MAXIMS AND OPINIONS OF HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON. (continued 2)

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of the Church of England, and the union existing between it and the state, depend neither on the law about to be repealed by the present bill, nor upon the provisions of this measure itself.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.

April 28th, 1828.

* * * * *

State of the Poor in Ireland.

I am thoroughly convinced that no part of his Majesty's dominions so imperiously requires the constant and particular attention of his Majesty's servants as Ireland does. A noble earl has stated that there are in Ireland 8,000,000 of people, the situation of 6,000,000 of whom demands inquiry. He has told your Lordships likewise, that all the wealth of Ireland is not sufficient to give employment to those people. Now, certainly, I cannot but think that this is an exaggerated statement on the part of the noble earl.

It cannot be supposed that there are 6,000,000 of the Irish population who require employment—I cannot admit that the whole of those people are unemployed. It is not true that they suffer this distress at all times,—it is not true that they suffer the same degree of distress in different years; but it is unquestionably true, that they do suffer great distress at various periods, owing to the casualties of the seasons, and to the particular species of food on which they subsist. Such is the plain fact. The noble earl has stated, that the people are able to procure that sort of food on which they chiefly live, at the rate of three-farthings a stone. Now, really, if those people do not suffer distress, except that which is occasioned by the untowardness of the seasons; if those 6,000,000 of people can get provisions at the price mentioned by the noble earl, in favourable seasons,—it does appear to me that the case hardly calls for inquiry, except at a time when their food has failed in consequence of an unproductive season. But then the noble earl has asserted that the distress arises from want of work, and that it would take more than all the wealth of Ireland to procure employment for the people. "Let us then," said the noble earl, "relieve the sick, the lame, the aged, and the impotent." The noble earl has said, that one of the great evils of Ireland is want of capital; but I must beg leave to tell the noble earl, that profusion of capital alone will not prevent the existence of a numerous body of poor, and to prove the fact let the noble earl look to the situation of England. There is no want of capital in this country; the noble earl has told your lordships that there are invested here L9,000,000 of capital belonging to Ireland alone; and yet, with all this capital, the support of the poor required last year amounted to no less than L7,000,000 of rates.

May 21st. 1828.

* * * * *

Catholic Emancipation.

A noble friend of mine has stated to the house, that the proposed measure is inconsistent with the constitution, as established at the revolution; and another noble lord has concurred in that statement. If I had been going to propose a measure which would introduce a predominant Catholic power into Parliament, I should then be doing that which is clearly inconsistent with the constitution. But I am not going to do any such thing. There are degrees of power at least. Will any man venture to say, that Catholic power does not exist at present, either here or in Ireland? I will address myself more particularly to the noble Lords who have so pointedly opposed me, and I will ask them whether Roman Catholic power was not introduced into Ireland by measures of their own? Did not some noble lords exert their influence to the utmost to produce that very power, which has rendered a measure like that which I have announced to Parliament absolutely necessary? As such is the case, I implore noble Lords to look at the situation of the country, and the state of society which it has produced. Whether it has been brought about by the existence of these disabilities, or by the Catholic Association, I will not pretend to say; but this I will say, that no man who has looked at the state of things for the last two years, can proceed longer upon the old system, in the existing condition of Ireland, and of mens' opinions on the subject, both in that country and in this. My opinion is, that it is the wish of the majority of the people, that this question should be settled one way or other. It is upon that principle, and in conformity to that wish, that I and my colleagues have undertaken to bring the adjustment of it under the consideration of Parliament.

February 5, 1829.

* * * * *

Defence of his Conduct with respect to Emancipation.

I have repeatedly declared my earnest wish to see the Roman Catholic question settled. I believe nothing could ever have been more distinct or explicit than my expression of that wish; and is it a matter of surprise that the person entertaining it should avail himself of the first opportunity of proposing the adoption of that which, over and over again, he declared himself anxiously to wish? On this particular question I had long ago made up my mind, as a member of this house, to take a particular course. It may be thought peculiar as a matter of taste; but, for many years, I have acted upon the determination never to vote for the affirmation of this question until the Government, acting as a Government, should propose it to the legislature. My noble relation (Lord Longford) knows, that ever since the year 1810, the several successive Governments of this country have been formed upon a principle which prevented their ever proposing, as a Government, the adoption of any measure of relief in regard to the Catholics. In order to the formation of a cabinet which, acting as a Government, could propose this measure, it was, in the first place, necessary to obtain the consent of that individual, the most interested by his station, his duty, and the most sacred of all obligations, of any individual in the empire. It was necessary, I say, that I should obtain the consent of that individual, before the members of the Government could consider the question as a Government one. Now, under such circumstances as these, would it have been proper in me to have breathed a syllable on the subject, until I had obtained the consent of the illustrious personage to whom I have alluded?[10] I call upon my noble relative to answer this question, if he can, in the negative. I beg of my noble relative to ask himself this question, whether I was wrong in having kept secret my views, since the month of July or August, not talking to any man upon the subject, until I had the consent of that exalted personage, to form a Government upon the principle of taking the question to which I have alluded into consideration? My noble relative ought to place himself in my situation—he ought to see what was expected of me; and then, instead of blaming me for acting as I have done, he would see that, if I had acted otherwise, I should have been highly blameable. When the question had been decided—when I received the permission, so as to be enabled to make the declaration—on not having made which, alone the accusation of surprise can be founded—the opening of the session was so near, that it was impossible to make known what had occurred earlier, or in any other manner than by the speech from the Throne.

[Footnote 10: Lord Longford had accused him of concealment.]

February 10, 1829.

* * * * *

The Emancipation Bill not the result of Fear.

He would positively reject the charge which had been so positively made, that those measures had been suggested to his Majesty's ministers, or that their minds had been at all influenced by the fear of anything that would occur in this or any other country. He totally denied the truth of such an assertion. There never was a period during the last twenty years in which, looking to the circumstances and relations of this country, there was a more total absence of all cause for fear than the present; and whatever might be the consequences of this measure, he would maintain, that the period at which it was introduced, showed sufficiently that its introduction did not proceed from fear; and that such was the fact, he was ready to prove to any man upon the clearest possible evidence. But, though these measures had not been suggested by fear nor by intimidation, it would be found, when they were brought forward, that they were founded upon the clear and decided opinion, that this question ought to be settled, and that considerable sacrifices had been made by himself and his colleagues in this, and in the other House of Parliament, with a view to the final adjustment of it. In doing so, he begged the noble Lord on the cross bench to believe, that not the least considerable or the least disagreeable sacrifice on his part, was the necessity imposed on him of differing from the noble lord on this subject. But he would not talk of his own sacrifices—they were trifling, when compared with the sacrifices which had been made by some of his noble friends near him, and by his right honourable friend in another place. He could not conceive a greater sacrifice than must have been made by his right honourable friend, to bring his mind to the determination of carrying this measure. It was obvious that nothing but an imperious sense of duty had induced his right honourable friend to make such a sacrifice; but the inconveniences and dangers which had arisen from the present state of things in this country and in Ireland, had left no alternative but the adoption of this measure; and now that he had adopted it, he would use his best endeavours, in concert with his colleagues, to carry it into effect. Under such circumstances, he would entreat their lordships to wait until the whole question should have come before them. When the measure should have been well considered by them, they would then see whether it would be attended with the dangerous consequences ascribed to it—and whether the carrying it would not place the Protestant Constitution of these realms upon a better footing than it had been since the union with Ireland. He would not now enter into the discussion, whether the consequences of this measure would be injurious to that Throne, for the maintenance of which he was ready to sacrifice his life, or whether the measure was likely to produce those effects which were apprehended by his noble friend on the cross bench. Of this he was certain, that the existence of the dangers which some noble lords seemed to apprehend from the adjustment of this question, they were never able to establish; and whenever the discussion of the measure came before their lordships, he would be ready to prove, that the Protestant institutions of this country were exposed to more dangers at present, than they would be exposed to after the adoption of the measure that would be proposed.

February 16, 1829.

* * * * *

Former Associations in Ireland could not be put down.—Mr. Pitt for Emancipation.

He must say, he apprehended from the number of persons in the habit of attending that Association, the nature of the speeches there delivered, and the measures to which all alike appeared parties, that the people of Ireland at large had been parties to the Association.

He proposed the present bill as a preliminary measure; the necessity for which was founded on the statements already made to their Lordships. He considered any other mode of proceeding as inconsistent with the dignity of the Crown, and of Parliament; and as absolutely necessary, in order to reconcile to the ulterior measure which he intended to propose, the good and worthy men in this country, who viewed with dismay and disgust the violent and unconstitutional acts of the Association. He entreated their Lordships to consider, that the eyes of all Europe were upon them; and that they should do nothing which could give any man ground to believe that, in the steps they were about to take, they were guided by any other motive than that of expediency and good policy.

* * * * *

If they looked to the state in which the Roman Catholic question stood in Parliament, from the period of the Union down to the present, they would see the prevalence of a growing opinion in its favour. Mr. Pitt had, in his time, considered it necessary to admit, that the laws enforcing eligibility upon Catholics ought to be reviewed, for the purposes of modification; and, under the repeated assurances of different eminent statesmen, a Roman Catholic influence had undoubtedly grown up in Ireland, which it was high time to satisfy by a reasonable change of policy. For some years after this subject had attracted parliamentary attention, there were reasons of a highly creditable nature, both to individual ministers and to Parliament, why it would have been improper and impolitic to have brought the measure forward as a measure of government; but, since the year 1811, these particular reasons had not been in full operation; and the subject, notwithstanding the divided state of the Cabinet upon it, had been constantly discussed, and during all that time, had been gaining ground. He was not prepared to describe here the mode in which the principle of a divided government had operated upon the Catholic question; but he defied any member of the government, at the period to which he referred, to deny that, whether the question before them was one of education for Ireland, one for the alteration of the Criminal Law, or one for the regulation of tithes, this division was felt to affect one and all of these topics; in fact, that none of them could come to be discussed, without some reference to the great subject which was so long in agitation. The time had, he hoped, now arrived, when Parliament was prepared to settle it.

February 19, 1829.

* * * * *

Unparalleled State of Ireland in 1829.

From all he had seen and read relative to Ireland, during the last two years, he was forced to arrive at this conclusion, namely, that he did not believe there was on the face of the globe any country claiming the denomination of a civilized country, situated as that country now was, under the Government of his Majesty and the Imperial Parliament.

February 19, 1829.

The Roman Catholic Association dangerous.

The true description of this Association was, in his opinion, to be found stated in the speech which had been delivered from the Throne, on the first day of the session. In that speech, after observing that the state of Ireland had been "the object of his Majesty's continued solicitude," it was further observed, "his Majesty laments that in that part of the United Kingdom, an association should still exist which is dangerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution—- which keeps alive disorder and ill-will amongst his Majesty's subjects, and which must, if permitted to continue, effectually obstruct every effort permanently to improve the condition of Ireland." The speech proceeded to say—"His Majesty confidently relies on the wisdom and on the support of his Parliament; and his Majesty feels assured, that you will commit to him such powers as may enable his Majesty to maintain his just authority." Such was a just description of the recent state of the Roman Catholic Association; but he believed he was justified in stating, that in the original institution and formation of the society, on the subject of which it was his duty to address their lordships, there was nothing strictly illegal. The illegality subsequently complained of, and which it was the object of this, as well as of a former bill, to suppress, proceeded from its acts. Those acts consisted principally in levying a tax upon certain of his Majesty's subjects, called Catholic Rent; and this, by means and acts of extreme violence, which occasioned constant heart-burnings and jealousies amongst his Majesty's subjects—by appointing persons to collect the rent—by appointing other individuals to be treasurers of it; farther, by adopting measures for organising the Catholic population—by appointing persons to superintend that organisation—and by assuming to themselves the government of the country, and still more, affecting to assume it. Besides, they expended this rent in a manner contrary to, and utterly inconsistent with, all law and order, and the Constitution of the country. But this was not the least material part of the danger occasioned by the Catholic Association. Part of the money thus improperly obtained was spent for election purposes. And here he called the attention of the noble and learned lord, to acts proving the existence in Parliament of a Roman Catholic influence, and of an influence directly derived from this Association. He would not discuss that subject further at the present moment; but he begged noble lords not to forget it, in discussing the details of a measure which he should have to propose hereafter for their Lordships' adoption. Besides the money spent in elections, there were other sums (also arising out of the rent) spent in endeavours to contravene the due administration of justice in Ireland. When he made this observation, he fully and freely admitted the right, and, indeed, duty of every man, to watch closely and vigilantly the administration of law and justice in this country; but, at the same time, he was prepared to maintain, that that right and duty could not be conveniently and justly exercised by the members of a self-elected Association, having large sums at their command, and employing the money which they possessed for the purpose of exciting a spirit of litigation and dissatisfaction among his Majesty's subjects—employing it for the purpose of defending some individuals—for the purpose of prosecuting others—- for the purpose of prejudicing the first inquiries in cases of criminal procedure, and unduly interfering with the administration of justice by the magistracy.

February 10, 1829.

* * * * *

The people were insidiously led to believe that the proposed measures were for the establishment of popery, and the destruction of the protestant establishment of the country; and, acting very properly on this unfounded delusion, petitioned against them. But while he admired and rejoiced in the excellent motives which induced the people of this country, in many places, to protest against the intended measures of government; he hoped that when they saw that those measures were not of the dangerous nature ascribed to them, and that they tended, so far from establishing popery, to check and prevent its growth, and to promote the influence of the protestant religion in Ireland,—he hoped, he said, the people of England would, in their conduct, evince that loyalty to the crown, whence the recommendation of the measure had emanated, and that confidence in the wisdom of parliament, which had ever honourably distinguished them. Indeed, he was convinced, that when the people of England saw there was no fear of the extension of popery from the measure which ministers felt it to be their duty to recommend to their sovereign, but that, on the contrary, they would tend to strengthen the protestant interests of the state, they would hail those measures as beneficial to all classes.[11]

[Footnote 11: This, and the foregoing extracts on the subject of Catholic Emancipation, are from short speeches made by the Duke in the House of Lords after the intentions of the government had been made known, but before the Emancipation Bill came up to that house. Although the Duke earnestly deprecated these preliminary discussions, he was called up almost every night by some peer or other.]

March 2, 1829.

* * * * *

No Compact with Rome would add to the security of the church of Ireland.

I know that there are many in this house, and many in this country, who think—and I am free to admit that I was formerly of the same opinion myself—that the state ought to have some security for the church against the proceedings of the Roman Catholic clergy, besides the oaths imposed on them by the Act of Parliament I confess that on examining into the question, and upon looking more minutely than I had before leisure to do, at the various acts of Parliament by which the church of England is constituted, and which form the foundation on which it rests, I can think of no sort of arrangement capable of being carried into execution in this country which can add to the security of the established church. I beg your Lordships to attend for a moment whilst I explain the situation of the kingdom of Prussia with respect to the Roman Catholic religion. The King of Prussia exercises the power which he does over the Roman Catholic church, in her various dominions, under different concordats made with the Pope: in Silesia, under a concordat made by Buonaparte with the Pope; and in the territories on the right bank of the Rhine, under the concordat made by the former sovereigns of those countries with the Pope. Each of these concordats supposes that the Pope possesses some power in the country, which he is enabled to concede to the sovereign with whom the concordat is made. That is a point which we can never yield to any sovereign whatever. There is no sovereign, be he who he may, who has any power in this country to confer upon his majesty. We must keep our sovereign clear from such transactions. We can, therefore, have no security of that description,—not even a veto, on the appointment of a Roman Catholic bishop, without detracting, in some degree, from the authority and dignity of the sovereign, and without admitting that the Pope has something to concede to his Majesty.

Now let us suppose another security. Suppose it were arranged that his Majesty should have the nomination of the Catholic bishops. If he nominated them, he must also give them a jurisdiction—he must give them a diocese. I should like to know in what part of Ireland or England the king could fix upon a spot where he could, consistently with the oath he has taken, nominate a Catholic bishop, or give him a diocese? The king is sworn to maintain the rights and privileges of the bishops, and of the clergy of this realm, and of the churches committed to their charge. Now, consistently with that oath, how could the king appoint a bishop of the Roman Catholic religion; and would not the Established church lose more than it gained by the assumption of such a power on the part of his Majesty? Then, my Lords, there is another security, which some noble Lords think it desirable to have,—namely, the obtaining, by government, of copies of all correspondence between the Catholic clergy and the Court of Rome; and the supervising of that correspondence, in order to prevent any danger resulting to the Established church. Upon that point I must say I feel the greatest objection to involve the government of this country in such matters. That correspondence, we are told, turns on spiritual affairs. But I will suppose for the sake of argument, that it turns on questions of excommunication. Is it, then, to be suffered, that the Pope, and his Majesty, or his Majesty's secretary of state acting for him, should make law for this country? for that would be the result of communications between the Catholic clergy of this realm and the Pope being submitted to his Majesty's inspection, or to the inspection of his Majesty's secretary of state. Such a security amounts to a breach of the constitution, and it is quite impossible that it could be made available. It would do more injury to the constitution and the church, than any thing which could be done by the Roman Catholics themselves, when placed by this bill in the same situation as dissenters.

With respect to communication with the Court of Rome, that has already been provided against and prevented by laws still in existence. Your Lordships are aware that those laws, like many others regarding the Roman Catholic religion, are not strictly enforced, but still, if they should be abused,—if the conduct of those persons whose actions those laws are intended to regulate should be such as to render necessary the interference of government, the very measure which is now before your lordships will enable government to interfere in such a manner as not only to answer the object of its interference, but also to give satisfaction to this house, and to the country.

April 2, 1829.

* * * * *

Anticipation of success for the Measure. The parallel case of the Scotch Church instanced.

When I recommend this measure to your Lordships attention, you have, undoubtedly, a right to ask what are the reasons I have for believing that it will effect the purpose for which it was intended.

Note—The above extract and those which follow of the same date, are from the Duke's speech in introducing the Catholic Relief Bill.

My Lords, I believe it will answer its object, not only from the example of all Europe, but from the example of what occurred in a part of this kingdom on a former occasion. If I am not mistaken, at the time of the dispute between the Episcopalians and the Kirk of Scotland; the state of society in Scotland was as bad then as the state of society in Ireland is at the present moment. Your Lordships know that abroad, in other parts of Europe, in consequence of the diffusion of civil privileges to all classes, the difference between Protestant and Catholic is never heard. I am certain I can prove to your Lordships what I stated when I said, that the state of society in Scotland, previous to the concession of civil privileges to the Episcopalians, was as bad as the present state of society in Ireland.

I hope your Lordships will give me leave to read a petition which has been sent to me this day, and which was presented to the Scottish Parliament at the period when those concessions were about to be made, and your Lordships will perceive that the petition is almost a model of many petitions which have been read in this house respecting the question under discussion. I am, therefore, in expectation that should the present bill pass this house, there will be no longer occasion for those complaints which have been expressed to your Lordships, and that the same happy and peaceful state of things which has for the last century prevailed in Scotland will also prevail in Ireland. I will, with your Lordships' permission, read the petition I have alluded to, and I think that after you have heard it, you will be of the same opinion as I am with respect to the similarity it bears to many petitions which have been presented to your Lordships on the Catholic question. The petition states, that "to grant toleration to that party (the Episcopalians) in the present circumstances of the Church, must unavoidably shake the foundation of our present happy constitution; overthrow those laws on which it is settled, grievously disturb that peace and tranquillity which the nation has enjoyed since the late revolution, disgust the minds of his Majesty's best subjects; increase animosity; confirm discord and tumult; weaken and enervate the discipline of the church; open the door to unheard of vices, and to Popery as well as to other errors; propagate and cherish disaffection to the government, and bring the nation under the danger of falling back into those mischiefs and calamities, from which it had lately escaped by the divine blessing. We, therefore, humbly hope, that no concessions will be granted to that party which would be to establish iniquity by law, and bring upon the country manifold calamities and disasters, from which we pray that government may preserve the members of the high court of Parliament."

I sincerely hope, that as the prophecy contained in this petition has not been fulfilled, that a similar prophecy respecting the passing of the present bill, contained in many petitions presented to your Lordships, will not be fulfilled. But, my Lords, I have other grounds besides those which I have already stated for supposing that the proposed measure will answer the object in view. There is no doubt, that after this measure shall be adopted, the Roman Catholics can have no separate interest as a separate sect,—for I am sure that neither this house, nor the other house of parliament, will be disposed to look upon the Roman Catholics, or upon anything that respects Ireland, with any other eye than that with which they regard whatever affects the interests of Scotland, or of this country. For my own part, I will state, that if I am disappointed in the hopes which I entertained that tranquillity will result from this measure, I shall have no scruple in coming down and laying before Parliament the state of the case. I shall act with the same confidence that parliament would support me then, as I have acted in the present case.

April 2, 1829.

* * * * *

Abolition of the Jesuits and other Monastic Orders.

Another part of this bill has for its object, the putting an end to the order of the Jesuits and other monastic orders in this country. If your Lordships will look at the act passed in the year 1791, you will probably see that at that time, as well as in this, it was possible for one person to make laws through which another might drive a coach and four. My noble and learned friend (Lord Eldon) will excuse me for saying, that notwithstanding all the pains which he took to draw up the act of 1791, yet the fact is,—of which there cannot be the smallest doubt,—that large religious establishments have been regularly formed, not only in Ireland, but also in this country. The measure which I now propose for your Lordships adoption will prevent the increase of such establishments, and, without oppression to any individuals, without injury to any body of men, will gradually put an end to those which have already been formed. There is no man more convinced than I am of the absolute necessity of carrying into execution that part of the present measure, which has for its object the extinction of monastic orders in this country. I entertain no doubt whatever, that if that part of the measure be not carried into execution, we shall very soon see this country and Ireland inundated by Jesuits and regular monastic clergy, sent out from other parts of Europe, with means to establish themselves within his Majesty's kingdom.

April 2, 1829.

* * * * *

Rationale of Roman Catholic Exclusion.

My Lords in the Bill of Rights there are some things permanently enacted, which I sincerely hope will be permanent; these are, the liberties of the people, the security for the Protestantism of the person on the throne of these kingdoms, and that he shall not be married to a Papist. There is an oath of allegiance and supremacy to be taken by all those of whom that oath of allegiance is required, which is also said to be permanent; but it contains no declaration against transubstantiation. There is also an oath of allegiance different from that which is to be taken by a member of Parliament. I beg your Lordships will observe, that although this oath of allegiance was declared permanent, it was altered in the last year of King William. This shews what that "permanent" act was. Then, with respect to the oaths to be taken by members of Parliament. I beg your Lordships to observe that these oaths, the declaration against transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass, are not originally in the act of William III., they are in the act of 30th Charles II. During the reign of Charles II. there were certain oaths imposed, first on dissenters from the church of England, by the 12th or 13th Charles II., and to exclude Roman Catholics by the 25th Charles II., and 30th Charles II. At the period of the Revolution, when King William came, he thought proper to extend the basis of his government, and he repealed the oaths affecting the dissenters from the church of England, imposed by the 13th and 14th Charles II. and likewise that affirmative part of the oath of supremacy, which dissenters from the church of England could not take. That is the history of the alteration of these oaths by William III., from the time of Charles II.

But my Lords, the remainder of the oath could be taken by Dissenters, but could not be taken by Roman Catholics. The danger with respect to Roman Catholics, had arisen in the time of Charles II., and still existed in the time of William III.; but the oath was altered because one of the great principles of the Revolution was to limit the exclusion from the benefits of the constitution as far as it was possible. Therefore we have this as one of the principles I before stated, derived from the Bill of Rights. The noble Lords state, that what they call the principles of 1688,—that is to say, these oaths excluding Roman Catholics, are equally permanent with the Bill of Rights by which the Protestantism of the crown is secured. If they will do me the favour to look at the words of the act, they will see that the difference is just the difference between that which is permanent and that which is not permanent. The act says that the Protestantism of the Crown shall last for ever; but, as for these oaths, they are enacted in exclusive words, and there is not one word about how long they shall last. Well then, my Lords, what follows? The next act we have is the act of Union with Scotland; and what does that act say? That the oaths to be taken by the members of Parliament, as laid down by the 1st of William and Mary shall continue and be taken till Parliament shall otherwise direct. This is what is called a permanent act of Parliament, a permanent provision for all future periods, to exclude Catholics from seats in Parliament. My Lords, I beg to observe that, if the act which excludes Roman Catholics from seats in Parliament, is permanent, there is another clause, (I believe the 10th of cap 8. 1st William and Mary) which requires officers of the army and navy to take those very oaths previous to the acceptance of their commissions. Now if the act made in the first year of William and Mary, which excludes Roman Catholics from Parliament, is permanent, I should like to ask noble Lords, why the clause in that act is not equally permanent? I suppose that the noble and learned Lord will answer my question by saying, that one act was permanent and ought to be permanently maintained, but that the other act was not permanent, and the Parliament did right in repealing it in 1817. But the truth of the matter is, that neither act was intended to be permanent; and the Parliament of Queen Anne recognised by the Act of Union that the first act, relating to seats in Parliament, was not permanent; and the noble and learned Lord (Eldon) did right when he consented to the act of 1817, which put an end to the 10th clause of the 1st William III., cap. 8. Then, my Lords, if this principle of exclusion—if this principle of the constitution of 1688, as it is called, be not permanent,—if it be recognised as not permanent, not only by the act of union with Scotland, (in which it was said that the exclusive oath should continue till Parliament otherwise provided,) but also by the late act of Union with Ireland, I would ask your Lordships, whether you are not at liberty now to consider the expediency of doing away with it altogether, in order to relieve the country from the inconveniences to which I have already adverted? I would ask your Lordships, whether you are not called upon to review the state of the representation of Ireland,—whether you are not called upon to see, even supposing that the principle were a permanent one, if it be fit that Parliament should remain, as it has remained for some time, groaning under Popish influence exercised by the Priests over the elections in Ireland. I would ask your Lordships, I repeat, whether it is not right to make an arrangement, which has for its object, not only the settlement of this question, but at the same time to relieve the country from the inconveniences I have mentioned. I have already stated the manner in which the organization I have alluded to, works upon all the great interests of the country; but I wish your Lordships particularly to attend to the manner in which it works upon the church itself. That part of the church of England which exists in Ireland is in a very peculiar situation; it is the church of the minority of the people. At the same time, I believe that a more exemplary, a more pious, or a more learned body of men, than the members of that church do not exist. The members of that church certainly enjoy and deserve the affections of those whom they are sent to instruct, in the same degree as their brethren in England enjoy the affections of the people of this country; and I have no doubt that they would shed the last drop of their blood in defence of the doctrines and discipline of their church. But violence, I apprehend, is likely to affect the interests of that church; and I would put it to the House, whether that church can be better protected from violence by a government united in itself, united with Parliament and united in sentiment with the great body of the people, or by a government disunited in opinion, disunited from Parliament, and by the two houses of Parliament disunited. I am certain that no man can look to the situation of Ireland, without seeing that the interest of the church as well as the interest of every class of persons under government, is involved in such a settlement of this question, as will bring with it strength to the government, and strength to every department of the state.

The bill before the House concedes to Roman Catholics the power of holding any office in the state, excepting a few connected with the administration of the affairs of the church; and it also concedes to them the power of becoming members of Parliament. I believe it goes further, with respect to the concession of offices, than any former measure which has been introduced into the other House of Parliament. I confess that the reasons which induced me to consider it my duty to make such large concessions now, arose out of the effects which I observed following the acts proposed in the years 1782 and 1793. I have seen that any restriction upon concession has only had the effect of increasing the demands of the Roman Catholics, and at the same time giving them fresh power to enforce those demands. I have, therefore, considered it my duty, in making this act of concession, to make it as large as any reasonable man can expect it to be; seeing clearly that any thing which might remain behind would only give ground for fresh demands, and being convinced that the settlement of this question tends to the security of the state, and to the peace and prosperity of the country. I have already stated to your lordships my opinion respecting the expediency of granting seats in Parliament to Roman Catholics; and I do not conceive, that the concession of seats in Parliament, can in any manner effect any question relative to the church of England. In the first place, I beg your Lordships to recollect, that at the time those acts, to which I have before alluded,—the one passed in the 30th of Charles II., and the other at the period of the Revolution, were enacted—it was not the church that was in danger—it was the state. It was the state that was in danger; and from what? Not because the safety of the church was threatened. No; but because the Sovereign on the throne was suspected of Popery, and because the successor to the throne was actually a Papist. Those laws were adopted, because of the existence of a danger which threatened the state, and not of one which threatened the church. On the contrary, at that period danger to the church was apprehended, not from the Roman Catholics, but from the Dissenters from the church of England. I would ask of your Lordships, all of whom have read the history of those times, whether any danger to the church was apprehended from the Roman Catholics? No! Danger to the church was apprehended from the Dissenters, who had become powerful by the privileges granted to them under the act of Parliament passed at the period of the Revolution. I think, therefore, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any justification of myself for having adopted this measure, on account of any danger which might be apprehended from it to the church. Roman Catholics will come into Parliament under this bill, as they went into Parliament previous to the act of 30th Charles II. They sat in Parliament up to that period, and were not obliged to take the oath of supremacy. But by this bill they will be required to take the oath of allegiance, in which a great part of the oath of supremacy is included—namely, that part which refers to the jurisdiction of foreign potentates; and, I must say, that the church, if in danger, is better secured by the bill than it was previous to the 30th of Charles II. The object for which that act was recognised at the period of the Revolution—namely, to keep out the house of Stuart from the throne—has long ceased to exist, by the extinction of that family. It is the opinion of nearly every considerable man in the country (of nearly all those who are competent to form a judgment on the question), that the time has now arrived for repealing these laws. Circumstances have been gradually tending towards their repeal since the extinction of the house of Stuart; and at last the period has come, when it is quite clear that the repeal can be no longer delayed with safety to the state.

April 2, 1829.

* * * * *

State of Ireland, a Reason for Emancipation.

I know that, by some, it has been considered that the state of Ireland has nothing to do with this question—that it is a subject which ought to be left entirely out of our consideration. My Lords, they tell us that Ireland has been disturbed for the last thirty years—that to such disturbance we have been accustomed—and that it does not at all alter the circumstances of the case, as they have hitherto appeared. My Lords, it is perfectly true that Ireland has been disturbed during the long period I have stated, but within the last year or two, there have been circumstances of particular aggravation. Political circumstances have, in a considerable degree, occasioned that aggravation; but, besides this, my Lords, I must say, although I have no positive legal proof of the fact, that I have every reason to believe that there has been a considerable organization of the people for the purpose of mischief. My Lords, this organization is, it appears to me, to be proved, not only by the declarations of those who formed, and who arranged it, but likewise by the effects which it has produced in the election of churchwardens throughout the country; in the circumstances attending the election for the county of Clare, and that preceded and followed that election; in the proceedings of a gentleman who went at the head of a body of men to the north of Ireland; in the simultaneous proceedings of various bodies of men in the south of Ireland, in Templemore, in Kilenaule, Cahir, Clonmel, and other places; in the proceedings of another gentleman in the King's county; and in the recall of the former gentleman from the north of Ireland by the Roman Catholic Association. In all these circumstances it is quite obvious to me, that there was an organization and direction by some superior authority. This organization has certainly produced a state of society in Ireland which we have not heretofore witnessed, and an aggravation of all the evils which before afflicted that unfortunate country.

My Lords, late in the year, a considerable town was attacked, in the middle of the night by a body of people who came from the neighbouring mountains—the town of Augher. They attacked it with arms, and were driven from it with arms by the inhabitants of the town. This is a state of things which I feel your Lordships will admit ought not to exist in a civilized country. Later in the year still, a similar event occurred in Charleville; and, in the course of the last autumn, the Roman Catholic Association deliberated upon the propriety of adopting, and the means of adopting, the measure of ceasing all dealings between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Is it possible to believe supposing these dealings had ceased, supposing this measure had been carried into execution—as I firmly believe it was in the power of those who deliberated upon it to carry it into execution—is it possible to believe that those who would cease those dealings would not likewise have ceased to carry into execution the contracts into which they had entered? Will any man say that people in this situation are not verging towards that state, in which it would be impossible to expect from them that they would be able to perform the duties of jurymen, or to administer justice between man and man, for the protection of the lives and properties of his Majesty's subjects? My Lords, this is the state of society to which I wished to draw your attention, and for which it is necessary that Parliament should provide a remedy.

April 2, 1829.

* * * * *

Emancipation claimed as the Price of the Union.

I am old enough to remember the rebellion in 1798. I was not employed in Ireland at the time—was employed in another part of his Majesty's dominions; but, my Lords, if I am not mistaken, the Parliament of Ireland, at that time, walked up to my Lord Lieutenant with an unanimous address, beseeching his Excellency to take every means to put down that unnatural rebellion, and promising their full support, in order to carry those measures into execution. The Lord Lieutenant did take measures, and did succeed in putting down that rebellion. Well, my Lords, what happened in the very next session? The Government proposed to put an end to the Parliament, and to form a Legislative Union between the two kingdoms, for the purpose, principally, of proposing this very measure; and, in point of fact, the very first measure that was proposed after this Legislative Union, after those successful endeavours to put down this rebellion, was the very measure with which I am now about to trouble your Lordships. Is it possible noble Lords can believe that, supposing there was a renewal of the contest to which I have referred—is it possible noble Lords can believe that such a contest could be carried on without the consent of the other House of Parliament? I am certain, my Lords, that, when you look at the division of opinion which prevails in both Houses of Parliament; when you look at the division of opinion which prevails in every family of this kingdom, and of Ireland—in every family, I say, from the most eminent in station, down to the lowest in this country;—when you look at the division of opinion that prevails among the Protestants of Ireland on this subject; I am convinced you will see that there would be a vast difference in a contest carried on now, and that which was carried on on former occasions.

April 2, 1829.

* * * * *

No Remedy for the State of Ireland but Emancipation.

Neither the law, nor the means in the possession of Government, enabled Government to put an end to the state of things in Ireland. Therefore, we come to Parliament. Now let us see what chance there was of providing a remedy for this state of things by coming to Parliament. My Lords, we all recollect perfectly well, that the opinion of the majority in another place is, that the remedy for this state of things in Ireland is a repeal of the disabilities affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. We might have gone and asked Parliament to enable us to put down the Roman Catholic Association; but what chance had we of prevailing upon Parliament to pass such a bill, without being prepared to come forward and state that we were ready to consider the whole condition of Ireland, with a view to apply a remedy to that which Parliament had stated to be the cause of the disease? Suppose that Parliament had given us a bill to put down the Roman Catholic Association, would such a law as that be a remedy for the state of things which I have already described to your Lordships as existing in Ireland? Would it do any one thing towards putting an end to the organization, which I have stated to your Lordships exists—towards putting down the mischiefs which are the consequences of that organization—towards giving you the means of getting the better of the state of things existing in Ireland, unless some further measure were adopted? But, my Lords, it is said, if that will not do, let us proceed to blows. What is meant by proceeding to "blows," is civil war. Now, I believe that every Government must be prepared to carry into execution the laws of the country by the force placed at its disposition, not by the military force, unless it should be absolutely necessary, but by the military force in case that should be necessary; and, above all things, oppose resistance to the law, in case the disaffected, or ill-disposed, are inclined to resist the authority, or sentence of the law; but, in this case, as I have already stated to your Lordships, there was no resistance of the law—nay, I will go further, and will say that I am positively certain that this state of things existing in Ireland, for the last year and a half, bordering upon civil war (being attended by nearly all the evils of civil war), might have continued a considerable time longer, to the great injury and disgrace of the country, and, nevertheless, those who managed this state of things—those who were at its head—would have taken care to prevent any resistance to the law, which must have ended, they knew as well as I did, in the only way in which a struggle against the King's Government could end. They knew perfectly well they would have been the first victims of that resistance; but knowing that, and knowing, as I do, that they are sensible, able men, and perfectly aware of the materials upon which they have to work, I have not the smallest doubt that the state of things which I have stated to your Lordships would have continued, and that you would now have had an opportunity of putting it down in the manner some noble Lords imagined. But, my Lords, even if I had been certain of such means of putting it down, I should have considered it my duty to avoid those means.

April 2, 1829.

* * * * *

Would sacrifice his Life to prevent one Month of Civil War.

I am one of those who have, probably, passed a longer period of my life engaged in war than most men, and principally in civil war; and, I must say this, that if I could avoid, by any sacrifice whatever, even one month of civil war in the country to which I was attached, I would sacrifice my life in order to do it. I say, there is nothing which destroys property, eats up prosperity by the roots, and demoralizes the character, to the degree that civil war does; in such a crisis, the hand of man is raised against his neighbour, against his brother, and against his father; servant betrays master, and the whole scene ends in confusion and devastation. Yet, my Lords, this is the resource to which we must have looked—these are the means which we must have applied, in order to have put an end to this state of things, if we had not made the option of bringing forward the measures, for which, I say, I am responsible. But let us look a little further. If civil war is so bad, when it is occasioned by resistance to the Government, if it is so bad in the case I have stated, and so much to be avoided, how much more is it to be avoided, when we are to arm the people, in order that we may conquer one part of them, by exciting the other part against them?

April 2, 1829.

* * * * *

Defence of the Government from the Charge of Inconsistency.

Another subject to which I wish to advert, is a charge brought against several of my colleagues, and also against myself, of a want of consistency in our conduct. My Lords, I admit that many of my colleagues, as well as myself, did on former occasions, vote against a measure of a similar description with this; and my Lords, I must say, that my colleagues and myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that we should be sacrificing ourselves, and our popularity to that which we felt to be our duty to our sovereign and our country.

We knew very well that if we put ourselves at the head of the Protestant cry of "No Popery," we should be much more popular even than those who have excited that very cry against us. But we felt that, in so doing, we should have left on the interests of the country a burden, which must end in bearing them down; and further, that we should deserve the hate and execration of our countrymen. The noble Earl on the cross bench (Winchelsea) has adverted particularly to me, and has mentioned in terms of civility the services which he says I have rendered to the country; but I must tell the noble Earl that be those services what they may, I rendered them through good repute, and through bad repute, and that I was never prevented from rendering them by any cry which was excited against me at the moment. Then, I am accused by a noble and learned friend of mine, (the Earl of Eldon) of having acted with great secresy respecting this measure. Now I beg to tell my noble and learned friend—and I am sorry that, in the course of these discussions, anything has passed which has been unpleasant to my noble and learned friend,—I beg to tell him, I say, that, he has done that to me in the course of this discussion which he complains of others having done to him;—in other words, he has, in the words of a right honourable friend of his and mine, thrown a large paving stone, instead of throwing a small pebble stone. I say, that if my noble and learned friend accuses me of acting with secresy on this question, he does not deal with me altogether fairly. He knows, as well as I do, how the Cabinet was constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a single word to any man whatsoever on this measure, until the person most interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my speaking out? I say, that before my noble and learned friend accused me of secresy, and improper secresy too, he ought to have known the precise day upon which I received the permission of the highest personage in this country; and he ought not to have accused me of improper conduct, until he knew the day on which I had leave to open my mouth upon this measure. There is another point also upon which the noble Earl accused me of misconduct, and that is that I did not at once dissolve the parliament. Now, I must say, that I think noble Lords are mistaken in the notion of the benefits which they think they would derive from a dissolution of parliament at this crisis. I believe that many of them are not aware of the consequences and of the inconveniences of a dissolution of parliament at any time. But when I knew, as I did know, and as I do know, the state of the elective franchise in Ireland in the course of last summer,—when I knew the consequences which a dissolution would produce on the return to the house of commons, to say nothing of the risk which must have occurred at each election,—of collisions that might have led to something little short of civil war,—I say, that knowing all these things, I should have been wanting in duty to my Sovereign, and to my country, if I had advised his Majesty to dissolve his parliament.

April 4, 1829.

* * * * *

No Danger to the Church from the Emancipation Bill.

It has been repeatedly assumed by many of your Lordships in the course of the discussion, but particularly by the right reverend Prelates who have spoken, that the church of Ireland (or, as I have recently been reminded, the church of England in Ireland) is in danger. I call on those who apprehend that danger to state clearly whether that danger, on this particular occasion, is more to be expected as resulting from legislation, or from violence. If they say it is resulting from legislation, I answer that their apprehensions are puerile. It is impossible to suppose that a small number of persons admitted into this house, and a small number admitted into the other house, while we have a Protestant Sovereign upon the throne, should be productive of legislative danger to the church of England in Ireland. I beg to observe, with respect to the point relating to the union of the two countries, that a fundamental article of the union is the junction of the two Churches, called the United Churches of England and Ireland. It is impossible, therefore, that any mischief can occur to the Church of Ireland, without a breach in the union of the two countries. There is another point to which I beg leave to advert for a moment. Although it is true that we do admit into parliament members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, yet, at the same time, by another measure brought forward with it, and on which we equally rely, we propose regulations which will have the effect of destroying the influence of the Catholic priesthood in the election of members of parliament. We have carefully examined the measure, and do expect that it will give additional security to all the interests of the state.

April 4, 1829.

* * * * *

English Soldiers respect the Religion of other Nations.

Although I have served in my profession in several countries, and among foreigners, some of whom professed various forms of the Christian religion, while others did not profess it at all; I never was in one in which it was not the bounden duty of the soldier to pay proper deference and respect to whatever happened to be the religious institutions or ceremonies of the place where he might happen to be. We soldiers do not go into these foreign countries to become parties to the religious differences of the people, or to trouble ourselves with their notions upon matters of faith. We go to perform a very different kind of duty,—one which is purely military, and has no reference to the people's religion. I confess I never heard, however, that it was our custom to take any part in their religious rites, nor do I believe we have taken any such part. Indeed, I have never heard of anything like any co-operation by our soldiers of military parade, except at Malta, where I know it has long been the practice of the garrison to direct some artillery officers to cause a few small guns to be fired, as some particular procession passes the platform. And I know that certain officers of the artillery, or military, three of them, I believe, thought proper on military grounds, and not upon religious scruples, to refuse to fire, according to the usual order of their commandant—for such refusal they were brought to a court-martial, and sentenced to be cashiered, not because they would not form a part of any religious procession to which they were hostile—not because they would not conform to the rites of the natives, and worship any relic that was honoured by them; but for this plain and intelligible reason,—that they had taken upon themselves to refuse obedience to the orders of the commander-in-chief on the spot.

April 8, 1829.

* * * * *

The real meaning of Irish Agitation.

If you glance at the history of Ireland during the last ten years, you will find that agitation really means something just short of rebellion; that, and no other, is the exact meaning of the word. It is to place the country in that state in which its government is utterly impracticable, except by means of an overawing military force.

May 4, 1829.

Theory of a Metallic Currency.

The restoration of the currency, my Lords, has, in truth, but little to do with the distress of the country. Since the restoration of the currency, the revenue has risen to the amount which has been stated to your Lordships, notwithstanding the repeal of taxes to the amount of 27,000,000 l., since 1814. The fact is, that at the present moment, the revenue produces, in real currency, much more than it produced when the war was terminated. Is not that circumstance alone, I ask your Lordships, a proof of the increasing prosperity of the country? But, my Lords, I did not rest my argument on that fact only. Notwithstanding, there is, at present, much distress, still, in the last year, there was an increase of produce in every branch of manufacture, in every branch of industry, beyond what was apparent in the three preceding years. Under these circumstances, your Lordships must ascribe the distress of the country to something else, rather than to the alteration of the currency. My opinion is, that the people, during the lengthened war which existed previously to the peace of 1815—during that period, when there was an enormous expenditure—acquired habits which they cannot readily throw aside. During that time, any man, of whatever description of credit, could obtain money, or the semblance of money, to carry on any speculation. The people then employed a fictitious wealth; they proceeded on a system, which could not be continued, without mining and destroying the country; and that system having been destroyed, that fictitious wealth having been removed, they cannot immediately come down to those quiet habits, which are required from them under that state of things now prevailing in the empire. That, my Lords, is the real cause of the distress under which they are at present suffering. Besides, your Lordships will recollect, that the population of the country has enormously increased; and it should also be taken into the calculation, that the power of production by machinery has increased in an incalculable degree. As much can now be produced in one year, as formerly could be produced in five years; and the produce of one year now amounts to more than can be taken off our hands in a year and a half, or even two years. Distress, therefore, has occurred, notwithstanding that the utmost exertions have been made to repel it; and notwithstanding the great and general prosperity of trade throughout the world. My Lords, the plain fact is, that owing to the alterations of trade—a great demand at one time, and a want of demand at another—the manufacturers, and those engaged in commercial pursuits, must sustain considerable distress at different periods. It has been recommended as a remedy, that Government should go back to the system of the circulation of the notes. Now, my Lords, with respect to the one-pound bank notes—it will be well to recollect what has been the proceeding of Parliament on that subject. In 1826, Parliament having seen the facility with which speculations could be undertaken by persons possessing no capital, in consequence of the circulation of those one-pound bank-notes—looking to the evils that resulted from those speculations, and finding that a great number of banks in the country had failed in consequence of such speculations—thought proper to pass a law to prevent the circulation of this species of paper, after the lapse of three years. A noble Lord has said, that this measure of Parliament occasioned the failure of a great number of country bankers. But, I beg the noble Lord's pardon, he has not stated the fact correctly. Most of the banks which about that period failed, it ought to be recollected, broke previously to the meeting of Parliament. The fact is, that it was the breaking of the banks which occasioned the measure, and not the measure the breaking of the banks. But we have now accomplished the measure adopted in 1826; that measure is now carried into execution; the currency of the country is now sufficient; bank notes, 5l., and above 5l., in value, are in circulation; and I will assert this fact, that there is at present more of what I may call State currency in circulation—more notes of the Bank of England and sovereigns—a greater quantity of circulating medium of those two denominations, than there has been at any former period before the late war, or before the Bank Restriction Act was passed. I beg leave, my Lords, to ask, what want is there of any additional circulation, when the circulation is at present greater than it ever was? Is it necessary to have a more extended circulation, to afford the means of procuring loans of money to those who have no capital and no credit? I contend that this is a state of things that ought not to exist in any country. Persons who really possess credit, can raise money at the present moment with every facility that is reasonable or proper. But, undoubtedly, those who have no credit, are deprived of the facilities of borrowing money, which they formerly enjoyed, because there is no longer a large class of persons dealing in one-pound notes, to assist them in carrying on their speculations. This is the real state of the case. It was this situation of affairs that gave rise, and justly gave rise, to the measure of 1826—a measure which, I trust, that Parliament will persevere in, for the purpose of placing the country in a proper state. It has been said truly, that nothing is so desirable as to see the country carrying on its mercantile transactions with a paper currency founded on, and supported by, a metallic basis. Now, your Lordships must be aware, that is exactly the sort of currency which the country has got at present; and, in proportion as the country goes on conquering its difficulties—the existence of that currency still being continued—we shall see prosperity daily revive, and we shall see mercantile transactions carried on as they ought to be, without any mixture of those ruinous speculations, to which so much of the prevailing distress must be attributed. But, my Lords, the noble Lord in tracing out the sources of this distress, has omitted one of the great causes of it. He has not adverted to the immense loss of capital which has been sustained by the country during the last six or eight years, in consequence of loans to foreign powers—of which neither principal or interest has been paid, nor ever will, in my opinion, be paid. The noble Lord has not adverted to the effect which that loss of capital must have produced, with respect to the employment of industry in all parts of the country. In the next place, the noble Lord has not adverted to the effect which those loans must have had on the trade and manufactures of the country, in consequence of the glut in foreign markets, occasioned by the forced exportation of goods on account of such transactions. In most instances, my Lords, no returns were made on account of those goods, and even when returns were made, they were of the most unsatisfactory description. The noble Lord has not adverted to the fact, that these returns, when any were received, came home in the shape of interest, and did not, of course, require any demand or export from this country. Surely all these things should be considered, when the noble Lord speaks of the distress the country is labouring under. That distress has fallen not only on the manufacturing and commercial interests, but also on those who have encouraged and embarked in the various schemes and speculations which have done the country so much mischief.

May 26, 1829.

* * * * *

Extended Currency means unlimited creation of Paper Money by Individuals.

I will now say a few words upon the remedy proposed by the noble Lord (the Earl of Carnarvon), who has totally misunderstood the argument of the noble Viscount (Goderich). My noble Friend stated that the revenue, in 1815, was 80,000,000 l. sterling, in paper currency; that taxes were first of all repealed to the amount of 18,000,000 l., and afterwards to the amount of 9,000,000 l., making in all 27,000.000 l.; and he says that the revenue now produces, in a sound currency, as great an amount as it produced in a depreciated currency; that is to say, that it produces now a sum, in sound currency, which, in paper currency, would amount to 80,000,000 l. sterling. Those persons who consume the articles which produce the revenue, must be able to purchase them, or the revenue could not exist. The increase of the revenue is a proof, then, that consumption has increased full one-third since the time when the taxes were reduced. It is utterly impossible that a country in which, within a period of fifteen years, the revenue has risen one-third, can be suffering universal and unexampled distress. The noble Lord has thought proper to refer the distress to a deficient circulation, and he recommends a system which he thinks would remedy the evil. Now, I will tell the noble Earl that the largest amount of currency in circulation, at any time during the Bank Restriction Act, was 65,000,000 l. sterling. The Bank of England notes were 20,000,000 l.; country bank paper, 23,000,000 l.; gold, 4,000,000 l.; and, silver, 7,000,000 l. But, in 1830, the amount of Bank of England paper in circulation is 19,900,000 l.; and, of country bank paper, 9,200,000 l.; of gold, 28,000,000 l.; and, of silver. 8,000,000 l.; making a total of 65,000,000 l. It is certain, therefore, that there is more money in circulation now, than there was at any period of the Bank restriction. There can be no want, therefore, of more currency. The noble Earl says he wants an extended currency; but what he, in fact, wants, is not an extended currency, but an unlimited currency. He would give an unlimited power to certain individuals, not to the Crown, to coin as much money as they please. The noble Lord wants to give them the power of lending capital to whomsoever they might think proper thus to indulge. That is what the noble Lord recommends, but that is what, I say, cannot be allowed, without bringing the country again to the brink of ruin, from which it was extricated in the year 1826.

The noble Lord tells you that, heretofore, a farmer, with a good stock, was able to borrow capital to carry on his business; but that now, let his corn-yard be ever so full, he cannot borrow a shilling, because the banker has not the power of giving him one-pound notes. The noble Lord says—the banker gets no interest upon his own capital, and therefore will not lend it. My Lords, the banker who lends his capital to a farmer, or trader, does obtain interest for the use of it, in the shape of discount upon the bill, or other security, which the borrower gives him. The question with him, at present, is one of security, and not of profit. If the banker should lend, under existing circumstances, he must lend his own real capital, and not a fictitious capital in the shape of one pound notes, created for the purpose. He must be certain that the security given to him is good and available, as it ought to be; and if he is not satisfied with the profits arising from the use of his capital, it is because he thinks the risk is so great as not to be covered by the profits. The noble Lord would wish to pledge your Lordships, by your votes this night, to give the country bankers additional profits, by enabling them to coin money, or to create fictitious paper to any extent, and thus to create a fictitious capital.

February 4, 1830.

* * * * *

Taxes reduced under a Metallic Currency.

In answer to all the declamations we have heard this night respecting the evils resulting from a metallic currency, I beg leave to remind the House of some facts; since the year 1815, and principally since the Bank restriction was taken off, measures have been adopted to relieve the country of taxes to the amount of 27,000,000 l. sterling; and measures have been also adopted which have reduced the charges of the national debt between 3,000,000 l. and 4,000,000 l. a year, that being the interest on nearly 100,000,000 l. sterling. I beg your Lordships will bear this circumstance in mind; and let me tell you, that all the advantages of a so-called equitable adjustment will never equal the advantage already obtained from an adherence to the principles of justice and good faith.

February 4, 1830.

Causes of Manufacturing Distress.

I wish to know whether the competition of machinery and the universal application of steam which has been generally introduced since the peace, have not occasioned a decrease in the demand for labour, and have not lowered the wages of labour in manufactures? Must we not take into consideration the general spirit of manufacture abroad, the competition of foreign nations in foreign markets, and the universal use of machinery worked by steam? How can we control the subjects of foreign powers? We must seek foreign markets for our surplus produce. How can we prevent steam from creating competition abroad in the sale of that produce, as well as a fall in the wages of manufactures, and thus occasioning a part of the distress complained of?

Feb. 4, 1830.

* * * * *

Distress exaggerated.

If the exports of Great Britain have gone on increasing for some years—if they were greater last year than in any former year—if the amount of our exports is now greater than ever it was,—I say, not only that these are the strongest symptoms of the prosperity of the country increasing, but that the distress cannot be so great and unexampled as the noble Earl (Carnarvon) would make it. There is not a rail-road, or a common road, or a canal in the country, on which the traffic has not increased every year during the last few years, and particularly in the last year. It may be true that there is a diminution of profit in commercial transactions in general; but profit there must be, or men would not devote themselves for years to these pursuits. Money would not be laid out in the conveyance from place to place of the produce and manufactures of the country. The traffic being greater than ever it was before, it is impossible but what it must be to the advantage of somebody. The distress then cannot be so universal as represented. The profit and advantage may not be so great as they were some years back; but still advantage there is.

There are other circumstances well worthy the attention of the House in the consideration of this subject. The retail dealers are a very numerous body in this country. Consider of their profits. Look at nearly every market town in the kingdom, and many villages in progress towards being rebuilt. Who pays the money for re-building these houses? Who pays the increased rents for them? Are the people ruined who require and can pay for these new houses? My Lords, these are facts which do shew that, notwithstanding the existing distress which every man must deplore, the country, in spite of the pressure upon it, is upon the whole, rising.

Feb. 4, 1830.

* * * * *

Proofs of National Improvement in 1830.

Among other topics of accusation, I have been arraigned for my assertion on the first day of the session, that the distress of the country was not of that magnitude which some persons have affirmed. The noble Lord (Stanhope) is quite at liberty to indulge in such invectives if it pleases him to do so, but if he supposes I do not feel for the distresses of the people, he is utterly mistaken, as I can sincerely aver that I have as strong sympathies on the subject as any noble member of this house. But I am resolved to tell plainly and honestly what I think, quite regardless of the odium I may incur from those whose prejudices my candour and sincerity may offend. I am here to speak the truth and not to flatter the prejudices and prepossessions of any man. In speaking the truth, I shall utter it in the language that truth itself most naturally suggests.

* * * * *

I request your Lordships to look at the state of the savings banks. A measure was sometime back adopted to prevent the investment of money in these banks beyond a certain amount for each person, in order that the parties not entitled to it should not derive the advantage which is intended for the poorer classes. Large sums were drawn out of those banks soon after; but they have since revived in some degree. Whence has the money come? From the lower classes. This cannot be considered as a proof of general distress. Your Lordships ought likewise not to omit from your consideration the increased traffic carried on the railroads and canals in the country. The noble Earl (Roseberry) has told your Lordships, that I have availed myself of the increased traffic upon the roads and canals by merchants and manufacturers—in despair seeking a market—in order to represent the country in a state of prosperity; whereas it is an additional symptom of distress. My Lords, I said that this traffic had been increasing for years; and that it had, in some cases, doubled in ten years. In one of the recent discussions in this House, upon the currency, the noble Marquis opposite (the Marquis of Lansdowne) very truly remarked,—that a large quantity of currency might be found in a country in which there should be little riches and prosperity; and that the facility and rapidity of the circulation of the currency were signs of the prosperity of a country, rather than the quantity of that currency. I entirely concur in the truth and justice of this observation. But I would beg to ask the noble Marquis whether it is possible that transactions can increase and multiply as they have done in this country, in the last few years, without giving fresh scope for the circulation of the currency of the country, fresh employment for labour, and occasioning, in some degree, the augmentation of general prosperity.

Feb. 25, 1850.

* * * * *

Causes of Manufacturing Distress, over which Parliament can have no Control.

There can be no doubt that there has been, of late years, a great increase of manufactures and manufactured produce in this country. It is true, that this produce has given to the manufacturer but little profit, and that the wages of the manufacturing labourer are low; but, as I will show presently, the circumstance, equally with the cause of the agricultural distress, is beyond legislative control.

My Lords, it is impossible to consider this branch of the subject without adverting likewise to the state of the commerce of the country. The produce of the manufactures of the country is greater than the country can consume; and, consequently, the price and the reward of the labourer must depend upon the foreign demand, as well as upon the demand at home.

In respect to the distress felt by manufacturing labourers, there can be no doubt that the wages of manual labour have been lowered by the successful application of steam to the movement of machinery for the purpose of manufacture. Here, my Lords, is a cause of distress over which the Legislature has no practical control. As I go further in my observations upon the speech of the Noble Earl (Stanhope) who made the motion,[12] I will point out other causes of distress equally beyond the control of the Legislature.

[Footnote 12: For an inquiry into the state of the nation.]

My Lords, let me beg to call to the recollection of the House the state in which the world was at the end of the war in the years 1814 and 1815. Europe was absolutely overrun with armies, and had been so for about twenty years. There was absolutely nothing but armies in the world, and nothing was thought of but the means of sustaining them. Except in France and this country, there were but few manufacturers in Europe; but when the peace took place, all the world became manufacturers. I have already stated, that the country manufacturing more than it consumes, is under the necessity of resorting to foreign countries, and foreign markets with its produce, where this produce necessarily comes in competition with the manufactured produce of foreign countries, brought there by cheaper labour, and by machinery worked by steam. The prices in those foreign countries, of necessity, govern the prices in this country. Here again is a cause of the existing distress, over which it will be admitted, that the Legislature can have no control. Nothing that it is in our power to do, will raise prices abroad; and till these prices shall be raised, the prices of our produce must continue low, and profits and wages must be low likewise.

But, my Lords, low as the prices of our produce are, compared with those of former years, those of other countries have fallen in a still greater proportion. My Lords, I will read, from a paper I hold in my hand, a few extracts of prices in different parts of the country, since the peace of 1814. Raw cotton in England, in 1814 and 1815, sold at 2s. 2d. the pound, or with duty included at 2s. 4d. In 1816 and 1817 it sold at 1s. 8d1/2., and in 1829, at 6d. This was a fall in price greater than had taken place in any other article. Silk, in 1814, sold for 1l. 4s., or with duty included, 1l. 9s.; whilst in 1829 it sold for 8s. 10d., or with the duty, 8s. 11d. the pound. Spanish wool, in 1814, sold for 8s. 2d., or with the duty, at 8s. 3d.; whilst in 1829 it sold for only 2s. 3d., or with the duty at 2s. 4d. Another article, that of fir-timber, fell in proportion. It was then 3l. 14s. 11d. the load, and with the duty, 10l. 5s.; it is now 2l. 5s., and with the duty, 4l. 19s. This fall in the price of foreign produce, and in our domestic manufactures, added to the advantage which the master manufacturers derived from the use of machinery moved by steam, and from the lowness of wages, have given them a greater advantage; and have enabled them to make a profit, notwithstanding the fall of prices of the produce of their manufactures since the war.

On articles of manufacture the prices are still lower than those of corn and other agricultural produce. Cotton yarn, which sold for 4s. 4-1/2d. the pound in 1814, in 1830 sells for 1s. 5-1/2d.; and cotton manufactured goods have altered in price within the same period from 1s. 5d. to 1s. 8d. and 2s. 0-1/2d., to 6-1/4d., 8-3/4d., and 8-1/2d., or nearly a third. Irish linens have fallen from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 0-3/4d.; woollen cloths in the same proportion. Other articles have been reduced enormously in price by the competition with foreigners. In those articles in which there is no competition with foreigners, prices have been reduced, but not in the same proportion; such, for instance, as in the iron, the pottery, and other trades. Here, then, are causes evidently beyond the control of Parliament. Parliament cannot raise the price of manufactured goods—the thing is impossible.