_Praise of Lord Hastings and the Indian Army._
He professed his entire concurrence in the tribute of approbation
bestowed on the Marquis of Hastings, for his conduct of the late war in
India. There could not remain a doubt in the minds of those acquainted
with the facts, but that the wisdom of the plan on which it was
commenced, and the vigour of its execution, merited the highest praise.
The noble Duke said, he was pleased that an opportunity, like the
present, had occurred to do justice to the services and gallantry of our
troops in India, which were often neglected or disallowed. No troops in
the world performed their duty better, or observed a more steady
discipline. They had evinced their good qualities in all their late
transactions, whether acting in great masses or small detachments. In
all situations they had nobly performed their duty.
_House of Lords, March 9, 1819._
_Impossibility of granting Catholic Emancipation._
The whole question turned upon the degree of security which could be
given to the Protestant religion as by law established in Ireland. To
consider this, it was necessary to consider how the reformation had been
established in Ireland. It was not necessary for him to recall to their
lordships remembrance that the unreformed religion had been established
in Ireland at the point of the sword, and by means of confiscations. All
this was repeated at the revolution, and was fresh in the recollection
of the people of Ireland. Keeping in view that the Irish Roman Catholic
church, under all oppressions, continued in the same state--the pope
having the same influence over the clergy, the clergy the same power
over the people; in this state of things, he would ask, whether it was
possible that Roman Catholics could be safely admitted to hold seats in
parliament? The influence of the priesthood over the people was fostered
by the remembrance of the events to which he had alluded; and the idea
of unmerited and mutual suffering; and no doubt could be entertained,
from their present feelings, that if the Roman Catholics were admitted
to the enjoyment of political power, their first exertion would be to
restore their religion to its original supremacy; and to recover the
possessions and property of which they had been stripped by the
reformation. It was, however, said, that securities were offered on the
part of the Roman Catholics.
The pope, it seemed, had in the appointment of bishops, relinquished all
to the crown, except the mere conferring of a spiritual blessing. But
how had that concession been received by the people of Ireland? It had
excited the utmost discontent, and was regarded as an abandonment of the
essential principles of their religion, and an attack on their national
independence. Did that arise from the people of Ireland having a less
clear idea of national independence than other people? No; but they felt
if the executive power possessed any control over the appointment of the
Roman Catholic bishops, some security would be thereby obtained for the
Protestant church. Considering, then, that the whole question turned on
the degree of security which could be given, and looking at the various
securities which had at several times been proposed, he had never yet
seen anything that came up to his notion of that which ought to be
required. As to what had been said of the domestic nomination of
bishops, he did not see how the laws of the country could operate upon
it, so as to make it an adequate security. Then as to the oath of
allegiance which the bishop was to take, of what avail could it be, that
the law required this oath from a bishop, appointed God knows how, or by
whom? When all these circumstances were considered, the state of the
Irish Catholic church, the way in which the reformation had been
effected, the rivalry and enmity between the Catholics and the
established church, and the inadequacy of all securities which had been
proposed, there was in his opinion, enough to decide the question; for,
the first and greatest duty of the legislature was, to secure the
establishments as settled at the revolution.
_House of Lords, May 17, 1819._
* * * * *
County meetings if properly regulated, are a fair constitutional mode of
taking the sense of the county; but this cannot be the case if they are
attended by a mob for the express purpose of supporting one side.
_House of Lords, January 26, 1821._
* * * * *
_The Porte our ancient Ally._
The Ottoman Porte is the ancient ally of this country. It forms an
essential part of the balance of power in Europe. The preservation of
the Ottoman Porte has been an object of importance not merely to England
but also to the whole of Europe; and the changes of possession which
have taken place in the east of Europe within the recollection of all
who hear me, render its existence as an independent and powerful state,
necessary to the well being of this country.
In the late war, had it not been for the influence of the councils of
England over the Porte, I may safely say that the disaster which finally
led to the establishment of Europe as it now is, would not have occurred
to the extent it did in 1812. Under these circumstances I think we may
term the Ottoman Porte the "ancient ally" and friend of this country,
even though the treaties upon which our alliance is founded are not of a
hundred years standing.
_House of Lords, Jan. 29, 1828._
* * * * *
_Battle of Navarino an untoward Event. Sir E. Codrington acquitted of
all blame._
There is one other subject to which I shall address myself, I mean the
sense in which the word "untoward" has been used. It was intended by
"untoward" to convey, that the event referred to was unexpected--was
unfortunate. The sense in which the word was used was this: in the
treaty which is not yet before the house, and which cannot, therefore,
regularly come under discussion, though all of us have read it, it is
mentioned as one stipulation, that the execution of it, if possible,
shall not lead to hostilities; and therefore, when the execution of it
did lead to hostilities, it was a consequence which the government did
not anticipate, and which it has, therefore, a right to call untoward.
It was hoped by the former government, that the treaty could be executed
without risk of commencing hostilities; and that is rendered quite
indisputable, not merely by the treaty, but by the force which the
contracting parties sent into the Mediterranean to superintend its
operation.
The late administration entertained hopes that those treaties could be
carried into execution without hostilities, as your lordships must have
perceived from what you have seen of those treaties themselves, as well
as from the nature of the force sent to see them carried into execution;
and when it was ultimately found that hostilities were likely to ensue,
every one must look upon it as an untoward event which could give rise
to such a state of things.
When the news of the affair which took place at Navarino reached
Constantinople, it was apprehended that a war would ensue, and therefore
every one was justified in looking upon it as an untoward event.
It is gratifying, however, to find from his majesty's speech, that those
appearances of hostility have ceased to exist, and that hopes are
entertained that no impediment will present itself to an amicable
adjustment of the question; this, however, does not deprive the
transaction of the character of "untowardness" which it originally
possessed.
But in making this statement, do I make the slightest charge, do I cast
the most distant imputation upon the gallant officer who commanded at
Navarino? Certainly not. That gallant officer, in doing as he has done,
discharged what he felt to be his duty to his country. His majesty's
government have taken that gallant officer's conduct into consideration,
and have acquitted him of all blame; and, therefore, it would ill
become me to cast the slightest imputation on the distinguished action
he performed. It should be recollected, that the gallant admiral was
placed in a situation of great delicacy as well as difficulty. He was
placed in the command of a combined squadron, in conjunction with two
foreign admirals; and his conduct was such, that they placed the most
implicit confidence in him, and allowed him to lead them to victory. My
lords, I should feel myself unworthy of the situation which I hold in
his majesty's councils, if I thought myself capable of uttering a single
syllable against that gallant admiral, admiring, as I do, the intrepid
bravery with which he conducted himself in a moment of much danger and
difficulty.
_House of Lords, January 29, 1828._
* * * * *
_Reason for being Prime Minister._
When I received his majesty's commands to give my opinion respecting the
formation of a ministry, it was far from my wish to place myself at its
head, or to take any office, other than that which I already held; but
finding, in the course of the negotiation which arose out of the
commands of his majesty, a difficulty in getting another individual to
fill the place, and that it was the unanimous wish of those who are now
my colleagues, that I should take it, I determined to accept it; but
having so determined, I resigned the office of commander-in-chief.
_House of Lords, January 29, 1828._
* * * * *
_The Doctrine of Non-interference._
Much has been said here and elsewhere, at various times, on the question
of interference by one state in the affairs of another. I do not admit
the right of one country to interfere with the internal affairs of
another country, except where the law of necessity or great political
interests may render interference absolutely necessary. But I say that
non-interference is the rule, and interference the exception. This is
the ground of the policy on which this country acts. She disdains a
daily interference with the affairs of other countries.
_House of Lords, February 11, 1828._
* * * * *
_No Personal or Political Hostility to Canning._
I rise to protest against any such imputation being cast upon me, as
that I ever entertained any personal hostility to Mr. Canning. On a
former occasion I stated distinctly to your lordships, why I did not
think proper to remain in the government of which Mr. Canning was the
head. The communications that passed between me and Mr. Canning have,
unfortunately, I must be allowed to say, been made public enough, and I
defy any man to point out anything like personal feelings in those
communications. It is true, that when I found it necessary to withdraw
from the government, I also thought it my duty to lay down the military
office which I hold; but I beg leave to call your lordships'
recollection to the explanation which I gave at that time, and to my
subsequent conduct. After I left the government, I always met Mr.
Canning in the way in which I had been accustomed to meet him, and did
not depart from those habits which had marked our previous intercourse.
But I will go further and say, that I had no hostility towards Mr.
Canning's government. I did, it is true, propose that a clause should be
added to the corn-bill, but did I not at the same time beg of the
government to adopt that clause, or something like it, and not to
abandon the bill? I must again repeat, that to the day of his death I
felt no personal hostility to Mr. Canning; and that I am equally free
from the imputation of having entertained any political hostility
towards him. To whatever persons the declaration of the right honourable
gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) was intended to apply.[9] I claim to myself
the right of not being included in the number of Mr. Canning's enemies.
[Footnote 9: Referring to an angry speech of that gentleman in the
Commons.]
_House of Lords, February 25, 1828._
* * * * *
_Corn Law of 1828, Principle on which founded._
Your lordships are all aware that a variety of opinions exist throughout
the country respecting the introduction of foreign corn; one class of
persons maintaining that its importation should be prohibited; while
others contend for its free introduction into the markets of the
country. I have considered it my duty, and my colleagues also have
considered it theirs, in the measure which they are about to propose to
parliament, to endeavour to steer their course between the two extremes,
and to propose a measure which shall have the effect of conciliating all
parties, be at the same time favourable to the public, and shall be
permanent. Your lordships will recollect, notwithstanding the difference
of opinion which exists on this subject, all parties agree, generally,
that the corn growers of this country ought, in some measure, to be
protected.
The number of individuals, either in parliament or out of it, who
maintain that foreign corn should be altogether free of duty, are very
few indeed. Some persons, undoubtedly, think that a small fixed duty
ought to be imposed; and I, my lords, should certainly say here, that if
any such fixed duty were imposed, it ought to be a very small one; but I
repeat, that whatever may be the particular doctrines or opinions of one
class of persons or another, all agree that some protection ought to be
afforded to the agriculture of this country. This opinion is founded on
the great burden of taxation upon the country generally, as well as on
the particular burdens on the land; and on the fact that the labouring
classes here are better fed, clothed, and lodged, than the people of the
same class in other countries. It is admitted by those who entertain
this opinion in favour of a low duty, that their expectation and
intention are, that the poorer lands of this country, which have been
brought into cultivation by the application of great labour, and by the
expenditure of large capital, should at once be thrown out of
cultivation; and even the richer lands would become, comparatively,
unprofitable in consequence of the adoption of their system. I will
maintain that this country has been brought to its present high state of
cultivation, and consequent internal wealth, by the fostering protection
which has invariably been given to agriculture, and which has induced
gentlemen to lay out their capital in redeeming waste lands and bringing
them into cultivation. The result of such a system would be--to throw
out of cultivation the land thus redeemed from waste; to reduce the
extent of cultivation of the richer lands, consequently to lessen the
productive power of the country; and finally to throw us for subsistence
and support on the resources of foreign nations. My lords,--I will not
exaggerate the effects likely to be produced by the pursuing of a system
such as that to which I have alluded; but I beg your lordships to
reflect on the consequences which must result, if the powers, from whose
dominions these resources are generally drawn, should think proper to
lay a heavy tax on the export of such corn, or that it should be subject
to such an operation by any other state, in its transit to this country.
I entreat your lordships to consider what must be the consequences of
such a measure in its results to this country; a measure, too, in which
I may say, that foreign states might, from circumstances, be highly
justified. But supposing such moderation on the part of those states,
that they should continue to allow us to draw our supplies from their
dominions; supposing we could be supplied from other countries--America,
for instance; yet I entreat your lordships to observe, that this
country would be constantly, under the proposed system of fixed duty,
placed in the state in which it found itself in years of famine and
scarcity, which occurred in both the last and present century, and would
of consequence be exposed to the highest possible prices for wheat.
This, my Lords, I say, would be the inevitable consequence.
The cost of production, in Poland, for instance, would not be increased;
but the prices would be regulated here, not by the prices of that
country, but by the scarcity price of this country, and by the profits
of all those who might be, directly or indirectly, concerned in the
contemplated importation of corn, in such a state of things as that to
which I have alluded. Under these circumstances, a low duty would not be
productive of a reduction in price; indeed, so far from diminution, I am
confident it would produce an enormous increase. But, my Lords, I would
ask, even supposing it were otherwise, whether it would be proper to
adopt such a measure, in reference to its probable effect in other
respects? My Lords, look to Ireland, and consider what must by the
inevitable consequence if agriculture is not to be encouraged in that
country--a country, which, during the last year supplied England with
more than 2,000,000 quarters of grain. The quantity of wheat alone
imported from Ireland last year, was no less than 400,000 quarters. I do
therefore, beg your Lordships to consider what must be the consequence
of cutting off from that country nearly the only source of industry--the
only manufacture, with one exception, which is established in that
country. No man, whether connected with that country or not, can for a
moment think of imposing such a sacrifice on that country. On the
contrary, I am disposed to think, that many of your Lordships will be
ready to make considerable sacrifices to procure for the people of
Ireland a share of that plenty their industry affords us. But, my Lords,
I speak not only with reference to Ireland, but with reference to this
country. I am ready to state that the gentlemen of this country have, by
the extent of their capital, and the labour which they have employed on
their estates, raised the agriculture of this kingdom to its present
prosperous condition; and nothing would be more unjust than to take from
them that protection by which they have been enabled to bring
cultivation to the state in which it now is, and to deprive them of
those profits which are so justly their due, on account of the capital
laid out by them.
I will say, that the merchant, that the manufacturer, the poor, and the
whole public, are interested in the maintenance of the independent
affluence of the nobility and gentry of this country,--that the
Government are interested in supporting their influence, on account of
the assistance which has always been derived from them in every branch
of internal government, and on account of the support which they have
afforded to Government under every circumstance. If it were in my power
to make corn cheaper by diminishing the protection which the landed
gentry have always received, I would not do it at the expense of
Ireland, and of all the evils which the measure must inflict upon the
essential interests of this country.
My Lords, having expressed my opinion upon the system of importation at
a low duty, I will now offer a few observations with respect to the
other system,--that of entire prohibition; and which, I must say, has
been greatly and justly complained of. The truth is, that such a system
could not be carried into execution without exposing the country to the
greatest possible evils:--first of all, from want--next from high
prices, and also from a superabundance of corn, arising from the
introduction of a greater quantity of wheat than required being in the
country at a period when the scarcity might have been relieved by an
abundant harvest; and, lastly, from the depression of prices, affecting
not only the producers of corn in this country, but also the importers
of foreign grain. My Lords, evils like these can only be relieved by the
illegal interference of the Government, or by ministers coming to
Parliament, in order to induce it to consent to a suspension of the law.
Such, my Lords, is the history of the corn question as regards
prohibition; and there is not the least doubt that the system has
produced all the evils to which I have alluded at one period or another.
_March 31, 1828._
* * * * *
_Reason for repealing the Test and Corporation Acts._
I fully agree that the security of the Church of England, and the union
existing between it and the state, depend neither on the law about to be
repealed by the present bill, nor upon the provisions of this measure
itself. That union and security, which we must all desire to see
continued, depend upon the oath taken by his Majesty, to which we are
all, in our respective stations, parties, and not only on that oath, but
on the Act of Settlement, and the different acts of union from time to
time agreed to; all of which provide for the intimate and inseparable
union of church and state, and for the security of both.
The question is, what security does the existing system of laws, as they
now stand, afford the church establishment? My lords, I am very dubious
as to the amount of security afforded through the means of a system of
exclusion from office, to be carried into effect by a law which it is
necessary to suspend by an annual act, that admits every man into office
whom it was the intention of the original framers of the law to exclude.
It is perfectly true it was not the intention of those who brought in
that suspension law originally, that dissenters from the church of
England should be permitted to enter into corporations under its
provisions. The law was intended to relieve those whom time or
circumstances had rendered unable to qualify themselves according to the
system which government had devised. However, the dissenters availed
themselves of the relaxation of the law, for the purpose of getting into
corporations, and this the law allowed. What security, then, I ask, my
Lords, is to be found in the existing system? So far from dissenters
being excluded by the corporation and test acts, from all corporations,
so far is this from being the fact, that, as must be well known to your
Lordships, some corporations are absolutely and entirely in the
possession of dissenters. Can you suppose that the repeal of laws so
inoperative as these, can afford any serious obstacle to the perfect
security of the church, and the permanent union of that establishment
with the state? The fact is, that the existing laws have not only failed
completely in answering their intended purpose, but they are anomalous
and absurd--anomalous in their origin, absurd in their operation.
If a man were asked the question, at his elevation to any corporate
office, whether he had received the sacrament of the church of England,
and if he said "No," he lost every vote that had been tendered on his
behalf, and there was an end of his election, but if, on the contrary,
by accident or design, he got in without the question relative to the
sacrament being put to him, then the votes tendered for him were held
good, and his election valid; so that no power could remove him from the
office which he held. I ask, is there any security in that? My noble
friend says, that the original intention of the framers of these acts,
was that the sacrament should not be taken by dissenters; but the law
requires that a man, on entering into any corporation, shall receive the
sacrament, without regard to his religious belief. Thus an individual
whose object it is to get into a particular office, may feel disposed,
naturally enough, to take the sacrament before his election, merely as a
matter of form, and thus a sacred rite of our church is profaned, and
prostituted to a shameful and scandalous purpose. I confess my Lords, I
should have opposed this bill, if I thought it calculated to weaken the
securities at present enjoyed by the church. However, I agreed not to
oppose the bill; though I consented in the first instance to oppose it,
in order to preserve the blessings of religious peace. I was willing to
preserve the system which had given us this peace for forty years, for
during that time the name and the claims of the dissenters not been
heard of. But now they have come forward, and their claims are approved
of by a great majority of the House of Commons, and the bill has come up
to this house. If it be opposed by the majority of this house, it is to
be feared, now that the claims are made, that such an opposition will
carry hostility throughout the country, and introduce a degree of
rancour into every parish of the kingdom, which I should not wish to be
responsible for.
_April 17, 1828._
* * * * *
_Additional reasons for repealing the Test Act._
I have not called on your lordships to agree to this bill because it has
been passed by the House of Commons; I merely assigned that as one of
the reasons which induced me to recommend the measure to your Lordships.
I certainly did allude to the feeling in favour of the bill which has
for some time been growing up in the House of Commons, as a good reason
for entertaining it in your Lordships' house,--but other reasons also
operated on my mind. Many individuals of high eminence in the church and
who are as much interested as any other persons in the kingdom in the
preservation of the Constitution, have expressed themselves as being
favourable to an alteration of the law. The religious feelings of those
venerable persons disposed them to entertain this measure, because they
felt strong objections to the sacramental test. Under these
circumstances, wishing to advance and preserve the blessings of
religious peace and tranquillity; conceiving the present a good
opportunity for securing to the country so inestimable an advantage,--I
felt it to be my duty to recommend this measure to your Lordships. It is
on all these grounds that I support the bill, and not on the single
ground, the circumstance of its having been carried in the House of
Commons, as a noble Lord has stated. I am not one of those who consider
that the best means of preserving the constitution of this country, is
by rigidly adhering to measures which have been called for by particular
circumstances, because those measures have been in existence for two
hundred years; for the lapse of time might render it proper to modify,
if not to remove them altogether.
I admit my Lords, that for about two hundred years, the religious peace
of the country has been preserved under these bills; but, when
Parliament is discussing the best means of preserving the constitution
of the country, it is surely worth while to inquire whether any and
what changes, in what have been deemed the securities of the church, can
safely be made, so as to conciliate all parties.
All I hope is, that your Lordships will not unnecessarily make any
alteration in the measure, that would be likely to give dissatisfaction;
that your Lordships will not do anything which may be calculated to
remove that conciliating spirit which is now growing up,--a spirit that
will redound to the benefit of the country, and which, so far from
opposing, we ought, on the contrary, to do everything to foster and
promote.
_April 21st 1828._
* * * * *
_Emancipation.--Will oppose it, (April 1828,) unless he sees a great
change in the government_.
There is no person in this house, whose feelings and sentiments, after
long consideration, are more decided than mine are, with respect to the
subject of the Roman Catholic claims; and I must say, that until I see a
very great change in that question, I certainly shall continue to oppose
it.
_April 28th, 1828._
* * * * *
_State of the Poor in Ireland._
I am thoroughly convinced that no part of his Majesty's dominions so
imperiously requires the constant and particular attention of his
Majesty's servants as Ireland does. A noble earl has stated that there
are in Ireland 8,000,000 of people, the situation of 6,000,000 of whom
demands inquiry. He has told your Lordships likewise, that all the
wealth of Ireland is not sufficient to give employment to those people.
Now, certainly, I cannot but think that this is an exaggerated statement
on the part of the noble earl.
It cannot be supposed that there are 6,000,000 of the Irish population
who require employment--I cannot admit that the whole of those people
are unemployed. It is not true that they suffer this distress at all
times,--it is not true that they suffer the same degree of distress in
different years; but it is unquestionably true, that they do suffer
great distress at various periods, owing to the casualties of the
seasons, and to the particular species of food on which they subsist.
Such is the plain fact. The noble earl has stated, that the people are
able to procure that sort of food on which they chiefly live, at the
rate of three-farthings a stone. Now, really, if those people do not
suffer distress, except that which is occasioned by the untowardness of
the seasons; if those 6,000,000 of people can get provisions at the
price mentioned by the noble earl, in favourable seasons,--it does
appear to me that the case hardly calls for inquiry, except at a time
when their food has failed in consequence of an unproductive season. But
then the noble earl has asserted that the distress arises from want of
work, and that it would take more than all the wealth of Ireland to
procure employment for the people. "Let us then," said the noble earl,
"relieve the sick, the lame, the aged, and the impotent." The noble earl
has said, that one of the great evils of Ireland is want of capital; but
I must beg leave to tell the noble earl, that profusion of capital alone
will not prevent the existence of a numerous body of poor, and to prove
the fact let the noble earl look to the situation of England. There is
no want of capital in this country; the noble earl has told your
lordships that there are invested here £9,000,000 of capital belonging
to Ireland alone; and yet, with all this capital, the support of the
poor required last year amounted to no less than £7,000,000 of rates.
_May 21st. 1828._
* * * * *
_Catholic Emancipation._
A noble friend of mine has stated to the house, that the proposed
measure is inconsistent with the constitution, as established at the
revolution; and another noble lord has concurred in that statement. If I
had been going to propose a measure which would introduce a predominant
Catholic power into Parliament, I should then be doing that which is
clearly inconsistent with the constitution. But I am not going to do any
such thing. There are degrees of power at least. Will any man venture to
say, that Catholic power does not exist at present, either here or in
Ireland? I will address myself more particularly to the noble Lords who
have so pointedly opposed me, and I will ask them whether Roman Catholic
power was not introduced into Ireland by measures of their own? Did not
some noble lords exert their influence to the utmost to produce that
very power, which has rendered a measure like that which I have
announced to Parliament absolutely necessary? As such is the case, I
implore noble Lords to look at the situation of the country, and the
state of society which it has produced. Whether it has been brought
about by the existence of these disabilities, or by the Catholic
Association, I will not pretend to say; but this I will say, that no man
who has looked at the state of things for the last two years, can
proceed longer upon the old system, in the existing condition of
Ireland, and of mens' opinions on the subject, both in that country and
in this. My opinion is, that it is the wish of the majority of the
people, that this question should be settled one way or other. It is
upon that principle, and in conformity to that wish, that I and my
colleagues have undertaken to bring the adjustment of it under the
consideration of Parliament.
_February 5, 1829._
* * * * *
_Defence of his Conduct with respect to Emancipation._
I have repeatedly declared my earnest wish to see the Roman Catholic
question settled. I believe nothing could ever have been more distinct
or explicit than my expression of that wish; and is it a matter of
surprise that the person entertaining it should avail himself of the
first opportunity of proposing the adoption of that which, over and over
again, he declared himself anxiously to wish? On this particular
question I had long ago made up my mind, as a member of this house, to
take a particular course. It may be thought peculiar as a matter of
taste; but, for many years, I have acted upon the determination never to
vote for the affirmation of this question until the Government, acting
as a Government, should propose it to the legislature. My noble relation
(Lord Longford) knows, that ever since the year 1810, the several
successive Governments of this country have been formed upon a principle
which prevented their ever proposing, as a Government, the adoption of
any measure of relief in regard to the Catholics. In order to the
formation of a cabinet which, acting as a Government, could propose this
measure, it was, in the first place, necessary to obtain the consent of
that individual, the most interested by his station, his duty, and the
most sacred of all obligations, of any individual in the empire. It was
necessary, I say, that I should obtain the consent of that individual,
before the members of the Government could consider the question as a
Government one. Now, under such circumstances as these, would it have
been proper in me to have breathed a syllable on the subject, until I
had obtained the consent of the illustrious personage to whom I have
alluded?[10] I call upon my noble relative to answer this question, if
he can, in the negative. I beg of my noble relative to ask himself this
question, whether I was wrong in having kept secret my views, since the
month of July or August, not talking to any man upon the subject, until
I had the consent of that exalted personage, to form a Government upon
the principle of taking the question to which I have alluded into
consideration? My noble relative ought to place himself in my
situation--he ought to see what was expected of me; and then, instead of
blaming me for acting as I have done, he would see that, if I had acted
otherwise, I should have been highly blameable. When the question had
been decided--when I received the permission, so as to be enabled to
make the declaration--on not having made which, alone the accusation of
surprise can be founded--the opening of the session was so near, that it
was impossible to make known what had occurred earlier, or in any other
manner than by the speech from the Throne.
[Footnote 10: Lord Longford had accused him of concealment.]
_February 10, 1829._
* * * * *
_The Emancipation Bill not the result of Fear._
He would positively reject the charge which had been so positively made,
that those measures had been suggested to his Majesty's ministers, or
that their minds had been at all influenced by the fear of anything that
would occur in this or any other country. He totally denied the truth of
such an assertion. There never was a period during the last twenty years
in which, looking to the circumstances and relations of this country,
there was a more total absence of all cause for fear than the present;
and whatever might be the consequences of this measure, he would
maintain, that the period at which it was introduced, showed
sufficiently that its introduction did not proceed from fear; and that
such was the fact, he was ready to prove to any man upon the clearest
possible evidence. But, though these measures had not been suggested by
fear nor by intimidation, it would be found, when they were brought
forward, that they were founded upon the clear and decided opinion, that
this question ought to be settled, and that considerable sacrifices had
been made by himself and his colleagues in this, and in the other House
of Parliament, with a view to the final adjustment of it. In doing so,
he begged the noble Lord on the cross bench to believe, that not the
least considerable or the least disagreeable sacrifice on his part, was
the necessity imposed on him of differing from the noble lord on this
subject. But he would not talk of his own sacrifices--they were
trifling, when compared with the sacrifices which had been made by some
of his noble friends near him, and by his right honourable friend in
another place. He could not conceive a greater sacrifice than must have
been made by his right honourable friend, to bring his mind to the
determination of carrying this measure. It was obvious that nothing but
an imperious sense of duty had induced his right honourable friend to
make such a sacrifice; but the inconveniences and dangers which had
arisen from the present state of things in this country and in Ireland,
had left no alternative but the adoption of this measure; and now that
he had adopted it, he would use his best endeavours, in concert with his
colleagues, to carry it into effect. Under such circumstances, he would
entreat their lordships to wait until the whole question should have
come before them. When the measure should have been well considered by
them, they would then see whether it would be attended with the
dangerous consequences ascribed to it--and whether the carrying it would
not place the Protestant Constitution of these realms upon a better
footing than it had been since the union with Ireland. He would not now
enter into the discussion, whether the consequences of this measure
would be injurious to that Throne, for the maintenance of which he was
ready to sacrifice his life, or whether the measure was likely to
produce those effects which were apprehended by his noble friend on the
cross bench. Of this he was certain, that the existence of the dangers
which some noble lords seemed to apprehend from the adjustment of this
question, they were never able to establish; and whenever the discussion
of the measure came before their lordships, he would be ready to prove,
that the Protestant institutions of this country were exposed to more
dangers at present, than they would be exposed to after the adoption of
the measure that would be proposed.
_February 16, 1829._
* * * * *
_Former Associations in Ireland could not be put down.--Mr. Pitt for
Emancipation._
He must say, he apprehended from the number of persons in the habit of
attending that Association, the nature of the speeches there delivered,
and the measures to which all alike appeared parties, that the people
of Ireland at large had been parties to the Association.
He proposed the present bill as a preliminary measure; the necessity for
which was founded on the statements already made to their Lordships. He
considered any other mode of proceeding as inconsistent with the dignity
of the Crown, and of Parliament; and as absolutely necessary, in order
to reconcile to the ulterior measure which he intended to propose, the
good and worthy men in this country, who viewed with dismay and disgust
the violent and unconstitutional acts of the Association. He entreated
their Lordships to consider, that the eyes of all Europe were upon them;
and that they should do nothing which could give any man ground to
believe that, in the steps they were about to take, they were guided by
any other motive than that of expediency and good policy.
* * * * *
If they looked to the state in which the Roman Catholic question stood
in Parliament, from the period of the Union down to the present, they
would see the prevalence of a growing opinion in its favour. Mr. Pitt
had, in his time, considered it necessary to admit, that the laws
enforcing eligibility upon Catholics ought to be reviewed, for the
purposes of modification; and, under the repeated assurances of
different eminent statesmen, a Roman Catholic influence had undoubtedly
grown up in Ireland, which it was high time to satisfy by a reasonable
change of policy. For some years after this subject had attracted
parliamentary attention, there were reasons of a highly creditable
nature, both to individual ministers and to Parliament, why it would
have been improper and impolitic to have brought the measure forward as
a measure of government; but, since the year 1811, these particular
reasons had not been in full operation; and the subject, notwithstanding
the divided state of the Cabinet upon it, had been constantly discussed,
and during all that time, had been gaining ground. He was not prepared
to describe here the mode in which the principle of a divided government
had operated upon the Catholic question; but he defied any member of the
government, at the period to which he referred, to deny that, whether
the question before them was one of education for Ireland, one for the
alteration of the Criminal Law, or one for the regulation of tithes,
this division was felt to affect one and all of these topics; in fact,
that none of them could come to be discussed, without some reference to
the great subject which was so long in agitation. The time had, he
hoped, now arrived, when Parliament was prepared to settle it.
_February 19, 1829._
* * * * *
_Unparalleled State of Ireland in 1829._
From all he had seen and read relative to Ireland, during the last two
years, he was forced to arrive at this conclusion, namely, that he did
not believe there was on the face of the globe any country claiming the
denomination of a civilized country, situated as that country now was,
under the Government of his Majesty and the Imperial Parliament.
_February 19, 1829._
_The Roman Catholic Association dangerous._
The true description of this Association was, in his opinion, to be
found stated in the speech which had been delivered from the Throne, on
the first day of the session. In that speech, after observing that the
state of Ireland had been "the object of his Majesty's continued
solicitude," it was further observed, "his Majesty laments that in that
part of the United Kingdom, an association should still exist which is
dangerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the spirit of the
Constitution--- which keeps alive disorder and ill-will amongst his
Majesty's subjects, and which must, if permitted to continue,
effectually obstruct every effort permanently to improve the condition
of Ireland." The speech proceeded to say--"His Majesty confidently
relies on the wisdom and on the support of his Parliament; and his
Majesty feels assured, that you will commit to him such powers as may
enable his Majesty to maintain his just authority." Such was a just
description of the recent state of the Roman Catholic Association; but
he believed he was justified in stating, that in the original
institution and formation of the society, on the subject of which it was
his duty to address their lordships, there was nothing strictly illegal.
The illegality subsequently complained of, and which it was the object
of this, as well as of a former bill, to suppress, proceeded from its
acts. Those acts consisted principally in levying a tax upon certain of
his Majesty's subjects, called Catholic Rent; and this, by means and
acts of extreme violence, which occasioned constant heart-burnings and
jealousies amongst his Majesty's subjects--by appointing persons to
collect the rent--by appointing other individuals to be treasurers of
it; farther, by adopting measures for organising the Catholic
population--by appointing persons to superintend that organisation--and
by assuming to themselves the government of the country, and still more,
affecting to assume it. Besides, they expended this rent in a manner
contrary to, and utterly inconsistent with, all law and order, and the
Constitution of the country. But this was not the least material part of
the danger occasioned by the Catholic Association. Part of the money
thus improperly obtained was spent for election purposes. And here he
called the attention of the noble and learned lord, to acts proving the
existence in Parliament of a Roman Catholic influence, and of an
influence directly derived from this Association. He would not discuss
that subject further at the present moment; but he begged noble lords
not to forget it, in discussing the details of a measure which he should
have to propose hereafter for their Lordships' adoption. Besides the
money spent in elections, there were other sums (also arising out of the
rent) spent in endeavours to contravene the due administration of
justice in Ireland. When he made this observation, he fully and freely
admitted the right, and, indeed, duty of every man, to watch closely and
vigilantly the administration of law and justice in this country; but,
at the same time, he was prepared to maintain, that that right and duty
could not be conveniently and justly exercised by the members of a
self-elected Association, having large sums at their command, and
employing the money which they possessed for the purpose of exciting a
spirit of litigation and dissatisfaction among his Majesty's
subjects--employing it for the purpose of defending some
individuals--for the purpose of prosecuting others--- for the purpose of
prejudicing the first inquiries in cases of criminal procedure, and
unduly interfering with the administration of justice by the magistracy.
_February 10, 1829._
* * * * *
The people were insidiously led to believe that the proposed measures
were for the establishment of popery, and the destruction of the
protestant establishment of the country; and, acting very properly on
this unfounded delusion, petitioned against them. But while he admired
and rejoiced in the excellent motives which induced the people of this
country, in many places, to protest against the intended measures of
government; he hoped that when they saw that those measures were not of
the dangerous nature ascribed to them, and that they tended, so far from
establishing popery, to check and prevent its growth, and to promote the
influence of the protestant religion in Ireland,--he hoped, he said,
the people of England would, in their conduct, evince that loyalty to
the crown, whence the recommendation of the measure had emanated, and
that confidence in the wisdom of parliament, which had ever honourably
distinguished them. Indeed, he was convinced, that when the people of
England saw there was no fear of the extension of popery from the
measure which ministers felt it to be their duty to recommend to their
sovereign, but that, on the contrary, they would tend to strengthen the
protestant interests of the state, they would hail those measures as
beneficial to all classes.[11]
[Footnote 11: This, and the foregoing extracts on the subject of
Catholic Emancipation, are from short speeches made by the Duke in the
House of Lords after the intentions of the government had been made
known, but before the Emancipation Bill came up to that house. Although
the Duke earnestly deprecated these preliminary discussions, he was
called up almost every night by some peer or other.]
_March 2, 1829._
* * * * *
_No Compact with Rome would add to the security of the church of
Ireland._
I know that there are many in this house, and many in this country, who
think--and I am free to admit that I was formerly of the same opinion
myself--that the state ought to have some security for the church
against the proceedings of the Roman Catholic clergy, besides the oaths
imposed on them by the Act of Parliament I confess that on examining
into the question, and upon looking more minutely than I had before
leisure to do, at the various acts of Parliament by which the church of
England is constituted, and which form the foundation on which it rests,
I can think of no sort of arrangement capable of being carried into
execution in this country which can add to the security of the
established church. I beg your Lordships to attend for a moment whilst I
explain the situation of the kingdom of Prussia with respect to the
Roman Catholic religion. The King of Prussia exercises the power which
he does over the Roman Catholic church, in her various dominions, under
different concordats made with the Pope: in Silesia, under a concordat
made by Buonaparte with the Pope; and in the territories on the right
bank of the Rhine, under the concordat made by the former sovereigns of
those countries with the Pope. Each of these concordats supposes that
the Pope possesses some power in the country, which he is enabled to
concede to the sovereign with whom the concordat is made. That is a
point which we can never yield to any sovereign whatever. There is no
sovereign, be he who he may, who has any power in this country to confer
upon his majesty. We must keep our sovereign clear from such
transactions. We can, therefore, have no security of that
description,--not even a veto, on the appointment of a Roman Catholic
bishop, without detracting, in some degree, from the authority and
dignity of the sovereign, and without admitting that the Pope has
something to concede to his Majesty.
Now let us suppose another security. Suppose it were arranged that his
Majesty should have the nomination of the Catholic bishops. If he
nominated them, he must also give them a jurisdiction--he must give them
a diocese. I should like to know in what part of Ireland or England the
king could fix upon a spot where he could, consistently with the oath he
has taken, nominate a Catholic bishop, or give him a diocese? The king
is sworn to maintain the rights and privileges of the bishops, and of
the clergy of this realm, and of the churches committed to their charge.
Now, consistently with that oath, how could the king appoint a bishop of
the Roman Catholic religion; and would not the Established church lose
more than it gained by the assumption of such a power on the part of his
Majesty? Then, my Lords, there is another security, which some noble
Lords think it desirable to have,--namely, the obtaining, by government,
of copies of all correspondence between the Catholic clergy and the
Court of Rome; and the supervising of that correspondence, in order to
prevent any danger resulting to the Established church. Upon that point
I must say I feel the greatest objection to involve the government of
this country in such matters. That correspondence, we are told, turns on
spiritual affairs. But I will suppose for the sake of argument, that it
turns on questions of excommunication. Is it, then, to be suffered, that
the Pope, and his Majesty, or his Majesty's secretary of state acting
for him, should make law for this country? for that would be the result
of communications between the Catholic clergy of this realm and the Pope
being submitted to his Majesty's inspection, or to the inspection of
his Majesty's secretary of state. Such a security amounts to a breach of
the constitution, and it is quite impossible that it could be made
available. It would do more injury to the constitution and the church,
than any thing which could be done by the Roman Catholics themselves,
when placed by this bill in the same situation as dissenters.
With respect to communication with the Court of Rome, that has already
been provided against and prevented by laws still in existence. Your
Lordships are aware that those laws, like many others regarding the
Roman Catholic religion, are not strictly enforced, but still, if they
should be abused,--if the conduct of those persons whose actions those
laws are intended to regulate should be such as to render necessary the
interference of government, the very measure which is now before your
lordships will enable government to interfere in such a manner as not
only to answer the object of its interference, but also to give
satisfaction to this house, and to the country.
_April 2, 1829._
* * * * *
_Anticipation of success for the Measure. The parallel case of the
Scotch Church instanced._
When I recommend this measure to your Lordships attention, you have,
undoubtedly, a right to ask what are the reasons I have for believing
that it will effect the purpose for which it was intended.
Note--The above extract and those which follow of the same date, are
from the Duke's speech in introducing the Catholic Relief Bill.
My Lords, I believe it will answer its object, not only from the example
of all Europe, but from the example of what occurred in a part of this
kingdom on a former occasion. If I am not mistaken, at the time of the
dispute between the Episcopalians and the Kirk of Scotland; the state of
society in Scotland was as bad then as the state of society in Ireland
is at the present moment. Your Lordships know that abroad, in other
parts of Europe, in consequence of the diffusion of civil privileges to
all classes, the difference between Protestant and Catholic is never
heard. I am certain I can prove to your Lordships what I stated when I
said, that the state of society in Scotland, previous to the concession
of civil privileges to the Episcopalians, was as bad as the present
state of society in Ireland.
I hope your Lordships will give me leave to read a petition which has
been sent to me this day, and which was presented to the Scottish
Parliament at the period when those concessions were about to be made,
and your Lordships will perceive that the petition is almost a model of
many petitions which have been read in this house respecting the
question under discussion. I am, therefore, in expectation that should
the present bill pass this house, there will be no longer occasion for
those complaints which have been expressed to your Lordships, and that
the same happy and peaceful state of things which has for the last
century prevailed in Scotland will also prevail in Ireland. I will, with
your Lordships' permission, read the petition I have alluded to, and I
think that after you have heard it, you will be of the same opinion as I
am with respect to the similarity it bears to many petitions which have
been presented to your Lordships on the Catholic question. The petition
states, that "to grant toleration to that party (the Episcopalians) in
the present circumstances of the Church, must unavoidably shake the
foundation of our present happy constitution; overthrow those laws on
which it is settled, grievously disturb that peace and tranquillity
which the nation has enjoyed since the late revolution, disgust the
minds of his Majesty's best subjects; increase animosity; confirm
discord and tumult; weaken and enervate the discipline of the church;
open the door to unheard of vices, and to Popery as well as to other
errors; propagate and cherish disaffection to the government, and bring
the nation under the danger of falling back into those mischiefs and
calamities, from which it had lately escaped by the divine blessing. We,
therefore, humbly hope, that no concessions will be granted to that
party which would be to establish iniquity by law, and bring upon the
country manifold calamities and disasters, from which we pray that
government may preserve the members of the high court of Parliament."
I sincerely hope, that as the prophecy contained in this petition has
not been fulfilled, that a similar prophecy respecting the passing of
the present bill, contained in many petitions presented to your
Lordships, will not be fulfilled. But, my Lords, I have other grounds
besides those which I have already stated for supposing that the
proposed measure will answer the object in view. There is no doubt, that
after this measure shall be adopted, the Roman Catholics can have no
separate interest as a separate sect,--for I am sure that neither this
house, nor the other house of parliament, will be disposed to look upon
the Roman Catholics, or upon anything that respects Ireland, with any
other eye than that with which they regard whatever affects the
interests of Scotland, or of this country. For my own part, I will
state, that if I am disappointed in the hopes which I entertained that
tranquillity will result from this measure, I shall have no scruple in
coming down and laying before Parliament the state of the case. I shall
act with the same confidence that parliament would support me then, as I
have acted in the present case.
_April 2, 1829._
* * * * *
_Abolition of the Jesuits and other Monastic Orders._
Another part of this bill has for its object, the putting an end to the
order of the Jesuits and other monastic orders in this country. If your
Lordships will look at the act passed in the year 1791, you will
probably see that at that time, as well as in this, it was possible for
one person to make laws through which another might drive a coach and
four. My noble and learned friend (Lord Eldon) will excuse me for
saying, that notwithstanding all the pains which he took to draw up the
act of 1791, yet the fact is,--of which there cannot be the smallest
doubt,--that large religious establishments have been regularly formed,
not only in Ireland, but also in this country. The measure which I now
propose for your Lordships adoption will prevent the increase of such
establishments, and, without oppression to any individuals, without
injury to any body of men, will gradually put an end to those which have
already been formed. There is no man more convinced than I am of the
absolute necessity of carrying into execution that part of the present
measure, which has for its object the extinction of monastic orders in
this country. I entertain no doubt whatever, that if that part of the
measure be not carried into execution, we shall very soon see this
country and Ireland inundated by Jesuits and regular monastic clergy,
sent out from other parts of Europe, with means to establish themselves
within his Majesty's kingdom.
_April 2, 1829._
* * * * *
_Rationale of Roman Catholic Exclusion._
My Lords in the Bill of Rights there are some things permanently
enacted, which I sincerely hope will be permanent; these are, the
liberties of the people, the security for the Protestantism of the
person on the throne of these kingdoms, and that he shall not be married
to a Papist. There is an oath of allegiance and supremacy to be taken by
all those of whom that oath of allegiance is required, which is also
said to be permanent; but it contains no declaration against
transubstantiation. There is also an oath of allegiance different from
that which is to be taken by a member of Parliament. I beg your
Lordships will observe, that although this oath of allegiance was
declared permanent, it was altered in the last year of King William.
This shews what that "permanent" act was. Then, with respect to the
oaths to be taken by members of Parliament. I beg your Lordships to
observe that these oaths, the declaration against transubstantiation,
and the sacrifice of the mass, are not originally in the act of William
III., they are in the act of 30th Charles II. During the reign of
Charles II. there were certain oaths imposed, first on dissenters from
the church of England, by the 12th or 13th Charles II., and to exclude
Roman Catholics by the 25th Charles II., and 30th Charles II. At the
period of the Revolution, when King William came, he thought proper to
extend the basis of his government, and he repealed the oaths affecting
the dissenters from the church of England, imposed by the 13th and 14th
Charles II. and likewise that affirmative part of the oath of supremacy,
which dissenters from the church of England could not take. That is the
history of the alteration of these oaths by William III., from the time
of Charles II.
But my Lords, the remainder of the oath could be taken by Dissenters,
but could not be taken by Roman Catholics. The danger with respect to
Roman Catholics, had arisen in the time of Charles II., and still
existed in the time of William III.; but the oath was altered because
one of the great principles of the Revolution was to limit the exclusion
from the benefits of the constitution as far as it was possible.
Therefore we have this as one of the principles I before stated, derived
from the Bill of Rights. The noble Lords state, that what they call the
principles of 1688,--that is to say, these oaths excluding Roman
Catholics, are equally permanent with the Bill of Rights by which the
Protestantism of the crown is secured. If they will do me the favour to
look at the words of the act, they will see that the difference is just
the difference between that which is permanent and that which is not
permanent. The act says that the Protestantism of the Crown shall last
for ever; but, as for these oaths, they are enacted in exclusive words,
and there is not one word about how long they shall last. Well then, my
Lords, what follows? The next act we have is the act of Union with
Scotland; and what does that act say? That the oaths to be taken by the
members of Parliament, as laid down by the 1st of William and Mary shall
continue and be taken till Parliament shall otherwise direct. This is
what is called a permanent act of Parliament, a permanent provision for
all future periods, to exclude Catholics from seats in Parliament. My
Lords, I beg to observe that, if the act which excludes Roman Catholics
from seats in Parliament, is permanent, there is another clause, (I
believe the 10th of cap 8. 1st William and Mary) which requires
officers of the army and navy to take those very oaths previous to the
acceptance of their commissions. Now if the act made in the first year
of William and Mary, which excludes Roman Catholics from Parliament, is
permanent, I should like to ask noble Lords, why the clause in that act
is not equally permanent? I suppose that the noble and learned Lord will
answer my question by saying, that one act was permanent and ought to be
permanently maintained, but that the other act was not permanent, and
the Parliament did right in repealing it in 1817. But the truth of the
matter is, that neither act was intended to be permanent; and the
Parliament of Queen Anne recognised by the Act of Union that the first
act, relating to seats in Parliament, was not permanent; and the noble
and learned Lord (Eldon) did right when he consented to the act of 1817,
which put an end to the 10th clause of the 1st William III., cap. 8.
Then, my Lords, if this principle of exclusion--if this principle of the
constitution of 1688, as it is called, be not permanent,--if it be
recognised as not permanent, not only by the act of union with Scotland,
(in which it was said that the exclusive oath should continue till
Parliament otherwise provided,) but also by the late act of Union with
Ireland, I would ask your Lordships, whether you are not at liberty now
to consider the expediency of doing away with it altogether, in order to
relieve the country from the inconveniences to which I have already
adverted? I would ask your Lordships, whether you are not called upon
to review the state of the representation of Ireland,--whether you are
not called upon to see, even supposing that the principle were a
permanent one, if it be fit that Parliament should remain, as it has
remained for some time, groaning under Popish influence exercised by the
Priests over the elections in Ireland. I would ask your Lordships, I
repeat, whether it is not right to make an arrangement, which has for
its object, not only the settlement of this question, but at the same
time to relieve the country from the inconveniences I have mentioned. I
have already stated the manner in which the organization I have alluded
to, works upon all the great interests of the country; but I wish your
Lordships particularly to attend to the manner in which it works upon
the church itself. That part of the church of England which exists in
Ireland is in a very peculiar situation; it is the church of the
minority of the people. At the same time, I believe that a more
exemplary, a more pious, or a more learned body of men, than the members
of that church do not exist. The members of that church certainly enjoy
and deserve the affections of those whom they are sent to instruct, in
the same degree as their brethren in England enjoy the affections of the
people of this country; and I have no doubt that they would shed the
last drop of their blood in defence of the doctrines and discipline of
their church. But violence, I apprehend, is likely to affect the
interests of that church; and I would put it to the House, whether that
church can be better protected from violence by a government united in
itself, united with Parliament and united in sentiment with the great
body of the people, or by a government disunited in opinion, disunited
from Parliament, and by the two houses of Parliament disunited. I am
certain that no man can look to the situation of Ireland, without seeing
that the interest of the church as well as the interest of every class
of persons under government, is involved in such a settlement of this
question, as will bring with it strength to the government, and strength
to every department of the state.
The bill before the House concedes to Roman Catholics the power of
holding any office in the state, excepting a few connected with the
administration of the affairs of the church; and it also concedes to
them the power of becoming members of Parliament. I believe it goes
further, with respect to the concession of offices, than any former
measure which has been introduced into the other House of Parliament. I
confess that the reasons which induced me to consider it my duty to make
such large concessions now, arose out of the effects which I observed
following the acts proposed in the years 1782 and 1793. I have seen that
any restriction upon concession has only had the effect of increasing
the demands of the Roman Catholics, and at the same time giving them
fresh power to enforce those demands. I have, therefore, considered it
my duty, in making this act of concession, to make it as large as any
reasonable man can expect it to be; seeing clearly that any thing which
might remain behind would only give ground for fresh demands, and being
convinced that the settlement of this question tends to the security of
the state, and to the peace and prosperity of the country. I have
already stated to your lordships my opinion respecting the expediency of
granting seats in Parliament to Roman Catholics; and I do not conceive,
that the concession of seats in Parliament, can in any manner effect any
question relative to the church of England. In the first place, I beg
your Lordships to recollect, that at the time those acts, to which I
have before alluded,--the one passed in the 30th of Charles II., and the
other at the period of the Revolution, were enacted--it was not the
church that was in danger--it was the state. It was the state that was
in danger; and from what? Not because the safety of the church was
threatened. No; but because the Sovereign on the throne was suspected of
Popery, and because the successor to the throne was actually a Papist.
Those laws were adopted, because of the existence of a danger which
threatened the state, and not of one which threatened the church. On the
contrary, at that period danger to the church was apprehended, not from
the Roman Catholics, but from the Dissenters from the church of England.
I would ask of your Lordships, all of whom have read the history of
those times, whether any danger to the church was apprehended from the
Roman Catholics? No! Danger to the church was apprehended from the
Dissenters, who had become powerful by the privileges granted to them
under the act of Parliament passed at the period of the Revolution. I
think, therefore, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any
justification of myself for having adopted this measure, on account of
any danger which might be apprehended from it to the church. Roman
Catholics will come into Parliament under this bill, as they went into
Parliament previous to the act of 30th Charles II. They sat in
Parliament up to that period, and were not obliged to take the oath of
supremacy. But by this bill they will be required to take the oath of
allegiance, in which a great part of the oath of supremacy is
included--namely, that part which refers to the jurisdiction of foreign
potentates; and, I must say, that the church, if in danger, is better
secured by the bill than it was previous to the 30th of Charles II. The
object for which that act was recognised at the period of the
Revolution--namely, to keep out the house of Stuart from the throne--has
long ceased to exist, by the extinction of that family. It is the
opinion of nearly every considerable man in the country (of nearly all
those who are competent to form a judgment on the question), that the
time has now arrived for repealing these laws. Circumstances have been
gradually tending towards their repeal since the extinction of the house
of Stuart; and at last the period has come, when it is quite clear that
the repeal can be no longer delayed with safety to the state.
_April 2, 1829._
* * * * *
_State of Ireland, a Reason for Emancipation._
I know that, by some, it has been considered that the state of Ireland
has nothing to do with this question--that it is a subject which ought
to be left entirely out of our consideration. My Lords, they tell us
that Ireland has been disturbed for the last thirty years--that to such
disturbance we have been accustomed--and that it does not at all alter
the circumstances of the case, as they have hitherto appeared. My Lords,
it is perfectly true that Ireland has been disturbed during the long
period I have stated, but within the last year or two, there have been
circumstances of particular aggravation. Political circumstances have,
in a considerable degree, occasioned that aggravation; but, besides
this, my Lords, I must say, although I have no positive legal proof of
the fact, that I have every reason to believe that there has been a
considerable organization of the people for the purpose of mischief. My
Lords, this organization is, it appears to me, to be proved, not only by
the declarations of those who formed, and who arranged it, but likewise
by the effects which it has produced in the election of churchwardens
throughout the country; in the circumstances attending the election for
the county of Clare, and that preceded and followed that election; in
the proceedings of a gentleman who went at the head of a body of men to
the north of Ireland; in the simultaneous proceedings of various bodies
of men in the south of Ireland, in Templemore, in Kilenaule, Cahir,
Clonmel, and other places; in the proceedings of another gentleman in
the King's county; and in the recall of the former gentleman from the
north of Ireland by the Roman Catholic Association. In all these
circumstances it is quite obvious to me, that there was an organization
and direction by some superior authority. This organization has
certainly produced a state of society in Ireland which we have not
heretofore witnessed, and an aggravation of all the evils which before
afflicted that unfortunate country.
My Lords, late in the year, a considerable town was attacked, in the
middle of the night by a body of people who came from the neighbouring
mountains--the town of Augher. They attacked it with arms, and were
driven from it with arms by the inhabitants of the town. This is a state
of things which I feel your Lordships will admit ought not to exist in a
civilized country. Later in the year still, a similar event occurred in
Charleville; and, in the course of the last autumn, the Roman Catholic
Association deliberated upon the propriety of adopting, and the means of
adopting, the measure of ceasing all dealings between Roman Catholics
and Protestants. Is it possible to believe supposing these dealings had
ceased, supposing this measure had been carried into execution--as I
firmly believe it was in the power of those who deliberated upon it to
carry it into execution--is it possible to believe that those who would
cease those dealings would not likewise have ceased to carry into
execution the contracts into which they had entered? Will any man say
that people in this situation are not verging towards that state, in
which it would be impossible to expect from them that they would be able
to perform the duties of jurymen, or to administer justice between man
and man, for the protection of the lives and properties of his Majesty's
subjects? My Lords, this is the state of society to which I wished to
draw your attention, and for which it is necessary that Parliament
should provide a remedy.
_April 2, 1829._
* * * * *
_Emancipation claimed as the Price of the Union._
I am old enough to remember the rebellion in 1798. I was not employed in
Ireland at the time--was employed in another part of his Majesty's
dominions; but, my Lords, if I am not mistaken, the Parliament of
Ireland, at that time, walked up to my Lord Lieutenant with an unanimous
address, beseeching his Excellency to take every means to put down that
unnatural rebellion, and promising their full support, in order to carry
those measures into execution. The Lord Lieutenant did take measures,
and did succeed in putting down that rebellion. Well, my Lords, what
happened in the very next session? The Government proposed to put an end
to the Parliament, and to form a Legislative Union between the two
kingdoms, for the purpose, principally, of proposing this very measure;
and, in point of fact, the very first measure that was proposed after
this Legislative Union, after those successful endeavours to put down
this rebellion, was the very measure with which I am now about to
trouble your Lordships. Is it possible noble Lords can believe that,
supposing there was a renewal of the contest to which I have
referred--is it possible noble Lords can believe that such a contest
could be carried on without the consent of the other House of
Parliament? I am certain, my Lords, that, when you look at the division
of opinion which prevails in both Houses of Parliament; when you look at
the division of opinion which prevails in every family of this kingdom,
and of Ireland--in every family, I say, from the most eminent in
station, down to the lowest in this country;--when you look at the
division of opinion that prevails among the Protestants of Ireland on
this subject; I am convinced you will see that there would be a vast
difference in a contest carried on now, and that which was carried on on
former occasions.
_April 2, 1829._
* * * * *
_No Remedy for the State of Ireland but Emancipation._
Neither the law, nor the means in the possession of Government, enabled
Government to put an end to the state of things in Ireland. Therefore,
we come to Parliament. Now let us see what chance there was of providing
a remedy for this state of things by coming to Parliament. My Lords, we
all recollect perfectly well, that the opinion of the majority in
another place is, that the remedy for this state of things in Ireland is
a repeal of the disabilities affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic
subjects. We might have gone and asked Parliament to enable us to put
down the Roman Catholic Association; but what chance had we of
prevailing upon Parliament to pass such a bill, without being prepared
to come forward and state that we were ready to consider the whole
condition of Ireland, with a view to apply a remedy to that which
Parliament had stated to be the cause of the disease? Suppose that
Parliament had given us a bill to put down the Roman Catholic
Association, would such a law as that be a remedy for the state of
things which I have already described to your Lordships as existing in
Ireland? Would it do any one thing towards putting an end to the
organization, which I have stated to your Lordships exists--towards
putting down the mischiefs which are the consequences of that
organization--towards giving you the means of getting the better of the
state of things existing in Ireland, unless some further measure were
adopted? But, my Lords, it is said, if that will not do, let us proceed
to blows. What is meant by proceeding to "blows," is civil war. Now, I
believe that every Government must be prepared to carry into execution
the laws of the country by the force placed at its disposition, not by
the military force, unless it should be absolutely necessary, but by the
military force in case that should be necessary; and, above all things,
oppose resistance to the law, in case the disaffected, or ill-disposed,
are inclined to resist the authority, or sentence of the law; but, in
this case, as I have already stated to your Lordships, there was no
resistance of the law--nay, I will go further, and will say that I am
positively certain that this state of things existing in Ireland, for
the last year and a half, bordering upon civil war (being attended by
nearly all the evils of civil war), might have continued a considerable
time longer, to the great injury and disgrace of the country, and,
nevertheless, those who managed this state of things--those who were at
its head--would have taken care to prevent any resistance to the law,
which must have ended, they knew as well as I did, in the only way in
which a struggle against the King's Government could end. They knew
perfectly well they would have been the first victims of that
resistance; but knowing that, and knowing, as I do, that they are
sensible, able men, and perfectly aware of the materials upon which they
have to work, I have not the smallest doubt that the state of things
which I have stated to your Lordships would have continued, and that you
would now have had an opportunity of putting it down in the manner some
noble Lords imagined. But, my Lords, even if I had been certain of such
means of putting it down, I should have considered it my duty to avoid
those means.
_April 2, 1829._
* * * * *
_Would sacrifice his Life to prevent one Month of Civil War._
I am one of those who have, probably, passed a longer period of my life
engaged in war than most men, and principally in civil war; and, I must
say this, that if I could avoid, by any sacrifice whatever, even one
month of civil war in the country to which I was attached, I would
sacrifice my life in order to do it. I say, there is nothing which
destroys property, eats up prosperity by the roots, and demoralizes the
character, to the degree that civil war does; in such a crisis, the hand
of man is raised against his neighbour, against his brother, and against
his father; servant betrays master, and the whole scene ends in
confusion and devastation. Yet, my Lords, this is the resource to which
we must have looked--these are the means which we must have applied, in
order to have put an end to this state of things, if we had not made the
option of bringing forward the measures, for which, I say, I am
responsible. But let us look a little further. If civil war is so bad,
when it is occasioned by resistance to the Government, if it is so bad
in the case I have stated, and so much to be avoided, how much more is
it to be avoided, when we are to arm the people, in order that we may
conquer one part of them, by exciting the other part against them?
_April 2, 1829._
* * * * *
_Defence of the Government from the Charge of Inconsistency._
Another subject to which I wish to advert, is a charge brought against
several of my colleagues, and also against myself, of a want of
consistency in our conduct. My Lords, I admit that many of my
colleagues, as well as myself, did on former occasions, vote against a
measure of a similar description with this; and my Lords, I must say,
that my colleagues and myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that
we should be sacrificing ourselves, and our popularity to that which we
felt to be our duty to our sovereign and our country.
We knew very well that if we put ourselves at the head of the Protestant
cry of "No Popery," we should be much more popular even than those who
have excited that very cry against us. But we felt that, in so doing, we
should have left on the interests of the country a burden, which must
end in bearing them down; and further, that we should deserve the hate
and execration of our countrymen. The noble Earl on the cross bench
(Winchelsea) has adverted particularly to me, and has mentioned in terms
of civility the services which he says I have rendered to the country;
but I must tell the noble Earl that be those services what they may, I
rendered them through good repute, and through bad repute, and that I
was never prevented from rendering them by any cry which was excited
against me at the moment. Then, I am accused by a noble and learned
friend of mine, (the Earl of Eldon) of having acted with great secresy
respecting this measure. Now I beg to tell my noble and learned
friend--and I am sorry that, in the course of these discussions,
anything has passed which has been unpleasant to my noble and learned
friend,--I beg to tell him, I say, that, he has done that to me in the
course of this discussion which he complains of others having done to
him;--in other words, he has, in the words of a right honourable friend
of his and mine, thrown a large paving stone, instead of throwing a
small pebble stone. I say, that if my noble and learned friend accuses
me of acting with secresy on this question, he does not deal with me
altogether fairly. He knows, as well as I do, how the Cabinet was
constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a
single word to any man whatsoever on this measure, until the person most
interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my speaking
out? I say, that before my noble and learned friend accused me of
secresy, and improper secresy too, he ought to have known the precise
day upon which I received the permission of the highest personage in
this country; and he ought not to have accused me of improper conduct,
until he knew the day on which I had leave to open my mouth upon this
measure. There is another point also upon which the noble Earl accused
me of misconduct, and that is that I did not at once dissolve the
parliament. Now, I must say, that I think noble Lords are mistaken in
the notion of the benefits which they think they would derive from a
dissolution of parliament at this crisis. I believe that many of them
are not aware of the consequences and of the inconveniences of a
dissolution of parliament at any time. But when I knew, as I did know,
and as I do know, the state of the elective franchise in Ireland in the
course of last summer,--when I knew the consequences which a dissolution
would produce on the return to the house of commons, to say nothing of
the risk which must have occurred at each election,--of collisions that
might have led to something little short of civil war,--I say, that
knowing all these things, I should have been wanting in duty to my
Sovereign, and to my country, if I had advised his Majesty to dissolve
his parliament.
_April 4, 1829._
* * * * *
_No Danger to the Church from the Emancipation Bill._
It has been repeatedly assumed by many of your Lordships in the course
of the discussion, but particularly by the right reverend Prelates who
have spoken, that the church of Ireland (or, as I have recently been
reminded, the church of England in Ireland) is in danger. I call on
those who apprehend that danger to state clearly whether that danger, on
this particular occasion, is more to be expected as resulting from
legislation, or from violence. If they say it is resulting from
legislation, I answer that their apprehensions are puerile. It is
impossible to suppose that a small number of persons admitted into this
house, and a small number admitted into the other house, while we have a
Protestant Sovereign upon the throne, should be productive of
legislative danger to the church of England in Ireland. I beg to
observe, with respect to the point relating to the union of the two
countries, that a fundamental article of the union is the junction of
the two Churches, called the United Churches of England and Ireland. It
is impossible, therefore, that any mischief can occur to the Church of
Ireland, without a breach in the union of the two countries. There is
another point to which I beg leave to advert for a moment. Although it
is true that we do admit into parliament members of the Roman Catholic
persuasion, yet, at the same time, by another measure brought forward
with it, and on which we equally rely, we propose regulations which will
have the effect of destroying the influence of the Catholic priesthood
in the election of members of parliament. We have carefully examined the
measure, and do expect that it will give additional security to all the
interests of the state.
_April 4, 1829._
* * * * *
_English Soldiers respect the Religion of other Nations._
Although I have served in my profession in several countries, and among
foreigners, some of whom professed various forms of the Christian
religion, while others did not profess it at all; I never was in one in
which it was not the bounden duty of the soldier to pay proper deference
and respect to whatever happened to be the religious institutions or
ceremonies of the place where he might happen to be. We soldiers do not
go into these foreign countries to become parties to the religious
differences of the people, or to trouble ourselves with their notions
upon matters of faith. We go to perform a very different kind of
duty,--one which is purely military, and has no reference to the
people's religion. I confess I never heard, however, that it was our
custom to take any part in their religious rites, nor do I believe we
have taken any such part. Indeed, I have never heard of anything like
any co-operation by our soldiers of military parade, except at Malta,
where I know it has long been the practice of the garrison to direct
some artillery officers to cause a few small guns to be fired, as some
particular procession passes the platform. And I know that certain
officers of the artillery, or military, three of them, I believe,
thought proper on military grounds, and not upon religious scruples, to
refuse to fire, according to the usual order of their commandant--for
such refusal they were brought to a court-martial, and sentenced to be
cashiered, not because they would not form a part of any religious
procession to which they were hostile--not because they would not
conform to the rites of the natives, and worship any relic that was
honoured by them; but for this plain and intelligible reason,--that they
had taken upon themselves to refuse obedience to the orders of the
commander-in-chief on the spot.
_April 8, 1829._
* * * * *
_The real meaning of Irish Agitation._
If you glance at the history of Ireland during the last ten years, you
will find that agitation really means something just short of rebellion;
that, and no other, is the exact meaning of the word. It is to place the
country in that state in which its government is utterly impracticable,
except by means of an overawing military force.
_May 4, 1829._
_Theory of a Metallic Currency._