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




The pope, it seemed, had in the appointment of bishops, relinquished all
to the crown, except the mere conferring of a spiritual blessing. But
how had that concession been received by the people of Ireland? It had
excited the utmost discontent, and was regarded as an abandonment of the
essential principles of their religion, and an attack on their national
independence. Did that arise from the people of Ireland having a less
clear idea of national independence than other people? No; but they felt
if the executive power possessed any control over the appointment of the
Roman Catholic bishops, some security would be thereby obtained for the
Protestant church. Considering, then, that the whole question turned on
the degree of security which could be given, and looking at the various
securities which had at several times been proposed, he had never yet
seen anything that came up to his notion of that which ought to be
required. As to what had been said of the domestic nomination of
bishops, he did not see how the laws of the country could operate upon
it, so as to make it an adequate security. Then as to the oath of
allegiance which the bishop was to take, of what avail could it be, that
the law required this oath from a bishop, appointed God knows how, or by
whom? When all these circumstances were considered, the state of the
Irish Catholic church, the way in which the reformation had been
effected, the rivalry and enmity between the Catholics and the
established church, and the inadequacy of all securities which had been
proposed, there was in his opinion, enough to decide the question; for,
the first and greatest duty of the legislature was, to secure the
establishments as settled at the revolution.

_House of Lords, May 17, 1819._

* * * * *

County meetings if properly regulated, are a fair constitutional mode of
taking the sense of the county; but this cannot be the case if they are
attended by a mob for the express purpose of supporting one side.

_House of Lords, January 26, 1821._

* * * * *

_The Porte our ancient Ally._

The Ottoman Porte is the ancient ally of this country. It forms an
essential part of the balance of power in Europe. The preservation of
the Ottoman Porte has been an object of importance not merely to England
but also to the whole of Europe; and the changes of possession which
have taken place in the east of Europe within the recollection of all
who hear me, render its existence as an independent and powerful state,
necessary to the well being of this country.

In the late war, had it not been for the influence of the councils of
England over the Porte, I may safely say that the disaster which finally
led to the establishment of Europe as it now is, would not have occurred
to the extent it did in 1812. Under these circumstances I think we may
term the Ottoman Porte the "ancient ally" and friend of this country,
even though the treaties upon which our alliance is founded are not of a
hundred years standing.

_House of Lords, Jan. 29, 1828._

* * * * *

_Battle of Navarino an untoward Event. Sir E. Codrington acquitted of
all blame._

There is one other subject to which I shall address myself, I mean the
sense in which the word "untoward" has been used. It was intended by
"untoward" to convey, that the event referred to was unexpected--was
unfortunate. The sense in which the word was used was this: in the
treaty which is not yet before the house, and which cannot, therefore,
regularly come under discussion, though all of us have read it, it is
mentioned as one stipulation, that the execution of it, if possible,
shall not lead to hostilities; and therefore, when the execution of it
did lead to hostilities, it was a consequence which the government did
not anticipate, and which it has, therefore, a right to call untoward.

It was hoped by the former government, that the treaty could be executed
without risk of commencing hostilities; and that is rendered quite
indisputable, not merely by the treaty, but by the force which the
contracting parties sent into the Mediterranean to superintend its
operation.

The late administration entertained hopes that those treaties could be
carried into execution without hostilities, as your lordships must have
perceived from what you have seen of those treaties themselves, as well
as from the nature of the force sent to see them carried into execution;
and when it was ultimately found that hostilities were likely to ensue,
every one must look upon it as an untoward event which could give rise
to such a state of things.

When the news of the affair which took place at Navarino reached
Constantinople, it was apprehended that a war would ensue, and therefore
every one was justified in looking upon it as an untoward event.

It is gratifying, however, to find from his majesty's speech, that those
appearances of hostility have ceased to exist, and that hopes are
entertained that no impediment will present itself to an amicable
adjustment of the question; this, however, does not deprive the
transaction of the character of "untowardness" which it originally
possessed.

But in making this statement, do I make the slightest charge, do I cast
the most distant imputation upon the gallant officer who commanded at
Navarino? Certainly not. That gallant officer, in doing as he has done,
discharged what he felt to be his duty to his country. His majesty's
government have taken that gallant officer's conduct into consideration,
and have acquitted him of all blame; and, therefore, it would ill
become me to cast the slightest imputation on the distinguished action
he performed. It should be recollected, that the gallant admiral was
placed in a situation of great delicacy as well as difficulty. He was
placed in the command of a combined squadron, in conjunction with two
foreign admirals; and his conduct was such, that they placed the most
implicit confidence in him, and allowed him to lead them to victory. My
lords, I should feel myself unworthy of the situation which I hold in
his majesty's councils, if I thought myself capable of uttering a single
syllable against that gallant admiral, admiring, as I do, the intrepid
bravery with which he conducted himself in a moment of much danger and
difficulty.

_House of Lords, January 29, 1828._

* * * * *

_Reason for being Prime Minister._

When I received his majesty's commands to give my opinion respecting the
formation of a ministry, it was far from my wish to place myself at its
head, or to take any office, other than that which I already held; but
finding, in the course of the negotiation which arose out of the
commands of his majesty, a difficulty in getting another individual to
fill the place, and that it was the unanimous wish of those who are now
my colleagues, that I should take it, I determined to accept it; but
having so determined, I resigned the office of commander-in-chief.

_House of Lords, January 29, 1828._

* * * * *

_The Doctrine of Non-interference._

Much has been said here and elsewhere, at various times, on the question
of interference by one state in the affairs of another. I do not admit
the right of one country to interfere with the internal affairs of
another country, except where the law of necessity or great political
interests may render interference absolutely necessary. But I say that
non-interference is the rule, and interference the exception. This is
the ground of the policy on which this country acts. She disdains a
daily interference with the affairs of other countries.

_House of Lords, February 11, 1828._

* * * * *

_No Personal or Political Hostility to Canning._

I rise to protest against any such imputation being cast upon me, as
that I ever entertained any personal hostility to Mr. Canning. On a
former occasion I stated distinctly to your lordships, why I did not
think proper to remain in the government of which Mr. Canning was the
head. The communications that passed between me and Mr. Canning have,
unfortunately, I must be allowed to say, been made public enough, and I
defy any man to point out anything like personal feelings in those
communications. It is true, that when I found it necessary to withdraw
from the government, I also thought it my duty to lay down the military
office which I hold; but I beg leave to call your lordships'
recollection to the explanation which I gave at that time, and to my
subsequent conduct. After I left the government, I always met Mr.
Canning in the way in which I had been accustomed to meet him, and did
not depart from those habits which had marked our previous intercourse.
But I will go further and say, that I had no hostility towards Mr.
Canning's government. I did, it is true, propose that a clause should be
added to the corn-bill, but did I not at the same time beg of the
government to adopt that clause, or something like it, and not to
abandon the bill? I must again repeat, that to the day of his death I
felt no personal hostility to Mr. Canning; and that I am equally free
from the imputation of having entertained any political hostility
towards him. To whatever persons the declaration of the right honourable
gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) was intended to apply.[9] I claim to myself
the right of not being included in the number of Mr. Canning's enemies.

[Footnote 9: Referring to an angry speech of that gentleman in the
Commons.]

_House of Lords, February 25, 1828._

* * * * *

_Corn Law of 1828, Principle on which founded._

Your lordships are all aware that a variety of opinions exist throughout
the country respecting the introduction of foreign corn; one class of
persons maintaining that its importation should be prohibited; while
others contend for its free introduction into the markets of the
country. I have considered it my duty, and my colleagues also have
considered it theirs, in the measure which they are about to propose to
parliament, to endeavour to steer their course between the two extremes,
and to propose a measure which shall have the effect of conciliating all
parties, be at the same time favourable to the public, and shall be
permanent. Your lordships will recollect, notwithstanding the difference
of opinion which exists on this subject, all parties agree, generally,
that the corn growers of this country ought, in some measure, to be
protected.

The number of individuals, either in parliament or out of it, who
maintain that foreign corn should be altogether free of duty, are very
few indeed. Some persons, undoubtedly, think that a small fixed duty
ought to be imposed; and I, my lords, should certainly say here, that if
any such fixed duty were imposed, it ought to be a very small one; but I
repeat, that whatever may be the particular doctrines or opinions of one
class of persons or another, all agree that some protection ought to be
afforded to the agriculture of this country. This opinion is founded on
the great burden of taxation upon the country generally, as well as on
the particular burdens on the land; and on the fact that the labouring
classes here are better fed, clothed, and lodged, than the people of the
same class in other countries. It is admitted by those who entertain
this opinion in favour of a low duty, that their expectation and
intention are, that the poorer lands of this country, which have been
brought into cultivation by the application of great labour, and by the
expenditure of large capital, should at once be thrown out of
cultivation; and even the richer lands would become, comparatively,
unprofitable in consequence of the adoption of their system. I will
maintain that this country has been brought to its present high state of
cultivation, and consequent internal wealth, by the fostering protection
which has invariably been given to agriculture, and which has induced
gentlemen to lay out their capital in redeeming waste lands and bringing
them into cultivation. The result of such a system would be--to throw
out of cultivation the land thus redeemed from waste; to reduce the
extent of cultivation of the richer lands, consequently to lessen the
productive power of the country; and finally to throw us for subsistence
and support on the resources of foreign nations. My lords,--I will not
exaggerate the effects likely to be produced by the pursuing of a system
such as that to which I have alluded; but I beg your lordships to
reflect on the consequences which must result, if the powers, from whose
dominions these resources are generally drawn, should think proper to
lay a heavy tax on the export of such corn, or that it should be subject
to such an operation by any other state, in its transit to this country.
I entreat your lordships to consider what must be the consequences of
such a measure in its results to this country; a measure, too, in which
I may say, that foreign states might, from circumstances, be highly
justified. But supposing such moderation on the part of those states,
that they should continue to allow us to draw our supplies from their
dominions; supposing we could be supplied from other countries--America,
for instance; yet I entreat your lordships to observe, that this
country would be constantly, under the proposed system of fixed duty,
placed in the state in which it found itself in years of famine and
scarcity, which occurred in both the last and present century, and would
of consequence be exposed to the highest possible prices for wheat.
This, my Lords, I say, would be the inevitable consequence.

The cost of production, in Poland, for instance, would not be increased;
but the prices would be regulated here, not by the prices of that
country, but by the scarcity price of this country, and by the profits
of all those who might be, directly or indirectly, concerned in the
contemplated importation of corn, in such a state of things as that to
which I have alluded. Under these circumstances, a low duty would not be
productive of a reduction in price; indeed, so far from diminution, I am
confident it would produce an enormous increase. But, my Lords, I would
ask, even supposing it were otherwise, whether it would be proper to
adopt such a measure, in reference to its probable effect in other
respects? My Lords, look to Ireland, and consider what must by the
inevitable consequence if agriculture is not to be encouraged in that
country--a country, which, during the last year supplied England with
more than 2,000,000 quarters of grain. The quantity of wheat alone
imported from Ireland last year, was no less than 400,000 quarters. I do
therefore, beg your Lordships to consider what must be the consequence
of cutting off from that country nearly the only source of industry--the
only manufacture, with one exception, which is established in that
country. No man, whether connected with that country or not, can for a
moment think of imposing such a sacrifice on that country. On the
contrary, I am disposed to think, that many of your Lordships will be
ready to make considerable sacrifices to procure for the people of
Ireland a share of that plenty their industry affords us. But, my Lords,
I speak not only with reference to Ireland, but with reference to this
country. I am ready to state that the gentlemen of this country have, by
the extent of their capital, and the labour which they have employed on
their estates, raised the agriculture of this kingdom to its present
prosperous condition; and nothing would be more unjust than to take from
them that protection by which they have been enabled to bring
cultivation to the state in which it now is, and to deprive them of
those profits which are so justly their due, on account of the capital
laid out by them.

I will say, that the merchant, that the manufacturer, the poor, and the
whole public, are interested in the maintenance of the independent
affluence of the nobility and gentry of this country,--that the
Government are interested in supporting their influence, on account of
the assistance which has always been derived from them in every branch
of internal government, and on account of the support which they have
afforded to Government under every circumstance. If it were in my power
to make corn cheaper by diminishing the protection which the landed
gentry have always received, I would not do it at the expense of
Ireland, and of all the evils which the measure must inflict upon the
essential interests of this country.

My Lords, having expressed my opinion upon the system of importation at
a low duty, I will now offer a few observations with respect to the
other system,--that of entire prohibition; and which, I must say, has
been greatly and justly complained of. The truth is, that such a system
could not be carried into execution without exposing the country to the
greatest possible evils:--first of all, from want--next from high
prices, and also from a superabundance of corn, arising from the
introduction of a greater quantity of wheat than required being in the
country at a period when the scarcity might have been relieved by an
abundant harvest; and, lastly, from the depression of prices, affecting
not only the producers of corn in this country, but also the importers
of foreign grain. My Lords, evils like these can only be relieved by the
illegal interference of the Government, or by ministers coming to
Parliament, in order to induce it to consent to a suspension of the law.

Such, my Lords, is the history of the corn question as regards
prohibition; and there is not the least doubt that the system has
produced all the evils to which I have alluded at one period or another.

_March 31, 1828._

* * * * *

_Reason for repealing the Test and Corporation Acts._

I fully agree that the security of the Church of England, and the union
existing between it and the state, depend neither on the law about to be
repealed by the present bill, nor upon the provisions of this measure
itself. That union and security, which we must all desire to see
continued, depend upon the oath taken by his Majesty, to which we are
all, in our respective stations, parties, and not only on that oath, but
on the Act of Settlement, and the different acts of union from time to
time agreed to; all of which provide for the intimate and inseparable
union of church and state, and for the security of both.

The question is, what security does the existing system of laws, as they
now stand, afford the church establishment? My lords, I am very dubious
as to the amount of security afforded through the means of a system of
exclusion from office, to be carried into effect by a law which it is
necessary to suspend by an annual act, that admits every man into office
whom it was the intention of the original framers of the law to exclude.
It is perfectly true it was not the intention of those who brought in
that suspension law originally, that dissenters from the church of
England should be permitted to enter into corporations under its
provisions. The law was intended to relieve those whom time or
circumstances had rendered unable to qualify themselves according to the
system which government had devised. However, the dissenters availed
themselves of the relaxation of the law, for the purpose of getting into
corporations, and this the law allowed. What security, then, I ask, my
Lords, is to be found in the existing system? So far from dissenters
being excluded by the corporation and test acts, from all corporations,
so far is this from being the fact, that, as must be well known to your
Lordships, some corporations are absolutely and entirely in the
possession of dissenters. Can you suppose that the repeal of laws so
inoperative as these, can afford any serious obstacle to the perfect
security of the church, and the permanent union of that establishment
with the state? The fact is, that the existing laws have not only failed
completely in answering their intended purpose, but they are anomalous
and absurd--anomalous in their origin, absurd in their operation.

If a man were asked the question, at his elevation to any corporate
office, whether he had received the sacrament of the church of England,
and if he said "No," he lost every vote that had been tendered on his
behalf, and there was an end of his election, but if, on the contrary,
by accident or design, he got in without the question relative to the
sacrament being put to him, then the votes tendered for him were held
good, and his election valid; so that no power could remove him from the
office which he held. I ask, is there any security in that? My noble
friend says, that the original intention of the framers of these acts,
was that the sacrament should not be taken by dissenters; but the law
requires that a man, on entering into any corporation, shall receive the
sacrament, without regard to his religious belief. Thus an individual
whose object it is to get into a particular office, may feel disposed,
naturally enough, to take the sacrament before his election, merely as a
matter of form, and thus a sacred rite of our church is profaned, and
prostituted to a shameful and scandalous purpose. I confess my Lords, I
should have opposed this bill, if I thought it calculated to weaken the
securities at present enjoyed by the church. However, I agreed not to
oppose the bill; though I consented in the first instance to oppose it,
in order to preserve the blessings of religious peace. I was willing to
preserve the system which had given us this peace for forty years, for
during that time the name and the claims of the dissenters not been
heard of. But now they have come forward, and their claims are approved
of by a great majority of the House of Commons, and the bill has come up
to this house. If it be opposed by the majority of this house, it is to
be feared, now that the claims are made, that such an opposition will
carry hostility throughout the country, and introduce a degree of
rancour into every parish of the kingdom, which I should not wish to be
responsible for.

_April 17, 1828._

* * * * *

_Additional reasons for repealing the Test Act._

I have not called on your lordships to agree to this bill because it has
been passed by the House of Commons; I merely assigned that as one of
the reasons which induced me to recommend the measure to your Lordships.
I certainly did allude to the feeling in favour of the bill which has
for some time been growing up in the House of Commons, as a good reason
for entertaining it in your Lordships' house,--but other reasons also
operated on my mind. Many individuals of high eminence in the church and
who are as much interested as any other persons in the kingdom in the
preservation of the Constitution, have expressed themselves as being
favourable to an alteration of the law. The religious feelings of those
venerable persons disposed them to entertain this measure, because they
felt strong objections to the sacramental test. Under these
circumstances, wishing to advance and preserve the blessings of
religious peace and tranquillity; conceiving the present a good
opportunity for securing to the country so inestimable an advantage,--I
felt it to be my duty to recommend this measure to your Lordships. It is
on all these grounds that I support the bill, and not on the single
ground, the circumstance of its having been carried in the House of
Commons, as a noble Lord has stated. I am not one of those who consider
that the best means of preserving the constitution of this country, is
by rigidly adhering to measures which have been called for by particular
circumstances, because those measures have been in existence for two
hundred years; for the lapse of time might render it proper to modify,
if not to remove them altogether.

I admit my Lords, that for about two hundred years, the religious peace
of the country has been preserved under these bills; but, when
Parliament is discussing the best means of preserving the constitution
of the country, it is surely worth while to inquire whether any and
what changes, in what have been deemed the securities of the church, can
safely be made, so as to conciliate all parties.

All I hope is, that your Lordships will not unnecessarily make any
alteration in the measure, that would be likely to give dissatisfaction;
that your Lordships will not do anything which may be calculated to
remove that conciliating spirit which is now growing up,--a spirit that
will redound to the benefit of the country, and which, so far from
opposing, we ought, on the contrary, to do everything to foster and
promote.

_April 21st 1828._

* * * * *

_Emancipation.--Will oppose it, (April 1828,) unless he sees a great
change in the government_.

There is no person in this house, whose feelings and sentiments, after
long consideration, are more decided than mine are, with respect to the
subject of the Roman Catholic claims; and I must say, that until I see a
very great change in that question, I certainly shall continue to oppose
it.

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

William Carleton - "Phelim O'toole's Courtship and Other Stories"

Various - "The Nursery, No. 165. September, 1880, Vol. 28"

or: Kisari Mohan Ganguli - "The Mahabharata of Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa, Volume 2"

Various - "Punch, or the London Charivari, Vol. 102, April 30, 1892"

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