There is one institution which would become peculiarly liable to attack

in such a House of Commons, to which I wish to draw the attention of the

Right Reverend Bench, and that is, the Establishment of the Church of

England in Ireland. This Church is the object of a fundamental Article

of the Treaty of Union between the two countries, and is secured by Acts

of both Parliaments; and the King is, besides, sworn to maintain its

right and possessions: can any man believe that, when the

representatives for Ireland come to be elected in the manner proposed by

the bill, the Church of England in Ireland can be maintained?

I have already shown that these representatives must be elected under

the influence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Who are those who now

show the greatest hostility to the Church, its rights, and

possessions?--the Members for populous places. The reason is, that the

deprivation of the Church of their property is one of the popular

objects of the day. The object of the bill is, and its effects will be,

to increase the number of this description of Members in Parliament, and

to render the influence of this party predominant and irresistible.

I believe that the noble Earl (Grey) has already found the Members

returned by Ireland, under this influence, very inconvenient to himself,

upon more than one occasion; and it appears, that the right honourable

Gentleman who conducts the affairs of Ireland in the House of Commons,

was under the necessity, very lately, of giving up a measure which he

thought important for the benefit and peace of Ireland, because the

Members from Ireland, of this party, were opposed to it. How can the

noble Lord suppose, that the Church of England can be protected, or even

the Union itself preserved in a Reformed Parliament? There is no man,

who considers what the Government of King, Lords, and Commons is, and

the details of the manner in which it is carried on, who must not see,

that Government will become impracticable, when the three branches shall

be separate--each independent of the other, and uncontrolled in its

action by any of the existing influences.

_October 4, 1831._

* * * * *

_Danger of a Democratic House of Commons._

A noble earl (the Earl of Winchelsea) who has spoken on this side of the

House, has made an observation to your Lordships, which well deserves

your attention. The noble earl has told you, that if you increase but a

little the democratic power in the state, the step can never be

withdrawn. Your Lordships must continue in the same course till you have

passed through the miseries of a revolution, and thence to a military

despotism, and the evils which attend that system of government. It is

not denied, that this bill must increase beyond measure the democratic

power of the state--that it must constitute in the House of Commons a

fierce democracy: what must be the consequences, your Lordships will

judge.

I will not detain your Lordships by adverting to the merits of the

system of government which has existed up to the present moment, upon

which my opinion is by no means altered. No man denies that we have

enjoyed great advantages; that we have enjoyed a larger share of

happiness, comfort, and prosperity, for a long course of years, than

were ever enjoyed by any nation; that we have more riches, the largest

fortunes, personal as well as real, more manufactures and commerce, than

all the nations of Europe taken together; the richest, most extensive,

most peopled, and most prosperous foreign colonies and possessions, that

any nation ever possessed. There is not an important position in the

world, whether for the purpose of navigation, commerce, or military

defence, that does not belong to us.

If this democratic assembly should once be established in England, does

any one believe that we should continue to enjoy these vast advantages?

But a democracy has never been established in any part of the world,

that it has not immediately declared war against property--against the

payment of the public debt--and against all the principles of

conservation, which are secured by, and are, in fact, the principal

objects of the British constitution, as it now exists. Property, and its

possessors, will become the common enemy. I do not urge this argument as

one in which your Lordships are peculiarly interested: it is not you

alone, nor even other proprietors, who are interested in the protection

of property; the whole people, middling classes as well as the lower

orders, are interested in this subject. Look at the anxiety prevailing

in every part of London, in respect to the great revolution to be made

by this bill. My noble friend, the noble baron (Lord Wharncliffe) has

been ridiculed for adverting to the opinions of tradesmen in Bond-street

and St. James's-street. Those in Bond-street consist of more than 200

respectable persons, who are well able to form an opinion of the effect

of this bill upon the resources of themselves, the middling classes, and

the poor, as they supply the luxuries of persons in easier

circumstances, residing in that quarter of the town. Anything which can

effect the resources of their customers, must be interesting to them,

and they do feel that this bill must affect property, private

expenditure, and the resources of themselves, and of those whom they

employ. A noble lord on the other side, who adverted to this topic,

greatly underrated the wealth of these tradesmen. I know of one,

residing in Bond-street, who employs at all times from 2,000 to 4,000

workmen, whose trade depends, as well as the employment of this body of

people, upon the expenditure of his customers: is he not interested in

upholding the public faith, and the system of property now established

in England? Are not the people, of all classes and descriptions, down to

the lowest, interested in the maintenance of our extensive manufactures

and commerce, in the conservation of our enormous dominions abroad, and

the continued respect of all nations?

If I am right in thinking that this fierce democracy will be established

in the House of Commons, does any man believe that that harmony can

continue between the king and his government and the House of Commons,

so necessary to insure to both general respect, and to the king's

government the strength which is necessary to enable his Majesty to

protect and keep in order his foreign dominions, and to insure the

obedience of their inhabitants? We shall lose these colonies and foreign

possessions, and with them our authority and influence abroad.

There is no instance of any country having maintained its strength or

its influence in its foreign possessions, or the respect of foreign

nations, during the existence of internal troubles and disturbance; and

there is no case of the existence, without such troubles, of a

Government consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, independently of each

other, and the members of the latter depending solely upon the popular

choice, and being delegates of the people. We have had an example in

England of a House of Commons which was independent of the influence of

the Crown; and of this House, turning the Spiritual Lords out of it,

murdering their Sovereign, and voting the House of Lords useless. I will

read your Lordships the account given by a man, who was knowing in his

time (Oliver Cromwell), of what this House became.

"The parliament, which had so vigorously withstood the encroachments of

the royal power, became themselves too desirous of absolute authority;

and not only engrossed the legislative, but usurped the executive power."

"All causes, civil and criminal, all questions of property, were

determined by committees, who, being themselves the legislature, were

accountable to no law, and for that reason their decrees were arbitrary,

and their proceedings violent. Oppression was without redress, unjust

sentence without appeal; there was no prospect of ease or intermission.

The parliament had determined never to dissolve themselves."

"At length the army interfered. They soon perceived that, unless they

made one regulation more, and crushed this many-headed monster, they had

hitherto ventured their lives to little purpose, and had, instead of

assuring their own and their country's liberty, only changed one kind of

slavery for another."

This is the account of the state of a house of Commons acting

independently of all influence; and of the state to which it brought the

country.

_October 4, 1831._

* * * * *

_Contempt of intimidation by popular meetings._

I do not deny that I always felt strongly the attempts that were made to

intimidate your Lordships by public meetings. For all such meetings, I

feel the greatest contempt; and I am perfectly satisfied that the house

is superior to any intimidation founded on the proceedings of any such

assemblages. I feel no concern for all those threats, whether proceeding

from Birmingham or elsewhere. I have always thought, and I think still,

that the law is too strong to be overborne by such proceedings. I know

further, that there does exist throughout this country a strong feeling

of attachment to the government of the country, as by law established. I

know that the people look up to the laws as the best means of

protection, and those laws they will not violate in any manner to

endanger the government of the country, or any of its established

institutions. I am afraid of none of these, but I will tell your

Lordships what I am afraid of, I am afraid of revolution, and of

revolutionary measures, brought in and proposed by his Majesty's

government. I assert, and I believe that history will bear me out in the

assertion, that there has been no revolution in this country, or any

great change, which has not been brought about by the parliament, and

generally by the government introducing measures, and carrying them

through by the influence of the Crown. I would therefore entreat your

Lordships to do all you can to defeat this measure--use every means of

resistance which the just exercises of your privileges will warrant; and

trust to the good sense of the country to submit to the legal and just

decision you come to.

_October 5,1831._

* * * * *

_Comparison of the Finance Administration of the Wellington with that of

the Grey government._

I believe we find ourselves in this singular situation: we have an

increased expenditure, (increased within this year,) and have, at the

same time, a reduction of taxation, and no overplus whatever (or one not

amounting to more than 10,000 l.) of revenue. I say we are in that

peculiar situation, because I put out of the question those occasions on

which ministers of the crown have thought it their duty to propose and

effect loans, to carry on the public service of the country. Even in

these cases, those who have made such propositions have thought it their

duty to provide a surplus over revenue, in order to meet the unforeseen

casualties in the amount of revenue, which every man knows must occur

in so large a revenue as this country has the happiness to boast of.

This principle of having a surplus revenue over the expenditure, has

been considered advantageous with a view to the diminution of the

national debt. I am aware that this is a part of the subject on which a

difference of opinion exists. I am aware that many great authorities are

of opinion that no surplus is necessary for the express purpose of

reducing the national debt, and I perfectly agree with them that it is

not desirable that a surplus should be created by borrowing, and thus

creating new liabilities for the purpose of getting rid of the old. But

I cannot look to what has taken place of late years, even in my own

time, when I filled the situation of first Lord of his Majesty's

Treasury,--cannot look to what took place then without seeing the

advantage of having an overplus of income over expenditure, such as

would tend to the gradual diminution of the public debt.

I am considerably within the truth when I state, that since the peace

the interest of the public debt has been decreased by an amount more

than sufficient to pay the interest of 100,000,000 l. of stock; and your

Lordships will therefore see that some surplus of revenue, in order to

lead to a diminution of the public debt, is highly desirable. I think it

is a principle of the financial policy of this country that there should

be such a surplus, and that it should be so applied. Besides, much of

the revenue of this country depends on the seasons, and almost all on

consumption; and the amount of consumption depends upon taste and

fashion; and the change of taste and fashion, and other circumstances

over which no man can have control, and which are liable to variations,

may tend to a variation in the amount of the revenue, which nothing can

provide against except a surplus revenue. It is on this principle that

the government to which I had the honour to belong proceeded.

We should not think that an individual provided for his expenses who

should leave a part of them to be paid within a future period, neither

can we think all the expenditure of the country is provided for, leaving

a part to be paid for in the next year. The sum expended for the service

of the year is the sum to be paid, whether within the year or at any

other period, for this sum provision ought to be made within the year,

or debt is incurred. It is a new principle introduced into the financial

system of this country; it is a principle which at any other time than

the present, would never have been listened to, much less tolerated by

parliament for a moment.

_October 17, 1831._

* * * * *

_King Leopold must be independent of Foreign Powers._

I entertain the highest respect for Prince Leopold, and I trust that

that Prince will take upon himself the character of an independent

sovereign, and I know that that illustrious person possesses all the

talents and disposition calculated to form a great and excellent

sovereign; but I must say, that in order to be so, he must be not only

independent of this country, and of the Germanic states, but above all

he must be independent of France.

_January 26, 1832._

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

I say that the foreign policy of his Majesty's ministers is more likely

to produce war abroad than any other system; and in the same manner

their domestic policy is of all others, the best calculated to produce

war at home.

_January 26, 1832._

* * * * *

_Irish Agitation deprecated._

My Lords, the main cause of the present excitement is the encouragement

given in Ireland to agitators to disturb the country. I can tell the

noble Earl, (Grey), that so long as encouragement is given to agitators,

you may double and treble the regular army in Ireland,--you may heap

measures of severity upon measures of severity, but you will not succeed

in putting down agitation upon this question, or upon any of the others

which may follow it.

_February 27th, 1832._

* * * * *

_Tithes the most sacred kind of property._

A noble Lord, the other night, in discussing the question of tithes,

observed that the people of Ireland are ready to pay that for which

they receive value, to pay their rent, and to pay all the taxes on the

land, and that they wished not to deprive any man of his property. I say

then my Lords, is any property held so sacred by our laws as tithes? In

the first place, the King is sworn--his Majesty was sworn a few months

ago--to protect the property and rights of the clergy, above all classes

of men. I desire also, to bring to your Lordships' recollection, that in

two recent Acts of parliament, in which we conferred notable advantages

on the Dissenters from the Church of England, we endeavoured as far as

we might by oaths, to secure the property of the church. If any

principle, indeed, can secure property to any portion of his Majesty's

subjects, the property of the church ought to be safe. It is a principle

of the constitution that tithes, above all other property, should be

secured to the owner.

_February 27th, 1832._

* * * * *

_The Grey Government charged with encouraging Political Reform._

My Lords, I never have made, and I never will make, a charge which I am

not ready to repeat, and able to substantiate, and I will forthwith

prove that which the noble Earl calls upon me to explain. In doing this

I beg leave to remind your Lordships, that some months ago I suggested

to the noble Earl, (Grey) that an Act of Parliament, which had been

passed for the purpose of suppressing illegal associations in Ireland,

was about to expire, and I asked him, if he intended to propose a

renewal of that act. The noble Earl replied that he did; but my Lords,

you will recollect that parliament was dissolved without any further

notice of the act, and of course it expired. The result of this was,

that the noble Earl stated in the House, when it met again, that the

noble Marquis at the head of the Irish Administration felt that he could

carry on the government of that country without any additional powers;

and the consequences of the noble Earl having declined to apply to the

legislature for any authority beyond the existing laws were, that

agitation began again, and that meeting after meeting has been held,

from that time to the present moment. This is not all, my Lords; the

great agitator, the prime mover of the whole machinery, escaped the

execution of the sentence of the law in consequence of the expiration of

the Act of Parliament to which I have referred. Well my Lords, what has

since taken place. This very person, the great agitator, whom the

government had prosecuted to conviction, was considered to be a person

worthy of the honours which the crown could bestow, and he received the

highest favour which any gentleman of the Bar ever received from the

hands of the noble Earl and his government; he received a patent of

precedence, which placed him next the Attorney General, and above a

gentleman who was once Attorney General, but was still a member of the

same Bar. If this was not a premium given to that gentleman to continue

his course of disturbing the country, I do not know what else could be

so considered. I feel that no more effectual mode could be found to

encourage agitation than to reward the promoter of it. But it is not

alone in this respect that his Majesty's Government has encouraged

agitation. What was the meaning, I ask, of the friends of government

taking the course they have taken out of doors, with reference to the

Reform Bill? What was the meaning of the letter of the noble Lord in

another house, addressed to the Political Union of Birmingham, in which

that noble Lord designated the sentiments of noble Peers on this side of

the House as the "whisper of a faction?"--What was the meaning of two

friends of government collecting a mob in Hyde Park, and the Regent's

Park, on one of the days on which the House of Lords was discussing the

Reform Bill? What was the meaning of those individuals directing the

line of march of the assembled multitude upon St. James's, and

publishing their orders in the papers devoted to government? And what

was the meaning of the publications in the government newspapers,

libelling and maligning all those who opposed the Bill? What was the

meaning of all these deeds being allowed by government, and why did they

tolerate and abet them, unless they calculated upon some advantages to

themselves in encouraging such agitation? I don't accuse the noble Earl

of instigating those mobs--I do not mean to say, that he was delighted

at seeing my house assailed, or any other work of destruction

committed; but I say some of his colleagues, and some of the friends of

government, have encouraged and incited the people to works of violence.

I must say, I have long felt on this subject very strongly. I feel that

the country is in a most dangerous state. I find the country is in a

most dangerous state, on account of government not taking the proper

measures to put a stop to confusion and agitation; and on the contrary,

in place of putting a stop to such scenes, allowing some Lords of his

Majesty's household, to encourage and instigate the people to lawless

acts.

_February 27th, 1832._

[Earl Grey had risen and denied that the Government had encouraged

agitation upon which the Duke made the previous short but energetic

speech.]

* * * * *

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

It has been urged, that professional honours should not be withheld from

a gentleman who is entitled to them, on account of political offences. I

beg to set the noble Lord right on that point. The offences of which Mr.

O'Connell was convicted, were not political or professional, but legal

offences. They were pronounced such by the law of the country; and it

was to an individual who had been convicted of such offences, that his

Majesty's Government thought it right to give a patent of precedence in

Ireland.

_February 27, 1832._

* * * * *

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

I agree in opinion with the noble and learned Lord (Plunkett), who has

declared that opinion with so much eloquence, that any system of

education, to succeed, must be founded on religion; and that it cannot

stand on any other foundation. The noble and learned Lord has truly

said, that this is to be desired, not simply from the advantages to be

derived from religious instruction, but for the promotion of those

habits of obedience and discipline which it is necessary to instil into

the mind of youth. I admit that the system proposed by Ministers is

founded on, and justified by, the reports of the commissioners and of

committees of the other House of Parliament; but the doubt I entertain

is this--whether the system laid down in the reports, and in the letter

of the Right Honourable Secretary for Ireland, is a system which would

inculcate those habits of discipline and obedience which are required by

the noble and learned Lord, and which would alone satisfy my own mind,

that in adopting it we should be doing that which we ought to do: this

is my apprehension. What I feel is this--that there is much doubt

whether the new system of education in Ireland will apply to the

education of nearly 500,000 persons, in the same advantageous way as is

now the case with the existing Societies--the London Hibernian Society,

the Sunday School Society, and the Kildare Place Society. What I would

say is, that there is already going on a system of religious education,

extending its operation to nearer 500,000 than 400,000 persons--a system

of real religious education, founded on the Scriptures, which can be

interfered with by nobody--neither by priest nor by any other man--and

which is so directed by this Kildare Place Society, as not to give

offence to anybody; and now, when the Government is about to establish

another system, (which I have admitted they are justified by the reports

in doing), I doubt much whether it will not be attended with less

advantage than that which already exists.

I am, myself, by no means satisfied that the system which is to be

substituted is as good as that which it is proposed to abrogate. If the

system is to be changed, I consider that it would be better, perhaps, to

have separate schools for the Protestants and Roman Catholics. Although

I allow that this would be attended with many inconveniences, still I am

inclined to think it would be better than the scheme proposed.

I really cannot see the difference between public and private education;

or why causes of dispute should arise between two classes of persons, if

educated by favour of public grants, rather than between the same

classes if educated by private means. All classes of persons who are

educated together, here, by their private means, agree quite well

together, as Englishmen; and I do not see why they should not in like

manner agree, if they happen to be educated by public grants.

_February 28, 1832._

* * * * *

_Character of the Irish Agitation._

The present state of things in Ireland is to be attributed to the system

of agitation, established by persons who will never be quiet as long as

the noble Lord at the head of the Government shall permit them to

proceed. It is not, I repeat, to be attributed to the practices or

conduct of the clergy, or to the Tithe Corporation Act, or even to the

want of enforcing that Act, but to that system of agitation, combined in

the most artful manner, and carried on with a perseverance unequalled on

any other occasion; and the noble Lords may rely upon it, that the state

of things which now prevails in Ireland[15] will continue to exist even

after this measure shall have been adopted, if that system of agitation

is not put an end to.

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

_March 8, 1832._

* * * * *

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

Nothing can be more absurd, than to assert that there is free trade in

this country; there is no such thing--there can be no such thing. Our

manufactures and our produce have been at all times protected. We have

always given protection to the productions of our own soil, and

encouragement to our domestic labours; and we have, therefore, rather

discouraged, than otherwise, the rivalry of other countries. That has

been our system; and I should be sorry to see any measure adopted by

this House, opposed to that system under which this country has so many

years thriven and prospered. We have always proceeded on the principle

of protecting our manufactures and our produce--the produce of our

labour and our soil; of protecting them against importation, and

extending our home consumption; and on that universal system of

protection it is absurd to talk of free trade.

_March 9, 1832._

* * * * *

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

My noble and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon) has been attacked for

having, in the exercise of the patronage of his office, not overlooked

the interests of his own family. To be sure he did not, and he ought not

to have done so; if he had, he would only have been departing from the

practice of all his predecessors. Let me remind your Lordships, that for

at least a century and a half back, the Lord Chancellor and Judges have

invariably dispensed the patronage attached to their offices in favour

of their own immediate relations; so that my noble and learned friend,

in providing for his own family as well as he could, was only acting

according to the uniform and acknowledged practice of all his

predecessors. The fact is, that the office of Lord Chancellor would be

very inadequately remunerated, unless the individual filling it procured

the means of providing for his family; and I believe it will be found

out ere long, what with this inadequate remuneration, and what with

stripping off so much of the Chancellor's patronage, and what with the

surrendering up so much of his bankruptcy fees,--that the remuneration

will be so inadequate to the labour and change of habits, and expense

consequent upon the assumption of the office,--that few eminent

gentlemen at the bar will, in future, be disposed to accept of it.

* * * * *

For the reason by which I justified my noble and learned friend, I will

say that the noble and learned lord opposite, (Lord Plunkett) was

justified in the exercise of his official patronage. That noble and

learned lord has a large family, and was perfectly right in placing them

in those situations to which their abilities and pretensions were

adequate. The only blame in such a case would be if he placed them in

situations to which their abilities were not equal. I will therefore say

that the learned lord was perfectly justified in the course he has

pursued; and I will say more, that his high office and his great

intellectual influence, fully entitled him to expect that the

government, of which he was a member, should give his family a

preference in filling up any situations to which, as I have stated,

their abilities were equal. I agree with the noble Earl at the head of

his Majesty's government, in hoping that this will be the last we shall

hear of this senseless outcry against public men for this mode of

disposing of the patronage of office. The time of the house is but ill

spent with such discussions; indeed, I am sure that nothing can tend

more to injure its character in public estimation, than these

investigations of the family affairs of men in high stations; at all

events, they tend more to lower the house than benefit the public, and

the sooner we put an end to them the better.

_March 12, 1832._

_Peace with France desirable, but difficult to maintain._

There does exist in the minds of the people of France, a sentiment,

which their government at the present day are but too prone to flatter.

I allude to that morbid desire of extended conquest, which, at least for

the last forty years, has so much influenced the character and

proceedings of that people.

There is no man who would be more ready than I should in taking every

step calculated to promote a good understanding between that country and

this. I consider quite as much as the noble Earl (Grey) opposite can

possibly do, that every measure tending to that end is a measure of

necessity--is a measure of such urgency and importance, that I consider

it second only to the honour and interests of this country,--those I

take to be the very first objects to which a British Minister should

direct his attention, regardless of every consideration which might

interfere with them. Well then, admitting as fully as any noble Lord can

desire, that it must be at all times a leading object with this country

to preserve peaceful relations with France, I will tell the noble Earl

opposite, that if he would remain at peace with France, peace must be

preserved by this country in union with the other powers of Europe, and

not by this country singly. I tell him that the affair at Ancona is but

a trifling warning of that which will soon follow, unless a constant

system of precaution be kept up. I tell him that if that affair be

passed over without notice, new attempts will be made, every one of them

more and more dishonourable and disadvantageous to this country. When I

am told that we should not utter remonstrances against the French

government lightly, nor too readily impute a disposition to disturb the

amicable relations at present subsisting between the two countries, I

answer that no one more earnestly desires peace than I do. There is no

one entertains a higher estimate than I do of the resources--the

immensity of the resources--possessed by that country both in peace and

in war--no man living estimates more highly than I do the wisdom of her

statesmen and the skill of her generals--no man is more ready than

myself to concede to the French people the possession of a large amount

of talent and of virtue, of physical and of moral resources, and of all

that renders a state respectable or formidable in the eyes of other

nations. But in proportion as we admit these facts, we are bound to

watch closely that nothing be done or said derogatory from British

honour or injurious to British interests.

_March 16, 1832._

* * * * *

_Opinion of the Reform Bill, 1832._

I beg your Lordships to recollect that this is the point which the

House will have to consider:--the question is not whether alterations

have been made in this part or that part, or in many parts of the bill

which your Lordships objected to last session, but the question you will

have to consider is this--Whether this bill, if passed and accompanied,

let it be recollected, with the other bills at present in the other

House of Parliament, will afford to the country a prospect of having a

government under which the country can go on--under which it will be

practicable that this or any other can be governed--or which, in the

words of the noble Earl who addressed your Lordships first this evening

employed last session--if practicable, would not be pernicious. That is

the question which your Lordships will have to consider, when you come

to the second reading of the bill. The principle of this measure is not

reform, but the disfranchisement of some places and the enfranchisement

of others, and also the granting of votes to large bodies of persons on

a new qualification. The total alteration of the representation of this

country, coupled with an alteration of the representation of Scotland,

amounting there to a complete revolution, and the overthrow in Ireland

of all the measures which were adopted in that country three years

ago--these, and not reform, are what your Lordships must consider as the

principles of the bill. I entertain the same opinion as the noble earl

near me as to the necessity of reform. My opinion on this point is now

as it was originally. But how comes the question now before your

Lordships? it has been altered considerably, and is no longer what it

was before.

The noble Earl has thrown out some imputations with respect to party

motives--if the noble Earl meant them to apply to me he is much

mistaken, I have no party views to serve. I believe there is scarcely an

individual in this house, or in the country, who has so little to do

with borough interests or county interests, or any sort of Parliamentary

interests as I have. I have the same interest in the country as any

other individual, that is to say, I wish to see the representation

established on such a basis as will give the country a prospect of a

practicable system of government.

If the bill should go into committee, I will lend my best assistance to

render it as consistent with the true interests of the country as it can

be made, keeping in view always this great point--that on the nature of

the representative system depend the character and form of government.

_April 10, 1832._

* * * * *

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

The noble Baron, (Lord Wharncliffe) in a memorable speech delivered to

this house in the month of March, 1831, previously to the last general

election, stated to this house, in the strongest terms, that the result

of that election must be to secure the return to the House of Commons of

delegates of the people; not members of the House of Commons to

consider de Adrias Regni, but to decide upon a measure of parliamentary

reform proposed to them in a moment of excitement, and the result would

be, to place this house in the situation in which it was placed last

year, and in which it stands on the present occasion.

My Lords, is all to be lost, because the noble Lords opposite have taken

this course? Is this House to be destroyed? Or is it to lend its aid to

destroy the constitution, because Ministers persevere in this course?

Would it not be more wise to call upon his Majesty to place things as

they were, previous to this unfortunate and ill-advised revolution of

parliament; to advise his Majesty to remove his ministers from his

confidence, in order that things might be placed in the same situation

in which they stood before, and that this house and the country might

have an opportunity, if possible, of having a fair discussion on the

measure of reform. What! my Lords, is it to be said that the country is

to be tied down to be governed by a system which no man can say is

practicable? and can any body deny that the House of Commons, which

consents to such a proposition, is a delegated House of Commons? All the

arguments regarding the decisions of the House of Commons must come to

the same end. There would, no doubt, be ten decisions of the same kind,

if it were left to the same house, because the house is pledged and

returned for the purpose. But the country is not to be abandoned on this

account.[16]

[Footnote 16: This and the other succeeding passages on the subject of

Reform, were delivered on the second reading of the final reform bill,

after the Earl of Harrowby and other Tory peers had resolved on giving

way to the House of Common and the Crown.]

April 10, 1832.

* * * * *

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

There can be no doubt whatsoever that there was no opinion existing in

the country, in the year 1829, and the beginning of 1830, in favour of

parliamentary reform. I believe this is a fact which was fully admitted

in the discussions of the House of Commons at that time. Then my Lords,

came the French Revolution, which occurred at the period of the

commencement of the elections of 1830, followed by the insurrection in

Belgium; and there can be no doubt that these events occasioned a very

great excitement at the elections of members of parliament. There were

many declarations in favour of parliamentary reform; and all that passed

on the subject of parliamentary reform on that occasion, was calculated

to influence, and did very considerably influence, the opinions of that

parliament upon that question. The noble Lords opposite then came into

power, and I will say, my Lords, that they met a parliament ready to

pass a measure of moderate parliamentary reform. But the noble Lords

opposite thought proper, instead of carrying such a measure, to dissolve

that parliament, and a new parliament was called under a degree of

excitement in the public mind such as had never before been witnessed.

The excitement has continued, to a certain degree, ever since, and it

has been kept up by the strong opinion put forward and entertained, that

it is the King who wishes for parliamentary reform in the manner

proposed by this bill. Now, my Lords, I say it is no such thing; for my

part, I do not believe one word of any such assertion. My opinion is,

that the King follows the advice of his servants; but I believe that it

is the idea thus engendered which renders it difficult that there should

not be some reform. It is not, however, to be supposed that the King

takes any interest in the subject. I entertain no doubt that the cause

of the great excitement upon this subject is, that it is the King's

opinion that the bill ought to be carried. The noble Earl would find the

country cool upon the subject if the King's mind were altered. He would

not be able to pass this bill; and indeed, I am sure, from experience,

that if ministers, on any great constitutional question, were not

convinced that the King would go through with them, it would be

impossible for any set of ministers to carry any such measure.

_April_ 10, 1832.

* * * * *

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

The opinion of the gentlemen of the country,--I speak from my own

knowledge with respect to the southern counties, and from sure report as

to other counties generally,--but I do say that the opinion of the

gentlemen, of the landed property, and of the learning of the country,

is against this bill. The bill is, on the other hand, supported by the

noble Lords opposite, and by their adherents, certainly not a numerous

class; it is also supported by all the dissenters from the church of

England, and by all who wish it should pass, as a means of their

obtaining votes, but I will repeat, that it is, in fact, opposed to the

sentiments of all the real English gentlemen, of the yeomanry, and of

the middle classes throughout the country. Yes, my Lords, I will say,

that there is a change of opinion, and that the best part of the public

are not desirous for the bill, but are, on the contrary, apprehensive of

its effects. But the noble Lords will say;--"We hear none of this." No

my Lords; and why do we hear none of this? Because there is scarcely a

gentleman in the country who can believe that, if he were to attend a

public meeting for the purpose of expressing his sentiments on this

question, he would be secure or protected from the attacks of the mob.

_April_ 10, 1832

* * * * *

_No Compromise_.

My Lords, I must now advert to what has fallen from another noble Earl

(Harrowby), who opposed the bill strongly last year, but who last night

came to a different conclusion, and asked if there was no hope of

effecting a compromise? and he particularly called upon me to come to

such a compromise. My Lords, these noble Lords have been trying a

compromise for the last six months; if they have made no progress in

effecting a compromise, what encouragement can they hold out to me and

others to follow them upon this occasion. We know the evils of this

bill; we know that it will consign the country to evils from which it

cannot recover. Agree to a compromise! Why, he has not been enabled to

advance one single step from last October up to the present moment. He,

and his noble Friends who act with him, have remained perfectly

stationary. If this be the case, I hope that those who intend to act

with my noble Friends, will understand that there is no more chance of

compromise on the present than on the last occasion; and that if they

agree to the second reading, they agree to a bill with which the country

cannot be governed. I beg then that the noble Lords will look to the

responsibility they take upon themselves, in giving support to this

bill. The Government are now decidedly responsible for that bill--they

are responsible for the election of the House of Commons, that passed

it--they are responsible for the excitement which caused these

events--and they are, moreover, responsible for any evil consequences

which may occur, if this House reject it. But when noble Lords change

their sentiments, and are followed by many who voted against it last

time, I beg them to recollect, that they will partake of a large portion

of this responsibility, and that the country will look to them as

responsible for whatever may occur.[17]

[Footnote 17: The bill was soon after carried by a species of

compromise, Peers staying away from the division.]

_April_ 10,1832.

* * * * *

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

The noble earl (Grey) yesterday challenged me with saying that this bill

is revolutionary. What I have always said is, that it has a

revolutionary tendency; and I think it has a tendency so strong in that

way that it must lead to revolution. The noble earl has said there is no

violence; but, my Lords, revolutions may be effected by laws as well as

by violence. I know there is no violence. Why, my Lords, there can be no

violence,--the King's Government and the House of Commons are leagued

with those who call out for change,--and there can be no occasion for

resorting to violence. But, my Lords, this is not the only objection.

One of the great and leading objections in my mind to this measure is,

that it is one which goes to destroy that most invaluable principle of

our existing constitution, the principle of prescription, which

sanctions the descent and secures the possession of all kinds of

property in this country.

_April_ 10,1832.

* * * * *

_The Demagogue will drive the Gentleman from the Representation._

The noble Earl has told us, that men possessing property in these

boroughs will continue to possess their just influence in them--that

they will have political influence in the elections--that it will

continue, and that it ought to continue. But I would appeal to your

Lordships, whether your own experience, in matters of this description,

confirms the correctness of this statement? It is true that, in some of

these boroughs, noblemen possessing large properties in the

neighbourhood will still possess a great and paramount influence; and,

indeed, in some places, in consequence of the effect of the double

franchise, the influence of the great proprietors in the vicinity may be

raised greatly beyond what it is at present. But in those towns in

general, it will be the demagogue, and not the nobleman or gentleman of

property, who will possess the influence over the elections there. The

latter cannot command such an influence, unless through the means of a

constant expenditure which it would be impossible for any one to

support. The demagogue will obtain his influence by other means, and

will ultimately drive the gentleman out of the field. I beg your

Lordships to observe what will be the effect of such a state of things

in the constitution of the House of Commons; and I beg to ask whether,

with such men the representatives of those boroughs, it will be possible

to carry on anything like a government or a steady system of policy,

through the means of this assembly.

_April_ 10, 1832.

* * * * *

_Prophetic Contrast of the New with the Old System._

I know that according to the constitution of this country, a member of

the House of Commons when he goes there is a member for all parts of

England, and not a representative for the particular town or place for

which he is elected; he is in fact looked upon as a member for all the

Commons of England. This was hitherto the meaning which was attached to

the character of a Member of the Commons House of Parliament. But the

case will be widely different should this Bill be passed, and should

Members of Parliament be subjected to a system of instruction on the

part of their constituents. That system, however, already exists in

parts of England, and more especially in the Metropolis, and in the

Borough of Southwark. Your Lordships will remember that an honourable

and gallant officer, formerly connected with the noble Lords opposite,

was obliged to retire from the representation of Southwark, last summer,

because he happened to differ with his constituents; and also that a

worthy Alderman was in a similar manner reprimanded by his constituents

in the city of London, for a similar offence. What then, I would ask

your Lordships, is to be expected hereafter, should the system laid down

in this Bill be established in this country? Why every member of the

House of Commons would become the mere delegate of his constituents,

instead of representing the people at large. It has been observed that

such representatives would in every case merely consult the wishes of

their respective constituents, instead of looking to the advancement of

the interests of all classes. I have before me a letter written by a

gentleman to some of his constituents in this neighbourhood, in which he

desires not only that the electors shall direct the votes of their

representatives, and point out the course which they should pursue in

parliament, but goes much further. The letter, which is directed to the

parishioners of St. Georges in the East, says, "there ought to be an

union formed in every parish between the middle classes and the

operatives,--first for the protection of person and property; and

secondly, to be ready to express the opinion of the parish on any public

measure, and in case the minister or the House of Commons are lukewarm

in the cause of the people." The extract which I have just read is taken

from a letter written by a great advocate of the Reform Bill, not for

the sake of the Reform Bill itself, but because it would lead to

something further. This letter affords a proof of the kind of system

which will be put into operation with respect to the members of the

House of Commons, should this Bill be passed. Let your Lordships, then,

for a moment, compare the system this Bill would establish, with the

system of representation which has so long existed in this country, and

under which this country has been raised to such an eminence of glory,

and power, and prosperity.

We have, under the existing system, the county representation, and the

representation in cities and boroughs. The county representation

consists principally of freeholders, and the members for counties

represent not only the lower classes, but the middle and higher orders.

The representatives for the great maritime towns, and for the larger

description of towns in the interior of the country, represent likewise

the lower and middle classes. The representatives for the pot wallopping

boroughs, for the scot-and-lot boroughs, and for the single borough of

Preston, where the franchise is vested in the inhabitants at large,

represent the lowest orders of the people; and in this manner this

borough representation represents all classes and descriptions of

persons, who have any thing to do with the business transacted in the

House of Commons. Instead of this system, which has raised this country

to its present elevation, we are called upon to establish by this Bill a

system of elections which will be confined to one single class of the

community; and as the county representations will be no check upon this

class of persons, the voters in the counties being mostly of the same

description, and as the united representation of Scotland, and of

Ireland, will be a check upon them, such a system will tend at once to a

complete democracy. This, then, is the system which we are called upon

to establish in the place of that which at present exists, and under

which all classes and interests of the country are represented in

Parliament, and it is under such a system as this that it is pretended

the general business of the state can be carried on, and the government

maintain sufficient power to preserve existing institutions.

_April_ 10,1832.

_Popular tendency of the Old System of Representation._

I would call the attention of your Lordships to the changes which have

taken place in the government of the country during the last twenty

years,--to go no further back,--and to the improvements which have taken

place in what is called the popular sense. A noble friend of mine, last

night, truly stated that the influence of the Crown was decreasing from

the period of the revolution up to the year 1782; and that it has been

still further diminishing from that period up to the present time, till

at last there are not more than fifty persons in the House of Commons

holding public offices. In that period, and more especially in latter

years, the influence of the crown in this respect has been greatly

diminished. First of all, there has been a large reduction of all such

kinds of offices; and in the next place, in consequence of the different

constitution and regulations of the customs and excise, and other public

departments; and thus the influence formerly possessed by the Crown has

gradually passed away.

* * * * *

With the influence of the Crown, then, thus diminished, if a Bill of

this description should pass, to make such an extensive change in the

constitution of this House, it would be impossible to carry on the

government of the country. But there has also been another most

remarkable alteration with respect to the constitution of Parliament

within the last four years. In the year 1828, the Test Act was repealed;

and this I beg your Lordships to recollect, that the effect of the

repealing this Act was immediately to bring into operation a large body

of electors, who must of course have had considerable influence in

subsequent elections. Again, in the following year, the disabilities of

the Roman Catholics were removed, which made another important

difference in the constitution of Parliament. Has sufficient time been

given to those measures to ascertain their effect? Is it not reasonable,

is it not right, that we should try the effect of those measures on the

constitution, before we proceed further, before we adopt a measure which

will effect such extraordinary changes as this proposed Reform Bill?

There can be no doubt but that those measures to which I have alluded,

must have had considerable effect in the elections which have since

taken place, and more especially when any measure of Parliamentary

Reform has been adopted, of the same extensive character as that

contemplated in the Bill.

_April_ 10, 1832.

* * * * *

_Gradual Reform Recommended._

There can be no doubt that there is a general desire in the country,---

I do not deny the existence of it, for it is stated in all the

addresses and all the petitions on the subject;--that there is a general

desire in the country that some Reform in Parliament should be taken

into consideration, to do away with the abuses in the system of

elections of Members of the House of Commons. Without enquiring into the

cause, if the fact be as I have stated, which I believe no one will

dispute, it is the duty of Parliament to proceed steadily and gradually

in making amendments in the representation. We should consider maturely

every step that we took,--we should not proceed all at once to do every

thing, we should go on gradually and deliberately; and thus in process

of time, we might arrive even at the measure which has been recommended

by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's government; but this must

be in process of time. After a considerable length of time had elapsed,

and after we had maturely considered every step that we had taken, it

would be only after we had done all that, that we could adopt a measure

to the extent of that recommended by the noble Earl. This we must do, if

we desire to maintain the venerable monarchy under which the country has

flourished for so long a time. The effect of this measure, if carried

now, will be to establish such a government as exists elsewhere, (in

France) which the noble Earl has described as a government which no man

could think fit for the administration of affairs in this country.

_April_ 10,1839.

* * * * *

_Effect of Agitation on Business_.

I believe that as soon as this Bill was proposed, and as soon as the

excitement which it occasioned was apparent, all expenditure of all

descriptions ceased,--men ceased to lay out money in great

enterprises--and those who expended their incomes to the full amount,

began to consider whether it was not expedient to make provision for a

future day, for a period of trouble and difficulty, which might be

anticipated from these changes. It is to these circumstances that I am

induced to attribute the want of commerce and trade in the country. If

your Lordships look to the situation of our neighbours it will appear

that the same causes have produced precisely the same effects, and that

these causes have proceeded further amongst them, than they have with

us, because they have existed for a longer period of time. Among them

popular delirium has been carried nearly to its full extent; among us it

has only begun. I particularly complain of the system of agitation which

now prevails in England, for this reason, that it falls upon the poorest

and lowest classes of the community. The expenditure of the rich gives

comfort and ease to the middle classes, but it gives subsistence to the

poor; and it is for want of this subsistence and comfort for the lower

classes, that agitation has been carried to such an extent.

_April_ 10, 1832.

* * * * *

_Military Force will be required to Govern the Country if the Reform

Bill is carried._

The noble Viscount, one of his Majesty's Secretaries of State, who spoke

yesterday upon the subject, admitted that he did not expect that the

Reform measure would relieve any of the distresses of the country. It

certainly does appear most extraordinary, that a Minister, particularly

a Secretary of State, should say of a measure, which he is supporting

himself, and which he knows must have such extensive consequences as the

measure now proposed, that he does not believe that it will tend to

relieve any of the existing distresses of the country. But I say not

only that it will not relieve any of the distresses of the country, but,

on the contrary, that it will deeply aggravate them. But let us go a

little further, and see whether this system is good; and whether the

system of cheap government, which it is to introduce, is likely to

produce good to the country. And here, again, I would wish to call the

attention of your Lordships to what is passing in another country. If

your Lordships will take the trouble of examining what has passed in

France in the course of the last two years, you will see that, during

that period, that country has expended 50,000,000 l. sterling beyond its

usual expenditure. Its ordinary Budget, notwithstanding every

description of saving that could be made from the Civil List, and in

other establishments, which have been cut down as low as possible--still

its ordinary Budget exceeds the Budget of the former reign--the

extravagant reign of the Bourbons--to the amount of 10,000,000 l.

sterling; and, including those laws for two years, there is the

extraordinary expenditure of 50,000,000 l. in that space of time. To say,

then, that popular excitement tends to cheap government, is monstrous

and absurd, and it is impossible for any man who regards these facts to

arrive at that conclusion. We are called upon to adopt a system which is

to lead to these results. I ask, then, whether such a system can be more

effectual in this country, than that under which we have so long

prospered? I ask, whether the Civil Government will have more

power--whether it is possible that the Government can be carried on with

a smaller proportion of the army? I beg your Lordships to observe the

transactions which have occurred at Paris within the last two years, and

you will see that, while Louis XVIII, and Charles X. were able to

maintain the peace and tranquillity of the capital with a gendarmerie of

from 500 to 1000 men,--since the period of the revolution of July, 1830,

the Government has not had less than 60,000 once a month put into

requisition to maintain the peace of the city. I say once a month, upon

an average, not to exaggerate the facts; being convinced that upon not

less than twenty-four occasions the army has been under arms.

If the system now proposed to your Lordships is adopted, will any man

tell me that it will be possible for any Government to be carried on, as

the Government of this country has hitherto been, by a civil power,

aided by a small military force? In the course of this last summer,

events of a fearful character occurred, nearly at the same time, in this

country and in France. I allude to the disturbances at Bristol and at

Lyons. The riots at Bristol were put down by ninety men, as soon as an

officer was found who would employ the force entrusted to him. But what

happened at Lyons--were the disturbances there so easily quelled? The

events at Lyons--a larger town, I admit, but not much larger than

Bristol--required 40,000 troops to be brought against the town, under

the command of a Marshal of France, the present Minister-at-War, and a

Prince of the Blood, before tranquillity could be restored. I entreat,

then, your Lordships to consider well, first of all, the causes of this

difference,--to see that it is the sovereignty of the people that you

are called upon to establish in this country,--and whether it is

possible to carry on the civil Government of England, as it has hitherto

been, under such a Government as you would establish, if you pass this

Bill.

_April_ 10,1832.

* * * * *

_Fiscal Regulations for the Extinction of Slavery not defensible._

I can hardly bring myself to believe that any Government can think of

forcing the Colonies to adopt Orders in Council, by holding out, at

once, promises and threats; by saying that those Colonies which adopted

them should not pay taxes, and that those which did not adopt them

should continue to pay them. Did any man ever before hear of taxes

being imposed, for any purpose whatever, excepting to supply the

necessities of the State? If taxes be necessary for the purposes of the

State, in the name of God let them be paid; but, if they be not

necessary, they ought not to be imposed at all, nor allowed to continue.

Parliament is not justified in imposing taxes for a specific purpose of

punishment.

_April_ 17, 1832.

* * * * *

_West India Property not to be Sacrificed to the Fancies of

Abolitionists._

It is really desirable that this question should be well understood in

this country. West Indian property is as much entitled to protection as

any other property which exists in Great Britain. Petitions are sent up

from all parts of England, praying for the immediate abolition of

slavery; and the execution of that measure is urged as a duty incumbent

upon us. Those persons who take a part in these proceedings, forget the

enormous amount of property belonging to his Majesty's subjects which is

involved in the question; and it is necessary to bring back their

attention to the consequences which will result, not only to the

colonists, but to the public, from the annihilation of that property, by

the prosecution of any of their fancies respecting the abolition of

slavery. In truth, it is absolutely impossible to derive any advantage

from that property except through the medium of slavery; and through

slavery alone can the individuals interested in the occupation of that

property be sustained in life.

_April_ 17, 1832.

_Speech explaining the Negociations, in May, 1832, for the formation of

a Tory Government on the principle of Moderate Reform._

My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a petition from

the inhabitant householders of Cambridge against the Reform Bill; and,

as this is the first time I have had occasion to address your Lordships

since I have been charged by his Majesty with a most important

commission, I conceive that your Lordships, or, at least, some of you,

may be desirous that I should avail myself of this, or some other early

opportunity, to explain the nature and termination of the transactions

in which I have been engaged; and I confess, my Lords, that having been

exposed to extreme misrepresentation, and having been vilified in the

most extraordinary manner, in respect of these transactions, by persons

in another place, who, with the exception of their conduct in this

instance, have some claim to be considered respectable, I am anxious to

take the first opportunity of stating to your Lordships, and the

country, the nature of the transactions in which I have been engaged,

and the grounds on which I have proceeded. Your Lordships will

recollect, that in the course of the last week--I think it was on

Wednesday--his Majesty's ministers informed your Lordships that they had

offered certain advice to his Majesty in reference to the important

subject of the Reform Bill; and, as his Majesty had not thought proper

to follow that advice, they had considered it their duty to tender their

resignations to his Majesty, and which resignations his Majesty was

pleased to accept. His Majesty was graciously pleased, on that day on

which he was so left entirely alone by his ministers, to send for a

noble friend of mine--a noble and learned Lord (Eldon), who had held a

high place, as well in the service as in the confidence of his Majesty,

to inquire whether, in his opinion, there were any means, and if so,

what means, of forming a Government for his Majesty on the principle of

carrying into execution an extensive reform in the representation of the

people. Thus it appears that when his Majesty had the misfortune of

disagreeing with his servants, respecting the advice which had been

tendered to him, he happened to have had so little communication with

other men, and was so little acquainted with their opinions on public

affairs, that he felt it necessary to send for my noble and learned

friend, who was out of the immediate line of politics, in order to

obtain his assistance, and to seek for information at his hands. My

noble and learned friend came to me, and informed me of the difficulty

of his Majesty's situation, and I considered it my duty to inquire from

others what their opinions were, because, I confess to your Lordships,

I was equally unprepared with his Majesty for the consideration of such

a question.

Upon inquiry, I found that a large number of friends of mine were not

unwilling to give confidence and support to a government formed upon

such a principle, and with the positive view of resistance to that

advice which was tendered to his Majesty. Under these circumstances I

waited on his Majesty on Saturday, and submitted to him my advice. That

advice was not to re-appoint his late ministry, nor was it to appoint

myself. I did not look to any objects of ambition. I advised him to seek

the assistance of other persons well qualified to fill the high

situations in the state, expressing myself willing to give his Majesty

every assistance, whether in office or out of office, to enable his

Majesty to form an administration to resist the advice which had been so

given to him. My Lords, these were the first steps of the transaction;

and if ever there was an instance in which the Sovereign acted more

honestly by his former servants--if ever there was an instance in which

public men kept themselves most completely apart from all intrigues, and

from all indirect influence--using only those direct and honourable

means of opposition, of which no man has reason to be other than proud,

this is that instance. And when I came to give my advice to his Majesty,

instead of advising him with a view to objects of personal ambition, as

I have been accused of doing upon high authority,--I gave that advice

which I thought would best lead to another arrangement, and I stated

that I was ready to serve his Majesty in any or in no capacity, so as

best to assist him in carrying on a government to resist the advice

which had been given him by his late ministers. And here, my Lords, I

beg your Lordships to examine a little what was the nature of the advice

which was tendered by his Majesty's ministers to his Majesty, which his

Majesty thought proper not to follow, and which I considered it my

bounden duty to enable his Majesty to resist. I do not ask any man to

seek any further explanation of this advice, than that which was given

by the ministers themselves. It was neither more nor less than this. The

Government, feeling some difficulty in carrying the Reform Bill through

this House, were induced to advise his Majesty to do--what?--to create a

sufficient number of peers to enable them to carry their measure, to

force it through this House of Parliament. Now, my Lords, before I go

further, let me beg you to consider what is the nature of that

proposition? Ministers found, in the course of last session, that there

was a large majority in this House against the principle of the bill.

Now, my Lords, what is the ordinary course for a minister, under such

circumstances, to pursue? My Lords, it is to alter the measure, to

endeavour to make it more palatable to that branch of the legislature

which was opposed to it. Such is the usual course; but, in this case,

the minister says "no. I will next session bring in a bill as efficient

as that which has been rejected." And what did he do? My Lords, I have

no hesitation in saying that, notwithstanding the opposition of this

House, he brought in a measure stronger and worse than any of the

measures before introduced; and this measure he wishes to force upon the

House by a large creation of peers. How many peers, it is not necessary

to state--it has not even been stated, by the noble Lords opposite: it

is enough to say, a sufficient number to force the Reform Bill through

the House. It is only necessary for me to state the proposition. If this

be a legal and constitutional course of conduct--if such projects can be

carried into execution by a minister of the crown with impunity--there

is no doubt that the constitution of this House and of this country is

at an end. I ask, my Lords, is there any body blind enough not to see

that if a minister can, with impunity, advise his Sovereign to such an

unconstitutional exercise of his prerogative as to thereby decide all

questions in this House, there is absolutely an end put to the power and

objects of deliberation in this House--an end to all means of decision;

I say, then, my Lords, thinking as I do, it was my duty to counsel his

Majesty to resist the following of this advice; and, my Lords, my

opinion is that the threat of carrying this measure of creation into

execution, if it should have the effect of inducing noble Lords to

absent themselves from the House, or to adopt any particular line of

conduct, is just as bad as its execution; for, my Lords, it does by

violence force a decision on this House--and on a subject, my Lords, on

which this House is not disposed to give such a decision. It is true, my

Lords, men may be led to adopt such a course, by reflecting, that if

they do not adopt it, some 50 or 100 peers will be introduced, and thus

deliberation and decision in this House be rendered impracticable; or

men may be led to adopt it with the view of saving the Sovereign from

the indignity of having so gross an alternative imposed upon him. But I

say, my Lords, that the effect of any body of men agreeing publicly to

such a course, will be to make themselves parties to this very

proceeding, of which I say, we have so much reason to complain. The only

course of proceeding at this eventful crisis, worthy of the men with

whom I have the honour to be connected, was to advise his Majesty--was

to counsel his Majesty--to resist the advice which had been given him,

if he could find means of carrying on the government of the country

without acceding to it. But this part of the transaction, my Lords,

requires particular explanation upon my part--his Majesty insisted that

some "extensive measure of reform" (I use his own words) "in the

representation of the people" should be carried. I always was of

opinion, and am still of opinion, that the measure of reform is

unnecessary, and will prove most injurious to the country. But on the

last occasion when I addressed your Lordships,--in the committee on

Monday se'nnight,--I stated my intention to endeavour to amend the bill

in committee, and to do it honestly and fairly. Still, however, I

thought that, amend it as we might in committee, it was not a measure

which would enable the country to have a government capable of

encountering the critical circumstances and serious difficulties to

which every man must expect this country to be exposed. This was, my

Lords,--this is, my opinion. I do not think that, under the influence of

this measure, it is possible that any government can expect to overcome

the dangers to which this country must be exposed. But my Lords, this

was not the question before me; I was called on to assist my Sovereign

in resisting a measure which would lead to the immediate overthrow of

one branch of the legislature--a measure which would enable the ministry

to carry through this house the whole bill unmodified, unimproved, and

unmitigated. I had then, my Lords, only the choice of adopting such part

of that bill as this house might please to send down to the House of

Commons, suffering the government hereafter to depend upon the operation

of that part of the bill rather than upon the whole bill, or else of

suffering the whole bill to be carried, and the House of Lords to be

destroyed. My Lords, my opinion is not altered; no part of the bill is

safe; but undoubtedly, a part of the bill is better, that is to say,

less injurious, than the whole bill; and, certainly, it must at least be

admitted that it is better than the destruction of the constitution of

the country by the destruction of the independence of this house. Under

these circumstances, my Lords, I gave my consent to assist his Majesty

in forming a new government. I know many may be of opinion that I should

have acted a more prudent part if I had looked to anterior

circumstances, and if I had regarded the opinions and pledges I had

given, and if, placing my attention exclusively upon the desire of

acting a consistent part in public life, I had pursued a different

course, and refused my assistance to his Majesty, I should have done

better and more wisely.

I do not mean to detract from the merits of those who thought proper to

pursue a course contrary to mine upon the occasion. I am grieved that it

should have been my misfortune to differ with some right honourable

friends of mine, with whom I have been for many years in habits of

cordial union, co-operation, and friendship, and from whom I hope this

momentary separation will not dissever me. Nay, my lords, their position

was different from mine. I was situated in a position very different

from that in which they felt themselves to stand. They regretted that

they could not take the same course with me; but for myself, my Lords, I

cannot help feeling that, if I had been capable of refusing my

assistance to his Majesty--if I had been capable of saying to his

Majesty, "I cannot assist you in this affair, because I have, in my

place in parliament, expressed strong opinions against a measure to

which your Majesty is friendly," I do not think I could have shewn my

face in the streets for shame of having done it--for shame of having

abandoned my Sovereign under such distressing circumstances. I have,

indeed, the misfortune of differing from many noble Lords, but I cannot

regret the steps I have taken. If I have made a mistake, I regret it;

but I am not aware that I have made any mistake. It was impossible that

I could shrink from his Majesty in the distressing circumstances under

which he was placed. I will not detain your Lordships longer with a

detail of the circumstances which led to the dilemma in which we are now

placed. But, my Lords, if you will only look back to the commencement of

those transactions--if you look to the speech which his Majesty made

from the throne to this and the other house of Parliament, in June

1831,--if you recollect that his Majesty stated, in very strong terms,

that that important question should receive the earliest and most

attentive consideration, saying, "--Having had recourse to that measure

for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency

of a reform in the representation, I have now to recommend that

important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration,

confident that, in any measure which you may propose for its adjustment,

you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the

constitution, by which the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of

both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people,

are equally secured."

Now, my Lords, I ask, could it be believed, at the time his Majesty made

this speech, that the rights of this house--the power of deliberating

and deciding independently upon such a question as this--would be

destroyed by a creation of Peers, and by a creation to an extent which

could not be much less than one hundred? If any man at the time foretold

this, it would have been said he was dreaming of things that were

impossible. But to this state, my Lords, have we been brought by this

measure. When I first heard of this bill being proposed to be carried by

a creation of Peers, I said it was absolutely impossible. I could not

believe that any minister of England would be led by any considerations

whatsoever to recommend such a measure to his Majesty. The first time,

indeed, I heard the matter mentioned with any degree of authority, was

when a Right Rev. Prelate thought proper to write upon the subject to

some people in a town in the county of Sussex. I could appeal to those

sitting near me if this be not the fact--if I did not uniformly declare

that the thing was impossible--that the very idea of it ought not to be

mentioned. That it should never be imagined that any minister could be

found who would recommend such an unconstitutional--such a ruinous--such

an unjust exercise of the prerogative of the crown; for, my Lords, I do

maintain that the just exercise of the prerogative of the Crown does by

no means go to the extent of enabling his Majesty to create a body of

Peers with the view to carry any particular measure. Under the

circumstances, then, I think your Lordships will not think it unnatural,

when I consider his Majesty's situation, that I should endeavour to

assist his Majesty to avoid the adoption of such a recommendation. But,

my Lords, when I found that in consequence of the discussions on Monday

in another place,--which by the way proved so clearly what the

sentiments of the leading men then were, that Peers should not be

created for such a purpose:--when I found from these discussions that it

was impossible to form a government from that house, of such a nature as

would secure the confidence of the country, I felt it my duty to inform

his Majesty that I could not fulfil the commission with which he was

pleased to honour me, and his Majesty informed me that he would renew

his communications with his former ministry.

_May 17, 1832._

* * * * *

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

Government._

The noble Lords at the head of the Irish government have a most

particular objection to these extraordinary measures, adopted to enable

the government to afford protection to the lives and property of his

Majesty's subjects. If I do not mistake--and I am sure that I am in the

recollection of many noble Lords present--I myself reminded the noble

Earl that the association act would terminate at the end of the session

of Parliament of 1831; and the answer of the noble Earl was, that it was

intended to bring in a bill to continue that act. My Lords, Parliament

was dissolved unfortunately, and the association act was not only not

continued, but the convictions which had already taken place under it

were not carried into execution.

It might naturally be supposed that, when the Lord Lieutenant found that

he could not give protection to his Majesty's subjects even when he had

the association act, it would, at least, have been continued. No such

thing. When Parliament reassembled, the question was again put by one of

the noble Lords near me, whether it was intended to propose a renewal of

that act; and the answer was, that the noble Lord at the head of the

Irish government thought that he would tranquillize the country without

having recourse to extraordinary measures. From that day to this there

has been no security to property--no security for person; there has been

no enjoyment of peace or tranquillity in Ireland. That is the state in

which it has continued from that time to the present. Now, my noble

friend stated most truly that this is the result of a conspiracy; I say

the same; and before I sit down, I will prove that it is a conspiracy,

and nothing but a conspiracy, which tends to deprive a large class of

his Majesty's subjects of their property,--which renders their lives

insecure,--a conspiracy which tends to the overthrow of all government,

if they do not adopt some measure to put it down. On this ground alone I

address your Lordships; I wish to warn the people and the government of

the real nature of that which exists in that part of the United Kingdom.

We have heard of an attempt, which was lately made by a clergyman, to

avail himself of a sale under a distress, for the purpose of obtaining

payment of a part of what was his due. A body of troops were assembled,

by direction of the magistrates, for the purpose of protecting the sale.

It appears, from an account of a nature usually tolerably accurate,

that, on the first day appointed for the sale, an assemblage of 20,000

people collected together; on the second day the number was 50,000; and

on the third it amounted to 100,000. I will take an unit from each of

these numbers, and even then I defy any man to shew me how that body

could have been assembled but by a conspiracy. Who led them there? My

Lords, the Priests. I have seen a letter from an officer who commanded

one of the bodies of troops employed on the occasion, in which such is

stated to be the fact.

When, my Lords, I know that that conspiracy exists, and that it goes to

prevent a large proportion of his Majesty's subjects from enjoying their

property--when I know that the same conspiracy may be applied to any

other description of property--to any man's life, to his house, to his

honour, or to anything else that is most dear to man, I do say, it

becomes the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government to adopt

some measures, in order to do that which Government can do, to get the

better of that conspiracy. It must not be said that, under the British

Constitution, there is no power to prevent such a conspiracy: I say,

there is a power, and that power resides in Parliament, which can give

the Government, under this best of all Constitutions, the means which

shall at the same time protect the property and the liberty of every

individual in the state. Yes, my Lords, Parliament possesses the power

to bestow on the Government the means of putting down this conspiracy--a

conspiracy not against the Government itself, but against those whom the

Government is bound in honour to protect. I take this question of tithes

to be one of the most serious questions that can be brought under the

consideration of Parliament. I do not object to the noble Earl's

measure--indeed, I really do not know what that measure is--but what I

say is, that the noble Earl is bound, and the King is bound by his oath,

to protect the property of the Church--yes, his Majesty is sworn

especially to protect that property. But it is not the property of the

Church alone--what do you say of the lay impropriator? Is a man to be

robbed and ruined, because he possesses property in tithe?

There is no public grievance in Ireland. Tithes are no public grievance.

Tithes are private property, which a deep laid conspiracy is attempting

to destroy. The noble Lord knows that he cannot get the better of it. I

tell the noble Lord that he will be, at last, obliged to come to

Parliament for a measure to enable him to put down the conspirators. I

recollect the famous affair at Manchester; and remember perfectly well

to have heard a most able and eloquent speech made by the noble and

learned Lord in another place, upon the subject of collecting large

numbers of persons together; and I well remember his able and eloquent

justification of the magistrates for the part they assumed upon that

occasion. I want to know why the magistrates at Carlow and at Cork did

not obtain the same support when pursuing a similar course? I know I

shall be told in answer to this, that I am a person very desirous of

spilling blood. My Lords, I am not recommending the spilling of blood; I

want to save human life by Legislative means. I do not want to have

recourse to arms against crowds and mobs of people; but what I want is,

that the real conspirators should be got the better of, and not that the

mere instruments and victims of their wicked work should be punished.

But if the course pursued at Manchester against the collection of large

bodies of armed people was correct--if the attack was rightly made upon

those armed people--I want to know why the same was not done at Cork and

at Carlow, where the troops stood in the midst of the people three days,

who at last were suffered to carry off the distress, without the

clergyman being able to satisfy his claim?

The noble Lord has said, that Ireland is in a state of great

tranquillity. Now, I certainly must say, that as far as I have heard, I

cannot believe in the existence of that tranquillity. It may be

perfectly true, by moving a large body of troops from the country into a

particular district, together with a great number of police and

magistrates, that, for a moment, tranquillity may be restored to that

district; but there is no gentleman in the country feels himself in a

state of security. There is, however, one test, to which I wish to

bring the noble Secretary of State. I want to know this--has he, in any

one case, carried into execution the provisions of the Tithe Act? Is

there a single instance of any tithe having been collected by Government

under that Act? If the clergy are to be paid out of the Consolidated

Fund, and that Act is not to be enforced, I must say that the noble Lord

may make what boast he pleases as to the state of Ireland; but there is

no man who will believe one word about the tranquillity of Ireland,

until the noble Lord can produce evidence of the collection of some

tithes under that Act.

What I want to see is, the affording of some security to property--some

protection to life; and that some assurance should be given to the peace

of the country being established and preserved.

_July 3, 1832._

* * * * *

_Necessity of conciliating the Protestants of Ireland._

I come now, my Lords, to that part of the subject which is certainly

very painful to me, because I conceive it to be that in which I may say

the Government has been much to blame; and that is, their treatment of

the Protestant Church of Ireland. My opinion is, that in the treatment

of that Church they have certainly thrown the Protestants of Ireland

entirely aside. There is no doubt whatever that the Protestants, who,

like other classes of men, were more or less divided amongst themselves,

are now nearly unanimous in their opinions upon the subject of the

Government. They are nearly all of them, at the present moment, opposed

to the Government--irritated by a strong sense of the injury done to

them, and the insecurity of their situation, which is certainly most

painful to everybody who wishes well to the union between the two

countries.

_July 3, 1832._

_The Church should Educate the People._

We have the Established Church--we have the Established clergy; and the

whole law of the country is, that the clergy of the Established Church

should have the charge of the education of the people, particularly of

Ireland. But, under the proposed system, the schoolmaster is simply to

teach the obligations which are due to society from every individual,

and the pupil is not to refer to divine authority for those

obligations--he is not without permission to refer to that alone which

can render those obligations binding.

July 3,1832.

* * * * *

_The Duke of Wellington's Government opposed to the Appointment of Otho

as King of Greece._

The late government were no parties to the selection of Prince Otho; on

the contrary, he was a person to whose appointment they had objected, as

appears on the face of the protocols; and the objection exists at the

present moment, though not to such an extent as it did, a year and a

half having elapsed since it was first made. I object to the

arrangement now, because the interests of this country have been

essentially altered in the Mediterranean. His Majesty has now essential

duties to perform in the Adriatic. When I see France remaining in

possession of Algiers, notwithstanding the provisions of the treaty, and

when I observe what has been done by her at Ancona, I must say the

interests of this country have been grossly neglected in that quarter.

July 18, 1832

* * * * *

_The giving the Town-franchise to the Catholics, will lead to the

Destruction of the Protestant Church._

The reason assigned for getting rid of the freemen is, because they

would support the Protestant interest in towns. Now, I have no

hesitation whatever in stating, that the interest connected with the

Church and the Protestant institutions of the country must give way it

the franchise is transferred into the hands of the Roman Catholic

population. It is easy to say that there ought to be no difference

between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I wish to God it could be so;

but the circumstances of Ireland are such as to render it necessary,

that a counterpoise should be given to counteract the influence which

the Roman Catholics will acquire by the bill. I wish to carry the

principles of 1829 into effect, and that can not be done if both parties

are placed upon an equal footing. I think it most unfair to give the

Catholic population of towns the power of returning Roman Catholic

Members of Parliament; and I shall, therefore, seeing that the rights of

freemen are to be abolished, object to the 40s. freeholders being

retained.