Maxims and Opinions of Field-Marshal His Grace the Duke of Wellington Part 21

It has been urged, that professional honours should not be withheld from a gentleman who is ent.i.tled to them, on account of political offences. I beg to set the n.o.ble Lord right on that point. The offences of which Mr.

O'Connell was convicted, were not political or professional, but legal offences. They were p.r.o.nounced such by the law of the country; and it was to an individual who had been convicted of such offences, that his Majesty's Government thought it right to give a patent of precedence in Ireland.

_February 27, 1832._

_Opinion of the "National" System of Education in Ireland._

I agree in opinion with the n.o.ble and learned Lord (Plunkett), who has declared that opinion with so much eloquence, that any system of education, to succeed, must be founded on religion; and that it cannot stand on any other foundation. The n.o.ble and learned Lord has truly said, that this is to be desired, not simply from the advantages to be derived from religious instruction, but for the promotion of those habits of obedience and discipline which it is necessary to instil into the mind of youth. I admit that the system proposed by Ministers is founded on, and justified by, the reports of the commissioners and of committees of the other House of Parliament; but the doubt I entertain is this--whether the system laid down in the reports, and in the letter of the Right Honourable Secretary for Ireland, is a system which would inculcate those habits of discipline and obedience which are required by the n.o.ble and learned Lord, and which would alone satisfy my own mind, that in adopting it we should be doing that which we ought to do: this is my apprehension. What I feel is this--that there is much doubt whether the new system of education in Ireland will apply to the education of nearly 500,000 persons, in the same advantageous way as is now the case with the existing Societies--the London Hibernian Society, the Sunday School Society, and the Kildare Place Society. What I would say is, that there is already going on a system of religious education, extending its operation to nearer 500,000 than 400,000 persons--a system of real religious education, founded on the Scriptures, which can be interfered with by n.o.body--neither by priest nor by any other man--and which is so directed by this Kildare Place Society, as not to give offence to anybody; and now, when the Government is about to establish another system, (which I have admitted they are justified by the reports in doing), I doubt much whether it will not be attended with less advantage than that which already exists.

I am, myself, by no means satisfied that the system which is to be subst.i.tuted is as good as that which it is proposed to abrogate. If the system is to be changed, I consider that it would be better, perhaps, to have separate schools for the Protestants and Roman Catholics. Although I allow that this would be attended with many inconveniences, still I am inclined to think it would be better than the scheme proposed.

I really cannot see the difference between public and private education; or why causes of dispute should arise between two cla.s.ses of persons, if educated by favour of public grants, rather than between the same cla.s.ses if educated by private means. All cla.s.ses of persons who are educated together, here, by their private means, agree quite well together, as Englishmen; and I do not see why they should not in like manner agree, if they happen to be educated by public grants.

_February 28, 1832._

_Character of the Irish Agitation._

The present state of things in Ireland is to be attributed to the system of agitation, established by persons who will never be quiet as long as the n.o.ble Lord at the head of the Government shall permit them to proceed. It is not, I repeat, to be attributed to the practices or conduct of the clergy, or to the t.i.the Corporation Act, or even to the want of enforcing that Act, but to that system of agitation, combined in the most artful manner, and carried on with a perseverance unequalled on any other occasion; and the n.o.ble Lords may rely upon it, that the state of things which now prevails in Ireland[15] will continue to exist even after this measure shall have been adopted, if that system of agitation is not put an end to.

[Footnote 15: Resistance to the payment of t.i.the.]

_March 8, 1832._

_Protection, not Free Trade, the Principle of our Commercial Law._

Nothing can be more absurd, than to a.s.sert that there is free trade in this country; there is no such thing--there can be no such thing. Our manufactures and our produce have been at all times protected. We have always given protection to the productions of our own soil, and encouragement to our domestic labours; and we have, therefore, rather discouraged, than otherwise, the rivalry of other countries. That has been our system; and I should be sorry to see any measure adopted by this House, opposed to that system under which this country has so many years thriven and prospered. We have always proceeded on the principle of protecting our manufactures and our produce--the produce of our labour and our soil; of protecting them against importation, and extending our home consumption; and on that universal system of protection it is absurd to talk of free trade.

_March 9, 1832._

_The Lord Chancellor's Patronage. Its Private Disposal Defended._

My n.o.ble and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon) has been attacked for having, in the exercise of the patronage of his office, not overlooked the interests of his own family. To be sure he did not, and he ought not to have done so; if he had, he would only have been departing from the practice of all his predecessors. Let me remind your Lordships, that for at least a century and a half back, the Lord Chancellor and Judges have invariably dispensed the patronage attached to their offices in favour of their own immediate relations; so that my n.o.ble and learned friend, in providing for his own family as well as he could, was only acting according to the uniform and acknowledged practice of all his predecessors. The fact is, that the office of Lord Chancellor would be very inadequately remunerated, unless the individual filling it procured the means of providing for his family; and I believe it will be found out ere long, what with this inadequate remuneration, and what with stripping off so much of the Chancellor's patronage, and what with the surrendering up so much of his bankruptcy fees,--that the remuneration will be so inadequate to the labour and change of habits, and expense consequent upon the a.s.sumption of the office,--that few eminent gentlemen at the bar will, in future, be disposed to accept of it.

For the reason by which I justified my n.o.ble and learned friend, I will say that the n.o.ble and learned lord opposite, (Lord Plunkett) was justified in the exercise of his official patronage. That n.o.ble and learned lord has a large family, and was perfectly right in placing them in those situations to which their abilities and pretensions were adequate. The only blame in such a case would be if he placed them in situations to which their abilities were not equal. I will therefore say that the learned lord was perfectly justified in the course he has pursued; and I will say more, that his high office and his great intellectual influence, fully ent.i.tled him to expect that the government, of which he was a member, should give his family a preference in filling up any situations to which, as I have stated, their abilities were equal. I agree with the n.o.ble Earl at the head of his Majesty's government, in hoping that this will be the last we shall hear of this senseless outcry against public men for this mode of disposing of the patronage of office. The time of the house is but ill spent with such discussions; indeed, I am sure that nothing can tend more to injure its character in public estimation, than these investigations of the family affairs of men in high stations; at all events, they tend more to lower the house than benefit the public, and the sooner we put an end to them the better.

_March 12, 1832._

_Peace with France desirable, but difficult to maintain._

There does exist in the minds of the people of France, a sentiment, which their government at the present day are but too p.r.o.ne to flatter.

I allude to that morbid desire of extended conquest, which, at least for the last forty years, has so much influenced the character and proceedings of that people.

There is no man who would be more ready than I should in taking every step calculated to promote a good understanding between that country and this. I consider quite as much as the n.o.ble Earl (Grey) opposite can possibly do, that every measure tending to that end is a measure of necessity--is a measure of such urgency and importance, that I consider it second only to the honour and interests of this country,--those I take to be the very first objects to which a British Minister should direct his attention, regardless of every consideration which might interfere with them. Well then, admitting as fully as any n.o.ble Lord can desire, that it must be at all times a leading object with this country to preserve peaceful relations with France, I will tell the n.o.ble Earl opposite, that if he would remain at peace with France, peace must be preserved by this country in union with the other powers of Europe, and not by this country singly. I tell him that the affair at Ancona is but a trifling warning of that which will soon follow, unless a constant system of precaution be kept up. I tell him that if that affair be pa.s.sed over without notice, new attempts will be made, every one of them more and more dishonourable and disadvantageous to this country. When I am told that we should not utter remonstrances against the French government lightly, nor too readily impute a disposition to disturb the amicable relations at present subsisting between the two countries, I answer that no one more earnestly desires peace than I do. There is no one entertains a higher estimate than I do of the resources--the immensity of the resources--possessed by that country both in peace and in war--no man living estimates more highly than I do the wisdom of her statesmen and the skill of her generals--no man is more ready than myself to concede to the French people the possession of a large amount of talent and of virtue, of physical and of moral resources, and of all that renders a state respectable or formidable in the eyes of other nations. But in proportion as we admit these facts, we are bound to watch closely that nothing be done or said derogatory from British honour or injurious to British interests.

_March 16, 1832._

_Opinion of the Reform Bill, 1832._

I beg your Lordships to recollect that this is the point which the House will have to consider:--the question is not whether alterations have been made in this part or that part, or in many parts of the bill which your Lordships objected to last session, but the question you will have to consider is this--Whether this bill, if pa.s.sed and accompanied, let it be recollected, with the other bills at present in the other House of Parliament, will afford to the country a prospect of having a government under which the country can go on--under which it will be practicable that this or any other can be governed--or which, in the words of the n.o.ble Earl who addressed your Lordships first this evening employed last session--if practicable, would not be pernicious. That is the question which your Lordships will have to consider, when you come to the second reading of the bill. The principle of this measure is not reform, but the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of some places and the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of others, and also the granting of votes to large bodies of persons on a new qualification. The total alteration of the representation of this country, coupled with an alteration of the representation of Scotland, amounting there to a complete revolution, and the overthrow in Ireland of all the measures which were adopted in that country three years ago--these, and not reform, are what your Lordships must consider as the principles of the bill. I entertain the same opinion as the n.o.ble earl near me as to the necessity of reform. My opinion on this point is now as it was originally. But how comes the question now before your Lordships? it has been altered considerably, and is no longer what it was before.

The n.o.ble Earl has thrown out some imputations with respect to party motives--if the n.o.ble Earl meant them to apply to me he is much mistaken, I have no party views to serve. I believe there is scarcely an individual in this house, or in the country, who has so little to do with borough interests or county interests, or any sort of Parliamentary interests as I have. I have the same interest in the country as any other individual, that is to say, I wish to see the representation established on such a basis as will give the country a prospect of a practicable system of government.

If the bill should go into committee, I will lend my best a.s.sistance to render it as consistent with the true interests of the country as it can be made, keeping in view always this great point--that on the nature of the representative system depend the character and form of government.

_April 10, 1832._

_The House of Commons that carried Reform was an a.s.sembly of Delegates._

The n.o.ble Baron, (Lord Wharncliffe) in a memorable speech delivered to this house in the month of March, 1831, previously to the last general election, stated to this house, in the strongest terms, that the result of that election must be to secure the return to the House of Commons of delegates of the people; not members of the House of Commons to consider de Adrias Regni, but to decide upon a measure of parliamentary reform proposed to them in a moment of excitement, and the result would be, to place this house in the situation in which it was placed last year, and in which it stands on the present occasion.

My Lords, is all to be lost, because the n.o.ble Lords opposite have taken this course? Is this House to be destroyed? Or is it to lend its aid to destroy the const.i.tution, because Ministers persevere in this course?

Would it not be more wise to call upon his Majesty to place things as they were, previous to this unfortunate and ill-advised revolution of parliament; to advise his Majesty to remove his ministers from his confidence, in order that things might be placed in the same situation in which they stood before, and that this house and the country might have an opportunity, if possible, of having a fair discussion on the measure of reform. What! my Lords, is it to be said that the country is to be tied down to be governed by a system which no man can say is practicable? and can any body deny that the House of Commons, which consents to such a proposition, is a delegated House of Commons? All the arguments regarding the decisions of the House of Commons must come to the same end. There would, no doubt, be ten decisions of the same kind, if it were left to the same house, because the house is pledged and returned for the purpose. But the country is not to be abandoned on this account.[16]

[Footnote 16: This and the other succeeding pa.s.sages on the subject of Reform, were delivered on the second reading of the final reform bill, after the Earl of Harrowby and other Tory peers had resolved on giving way to the House of Common and the Crown.]

April 10, 1832.

_Means by which the Reform Fever was excited and kept up._

There can be no doubt whatsoever that there was no opinion existing in the country, in the year 1829, and the beginning of 1830, in favour of parliamentary reform. I believe this is a fact which was fully admitted in the discussions of the House of Commons at that time. Then my Lords, came the French Revolution, which occurred at the period of the commencement of the elections of 1830, followed by the insurrection in Belgium; and there can be no doubt that these events occasioned a very great excitement at the elections of members of parliament. There were many declarations in favour of parliamentary reform; and all that pa.s.sed on the subject of parliamentary reform on that occasion, was calculated to influence, and did very considerably influence, the opinions of that parliament upon that question. The n.o.ble Lords opposite then came into power, and I will say, my Lords, that they met a parliament ready to pa.s.s a measure of moderate parliamentary reform. But the n.o.ble Lords opposite thought proper, instead of carrying such a measure, to dissolve that parliament, and a new parliament was called under a degree of excitement in the public mind such as had never before been witnessed.

The excitement has continued, to a certain degree, ever since, and it has been kept up by the strong opinion put forward and entertained, that it is the King who wishes for parliamentary reform in the manner proposed by this bill. Now, my Lords, I say it is no such thing; for my part, I do not believe one word of any such a.s.sertion. My opinion is, that the King follows the advice of his servants; but I believe that it is the idea thus engendered which renders it difficult that there should not be some reform. It is not, however, to be supposed that the King takes any interest in the subject. I entertain no doubt that the cause of the great excitement upon this subject is, that it is the King's opinion that the bill ought to be carried. The n.o.ble Earl would find the country cool upon the subject if the King's mind were altered. He would not be able to pa.s.s this bill; and indeed, I am sure, from experience, that if ministers, on any great const.i.tutional question, were not convinced that the King would go through with them, it would be impossible for any set of ministers to carry any such measure.

_April_ 10, 1832.

_The best part of the Public do not wish the Reform Bill_.

The opinion of the gentlemen of the country,--I speak from my own knowledge with respect to the southern counties, and from sure report as to other counties generally,--but I do say that the opinion of the gentlemen, of the landed property, and of the learning of the country, is against this bill. The bill is, on the other hand, supported by the n.o.ble Lords opposite, and by their adherents, certainly not a numerous cla.s.s; it is also supported by all the dissenters from the church of England, and by all who wish it should pa.s.s, as a means of their obtaining votes, but I will repeat, that it is, in fact, opposed to the sentiments of all the real English gentlemen, of the yeomanry, and of the middle cla.s.ses throughout the country. Yes, my Lords, I will say, that there is a change of opinion, and that the best part of the public are not desirous for the bill, but are, on the contrary, apprehensive of its effects. But the n.o.ble Lords will say;--"We hear none of this." No my Lords; and why do we hear none of this? Because there is scarcely a gentleman in the country who can believe that, if he were to attend a public meeting for the purpose of expressing his sentiments on this question, he would be secure or protected from the attacks of the mob.

_April_ 10, 1832