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

_August 23, 1839._

_Speech on Her Majesty's Marriage._

There is no noble lord in this house who concurs more sincerely than I
do in the expression of congratulation to her majesty upon her
approaching marriage, which she has been pleased to announce a second
time to the public from the throne this day. I sincerely wish, with the
noble mover and seconder of the address, that this event may tend to the
happiness and comfort of the Queen. Upon this occasion I should have
been contented with the address, and should have offered not another
word, if your lordships had not been called upon in the speech from the
throne, to concur with the other house of parliament, in making a
suitable provision for the prince, for whose future station in this
country her majesty's speech has prepared us. But, my lords, it appears
to me that when this house is called upon to express an opinion upon a
detail of this description, the house ought to look into, and act upon,
this subject--it ought not to be a mere congratulation. I conceive that
the public have a right to know something beyond the mere name of the
prince whom her majesty is about to espouse. My lords, I had the honour
of being summoned to attend her majesty in privy council, when her
majesty in council was graciously pleased to declare her intention of
becoming the espoused of this prince. I observed, that the precedent of
the reign of George III. was followed in all respects except one, and
that was the declaration, that this prince was a protestant. [Loud
cries of "Hear, hear!" from the opposition benches.] My lords, I, for
one, entertain no doubt that the prince is a protestant. I believe he is
a protestant. I know he is of a protestant family. I have the honour of
being known to some members of that family, and I am sure that it is a
protestant family. But, my lords, this is a protestant state, and it is
absolutely necessary, by law, that the person who shall become the
spouse of the queen be a protestant; and, if the precedent of George
III. has been taken in part, it ought to have been followed throughout;
and then the public would have had the satisfaction of knowing that the
fact of the prince being a protestant, had been officially declared by
her majesty's government. My lords, I know the noble lords opposite too
well to suppose that they are not aware of the anxiety in the public
mind on this subject; and I know, also, that they had it in their power
to relieve that anxiety, and to gratify the public by making this
declaration; nay, more, my lords, I am convinced that there exists the
same anxiety in the royal mind, about the protestant character of the
state as is felt by me or any of your lordships. And if so, my lords, I
ask, why was the precedent of George III. departed from? Is there any
doubt as to the religious sentiments of this prince? None at all; there
can be no doubt that he is a protestant; he cannot be otherwise. Then,
why is it not so stated? We have heard something of this marriage from
another part of the country; we have seen some proceedings on this
subject since the declaration in council, which show pretty clearly why
the word "protestant" was omitted. My lords, I confess that I am one of
those who read with great attention all that passes in Ireland;--all
those speeches which come from that quarter;--and I do it for this
reason: I have been accustomed to that kind of revolutionary
discussions. It has been said by an eminent French writer, _en plein
jour, on ne conspire pas_; but that is not so now. The object proposed
is terror. These things are declared openly. This I can see from what
appears in the public prints, as I read these public letters and
missives in order to see what the real danger is, and that I may not be
taken by surprise. Now, what I mean to say is this,--that I see in what
has passed elsewhere, a very suspicious reason why the word "protestant"
was not inserted in the communication made to the privy council, and why
it has not been inserted in the speech from the throne. I say to the
noble lords opposite, that I believe they are as much determined as I
am, myself, to maintain the protestant ascendancy of the state. I think,
then, if this be the case, that upon the first occasion, when this
question comes before your lordships, and when the House of Lords shall
be called upon to do any act, or to make any declaration upon the
subject, beyond the mere congratulation of the queen, your lordships
should take that course which may procure the country the satisfaction
of knowing that Prince Albert is a protestant prince, and that this is
still a protestant state.

_January 16, 1840._

_Approbation of the Conduct of the Affghanistan Expedition._

My lords, having been, for a great part of my life, selected to carry
into execution, under superior authority, measures of this description,
no man can be more capable of judging, from experience, of the merits of
government in planning and carrying into operation such measures; and I
should be the last man to doubt, at any time, the expediency of this or
the other house expressing its approbation of the conduct of the
political servants of the crown in planning and working out all
arrangements preparatory to carrying into execution great military
operations. My lords, it has happened to me, by accident, that I had
some knowledge of the arrangements made for the execution of this great
military enterprise; and, I must say, that I have never known an
occasion on which the duty of a government was performed on a larger
scale,--on which a more adequate provision was made for all
contingencies that could occur, and for all the various events which
could, and which did, in fact, occur during this campaign. My lords, it
would be presumptuous in me to say more on this subject, having, I
repeat, been made acquainted, only by accident, with the arrangements
made preparatory to the campaign now brought under your lordships'
attention. With respect to the military services performed, I can say
nothing beyond, nor more deserving the officers and troops, than what
has been stated by the governor-general in his dispatch. My lords, I am
well acquainted with the officers who have directed and performed these
services; and I must say that there are no men in the service who
deserve a higher degree of approbation for the manner in which, on all
occasions, they have discharged their duty; and that, in no instance
that I have ever heard of, have such services been performed in a manner
better calculated to deserve and secure the approbation of your
lordships and of the country.

_February 4, 1840._

* * * * *

_Danger of Socialism._

It appears that this system (Socialism) has spread itself over a great
part of the country; and, upon inquiry, I find that it has taken root
rather extensively in the county in which I reside. I find that in
Hampshire, or on the borders of the two counties, Wiltshire and
Hampshire, there is a large institution for the propagation of Socialist
principles, spreading over no less than five hundred acres of land,
which this society have purchased for their purposes. In reference to
that institution, I have this day presented a petition to your
lordships, containing statements as to the doctrines of this society,
regarding religion, the holy scriptures, God Almighty, and all the great
points of our belief; which statements, in my estimation, demand the
most serious inquiry. When I read that petition, which I did the moment
it was placed in my hands, I felt it to be my duty, as the lord
lieutenant of the county, to call the attention of the magistracy to
the facts which it set forth. That I considered to be my duty; and I
say, also, that the House of Lords, now that the facts have been brought
before them, have a duty to perform to the country, on this question.
These doctrines of Socialism are rapidly gaining strength--are spreading
themselves throughout the country. They have now got beyond that point
at which your lordships might say, "We will take no steps in the matter;
the system is absurd, and will fall to pieces of itself." I say, my
lords, we have got beyond that point; and the people should be made to
understand that the legislature and the government look on those
institutions only with disfavour, and are determined to discountenance
them. And they should also be made to know, that wherever, in the
promulgation of the doctrines of this society, there shall be a breach
of the law committed, it will be treated as such, and punished as such.
I say, then, that it is incumbent on your lordships to take such steps
as will satisfy the country that your attention has been directed to the
subject, with the view to remove the evil and ensure tranquillity. If
the government will allow the motion to pass, and take the subject into
their own hands, and inquire into it, through the magistracy, or by any
other means, I, for one, am willing to leave the matter with them on
that condition, merely adding that I shall be happy to afford them any
assistance in my power in carrying out their inquiry, and in enabling
them to annihilate this mischievous and demoralising system.

_February 4, 1840._

_Compliment to the Navy._

I know a great deal of the gentlemen of that profession; and, for my own
part, I have always had, and still have, the greatest and the highest
respect for them, and the very utmost confidence in them. I have always
endeavoured to emulate their services in the service in which I have
myself been engaged; and I am sure that in nothing have I endeavoured to
emulate them in a greater degree than in that confidence which they
feel, not only in themselves, and in the officers of their own rank, but
in all officers and troops under their command.

_February 6, 1840._

* * * * *

_Eulogium on Lord Seaton._

I had the honour of being connected with the noble and gallant lord in
service at an early period of his life; and I must declare that, at all
times, and under all circumstances, he gave that promise of prudence,
zeal, devotion, and ability, which he has so nobly fulfilled in his
services to his sovereign and his country, during the recent proceedings
in Canada. I entirely agree with the noble viscount in all that he has
said, respecting the conduct of my noble and gallant friend, in
remaining, under all circumstances, at his post, and in taking the
command of the troops, although it was not thought expedient by the
government to place him again in the government of the provinces. I
agree with the noble viscount in wishing that such examples as that
which has been shewn may be always followed in her majesty's service;
for I must say that there never was a brighter example of fortitude and
discretion than that which has been manifested by the noble and gallant
lord.

_March 27, 1840._

* * * * *

_Opinion on the Printed Papers' Question._

I wish--as, indeed, everybody wishes--that the House of Commons should
have the power of printing and publishing its papers. But what I want to
do is this--to provide that, when it proceeds to the sale of them, the
law should take its course. As to the printing and publishing of papers,
I have no objection, until it comes to the point of sale. The sale ought
not, in my opinion, to be made by the authority of the house; it ought
to be made by individuals, and they should be responsible for what they
sell, as they were previously to the passing of the resolution in 1835;
and, up to that time, it must be admitted that the House of Commons and
the House of Lords had the advantage of all their privileges quite as
much as they have had ever since. My lords, I must confess that I look a
little further into this question than the mere matter of libelling
individuals. I consider all this as it affects the public generally;
and, I say, the public is mainly interested in its being understood that
the House of Commons and the House of Lords are not to be the privileged
sellers of libels against individuals.

_April 6, 1840._

_Libels on foreign Sovereigns ought not to be permitted._

I remember reading with great satisfaction, the history of a great case,
which was pleaded and argued at considerable length, some years ago, in
this country--I mean the case of the "King v. Peltier," in the court of
King's Bench. That was the case of an action brought against an obscure
individual, for a libel which he had published upon the sovereign of a
neighbouring country, with whom we were then in a state of peace and
amity. Now, I ask your lordships whether, supposing, in the course of
the late Polish revolution, the libels, some of which we have seen
printed in this country, and others which we have heard spoken of in the
other, and, I believe, in this house of parliament, reviling, in the
strongest terms, the sovereign of Russia, had been stated in the
petitions, or in the proceedings of the House of Commons, and had been
printed, published, and sold by its authority; I ask your lordships
whether such a proceeding would not have been calculated to disturb the
peace of this country, and of the world at large? In short, I ask your
lordships whether it is desirable that there should be an opportunity of
publishing and selling, on the part of the two houses of parliament,
libels against the sovereigns of all the foreign powers in Europe? My
lords, I am one of those who consider that the greatest political
interest of this country is, to remain at peace and amity with all the
nations of the world. I am for avoiding even the cause of war, and of
giving offence to any one, and of seeking a quarrel, either by abuse, or
by that description of language which is found in these libels. I am
against insulting the feelings of any sovereign, at whom individuals may
have taken offence, and against whom they may seek to publish libels
under the sanction of parliament. Let them state what they please in
their private capacity, and let them be answerable for it individually,
as Peltier was. What I want is, that parliament should not, by the
combined privilege of publication and sale, run the risk of involving
the country in the consequences of a discussion of such subjects, and in
all the mischiefs and inconveniences which might arise from it.

_April 6, 1840._

* * * * *

_Reasons why the Chinese stopped the Opium Trade._

It is perfectly true, as is stated by the noble earl, that the trade in
opium has been carried on contrary to the laws of China. But then, my
lords, it has been so carried on with the knowledge of the local
authorities on the spot, who received large payments, in the shape of
bribes, or in the way of duties, possibly both, for allowing the import
of this opium,--its admission into the ports of China. It appears that,
although the trade was forbidden by the law of China, it was known to
the authorities of China, to the emperor himself, and to all the
servants of the government, that it had existed for many years, and that
the discussion had continued for many months, upon the question,
whether the trade should be allowed, and continued, under a duty, or
whether it should be discontinued altogether. Allow me to ask the noble
earl, who has contended so very strongly for the Emperor of China,
whether that morality was so very great while he allowed that trade to
be continued? and whether his morality can be improved in any respect by
opium being introduced upon the payment of a large duty, instead of its
being introduced by means of smuggling, and under bribes paid to the
officers of his government; and even, as it has been shown, from the
exterior waters into the interior of the country, in the Mandarin boats,
that is, in boats, either in the service of the country, or, at all
events, under the charge of officers of the government? I really cannot
see the force of the noble earl's argument with respect to the
illegality of the trade, when it is as clear as possible that its
existence was well known to the government of China, and that no step
had ever been taken to put it down; but, on the contrary, the means of
continuing it, and of raising a larger duty upon it, were under
consideration; and, in fact, the trade was finally put down, and
discontinued only because it was supposed that it occasioned the export
of a larger quantity of native or Sycee silver.

_May 12, 1840._

* * * * *

_The Opium not the cause of the war with China. Defence of Captain
Elliot._

The noble earl says that this war is to be attributed to the opium!
Why? there was no British opium in China at the very time these other
outrages were committed, and when this very language was held; and, as
far as I am able to judge, there was then no opium in the possession of
the British merchants there. An order had been issued to deliver it up,
and this gentleman had gone down the river for the purpose of
surrendering the whole. The war, then, has grown out of another state of
circumstances. First of all, there was a claim for the surrender of an
Englishman to be put to death, because a Chinese had lost his life in an
affray. Captain Elliot, as became an English officer, instituted an
inquiry to discover whether a certain number of persons, stated to have
been in an affray, had been guilty of the murder or not, and the result
of the inquiry was, that he could not bring the charge home to any one;
that he had no reason to suspect any one. The Chinese government still
insisted that these six men should be given up. Captain Elliot refused,
and that, I take it, is one of the causes of the war.

Another of the causes of the war is this--that a provision had been made
that matters should be restored to their former state, in proportion as
the opium should be delivered up; that the British inhabitants should
have the use of the native servants; that they should have the common
comforts of life, provisions, and all that was necessary for
subsistence; and, finally, that the trade should be re-opened, and
matters allowed to resume their usual course. After having given that
promise, it is discovered that this Chinese lost his life in an affray
in which American seamen were engaged as well as the English; and then a
fourth proposition was advanced, which was this, that every master of a
vessel, proceeding up the Canton river, should sign a bond, submitting
himself, and all on board his ship, to be dealt with according to the
laws of China. The noble lord has found fault with Captain Elliot upon
this, as well as upon another matter. Now, this objection is most
extraordinary, and it rather tends to prove that the noble earl, though
he has paid great attention to this particular blue book, is not very
well acquainted with former transactions in that country, or he would
have found that former traders with China had invariably refused to
subscribe to such proposals, and that they had broken off the trade with
the Chinese, rather than do it; rather than give up British subjects to
be dealt with according to the laws of China. I think they acted most
properly; and that Captain Elliot, very much to his credit, refused to
do it; at the same time, he did no more than his duty. He did what
others would I trust have done under the same circumstances; and he is
entitled to great praise for his firmness in resisting that demand. Then
there is another circumstance in which Captain Elliot acted as became
him. I allude particularly to his refusal to give up Mr. Dent. It was
declared that the opium trade was not to be continued; that it was an
illegal trade; and that dealing in opium should not be suffered. It was
supposed that Mr. Dent had been a person very much concerned in that
trade, and had made a large fortune, as I believe many others have
done, by that illicit trade. And Captain Elliot was blamed, when it was
sought to have Mr. Dent given up, because he, her majesty's
representative and the chief superintendent of trade in that country,
stepped forward and said, "I won't allow this gentleman to be given over
to the Chinese government, and to be tried as the Chinese government may
direct." I should, my lords, be ashamed of the name of Englishman, if
there could be found one in her majesty's service capable of acting
otherwise than this gentleman did, under such circumstances. The noble
earl has stated that a great deal of difficulty would have been got rid
of, if Captain Elliot had complied with the request of the Chinese; and
that the Americans gave up a seaman to be dealt with according to the
Chinese laws. I am sorry for it. I must say, it was not their duty to do
so. They would have done better to have taken a leaf out of our book,
and to have followed the example of the East India Company, to put an
end to the trade rather than risk the life of one of her majesty's
subjects, or give him up to be tried by the Chinese government.

_May 12, 1840._

* * * * *

If we cannot sustain our power in the Canadas, we must necessarily lose
all our dominions in North America.

_June 30, 1840._

* * * * *

Colonial responsible government, and the sovereignty of Great Britain,
are completely incompatible.

_June 30, 1840._

_Importance of Colonies to the Mother Country._

I have observed in this country, for some length of time, a growing
desire to get rid of our North American dominions--a desire that they
should become republics. This desire prevails amongst a very large party
in this country. I am aware that there are also others--not, however,
acting from the same motive--who desire that the separation should take
place; tranquilly, if possible, but that at all events it should take
place. In my opinion, these gentlemen are mistaken. It is my decided
opinion, that, considering the resources and the power of these
colonies, this country would sustain a heavy loss, indeed, if these
colonies were to be separated from it.

_June 30, 1840._

* * * * *

_Religious Education must be provided out of the Funds of the Church._

It appears to me that there is no difference of opinion amongst us on
these points--namely, that means must be found of preaching the word of
God to the people of England; and I go further--for this point is also
not disputed--and I say that those means must proceed, in the first
instance, from the church, and that they must be exhausted before the
public is called on for other means; in providing those means, you will
not only be performing a duty incumbent upon you, but you will also be
following the example of every other nation in the world. It has been
my lot to live among idolaters--among persons of all creeds, and of all
religions; but I never knew yet of a single instance in which public
means were not provided sufficient to teach the people the religion of
their country. They might be false religions; I know but of one true
one; but yet means were never wanting to teach those false religions;
and I hope that we shall not have done with this subject until we have
found sufficient means for teaching the people of England their duty to
their Maker, and their duty to one another, founded on their duty to
that Maker.

_July 30, 1840._

* * * * *

_Necessity of administering Oaths._

I entreat your lordships to pause, and recollect that the foundation of
all justice is truth; and that the mode of discovering truth has always
been to administer an oath, in order that the witness may give his
deposition under a high sanction. I hope your lordships will not adopt
another of those bills which have been before your lordships only a few
days, and which suggest, in truth, nothing more than a way of enabling a
witness, who thinks proper to say he has conscientious scruples, to
escape the solemnity of an oath. I admit that the inconvenience of the
present state of the law falls on the community rather than on the
individuals; but, at the same time, I think that, by every one of those
relaxations, we shake the foundations of justice.

_August 4, 1840._

_Church-rate Martyrs--true state of the Case._

In my opinion, this case is a very simple one, and one on which there
can be no doubt as to the course which should be taken. Here is a man
who has been sued for a sum of money, which, it is understood, was
lawfully due by him. The law renders him liable to pay that sum of
money, and the law supports the proceedings against him for the recovery
of it. This person could have easily avoided these proceedings, by
simply paying the sum of 5s. 6d., which was demanded of him; or he could
have gone into court and had the question fairly tried, whether he was
lawfully bound to pay it or not, according to the laws of the country in
which he resides; for, of course, he must be bound by the laws of his
country, as well as all other British subjects. But he has not chosen to
take either course. He has said, "I will not pay that money;" and, in
consequence of his own conduct, a large amount has been incurred in the
way of costs. These costs are not matters of speculation or amusement,
they are realities; they are sums of money paid for the labour of
certain individuals, for certain services performed in the execution of
their duties, under the legal authority of the ecclesiastical courts,
and in this suit. Now, those costs must be paid. Were we to let the man
off from paying the 5s. 6d. for the rate, that remission would not get
rid of his liability for the costs; these latter must be paid, either by
himself or his friends, or else they must be paid by the other party,
by the lawful suitors, by the lawful plaintiffs, who had a right
originally to recover the money. They are the persons who would have to
pay the costs, unless your lordships consent to insert the clause
proposed by my noble friend. Somebody must pay the costs after all. But
it is said that the defendant is not to pay the costs, and that he is to
be let out of prison. Well, you may let him out, if you please; but,
surely, you would not call upon the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred
by _his_ conduct? That would not be justice. That would not be fair
between man and man. Not a soul in this house could be of that opinion.
It is not consistent either with law or justice to throw these expenses
upon those on whom the law of the country has laid the necessity of
incurring them. Not they, but he who, by his own conduct, rendered the
proceedings imperative, ought to be made to pay the costs.

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