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




If the system now proposed to your Lordships is adopted, will any man
tell me that it will be possible for any Government to be carried on, as
the Government of this country has hitherto been, by a civil power,
aided by a small military force? In the course of this last summer,
events of a fearful character occurred, nearly at the same time, in this
country and in France. I allude to the disturbances at Bristol and at
Lyons. The riots at Bristol were put down by ninety men, as soon as an
officer was found who would employ the force entrusted to him. But what
happened at Lyons--were the disturbances there so easily quelled? The
events at Lyons--a larger town, I admit, but not much larger than
Bristol--required 40,000 troops to be brought against the town, under
the command of a Marshal of France, the present Minister-at-War, and a
Prince of the Blood, before tranquillity could be restored. I entreat,
then, your Lordships to consider well, first of all, the causes of this
difference,--to see that it is the sovereignty of the people that you
are called upon to establish in this country,--and whether it is
possible to carry on the civil Government of England, as it has hitherto
been, under such a Government as you would establish, if you pass this
Bill.

_April_ 10,1832.

* * * * *

_Fiscal Regulations for the Extinction of Slavery not defensible._

I can hardly bring myself to believe that any Government can think of
forcing the Colonies to adopt Orders in Council, by holding out, at
once, promises and threats; by saying that those Colonies which adopted
them should not pay taxes, and that those which did not adopt them
should continue to pay them. Did any man ever before hear of taxes
being imposed, for any purpose whatever, excepting to supply the
necessities of the State? If taxes be necessary for the purposes of the
State, in the name of God let them be paid; but, if they be not
necessary, they ought not to be imposed at all, nor allowed to continue.
Parliament is not justified in imposing taxes for a specific purpose of
punishment.

_April_ 17, 1832.

* * * * *

_West India Property not to be Sacrificed to the Fancies of
Abolitionists._

It is really desirable that this question should be well understood in
this country. West Indian property is as much entitled to protection as
any other property which exists in Great Britain. Petitions are sent up
from all parts of England, praying for the immediate abolition of
slavery; and the execution of that measure is urged as a duty incumbent
upon us. Those persons who take a part in these proceedings, forget the
enormous amount of property belonging to his Majesty's subjects which is
involved in the question; and it is necessary to bring back their
attention to the consequences which will result, not only to the
colonists, but to the public, from the annihilation of that property, by
the prosecution of any of their fancies respecting the abolition of
slavery. In truth, it is absolutely impossible to derive any advantage
from that property except through the medium of slavery; and through
slavery alone can the individuals interested in the occupation of that
property be sustained in life.

_April_ 17, 1832.

_Speech explaining the Negociations, in May, 1832, for the formation of
a Tory Government on the principle of Moderate Reform._

My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a petition from
the inhabitant householders of Cambridge against the Reform Bill; and,
as this is the first time I have had occasion to address your Lordships
since I have been charged by his Majesty with a most important
commission, I conceive that your Lordships, or, at least, some of you,
may be desirous that I should avail myself of this, or some other early
opportunity, to explain the nature and termination of the transactions
in which I have been engaged; and I confess, my Lords, that having been
exposed to extreme misrepresentation, and having been vilified in the
most extraordinary manner, in respect of these transactions, by persons
in another place, who, with the exception of their conduct in this
instance, have some claim to be considered respectable, I am anxious to
take the first opportunity of stating to your Lordships, and the
country, the nature of the transactions in which I have been engaged,
and the grounds on which I have proceeded. Your Lordships will
recollect, that in the course of the last week--I think it was on
Wednesday--his Majesty's ministers informed your Lordships that they had
offered certain advice to his Majesty in reference to the important
subject of the Reform Bill; and, as his Majesty had not thought proper
to follow that advice, they had considered it their duty to tender their
resignations to his Majesty, and which resignations his Majesty was
pleased to accept. His Majesty was graciously pleased, on that day on
which he was so left entirely alone by his ministers, to send for a
noble friend of mine--a noble and learned Lord (Eldon), who had held a
high place, as well in the service as in the confidence of his Majesty,
to inquire whether, in his opinion, there were any means, and if so,
what means, of forming a Government for his Majesty on the principle of
carrying into execution an extensive reform in the representation of the
people. Thus it appears that when his Majesty had the misfortune of
disagreeing with his servants, respecting the advice which had been
tendered to him, he happened to have had so little communication with
other men, and was so little acquainted with their opinions on public
affairs, that he felt it necessary to send for my noble and learned
friend, who was out of the immediate line of politics, in order to
obtain his assistance, and to seek for information at his hands. My
noble and learned friend came to me, and informed me of the difficulty
of his Majesty's situation, and I considered it my duty to inquire from
others what their opinions were, because, I confess to your Lordships,
I was equally unprepared with his Majesty for the consideration of such
a question.

Upon inquiry, I found that a large number of friends of mine were not
unwilling to give confidence and support to a government formed upon
such a principle, and with the positive view of resistance to that
advice which was tendered to his Majesty. Under these circumstances I
waited on his Majesty on Saturday, and submitted to him my advice. That
advice was not to re-appoint his late ministry, nor was it to appoint
myself. I did not look to any objects of ambition. I advised him to seek
the assistance of other persons well qualified to fill the high
situations in the state, expressing myself willing to give his Majesty
every assistance, whether in office or out of office, to enable his
Majesty to form an administration to resist the advice which had been so
given to him. My Lords, these were the first steps of the transaction;
and if ever there was an instance in which the Sovereign acted more
honestly by his former servants--if ever there was an instance in which
public men kept themselves most completely apart from all intrigues, and
from all indirect influence--using only those direct and honourable
means of opposition, of which no man has reason to be other than proud,
this is that instance. And when I came to give my advice to his Majesty,
instead of advising him with a view to objects of personal ambition, as
I have been accused of doing upon high authority,--I gave that advice
which I thought would best lead to another arrangement, and I stated
that I was ready to serve his Majesty in any or in no capacity, so as
best to assist him in carrying on a government to resist the advice
which had been given him by his late ministers. And here, my Lords, I
beg your Lordships to examine a little what was the nature of the advice
which was tendered by his Majesty's ministers to his Majesty, which his
Majesty thought proper not to follow, and which I considered it my
bounden duty to enable his Majesty to resist. I do not ask any man to
seek any further explanation of this advice, than that which was given
by the ministers themselves. It was neither more nor less than this. The
Government, feeling some difficulty in carrying the Reform Bill through
this House, were induced to advise his Majesty to do--what?--to create a
sufficient number of peers to enable them to carry their measure, to
force it through this House of Parliament. Now, my Lords, before I go
further, let me beg you to consider what is the nature of that
proposition? Ministers found, in the course of last session, that there
was a large majority in this House against the principle of the bill.
Now, my Lords, what is the ordinary course for a minister, under such
circumstances, to pursue? My Lords, it is to alter the measure, to
endeavour to make it more palatable to that branch of the legislature
which was opposed to it. Such is the usual course; but, in this case,
the minister says "no. I will next session bring in a bill as efficient
as that which has been rejected." And what did he do? My Lords, I have
no hesitation in saying that, notwithstanding the opposition of this
House, he brought in a measure stronger and worse than any of the
measures before introduced; and this measure he wishes to force upon the
House by a large creation of peers. How many peers, it is not necessary
to state--it has not even been stated, by the noble Lords opposite: it
is enough to say, a sufficient number to force the Reform Bill through
the House. It is only necessary for me to state the proposition. If this
be a legal and constitutional course of conduct--if such projects can be
carried into execution by a minister of the crown with impunity--there
is no doubt that the constitution of this House and of this country is
at an end. I ask, my Lords, is there any body blind enough not to see
that if a minister can, with impunity, advise his Sovereign to such an
unconstitutional exercise of his prerogative as to thereby decide all
questions in this House, there is absolutely an end put to the power and
objects of deliberation in this House--an end to all means of decision;
I say, then, my Lords, thinking as I do, it was my duty to counsel his
Majesty to resist the following of this advice; and, my Lords, my
opinion is that the threat of carrying this measure of creation into
execution, if it should have the effect of inducing noble Lords to
absent themselves from the House, or to adopt any particular line of
conduct, is just as bad as its execution; for, my Lords, it does by
violence force a decision on this House--and on a subject, my Lords, on
which this House is not disposed to give such a decision. It is true, my
Lords, men may be led to adopt such a course, by reflecting, that if
they do not adopt it, some 50 or 100 peers will be introduced, and thus
deliberation and decision in this House be rendered impracticable; or
men may be led to adopt it with the view of saving the Sovereign from
the indignity of having so gross an alternative imposed upon him. But I
say, my Lords, that the effect of any body of men agreeing publicly to
such a course, will be to make themselves parties to this very
proceeding, of which I say, we have so much reason to complain. The only
course of proceeding at this eventful crisis, worthy of the men with
whom I have the honour to be connected, was to advise his Majesty--was
to counsel his Majesty--to resist the advice which had been given him,
if he could find means of carrying on the government of the country
without acceding to it. But this part of the transaction, my Lords,
requires particular explanation upon my part--his Majesty insisted that
some "extensive measure of reform" (I use his own words) "in the
representation of the people" should be carried. I always was of
opinion, and am still of opinion, that the measure of reform is
unnecessary, and will prove most injurious to the country. But on the
last occasion when I addressed your Lordships,--in the committee on
Monday se'nnight,--I stated my intention to endeavour to amend the bill
in committee, and to do it honestly and fairly. Still, however, I
thought that, amend it as we might in committee, it was not a measure
which would enable the country to have a government capable of
encountering the critical circumstances and serious difficulties to
which every man must expect this country to be exposed. This was, my
Lords,--this is, my opinion. I do not think that, under the influence of
this measure, it is possible that any government can expect to overcome
the dangers to which this country must be exposed. But my Lords, this
was not the question before me; I was called on to assist my Sovereign
in resisting a measure which would lead to the immediate overthrow of
one branch of the legislature--a measure which would enable the ministry
to carry through this house the whole bill unmodified, unimproved, and
unmitigated. I had then, my Lords, only the choice of adopting such part
of that bill as this house might please to send down to the House of
Commons, suffering the government hereafter to depend upon the operation
of that part of the bill rather than upon the whole bill, or else of
suffering the whole bill to be carried, and the House of Lords to be
destroyed. My Lords, my opinion is not altered; no part of the bill is
safe; but undoubtedly, a part of the bill is better, that is to say,
less injurious, than the whole bill; and, certainly, it must at least be
admitted that it is better than the destruction of the constitution of
the country by the destruction of the independence of this house. Under
these circumstances, my Lords, I gave my consent to assist his Majesty
in forming a new government. I know many may be of opinion that I should
have acted a more prudent part if I had looked to anterior
circumstances, and if I had regarded the opinions and pledges I had
given, and if, placing my attention exclusively upon the desire of
acting a consistent part in public life, I had pursued a different
course, and refused my assistance to his Majesty, I should have done
better and more wisely.

I do not mean to detract from the merits of those who thought proper to
pursue a course contrary to mine upon the occasion. I am grieved that it
should have been my misfortune to differ with some right honourable
friends of mine, with whom I have been for many years in habits of
cordial union, co-operation, and friendship, and from whom I hope this
momentary separation will not dissever me. Nay, my lords, their position
was different from mine. I was situated in a position very different
from that in which they felt themselves to stand. They regretted that
they could not take the same course with me; but for myself, my Lords, I
cannot help feeling that, if I had been capable of refusing my
assistance to his Majesty--if I had been capable of saying to his
Majesty, "I cannot assist you in this affair, because I have, in my
place in parliament, expressed strong opinions against a measure to
which your Majesty is friendly," I do not think I could have shewn my
face in the streets for shame of having done it--for shame of having
abandoned my Sovereign under such distressing circumstances. I have,
indeed, the misfortune of differing from many noble Lords, but I cannot
regret the steps I have taken. If I have made a mistake, I regret it;
but I am not aware that I have made any mistake. It was impossible that
I could shrink from his Majesty in the distressing circumstances under
which he was placed. I will not detain your Lordships longer with a
detail of the circumstances which led to the dilemma in which we are now
placed. But, my Lords, if you will only look back to the commencement of
those transactions--if you look to the speech which his Majesty made
from the throne to this and the other house of Parliament, in June
1831,--if you recollect that his Majesty stated, in very strong terms,
that that important question should receive the earliest and most
attentive consideration, saying, "--Having had recourse to that measure
for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency
of a reform in the representation, I have now to recommend that
important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration,
confident that, in any measure which you may propose for its adjustment,
you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the
constitution, by which the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of
both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people,
are equally secured."

Now, my Lords, I ask, could it be believed, at the time his Majesty made
this speech, that the rights of this house--the power of deliberating
and deciding independently upon such a question as this--would be
destroyed by a creation of Peers, and by a creation to an extent which
could not be much less than one hundred? If any man at the time foretold
this, it would have been said he was dreaming of things that were
impossible. But to this state, my Lords, have we been brought by this
measure. When I first heard of this bill being proposed to be carried by
a creation of Peers, I said it was absolutely impossible. I could not
believe that any minister of England would be led by any considerations
whatsoever to recommend such a measure to his Majesty. The first time,
indeed, I heard the matter mentioned with any degree of authority, was
when a Right Rev. Prelate thought proper to write upon the subject to
some people in a town in the county of Sussex. I could appeal to those
sitting near me if this be not the fact--if I did not uniformly declare
that the thing was impossible--that the very idea of it ought not to be
mentioned. That it should never be imagined that any minister could be
found who would recommend such an unconstitutional--such a ruinous--such
an unjust exercise of the prerogative of the crown; for, my Lords, I do
maintain that the just exercise of the prerogative of the Crown does by
no means go to the extent of enabling his Majesty to create a body of
Peers with the view to carry any particular measure. Under the
circumstances, then, I think your Lordships will not think it unnatural,
when I consider his Majesty's situation, that I should endeavour to
assist his Majesty to avoid the adoption of such a recommendation. But,
my Lords, when I found that in consequence of the discussions on Monday
in another place,--which by the way proved so clearly what the
sentiments of the leading men then were, that Peers should not be
created for such a purpose:--when I found from these discussions that it
was impossible to form a government from that house, of such a nature as
would secure the confidence of the country, I felt it my duty to inform
his Majesty that I could not fulfil the commission with which he was
pleased to honour me, and his Majesty informed me that he would renew
his communications with his former ministry.

_May 17, 1832._

* * * * *

_The state of Ireland under Lord Grey, a Conspiracy against Law and
Government._

The noble Lords at the head of the Irish government have a most
particular objection to these extraordinary measures, adopted to enable
the government to afford protection to the lives and property of his
Majesty's subjects. If I do not mistake--and I am sure that I am in the
recollection of many noble Lords present--I myself reminded the noble
Earl that the association act would terminate at the end of the session
of Parliament of 1831; and the answer of the noble Earl was, that it was
intended to bring in a bill to continue that act. My Lords, Parliament
was dissolved unfortunately, and the association act was not only not
continued, but the convictions which had already taken place under it
were not carried into execution.

It might naturally be supposed that, when the Lord Lieutenant found that
he could not give protection to his Majesty's subjects even when he had
the association act, it would, at least, have been continued. No such
thing. When Parliament reassembled, the question was again put by one of
the noble Lords near me, whether it was intended to propose a renewal of
that act; and the answer was, that the noble Lord at the head of the
Irish government thought that he would tranquillize the country without
having recourse to extraordinary measures. From that day to this there
has been no security to property--no security for person; there has been
no enjoyment of peace or tranquillity in Ireland. That is the state in
which it has continued from that time to the present. Now, my noble
friend stated most truly that this is the result of a conspiracy; I say
the same; and before I sit down, I will prove that it is a conspiracy,
and nothing but a conspiracy, which tends to deprive a large class of
his Majesty's subjects of their property,--which renders their lives
insecure,--a conspiracy which tends to the overthrow of all government,
if they do not adopt some measure to put it down. On this ground alone I
address your Lordships; I wish to warn the people and the government of
the real nature of that which exists in that part of the United Kingdom.
We have heard of an attempt, which was lately made by a clergyman, to
avail himself of a sale under a distress, for the purpose of obtaining
payment of a part of what was his due. A body of troops were assembled,
by direction of the magistrates, for the purpose of protecting the sale.
It appears, from an account of a nature usually tolerably accurate,
that, on the first day appointed for the sale, an assemblage of 20,000
people collected together; on the second day the number was 50,000; and
on the third it amounted to 100,000. I will take an unit from each of
these numbers, and even then I defy any man to shew me how that body
could have been assembled but by a conspiracy. Who led them there? My
Lords, the Priests. I have seen a letter from an officer who commanded
one of the bodies of troops employed on the occasion, in which such is
stated to be the fact.

When, my Lords, I know that that conspiracy exists, and that it goes to
prevent a large proportion of his Majesty's subjects from enjoying their
property--when I know that the same conspiracy may be applied to any
other description of property--to any man's life, to his house, to his
honour, or to anything else that is most dear to man, I do say, it
becomes the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government to adopt
some measures, in order to do that which Government can do, to get the
better of that conspiracy. It must not be said that, under the British
Constitution, there is no power to prevent such a conspiracy: I say,
there is a power, and that power resides in Parliament, which can give
the Government, under this best of all Constitutions, the means which
shall at the same time protect the property and the liberty of every
individual in the state. Yes, my Lords, Parliament possesses the power
to bestow on the Government the means of putting down this conspiracy--a
conspiracy not against the Government itself, but against those whom the
Government is bound in honour to protect. I take this question of tithes
to be one of the most serious questions that can be brought under the
consideration of Parliament. I do not object to the noble Earl's
measure--indeed, I really do not know what that measure is--but what I
say is, that the noble Earl is bound, and the King is bound by his oath,
to protect the property of the Church--yes, his Majesty is sworn
especially to protect that property. But it is not the property of the
Church alone--what do you say of the lay impropriator? Is a man to be
robbed and ruined, because he possesses property in tithe?

There is no public grievance in Ireland. Tithes are no public grievance.
Tithes are private property, which a deep laid conspiracy is attempting
to destroy. The noble Lord knows that he cannot get the better of it. I
tell the noble Lord that he will be, at last, obliged to come to
Parliament for a measure to enable him to put down the conspirators. I
recollect the famous affair at Manchester; and remember perfectly well
to have heard a most able and eloquent speech made by the noble and
learned Lord in another place, upon the subject of collecting large
numbers of persons together; and I well remember his able and eloquent
justification of the magistrates for the part they assumed upon that
occasion. I want to know why the magistrates at Carlow and at Cork did
not obtain the same support when pursuing a similar course? I know I
shall be told in answer to this, that I am a person very desirous of
spilling blood. My Lords, I am not recommending the spilling of blood; I
want to save human life by Legislative means. I do not want to have
recourse to arms against crowds and mobs of people; but what I want is,
that the real conspirators should be got the better of, and not that the
mere instruments and victims of their wicked work should be punished.
But if the course pursued at Manchester against the collection of large
bodies of armed people was correct--if the attack was rightly made upon
those armed people--I want to know why the same was not done at Cork and
at Carlow, where the troops stood in the midst of the people three days,
who at last were suffered to carry off the distress, without the
clergyman being able to satisfy his claim?

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

Various - "The Great Round World and What Is Going On In It, Vol. 1, No. 46, September 23, 1897"

Edward Peple - "The Littlest Rebel"

Hannah More - "Stories for the Young"

Thomas Clarkson - "A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume I (of 3)"

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