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

_June_ 25, 1833.

* * * * *

_Depressing the West India Colonies will lead to the Introduction of
Foreign Slave Grown Sugar_.

Supposing that the growth of the sugar should, from the causes I have
mentioned, fail in the West Indies, where are we to get sugar? We must
get it no doubt from the colonies of other countries, where it is
produced by the labour of slaves. What then, will those who are so
anxious for the abolition of slavery say, if, in consequence of this
measure, the slave trade should be revived, with all the added horrors
of its being carried on in a contraband manner; and if, instead of
decreasing the amount of slavery in the world, we should increase it, in
Cuba, and in the other foreign West India possessions, over which we
have no control, and into which it would be impossible for us to
introduce any measure, regulating or ameliorating the condition of the
slave.

At this moment we consume more of sugar, even excluding Ireland, than
all the rest of Europe put together; and I leave it to your Lordships to
consider whether it would be possible, under any circumstances whatever,
that this country could go on without a supply of that article. How can
that supply be furnished, supposing that the production in our colonies
should fail, except by the produce of slave labour from the colonies of
other countries?

_June_ 25, 1833.

* * * * *

_East India Company; Eulogium on its Administration_.

Having been so long a servant of the East India Company, whose interests
you are discussing, having served for so many years of my life in that
country, having had such opportunities of personally watching the
operation of the government of that country, and having had reason to
believe, both from what I saw at that time, and from what I have seen
since, that the Government of India was at that time, one of the best
and most purely administered governments that ever existed, and one
which has provided most effectually for the happiness of the people over
which it is placed, it is impossible that I should be present when a
question of this description is discussed, without asking your
Lordships' attention for a very short time whilst I deliver my opinion
upon the plan which his Majesty's ministers have brought forward. I will
not follow the noble Marquis who opened the debate, into the
consideration of whether a chartered company be the best, or not,
calculated to carry on the government or the trade of an empire like
India, that is not the question to which I wish now to apply myself. But
whenever I hear of such discussions as this, I recall to my memory what
I have seen in that country--I recall to my memory the history of that
country for the last fifty or sixty years. I remember its days of
misfortune, and its days of glory, and call to mind the situation in
which it now stands. I remember that the government have conducted the
affairs of--I will not pretend to say how many millions of people,--they
have been calculated at 70,000,000, 80,000,000, 90,000,000, and
100,000,000--but certainly of an immense population, a population
returning an annual revenue of 20,000,000 l. sterling, and that
notwithstanding all the wars in which the empire has been engaged its
debt at this moment amounts only to 40,000,000 l., being no more than the
amount of two years revenue. I do not say that such a debt is desirable;
but at the same time I contend that it is a delusion on the people of
this country to tell them that that is a body unfit for government, and
unfit for trade, which has administered the affairs of India with so
much success for so many years, and which is at length to be put
down,--for I can use no other term,--upon the ground that it is an
institution calculated for the purposes neither of government nor trade.

My Lords, there is a great difference between the East India Company
governing India, and carrying on their trade with China as a joint-stock
company, and carrying on the same trade as monopolists. It was my
opinion, and the opinion of those who acted with me, that we ought, in
the first instance, at all events, to have endeavoured to have prevailed
upon them to continue trading with China as a joint-stock company. If at
this moment, they had chosen to have continued to trade as a joint stock
company, I would have allowed them; I would have adopted measures for
the purpose of inducing them to do so, and to carry on the government of
India. It is perfectly true, my Lords, that the people of this country
were, and are, desirous of participating in the trade to China; but I am
not aware that they ever expressed a desire to see the company deprived
of any branch of that trade. But then, my Lords, the noble Lord asks,
"how would you secure to them their dividends?" Why, my Lords, their
dividends, supposing the trade had turned out so ill as the noble Lord
expects it would have done, would have been secured to them, as they
must be at present, by saving all unnecessary expense in India--those
dividends would have been secured to them, as they still will be, and as
under all circumstances they must be, by bringing down the whole
expences of the Government of the country. But we had another
resource--we might have relieved the East India Company, trading to
China no longer as a monopolist, but as a joint stock company, from a
part of the burden of the provisions of the Commutation Act. I cannot
help thinking, if that course had been adopted--or even supposing,
according to the calculations of my noble Friend behind me, we had been
obliged to abandon that course, by desiring the East India Company to
withdraw from trading with China--that they still would have been in
possession of their capital, which might have been disposed of for their
advantage, and they might have been continued in the Government of
India. I entreat your Lordships to observe, that such an arrangement
would have been attended with this advantage, that they would not have
had to draw their dividends from India. One of the greatest
inconveniences attending this arrangement is, in my opinion, the
increased sum which must be annually brought home by remittance to this
country from India, to such an amount that the inconvenience is very
great, so great, that I very much doubt whether the process can be
carried on; and it must be most prejudicial to the commerce of the
country.

_June_ 5, 1833.

* * * * *

_Reform un fait accompli_.

Now that the Reform Bill has become the law of the land, I have
considered it my duty not only to submit to it, but to endeavour to
carry its provisions into execution by every means in my power.

_July_ 19, 1833.

* * * * *

_Repudiation of the Holy Alliance_.

I have passed part of my life in the foreign service of my country; but
I most sincerely protest, that I never did join with any holy alliance
against the liberties of Europe.

_July_ 19, 1833.

* * * * *

_Expediency and Principle_.

If the world were governed by principles, nothing would be more easy
than to conduct even the greatest affairs; but, in all circumstances,
the duty of a wise man is to choose the lesser of any two difficulties
which beset him.

_July_ 19, 1833.

* * * * *

_Protestantism to be supported_.

It is our duty, in every case, to do all we can to promote the
Protestant religion. It is our duty to do so, not only on account of the
political relations between the religion of the Church of England and
the Government, but because we believe it to be the purest doctrine, and
the best system of religion, that can be offered to a people.

_July_ 19, 1833.

* * * * *

_Importance of preserving the authority of the East India Company_.

The noble Lord who spoke last, quoted the opinion of Sir John Malcolm.
My Lords, I wish the noble Lords opposite had taken the advice of Sir
John Malcolm, upon the subject of forming an independent body in London,
representing the interests, and carrying on the concerns, of India. My
Lords, it is persons of this description who interpose an efficient
check upon the Government. I say, therefore, that it is much to be
lamented, that instead of placing that body in the state of independence
in which they were heretofore placed, they are to be reduced to a
situation in which they will lose a very considerable portion of their
power and influence. It is of the utmost importance that the greatest
possible care should be taken to preserve the authority of the company
in relation to their servants. Depend upon it, my Lords, that on the
basis of their authority depends the good government of India.

_July_ 5, 1833.

* * * * *

_After Emancipation, the Protestants of Ireland ought to have been
conciliated_.

The noble and learned Lord (Plunkett) said, that many of the evils that
afflicted Ireland, and for which the Church Temporalities Bill was
intended as a remedy, were occasioned by the delay of the measure of
Emancipation, after the year 1825. Why, I ask, by its delay after the
year 1825? I beg to know from that noble and learned Lord how long the
system of agitation existed in Ireland both before and after the year
1825? Why, my Lords, it has existed ever since the commencement of the
discussion of the Roman Catholic Question--that is to say, ever since
the days of the restrictive regency. From that period to the present
moment, there has been nothing but agitation, except during parts of the
years 1829 and 1830. Agitation commenced in Ireland upon the conclusion
of events in Paris, and in Brussels. Those events occasioned such
agitations and discussions as obliged the noble Duke, who was then at
the head of the Government in Ireland, to carry into execution the
Proclamation Act. Then came a change in the administration, and the
noble Earl assumed the reigns of power. He immediately chose for the
Lord Lieutenant (Lord Wellesley) a nobleman for whom I entertain great
respect but who certainly was nearly the last person who ought to have
been selected for that office. After the Roman Catholic Question was
settled, what ought the government to have done? Most certainly they
ought to have done everything in their power to conciliate--whom? The
Protestants of Ireland. Everything had already been granted to the Roman
Catholics which they could possibly require; and the object of the
government ought to have been to conciliate the Protestants. But,
instead of that, the noble Earl sends over to that country, as Lord
Lieutenant, the noble Marquis, who was the very last person that ought
to have been appointed; because, when holding that situation previously,
and on receiving information that his Majesty's government entertained
views favourable to the emancipation of the Catholics, he did,
immediately, before his departure for Ireland, issue a sort of
proclamation to the people that agitation should be continued for the
purpose of obtaining the desired boon.

_July_ 19, 1833.

* * * * *

_Irish Agitation Characterized_.

Now, my Lords, in order to enable your Lordships to understand what
this "agitation" is, I beg leave just to describe it to your Lordships.
It is, first of all, founded upon a conspiracy of priests and demagogues
to obtain their purpose--whether justifiable or not, is not the
question--by force and menace, and by the use of terror and of mobs,
wherever that terror and those mobs can be used to produce an effect
upon his Majesty's Government favourable to their views. This agitation
they have maintained by orations, harangues, and seditious speeches at
public meetings--by publications through a licentious press--by
exaggerations--by forgeries--and by all other means which it is in the
power of that description of persons to use, in order to excite the
multitude; and then, when they are excited, to make them appear in large
bodies to terrify and over-awe the people. If, my Lords, any person
ventures to oppose himself to these proceedings, he is either
immediately murdered or his house is destroyed, his cattle or other
property carried off, and combinations are formed to prevent resistance,
or the discovery of the guilty. In short, all measures are adopted which
go to, and which are intended to, destroy the Constitution of this
country. This, my Lords, is what is called the system of "agitation."

_July_ 19, 1833.

* * * * *

_What constitutes a Blockade_.

To constitute an effective blockade, it is unnecessary to say that the
port in question must be actually blockaded; and, further, that notice
must have been given of such a blockade. No capture could be made
without previously warning off vessels. There are various modes of
notice; but the most authoritative manner of giving notice is through
the Government of the power to be so warned. It should never be
forgotten, however, that there should be certain means in existence to
enforce the blockade at the time of notice.

_July_ 19, 1833.

* * * * *

_Objection to the reduction of the Number of Irish Bishops_.

I object to the proposed reduction of the number of Bishops in Ireland,
and I totally dissent from the argument upon which the propriety or
expediency of that reduction is founded. I am willing to admit that if
we were now, for the first time, establishing the Protestant Church in
Ireland. I might be inclined to think that twenty-two Bishops were more
than was necessary to the supervision of some 1000 clergymen; but when I
take into account, besides the fact that the higher number has been in
existence for centuries--when I consider the importance of the
Protestant Church in Ireland in relation to the political ties of the
two countries--when I consider, as a Right Reverend Prelate has
remarked in the course of the debate, that wherever a Protestant Bishop
is removed, there a Catholic Prelate will remain, who, doubtless, will
possess himself of the palace, and perhaps the church property, of the
reduced Protestant See; and when, above all, I consider the peculiar
circumstances of Ireland, so different from those of this country, and
which may make the episcopal superintendence of thirty or forty
benefices in the former country a matter of more trouble and anxiety
than the 600 or 1000 benefices which an English Prelate may control, I
cannot but object to the proposed reduction. Besides, there is another
circumstance which is worthy of attention in the discussion of this
subject, and that is, that the Bishops of England have the assistance of
their Deans and Archdeacons, which their Irish brethren have not. The
twenty-two Bishops of Ireland have personally to perform all the duties
which the Bishops of this country perform through their Deans and
Archdeacons.

_July_ 19,1835

* * * * *

_The Jews' Right to Citizenship denied._

The noble and learned Lord (Brougham), and the most reverend Prelate
(Whately), have both stated that they cannot understand the distinct
principle upon which the opponents of this measure rest their opposition
to the admission of the Jews to seats in the legislature. Now I beg the
noble and learned Lord, and the most reverend Prelate, to recollect that
this is a Christian country and a Christian legislature, and that the
effect of this measure would be to remove that peculiar character. Your
Lordships have been called upon to follow the example of foreign
countries, with respect to the Jews; but I think that, before we
proceed to legislate on such a subject as this, it is indispensable that
the necessity for the introduction of the measure should be shown. I
ask, what case has been made out to shew a necessity for passing this
measure? When your Lordships passed the bills for the removal of the
Roman Catholic disabilities, and for the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts, the reason assigned was, that it was unnecessary to
keep up the restriction on the classes of Christians affected by those
acts. But there is a material difference between the cases of the
dissenters and Roman Catholics, and the Jews--the former enjoyed all the
benefits and advantages of the constitution before the restrictions were
imposed. Was that the case with the Jews? Were the Jews ever in the
enjoyment of the blessings of the English constitution? Certainly not.
The Jews were formerly considered as alien enemies, and they were not
allowed to live in this country,--I think from the time of Edward I. to
the period of the Commonwealth. It cannot, therefore, be said that the
question of the Jews can be put on the same ground as the claims of any
class of Christians in the country.

_August 1,1843._

* * * * *

_The Jews have no Right to Civil Equality._

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Brougham) has referred
to a certain Act of Parliament which passed, giving certain privileges
to the Jews, and which he said, was in the very form of words proposed
in this bill. It is true that this Act conferred benefits on the Jews,
but then it must be recollected that it was confined in its operation to
certain of the colonies; in the first instance to Canada, and
subsequently to Jamaica and Barbadoes, and others of the West Indian
colonies. But then, was there not a very good reason for this? European
inhabitants were much required in the colonies at the time the act
passed; and this was to give encouragement to the Jews to go thither and
settle. No such necessity exists now, with regard to this country,--we
do not wish Jews to come and settle here. Not one word has been said to
shew that any necessity exists for passing this measure. The noble Lord,
who addressed your Lordships early in the debate, adverted to the state
of the Jews in France, I entirely agree with the illustrious Duke near
me, and the right reverend Prelate, that this country is not bound to
follow the example of foreign nations in legislating for any portion of
the community. But it ought not to escape attention, that Buonaparte, in
legislating for the Jews, did not go the full length of this bill; and
before he did anything for them, he ordered a strict inquiry into their
case to be made. I ask, are your Lordships prepared to assent to this
bill, without any inquiry being instituted as to its necessity, or
without any reason being assigned? This bill is not the result of
inquiry, but it has been introduced on a very different
principle,--namely, because it suits the liberal opinions of the day.

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, has endeavoured to shew
that, by retaining the words--"upon the true faith of a Christian," in
the Statute Book, you encourage men who have no regard to the obligation
of an oath, and thus maintain hypocrisy, while it operates as a
restriction on conscientious persons. "You admit," says the noble and
learned Lord, "men like Mr. Wilkes, Lord Shaftesbury, or Lord
Bolingbroke, but you shut out conscientious men who will not take the
oath." I am prepared to allow that there are some men whom no oath or
affirmation can reach; but this is no reason why we should give up every
test and oath. Are we on this account to throw aside every guard for the
maintenance of Christianity in the country? The Right Reverend Prelate
has stated very clearly and plainly the reason why we should not pass
this bill--namely, that this is a Christian country, and has a Christian
legislature, and that therefore, the Parliament, composed as it is, of
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, cannot advise the Sovereign,
as the head of the Church, to sanction a law which will remove the
peculiar character of the legislature, I say that we cannot advise the
Sovereign on the throne to pass a law which will admit persons to all
offices, and into the Parliament of the country, who, however
respectable they may be, still are not Christians, and therefore ought
not to be allowed to legislate for a Christian Church. The noble
Marquis, for whom I entertain the highest respect, seemed surprised that
I should smile when the noble Marquis spoke in somewhat extravagant
terms of the distinctions which have been acquired by these persons in
foreign countries. I must apologize to the noble Marquis for having
smiled at that moment, but it certainly appeared to me that the noble
Marquis was rather extravagant in his praise; and, I may be allowed to
add, that I have never been so fortunate as to hear of those persons
being in the stations which he described. The noble marquis stated that
there were no less than fifteen officers of the Jewish religion at the
battle of Waterloo; I have not the least doubt that there are many
officers of that religion of great merit and distinction--but still I
must again repeat they are not Christians; and, therefore, sitting as I
do in a Christian legislature, I cannot advise the sovereign on the
throne to sanction a law to admit them to seats in this house and the
other house of parliament, and to all the rights and privileges enjoyed
by Christians. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack said, that
when the observation is mode that Christianity is part and parcel of the
law of the land, it is meant that that Christianity is the Church of
England. Now, I have always understood that it was the Christian
dispensation, generally; and I believe that when Christianity is talked
of as part and parcel of the law, it means the Christian dispensation,
and not the doctrines of the Church of England.

_August_ 1, 1833.

* * * * *

_Defence of a Metallic Currency_.

I always have maintained, and I always shall maintain, that the only
proper basis of our money system is a solid gold circulation. Upon that
basis I considered our monetary system fixed since the measure of 1819,
followed up as that was by improvements in 1826: I really think the
principle of those measures the best that can be applied to our
circulation. Detailed payments being made in gold, the larger payments
might be made in paper, and depend on credit; the true support of the
credit of whatever paper might be in circulation being, that it was
liable to be paid in gold on demand at any time, at the bank of England,
or at the branch-banks of the bank of England; so that, if any man chose
not to give credit to the bank of England, he had only to demand gold
for his paper; or any creditor might, at once, demand from his debtor
payment in solid coin. That however will, to a certain extent, not be
the case under this bill. I am aware that, eventually, the holder of the
paper can repair to the bank of England and demand gold as heretofore;
and must, therefore give credit to somebody for the amount. That I
consider a depreciation of the paper of the bank of England. It is a
depreciation to which if I had been a bank director, I would never have
consented; indeed, I cannot understand why the bank agreed to this
proposition. I am persuaded that, ere long, great inconveniences will
occur from the provision; and those inconveniences will be felt in a
depreciation of bank paper. What is the object of the arrangement? It is
either intended to give the bank a power of issuing paper which, under
the existing system, it does not possess, or to facilitate credit
generally throughout the country, and enable the country banks to
undertake operations which they could not otherwise attempt. It is
evident that the noble earl himself sees that the consequence will be to
facilitate and increase the issues of the country banks. That will
augment all transactions; and the result must be a great increase of
prices, and the ruin of many individuals. Nothing of this kind would
happen, if the present system were continued; namely, if the bank of
England continued to issue the number of its notes which the necessity
of the public might seem to require; and by the regularity of its
proceedings give such a check to the issues of the country banks, as
should be calculated to establish a sound and healthy circulation. Under
the existing system, the bank would proceed so as to prevent the country
banks from giving credit, except in cases which justified the
accommodation, and the circulation and commerce of the country would
continue in a wholesome state.

_August_ 23, 1833.

* * * * *

_The Duke of Wellington's reasons for supporting the Poor Law Amendment
Bill_.

I concur with the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, and with the
noble lord opposite, as to the necessity of this measure. I agree, first
of all, in the existence of grievances consequent upon the existing
administration of the poor-laws, but I do not concur in the opinion
expressed by the noble and learned lord (the Lord Chancellor) in
disapproving of the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth; but I do
disapprove of a system of administration which differs in each and
every of the 12,000 parishes in this country, and in each of which
different and varied abuses have crept in. I maintain that it is
impossible for parliament to frame any law that can by possibility
remedy or apply to the abuses which prevail at the present
moment--abuses which are as varied in their character as they are
numerous. It is their general existence all over the country--it is
their existence in a different shape in every parish of the
kingdom--which renders the appointment of a central board absolutely
necessary, with powers to control the whole of the parishes in the land,
and to adopt such remedies as will secure a sure administration of these
laws throughout the country. If my noble friend, who has spoken in
opposition to this measure, had recently attended to parliamentary
business more assiduously than he has done, he would have found that the
subject has been submitted to the house by several noble lords, and has
also been under the consideration of every administration that I have
known; but no plan has ever been suggested, or scheme proposed, to
remove and remedy the evils of the existing laws, which in my judgment
at all equalled the present, and for it I must return the noble lord
opposite, with whom it has originated, my sincere thanks. The present
remedy for the evils of the existing laws is most unquestionably the
best that has ever been devised; at the same time I must observe, that
as the central board of commissioners must necessarily have very
extraordinary and full powers, it will be necessary that they should
keep such a record of their proceedings as shall render them liable to
the actual control at all times of the government and parliament of the
country. I doubt much whether the provisions of this bill give such a
controul to the government as will afford a full knowledge to the
parliament at all times of the course pursued by the commissioners; but
in committee on the bill, I shall consider whether some alteration is
not necessary, in order to make that control more active. There are
several other clauses in the bill which require much alteration and
modification. I entirely approve of the removal of the allowance system,
which is one of the greatest evils arising from the existing poor-laws;
but I am of opinion that it ought gradually and slowly to have been
destroyed, and without a fixed day for its termination being specified
in the bill. I would recommend that this clause should be left out, and
that power should be given to the commissioners to carry gradually such
alterations in this respect into effect, as to them may seem meet.

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