Chapter 23

I concur with the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, and with the noble 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 noble 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 noble friend, who has spoken in opposition to this measure, had recently attended to parliamentary business more assiduously than he has done, he would have found that the subject has been submitted to the house by several noble 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 noble 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 noble 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 circumstances, 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 noble 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 classes, by admitting them, if it be possible to do so, to those benefits which are to be derived from the public institutions 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 institutions 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 noble 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, instituted 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 damnable and pernicious errors (so it styled them), of John Wickliffe and Richard Peacock, 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 assured of this.

_August 1, 1834._

* * * * *

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

I am not responsible for the dissolution of the late government. The late government was dissolved from the absolute impossibility of its going on any longer. When a noble earl (Spencer), whom I do not now see in his place, was removed from the House of Commons, by the necessity of taking his seat in this house, it was impossible for the late government to go on. I will just desire your lordships to recollect that it was stated by the noble earl (Grey), who so worthily filled the situation of prime minister for nearly four years, when his noble colleague (Lord Althorp), in the House of Commons, thought proper to resign, "that he had lost his right hand, and that it had thus become absolutely impossible for him to continue to carry on the government, or to serve the Crown with honour or advantage." Not only did the noble earl make this declaration of his inability to go on upon the retirement of his noble colleague from his majesty's councils, but the noble viscount opposite, himself, when he afterwards came to form his government, stated that the noble earl (Spencer), having consented to retain his office and position in the House of Commons, he was prepared to undertake to preside over his majesty's councils, and carry on the business of the country. But this was not all; for I happen to know that, when the noble viscount found that he was likely to be deprived of the services and assistance of that noble lord in the other house, he felt that his administration would be placed in circumstances of the greatest difficulty and embarrassment. Besides that, it was perfectly well known to his majesty, that the influence of that noble lord in the other house of parliament was the foundation on which the government to which he was attached, reposed; and, that that support being removed, it must fall. When, therefore, his majesty found that it was fairly put to him whether he would consent to arrangements for the late government proceeding as it best could, or whether he would consent to steps being taken for the formation of another administration, it was surely natural for his majesty to consider his own situation, and the situation in which the late government was lately placed by the death of the late Earl Spencer.

_February 24, 1835_.

* * * * *

_Why the Duke of Wellington held so many offices_, ad interim, _in November_, 1834.

I gave his majesty the best advice which, under the circumstances of the case, it appeared to me practicable to give. I advised his majesty to send for that right hon. gentleman (Sir R. Peel), a member of the House of Commons, who seemed to me to be the most fit and capable person to place at the head of the new administration, as first lord of the treasury. That right honourable gentleman was then in another part of the world, and some time must necessarily elapse before it would be possible that he could return to this country. It appeared to his majesty and to myself, however, to be essentially necessary that, in the meantime, the government should be taken possession of and administered. This step I considered to be absolutely necessary, and I also felt it to be absolutely necessary that, whoever might exercise the authority of government in the interval, should take no step that might embarrass or compromise the right honourable baronet on his return. It was only on that ground that I accepted, for the time, of the offices of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of state for the home department.

The noble viscount has made a little mistake in alleging that I was appointed to three departments at once. He makes it a matter of charge against me that I exercised the authority of the three secretaries of state; but the noble viscount knows very well that the secretary of state for the home department is competent, under certain circumstances, to do so. It was for the public service, and the public convenience, and no other reason whatever, that I, my lords, consented to hold, for a time, the situations of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of state for the home department. But I want to know whether this was, as the noble viscount insinuates, an unprecedented act? When Mr. Canning was secretary of state for the foreign department, he was appointed first lord of the treasury. The latter office Mr. Canning received on the 12th of April, and he did not resign the seals of the foreign department until the 30th of that month. During the whole of that period Mr. Canning discharged the duties both of secretary of state for foreign affairs, and first lord of the treasury. My lords, I am quite aware that there were at that period, two other secretaries of state, but the fact is as I have stated it, that Mr. Canning exercised at the same time; the functions both of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of state for the foreign department. The transaction in my case was, therefore, not unprecedented; and I must also say, that when the noble viscount thought proper to blame me, as he did, he was bound to show that my conduct, in that respect, had been attended with some evil or inconvenient result. Now, it does not appear that it has been attended with any such result. The fact is, that during the whole of the time that I held the two offices. I cautiously avoided taking any step which might be productive of subsequent embarrassment or inconvenience, and when my right honourable friend took possession of his office, I can undertake to say that he did not find himself compromised by any such act.

_February_ 24,1835.

* * * * *

_Lord Londonderry's appointment to the Embassy at St. Petersburgh._

My lords, having learned that it would not be disagreeable to my noble friend to be employed in the public service, I did concur in the recommendation, or rather, my lords, I did recommend to my right honourable friend, Sir Robert Peel, that my noble friend should be appointed ambassador to the court of St. Petersburgh. I made this recommendation, founded as it was on my own personal knowledge of my noble friend for many years past,--on the many great and important military services he has performed, and on the fitness he has proved himself to possess for such an appointment in those various diplomatic employments he has filled during a long period of time; more particularly at the court of Vienna, where for a period of nine years, he performed most important services to the entire satisfaction of the ministers who employed him, up to the last moment of his employment. He returned from the discharge of that office, my lords, with the strongest testimony of the approbation of the then secretary of state for foreign affairs. I was aware, my lords, of the peculiar talents of my noble friend in certain respects, for this particular office, and of his consequent fitness for this very description of diplomatic employment, especially on account of his being a military officer of high rank in the service of this country, and of distinguished reputation in the Russian army. I knew the peculiar advantages that must attach to an individual conducting such an embassy on that account. Under these circumstances, I was justified, my lords, in recommending my noble friend, and I was glad to find that my right honourable friend concurred in that recommendation, and that his majesty was pleased to approve of it. I may also add, that the nomination of my noble friend having been communicated in the usual manner to the court of St. Petersburgh, it was received with approbation at that court. For all these reasons, my lords, it was with the greatest regret I learned that this nomination,--for it had gone no further than nomination,--was not approved of in another place; for it is in consequence of that expression of disapproval that my noble friend, with that delicacy of feeling which belongs to his character, has declined the office.

_March_ 16,1834.

* * * * *

_Prerogative of the Crown in appointing Ambassadors._

There can be no doubt whatever that there is no branch of the prerogative of the crown greater, or more important, than that of sending ambassadors to foreign courts; nor is there any branch of that prerogative the unrestricted use of which ought to be kept more inviolate. But, my lords, the ministers of the crown are responsible for these nominations. They are also responsible for the instructions under which my noble friend, or any other noble lord so nominated, is bound to act. They are, moreover, responsible for the proper performance of these duties on the part of those whom they select--to the other house of parliament, and to the country at large. It is impossible, therefore, for me to believe that the House of Commons would in this case proceed so far as to interfere with that peculiar prerogative, and to say that an individual who has been already nominated by the crown should not fill the situation; inasmuch as, by so doing, the House of Commons would not only be taking upon itself the nomination of the officer, and the direction of the particular duties to be discharged by him--but would also be relieving the minister from the constitutional responsibility of the appointment. I do not think that sentiments of such a description, on a subject of this delicacy and importance, are very general; and I cannot bring myself to believe that a vote affirming such a violation of the royal prerogative would have passed the House of Commons.

_March 15,1835._

I

_The Roman Catholics interested in maintaining the Established Church._

The great bulk of the Roman Catholics are as much interested as the Protestants of the established church in maintaining the safety of the established church.

_June 10, 1835._

* * * * *

_Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles._

I conceive that there is no cause to complain of the subscription to the thirty-nine articles, as practised in Oxford. The explanation given by the most reverend prelate is entirely borne out by the statues of the university, and by the practice that prevails there; and this explanation agrees entirely with that given by a right reverend prelate, who was formerly head of one of the colleges at Oxford. It might, perhaps, be desirable that some other test should be adopted to prove that the individuals to be matriculated are members of the church of England; the most important point is, that Cambridge and Oxford should be filled only by members of the Church of England--upon that I consider the whole question to rest. The noble earl said, in the course of the discussion, that I advised your lordships not to consent to the bill introduced last session; because, if you did, you would have to carry to the foot of the throne a measure which would tend to subvert the union between church and state. My meaning in so doing was neither more nor less than this--that it was absolutely necessary that the universities, founded as they are, should educate their members in the religion of the church of England. Your lordships could not go to the king, and ask his consent to a bill which had for its object to establish in the university a system of education different from that of the church of England, without attacking the very foundation of the principle of the connexion between church and state. But the noble lord says, the church herself does not exact subscription to the thirty-nine articles from each individual. It is very true that the church of England does not require subscription from her members, nor would the university of Oxford require it, but as a proof that the person subscribing was a member of that church, or of the family of a member thereof.