Chapter XIV: Part 14

There is no noble lord in this house who concurs more sincerely than I do in the expression of congratulation to her majesty upon her approaching marriage, which she has been pleased to announce a second time to the public from the throne this day. I sincerely wish, with the noble mover and seconder of the address, that this event may tend to the happiness and comfort of the Queen. Upon this occasion I should have been contented with the address, and should have offered not another word, if your lordships had not been called upon in the speech from the throne, to concur with the other house of parliament, in making a suitable provision for the prince, for whose future station in this country her majesty's speech has prepared us. But, my lords, it appears to me that when this house is called upon to express an opinion upon a detail of this description, the house ought to look into, and act upon, this subject--it ought not to be a mere congratulation. I conceive that the public have a right to know something beyond the mere name of the prince whom her majesty is about to espouse. My lords, I had the honour of being summoned to attend her majesty in privy council, when her majesty in council was graciously pleased to declare her intention of becoming the espoused of this prince. I observed, that the precedent of the reign of George III. was followed in all respects except one, and that was the declaration, that this prince was a protestant. [Loud cries of "Hear, hear!" from the opposition benches.] My lords, I, for one, entertain no doubt that the prince is a protestant. I believe he is a protestant. I know he is of a protestant family. I have the honour of being known to some members of that family, and I am sure that it is a protestant family. But, my lords, this is a protestant state, and it is absolutely necessary, by law, that the person who shall become the spouse of the queen be a protestant; and, if the precedent of George III. has been taken in part, it ought to have been followed throughout; and then the public would have had the satisfaction of knowing that the fact of the prince being a protestant, had been officially declared by her majesty's government. My lords, I know the noble lords opposite too well to suppose that they are not aware of the anxiety in the public mind on this subject; and I know, also, that they had it in their power to relieve that anxiety, and to gratify the public by making this declaration; nay, more, my lords, I am convinced that there exists the same anxiety in the royal mind, about the protestant character of the state as is felt by me or any of your lordships. And if so, my lords, I ask, why was the precedent of George III. departed from? Is there any doubt as to the religious sentiments of this prince? None at all; there can be no doubt that he is a protestant; he cannot be otherwise. Then, why is it not so stated? We have heard something of this marriage from another part of the country; we have seen some proceedings on this subject since the declaration in council, which show pretty clearly why the word "protestant" was omitted. My lords, I confess that I am one of those who read with great attention all that passes in Ireland;--all those speeches which come from that quarter;--and I do it for this reason: I have been accustomed to that kind of revolutionary discussions. It has been said by an eminent French writer, _en plein jour, on ne conspire pas_; but that is not so now. The object proposed is terror. These things are declared openly. This I can see from what appears in the public prints, as I read these public letters and missives in order to see what the real danger is, and that I may not be taken by surprise. Now, what I mean to say is this,--that I see in what has passed elsewhere, a very suspicious reason why the word "protestant" was not inserted in the communication made to the privy council, and why it has not been inserted in the speech from the throne. I say to the noble lords opposite, that I believe they are as much determined as I am, myself, to maintain the protestant ascendancy of the state. I think, then, if this be the case, that upon the first occasion, when this question comes before your lordships, and when the House of Lords shall be called upon to do any act, or to make any declaration upon the subject, beyond the mere congratulation of the queen, your lordships should take that course which may procure the country the satisfaction of knowing that Prince Albert is a protestant prince, and that this is still a protestant state.

_January 16, 1840._

_Approbation of the Conduct of the Affghanistan Expedition._

My lords, having been, for a great part of my life, selected to carry into execution, under superior authority, measures of this description, no man can be more capable of judging, from experience, of the merits of government in planning and carrying into operation such measures; and I should be the last man to doubt, at any time, the expediency of this or the other house expressing its approbation of the conduct of the political servants of the crown in planning and working out all arrangements preparatory to carrying into execution great military operations. My lords, it has happened to me, by accident, that I had some knowledge of the arrangements made for the execution of this great military enterprise; and, I must say, that I have never known an occasion on which the duty of a government was performed on a larger scale,--on which a more adequate provision was made for all contingencies that could occur, and for all the various events which could, and which did, in fact, occur during this campaign. My lords, it would be presumptuous in me to say more on this subject, having, I repeat, been made acquainted, only by accident, with the arrangements made preparatory to the campaign now brought under your lordships' attention. With respect to the military services performed, I can say nothing beyond, nor more deserving the officers and troops, than what has been stated by the governor-general in his dispatch. My lords, I am well acquainted with the officers who have directed and performed these services; and I must say that there are no men in the service who deserve a higher degree of approbation for the manner in which, on all occasions, they have discharged their duty; and that, in no instance that I have ever heard of, have such services been performed in a manner better calculated to deserve and secure the approbation of your lordships and of the country.

_February 4, 1840._

* * * * *

_Danger of Socialism._

It appears that this system (Socialism) has spread itself over a great part of the country; and, upon inquiry, I find that it has taken root rather extensively in the county in which I reside. I find that in Hampshire, or on the borders of the two counties, Wiltshire and Hampshire, there is a large institution for the propagation of Socialist principles, spreading over no less than five hundred acres of land, which this society have purchased for their purposes. In reference to that institution, I have this day presented a petition to your lordships, containing statements as to the doctrines of this society, regarding religion, the holy scriptures, God Almighty, and all the great points of our belief; which statements, in my estimation, demand the most serious inquiry. When I read that petition, which I did the moment it was placed in my hands, I felt it to be my duty, as the lord lieutenant of the county, to call the attention of the magistracy to the facts which it set forth. That I considered to be my duty; and I say, also, that the House of Lords, now that the facts have been brought before them, have a duty to perform to the country, on this question. These doctrines of Socialism are rapidly gaining strength--are spreading themselves throughout the country. They have now got beyond that point at which your lordships might say, "We will take no steps in the matter; the system is absurd, and will fall to pieces of itself." I say, my lords, we have got beyond that point; and the people should be made to understand that the legislature and the government look on those institutions only with disfavour, and are determined to discountenance them. And they should also be made to know, that wherever, in the promulgation of the doctrines of this society, there shall be a breach of the law committed, it will be treated as such, and punished as such. I say, then, that it is incumbent on your lordships to take such steps as will satisfy the country that your attention has been directed to the subject, with the view to remove the evil and ensure tranquillity. If the government will allow the motion to pass, and take the subject into their own hands, and inquire into it, through the magistracy, or by any other means, I, for one, am willing to leave the matter with them on that condition, merely adding that I shall be happy to afford them any assistance in my power in carrying out their inquiry, and in enabling them to annihilate this mischievous and demoralising system.

_February 4, 1840._

_Compliment to the Navy._

I know a great deal of the gentlemen of that profession; and, for my own part, I have always had, and still have, the greatest and the highest respect for them, and the very utmost confidence in them. I have always endeavoured to emulate their services in the service in which I have myself been engaged; and I am sure that in nothing have I endeavoured to emulate them in a greater degree than in that confidence which they feel, not only in themselves, and in the officers of their own rank, but in all officers and troops under their command.

_February 6, 1840._

* * * * *

_Eulogium on Lord Seaton._

I had the honour of being connected with the noble and gallant lord in service at an early period of his life; and I must declare that, at all times, and under all circumstances, he gave that promise of prudence, zeal, devotion, and ability, which he has so nobly fulfilled in his services to his sovereign and his country, during the recent proceedings in Canada. I entirely agree with the noble viscount in all that he has said, respecting the conduct of my noble and gallant friend, in remaining, under all circumstances, at his post, and in taking the command of the troops, although it was not thought expedient by the government to place him again in the government of the provinces. I agree with the noble viscount in wishing that such examples as that which has been shewn may be always followed in her majesty's service; for I must say that there never was a brighter example of fortitude and discretion than that which has been manifested by the noble and gallant lord.

_March 27, 1840._

* * * * *

_Opinion on the Printed Papers' Question._

I wish--as, indeed, everybody wishes--that the House of Commons should have the power of printing and publishing its papers. But what I want to do is this--to provide that, when it proceeds to the sale of them, the law should take its course. As to the printing and publishing of papers, I have no objection, until it comes to the point of sale. The sale ought not, in my opinion, to be made by the authority of the house; it ought to be made by individuals, and they should be responsible for what they sell, as they were previously to the passing of the resolution in 1835; and, up to that time, it must be admitted that the House of Commons and the House of Lords had the advantage of all their privileges quite as much as they have had ever since. My lords, I must confess that I look a little further into this question than the mere matter of libelling individuals. I consider all this as it affects the public generally; and, I say, the public is mainly interested in its being understood that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are not to be the privileged sellers of libels against individuals.

_April 6, 1840._

_Libels on foreign Sovereigns ought not to be permitted._

I remember reading with great satisfaction, the history of a great case, which was pleaded and argued at considerable length, some years ago, in this country--I mean the case of the "King v. Peltier," in the court of King's Bench. That was the case of an action brought against an obscure individual, for a libel which he had published upon the sovereign of a neighbouring country, with whom we were then in a state of peace and amity. Now, I ask your lordships whether, supposing, in the course of the late Polish revolution, the libels, some of which we have seen printed in this country, and others which we have heard spoken of in the other, and, I believe, in this house of parliament, reviling, in the strongest terms, the sovereign of Russia, had been stated in the petitions, or in the proceedings of the House of Commons, and had been printed, published, and sold by its authority; I ask your lordships whether such a proceeding would not have been calculated to disturb the peace of this country, and of the world at large? In short, I ask your lordships whether it is desirable that there should be an opportunity of publishing and selling, on the part of the two houses of parliament, libels against the sovereigns of all the foreign powers in Europe? My lords, I am one of those who consider that the greatest political interest of this country is, to remain at peace and amity with all the nations of the world. I am for avoiding even the cause of war, and of giving offence to any one, and of seeking a quarrel, either by abuse, or by that description of language which is found in these libels. I am against insulting the feelings of any sovereign, at whom individuals may have taken offence, and against whom they may seek to publish libels under the sanction of parliament. Let them state what they please in their private capacity, and let them be answerable for it individually, as Peltier was. What I want is, that parliament should not, by the combined privilege of publication and sale, run the risk of involving the country in the consequences of a discussion of such subjects, and in all the mischiefs and inconveniences which might arise from it.

_April 6, 1840._

* * * * *

_Reasons why the Chinese stopped the Opium Trade._

It is perfectly true, as is stated by the noble earl, that the trade in opium has been carried on contrary to the laws of China. But then, my lords, it has been so carried on with the knowledge of the local authorities on the spot, who received large payments, in the shape of bribes, or in the way of duties, possibly both, for allowing the import of this opium,--its admission into the ports of China. It appears that, although the trade was forbidden by the law of China, it was known to the authorities of China, to the emperor himself, and to all the servants of the government, that it had existed for many years, and that the discussion had continued for many months, upon the question, whether the trade should be allowed, and continued, under a duty, or whether it should be discontinued altogether. Allow me to ask the noble earl, who has contended so very strongly for the Emperor of China, whether that morality was so very great while he allowed that trade to be continued? and whether his morality can be improved in any respect by opium being introduced upon the payment of a large duty, instead of its being introduced by means of smuggling, and under bribes paid to the officers of his government; and even, as it has been shown, from the exterior waters into the interior of the country, in the Mandarin boats, that is, in boats, either in the service of the country, or, at all events, under the charge of officers of the government? I really cannot see the force of the noble earl's argument with respect to the illegality of the trade, when it is as clear as possible that its existence was well known to the government of China, and that no step had ever been taken to put it down; but, on the contrary, the means of continuing it, and of raising a larger duty upon it, were under consideration; and, in fact, the trade was finally put down, and discontinued only because it was supposed that it occasioned the export of a larger quantity of native or Sycee silver.

_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._