MAXIMS AND OPINIONS OF HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON. (continued 7)

May 12, 1840.

* * * * *

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

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

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

May 12, 1840.

* * * * *

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

June 30, 1840.

* * * * *

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

June 30, 1840.

Importance of Colonies to the Mother Country.

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

June 30, 1840.

* * * * *

Religious Education must be provided out of the Funds of the Church.

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

July 30, 1840.

* * * * *

Necessity of administering Oaths.

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

August 4, 1840.

Church-rate Martyrs—true state of the Case.

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

August 7, 1840.

* * * * *

The Duke of Wellington not a War Minister.

No noble lord nor any other man that I know has done half so much for the preservation of peace, and above all, for the pacification and the maintenance of the honour of France and for the settlement of all questions in which the interests of France were involved, as the individual who is addressing your lordships. From the period of the year 1814, down to the last month of my remaining in the service of the king, I did everything in my power for the strengthening and preservation of the peace of Europe, and more particularly for the maintaining and keeping up the best understanding between England and France. I repeat, that I have done more than any one else to place France in the situation in which she ought to be in the councils of Europe, from a firm conviction,—which I feel now as strongly as I ever did,—that if France is not, then there is no necessity for the preservation of the peace of Europe, or for a sound decision on any subject of general policy. I am sure that the noble viscount would find, if he would take the trouble to search the archives of the government, papers written by me shortly before I went out of office in 1830, that would fully justify the assertion which I have just made. I am sure that those who were in office with me were as anxious for the preservation of the peace of Europe as any politicians, be they liberals or otherwise. They were as anxious for the preservation of a good understanding between France and this country, and that France should be on a perfectly good understanding with all the powers of Europe, and that she should take the station which becomes her in the rank of nations, and which her power, her wealth, and her resources entitle her to.

January 26, 1841.

* * * * *

The Capture of Acre, the greatest deed of modern times.

I have had a little experience in services of this nature, and I think it my duty to warn your lordships on this occasion, that you must not always expect that ships, however well commanded, or however gallant their seamen may be, are capable of commonly engaging successfully with stone walls. I have no recollection, in all my experience, except the recent instance on the coast of Syria, of any fort being taken by the ships, excepting two or three years ago, when the fort of St. Jean d'Alloa was captured by the French fleet. That is, I think, the single instance that I recollect; though I believe that something of the sort occurred at the siege of Havannah, in 1763. The present achievement I consider one of the greatest deeds of modern times. That is my opinion, and I give the highest credit to those who performed such a service. It was altogether a most skillful proceeding. I was greatly surprised at the small number of men that were lost on board the fleet; and, on inquiring how it happened, I discovered that it was because the vessels were moored within one-third of the ordinary distance. The guns of the fortress were intended to strike objects at a greater distance, and the consequence was, that the shot went over the ships that were anchored at one-third of the usual distance. By that means they sustained not more than one-tenth of the loss which they would otherwise have experienced. Not less than 500 pieces of ordnance were directed against the walls; and the precision with which the fire was kept up, the position of the vessels, and lastly the blowing up of the large magazine, all aided in achieving this great victory in so short a time. I thought it right to say this much, because I wished to warn your lordships against your supposing such deeds as this could be effected every day. I repeat, that this is a singular instance, in the achievement of which great skill was undoubtedly manifested, but which is also connected with peculiar circumstances which you could not hope always to occur. It must not, therefore, be expected as a matter of course, that all such attempts in future must necessarily succeed.

February 4, 1841.

* * * * *

A blow at the Reformation.

There is no doubt that that body (the Roman Catholic seminary of St. Sulpice) was made a corporation by means of that ordinance, yet until that property had been legally vested in them by the ordinance, they had no legal right whatever to it. * * * I was very much struck, I must confess, when first I read the petition and the ordinance relating to this subject; I was very much struck by the total departure it evinced from the principle of the reformation; a principle untouched up to this present moment. And I entreat your lordships, whatever you may think on the subject of this ordinance or other questions—I entreat the attention of your lordships and of the British public to this, that this ordinance was the first blow openly struck by authority at the principles of the reformation; principles hitherto upheld, particularly throughout Canada, from the period of the conquest down to the present moment. I felt strongly on this point the moment I saw the petition and the ordinance, and I still continue to feel strongly on the subject, since I have heard the right reverend prelate state that it was the governor-general, not a member of the legislative council, but the governor-general of the province who brought forward this measure, acting on the part of the queen, whose rights, interests, and prerogative it was his duty to protect, and which he should have protected in the legislative council.

March 5, 1841.

* * * * *

Australia.

It would be much the best plan to put an end to all the Australian commissioners, to whom allusion is made in the bill before your lordships, altogether. A worse system was never adopted for the management of a colony. We ought to place that colony in the same position as the other colonies under the government of her majesty, and rule it in the usual way by the Colonial Office. I disapprove of these commissions altogether.

April 30, 1841.

* * * * *

Evils of Reduced Establishments.

It was stated that the British were expelled from Canton on the 5th of May. I, however, infer from what took place, that the British were obliged to retire at the end of March. Looking to the events of the present year, they appear to me to be exceedingly unsatisfactory. And to what, I would ask, is this owing? It appears to me that this state of things is to be attributed to improper advice. The interests of the country in various parts of the world, have not been properly protected. If there is not a general war, we are placed in a situation that tends to it; and this arises from our having reduced our establishments far below what they ought to be, even in a time of peace. This was the true cause of the present state of things in China, and of delay and consequent misfortune elsewhere; and I much fear that circumstances will occur to cause still further regret at the course that has been adopted with respect to our establishments. I told ministers so at the time they were making those reductions in 1837. I stated to them then that they were not taking such care of our establishments as would enable them, in the event of war, to contend with success against our enemies. The reduction of our establishments has been pursued in different parts of the world, where we are engaged at present, and now we see the consequence.

April 29, 1841.

* * * * *

Poor Law Commissioners must be made to do their duty.

I voted for the Irish poor law bill, and proposed amendments, which, I believe, induced your lordships to pass the bill. I am sure that those amendments had the effect of inducing others to approve of that bill, who would not have done so if those amendments had not been introduced. I did all this on the faith and assurance, not only of the house and the government, but of those gentlemen themselves, that it would be carried into execution in Ireland, with the same strictness and fairness as it was in this country. In this expectation I have been altogether disappointed, and for this reason I am determined, when I get the other papers, to read every line of them, and probe the matter to the bottom, in order to see where the mischief lies. But recollect there is not only this case, but several other cases before your lordships, in every one of which there is corruption. We cannot stop here with the resolutions of my noble friend. The Clonmel case is a very gross case. The noble lord opposite has told us that the office can be but of little importance, as the salary is only 10l. to 30l. a-year; but see what power the office gives. In this very case let your lordships see what happened next day, when the brother-in-law of this individual was appointed valuator, a situation which puts the property of every man, in some degree, in his power. We must go deeper into this question, if we wish to do justice to Ireland, and to the gentlemen who hold property in that country. We must take care that their property shall not be left at the disposal of such miscreants, and we must make the poor law commissioners do their duty. I cannot think of asking him any question on the subject, for it was sufficient for him to know that he was the nephew of a person called the archbishop, to be satisfied of his fitness.

* * * * *

It would be mere stuff to stop here; the persons on whom the house must call are the poor law commissioners themselves. Let them be taught to feel it their duty to keep a correct record of their proceedings, which they shall be ready to produce at any time that the house or the government may call for them. Let them be taught to feel that the house will not permit such conduct as this, and we shall soon see an end to such abuses as those out of which the resolution of my noble friend arises.

May 3, 1841.

* * * * *

Why Corn Laws were imposed.

These laws (corn laws) were not invented, nor have they been maintained, for the purpose of keeping high rents in the pockets of noble lords, but they were invented and have been supported for the purpose of maintaining and supporting agriculture, and of maintaining this country independent of all other countries and parts of the world; and it is also perfectly true, as stated by my noble friend behind me, that such has been the policy of England for centuries, sometimes by one mode, and sometimes by another; sometimes by imposing protective duties when corn rose above certain prices, and sometimes by giving bounties, and occasionally very large bounties, on the exportation of corn. But whatever has been the means, the object has always been to support the agriculture of the country, in order to render this country, in respect of its subsistence, independent of other nations. This was the object of the improved system introduced in the year 1828; this was the object of those principles which have been maintained ever since; at least it was the principle on which I gave those laws my support, and on which I more than once asked your lordships to render this country dependent only on itself for subsistence. This was the object of the corn laws, and not that dirty object which has been imputed to your lordships—and which, I must say, it is too bad to impute to your lordships—of obtaining large rents from your land. It is also perfectly true, as has been stated by my noble friend behind me, that there is not a country of Europe in which corn laws do not at this moment exist; but, nevertheless, I suppose if it were proposed to repeal these laws, and adopt the measures recommended by the petitioners, your lordships would be told of the quantities of corn that might be had from Russia and from Prussia, and other parts of the world. But are there no corn laws in those countries? Has the noble earl heard of no laws prohibiting all exportation of corn to other countries? That fact alters the whole state of the question of corn laws in this country. The effect of such a state of things would be most serious if there came a bad season here and there, too. Then, again, has the noble lord not heard of the high duties imposed on the exportation of corn from those countries during the late wars? Have not your lordships got evidence before some of the committees—have you not got letters from some merchants at Dantzic to one of those governments on the subject of the prices of corn in England, and on the rate of duties imposed at that port? and was it not stated that the increased price obtained from England might be expected to enable those merchants to pay the duties imposed by their government on exportation? Let it be observed, that I do not blame the sovereign to whom I allude for imposing those duties—I should not have blamed him if it had been an act of war, whereas it was a mere measure of finance. I do not say, that I agree with him in his notions of protection; but I say, that when I consider it a question of protection, that sovereign is not to be blamed, and that his object was like that of your lordships, to secure the subsistence of his subjects, and not to cause a rise of rents.

May 7, 1841.

* * * * *

The Corn Laws.

The first man who brought forward those opinions (Adam Smith) which I have read as well as noble lords opposite, made an exception upon this very subject. He excepted corn from the doctrines he laid down as to all the other articles of trade. In relation to the subsistence of the people he says, that we must always take care to ensure that subsistence within the country itself—and accordingly he excepts corn from the several doctrines which he lays down. I confess I have heard nothing during these discussions to alter my opinion, that the corn laws which were adopted almost unanimously in 1828, have perfectly answered the purposes for which they were intended, and have kept the prices as steady as the nature of the commodity will allow. Yes, my lords, in this country, when we have produced corn for our own subsistence, and it is our object invariably to produce it, prices have been more steady than in any other country of Europe. It it my opinion, on all these grounds, that these laws have operated as successfully as any laws could have done.

May 11,1841.

* * * * *

Agriculture and Manufactures.

I cordially concur in the feeling that the prosperity of the agriculturist must depend on the general prosperity of the manufacturer, and of commercial interests in general. There can be no doubt about that, and then corn laws are supported, not with a view to the advantage of any particular interest or class of men, but with a view to render the whole country independent of foreign countries in respect of its supply of food. I believe that all parts of the country, and every individual resident in it, are interested in this subject.

May 17, 1841.

* * * * *

Cotton and Corn.

Allusion has been made to the increase in imports in cotton. It has been said but small profits were made upon the manufacture of this immense quantity of produce, but that appears to me to have no connection with the question of the corn laws. The fact is, the improvements in the machinery, and the introduction of steam, have enabled the manufacturers to manufacture with very little cost. They do not make the profit now they did fifty years ago; but they still make profits, although diminished by competition—not by competition with the foreigner, but by competition at home. Other manufacturers who were aware that profits were to be made, although not so large as formerly, entered the field, built new manufactories, established machinery, and thus introduced fresh competition.

May 25, 1841.

* * * * *

Grounds of Complaint against the Whigs in 1841.

These grounds are neglect and mismanagement of the finances of this country by her majesty's government, the future consequence of which, as has been stated, it is impossible to foresee, and the improper, impolitic and unconstitutional means which they took to recover themselves. These things were proved by reference to the actual state of the finances, when it was found necessary to review them in the last parliament; and it was shewn that, in point of fact, after a period of about five years, a debt had not alone been accumulated of five millions, but there had also been a vast deficiency in the public revenue. This debt and deficiency are to be attributed to the practice adopted by her majesty's government of carrying on extensive operations, of which nobody approves, mind you, more than I do when done as they should be, and at the same time not making due provision for the increased expenditure, occasioned by their carrying on war in several places with a peace establishment, being the most crying of these evils, and neglecting to employ the proper means for meeting the increased charge, and putting an end to the impending danger. The next allegation against them, my lords, is for not making financial provision in the way of ways and means for the expense and charge incurred by the country from the exertions made to put an end to the danger which menaced it. A noble lord has stated that, though a large amount of army and ordnance was kept on foot after 1831, no provision had been made for the additional expenditure in the usual way of an application to parliament, but that irregular and unconstitutional modes were adopted by her majesty's government for finding means of defraying those expenses. In this, my lords, my noble friend spoke but the simple truth. In one case the whole charge of a war had been thrown on the East India Company, and then converted into a debt on this country; in another the funds of the savings' banks had been tampered with; in another the Exchequer bills had been funded; and, in short, several most irregular modes has been adopted. Then, my lords, what happened? Besides these expenses; besides the failure of the government to make due provision by the mode of ways and means to defray the charges incurred by their naval and military operations; besides these, my lords, her majesty's government thought proper to repeal a large amount of taxes, by which means they reduced the revenue of the country to such a degree as materially and inevitably left a most serious deficiency.

August 24, 1841.

* * * * *

Hasty adoption of Free Trade by the Whigs.

My lords, it is not more than fourteen months ago since I heard the noble viscount (Melbourne) say,—making use of the strongest language I ever heard in opposition to a motion merely for taking the corn laws into consideration,—the noble viscount on that occasion declared before God, with reference to the abolition of the corn laws, that he believed the man must be mad who dreamed of such a thing. Now, my lords, I do not pretend to say that the noble viscount has not a perfect right to change his opinions. I believe he thought that he had good grounds for doing so, and I think I have myself read the report which induced him to change them. But this I do say, that, before your lordships and the country were placed in this situation in regard to the queen, the noble viscount was bound to give parliament and the country an opportunity of obtaining that knowledge and information as to the true merits of the question, which he imagines himself to have obtained.

* * * * *

It is by such inquiries as these, my lords, calmly and patiently conducted, that men are enabled to judge respecting the consequences of great changes of this nature, and of the bearings and tendencies of each particular part of what is intended to be done. But, instead of such a course being pursued, what has been done in the present instance? Nothing. * * I further think, that the committee and report were ex parte ones, upon which no legislative measures ought to have been founded. But what I chiefly complain of is this, that before the noble viscount put this speech into the mouth of her majesty, he did not give us full and fair information to guide us as to what we ought to do. I believe, my lords, that conduct like this is sufficient to induce you to say that the noble lords opposite do not deserve your confidence.

August 24, 1841.

* * * * *

Lord Melbourne's services to the Queen.

I am willing to admit that the noble viscount has rendered the greatest possible service to her majesty. I happen to know that it is her majesty's opinion that the noble viscount has rendered her majesty the greatest possible service, in making her acquainted with the mode and policy of the government of this country, initiating her into the laws and spirit of the constitution, independently of the performance of his duty, as the servant of her majesty's crown; teaching her, in short, to preside over the destinies of this great country.

August 24, 1841.

* * * * *

England the best country for the Poor.

With respect to the corn law question, my opinions are already well known. I shall not argue the propriety of these laws, but I shall be ready to discuss them when a discussion is brought forward by a government having the confidence of her majesty's parliament. But, my lords, I earnestly recommend you, for the sake of the people of this country, for the sake of the humblest orders of the people, not to lend yourselves to the destruction of our native cultivation. Its encouragement is of the utmost and deepest importance to all classes. My lords, I have passed my life in foreign countries, in different regions of the earth, and I have been in only one country in which the poor man, if sober, prudent, and industrious, is quite certain of acquiring a competence. That country is this. We have instances every day; we have seen, only within the last week, proofs that persons in the lowest ranks can acquire, not only competence, but immense riches. I have never heard of such a thing in any other country. I earnestly beg of you not to lose sight of this fact, and not to consent to any measure which would injure the cultivation of our own soil. I have seen in other lands the misery consequent on the destruction of cultivation, and never was misery equal to it; and, my lords, I once more conjure you not to consent to any measure tending to injure the home cultivation of this country.

August 24, 1841.

* * * * *

Opinions on Abstract Questions of Policy inexpedient.

My lords, the noble viscount states, and he states truly, that it is not a habit in this house to call on your lordships to give an opinion on abstract questions of policy. That, my lords, is perfectly true, and I have myself endeavoured to bring the house to that view on more than one occasion, that is, to prevent the expression of any opinion on abstract questions of policy, in the shape of an address or otherwise, until it should be brought before your lordships in the shape of a distinct legislative measure. More than once I have succeeded in persuading your lordships to withhold such opinion, and on some occasions, even, I have supported the government (whig) against them, however much I may have disapproved of their policy with regard to them.

August 24, 1841.

* * * * *

It is at all times desirable that the sovereign should not be pledged in the speech from the throne.

August 24, 1841.

* * * * *

Abolition of Oaths.

The foundation of all justice is truth, and the question is, how truth is to be ascertained. Before I can receive any application of this description, and before I can vote for the bill lately laid on your lordships' table, I would like to hear the opinion of some of those learned men who are at this moment engaged in the administration of the law, and who must have made up their minds as to the best means of ascertaining the truth. Hitherto it has been understood in this country that the best means was by administering oaths. I am aware that the legislature has made certain exceptions. It may be very well to make these exceptions—and let further exceptions be made if they are expedient—but I do say, that we ought to have some solemn examination of the question, and some certainty that the new mode proposed is as good as the old one for ascertaining the truth, which, as is said, is the foundation of all justice.

March 18, 1842.

* * * * *

The Income Tax only justified by Necessity.

I can answer for myself, and I believe I can also answer for my colleagues, that nothing but necessity could have induced us to propose such a tax. We are perfectly aware of all the inconveniences that must result from it. We are perfectly aware of the provisions of the act of parliament upon your lordships' table. We are perfectly aware of the odious powers with which these commissioners and others must be trusted—and we can reconcile it to ourselves only by the necessity of the case. Your lordships must feel it. We have been now for several years engaged in operations involving great expense in all parts of the world. I will not say, my lords, that we have been at war, but, I believe, we have been at something as like war, if it be not war, as anything could well be. We are exactly in the situation of persons who have incurred a great debt, and who are called upon to pay the bill. I say again, my lords, that nothing but a strong sense of the necessity of the case, and that there was no other course which we could take to produce such a revenue as would enable us to meet the difficulties of the country, or to do what is necessary for its prosperity, would have induced us to propose such a measure; and it will not last one moment longer than it shall be absolutely necessary.

June 17, 1842.

* * * * *

The Poor Law has worked well.

I was one of those who supported the poor law as it was introduced some years ago by my noble and learned friend, and I did so on ascertaining the inconveniences and evils which attended the system of working under the old poor law up to that period; and being sensible that the only remedy which could be found for those evils and inconveniences, was in the measure proposed by my noble and learned friend. My lords, I have since had the satisfaction of contemplating the working of the measure, which then became the law of the land, and I must say that I have been satisfied with its results. It has, undoubtedly, improved the condition of the working classes, and it certainly does place on a better footing the relations between the working classes and their employers. It has enabled those who had the care of them to provide better for the aged and destitute than has been hitherto the case; and it has, in general, given satisfaction throughout the country. My lords, I don't mean to say that I approve of every act that has been done in carrying this bill into operation. I think that, in many cases, those who had charge of the working of the bill have gone too far, and that there was no occasion whatever for constructing buildings, such as have acquired throughout the country the denomination of bastiles, and that it would have been perfectly easy to have established very efficient workhouses without shutting out all view of what was passing exterior to the walls. I say, then, that in some respects, the system has been carried farther than it ought to have been, and, I shall also say that its features have assumed a harsher character in some parts of the country than was necessary; but this has been owing, I must admit, in a great degree, to the adoption of another law by parliament, I mean what is called the dissenters' marriage act, the regulations depending on which were connected with the execution of the poor law act, and rendered necessary the establishment of unions in many parts of the country which were not yet ripe for the formation of those unions. But, notwithstanding the circumstances to which I have just now alluded, I must, in general, state my approbation of the working of this act. I have paid great attention to the subject. Wherever I have resided, I have attended the meetings of guardians of unions in my neighbourhood; I have visited several workhouses in different parts of England, and I must say that I never visited one in which the management was not as good as could be expected in such districts of the country, and which did not give universal satisfaction.

July 26, 1842.

* * * * *

The government of Lord Melbourne carried on war all over the world with a peace establishment. That is exactly what we (Sir Robert Peel's government) do not.

February 2, 1843.

* * * * * Real cause of the Chinese War.

I was almost the only individual who stated that the real ground of complaint against the Chinese government was its conduct towards the person employed in the service of her majesty, and representing her majesty in China. I was the only person in this house who defended her majesty's servants. I said that the war was a just and necessary war. I will go further, and say, if it had been otherwise—if it had been a war solely on account of the robbery of the opium—if her majesty's government were engaged in that war, and if their interests and honour were involved in it, I should have considered it my duty to make every effort for carrying it on with success, and have asked parliament for the assistance which would have enabled her majesty's servants to bring it to an early and successful termination.

* * * * *

Eulogium on the Indian Army.

My lords, I know something of that (Indian) army; I have served in its ranks, and I know pretty well what its feelings are; and though there are different castes and religions composing it, the discipline of that army, and the military spirit by which it is actuated, totally do away with all such distinctions. You will never hear in India of any difference of caste or religion in that army, any more than you would in the ranks of the British army. All do their duty,—all are animated by the true feelings of soldiers.

March 9, 1843.

* * * * *

Evils of the Press in India.

The state of things in that country is one of much greater difficulty now than when I was there, because there is now established in India what is called a free press, but which I should make free to call a most licentious press; and by referring to these papers your lordships will see that the mischievous influence of that press is repeatedly complained of. For my own part, I must own, I do not see how the operations of war can be carried on in a satisfactory manner in India, with such a press constantly exercising its influence, and connected through its correspondents with every cantonment of the army.

March 9, 1843.

* * * * *

The Union must be maintained inviolate.

There can be no doubt of the intention of her majesty's government to maintain the union inviolate; and it is the duty of every government, and I will say it is the determination of her majesty's present government, to maintain that union inviolate, and to come down to parliament and call upon parliament to give her majesty's government its support in carrying into execution any measures which may he considered necessary to maintain the union inviolate, and to preserve from turbulence the peace of her majesty's dominions.

May 9, 1843.

* * * * *

The House of Lords should disregard popular Clamour.

As to the remarks which are made on your lordships elsewhere, I am one of those animadverted upon, and I am glad to find myself upon this occasion in such extremely good company. For myself, I can only say that I have been for a great number of years in the habit of treating such criticisms and such assaults with the smallest possible attention; and I shall continue to do my duty to the best of my ability, in the service of my sovereign, or elsewhere, and continue to treat the language referred to with as little attention as heretofore; and I recommend noble lords on both sides of the house to follow my example in this respect.

May 15, 1843.

* * * * *

Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.

There can have been no object in the measure (the bill for the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor), but to make all the arrangements in the manner most convenient to the country generally. There could have been no desire to injure the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, or any other district in the kingdom; but the object was to make a better distribution of the revenues of the church, and to satisfy the public of a sincere desire to effect such a reformation as would be a real one, and such as would give satisfaction, not only to those who were attached to the church, as my noble friend and myself, but also to others who looked upon it with indifference.

May 23, 1843.

* * * * *

The Duke of Sussex.

My lords, his late royal highness was well known to all your lordships. His royal highness frequently took part in the discussion of those subjects which came under your lordships' consideration; and although it was impossible for every person endowed with such acquirements, and possessed of such an understanding, as belonged to his late royal highness, not to have felt strongly on the various events and questions which from time to time were brought under the consideration of this house, yet his late royal highness always treated those subjects, however exciting they might have been, with much moderation, and with great forbearance towards others with whom he might have a difference of opinion. I must do his late royal highness the justice to say, that though I had the unhappiness to differ from him in opinion on several subjects which came under discussion in this house, yet, notwithstanding that difference of opinion, his late royal highness ever treated me with unvarying kindness, and with the utmost condescension. My lords, his late royal highness having received the benefit of an excellent education, and having in his youth passed a considerable portion of his time in foreign countries, was a most accomplished man; and he continued his studies, in all branches of literature and science, until almost the latest period of his existence. His late royal highness was, during his whole life, the protector of literature, of the sciences, and of the arts, and of the professors and representives of all branches of knowledge. For a number of years his late royal highness was elected president of the Royal Society, and he received the learned members of that body in his house with the greatest amenity and kindness. Having himself sedulously cultivated all subjects of literature, science, and art, his late royal highness was, I may say, the patron, protector, and friend, of all those who pursued such studies, on every occasion when that protection was necessary. But other praise belongs to his late royal highness. His royal highness was not backward—on the contrary, he was equally forward with all the princes of his family—as a patron and upholder, as a supporter and protector, of the various charitable institutions of this metropolis; and, my lords, up to the last moment of his life, he was the friend of the indigent and the unfortunate wherever they might be found.

April 27, 1843.

* * * * *

Reasons for the Dismissal of the Irish Magistrates.

These gentlemen having been some of the persons to instigate and encourage the assembly of those large meetings in Ireland, on which the first law authority had pronounced in writing the opinion that they had a "tendency to outrage;" that "they were not in the spirit of the constitution, and may become dangerous to the State;" the lord-lieutenant of the government could not put any confidence in the performance of their duties by these magistrates and deputy-lieutenants, who had thus excited these meetings, or who presided at them. Your lordships are perfectly aware that on one occasion it was proved that these meetings had a tendency to outrage—indeed, outrage was actually committed. I told your lordships on a former occasion that there was a great difference in Ireland on the subject of the repeal of the union. Now, suppose that two assemblies representing such opinions assemble on the same occasion and in the same neighbourhood, why it is obvious that outrage and bloodshed may occur, and it must be likewise obvious that those magistrates and deputy-lieutenants are not officers on whom the Lord-lieutenant can rely for carrying into execution measures for the repression and suppression of outrage which he may think proper to take on such an occasion. My lords I have besides to observe to your lordships, that for a very considerable period of time it has been a matter of notoriety in Ireland that the members of her Majesty's council, her majesty's servants in this and the other house of arliament, declared it to be the fixed and positive determination of the government to maintain inviolate the legislative union between the two countries. Some of the most distinguished members of both houses of parliament declared, in their places, that they had the same intention; and this declaration of opinion has been communicated to the public more than once; and in no one instance, as I believe, has there been an intention avowed to promote the object of this repeal of the union. Well, then, what must be inferred from the notoriety of that fact? What but that the repeal of the union, so far as a vote of parliament is concerned, is hopeless? It is to be carried then by intimidation, by force, and violence; and, of course, as the government, whose duty it is to resist and repress such acts of intimidation, force, and violence, whenever they should be attempted, by all the means at their disposal, cannot use such instruments as those who excite the people to appear at their head, the lord-lieutenant and lord chancellor have taken measures to remove them from the commission of the peace, and deputy-lieutenancies of their several counties. This is the principle, my lords, on which I conceive the government has acted.

June 9, 1843.

* * * * *

After what passed in both houses of parliament it became a matter of notoriety that the opinion of parliament was, that the legislative union should not be repealed, and that every effort on the part of the government should be made to resist the attempt to occasion that repeal. Then, my lords, under these circumstances, the lord chancellor finds Lord French and other magistrates calling meetings to repeal the union, assisting at the meetings, presiding at them, and urging all the proceedings. At this time the opinion of parliament was notorious, yet meetings consisting of 10,000, 20,000, 100,000, no matter as to the number of thousands, continued. My lords, I wish to know with what object they were continued? Was it with a view to address parliament to repeal the union? No, my lords, they were continued to obtain the desired repeal of the union,—by terror, if possible,—if not, by force and violence. And the persons calling these meetings, I beg your lordships to observe, were the magistrates, the very men who must have been employed by government to take measures to resist this violence, to prevent breaches of the peace, to arrest those who should be guilty of such breaches, and to bring them to justice; and then the noble lord says, that the government ought not to have removed those magistrates from their situations, and that they ought not to draw a distinction as to the time when it became notorious to the whole world what were the views entertained by parliament and the government on this important question. My lords, in this and the other house of parliament, no one would have any idea of repealing the union except in regular course, like another act of parliament; but with these meetings of 50,000 and 60,000 men, was there any question of discussion? No, my lords, the question was terror, force, and violence. That was the ground on which the lord chancellor told these magistrates after the views of the government had become notorious, you must be dismissed if you attend, or excite others to attend, such meetings. I am as much concerned that this state of affairs should exist as the noble lord can be; but of this I am quite certain, that the way to be prepared is not to have in the service of the government—not to have government dependant upon the exertions of—a number of magistrates who have excited and encouraged these proceedings, assisting at and presiding over these very meetings. That could not have been desirable, and I say that the lord chancellor and situation as that of governor-general of India, an officer who was so for little more than two years—an officer who has given satisfaction in so high a situation to those by whom he was intrusted and employed—whose acts have been concurred in and sanctioned in every instance; to recall that officer suddenly, making no provision for the performance of the great duties which are to be performed, and which must he performed in that country—to recall an officer in whom the government fully confided, without the concurrence of that government—is, my lords, an act, to say the least of it, that cannot be called a discreet exercise of the power which is conferred on those who have so used it. My lords, I will say nothing—- I will advert to nothing that is not notorious—that is not strictly in reference to the act of parliament. I beg your lordships to observe, that the body which did this act—which I must call an act of indiscretion, at least—that body, as a body, has no knowledge whatever of the instructions sent out to the governor-general, and under which he acted. They stated reasons for withdrawing the governor-general from India; but, as a body (except the secret committee appointed under the act of parliament), they had no knowledge whatever of the instructions under which the governor-general acted, or of the events which had taken place in that country, except that which is within the general knowledge of this and the other house of parliament, and the whole public of this country. And yet, my lords, they take this responsibility upon themselves—having no knowledge of the instructions which it was deemed at Waterloo. Very possibly not, my lords. Bear in mind what he said in respect to the augmentation of his numbers, and the means of assembling those persons. He said on one occasion, that by the post of one night, he could collect the whole of this force in different parts of the country; and it is perfectly true,—I have not a doubt of the fact.

July 14, 1843.

* * * * *

Remedial Measures of no avail whilst Agitation continues in Ireland.

My lords, I must say, that grieved as I am that there should be so much truth in the representations made by the noble lord of the existing state of the country, and of its prospects, threatened as they are by the continuance of agitation, I must say, that no measure that could be proposed, no new measure which could be adopted, would have the smallest effect in removing any of these evils or inconveniences. My lords, the only mode, the only course to be adopted on the part of the government, is to oppose a strong resistance to everything like a breach of the peace or public order, and to be prepared, as I hope they are prepared, to enforce measures for preserving quiet, and protecting property, in Ireland. My lords, I know of no remedy but that for the state of affairs which exists at present; particularly as it appears that whether the peace of the country shall be disturbed or not, depends on the will of one man, and his influence over the wills and actions of some thousands, who possess influence in various parishes of the country.

July 14, 1843.

* * * * *

Agitation no Relief for the Poverty of Ireland.

My lords, it certainly is true that there is in Ireland a vast number of poor. I have been sorry to see that it is stated in some returns on the table, that there are as many as 2,000,000 of poor in Ireland. My lords, it happens unfortunately, that in all parts of the empire there are poor; but I will beg to observe, that it is not in the power of this government, nor of any government, nor of any parliament, in the course of a few weeks, or a few months, or, I may say, a few years, to relieve the poverty of a great country like that, extending as it does to such a portion of the population. But, my lords, I beg to know whether poverty can be relieved by this description of agitation for the repeal of the union? Is poverty relieved by marches of twenty-five and thirty Irish miles a-day, during the period of spring and summer, to hear seditious speeches? Is poverty relieved by subscriptions of thousands of pounds to the repeal rent, and the O'Connell rent, and other funds of that description? No, my lords, that poverty must be relieved by a perseverance in industry and sobriety; not taken up by fits and starts for the sake of a more orderly appearance at seditious meetings, where the people are marshalled by bands of music and flying colours. The evils, whence that poverty proceeds, are not to be cured in a day. The remedies must be some time in operation; and all I can say is, that the government are sincerely desirous to avail themselves of every opportunity that may tend to benefit the people of Ireland, and to relieve that poverty of which the noble lord so eloquently complains.

July 14, 1843.

* * * * *

Assistance of Foreigners to the Repeal Agitation.—Their Anti-English Motives.

My lords, I do not dispute the extent of the conspiracy—I do not dispute the dangers resulting from organization in Ireland—I have stated it publicly on more than one occasion—I do not deny it—it is notorious, it is avowed, it is published in every paper all over the world. I do not deny the assistance received from foreigners, not from foreign governments,—I have no right to say so,—but from foreigners of nearly all nations; for there are disturbed and disturbing spirits everywhere, who are anxious to have an opportunity of injuring and deteriorating the great prosperity of this country.

August 8, 1843.

* * * * *

The Military in readiness to preserve the Peace in Ireland.

I, whose duty it is to superintend one of those offices on which the execution of the measures of the government depends, feel confident that everything that can be done has been done, in order to enable the government to preserve the peace of the country, and to meet all misfortunes and consequences which may result from the violence of the passions of those men who unfortunately guide the multitude in Ireland.

August 8, 1843.

* * * * *

Mr. O'Connell's Proceedings.

To plunder the public in Ireland of money for the purpose of O'Connell rent, or repeal contribution, or the lord lieutenant would not have done their duty if they had not removed those persons from her majesty's service.

July 14, 1845.

* * * * *

The "Monster" Meetings in Ireland.

The noble lord (the Marquis of Clanricarde) has stated that these meetings were not illegal. I certainly do not consider myself competent to decide whether they were or were not illegal. This I know, that they consist of very large numbers—whether of 10,000 or 100,000 I am sure I cannot tell, and I do not believe any man can tell to a certainty. They are assembled in very large numbers, regularly organised, marching under the lead of persons on horseback, with bands and banners, in regular military array. After having attended these meetings, those present are dispersed by word of command, without trouble, violence, or breach of the peace, and march back, perhaps twenty or thirty miles. * * * My lords, I have had some experience, in the course of a long life, which I have passed in the service of the sovereigns of this country, of revolutions. A distinguished author has written of the French revolution. "On ne conspire pas sur la place." There is no secret in these transactions, and the reason why there is no secret is this, that the great means of operation are deception of their followers, and terror in respect of their adversaries. Accordingly, we hear a learned gentleman exclaiming to his audience, "Napoleon had not in Russia such an army as this is; the Duke of Wellington had not such a one repeal of those laws upon which the reformation in this country has been founded. My lords, I have already taken opportunities of warning your lordships against the assertion of such doctrines in this house, and I must again express a hope that you will observe and beware how they are introduced into it, because you may rely upon it, that there is not an individual in this country, be his religious opinions what they may, be his position what it may, who is not interested in the maintenance of the reformation. Not only our whole system of religion, but our whole system of religious toleration, in which so many people in this country are interested, depends upon the laws upon which the reformation was founded; and I therefore entreat your lordships to give no encouragement to doctrines that might induce a belief that there exists in this house any indifference upon the subject of those laws.

March 18, 1844.

* * * * *

The Compact entered into for the Maintenance of the Protestant Church in Ireland should be held sacred.

The Protestant church in Ireland has existed in that country for a period of nearly three hundred years, and was maintained in that country during a century of contests, rebellions, and massacres; and during a contest for the possession of the crown, the Protestants of that country encountered that contest, and kept possession of their church; and during another century it was maintained through much opposition, and under difficulties of all descriptions. At the period of the union, the parliament—who had the power to consent to the union, or to refuse their consent—stipulated that the Protestant church in Ireland should be maintained, and maintained on the same footing as the Protestant church of England in this country. The parliament had, under the auspices of the king of this country, the power of either making or not making that compact. Your lordships entered into that compact with the parliament of Ireland, and I entreat you never to lose sight of the fact. I entreat you not to suffer yourselves to be prevailed upon to make any alteration in, or to depart in the slightest degree from, the terms of that compact, so long as you intend to maintain the union between this country and Ireland. It is the foundation upon which the union rests,—it is a compact which you have entered into with the parliament of Ireland, and from which you cannot depart without being guilty of a breach of faith, worse than those which have been referred to in other countries,—worse than those pecuniary breaches of faith which have been alluded to in the course of the discussion which took place in your lordships' house this evening upon another subject. I entreat you to listen to none of those petitions or speeches which tend to the injury or the destruction of the church in Ireland. Do what may be necessary,—do what it may be proper to do, in order to render that church more beneficial to the people of that country; but I entreat you to adhere strictly, in spirit and according to the letter, to the compact you have made, and not permit it to be supposed in any quarter whatever that you entertain the most distant intention of departing, in the slightest degree, from that arrangement.

March 18, 1844.

* * * * *

The recall of the Governor-General of India, by the Court of Directors, an act of gross indiscretion.

My lords, I conceive that this right (of recalling the governor-general of India) is one which the court of directors are bound to exercise with due discretion; as all bodies and all individuals ought to do, when they possess extraordinary powers under the provisions of the law. In such cases, my lords, they are hound to exercise that power with the utmost discretion. Now, my lords, I will venture to submit to your lordships, as the opinion of an individual who has had some experience in these matters, that the exercise of the power belonging to the court of directors is not, in this instance, to say the least of it, a discreet exercise of that power. My lords, the court of directors has this power. It has also the power of nominating a successor in the room of the person recalled. But, my lords, it has no other power whatever, as your lordships will find in looking into the law on the subject—it has no other power whatever, my lords, except under the direction and control of the board of commissioners for the affairs of India, and for the acts of that board of commissioners her majesty's government is responsible. Under these circumstances, my lords, I venture again to say, what I before said, that it is not a discreet act of authority to recall from power—to recall from such an important what not, is one thing; to excite the common people of the country to approach as near as possible to the commission of crime, and to do all the mischief that is possible to be done to the country, without exposing one's own person, is another thing; but to corrupt the army is quite a different thing, which, I hope and trust, I may promise your lordships will not be fulfilled.

August 11, 1843.

* * * * *

Eulogium on Major-General Sir Charles Napier.

My lords, I must say, that, after giving the fullest consideration to these operations (in Scinde), I have never known an instance of an officer who has shown in a higher degree that he possesses all the qualities and qualifications to enable him to conduct great operations. He has maintained the utmost discretion and prudence in the formation of his plans, the utmost activity in all the preparations to ensure his success, and, finally, the utmost zeal, gallantry, and science, in carrying them into execution.

February 12, 1844.

* * * * *

Persons of every Religious Denomination interested in the maintenance of the Reformation.

The noble lord (Earl Fitzwilliam) has propounded to your lordships a something, neither the nature of which, nor the period at which it is to be carried into execution, is he himself exactly certain of. Something or other must be done; to that something this country must make up its mind; the noble lord does not state what it is to be; but it is, at all events, to involve the necessary to send out to that part of the globe—and the act of parliament will shew they are bound to have none—having no share in giving those instructions—in short, having no knowledge on which to found a judgment on so important a subject as the recall of a governor-general, they took upon themselves to pronounce their judgment on the conduct of this officer, and to disapprove of it. Now, my lords, I must say, that having no knowledge which could enable them fairly to pronounce their judgment on his conduct, or that could justify them in depriving the government and the country of the best instrument—I say it again, the best instrument to carry on and perform the various duties of that great office, making no provision whatever for the performance of those duties which are now to be provided for by her majesty's government, is an indiscreet exercise of the powers they possess. My lords, as I have said so much on this subject, I will, in order to illustrate the indiscretion of this act (that is the best word I can find for it), go yet a little further. My lords, though I believe this is the first time in the history of the government of India that this extreme measure has been resorted to by the court of directors, it has more than once been in contemplation; but upon the advice and remonstrance of the ministers of the day, the resolution of the court of directors has been always withdrawn. And it is the fact, that it has been in contemplation by these very gentlemen, with reference to this same governor general, in the course of the last twelve months; but they were at that time prevailed upon to withdraw that resolution, and not to persist in the recall of my noble friend. This was previous to the late great military operations in Gwalior, of which we have all heard with so much satisfaction,—operations which I am sure your lordships will have perceived from the perusal of the reports which have been laid upon your table, must have been founded upon the most just and discriminate measures, for the equipment and maintenance of the armies placed in the field, under the direction and superintendence of the governor general—not the equipment only of these armies—but the support of the troops in the field, the maintenance of military communication, and the moans of advance and retreat—in short, all that could tend to insure their success—were amply provided for. Then, my lords, suppose the case to have occurred of the court of directors thinking proper to recall the noble lord six or eight months ago, whilst the measures to which I have just alluded were in contemplation, what would have become of the great operations at Gwalior—operations carried on under the superintendence and direction of my noble friend the governor general. Why, the gentleman who was senior in the council must have succeeded my noble friend—a respectable man no doubt he is, but without the experience of my noble friend; and without the knowledge of the manner of equipping armies, and making proper arrangements for their being called into action, it is needless to add, that such great and successful operations as those to which I have alluded could not be carried on, and I leave your lordships to judge what the situation of India would have been if that expedition had failed, and if such an army as the one which we have seen described in one of the blue books upon this table had continued in existence, threatened, as we were, at the same moment, by a similar body in the Punjaub, on the north-west frontier, and with the province of Scinde still in an unsettled state. Why, my lords, the danger would have been imminent, and this would have been the consequence of the recall of my noble friend six or eight months ago, a measure which was in contemplation, and was only prevented by our representations to those who have now committed this gross indiscretion of recalling the noble lord—it was prevented only by the representations made to those gentlemen of the danger which would ensue to the public interest from the measures which they were about to adopt, the dangers resulting from the impossibility that they would be able to provide for events which most probably would occur if they recalled their officer without the consent of her majesty's government, who would thus be deprived of the instrument in their hands best fitted for carrying their instructions into execution, while the directors, in this country, must be unable to direct the means in existence for securing the safety of their troops, for guarding their frontier, for upholding the honour of Her majesty's arms, and the security of our vast dominions in that part of the world. I say again, as I have said before, and I say the least of it, when I pronounce it to be the most indiscreet exercise of power that I have known carried into execution by any body possessed of power since I have had a knowledge of public affairs, which I am sorry to say is upwards of half a century.

April 29, 1844.

* * * * *

His Support of the New Poor Law (Ireland.)

I will take the liberty of reminding your lordships that the New Poor Law was originated by noble lords opposite, while they were in the service of her majesty, and that I gave the measure my support from a sense of duty, because I thought it was calculated to benefit Ireland. I have throughout supported the measure; I proposed some amendments which I thought likely to promote its beneficial action; I have given it my support ever since; and I am prepared to do all in my power to ensure its successful operation.

May 17, 1844.