Maxims and Opinions of Field-Marshal His Grace the Duke of Wellington Part 19

_If the Reform Bill be pa.s.sed, it will be impossible to preserve inviolate the Union with Ireland._

My opinion is, that your Lordships will find it difficult, indeed, after having pa.s.sed the Bill under discussion of the other House of Parliament, to maintain inviolate that Union which now exists between the two countries. I mean to say, that in the event of that bill pa.s.sing, it would be impossible to maintain that article of the Union which recognises the Church of England as a branch of that Union, and which guarantees its safety. I beg to call to your Lordships'

recollection, that his Majesty is sworn to maintain that Union inviolate; and that, in adopting the Reform measure, the Parliament do actually expose his Majesty to the risk of consenting to a bill calculated to break down the Church Establishment in Ireland. This is the impression I have always entertained--and it is an impression which I cannot remove from my mind; and, I must confess, that when I heard the other night the n.o.ble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Brougham) a.s.sert that the Reform Bill had put down agitation in Ireland, on the subject of a Repeal of the Union, I was much surprised.

_April 22, 1831._

_Importance of Portugal to England._

There is no country in Europe whose alliance is so important to England as Portugal; there is no country, the preservation of whose independence is so important to us, as that of Portugal.

_July 26, 1831._

_A preventive Police checks Crime._

In all foreign countries there exists a preventive police,--but there is no such thing in England,--which preventive police has the effect of checking crime in a very great degree. We have nothing of the sort in England, neither can there be, according to the principles of our law and const.i.tution. Such being the case, your Lordships must use great caution in drawing comparisons between convictions in this and foreign countries; if that is not done, the most erroneous conclusions will be arrived at.

_September 6, 1831._

_A War of Opinions the worst of Wars._

The truth is, that the government of Portugal has, for the last ten months, been looked upon with inimical feelings and with pa.s.sion by the King's servants; and this measure[13] is not brought forward with any view to revenue, but for the purpose of opposing and embarra.s.sing the existing Government of that country. The n.o.ble Lords opposite do not like the situation of the Government of Portugal; it is not to their mind; and they are anxious, either by revolutionary measures, or any other, to overthrow it. Let them, however, look well at the responsibility they are incurring. Let them consider the frightful consequences in which their planning may involve this country, and the whole of Europe. If their designs even met with a temporary success, they would inevitably lead to a war of opinion, to a war of religion--the worst of wars, and the most deplorable consequences for all Europe would ensue.

_September 30, 1831._

[Footnote 13: The Wine Duties Bill; for regulating the tariff as regards Portugal.]

_The Duke's Declaration against all Reform._

But, my Lords, if I wanted an example of the value of the House of Commons, I should find it in the opinion of the n.o.ble Earl (Grey) the last time, I believe, the last time that he spoke of the House of Commons. In the month of February, 1817, the n.o.ble Lord said, "const.i.tuted as it now was, he, in his conscience, believed that the House of Commons was, of all other inst.i.tutions, in all the other countries of the world, the inst.i.tution best calculated for the general protection of the subject. Supported by the people, in temperate and firm claims for redress, it was not only able, but certain to remedy every wrong. It was capable of acting as the most efficient control upon the executive, by diminishing the means of consumption, and reducing the pressure of a severe and grinding taxation." That was the opinion of the n.o.ble Earl himself, in 1817; and what, I would ask, has the Parliament done, subsequently, to deserve the disapprobation of the n.o.ble Earl?

What had it done between 1817 and the moment when I p.r.o.nounced that approbation of Parliament, of which my n.o.ble friend (Earl Winchelsea) and the n.o.ble Earl (Grey) have so much disapproved? When the n.o.ble Earl quoted what I said not quite a twelvemonth ago, he might, I think, quote it correctly. What I said was, that Parliament had done its duty by the country, and enjoyed its confidence. I said, that if I had to create a const.i.tution of Parliament, I could not create that which now existed, because I did not believe the art of one man could invent such a system; but I said, that I would do my endeavour to establish one like it, in which property in land should be preponderant. That was what I said; and I afterwards had the satisfaction to hear the n.o.ble Marquis (Lansdowne) deliver a similar opinion. He stated that, in any system of representation which he could support, property and learning must be preponderant. I said that I should consider it my duty to resist the adopting of any plan of reform that should be brought forward. I spoke as a minister of the Crown; I meant to resist reform. The n.o.ble Lords say, that this statement of mine caused great enmity to me, and created that spirit of reform which has since pervaded the whole country. I beg the n.o.ble Earl's pardon; but the spirit of reform in this country was the consequence of the French revolution. It is true, that ever since the American war, a desire for Parliamentary Reform has been manifested, particularly when any disturbance or insurrection has occurred in any of the neighbouring foreign countries--above all, since the French revolution; and when there has been any extraordinary distress or difficulty in the country. At the same time, I believe that, from year to year, the manifestations of such a desire have been less frequent. I have, indeed, the authority of those most friendly to reform for saying that the manifestations of the desire for reform were less frequent, till the period of the revolution of July, 1830, than they had formerly been for a number of years.

_October 4, 1831._

_Electoral Pledges Unconst.i.tutional._

It is on the ground of the dissolution, and of the Speech from the Throne,[14] that I charge the n.o.ble Lords with having excited the spirit which existed in the country at the period of the last general election; and with having been the cause of the unconst.i.tutional practice, hitherto unknown, of electing delegates for a particular purpose to Parliament--delegates to obey the daily instructions of their const.i.tuents, and to be cashiered if they should disobey them, whatever may be their own opinion; instead of being, as they have been hitherto, independent members of Parliament, to deliberate with their colleagues upon matters of common concern, and to decide according to the best of their judgment, after such deliberation and debate. This is an evil of which the country will long feel the consequences, whatever may be the result of these discussions.

[Footnote 14: The Whig ministry dissolved the Parliament in April, 1831.

A new Parliament met in June; and, on the 21st of that month, the King made the speech alluded to. In the interval there had been great excitement in the country.]

My Lords, this measure, thus delegated by the people, and thus brought forward by the Government in Parliament, for the decision of members thus delegated to give it the force of a law, alters every thing; and requires, as the n.o.ble Secretary of State (Lord Melbourne) says, new powers, in order to render it practicable to carry on the Government at all.

_October 4, 1831._

_A Democratic a.s.sembly of the worst description will be elected under the Reform Bill._

Throughout the whole of the empire, persons of the lowest condition of life, liable to, and even existing under, the most pernicious influences, are to have votes; or, in other words, are to exercise political power. Persons in those stations of life do exercise political power already; but, in a few places, in large ma.s.ses; preponderating over the influence of other cla.s.ses of society. What must we expect when these lower cla.s.ses will preponderate everywhere? We know what sort of representatives are returned by the places I have described. What are we to expect, when the whole will be of the same description?

We hear, sometimes, of radical reform; and we know that the term applies to universal suffrage, vote by ballot, annual parliaments, and their consequences. But, I declare, that looking at these changes pervading every part of the representation, root and branch, destroying or changing everything that has existed, even to the relative numbers of the representatives from the three kingdoms fixed by treaty, I should call this a radical reform, rather than reform of any other description.

I cannot but consider that the House of Commons returned by it will be a democratical a.s.sembly of the worst description; that radical reform, vote by ballot, and all the evil consequences to be expected from the deliberations of such an a.s.sembly, must follow from this establishment.

I entreat your Lordships to pause before you agree to establish such a system in your country.

_October 4, 1831._

_The popular Will no ground for conceding Reform._

But we are told that the people wish for this measure; and when we express our sense of the danger which attends it, on account of the democratical power which it tends to establish, an endeavour is made to calm our apprehensions, by the a.s.surance that the people are attached to the Government of King, Lords, and Commons.

If we are to rely upon that feeling of the people--if we are to adopt this measure because it is the pleasure of the people, and because they are attached to the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, why do we not, at once, adopt the measure which we know the people prefer--I mean radical reform; that is to say, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and annual parliaments? If we are to make a change, there can be no reason for not going the full length that the people wish, if we can be sure that the measure will not injure the Government--that to which they are attached--of King, Lords, and Commons.

_October 4, 1831._

_Necessity of the Influence of Property in the House of Commons._

But before we go further, it is desirable that we should examine what is the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, as established in this kingdom. In this Government the King is at the head of everything. All the power is in his hands. He is the head of the Church, the head of the law. Justice is administered in his name. He is the protector of the peace of the country, the head of its political negociations, and of its armed force--not a shilling of public money can be expended without his order and signature. But, notwithstanding these immense powers, the King can do nothing that is contrary to law, or to the engagements of himself or his predecessors.

Every act of the Government, or of the King, is liable to be brought under discussion in, and is in fact controlled by, the House of Commons; and for this reason alone, it is important that we should consider of what description of men the House of Commons is likely to be composed, when we are discussing a question of Parliamentary Reform, in order that we may be quite certain that they will exercise their high function with wisdom and discretion.

It was on these grounds, that I, some time ago, called upon the n.o.ble Earl (Grey) to state by what influence he intended to carry on the King's Government in Parliament, according to the principles fixed at the period of the Revolution, and in practice from that period to this, when this Reform Bill should be pa.s.sed. The n.o.ble Lord answered immediately--not by means of corruption. I am aware of that, my Lords. I am convinced that the n.o.ble Lord is incapable of resorting to such means, as I hope he believes that I am incapable of resorting to them. I did not consider this any answer to my question, which I repeated in a subsequent discussion, on the motion of my n.o.ble friend, the n.o.ble Baron behind me (Lord Wharncliffe). The n.o.ble Earl said, that the Government had nothing to do with such questions; that Parliament was to decide for itself; and that there was no necessity for the interference of Government.

I beg your Lordships to consider what are the questions which in every week, and on every day, are brought under the discussion of the House of Commons--questions affecting the honour, the interests, the rights, the property, of every individual in the country, which the King is bound by his oath to protect, and in the protection of which, all are equally interested. They are questions regarding the proceedings of Courts of Justice, regarding the use of the public force, and hundreds of others, which occur daily, in which every individual is interested. I put legislation out of the question; but can the King from that Throne give to his subjects the necessary protection for their rights and property?

No, my Lords. It is only by the influence of property over the election of Members of the House of Commons, and by the influence of the Crown and of this House, and of the property of the country upon its proceedings, that the great powers of such a body as the House of Commons can be exercised with discretion and safety. The King could not perform the duties of his high station, nor the House of Lords, if the House of Commons were formed on the principle and plan proposed by this bill.

_October 4, 1831._

_The Sacrifice of the Established Church will follow the Reform Bill._