Chapter 20

Upon inquiry, I found that a large number of friends of mine were not unwilling to give confidence and support to a government formed upon such a principle, and with the positive view of resistance to that advice which was tendered to his Majesty. Under these circumstances I waited on his Majesty on Saturday, and submitted to him my advice. That advice was not to re-appoint his late ministry, nor was it to appoint myself. I did not look to any objects of ambition. I advised him to seek the assistance of other persons well qualified to fill the high situations in the state, expressing myself willing to give his Majesty every assistance, whether in office or out of office, to enable his Majesty to form an administration to resist the advice which had been so given to him. My Lords, these were the first steps of the transaction; and if ever there was an instance in which the Sovereign acted more honestly by his former servants--if ever there was an instance in which public men kept themselves most completely apart from all intrigues, and from all indirect influence--using only those direct and honourable means of opposition, of which no man has reason to be other than proud, this is that instance. And when I came to give my advice to his Majesty, instead of advising him with a view to objects of personal ambition, as I have been accused of doing upon high authority,--I gave that advice which I thought would best lead to another arrangement, and I stated that I was ready to serve his Majesty in any or in no capacity, so as best to assist him in carrying on a government to resist the advice which had been given him by his late ministers. And here, my Lords, I beg your Lordships to examine a little what was the nature of the advice which was tendered by his Majesty's ministers to his Majesty, which his Majesty thought proper not to follow, and which I considered it my bounden duty to enable his Majesty to resist. I do not ask any man to seek any further explanation of this advice, than that which was given by the ministers themselves. It was neither more nor less than this. The Government, feeling some difficulty in carrying the Reform Bill through this House, were induced to advise his Majesty to do--what?--to create a sufficient number of peers to enable them to carry their measure, to force it through this House of Parliament. Now, my Lords, before I go further, let me beg you to consider what is the nature of that proposition? Ministers found, in the course of last session, that there was a large majority in this House against the principle of the bill. Now, my Lords, what is the ordinary course for a minister, under such circumstances, to pursue? My Lords, it is to alter the measure, to endeavour to make it more palatable to that branch of the legislature which was opposed to it. Such is the usual course; but, in this case, the minister says "no. I will next session bring in a bill as efficient as that which has been rejected." And what did he do? My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that, notwithstanding the opposition of this House, he brought in a measure stronger and worse than any of the measures before introduced; and this measure he wishes to force upon the House by a large creation of peers. How many peers, it is not necessary to state--it has not even been stated, by the noble Lords opposite: it is enough to say, a sufficient number to force the Reform Bill through the House. It is only necessary for me to state the proposition. If this be a legal and constitutional course of conduct--if such projects can be carried into execution by a minister of the crown with impunity--there is no doubt that the constitution of this House and of this country is at an end. I ask, my Lords, is there any body blind enough not to see that if a minister can, with impunity, advise his Sovereign to such an unconstitutional exercise of his prerogative as to thereby decide all questions in this House, there is absolutely an end put to the power and objects of deliberation in this House--an end to all means of decision; I say, then, my Lords, thinking as I do, it was my duty to counsel his Majesty to resist the following of this advice; and, my Lords, my opinion is that the threat of carrying this measure of creation into execution, if it should have the effect of inducing noble Lords to absent themselves from the House, or to adopt any particular line of conduct, is just as bad as its execution; for, my Lords, it does by violence force a decision on this House--and on a subject, my Lords, on which this House is not disposed to give such a decision. It is true, my Lords, men may be led to adopt such a course, by reflecting, that if they do not adopt it, some 50 or 100 peers will be introduced, and thus deliberation and decision in this House be rendered impracticable; or men may be led to adopt it with the view of saving the Sovereign from the indignity of having so gross an alternative imposed upon him. But I say, my Lords, that the effect of any body of men agreeing publicly to such a course, will be to make themselves parties to this very proceeding, of which I say, we have so much reason to complain. The only course of proceeding at this eventful crisis, worthy of the men with whom I have the honour to be connected, was to advise his Majesty--was to counsel his Majesty--to resist the advice which had been given him, if he could find means of carrying on the government of the country without acceding to it. But this part of the transaction, my Lords, requires particular explanation upon my part--his Majesty insisted that some "extensive measure of reform" (I use his own words) "in the representation of the people" should be carried. I always was of opinion, and am still of opinion, that the measure of reform is unnecessary, and will prove most injurious to the country. But on the last occasion when I addressed your Lordships,--in the committee on Monday se'nnight,--I stated my intention to endeavour to amend the bill in committee, and to do it honestly and fairly. Still, however, I thought that, amend it as we might in committee, it was not a measure which would enable the country to have a government capable of encountering the critical circumstances and serious difficulties to which every man must expect this country to be exposed. This was, my Lords,--this is, my opinion. I do not think that, under the influence of this measure, it is possible that any government can expect to overcome the dangers to which this country must be exposed. But my Lords, this was not the question before me; I was called on to assist my Sovereign in resisting a measure which would lead to the immediate overthrow of one branch of the legislature--a measure which would enable the ministry to carry through this house the whole bill unmodified, unimproved, and unmitigated. I had then, my Lords, only the choice of adopting such part of that bill as this house might please to send down to the House of Commons, suffering the government hereafter to depend upon the operation of that part of the bill rather than upon the whole bill, or else of suffering the whole bill to be carried, and the House of Lords to be destroyed. My Lords, my opinion is not altered; no part of the bill is safe; but undoubtedly, a part of the bill is better, that is to say, less injurious, than the whole bill; and, certainly, it must at least be admitted that it is better than the destruction of the constitution of the country by the destruction of the independence of this house. Under these circumstances, my Lords, I gave my consent to assist his Majesty in forming a new government. I know many may be of opinion that I should have acted a more prudent part if I had looked to anterior circumstances, and if I had regarded the opinions and pledges I had given, and if, placing my attention exclusively upon the desire of acting a consistent part in public life, I had pursued a different course, and refused my assistance to his Majesty, I should have done better and more wisely.

I do not mean to detract from the merits of those who thought proper to pursue a course contrary to mine upon the occasion. I am grieved that it should have been my misfortune to differ with some right honourable friends of mine, with whom I have been for many years in habits of cordial union, co-operation, and friendship, and from whom I hope this momentary separation will not dissever me. Nay, my lords, their position was different from mine. I was situated in a position very different from that in which they felt themselves to stand. They regretted that they could not take the same course with me; but for myself, my Lords, I cannot help feeling that, if I had been capable of refusing my assistance to his Majesty--if I had been capable of saying to his Majesty, "I cannot assist you in this affair, because I have, in my place in parliament, expressed strong opinions against a measure to which your Majesty is friendly," I do not think I could have shewn my face in the streets for shame of having done it--for shame of having abandoned my Sovereign under such distressing circumstances. I have, indeed, the misfortune of differing from many noble Lords, but I cannot regret the steps I have taken. If I have made a mistake, I regret it; but I am not aware that I have made any mistake. It was impossible that I could shrink from his Majesty in the distressing circumstances under which he was placed. I will not detain your Lordships longer with a detail of the circumstances which led to the dilemma in which we are now placed. But, my Lords, if you will only look back to the commencement of those transactions--if you look to the speech which his Majesty made from the throne to this and the other house of Parliament, in June 1831,--if you recollect that his Majesty stated, in very strong terms, that that important question should receive the earliest and most attentive consideration, saying, "--Having had recourse to that measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency of a reform in the representation, I have now to recommend that important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration, confident that, in any measure which you may propose for its adjustment, you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, by which the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are equally secured."

Now, my Lords, I ask, could it be believed, at the time his Majesty made this speech, that the rights of this house--the power of deliberating and deciding independently upon such a question as this--would be destroyed by a creation of Peers, and by a creation to an extent which could not be much less than one hundred? If any man at the time foretold this, it would have been said he was dreaming of things that were impossible. But to this state, my Lords, have we been brought by this measure. When I first heard of this bill being proposed to be carried by a creation of Peers, I said it was absolutely impossible. I could not believe that any minister of England would be led by any considerations whatsoever to recommend such a measure to his Majesty. The first time, indeed, I heard the matter mentioned with any degree of authority, was when a Right Rev. Prelate thought proper to write upon the subject to some people in a town in the county of Sussex. I could appeal to those sitting near me if this be not the fact--if I did not uniformly declare that the thing was impossible--that the very idea of it ought not to be mentioned. That it should never be imagined that any minister could be found who would recommend such an unconstitutional--such a ruinous--such an unjust exercise of the prerogative of the crown; for, my Lords, I do maintain that the just exercise of the prerogative of the Crown does by no means go to the extent of enabling his Majesty to create a body of Peers with the view to carry any particular measure. Under the circumstances, then, I think your Lordships will not think it unnatural, when I consider his Majesty's situation, that I should endeavour to assist his Majesty to avoid the adoption of such a recommendation. But, my Lords, when I found that in consequence of the discussions on Monday in another place,--which by the way proved so clearly what the sentiments of the leading men then were, that Peers should not be created for such a purpose:--when I found from these discussions that it was impossible to form a government from that house, of such a nature as would secure the confidence of the country, I felt it my duty to inform his Majesty that I could not fulfil the commission with which he was pleased to honour me, and his Majesty informed me that he would renew his communications with his former ministry.

_May 17, 1832._

* * * * *

_The state of Ireland under Lord Grey, a Conspiracy against Law and Government._

The noble Lords at the head of the Irish government have a most particular objection to these extraordinary measures, adopted to enable the government to afford protection to the lives and property of his Majesty's subjects. If I do not mistake--and I am sure that I am in the recollection of many noble Lords present--I myself reminded the noble Earl that the association act would terminate at the end of the session of Parliament of 1831; and the answer of the noble Earl was, that it was intended to bring in a bill to continue that act. My Lords, Parliament was dissolved unfortunately, and the association act was not only not continued, but the convictions which had already taken place under it were not carried into execution.

It might naturally be supposed that, when the Lord Lieutenant found that he could not give protection to his Majesty's subjects even when he had the association act, it would, at least, have been continued. No such thing. When Parliament reassembled, the question was again put by one of the noble Lords near me, whether it was intended to propose a renewal of that act; and the answer was, that the noble Lord at the head of the Irish government thought that he would tranquillize the country without having recourse to extraordinary measures. From that day to this there has been no security to property--no security for person; there has been no enjoyment of peace or tranquillity in Ireland. That is the state in which it has continued from that time to the present. Now, my noble friend stated most truly that this is the result of a conspiracy; I say the same; and before I sit down, I will prove that it is a conspiracy, and nothing but a conspiracy, which tends to deprive a large class of his Majesty's subjects of their property,--which renders their lives insecure,--a conspiracy which tends to the overthrow of all government, if they do not adopt some measure to put it down. On this ground alone I address your Lordships; I wish to warn the people and the government of the real nature of that which exists in that part of the United Kingdom. We have heard of an attempt, which was lately made by a clergyman, to avail himself of a sale under a distress, for the purpose of obtaining payment of a part of what was his due. A body of troops were assembled, by direction of the magistrates, for the purpose of protecting the sale. It appears, from an account of a nature usually tolerably accurate, that, on the first day appointed for the sale, an assemblage of 20,000 people collected together; on the second day the number was 50,000; and on the third it amounted to 100,000. I will take an unit from each of these numbers, and even then I defy any man to shew me how that body could have been assembled but by a conspiracy. Who led them there? My Lords, the Priests. I have seen a letter from an officer who commanded one of the bodies of troops employed on the occasion, in which such is stated to be the fact.

When, my Lords, I know that that conspiracy exists, and that it goes to prevent a large proportion of his Majesty's subjects from enjoying their property--when I know that the same conspiracy may be applied to any other description of property--to any man's life, to his house, to his honour, or to anything else that is most dear to man, I do say, it becomes the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government to adopt some measures, in order to do that which Government can do, to get the better of that conspiracy. It must not be said that, under the British Constitution, there is no power to prevent such a conspiracy: I say, there is a power, and that power resides in Parliament, which can give the Government, under this best of all Constitutions, the means which shall at the same time protect the property and the liberty of every individual in the state. Yes, my Lords, Parliament possesses the power to bestow on the Government the means of putting down this conspiracy--a conspiracy not against the Government itself, but against those whom the Government is bound in honour to protect. I take this question of tithes to be one of the most serious questions that can be brought under the consideration of Parliament. I do not object to the noble Earl's measure--indeed, I really do not know what that measure is--but what I say is, that the noble Earl is bound, and the King is bound by his oath, to protect the property of the Church--yes, his Majesty is sworn especially to protect that property. But it is not the property of the Church alone--what do you say of the lay impropriator? Is a man to be robbed and ruined, because he possesses property in tithe?

There is no public grievance in Ireland. Tithes are no public grievance. Tithes are private property, which a deep laid conspiracy is attempting to destroy. The noble Lord knows that he cannot get the better of it. I tell the noble Lord that he will be, at last, obliged to come to Parliament for a measure to enable him to put down the conspirators. I recollect the famous affair at Manchester; and remember perfectly well to have heard a most able and eloquent speech made by the noble and learned Lord in another place, upon the subject of collecting large numbers of persons together; and I well remember his able and eloquent justification of the magistrates for the part they assumed upon that occasion. I want to know why the magistrates at Carlow and at Cork did not obtain the same support when pursuing a similar course? I know I shall be told in answer to this, that I am a person very desirous of spilling blood. My Lords, I am not recommending the spilling of blood; I want to save human life by Legislative means. I do not want to have recourse to arms against crowds and mobs of people; but what I want is, that the real conspirators should be got the better of, and not that the mere instruments and victims of their wicked work should be punished. But if the course pursued at Manchester against the collection of large bodies of armed people was correct--if the attack was rightly made upon those armed people--I want to know why the same was not done at Cork and at Carlow, where the troops stood in the midst of the people three days, who at last were suffered to carry off the distress, without the clergyman being able to satisfy his claim?

The noble Lord has said, that Ireland is in a state of great tranquillity. Now, I certainly must say, that as far as I have heard, I cannot believe in the existence of that tranquillity. It may be perfectly true, by moving a large body of troops from the country into a particular district, together with a great number of police and magistrates, that, for a moment, tranquillity may be restored to that district; but there is no gentleman in the country feels himself in a state of security. There is, however, one test, to which I wish to bring the noble Secretary of State. I want to know this--has he, in any one case, carried into execution the provisions of the Tithe Act? Is there a single instance of any tithe having been collected by Government under that Act? If the clergy are to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and that Act is not to be enforced, I must say that the noble Lord may make what boast he pleases as to the state of Ireland; but there is no man who will believe one word about the tranquillity of Ireland, until the noble Lord can produce evidence of the collection of some tithes under that Act.

What I want to see is, the affording of some security to property--some protection to life; and that some assurance should be given to the peace of the country being established and preserved.

_July 3, 1832._

* * * * *

_Necessity of conciliating the Protestants of Ireland._

I come now, my Lords, to that part of the subject which is certainly very painful to me, because I conceive it to be that in which I may say the Government has been much to blame; and that is, their treatment of the Protestant Church of Ireland. My opinion is, that in the treatment of that Church they have certainly thrown the Protestants of Ireland entirely aside. There is no doubt whatever that the Protestants, who, like other classes of men, were more or less divided amongst themselves, are now nearly unanimous in their opinions upon the subject of the Government. They are nearly all of them, at the present moment, opposed to the Government--irritated by a strong sense of the injury done to them, and the insecurity of their situation, which is certainly most painful to everybody who wishes well to the union between the two countries.

_July 3, 1832._

_The Church should Educate the People._

We have the Established Church--we have the Established clergy; and the whole law of the country is, that the clergy of the Established Church should have the charge of the education of the people, particularly of Ireland. But, under the proposed system, the schoolmaster is simply to teach the obligations which are due to society from every individual, and the pupil is not to refer to divine authority for those obligations--he is not without permission to refer to that alone which can render those obligations binding.

July 3,1832.

* * * * *

_The Duke of Wellington's Government opposed to the Appointment of Otho as King of Greece._

The late government were no parties to the selection of Prince Otho; on the contrary, he was a person to whose appointment they had objected, as appears on the face of the protocols; and the objection exists at the present moment, though not to such an extent as it did, a year and a half having elapsed since it was first made. I object to the arrangement now, because the interests of this country have been essentially altered in the Mediterranean. His Majesty has now essential duties to perform in the Adriatic. When I see France remaining in possession of Algiers, notwithstanding the provisions of the treaty, and when I observe what has been done by her at Ancona, I must say the interests of this country have been grossly neglected in that quarter. July 18, 1832

* * * * *

_The giving the Town-franchise to the Catholics, will lead to the Destruction of the Protestant Church._