It is our duty, in every case, to do all we can to promote the Protestant religion. It is our duty to do so, not only on account of the political relations between the religion of the Church of England and the Government, but because we believe it to be the purest doctrine, and the best system of religion, that can be offered to a people.

_July_ 19, 1833.

_Importance of preserving the authority of the East India Company_.

The n.o.ble Lord who spoke last, quoted the opinion of Sir John Malcolm.

My Lords, I wish the n.o.ble Lords opposite had taken the advice of Sir John Malcolm, upon the subject of forming an independent body in London, representing the interests, and carrying on the concerns, of India. My Lords, it is persons of this description who interpose an efficient check upon the Government. I say, therefore, that it is much to be lamented, that instead of placing that body in the state of independence in which they were heretofore placed, they are to be reduced to a situation in which they will lose a very considerable portion of their power and influence. It is of the utmost importance that the greatest possible care should be taken to preserve the authority of the company in relation to their servants. Depend upon it, my Lords, that on the basis of their authority depends the good government of India.

_July_ 5, 1833.

_After Emanc.i.p.ation, the Protestants of Ireland ought to have been conciliated_.

The n.o.ble and learned Lord (Plunkett) said, that many of the evils that afflicted Ireland, and for which the Church Temporalities Bill was intended as a remedy, were occasioned by the delay of the measure of Emanc.i.p.ation, after the year 1825. Why, I ask, by its delay after the year 1825? I beg to know from that n.o.ble and learned Lord how long the system of agitation existed in Ireland both before and after the year 1825? Why, my Lords, it has existed ever since the commencement of the discussion of the Roman Catholic Question--that is to say, ever since the days of the restrictive regency. From that period to the present moment, there has been nothing but agitation, except during parts of the years 1829 and 1830. Agitation commenced in Ireland upon the conclusion of events in Paris, and in Brussels. Those events occasioned such agitations and discussions as obliged the n.o.ble Duke, who was then at the head of the Government in Ireland, to carry into execution the Proclamation Act. Then came a change in the administration, and the n.o.ble Earl a.s.sumed the reigns of power. He immediately chose for the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Wellesley) a n.o.bleman for whom I entertain great respect but who certainly was nearly the last person who ought to have been selected for that office. After the Roman Catholic Question was settled, what ought the government to have done? Most certainly they ought to have done everything in their power to conciliate--whom? The Protestants of Ireland. Everything had already been granted to the Roman Catholics which they could possibly require; and the object of the government ought to have been to conciliate the Protestants. But, instead of that, the n.o.ble Earl sends over to that country, as Lord Lieutenant, the n.o.ble Marquis, who was the very last person that ought to have been appointed; because, when holding that situation previously, and on receiving information that his Majesty's government entertained views favourable to the emanc.i.p.ation of the Catholics, he did, immediately, before his departure for Ireland, issue a sort of proclamation to the people that agitation should be continued for the purpose of obtaining the desired boon.

_July_ 19, 1833.

_Irish Agitation Characterized_.

Now, my Lords, in order to enable your Lordships to understand what this "agitation" is, I beg leave just to describe it to your Lordships.

It is, first of all, founded upon a conspiracy of priests and demagogues to obtain their purpose--whether justifiable or not, is not the question--by force and menace, and by the use of terror and of mobs, wherever that terror and those mobs can be used to produce an effect upon his Majesty's Government favourable to their views. This agitation they have maintained by orations, harangues, and seditious speeches at public meetings--by publications through a licentious press--by exaggerations--by forgeries--and by all other means which it is in the power of that description of persons to use, in order to excite the mult.i.tude; and then, when they are excited, to make them appear in large bodies to terrify and over-awe the people. If, my Lords, any person ventures to oppose himself to these proceedings, he is either immediately murdered or his house is destroyed, his cattle or other property carried off, and combinations are formed to prevent resistance, or the discovery of the guilty. In short, all measures are adopted which go to, and which are intended to, destroy the Const.i.tution of this country. This, my Lords, is what is called the system of "agitation."

_July_ 19, 1833.

_What const.i.tutes a Blockade_.

To const.i.tute an effective blockade, it is unnecessary to say that the port in question must be actually blockaded; and, further, that notice must have been given of such a blockade. No capture could be made without previously warning off vessels. There are various modes of notice; but the most authoritative manner of giving notice is through the Government of the power to be so warned. It should never be forgotten, however, that there should be certain means in existence to enforce the blockade at the time of notice.

_July_ 19, 1833.

_Objection to the reduction of the Number of Irish Bishops_.

I object to the proposed reduction of the number of Bishops in Ireland, and I totally dissent from the argument upon which the propriety or expediency of that reduction is founded. I am willing to admit that if we were now, for the first time, establishing the Protestant Church in Ireland. I might be inclined to think that twenty-two Bishops were more than was necessary to the supervision of some 1000 clergymen; but when I take into account, besides the fact that the higher number has been in existence for centuries--when I consider the importance of the Protestant Church in Ireland in relation to the political ties of the two countries--when I consider, as a Right Reverend Prelate has remarked in the course of the debate, that wherever a Protestant Bishop is removed, there a Catholic Prelate will remain, who, doubtless, will possess himself of the palace, and perhaps the church property, of the reduced Protestant See; and when, above all, I consider the peculiar circ.u.mstances of Ireland, so different from those of this country, and which may make the episcopal superintendence of thirty or forty benefices in the former country a matter of more trouble and anxiety than the 600 or 1000 benefices which an English Prelate may control, I cannot but object to the proposed reduction. Besides, there is another circ.u.mstance which is worthy of attention in the discussion of this subject, and that is, that the Bishops of England have the a.s.sistance of their Deans and Archdeacons, which their Irish brethren have not. The twenty-two Bishops of Ireland have personally to perform all the duties which the Bishops of this country perform through their Deans and Archdeacons.

_July_ 19,1835

_The Jews' Right to Citizenship denied._

The n.o.ble and learned Lord (Brougham), and the most reverend Prelate (Whately), have both stated that they cannot understand the distinct principle upon which the opponents of this measure rest their opposition to the admission of the Jews to seats in the legislature. Now I beg the n.o.ble and learned Lord, and the most reverend Prelate, to recollect that this is a Christian country and a Christian legislature, and that the effect of this measure would be to remove that peculiar character. Your Lordships have been called upon to follow the example of foreign countries, with respect to the Jews; but I think that, before we proceed to legislate on such a subject as this, it is indispensable that the necessity for the introduction of the measure should be shown. I ask, what case has been made out to shew a necessity for pa.s.sing this measure? When your Lordships pa.s.sed the bills for the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities, and for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, the reason a.s.signed was, that it was unnecessary to keep up the restriction on the cla.s.ses of Christians affected by those acts. But there is a material difference between the cases of the dissenters and Roman Catholics, and the Jews--the former enjoyed all the benefits and advantages of the const.i.tution before the restrictions were imposed. Was that the case with the Jews? Were the Jews ever in the enjoyment of the blessings of the English const.i.tution? Certainly not.

The Jews were formerly considered as alien enemies, and they were not allowed to live in this country,--I think from the time of Edward I. to the period of the Commonwealth. It cannot, therefore, be said that the question of the Jews can be put on the same ground as the claims of any cla.s.s of Christians in the country.

_August 1,1843._

_The Jews have no Right to Civil Equality._

The n.o.ble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Brougham) has referred to a certain Act of Parliament which pa.s.sed, giving certain privileges to the Jews, and which he said, was in the very form of words proposed in this bill. It is true that this Act conferred benefits on the Jews, but then it must be recollected that it was confined in its operation to certain of the colonies; in the first instance to Canada, and subsequently to Jamaica and Barbadoes, and others of the West Indian colonies. But then, was there not a very good reason for this? European inhabitants were much required in the colonies at the time the act pa.s.sed; and this was to give encouragement to the Jews to go thither and settle. No such necessity exists now, with regard to this country,--we do not wish Jews to come and settle here. Not one word has been said to shew that any necessity exists for pa.s.sing this measure. The n.o.ble Lord, who addressed your Lordships early in the debate, adverted to the state of the Jews in France, I entirely agree with the ill.u.s.trious Duke near me, and the right reverend Prelate, that this country is not bound to follow the example of foreign nations in legislating for any portion of the community. But it ought not to escape attention, that Buonaparte, in legislating for the Jews, did not go the full length of this bill; and before he did anything for them, he ordered a strict inquiry into their case to be made. I ask, are your Lordships prepared to a.s.sent to this bill, without any inquiry being inst.i.tuted as to its necessity, or without any reason being a.s.signed? This bill is not the result of inquiry, but it has been introduced on a very different principle,--namely, because it suits the liberal opinions of the day.

The n.o.ble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, has endeavoured to shew that, by retaining the words--"upon the true faith of a Christian," in the Statute Book, you encourage men who have no regard to the obligation of an oath, and thus maintain hypocrisy, while it operates as a restriction on conscientious persons. "You admit," says the n.o.ble and learned Lord, "men like Mr. Wilkes, Lord Shaftesbury, or Lord Bolingbroke, but you shut out conscientious men who will not take the oath." I am prepared to allow that there are some men whom no oath or affirmation can reach; but this is no reason why we should give up every test and oath. Are we on this account to throw aside every guard for the maintenance of Christianity in the country? The Right Reverend Prelate has stated very clearly and plainly the reason why we should not pa.s.s this bill--namely, that this is a Christian country, and has a Christian legislature, and that therefore, the Parliament, composed as it is, of Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, cannot advise the Sovereign, as the head of the Church, to sanction a law which will remove the peculiar character of the legislature, I say that we cannot advise the Sovereign on the throne to pa.s.s a law which will admit persons to all offices, and into the Parliament of the country, who, however respectable they may be, still are not Christians, and therefore ought not to be allowed to legislate for a Christian Church. The n.o.ble Marquis, for whom I entertain the highest respect, seemed surprised that I should smile when the n.o.ble Marquis spoke in somewhat extravagant terms of the distinctions which have been acquired by these persons in foreign countries. I must apologize to the n.o.ble Marquis for having smiled at that moment, but it certainly appeared to me that the n.o.ble Marquis was rather extravagant in his praise; and, I may be allowed to add, that I have never been so fortunate as to hear of those persons being in the stations which he described. The n.o.ble marquis stated that there were no less than fifteen officers of the Jewish religion at the battle of Waterloo; I have not the least doubt that there are many officers of that religion of great merit and distinction--but still I must again repeat they are not Christians; and, therefore, sitting as I do in a Christian legislature, I cannot advise the sovereign on the throne to sanction a law to admit them to seats in this house and the other house of parliament, and to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by Christians. The n.o.ble and learned lord on the woolsack said, that when the observation is mode that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land, it is meant that that Christianity is the Church of England. Now, I have always understood that it was the Christian dispensation, generally; and I believe that when Christianity is talked of as part and parcel of the law, it means the Christian dispensation, and not the doctrines of the Church of England.

_August_ 1, 1833.

_Defence of a Metallic Currency_.

I always have maintained, and I always shall maintain, that the only proper basis of our money system is a solid gold circulation. Upon that basis I considered our monetary system fixed since the measure of 1819, followed up as that was by improvements in 1826: I really think the principle of those measures the best that can be applied to our circulation. Detailed payments being made in gold, the larger payments might be made in paper, and depend on credit; the true support of the credit of whatever paper might be in circulation being, that it was liable to be paid in gold on demand at any time, at the bank of England, or at the branch-banks of the bank of England; so that, if any man chose not to give credit to the bank of England, he had only to demand gold for his paper; or any creditor might, at once, demand from his debtor payment in solid coin. That however will, to a certain extent, not be the case under this bill. I am aware that, eventually, the holder of the paper can repair to the bank of England and demand gold as heretofore; and must, therefore give credit to somebody for the amount. That I consider a depreciation of the paper of the bank of England. It is a depreciation to which if I had been a bank director, I would never have consented; indeed, I cannot understand why the bank agreed to this proposition. I am persuaded that, ere long, great inconveniences will occur from the provision; and those inconveniences will be felt in a depreciation of bank paper. What is the object of the arrangement? It is either intended to give the bank a power of issuing paper which, under the existing system, it does not possess, or to facilitate credit generally throughout the country, and enable the country banks to undertake operations which they could not otherwise attempt. It is evident that the n.o.ble earl himself sees that the consequence will be to facilitate and increase the issues of the country banks. That will augment all transactions; and the result must be a great increase of prices, and the ruin of many individuals. Nothing of this kind would happen, if the present system were continued; namely, if the bank of England continued to issue the number of its notes which the necessity of the public might seem to require; and by the regularity of its proceedings give such a check to the issues of the country banks, as should be calculated to establish a sound and healthy circulation. Under the existing system, the bank would proceed so as to prevent the country banks from giving credit, except in cases which justified the accommodation, and the circulation and commerce of the country would continue in a wholesome state.

_August_ 23, 1833.

_The Duke of Wellington's reasons for supporting the Poor Law Amendment Bill_.

I concur with the n.o.ble and learned lord on the woolsack, and with the n.o.ble lord opposite, as to the necessity of this measure. I agree, first of all, in the existence of grievances consequent upon the existing administration of the poor-laws, but I do not concur in the opinion expressed by the n.o.ble and learned lord (the Lord Chancellor) in disapproving of the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth; but I do disapprove of a system of administration which differs in each and every of the 12,000 parishes in this country, and in each of which different and varied abuses have crept in. I maintain that it is impossible for parliament to frame any law that can by possibility remedy or apply to the abuses which prevail at the present moment--abuses which are as varied in their character as they are numerous. It is their general existence all over the country--it is their existence in a different shape in every parish of the kingdom--which renders the appointment of a central board absolutely necessary, with powers to control the whole of the parishes in the land, and to adopt such remedies as will secure a sure administration of these laws throughout the country. If my n.o.ble friend, who has spoken in opposition to this measure, had recently attended to parliamentary business more a.s.siduously than he has done, he would have found that the subject has been submitted to the house by several n.o.ble lords, and has also been under the consideration of every administration that I have known; but no plan has ever been suggested, or scheme proposed, to remove and remedy the evils of the existing laws, which in my judgment at all equalled the present, and for it I must return the n.o.ble lord opposite, with whom it has originated, my sincere thanks. The present remedy for the evils of the existing laws is most unquestionably the best that has ever been devised; at the same time I must observe, that as the central board of commissioners must necessarily have very extraordinary and full powers, it will be necessary that they should keep such a record of their proceedings as shall render them liable to the actual control at all times of the government and parliament of the country. I doubt much whether the provisions of this bill give such a controul to the government as will afford a full knowledge to the parliament at all times of the course pursued by the commissioners; but in committee on the bill, I shall consider whether some alteration is not necessary, in order to make that control more active. There are several other clauses in the bill which require much alteration and modification. I entirely approve of the removal of the allowance system, which is one of the greatest evils arising from the existing poor-laws; but I am of opinion that it ought gradually and slowly to have been destroyed, and without a fixed day for its termination being specified in the bill. I would recommend that this clause should be left out, and that power should be given to the commissioners to carry gradually such alterations in this respect into effect, as to them may seem meet.

_July 81,1834_.

_Tests no Security to Religion_.

The n.o.ble duke, amongst other matters, has adverted to the union between church and state, with respect to which he has made some observations which are undoubtedly worthy of consideration, but to which I do not intend, on this occasion, to offer any answer. I will, however, just observe, that I apprehend what is generally meant by dissevering the union of the church and state is, that there should be no established religion. To that proposition, I trust it is superfluous for me to say that I am a most decided opponent. It is, however, a subject which I cannot now pretend to discuss. It is my opinion, that to leave religion to rest upon the voluntary efforts of the people, is a notion which we are not at present in a situation competent to entertain. It is so very great a change, and so totally different from all that we know and observe, that we are absolutely precluded, from want of experience, from entering upon the consideration of the question. It is not a just criterion, by which to form a judgment, to refer to the experience of other nations--such as the existence of Christianity in Rome before it became the established religion of the empire, or the existence of religion in a country so distant and so unlike our own, in all its circ.u.mstances, as the United states of North America. That, my lords, is the opinion I entertain, and therefore I will no longer occupy your lordships by any further discussion on this subject. I belong to the church of England, and am a friend of that church, from feeling and from conviction. I do not say that I have examined all her doctrines, or that I am master of all the grounds upon which her rites and ceremonies stand--I do not say that I am able to discuss with my n.o.ble friend those one thousand questions, which Bishop Law said arose out of the thirty-nine articles, but I believe her doctrines to be scriptural, and I know her principles to be tolerant. But, my lords, I beg leave to say, that I adopt those doctrines upon another ground, which perhaps may expose me, with some in the present day, to censure. My lords, I espouse those doctrines because they are the mode of faith delivered down to me by my forefathers; and because they are the mode of faith which I find established in my country. I am not prepared to remove the basis upon which is founded (though it may be apart from) the structure of the religion of my country. I do not think that such is the wish of the majority of the dissenters; but, at all events, it seems to me a course calculated to lead only to a state of general scepticism and universal suspension of religion among the people. But while I say this for myself--while I claim to found my attachment to my religion upon principle, it is necessary that I should say precisely the same thing for that great body of men who may be called the dissenters of England.

Their consent is rarely contemporaneous with the establishment of the church of England herself. The dissenters from the church of England are those who thought that the Reformation did not proceed far enough. Their dissent did not show itself against the established church when in power and prosperity; but the dissenters from that church grew up first when the Roman Catholic religion was dominant in this country, and when both the members of the new church of England and the dissenters were alike suffering under persecution; therefore, it is a dissent founded on principle. Considering the weight which dissent has in this country, and considering the extent to which it prevails, many attempts have been, from time to time, made, as we all know, at a religious comprehension of all denominations of Christians in the body of the church. Such attempts have been made by some of the greatest prelates that the church has ever known. These attempts have all failed; but, surely in our days, it may be thought wise to attempt at least a general civil comprehension of all cla.s.ses, by admitting them, if it be possible to do so, to those benefits which are to be derived from the public inst.i.tutions of the country.

I will not go into the foundations of the universities. I am not for raising any quibble on that subject. I apprehend that they have grown up, as all other inst.i.tutions have done, very much from a series of accidents, and the force of chances. One college has been founded by one individual, and one by another; but, however they have grown up, they have, in fact, become, and are now considered, as the national seminaries of education. I would reserve to them, in every respect, their corporate rights. I would respect them as places where the religion of the country is taught, and professed; but undoubtedly I would if possible, for the sake of general peace and union, and for the sake of bringing together those who are now divided, try, with the sanction and approbation of the universities themselves (and we know perfectly well that most of their distinguished members are of opinion that this can be done); I would, I say, try whether we could not open the gates of these universities to that great body of this country, who unfortunately dissent from the doctrines of the church of England. I would not do so, however, rashly, nor with any violence to honest prejudices, or to those well-intentioned feelings which some persons are found to cherish.

The n.o.ble duke has said that tests are no securities against the admission of atheists or schismatics, and that a man may take them who dissented from them, if he chose to stifle all his feelings of right and wrong. But, my lords, I beg leave to say that tests are no security against any man. It is impossible ever to have looked at the history of religion in any state, or at any period, and not to feel that the test laws have been the weakest ground upon which any faith could stand. Were tests any security for the heathen religion against the vital spirit of the heaven-descended energy of Christianity? Yet we are aware that every act of the life of a heathen was in itself a test. He could not sit to his meat, he could not retire to rest, he could not go through the most simple transactions of life, without some act of acknowledgment offered towards some heathen deity. Unless these observances were attended to by the Christians, they were subject to the most cruel punishments, and yet such means failed to preserve the dominant faith. In fact, it is well known that one of the most violent persecutions of the Christians, inst.i.tuted by the Roman emperors, was followed, as it were, almost immediately by the establishment of Christianity as the dominant religion of the empire. Were tests any security to the Roman Catholic religion, against the growing light and energy of the Protestant faith?

Tests of various kinds were adopted at the very moment the new doctrines showed themselves, but it was soon found that they were vain and fragile against the light and strength of the new doctrines. Were tests any security to these very universities themselves? I have not looked very deeply into this subject; I have no doubt that if I were to look closer into it, I should find more instances of the sort; but I find that about fourteen years after the establishment of King's College, in the university of Cambridge, a decree was sent down there by King Henry VI., admonishing the scholars, that is to say, in the language of the present day, the fellows of that college, against the d.a.m.nable and pernicious errors (so it styled them), of John Wickliffe and Richard Peac.o.c.k, and denouncing the pains of expulsion from college, and perjury, against those of them who should show any favour to those doctrines. Yet, in two years after this, this very king's college became what, at that time was called the most heretical, but which now, in our time, would be called the most Protestant college in the university; and we know that these doctrines thus fiercely denounced, and strongly guarded against by tests, about fifty or sixty years afterwards became, by law, the established religion of this country. It is upon her native strength--upon her own truth--it is upon her spiritual character, and upon the purity of her doctrines, that the Church of England rests. Let her not, then, look for support in such aids as these. It is by these means, and not by tests and proscriptions, that protestantism has been maintained; let her be a.s.sured of this.

_August 1, 1834._

_Cause of the dismissal of the Melbourne Administration in November, 1834._