A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

Maxims And Opinions Of Field Marshal His Grace The Duke Of Wellington, Selected From His Writings And Speeches During A Public Life Of More Than Half A Century by Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington

A >> Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington >> Maxims And Opinions Of Field Marshal His Grace The Duke Of Wellington, Selected From His Writings And Speeches During A Public Life Of More Than Half A Century




I hope your Lordships will give me leave to read a petition which has
been sent to me this day, and which was presented to the Scottish
Parliament at the period when those concessions were about to be made,
and your Lordships will perceive that the petition is almost a model of
many petitions which have been read in this house respecting the
question under discussion. I am, therefore, in expectation that should
the present bill pass this house, there will be no longer occasion for
those complaints which have been expressed to your Lordships, and that
the same happy and peaceful state of things which has for the last
century prevailed in Scotland will also prevail in Ireland. I will, with
your Lordships' permission, read the petition I have alluded to, and I
think that after you have heard it, you will be of the same opinion as I
am with respect to the similarity it bears to many petitions which have
been presented to your Lordships on the Catholic question. The petition
states, that "to grant toleration to that party (the Episcopalians) in
the present circumstances of the Church, must unavoidably shake the
foundation of our present happy constitution; overthrow those laws on
which it is settled, grievously disturb that peace and tranquillity
which the nation has enjoyed since the late revolution, disgust the
minds of his Majesty's best subjects; increase animosity; confirm
discord and tumult; weaken and enervate the discipline of the church;
open the door to unheard of vices, and to Popery as well as to other
errors; propagate and cherish disaffection to the government, and bring
the nation under the danger of falling back into those mischiefs and
calamities, from which it had lately escaped by the divine blessing. We,
therefore, humbly hope, that no concessions will be granted to that
party which would be to establish iniquity by law, and bring upon the
country manifold calamities and disasters, from which we pray that
government may preserve the members of the high court of Parliament."

I sincerely hope, that as the prophecy contained in this petition has
not been fulfilled, that a similar prophecy respecting the passing of
the present bill, contained in many petitions presented to your
Lordships, will not be fulfilled. But, my Lords, I have other grounds
besides those which I have already stated for supposing that the
proposed measure will answer the object in view. There is no doubt, that
after this measure shall be adopted, the Roman Catholics can have no
separate interest as a separate sect,--for I am sure that neither this
house, nor the other house of parliament, will be disposed to look upon
the Roman Catholics, or upon anything that respects Ireland, with any
other eye than that with which they regard whatever affects the
interests of Scotland, or of this country. For my own part, I will
state, that if I am disappointed in the hopes which I entertained that
tranquillity will result from this measure, I shall have no scruple in
coming down and laying before Parliament the state of the case. I shall
act with the same confidence that parliament would support me then, as I
have acted in the present case.

_April 2, 1829._

* * * * *

_Abolition of the Jesuits and other Monastic Orders._

Another part of this bill has for its object, the putting an end to the
order of the Jesuits and other monastic orders in this country. If your
Lordships will look at the act passed in the year 1791, you will
probably see that at that time, as well as in this, it was possible for
one person to make laws through which another might drive a coach and
four. My noble and learned friend (Lord Eldon) will excuse me for
saying, that notwithstanding all the pains which he took to draw up the
act of 1791, yet the fact is,--of which there cannot be the smallest
doubt,--that large religious establishments have been regularly formed,
not only in Ireland, but also in this country. The measure which I now
propose for your Lordships adoption will prevent the increase of such
establishments, and, without oppression to any individuals, without
injury to any body of men, will gradually put an end to those which have
already been formed. There is no man more convinced than I am of the
absolute necessity of carrying into execution that part of the present
measure, which has for its object the extinction of monastic orders in
this country. I entertain no doubt whatever, that if that part of the
measure be not carried into execution, we shall very soon see this
country and Ireland inundated by Jesuits and regular monastic clergy,
sent out from other parts of Europe, with means to establish themselves
within his Majesty's kingdom.

_April 2, 1829._

* * * * *


_Rationale of Roman Catholic Exclusion._

My Lords in the Bill of Rights there are some things permanently
enacted, which I sincerely hope will be permanent; these are, the
liberties of the people, the security for the Protestantism of the
person on the throne of these kingdoms, and that he shall not be married
to a Papist. There is an oath of allegiance and supremacy to be taken by
all those of whom that oath of allegiance is required, which is also
said to be permanent; but it contains no declaration against
transubstantiation. There is also an oath of allegiance different from
that which is to be taken by a member of Parliament. I beg your
Lordships will observe, that although this oath of allegiance was
declared permanent, it was altered in the last year of King William.
This shews what that "permanent" act was. Then, with respect to the
oaths to be taken by members of Parliament. I beg your Lordships to
observe that these oaths, the declaration against transubstantiation,
and the sacrifice of the mass, are not originally in the act of William
III., they are in the act of 30th Charles II. During the reign of
Charles II. there were certain oaths imposed, first on dissenters from
the church of England, by the 12th or 13th Charles II., and to exclude
Roman Catholics by the 25th Charles II., and 30th Charles II. At the
period of the Revolution, when King William came, he thought proper to
extend the basis of his government, and he repealed the oaths affecting
the dissenters from the church of England, imposed by the 13th and 14th
Charles II. and likewise that affirmative part of the oath of supremacy,
which dissenters from the church of England could not take. That is the
history of the alteration of these oaths by William III., from the time
of Charles II.

But my Lords, the remainder of the oath could be taken by Dissenters,
but could not be taken by Roman Catholics. The danger with respect to
Roman Catholics, had arisen in the time of Charles II., and still
existed in the time of William III.; but the oath was altered because
one of the great principles of the Revolution was to limit the exclusion
from the benefits of the constitution as far as it was possible.
Therefore we have this as one of the principles I before stated, derived
from the Bill of Rights. The noble Lords state, that what they call the
principles of 1688,--that is to say, these oaths excluding Roman
Catholics, are equally permanent with the Bill of Rights by which the
Protestantism of the crown is secured. If they will do me the favour to
look at the words of the act, they will see that the difference is just
the difference between that which is permanent and that which is not
permanent. The act says that the Protestantism of the Crown shall last
for ever; but, as for these oaths, they are enacted in exclusive words,
and there is not one word about how long they shall last. Well then, my
Lords, what follows? The next act we have is the act of Union with
Scotland; and what does that act say? That the oaths to be taken by the
members of Parliament, as laid down by the 1st of William and Mary shall
continue and be taken till Parliament shall otherwise direct. This is
what is called a permanent act of Parliament, a permanent provision for
all future periods, to exclude Catholics from seats in Parliament. My
Lords, I beg to observe that, if the act which excludes Roman Catholics
from seats in Parliament, is permanent, there is another clause, (I
believe the 10th of cap 8. 1st William and Mary) which requires
officers of the army and navy to take those very oaths previous to the
acceptance of their commissions. Now if the act made in the first year
of William and Mary, which excludes Roman Catholics from Parliament, is
permanent, I should like to ask noble Lords, why the clause in that act
is not equally permanent? I suppose that the noble and learned Lord will
answer my question by saying, that one act was permanent and ought to be
permanently maintained, but that the other act was not permanent, and
the Parliament did right in repealing it in 1817. But the truth of the
matter is, that neither act was intended to be permanent; and the
Parliament of Queen Anne recognised by the Act of Union that the first
act, relating to seats in Parliament, was not permanent; and the noble
and learned Lord (Eldon) did right when he consented to the act of 1817,
which put an end to the 10th clause of the 1st William III., cap. 8.
Then, my Lords, if this principle of exclusion--if this principle of the
constitution of 1688, as it is called, be not permanent,--if it be
recognised as not permanent, not only by the act of union with Scotland,
(in which it was said that the exclusive oath should continue till
Parliament otherwise provided,) but also by the late act of Union with
Ireland, I would ask your Lordships, whether you are not at liberty now
to consider the expediency of doing away with it altogether, in order to
relieve the country from the inconveniences to which I have already
adverted? I would ask your Lordships, whether you are not called upon
to review the state of the representation of Ireland,--whether you are
not called upon to see, even supposing that the principle were a
permanent one, if it be fit that Parliament should remain, as it has
remained for some time, groaning under Popish influence exercised by the
Priests over the elections in Ireland. I would ask your Lordships, I
repeat, whether it is not right to make an arrangement, which has for
its object, not only the settlement of this question, but at the same
time to relieve the country from the inconveniences I have mentioned. I
have already stated the manner in which the organization I have alluded
to, works upon all the great interests of the country; but I wish your
Lordships particularly to attend to the manner in which it works upon
the church itself. That part of the church of England which exists in
Ireland is in a very peculiar situation; it is the church of the
minority of the people. At the same time, I believe that a more
exemplary, a more pious, or a more learned body of men, than the members
of that church do not exist. The members of that church certainly enjoy
and deserve the affections of those whom they are sent to instruct, in
the same degree as their brethren in England enjoy the affections of the
people of this country; and I have no doubt that they would shed the
last drop of their blood in defence of the doctrines and discipline of
their church. But violence, I apprehend, is likely to affect the
interests of that church; and I would put it to the House, whether that
church can be better protected from violence by a government united in
itself, united with Parliament and united in sentiment with the great
body of the people, or by a government disunited in opinion, disunited
from Parliament, and by the two houses of Parliament disunited. I am
certain that no man can look to the situation of Ireland, without seeing
that the interest of the church as well as the interest of every class
of persons under government, is involved in such a settlement of this
question, as will bring with it strength to the government, and strength
to every department of the state.

The bill before the House concedes to Roman Catholics the power of
holding any office in the state, excepting a few connected with the
administration of the affairs of the church; and it also concedes to
them the power of becoming members of Parliament. I believe it goes
further, with respect to the concession of offices, than any former
measure which has been introduced into the other House of Parliament. I
confess that the reasons which induced me to consider it my duty to make
such large concessions now, arose out of the effects which I observed
following the acts proposed in the years 1782 and 1793. I have seen that
any restriction upon concession has only had the effect of increasing
the demands of the Roman Catholics, and at the same time giving them
fresh power to enforce those demands. I have, therefore, considered it
my duty, in making this act of concession, to make it as large as any
reasonable man can expect it to be; seeing clearly that any thing which
might remain behind would only give ground for fresh demands, and being
convinced that the settlement of this question tends to the security of
the state, and to the peace and prosperity of the country. I have
already stated to your lordships my opinion respecting the expediency of
granting seats in Parliament to Roman Catholics; and I do not conceive,
that the concession of seats in Parliament, can in any manner effect any
question relative to the church of England. In the first place, I beg
your Lordships to recollect, that at the time those acts, to which I
have before alluded,--the one passed in the 30th of Charles II., and the
other at the period of the Revolution, were enacted--it was not the
church that was in danger--it was the state. It was the state that was
in danger; and from what? Not because the safety of the church was
threatened. No; but because the Sovereign on the throne was suspected of
Popery, and because the successor to the throne was actually a Papist.
Those laws were adopted, because of the existence of a danger which
threatened the state, and not of one which threatened the church. On the
contrary, at that period danger to the church was apprehended, not from
the Roman Catholics, but from the Dissenters from the church of England.
I would ask of your Lordships, all of whom have read the history of
those times, whether any danger to the church was apprehended from the
Roman Catholics? No! Danger to the church was apprehended from the
Dissenters, who had become powerful by the privileges granted to them
under the act of Parliament passed at the period of the Revolution. I
think, therefore, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any
justification of myself for having adopted this measure, on account of
any danger which might be apprehended from it to the church. Roman
Catholics will come into Parliament under this bill, as they went into
Parliament previous to the act of 30th Charles II. They sat in
Parliament up to that period, and were not obliged to take the oath of
supremacy. But by this bill they will be required to take the oath of
allegiance, in which a great part of the oath of supremacy is
included--namely, that part which refers to the jurisdiction of foreign
potentates; and, I must say, that the church, if in danger, is better
secured by the bill than it was previous to the 30th of Charles II. The
object for which that act was recognised at the period of the
Revolution--namely, to keep out the house of Stuart from the throne--has
long ceased to exist, by the extinction of that family. It is the
opinion of nearly every considerable man in the country (of nearly all
those who are competent to form a judgment on the question), that the
time has now arrived for repealing these laws. Circumstances have been
gradually tending towards their repeal since the extinction of the house
of Stuart; and at last the period has come, when it is quite clear that
the repeal can be no longer delayed with safety to the state.

_April 2, 1829._

* * * * *


_State of Ireland, a Reason for Emancipation._

I know that, by some, it has been considered that the state of Ireland
has nothing to do with this question--that it is a subject which ought
to be left entirely out of our consideration. My Lords, they tell us
that Ireland has been disturbed for the last thirty years--that to such
disturbance we have been accustomed--and that it does not at all alter
the circumstances of the case, as they have hitherto appeared. My Lords,
it is perfectly true that Ireland has been disturbed during the long
period I have stated, but within the last year or two, there have been
circumstances of particular aggravation. Political circumstances have,
in a considerable degree, occasioned that aggravation; but, besides
this, my Lords, I must say, although I have no positive legal proof of
the fact, that I have every reason to believe that there has been a
considerable organization of the people for the purpose of mischief. My
Lords, this organization is, it appears to me, to be proved, not only by
the declarations of those who formed, and who arranged it, but likewise
by the effects which it has produced in the election of churchwardens
throughout the country; in the circumstances attending the election for
the county of Clare, and that preceded and followed that election; in
the proceedings of a gentleman who went at the head of a body of men to
the north of Ireland; in the simultaneous proceedings of various bodies
of men in the south of Ireland, in Templemore, in Kilenaule, Cahir,
Clonmel, and other places; in the proceedings of another gentleman in
the King's county; and in the recall of the former gentleman from the
north of Ireland by the Roman Catholic Association. In all these
circumstances it is quite obvious to me, that there was an organization
and direction by some superior authority. This organization has
certainly produced a state of society in Ireland which we have not
heretofore witnessed, and an aggravation of all the evils which before
afflicted that unfortunate country.

My Lords, late in the year, a considerable town was attacked, in the
middle of the night by a body of people who came from the neighbouring
mountains--the town of Augher. They attacked it with arms, and were
driven from it with arms by the inhabitants of the town. This is a state
of things which I feel your Lordships will admit ought not to exist in a
civilized country. Later in the year still, a similar event occurred in
Charleville; and, in the course of the last autumn, the Roman Catholic
Association deliberated upon the propriety of adopting, and the means of
adopting, the measure of ceasing all dealings between Roman Catholics
and Protestants. Is it possible to believe supposing these dealings had
ceased, supposing this measure had been carried into execution--as I
firmly believe it was in the power of those who deliberated upon it to
carry it into execution--is it possible to believe that those who would
cease those dealings would not likewise have ceased to carry into
execution the contracts into which they had entered? Will any man say
that people in this situation are not verging towards that state, in
which it would be impossible to expect from them that they would be able
to perform the duties of jurymen, or to administer justice between man
and man, for the protection of the lives and properties of his Majesty's
subjects? My Lords, this is the state of society to which I wished to
draw your attention, and for which it is necessary that Parliament
should provide a remedy.

_April 2, 1829._

* * * * *

_Emancipation claimed as the Price of the Union._

I am old enough to remember the rebellion in 1798. I was not employed in
Ireland at the time--was employed in another part of his Majesty's
dominions; but, my Lords, if I am not mistaken, the Parliament of
Ireland, at that time, walked up to my Lord Lieutenant with an unanimous
address, beseeching his Excellency to take every means to put down that
unnatural rebellion, and promising their full support, in order to carry
those measures into execution. The Lord Lieutenant did take measures,
and did succeed in putting down that rebellion. Well, my Lords, what
happened in the very next session? The Government proposed to put an end
to the Parliament, and to form a Legislative Union between the two
kingdoms, for the purpose, principally, of proposing this very measure;
and, in point of fact, the very first measure that was proposed after
this Legislative Union, after those successful endeavours to put down
this rebellion, was the very measure with which I am now about to
trouble your Lordships. Is it possible noble Lords can believe that,
supposing there was a renewal of the contest to which I have
referred--is it possible noble Lords can believe that such a contest
could be carried on without the consent of the other House of
Parliament? I am certain, my Lords, that, when you look at the division
of opinion which prevails in both Houses of Parliament; when you look at
the division of opinion which prevails in every family of this kingdom,
and of Ireland--in every family, I say, from the most eminent in
station, down to the lowest in this country;--when you look at the
division of opinion that prevails among the Protestants of Ireland on
this subject; I am convinced you will see that there would be a vast
difference in a contest carried on now, and that which was carried on on
former occasions.

_April 2, 1829._

* * * * *

_No Remedy for the State of Ireland but Emancipation._

Neither the law, nor the means in the possession of Government, enabled
Government to put an end to the state of things in Ireland. Therefore,
we come to Parliament. Now let us see what chance there was of providing
a remedy for this state of things by coming to Parliament. My Lords, we
all recollect perfectly well, that the opinion of the majority in
another place is, that the remedy for this state of things in Ireland is
a repeal of the disabilities affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic
subjects. We might have gone and asked Parliament to enable us to put
down the Roman Catholic Association; but what chance had we of
prevailing upon Parliament to pass such a bill, without being prepared
to come forward and state that we were ready to consider the whole
condition of Ireland, with a view to apply a remedy to that which
Parliament had stated to be the cause of the disease? Suppose that
Parliament had given us a bill to put down the Roman Catholic
Association, would such a law as that be a remedy for the state of
things which I have already described to your Lordships as existing in
Ireland? Would it do any one thing towards putting an end to the
organization, which I have stated to your Lordships exists--towards
putting down the mischiefs which are the consequences of that
organization--towards giving you the means of getting the better of the
state of things existing in Ireland, unless some further measure were
adopted? But, my Lords, it is said, if that will not do, let us proceed
to blows. What is meant by proceeding to "blows," is civil war. Now, I
believe that every Government must be prepared to carry into execution
the laws of the country by the force placed at its disposition, not by
the military force, unless it should be absolutely necessary, but by the
military force in case that should be necessary; and, above all things,
oppose resistance to the law, in case the disaffected, or ill-disposed,
are inclined to resist the authority, or sentence of the law; but, in
this case, as I have already stated to your Lordships, there was no
resistance of the law--nay, I will go further, and will say that I am
positively certain that this state of things existing in Ireland, for
the last year and a half, bordering upon civil war (being attended by
nearly all the evils of civil war), might have continued a considerable
time longer, to the great injury and disgrace of the country, and,
nevertheless, those who managed this state of things--those who were at
its head--would have taken care to prevent any resistance to the law,
which must have ended, they knew as well as I did, in the only way in
which a struggle against the King's Government could end. They knew
perfectly well they would have been the first victims of that
resistance; but knowing that, and knowing, as I do, that they are
sensible, able men, and perfectly aware of the materials upon which they
have to work, I have not the smallest doubt that the state of things
which I have stated to your Lordships would have continued, and that you
would now have had an opportunity of putting it down in the manner some
noble Lords imagined. But, my Lords, even if I had been certain of such
means of putting it down, I should have considered it my duty to avoid
those means.

_April 2, 1829._

* * * * *

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Harry Leon Wilson - "The Seeker"

Maria Thompson Daviess - "Rose of Old Harpeth"

T. De Witt Talmage - "Around The Tea Table"

Various - "Punch, or the London Charivari. Vol. 1, July 31, 1841"

Review: The Dying Game by Melanie King
Articles published by guardian.co.uk Books

Review: Hang the DJ edited by Angus Cargill
Review: The Dying Game: A Curious History of Death by Melanie King

Review: Bait by Nick Brownlee
Review: Hang the DJ: An Alternative Book of Music Lists edited by Angus Cargill