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

_March 16, 1832._

* * * * *

_Opinion of the Reform Bill, 1832._

I beg your Lordships to recollect that this is the point which the
House will have to consider:--the question is not whether alterations
have been made in this part or that part, or in many parts of the bill
which your Lordships objected to last session, but the question you will
have to consider is this--Whether this bill, if passed and accompanied,
let it be recollected, with the other bills at present in the other
House of Parliament, will afford to the country a prospect of having a
government under which the country can go on--under which it will be
practicable that this or any other can be governed--or which, in the
words of the noble Earl who addressed your Lordships first this evening
employed last session--if practicable, would not be pernicious. That is
the question which your Lordships will have to consider, when you come
to the second reading of the bill. The principle of this measure is not
reform, but the disfranchisement of some places and the enfranchisement
of others, and also the granting of votes to large bodies of persons on
a new qualification. The total alteration of the representation of this
country, coupled with an alteration of the representation of Scotland,
amounting there to a complete revolution, and the overthrow in Ireland
of all the measures which were adopted in that country three years
ago--these, and not reform, are what your Lordships must consider as the
principles of the bill. I entertain the same opinion as the noble earl
near me as to the necessity of reform. My opinion on this point is now
as it was originally. But how comes the question now before your
Lordships? it has been altered considerably, and is no longer what it
was before.

The noble Earl has thrown out some imputations with respect to party
motives--if the noble Earl meant them to apply to me he is much
mistaken, I have no party views to serve. I believe there is scarcely an
individual in this house, or in the country, who has so little to do
with borough interests or county interests, or any sort of Parliamentary
interests as I have. I have the same interest in the country as any
other individual, that is to say, I wish to see the representation
established on such a basis as will give the country a prospect of a
practicable system of government.

If the bill should go into committee, I will lend my best assistance to
render it as consistent with the true interests of the country as it can
be made, keeping in view always this great point--that on the nature of
the representative system depend the character and form of government.

_April 10, 1832._

* * * * *

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

The noble Baron, (Lord Wharncliffe) in a memorable speech delivered to
this house in the month of March, 1831, previously to the last general
election, stated to this house, in the strongest terms, that the result
of that election must be to secure the return to the House of Commons of
delegates of the people; not members of the House of Commons to
consider de Adrias Regni, but to decide upon a measure of parliamentary
reform proposed to them in a moment of excitement, and the result would
be, to place this house in the situation in which it was placed last
year, and in which it stands on the present occasion.

My Lords, is all to be lost, because the noble Lords opposite have taken
this course? Is this House to be destroyed? Or is it to lend its aid to
destroy the constitution, because Ministers persevere in this course?
Would it not be more wise to call upon his Majesty to place things as
they were, previous to this unfortunate and ill-advised revolution of
parliament; to advise his Majesty to remove his ministers from his
confidence, in order that things might be placed in the same situation
in which they stood before, and that this house and the country might
have an opportunity, if possible, of having a fair discussion on the
measure of reform. What! my Lords, is it to be said that the country is
to be tied down to be governed by a system which no man can say is
practicable? and can any body deny that the House of Commons, which
consents to such a proposition, is a delegated House of Commons? All the
arguments regarding the decisions of the House of Commons must come to
the same end. There would, no doubt, be ten decisions of the same kind,
if it were left to the same house, because the house is pledged and
returned for the purpose. But the country is not to be abandoned on this
account.[16]

[Footnote 16: This and the other succeeding passages on the subject of
Reform, were delivered on the second reading of the final reform bill,
after the Earl of Harrowby and other Tory peers had resolved on giving
way to the House of Common and the Crown.]

April 10, 1832.

* * * * *

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

There can be no doubt whatsoever that there was no opinion existing in
the country, in the year 1829, and the beginning of 1830, in favour of
parliamentary reform. I believe this is a fact which was fully admitted
in the discussions of the House of Commons at that time. Then my Lords,
came the French Revolution, which occurred at the period of the
commencement of the elections of 1830, followed by the insurrection in
Belgium; and there can be no doubt that these events occasioned a very
great excitement at the elections of members of parliament. There were
many declarations in favour of parliamentary reform; and all that passed
on the subject of parliamentary reform on that occasion, was calculated
to influence, and did very considerably influence, the opinions of that
parliament upon that question. The noble Lords opposite then came into
power, and I will say, my Lords, that they met a parliament ready to
pass a measure of moderate parliamentary reform. But the noble Lords
opposite thought proper, instead of carrying such a measure, to dissolve
that parliament, and a new parliament was called under a degree of
excitement in the public mind such as had never before been witnessed.
The excitement has continued, to a certain degree, ever since, and it
has been kept up by the strong opinion put forward and entertained, that
it is the King who wishes for parliamentary reform in the manner
proposed by this bill. Now, my Lords, I say it is no such thing; for my
part, I do not believe one word of any such assertion. My opinion is,
that the King follows the advice of his servants; but I believe that it
is the idea thus engendered which renders it difficult that there should
not be some reform. It is not, however, to be supposed that the King
takes any interest in the subject. I entertain no doubt that the cause
of the great excitement upon this subject is, that it is the King's
opinion that the bill ought to be carried. The noble Earl would find the
country cool upon the subject if the King's mind were altered. He would
not be able to pass this bill; and indeed, I am sure, from experience,
that if ministers, on any great constitutional question, were not
convinced that the King would go through with them, it would be
impossible for any set of ministers to carry any such measure.

_April_ 10, 1832.

* * * * *

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

The opinion of the gentlemen of the country,--I speak from my own
knowledge with respect to the southern counties, and from sure report as
to other counties generally,--but I do say that the opinion of the
gentlemen, of the landed property, and of the learning of the country,
is against this bill. The bill is, on the other hand, supported by the
noble Lords opposite, and by their adherents, certainly not a numerous
class; it is also supported by all the dissenters from the church of
England, and by all who wish it should pass, as a means of their
obtaining votes, but I will repeat, that it is, in fact, opposed to the
sentiments of all the real English gentlemen, of the yeomanry, and of
the middle classes throughout the country. Yes, my Lords, I will say,
that there is a change of opinion, and that the best part of the public
are not desirous for the bill, but are, on the contrary, apprehensive of
its effects. But the noble Lords will say;--"We hear none of this." No
my Lords; and why do we hear none of this? Because there is scarcely a
gentleman in the country who can believe that, if he were to attend a
public meeting for the purpose of expressing his sentiments on this
question, he would be secure or protected from the attacks of the mob.

_April_ 10, 1832

* * * * *

_No Compromise_.

My Lords, I must now advert to what has fallen from another noble Earl
(Harrowby), who opposed the bill strongly last year, but who last night
came to a different conclusion, and asked if there was no hope of
effecting a compromise? and he particularly called upon me to come to
such a compromise. My Lords, these noble Lords have been trying a
compromise for the last six months; if they have made no progress in
effecting a compromise, what encouragement can they hold out to me and
others to follow them upon this occasion. We know the evils of this
bill; we know that it will consign the country to evils from which it
cannot recover. Agree to a compromise! Why, he has not been enabled to
advance one single step from last October up to the present moment. He,
and his noble Friends who act with him, have remained perfectly
stationary. If this be the case, I hope that those who intend to act
with my noble Friends, will understand that there is no more chance of
compromise on the present than on the last occasion; and that if they
agree to the second reading, they agree to a bill with which the country
cannot be governed. I beg then that the noble Lords will look to the
responsibility they take upon themselves, in giving support to this
bill. The Government are now decidedly responsible for that bill--they
are responsible for the election of the House of Commons, that passed
it--they are responsible for the excitement which caused these
events--and they are, moreover, responsible for any evil consequences
which may occur, if this House reject it. But when noble Lords change
their sentiments, and are followed by many who voted against it last
time, I beg them to recollect, that they will partake of a large portion
of this responsibility, and that the country will look to them as
responsible for whatever may occur.[17]

[Footnote 17: The bill was soon after carried by a species of
compromise, Peers staying away from the division.]

_April_ 10,1832.

* * * * *

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

The noble earl (Grey) yesterday challenged me with saying that this bill
is revolutionary. What I have always said is, that it has a
revolutionary tendency; and I think it has a tendency so strong in that
way that it must lead to revolution. The noble earl has said there is no
violence; but, my Lords, revolutions may be effected by laws as well as
by violence. I know there is no violence. Why, my Lords, there can be no
violence,--the King's Government and the House of Commons are leagued
with those who call out for change,--and there can be no occasion for
resorting to violence. But, my Lords, this is not the only objection.
One of the great and leading objections in my mind to this measure is,
that it is one which goes to destroy that most invaluable principle of
our existing constitution, the principle of prescription, which
sanctions the descent and secures the possession of all kinds of
property in this country.

_April_ 10,1832.

* * * * *

_The Demagogue will drive the Gentleman from the Representation._

The noble Earl has told us, that men possessing property in these
boroughs will continue to possess their just influence in them--that
they will have political influence in the elections--that it will
continue, and that it ought to continue. But I would appeal to your
Lordships, whether your own experience, in matters of this description,
confirms the correctness of this statement? It is true that, in some of
these boroughs, noblemen possessing large properties in the
neighbourhood will still possess a great and paramount influence; and,
indeed, in some places, in consequence of the effect of the double
franchise, the influence of the great proprietors in the vicinity may be
raised greatly beyond what it is at present. But in those towns in
general, it will be the demagogue, and not the nobleman or gentleman of
property, who will possess the influence over the elections there. The
latter cannot command such an influence, unless through the means of a
constant expenditure which it would be impossible for any one to
support. The demagogue will obtain his influence by other means, and
will ultimately drive the gentleman out of the field. I beg your
Lordships to observe what will be the effect of such a state of things
in the constitution of the House of Commons; and I beg to ask whether,
with such men the representatives of those boroughs, it will be possible
to carry on anything like a government or a steady system of policy,
through the means of this assembly.

_April_ 10, 1832.

* * * * *

_Prophetic Contrast of the New with the Old System._

I know that according to the constitution of this country, a member of
the House of Commons when he goes there is a member for all parts of
England, and not a representative for the particular town or place for
which he is elected; he is in fact looked upon as a member for all the
Commons of England. This was hitherto the meaning which was attached to
the character of a Member of the Commons House of Parliament. But the
case will be widely different should this Bill be passed, and should
Members of Parliament be subjected to a system of instruction on the
part of their constituents. That system, however, already exists in
parts of England, and more especially in the Metropolis, and in the
Borough of Southwark. Your Lordships will remember that an honourable
and gallant officer, formerly connected with the noble Lords opposite,
was obliged to retire from the representation of Southwark, last summer,
because he happened to differ with his constituents; and also that a
worthy Alderman was in a similar manner reprimanded by his constituents
in the city of London, for a similar offence. What then, I would ask
your Lordships, is to be expected hereafter, should the system laid down
in this Bill be established in this country? Why every member of the
House of Commons would become the mere delegate of his constituents,
instead of representing the people at large. It has been observed that
such representatives would in every case merely consult the wishes of
their respective constituents, instead of looking to the advancement of
the interests of all classes. I have before me a letter written by a
gentleman to some of his constituents in this neighbourhood, in which he
desires not only that the electors shall direct the votes of their
representatives, and point out the course which they should pursue in
parliament, but goes much further. The letter, which is directed to the
parishioners of St. Georges in the East, says, "there ought to be an
union formed in every parish between the middle classes and the
operatives,--first for the protection of person and property; and
secondly, to be ready to express the opinion of the parish on any public
measure, and in case the minister or the House of Commons are lukewarm
in the cause of the people." The extract which I have just read is taken
from a letter written by a great advocate of the Reform Bill, not for
the sake of the Reform Bill itself, but because it would lead to
something further. This letter affords a proof of the kind of system
which will be put into operation with respect to the members of the
House of Commons, should this Bill be passed. Let your Lordships, then,
for a moment, compare the system this Bill would establish, with the
system of representation which has so long existed in this country, and
under which this country has been raised to such an eminence of glory,
and power, and prosperity.

We have, under the existing system, the county representation, and the
representation in cities and boroughs. The county representation
consists principally of freeholders, and the members for counties
represent not only the lower classes, but the middle and higher orders.
The representatives for the great maritime towns, and for the larger
description of towns in the interior of the country, represent likewise
the lower and middle classes. The representatives for the pot wallopping
boroughs, for the scot-and-lot boroughs, and for the single borough of
Preston, where the franchise is vested in the inhabitants at large,
represent the lowest orders of the people; and in this manner this
borough representation represents all classes and descriptions of
persons, who have any thing to do with the business transacted in the
House of Commons. Instead of this system, which has raised this country
to its present elevation, we are called upon to establish by this Bill a
system of elections which will be confined to one single class of the
community; and as the county representations will be no check upon this
class of persons, the voters in the counties being mostly of the same
description, and as the united representation of Scotland, and of
Ireland, will be a check upon them, such a system will tend at once to a
complete democracy. This, then, is the system which we are called upon
to establish in the place of that which at present exists, and under
which all classes and interests of the country are represented in
Parliament, and it is under such a system as this that it is pretended
the general business of the state can be carried on, and the government
maintain sufficient power to preserve existing institutions.

_April_ 10,1832.

_Popular tendency of the Old System of Representation._

I would call the attention of your Lordships to the changes which have
taken place in the government of the country during the last twenty
years,--to go no further back,--and to the improvements which have taken
place in what is called the popular sense. A noble friend of mine, last
night, truly stated that the influence of the Crown was decreasing from
the period of the revolution up to the year 1782; and that it has been
still further diminishing from that period up to the present time, till
at last there are not more than fifty persons in the House of Commons
holding public offices. In that period, and more especially in latter
years, the influence of the crown in this respect has been greatly
diminished. First of all, there has been a large reduction of all such
kinds of offices; and in the next place, in consequence of the different
constitution and regulations of the customs and excise, and other public
departments; and thus the influence formerly possessed by the Crown has
gradually passed away.

* * * * *

With the influence of the Crown, then, thus diminished, if a Bill of
this description should pass, to make such an extensive change in the
constitution of this House, it would be impossible to carry on the
government of the country. But there has also been another most
remarkable alteration with respect to the constitution of Parliament
within the last four years. In the year 1828, the Test Act was repealed;
and this I beg your Lordships to recollect, that the effect of the
repealing this Act was immediately to bring into operation a large body
of electors, who must of course have had considerable influence in
subsequent elections. Again, in the following year, the disabilities of
the Roman Catholics were removed, which made another important
difference in the constitution of Parliament. Has sufficient time been
given to those measures to ascertain their effect? Is it not reasonable,
is it not right, that we should try the effect of those measures on the
constitution, before we proceed further, before we adopt a measure which
will effect such extraordinary changes as this proposed Reform Bill?
There can be no doubt but that those measures to which I have alluded,
must have had considerable effect in the elections which have since
taken place, and more especially when any measure of Parliamentary
Reform has been adopted, of the same extensive character as that
contemplated in the Bill.

_April_ 10, 1832.

* * * * *

_Gradual Reform Recommended._

There can be no doubt that there is a general desire in the country,---
I do not deny the existence of it, for it is stated in all the
addresses and all the petitions on the subject;--that there is a general
desire in the country that some Reform in Parliament should be taken
into consideration, to do away with the abuses in the system of
elections of Members of the House of Commons. Without enquiring into the
cause, if the fact be as I have stated, which I believe no one will
dispute, it is the duty of Parliament to proceed steadily and gradually
in making amendments in the representation. We should consider maturely
every step that we took,--we should not proceed all at once to do every
thing, we should go on gradually and deliberately; and thus in process
of time, we might arrive even at the measure which has been recommended
by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's government; but this must
be in process of time. After a considerable length of time had elapsed,
and after we had maturely considered every step that we had taken, it
would be only after we had done all that, that we could adopt a measure
to the extent of that recommended by the noble Earl. This we must do, if
we desire to maintain the venerable monarchy under which the country has
flourished for so long a time. The effect of this measure, if carried
now, will be to establish such a government as exists elsewhere, (in
France) which the noble Earl has described as a government which no man
could think fit for the administration of affairs in this country.

_April_ 10,1839.

* * * * *

_Effect of Agitation on Business_.

I believe that as soon as this Bill was proposed, and as soon as the
excitement which it occasioned was apparent, all expenditure of all
descriptions ceased,--men ceased to lay out money in great
enterprises--and those who expended their incomes to the full amount,
began to consider whether it was not expedient to make provision for a
future day, for a period of trouble and difficulty, which might be
anticipated from these changes. It is to these circumstances that I am
induced to attribute the want of commerce and trade in the country. If
your Lordships look to the situation of our neighbours it will appear
that the same causes have produced precisely the same effects, and that
these causes have proceeded further amongst them, than they have with
us, because they have existed for a longer period of time. Among them
popular delirium has been carried nearly to its full extent; among us it
has only begun. I particularly complain of the system of agitation which
now prevails in England, for this reason, that it falls upon the poorest
and lowest classes of the community. The expenditure of the rich gives
comfort and ease to the middle classes, but it gives subsistence to the
poor; and it is for want of this subsistence and comfort for the lower
classes, that agitation has been carried to such an extent.

_April_ 10, 1832.

* * * * *

_Military Force will be required to Govern the Country if the Reform
Bill is carried._

The noble Viscount, one of his Majesty's Secretaries of State, who spoke
yesterday upon the subject, admitted that he did not expect that the
Reform measure would relieve any of the distresses of the country. It
certainly does appear most extraordinary, that a Minister, particularly
a Secretary of State, should say of a measure, which he is supporting
himself, and which he knows must have such extensive consequences as the
measure now proposed, that he does not believe that it will tend to
relieve any of the existing distresses of the country. But I say not
only that it will not relieve any of the distresses of the country, but,
on the contrary, that it will deeply aggravate them. But let us go a
little further, and see whether this system is good; and whether the
system of cheap government, which it is to introduce, is likely to
produce good to the country. And here, again, I would wish to call the
attention of your Lordships to what is passing in another country. If
your Lordships will take the trouble of examining what has passed in
France in the course of the last two years, you will see that, during
that period, that country has expended 50,000,000 l. sterling beyond its
usual expenditure. Its ordinary Budget, notwithstanding every
description of saving that could be made from the Civil List, and in
other establishments, which have been cut down as low as possible--still
its ordinary Budget exceeds the Budget of the former reign--the
extravagant reign of the Bourbons--to the amount of 10,000,000 l.
sterling; and, including those laws for two years, there is the
extraordinary expenditure of 50,000,000 l. in that space of time. To say,
then, that popular excitement tends to cheap government, is monstrous
and absurd, and it is impossible for any man who regards these facts to
arrive at that conclusion. We are called upon to adopt a system which is
to lead to these results. I ask, then, whether such a system can be more
effectual in this country, than that under which we have so long
prospered? I ask, whether the Civil Government will have more
power--whether it is possible that the Government can be carried on with
a smaller proportion of the army? I beg your Lordships to observe the
transactions which have occurred at Paris within the last two years, and
you will see that, while Louis XVIII, and Charles X. were able to
maintain the peace and tranquillity of the capital with a gendarmerie of
from 500 to 1000 men,--since the period of the revolution of July, 1830,
the Government has not had less than 60,000 once a month put into
requisition to maintain the peace of the city. I say once a month, upon
an average, not to exaggerate the facts; being convinced that upon not
less than twenty-four occasions the army has been under arms.

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