Part 24

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.

The noble earl stated that individuals might obtain admittance to the universities both of Oxford and Cambridge, notwithstanding that they were dissenters; but there is a great deal of difference between casually admitting dissenters, and permitting them to enter into the universities as a matter of right. I see no objection to the admission of the few now admitted, who must submit to the regulations and discipline of the university, and of its several colleges; but I do object to the admission of dissenters into the universities by right; and my reason for making this exception is, that I am exceedingly desirous that the religion taught there should be the religion of the church of England; and I confess I should be very apprehensive that, if dissenters of all denominations were admitted by right, and they were not under the necessity of submitting to the rules and regulations of the several colleges, not only would the religion of the church of England not to be taught there, but no kind of religion whatever. I state this on the authority of a report which I have recently received of the proceedings of an institution in this country for the instruction of children of dissenting clergymen; from which it appears absolutely impossible, for any length of time, to adhere to any creed, or any tenet or doctrine in these seminaries, in which every doctrine is matter of dispute and controversy. I was rather surprised to hear the noble viscount opposite--a minister of the crown--express his preference for polemical disputations in the universities. I should have thought that he would have felt it to be his inclination, as well as duty, by all means to protect the universities from such disputes, and from a system fruitful in such controversies; and probably to end in a cessation of any system of religion or religious instruction whatever, on account of the different opinions of the members.

_July_ 14,1835.

* * * * *

_University Tests rendered necessary by Toleration._

The tests in our universities are the children of the Reformation, which the system of toleration wisely established in this country has rendered still more necessary, if we intend to preserve the standard of the religion of the church of England. If we open the door wide and say "We will have no established religion at all--every man shall follow the religion he chooses"--if, in a word, we have recourse to the voluntary system,--then we must make up our minds to take the consequences which must follow from the enactments of the bill and the polemical and other controversial agitations to which it must lead. But, supposing the object of the noble lord, to put an end to these tests, to be desirable, I can conceive no mode of effecting this object so objectionable as the interference by parliament with the privileges of the universities, secured to them by charter and repeatedly acknowledged and confirmed by parliament.

_July_ 14 1835

* * * * *

_Irish Clergy--their Depression by the Melbourne Government_.

I do say that the Protestant people and clergy of Ireland have great reason to complain of the want of protection to their rights and properties manifested on the part of the government of this country; and this is the cause of those disputes and those circumstances which the noble lord opposite (Lord Melbourne) has complained of in the few words he has addressed to the house on the subject. Far be it from me to wish for the renewal of any dissensions in Ireland; and, God knows, I would go any length, and do any thing in my power to put them down in the extent to which they now exist; but we are mistaken if we suppose that they can be put down by oppressing one party, or allowing one party to oppress another, or by extinguishing--an extinction which for the last three or four years you have attempted and are now about to complete--that description of property in Ireland allotted to the payment of the clergy. This is the circumstance which occasions the present dissensions in Ireland, and which has induced the present discussion in this house. The noble lord opposite cannot lament the cause of such discussions more than I do; but if he be determined to do his duty, let him give the protection of his majesty's government to the Protestant clergy and people of Ireland, as he does not hesitate to do in the case of other classes in that country; and the evils which he so much deplores will soon cease to exist.

_July_ 16, 1835.

* * * * *

_A Power of Revising Railway Acts ought to be Reserved by the Legislature_.

I certainly have a very strong feeling on the subject of all these railways to be traversed by the aid of steam. I sincerely wish that all these projects could prove successful; but, in proportion as they may be successful, in the same proportion is it desirable that there should not be a perpetual monopoly established in the country. Under these circumstances, I have a strong feeling that it is desirable to insert in all these bills some clause, to enable the government or the parliament to revise the enactments contained in them at some future specific period. I conceive that, by carrying these measures into execution, a very great injustice is often done to many landed proprietors in the country; and they are forced either to submit to great inconvenience, or to contend against that inconvenience by incurring a very large expense, both in this and the other house of parliament. If some measure of the description to which I allude be not adopted, and if these railroads are to become monopolies in the hands of present or of future proprietors, we shall hereafter be only able to get the better of such monopolies by forming fresh lines of road, to the farther detriment of the interests of the landed proprietors, and at a great increase of expense and inconvenience. These circumstances have most forcibly struck my mind. I have had the subject under consideration for some days; I have conversed with others respecting it; and it appears to me that some plan ought to be devised in order to bring these railroads under the supervision of parliament at some future period. I therefore am anxious that the further proceedings in all these bills[18] should be suspended for a short time, in order that I may propose some clause, or introduce some measure, to meet the object to which I have referred. I think it is a subject the consideration of which ought not to fall on any individual. It is, I conceive, a matter which the government should take into its especial consideration. I am, however, perfectly ready to share with the government the responsibility of proposing such a measure to the house.

[Footnote 18: Some railway bills before the Home of Lords.]

_June_ 3,1836.

* * * * *

_Moderation of the Opposition in the House of Lords towards the Melbourne Government_.