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

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30

The original system, I have already stated, had been departed from in
the reign of George III., and the late Government in presenting their
civil list made a still further departure from it, and upon this
principle;--wherever a part of a salary was to be paid out of the civil
list, and part out of the consolidated fund, it was resolved to pay all
out of the consolidated fund. The course was adopted with regard to the
salaries of the Judges, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the
House of Commons, and also of various other offices, some of which have
been since abolished. This was thought a less objectionable mode than
that of subjecting those salaries to an annual discussion in the
Committee of the House of Commons. We wished my Lords to place those
salaries upon the consolidated fund, in order to prevent the possibility
of the country being left without a proper and efficient administration
of public affairs. We did not wish to leave the Government to the chance
of being impeded by a small majority, in the House of Commons, which,
according to other proposed plans, might diminish the salaries of public
officers at pleasure. If my Lord we look to the period of the Revolution
we shall find that there were long discussions respecting the right of
the crown to its hereditary revenues, which ended in a concession of the
principle that these revenues did belong to the crown. At that time
nobody ever dreamed of separating the expenses of the crown from those
of the civil government, and of making a separate provision for the
support of the state and dignity of the crown, which should be subject
to the controul of parliament. The plan of separation, my Lords, is one
of modern invention altogether, and I totally dissent from it. Because,
let us look to the situation in which the crown is placed under the
operation of such a system, and we must observe that it will place the
crown in a situation such as it ought not to be reduced to; namely that
it will render it liable to be deprived of the assistance--say of a
public officer, whose salary may be lost by a single vote in a committee
of supply.

_April, 19th, 1831._

* * * * *

_The Expenses of Ministers ruinous, unless they have large Private
fortunes._

With respect to the reduction in the salaries of the great officers of
state, I have only to observe, that even under the existing rate of
salaries, unless a First Lord of the Treasury, (and the remark will
apply to the other state officers) possesses a large private fortune, he
must be ruined in consequence of the heavy expences entailed on him by
his situation, and the inadequacy of the sum allowed by the public for
the maintenance of those expenses. In proof of this, I may instance the
case of three prime ministers--Mr. Pitt, Mr. Percival, and Mr.
Canning,--all of whom were almost ruined by their being in office. I
took upon myself to propose a provision for the family of Mr. Canning in
consequence.

_April, 19th. 1831._

_The Roman Catholic Relief Bill settled the question of the Repeal of
the Union._

It is not my intention at present to enter into the question, as to the
expediency of granting the Roman Catholic claims; for I hope that
question is for ever set at rest. The former government of this country
derived some advantage from the settlement of that question; and I
believe that this advantage will at least be admitted to have flowed
from it,--that now there is no question either in this or the other
House of Parliament, or among the public, respecting the necessity or
expediency of repealing the Union. When I introduced the Catholic Relief
Bill, I stated that political power already existed in the hands of the
Roman Catholics, and that was a statement, generally admitted by noble
Lords on both sides of the House. What the Bill effected was to give the
capacity of enjoying political power to the higher classes of the Roman
Catholics, and to take it out of the hands of those of the lower classes
who did not exercise it themselves for their own purposes, and according
to the suggestion of their own sentiments, but at the dictation of a
body among the Catholic people, who, it will be admitted by everybody,
ought not to possess any political power whatever,--I mean the Roman
Catholic priesthood.

_April, 21st. 1831._

* * * * *

_If the Reform Bill be passed, it will be impossible to preserve
inviolate the Union with Ireland._

My opinion is, that your Lordships will find it difficult, indeed,
after having passed the Bill under discussion of the other House of
Parliament, to maintain inviolate that Union which now exists between
the two countries. I mean to say, that in the event of that bill
passing, it would be impossible to maintain that article of the Union
which recognises the Church of England as a branch of that Union, and
which guarantees its safety. I beg to call to your Lordships'
recollection, that his Majesty is sworn to maintain that Union
inviolate; and that, in adopting the Reform measure, the Parliament do
actually expose his Majesty to the risk of consenting to a bill
calculated to break down the Church Establishment in Ireland. This is
the impression I have always entertained--and it is an impression which
I cannot remove from my mind; and, I must confess, that when I heard the
other night the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Brougham)
assert that the Reform Bill had put down agitation in Ireland, on the
subject of a Repeal of the Union, I was much surprised.

_April 22, 1831._

* * * * *

_Importance of Portugal to England._

There is no country in Europe whose alliance is so important to England
as Portugal; there is no country, the preservation of whose independence
is so important to us, as that of Portugal.

_July 26, 1831._

* * * * *

_A preventive Police checks Crime._

In all foreign countries there exists a preventive police,--but there
is no such thing in England,--which preventive police has the effect of
checking crime in a very great degree. We have nothing of the sort in
England, neither can there be, according to the principles of our law
and constitution. Such being the case, your Lordships must use great
caution in drawing comparisons between convictions in this and foreign
countries; if that is not done, the most erroneous conclusions will be
arrived at.

_September 6, 1831._

* * * * *

_A War of Opinions the worst of Wars._

The truth is, that the government of Portugal has, for the last ten
months, been looked upon with inimical feelings and with passion by the
King's servants; and this measure[13] is not brought forward with any
view to revenue, but for the purpose of opposing and embarrassing the
existing Government of that country. The noble Lords opposite do not
like the situation of the Government of Portugal; it is not to their
mind; and they are anxious, either by revolutionary measures, or any
other, to overthrow it. Let them, however, look well at the
responsibility they are incurring. Let them consider the frightful
consequences in which their planning may involve this country, and the
whole of Europe. If their designs even met with a temporary success,
they would inevitably lead to a war of opinion, to a war of
religion--the worst of wars, and the most deplorable consequences for
all Europe would ensue.

_September 30, 1831._

[Footnote 13: The Wine Duties Bill; for regulating the tariff as
regards Portugal.]

* * * * *

_The Duke's Declaration against all Reform._

But, my Lords, if I wanted an example of the value of the House of
Commons, I should find it in the opinion of the noble Earl (Grey) the
last time, I believe, the last time that he spoke of the House of
Commons. In the month of February, 1817, the noble Lord said,
"constituted as it now was, he, in his conscience, believed that the
House of Commons was, of all other institutions, in all the other
countries of the world, the institution best calculated for the general
protection of the subject. Supported by the people, in temperate and
firm claims for redress, it was not only able, but certain to remedy
every wrong. It was capable of acting as the most efficient control upon
the executive, by diminishing the means of consumption, and reducing the
pressure of a severe and grinding taxation." That was the opinion of the
noble Earl himself, in 1817; and what, I would ask, has the Parliament
done, subsequently, to deserve the disapprobation of the noble Earl?
What had it done between 1817 and the moment when I pronounced that
approbation of Parliament, of which my noble friend (Earl Winchelsea)
and the noble Earl (Grey) have so much disapproved? When the noble Earl
quoted what I said not quite a twelvemonth ago, he might, I think, quote
it correctly. What I said was, that Parliament had done its duty by the
country, and enjoyed its confidence. I said, that if I had to create a
constitution of Parliament, I could not create that which now existed,
because I did not believe the art of one man could invent such a system;
but I said, that I would do my endeavour to establish one like it, in
which property in land should be preponderant. That was what I said; and
I afterwards had the satisfaction to hear the noble Marquis (Lansdowne)
deliver a similar opinion. He stated that, in any system of
representation which he could support, property and learning must be
preponderant. I said that I should consider it my duty to resist the
adopting of any plan of reform that should be brought forward. I spoke
as a minister of the Crown; I meant to resist reform. The noble Lords
say, that this statement of mine caused great enmity to me, and created
that spirit of reform which has since pervaded the whole country. I beg
the noble Earl's pardon; but the spirit of reform in this country was
the consequence of the French revolution. It is true, that ever since
the American war, a desire for Parliamentary Reform has been manifested,
particularly when any disturbance or insurrection has occurred in any of
the neighbouring foreign countries--above all, since the French
revolution; and when there has been any extraordinary distress or
difficulty in the country. At the same time, I believe that, from year
to year, the manifestations of such a desire have been less frequent. I
have, indeed, the authority of those most friendly to reform for saying
that the manifestations of the desire for reform were less frequent,
till the period of the revolution of July, 1830, than they had formerly
been for a number of years.

_October 4, 1831._

_Electoral Pledges Unconstitutional._

It is on the ground of the dissolution, and of the Speech from the
Throne,[14] that I charge the noble Lords with having excited the spirit
which existed in the country at the period of the last general election;
and with having been the cause of the unconstitutional practice,
hitherto unknown, of electing delegates for a particular purpose to
Parliament--delegates to obey the daily instructions of their
constituents, and to be cashiered if they should disobey them, whatever
may be their own opinion; instead of being, as they have been hitherto,
independent members of Parliament, to deliberate with their colleagues
upon matters of common concern, and to decide according to the best of
their judgment, after such deliberation and debate. This is an evil of
which the country will long feel the consequences, whatever may be the
result of these discussions.

[Footnote 14: The Whig ministry dissolved the Parliament in April, 1831.
A new Parliament met in June; and, on the 21st of that month, the King
made the speech alluded to. In the interval there had been great
excitement in the country.]

My Lords, this measure, thus delegated by the people, and thus brought
forward by the Government in Parliament, for the decision of members
thus delegated to give it the force of a law, alters every thing; and
requires, as the noble Secretary of State (Lord Melbourne) says, new
powers, in order to render it practicable to carry on the Government at
all.

_October 4, 1831._

* * * * *

_A Democratic Assembly of the worst description will be elected under
the Reform Bill._

Throughout the whole of the empire, persons of the lowest condition of
life, liable to, and even existing under, the most pernicious
influences, are to have votes; or, in other words, are to exercise
political power. Persons in those stations of life do exercise political
power already; but, in a few places, in large masses; preponderating
over the influence of other classes of society. What must we expect when
these lower classes will preponderate everywhere? We know what sort of
representatives are returned by the places I have described. What are we
to expect, when the whole will be of the same description?

We hear, sometimes, of radical reform; and we know that the term applies
to universal suffrage, vote by ballot, annual parliaments, and their
consequences. But, I declare, that looking at these changes pervading
every part of the representation, root and branch, destroying or
changing everything that has existed, even to the relative numbers of
the representatives from the three kingdoms fixed by treaty, I should
call this a radical reform, rather than reform of any other description.

* * * * *

I cannot but consider that the House of Commons returned by it will be a
democratical assembly of the worst description; that radical reform,
vote by ballot, and all the evil consequences to be expected from the
deliberations of such an assembly, must follow from this establishment.
I entreat your Lordships to pause before you agree to establish such a
system in your country.

_October 4, 1831._

* * * * *

_The popular Will no ground for conceding Reform._

But we are told that the people wish for this measure; and when we
express our sense of the danger which attends it, on account of the
democratical power which it tends to establish, an endeavour is made to
calm our apprehensions, by the assurance that the people are attached to
the Government of King, Lords, and Commons.

If we are to rely upon that feeling of the people--if we are to adopt
this measure because it is the pleasure of the people, and because they
are attached to the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, why do we
not, at once, adopt the measure which we know the people prefer--I mean
radical reform; that is to say, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and
annual parliaments? If we are to make a change, there can be no reason
for not going the full length that the people wish, if we can be sure
that the measure will not injure the Government--that to which they are
attached--of King, Lords, and Commons.

_October 4, 1831._

_Necessity of the Influence of Property in the House of Commons._

But before we go further, it is desirable that we should examine what is
the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, as established in this
kingdom. In this Government the King is at the head of everything. All
the power is in his hands. He is the head of the Church, the head of the
law. Justice is administered in his name. He is the protector of the
peace of the country, the head of its political negociations, and of its
armed force--not a shilling of public money can be expended without his
order and signature. But, notwithstanding these immense powers, the King
can do nothing that is contrary to law, or to the engagements of himself
or his predecessors.

* * * * *

Every act of the Government, or of the King, is liable to be brought
under discussion in, and is in fact controlled by, the House of Commons;
and for this reason alone, it is important that we should consider of
what description of men the House of Commons is likely to be composed,
when we are discussing a question of Parliamentary Reform, in order
that we may be quite certain that they will exercise their high function
with wisdom and discretion.

It was on these grounds, that I, some time ago, called upon the noble
Earl (Grey) to state by what influence he intended to carry on the
King's Government in Parliament, according to the principles fixed at
the period of the Revolution, and in practice from that period to this,
when this Reform Bill should be passed. The noble Lord answered
immediately--not by means of corruption. I am aware of that, my Lords. I
am convinced that the noble Lord is incapable of resorting to such
means, as I hope he believes that I am incapable of resorting to them. I
did not consider this any answer to my question, which I repeated in a
subsequent discussion, on the motion of my noble friend, the noble Baron
behind me (Lord Wharncliffe). The noble Earl said, that the Government
had nothing to do with such questions; that Parliament was to decide for
itself; and that there was no necessity for the interference of
Government.

I beg your Lordships to consider what are the questions which in every
week, and on every day, are brought under the discussion of the House of
Commons--questions affecting the honour, the interests, the rights, the
property, of every individual in the country, which the King is bound by
his oath to protect, and in the protection of which, all are equally
interested. They are questions regarding the proceedings of Courts of
Justice, regarding the use of the public force, and hundreds of others,
which occur daily, in which every individual is interested. I put
legislation out of the question; but can the King from that Throne give
to his subjects the necessary protection for their rights and property?
No, my Lords. It is only by the influence of property over the election
of Members of the House of Commons, and by the influence of the Crown
and of this House, and of the property of the country upon its
proceedings, that the great powers of such a body as the House of
Commons can be exercised with discretion and safety. The King could not
perform the duties of his high station, nor the House of Lords, if the
House of Commons were formed on the principle and plan proposed by this
bill.

_October 4, 1831._

* * * * *

_The Sacrifice of the Established Church will follow the Reform Bill._

There is one institution which would become peculiarly liable to attack
in such a House of Commons, to which I wish to draw the attention of the
Right Reverend Bench, and that is, the Establishment of the Church of
England in Ireland. This Church is the object of a fundamental Article
of the Treaty of Union between the two countries, and is secured by Acts
of both Parliaments; and the King is, besides, sworn to maintain its
right and possessions: can any man believe that, when the
representatives for Ireland come to be elected in the manner proposed by
the bill, the Church of England in Ireland can be maintained?

I have already shown that these representatives must be elected under
the influence of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Who are those who now
show the greatest hostility to the Church, its rights, and
possessions?--the Members for populous places. The reason is, that the
deprivation of the Church of their property is one of the popular
objects of the day. The object of the bill is, and its effects will be,
to increase the number of this description of Members in Parliament, and
to render the influence of this party predominant and irresistible.

I believe that the noble Earl (Grey) has already found the Members
returned by Ireland, under this influence, very inconvenient to himself,
upon more than one occasion; and it appears, that the right honourable
Gentleman who conducts the affairs of Ireland in the House of Commons,
was under the necessity, very lately, of giving up a measure which he
thought important for the benefit and peace of Ireland, because the
Members from Ireland, of this party, were opposed to it. How can the
noble Lord suppose, that the Church of England can be protected, or even
the Union itself preserved in a Reformed Parliament? There is no man,
who considers what the Government of King, Lords, and Commons is, and
the details of the manner in which it is carried on, who must not see,
that Government will become impracticable, when the three branches shall
be separate--each independent of the other, and uncontrolled in its
action by any of the existing influences.

_October 4, 1831._

* * * * *

_Danger of a Democratic House of Commons._

A noble earl (the Earl of Winchelsea) who has spoken on this side of the
House, has made an observation to your Lordships, which well deserves
your attention. The noble earl has told you, that if you increase but a
little the democratic power in the state, the step can never be
withdrawn. Your Lordships must continue in the same course till you have
passed through the miseries of a revolution, and thence to a military
despotism, and the evils which attend that system of government. It is
not denied, that this bill must increase beyond measure the democratic
power of the state--that it must constitute in the House of Commons a
fierce democracy: what must be the consequences, your Lordships will
judge.

I will not detain your Lordships by adverting to the merits of the
system of government which has existed up to the present moment, upon
which my opinion is by no means altered. No man denies that we have
enjoyed great advantages; that we have enjoyed a larger share of
happiness, comfort, and prosperity, for a long course of years, than
were ever enjoyed by any nation; that we have more riches, the largest
fortunes, personal as well as real, more manufactures and commerce, than
all the nations of Europe taken together; the richest, most extensive,
most peopled, and most prosperous foreign colonies and possessions, that
any nation ever possessed. There is not an important position in the
world, whether for the purpose of navigation, commerce, or military
defence, that does not belong to us.

If this democratic assembly should once be established in England, does
any one believe that we should continue to enjoy these vast advantages?
But a democracy has never been established in any part of the world,
that it has not immediately declared war against property--against the
payment of the public debt--and against all the principles of
conservation, which are secured by, and are, in fact, the principal
objects of the British constitution, as it now exists. Property, and its
possessors, will become the common enemy. I do not urge this argument as
one in which your Lordships are peculiarly interested: it is not you
alone, nor even other proprietors, who are interested in the protection
of property; the whole people, middling classes as well as the lower
orders, are interested in this subject. Look at the anxiety prevailing
in every part of London, in respect to the great revolution to be made
by this bill. My noble friend, the noble baron (Lord Wharncliffe) has
been ridiculed for adverting to the opinions of tradesmen in Bond-street
and St. James's-street. Those in Bond-street consist of more than 200
respectable persons, who are well able to form an opinion of the effect
of this bill upon the resources of themselves, the middling classes, and
the poor, as they supply the luxuries of persons in easier
circumstances, residing in that quarter of the town. Anything which can
effect the resources of their customers, must be interesting to them,
and they do feel that this bill must affect property, private
expenditure, and the resources of themselves, and of those whom they
employ. A noble lord on the other side, who adverted to this topic,
greatly underrated the wealth of these tradesmen. I know of one,
residing in Bond-street, who employs at all times from 2,000 to 4,000
workmen, whose trade depends, as well as the employment of this body of
people, upon the expenditure of his customers: is he not interested in
upholding the public faith, and the system of property now established
in England? Are not the people, of all classes and descriptions, down to
the lowest, interested in the maintenance of our extensive manufactures
and commerce, in the conservation of our enormous dominions abroad, and
the continued respect of all nations?

If I am right in thinking that this fierce democracy will be established
in the House of Commons, does any man believe that that harmony can
continue between the king and his government and the House of Commons,
so necessary to insure to both general respect, and to the king's
government the strength which is necessary to enable his Majesty to
protect and keep in order his foreign dominions, and to insure the
obedience of their inhabitants? We shall lose these colonies and foreign
possessions, and with them our authority and influence abroad.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30