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

_July 81,1834_.

* * * * *

_Tests no Security to Religion_.

The noble duke, amongst other matters, has adverted to the union between
church and state, with respect to which he has made some observations
which are undoubtedly worthy of consideration, but to which I do not
intend, on this occasion, to offer any answer. I will, however, just
observe, that I apprehend what is generally meant by dissevering the
union of the church and state is, that there should be no established
religion. To that proposition, I trust it is superfluous for me to say
that I am a most decided opponent. It is, however, a subject which I
cannot now pretend to discuss. It is my opinion, that to leave religion
to rest upon the voluntary efforts of the people, is a notion which we
are not at present in a situation competent to entertain. It is so very
great a change, and so totally different from all that we know and
observe, that we are absolutely precluded, from want of experience, from
entering upon the consideration of the question. It is not a just
criterion, by which to form a judgment, to refer to the experience of
other nations--such as the existence of Christianity in Rome before it
became the established religion of the empire, or the existence of
religion in a country so distant and so unlike our own, in all its
circumstances, as the United states of North America. That, my lords, is
the opinion I entertain, and therefore I will no longer occupy your
lordships by any further discussion on this subject. I belong to the
church of England, and am a friend of that church, from feeling and from
conviction. I do not say that I have examined all her doctrines, or that
I am master of all the grounds upon which her rites and ceremonies
stand--I do not say that I am able to discuss with my noble friend those
one thousand questions, which Bishop Law said arose out of the
thirty-nine articles, but I believe her doctrines to be scriptural, and
I know her principles to be tolerant. But, my lords, I beg leave to say,
that I adopt those doctrines upon another ground, which perhaps may
expose me, with some in the present day, to censure. My lords, I espouse
those doctrines because they are the mode of faith delivered down to me
by my forefathers; and because they are the mode of faith which I find
established in my country. I am not prepared to remove the basis upon
which is founded (though it may be apart from) the structure of the
religion of my country. I do not think that such is the wish of the
majority of the dissenters; but, at all events, it seems to me a course
calculated to lead only to a state of general scepticism and universal
suspension of religion among the people. But while I say this for
myself--while I claim to found my attachment to my religion upon
principle, it is necessary that I should say precisely the same thing
for that great body of men who may be called the dissenters of England.
Their consent is rarely contemporaneous with the establishment of the
church of England herself. The dissenters from the church of England are
those who thought that the Reformation did not proceed far enough. Their
dissent did not show itself against the established church when in power
and prosperity; but the dissenters from that church grew up first when
the Roman Catholic religion was dominant in this country, and when both
the members of the new church of England and the dissenters were alike
suffering under persecution; therefore, it is a dissent founded on
principle. Considering the weight which dissent has in this country, and
considering the extent to which it prevails, many attempts have been,
from time to time, made, as we all know, at a religious comprehension of
all denominations of Christians in the body of the church. Such attempts
have been made by some of the greatest prelates that the church has
ever known. These attempts have all failed; but, surely in our days, it
may be thought wise to attempt at least a general civil comprehension of
all classes, by admitting them, if it be possible to do so, to those
benefits which are to be derived from the public institutions of the
country.

I will not go into the foundations of the universities. I am not for
raising any quibble on that subject. I apprehend that they have grown
up, as all other institutions have done, very much from a series of
accidents, and the force of chances. One college has been founded by one
individual, and one by another; but, however they have grown up, they
have, in fact, become, and are now considered, as the national
seminaries of education. I would reserve to them, in every respect,
their corporate rights. I would respect them as places where the
religion of the country is taught, and professed; but undoubtedly I
would if possible, for the sake of general peace and union, and for the
sake of bringing together those who are now divided, try, with the
sanction and approbation of the universities themselves (and we know
perfectly well that most of their distinguished members are of opinion
that this can be done); I would, I say, try whether we could not open
the gates of these universities to that great body of this country, who
unfortunately dissent from the doctrines of the church of England. I
would not do so, however, rashly, nor with any violence to honest
prejudices, or to those well-intentioned feelings which some persons are
found to cherish.

The noble duke has said that tests are no securities against the
admission of atheists or schismatics, and that a man may take them who
dissented from them, if he chose to stifle all his feelings of right and
wrong. But, my lords, I beg leave to say that tests are no security
against any man. It is impossible ever to have looked at the history of
religion in any state, or at any period, and not to feel that the test
laws have been the weakest ground upon which any faith could stand. Were
tests any security for the heathen religion against the vital spirit of
the heaven-descended energy of Christianity? Yet we are aware that every
act of the life of a heathen was in itself a test. He could not sit to
his meat, he could not retire to rest, he could not go through the most
simple transactions of life, without some act of acknowledgment offered
towards some heathen deity. Unless these observances were attended to by
the Christians, they were subject to the most cruel punishments, and yet
such means failed to preserve the dominant faith. In fact, it is well
known that one of the most violent persecutions of the Christians,
instituted by the Roman emperors, was followed, as it were, almost
immediately by the establishment of Christianity as the dominant
religion of the empire. Were tests any security to the Roman Catholic
religion, against the growing light and energy of the Protestant faith?
Tests of various kinds were adopted at the very moment the new doctrines
showed themselves, but it was soon found that they were vain and fragile
against the light and strength of the new doctrines. Were tests any
security to these very universities themselves? I have not looked very
deeply into this subject; I have no doubt that if I were to look closer
into it, I should find more instances of the sort; but I find that about
fourteen years after the establishment of King's College, in the
university of Cambridge, a decree was sent down there by King Henry VI.,
admonishing the scholars, that is to say, in the language of the present
day, the fellows of that college, against the damnable and pernicious
errors (so it styled them), of John Wickliffe and Richard Peacock, and
denouncing the pains of expulsion from college, and perjury, against
those of them who should show any favour to those doctrines. Yet, in two
years after this, this very king's college became what, at that time was
called the most heretical, but which now, in our time, would be called
the most Protestant college in the university; and we know that these
doctrines thus fiercely denounced, and strongly guarded against by
tests, about fifty or sixty years afterwards became, by law, the
established religion of this country. It is upon her native
strength--upon her own truth--it is upon her spiritual character, and
upon the purity of her doctrines, that the Church of England rests. Let
her not, then, look for support in such aids as these. It is by these
means, and not by tests and proscriptions, that protestantism has been
maintained; let her be assured of this.

_August 1, 1834._

* * * * *

_Cause of the dismissal of the Melbourne Administration in November,
1834._

I am not responsible for the dissolution of the late government. The
late government was dissolved from the absolute impossibility of its
going on any longer. When a noble earl (Spencer), whom I do not now see
in his place, was removed from the House of Commons, by the necessity of
taking his seat in this house, it was impossible for the late government
to go on. I will just desire your lordships to recollect that it was
stated by the noble earl (Grey), who so worthily filled the situation of
prime minister for nearly four years, when his noble colleague (Lord
Althorp), in the House of Commons, thought proper to resign, "that he
had lost his right hand, and that it had thus become absolutely
impossible for him to continue to carry on the government, or to serve
the Crown with honour or advantage." Not only did the noble earl make
this declaration of his inability to go on upon the retirement of his
noble colleague from his majesty's councils, but the noble viscount
opposite, himself, when he afterwards came to form his government,
stated that the noble earl (Spencer), having consented to retain his
office and position in the House of Commons, he was prepared to
undertake to preside over his majesty's councils, and carry on the
business of the country. But this was not all; for I happen to know
that, when the noble viscount found that he was likely to be deprived of
the services and assistance of that noble lord in the other house, he
felt that his administration would be placed in circumstances of the
greatest difficulty and embarrassment. Besides that, it was perfectly
well known to his majesty, that the influence of that noble lord in the
other house of parliament was the foundation on which the government to
which he was attached, reposed; and, that that support being removed, it
must fall. When, therefore, his majesty found that it was fairly put to
him whether he would consent to arrangements for the late government
proceeding as it best could, or whether he would consent to steps being
taken for the formation of another administration, it was surely natural
for his majesty to consider his own situation, and the situation in
which the late government was lately placed by the death of the late
Earl Spencer.

_February 24, 1835_.

* * * * *

_Why the Duke of Wellington held so many offices_, ad interim, _in
November_, 1834.

I gave his majesty the best advice which, under the circumstances of the
case, it appeared to me practicable to give. I advised his majesty to
send for that right hon. gentleman (Sir R. Peel), a member of the House
of Commons, who seemed to me to be the most fit and capable person to
place at the head of the new administration, as first lord of the
treasury. That right honourable gentleman was then in another part of
the world, and some time must necessarily elapse before it would be
possible that he could return to this country. It appeared to his
majesty and to myself, however, to be essentially necessary that, in the
meantime, the government should be taken possession of and
administered. This step I considered to be absolutely necessary, and I
also felt it to be absolutely necessary that, whoever might exercise the
authority of government in the interval, should take no step that might
embarrass or compromise the right honourable baronet on his return. It
was only on that ground that I accepted, for the time, of the offices of
first lord of the treasury, and secretary of state for the home
department.

The noble viscount has made a little mistake in alleging that I was
appointed to three departments at once. He makes it a matter of charge
against me that I exercised the authority of the three secretaries of
state; but the noble viscount knows very well that the secretary of
state for the home department is competent, under certain circumstances,
to do so. It was for the public service, and the public convenience, and
no other reason whatever, that I, my lords, consented to hold, for a
time, the situations of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of
state for the home department. But I want to know whether this was, as
the noble viscount insinuates, an unprecedented act? When Mr. Canning
was secretary of state for the foreign department, he was appointed
first lord of the treasury. The latter office Mr. Canning received on
the 12th of April, and he did not resign the seals of the foreign
department until the 30th of that month. During the whole of that period
Mr. Canning discharged the duties both of secretary of state for foreign
affairs, and first lord of the treasury. My lords, I am quite aware
that there were at that period, two other secretaries of state, but the
fact is as I have stated it, that Mr. Canning exercised at the same
time; the functions both of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of
state for the foreign department. The transaction in my case was,
therefore, not unprecedented; and I must also say, that when the noble
viscount thought proper to blame me, as he did, he was bound to show
that my conduct, in that respect, had been attended with some evil or
inconvenient result. Now, it does not appear that it has been attended
with any such result. The fact is, that during the whole of the time
that I held the two offices. I cautiously avoided taking any step which
might be productive of subsequent embarrassment or inconvenience, and
when my right honourable friend took possession of his office, I can
undertake to say that he did not find himself compromised by any such
act.

_February_ 24,1835.

* * * * *

_Lord Londonderry's appointment to the Embassy at St. Petersburgh._

My lords, having learned that it would not be disagreeable to my noble
friend to be employed in the public service, I did concur in the
recommendation, or rather, my lords, I did recommend to my right
honourable friend, Sir Robert Peel, that my noble friend should be
appointed ambassador to the court of St. Petersburgh. I made this
recommendation, founded as it was on my own personal knowledge of my
noble friend for many years past,--on the many great and important
military services he has performed, and on the fitness he has proved
himself to possess for such an appointment in those various diplomatic
employments he has filled during a long period of time; more
particularly at the court of Vienna, where for a period of nine years,
he performed most important services to the entire satisfaction of the
ministers who employed him, up to the last moment of his employment. He
returned from the discharge of that office, my lords, with the strongest
testimony of the approbation of the then secretary of state for foreign
affairs. I was aware, my lords, of the peculiar talents of my noble
friend in certain respects, for this particular office, and of his
consequent fitness for this very description of diplomatic employment,
especially on account of his being a military officer of high rank in
the service of this country, and of distinguished reputation in the
Russian army. I knew the peculiar advantages that must attach to an
individual conducting such an embassy on that account. Under these
circumstances, I was justified, my lords, in recommending my noble
friend, and I was glad to find that my right honourable friend concurred
in that recommendation, and that his majesty was pleased to approve of
it. I may also add, that the nomination of my noble friend having been
communicated in the usual manner to the court of St. Petersburgh, it was
received with approbation at that court. For all these reasons, my
lords, it was with the greatest regret I learned that this
nomination,--for it had gone no further than nomination,--was not
approved of in another place; for it is in consequence of that
expression of disapproval that my noble friend, with that delicacy of
feeling which belongs to his character, has declined the office.

_March_ 16,1834.

* * * * *

_Prerogative of the Crown in appointing Ambassadors._

There can be no doubt whatever that there is no branch of the
prerogative of the crown greater, or more important, than that of
sending ambassadors to foreign courts; nor is there any branch of that
prerogative the unrestricted use of which ought to be kept more
inviolate. But, my lords, the ministers of the crown are responsible for
these nominations. They are also responsible for the instructions under
which my noble friend, or any other noble lord so nominated, is bound to
act. They are, moreover, responsible for the proper performance of these
duties on the part of those whom they select--to the other house of
parliament, and to the country at large. It is impossible, therefore,
for me to believe that the House of Commons would in this case proceed
so far as to interfere with that peculiar prerogative, and to say that
an individual who has been already nominated by the crown should not
fill the situation; inasmuch as, by so doing, the House of Commons would
not only be taking upon itself the nomination of the officer, and the
direction of the particular duties to be discharged by him--but would
also be relieving the minister from the constitutional responsibility of
the appointment. I do not think that sentiments of such a description,
on a subject of this delicacy and importance, are very general; and I
cannot bring myself to believe that a vote affirming such a violation of
the royal prerogative would have passed the House of Commons.

_March 15,1835._

I

_The Roman Catholics interested in maintaining the Established Church._

The great bulk of the Roman Catholics are as much interested as the
Protestants of the established church in maintaining the safety of the
established church.

_June 10, 1835._

* * * * *

_Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles._

I conceive that there is no cause to complain of the subscription to the
thirty-nine articles, as practised in Oxford. The explanation given by
the most reverend prelate is entirely borne out by the statues of the
university, and by the practice that prevails there; and this
explanation agrees entirely with that given by a right reverend prelate,
who was formerly head of one of the colleges at Oxford. It might,
perhaps, be desirable that some other test should be adopted to prove
that the individuals to be matriculated are members of the church of
England; the most important point is, that Cambridge and Oxford should
be filled only by members of the Church of England--upon that I consider
the whole question to rest. The noble earl said, in the course of the
discussion, that I advised your lordships not to consent to the bill
introduced last session; because, if you did, you would have to carry
to the foot of the throne a measure which would tend to subvert the
union between church and state. My meaning in so doing was neither more
nor less than this--that it was absolutely necessary that the
universities, founded as they are, should educate their members in the
religion of the church of England. Your lordships could not go to the
king, and ask his consent to a bill which had for its object to
establish in the university a system of education different from that of
the church of England, without attacking the very foundation of the
principle of the connexion between church and state. But the noble lord
says, the church herself does not exact subscription to the thirty-nine
articles from each individual. It is very true that the church of
England does not require subscription from her members, nor would the
university of Oxford require it, but as a proof that the person
subscribing was a member of that church, or of the family of a member
thereof.

The noble earl stated that individuals might obtain admittance to the
universities both of Oxford and Cambridge, notwithstanding that they
were dissenters; but there is a great deal of difference between
casually admitting dissenters, and permitting them to enter into the
universities as a matter of right. I see no objection to the admission
of the few now admitted, who must submit to the regulations and
discipline of the university, and of its several colleges; but I do
object to the admission of dissenters into the universities by right;
and my reason for making this exception is, that I am exceedingly
desirous that the religion taught there should be the religion of the
church of England; and I confess I should be very apprehensive that, if
dissenters of all denominations were admitted by right, and they were
not under the necessity of submitting to the rules and regulations of
the several colleges, not only would the religion of the church of
England not to be taught there, but no kind of religion whatever. I
state this on the authority of a report which I have recently received
of the proceedings of an institution in this country for the instruction
of children of dissenting clergymen; from which it appears absolutely
impossible, for any length of time, to adhere to any creed, or any tenet
or doctrine in these seminaries, in which every doctrine is matter of
dispute and controversy. I was rather surprised to hear the noble
viscount opposite--a minister of the crown--express his preference for
polemical disputations in the universities. I should have thought that
he would have felt it to be his inclination, as well as duty, by all
means to protect the universities from such disputes, and from a system
fruitful in such controversies; and probably to end in a cessation of
any system of religion or religious instruction whatever, on account of
the different opinions of the members.

_July_ 14,1835.

* * * * *

_University Tests rendered necessary by Toleration._

The tests in our universities are the children of the Reformation, which
the system of toleration wisely established in this country has
rendered still more necessary, if we intend to preserve the standard of
the religion of the church of England. If we open the door wide and say
"We will have no established religion at all--every man shall follow the
religion he chooses"--if, in a word, we have recourse to the voluntary
system,--then we must make up our minds to take the consequences which
must follow from the enactments of the bill and the polemical and other
controversial agitations to which it must lead. But, supposing the
object of the noble lord, to put an end to these tests, to be desirable,
I can conceive no mode of effecting this object so objectionable as the
interference by parliament with the privileges of the universities,
secured to them by charter and repeatedly acknowledged and confirmed by
parliament.

_July_ 14 1835

* * * * *

_Irish Clergy--their Depression by the Melbourne Government_.

I do say that the Protestant people and clergy of Ireland have great
reason to complain of the want of protection to their rights and
properties manifested on the part of the government of this country; and
this is the cause of those disputes and those circumstances which the
noble lord opposite (Lord Melbourne) has complained of in the few words
he has addressed to the house on the subject. Far be it from me to wish
for the renewal of any dissensions in Ireland; and, God knows, I would
go any length, and do any thing in my power to put them down in the
extent to which they now exist; but we are mistaken if we suppose that
they can be put down by oppressing one party, or allowing one party to
oppress another, or by extinguishing--an extinction which for the last
three or four years you have attempted and are now about to
complete--that description of property in Ireland allotted to the
payment of the clergy. This is the circumstance which occasions the
present dissensions in Ireland, and which has induced the present
discussion in this house. The noble lord opposite cannot lament the
cause of such discussions more than I do; but if he be determined to do
his duty, let him give the protection of his majesty's government to the
Protestant clergy and people of Ireland, as he does not hesitate to do
in the case of other classes in that country; and the evils which he so
much deplores will soon cease to exist.

_July_ 16, 1835.

* * * * *

_A Power of Revising Railway Acts ought to be Reserved by the
Legislature_.

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