposed to make large bodies of slaves
free, the first thing that is described as necessary to be considered
is, whether the country is in a condition to bear the change; the
second, whether the slave whom it is proposed to constitute a freeman,
will work for hire? These are points with respect to which it has always
been considered necessary to have full and convincing proof before
emancipation should be granted. The noble Earl tells us that, in this
instance, there is no proof to the contrary. I think that there is proof
to the contrary. We have heard of the adoption of a measure of this
nature within the province of Colombia. But supposing it to be true,
that 100,000 liberated negroes have shewn a disposition to labour, or
have actually laboured for hire in Colombia, still I contend that that
circumstance affords no proof whatever that the same results would
follow from the liberation 700,000 or 800,000 negroes in the British
possessions. But I by no means concur with the noble Earl as to the
sufficiency of the case of Colombia, as a case in point. I have the
authority of a very intelligent person, who was resident in Colombia at
the time that the transaction took place, and who, in writing upon the
subject, states positively that the experiment was a most dangerous one;
and that although the liberated negroes laboured for awhile, yet that a
few years afterwards, they could not be got to work at all. This is
further proved by the fact, that in the course of four or five years it
was found necessary to introduce a measure for the promotion of
agriculture, which measure, it was admitted, was called for, in
consequence of the great difficulty that was found in getting the free
negroes to work.

_June_ 23, 1833.

_Difficulty of preventing free labour in the Colonies anticipated_.

Look at our own colonies in tropical climates, and see whether you can
find any disposition in the free negro to work in the low grounds. If
you look at Surinam, or any other of the tropical climates, where free
negroes are to be found, you will find a total absence of any
disposition, on their part, to work for hire, or for any other
consideration whatever. But says the noble Earl, "the negroes work in
Africa;" of that fact, begging the noble Earl's pardon, I do not think
he can produce any proof; but even supposing that he could, I contend
that the fact does not bear upon this question--the question here is not
whether the negro, in a state of freedom, will work in Africa, but
whether, being made free, he will voluntarily labour in the low grounds
in our possessions within the tropics? I say, that there is no proof of
such labour on the part of negroes, in any part of the world. In one
quarter of the globe, in which I have some knowledge, I am certainly
aware that men do labour very hard for hire in low grounds within the
tropics; but those men are in a condition but little removed from
absolute slavery, because they are the lowest in a state of society,
which from them upwards is divided into the strictest castes. But in our
West India possessions the case is very different; there, this
difficulty from the moment of their first discovery, to the present
hour, has always existed; a difficulty arising from the circumstance,
that in those tropical climates, a man instead of working for hire,
works only for food,--and having obtained that food, which he can
procure by very little exertion, he thinks of nothing save the luxury of
reposing in listless idleness beneath the shade. That is the great
difficulty which surrounds this question.

_June_ 25, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Depressing the West India Colonies will lead to the Introduction of
Foreign Slave Grown Sugar_.

Supposing that the growth of the sugar should, from the causes I have
mentioned, fail in the West Indies, where are we to get sugar? We must
get it no doubt from the colonies of other countries, where it is
produced by the labour of slaves. What then, will those who are so
anxious for the abolition of slavery say, if, in consequence of this
measure, the slave trade should be revived, with all the added horrors
of its being carried on in a contraband manner; and if, instead of
decreasing the amount of slavery in the world, we should increase it, in
Cuba, and in the other foreign West India possessions, over which we
have no control, and into which it would be impossible for us to
introduce any measure, regulating or ameliorating the condition of the
slave.

At this moment we consume more of sugar, even excluding Ireland, than
all the rest of Europe put together; and I leave it to your Lordships to
consider whether it would be possible, under any circumstances whatever,
that this country could go on without a supply of that article. How can
that supply be furnished, supposing that the production in our colonies
should fail, except by the produce of slave labour from the colonies of
other countries?

_June_ 25, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_East India Company; Eulogium on its Administration_.

Having been so long a servant of the East India Company, whose interests
you are discussing, having served for so many years of my life in that
country, having had such opportunities of personally watching the
operation of the government of that country, and having had reason to
believe, both from what I saw at that time, and from what I have seen
since, that the Government of India was at that time, one of the best
and most purely administered governments that ever existed, and one
which has provided most effectually for the happiness of the people over
which it is placed, it is impossible that I should be present when a
question of this description is discussed, without asking your
Lordships' attention for a very short time whilst I deliver my opinion
upon the plan which his Majesty's ministers have brought forward. I will
not follow the noble Marquis who opened the debate, into the
consideration of whether a chartered company be the best, or not,
calculated to carry on the government or the trade of an empire like
India, that is not the question to which I wish now to apply myself. But
whenever I hear of such discussions as this, I recall to my memory what
I have seen in that country--I recall to my memory the history of that
country for the last fifty or sixty years. I remember its days of
misfortune, and its days of glory, and call to mind the situation in
which it now stands. I remember that the government have conducted the
affairs of--I will not pretend to say how many millions of people,--they
have been calculated at 70,000,000, 80,000,000, 90,000,000, and
100,000,000--but certainly of an immense population, a population
returning an annual revenue of 20,000,000 l. sterling, and that
notwithstanding all the wars in which the empire has been engaged its
debt at this moment amounts only to 40,000,000 l., being no more than the
amount of two years revenue. I do not say that such a debt is desirable;
but at the same time I contend that it is a delusion on the people of
this country to tell them that that is a body unfit for government, and
unfit for trade, which has administered the affairs of India with so
much success for so many years, and which is at length to be put
down,--for I can use no other term,--upon the ground that it is an
institution calculated for the purposes neither of government nor trade.

My Lords, there is a great difference between the East India Company
governing India, and carrying on their trade with China as a joint-stock
company, and carrying on the same trade as monopolists. It was my
opinion, and the opinion of those who acted with me, that we ought, in
the first instance, at all events, to have endeavoured to have prevailed
upon them to continue trading with China as a joint-stock company. If at
this moment, they had chosen to have continued to trade as a joint stock
company, I would have allowed them; I would have adopted measures for
the purpose of inducing them to do so, and to carry on the government of
India. It is perfectly true, my Lords, that the people of this country
were, and are, desirous of participating in the trade to China; but I am
not aware that they ever expressed a desire to see the company deprived
of any branch of that trade. But then, my Lords, the noble Lord asks,
"how would you secure to them their dividends?" Why, my Lords, their
dividends, supposing the trade had turned out so ill as the noble Lord
expects it would have done, would have been secured to them, as they
must be at present, by saving all unnecessary expense in India--those
dividends would have been secured to them, as they still will be, and as
under all circumstances they must be, by bringing down the whole
expences of the Government of the country. But we had another
resource--we might have relieved the East India Company, trading to
China no longer as a monopolist, but as a joint stock company, from a
part of the burden of the provisions of the Commutation Act. I cannot
help thinking, if that course had been adopted--or even supposing,
according to the calculations of my noble Friend behind me, we had been
obliged to abandon that course, by desiring the East India Company to
withdraw from trading with China--that they still would have been in
possession of their capital, which might have been disposed of for their
advantage, and they might have been continued in the Government of
India. I entreat your Lordships to observe, that such an arrangement
would have been attended with this advantage, that they would not have
had to draw their dividends from India. One of the greatest
inconveniences attending this arrangement is, in my opinion, the
increased sum which must be annually brought home by remittance to this
country from India, to such an amount that the inconvenience is very
great, so great, that I very much doubt whether the process can be
carried on; and it must be most prejudicial to the commerce of the
country.

_June_ 5, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reform un fait accompli_.

Now that the Reform Bill has become the law of the land, I have
considered it my duty not only to submit to it, but to endeavour to
carry its provisions into execution by every means in my power.

_July_ 19, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Repudiation of the Holy Alliance_.

I have passed part of my life in the foreign service of my country; but
I most sincerely protest, that I never did join with any holy alliance
against the liberties of Europe.

_July_ 19, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Expediency and Principle_.

If the world were governed by principles, nothing would be more easy
than to conduct even the greatest affairs; but, in all circumstances,
the duty of a wise man is to choose the lesser of any two difficulties
which beset him.

_July_ 19, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Protestantism to be supported_.

It is our duty, in every case, to do all we can to promote the
Protestant religion. It is our duty to do so, not only on account of the
political relations between the religion of the Church of England and
the Government, but because we believe it to be the purest doctrine, and
the best system of religion, that can be offered to a people.

_July_ 19, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Importance of preserving the authority of the East India Company_.

The noble Lord who spoke last, quoted the opinion of Sir John Malcolm.
My Lords, I wish the noble Lords opposite had taken the advice of Sir
John Malcolm, upon the subject of forming an independent body in London,
representing the interests, and carrying on the concerns, of India. My
Lords, it is persons of this description who interpose an efficient
check upon the Government. I say, therefore, that it is much to be
lamented, that instead of placing that body in the state of independence
in which they were heretofore placed, they are to be reduced to a
situation in which they will lose a very considerable portion of their
power and influence. It is of the utmost importance that the greatest
possible care should be taken to preserve the authority of the company
in relation to their servants. Depend upon it, my Lords, that on the
basis of their authority depends the good government of India.

_July_ 5, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_After Emancipation, the Protestants of Ireland ought to have been
conciliated_.

The noble and learned Lord (Plunkett) said, that many of the evils that
afflicted Ireland, and for which the Church Temporalities Bill was
intended as a remedy, were occasioned by the delay of the measure of
Emancipation, after the year 1825. Why, I ask, by its delay after the
year 1825? I beg to know from that noble and learned Lord how long the
system of agitation existed in Ireland both before and after the year
1825? Why, my Lords, it has existed ever since the commencement of the
discussion of the Roman Catholic Question--that is to say, ever since
the days of the restrictive regency. From that period to the present
moment, there has been nothing but agitation, except during parts of the
years 1829 and 1830. Agitation commenced in Ireland upon the conclusion
of events in Paris, and in Brussels. Those events occasioned such
agitations and discussions as obliged the noble Duke, who was then at
the head of the Government in Ireland, to carry into execution the
Proclamation Act. Then came a change in the administration, and the
noble Earl assumed the reigns of power. He immediately chose for the
Lord Lieutenant (Lord Wellesley) a nobleman for whom I entertain great
respect but who certainly was nearly the last person who ought to have
been selected for that office. After the Roman Catholic Question was
settled, what ought the government to have done? Most certainly they
ought to have done everything in their power to conciliate--whom? The
Protestants of Ireland. Everything had already been granted to the Roman
Catholics which they could possibly require; and the object of the
government ought to have been to conciliate the Protestants. But,
instead of that, the noble Earl sends over to that country, as Lord
Lieutenant, the noble Marquis, who was the very last person that ought
to have been appointed; because, when holding that situation previously,
and on receiving information that his Majesty's government entertained
views favourable to the emancipation of the Catholics, he did,
immediately, before his departure for Ireland, issue a sort of
proclamation to the people that agitation should be continued for the
purpose of obtaining the desired boon.

_July_ 19, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Irish Agitation Characterized_.

Now, my Lords, in order to enable your Lordships to understand what
this "agitation" is, I beg leave just to describe it to your Lordships.
It is, first of all, founded upon a conspiracy of priests and demagogues
to obtain their purpose--whether justifiable or not, is not the
question--by force and menace, and by the use of terror and of mobs,
wherever that terror and those mobs can be used to produce an effect
upon his Majesty's Government favourable to their views. This agitation
they have maintained by orations, harangues, and seditious speeches at
public meetings--by publications through a licentious press--by
exaggerations--by forgeries--and by all other means which it is in the
power of that description of persons to use, in order to excite the
multitude; and then, when they are excited, to make them appear in large
bodies to terrify and over-awe the people. If, my Lords, any person
ventures to oppose himself to these proceedings, he is either
immediately murdered or his house is destroyed, his cattle or other
property carried off, and combinations are formed to prevent resistance,
or the discovery of the guilty. In short, all measures are adopted which
go to, and which are intended to, destroy the Constitution of this
country. This, my Lords, is what is called the system of "agitation."

_July_ 19, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_What constitutes a Blockade_.

To constitute an effective blockade, it is unnecessary to say that the
port in question must be actually blockaded; and, further, that notice
must have been given of such a blockade. No capture could be made
without previously warning off vessels. There are various modes of
notice; but the most authoritative manner of giving notice is through
the Government of the power to be so warned. It should never be
forgotten, however, that there should be certain means in existence to
enforce the blockade at the time of notice.

_July_ 19, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Objection to the reduction of the Number of Irish Bishops_.

I object to the proposed reduction of the number of Bishops in Ireland,
and I totally dissent from the argument upon which the propriety or
expediency of that reduction is founded. I am willing to admit that if
we were now, for the first time, establishing the Protestant Church in
Ireland. I might be inclined to think that twenty-two Bishops were more
than was necessary to the supervision of some 1000 clergymen; but when I
take into account, besides the fact that the higher number has been in
existence for centuries--when I consider the importance of the
Protestant Church in Ireland in relation to the political ties of the
two countries--when I consider, as a Right Reverend Prelate has
remarked in the course of the debate, that wherever a Protestant Bishop
is removed, there a Catholic Prelate will remain, who, doubtless, will
possess himself of the palace, and perhaps the church property, of the
reduced Protestant See; and when, above all, I consider the peculiar
circumstances of Ireland, so different from those of this country, and
which may make the episcopal superintendence of thirty or forty
benefices in the former country a matter of more trouble and anxiety
than the 600 or 1000 benefices which an English Prelate may control, I
cannot but object to the proposed reduction. Besides, there is another
circumstance which is worthy of attention in the discussion of this
subject, and that is, that the Bishops of England have the assistance of
their Deans and Archdeacons, which their Irish brethren have not. The
twenty-two Bishops of Ireland have personally to perform all the duties
which the Bishops of this country perform through their Deans and
Archdeacons.

_July_ 19,1835

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Jews' Right to Citizenship denied._

The noble and learned Lord (Brougham), and the most reverend Prelate
(Whately), have both stated that they cannot understand the distinct
principle upon which the opponents of this measure rest their opposition
to the admission of the Jews to seats in the legislature. Now I beg the
noble and learned Lord, and the most reverend Prelate, to recollect that
this is a Christian country and a Christian legislature, and that the
effect of this measure would be to remove that peculiar character. Your
Lordships have been called upon to follow the example of foreign
countries, with respect to the Jews; but I think that, before we
proceed to legislate on such a subject as this, it is indispensable that
the necessity for the introduction of the measure should be shown. I
ask, what case has been made out to shew a necessity for passing this
measure? When your Lordships passed the bills for the removal of the
Roman Catholic disabilities, and for the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts, the reason assigned was, that it was unnecessary to
keep up the restriction on the classes of Christians affected by those
acts. But there is a material difference between the cases of the
dissenters and Roman Catholics, and the Jews--the former enjoyed all the
benefits and advantages of the constitution before the restrictions were
imposed. Was that the case with the Jews? Were the Jews ever in the
enjoyment of the blessings of the English constitution? Certainly not.
The Jews were formerly considered as alien enemies, and they were not
allowed to live in this country,--I think from the time of Edward I. to
the period of the Commonwealth. It cannot, therefore, be said that the
question of the Jews can be put on the same ground as the claims of any
class of Christians in the country.

_August 1,1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Jews have no Right to Civil Equality._

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Brougham) has referred
to a certain Act of Parliament which passed, giving certain privileges
to the Jews, and which he said, was in the very form of words proposed
in this bill. It is true that this Act conferred benefits on the Jews,
but then it must be recollected that it was confined in its operation to
certain of the colonies; in the first instance to Canada, and
subsequently to Jamaica and Barbadoes, and others of the West Indian
colonies. But then, was there not a very good reason for this? European
inhabitants were much required in the colonies at the time the act
passed; and this was to give encouragement to the Jews to go thither and
settle. No such necessity exists now, with regard to this country,--we
do not wish Jews to come and settle here. Not one word has been said to
shew that any necessity exists for passing this measure. The noble Lord,
who addressed your Lordships early in the debate, adverted to the state
of the Jews in France, I entirely agree with the illustrious Duke near
me, and the right reverend Prelate, that this country is not bound to
follow the example of foreign nations in legislating for any portion of
the community. But it ought not to escape attention, that Buonaparte, in
legislating for the Jews, did not go the full length of this bill; and
before he did anything for them, he ordered a strict inquiry into their
case to be made. I ask, are your Lordships prepared to assent to this
bill, without any inquiry being instituted as to its necessity, or
without any reason being assigned? This bill is not the result of
inquiry, but it has been introduced on a very different
principle,--namely, because it suits the liberal opinions of the day.

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, has endeavoured to shew
that, by retaining the words--"upon the true faith of a Christian," in
the Statute Book, you encourage men who have no regard to the obligation
of an oath, and thus maintain hypocrisy, while it operates as a
restriction on conscientious persons. "You admit," says the noble and
learned Lord, "men like Mr. Wilkes, Lord Shaftesbury, or Lord
Bolingbroke, but you shut out conscientious men who will not take the
oath." I am prepared to allow that there are some men whom no oath or
affirmation can reach; but this is no reason why we should give up every
test and oath. Are we on this account to throw aside every guard for the
maintenance of Christianity in the country? The Right Reverend Prelate
has stated very clearly and plainly the reason why we should not pass
this bill--namely, that this is a Christian country, and has a Christian
legislature, and that therefore, the Parliament, composed as it is, of
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, cannot advise the Sovereign,
as the head of the Church, to sanction a law which will remove the
peculiar character of the legislature, I say that we cannot advise the
Sovereign on the throne to pass a law which will admit persons to all
offices, and into the Parliament of the country, who, however
respectable they may be, still are not Christians, and therefore ought
not to be allowed to legislate for a Christian Church. The noble
Marquis, for whom I entertain the highest respect, seemed surprised that
I should smile when the noble Marquis spoke in somewhat extravagant
terms of the distinctions which have been acquired by these persons in
foreign countries. I must apologize to the noble Marquis for having
smiled at that moment, but it certainly appeared to me that the noble
Marquis was rather extravagant in his praise; and, I may be allowed to
add, that I have never been so fortunate as to hear of those persons
being in the stations which he described. The noble marquis stated that
there were no less than fifteen officers of the Jewish religion at the
battle of Waterloo; I have not the least doubt that there are many
officers of that religion of great merit and distinction--but still I
must again repeat they are not Christians; and, therefore, sitting as I
do in a Christian legislature, I cannot advise the sovereign on the
throne to sanction a law to admit them to seats in this house and the
other house of parliament, and to all the rights and privileges enjoyed
by Christians. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack said, that
when the observation is mode that Christianity is part and parcel of the
law of the land, it is meant that that Christianity is the Church of
England. Now, I have always understood that it was the Christian
dispensation, generally; and I believe that when Christianity is talked
of as part and parcel of the law, it means the Christian dispensation,
and not the doctrines of the Church of England.

_August_ 1, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Defence of a Metallic Currency_.

I always have maintained, and I always shall maintain, that the only
proper basis of our money system is a solid gold circulation. Upon that
basis I considered our monetary system fixed since the measure of 1819,
followed up as that was by improvements in 1826: I really think the
principle of those measures the best that can be applied to our
circulation. Detailed payments being made in gold, the larger payments
might be made in paper, and depend on credit; the true support of the
credit of whatever paper might be in circulation being, that it was
liable to be paid in gold on demand at any time, at the bank of England,
or at the branch-banks of the bank of England; so that, if any man chose
not to give credit to the bank of England, he had only to demand gold
for his paper; or any creditor might, at once, demand from his debtor
payment in solid coin. That however will, to a certain extent, not be
the case under this bill. I am aware that, eventually, the holder of the
paper can repair to the bank of England and demand gold as heretofore;
and must, therefore give credit to somebody for the amount. That I
consider a depreciation of the paper of the bank of England. It is a
depreciation to which if I had been a bank director, I would never have
consented; indeed, I cannot understand why the bank agreed to this
proposition. I am persuaded that, ere long, great inconveniences will
occur from the provision; and those inconveniences will be felt in a
depreciation of bank paper. What is the object of the arrangement? It is
either intended to give the bank a power of issuing paper which, under
the existing system, it does not possess, or to facilitate credit
generally throughout the country, and enable the country banks to
undertake operations which they could not otherwise attempt. It is
evident that the noble earl himself sees that the consequence will be to
facilitate and increase the issues of the country banks. That will
augment all transactions; and the result must be a great increase of
prices, and the ruin of many individuals. Nothing of this kind would
happen, if the present system were continued; namely, if the bank of
England continued to issue the number of its notes which the necessity
of the public might seem to require; and by the regularity of its
proceedings give such a check to the issues of the country banks, as
should be calculated to establish a sound and healthy circulation. Under
the existing system, the bank would proceed so as to prevent the country
banks from giving credit, except in cases which justified the
accommodation, and the circulation and commerce of the country would
continue in a wholesome state.

_August_ 23, 1833.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Duke of Wellington's reasons for supporting the Poor Law Amendment
Bill_.

I concur with the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, and with the
noble lord opposite, as to the necessity of this measure. I agree, first
of all, in the existence of grievances consequent upon the existing
administration of the poor-laws, but I do not concur in the opinion
expressed by the noble and learned lord (the Lord Chancellor) in
disapproving of the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth; but I do
disapprove of a system of administration which differs in each and
every of the 12,000 parishes in this country, and in each of which
different and varied abuses have crept in. I maintain that it is
impossible for parliament to frame any law that can by possibility
remedy or apply to the abuses which prevail at the present
moment--abuses which are as varied in their character as they are
numerous. It is their general existence all over the country--it is
their existence in a different shape in every parish of the
kingdom--which renders the appointment of a central board absolutely
necessary, with powers to control the whole of the parishes in the land,
and to adopt such remedies as will secure a sure administration of these
laws throughout the country. If my noble friend, who has spoken in
opposition to this measure, had recently attended to parliamentary
business more assiduously than he has done, he would have found that the
subject has been submitted to the house by several noble lords, and has
also been under the consideration of every administration that I have
known; but no plan has ever been suggested, or scheme proposed, to
remove and remedy the evils of the existing laws, which in my judgment
at all equalled the present, and for it I must return the noble lord
opposite, with whom it has originated, my sincere thanks. The present
remedy for the evils of the existing laws is most unquestionably the
best that has ever been devised; at the same time I must observe, that
as the central board of commissioners must necessarily have very
extraordinary and full powers, it will be necessary that they should
keep such a record of their proceedings as shall render them liable to
the actual control at all times of the government and parliament of the
country. I doubt much whether the provisions of this bill give such a
controul to the government as will afford a full knowledge to the
parliament at all times of the course pursued by the commissioners; but
in committee on the bill, I shall consider whether some alteration is
not necessary, in order to make that control more active. There are
several other clauses in the bill which require much alteration and
modification. I entirely approve of the removal of the allowance system,
which is one of the greatest evils arising from the existing poor-laws;
but I am of opinion that it ought gradually and slowly to have been
destroyed, and without a fixed day for its termination being specified
in the bill. I would recommend that this clause should be left out, and
that power should be given to the commissioners to carry gradually such
alterations in this respect into effect, as to them may seem meet.

_July 81,1834_.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Tests no Security to Religion_.

The noble duke, amongst other matters, has adverted to the union between
church and state, with respect to which he has made some observations
which are undoubtedly worthy of consideration, but to which I do not
intend, on this occasion, to offer any answer. I will, however, just
observe, that I apprehend what is generally meant by dissevering the
union of the church and state is, that there should be no established
religion. To that proposition, I trust it is superfluous for me to say
that I am a most decided opponent. It is, however, a subject which I
cannot now pretend to discuss. It is my opinion, that to leave religion
to rest upon the voluntary efforts of the people, is a notion which we
are not at present in a situation competent to entertain. It is so very
great a change, and so totally different from all that we know and
observe, that we are absolutely precluded, from want of experience, from
entering upon the consideration of the question. It is not a just
criterion, by which to form a judgment, to refer to the experience of
other nations--such as the existence of Christianity in Rome before it
became the established religion of the empire, or the existence of
religion in a country so distant and so unlike our own, in all its
circumstances, as the United states of North America. That, my lords, is
the opinion I entertain, and therefore I will no longer occupy your
lordships by any further discussion on this subject. I belong to the
church of England, and am a friend of that church, from feeling and from
conviction. I do not say that I have examined all her doctrines, or that
I am master of all the grounds upon which her rites and ceremonies
stand--I do not say that I am able to discuss with my noble friend those
one thousand questions, which Bishop Law said arose out of the
thirty-nine articles, but I believe her doctrines to be scriptural, and
I know her principles to be tolerant. But, my lords, I beg leave to say,
that I adopt those doctrines upon another ground, which perhaps may
expose me, with some in the present day, to censure. My lords, I espouse
those doctrines because they are the mode of faith delivered down to me
by my forefathers; and because they are the mode of faith which I find
established in my country. I am not prepared to remove the basis upon
which is founded (though it may be apart from) the structure of the
religion of my country. I do not think that such is the wish of the
majority of the dissenters; but, at all events, it seems to me a course
calculated to lead only to a state of general scepticism and universal
suspension of religion among the people. But while I say this for
myself--while I claim to found my attachment to my religion upon
principle, it is necessary that I should say precisely the same thing
for that great body of men who may be called the dissenters of England.
Their consent is rarely contemporaneous with the establishment of the
church of England herself. The dissenters from the church of England are
those who thought that the Reformation did not proceed far enough. Their
dissent did not show itself against the established church when in power
and prosperity; but the dissenters from that church grew up first when
the Roman Catholic religion was dominant in this country, and when both
the members of the new church of England and the dissenters were alike
suffering under persecution; therefore, it is a dissent founded on
principle. Considering the weight which dissent has in this country, and
considering the extent to which it prevails, many attempts have been,
from time to time, made, as we all know, at a religious comprehension of
all denominations of Christians in the body of the church. Such attempts
have been made by some of the greatest prelates that the church has
ever known. These attempts have all failed; but, surely in our days, it
may be thought wise to attempt at least a general civil comprehension of
all classes, by admitting them, if it be possible to do so, to those
benefits which are to be derived from the public institutions of the
country.

I will not go into the foundations of the universities. I am not for
raising any quibble on that subject. I apprehend that they have grown
up, as all other institutions have done, very much from a series of
accidents, and the force of chances. One college has been founded by one
individual, and one by another; but, however they have grown up, they
have, in fact, become, and are now considered, as the national
seminaries of education. I would reserve to them, in every respect,
their corporate rights. I would respect them as places where the
religion of the country is taught, and professed; but undoubtedly I
would if possible, for the sake of general peace and union, and for the
sake of bringing together those who are now divided, try, with the
sanction and approbation of the universities themselves (and we know
perfectly well that most of their distinguished members are of opinion
that this can be done); I would, I say, try whether we could not open
the gates of these universities to that great body of this country, who
unfortunately dissent from the doctrines of the church of England. I
would not do so, however, rashly, nor with any violence to honest
prejudices, or to those well-intentioned feelings which some persons are
found to cherish.

The noble duke has said that tests are no securities against the
admission of atheists or schismatics, and that a man may take them who
dissented from them, if he chose to stifle all his feelings of right and
wrong. But, my lords, I beg leave to say that tests are no security
against any man. It is impossible ever to have looked at the history of
religion in any state, or at any period, and not to feel that the test
laws have been the weakest ground upon which any faith could stand. Were
tests any security for the heathen religion against the vital spirit of
the heaven-descended energy of Christianity? Yet we are aware that every
act of the life of a heathen was in itself a test. He could not sit to
his meat, he could not retire to rest, he could not go through the most
simple transactions of life, without some act of acknowledgment offered
towards some heathen deity. Unless these observances were attended to by
the Christians, they were subject to the most cruel punishments, and yet
such means failed to preserve the dominant faith. In fact, it is well
known that one of the most violent persecutions of the Christians,
instituted by the Roman emperors, was followed, as it were, almost
immediately by the establishment of Christianity as the dominant
religion of the empire. Were tests any security to the Roman Catholic
religion, against the growing light and energy of the Protestant faith?
Tests of various kinds were adopted at the very moment the new doctrines
showed themselves, but it was soon found that they were vain and fragile
against the light and strength of the new doctrines. Were tests any
security to these very universities themselves? I have not looked very
deeply into this subject; I have no doubt that if I were to look closer
into it, I should find more instances of the sort; but I find that about
fourteen years after the establishment of King's College, in the
university of Cambridge, a decree was sent down there by King Henry VI.,
admonishing the scholars, that is to say, in the language of the present
day, the fellows of that college, against the damnable and pernicious
errors (so it styled them), of John Wickliffe and Richard Peacock, and
denouncing the pains of expulsion from college, and perjury, against
those of them who should show any favour to those doctrines. Yet, in two
years after this, this very king's college became what, at that time was
called the most heretical, but which now, in our time, would be called
the most Protestant college in the university; and we know that these
doctrines thus fiercely denounced, and strongly guarded against by
tests, about fifty or sixty years afterwards became, by law, the
established religion of this country. It is upon her native
strength--upon her own truth--it is upon her spiritual character, and
upon the purity of her doctrines, that the Church of England rests. Let
her not, then, look for support in such aids as these. It is by these
means, and not by tests and proscriptions, that protestantism has been
maintained; let her be assured of this.

_August 1, 1834._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Cause of the dismissal of the Melbourne Administration in November,
1834._

I am not responsible for the dissolution of the late government. The
late government was dissolved from the absolute impossibility of its
going on any longer. When a noble earl (Spencer), whom I do not now see
in his place, was removed from the House of Commons, by the necessity of
taking his seat in this house, it was impossible for the late government
to go on. I will just desire your lordships to recollect that it was
stated by the noble earl (Grey), who so worthily filled the situation of
prime minister for nearly four years, when his noble colleague (Lord
Althorp), in the House of Commons, thought proper to resign, "that he
had lost his right hand, and that it had thus become absolutely
impossible for him to continue to carry on the government, or to serve
the Crown with honour or advantage." Not only did the noble earl make
this declaration of his inability to go on upon the retirement of his
noble colleague from his majesty's councils, but the noble viscount
opposite, himself, when he afterwards came to form his government,
stated that the noble earl (Spencer), having consented to retain his
office and position in the House of Commons, he was prepared to
undertake to preside over his majesty's councils, and carry on the
business of the country. But this was not all; for I happen to know
that, when the noble viscount found that he was likely to be deprived of
the services and assistance of that noble lord in the other house, he
felt that his administration would be placed in circumstances of the
greatest difficulty and embarrassment. Besides that, it was perfectly
well known to his majesty, that the influence of that noble lord in the
other house of parliament was the foundation on which the government to
which he was attached, reposed; and, that that support being removed, it
must fall. When, therefore, his majesty found that it was fairly put to
him whether he would consent to arrangements for the late government
proceeding as it best could, or whether he would consent to steps being
taken for the formation of another administration, it was surely natural
for his majesty to consider his own situation, and the situation in
which the late government was lately placed by the death of the late
Earl Spencer.

_February 24, 1835_.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Why the Duke of Wellington held so many offices_, ad interim, _in
November_, 1834.

I gave his majesty the best advice which, under the circumstances of the
case, it appeared to me practicable to give. I advised his majesty to
send for that right hon. gentleman (Sir R. Peel), a member of the House
of Commons, who seemed to me to be the most fit and capable person to
place at the head of the new administration, as first lord of the
treasury. That right honourable gentleman was then in another part of
the world, and some time must necessarily elapse before it would be
possible that he could return to this country. It appeared to his
majesty and to myself, however, to be essentially necessary that, in the
meantime, the government should be taken possession of and
administered. This step I considered to be absolutely necessary, and I
also felt it to be absolutely necessary that, whoever might exercise the
authority of government in the interval, should take no step that might
embarrass or compromise the right honourable baronet on his return. It
was only on that ground that I accepted, for the time, of the offices of
first lord of the treasury, and secretary of state for the home
department.

The noble viscount has made a little mistake in alleging that I was
appointed to three departments at once. He makes it a matter of charge
against me that I exercised the authority of the three secretaries of
state; but the noble viscount knows very well that the secretary of
state for the home department is competent, under certain circumstances,
to do so. It was for the public service, and the public convenience, and
no other reason whatever, that I, my lords, consented to hold, for a
time, the situations of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of
state for the home department. But I want to know whether this was, as
the noble viscount insinuates, an unprecedented act? When Mr. Canning
was secretary of state for the foreign department, he was appointed
first lord of the treasury. The latter office Mr. Canning received on
the 12th of April, and he did not resign the seals of the foreign
department until the 30th of that month. During the whole of that period
Mr. Canning discharged the duties both of secretary of state for foreign
affairs, and first lord of the treasury. My lords, I am quite aware
that there were at that period, two other secretaries of state, but the
fact is as I have stated it, that Mr. Canning exercised at the same
time; the functions both of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of
state for the foreign department. The transaction in my case was,
therefore, not unprecedented; and I must also say, that when the noble
viscount thought proper to blame me, as he did, he was bound to show
that my conduct, in that respect, had been attended with some evil or
inconvenient result. Now, it does not appear that it has been attended
with any such result. The fact is, that during the whole of the time
that I held the two offices. I cautiously avoided taking any step which
might be productive of subsequent embarrassment or inconvenience, and
when my right honourable friend took possession of his office, I can
undertake to say that he did not find himself compromised by any such
act.

_February_ 24,1835.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Lord Londonderry's appointment to the Embassy at St. Petersburgh._

My lords, having learned that it would not be disagreeable to my noble
friend to be employed in the public service, I did concur in the
recommendation, or rather, my lords, I did recommend to my right
honourable friend, Sir Robert Peel, that my noble friend should be
appointed ambassador to the court of St. Petersburgh. I made this
recommendation, founded as it was on my own personal knowledge of my
noble friend for many years past,--on the many great and important
military services he has performed, and on the fitness he has proved
himself to possess for such an appointment in those various diplomatic
employments he has filled during a long period of time; more
particularly at the court of Vienna, where for a period of nine years,
he performed most important services to the entire satisfaction of the
ministers who employed him, up to the last moment of his employment. He
returned from the discharge of that office, my lords, with the strongest
testimony of the approbation of the then secretary of state for foreign
affairs. I was aware, my lords, of the peculiar talents of my noble
friend in certain respects, for this particular office, and of his
consequent fitness for this very description of diplomatic employment,
especially on account of his being a military officer of high rank in
the service of this country, and of distinguished reputation in the
Russian army. I knew the peculiar advantages that must attach to an
individual conducting such an embassy on that account. Under these
circumstances, I was justified, my lords, in recommending my noble
friend, and I was glad to find that my right honourable friend concurred
in that recommendation, and that his majesty was pleased to approve of
it. I may also add, that the nomination of my noble friend having been
communicated in the usual manner to the court of St. Petersburgh, it was
received with approbation at that court. For all these reasons, my
lords, it was with the greatest regret I learned that this
nomination,--for it had gone no further than nomination,--was not
approved of in another place; for it is in consequence of that
expression of disapproval that my noble friend, with that delicacy of
feeling which belongs to his character, has declined the office.

_March_ 16,1834.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Prerogative of the Crown in appointing Ambassadors._

There can be no doubt whatever that there is no branch of the
prerogative of the crown greater, or more important, than that of
sending ambassadors to foreign courts; nor is there any branch of that
prerogative the unrestricted use of which ought to be kept more
inviolate. But, my lords, the ministers of the crown are responsible for
these nominations. They are also responsible for the instructions under
which my noble friend, or any other noble lord so nominated, is bound to
act. They are, moreover, responsible for the proper performance of these
duties on the part of those whom they select--to the other house of
parliament, and to the country at large. It is impossible, therefore,
for me to believe that the House of Commons would in this case proceed
so far as to interfere with that peculiar prerogative, and to say that
an individual who has been already nominated by the crown should not
fill the situation; inasmuch as, by so doing, the House of Commons would
not only be taking upon itself the nomination of the officer, and the
direction of the particular duties to be discharged by him--but would
also be relieving the minister from the constitutional responsibility of
the appointment. I do not think that sentiments of such a description,
on a subject of this delicacy and importance, are very general; and I
cannot bring myself to believe that a vote affirming such a violation of
the royal prerogative would have passed the House of Commons.

_March 15,1835._

I

_The Roman Catholics interested in maintaining the Established Church._

The great bulk of the Roman Catholics are as much interested as the
Protestants of the established church in maintaining the safety of the
established church.

_June 10, 1835._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles._

I conceive that there is no cause to complain of the subscription to the
thirty-nine articles, as practised in Oxford. The explanation given by
the most reverend prelate is entirely borne out by the statues of the
university, and by the practice that prevails there; and this
explanation agrees entirely with that given by a right reverend prelate,
who was formerly head of one of the colleges at Oxford. It might,
perhaps, be desirable that some other test should be adopted to prove
that the individuals to be matriculated are members of the church of
England; the most important point is, that Cambridge and Oxford should
be filled only by members of the Church of England--upon that I consider
the whole question to rest. The noble earl said, in the course of the
discussion, that I advised your lordships not to consent to the bill
introduced last session; because, if you did, you would have to carry
to the foot of the throne a measure which would tend to subvert the
union between church and state. My meaning in so doing was neither more
nor less than this--that it was absolutely necessary that the
universities, founded as they are, should educate their members in the
religion of the church of England. Your lordships could not go to the
king, and ask his consent to a bill which had for its object to
establish in the university a system of education different from that of
the church of England, without attacking the very foundation of the
principle of the connexion between church and state. But the noble lord
says, the church herself does not exact subscription to the thirty-nine
articles from each individual. It is very true that the church of
England does not require subscription from her members, nor would the
university of Oxford require it, but as a proof that the person
subscribing was a member of that church, or of the family of a member
thereof.

The noble earl stated that individuals might obtain admittance to the
universities both of Oxford and Cambridge, notwithstanding that they
were dissenters; but there is a great deal of difference between
casually admitting dissenters, and permitting them to enter into the
universities as a matter of right. I see no objection to the admission
of the few now admitted, who must submit to the regulations and
discipline of the university, and of its several colleges; but I do
object to the admission of dissenters into the universities by right;
and my reason for making this exception is, that I am exceedingly
desirous that the religion taught there should be the religion of the
church of England; and I confess I should be very apprehensive that, if
dissenters of all denominations were admitted by right, and they were
not under the necessity of submitting to the rules and regulations of
the several colleges, not only would the religion of the church of
England not to be taught there, but no kind of religion whatever. I
state this on the authority of a report which I have recently received
of the proceedings of an institution in this country for the instruction
of children of dissenting clergymen; from which it appears absolutely
impossible, for any length of time, to adhere to any creed, or any tenet
or doctrine in these seminaries, in which every doctrine is matter of
dispute and controversy. I was rather surprised to hear the noble
viscount opposite--a minister of the crown--express his preference for
polemical disputations in the universities. I should have thought that
he would have felt it to be his inclination, as well as duty, by all
means to protect the universities from such disputes, and from a system
fruitful in such controversies; and probably to end in a cessation of
any system of religion or religious instruction whatever, on account of
the different opinions of the members.

_July_ 14,1835.

       *       *       *       *       *

_University Tests rendered necessary by Toleration._

The tests in our universities are the children of the Reformation, which
the system of toleration wisely established in this country has
rendered still more necessary, if we intend to preserve the standard of
the religion of the church of England. If we open the door wide and say
"We will have no established religion at all--every man shall follow the
religion he chooses"--if, in a word, we have recourse to the voluntary
system,--then we must make up our minds to take the consequences which
must follow from the enactments of the bill and the polemical and other
controversial agitations to which it must lead. But, supposing the
object of the noble lord, to put an end to these tests, to be desirable,
I can conceive no mode of effecting this object so objectionable as the
interference by parliament with the privileges of the universities,
secured to them by charter and repeatedly acknowledged and confirmed by
parliament.

_July_ 14 1835

       *       *       *       *       *

_Irish Clergy--their Depression by the Melbourne Government_.

I do say that the Protestant people and clergy of Ireland have great
reason to complain of the want of protection to their rights and
properties manifested on the part of the government of this country; and
this is the cause of those disputes and those circumstances which the
noble lord opposite (Lord Melbourne) has complained of in the few words
he has addressed to the house on the subject. Far be it from me to wish
for the renewal of any dissensions in Ireland; and, God knows, I would
go any length, and do any thing in my power to put them down in the
extent to which they now exist; but we are mistaken if we suppose that
they can be put down by oppressing one party, or allowing one party to
oppress another, or by extinguishing--an extinction which for the last
three or four years you have attempted and are now about to
complete--that description of property in Ireland allotted to the
payment of the clergy. This is the circumstance which occasions the
present dissensions in Ireland, and which has induced the present
discussion in this house. The noble lord opposite cannot lament the
cause of such discussions more than I do; but if he be determined to do
his duty, let him give the protection of his majesty's government to the
Protestant clergy and people of Ireland, as he does not hesitate to do
in the case of other classes in that country; and the evils which he so
much deplores will soon cease to exist.

_July_ 16, 1835.

       *       *       *       *       *

_A Power of Revising Railway Acts ought to be Reserved by the
Legislature_.

I certainly have a very strong feeling on the subject of all these
railways to be traversed by the aid of steam. I sincerely wish that all
these projects could prove successful; but, in proportion as they may be
successful, in the same proportion is it desirable that there should not
be a perpetual monopoly established in the country. Under these
circumstances, I have a strong feeling that it is desirable to insert in
all these bills some clause, to enable the government or the parliament
to revise the enactments contained in them at some future specific
period. I conceive that, by carrying these measures into execution, a
very great injustice is often done to many landed proprietors in the
country; and they are forced either to submit to great inconvenience, or
to contend against that inconvenience by incurring a very large expense,
both in this and the other house of parliament. If some measure of the
description to which I allude be not adopted, and if these railroads are
to become monopolies in the hands of present or of future proprietors,
we shall hereafter be only able to get the better of such monopolies by
forming fresh lines of road, to the farther detriment of the interests
of the landed proprietors, and at a great increase of expense and
inconvenience. These circumstances have most forcibly struck my mind. I
have had the subject under consideration for some days; I have conversed
with others respecting it; and it appears to me that some plan ought to
be devised in order to bring these railroads under the supervision of
parliament at some future period. I therefore am anxious that the
further proceedings in all these bills[18] should be suspended for a
short time, in order that I may propose some clause, or introduce some
measure, to meet the object to which I have referred. I think it is a
subject the consideration of which ought not to fall on any individual.
It is, I conceive, a matter which the government should take into its
especial consideration. I am, however, perfectly ready to share with the
government the responsibility of proposing such a measure to the house.

[Footnote 18: Some railway bills before the Home of Lords.]

_June_ 3,1836.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Moderation of the Opposition in the House of Lords towards the
Melbourne Government_.

From my own experience, I must take the liberty of observing, that I
consider the conduct pursued by noble lords on this side of the house,
throughout the present session, to have been marked with the utmost
moderation. For myself, I think I am correct in stating, that since the
address to the throne in answer to the king's speech, with the exception
only of one occasion, when I requested the noble viscount to postpone
the Corporations (Ireland) Bill till after the Easter holidays, I never
entered the house till after Easter. Since that period, I have certainly
taken part in the proceedings that have been going forward in the house,
and I have felt it my duty to oppose some of the measures of government;
but I think I shall be borne out when I say that I have accompanied the
vote which I have given with observations expressed in terms of great
moderation. I have acted on all occasions to the best of my opinion, and
in a way which I thought most calculated to be beneficial to the
country. The noble viscount has been pleased to taunt us for not having
addressed the king with a view to obtain his and his colleagues' removal
from the situations which they hold. If the noble viscount would look at
the manner in which they were appointed to office, if he would look at
the whole history for the last twelve months I think he would find
sufficient reason for our not having adopted that course of proceeding.
The noble viscount knows very well upon what ground he stands, and
knowing that, it would have been just as well in him if he had avoided
his taunts against us for not having asked the king to remove him from
office. I would take the liberty to recommend the noble viscount to
consider himself not as the minister of a democratic body in another
place, but as the minister of a sovereign in a limited monarchy, in a
country, great in point of extent, great in its possessions, and in the
various interests which it comprises; and that considering these
circumstances, he should, in future, concert such measures as he has
reason to think may pass with the approval and suit the general
interests of all,--meet the good will of all,--and not of one
particular party in one particular place only. If the noble viscount
will but follow that course for some little time, he will find no
difficulty in conducting the business of government in this house, but
will find every facility afforded him in forwarding measures of the
above description. I would beg the noble lord to recollect one fact, in
regard to the church of England, whether in England or Ireland. Let him
recollect that the avowed policy followed by this country during the
last three hundred years, has been to retain inviolable the church
establishment. We are called here to consult particularly for the good
of the church; and if the noble viscount brings forward any measures
relating to that subject, let him recollect that all measures of such a
kind must be discussed by us with that particular object in view. This
is not only the old feeling of this house of three hundred years'
standing, but it is that on which we acted no longer than eight or nine
years ago, when we had occasion to review the safeguards and general
landmarks whereby the church establishment of this country was defended.

_August_ 18, 1836.

_The Quadruple Treaty. Effects of our Intervention in Spain_.

It is well known to your lordships that I was one of those who objected
to the treaty called the "Quadruple Treaty." It is perfectly true that I
was afterwards instrumental in carrying it into effect; because it was
my duty, in the situation in which I was placed at that time, to carry
into effect those treaties which his majesty had entered into, whether I
had originally approved of them or not. I cannot, therefore, now,
disapprove of the due execution of the quadruple treaty by others; nor
will I refuse my assent to the proposition that the measures which his
majesty has adopted in execution of the treaty are satisfactory as far
as we have any knowledge of them. If any measures should have been
adopted, not already provided for in the treaty, it will be our duty to
consider them calmly and dispassionately. Much discussion has taken
place in other countries with respect to the course pursued by other
members of this alliance, in the execution of this treaty. I must say,
that so far as I am enabled to form a judgment of the treaty, (and I
know nothing more than what appears on the face of the treaty itself) it
seems to me that it has been fairly executed by all the parties who
subscribed it. When I had the honour of serving his majesty in 1834, I
was called upon to state whether the treaty in question would be carried
into execution. I then stated what I understood was the meaning and
scope of the treaty;--viz. that there should be no armed intervention in
the internal affairs of Spain, which should tend to affect the
independence of that country. That was my sense of the treaty at the
time--it is my sense of the treaty at the present moment--it was so
understood by the other parties to the treaty. It was the understanding
of all parties that there should he no military intervention in the
internal affairs of Spain. This was the understanding of the treaty, and
in the month of November, 1834, this explanation was communicated and
was satisfactory to the Spanish government.

I consider that the attempt by his majesty's government, aided even by
the strongest power in Europe, to force upon Spain any form of
government, must fail. Those who should make the attempt must take upon
themselves not only the expenses of their own army in a most expensive
contest, but those of the civil and military government of Spain; and
they must hold their position in Spain, and defray their expenses till
the new government should be settled and submitted to, and tranquillity
established in the country. I should like to see how the Commons House
of Parliament, or the Chamber of Deputies, would treat a proposition
that should call upon them to agree to a vote of money for any such
operation, for the purpose of forcibly imposing a liberal government on
Spain, or on any other country. I contend my lords, that this scheme is
absolutely impracticable. His majesty's ministers may rely on it, that
they have undertaken that which they never can perform; and that the
sooner they place themselves on the footing on which they ought strictly
to stand with reference to the quadruple alliance, the sooner will the
pacification of Spain, which we must all of us anxiously wish for, be
accomplished. I feel, for one, the strongest objection to anything like
interference with the internal affairs of the Peninsula. I object to it,
not only on account of the vast expense it must inevitably entail upon
this country, but still more so on account of the injury which it
inflicts on the parties existing in that state. Of my own certain
knowledge I can state, that the individuals composing these parties in
Spain, have actually been ruined, their properties confiscated, their
fortunes sacrificed, by the course which his majesty's government have
pursued. Acting under the assurances of his majesty's government,
individuals have adopted a certain line of conduct. They followed his
majesty's government, as a party in the state. His majesty's government,
thus acting, is obliged to move forward with the democratic movement The
unfortunate persons I have alluded to have, in consequence, been
abandoned, their fortunes sacrificed, and their prospects blighted for
ever. Events like these, my lords, which affect the character as well as
the influence of the country, inclined me to be more adverse to such
interference than I should be on the mere score of expense. I do not
mean to oppose the address, but in taking this course, I beg to be
clearly understood as not holding myself bound to approve of the
employment of any force beyond that stipulated for by the quadruple
treaty, which treaty parliament has recognised.

_January_ 30,1837.

_The Poor Law Act has surpassed his expectation_.

My lords, I supported the bill while it was in this house; and having
given that support to the bill from being a witness to the evils, and
being apprehensive of the consequences likely to have attended the
former system, I conceive it to be my duty to come forward on this
occasion, and to state that this bill has surpassed any expectation
which I had formed of the benefits likely to result from it. The bill,
my lords, may require amendment in certain parts, and it appears that
his majesty's government have taken measures to ascertain what points in
the bill so require amendment. I, for one, am ready to pay the greatest
attention to the points which may be brought under the consideration of
this house. But I must say that I approve of the measure as far as it
has gone hitherto, and I have witnessed its operation. I do not talk of
what I have seen generally, I talk of the details of the management of
the bill, from having witnessed that management in different workhouses,
in different parts of the country in which I have resided; and I must
say that it has been practically beneficial, and particularly in cases
such as these. First of all, it has put the workman and his employer
upon a true and friendly footing of confidence. Then it has connected
the man of property, the man of the highest rank in his country, with
the lowest class, with the labouring class, by admitting such to the
board of Guardians. I can mention some noble lords, who are ornaments to
this house, and who constantly attend at the weekly meetings of the
guardians, being elected guardians by the parishes in the neighbourhood
in which they reside. No measure could be attended with better results,
and being convinced that it will effect still greater benefits,
sincerely thinking so, I should be ashamed if I did not step forward,
and at once avow my sentiments respecting it. I avow at once that I
supported the bill at the time his majesty's ministers proposed it--that
I do not repent of what I did on that occasion in so supporting it--but,
on the contrary, that I rejoice in the part I then took; and I now
congratulate his majesty's ministers on its success.

_April_ 7, 1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Universities--their Education System the admiration of the World._

The working of all these colleges and of the system on which they are
regulated, is for the benefit of the public; and in each and every
college the object is to carry into execution the will of the founder,
just as it would probably have been had he lived to this period. In
every case the great object of the governing authorities is, to benefit
the public by the education of the youth who resort to these
institutions. The noble viscount (Melbourne) could not help admitting
that these institutions have worked well, and that latterly a great
improvement has taken place in the system of education pursued under
their auspices. The noble viscount has also spoken of the great
improvement in the system of education pursued in the new university of
Durham, and in other new universities elsewhere. But, nevertheless, the
noble viscount could not help admitting that the old universities of
Oxford and Cambridge possess the merit of having established in England
an excellent system of education, which is, in point of fact, the envy
and admiration of the world.

_April_ 11, 1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Quadruple Treaty condemned_.

My lords, I must confess that I did not approve of the original
Quadruple Treaty. I considered it inconsistent with the ancient
principle and the policy and practice adopted in this country with
regard to Portugal, to avoid to interfere in the disputes between the
two princes of the House of Braganza, which had been the policy of this
country for many years. It sanctioned the introduction of Spanish troops
into Portugal, which measure was inconsistent with our defensive
relations with Portugal, and which had been objected to and prevented in
that very contest between the rival princes of the House of Braganza.
Yet it gave no fresh assistance to bring the contests in Portugal to a
conclusion, excepting the promise to give the aid of this country by the
employment of a naval force in co-operation with the Spanish and
Portuguese troops, which aid was not necessary. Another objection which
I entertained to the Quadruple Treaty was, that it mixed up France and
this country in the offers and promises made to Don Carlos and Don
Miguel, in the fifth and sixth articles of the treaty. These powers
became, in fact, guarantees for the performance of these engagements, as
well as for the performance of the engagements made under the same
articles of the treaty to the subjects of Portugal and Spain. It is
impossible to describe the inconvenience of such articles; they require
the interference of government in hundreds of little questions. I have
felt the inconvenience of those articles since their adoption; I stated
my objections to them at the time, and I have seen no reason, since, to
alter the opinions I then formed.

_April_ 21, 1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Effects of the Additional Articles to the Quadruple Treaty._

By the first of the additional articles to the treaty, the King of the
French obliged himself to take such measures in those parts of his
dominions which adjoined to Spain, as might be calculated to prevent
succours of men, arms, and warlike stores being sent from France into
Spain; and the King of Great Britain engaged, under the second of the
said additional articles, to furnish such arms and warlike stores as her
majesty the Queen of Spain might require; and further to assist her
majesty with a naval force if necessary. The Duke of Braganza was to
give his best assistance to serve her majesty, that he might be called
upon to render. So that those additional articles were essentially
different from the terms and provisions of the original treaty, by which
the removal of the two princes from Portugal was effected. I do not mean
to say, that, in the preamble to that treaty, allusion is not made to
the affairs both of Spain and Portugal, but there still is a remarkable
difference between the words used in the treaty and the additional
articles; and moat particularly in relation to the part to be taken by
this country.

_April_ 21, 1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Legion and the Stock Exchange.--Impotency of our interference_.

I contend, as I have before contended in this house, that his majesty's
present ministers (Lord Melbourne's government) ought not to have
departed from the position which the previous administration had
established while they were in power. I will not pretend to say what
would have been the result of their following out that course, but this
I do say, that the course pursued by his lordship's government has not
benefited the military or the financial affairs of Spain, or promoted
the peace of that country or the general tranquillity of Europe, or
attained any of the political advantages which the noble viscount boasts
have been attained by his departure from that position which the
previous government had occupied and left to their successors. But, my
lords, it did unfortunately happen that certain parties in this country
had been connected with the Spanish finances; and it was important to
those parties that the red coats should make their appearance in Spain,
and that the name of "Great Britain," and of the British legion, should
be mixed up in the operations of the war. Money was raised in this
country to defray the expense of the equipment of the "Legion," as it
was called, of 10,000 or 12,000 men, and also of their pay, their food,
and maintenance, for a certain number of months; and the noble lords, in
order that this scheme might be carried into execution, gave their
consent to the order in council for the suspension of the Foreign
Enlistment Act. The corps gathered in this country, and went to Spain,
in the spring of the year 1835, nearly two years ago. Their first
operation upon their arrival at St. Sebastian, was a march over the very
same ground to the very spot which was the scene of the late disaster.
My lords, up to that moment, the Eliot convention, as it is most
honourably and justly called, had been carried into execution. It was on
that day departed from on both sides, and from that day to this, I
firmly believe, from all I have seen and read,--and I have read much on
the subject within the last few days--there has been no certainty in the
execution of that convention. Not only has there been no certainty in
the execution of that convention, but, notwithstanding the millions of
money that Spain has expended,--notwithstanding the blood which has been
shed and the number of lives that have been lost,--I will venture to
say, that the military affairs of the Queen of Spain are in a worse
condition now than they were in the month of May, 1835.

The whole of the policy of the British government, therefore; all the
operations of the British legion, backed by the British squadron; have
effected nothing more nor less towards putting an end to the war, and
giving peace to Spain and to Europe, than the removal of the blockade of
St. Sebastian from one point to another, so as not to come within the
liability of being affected by the 68-pounders of the British steamers,
under the command of Lord John Hay.

_April_ 21,1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Uselessness of the operations of the Legion, and Lord John Hay's
Squadron, at St. Sebastian_.

If the noble lord supposes that the safety of St. Sebastian had been
more or less endangered by the blockade, I can assure him that he is
much mistaken; for, from what I know of that fortified town, which is
one of the first or second order in Europe, I can take upon myself to
say that the Carlists might have been left in their original position
without any danger whatever to the town, because they could not make an
attack upon such a fortress. In the whole course of the war they have
not, to my knowledge, taken by an attack any fortified post; or even any
open town of any magnitude, prepared for its defence. They could not
have distressed St. Sebastian for provisions, because its communication
with the sea could not be prevented. I say, it could not be prevented,
even if the whole British fleet were blockading it, instead of being
there to relieve it. The amount of inconvenience felt in the town from
the Carlist force being in the neighbourhood, was neither more nor less
than the unpleasantness of ladies and gentlemen, residing there, being
prevented taking their evening walks in the neighbourhood. This is the
whole amount of the inconvenience from which the town was relieved. This
was the whole amount of the service rendered.

_April_ 21,1837.

_Strictures on General Evans_.

My lords, I will go a little further. I will say, that I firmly believe
that the connexion between the legion and the fleet has been injurious
to the military operations of the queen of Spain's generals. That is my
decided opinion, founded upon my knowledge of the nature of the country,
and of the position of both parties. My lords, there is one point to
which I refer; that is, the want of communication between the Queen of
Spain's generals, which can be relied upon. If corps of the size of
those now employed are not actually joined, there must be a certain
communication between them; for, without communication there can be no
co-operation; and any attempt at co-operation would, in my opinion, in
all probability, lead to disasters such as have recently taken place at
Hernani. How are these troops situated? General Evans's troops are at
St. Sebastian; General Saarsfield is at the other side of the Borunda,
at Pampeluna; and Espartero, with his army, is at Bilboa. It is
impossible that there can be any communication between these three,
except by the French frontier, and by sea from Socoa, or by the Ebro. An
arrangement is made for an attack, and a day named. What was the
consequence? General Evans made an attack, but General Saarsfield, at
Pampeluna, does not attack; there is a frost or snow, or rain, or some
physical impediment which prevents a movement on the part of Saarsfield.
General Evans cannot be informed in time, and the enemy has opportunity
and leisure to throw his whole force upon General Evans; who, even if
the troops had behaved well, would have been compelled to retire. The
position, therefore, of the legion at St. Sebastian, in order to
co-operate with the British squadron, that there might be something like
British co-operation, was not an operation of war, it was one of
stock-jobbing. My lords, it is a matter of much surprise to me, that
General Evans, who, having acquired the confidence of his majesty's
government, and that of the Queen of Spain, I presume must be an able
man--it is, certainly, a surprising circumstance, that having had
experience of the difficulties of carrying on communication in that
country, and having met with a check in the month of January, 1836, for
want of communication, he should not have felt the danger of his
position, and should have omitted to put himself in communication to a
certainty with corps in whose co-operation he was to act, instead of
keeping himself at a distance, in order that he might carry on
operations in concert with his majesty's fleet.

_April_ 21,1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Undisciplined state of the Legion_.

The noble lord has stated that he will not recall the marines. I would
beg to remind your lordships, and the noble viscount in particular, of
this fact--that the marines are properly the garrisons of his majesty's
ships, and that upon no pretence ought they to be moved from a fair and
safe communication with the ships to which they belong. The noble lord
states, that he is responsible, and that he will take upon himself the
responsibility. I have commanded his majesty's armies, and have incurred
as many risks, and faced more difficulties than, I hope, the noble lord
will ever have to encounter. I have been engaged in hostilities of this
description, where co-operation was carried on upon the coast; and
though I certainly would do as much for the service, and I believe I may
say, have done as much for the service, as the noble lord, yet I would
not venture, and have never ventured, to put any corps whatever in
co-operation with the Spaniards, or in any situation whatever in which
the detached troops could not communicate with the corps from which they
were detached; and, above all, upon the sea-coast, where the troops
detached could not hold communication with the ships. The first order to
each of these detachments was, to keep the communication with their
ships. The loss of 400 or 500 marines may not materially involve the
honour of this country, but the lives of the men ought not to be
endangered, as they must be, if care be not taken that they should have
a communication with a point of safety, without some very extraordinary
cause. We hear of the operations of the marines with the Austrians. But
the Spanish troops, and particularly the British legion, are not the
Austrians. I cannot consider this corps of General Evans to be in a
state of discipline and subordination, such as a body of troops ought to
be in, with which his majesty's marine forces ought to be connected.
They have suffered very considerably; their losses have been great, and
have affected their subordination, their good order and discipline,
particularly in the presence of an enemy. A disaster or panic may occur
among the best troops; but among such, order can be re-established. It
does not appear that these are in the state in which they ought to be,
to render it safe to co-operate with them. No efforts of their officers
can, in such cases, have any effect upon them.

_April_ 21,1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Intervention, if at all, should be on a National Scale_.

The noble viscount says that we are carrying on these operations with
the object of maintaining the peace of Europe; and these objects are,
more especially, put forth in a pamphlet which is attributed to a
colleague of the noble viscount, who has applauded his opinions, if he
has not gone further, and adopted them as his own. Is the noble lord
desirous, in accordance with the policy so set forth, to press upon the
nation the adoption of the system of a general combination of the powers
of the west, upon principles offensive as well as defensive, against the
powers of the north and east of Europe? If so momentous an affair and
such a course are seriously contemplated, they should not be commenced
by stealth, but in a manner worthy of the character of a great nation
like Great Britain. It is not by allowing Spain to raise a legion here
in the first instance, and afterwards by sending a few hundred marines,
that any really important object can be accomplished. But if the noble
lords are in earnest, a message should be sent to parliament, and the
support of the country should be called for, to this new scheme of
policy; and a commanding force should be sent, in order to carry it into
execution. But I recommend the noble viscount well to consider the
length of time which must elapse before these operations can be brought
to a conclusion; the expense which must, in the first instance, be
incurred; and the lengthened period which must elapse before the troops
can be withdrawn, and the other expenses can be discontinued, which must
be incurred if this scheme be undertaken. The noble lord must establish
a government in Spain; he must have the assistance of a Spanish army;
and he must pay, equip, and provide for, not only his majesty's troops,
but every Spanish officer and soldier employed in the settlement of the
government of the country. It may be said, that there are financial
resources in Spain; but I am much mistaken, regarding the state of the
Spanish military establishments and Spanish finances, if there are not
non-effective establishments, such as pensions, retired allowances,
expenses of garrisons, and others, which will consume the whole of the
pecuniary resources of Spain, however well managed, even without
including the interest of the existing debt. I think that, if this
country should have this matter fairly brought under its view, it would
not be thought advisable to enter upon the scheme proposed in this
pamphlet. But we are told that France ought to act this part; and that
we ought to give France our moral support. France act! At whose expense?
France would have the same difficulties--nay, greater difficulties--than
this country. Is it intended that we are to subsidise France? No such
thing; we are to assist with our ships and marines on the coast, but it
is France that is to carry on the operations in the interior, and pay
this expense. Is it believed that Louis Philippe has lost his senses? If
we cannot expect that France will pay all this expense, what is to
become of the integrity of the Spanish dominions, and the independence
of the Spanish government, after the operations shall he concluded?

_April_ 21,1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Necessity of Conciliating the Protestants of Ireland_.

My anxious wish, my lords, has always been--and I have frankly stated it
more than once in my place in this house--that the Protestants of
Ireland should be on the best terms with the government of this country,
and that the government should give them every protection and support in
its power. My firm opinion is, that the safety of this country in
connection with Ireland, the safety of the union, the permanence of the
union, and, indeed, the honour of the empire, all depend, in a great
measure, if not entirely, on the good understanding which may subsist
between the government and the Protestants of Ireland. I am also certain
that the prosperity of the Protestants in Ireland, and the safety of
their persons, of their riches, and of everything dear to men, depend on
their being on terms of good understanding with the government; but that
things will not go on as they ought to go on, until government induces
the Protestants of that country to return to that good understanding.
That has been my opinion ever since the commencement of these
unfortunate dissensions, seven years ago; and I should be sorry to say,
this evening, one word which might be calculated to increase the
irritation now existing between both these parties. The noble viscount
(Melbourne) has admitted that the Protestants of Ireland have great
reason to feel the awkwardness of their present position, and to
entertain jealousy of the government; and I must own that the noble
viscount, instead of aggravating that description of feeling which he
admits the Protestants of Ireland ought to have, should use, as I
conceive, every exertion in his power to conciliate them, and to make
them feel that they may depend upon the government for the protection of
their lives and property, and that they will not be sacrificed to those
who are preaching up sedition against the institutions of their country,
and insurrections against the persons and property of her people. These
Protestants are in number not less than 2,000,000. I believe they hold,
my lords, about nine-tenths of the property of Ireland; and I am sure
that they are persons of the best education and of the best conduct in
that country. I believe that the province in which they reside is as
well cultivated and as well conducted in every respect as any portion of
England; and the inhabitants of it deserve on every account all the
protection which the government can afford them. Let us see, my lords,
whether they have not reason to feel jealousy of the government in
consequence of the transactions of the last few years. Look at the total
destruction of the property of tithe--look at the treatment of their
church--look at the various occurrences which have taken place, and see
whether they have not reason to apprehend that there is a latent
intention of putting down the Protestant livings in Ireland, and of
substituting a voluntary system in place of their present church
establishment. Do you suppose that men of their description do not
calculate on the events which are likely to happen? Do you suppose that
they do not read the history of past times? We have heard the noble
viscount talking of the history of the year 1782, and of the year 1798,
and of various other transactions. Let us look at the letters of Henry
Lord Clarendon, formerly chief governor of Ireland; and, having looked
at them, let any man ask himself whether the Protestants of Ireland have
not a right to conceive that matters are advancing rapidly to the state
described by that noble personage, and whether the same description of
power is not now growing up which exercised so enormous an influence on
the government of his day. I consider that the statements made by the
different peers who have spoken to night from this (the conservative)
side of the house ought to have, and I trust they will have, a powerful
effect on the Protestant mind of this country. At the same time that
these statements are brought forward, and the facts are made known to
the public, showing that neither property nor life is secure in Ireland,
his majesty comes down to parliament with a speech, in which he says,
"Ireland is in a state of tranquillity;" and yet there is not one
gentleman residing in Ireland who was not aware, when that speech was
delivered, that a general association had been formed and was in
existence in Dublin for the sole purpose of agitation--of that agitation
which, as Lord Wellesley told the country, was the cause of disturbances
as undoubtedly as any one circumstance ever was the cause of another. Do
your lordships suppose that the Protestants of Ireland are not aware of
that fact?

_April_ 28,1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Lord Normanby's Gaol Deliveries_.

What was the next step of which the Protestants of Ireland complained?
The lord lieutenant, they say, went into the country, from place to
place, without having any communication either with the judges or with
the magistrates;--and that is a fact on which I greatly rely--the lord
lieutenant, they say, released at every county gaol which he visited a
certain number of prisoners. I have said, that the Protestants of
Ireland have a very peculiar interest in the impartial administration of
the law, and in the tranquillity of the country, because they form the
great body of its landed proprietors. They must look at such a
transaction with jealousy; and if there had been no circumstances
connected with such a transaction save those which have been stated this
evening, it must, I think, be admitted, that if the conduct of the lord
lieutenant was not without precedent (and I believe that no precedent
can he found for it) it has yet been still of such rare occurrence that
it ought never to be repeated. I do not mean to say that this power of
enlarging prisoners has never been exercised, but I maintain that it had
never previously been exercised in such a manner. I do not pretend to be
acquainted with the technicalities of the law on this subject; but it
occurs to me that several of the persons who have been released in this
peculiar manner by the lord lieutenant, had surely been guilty of
felony. I do not know exactly what the state of the law is, at present,
upon this subject, but I apprehend that persons who have been found
guilty of felony ought to have some document conveying their pardon, or
in default of its production they become, I believe, liable to certain
fines and forfeitures. But in the present case persons guilty of felony
have been enlarged without any writing at all, at the simple order of
the lord lieutenant, I must say, that a proceeding of this sort is
highly irregular, and that it is such an exercise of power as a lord
lieutenant in the ordinary discharge of his duty ought not to repeat;
and further, that this was an exercise of power which was most likely to
produce a very pernicious effect on the minds of the Protestants of
Ireland.

_April_ 28, 1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Objections to the Irish Corporations Bill of 1837_.

I stated, on a former occasion, that these corporations existed in
their present shape, and were brought to their present state,
principally with a view to the support and protection of the religion of
the Church of England established in Ireland. Whatever may be done with
respect to these corporations for the future, in my opinion that object
ought never to be lost sight of. It may be doubted, from what has lately
occurred in this country, whether that opinion is so unanimously adopted
as it was in former years; but I may venture to say, the support of the
Church of England in Ireland is still the policy of this country--the
policy which his majesty is sworn to maintain--the policy which this
house is called, by writs of summons, to uphold--the policy which every
member of this, or the other house of parliament, is sworn to uphold by
the oaths which he has voluntarily taken. Under these circumstances, I
think I may safely say that, according to the ancient constitution,
according to the modern constitution, according to the uniform policy of
this country for the last 300 years, the maintenance of the Church of
England in Ireland forms a prominent and important point of legislative
concern. Looking to this bill now under consideration, in relation
principally to that policy, it goes undoubtedly to establish a very
large number of corporations in Ireland, the mode of their formation
being to give votes to the very lowest class of the population of the
towns in which these corporations are to be formed. This is to be done,
not upon evidence of their possessing property--not, as in England, upon
residence, upon the payment of rates, or on the evidence of their
possessing anything in the nature of property; but simply on the
condition that the parties possess a 5l. or a 10l. qualification, made
up of all kinds and descriptions of property put together, and this
without any proof whatever, excepting the oath of the parties
themselves, of their possessing even that qualification. It is well
known to your lordships that a system of perjury prevails in all parts
of Ireland, with a view to establish franchise of this description. I
have recently seen accounts of enquiries before select committees in
certain parliamentary elections which have taken place in that country,
and it is impossible to glance at them without being impressed with the
conviction that, if any description of franchise depend solely on the
oaths of the holders, every species of enquiry will be nugatory; and it
will be just as wise to establish at once a system of universal
suffrage, as to establish a system of franchise in such a manner. These
corporations, thus formed by persons holding a franchise of this
description, acquired solely by their own swearing, and without any
evidence whatever of their possessing any property except their own
oaths, establish a system upon which no reliance can be placed, and on
which no establishment whatever can safely depend. If your lordships
want any proof of the danger to the church of Ireland by the
establishment of corporations of this description, I will refer your
lordships to the declarations, I would not say of those who are the
declared enemies, but I must say, the strongest opponents of the church,
and who are found, on every occasion, making the greatest possible
exertions against the church in Ireland, These persons are heard
declaring publicly and repeatedly, almost under the very view of the
government--"Give us but this corporation bill, and all the rest must
follow." If there be any doubt about it, I beg to say, I shall not be
disposed to listen to the threats of any man; but when my own senses
convince me that such must be the result, I mean danger to the
establishment, I do say it is my duty to attend to warnings of the
description to which I have adverted.

_May 5, 1837._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Eulogium on King William the Fourth._

I have served his late majesty in the highest situations; I have been in
his council as well as the noble viscount (Melbourne). I, indeed, did
not serve him so long as the noble viscount, or even under any such
prosperous circumstances as the noble viscount; but I have had
opportunities of witnessing, under all these circumstances, the personal
advantages of character so ably described by the noble viscount. It has
fallen to my lot to serve his majesty at different periods, and in
different capacities; and, while I had the happiness of doing so, upon
all those occasions I have witnessed not only all the virtues ascribed
to him by the noble viscount, but likewise a firmness, a discretion, a
candour, a justice, and a spirit of conciliation towards others,--a
respect for all. Probably there never was a sovereign who, in such
circumstances and encompassed by so many difficulties, more successfully
met them than he did upon every occasion on which he had to engage
them. I was induced to serve his majesty, not only from my sense of
duty--not alone from the feeling that the sovereign of this country has
the right to command my services in any situation in which it might be
considered that I might be of use--but from a feeling of gratitude to
his majesty for favours, for personal distinctions, conferred upon me,
notwithstanding that I had been unfortunately in the position of
opposing myself to his majesty's views and intentions when he was
employed in a high situation under government,[19] and in consequence of
which he had to resign that great office which he must, beyond all
others, have been most anxious to retain. Notwithstanding that, my
lords, he employed me in his service; and he, as a sovereign, manifested
towards me a kindness, condescension, and favour, which, so long as I
live, I never can forget. I considered myself, then, not only bound by
duty, and the sense I felt of gratitude to all the sovereigns of this
country, under whom I had lived, but more especially towards his late
majesty, to relieve him from every difficulty I could, under any
circumstances.

[Footnote 19: William the Fourth, when Duke of Clarence, was under the
necessity of resigning the office of Lord High Admiral, while the Duke
of Wellington was premier.]

_June_ 22, 1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Agrarian Disturbances in Ireland are earned by Political Agitation_.

The noble earl opposite has stated, that the tranquillity mentioned in
her majesty's speech from the throne, on opening the present parliament,
was not intended to mean judicial or agrarian tranquillity, but
political tranquillity. And what is the sort of political tranquillity
existing in Ireland? I believe that a very few days before the speech in
which the word tranquillity is used was delivered, the association which
was assembled in the capital of Ireland, under the eyes of the noble
earl opposite, was dissolved; but, at the same time, her majesty was
given to understand, that she was not to have the choice of her
ministers, but that they must be selected by the gentleman who was the
founder and the head of that association. Now, to talk of
tranquillity--political tranquillity--in any part of that country,
looking at the situation in which it is placed, is vague and idle. The
noble earl has said, that the agrarian disturbances in Ireland are not
to be attributed to political agitation. Now, one of the greatest
authorities that ever appeared in this or any other country--a noble
relation of mine--stated, that "agrarian disturbances in Ireland were to
be attributed to political agitation, and to nothing else, as much as
effect was to be attributed to cause in any instance whatever." I say,
then, that in Ireland they have agrarian disturbances because they have
political agitations.

_November_ 27, 1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Principle of Imprisonment for Debt_.

One of the causes of debts being incurred in this country is, in a great
degree, the power which creditors at present possess to arrest their
debtors upon _mesne_ process; and I still further believe that it is the
facility which is thus given of obtaining credit, that has been the
cause of the great mercantile prosperity of the country. The enormous
transactions upon credit are such, that both individuals and the public
generally, require further means of recovering debts than exist in
other countries.

_December_ 5,1837.

_The Case of Dr. Hampden_.

The late king was advised to appoint that gentleman to be Regius
Professor of Divinity in the university of Oxford. There can be no doubt
that the general opinion of the university was, that that gentleman's
theological tenets were not exactly orthodox, or consistent with the
articles of the church of England,--an opinion which the publication of
certain works by that gentleman has tended to establish.

Several persons in the university considered it their duty to petition
his majesty, praying, if the appointment had not been completed, that he
would not make it. I believe that another address was presented to his
majesty, entreating his majesty not to sanction that appointment, which,
however, was made, contrary to the views of the university at large; and
a short time afterwards, Dr. Hampden thought right, in his inaugural
lecture, to state that he then felt it his duty to explain the opinions
which had been complained of. I do not pretend to be a judge either of
those opinions or that explanation; but this I will venture to say, and
I believe your lordships will concur in the opinion, that in proportion
as Dr. Hampden found it necessary to give an explanation of his
sentiments, in the same proportion were those justified who thought
proper to disapprove of them. I believe it will be admitted that, if a
clergyman who published certain opinions, not being orthodox, thought
proper to come forward and explain those opinions, at least they who
were opposed to such opinions had some justification, on their being
repeated, for the course they had taken in disapproving of them. This is
all I wish to say respecting the opinions and explanation of Dr.
Hampden. His appointment having been made, notwithstanding the petition
of a vast number of the clergy of Oxford, and the general opinion
expressed there that it should not be made, a request was preferred to
the heads of houses that they would propose some measure to the
convocation which would have the effect of marking the disapprobation on
the part of that body of the opinions and appointment of Dr. Hampden.
The noble earl has alluded to the act of convocation excluding Dr.
Hampden from being one of those to appoint the select preachers, and
also from sitting at the board of heresy. I am not disposed to say
anything against Dr. Hampden; but this I must say, that, considering the
whole transaction, my opinion is, the convocation did as little upon
that occasion as it was possible to do, consistently with the necessity
which existed of taking some notice of that gentleman, his opinions and
conduct. Since that period, I really believe that the university, and
the bishops of the church of England, and all the persons who have any
influence on this question, have done everything in their power to put
it down, and prevent it becoming a subject of discussion, even in the
university or elsewhere. For myself, I can say, I have invariably
pursued that course, it being my object to prevent any discussion on the
matter; and I never should have mentioned it, here or elsewhere,
publicly, if the noble earl had not forced it upon me on the present
occasion. I certainly lament the transaction, principally because I
consider it is likely to produce a schism in the church; and I have been
as anxious as any man can be in my situation, to prevent the university
from proceeding on the subject in such a manner as may, by possibility,
lead to that result.

The noble earl adverted to the conduct of a gentleman who is now
vice-chancellor of the university, and who has, in his capacity of head
of a house, prohibited the attendance of the students in divinity upon
the lectures of the Regius Professor. I do not at all pretend to be
competent to mark the difference between the private and public lectures
of the Regius Professor; but I certainly do not approve of the course
taken by that gentleman. In my opinion, the question is not one to be
considered by the head of a house; for, in fact, no ordination can be
conferred by him or the Regius Professor of Divinity. Ordination can
only be conferred by the bishops of the church; and whether the students
attend the lectures of the Regius Professor of Divinity, or those of the
Margaret Professor, or of any other professor, I will say, it is the
duty of the bishops of the church to consider who are the persons coming
for ordination, and whether they are qualified or not, without taking
into consideration the certificates of the Regius Professor of Divinity,
the head of a house, or any other individual. It is, I contend, the
duty of the bishops to examine into the subject themselves, without
reference to the certificate of any individual whatever. I must observe,
however, with regard to the course adopted by the vice-chancellor, that
I am thoroughly convinced, not only from what that gentleman has stated
to me, but from my knowledge of that gentleman's conduct, and his
character for candour and fairness, that he had the very wisest motives
in pursuing that course, from which he departed as soon as he found that
the bishops of the church had determined upon observing a different
line, conceiving that he was then relieved from all charge and
responsibility in the situation which he held. Such is the history of
that transaction; and I have only to say, with respect to that
gentleman, and with respect to others of the university of Oxford, that
it was their anxious wish and desire to avoid taking any step in
reference to Dr. Hampden, lest it should, in any manner whatever, lead
to what they would consider the greatest possible misfortune--a schism
in the church.

_December_ 21,1837.

       *       *       *       *       *

A great country cannot wage a little war.

_January_ 16, 1838.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Conduct of the Canadian Leaders._

I differ entirely from the noble and learned lord in thinking that the
act of 1831 established the British constitution in Canada, for it is
not consistent with the British constitution to leave the civil
government of the country--and especially to leave the judges of the
land--to be provided for by an annual vote of the parliament. I say, my
lords, that the British constitution, for the last hundred and fifty
years at least, has made a fixed and not uncertain provision for
supporting the dignity of the crown, for meeting the expenses attendant
on the administration of the civil government, and most particularly for
the independence of the judges of the land. But is that the state of
things in Lower Canada? No. I maintain that the act of 1831 did not
establish the British constitution in the colonies of Upper and Lower
Canada, but something quite distinct; for it gave to the people a
popular representation, which, in my opinion, is the cause of all the
disputes that have followed, and of the insurrection which has taken
place. It gave individuals the power to create prejudices in the minds
of the people, to weaken the loyalty of the Canadians, and to raise them
in hostility against her majesty's crown and government. And what has
been the object of these individuals in the course which they have
pursued? They have supposed that, by creating dissatisfaction amongst
the people, they could thereby throw off the authority of the crown;
and, by gathering the people around them, overturn the government
established in the colony. Such have been the objects of those
individuals who have been seen running off to the neighbouring
territories of the United States as soon as they found their own persons
exposed to danger. This turned out to be the real state of the case; for
the would-be leaders left the unfortunate people in a state of rebellion
against her majesty's government, and ran off themselves, letting the
unlucky inhabitants return to their houses as best they could; and
forcing them to submit, with the best grace they might, to the mercy of
her majesty's government.

_January 18, 1838._

_Evils of popular Rights_.

I warned the noble lord against endangering the establishments of the
country, by giving anything like an authority to a popular assembly to
withhold the funds necessary for carrying on the civil government; for
nothing is more needful to a country than to uphold the civil power, and
the independence--as well pecuniary as political--of the judges of the
land. And let noble lords learn, from the events in Canada, and other
dominions in North America, what it is to hold forth what are called
"popular rights," but which are not popular rights either here or
elsewhere; and what occasion is thereby given to the perpetuation of a
system of agitation which ends in insurrection and rebellion, and the
coming to blows with her majesty's troops.

_January_ 18,1838.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Importance of reducing the Canadian Rebels_.

I confess, my lords, that I have a feeling for the honour of my country,
and I cannot but believe that if, by any misfortune, we should fail in
restoring peace in Lower Canada, at an early period of time, we shall
receive a blow, with respect to our military character, to our
reputation, and to our honour, of which it will require years to enable
us to remove the effects.

_January_ 18,1838.

       *       *       *       *       *

_An Elective Legislative Council in Canada deprecated_.

My lords, there is one topic which has been adverted to by the noble and
learned lord (Lord Brougham), upon which I think it necessary to say a
word, although it is not alluded to in the address, and will more
properly form a subject of the discussion on the bill which is to be
brought in upon some future day--and that is the establishment in Lower
Canada of an elective legislative council. The noble and learned lord,
with all his knowledge of Lower Canada, has not, in my opinion,
sufficiently adverted to the fact of the difference of the two races of
inhabitants in that country. My lords, it may be easy to talk, here, of
establishing an elective council, but if the noble and learned lord will
look into the discussions which have taken place upon that subject, and
to the opinions that have been delivered upon it by the different
parties, in that colony, he will find that British inhabitants are to
the full as much opposed to that arrangement as the French are in favour
of it, he will find that in point of fact, they would be in a state of
insurrection against that arrangement, in the same degree as the French
are now supposed to be in a state of insurrection in favour of an
elective legislative council. I will likewise beg the noble and learned
lord, and I would entreat the noble viscount opposite, and every member
of her majesty's government, to attend to this fact, that an elective
legislative council is not the constitution of the British monarchy;
that a legislative council appointed by the monarch is the constitution
of this country; that this was so stated in the discussions upon the
bill passed in the year 1791, by all the great authorities who discussed
that measure, amongst others by Mr. Fox himself. That gentleman said,
"that a legislative council, appointed by the monarch, is an essential
part of the British constitution."

_January_ 18, 1838.

_Concessions to Democracy cannot be rescinded._

Your lordships ought also to recollect that, since the passing of the
reform bill, the taxes required from householders paying 10l. of yearly
rent have been greatly reduced, and I believe that the poor-rates have
also been diminished. These reductions have afforded great relief to
that particular class of persons, greater than has been given to any
other portion of society; and I think that, under the circumstances, the
amount of qualification ought not to be further diminished, for, if it
be, a worse description of electors will be the inevitable consequence.
I perfectly recollect that a noble friend of mine, whom I do not now see
in his place, warned your lordships, on a former occasion, of the danger
of making any approach to democracy in a measure like this; and he told
your lordships that, if once such a measure was adopted, you could never
turn back from it. If it be found, when carried into operation, to act
ever so injuriously--if its tendency be found to be ever so destructive
to the peace and well-being of society--still you cannot fall back on
the point from which you started; for, if once granted, the measure must
be permanent.

_March 8, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Short-sighted Conduct of the West Indian Colonists._

There is no man in this house, or in the country, who has been more
anxious than myself, that the measure passed for the abolition of
slavery should be entirely successful. I have, however, conceived from
the first, that the only chance of its success would arise from the
colonial legislatures acting with good faith, and carrying the measure,
after it had passed the imperial parliament, into strict execution; for
which measure they have received what they acknowledge, by their
adhesion to the principle of the bill, a competent compensation. It
appears, however, to be beyond doubt, that they have not carried the new
system into execution as they ought to have done; and some two or three
years ago, your lordships were under the necessity of consenting to a
bill, rendered necessary in consequence of the legislature of Jamaica
having refused, under not very creditable circumstances, to enact a law
which it had positively promised to pass. Under these circumstances,
considering that we are now approaching to within a couple of years of
the period when a new state of society is to be established in all the
British possessions where slavery has ever existed, I must say, I think
parliament ought not to hesitate about adopting some measure of the
description now proposed, for the purpose of carrying into full and
complete execution the object which the imperial legislature had in view
when the emancipation act was passed. It appears to me, that if the
legislatures of the colonies had acted as sensible men ought to have
done, in the circumstances in which they were placed four years ago,
they would have had before them, and the British parliament would have
had before it, a very different prospect from that which, I fear,
exists at the present moment.

_March_ 13, 1838.

_Lord Melbourne's Government Inimical to the Church._

It appears that the policy of her majesty's government is--I will use
the mildest term that can be employed--not to encourage the established
church. I am afraid that it will appear from what passed in another
place, in the last session of parliament, and even in this, that the
church of England--the established church of England--is not to be
encouraged by her majesty's government. I am sure that those who
recollect what has occurred in parliament, during the last few years,
will admit that no great encouragement has been shown by ministers to
the church of Ireland, that branch of the established church of England
which is stationed in the latter country. I say therefore, my lords,
that this is the policy of the government of this country; and, I must
own, also, it is most sincerely to be lamented by every friend of the
constitution, and of the peace, order, and happiness of the community.

_March 30, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

_A Free Press in Malta deprecated._

Now, in regard to this matter of a free press in Malta, I crave your
lordships' attention to the facts of the case for a moment, and I beg
the house to bear them in mind. What is Malta? It is a fortress and a
seaport--it is a great naval and military arsenal for our shipping and
forces in the Mediterranean. We hold it by conquest. We hold it as an
important post, as a great military and naval arsenal, and as nothing
more. My lords, if these are the facts, we might as well think of
planting a free press on the fore deck of the admiral's flag-ship in the
Mediterranean, or on the caverns of the batteries of Gibraltar, or in
the camp of Sir John Colborne in Canada, as of establishing it in Malta.
A free press in Malta in the Italian language is an absurdity. Of the
hundred thousand individuals who compose the population of Malta,
three-fourths at least speak nothing but the Maltese dialect, and do not
understand the Italian language. Of the one hundred thousand inhabitants
of the island, at least three-fourths can neither read nor write. What
advantages, then, can accrue to the people of Malta from the
establishment of a free press? We do not want to teach our English
sailors and soldiers to understand Italian. A free press will find no
readers among them either. Who, then, is it for? These gentlemen say,
that, unless the government support a free press in Malta, it cannot
exist of itself, and they suggest an expense of £800 a year in its
favour. They have done nothing more than this that I am aware of since
their appointment, and it is plain, that the savings spoken of by the
noble baron as having been effected by their recommendation are
completely swallowed up by the project of a free press. My lords, I
cannot help thinking that it is wholly unnecessary and greatly
unbecoming of the government to form such an establishment, of such a
description, in such a place as Malta; and the more particularly, as the
object for which it is made, must be both of a dangerous tendency to
this country, and fraught with evil to others. The free press which they
propose, is to be conducted, not by foreign Italians, but by Maltese,
subjects of her majesty, enjoying the same privileges as we do. Now,
what does this mean? It means that the licence to do wrong is unlimited.
If it were conducted by foreign Italians, you could have a check upon
them if they acted in such a manner as would tend to compromise us with
our neighbours--you could send them out of the island--you could prevent
their doing injury in that manner by various ways. But here you have no
such check--you have no check at all--your free press in that respect is
uncontrollable. If the free press chooses to preach up insurrection in
Italy from its den in Malta, you have no power of preventing it. Were
the conductors foreign Italians you could lay your hand on them at once,
and dispose of them as aliens; but you cannot do that with the Maltese
subjects, enjoying the same right and possessing the same freedom as
ourselves. I did hope, that we should have been cured by this time of
our experiments on exciting insurrection in the other countries of
Europe--in the dominions of neighbouring princes--in the territories of
our allies. I did think that we had received a sufficient lesson in
these matters to last us a long time, even for ever, in the results
which have taken place through such interference in Portugal, Spain,
Italy--ay, and in Canada too--and that they had put an end to our
dangerous mania for exciting insurrection in foreign countries. Such, my
lords, I assert is the object of a free press in Malta--to excite
insurrection in the dominions of our neighbour and ally, the King of the
Two Sicilies, and in the dominions of the King of Sardinia--and I
confess that I am ashamed of the government, considering the results
that have taken place, from the doctrines promulgated by it, that they
have not done everything in their power to suppress instead of
encouraging and supporting it; and that they had not sent out their
commissions with full power to do so, rather than instructed them to
call for its establishment.

_May 3, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

_State of Poverty in Ireland._

Of all the countries in Europe, Ireland is the one in which it has
appeared to me to be least possible to establish anything in the nature
of the English poor-laws. The opinion delivered by others has been, that
there are no materials to be found in Ireland proper for forming, or if
formed for administering with salutary effect, any system of poor-laws
such as exists in this country; and I, my lords, believe that there is
no doubt whatever of the justice and truth of that opinion, considering
the English poor-laws, as they formerly existed, and as they were
carried into execution up to the year 1834, when the noble lords
opposite introduced the measure which amended them. While, however, I
say this, I am bound at the same time to express my entire concurrence
in the opinion declared by the noble viscount, that there never was a
country in which poverty existed to such a degree as it exists in that
part of the United Kingdom. My lords, I was in office in that country--I
held a high situation in the administration of the government of Ireland
thirty years ago--and I must say, that from that time to this there has
scarcely elapsed a single year in which the government has not at
certain periods of it entertained the most serious apprehensions of
actual famine. My lords, I am firmly convinced that from the year 1806
down to the present time, a year has not passed in which the government
have not been called on to give assistance to relieve the poverty and
distress which prevailed in Ireland, and owing to circumstances over
which no human power could have any control. One of the circumstances
which has most frequently led to this lamentable state of things, has
been the failure or delay of the potato crops, and there have been known
times when two, three, and even as many as four months have intervened
before these crops, which are used as a subsistence by the people, could
be brought into the market; and such are the social relations in that
country, that the people have no means of coming to market to purchase
like the people of England. My lords, this is a fact that is undoubted,
and one that I believe never existed in any country in the world except
Ireland.

_May 21, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Numbers of a Meeting may render it Illegal._

The numbers of a meeting--that is to say, such an assembly of persons as
would create terror in the minds of people living in the
neighbourhood,--would justify the magistrate in taking measures to
disperse it.

_June 15, 1838._

_Real cause of our interference in Spain._

The system of interference adopted by his late majesty's government, by
means of the quadruple treaty, was with a view to the contest between
extreme opinions--it was more with a view of aiding these extreme
opinions, than to the arrangement of the mere differences between Don
Carlos, upon the one side, and the queen, or her daughter, upon the
other; to support certain opinions, and not to determine the succession,
was the cause of interference. I regret interference upon that ground; I
object to interference upon that ground; and I say, moreover, that we
were not right in interfering upon that ground. I maintain that, more
particularly on account of the extreme opinions that prevailed, we ought
not to have interfered at all; but most especially we ought not,
according to the common practice of this government, and in accordance
with the declared political principles of the noble lords themselves, to
have interfered in a question involving extreme political opinions. Now
it has unfortunately happened that extreme political principles have
been forced upon a great part of Europe by means of large armies and of
great military forces, and it was consequently expected that the same
thing would succeed in Spain. This, I believe, was the object of our
interference with Spain, and not to determine the Spanish succession.

_June 19, 1838._

_We had no right to interfere against Don Carlos._

I say we had no business to interfere in the question of succession.
There might have been some pretext for interference in the question of
succession, if any of the powers of Europe had taken part with Don
Carlos, but that was not the case. The noble baron (Lord Holland)
cheers. I say, confidently, that not one of the powers in Europe had
stirred a finger in support of the pretensions of Don Carlos. I say,
then, that, according to all principles--the principles supported and
acted upon by this country, in the case of the house of Braganza, and
many other cases that I could mention--we ought to have avoided
interference; and we ought to have avoided interference by armies more
particularly, in the contests in Spain. I say, my lords, that not a
sword had been moved in Europe in favour of Don Carlos. When Don Carlos
went to Spain, in the summer of 1834, there were not three battalions in
arms in that country in his favour. This I positively state as a fact.
But, on the contrary, in the space of forty leagues there were forty
fortified posts in possession of the queen's troops. Now, my lords, this
is a positive fact; and I say that, in the year 1835, when the armistice
was negotiated, when the exchange of prisoners was negotiated by Lord
Eliot, Don Carlos had then acquired a superiority over the queen's
forces, who were obliged to take up a position on the right of the Ebro.
That is to say, between the interval of time I have mentioned,--and this
is a positive fact upon which your lordships may rely, and to which I
pledge my word,--between the summer of 1834 and the period at which the
exchange of prisoners was agreed upon in 1835,--that is, in the course
of a very few months,--the superiority had been gained by Don Carlos in
that part of the country, so far that he had forced the enemy to take up
a position on the other side of the Ebro, abandoning all their fortified
posts, except Pampeluna and one other; and, I must add, they had very
wisely abandoned them, because they found they could not march to their
relief through the country. Now, my lords, this is literally and truly a
fact; and it is a fact not to be forgotten, with respect to the present
contest in Spain. I say, then, that it was the business of this
government not to have interfered by force. We ought not to have done
so, according to the noble marquis's principle--that there ought to be
no interference between two hostile parties in a nation like Spain.

_June 19, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Legion a failure._

The noble viscount has told your lordships, certainly, that he sent out
an expedition; and the noble marquis has informed us that it has always
been the policy of this country to encourage such expeditions. Now,
without meaning to assert that the result of that expedition was a dire
catastrophe, I must be permitted to say that the legion has been, in my
opinion and conviction, a complete failure. It has cost the Spanish
government an enormous sum of money. Great expectations were raised
respecting it, not one of which has been fulfilled. When the legion went
to Spain, the Queen of Spain's army was in all the provinces, with the
exception of Biscay and Navarre. Her government was established in all
parts of Spain, excepting these places. Excepting them, all other places
might be said to be in a state of tranquillity. But it appears the Queen
of Spain could not carry on the war, unless she got ten thousand Isle of
Dogsmen--a legion from England, and another from France. If the Spanish
government had asked for officers, or for arms, or for money, or for
artillery, I should not have been surprised, as I know well the manner
in which the Spanish arsenals are supplied. But asking for 10,000 men
from England to destroy Don Carlos, who was shut up in the mountains,
was a matter really not to be seriously thought of. The object was not
to bring 10,000, or 15,000, or 20,000 men into action, but to bring the
red coats and the blue coats, the French and English troops, into the
contest; that was the object, and the view was, to produce a moral
effect. But the government ought to have known that that which gave them
the influence on the one side, was fatal to that influence on the other.
Thus was an end put to that moral influence which this country could,
and ought to have exerted, but which can only be effectually exercised
by strict adherence, throughout all her proceedings, to the plain
principles of justice. If this country enter into a treaty, let her
carry it honourably through; but let her not push her interference
further than is necessary for exerting her influence over both parties,
in order to settle existing differences. I have said that the legion was
a failure. Of that there cannot be the slightest doubt. The war is now
in the same state as it was in the year 1835, except that Don Carlos has
more men.

_June 19, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Opposition should give aid to the Government when a war is
inevitable._

The noble viscount tells us that we did not object to the appointment of
the Earl of Durham as governor-general of Canada--that we did not object
to the powers confided to him; that we--referring particularly to
me--urged this government by all the means in their power to send out
large forces, and take care to be strong in that part of the world;
advice which, I admit, I did repeat over and over again, until I
fatigued myself and the house by doing so. But why did I not object to
those powers being given to the Earl of Durham? Because, seeing the
government in difficulties--seeing the colony in a state of
rebellion--and seeing that the government possessed confidence in
another place--I thought it was not my duty to excite opposition to
measures which they thought it might be proper to adopt; and therefore I
took them all upon their recommendation. Very possibly I was wrong in so
doing; indeed, it appears that I was wrong; but I took the course which
I then considered it my duty to take. I declared that I would not follow
the example of those who, being convinced of the certainty that the
country would be involved in a war, yet thought proper to oppose all
measures that were necessary for carrying on that war. Neither would I
deny assistance to those who were absent, and who were carrying on the
government to the best of their ability; but I would give the government
a fair support, in order to pacify a country which might be in a state
of war or rebellion. That was the course which I followed on the
occasion alluded to by the noble viscount. With respect to the Earl of
Durham, I am personally unacquainted with him; and I considered that the
noble viscount and her majesty's government ought to have known best who
was the person most qualified to act as governor of Canada.

_August 9, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Lord Durham's Ordinance[20] a grossly illegal Act._

A grossly illegal act has been committed--not a mere technical error, or
one having reference to small or nice points of law, but an illegal act
of great magnitude, and relating to points of the most grave
importance--an act so clearly illegal, that no man capable of
understanding the first principles of justice can doubt of its
impropriety. It is impossible that the people of this country can suffer
any man to be driven into banishment without trial, or that they can
allow him, afterwards, to be condemned to death, without having been
convicted of any crime but that of returning to his own country.

[Footnote 20: The Earl of Durham, governor-general of the Canadas, had
issued an ordinance, transporting to Bermuda Dr. Nelson and seven
others, guilty by confession of high treason, and subjecting them to
death if they returned to Canada. Lord Brougham, actuated, as was
asserted by some, by personal feeling against Lord Durham, protested
against this act in the face of the country. His speech on the occasion
was one of the most powerful he ever delivered. It is scarcely necessary
to add that Lord Durham immediately and precipitately resigned his
governorship.]

_August 9, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Inadequacy of our Navy._

There is nothing more certain than that, if you come to be entirely
dependent for corn on the countries bordering on the Baltic, you would
have the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Russia (as has been known
before), levying a tax upon the exportation of that article of food to
the Thames, and elsewhere in this country. * * I entirely agree with the
noble and learned lord on the expediency of avoiding any interference
with foreign powers on the subject of commercial matters; but I confess
that I cannot view the state of our commercial relations, and of our
position in the world generally, in connection with these commercial
pursuits, with any degree of unmixed satisfaction. On the contrary, I do
deplore the state in which we find ourselves placed in many parts of the
world, particularly as it has been described in the course of the
evening by my noble friend (Viscount Strangford). What I attribute that
state of our commercial relations to, in a great degree, is, the extreme
weakness and tottering condition of our naval establishments. I do not
mean to complain of the distribution of our naval establishments;
though, at the same time, I by no means intend to unsay what I have said
in respect to the expeditions to Spain, which I cannot approve of; but I
repeat my expression that I consider our naval establishments to be in
too weak and tottering a condition to answer the purpose for which they
were intended, which was to give protection to the commercial interests
of the country in all parts of the world; for the commerce of England
does extend to all parts of the world. There is not a port, not a river,
which is not visited by the ships of her majesty's subjects; and her
majesty's subjects have an undoubted right to protection in whatever
part of the world they may think proper to visit in the pursuits of
commerce. The circumstance of which I complain I do not at all attribute
to neglect upon the part of the admiralty, neither do I include in my
censure the noble earl who is at the head of the admiralty; but those I
do blame are the individuals who have thought proper to reduce the
establishments of the country to such a degree, that protection cannot
possibly be given in all places where it is required.

       *       *       *       *       *

I will remind your lordships that, since the peace, and particularly
within the last twenty years, three great navies have sprung up in
Europe, which are four times as strong as they were at any former
period. Other navies, it is true, are put down; but we remain much the
same. A great deal has been said, by way of comparison, between the
strength of our navy in 1792, and in the years 1814 and 1815; but when
we talk of strength in this case, we ought not to look at the subject
without adverting to the naval establishments of other powers. Now,
although our marine force should even be on the same footing as before,
our commerce is not only tripled, but extended to a degree ten times
greater than it ever was before; and there is not a part of the earth,
from one pole to the other, in which the protection of our navy is not
required for our commerce. I must say that, if we should at any time
incur the misfortune of being involved in another war--which God
forbid!--the only mode of keeping out of the difficulty would be to
maintain such a navy as would give protection to her majesty's subjects
in all parts of the globe.

_August 14, 1838._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Neutrality of Belgium._

I hope that it never may be lost sight of in this country, that the
original foundation of the independence of Belgium, as a separate
kingdom, was this condition, namely, its perpetual neutrality. That
condition I consider to have been the foundation of that transaction,
and I hope that this will never be forgotten by this country, or by
Europe.

_February 5, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Aggressions on Canada from the United States._

I must say I should very much wish to see suitable measures adopted to
carry into execution the intentions which her majesty declares in her
speech, of maintaining her rights of sovereignty over Canada. The system
of levying private war which prevails on that continent is not wholly
unknown in other parts of the world. I have read of it as existing in
the deserts of Central Asia; I have heard of its being practised, as a
system, by the Asiatics on the frontiers of the Russian monarchy, where
a perpetual warfare is going on between those tribes and the troops sent
to repress their inroads--a warfare that has been waged in those
countries from century to century. We read also of circumstances of the
same kind occurring in Africa--of wars carried on by barbarous tribes
against the possessions of the British government in Africa, the
contests of savages against a civilized people. But this is a war
carried on by a nation supposed to be considerably advanced in the scale
of civilization--by men governing themselves, electing their servants by
ballot and general suffrage, and living under institutions of that
description. Yet these are the very men who come in at night, and with
fire and torch destroy the property of her majesty's subjects, for no
reason whatever except that they obey her majesty's laws, and carry into
effect her royal commands. Of such a system of warfare there are, I
believe, no examples, except, as I have stated, among the most lawless
of the barbarous tribes of the East and of Africa. It is quite out of
the question that her majesty's loyal subjects, invited to their
habitations, and fixed in them, by her majesty's authority and that of
her predecessors, should not endeavour to retaliate the sufferings thus
inflicted upon them, unless protected by the strong arm of government;
but how can government protect them, except by taking strong measures,
when these persons are found invading her majesty's dominions for the
purpose of plundering and destroying the property of her majesty's
subjects, to intercept them in their retreat, to take them prisoners,
and punish them according to the laws of the country they have insulted?

       *       *       *       *       *

There can be no doubt a civil government in any country is capable of
preventing the collection of a body of troops, and the invasion of the
territory of a neighbouring power. A body of "sympathisers" has been
organised in the States to carry on the plan of invasion; and are we to
sit down quietly and pass unnoticed this unwarrantable interference?

_February 5, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Agitation by Authority._

I now come to the last paragraph of the speech, in which her majesty
complains, that she has observed with pain the efforts which have been
made, in some parts of the country, to excite her subjects to
disobedience and resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and
illegal acts. Now, I really think that this affecting paragraph cannot
have raised very pleasant reflections in the breasts of many noble lords
who are in the habit of supporting her majesty's ministers. It is but
too true that various persons have endeavoured to excite her majesty's
subjects to resist the law; but I am afraid much of this spirit may be
traced to what has taken place in this house on former occasions. I have
heard persons, charged with the highest employments of government,
insisting upon the rights of this people to assemble for the expression
of their sentiments, declaiming against any restriction on that right,
and preaching upon this doctrine without restricting it in the manner
declared by law--namely, that these assemblies must not be in numbers
sufficient to create alarm. It was but very lately that a great officer
of state, travelling about the country, made a speech to the same
purport at Liverpool, and stated those opinions in the most unreserved
manner, at the very moment when men were assembling by torch-light
meetings. We have heard for a number of years past of the extraordinary
tranquillity of Ireland, and as often as I have listened to the phrase,
I have protested against it; but there is a gentleman, high in the
confidence of government, who goes about devising new modes of agitation
every day. That gentleman ought to have a special copy of the speech
sent to him! One time he talks of raising 2,000,000 of men--at another
time of a fund of 20,000 l. sterling, which is deposited in his private
bank, and ultimately to be deposited in his private pocket. In order to
further his new schemes of agitation, that gentleman has declared his
intention of raising 60,000 fighting men for her majesty, though he has
never, that I am aware of, been employed as a recruiting officer.
Sometimes these boasts do not turn out to be true; but if not 60,000
persons, there may be 6,000, or some force of that description, which
would be a serious inconvenience to the government.

_February 5, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Folly of carrying on war with a peace establishment._

This country is at war--at war in two quarters of the world--at war in
America and at war in Asia; and what I say is this, that when a country
is at war, I understand that the fleet of that country should be put
upon a war establishment; whereas, these returns are made on a peace
establishment--nay, I believe on one much lower,--on a reduced peace
establishment; and yet we are pretending to carry on war in two
countries of the world with such means! I warned your lordships a year
and a half ago--indeed nearly two years ago, against any such attempt. I
believe that we have been feeling the inconvenience of such an attempt
from that period up to the present time, and I only hope and trust in
God, that we shall not experience still further inconvenience and
disasters from our perseverance in it. A peace establishment, and a
reduced peace establishment, may be very fit and very proper for
carrying on the service of the country in time of peace; but when we
come to carry on war, our peace establishment is not found equal to the
performance of the duties required from the establishment in time of
peace, and still less to those extended duties which must be performed
in time of war.

       *       *       *       *       *

We are carrying on a war in North America, and a most expensive war in
Asia; and both of them require all the force this country can employ in
order to bring them to an early and an honourable termination. We are,
however, engaging in both with a reduced peace establishment, and we are
incurring all descriptions of risks, in every other part of the world,
in order to do this. The noble earl (Minto) has been talking about a
few masts and sails, when the whole force which the country can command
ought to be engaged in the war now waging, in order to bring the contest
to the honourable termination I speak of. I said this about a year and a
half ago, and I now repeat it.

_March 7, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Corn Laws have improved Agriculture._

The system which it is the object of the existing law to establish, is
one of encouragement to agriculture--a system which was established at
the termination of the last century, and under which I will venture to
assert, the agriculture of this country has made a progress, and has
risen to a degree of superiority throughout these kingdoms, greater than
exists in any other part of the world, not excepting even the
Netherlands. Under this system of encouragement to agriculture, large
sums of money have been laid out and invested in land, and property
relating to land; and great sums are at this moment in the course of
investment in the same way; and I call on your lordships not to agree to
any resolution, or to any measure of the government (if they should
think proper to propose any such measure), which will have the effect of
withdrawing from agriculture this protection, and thus putting a stop to
those great improvements which are at present in progress, and which, I
say, have had such an influence on agriculture, that the amount of
produce raised in this country is thereby greatly increased. I believe
that the produce of the country has been immensely increased, and
particularly in the valuable article of wheat, the annual production of
which is now nearly equal to its greatest annual consumption. Such is
the supply of wheat that the very lowest order of the people subsist
mostly upon it; which is not, I believe, the practice in any other
country. The practice is not known any where else; it is not known in
France; it is not known in Germany; it is not known in the Netherlands;
nor is it, in short, the case any where else. In fact, the lower orders
live upon wheaten bread in no country of the world except England. I
entreat your lordships to bear this in mind; I entreat you not to break
down a system which has carried cultivation to such a pitch, that an
amount of produce is raised in England, alone, which is found to be
nearly equal to her greatest annual consumption. I think the annual
amount of produce will increase. This is my firm belief; and I am
confident that with the increase of produce there must come, and come
naturally too, a corresponding decrease of price; and it is to that
consequence that I look as being the solution of all the difficulties
which at present attend this question. But, let your lordships
recollect, it is absolutely necessary to keep up this encouragement in
order to arrive at the desired result of the reduction of price. Very
lately, when wheat in this country was at 78s. the quarter, and the duty
on importation was a merely nominal one of 1s. a quarter, was there any
such quantity of foreign wheat introduced as was sufficient to lower the
price? Not at all. The moment the ports were opened, the merchant
importer stood on the same ground as the farmer, and he would not sell
his corn for 1s. less than the price of the day. Did we ever hear of
corn coming in from abroad, and being brought to market at a cheaper
rate than it was selling for in this country? Never. But look to the
operation of the law prevailing in the former part of the war; the
prices varied from 70s. to 150s. the quarter. Did we ever hear of
foreign corn being sold for 1s. less than what could be got for it in
the general markets of this country? It must be sold by the merchant
importer at the very same price as by the farmer. It is all very fine to
say that the price would be exceedingly low, if these laws were
abolished, and corn were allowed to be introduced without restriction.
Why, if the price of corn raised in this country were low, the foreigner
could not get more for his corn here, than the farmer; but if the price
of home grown corn were necessarily high, the introduction of foreign
corn would not reduce it.

_March 14, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Repeal of the Corn Laws will raise the price of Corn._

It is very important to look at this question with reference to the
interests of the commerce of the country, and also to consider the
effect of the abolition of the corn laws on the price of provisions and
on the price of manufactures. Now, if we discourage agriculture to such
a degree that any large body of persons and a great amount of capital
come to be withdrawn from it, the price of native produce must rise;
there would be so much less produce raised than before, that its
price--the price of the native produce I mean--must rise. Now, the price
of the corn imported will be the price of the diminished quantity of the
home-raised corn. Would the manufacturing labourer benefit by this?
Would the manufacturer find any advantage in it, when the diminished
value of their wages was forcing the labourers to raise the market upon
him? Would the merchant exporter gain anything by the change? Would it
not be found that, in proportion as the manufacturer must pay a larger
amount of wages, the prices of his manufactures must be augmented; and
therefore the disadvantages of competition with merchants abroad be
augmented likewise?

_March 14, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Foreign Governments would Tax the Export of their Corn._

There is another view of the question which I beseech your lordships to
take--I mean the question of our dependence on foreign produce for a
great part of our annual consumption, which would be caused by the
abolition of the present law. On looking over the papers which have been
produced on former discussions of this subject, I have seen proofs that
in certain countries duties are paid upon the exportation of corn thence
hither; and that statements are made by the sovereigns of those
countries to this effect:--"As the corn is wanted by Great Britain, and
her subjects can afford to pay the duty, therefore they shall pay it."
This duty must come out of the pocket of her majesty's subjects, and be
taken into account in the price of the goods of the manufacturers. Your
lordships have heard a great deal upon the competition of foreign
manufacturers with our own in foreign markets. I certainly am one who
does not despise the consideration of these subjects; which, on the
contrary, I think of very high importance; but this question is a large
one, and it is necessary to consider it on rather broader grounds. This
very consideration may be material with respect to some countries of
which we have been the creditors; but I do not see how our relations
with those which are not corn countries can be affected by any change in
the corn laws. The power of taxation, which would be thrown into the
hands of foreign powers, in the event of the repeal of the corn laws,
constitutes, in my view, a most important feature of the case. Suppose
we were involved in an arduous competition with Prussian or Russian
manufacturers for the supply of a particular article: if we should make
up our minds to rely solely on those countries for a supply of corn, as
we are called upon to do by the opponents of the corn laws,--and if the
success of our manufactures depends on the abundance and cheapness of
corn among our population--must we not expect, according to the usual
course of such affairs among mankind, that the corn exported from those
countries would be taxed so as to render the food of our manufacturers
as dear as it would be under any other circumstances? If that is likely
to be the case, I would strongly advise you, my lords, to agree to no
measure which may render this country dependent upon others for its
supply of food. Let us persevere in those measures which have been
successful in raising the agriculture of this country and increasing its
produce; let us increase its produce to the utmost possible degree, and
render all the articles of food as cheap as possible; and then let us
see what can be done with reference to commerce and its interests; but
let us, I entreat, begin by securing to her majesty's subjects a supply
of the best food from the produce of her majesty's own dominions.

_March 14, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_As a public man, stands on public grounds._

The noble earl (Radnor) says that I am an advocate for a monopoly; and
he talks about my not assisting the landlords, not assisting the
farmers, and not assisting the labourers. My lords, I know nothing about
landlords, farmers, or labourers, when I am advocating a legislative
question of a public nature in this house. I have nothing to say to them
any farther than as their interests are identified with those of the
community at large. I beg the noble lord to understand, when I come into
this house, I come here upon the public interest. I have no more to say
to landlords, farmers, or labourers, than the noble earl himself; and I
am thoroughly convinced there is not a noble friend near me who does not
look at this question solely on public grounds, and those which he
conceives it to be for the interest of the country to take.

_March 14, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Objections to a free press in Malta._

I am one of those who have always thought, that if there existed any
part of her majesty's dominions in which a free press was not necessary,
Malta was that part. Our business there is to maintain a garrison and a
great naval station. Malta contains a population of 100,000 persons, for
whom I entertain the highest respect and regard, being convinced that
her majesty has no better or more devoted subjects than they are. It is
the duty of government, and the duty of this house, as far as it can, to
superintend the good government of the people of Malta--a people who
talk the Maltese language, and the Maltese language alone--a people, of
whom not one in 500 can read a line. Surely, of all the institutions of
this country which are the least necessary for men of this description,
and I declare my belief that it is a true description of the people of
Malta, I may venture to assert a free press is that one institution. I
will not dispute that hereafter much good may arise from a free press,
but education is much more necessary for the people of Malta. A free
press cannot be rendered useful to them, much less advantageous, without
that training which they require, and that education which ought to be
given to them. There is a certain liberal set of gentlemen in this
country who think a free press in Malta exceedingly desirable, not for
the sake of any advantage to the inhabitants, but for the sake of the
advantage to be produced on the neighbouring coast of France, and Spain,
and Italy. This is the truth with respect to this free press. * * I
believe that we have now had enough of private wars, and I believe that
we now seek what advantage it would have been, if we had never
undertaken those private wars, not only in other parts of the world, but
also a little nearer home. I must say that the objects of them are
inconsistent with the interests--aye, and inconsistent with the
honour--of this country; inconsistent with the interests of the country,
because, as I always have maintained, and always shall maintain, the
interests of this country must depend, not only on the maintenance of
peace for itself, but on its preventing, if possible, disturbances among
other nations; and inconsistent with its honour, because I will say,
that its honour does depend on not exciting rebellions and insurrections
in other nations, at the same moment that the government here is
ostensibly at peace with those nations. Now, that is the ground on which
I have always objected to a free press in Malta. I object to it, because
I contend that the intention entertained is to have a free press, not
for Malta, but for the neighbouring regions of Italy, France, and Spain;
and if you must have a free press for the Maltese, in the name of God
let it be in the Maltese language!

_April 30, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Malta. Its riches and resources._

I have reason to know something of Malta; I know something of its
resources; and, instead of its being misgoverned, I can only say that in
the course of my intercourse with that island, I was astonished at the
immensity of its resources of all descriptions, and at the readiness
with which these resources were afforded to his majesty's troops and
armies, in order to enable them to carry on war against an enemy. It is
but an act of justice to those noble and honourable persons who have
governed Malta, to say thus much; and I must add that, having known that
island for a period of nearly twenty years, I really believe that, on
the face of the globe there is not a place of the same extent and
population which possesses one thousandth part of its riches and
resources of all descriptions.

_April 30, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Indifference to Reports._

I have served the sovereigns and the public of this country for fifty
years, and throughout the whole of that period I have been exposed to
evil report and to good report, and I have still continued to serve on
through all report, both good and evil, and thus I confess myself to be
completely indifferent to the nature of all reports.

_May 14, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Personal Attendants of the Sovereign. Their Political Influence._

When the noble viscount announced in this house on Tuesday last that he
had resigned his office, the probable consequences of that announcement
occurred to my mind, and I turned my attention in consequence to the
state of the government at the present moment--to the state of the royal
authority--to the composition of the royal household--and to all those
circumstances which were likely to come under my consideration, in case
I were called upon to assist in advising the composition of another
administration. I confess, that it appeared to me impossible that any
set of men should take charge of her majesty's government without having
the usual influence and control over the establishment of the royal
household--that influence and control which their immediate predecessors
in office had exercised before them. As the royal household was formed
by their predecessors in office, the possession of that influence and
that control over it appeared to me to be absolutely necessary, to let
the public see that the ministers who were about to enter upon office
had and possessed the entire confidence of her majesty. I considered
well the nature of the formation of the royal household under the civil
list act passed at the commencement of her majesty's reign. I considered
well the difference between the household of a queen-consort and the
household of a queen-regnant. The queen-consort not being a political
person in the same light as a queen-regnant, I considered the
construction of her majesty's household--I considered who filled offices
in it--I considered all the circumstances attendant on the influence of
the household, and the degree of confidence which it might be necessary
for the government to repose in the members of it. I was sensible of the
serious and anxious nature of the charge which the minister in
possession of that control and influence over her majesty's household
would have laid upon him. I was sensible that in everything which he
did, and in every step which he took as to the household, he ought to
consult not only the honour of her majesty's crown, and her royal state
and dignity, but also her social condition, her ease, her convenience,
her comfort--in short, everything which tended to the solace and
happiness of her life. I reflected on all these considerations as
particularly incumbent on the ministers who should take charge of the
affairs of this country; I reflected on the age, the sex, the situation,
and the comparative inexperience, of the sovereign on the throne; and I
must say that if I had been, or if I was to be, the first person to be
consulted, with respect to the exercise of the influence and control in
question, I would suffer any inconvenience whatever, rather than take
any step as to the royal household which was not compatible with her
majesty's comforts.

       *       *       *       *       *

I cannot but think that the principles on which we proposed to act with
respect to the ladies of the bed-chamber, in the case of a
queen-regnant, were the correct principles. The public will not believe
that the queen holds no political conversation with those ladies, and
that political influence is not exercised by them, particularly
considering who those persons are who hold such situations. I believe
the history of this country affords a number of instances in which
secret and improper influence has been exercised by means of such
conversations. I have, my lords, a somewhat strong opinion on this
subject. I have unworthily filled the office which the noble viscount
now so worthily holds; and I must say I have felt the inconvenience of
an anomalous influence, not exercised, perhaps, by ladies, but anomalous
influence, undoubtedly, of this description, and exerted simply in
conversations; and I will tell the noble viscount that the country is at
this moment suffering some inconvenience from the exercise of that very
secret influence.

_May 14, 1839._

A war carried on by militia, volunteers, and troops of that description,
will infallibly be carried on after the manner of civil wars.

May 30, 1839.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reasons for passing the Poor Law._

I have been long enough in parliament to recollect that, before the
present law passed, there were not less than half-a-dozen attempts made,
by some of the greatest men this country ever produced, to amend the
system of the poor laws. Among others, the late Mr. Pitt endeavoured to
amend these laws, but failed, and for a reason which I believe
occasioned the failure of every attempt to alter them until that which
was successfully made within these five years, when the present poor law
amendment act was passed, principally by the exertions of the noble and
learned lord (Lord Brougham). The real truth of the matter was
this--that in every parish in the country there existed some abuses, I
will venture to say a hundred times greater than any of those with which
the noble earl (Stanhope) entertains your lordships upon every vacant
day that presents itself. In every parish, I repeat, there were abuses;
and, in each, abuses founded upon a different principle from those
existing in some neighbouring parish; so that no law could be devised to
remedy them; for the measure which would apply to parish A, instead of
removing the abuses existing in parish B, would only have tended to
aggravate and render them intolerable. At length, there was a very
general and searching inquiry into the whole state of the administration
of the poor laws; the result of which was, that the present measure was
arranged and produced to parliament. It passed both houses in a very
short space of time, and, I believe, on the principle there was no
division whatever, and hardly a difference of opinion, in this house; I
believe there was none in the other house of parliament, and very little
difference of opinion was expressed upon any part of the details. With
respect to the administration of the law, I have observed it in
different parts of the country, and I must say that its administration
has been entirely satisfactory, and most particularly to those parties
who are likely to become its more immediate objects. That part of the
law of which the noble earl complains most, namely, the existence of the
poor law commissioners, is, in my opinion, the most important part of
it. The truth of the matter is, that the abuses in the administration of
the poor laws were so numerous, so various, and, at the same time, so
inveterate, that it was absolutely impossible to get the better of them,
without the constitution of some central authority which should
superintend the execution of the law; taking care that it was duly
administered, and that those intrusted with its execution in the country
did not infringe upon its provisions. Such, I believe, was the object of
the institution of those boards of guardians and commissioners.

_June 18, 1839._

_The Ballot and Universal Suffrage dangerous. Open questions a symptom
of weakness in a Government._

I fully concur with the noble viscount (Melbourne) in the propriety of
opposing the further extension of the suffrage, and upon the very same
ground, namely, that such extension would be inconsistent with the best
interests of the country. I likewise concur in the sentiments which that
noble viscount has expressed upon the subject of the ballot; that
obnoxious, and, I must say, un-English measure; at the same time I
deeply regret that the noble viscount did think proper to make it what
is called an open question. I had the misfortune to be in office when
there were such questions, and I must say, that I never could consider
them as anything but a symptom of weakness on the part of those who were
carrying on the service of their sovereign--a symptom that they were not
acting together, that they did not agree amongst themselves, and that
there was a division also amongst their supporters. Instead of its being
a matter of satisfaction that an individual question like the ballot
should be left an open question, I regard it as a circumstance most
likely to prove disastrous to the government, and eventually so to the
country.

June 25, 1839.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Birmingham Riots in 1839. The town treated worse than if taken by
storm._

I have been accused of "exaggeration."[21] That may be a parliamentary
phrase; I will not presume to decide that it is an unparliamentary
term; but I believe that it is a term not much used amongst gentlemen.
It has been employed, however, in a privileged place, that must be
nameless, and I shall advert to it no farther than to notice the
conclusions which may be drawn from the use of such a term in reference
to what I did say. I trust your lordships will excuse me for a few
moments upon this subject, because I really think I have been most
unjustifiably made the subject of a personal attack for what I stated in
this, your lordships' house, with respect to the late riots in
Birmingham. What I stated, my lords, was founded on the same species of
information which, it appears, was in the possession of her majesty's
government; for, neither the noble viscount, nor any of the other noble
lords opposite, knew any more of the subject than I did; they knew
nothing beyond what they had seen in the newspapers; and I stated, at
the time, that I knew nothing beyond that, myself, with regard to the
facts. But I compared the transactions at Birmingham with certain other
transactions, of which, certainly, I have more knowledge than most noble
lords in this house; matters on which I had a certain and positive
knowledge; and I said (and I firmly believe that it was correct, and
that, in making the comparison I did not, in the least degree, depart
from the truth), that the peaceable inhabitants of the town of
Birmingham were worse treated, upon that occasion, than the inhabitants
of any town I had ever known or seen taken by assault. This is what I
asserted; and, it is the fact, according to my opinion.

[Footnote 21: A member of the House of Commons had used this term as
applied to the Duke's remarks on this subject, a few nights previously.]
* * * * *

I cannot help thinking that it is extraordinary that, in the year 1839,
after nine years of liberal government,--after nine years' enjoyment of
the blessings of liberal government,--your lordships should be
discussing whether or not the amount of destruction completed within a
peaceful town within her majesty's dominions is equal to the mischief
done to a town which is taken by storm. And yet this has been clearly
demonstrated to be the case. It is clear, my lords, that in peaceful,
happy England, which carried on a war for twenty-two years, and which
made the most extraordinary efforts to maintain that war, as she did,
with circumstances of glory and success attending her arms in all parts
of the world,--in order to avoid as it was hoped, these miseries, and so
that no such disasters as these might ever approach her shores,--in this
same happy and peaceful England, after nine years of liberal government,
here is a town plundered, and its peace destroyed; and yet I am accused
of exaggeration, because I say I never knew any town, taken by storm, to
be so ill-used as this fine town has been. I confess I am not at all
surprised, however, at the conduct of the noble lord who so liberally
applied the term "exaggeration" to what I said, when I reflect who are
the followers and supporters of that noble lord.

_July 22, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Legal redress against Magistrates._

I apprehend that, according to the law of England, any individual is at
liberty to complain of the conduct of a magistrate, and proceed against
him in a court of law. No one has ever doubted that, in this country,
every individual has a right so to complain of, and to proceed against,
the magistrates, when the magistrates misconduct themselves. It is in
accordance only with the _Code Napoléon_,--with the code of laws of that
high priest of liberalism, the Emperor Napoleon,--that the consent of
the council of state should be given, before a justice misconducting
himself can be tried and punished. Hitherto, in this country, the
practice and the law have been different on that head; and I hope we
shall hear no more of such proceedings. But follow out the system laid
down in the letter from the Home Office, and the result will be that no
man--- particularly if he have to complain of the conduct of a
magistrate--will, without the consent of the home secretary, go into a
court of justice to obtain redress. My lords, to such a course I trust I
shall see some check put, before it is further established by
precedents.

July 22,1839.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reasons for Supporting the Penny Postage Bill_.

In the preamble of this bill, it is stated to have for its object the
establishment, in this country, of a low and uniform rate of postage. I
admit the truth of the arguments stated by the noble viscount upon the
expediency, and, indeed, the necessity, of establishing an uniform and
low rate of postage in this country. These arguments have been urged
more than once by my noble friend near me (Lord Ashburton), and by the
noble duke who heretofore filled the office of postmaster general, but
whom I do not see in his place this evening. If, however, the object be
only to reduce the expense of postage, and to establish an uniform rate,
I imagine that the power of the government is already sufficient for
such a purpose, although the power was not granted for that immediate
object; but the object with which the power was given was, for the
purpose of enabling the government to adopt that particular plan which
is called Mr. Rowland Hill's plan, and which, I am certainly disposed to
admit, was, of all plans, if adopted exactly as Mr. Hill proposed it,
the most likely to be successful. At the same time, I must say, I am
afraid the present plan will not be entirely successful. I think, in the
first place, that a great mistake is committed, in the assumption that
the reduction in the rate of postage down to a penny, even to be paid on
the delivery of the letter, would induce any very considerable increase
of literary correspondence. I possessed, for many years, an extensive
knowledge of the degree of advantage attendant upon such a system in the
army; and I can safely assert to your lordships, that it is quite
curious to remark how small an amount of correspondence is carried on by
soldiers, notwithstanding they enjoy the utmost facility for doing so.
One remarkable instance I will mention, just to show that it is not
quite certain that a large increase of correspondence will take place in
consequence of the rate of postage being reduced to a penny. In the case
of a highland regiment, it was positively ascertained that, in the
course of six or seven months, only sixty-three or sixty-four letters
were written. Now this is a fact on which reliance can be placed; and it
certainly demonstrates that the people of this country are not so ready
to correspond, as some suppose, even when they can send letters at the
rate of a penny for the postage. I would beg your lordships to observe
just one point touching the application of this plan to the country
parts of England. It is perfectly well known to you that the post-office
is frequently six or seven miles, and sometimes ten or fifteen miles,
from most of the houses and villages in the neighbourhood. Now, if a man
have to take a letter to the post-office, he may lose half a day's work
in going there; and it cannot be supposed that he would make such a
sacrifice merely because he would only be charged a penny on the
delivery of his letter. Then, again, let us look at the manner in which
the plan will work in large towns. The plan will, no doubt, work
beneficially in London. In London, there are a number of people employed
for the purpose of delivering letters in all parts of the town several
times in the course of the day. But let us take such towns as
Manchester, or Leeds, or Liverpool; the people cannot resort to one
post-office, and post-offices must therefore be established in different
parts of the town for their accommodation; and the consequence will be,
a vast increase in the establishment of the post-office,--of which
increase, I do not think sufficient notice has been taken in the
documents which I have perused. Upon the whole, then, I am very much
afraid that this scheme for a low and uniform rate of postage wilt be
found impracticable on account of the expense, and, also, from the small
amount of profit which will accrue from the carriage of the letters.

       *       *       *       *       *

At the time this subject was first mentioned in this house, and, indeed,
in the other house of parliament, the noble viscount said that his main
object would he to secure the revenue; and I certainly apprehended that
the noble viscount would not adopt this plan, unless he could see some
security for the revenue; and this was the language held, also, in the
other house of parliament, I understand. It seems now, however, that we
have got no security for the revenue.

       *       *       *       *       *

But my lords, notwithstanding I feel so little confidence in this
measure, and notwithstanding that I must continue to lament that it
should ever have been adopted, when all the circumstances of the present
times are considered,--I, nevertheless, earnestly recommend you to pass
it. It is a measure which has been most anxiously looked forward to by
the country; at the same time that it is one as to which there has been
much doubt: but your lordships should bear in mind, that there is not
one clause of this bill upon which you can make an amendment, or in
which you can give a vote, except in the negative or the affirmative,
without committing a breach of those conventional rules which have been
established for the conduct of the business between you and the House of
Commons. On the other hand, my lords, suppose you were to reject this
bill;--the government, supported by the other house, would have the
power to destroy the whole revenue of the post-office; so that all the
evil which this bill could do to the revenue, and which it is your
object to save, might still be done;--and seeing that, at the same time,
the measure of post-office administration, which it is the object of
this bill to effect, and which it is desired should be carried into
execution, must altogether lie over, unless you agree to some such
measure as this;--I say, my lords, under these circumstances, I intend,
though with pain and reluctance, to vote for the bill; and I earnestly
recommend your lordships to adopt it.

_August 5, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Danger of interfering with the Religion of the Hindoos._

My lords, I served in India for a considerable length of time; but I
never saw--I never heard of--anything so revolting in the religious
ceremonies of the natives as has been described by the noble duke and by
the right reverend prelate. The whole army, while I was in India, except
about 50,000 men, consisted of idolaters; but they were as good soldiers
as could be found anywhere. They performed, in the best manner, any
service that was required of them; and certainly, at that time, the
object of the government, and of every man in the service of the
government, was to avoid, not only interference, but even the semblance
of any interference, in any manner, in the idolatrous rites and
ceremonies of the country. I have not read one of the dispatches which
have been alluded to; and I must say that I have seen too much, in my
own experience, to encourage the practice of encouraging documents of
this description. I beg your lordships to recollect, that with the
exception of about 20,000 of her majesty's troops, and, with the
exception of the civil servants of the government, and the few European
residents in the country, there is not a man in India who is not an
idolater, to manage the affairs of that most extensive and important
empire. I would entreat your lordships never to lose sight of that fact.
I know, too, from experience, for I have seen the missionaries at work,
the little progress which they make; and I know at the same time that
their labours create a good deal of jealousy. I warn the government not
to go too far in their measures against the idolatry of India; for the
Indian empire is one of great importance, and they must not expect to
convert 100,000,000 of idolaters to our holy religion by the small means
at their disposal.

_August 13, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Never said one thing and meant another._

I will not make any professions of my own anxiety to put down the slave
trade. I have passed a long life, I trust with honour, in the service of
her majesty's predecessors. I served her majesty's predecessors in
diplomatic situations and in councils, as well as in the army, and I
believe people cannot accuse me of saying one thing and meaning another.

_August 19, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Impotent Colonial Administration of the Whigs._

We have sacrificed 20,000,000 l. of money to terminate slavery in the
British colonies; and we are now calling upon other nations--upon the
United States, upon Spain, upon the Brazils, and upon various powers
which possess slaves--to imitate and to follow our example; but what
have we done to secure the co-operation of those great countries in the
great object that we have in view? We have offered no inducement to
those nations to imitate our example, by the establishment of order and
good government in our West Indian colonies; for nowhere have we
properly or adequately availed ourselves of those advantages which we
have, or of those advantages which we might procure, to give security to
life and property in those islands, and to maintain peace and
tranquillity among their inhabitants. The communities in the West Indies
are all small societies; and there is not a man in any one of them, not
in Jamaica, even, which is the largest of them, who is not within the
reach of authority. The government of each of those islands is strong in
the means of exercising authority--strong in garrisons, strong in
troops, strong in a police force, and in everything necessary for the
preservation of life and property, for carrying the laws into execution,
and for affording security to every individual, even to the very lowest
of the people;--but yet, I will venture to say, since the enactment of
the law for the emancipation of the slaves, there have been and are no
societies, in the whole world, in such a state of disorganization,
disorder, and anarchy, as are those very West Indian islands of ours;
but which, if they were well managed and governed by the noble lord,
nominally at the head of the colonial department, instead of by the
different factions that resort thither to interfere with the business of
that government, ought, and are calculated, to be of the greatest
advantage to this nation. There are no societies in the world more
capable of being well governed, than those islands are, if the noble
lord opposite would only perform his duty in an independent manner, and
keep all factions at a distance, instead of allowing every faction in
this country to interfere, on all occasions, with the business of the
government in relation to those colonies. But this is not all; let your
lordships look round in all directions, and you will see the same
lamentable state of things existing. Look at Lower Canada, look at Upper
Canada, at Newfoundland--look where you will, you will see nothing but
disorder and anarchy--and resulting from what? from nothing but the
interference of factions in England; who, let your lordships recollect,
have nothing to do with those colonies. These disorders result solely
from the interference of those factions in the affairs of each of those
colonies; and till the government shall put an end to such interference,
and act altogether independently of it, it is impossible to hope for a
restoration of tranquillity.

_August 23, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Melbourne Administration no Government._

I can assure the noble viscount, (Palmerston) that all I desire--and all
I have desired for some years past--is this,--to see a "government" in
the country. To see the country "governed." I wish that I could say
that I had seen it "governed" for some years past; and I hope that the
noble viscount will now turn over a new leaf, and "govern" the country a
little better than he has done heretofore. I may tell the noble
viscount, that I have had some little experience in these matters
myself; and I humbly suggest to the noble viscount, that, before he
announces measures to parliament through the speech from the throne, in
future, he should first take care that those measures have already been
properly considered; and that, before he inserts them in her majesty's
speech, he should have them ready prepared, or in such a state of
preparation as to be able to introduce them to parliament immediately
after the speech from the throne. If he do thus, the measures in all
probability, will be in such a state that they may be passed, or, at all
events, they will not be scrambled for among partisans and factions in
parliament: they will then, most likely, be considered by men who, I
consider, from their official station, must be capable of deciding upon
them; they will be their measures, and not the measures of factions and
parties; or, at least, they will not be measures presented to parliament
in such a state as that they ought not to pass. But I have desired to
see a "government" in the country, for many other reasons besides those
which are referable to the state and manner in which measures have been
brought forward, after having been announced to parliament in the speech
from the throne. I desire to have a "government" in this country,
because I am anxious to see our colonies settled and governed--because
I wish to see the interior of the country settled and governed as it
ought to be governed--and because I wish to see all our establishments
fixed and protected in that form and state in which they are to remain.

_August 23, 1839._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Causes of the Weakness of the Melbourne Administration._

The noble viscount has been pleased to attribute the disturbances in the
country, at the present moment, to the opposition which, he says, has
been given by your lordships to the measures brought forward for the
redress of grievances. Now I did not like to interrupt the noble
viscount, when he was addressing your lordships; but I certainly felt
much disposed to call upon the noble viscount to name what the measures
were, to which he so alluded. I have been trying, ever since the noble
viscount spoke, to recollect what those measures could be; and I declare
that, with respect to England, particularly, I do not know of a single
measure which has been discussed in this house, and rejected by your
lordships, that would with any degree of propriety, be called a measure
for the redress of the grievances of the people. If there be such
measures, let the noble viscount bring them forward again next session,
and I am sure they will receive from your lordships every attention.
But, my lords, I have taken another view of the cause of the
disturbances which now exist in the country. I think they have arisen
from a very peculiar state of circumstances; and I will venture to
submit them to the noble viscount, in answer to that part of his speech,
in which he was kind enough to attribute those disturbances to the House
of Lords. I believe that they have originated in the unnoticed and
unpunished combinations which have been allowed by the government during
so many years, to exist,--whether as political unions or as trade
unions, or as other combinations,--clearly illegal combinations,--amongst
workmen, to force others to abandon their work, by those who work at
prices different from those at which they are content to be employed, and
at which they have agreed to work for their employers. These combinations
have gone so far in some parts of the country,--and more particularly in
the north of England, and, indeed, throughout almost the whole of the
northern part of the island,--as to threaten destruction to the trade and
credit of the manufacturers; and at last they have arrived at that pitch,
and have spread to that extent, that the country is brought to the
situation in which we see it at the present moment. For, after all,
what are these Chartists, that are found marching about the country,
and engaged in the disturbances that prevail? I have inquired a great
deal into the subject, and the result is, that I believe they are nothing
more nor less than persons combined together for the purpose of driving
other workmen--engaged, whether in manufactures, in the collieries, or
agricultural pursuits, or in other districts--from their work; and for
the purpose of destroying the machinery, and the buildings, and of
interfering with the capital of the employers,--thus striking at the
very root of employment, and at the chief means of the sustenance of the
people,--striking at the foundation of the manufactures and the commerce
of the country, and of all its prosperity. This is my sincere belief; and
all this, I say, is owing to the want of early notice of the proceedings
of those combinations by the government,--to their not having carried the
laws into execution,--to their having left free from punishment those who
have been submitted to trial,--and to their unfortunate selection of
magistrates, and, above all, of the magistrates of the new reformed
corporations of Birmingham, Manchester, Bolton, and other towns. The
government may rely on it, that, until they adopt different measures,
they will not induce parliament to look with favour on their
proceedings. The government first reduced all the military
establishments. Those military establishments are not, even now, nearly
up to their proper footing; and I am firmly convinced that, in the
disturbed districts, there is not one half the establishment equal to
the ordinary establishment maintained in time of peace. This
circumstance, and the want of a due execution of the law upon those who
are tried, convicted, and sentenced to punishment,--and also the fact,
that those who have been appointed to carry into execution the law are
persons connected by habit, by association, and even by excitement, with
those very Chartists who have violated the law,--suggest the true causes
of these disturbances; and not the nameless grievances created by a
nameless opposition in this house, to nameless measures, as alleged by
the noble viscount.

_August 23, 1839._

_Speech on Her Majesty's Marriage._

There is no noble lord in this house who concurs more sincerely than I
do in the expression of congratulation to her majesty upon her
approaching marriage, which she has been pleased to announce a second
time to the public from the throne this day. I sincerely wish, with the
noble mover and seconder of the address, that this event may tend to the
happiness and comfort of the Queen. Upon this occasion I should have
been contented with the address, and should have offered not another
word, if your lordships had not been called upon in the speech from the
throne, to concur with the other house of parliament, in making a
suitable provision for the prince, for whose future station in this
country her majesty's speech has prepared us. But, my lords, it appears
to me that when this house is called upon to express an opinion upon a
detail of this description, the house ought to look into, and act upon,
this subject--it ought not to be a mere congratulation. I conceive that
the public have a right to know something beyond the mere name of the
prince whom her majesty is about to espouse. My lords, I had the honour
of being summoned to attend her majesty in privy council, when her
majesty in council was graciously pleased to declare her intention of
becoming the espoused of this prince. I observed, that the precedent of
the reign of George III. was followed in all respects except one, and
that was the declaration, that this prince was a protestant. [Loud
cries of "Hear, hear!" from the opposition benches.] My lords, I, for
one, entertain no doubt that the prince is a protestant. I believe he is
a protestant. I know he is of a protestant family. I have the honour of
being known to some members of that family, and I am sure that it is a
protestant family. But, my lords, this is a protestant state, and it is
absolutely necessary, by law, that the person who shall become the
spouse of the queen be a protestant; and, if the precedent of George
III. has been taken in part, it ought to have been followed throughout;
and then the public would have had the satisfaction of knowing that the
fact of the prince being a protestant, had been officially declared by
her majesty's government. My lords, I know the noble lords opposite too
well to suppose that they are not aware of the anxiety in the public
mind on this subject; and I know, also, that they had it in their power
to relieve that anxiety, and to gratify the public by making this
declaration; nay, more, my lords, I am convinced that there exists the
same anxiety in the royal mind, about the protestant character of the
state as is felt by me or any of your lordships. And if so, my lords, I
ask, why was the precedent of George III. departed from? Is there any
doubt as to the religious sentiments of this prince? None at all; there
can be no doubt that he is a protestant; he cannot be otherwise. Then,
why is it not so stated? We have heard something of this marriage from
another part of the country; we have seen some proceedings on this
subject since the declaration in council, which show pretty clearly why
the word "protestant" was omitted. My lords, I confess that I am one of
those who read with great attention all that passes in Ireland;--all
those speeches which come from that quarter;--and I do it for this
reason: I have been accustomed to that kind of revolutionary
discussions. It has been said by an eminent French writer, _en plein
jour, on ne conspire pas_; but that is not so now. The object proposed
is terror. These things are declared openly. This I can see from what
appears in the public prints, as I read these public letters and
missives in order to see what the real danger is, and that I may not be
taken by surprise. Now, what I mean to say is this,--that I see in what
has passed elsewhere, a very suspicious reason why the word "protestant"
was not inserted in the communication made to the privy council, and why
it has not been inserted in the speech from the throne. I say to the
noble lords opposite, that I believe they are as much determined as I
am, myself, to maintain the protestant ascendancy of the state. I think,
then, if this be the case, that upon the first occasion, when this
question comes before your lordships, and when the House of Lords shall
be called upon to do any act, or to make any declaration upon the
subject, beyond the mere congratulation of the queen, your lordships
should take that course which may procure the country the satisfaction
of knowing that Prince Albert is a protestant prince, and that this is
still a protestant state.

_January 16, 1840._

_Approbation of the Conduct of the Affghanistan Expedition._

My lords, having been, for a great part of my life, selected to carry
into execution, under superior authority, measures of this description,
no man can be more capable of judging, from experience, of the merits of
government in planning and carrying into operation such measures; and I
should be the last man to doubt, at any time, the expediency of this or
the other house expressing its approbation of the conduct of the
political servants of the crown in planning and working out all
arrangements preparatory to carrying into execution great military
operations. My lords, it has happened to me, by accident, that I had
some knowledge of the arrangements made for the execution of this great
military enterprise; and, I must say, that I have never known an
occasion on which the duty of a government was performed on a larger
scale,--on which a more adequate provision was made for all
contingencies that could occur, and for all the various events which
could, and which did, in fact, occur during this campaign. My lords, it
would be presumptuous in me to say more on this subject, having, I
repeat, been made acquainted, only by accident, with the arrangements
made preparatory to the campaign now brought under your lordships'
attention. With respect to the military services performed, I can say
nothing beyond, nor more deserving the officers and troops, than what
has been stated by the governor-general in his dispatch. My lords, I am
well acquainted with the officers who have directed and performed these
services; and I must say that there are no men in the service who
deserve a higher degree of approbation for the manner in which, on all
occasions, they have discharged their duty; and that, in no instance
that I have ever heard of, have such services been performed in a manner
better calculated to deserve and secure the approbation of your
lordships and of the country.

_February 4, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Danger of Socialism._

It appears that this system (Socialism) has spread itself over a great
part of the country; and, upon inquiry, I find that it has taken root
rather extensively in the county in which I reside. I find that in
Hampshire, or on the borders of the two counties, Wiltshire and
Hampshire, there is a large institution for the propagation of Socialist
principles, spreading over no less than five hundred acres of land,
which this society have purchased for their purposes. In reference to
that institution, I have this day presented a petition to your
lordships, containing statements as to the doctrines of this society,
regarding religion, the holy scriptures, God Almighty, and all the great
points of our belief; which statements, in my estimation, demand the
most serious inquiry. When I read that petition, which I did the moment
it was placed in my hands, I felt it to be my duty, as the lord
lieutenant of the county, to call the attention of the magistracy to
the facts which it set forth. That I considered to be my duty; and I
say, also, that the House of Lords, now that the facts have been brought
before them, have a duty to perform to the country, on this question.
These doctrines of Socialism are rapidly gaining strength--are spreading
themselves throughout the country. They have now got beyond that point
at which your lordships might say, "We will take no steps in the matter;
the system is absurd, and will fall to pieces of itself." I say, my
lords, we have got beyond that point; and the people should be made to
understand that the legislature and the government look on those
institutions only with disfavour, and are determined to discountenance
them. And they should also be made to know, that wherever, in the
promulgation of the doctrines of this society, there shall be a breach
of the law committed, it will be treated as such, and punished as such.
I say, then, that it is incumbent on your lordships to take such steps
as will satisfy the country that your attention has been directed to the
subject, with the view to remove the evil and ensure tranquillity. If
the government will allow the motion to pass, and take the subject into
their own hands, and inquire into it, through the magistracy, or by any
other means, I, for one, am willing to leave the matter with them on
that condition, merely adding that I shall be happy to afford them any
assistance in my power in carrying out their inquiry, and in enabling
them to annihilate this mischievous and demoralising system.

_February 4, 1840._

_Compliment to the Navy._

I know a great deal of the gentlemen of that profession; and, for my own
part, I have always had, and still have, the greatest and the highest
respect for them, and the very utmost confidence in them. I have always
endeavoured to emulate their services in the service in which I have
myself been engaged; and I am sure that in nothing have I endeavoured to
emulate them in a greater degree than in that confidence which they
feel, not only in themselves, and in the officers of their own rank, but
in all officers and troops under their command.

_February 6, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *


_Eulogium on Lord Seaton._

I had the honour of being connected with the noble and gallant lord in
service at an early period of his life; and I must declare that, at all
times, and under all circumstances, he gave that promise of prudence,
zeal, devotion, and ability, which he has so nobly fulfilled in his
services to his sovereign and his country, during the recent proceedings
in Canada. I entirely agree with the noble viscount in all that he has
said, respecting the conduct of my noble and gallant friend, in
remaining, under all circumstances, at his post, and in taking the
command of the troops, although it was not thought expedient by the
government to place him again in the government of the provinces. I
agree with the noble viscount in wishing that such examples as that
which has been shewn may be always followed in her majesty's service;
for I must say that there never was a brighter example of fortitude and
discretion than that which has been manifested by the noble and gallant
lord.

_March 27, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Opinion on the Printed Papers' Question._

I wish--as, indeed, everybody wishes--that the House of Commons should
have the power of printing and publishing its papers. But what I want to
do is this--to provide that, when it proceeds to the sale of them, the
law should take its course. As to the printing and publishing of papers,
I have no objection, until it comes to the point of sale. The sale ought
not, in my opinion, to be made by the authority of the house; it ought
to be made by individuals, and they should be responsible for what they
sell, as they were previously to the passing of the resolution in 1835;
and, up to that time, it must be admitted that the House of Commons and
the House of Lords had the advantage of all their privileges quite as
much as they have had ever since. My lords, I must confess that I look a
little further into this question than the mere matter of libelling
individuals. I consider all this as it affects the public generally;
and, I say, the public is mainly interested in its being understood that
the House of Commons and the House of Lords are not to be the privileged
sellers of libels against individuals.

_April 6, 1840._

_Libels on foreign Sovereigns ought not to be permitted._

I remember reading with great satisfaction, the history of a great case,
which was pleaded and argued at considerable length, some years ago, in
this country--I mean the case of the "King v. Peltier," in the court of
King's Bench. That was the case of an action brought against an obscure
individual, for a libel which he had published upon the sovereign of a
neighbouring country, with whom we were then in a state of peace and
amity. Now, I ask your lordships whether, supposing, in the course of
the late Polish revolution, the libels, some of which we have seen
printed in this country, and others which we have heard spoken of in the
other, and, I believe, in this house of parliament, reviling, in the
strongest terms, the sovereign of Russia, had been stated in the
petitions, or in the proceedings of the House of Commons, and had been
printed, published, and sold by its authority; I ask your lordships
whether such a proceeding would not have been calculated to disturb the
peace of this country, and of the world at large? In short, I ask your
lordships whether it is desirable that there should be an opportunity of
publishing and selling, on the part of the two houses of parliament,
libels against the sovereigns of all the foreign powers in Europe? My
lords, I am one of those who consider that the greatest political
interest of this country is, to remain at peace and amity with all the
nations of the world. I am for avoiding even the cause of war, and of
giving offence to any one, and of seeking a quarrel, either by abuse, or
by that description of language which is found in these libels. I am
against insulting the feelings of any sovereign, at whom individuals may
have taken offence, and against whom they may seek to publish libels
under the sanction of parliament. Let them state what they please in
their private capacity, and let them be answerable for it individually,
as Peltier was. What I want is, that parliament should not, by the
combined privilege of publication and sale, run the risk of involving
the country in the consequences of a discussion of such subjects, and in
all the mischiefs and inconveniences which might arise from it.

_April 6, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reasons why the Chinese stopped the Opium Trade._

It is perfectly true, as is stated by the noble earl, that the trade in
opium has been carried on contrary to the laws of China. But then, my
lords, it has been so carried on with the knowledge of the local
authorities on the spot, who received large payments, in the shape of
bribes, or in the way of duties, possibly both, for allowing the import
of this opium,--its admission into the ports of China. It appears that,
although the trade was forbidden by the law of China, it was known to
the authorities of China, to the emperor himself, and to all the
servants of the government, that it had existed for many years, and that
the discussion had continued for many months, upon the question,
whether the trade should be allowed, and continued, under a duty, or
whether it should be discontinued altogether. Allow me to ask the noble
earl, who has contended so very strongly for the Emperor of China,
whether that morality was so very great while he allowed that trade to
be continued? and whether his morality can be improved in any respect by
opium being introduced upon the payment of a large duty, instead of its
being introduced by means of smuggling, and under bribes paid to the
officers of his government; and even, as it has been shown, from the
exterior waters into the interior of the country, in the Mandarin boats,
that is, in boats, either in the service of the country, or, at all
events, under the charge of officers of the government? I really cannot
see the force of the noble earl's argument with respect to the
illegality of the trade, when it is as clear as possible that its
existence was well known to the government of China, and that no step
had ever been taken to put it down; but, on the contrary, the means of
continuing it, and of raising a larger duty upon it, were under
consideration; and, in fact, the trade was finally put down, and
discontinued only because it was supposed that it occasioned the export
of a larger quantity of native or Sycee silver.

_May 12, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Opium not the cause of the war with China. Defence of Captain
Elliot._

The noble earl says that this war is to be attributed to the opium!
Why? there was no British opium in China at the very time these other
outrages were committed, and when this very language was held; and, as
far as I am able to judge, there was then no opium in the possession of
the British merchants there. An order had been issued to deliver it up,
and this gentleman had gone down the river for the purpose of
surrendering the whole. The war, then, has grown out of another state of
circumstances. First of all, there was a claim for the surrender of an
Englishman to be put to death, because a Chinese had lost his life in an
affray. Captain Elliot, as became an English officer, instituted an
inquiry to discover whether a certain number of persons, stated to have
been in an affray, had been guilty of the murder or not, and the result
of the inquiry was, that he could not bring the charge home to any one;
that he had no reason to suspect any one. The Chinese government still
insisted that these six men should be given up. Captain Elliot refused,
and that, I take it, is one of the causes of the war.

Another of the causes of the war is this--that a provision had been made
that matters should be restored to their former state, in proportion as
the opium should be delivered up; that the British inhabitants should
have the use of the native servants; that they should have the common
comforts of life, provisions, and all that was necessary for
subsistence; and, finally, that the trade should be re-opened, and
matters allowed to resume their usual course. After having given that
promise, it is discovered that this Chinese lost his life in an affray
in which American seamen were engaged as well as the English; and then a
fourth proposition was advanced, which was this, that every master of a
vessel, proceeding up the Canton river, should sign a bond, submitting
himself, and all on board his ship, to be dealt with according to the
laws of China. The noble lord has found fault with Captain Elliot upon
this, as well as upon another matter. Now, this objection is most
extraordinary, and it rather tends to prove that the noble earl, though
he has paid great attention to this particular blue book, is not very
well acquainted with former transactions in that country, or he would
have found that former traders with China had invariably refused to
subscribe to such proposals, and that they had broken off the trade with
the Chinese, rather than do it; rather than give up British subjects to
be dealt with according to the laws of China. I think they acted most
properly; and that Captain Elliot, very much to his credit, refused to
do it; at the same time, he did no more than his duty. He did what
others would I trust have done under the same circumstances; and he is
entitled to great praise for his firmness in resisting that demand. Then
there is another circumstance in which Captain Elliot acted as became
him. I allude particularly to his refusal to give up Mr. Dent. It was
declared that the opium trade was not to be continued; that it was an
illegal trade; and that dealing in opium should not be suffered. It was
supposed that Mr. Dent had been a person very much concerned in that
trade, and had made a large fortune, as I believe many others have
done, by that illicit trade. And Captain Elliot was blamed, when it was
sought to have Mr. Dent given up, because he, her majesty's
representative and the chief superintendent of trade in that country,
stepped forward and said, "I won't allow this gentleman to be given over
to the Chinese government, and to be tried as the Chinese government may
direct." I should, my lords, be ashamed of the name of Englishman, if
there could be found one in her majesty's service capable of acting
otherwise than this gentleman did, under such circumstances. The noble
earl has stated that a great deal of difficulty would have been got rid
of, if Captain Elliot had complied with the request of the Chinese; and
that the Americans gave up a seaman to be dealt with according to the
Chinese laws. I am sorry for it. I must say, it was not their duty to do
so. They would have done better to have taken a leaf out of our book,
and to have followed the example of the East India Company, to put an
end to the trade rather than risk the life of one of her majesty's
subjects, or give him up to be tried by the Chinese government.

_May 12, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *

If we cannot sustain our power in the Canadas, we must necessarily lose
all our dominions in North America.

_June 30, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *


Colonial responsible government, and the sovereignty of Great Britain,
are completely incompatible.

_June 30, 1840._

_Importance of Colonies to the Mother Country._

I have observed in this country, for some length of time, a growing
desire to get rid of our North American dominions--a desire that they
should become republics. This desire prevails amongst a very large party
in this country. I am aware that there are also others--not, however,
acting from the same motive--who desire that the separation should take
place; tranquilly, if possible, but that at all events it should take
place. In my opinion, these gentlemen are mistaken. It is my decided
opinion, that, considering the resources and the power of these
colonies, this country would sustain a heavy loss, indeed, if these
colonies were to be separated from it.

_June 30, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Religious Education must be provided out of the Funds of the Church._

It appears to me that there is no difference of opinion amongst us on
these points--namely, that means must be found of preaching the word of
God to the people of England; and I go further--for this point is also
not disputed--and I say that those means must proceed, in the first
instance, from the church, and that they must be exhausted before the
public is called on for other means; in providing those means, you will
not only be performing a duty incumbent upon you, but you will also be
following the example of every other nation in the world. It has been
my lot to live among idolaters--among persons of all creeds, and of all
religions; but I never knew yet of a single instance in which public
means were not provided sufficient to teach the people the religion of
their country. They might be false religions; I know but of one true
one; but yet means were never wanting to teach those false religions;
and I hope that we shall not have done with this subject until we have
found sufficient means for teaching the people of England their duty to
their Maker, and their duty to one another, founded on their duty to
that Maker.

_July 30, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Necessity of administering Oaths._

I entreat your lordships to pause, and recollect that the foundation of
all justice is truth; and that the mode of discovering truth has always
been to administer an oath, in order that the witness may give his
deposition under a high sanction. I hope your lordships will not adopt
another of those bills which have been before your lordships only a few
days, and which suggest, in truth, nothing more than a way of enabling a
witness, who thinks proper to say he has conscientious scruples, to
escape the solemnity of an oath. I admit that the inconvenience of the
present state of the law falls on the community rather than on the
individuals; but, at the same time, I think that, by every one of those
relaxations, we shake the foundations of justice.

_August 4, 1840._

_Church-rate Martyrs--true state of the Case._

In my opinion, this case is a very simple one, and one on which there
can be no doubt as to the course which should be taken. Here is a man
who has been sued for a sum of money, which, it is understood, was
lawfully due by him. The law renders him liable to pay that sum of
money, and the law supports the proceedings against him for the recovery
of it. This person could have easily avoided these proceedings, by
simply paying the sum of 5s. 6d., which was demanded of him; or he could
have gone into court and had the question fairly tried, whether he was
lawfully bound to pay it or not, according to the laws of the country in
which he resides; for, of course, he must be bound by the laws of his
country, as well as all other British subjects. But he has not chosen to
take either course. He has said, "I will not pay that money;" and, in
consequence of his own conduct, a large amount has been incurred in the
way of costs. These costs are not matters of speculation or amusement,
they are realities; they are sums of money paid for the labour of
certain individuals, for certain services performed in the execution of
their duties, under the legal authority of the ecclesiastical courts,
and in this suit. Now, those costs must be paid. Were we to let the man
off from paying the 5s. 6d. for the rate, that remission would not get
rid of his liability for the costs; these latter must be paid, either by
himself or his friends, or else they must be paid by the other party,
by the lawful suitors, by the lawful plaintiffs, who had a right
originally to recover the money. They are the persons who would have to
pay the costs, unless your lordships consent to insert the clause
proposed by my noble friend. Somebody must pay the costs after all. But
it is said that the defendant is not to pay the costs, and that he is to
be let out of prison. Well, you may let him out, if you please; but,
surely, you would not call upon the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred
by _his_ conduct? That would not be justice. That would not be fair
between man and man. Not a soul in this house could be of that opinion.
It is not consistent either with law or justice to throw these expenses
upon those on whom the law of the country has laid the necessity of
incurring them. Not they, but he who, by his own conduct, rendered the
proceedings imperative, ought to be made to pay the costs.

_August 7, 1840._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Duke of Wellington not a War Minister._

No noble lord nor any other man that I know has done half so much for
the preservation of peace, and above all, for the pacification and the
maintenance of the honour of France and for the settlement of all
questions in which the interests of France were involved, as the
individual who is addressing your lordships. From the period of the year
1814, down to the last month of my remaining in the service of the king,
I did everything in my power for the strengthening and preservation of
the peace of Europe, and more particularly for the maintaining and
keeping up the best understanding between England and France. I repeat,
that I have done more than any one else to place France in the situation
in which she ought to be in the councils of Europe, from a firm
conviction,--which I feel now as strongly as I ever did,--that if France
is not, then there is no necessity for the preservation of the peace of
Europe, or for a sound decision on any subject of general policy. I am
sure that the noble viscount would find, if he would take the trouble to
search the archives of the government, papers written by me shortly
before I went out of office in 1830, that would fully justify the
assertion which I have just made. I am sure that those who were in
office with me were as anxious for the preservation of the peace of
Europe as any politicians, be they liberals or otherwise. They were as
anxious for the preservation of a good understanding between France and
this country, and that France should be on a perfectly good
understanding with all the powers of Europe, and that she should take
the station which becomes her in the rank of nations, and which her
power, her wealth, and her resources entitle her to.

_January 26, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Capture of Acre, the greatest deed of modern times._

I have had a little experience in services of this nature, and I think
it my duty to warn your lordships on this occasion, that you must not
always expect that ships, however well commanded, or however gallant
their seamen may be, are capable of commonly engaging successfully with
stone walls. I have no recollection, in all my experience, except the
recent instance on the coast of Syria, of any fort being taken by the
ships, excepting two or three years ago, when the fort of St. Jean
d'Alloa was captured by the French fleet. That is, I think, the single
instance that I recollect; though I believe that something of the sort
occurred at the siege of Havannah, in 1763. The present achievement I
consider one of the greatest deeds of modern times. That is my opinion,
and I give the highest credit to those who performed such a service. It
was altogether a most skillful proceeding. I was greatly surprised at
the small number of men that were lost on board the fleet; and, on
inquiring how it happened, I discovered that it was because the vessels
were moored within one-third of the ordinary distance. The guns of the
fortress were intended to strike objects at a greater distance, and the
consequence was, that the shot went over the ships that were anchored at
one-third of the usual distance. By that means they sustained not more
than one-tenth of the loss which they would otherwise have experienced.
Not less than 500 pieces of ordnance were directed against the walls;
and the precision with which the fire was kept up, the position of the
vessels, and lastly the blowing up of the large magazine, all aided in
achieving this great victory in so short a time. I thought it right to
say this much, because I wished to warn your lordships against your
supposing such deeds as this could be effected every day. I repeat, that
this is a singular instance, in the achievement of which great skill was
undoubtedly manifested, but which is also connected with peculiar
circumstances which you could not hope always to occur. It must not,
therefore, be expected as a matter of course, that all such attempts in
future must necessarily succeed.

_February 4, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_A blow at the Reformation._

There is no doubt that that body (the Roman Catholic seminary of St.
Sulpice) was made a corporation by means of that ordinance, yet until
that property had been legally vested in them by the ordinance, they had
no legal right whatever to it. * * * I was very much struck, I must
confess, when first I read the petition and the ordinance relating to
this subject; I was very much struck by the total departure it evinced
from the principle of the reformation; a principle untouched up to this
present moment. And I entreat your lordships, whatever you may think on
the subject of this ordinance or other questions--I entreat the
attention of your lordships and of the British public to this, that this
ordinance was the first blow openly struck by authority at the
principles of the reformation; principles hitherto upheld, particularly
throughout Canada, from the period of the conquest down to the present
moment. I felt strongly on this point the moment I saw the petition and
the ordinance, and I still continue to feel strongly on the subject,
since I have heard the right reverend prelate state that it was the
governor-general, not a member of the legislative council, but the
governor-general of the province who brought forward this measure,
acting on the part of the queen, whose rights, interests, and
prerogative it was his duty to protect, and which he should have
protected in the legislative council.

_March 5, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Australia._

It would be much the best plan to put an end to all the Australian
commissioners, to whom allusion is made in the bill before your
lordships, altogether. A worse system was never adopted for the
management of a colony. We ought to place that colony in the same
position as the other colonies under the government of her majesty, and
rule it in the usual way by the Colonial Office. I disapprove of these
commissions altogether.

_April 30, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Evils of Reduced Establishments._

It was stated that the British were expelled from Canton on the 5th of
May. I, however, infer from what took place, that the British were
obliged to retire at the end of March. Looking to the events of the
present year, they appear to me to be exceedingly unsatisfactory. And to
what, I would ask, is this owing? It appears to me that this state of
things is to be attributed to improper advice. The interests of the
country in various parts of the world, have not been properly protected.
If there is not a general war, we are placed in a situation that tends
to it; and this arises from our having reduced our establishments far
below what they ought to be, even in a time of peace. This was the true
cause of the present state of things in China, and of delay and
consequent misfortune elsewhere; and I much fear that circumstances will
occur to cause still further regret at the course that has been adopted
with respect to our establishments. I told ministers so at the time they
were making those reductions in 1837. I stated to them then that they
were not taking such care of our establishments as would enable them, in
the event of war, to contend with success against our enemies. The
reduction of our establishments has been pursued in different parts of
the world, where we are engaged at present, and now we see the
consequence.

_April 29, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Poor Law Commissioners must be made to do their duty._

I voted for the Irish poor law bill, and proposed amendments, which, I
believe, induced your lordships to pass the bill. I am sure that those
amendments had the effect of inducing others to approve of that bill,
who would not have done so if those amendments had not been introduced.
I did all this on the faith and assurance, not only of the house and
the government, but of those gentlemen themselves, that it would be
carried into execution in Ireland, with the same strictness and fairness
as it was in this country. In this expectation I have been altogether
disappointed, and for this reason I am determined, when I get the other
papers, to read every line of them, and probe the matter to the bottom,
in order to see where the mischief lies. But recollect there is not only
this case, but several other cases before your lordships, in every one
of which there is corruption. We cannot stop here with the resolutions
of my noble friend. The Clonmel case is a very gross case. The noble
lord opposite has told us that the office can be but of little
importance, as the salary is only 10l. to 30l. a-year; but see what
power the office gives. In this very case let your lordships see what
happened next day, when the brother-in-law of this individual was
appointed valuator, a situation which puts the property of every man, in
some degree, in his power. We must go deeper into this question, if we
wish to do justice to Ireland, and to the gentlemen who hold property in
that country. We must take care that their property shall not be left at
the disposal of such miscreants, and we must make the poor law
commissioners do their duty. I cannot think of asking him any question
on the subject, for it was sufficient for him to know that he was the
nephew of a person called the archbishop, to be satisfied of his
fitness.

       *       *       *       *       *

It would be mere stuff to stop here; the persons on whom the house must
call are the poor law commissioners themselves. Let them be taught to
feel it their duty to keep a correct record of their proceedings, which
they shall be ready to produce at any time that the house or the
government may call for them. Let them be taught to feel that the house
will not permit such conduct as this, and we shall soon see an end to
such abuses as those out of which the resolution of my noble friend
arises.

_May 3, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Why Corn Laws were imposed._

These laws (corn laws) were not invented, nor have they been maintained,
for the purpose of keeping high rents in the pockets of noble lords, but
they were invented and have been supported for the purpose of
maintaining and supporting agriculture, and of maintaining this country
independent of all other countries and parts of the world; and it is
also perfectly true, as stated by my noble friend behind me, that such
has been the policy of England for centuries, sometimes by one mode, and
sometimes by another; sometimes by imposing protective duties when corn
rose above certain prices, and sometimes by giving bounties, and
occasionally very large bounties, on the exportation of corn. But
whatever has been the means, the object has always been to support the
agriculture of the country, in order to render this country, in respect
of its subsistence, independent of other nations. This was the object of
the improved system introduced in the year 1828; this was the object of
those principles which have been maintained ever since; at least it was
the principle on which I gave those laws my support, and on which I more
than once asked your lordships to render this country dependent only on
itself for subsistence. This was the object of the corn laws, and not
that dirty object which has been imputed to your lordships--and which, I
must say, it is too bad to impute to your lordships--of obtaining large
rents from your land. It is also perfectly true, as has been stated by
my noble friend behind me, that there is not a country of Europe in
which corn laws do not at this moment exist; but, nevertheless, I
suppose if it were proposed to repeal these laws, and adopt the measures
recommended by the petitioners, your lordships would be told of the
quantities of corn that might be had from Russia and from Prussia, and
other parts of the world. But are there no corn laws in those countries?
Has the noble earl heard of no laws prohibiting all exportation of corn
to other countries? That fact alters the whole state of the question of
corn laws in this country. The effect of such a state of things would be
most serious if there came a bad season here and there, too. Then,
again, has the noble lord not heard of the high duties imposed on the
exportation of corn from those countries during the late wars? Have not
your lordships got evidence before some of the committees--have you not
got letters from some merchants at Dantzic to one of those governments
on the subject of the prices of corn in England, and on the rate of
duties imposed at that port? and was it not stated that the increased
price obtained from England might be expected to enable those merchants
to pay the duties imposed by their government on exportation? Let it be
observed, that I do not blame the sovereign to whom I allude for
imposing those duties--I should not have blamed him if it had been an
act of war, whereas it was a mere measure of finance. I do not say, that
I agree with him in his notions of protection; but I say, that when I
consider it a question of protection, that sovereign is not to be
blamed, and that his object was like that of your lordships, to secure
the subsistence of his subjects, and not to cause a rise of rents.

_May 7, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Corn Laws._

The first man who brought forward those opinions (Adam Smith) which I
have read as well as noble lords opposite, made an exception upon this
very subject. He excepted corn from the doctrines he laid down as to all
the other articles of trade. In relation to the subsistence of the
people he says, that we must always take care to ensure that subsistence
within the country itself--and accordingly he excepts corn from the
several doctrines which he lays down. I confess I have heard nothing
during these discussions to alter my opinion, that the corn laws which
were adopted almost unanimously in 1828, have perfectly answered the
purposes for which they were intended, and have kept the prices as
steady as the nature of the commodity will allow. Yes, my lords, in this
country, when we have produced corn for our own subsistence, and it is
our object invariably to produce it, prices have been more steady than
in any other country of Europe. It it my opinion, on all these grounds,
that these laws have operated as successfully as any laws could have
done.

_May 11,1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Agriculture and Manufactures._

I cordially concur in the feeling that the prosperity of the
agriculturist must depend on the general prosperity of the manufacturer,
and of commercial interests in general. There can be no doubt about
that, and then corn laws are supported, not with a view to the advantage
of any particular interest or class of men, but with a view to render
the whole country independent of foreign countries in respect of its
supply of food. I believe that all parts of the country, and every
individual resident in it, are interested in this subject.

_May 17, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Cotton and Corn._

Allusion has been made to the increase in imports in cotton. It has been
said but small profits were made upon the manufacture of this immense
quantity of produce, but that appears to me to have no connection with
the question of the corn laws. The fact is, the improvements in the
machinery, and the introduction of steam, have enabled the manufacturers
to manufacture with very little cost. They do not make the profit now
they did fifty years ago; but they still make profits, although
diminished by competition--not by competition with the foreigner, but by
competition at home. Other manufacturers who were aware that profits
were to be made, although not so large as formerly, entered the field,
built new manufactories, established machinery, and thus introduced
fresh competition.

_May 25, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Grounds of Complaint against the Whigs in_ 1841.

These grounds are neglect and mismanagement of the finances of this
country by her majesty's government, the future consequence of which, as
has been stated, it is impossible to foresee, and the improper,
impolitic and unconstitutional means which they took to recover
themselves. These things were proved by reference to the actual state of
the finances, when it was found necessary to review them in the last
parliament; and it was shewn that, in point of fact, after a period of
about five years, a debt had not alone been accumulated of five
millions, but there had also been a vast deficiency in the public
revenue. This debt and deficiency are to be attributed to the practice
adopted by her majesty's government of carrying on extensive operations,
of which nobody approves, mind you, more than I do when done as they
should be, and at the same time not making due provision for the
increased expenditure, occasioned by their carrying on war in several
places with a peace establishment, being the most crying of these evils,
and neglecting to employ the proper means for meeting the increased
charge, and putting an end to the impending danger. The next allegation
against them, my lords, is for not making financial provision in the way
of ways and means for the expense and charge incurred by the country
from the exertions made to put an end to the danger which menaced it. A
noble lord has stated that, though a large amount of army and ordnance
was kept on foot after 1831, no provision had been made for the
additional expenditure in the usual way of an application to parliament,
but that irregular and unconstitutional modes were adopted by her
majesty's government for finding means of defraying those expenses. In
this, my lords, my noble friend spoke but the simple truth. In one case
the whole charge of a war had been thrown on the East India Company, and
then converted into a debt on this country; in another the funds of the
savings' banks had been tampered with; in another the Exchequer bills
had been funded; and, in short, several most irregular modes has been
adopted. Then, my lords, what happened? Besides these expenses; besides
the failure of the government to make due provision by the mode of ways
and means to defray the charges incurred by their naval and military
operations; besides these, my lords, her majesty's government thought
proper to repeal a large amount of taxes, by which means they reduced
the revenue of the country to such a degree as materially and inevitably
left a most serious deficiency.

_August 24, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Hasty adoption of Free Trade by the Whigs._

My lords, it is not more than fourteen months ago since I heard the
noble viscount (Melbourne) say,--making use of the strongest language I
ever heard in opposition to a motion merely for taking the corn laws
into consideration,--the noble viscount on that occasion declared before
God, with reference to the abolition of the corn laws, that he believed
the man must be mad who dreamed of such a thing. Now, my lords, I do not
pretend to say that the noble viscount has not a perfect right to change
his opinions. I believe he thought that he had good grounds for doing
so, and I think I have myself read the report which induced him to
change them. But this I do say, that, before your lordships and the
country were placed in this situation in regard to the queen, the noble
viscount was bound to give parliament and the country an opportunity of
obtaining that knowledge and information as to the true merits of the
question, which he imagines himself to have obtained.

       *       *       *       *       *

It is by such inquiries as these, my lords, calmly and patiently
conducted, that men are enabled to judge respecting the consequences of
great changes of this nature, and of the bearings and tendencies of each
particular part of what is intended to be done. But, instead of such a
course being pursued, what has been done in the present instance?
Nothing. * * I further think, that the committee and report were _ex
parte_ ones, upon which no legislative measures ought to have been
founded. But what I chiefly complain of is this, that before the noble
viscount put this speech into the mouth of her majesty, he did not give
us full and fair information to guide us as to what we ought to do. I
believe, my lords, that conduct like this is sufficient to induce you to
say that the noble lords opposite do not deserve your confidence.

_August 24, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Lord Melbourne's services to the Queen._

I am willing to admit that the noble viscount has rendered the greatest
possible service to her majesty. I happen to know that it is her
majesty's opinion that the noble viscount has rendered her majesty the
greatest possible service, in making her acquainted with the mode and
policy of the government of this country, initiating her into the laws
and spirit of the constitution, independently of the performance of his
duty, as the servant of her majesty's crown; teaching her, in short, to
preside over the destinies of this great country.

_August 24, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_England the best country for the Poor._

With respect to the corn law question, my opinions are already well
known. I shall not argue the propriety of these laws, but I shall be
ready to discuss them when a discussion is brought forward by a
government having the confidence of her majesty's parliament. But, my
lords, I earnestly recommend you, for the sake of the people of this
country, for the sake of the humblest orders of the people, not to lend
yourselves to the destruction of our native cultivation. Its
encouragement is of the utmost and deepest importance to all classes. My
lords, I have passed my life in foreign countries, in different regions
of the earth, and I have been in only one country in which the poor man,
if sober, prudent, and industrious, is quite certain of acquiring a
competence. That country is this. We have instances every day; we have
seen, only within the last week, proofs that persons in the lowest ranks
can acquire, not only competence, but immense riches. I have never heard
of such a thing in any other country. I earnestly beg of you not to lose
sight of this fact, and not to consent to any measure which would injure
the cultivation of our own soil. I have seen in other lands the misery
consequent on the destruction of cultivation, and never was misery equal
to it; and, my lords, I once more conjure you not to consent to any
measure tending to injure the home cultivation of this country.

_August 24, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Opinions on Abstract Questions of Policy inexpedient._

My lords, the noble viscount states, and he states truly, that it is not
a habit in this house to call on your lordships to give an opinion on
abstract questions of policy. That, my lords, is perfectly true, and I
have myself endeavoured to bring the house to that view on more than one
occasion, that is, to prevent the expression of any opinion on abstract
questions of policy, in the shape of an address or otherwise, until it
should be brought before your lordships in the shape of a distinct
legislative measure. More than once I have succeeded in persuading your
lordships to withhold such opinion, and on some occasions, even, I have
supported the government (whig) against them, however much I may have
disapproved of their policy with regard to them.

_August 24, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

It is at all times desirable that the sovereign should not be pledged in
the speech from the throne.

_August 24, 1841._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Abolition of Oaths._

The foundation of all justice is truth, and the question is, how truth
is to be ascertained. Before I can receive any application of this
description, and before I can vote for the bill lately laid on your
lordships' table, I would like to hear the opinion of some of those
learned men who are at this moment engaged in the administration of the
law, and who must have made up their minds as to the best means of
ascertaining the truth. Hitherto it has been understood in this country
that the best means was by administering oaths. I am aware that the
legislature has made certain exceptions. It may be very well to make
these exceptions--and let further exceptions be made if they are
expedient--but I do say, that we ought to have some solemn examination
of the question, and some certainty that the new mode proposed is as
good as the old one for ascertaining the truth, which, as is said, is
the foundation of all justice.

_March 18, 1842._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Income Tax only justified by Necessity._

I can answer for myself, and I believe I can also answer for my
colleagues, that nothing but necessity could have induced us to propose
such a tax. We are perfectly aware of all the inconveniences that must
result from it. We are perfectly aware of the provisions of the act of
parliament upon your lordships' table. We are perfectly aware of the
odious powers with which these commissioners and others must be
trusted--and we can reconcile it to ourselves only by the necessity of
the case. Your lordships must feel it. We have been now for several
years engaged in operations involving great expense in all parts of the
world. I will not say, my lords, that we have been at war, but, I
believe, we have been at something as like war, if it be not war, as
anything could well be. We are exactly in the situation of persons who
have incurred a great debt, and who are called upon to pay the bill. I
say again, my lords, that nothing but a strong sense of the necessity of
the case, and that there was no other course which we could take to
produce such a revenue as would enable us to meet the difficulties of
the country, or to do what is necessary for its prosperity, would have
induced us to propose such a measure; and it will not last one moment
longer than it shall be absolutely necessary.

_June 17, 1842._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Poor Law has worked well._

I was one of those who supported the poor law as it was introduced some
years ago by my noble and learned friend, and I did so on ascertaining
the inconveniences and evils which attended the system of working under
the old poor law up to that period; and being sensible that the only
remedy which could be found for those evils and inconveniences, was in
the measure proposed by my noble and learned friend. My lords, I have
since had the satisfaction of contemplating the working of the measure,
which then became the law of the land, and I must say that I have been
satisfied with its results. It has, undoubtedly, improved the condition
of the working classes, and it certainly does place on a better footing
the relations between the working classes and their employers. It has
enabled those who had the care of them to provide better for the aged
and destitute than has been hitherto the case; and it has, in general,
given satisfaction throughout the country. My lords, I don't mean to say
that I approve of every act that has been done in carrying this bill
into operation. I think that, in many cases, those who had charge of the
working of the bill have gone too far, and that there was no occasion
whatever for constructing buildings, such as have acquired throughout
the country the denomination of bastiles, and that it would have been
perfectly easy to have established very efficient workhouses without
shutting out all view of what was passing exterior to the walls. I say,
then, that in some respects, the system has been carried farther than it
ought to have been, and, I shall also say that its features have assumed
a harsher character in some parts of the country than was necessary; but
this has been owing, I must admit, in a great degree, to the adoption of
another law by parliament, I mean what is called the dissenters'
marriage act, the regulations depending on which were connected with the
execution of the poor law act, and rendered necessary the establishment
of unions in many parts of the country which were not yet ripe for the
formation of those unions. But, notwithstanding the circumstances to
which I have just now alluded, I must, in general, state my approbation
of the working of this act. I have paid great attention to the subject.
Wherever I have resided, I have attended the meetings of guardians of
unions in my neighbourhood; I have visited several workhouses in
different parts of England, and I must say that I never visited one in
which the management was not as good as could be expected in such
districts of the country, and which did not give universal satisfaction.

_July 26, 1842._

       *       *       *       *       *

The government of Lord Melbourne carried on war all over the world with
a peace establishment. That is exactly what we (Sir Robert Peel's
government) do not.

_February 2, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *
_Real cause of the Chinese War_.

I was almost the only individual who stated that the real ground of
complaint against the Chinese government was its conduct towards the
person employed in the service of her majesty, and representing her
majesty in China. I was the only person in this house who defended her
majesty's servants. I said that the war was a just and necessary war. I
will go further, and say, if it had been otherwise--if it had been a war
solely on account of the robbery of the opium--if her majesty's
government were engaged in that war, and if their interests and honour
were involved in it, I should have considered it my duty to make every
effort for carrying it on with success, and have asked parliament for
the assistance which would have enabled her majesty's servants to bring
it to an early and successful termination.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Eulogium on the Indian Army_.

My lords, I know something of that (Indian) army; I have served in its
ranks, and I know pretty well what its feelings are; and though there
are different castes and religions composing it, the discipline of that
army, and the military spirit by which it is actuated, totally do away
with all such distinctions. You will never hear in India of any
difference of caste or religion in that army, any more than you would in
the ranks of the British army. All do their duty,--all are animated by
the true feelings of soldiers.

_March 9, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Evils of the Press in India._

The state of things in that country is one of much greater difficulty
now than when I was there, because there is now established in India
what is called a free press, but which I should make free to call a most
licentious press; and by referring to these papers your lordships will
see that the mischievous influence of that press is repeatedly
complained of. For my own part, I must own, I do not see how the
operations of war can be carried on in a satisfactory manner in India,
with such a press constantly exercising its influence, and connected
through its correspondents with every cantonment of the army.

_March 9, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Union must be maintained inviolate._

There can be no doubt of the intention of her majesty's government to
maintain the union inviolate; and it is the duty of every government,
and I will say it is the determination of her majesty's present
government, to maintain that union inviolate, and to come down to
parliament and call upon parliament to give her majesty's government its
support in carrying into execution any measures which may he considered
necessary to maintain the union inviolate, and to preserve from
turbulence the peace of her majesty's dominions.

_May 9, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The House of Lords should disregard popular Clamour._

As to the remarks which are made on your lordships elsewhere, I am one
of those animadverted upon, and I am glad to find myself upon this
occasion in such extremely good company. For myself, I can only say that
I have been for a great number of years in the habit of treating such
criticisms and such assaults with the smallest possible attention; and I
shall continue to do my duty to the best of my ability, in the service
of my sovereign, or elsewhere, and continue to treat the language
referred to with as little attention as heretofore; and I recommend
noble lords on both sides of the house to follow my example in this
respect.

_May 15, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor._

There can have been no object in the measure (the bill for the union of
the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor), but to make all the arrangements in
the manner most convenient to the country generally. There could have
been no desire to injure the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, or any
other district in the kingdom; but the object was to make a better
distribution of the revenues of the church, and to satisfy the public of
a sincere desire to effect such a reformation as would be a real one,
and such as would give satisfaction, not only to those who were attached
to the church, as my noble friend and myself, but also to others who
looked upon it with indifference.

_May 23, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Duke of Sussex._

My lords, his late royal highness was well known to all your lordships.
His royal highness frequently took part in the discussion of those
subjects which came under your lordships' consideration; and although it
was impossible for every person endowed with such acquirements, and
possessed of such an understanding, as belonged to his late royal
highness, not to have felt strongly on the various events and questions
which from time to time were brought under the consideration of this
house, yet his late royal highness always treated those subjects,
however exciting they might have been, with much moderation, and with
great forbearance towards others with whom he might have a difference of
opinion. I must do his late royal highness the justice to say, that
though I had the unhappiness to differ from him in opinion on several
subjects which came under discussion in this house, yet, notwithstanding
that difference of opinion, his late royal highness ever treated me with
unvarying kindness, and with the utmost condescension. My lords, his
late royal highness having received the benefit of an excellent
education, and having in his youth passed a considerable portion of his
time in foreign countries, was a most accomplished man; and he continued
his studies, in all branches of literature and science, until almost the
latest period of his existence. His late royal highness was, during his
whole life, the protector of literature, of the sciences, and of the
arts, and of the professors and representives of all branches of
knowledge. For a number of years his late royal highness was elected
president of the Royal Society, and he received the learned members of
that body in his house with the greatest amenity and kindness. Having
himself sedulously cultivated all subjects of literature, science, and
art, his late royal highness was, I may say, the patron, protector, and
friend, of all those who pursued such studies, on every occasion when
that protection was necessary. But other praise belongs to his late
royal highness. His royal highness was not backward--on the contrary, he
was equally forward with all the princes of his family--as a patron and
upholder, as a supporter and protector, of the various charitable
institutions of this metropolis; and, my lords, up to the last moment of
his life, he was the friend of the indigent and the unfortunate wherever
they might be found.

_April 27, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reasons for the Dismissal of the Irish Magistrates._

These gentlemen having been some of the persons to instigate and
encourage the assembly of those large meetings in Ireland, on which the
first law authority had pronounced in writing the opinion that they had
a "tendency to outrage;" that "they were not in the spirit of the
constitution, and may become dangerous to the State;" the
lord-lieutenant of the government could not put any confidence in the
performance of their duties by these magistrates and deputy-lieutenants,
who had thus excited these meetings, or who presided at them. Your
lordships are perfectly aware that on one occasion it was proved that
these meetings had a tendency to outrage--indeed, outrage was actually
committed. I told your lordships on a former occasion that there was a
great difference in Ireland on the subject of the repeal of the union.
Now, suppose that two assemblies representing such opinions assemble on
the same occasion and in the same neighbourhood, why it is obvious that
outrage and bloodshed may occur, and it must be likewise obvious that
those magistrates and deputy-lieutenants are not officers on whom the
Lord-lieutenant can rely for carrying into execution measures for the
repression and suppression of outrage which he may think proper to take
on such an occasion. My lords I have besides to observe to your lordships,
that for a very considerable period of time it has been a matter of
notoriety in Ireland that the members of her Majesty's council, her
majesty's servants in this and the other house of arliament, declared it
to be the fixed and positive determination of the government to maintain
inviolate the legislative union between the two countries. Some of the
most distinguished members of both houses of parliament declared, in their
places, that they had the same intention; and this declaration of opinion
has been communicated to the public more than once; and in no one instance,
as I believe, has there been an intention avowed to promote the object of
this repeal of the union. Well, then, what must be inferred from the
notoriety of that fact? What but that the repeal of the union, so far as
a vote of parliament is concerned, is hopeless? It is to be carried then
by intimidation, by force, and violence; and, of course, as the government,
whose duty it is to resist and repress such acts of intimidation, force,
and violence, whenever they should be attempted, by all the means at their
disposal, cannot use such instruments as those who excite the people to
appear at their head, the lord-lieutenant and lord chancellor have taken
measures to remove them from the commission of the peace, and
deputy-lieutenancies of their several counties. This is the principle,
my lords, on which I conceive the government has acted.

_June 9, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

After what passed in both houses of parliament it became a matter of
notoriety that the opinion of parliament was, that the legislative union
should not be repealed, and that every effort on the part of the
government should be made to resist the attempt to occasion that repeal.
Then, my lords, under these circumstances, the lord chancellor finds
Lord French and other magistrates calling meetings to repeal the union,
assisting at the meetings, presiding at them, and urging all the
proceedings. At this time the opinion of parliament was notorious, yet
meetings consisting of 10,000, 20,000, 100,000, no matter as to the
number of thousands, continued. My lords, I wish to know with what
object they were continued? Was it with a view to address parliament to
repeal the union? No, my lords, they were continued to obtain the
desired repeal of the union,--by terror, if possible,--if not, by force
and violence. And the persons calling these meetings, I beg your
lordships to observe, were the magistrates, the very men who must have
been employed by government to take measures to resist this violence, to
prevent breaches of the peace, to arrest those who should be guilty of
such breaches, and to bring them to justice; and then the noble lord
says, that the government ought not to have removed those magistrates
from their situations, and that they ought not to draw a distinction as
to the time when it became notorious to the whole world what were the
views entertained by parliament and the government on this important
question. My lords, in this and the other house of parliament, no one
would have any idea of repealing the union except in regular course,
like another act of parliament; but with these meetings of 50,000 and
60,000 men, was there any question of discussion? No, my lords, the
question was terror, force, and violence. That was the ground on which
the lord chancellor told these magistrates after the views of the
government had become notorious, you must be dismissed if you attend, or
excite others to attend, such meetings. I am as much concerned that this
state of affairs should exist as the noble lord can be; but of this I am
quite certain, that the way to be prepared is not to have in the service
of the government--not to have government dependant upon the exertions
of--a number of magistrates who have excited and encouraged these
proceedings, assisting at and presiding over these very meetings. That
could not have been desirable, and I say that the lord chancellor and
situation as that of governor-general of India, an officer who was so
for little more than two years--an officer who has given satisfaction in
so high a situation to those by whom he was intrusted and
employed--whose acts have been concurred in and sanctioned in every
instance; to recall that officer suddenly, making no provision for the
performance of the great duties which are to be performed, and which
must he performed in that country--to recall an officer in whom the
government fully confided, without the concurrence of that
government--is, my lords, an act, to say the least of it, that cannot be
called a discreet exercise of the power which is conferred on those who
have so used it. My lords, I will say nothing--- I will advert to
nothing that is not notorious--that is not strictly in reference to the
act of parliament. I beg your lordships to observe, that the body which
did this act--which I must call an act of indiscretion, at least--that
body, as a body, has no knowledge whatever of the instructions sent out
to the governor-general, and under which he acted. They stated reasons
for withdrawing the governor-general from India; but, as a body (except
the secret committee appointed under the act of parliament), they had no
knowledge whatever of the instructions under which the governor-general
acted, or of the events which had taken place in that country, except
that which is within the general knowledge of this and the other house
of parliament, and the whole public of this country. And yet, my lords,
they take this responsibility upon themselves--having no knowledge of
the instructions which it was deemed at Waterloo. Very possibly not, my
lords. Bear in mind what he said in respect to the augmentation of his
numbers, and the means of assembling those persons. He said on one
occasion, that by the post of one night, he could collect the whole of
this force in different parts of the country; and it is perfectly
true,--I have not a doubt of the fact.

_July 14, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Remedial Measures of no avail whilst Agitation continues in Ireland._

My lords, I must say, that grieved as I am that there should be so much
truth in the representations made by the noble lord of the existing
state of the country, and of its prospects, threatened as they are by
the continuance of agitation, I must say, that no measure that could be
proposed, no new measure which could be adopted, would have the smallest
effect in removing any of these evils or inconveniences. My lords, the
only mode, the only course to be adopted on the part of the government,
is to oppose a strong resistance to everything like a breach of the
peace or public order, and to be prepared, as I hope they are prepared,
to enforce measures for preserving quiet, and protecting property, in
Ireland. My lords, I know of no remedy but that for the state of affairs
which exists at present; particularly as it appears that whether the
peace of the country shall be disturbed or not, depends on the will of
one man, and his influence over the wills and actions of some thousands,
who possess influence in various parishes of the country.

_July 14, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Agitation no Relief for the Poverty of Ireland._

My lords, it certainly is true that there is in Ireland a vast number of
poor. I have been sorry to see that it is stated in some returns on the
table, that there are as many as 2,000,000 of poor in Ireland. My lords,
it happens unfortunately, that in all parts of the empire there are
poor; but I will beg to observe, that it is not in the power of this
government, nor of any government, nor of any parliament, in the course
of a few weeks, or a few months, or, I may say, a few years, to relieve
the poverty of a great country like that, extending as it does to such a
portion of the population. But, my lords, I beg to know whether poverty
can be relieved by this description of agitation for the repeal of the
union? Is poverty relieved by marches of twenty-five and thirty Irish
miles a-day, during the period of spring and summer, to hear seditious
speeches? Is poverty relieved by subscriptions of thousands of pounds to
the repeal rent, and the O'Connell rent, and other funds of that
description? No, my lords, that poverty must be relieved by a
perseverance in industry and sobriety; not taken up by fits and starts
for the sake of a more orderly appearance at seditious meetings, where
the people are marshalled by bands of music and flying colours. The
evils, whence that poverty proceeds, are not to be cured in a day. The
remedies must be some time in operation; and all I can say is, that the
government are sincerely desirous to avail themselves of every
opportunity that may tend to benefit the people of Ireland, and to
relieve that poverty of which the noble lord so eloquently complains.

_July 14, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Assistance of Foreigners to the Repeal Agitation.--Their Anti-English
Motives._

My lords, I do not dispute the extent of the conspiracy--I do not
dispute the dangers resulting from organization in Ireland--I have
stated it publicly on more than one occasion--I do not deny it--it is
notorious, it is avowed, it is published in every paper all over the
world. I do not deny the assistance received from foreigners, not from
foreign governments,--I have no right to say so,--but from foreigners of
nearly all nations; for there are disturbed and disturbing spirits
everywhere, who are anxious to have an opportunity of injuring and
deteriorating the great prosperity of this country.

_August 8, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Military in readiness to preserve the Peace in Ireland._

I, whose duty it is to superintend one of those offices on which the
execution of the measures of the government depends, feel confident that
everything that can be done has been done, in order to enable the
government to preserve the peace of the country, and to meet all
misfortunes and consequences which may result from the violence of the
passions of those men who unfortunately guide the multitude in Ireland.

_August 8, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Mr. O'Connell's Proceedings._

To plunder the public in Ireland of money for the purpose of O'Connell
rent, or repeal contribution, or the lord lieutenant would not have done
their duty if they had not removed those persons from her majesty's
service.

_July 14, 1845._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The "Monster" Meetings in Ireland._

The noble lord (the Marquis of Clanricarde) has stated that these
meetings were not illegal. I certainly do not consider myself competent
to decide whether they were or were not illegal. This I know, that they
consist of very large numbers--whether of 10,000 or 100,000 I am sure I
cannot tell, and I do not believe any man can tell to a certainty. They
are assembled in very large numbers, regularly organised, marching under
the lead of persons on horseback, with bands and banners, in regular
military array. After having attended these meetings, those present are
dispersed by word of command, without trouble, violence, or breach of
the peace, and march back, perhaps twenty or thirty miles. * * * My
lords, I have had some experience, in the course of a long life, which I
have passed in the service of the sovereigns of this country, of
revolutions. A distinguished author has written of the French
revolution. "_On ne conspire pas sur la place_." There is no secret in
these transactions, and the reason why there is no secret is this, that
the great means of operation are deception of their followers, and
terror in respect of their adversaries. Accordingly, we hear a learned
gentleman exclaiming to his audience, "Napoleon had not in Russia such
an army as this is; the Duke of Wellington had not such a one repeal of
those laws upon which the reformation in this country has been founded.
My lords, I have already taken opportunities of warning your lordships
against the assertion of such doctrines in this house, and I must again
express a hope that you will observe and beware how they are introduced
into it, because you may rely upon it, that there is not an individual
in this country, be his religious opinions what they may, be his
position what it may, who is not interested in the maintenance of the
reformation. Not only our whole system of religion, but our whole system
of religious toleration, in which so many people in this country are
interested, depends upon the laws upon which the reformation was
founded; and I therefore entreat your lordships to give no encouragement
to doctrines that might induce a belief that there exists in this house
any indifference upon the subject of those laws.

_March 18, 1844._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Compact entered into for the Maintenance of the Protestant Church
in Ireland should be held sacred._

The Protestant church in Ireland has existed in that country for a
period of nearly three hundred years, and was maintained in that country
during a century of contests, rebellions, and massacres; and during a
contest for the possession of the crown, the Protestants of that country
encountered that contest, and kept possession of their church; and
during another century it was maintained through much opposition, and
under difficulties of all descriptions. At the period of the union, the
parliament--who had the power to consent to the union, or to refuse
their consent--stipulated that the Protestant church in Ireland should
be maintained, and maintained on the same footing as the Protestant
church of England in this country. The parliament had, under the
auspices of the king of this country, the power of either making or not
making that compact. Your lordships entered into that compact with the
parliament of Ireland, and I entreat you never to lose sight of the
fact. I entreat you not to suffer yourselves to be prevailed upon to
make any alteration in, or to depart in the slightest degree from, the
terms of that compact, so long as you intend to maintain the union
between this country and Ireland. It is the foundation upon which the
union rests,--it is a compact which you have entered into with the
parliament of Ireland, and from which you cannot depart without being
guilty of a breach of faith, worse than those which have been referred
to in other countries,--worse than those pecuniary breaches of faith
which have been alluded to in the course of the discussion which took
place in your lordships' house this evening upon another subject. I
entreat you to listen to none of those petitions or speeches which tend
to the injury or the destruction of the church in Ireland. Do what may
be necessary,--do what it may be proper to do, in order to render that
church more beneficial to the people of that country; but I entreat you
to adhere strictly, in spirit and according to the letter, to the
compact you have made, and not permit it to be supposed in any quarter
whatever that you entertain the most distant intention of departing, in
the slightest degree, from that arrangement.

_March 18, 1844._

       *       *       *       *       *

_The recall of the Governor-General of India, by the Court of Directors,
an act of gross indiscretion._

My lords, I conceive that this right (of recalling the governor-general
of India) is one which the court of directors are bound to exercise with
due discretion; as all bodies and all individuals ought to do, when they
possess extraordinary powers under the provisions of the law. In such
cases, my lords, they are hound to exercise that power with the utmost
discretion. Now, my lords, I will venture to submit to your lordships,
as the opinion of an individual who has had some experience in these
matters, that the exercise of the power belonging to the court of
directors is not, in this instance, to say the least of it, a discreet
exercise of that power. My lords, the court of directors has this power.
It has also the power of nominating a successor in the room of the
person recalled. But, my lords, it has no other power whatever, as your
lordships will find in looking into the law on the subject--it has no
other power whatever, my lords, except under the direction and control
of the board of commissioners for the affairs of India, and for the acts
of that board of commissioners her majesty's government is responsible.
Under these circumstances, my lords, I venture again to say, what I
before said, that it is not a discreet act of authority to recall from
power--to recall from such an important what not, is one thing; to
excite the common people of the country to approach as near as possible
to the commission of crime, and to do all the mischief that is possible
to be done to the country, without exposing one's own person, is another
thing; but to corrupt the army is quite a different thing, which, I hope
and trust, I may promise your lordships will not be fulfilled.

_August 11, 1843._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Eulogium on Major-General Sir Charles Napier._

My lords, I must say, that, after giving the fullest consideration to
these operations (in Scinde), I have never known an instance of an
officer who has shown in a higher degree that he possesses all the
qualities and qualifications to enable him to conduct great operations.
He has maintained the utmost discretion and prudence in the formation of
his plans, the utmost activity in all the preparations to ensure his
success, and, finally, the utmost zeal, gallantry, and science, in
carrying them into execution.

_February 12, 1844._

       *       *       *       *       *

_Persons of every Religious Denomination interested in the maintenance
of the Reformation._

The noble lord (Earl Fitzwilliam) has propounded to your lordships a
something, neither the nature of which, nor the period at which it is to
be carried into execution, is he himself exactly certain of. Something
or other must be done; to that something this country must make up its
mind; the noble lord does not state what it is to be; but it is, at all
events, to involve the necessary to send out to that part of the
globe--and the act of parliament will shew they are bound to have
none--having no share in giving those instructions--in short, having no
knowledge on which to found a judgment on so important a subject as the
recall of a governor-general, they took upon themselves to pronounce
their judgment on the conduct of this officer, and to disapprove of it.
Now, my lords, I must say, that having no knowledge which could enable
them fairly to pronounce their judgment on his conduct, or that could
justify them in depriving the government and the country of the best
instrument--I say it again, the best instrument to carry on and perform
the various duties of that great office, making no provision whatever
for the performance of those duties which are now to be provided for by
her majesty's government, is an indiscreet exercise of the powers they
possess. My lords, as I have said so much on this subject, I will, in
order to illustrate the indiscretion of this act (that is the best word
I can find for it), go yet a little further. My lords, though I believe
this is the first time in the history of the government of India that
this extreme measure has been resorted to by the court of directors, it
has more than once been in contemplation; but upon the advice and
remonstrance of the ministers of the day, the resolution of the court of
directors has been always withdrawn. And it is the fact, that it has
been in contemplation by these very gentlemen, with reference to this
same governor general, in the course of the last twelve months; but
they were at that time prevailed upon to withdraw that resolution, and
not to persist in the recall of my noble friend. This was previous to
the late great military operations in Gwalior, of which we have all
heard with so much satisfaction,--operations which I am sure your
lordships will have perceived from the perusal of the reports which have
been laid upon your table, must have been founded upon the most just and
discriminate measures, for the equipment and maintenance of the armies
placed in the field, under the direction and superintendence of the
governor general--not the equipment only of these armies--but the
support of the troops in the field, the maintenance of military
communication, and the moans of advance and retreat--in short, all that
could tend to insure their success--were amply provided for. Then, my
lords, suppose the case to have occurred of the court of directors
thinking proper to recall the noble lord six or eight months ago, whilst
the measures to which I have just alluded were in contemplation, what
would have become of the great operations at Gwalior--operations carried
on under the superintendence and direction of my noble friend the
governor general. Why, the gentleman who was senior in the council must
have succeeded my noble friend--a respectable man no doubt he is, but
without the experience of my noble friend; and without the knowledge of
the manner of equipping armies, and making proper arrangements for their
being called into action, it is needless to add, that such great and
successful operations as those to which I have alluded could not be
carried on, and I leave your lordships to judge what the situation of
India would have been if that expedition had failed, and if such an army
as the one which we have seen described in one of the blue books upon
this table had continued in existence, threatened, as we were, at the
same moment, by a similar body in the Punjaub, on the north-west
frontier, and with the province of Scinde still in an unsettled state.
Why, my lords, the danger would have been imminent, and this would have
been the consequence of the recall of my noble friend six or eight
months ago, a measure which was in contemplation, and was only prevented
by our representations to those who have now committed this gross
indiscretion of recalling the noble lord--it was prevented only by the
representations made to those gentlemen of the danger which would ensue
to the public interest from the measures which they were about to adopt,
the dangers resulting from the impossibility that they would be able to
provide for events which most probably would occur if they recalled
their officer without the consent of her majesty's government, who would
thus be deprived of the instrument in their hands best fitted for
carrying their instructions into execution, while the directors, in this
country, must be unable to direct the means in existence for securing
the safety of their troops, for guarding their frontier, for upholding
the honour of Her majesty's arms, and the security of our vast dominions
in that part of the world. I say again, as I have said before, and I
say the least of it, when I pronounce it to be the most indiscreet
exercise of power that I have known carried into execution by any body
possessed of power since I have had a knowledge of public affairs, which
I am sorry to say is upwards of half a century.

_April 29, 1844._

       *       *       *       *       *

_His Support of the New Poor Law (Ireland.)_


I will take the liberty of reminding your lordships that the New Poor
Law was originated by noble lords opposite, while they were in the
service of her majesty, and that I gave the measure my support from a
sense of duty, because I thought it was calculated to benefit Ireland. I
have throughout supported the measure; I proposed some amendments which
I thought likely to promote its beneficial action; I have given it my
support ever since; and I am prepared to do all in my power to ensure
its successful operation.

_May 17, 1844._



INDEX.

   Absenteeism, Irish, deprecated, 220.

   Abstract questions, opinions on them inexpedient, 474.

   Acre, the capture of, the greatest deed of modern times, 460.

   Affghanistan expedition, its conduct approved of, 445.

   Agitation in Ireland, real meaning of, 192.
     Deprecated, 260.
   ---- characterised, 331.
     Agitation by authority, 411.

   Agrarian outrages, the, of 1830, 223
   ---- in Ireland, caused by agitation, 385.

   Agriculture and manufactures, 469.

   Albocracy, the, 309.

   Albuera, battle of, one of the most glorious in the war, 115.

   Animosity should be forgotten when war is concluded, 58.

   Anonymous letters, meanness of writing them, 118.

   Army, how to avoid party spirit in, 84.
     Control of by the crown, 96.
   ---- British, can bear neither success nor failure, 97.
   ---- in Portugal, croaking spirit among officers, 106.
   ---- British, the worst men only enter as privates, 111.
   ---- what they want is coolness in action, not headlong bravery, 115.
   ---- officers, as well as soldiers, require keeping in order, 118.
   ---- its morale important to discipline, 126.
   ---- Indian, eulogium on it, 479.
   ---- Indian, eulogium on it, and Lord Hastings, 135.

   Asiatic policy contrasted with European, 86.

   Australia, 463.


   Ballot, the, and universal suffrage, dangerous, 427.

   Belgium, its neutrality the foundation of its independence, 409.

   Beresford, Marshal, characteristic letter to, 134.

   Birmingham, riots in 1839, 427.

   Bishops in Ireland, objections to reducing their number, 333.

   Blockade, what constitutes one, 332.

   Blucher, his vandalism averted, 132, 133.

   Bourbons, their re-establishment necessary to the peace of Europe, 129.

   Bribe, indignant rejection of one in India, 82.

   British character for faith must be preserved in India, 89.

   Buonaparte, his system hollow, 103.
     His disgusting tyranny, 113.
   ---- A general re-action predicted, 119.
     Effects of his government, 128.
   ---- The Duke will not be his executioner, 131.


   Canada, plan of operations against the United States, 125.
     Conduct of the Canadian leaders, 390.
   ---- The rebels must be reduced, 390.
     Objections to a legislative council, 392.

   Canning. The Duke of Wellington felt no hostility to him, 142.

   Catholic emancipation, impossible to grant it, 136, 153.
   ---- reasons in favour of it, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 163, 166,
       169, 172, 173, 180, 183, 184, 186, 187, 190.
     Repeal averted by it, 221, 240.

   Chancellor, the Lord, his right to the patronage of his office, 268.

   Charity, money in aid of labour is better than, 118.

   China, reasons why the opium trade was stopped, 451.
     Opium not the real cause of the war, 452.
     Defence of Capt. Elliot, 452.
     Real causes of the Chinese war, 479.

   Church, the, should educate the people, 308, 456.

   Church rate martyrs, real state of the case, 458.

   Civil list, principle on which arranged, 235.

   Clergy of Ireland, depressed by the Melbourne government, 357.

   Colonies, importance of to the mother country, 456.

   Commissariat, importance of, to troops, 82.

   Corn law of 1828, principle on which founded, 143.
   ---- worked well, 208, 209.

   Corn laws. Why imposed, 466, 468.
     have improved agriculture. 414.
     Repeal would raise prices, 410.
   ---- If repealed, foreign sovereigns would tax the export of their
        corn, 417.

   Cotton and corn, 469.

   County meetings, their constitutional use, 138.

   Currency, theory of a metallic, 193, 338.
     Extended, means unlimited paper circulation, 197.
     Metallic, leads to reduction of taxation, 200.


   Democracy, concessions to it cannot be rescinded, 394.
   Durham, Lord, his ordinance in Canada illegal, 406.


   East India Company, eulogium on, 277.
     Importance of preserving the authority of, 329.

   Enemy's life, secret bargain for, ought not to be made by a
     commander, 81.
     Reward for, by proclamation, may be offered, 81.

   England the best country for the poor, 473.

   Enthusiasm of the people very fine in print, but not to be trusted
     to, 120.

   Equitable adjustment, how far to carry the principle, 213.

   Establishment, naval and military, necessary to the national honour,
    209, 463.

   European and Asiatic policy contrasted, 86.

   Evans, General, strictures on his proceedings in Spain, 372.

   Expediency better, in politics, than principle, 328.


   Faith, British character for, must be preserved in India, 89.

   Finance administration of whigs and tories compared, 257.

   France, peace with, desirable, but difficult, 270.

   Free labour in the colonies, difficulty of getting it, 323.

   French retreats their rapidity accounted for, 97.

   French revolutionary armies, causes sustained, 98.
   ---- and English armies, their different constitution, 110.
   ---- the, would invade England if we withdrew from Spain, 113.


   Game laws, the, increase poaching, 319.

   George the Fourth, eulogium on him, 215.

   Grey policy, the, tends to war, 260.
   ---- government, the, encouraged the reform agitation, 261.
   ---- Effect of their savings, 310.


   Hampden, Dr., his case, 387.

   Holy alliance, all connexion with it repudiated, 328.


   Imprisonment for debt, principle of, 386.

   Income tax, the, justified by necessity, 476.

   India, people of, philosophers about their government, 81.
     We must get the upper hand there, and keep it, 84.
     Residents in native courts must have military power, 85.
     Foundation of our power in India, (1803) 86.
     British "moderation" there, 86.
     British faith, 89.
     Civil government must follow on conquest, 89.
     The Duke's services there neglected, 94.
     Advice to a native ruler, 93.
     Danger of interfering with the religion of the Hindoos, 434.
     Evils of a free press there, 480.
     Recall of Lord Ellenborough an act of indiscretion, 494.

   Intervention, foreign, should be on a national scale, if at all, 375.

   Ireland, state of the poor in, 153.
     Real meaning of agitation, 192.
     Absenteeism deprecated, 220.
     Effect of Irish affairs on our Portuguese relations, 224.
     Agitation deprecated, 260.
     Its state under Lord Grey's government, 302.
     Necessity of conciliating the Protestants of, 307, 377, 492.
     Agitation characterised, 331.
     Lord Normanby's goal deliveries, 380.
     Objections to the corporation bill of 1837, 381.
     Agrarian disturbances caused by agitation, 385.
     Poverty of the people of, 399.
     The "monster" meetings, 487.
     Remedies of no use while agitation continues, 488.
     Anti-English motives of foreigners in supporting the repeal agitation,
     490.

     The military in readiness to keep the peace, 490.

    Jews, the, their right to citizenship denied, 334.
     --no right to civil equality, 335.

    Judgment, every man's, to be mistrusted in his own case, 95.

    Law-breaker, the, always in the wrong, 96.

    Legion, the, was sent to Spain for stock-jobbing purposes, 369.
     Uselessness of it, 371.
     Its want of discipline, 373.
     It was a failure, 403.

    Leopold, king, (of Belgium) must be independent of foreign powers, 259.

    Londonderry, marquis, his appointment to St. Petersburgh, 351.

    Lords, house of, should disregard popular clamour, 481.

    Magistrates, the, should be appointed by lords lieutenant, 222.
     --legal redress against them, 429.
     --(Ireland) reasons, for their dismissals, 483.

    Malta, a free press there deprecated, 396, 419.
     Its riches, 421.

    Manufacturing distress, causes of it, 201.
     Exaggerated, 201, 202, 204.

    Market, the home is the best, 211.

    Melbourne administration, causes of dismissal in 1834, 347.
     --treated with moderation by the opposition in the lords, 359.
     Hostile to the church, 396.
     Their impotent colonial government, 437.
     They were not a government, 437.
     Causes of their weakness, 439, 470, 472.
     Carried on war with a peace establishment, 478.

    Melbourne (Viscount), his services to the queen, 473.

    Military operations, importance of time in, 81.
     --law the will of the general, 103.

    Ministers require large private fortunes, 239.

    "Moderation," British, in India, very like ambition, 86.

    Monster meetings, the, 487.

   Municipal bill, (Ireland) dangerous to the church, 309.
     Objections to the bill, 381.

   Napier, Sir Charles, eulogium on him, 491.

   National system of education in Ireland, 264.

   National credit, how to establish it, 123.

   Navarino, battle of, an untoward event, 139.

   Navy, the, as a constitutional force, controllable by the legislature,
      96.
     --inadequacy of our, (1838) 407.
     --compliment to it, 448.

   Negotiating parties, a good understanding necessary between them, 99.

   Negro emancipation will encourage foreign slave grown sugar, 243.

   Newspapers, the Duke's indifference to, 109.

   Non-interference, doctrine of, 141, 375.

   Normanby, lord, his goal deliveries in Ireland, 380.

   Oath, the Catholic, in a principle, 319.

   Oaths are necessary, 457.
     Their abolition considered, 475.

   O'Connel, Mr., ought not to have had a patent of precedence, 264.
     His proceedings, 490.

   Officers, British, require keeping in order as well as the men, 118.
     Their fearlessness arises from their obedience, 126.

   Open questions a sign of weakness in a government, 427.

   Opinion, a war of, the worst of wars, 242.

   Opposition, the, should aid the government where war is inevitable, 405.

   Otho, king, the Duke of Wellington's government opposed to his
     appointment as King of Greece, 308.

   Parliamentary reform, declaration against, 218.
     --arguments against, 225, 227, 232, 240, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251,
      272, 273, 290.

   Party spirit, in the army, must be avoided, 84.

   Peninsular governments, the, must not mind unpopularity, 114.
     Their disorganised state, 116.

   Pledges from members unconstitutional, 245.

   Police, a preventive, checks crime, 241.

   Poor, principle of relief to, in India, 90.

   Poor, difficulty of legislating for, 211.

   Poor-law amendment bill, the Duke's reasons for supporting it, 340.
     --act has surpassed expectation, 365.
     --commissioners must be made to do their duty, 464.

   Poor-law, has worked well, 477.
   ---- his reasons for supporting it, 495.
   ---- (Ireland) reasons for supporting it, 486.

   Popular assemblies unmanageable, 99, 124, 392.

   Porte, the, our ancient ally, 138.

   Portugal must be a military country, 101.
     Advantage of having the people armed on our side in the war, 101.
     Letter to a nobleman in, 104.
     Conduct of the people to our troops, 108.
     Apathy of the people of, 108, 110.
     Portuguese troops better than Spanish, 115, 122.
     As a frontier country, difficult to defend, 122.
     Ingratitude of the Portuguese to the British army, 124.
     Its importance to England, 241, 320.
     Policy of the Wellington government, 313.
     The civil war in, fomented by the Grey government, 316.
     Don Miguel, king _de facto_, 318.

   Postage bill, penny, reasons for supporting it, 430.

   Protection, not free trade, the principle of our commercial law, 267.

   Protestants of Ireland, necessity of conciliating the, 307, 319, 329,
     330.

   Predatory troops, tactics to be pursued against them, 91.

   Printed papers' question, opinion on, 449.

   Private considerations must be laid aside by public men, 88.

   Public men must lay aside private considerations, 88.

   Public works, principle of advances for, 217.
   ---- meetings, numbers at, may render them illegal, 400.


   Quadruple treaty, the, 362.
     Condemned, 367.
     Effect of the additional articles, 368.


   Railway acts ought to be subject to subsequent revision, 358.

   Reduction in the public service, principle on which made, 208.

   Reform, see parliamentary reform.

   Reformation, the, a blow at it, 462.
     All interested in maintaining it, 492.

   Religion should not exclude men from serving the state, 95.

   Repeal of the union averted by the emancipation act, 221.
     Accelerated by reform, 240.

   Responsibility, military and civil, doctrine of, 97.

   Romana, the Marquis de, his character, 111.

   Roman Catholics, the, are interested in maintaining the established
     church, 354.


   Seaton, Lord, eulogium on him, 448.

   Secrecy, its importance in public affairs, 93.

   Sense better than abilities, 125.

   Services, the Duke's, in India neglected, 94.

   Shipping interest, the, has not been neglected, 215.

   Slave trade, French feelings about it, 126.

   Slavery, fiscal regulations for its extinction not defensible, 290.
     West India property not to be sacrificed to the fancies of
     abolitionists, 291.
     The emancipation act of 1833 a premature measure, 320.

   Socialism, danger of it, 446.

   Sovereign, the, political influence of the personal attendants of, 422.

   Sovereigns, foreign, libels on, should not be permitted, 450.

   Spain, its distracted state, 100.
     National disease of, 108.
   ---- the real power is in the clergy, 127.
     Effects of our intervention under the quadruple treaty, 362.
     Intervention condemned, 375, 401, 402.

   Spaniards, the, cry "viva," but don't act, 123.
     Jealous of foreigners, 125.

   Spanish officers, their inefficiency, 98.
     And troops, 99.

   Spanish leaders, their imbecility, 123.

   Sussex, the Duke of, his character, 482.


   Talavera, the hardest fought battle of modern days, 102.

   Test and corporation acts, reason for repealing them, 148, 151.

   Tests are no security to religion, 342.
   ---- university, rendered necessary by toleration, 356.

   Thirty-nine articles, the, defended, 354.

   Time, its importance in military operations, 81.

   Tithes, the most sacred kind of property, 260.

   Treaties, their ambiguity accounted for, 85.

   Troops, their subsistence must be certain, 82.


   Union, the, must be maintained, 480.

   Universal suffrage and the ballot dangerous, 427.

   Universities, the, their educational system the admiration of the
    world, 366.

   Victoria, H.M. Queen, speech on her majesty's marriage, 442.

   Vimiero, battle of, fought without mistakes, 96.

   War, when concluded, animosity should be forgotten, 88.
     --French predatory system, of 121.
     --A great country cannot wage a little war, 390.
     --cannot be carried on with a peace establishment, 412.

   Waterloo, battle of, its effects, 130.
     His disgust at them, 131.
     --described to a soldier, 131.
     A "pounding match," 132.

   Wellington, the Duke of, memoir, 1-79.
     His Indian services neglected, 94.
     His reason for being prime minister, 141.
     Speech on introducing the emancipation bill, 155-190.
     Would sacrifice his life to prevent one month of civil war, 186.
     His declaration against reform, 218.
     Reasons for resigning in 1880, 233.
     Speech on attempting to resume office, May 1882, 292-302.
     Explanation of his "dictatorship," in 1834, 349.
     As a public man, stands on public grounds, 419.
     His indifference to reports, 422.
     Never said one thing and meant another, 435.
     Not a war minister, 459.

   West Indian colonists, their short-sighted conduct, 394.

   William the Fourth, eulogium on, 384.



THE END.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Maxims and Opinions of Field-Marshal His Grace the Duke of Wellington, Selected From His Writings and Speeches During a Public Life of More Than Half a Century" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.