Part 20

The noble Viscount, one of his Majesty's Secretaries of State, who spoke yesterday upon the subject, admitted that he did not expect that the Reform measure would relieve any of the distresses of the country. It certainly does appear most extraordinary, that a Minister, particularly a Secretary of State, should say of a measure, which he is supporting himself, and which he knows must have such extensive consequences as the measure now proposed, that he does not believe that it will tend to relieve any of the existing distresses of the country. But I say not only that it will not relieve any of the distresses of the country, but, on the contrary, that it will deeply aggravate them. But let us go a little further, and see whether this system is good; and whether the system of cheap government, which it is to introduce, is likely to produce good to the country. And here, again, I would wish to call the attention of your Lordships to what is passing in another country. If your Lordships will take the trouble of examining what has passed in France in the course of the last two years, you will see that, during that period, that country has expended 50,000,000 l. sterling beyond its usual expenditure. Its ordinary Budget, notwithstanding every description of saving that could be made from the Civil List, and in other establishments, which have been cut down as low as possible--still its ordinary Budget exceeds the Budget of the former reign--the extravagant reign of the Bourbons--to the amount of 10,000,000 l. sterling; and, including those laws for two years, there is the extraordinary expenditure of 50,000,000 l. in that space of time. To say, then, that popular excitement tends to cheap government, is monstrous and absurd, and it is impossible for any man who regards these facts to arrive at that conclusion. We are called upon to adopt a system which is to lead to these results. I ask, then, whether such a system can be more effectual in this country, than that under which we have so long prospered? I ask, whether the Civil Government will have more power--whether it is possible that the Government can be carried on with a smaller proportion of the army? I beg your Lordships to observe the transactions which have occurred at Paris within the last two years, and you will see that, while Louis XVIII, and Charles X. were able to maintain the peace and tranquillity of the capital with a gendarmerie of from 500 to 1000 men,--since the period of the revolution of July, 1830, the Government has not had less than 60,000 once a month put into requisition to maintain the peace of the city. I say once a month, upon an average, not to exaggerate the facts; being convinced that upon not less than twenty-four occasions the army has been under arms.

If the system now proposed to your Lordships is adopted, will any man tell me that it will be possible for any Government to be carried on, as the Government of this country has hitherto been, by a civil power, aided by a small military force? In the course of this last summer, events of a fearful character occurred, nearly at the same time, in this country and in France. I allude to the disturbances at Bristol and at Lyons. The riots at Bristol were put down by ninety men, as soon as an officer was found who would employ the force entrusted to him. But what happened at Lyons--were the disturbances there so easily quelled? The events at Lyons--a larger town, I admit, but not much larger than Bristol--required 40,000 troops to be brought against the town, under the command of a Marshal of France, the present Minister-at-War, and a Prince of the Blood, before tranquillity could be restored. I entreat, then, your Lordships to consider well, first of all, the causes of this difference,--to see that it is the sovereignty of the people that you are called upon to establish in this country,--and whether it is possible to carry on the civil Government of England, as it has hitherto been, under such a Government as you would establish, if you pass this Bill.

_April_ 10,1832.

* * * * *

_Fiscal Regulations for the Extinction of Slavery not defensible._

I can hardly bring myself to believe that any Government can think of forcing the Colonies to adopt Orders in Council, by holding out, at once, promises and threats; by saying that those Colonies which adopted them should not pay taxes, and that those which did not adopt them should continue to pay them. Did any man ever before hear of taxes being imposed, for any purpose whatever, excepting to supply the necessities of the State? If taxes be necessary for the purposes of the State, in the name of God let them be paid; but, if they be not necessary, they ought not to be imposed at all, nor allowed to continue. Parliament is not justified in imposing taxes for a specific purpose of punishment.

_April_ 17, 1832.

* * * * *

_West India Property not to be Sacrificed to the Fancies of Abolitionists._

It is really desirable that this question should be well understood in this country. West Indian property is as much entitled to protection as any other property which exists in Great Britain. Petitions are sent up from all parts of England, praying for the immediate abolition of slavery; and the execution of that measure is urged as a duty incumbent upon us. Those persons who take a part in these proceedings, forget the enormous amount of property belonging to his Majesty's subjects which is involved in the question; and it is necessary to bring back their attention to the consequences which will result, not only to the colonists, but to the public, from the annihilation of that property, by the prosecution of any of their fancies respecting the abolition of slavery. In truth, it is absolutely impossible to derive any advantage from that property except through the medium of slavery; and through slavery alone can the individuals interested in the occupation of that property be sustained in life.

_April_ 17, 1832.

_Speech explaining the Negociations, in May, 1832, for the formation of a Tory Government on the principle of Moderate Reform._

My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a petition from the inhabitant householders of Cambridge against the Reform Bill; and, as this is the first time I have had occasion to address your Lordships since I have been charged by his Majesty with a most important commission, I conceive that your Lordships, or, at least, some of you, may be desirous that I should avail myself of this, or some other early opportunity, to explain the nature and termination of the transactions in which I have been engaged; and I confess, my Lords, that having been exposed to extreme misrepresentation, and having been vilified in the most extraordinary manner, in respect of these transactions, by persons in another place, who, with the exception of their conduct in this instance, have some claim to be considered respectable, I am anxious to take the first opportunity of stating to your Lordships, and the country, the nature of the transactions in which I have been engaged, and the grounds on which I have proceeded. Your Lordships will recollect, that in the course of the last week--I think it was on Wednesday--his Majesty's ministers informed your Lordships that they had offered certain advice to his Majesty in reference to the important subject of the Reform Bill; and, as his Majesty had not thought proper to follow that advice, they had considered it their duty to tender their resignations to his Majesty, and which resignations his Majesty was pleased to accept. His Majesty was graciously pleased, on that day on which he was so left entirely alone by his ministers, to send for a noble friend of mine--a noble and learned Lord (Eldon), who had held a high place, as well in the service as in the confidence of his Majesty, to inquire whether, in his opinion, there were any means, and if so, what means, of forming a Government for his Majesty on the principle of carrying into execution an extensive reform in the representation of the people. Thus it appears that when his Majesty had the misfortune of disagreeing with his servants, respecting the advice which had been tendered to him, he happened to have had so little communication with other men, and was so little acquainted with their opinions on public affairs, that he felt it necessary to send for my noble and learned friend, who was out of the immediate line of politics, in order to obtain his assistance, and to seek for information at his hands. My noble and learned friend came to me, and informed me of the difficulty of his Majesty's situation, and I considered it my duty to inquire from others what their opinions were, because, I confess to your Lordships, I was equally unprepared with his Majesty for the consideration of such a question.

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.