The noble lord has stated that he will not recall the marines. I would

beg to remind your lordships, and the noble viscount in particular, of

this fact--that the marines are properly the garrisons of his majesty's

ships, and that upon no pretence ought they to be moved from a fair and

safe communication with the ships to which they belong. The noble lord

states, that he is responsible, and that he will take upon himself the

responsibility. I have commanded his majesty's armies, and have incurred

as many risks, and faced more difficulties than, I hope, the noble lord

will ever have to encounter. I have been engaged in hostilities of this

description, where co-operation was carried on upon the coast; and

though I certainly would do as much for the service, and I believe I may

say, have done as much for the service, as the noble lord, yet I would

not venture, and have never ventured, to put any corps whatever in

co-operation with the Spaniards, or in any situation whatever in which

the detached troops could not communicate with the corps from which they

were detached; and, above all, upon the sea-coast, where the troops

detached could not hold communication with the ships. The first order to

each of these detachments was, to keep the communication with their

ships. The loss of 400 or 500 marines may not materially involve the

honour of this country, but the lives of the men ought not to be

endangered, as they must be, if care be not taken that they should have

a communication with a point of safety, without some very extraordinary

cause. We hear of the operations of the marines with the Austrians. But

the Spanish troops, and particularly the British legion, are not the

Austrians. I cannot consider this corps of General Evans to be in a

state of discipline and subordination, such as a body of troops ought to

be in, with which his majesty's marine forces ought to be connected.

They have suffered very considerably; their losses have been great, and

have affected their subordination, their good order and discipline,

particularly in the presence of an enemy. A disaster or panic may occur

among the best troops; but among such, order can be re-established. It

does not appear that these are in the state in which they ought to be,

to render it safe to co-operate with them. No efforts of their officers

can, in such cases, have any effect upon them.

_April_ 21,1837.

* * * * *

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

The noble viscount says that we are carrying on these operations with

the object of maintaining the peace of Europe; and these objects are,

more especially, put forth in a pamphlet which is attributed to a

colleague of the noble viscount, who has applauded his opinions, if he

has not gone further, and adopted them as his own. Is the noble lord

desirous, in accordance with the policy so set forth, to press upon the

nation the adoption of the system of a general combination of the powers

of the west, upon principles offensive as well as defensive, against the

powers of the north and east of Europe? If so momentous an affair and

such a course are seriously contemplated, they should not be commenced

by stealth, but in a manner worthy of the character of a great nation

like Great Britain. It is not by allowing Spain to raise a legion here

in the first instance, and afterwards by sending a few hundred marines,

that any really important object can be accomplished. But if the noble

lords are in earnest, a message should be sent to parliament, and the

support of the country should be called for, to this new scheme of

policy; and a commanding force should be sent, in order to carry it into

execution. But I recommend the noble viscount well to consider the

length of time which must elapse before these operations can be brought

to a conclusion; the expense which must, in the first instance, be

incurred; and the lengthened period which must elapse before the troops

can be withdrawn, and the other expenses can be discontinued, which must

be incurred if this scheme be undertaken. The noble lord must establish

a government in Spain; he must have the assistance of a Spanish army;

and he must pay, equip, and provide for, not only his majesty's troops,

but every Spanish officer and soldier employed in the settlement of the

government of the country. It may be said, that there are financial

resources in Spain; but I am much mistaken, regarding the state of the

Spanish military establishments and Spanish finances, if there are not

non-effective establishments, such as pensions, retired allowances,

expenses of garrisons, and others, which will consume the whole of the

pecuniary resources of Spain, however well managed, even without

including the interest of the existing debt. I think that, if this

country should have this matter fairly brought under its view, it would

not be thought advisable to enter upon the scheme proposed in this

pamphlet. But we are told that France ought to act this part; and that

we ought to give France our moral support. France act! At whose expense?

France would have the same difficulties--nay, greater difficulties--than

this country. Is it intended that we are to subsidise France? No such

thing; we are to assist with our ships and marines on the coast, but it

is France that is to carry on the operations in the interior, and pay

this expense. Is it believed that Louis Philippe has lost his senses? If

we cannot expect that France will pay all this expense, what is to

become of the integrity of the Spanish dominions, and the independence

of the Spanish government, after the operations shall he concluded?

_April_ 21,1837.

* * * * *

_Necessity of Conciliating the Protestants of Ireland_.

My anxious wish, my lords, has always been--and I have frankly stated it

more than once in my place in this house--that the Protestants of

Ireland should be on the best terms with the government of this country,

and that the government should give them every protection and support in

its power. My firm opinion is, that the safety of this country in

connection with Ireland, the safety of the union, the permanence of the

union, and, indeed, the honour of the empire, all depend, in a great

measure, if not entirely, on the good understanding which may subsist

between the government and the Protestants of Ireland. I am also certain

that the prosperity of the Protestants in Ireland, and the safety of

their persons, of their riches, and of everything dear to men, depend on

their being on terms of good understanding with the government; but that

things will not go on as they ought to go on, until government induces

the Protestants of that country to return to that good understanding.

That has been my opinion ever since the commencement of these

unfortunate dissensions, seven years ago; and I should be sorry to say,

this evening, one word which might be calculated to increase the

irritation now existing between both these parties. The noble viscount

(Melbourne) has admitted that the Protestants of Ireland have great

reason to feel the awkwardness of their present position, and to

entertain jealousy of the government; and I must own that the noble

viscount, instead of aggravating that description of feeling which he

admits the Protestants of Ireland ought to have, should use, as I

conceive, every exertion in his power to conciliate them, and to make

them feel that they may depend upon the government for the protection of

their lives and property, and that they will not be sacrificed to those

who are preaching up sedition against the institutions of their country,

and insurrections against the persons and property of her people. These

Protestants are in number not less than 2,000,000. I believe they hold,

my lords, about nine-tenths of the property of Ireland; and I am sure

that they are persons of the best education and of the best conduct in

that country. I believe that the province in which they reside is as

well cultivated and as well conducted in every respect as any portion of

England; and the inhabitants of it deserve on every account all the

protection which the government can afford them. Let us see, my lords,

whether they have not reason to feel jealousy of the government in

consequence of the transactions of the last few years. Look at the total

destruction of the property of tithe--look at the treatment of their

church--look at the various occurrences which have taken place, and see

whether they have not reason to apprehend that there is a latent

intention of putting down the Protestant livings in Ireland, and of

substituting a voluntary system in place of their present church

establishment. Do you suppose that men of their description do not

calculate on the events which are likely to happen? Do you suppose that

they do not read the history of past times? We have heard the noble

viscount talking of the history of the year 1782, and of the year 1798,

and of various other transactions. Let us look at the letters of Henry

Lord Clarendon, formerly chief governor of Ireland; and, having looked

at them, let any man ask himself whether the Protestants of Ireland have

not a right to conceive that matters are advancing rapidly to the state

described by that noble personage, and whether the same description of

power is not now growing up which exercised so enormous an influence on

the government of his day. I consider that the statements made by the

different peers who have spoken to night from this (the conservative)

side of the house ought to have, and I trust they will have, a powerful

effect on the Protestant mind of this country. At the same time that

these statements are brought forward, and the facts are made known to

the public, showing that neither property nor life is secure in Ireland,

his majesty comes down to parliament with a speech, in which he says,

"Ireland is in a state of tranquillity;" and yet there is not one

gentleman residing in Ireland who was not aware, when that speech was

delivered, that a general association had been formed and was in

existence in Dublin for the sole purpose of agitation--of that agitation

which, as Lord Wellesley told the country, was the cause of disturbances

as undoubtedly as any one circumstance ever was the cause of another. Do

your lordships suppose that the Protestants of Ireland are not aware of

that fact?

_April_ 28,1837.

* * * * *

_Lord Normanby's Gaol Deliveries_.

What was the next step of which the Protestants of Ireland complained?

The lord lieutenant, they say, went into the country, from place to

place, without having any communication either with the judges or with

the magistrates;--and that is a fact on which I greatly rely--the lord

lieutenant, they say, released at every county gaol which he visited a

certain number of prisoners. I have said, that the Protestants of

Ireland have a very peculiar interest in the impartial administration of

the law, and in the tranquillity of the country, because they form the

great body of its landed proprietors. They must look at such a

transaction with jealousy; and if there had been no circumstances

connected with such a transaction save those which have been stated this

evening, it must, I think, be admitted, that if the conduct of the lord

lieutenant was not without precedent (and I believe that no precedent

can he found for it) it has yet been still of such rare occurrence that

it ought never to be repeated. I do not mean to say that this power of

enlarging prisoners has never been exercised, but I maintain that it had

never previously been exercised in such a manner. I do not pretend to be

acquainted with the technicalities of the law on this subject; but it

occurs to me that several of the persons who have been released in this

peculiar manner by the lord lieutenant, had surely been guilty of

felony. I do not know exactly what the state of the law is, at present,

upon this subject, but I apprehend that persons who have been found

guilty of felony ought to have some document conveying their pardon, or

in default of its production they become, I believe, liable to certain

fines and forfeitures. But in the present case persons guilty of felony

have been enlarged without any writing at all, at the simple order of

the lord lieutenant, I must say, that a proceeding of this sort is

highly irregular, and that it is such an exercise of power as a lord

lieutenant in the ordinary discharge of his duty ought not to repeat;

and further, that this was an exercise of power which was most likely to

produce a very pernicious effect on the minds of the Protestants of

Ireland.

_April_ 28, 1837.

* * * * *

_Objections to the Irish Corporations Bill of 1837_.

I stated, on a former occasion, that these corporations existed in

their present shape, and were brought to their present state,

principally with a view to the support and protection of the religion of

the Church of England established in Ireland. Whatever may be done with

respect to these corporations for the future, in my opinion that object

ought never to be lost sight of. It may be doubted, from what has lately

occurred in this country, whether that opinion is so unanimously adopted

as it was in former years; but I may venture to say, the support of the

Church of England in Ireland is still the policy of this country--the

policy which his majesty is sworn to maintain--the policy which this

house is called, by writs of summons, to uphold--the policy which every

member of this, or the other house of parliament, is sworn to uphold by

the oaths which he has voluntarily taken. Under these circumstances, I

think I may safely say that, according to the ancient constitution,

according to the modern constitution, according to the uniform policy of

this country for the last 300 years, the maintenance of the Church of

England in Ireland forms a prominent and important point of legislative

concern. Looking to this bill now under consideration, in relation

principally to that policy, it goes undoubtedly to establish a very

large number of corporations in Ireland, the mode of their formation

being to give votes to the very lowest class of the population of the

towns in which these corporations are to be formed. This is to be done,

not upon evidence of their possessing property--not, as in England, upon

residence, upon the payment of rates, or on the evidence of their

possessing anything in the nature of property; but simply on the

condition that the parties possess a 5l. or a 10l. qualification, made

up of all kinds and descriptions of property put together, and this

without any proof whatever, excepting the oath of the parties

themselves, of their possessing even that qualification. It is well

known to your lordships that a system of perjury prevails in all parts

of Ireland, with a view to establish franchise of this description. I

have recently seen accounts of enquiries before select committees in

certain parliamentary elections which have taken place in that country,

and it is impossible to glance at them without being impressed with the

conviction that, if any description of franchise depend solely on the

oaths of the holders, every species of enquiry will be nugatory; and it

will be just as wise to establish at once a system of universal

suffrage, as to establish a system of franchise in such a manner. These

corporations, thus formed by persons holding a franchise of this

description, acquired solely by their own swearing, and without any

evidence whatever of their possessing any property except their own

oaths, establish a system upon which no reliance can be placed, and on

which no establishment whatever can safely depend. If your lordships

want any proof of the danger to the church of Ireland by the

establishment of corporations of this description, I will refer your

lordships to the declarations, I would not say of those who are the

declared enemies, but I must say, the strongest opponents of the church,

and who are found, on every occasion, making the greatest possible

exertions against the church in Ireland, These persons are heard

declaring publicly and repeatedly, almost under the very view of the

government--"Give us but this corporation bill, and all the rest must

follow." If there be any doubt about it, I beg to say, I shall not be

disposed to listen to the threats of any man; but when my own senses

convince me that such must be the result, I mean danger to the

establishment, I do say it is my duty to attend to warnings of the

description to which I have adverted.

_May 5, 1837._

* * * * *

_Eulogium on King William the Fourth._

I have served his late majesty in the highest situations; I have been in

his council as well as the noble viscount (Melbourne). I, indeed, did

not serve him so long as the noble viscount, or even under any such

prosperous circumstances as the noble viscount; but I have had

opportunities of witnessing, under all these circumstances, the personal

advantages of character so ably described by the noble viscount. It has

fallen to my lot to serve his majesty at different periods, and in

different capacities; and, while I had the happiness of doing so, upon

all those occasions I have witnessed not only all the virtues ascribed

to him by the noble viscount, but likewise a firmness, a discretion, a

candour, a justice, and a spirit of conciliation towards others,--a

respect for all. Probably there never was a sovereign who, in such

circumstances and encompassed by so many difficulties, more successfully

met them than he did upon every occasion on which he had to engage

them. I was induced to serve his majesty, not only from my sense of

duty--not alone from the feeling that the sovereign of this country has

the right to command my services in any situation in which it might be

considered that I might be of use--but from a feeling of gratitude to

his majesty for favours, for personal distinctions, conferred upon me,

notwithstanding that I had been unfortunately in the position of

opposing myself to his majesty's views and intentions when he was

employed in a high situation under government,[19] and in consequence of

which he had to resign that great office which he must, beyond all

others, have been most anxious to retain. Notwithstanding that, my

lords, he employed me in his service; and he, as a sovereign, manifested

towards me a kindness, condescension, and favour, which, so long as I

live, I never can forget. I considered myself, then, not only bound by

duty, and the sense I felt of gratitude to all the sovereigns of this

country, under whom I had lived, but more especially towards his late

majesty, to relieve him from every difficulty I could, under any

circumstances.

[Footnote 19: William the Fourth, when Duke of Clarence, was under the

necessity of resigning the office of Lord High Admiral, while the Duke

of Wellington was premier.]

_June_ 22, 1837.

* * * * *

_Agrarian Disturbances in Ireland are earned by Political Agitation_.

The noble earl opposite has stated, that the tranquillity mentioned in

her majesty's speech from the throne, on opening the present parliament,

was not intended to mean judicial or agrarian tranquillity, but

political tranquillity. And what is the sort of political tranquillity

existing in Ireland? I believe that a very few days before the speech in

which the word tranquillity is used was delivered, the association which

was assembled in the capital of Ireland, under the eyes of the noble

earl opposite, was dissolved; but, at the same time, her majesty was

given to understand, that she was not to have the choice of her

ministers, but that they must be selected by the gentleman who was the

founder and the head of that association. Now, to talk of

tranquillity--political tranquillity--in any part of that country,

looking at the situation in which it is placed, is vague and idle. The

noble earl has said, that the agrarian disturbances in Ireland are not

to be attributed to political agitation. Now, one of the greatest

authorities that ever appeared in this or any other country--a noble

relation of mine--stated, that "agrarian disturbances in Ireland were to

be attributed to political agitation, and to nothing else, as much as

effect was to be attributed to cause in any instance whatever." I say,

then, that in Ireland they have agrarian disturbances because they have

political agitations.

_November_ 27, 1837.

* * * * *

_Principle of Imprisonment for Debt_.

One of the causes of debts being incurred in this country is, in a great

degree, the power which creditors at present possess to arrest their

debtors upon _mesne_ process; and I still further believe that it is the

facility which is thus given of obtaining credit, that has been the

cause of the great mercantile prosperity of the country. The enormous

transactions upon credit are such, that both individuals and the public

generally, require further means of recovering debts than exist in

other countries.

_December_ 5,1837.

_The Case of Dr. Hampden_.

The late king was advised to appoint that gentleman to be Regius

Professor of Divinity in the university of Oxford. There can be no doubt

that the general opinion of the university was, that that gentleman's

theological tenets were not exactly orthodox, or consistent with the

articles of the church of England,--an opinion which the publication of

certain works by that gentleman has tended to establish.

Several persons in the university considered it their duty to petition

his majesty, praying, if the appointment had not been completed, that he

would not make it. I believe that another address was presented to his

majesty, entreating his majesty not to sanction that appointment, which,

however, was made, contrary to the views of the university at large; and

a short time afterwards, Dr. Hampden thought right, in his inaugural

lecture, to state that he then felt it his duty to explain the opinions

which had been complained of. I do not pretend to be a judge either of

those opinions or that explanation; but this I will venture to say, and

I believe your lordships will concur in the opinion, that in proportion

as Dr. Hampden found it necessary to give an explanation of his

sentiments, in the same proportion were those justified who thought

proper to disapprove of them. I believe it will be admitted that, if a

clergyman who published certain opinions, not being orthodox, thought

proper to come forward and explain those opinions, at least they who

were opposed to such opinions had some justification, on their being

repeated, for the course they had taken in disapproving of them. This is

all I wish to say respecting the opinions and explanation of Dr.

Hampden. His appointment having been made, notwithstanding the petition

of a vast number of the clergy of Oxford, and the general opinion

expressed there that it should not be made, a request was preferred to

the heads of houses that they would propose some measure to the

convocation which would have the effect of marking the disapprobation on

the part of that body of the opinions and appointment of Dr. Hampden.

The noble earl has alluded to the act of convocation excluding Dr.

Hampden from being one of those to appoint the select preachers, and

also from sitting at the board of heresy. I am not disposed to say

anything against Dr. Hampden; but this I must say, that, considering the

whole transaction, my opinion is, the convocation did as little upon

that occasion as it was possible to do, consistently with the necessity

which existed of taking some notice of that gentleman, his opinions and

conduct. Since that period, I really believe that the university, and

the bishops of the church of England, and all the persons who have any

influence on this question, have done everything in their power to put

it down, and prevent it becoming a subject of discussion, even in the

university or elsewhere. For myself, I can say, I have invariably

pursued that course, it being my object to prevent any discussion on the

matter; and I never should have mentioned it, here or elsewhere,

publicly, if the noble earl had not forced it upon me on the present

occasion. I certainly lament the transaction, principally because I

consider it is likely to produce a schism in the church; and I have been

as anxious as any man can be in my situation, to prevent the university

from proceeding on the subject in such a manner as may, by possibility,

lead to that result.

The noble earl adverted to the conduct of a gentleman who is now

vice-chancellor of the university, and who has, in his capacity of head

of a house, prohibited the attendance of the students in divinity upon

the lectures of the Regius Professor. I do not at all pretend to be

competent to mark the difference between the private and public lectures

of the Regius Professor; but I certainly do not approve of the course

taken by that gentleman. In my opinion, the question is not one to be

considered by the head of a house; for, in fact, no ordination can be

conferred by him or the Regius Professor of Divinity. Ordination can

only be conferred by the bishops of the church; and whether the students

attend the lectures of the Regius Professor of Divinity, or those of the

Margaret Professor, or of any other professor, I will say, it is the

duty of the bishops of the church to consider who are the persons coming

for ordination, and whether they are qualified or not, without taking

into consideration the certificates of the Regius Professor of Divinity,

the head of a house, or any other individual. It is, I contend, the

duty of the bishops to examine into the subject themselves, without

reference to the certificate of any individual whatever. I must observe,

however, with regard to the course adopted by the vice-chancellor, that

I am thoroughly convinced, not only from what that gentleman has stated

to me, but from my knowledge of that gentleman's conduct, and his

character for candour and fairness, that he had the very wisest motives

in pursuing that course, from which he departed as soon as he found that

the bishops of the church had determined upon observing a different

line, conceiving that he was then relieved from all charge and

responsibility in the situation which he held. Such is the history of

that transaction; and I have only to say, with respect to that

gentleman, and with respect to others of the university of Oxford, that

it was their anxious wish and desire to avoid taking any step in

reference to Dr. Hampden, lest it should, in any manner whatever, lead

to what they would consider the greatest possible misfortune--a schism

in the church.

_December_ 21,1837.

* * * * *

A great country cannot wage a little war.

_January_ 16, 1838.

* * * * *

_Conduct of the Canadian Leaders._

I differ entirely from the noble and learned lord in thinking that the

act of 1831 established the British constitution in Canada, for it is

not consistent with the British constitution to leave the civil

government of the country--and especially to leave the judges of the

land--to be provided for by an annual vote of the parliament. I say, my

lords, that the British constitution, for the last hundred and fifty

years at least, has made a fixed and not uncertain provision for

supporting the dignity of the crown, for meeting the expenses attendant

on the administration of the civil government, and most particularly for

the independence of the judges of the land. But is that the state of

things in Lower Canada? No. I maintain that the act of 1831 did not

establish the British constitution in the colonies of Upper and Lower

Canada, but something quite distinct; for it gave to the people a

popular representation, which, in my opinion, is the cause of all the

disputes that have followed, and of the insurrection which has taken

place. It gave individuals the power to create prejudices in the minds

of the people, to weaken the loyalty of the Canadians, and to raise them

in hostility against her majesty's crown and government. And what has

been the object of these individuals in the course which they have

pursued? They have supposed that, by creating dissatisfaction amongst

the people, they could thereby throw off the authority of the crown;

and, by gathering the people around them, overturn the government

established in the colony. Such have been the objects of those

individuals who have been seen running off to the neighbouring

territories of the United States as soon as they found their own persons

exposed to danger. This turned out to be the real state of the case; for

the would-be leaders left the unfortunate people in a state of rebellion

against her majesty's government, and ran off themselves, letting the

unlucky inhabitants return to their houses as best they could; and

forcing them to submit, with the best grace they might, to the mercy of

her majesty's government.

_January 18, 1838._

_Evils of popular Rights_.

I warned the noble lord against endangering the establishments of the

country, by giving anything like an authority to a popular assembly to

withhold the funds necessary for carrying on the civil government; for

nothing is more needful to a country than to uphold the civil power, and

the independence--as well pecuniary as political--of the judges of the

land. And let noble lords learn, from the events in Canada, and other

dominions in North America, what it is to hold forth what are called

"popular rights," but which are not popular rights either here or

elsewhere; and what occasion is thereby given to the perpetuation of a

system of agitation which ends in insurrection and rebellion, and the

coming to blows with her majesty's troops.

_January_ 18,1838.

* * * * *

_Importance of reducing the Canadian Rebels_.

I confess, my lords, that I have a feeling for the honour of my country,

and I cannot but believe that if, by any misfortune, we should fail in

restoring peace in Lower Canada, at an early period of time, we shall

receive a blow, with respect to our military character, to our

reputation, and to our honour, of which it will require years to enable

us to remove the effects.

_January_ 18,1838.

* * * * *

_An Elective Legislative Council in Canada deprecated_.

My lords, there is one topic which has been adverted to by the noble and

learned lord (Lord Brougham), upon which I think it necessary to say a

word, although it is not alluded to in the address, and will more

properly form a subject of the discussion on the bill which is to be

brought in upon some future day--and that is the establishment in Lower

Canada of an elective legislative council. The noble and learned lord,

with all his knowledge of Lower Canada, has not, in my opinion,

sufficiently adverted to the fact of the difference of the two races of

inhabitants in that country. My lords, it may be easy to talk, here, of

establishing an elective council, but if the noble and learned lord will

look into the discussions which have taken place upon that subject, and

to the opinions that have been delivered upon it by the different

parties, in that colony, he will find that British inhabitants are to

the full as much opposed to that arrangement as the French are in favour

of it, he will find that in point of fact, they would be in a state of

insurrection against that arrangement, in the same degree as the French

are now supposed to be in a state of insurrection in favour of an

elective legislative council. I will likewise beg the noble and learned

lord, and I would entreat the noble viscount opposite, and every member

of her majesty's government, to attend to this fact, that an elective

legislative council is not the constitution of the British monarchy;

that a legislative council appointed by the monarch is the constitution

of this country; that this was so stated in the discussions upon the

bill passed in the year 1791, by all the great authorities who discussed

that measure, amongst others by Mr. Fox himself. That gentleman said,

"that a legislative council, appointed by the monarch, is an essential

part of the British constitution."

_January_ 18, 1838.

_Concessions to Democracy cannot be rescinded._

Your lordships ought also to recollect that, since the passing of the

reform bill, the taxes required from householders paying 10l. of yearly

rent have been greatly reduced, and I believe that the poor-rates have

also been diminished. These reductions have afforded great relief to

that particular class of persons, greater than has been given to any

other portion of society; and I think that, under the circumstances, the

amount of qualification ought not to be further diminished, for, if it

be, a worse description of electors will be the inevitable consequence.

I perfectly recollect that a noble friend of mine, whom I do not now see

in his place, warned your lordships, on a former occasion, of the danger

of making any approach to democracy in a measure like this; and he told

your lordships that, if once such a measure was adopted, you could never

turn back from it. If it be found, when carried into operation, to act

ever so injuriously--if its tendency be found to be ever so destructive

to the peace and well-being of society--still you cannot fall back on

the point from which you started; for, if once granted, the measure must

be permanent.

_March 8, 1838._

* * * * *

_Short-sighted Conduct of the West Indian Colonists._

There is no man in this house, or in the country, who has been more

anxious than myself, that the measure passed for the abolition of

slavery should be entirely successful. I have, however, conceived from

the first, that the only chance of its success would arise from the

colonial legislatures acting with good faith, and carrying the measure,

after it had passed the imperial parliament, into strict execution; for

which measure they have received what they acknowledge, by their

adhesion to the principle of the bill, a competent compensation. It

appears, however, to be beyond doubt, that they have not carried the new

system into execution as they ought to have done; and some two or three

years ago, your lordships were under the necessity of consenting to a

bill, rendered necessary in consequence of the legislature of Jamaica

having refused, under not very creditable circumstances, to enact a law

which it had positively promised to pass. Under these circumstances,

considering that we are now approaching to within a couple of years of

the period when a new state of society is to be established in all the

British possessions where slavery has ever existed, I must say, I think

parliament ought not to hesitate about adopting some measure of the

description now proposed, for the purpose of carrying into full and

complete execution the object which the imperial legislature had in view

when the emancipation act was passed. It appears to me, that if the

legislatures of the colonies had acted as sensible men ought to have

done, in the circumstances in which they were placed four years ago,

they would have had before them, and the British parliament would have

had before it, a very different prospect from that which, I fear,

exists at the present moment.

_March_ 13, 1838.

_Lord Melbourne's Government Inimical to the Church._

It appears that the policy of her majesty's government is--I will use

the mildest term that can be employed--not to encourage the established

church. I am afraid that it will appear from what passed in another

place, in the last session of parliament, and even in this, that the

church of England--the established church of England--is not to be

encouraged by her majesty's government. I am sure that those who

recollect what has occurred in parliament, during the last few years,

will admit that no great encouragement has been shown by ministers to

the church of Ireland, that branch of the established church of England

which is stationed in the latter country. I say therefore, my lords,

that this is the policy of the government of this country; and, I must

own, also, it is most sincerely to be lamented by every friend of the

constitution, and of the peace, order, and happiness of the community.

_March 30, 1838._

* * * * *

_A Free Press in Malta deprecated._

Now, in regard to this matter of a free press in Malta, I crave your

lordships' attention to the facts of the case for a moment, and I beg

the house to bear them in mind. What is Malta? It is a fortress and a

seaport--it is a great naval and military arsenal for our shipping and

forces in the Mediterranean. We hold it by conquest. We hold it as an

important post, as a great military and naval arsenal, and as nothing

more. My lords, if these are the facts, we might as well think of

planting a free press on the fore deck of the admiral's flag-ship in the

Mediterranean, or on the caverns of the batteries of Gibraltar, or in

the camp of Sir John Colborne in Canada, as of establishing it in Malta.

A free press in Malta in the Italian language is an absurdity. Of the

hundred thousand individuals who compose the population of Malta,

three-fourths at least speak nothing but the Maltese dialect, and do not

understand the Italian language. Of the one hundred thousand inhabitants

of the island, at least three-fourths can neither read nor write. What

advantages, then, can accrue to the people of Malta from the

establishment of a free press? We do not want to teach our English

sailors and soldiers to understand Italian. A free press will find no

readers among them either. Who, then, is it for? These gentlemen say,

that, unless the government support a free press in Malta, it cannot

exist of itself, and they suggest an expense of £800 a year in its

favour. They have done nothing more than this that I am aware of since

their appointment, and it is plain, that the savings spoken of by the

noble baron as having been effected by their recommendation are

completely swallowed up by the project of a free press. My lords, I

cannot help thinking that it is wholly unnecessary and greatly

unbecoming of the government to form such an establishment, of such a

description, in such a place as Malta; and the more particularly, as the

object for which it is made, must be both of a dangerous tendency to

this country, and fraught with evil to others. The free press which they

propose, is to be conducted, not by foreign Italians, but by Maltese,

subjects of her majesty, enjoying the same privileges as we do. Now,

what does this mean? It means that the licence to do wrong is unlimited.

If it were conducted by foreign Italians, you could have a check upon

them if they acted in such a manner as would tend to compromise us with

our neighbours--you could send them out of the island--you could prevent

their doing injury in that manner by various ways. But here you have no

such check--you have no check at all--your free press in that respect is

uncontrollable. If the free press chooses to preach up insurrection in

Italy from its den in Malta, you have no power of preventing it. Were

the conductors foreign Italians you could lay your hand on them at once,

and dispose of them as aliens; but you cannot do that with the Maltese

subjects, enjoying the same right and possessing the same freedom as

ourselves. I did hope, that we should have been cured by this time of

our experiments on exciting insurrection in the other countries of

Europe--in the dominions of neighbouring princes--in the territories of

our allies. I did think that we had received a sufficient lesson in

these matters to last us a long time, even for ever, in the results

which have taken place through such interference in Portugal, Spain,

Italy--ay, and in Canada too--and that they had put an end to our

dangerous mania for exciting insurrection in foreign countries. Such, my

lords, I assert is the object of a free press in Malta--to excite

insurrection in the dominions of our neighbour and ally, the King of the

Two Sicilies, and in the dominions of the King of Sardinia--and I

confess that I am ashamed of the government, considering the results

that have taken place, from the doctrines promulgated by it, that they

have not done everything in their power to suppress instead of

encouraging and supporting it; and that they had not sent out their

commissions with full power to do so, rather than instructed them to

call for its establishment.

_May 3, 1838._

* * * * *

_State of Poverty in Ireland._

Of all the countries in Europe, Ireland is the one in which it has

appeared to me to be least possible to establish anything in the nature

of the English poor-laws. The opinion delivered by others has been, that

there are no materials to be found in Ireland proper for forming, or if

formed for administering with salutary effect, any system of poor-laws

such as exists in this country; and I, my lords, believe that there is

no doubt whatever of the justice and truth of that opinion, considering

the English poor-laws, as they formerly existed, and as they were

carried into execution up to the year 1834, when the noble lords

opposite introduced the measure which amended them. While, however, I

say this, I am bound at the same time to express my entire concurrence

in the opinion declared by the noble viscount, that there never was a

country in which poverty existed to such a degree as it exists in that

part of the United Kingdom. My lords, I was in office in that country--I

held a high situation in the administration of the government of Ireland

thirty years ago--and I must say, that from that time to this there has

scarcely elapsed a single year in which the government has not at

certain periods of it entertained the most serious apprehensions of

actual famine. My lords, I am firmly convinced that from the year 1806

down to the present time, a year has not passed in which the government

have not been called on to give assistance to relieve the poverty and

distress which prevailed in Ireland, and owing to circumstances over

which no human power could have any control. One of the circumstances

which has most frequently led to this lamentable state of things, has

been the failure or delay of the potato crops, and there have been known

times when two, three, and even as many as four months have intervened

before these crops, which are used as a subsistence by the people, could

be brought into the market; and such are the social relations in that

country, that the people have no means of coming to market to purchase

like the people of England. My lords, this is a fact that is undoubted,

and one that I believe never existed in any country in the world except

Ireland.

_May 21, 1838._

* * * * *

_The Numbers of a Meeting may render it Illegal._

The numbers of a meeting--that is to say, such an assembly of persons as

would create terror in the minds of people living in the

neighbourhood,--would justify the magistrate in taking measures to

disperse it.

_June 15, 1838._

_Real cause of our interference in Spain._

The system of interference adopted by his late majesty's government, by

means of the quadruple treaty, was with a view to the contest between

extreme opinions--it was more with a view of aiding these extreme

opinions, than to the arrangement of the mere differences between Don

Carlos, upon the one side, and the queen, or her daughter, upon the

other; to support certain opinions, and not to determine the succession,

was the cause of interference. I regret interference upon that ground; I

object to interference upon that ground; and I say, moreover, that we

were not right in interfering upon that ground. I maintain that, more

particularly on account of the extreme opinions that prevailed, we ought

not to have interfered at all; but most especially we ought not,

according to the common practice of this government, and in accordance

with the declared political principles of the noble lords themselves, to

have interfered in a question involving extreme political opinions. Now

it has unfortunately happened that extreme political principles have

been forced upon a great part of Europe by means of large armies and of

great military forces, and it was consequently expected that the same

thing would succeed in Spain. This, I believe, was the object of our

interference with Spain, and not to determine the Spanish succession.

_June 19, 1838._

_We had no right to interfere against Don Carlos._

I say we had no business to interfere in the question of succession.

There might have been some pretext for interference in the question of

succession, if any of the powers of Europe had taken part with Don

Carlos, but that was not the case. The noble baron (Lord Holland)

cheers. I say, confidently, that not one of the powers in Europe had

stirred a finger in support of the pretensions of Don Carlos. I say,

then, that, according to all principles--the principles supported and

acted upon by this country, in the case of the house of Braganza, and

many other cases that I could mention--we ought to have avoided

interference; and we ought to have avoided interference by armies more

particularly, in the contests in Spain. I say, my lords, that not a

sword had been moved in Europe in favour of Don Carlos. When Don Carlos

went to Spain, in the summer of 1834, there were not three battalions in

arms in that country in his favour. This I positively state as a fact.

But, on the contrary, in the space of forty leagues there were forty

fortified posts in possession of the queen's troops. Now, my lords, this

is a positive fact; and I say that, in the year 1835, when the armistice

was negotiated, when the exchange of prisoners was negotiated by Lord

Eliot, Don Carlos had then acquired a superiority over the queen's

forces, who were obliged to take up a position on the right of the Ebro.

That is to say, between the interval of time I have mentioned,--and this

is a positive fact upon which your lordships may rely, and to which I

pledge my word,--between the summer of 1834 and the period at which the

exchange of prisoners was agreed upon in 1835,--that is, in the course

of a very few months,--the superiority had been gained by Don Carlos in

that part of the country, so far that he had forced the enemy to take up

a position on the other side of the Ebro, abandoning all their fortified

posts, except Pampeluna and one other; and, I must add, they had very

wisely abandoned them, because they found they could not march to their

relief through the country. Now, my lords, this is literally and truly a

fact; and it is a fact not to be forgotten, with respect to the present

contest in Spain. I say, then, that it was the business of this

government not to have interfered by force. We ought not to have done

so, according to the noble marquis's principle--that there ought to be

no interference between two hostile parties in a nation like Spain.

_June 19, 1838._

* * * * *

_The Legion a failure._

The noble viscount has told your lordships, certainly, that he sent out

an expedition; and the noble marquis has informed us that it has always

been the policy of this country to encourage such expeditions. Now,

without meaning to assert that the result of that expedition was a dire

catastrophe, I must be permitted to say that the legion has been, in my

opinion and conviction, a complete failure. It has cost the Spanish

government an enormous sum of money. Great expectations were raised

respecting it, not one of which has been fulfilled. When the legion went

to Spain, the Queen of Spain's army was in all the provinces, with the

exception of Biscay and Navarre. Her government was established in all

parts of Spain, excepting these places. Excepting them, all other places

might be said to be in a state of tranquillity. But it appears the Queen

of Spain could not carry on the war, unless she got ten thousand Isle of

Dogsmen--a legion from England, and another from France. If the Spanish

government had asked for officers, or for arms, or for money, or for

artillery, I should not have been surprised, as I know well the manner

in which the Spanish arsenals are supplied. But asking for 10,000 men

from England to destroy Don Carlos, who was shut up in the mountains,

was a matter really not to be seriously thought of. The object was not

to bring 10,000, or 15,000, or 20,000 men into action, but to bring the

red coats and the blue coats, the French and English troops, into the

contest; that was the object, and the view was, to produce a moral

effect. But the government ought to have known that that which gave them

the influence on the one side, was fatal to that influence on the other.

Thus was an end put to that moral influence which this country could,

and ought to have exerted, but which can only be effectually exercised

by strict adherence, throughout all her proceedings, to the plain

principles of justice. If this country enter into a treaty, let her

carry it honourably through; but let her not push her interference

further than is necessary for exerting her influence over both parties,

in order to settle existing differences. I have said that the legion was

a failure. Of that there cannot be the slightest doubt. The war is now

in the same state as it was in the year 1835, except that Don Carlos has

more men.

_June 19, 1838._

* * * * *

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

inevitable._

The noble viscount tells us that we did not object to the appointment of

the Earl of Durham as governor-general of Canada--that we did not object

to the powers confided to him; that we--referring particularly to

me--urged this government by all the means in their power to send out

large forces, and take care to be strong in that part of the world;

advice which, I admit, I did repeat over and over again, until I

fatigued myself and the house by doing so. But why did I not object to

those powers being given to the Earl of Durham? Because, seeing the

government in difficulties--seeing the colony in a state of

rebellion--and seeing that the government possessed confidence in

another place--I thought it was not my duty to excite opposition to

measures which they thought it might be proper to adopt; and therefore I

took them all upon their recommendation. Very possibly I was wrong in so

doing; indeed, it appears that I was wrong; but I took the course which

I then considered it my duty to take. I declared that I would not follow

the example of those who, being convinced of the certainty that the

country would be involved in a war, yet thought proper to oppose all

measures that were necessary for carrying on that war. Neither would I

deny assistance to those who were absent, and who were carrying on the

government to the best of their ability; but I would give the government

a fair support, in order to pacify a country which might be in a state

of war or rebellion. That was the course which I followed on the

occasion alluded to by the noble viscount. With respect to the Earl of

Durham, I am personally unacquainted with him; and I considered that the

noble viscount and her majesty's government ought to have known best who

was the person most qualified to act as governor of Canada.

_August 9, 1838._

* * * * *

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

A grossly illegal act has been committed--not a mere technical error, or

one having reference to small or nice points of law, but an illegal act

of great magnitude, and relating to points of the most grave

importance--an act so clearly illegal, that no man capable of

understanding the first principles of justice can doubt of its

impropriety. It is impossible that the people of this country can suffer

any man to be driven into banishment without trial, or that they can

allow him, afterwards, to be condemned to death, without having been

convicted of any crime but that of returning to his own country.

[Footnote 20: The Earl of Durham, governor-general of the Canadas, had

issued an ordinance, transporting to Bermuda Dr. Nelson and seven

others, guilty by confession of high treason, and subjecting them to

death if they returned to Canada. Lord Brougham, actuated, as was

asserted by some, by personal feeling against Lord Durham, protested

against this act in the face of the country. His speech on the occasion

was one of the most powerful he ever delivered. It is scarcely necessary

to add that Lord Durham immediately and precipitately resigned his

governorship.]

_August 9, 1838._

* * * * *

_Inadequacy of our Navy._

There is nothing more certain than that, if you come to be entirely

dependent for corn on the countries bordering on the Baltic, you would

have the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Russia (as has been known

before), levying a tax upon the exportation of that article of food to

the Thames, and elsewhere in this country. * * I entirely agree with the

noble and learned lord on the expediency of avoiding any interference

with foreign powers on the subject of commercial matters; but I confess

that I cannot view the state of our commercial relations, and of our

position in the world generally, in connection with these commercial

pursuits, with any degree of unmixed satisfaction. On the contrary, I do

deplore the state in which we find ourselves placed in many parts of the

world, particularly as it has been described in the course of the

evening by my noble friend (Viscount Strangford). What I attribute that

state of our commercial relations to, in a great degree, is, the extreme

weakness and tottering condition of our naval establishments. I do not

mean to complain of the distribution of our naval establishments;

though, at the same time, I by no means intend to unsay what I have said

in respect to the expeditions to Spain, which I cannot approve of; but I

repeat my expression that I consider our naval establishments to be in

too weak and tottering a condition to answer the purpose for which they

were intended, which was to give protection to the commercial interests

of the country in all parts of the world; for the commerce of England

does extend to all parts of the world. There is not a port, not a river,

which is not visited by the ships of her majesty's subjects; and her

majesty's subjects have an undoubted right to protection in whatever

part of the world they may think proper to visit in the pursuits of

commerce. The circumstance of which I complain I do not at all attribute

to neglect upon the part of the admiralty, neither do I include in my

censure the noble earl who is at the head of the admiralty; but those I

do blame are the individuals who have thought proper to reduce the

establishments of the country to such a degree, that protection cannot

possibly be given in all places where it is required.

* * * * *

I will remind your lordships that, since the peace, and particularly

within the last twenty years, three great navies have sprung up in

Europe, which are four times as strong as they were at any former

period. Other navies, it is true, are put down; but we remain much the

same. A great deal has been said, by way of comparison, between the

strength of our navy in 1792, and in the years 1814 and 1815; but when

we talk of strength in this case, we ought not to look at the subject

without adverting to the naval establishments of other powers. Now,

although our marine force should even be on the same footing as before,

our commerce is not only tripled, but extended to a degree ten times

greater than it ever was before; and there is not a part of the earth,

from one pole to the other, in which the protection of our navy is not

required for our commerce. I must say that, if we should at any time

incur the misfortune of being involved in another war--which God

forbid!--the only mode of keeping out of the difficulty would be to

maintain such a navy as would give protection to her majesty's subjects

in all parts of the globe.

_August 14, 1838._

* * * * *

_Neutrality of Belgium._

I hope that it never may be lost sight of in this country, that the

original foundation of the independence of Belgium, as a separate

kingdom, was this condition, namely, its perpetual neutrality. That

condition I consider to have been the foundation of that transaction,

and I hope that this will never be forgotten by this country, or by

Europe.

_February 5, 1839._

* * * * *

_Aggressions on Canada from the United States._

I must say I should very much wish to see suitable measures adopted to

carry into execution the intentions which her majesty declares in her

speech, of maintaining her rights of sovereignty over Canada. The system

of levying private war which prevails on that continent is not wholly

unknown in other parts of the world. I have read of it as existing in

the deserts of Central Asia; I have heard of its being practised, as a

system, by the Asiatics on the frontiers of the Russian monarchy, where

a perpetual warfare is going on between those tribes and the troops sent

to repress their inroads--a warfare that has been waged in those

countries from century to century. We read also of circumstances of the

same kind occurring in Africa--of wars carried on by barbarous tribes

against the possessions of the British government in Africa, the

contests of savages against a civilized people. But this is a war

carried on by a nation supposed to be considerably advanced in the scale

of civilization--by men governing themselves, electing their servants by

ballot and general suffrage, and living under institutions of that

description. Yet these are the very men who come in at night, and with

fire and torch destroy the property of her majesty's subjects, for no

reason whatever except that they obey her majesty's laws, and carry into

effect her royal commands. Of such a system of warfare there are, I

believe, no examples, except, as I have stated, among the most lawless

of the barbarous tribes of the East and of Africa. It is quite out of

the question that her majesty's loyal subjects, invited to their

habitations, and fixed in them, by her majesty's authority and that of

her predecessors, should not endeavour to retaliate the sufferings thus

inflicted upon them, unless protected by the strong arm of government;

but how can government protect them, except by taking strong measures,

when these persons are found invading her majesty's dominions for the

purpose of plundering and destroying the property of her majesty's

subjects, to intercept them in their retreat, to take them prisoners,

and punish them according to the laws of the country they have insulted?

* * * * *

There can be no doubt a civil government in any country is capable of

preventing the collection of a body of troops, and the invasion of the

territory of a neighbouring power. A body of "sympathisers" has been

organised in the States to carry on the plan of invasion; and are we to

sit down quietly and pass unnoticed this unwarrantable interference?

_February 5, 1839._

* * * * *

_Agitation by Authority._

I now come to the last paragraph of the speech, in which her majesty

complains, that she has observed with pain the efforts which have been

made, in some parts of the country, to excite her subjects to

disobedience and resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and

illegal acts. Now, I really think that this affecting paragraph cannot

have raised very pleasant reflections in the breasts of many noble lords

who are in the habit of supporting her majesty's ministers. It is but

too true that various persons have endeavoured to excite her majesty's

subjects to resist the law; but I am afraid much of this spirit may be

traced to what has taken place in this house on former occasions. I have

heard persons, charged with the highest employments of government,

insisting upon the rights of this people to assemble for the expression

of their sentiments, declaiming against any restriction on that right,

and preaching upon this doctrine without restricting it in the manner

declared by law--namely, that these assemblies must not be in numbers

sufficient to create alarm. It was but very lately that a great officer

of state, travelling about the country, made a speech to the same

purport at Liverpool, and stated those opinions in the most unreserved

manner, at the very moment when men were assembling by torch-light

meetings. We have heard for a number of years past of the extraordinary

tranquillity of Ireland, and as often as I have listened to the phrase,

I have protested against it; but there is a gentleman, high in the

confidence of government, who goes about devising new modes of agitation

every day. That gentleman ought to have a special copy of the speech

sent to him! One time he talks of raising 2,000,000 of men--at another

time of a fund of 20,000 l. sterling, which is deposited in his private

bank, and ultimately to be deposited in his private pocket. In order to

further his new schemes of agitation, that gentleman has declared his

intention of raising 60,000 fighting men for her majesty, though he has

never, that I am aware of, been employed as a recruiting officer.

Sometimes these boasts do not turn out to be true; but if not 60,000

persons, there may be 6,000, or some force of that description, which

would be a serious inconvenience to the government.

_February 5, 1839._

* * * * *

_Folly of carrying on war with a peace establishment._

This country is at war--at war in two quarters of the world--at war in

America and at war in Asia; and what I say is this, that when a country

is at war, I understand that the fleet of that country should be put

upon a war establishment; whereas, these returns are made on a peace

establishment--nay, I believe on one much lower,--on a reduced peace

establishment; and yet we are pretending to carry on war in two

countries of the world with such means! I warned your lordships a year

and a half ago--indeed nearly two years ago, against any such attempt. I

believe that we have been feeling the inconvenience of such an attempt

from that period up to the present time, and I only hope and trust in

God, that we shall not experience still further inconvenience and

disasters from our perseverance in it. A peace establishment, and a

reduced peace establishment, may be very fit and very proper for

carrying on the service of the country in time of peace; but when we

come to carry on war, our peace establishment is not found equal to the

performance of the duties required from the establishment in time of

peace, and still less to those extended duties which must be performed

in time of war.

* * * * *

We are carrying on a war in North America, and a most expensive war in

Asia; and both of them require all the force this country can employ in

order to bring them to an early and an honourable termination. We are,

however, engaging in both with a reduced peace establishment, and we are

incurring all descriptions of risks, in every other part of the world,

in order to do this. The noble earl (Minto) has been talking about a

few masts and sails, when the whole force which the country can command

ought to be engaged in the war now waging, in order to bring the contest

to the honourable termination I speak of. I said this about a year and a

half ago, and I now repeat it.

_March 7, 1839._

* * * * *

_The Corn Laws have improved Agriculture._

The system which it is the object of the existing law to establish, is

one of encouragement to agriculture--a system which was established at

the termination of the last century, and under which I will venture to

assert, the agriculture of this country has made a progress, and has

risen to a degree of superiority throughout these kingdoms, greater than

exists in any other part of the world, not excepting even the

Netherlands. Under this system of encouragement to agriculture, large

sums of money have been laid out and invested in land, and property

relating to land; and great sums are at this moment in the course of

investment in the same way; and I call on your lordships not to agree to

any resolution, or to any measure of the government (if they should

think proper to propose any such measure), which will have the effect of

withdrawing from agriculture this protection, and thus putting a stop to

those great improvements which are at present in progress, and which, I

say, have had such an influence on agriculture, that the amount of

produce raised in this country is thereby greatly increased. I believe

that the produce of the country has been immensely increased, and

particularly in the valuable article of wheat, the annual production of

which is now nearly equal to its greatest annual consumption. Such is

the supply of wheat that the very lowest order of the people subsist

mostly upon it; which is not, I believe, the practice in any other

country. The practice is not known any where else; it is not known in

France; it is not known in Germany; it is not known in the Netherlands;

nor is it, in short, the case any where else. In fact, the lower orders

live upon wheaten bread in no country of the world except England. I

entreat your lordships to bear this in mind; I entreat you not to break

down a system which has carried cultivation to such a pitch, that an

amount of produce is raised in England, alone, which is found to be

nearly equal to her greatest annual consumption. I think the annual

amount of produce will increase. This is my firm belief; and I am

confident that with the increase of produce there must come, and come

naturally too, a corresponding decrease of price; and it is to that

consequence that I look as being the solution of all the difficulties

which at present attend this question. But, let your lordships

recollect, it is absolutely necessary to keep up this encouragement in

order to arrive at the desired result of the reduction of price. Very

lately, when wheat in this country was at 78s. the quarter, and the duty

on importation was a merely nominal one of 1s. a quarter, was there any

such quantity of foreign wheat introduced as was sufficient to lower the

price? Not at all. The moment the ports were opened, the merchant

importer stood on the same ground as the farmer, and he would not sell

his corn for 1s. less than the price of the day. Did we ever hear of

corn coming in from abroad, and being brought to market at a cheaper

rate than it was selling for in this country? Never. But look to the

operation of the law prevailing in the former part of the war; the

prices varied from 70s. to 150s. the quarter. Did we ever hear of

foreign corn being sold for 1s. less than what could be got for it in

the general markets of this country? It must be sold by the merchant

importer at the very same price as by the farmer. It is all very fine to

say that the price would be exceedingly low, if these laws were

abolished, and corn were allowed to be introduced without restriction.

Why, if the price of corn raised in this country were low, the foreigner

could not get more for his corn here, than the farmer; but if the price

of home grown corn were necessarily high, the introduction of foreign

corn would not reduce it.

_March 14, 1839._

* * * * *

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

It is very important to look at this question with reference to the

interests of the commerce of the country, and also to consider the

effect of the abolition of the corn laws on the price of provisions and

on the price of manufactures. Now, if we discourage agriculture to such

a degree that any large body of persons and a great amount of capital

come to be withdrawn from it, the price of native produce must rise;

there would be so much less produce raised than before, that its

price--the price of the native produce I mean--must rise. Now, the price

of the corn imported will be the price of the diminished quantity of the

home-raised corn. Would the manufacturing labourer benefit by this?

Would the manufacturer find any advantage in it, when the diminished

value of their wages was forcing the labourers to raise the market upon

him? Would the merchant exporter gain anything by the change? Would it

not be found that, in proportion as the manufacturer must pay a larger

amount of wages, the prices of his manufactures must be augmented; and

therefore the disadvantages of competition with merchants abroad be

augmented likewise?

_March 14, 1839._

* * * * *

_Foreign Governments would Tax the Export of their Corn._

There is another view of the question which I beseech your lordships to

take--I mean the question of our dependence on foreign produce for a

great part of our annual consumption, which would be caused by the

abolition of the present law. On looking over the papers which have been

produced on former discussions of this subject, I have seen proofs that

in certain countries duties are paid upon the exportation of corn thence

hither; and that statements are made by the sovereigns of those

countries to this effect:--"As the corn is wanted by Great Britain, and

her subjects can afford to pay the duty, therefore they shall pay it."

This duty must come out of the pocket of her majesty's subjects, and be

taken into account in the price of the goods of the manufacturers. Your

lordships have heard a great deal upon the competition of foreign

manufacturers with our own in foreign markets. I certainly am one who

does not despise the consideration of these subjects; which, on the

contrary, I think of very high importance; but this question is a large

one, and it is necessary to consider it on rather broader grounds. This

very consideration may be material with respect to some countries of

which we have been the creditors; but I do not see how our relations

with those which are not corn countries can be affected by any change in

the corn laws. The power of taxation, which would be thrown into the

hands of foreign powers, in the event of the repeal of the corn laws,

constitutes, in my view, a most important feature of the case. Suppose

we were involved in an arduous competition with Prussian or Russian

manufacturers for the supply of a particular article: if we should make

up our minds to rely solely on those countries for a supply of corn, as

we are called upon to do by the opponents of the corn laws,--and if the

success of our manufactures depends on the abundance and cheapness of

corn among our population--must we not expect, according to the usual

course of such affairs among mankind, that the corn exported from those

countries would be taxed so as to render the food of our manufacturers

as dear as it would be under any other circumstances? If that is likely

to be the case, I would strongly advise you, my lords, to agree to no

measure which may render this country dependent upon others for its

supply of food. Let us persevere in those measures which have been

successful in raising the agriculture of this country and increasing its

produce; let us increase its produce to the utmost possible degree, and

render all the articles of food as cheap as possible; and then let us

see what can be done with reference to commerce and its interests; but

let us, I entreat, begin by securing to her majesty's subjects a supply

of the best food from the produce of her majesty's own dominions.

_March 14, 1839._

* * * * *

_As a public man, stands on public grounds._

The noble earl (Radnor) says that I am an advocate for a monopoly; and

he talks about my not assisting the landlords, not assisting the

farmers, and not assisting the labourers. My lords, I know nothing about

landlords, farmers, or labourers, when I am advocating a legislative

question of a public nature in this house. I have nothing to say to them

any farther than as their interests are identified with those of the

community at large. I beg the noble lord to understand, when I come into

this house, I come here upon the public interest. I have no more to say

to landlords, farmers, or labourers, than the noble earl himself; and I

am thoroughly convinced there is not a noble friend near me who does not

look at this question solely on public grounds, and those which he

conceives it to be for the interest of the country to take.

_March 14, 1839._

* * * * *

_Objections to a free press in Malta._

I am one of those who have always thought, that if there existed any

part of her majesty's dominions in which a free press was not necessary,

Malta was that part. Our business there is to maintain a garrison and a

great naval station. Malta contains a population of 100,000 persons, for

whom I entertain the highest respect and regard, being convinced that

her majesty has no better or more devoted subjects than they are. It is

the duty of government, and the duty of this house, as far as it can, to

superintend the good government of the people of Malta--a people who

talk the Maltese language, and the Maltese language alone--a people, of

whom not one in 500 can read a line. Surely, of all the institutions of

this country which are the least necessary for men of this description,

and I declare my belief that it is a true description of the people of

Malta, I may venture to assert a free press is that one institution. I

will not dispute that hereafter much good may arise from a free press,

but education is much more necessary for the people of Malta. A free

press cannot be rendered useful to them, much less advantageous, without

that training which they require, and that education which ought to be

given to them. There is a certain liberal set of gentlemen in this

country who think a free press in Malta exceedingly desirable, not for

the sake of any advantage to the inhabitants, but for the sake of the

advantage to be produced on the neighbouring coast of France, and Spain,

and Italy. This is the truth with respect to this free press. * * I

believe that we have now had enough of private wars, and I believe that

we now seek what advantage it would have been, if we had never

undertaken those private wars, not only in other parts of the world, but

also a little nearer home. I must say that the objects of them are

inconsistent with the interests--aye, and inconsistent with the

honour--of this country; inconsistent with the interests of the country,

because, as I always have maintained, and always shall maintain, the

interests of this country must depend, not only on the maintenance of

peace for itself, but on its preventing, if possible, disturbances among

other nations; and inconsistent with its honour, because I will say,

that its honour does depend on not exciting rebellions and insurrections

in other nations, at the same moment that the government here is

ostensibly at peace with those nations. Now, that is the ground on which

I have always objected to a free press in Malta. I object to it, because

I contend that the intention entertained is to have a free press, not

for Malta, but for the neighbouring regions of Italy, France, and Spain;

and if you must have a free press for the Maltese, in the name of God

let it be in the Maltese language!

_April 30, 1839._

* * * * *

_Malta. Its riches and resources._

I have reason to know something of Malta; I know something of its

resources; and, instead of its being misgoverned, I can only say that in

the course of my intercourse with that island, I was astonished at the

immensity of its resources of all descriptions, and at the readiness

with which these resources were afforded to his majesty's troops and

armies, in order to enable them to carry on war against an enemy. It is

but an act of justice to those noble and honourable persons who have

governed Malta, to say thus much; and I must add that, having known that

island for a period of nearly twenty years, I really believe that, on

the face of the globe there is not a place of the same extent and

population which possesses one thousandth part of its riches and

resources of all descriptions.

_April 30, 1839._

* * * * *

_Indifference to Reports._

I have served the sovereigns and the public of this country for fifty

years, and throughout the whole of that period I have been exposed to

evil report and to good report, and I have still continued to serve on

through all report, both good and evil, and thus I confess myself to be

completely indifferent to the nature of all reports.

_May 14, 1839._

* * * * *

_Personal Attendants of the Sovereign. Their Political Influence._

When the noble viscount announced in this house on Tuesday last that he

had resigned his office, the probable consequences of that announcement

occurred to my mind, and I turned my attention in consequence to the

state of the government at the present moment--to the state of the royal

authority--to the composition of the royal household--and to all those

circumstances which were likely to come under my consideration, in case

I were called upon to assist in advising the composition of another

administration. I confess, that it appeared to me impossible that any

set of men should take charge of her majesty's government without having

the usual influence and control over the establishment of the royal

household--that influence and control which their immediate predecessors

in office had exercised before them. As the royal household was formed

by their predecessors in office, the possession of that influence and

that control over it appeared to me to be absolutely necessary, to let

the public see that the ministers who were about to enter upon office

had and possessed the entire confidence of her majesty. I considered

well the nature of the formation of the royal household under the civil

list act passed at the commencement of her majesty's reign. I considered

well the difference between the household of a queen-consort and the

household of a queen-regnant. The queen-consort not being a political

person in the same light as a queen-regnant, I considered the

construction of her majesty's household--I considered who filled offices

in it--I considered all the circumstances attendant on the influence of

the household, and the degree of confidence which it might be necessary

for the government to repose in the members of it. I was sensible of the

serious and anxious nature of the charge which the minister in

possession of that control and influence over her majesty's household

would have laid upon him. I was sensible that in everything which he

did, and in every step which he took as to the household, he ought to

consult not only the honour of her majesty's crown, and her royal state

and dignity, but also her social condition, her ease, her convenience,

her comfort--in short, everything which tended to the solace and

happiness of her life. I reflected on all these considerations as

particularly incumbent on the ministers who should take charge of the

affairs of this country; I reflected on the age, the sex, the situation,

and the comparative inexperience, of the sovereign on the throne; and I

must say that if I had been, or if I was to be, the first person to be

consulted, with respect to the exercise of the influence and control in

question, I would suffer any inconvenience whatever, rather than take

any step as to the royal household which was not compatible with her

majesty's comforts.

* * * * *

I cannot but think that the principles on which we proposed to act with

respect to the ladies of the bed-chamber, in the case of a

queen-regnant, were the correct principles. The public will not believe

that the queen holds no political conversation with those ladies, and

that political influence is not exercised by them, particularly

considering who those persons are who hold such situations. I believe

the history of this country affords a number of instances in which

secret and improper influence has been exercised by means of such

conversations. I have, my lords, a somewhat strong opinion on this

subject. I have unworthily filled the office which the noble viscount

now so worthily holds; and I must say I have felt the inconvenience of

an anomalous influence, not exercised, perhaps, by ladies, but anomalous

influence, undoubtedly, of this description, and exerted simply in

conversations; and I will tell the noble viscount that the country is at

this moment suffering some inconvenience from the exercise of that very

secret influence.

_May 14, 1839._

A war carried on by militia, volunteers, and troops of that description,

will infallibly be carried on after the manner of civil wars.

May 30, 1839.

* * * * *

_Reasons for passing the Poor Law._

I have been long enough in parliament to recollect that, before the

present law passed, there were not less than half-a-dozen attempts made,

by some of the greatest men this country ever produced, to amend the

system of the poor laws. Among others, the late Mr. Pitt endeavoured to

amend these laws, but failed, and for a reason which I believe

occasioned the failure of every attempt to alter them until that which

was successfully made within these five years, when the present poor law

amendment act was passed, principally by the exertions of the noble and

learned lord (Lord Brougham). The real truth of the matter was

this--that in every parish in the country there existed some abuses, I

will venture to say a hundred times greater than any of those with which

the noble earl (Stanhope) entertains your lordships upon every vacant

day that presents itself. In every parish, I repeat, there were abuses;

and, in each, abuses founded upon a different principle from those

existing in some neighbouring parish; so that no law could be devised to

remedy them; for the measure which would apply to parish A, instead of

removing the abuses existing in parish B, would only have tended to

aggravate and render them intolerable. At length, there was a very

general and searching inquiry into the whole state of the administration

of the poor laws; the result of which was, that the present measure was

arranged and produced to parliament. It passed both houses in a very

short space of time, and, I believe, on the principle there was no

division whatever, and hardly a difference of opinion, in this house; I

believe there was none in the other house of parliament, and very little

difference of opinion was expressed upon any part of the details. With

respect to the administration of the law, I have observed it in

different parts of the country, and I must say that its administration

has been entirely satisfactory, and most particularly to those parties

who are likely to become its more immediate objects. That part of the

law of which the noble earl complains most, namely, the existence of the

poor law commissioners, is, in my opinion, the most important part of

it. The truth of the matter is, that the abuses in the administration of

the poor laws were so numerous, so various, and, at the same time, so

inveterate, that it was absolutely impossible to get the better of them,

without the constitution of some central authority which should

superintend the execution of the law; taking care that it was duly

administered, and that those intrusted with its execution in the country

did not infringe upon its provisions. Such, I believe, was the object of

the institution of those boards of guardians and commissioners.

_June 18, 1839._

_The Ballot and Universal Suffrage dangerous. Open questions a symptom

of weakness in a Government._

I fully concur with the noble viscount (Melbourne) in the propriety of

opposing the further extension of the suffrage, and upon the very same

ground, namely, that such extension would be inconsistent with the best

interests of the country. I likewise concur in the sentiments which that

noble viscount has expressed upon the subject of the ballot; that

obnoxious, and, I must say, un-English measure; at the same time I

deeply regret that the noble viscount did think proper to make it what

is called an open question. I had the misfortune to be in office when

there were such questions, and I must say, that I never could consider

them as anything but a symptom of weakness on the part of those who were

carrying on the service of their sovereign--a symptom that they were not

acting together, that they did not agree amongst themselves, and that

there was a division also amongst their supporters. Instead of its being

a matter of satisfaction that an individual question like the ballot

should be left an open question, I regard it as a circumstance most

likely to prove disastrous to the government, and eventually so to the

country.

June 25, 1839.

* * * * *

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

storm._

I have been accused of "exaggeration."[21] That may be a parliamentary

phrase; I will not presume to decide that it is an unparliamentary

term; but I believe that it is a term not much used amongst gentlemen.

It has been employed, however, in a privileged place, that must be

nameless, and I shall advert to it no farther than to notice the

conclusions which may be drawn from the use of such a term in reference

to what I did say. I trust your lordships will excuse me for a few

moments upon this subject, because I really think I have been most

unjustifiably made the subject of a personal attack for what I stated in

this, your lordships' house, with respect to the late riots in

Birmingham. What I stated, my lords, was founded on the same species of

information which, it appears, was in the possession of her majesty's

government; for, neither the noble viscount, nor any of the other noble

lords opposite, knew any more of the subject than I did; they knew

nothing beyond what they had seen in the newspapers; and I stated, at

the time, that I knew nothing beyond that, myself, with regard to the

facts. But I compared the transactions at Birmingham with certain other

transactions, of which, certainly, I have more knowledge than most noble

lords in this house; matters on which I had a certain and positive

knowledge; and I said (and I firmly believe that it was correct, and

that, in making the comparison I did not, in the least degree, depart

from the truth), that the peaceable inhabitants of the town of

Birmingham were worse treated, upon that occasion, than the inhabitants

of any town I had ever known or seen taken by assault. This is what I

asserted; and, it is the fact, according to my opinion.

[Footnote 21: A member of the House of Commons had used this term as

applied to the Duke's remarks on this subject, a few nights previously.]

* * * * *

I cannot help thinking that it is extraordinary that, in the year 1839,

after nine years of liberal government,--after nine years' enjoyment of

the blessings of liberal government,--your lordships should be

discussing whether or not the amount of destruction completed within a

peaceful town within her majesty's dominions is equal to the mischief

done to a town which is taken by storm. And yet this has been clearly

demonstrated to be the case. It is clear, my lords, that in peaceful,

happy England, which carried on a war for twenty-two years, and which

made the most extraordinary efforts to maintain that war, as she did,

with circumstances of glory and success attending her arms in all parts

of the world,--in order to avoid as it was hoped, these miseries, and so

that no such disasters as these might ever approach her shores,--in this

same happy and peaceful England, after nine years of liberal government,

here is a town plundered, and its peace destroyed; and yet I am accused

of exaggeration, because I say I never knew any town, taken by storm, to

be so ill-used as this fine town has been. I confess I am not at all

surprised, however, at the conduct of the noble lord who so liberally

applied the term "exaggeration" to what I said, when I reflect who are

the followers and supporters of that noble lord.

_July 22, 1839._

* * * * *

_Legal redress against Magistrates._

I apprehend that, according to the law of England, any individual is at

liberty to complain of the conduct of a magistrate, and proceed against

him in a court of law. No one has ever doubted that, in this country,

every individual has a right so to complain of, and to proceed against,

the magistrates, when the magistrates misconduct themselves. It is in

accordance only with the _Code Napoléon_,--with the code of laws of that

high priest of liberalism, the Emperor Napoleon,--that the consent of

the council of state should be given, before a justice misconducting

himself can be tried and punished. Hitherto, in this country, the

practice and the law have been different on that head; and I hope we

shall hear no more of such proceedings. But follow out the system laid

down in the letter from the Home Office, and the result will be that no

man--- particularly if he have to complain of the conduct of a

magistrate--will, without the consent of the home secretary, go into a

court of justice to obtain redress. My lords, to such a course I trust I

shall see some check put, before it is further established by

precedents.

July 22,1839.

* * * * *

_Reasons for Supporting the Penny Postage Bill_.

In the preamble of this bill, it is stated to have for its object the

establishment, in this country, of a low and uniform rate of postage. I

admit the truth of the arguments stated by the noble viscount upon the

expediency, and, indeed, the necessity, of establishing an uniform and

low rate of postage in this country. These arguments have been urged

more than once by my noble friend near me (Lord Ashburton), and by the

noble duke who heretofore filled the office of postmaster general, but

whom I do not see in his place this evening. If, however, the object be

only to reduce the expense of postage, and to establish an uniform rate,

I imagine that the power of the government is already sufficient for

such a purpose, although the power was not granted for that immediate

object; but the object with which the power was given was, for the

purpose of enabling the government to adopt that particular plan which

is called Mr. Rowland Hill's plan, and which, I am certainly disposed to

admit, was, of all plans, if adopted exactly as Mr. Hill proposed it,

the most likely to be successful. At the same time, I must say, I am

afraid the present plan will not be entirely successful. I think, in the

first place, that a great mistake is committed, in the assumption that

the reduction in the rate of postage down to a penny, even to be paid on

the delivery of the letter, would induce any very considerable increase

of literary correspondence. I possessed, for many years, an extensive

knowledge of the degree of advantage attendant upon such a system in the

army; and I can safely assert to your lordships, that it is quite

curious to remark how small an amount of correspondence is carried on by

soldiers, notwithstanding they enjoy the utmost facility for doing so.

One remarkable instance I will mention, just to show that it is not

quite certain that a large increase of correspondence will take place in

consequence of the rate of postage being reduced to a penny. In the case

of a highland regiment, it was positively ascertained that, in the

course of six or seven months, only sixty-three or sixty-four letters

were written. Now this is a fact on which reliance can be placed; and it

certainly demonstrates that the people of this country are not so ready

to correspond, as some suppose, even when they can send letters at the

rate of a penny for the postage. I would beg your lordships to observe

just one point touching the application of this plan to the country

parts of England. It is perfectly well known to you that the post-office

is frequently six or seven miles, and sometimes ten or fifteen miles,

from most of the houses and villages in the neighbourhood. Now, if a man

have to take a letter to the post-office, he may lose half a day's work

in going there; and it cannot be supposed that he would make such a

sacrifice merely because he would only be charged a penny on the

delivery of his letter. Then, again, let us look at the manner in which

the plan will work in large towns. The plan will, no doubt, work

beneficially in London. In London, there are a number of people employed

for the purpose of delivering letters in all parts of the town several

times in the course of the day. But let us take such towns as

Manchester, or Leeds, or Liverpool; the people cannot resort to one

post-office, and post-offices must therefore be established in different

parts of the town for their accommodation; and the consequence will be,

a vast increase in the establishment of the post-office,--of which

increase, I do not think sufficient notice has been taken in the

documents which I have perused. Upon the whole, then, I am very much

afraid that this scheme for a low and uniform rate of postage wilt be

found impracticable on account of the expense, and, also, from the small

amount of profit which will accrue from the carriage of the letters.

* * * * *

At the time this subject was first mentioned in this house, and, indeed,

in the other house of parliament, the noble viscount said that his main

object would he to secure the revenue; and I certainly apprehended that

the noble viscount would not adopt this plan, unless he could see some

security for the revenue; and this was the language held, also, in the

other house of parliament, I understand. It seems now, however, that we

have got no security for the revenue.

* * * * *

But my lords, notwithstanding I feel so little confidence in this

measure, and notwithstanding that I must continue to lament that it

should ever have been adopted, when all the circumstances of the present

times are considered,--I, nevertheless, earnestly recommend you to pass

it. It is a measure which has been most anxiously looked forward to by

the country; at the same time that it is one as to which there has been

much doubt: but your lordships should bear in mind, that there is not

one clause of this bill upon which you can make an amendment, or in

which you can give a vote, except in the negative or the affirmative,

without committing a breach of those conventional rules which have been

established for the conduct of the business between you and the House of

Commons. On the other hand, my lords, suppose you were to reject this

bill;--the government, supported by the other house, would have the

power to destroy the whole revenue of the post-office; so that all the

evil which this bill could do to the revenue, and which it is your

object to save, might still be done;--and seeing that, at the same time,

the measure of post-office administration, which it is the object of

this bill to effect, and which it is desired should be carried into

execution, must altogether lie over, unless you agree to some such

measure as this;--I say, my lords, under these circumstances, I intend,

though with pain and reluctance, to vote for the bill; and I earnestly

recommend your lordships to adopt it.

_August 5, 1839._

* * * * *

_Danger of interfering with the Religion of the Hindoos._

My lords, I served in India for a considerable length of time; but I

never saw--I never heard of--anything so revolting in the religious

ceremonies of the natives as has been described by the noble duke and by

the right reverend prelate. The whole army, while I was in India, except

about 50,000 men, consisted of idolaters; but they were as good soldiers

as could be found anywhere. They performed, in the best manner, any

service that was required of them; and certainly, at that time, the

object of the government, and of every man in the service of the

government, was to avoid, not only interference, but even the semblance

of any interference, in any manner, in the idolatrous rites and

ceremonies of the country. I have not read one of the dispatches which

have been alluded to; and I must say that I have seen too much, in my

own experience, to encourage the practice of encouraging documents of

this description. I beg your lordships to recollect, that with the

exception of about 20,000 of her majesty's troops, and, with the

exception of the civil servants of the government, and the few European

residents in the country, there is not a man in India who is not an

idolater, to manage the affairs of that most extensive and important

empire. I would entreat your lordships never to lose sight of that fact.

I know, too, from experience, for I have seen the missionaries at work,

the little progress which they make; and I know at the same time that

their labours create a good deal of jealousy. I warn the government not

to go too far in their measures against the idolatry of India; for the

Indian empire is one of great importance, and they must not expect to

convert 100,000,000 of idolaters to our holy religion by the small means

at their disposal.

_August 13, 1839._

* * * * *

_Never said one thing and meant another._

I will not make any professions of my own anxiety to put down the slave

trade. I have passed a long life, I trust with honour, in the service of

her majesty's predecessors. I served her majesty's predecessors in

diplomatic situations and in councils, as well as in the army, and I

believe people cannot accuse me of saying one thing and meaning another.

_August 19, 1839._

* * * * *

_Impotent Colonial Administration of the Whigs._