* * * * *

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 Napoleon,—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.