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.