|×

P R O P E R T Y O F T H E
„Tº，
^*，… >
N
ºs
*ça
~čº·*№.
*s*（
*&ºl----&
*****
çº，×
»
Œ œ ·
*<<.
*&*）= № ..., x
***>
„ ©>>>#*\,
````,,**） №
�, , （° à
*
e
<$$à
（№º！!！.>（**）?>
***）
§
•
A R T E S S C I E N T l A -- * !
l-




U N I V E R S I T Y L I B R A R Y

[lſ]|||] sº
iiiş

CAUTION --- Please handle this volume with care.
The paper is very brittle.
THE
S P E E C H E S
0 P T H E
RIGHT HONOURABLE
GEORGE CANN IN G.
WITH A
MEMoIR of His LIFE.
2-3'
BY R. THERRY, ESue,
o F GRAY’s INN, B.A. R. RIST E R A T L A w.
IN SIX VOLUMES.
WOL. III.
“He had ambition to prevail in great things. He had, likewise, honour, which hath
three things in it —the vantage ground to do good, the approach to kings and principal
persons,—and the raising of a man's own fortune.” r *
BAcon.
2
- LONDON: . .
s - JAMES RIDGWAY, 169, PICCADILLY.
MDCCCXXVIII.

3%
shAºk ELL AND BAYLis, Johnson’s-court.
CONTENTS
OF THE
THIRD WOLUME.
t Page
Vote of Credit Bill—State of the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
The King's Illness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Regency Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
The Report of the Bullion Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 138
Mr. Vansittart's Resolutions .......................... 233
The Catholic Claims . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293
*Negociations for a Change in the Administration .......... 351
Address respecting the War with America ................ 376
Committee on the Laws Affecting Roman Catholics ........ 396
Vote of Thanks to the Marquis of Wellington ... .......... 419
Foreign Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Seditious Meetings' Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
Mr. Horner........................................ 455
Mr. Canning's Embassy to Lisbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
* The reader is requested to notice, that the speech on the Change
in the Administration should have been inserted before the speech
on the Catholic Claims. Mr. Canning spoke on two occasions on
the subject of Ministerial changes at this period. One of his speeches
& is not inserted here, as the principal passage of it will be found
º, introduced as a quotation in the summary that is given of Mr. Peel's
\ech on Mr. Canning's appointment to the Premiership, in the
Nolume of this work—ED. .





SPEEC HES,
&c. &c.
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL.
JUNE 15th, 1810.
THE CHANCELLOR of THE ExchequER moved the order
of the day for the third reading of the Vote of Credit Bill.
The amount of the vote of credit was £3,000,000. On
the question being put— º
MR. WHITBREAD. took an extensive review of our in-
ternal and foreign relations, and dissented from so large a
vote of credit, at the same time that he declined dividing
the House upon the question. The principal points in his
speech are brought so clearly into view in the following
very eloquent speech of Mr. Canning, as to supersede the
necessity of introducing here a summary of his arguments.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Canning rose at
the same time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave way.
MR. CANNING then spoke to the following
effect:—I should hesitate, Sir, to avail myself of
the courtesy of my right honourable friend, espe-
VOL. III. B • *.

2 VOTE OF CRED IT BILL.
cially as there are some topics in the speech of
the honourable gentleman (Mr. Whitbread), to
which a person in my right honourable friend's
situation, as one of His Majesty's Ministers, can
alone be competent to afford a satisfactory answer,
were it not that the honourable gentleman has
done me the honour to address himself, in many
parts of his speech, personally to me, and in a
manner which naturally makes me anxious to
reply to him. I trust, therefore, that I shall meet
the indulgence of the House, while I state dis-
tinctly, but as shortly as I can, the reasons
which induce me to give my most cordial assent
to the measure which the honourable gentleman
opposes. . . º -
As to the grounds which the honourable gen-
tleman has laid for this opposition in the cha-
racter which he ascribes to the .present adminis-
tration, and the distrust which he professes to
feel in them, it is not my intention to follow the
honourable gentleman through that part of his
speech. I leave these topics to those who may
hereafter take part in the debate. It is sufficient
for me to say, that whatever might be my general
opinion of any administration, yet, if they con-
tinued in office at the end of a session of Parlia-
ment, I know nothing that would justify me in
leaving them, during the recess, unarmed with
the means usually placed at the disposal of all
administrations, to provide for unforeseen con-
VOTE O F C R.E. I.) I T B I L I. 3
tingencies, and to take advantage of any fortunate,
though unexpected change in the situation of
Europe.
A Government does exist, to which His Ma-
jesty has entrusted the administration of public
affairs, and from which the confidence of Parlia-
ment has not been withdrawn. If the determina-
tion of the honourable gentleman be to withhold
from this Government such means as have never
been hitherto refused to any other, far from
approving of the candour which he has shown in
putting off his opposition to the last stage of the
bill now under discussion, I should have thought
that he had acted more consistently with that
determination on his part, if he had made some
distinct motion for placing the administration of
affairs in other hands. To tie up the hands of
those who are still left in the conduct of the
Government, appears to me to be neither a wise
mode of marking distrust, nor a happy expedient
for remedying imbecility.
If, then, the present Government be entitled to
the usual confidence given to every administra-
tion, by a vote of credit at the close of a session,
there remains only the question as to the amount
of that vote—a question of degree, which would
equally apply to any government, even to one in
which the honourable gentleman could place the
most unlimited confidence. That a vote to some
amount ought to be granted, is a proposition
. . . ‘B 2.
4 VOTE OF CRIE DIT B I LL.
which, I apprehend, will not be denied, if the
functions of the Government are to be discharged
at all, and the affairs of the nation to be at all
administered. But the amount of such a vote is
undoubtedly matter fit for discussion, and is to
be decided by the view which the House may
take of actual and probable circumstances in the
situation of the country.
The view which the honourable gentleman
would induce the House to take of those circum-
stances is such as would justify, in his mind, the
withholding of any vote of credit, or, at least, of
the vote proposed ; though he has not stated
exactly in what degree he would desire that vote
to be diminished. He foresees no use, at least no
advantageous use, that can be made of it. To
whatever points he directs his view, all prospect
of good seems closed upon him ; he looks for
nothing from continued exertion but renewed
disappointment, and ultimate despair.
The honourable gentleman, I perceive, (and not
without some degree of surprise) has not concluded
his speech this night in the same manner as his
former annual exhibitions at the close of the ses-
sion, by a declaration of the necessity of peace,
and an avowal of his conviction that the attain-
ment of peace is practicable. If to terminate a
contest, into which this country has been forced,
and in which it is compelled to continue by the
violence and injustice of the enemy, the honour-
VOTE OF C R ED IT BILL. 5
able gentleman could have contended that a safe
and honourable peace might be obtained, and had
recommended the immediate opening of negocia-
tions for the purpose of obtaining it; however
I might be disposed to disagree with the honour-
able gentleman in that opinion, I should yet be
compelled to admit that he had laid some parlia-
mentary ground for the course which he is taking.
He might argue, that, if a secure and honourable
peace, the only legitimate end of all war, could
be procured, this House ought not to grant to the
Government the means of meeting the contin-
gencies of unnecessarily protracted warfare. But
as the honourable gentleman appears to have
abandoned the opinion which he entertained re-
specting peace—(“I have not abandoned it,”
said Mr. Whitbread across the table, “I omitted
to state it”)—well then, the honourable member
has not abandoned his opinion, but he has omitted
to state it : if the omission was voluntary, that
honourable gentleman's sentiments have clearly
undergone a considerable change; if inadvertent,
it at least shews that he does not feel quite so
confidently upon the subject as heretofore; for
no man forgets the main article of his creed while
his faith continues unshaken. In either case,
therefore, it is obvious that, according to the
honourable gentleman’s own present views we
are to look to, and ought to provide for, a state
of indefinite, not to say interminable, war.
6 VOTE OF CRED IT B I L ſ,.
The observations made by the honourable gen-
tleman respecting the rapid and unexpected
changes which have of late years taken place in
Europe, appear to me to suggest a reply to much
of his general reasoning; because the more fre-
quent these sudden changes, the greater is the
chance that some one may be favourable ; and
the more necessary is it for this House to furnish
to the Government the means of taking advan-
tage of such a change. Let the honourable gen-
tleman retrace the awful and extraordinary events
of the last year, and then say whether it appears
even to him prudent to shut our eyes to the
variations of the still shifting scene, and wan-
tonly to put it out of our power to profit of any
possible opening, not to say of any probable
contingency, in our favour ! The honourable gen-
tleman admits that he felt sanguinely in the cause
of Spain at the outset; but had he anticipated
that glorious struggle 2 Did he foresee or foretell
that sudden ebullition of the heroic spirit of
Spain, that simultaneous and universal effort
against the formidable French force, which, at the
time, occupied every advantageous position in
that country : The honourable gentleman au-
gured unfavourably, and expected little, from the
result of the war in which Austria embarked last
year. He told us so (to do him justice) at the
moment when that war broke out. But while he
indulged these forebodings, had he any notion
V O'TF O F C REDI 'I' BILL. 7
that, within the space of one month from the
date of his prophecy, such a turn of affairs would
have arrived as not only arrested the victorious
career of the enemy, but rendered the issue of
the campaign doubtful, and, by poising equally
for one critical month the chances of the war,
opened to the nations of Europe a cheering,
though alas! a short lived prospect of deliver-
ance 2 Was either of these chances foreseen 7
Was either of them not worth seizing as it arose :
Argue then from the past to the future, and let
the honourable gentleman say whether, in the
unsettled and anomalous situation of the con-
tinent, it is not now equally impossible to foresee
what events may burst upon us, in the course of
a few months, with as little previous notice as
those to which I have referred 2
But although events are not exhausted, the
honourable gentleman's hopes are so. Is Parlia-
ment then not to make provision for any possible
case but such a one as may have in it demon-
strable certainty of success : Or is there in the
present state of the Spanish cause, to which the
honourable gentleman's expressions of despon-
dency particularly apply, such utter hopeless-
ness, such irrecoverable exhaustion and decay,
that nothing can henceforth be rationally at-
tempted on its behalf; and that on that ground
alone, therefore, to prevent a wasteful application
of the resources of this country, to an absurd and
8 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL.
unattainable object, Government ought to be left
without any discretionary power of applying
them 7
If the honourable gentleman is resolved to
despair of Spain, I cannot hinder him. But I
think I can prove to him that he has no right to
despair, on the same principles on which he has
despaired so often during the last fourteen years,
(and so often, I am grieved to add, has been jus-
tified by the event) respecting the other states of
Europe.
What has been the nature of those former con-
tests—and what the character of the states which
have been successively subdued by France :
What that of France as compared with them I
speak, Sir, of the earlier stages of the French
Revolution, and refer to the language then held
by the honourable gentleman and his friends.
France was then a nascent Republic-—the neigh-
bouring nations were governed by old and feeble
despotisms—military despotisms, it is true, but
feeble from the inherent vices of their constitu-
tion. In France, a liberal and enlightened philo-
sophy had brought forth a spirit of revolutionary
freedom—had reared this new and formidable
birth to a sudden maturity of strength and vigour
—had
“Torn from his tender limbs the bands away
And bade the infant giant run and play.”
He did so, and the effete and tottering monarchies
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL. 9
of the continent, military despotisms though they
were, fell before the first touch of this regenerating
conqueror.
But now the spirit, at least, if not the strength,
has changed sides. France—as if, according to
the doctrines of barbarian superstition, the soul
of the slain had transmigrated into the slayer—
France is herself become a military despotism.
She is opposed in that character to the new-born
independence of Spain; and, if victory had been
faithful to the precepts of the honourable gentie-
man and his friends, victory ought no longer to
declare in favour of arms which are no longer
wielded in the cause of freedom, but in that of
tyranny and oppression.
Victory, indeed, the Spaniards have not to
boast. The military power of France has unfor-
tunately outlived the causes which produced it;
and in spite of theory, flourishes not only unsup-
ported by freedom, but opposed to it. But yet
the theory is not wholly shamed. And, if France
has not at once lost her good fortune because she
is enslaved, there is yet sufficient distinction be-
tween the degrees of resistance opposed to her
by Spain and that of any other country, to justify
the generous belief, that a truly national spirit is
not to be subdued.
In other instances, when once the French
armies had overcome the regular and disciplined
armies of the continent, the conquered power fell
10 VOTE OF CRED IT B f i, L.
without further effort, and submitted to the will
of the conqueror. But is that the case in Spain 7
Has the enemy, with all his military superiority,
and with all the advantage of having taken the
Spaniards unprepared—of having occupied in
peace the strong holds, which he afterwards
turned to the purposes of war—has he yet suc-
ceeded in establishing his will as the law of
Spain : Whatever faults the honourable gentle-
man may find with the Spaniards, I am sure he
cannot accuse them of tame submission, or of a
want of persevering exertions in the glorious
contest, into which they have been driven and
betrayed. We have seen their armies beaten
down, their towns taken and razed ; yet have
not those calamities broken their spirits. From
the ashes of their slaughtered countrymen, and
from the smoking ruins of their cities and their
hamlets, has burst forth a renovated flame, kind-
ling anew that ardour and enthusiasm, which
misfortune may for a time smother and over-
whelm, but has not power to extinguish. A peo-
ple so animated and so resolute may be extermi-
nated, but they cannot be subdued; from each
disaster that befalls them they derive new ener-
gies as they do fresh motives of resistance. Im-
mediate and decisive success was not to be
expected in such a contest; but surely to have
so long protracted the struggle against such an
enemy, and under all the disadvantages under
VOTE OF CRE DIT BI LL. 11
which they were forced into it, affords indisputa-
ble proof of qualifications in the Spaniards, which
demand our admiration and esteem ; of a patriot-
ism, a steadiness, a zeal, a perseverance, of which
no people in Europe had hitherto afforded an
example.
The more I contemplate the circumstances of
Spain, the more pleasure I derive from the con-
sideration, that the honourable gentleman him-
self, with all the doubts and apprehensions which
he professes to entertain, has not thought it wise
to recommend any step to be taken with a view
to peace. He feels, no doubt, that whilst there
remains a chance of rescuing that country from
the unjust and tyrannical usurpation of France,
it would be as little politic as generous to with-
draw our assistance from the Peninsula. We
cannot do so, unless we be prepared to leave the
Peninsula to be occupied by France: and all its
means, opportunities, and resources to be imme-
diately employed against ourselves.
It is not now a question, whether Spain and
Portugal shall be suffered to return to a state
of neutrality, upon our consenting on one part, and
of France on the other, to retire from the Penin-
sula as from a field of battle; it is not now to
be decided whether Cadiz shall send forth her.
peaceful fleets of commerce, to pass, unmolested
by either belligerent, over the surface of the
ocean, and to waft the products of the remote
12 VOTE OF CRIED l'I' BILL.
dependencies of Spain, indiscriminately to both :
the only question is, whether, by abandoning the
footing which we possess in the Peninsula, we
shall leave France at liberty to occupy the ground
which we abandon, to occupy the ports and arse-
nals, to seize the naval resources of Spain and
Bortugal, and to fit out in harbours now in our
possession, or under our protection, hostile fleets
destined (though destined, I trust, in vain) for
the object most dear to the heart, and always
uppermost in the thoughts of Buonaparte, the
invasion and destruction of Great Britain.
We are engaged in the struggle, therefore, in-
evitably; and have no alternative but to main-
tain it with vigour, or, declining it, to be prepared
to pay, in our own perils, and in exertions for
self defence, the price of our own pusillanimity
and baseness. Is this the situation of things, in
which the honourable gentleman would recom-
mend to us to pause on our policy—to cease our
efforts on behalf of our allies—and to acquiesce
in the injustice and usurpation of the enemy
But again I ask, what are the grounds of the
honourable gentleman's despondency? There
has been (says the honourable gentleman) no
order, no plan, no combination in the military
efforts of Spain: and is this wonderful? The
population of universal Spain, roused by a SCIlSC
of insult and injury, and actuated by the power-
ful and heroic determination to preserve their
VOTE OF CRED IT BII, T, . 13
existence as a people, rose against their invaders,
in different and distant parts of the country, rose
at once, but without previous concert or combi-
nation. Who could expect to find in that unpa-
ralleled national explosion, at a time too when
the French troops were in possession of all the
strong places of the kingdom, all the order, all
the arrangement, all that efficient organization
of means, and all that wise and judicious appli-
cation of them, which are to be traced in the
operations of governments of regular constitu-
tion, and established authority, representing and
uniting the general will, and capable of directing
the general resources of a country : But these
advantages of regular governments, we know,
have been frequently more than counterbalanced
by their inherent disadvantages in the tremen-
dous conflicts which, of late years, they have had
to sustain. And Spain, with the disadvantages
which belong to her, has some counterbalancing
advantages. If the old governments have fallen
an easy prey before the energies of regenerated
France, let it be recollected, as I have already
had occasion to observe, that the principle from
which these energies were supposed to spring,
no longer exists; that the spirit of liberty in
France has been extinguished; that its republican
throes and convulsions have quietly subsided into
a military despotism: while, on the other hand,
the Spanish nation, rising in vindication of its
14 VOTE OF C R EDIT B I LL.
invaded rights, and for the preservation of its in-
tegrity and independence, is animated by every
sentiment, and impelled by every motive, which
can insure a determined resistance against ty-
ranny, and a steady devotion to the country's
cause. And whilst the Spaniards, true to these
motives and these sentiments, continue to main-
tain the struggle, can we doubt that it is the first
duty, as well as the clearest interest of this coun-
try, to afford them all possible assistance 2.
I do not mean to deny that, if the object of
this war were one of Spanish interest merely,
and if it were a question as to the claims of Spain
upon this country for support, there may have
been—there undoubtedly has been—cause of dis-
satisfaction, in the conduct of the Spanish Govern-
ment. The papers upon the table, the corres-
pondence of Lord Wellington particularly, shew,
that, in respect to the reception of the British
army, there is great reason for complaint, and that,
as between Spain and England, Spain has been
much in the wrong. But the question now at
issue is really of a higher order: it relates indeed,
in the first instance, to the immediate existence
of Spain; but it ultimately and intimately in-
volves the most essential interests of this coun-
try—and the hopes, if hope remain, of subju-
gated, but yet restless Europe.
Considerations of such magnitude must not
give way to the resentments—even to the just
V OTE OF CIRE DIT BILL. 15
resentments—of the moment; to differences be-
tween parties whose object and whose interests
are so closely united. True, we have a good
cause against Spain, and could make out a very
sufficient ground of quarrel, if this were the time,
if we had at this moment the leisure, and if we
had the inclination to bring her to account.
But what is our case against Spain compared
with the case of Spain, and with our own case,
against France 2 And to whose advantage would
it be, but to that of France, if we were now to
separate ourselves from the Spanish cause, or
to waste in complaint against our ally the season
of action against the enemy? Our interests de-
mand that we should defend the Peninsula to
the last extremity; even if we were released by
the conduct of Spain from all other obligation ;
even if honour did not bind us not to abandon.
her, whilst there remains a possibility of defence.
Our citadel lies here, it is true, in this impreg-
nable island : but Spain and Portugal are its out-
works; and, though I can have no doubt of a
glorious triumph, if we should ever have to main-
tain the contest in this country, I cannot consent
to be a party to that chivalrous feeling, that
would retreat from the outworks and admit the
enemy to the gates, in order that we might have.
the satisfaction of defeating him under the walls.
of our fortress. Our obvious policy, if policy
alone were in question, is to keep the war alive;
| 6 VOTE OF C H EDIT BILL.
in every quarter where France has an enemy in
arms, to prevent her from converting those ene-
mies into conscripts for her armies, to fight our
battle with combined, rather than against con-
federated, nations.
This, I say, would be the dictate of policy, even
if we were to banish from the maxims of a great,
a powerful, and a generous nation, those enlarged
views of interest, and that just sense of duty,
which prescribe to us to resist tyranny, even
when exercised against others, and to aid the
oppressed, even though our aid may be unso-
licited or unacknowledged. -
Let us then continue to aid Spain in spite of
her weakness, in spite even of her ingratitude, if
she has proved ungrateful; cautious where we
have found reason to distrust her, but not eagerly
seizing on every pretext, which the conduct of
her government might offer for abandoning her
to her fate. -
But the faults of the Spanish Government, it
is contended, are attributable to us—to the admi-
nistration in this country, by whom no measures
had been taken to procure for Spain a better
form of government. Hence the mismanage-
ment of the internal affairs of Spain; and hence
also the spirit of jealousy manifested by the
Spaniards towards this country !
For my own part I am desirous to claim my
full share of responsibility for all the measures
g
VOTE OF CRIEDIT BILL. 17
taken by the administration of which I was a
member, with respect to Spain, and in relation
to its government; a share, which must be the
more ample from my having had the honour to
fill that department, within the province of which
it fell to advise and execute whatever measures
were taken on that subject. One point the
honourable gentleman will find sufficiently esta-
blished by the papers laid before Parliament,
that no pains were spared, even from the earliest
period of our intercourse with Spain, to obtain
the establishment of a supreme and central go-
vernment, which should collect into one point
the scattered authorities of the several provincial
juntas, and controul, and guide, and give con-
sistency and energy to, the whole. This was
made the condition of the continuance of our
aid: it was the express and sine quá non con-
dition of the employment of a British army in
Spain.
It is true, we did not go so far as to prescribe
the precise form of the government so to be con-
stituted. And I am ready to explain, and to de-
fend the grounds of our forbearance in this par-
ticular. But let the honourable gentleman look
at Mr. Stuart's correspondence—the first British
agent sent to Spain. He will find Mr. Stuart
constantly insisting upon the establishment of
one uniform government, and stating that as
the condition of sending a British military force
VOL. III. C -
1S VOTE OF CRED IT B II, L.
into Spain. At length this point was accom-
plished. -
As to the characters of the persons composing
the supreme government, for which the honour-
able gentleman would make me responsible, be-
cause I was, as he affirms, the warm panegyrist
of the Spanish Junta, I beg leave, in the first
place, to ask the honourable gentleman by what
possible knowledge, by what intuition, rather, I
could be prepared, not only to stipulate for the
establishment of a supreme central government,
but to dictate the selection of the members who
were to compose it? What could I know of them
but from the communications of the British agent 7
And when, in despatches received previously to
the formation of the Junta, the names of distin-
guished persons in Spain, of Florida Blanca,
Saavedra, and Jovellanos, were stated to be in
the mouths of every body, as the fittest persons
to be intrusted with the conduct of the govern-
ment; and when I found by the first despatch
transmitted after the establishment of the govern-
ment, that these persons were actually appointed,
not only members of the Junta, but to the lead-
ing situations of the executive government, could
I possibly have supposed, that they were not, as
they had been previously represented to me, the
most proper persons in Spain, to whom that high
and important trust could have been committed?
or that the government, which had the sanction
VOTE OF CREDIT BII, L. 19
of their approbation, and the advantage of their
assistance, was not the best, upon the whole,
that could be put together under the very difficult
circumstances of the country : The eulogium,
therefore, which I am accused by the honourable
gentleman of having pronounced upon the mem--
bers of the Supreme Junta, was not, because it
could not be, the result of personal knowledge
on my part; nor was it so imposed by me upon
the House: neither could it by any fair construc-
tion render me in any degree responsible for the
consistency of their conduct with the tenor of
my representations. What I said here, was, in
fact, but the echo of the voice of the Spanish
nation, conveyed to me through the medium of
official reports, and repeated by me to this House
and to the world. I conceived it an act of jus-
tice to the Junta, and an act of duty to my
country, whose interests were so intimately con-
nected with the existence of an efficient govern-
ment in Spain, to afford every encouragement in
my power, to a government professing that cha-
racter, and represented to me as deserving it.
If the Junta disappointed the hopes which were
entertained of it—if it either wanted the energy
or the authority, which it was intended to possess
—undoubtedly there is much cause for regret;
but there is none for blame as to the administra-
ion here, unless it can be shown, that some other
form of government in Spain would have been
c 2 .
20 VOTE OF CRIEDIT IBILL.
obviously preferable, and also could have been,
with equal facility, and at an equally early period,
obtained. For, let it not be forgotten how pre-
cious were the moments of this glorious and
unexpected opportunity l—let it not be forgotten
that, while on the one hand it was necessary for
the ultimate and permanent success of the Spanish
cause, that the efforts of the nation should be
combined and directed by one presiding authority,
it was no less necessary for its immediate safety,
that the enemy, once taken by surprise, should
not be allowed to recover from the first shock of
the insurrection | Had we then time to pick and
choose, evenif we had had the means of judging, and
had conceived a sound and rational preference for
one form of provisional government over another ?
Were the feelings of the country here disposed to
give us time P What would my right honourable
friend (Mr. Sheridan), who has so repeatedly
renewed his notice of a motion respecting the
campaign in Spain, and of whose presence I should
have been extremely glad on the present occasion,
what would he say to the charge of the honour-
able gentleman, that we had too hastily acqui-
esced in the form of government established by
the Spaniards? he, who two years ago, when no
deputation had been received in this country,
except from the Asturias, one of the smallest of
the Spanish provinces, and consisting of a rocky
and mountainous tract, though containing a brave,
VOTE OF CR ED IT B I LL. 21
|
a loyal, and independent population, reproached
the Administration with being too tardy in adopt-
ing the Spanish cause,_too timid in hesitating to
give it at once every possible assistance and sup-
port? I should wish to know whether my right
honourable friend, who then reproached us for
having paused, before we determined to act, on
the solicitation of a single province, would now
condemn us for having supported the Spanish
people with all the means of this country, after
deputations had been received from the north, and
from the south, and when we had a certainty of
the whole nation having determined to rise as one
man against their unprincipled oppressors? Would
he, who thought us wanting to the interests of this
country and of the world, because we did not send
fleets and armies to the port of Gijon, when that
port alone (for aught we knew), was open to us
throughout the whole coasts of the Peninsula;
who stimulated us to action, when a single princi-
pality had taken up arms against the French, and
therewith, for aught that we could know, against
the rest of Spain also ; when, what turned out
undoubtedly to be a faithful specimen of a general
national effort, might have been, for aught that
we could know, the insulated and unsupported
burst of mere provincial patriotism? Would he, I
say, or any rational man, have desired that when
not Asturias, but all Spain had declared itself;
when what might have been a partial, proved to
22 VOTE OF C B E D I T B I L L.
be the universal sentiment of the nation ; when
the will of the whole country was expressed
beyond the possibility of misapprehension, would
any man have thought that it was then our duty
to boggle about the precise shape and denomina-
tion of the presiding government, by which the
collective will was to be provisionally represented
and embodied ?
In a crisis of such extraordinary novelty, and
such transcendent importance; when interests so
mighty were committed to the issue of the struggle;
and where that issue, after all that could be done,
was necessarily so hazardous and uncertain; it
was impossible to take any step, or to offer any
counsel, which must not at the time, be felt and
acknowledged to be of doubtful and questionable
policy; and to which it was not foreseen, that in
the event of a disastrous result, that disaster would
be, however unjustly, ascribed | But in this diffi-
culty of choice, were we to do nothing, were we
to counsel nothing, till the use of counsel and the
period of action were past ! Or were we at some
risk, but with a determined purpose, conscious of
a just end, though necessarily less confident in our
means, to take the course which appeared upon
the whole liable to the fewest objections ! -
Gentlemen talk very glibly now of what might
have been, and what ought to have been, our mode
of proceeding. Some would have done nothing,
the safest opinion of all: but they must have
VOTE OF CRED IT BILL. 23
found another Ministry to act upon their opinion,
and another people, than such a one as the people
of England were in June 1808, to countenance
and support them in doing so.
Some think, that we ought to have insisted
upon the immediate assembling of the Cortes;
some, that we ought not to have acknowledged
Ferdinand at all; others again, that we ought not
to have stipulated for (in truth, we did not stipu-
late, they mean that we ought directly to have
discountenanced) the monarchical constitution in
Spain. A word upon each of these suggestions.
And first, as to our acknowledgment of Ferdi-
nand VII., or, as it is sometimes stated, our
imposition of him upon the Spanish people. On
the one hand, it is said, that by acknowledging
Ferdinand VII. as King of Spain, in exclusion of
his father, we thereby gave a sanction to the prin-
ciple and the practice of the revolutionary depo-
sition of sovereigns; whilst on the other hand, we
are accused of making the preservation of mo-
narchy in Spain the peremptory condition of our
assistance. Nothing, however, could be more
unfounded than either and both of these charges.
Perhaps, in any other kingdom of Europe, we
should have been slow to recognize the accession
of the son before the demise of the father. But
in Spain, the elevation of the son by the voluntary
resignation of the father is familiar to the people
by the recorded transactions of some of the
24 VOTE OF CRED IT B I LL.
brightest periods of their history. There was
therefore no ground for jealousy at such an event,
unless there had been good cause for suspicion
respecting the means by which it had been accom-
plished. The resignation of Charles V., their
greatest monarch, and of Philip V., the founder
of the Bourbon Dynasty in Spain, who subse-
quently resumed the reins of government on the
death of his son, to whom he had transferred them,
must be in the recollection of every gentleman
who hears me: and with these precedents before
us, and whilst there existed no ground whatever
for suspicion, the Government of this country was
bound to consider the resignation of Charles as
voluntary, and the accession of Ferdinand as legi-
timate, according to the usage of the Spanish
monarchy. As to the charge of imposing Ferdi-
nand, and in his person monarchy, on Spain; why,
Sir, the name of Ferdinand resounded from every
corner of the kingdom ; it became the watch-word
of Spanish patriotism; the pledge of popular en-
thusiasm; the bond and cement of national union;
the charm, before which all separate interests, all
discordant passions and prejudices faded away.
It was no suggestion, no fancy of ours; we found
this symbol of Spanish loyalty interwoven with
every part of the Spanish cause. It was the bur-
den of every oral, and the stamp and sanction of
every written communication, which, in my official
character, it was my duty and my happiness to
VOTE OF CRED IT BI I, L. 25
receive from the Spanish agents or ministers. It
was not left to our option, whether Spain should
be a monarchy under Ferdinand VII. If we had
denied Ferdinand they would have disclaimed us;
if we had stipulated against monarchy we should
have been repudiated by Spain. :
I say not this as matter of defence; I state the
plain truth. Upon this point we have no respon-
sibility, because we had nothing to decide. Upon
every principle by which our conduct could be
guided, whether drawn from legal precedent, or
from the unequivocal demonstrations of national
feeling, we could look upon Ferdinand VII. in no
other light, than as being at once the lawful
Monarch of Spain, by the established constitution
of the kingdom, and the Sovereign of the nation's
affections, the King of the people's choice.
But then we should have insisted on the assem-
bling of the Cortes, the ancient, legal, recognised
estates of the realm—whereas we acknowledged
the weak and incapable authority of the Supreme
Junta. First, as I have before argued, what
right had we to criticise the form of that institu-
tion, or the pretensions of the members ? Was it
not enough that we were assured of its having the
sanction and the confidence of the Spanish nation;
and were we not justified thereby in recognizing
the Junta as representative of the authority of the
legitimate sovereign during the period of his most
unfortunate absence and captivity ? Let us only
26 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL.
look back to a memorable instance in our own
history, I mean the glorious Revolution of 1688,
and judge what would have been the consequence,
if the proceedings of that period had been criti-
cised with too scrupulous nicety, or required to
have been conducted with all the solemnity and
precision of the most minute forms and established
precedents? What might have been the conse-
quences of such a scrupulous adherence to esta-
blished ceremonials, such an appeal to ancient
usage, at a period, when the novelty of the cir-
cumstances and the urgency of the case called for
the adoption of extraordinary measures, if William
the Third had refused to take upon himself the
government before the meeting of the convention,
because the address to him to do so proceeded
from an irregular authority—from a few members
of extinct Parliaments, gathered together in haste,
with the lord mayor, aldermen, and common
council of the city of London 2 if he had declined
taking any share in administering the affairs of
the kingdom, or affording any assistance to the
nation, until a Parliament, summoned by regular
writs, and assembled with all the forms of the con-
stitution, should have ceremoniously invested him
with the powers of the executive government.
The case of Spain was still more urgent, because
at the very moment, when, it is said, we should
have waited for all the tardy forms and all the
regular process of the old constitution of Spain
V O'TE OF CREDIT BII. C. 27
for the election, and assembly of the Cortes, the
French troops were in possession of all the for-
tresses of the country. At such a moment, it was
rather to be considered as miraculous, that the
Spaniards should have found in each of the several
provinces a spot whereon to plant the standard
of resistance, than to be expected, that they
should be able to conduct the election of the
Cortes with all the requisite solemnities, and with
all the deliberation, which would have been neces-
sary to find out what those solemnities were. For
let it not be forgotten, that these same Cortes had
been long disused; that, when last assembled,
they had been assembled in mere form, and to
register the edicts of the crown; that the Cortes
of Arragon and Castile have never been brought
to act cordially together, even if brought together
at all, except by compulsory means; that many
of the provinces, foremost in the great struggle
against France, had not the privilege of sending
representatives to the Cortes; that Asturias had
never sent any, Gallicia seldom if ever—certainly
not uniformly, nor of custom and right; and that
to the two provinces therefore, which were the
earliest in their application to us for assistance,
if we had answered, “assemble the Cortes,” they
might have replied, “with the Cortes we have
nothing to do;” that to bring into shape and into
action this grand but obsolete machinery, would
have required deep and laborious research into
28 VO'DE OF CRE D1 T B I LL.
records and registers; that perhaps after all a
representative might have been produced less
satisfactory to the nation at large, than that which
sprang from their own concurrent though irregu-
lar impulse; but that, at all events, much precious
time must have been lost in the process, and that
while we were discussing antiquated forms and
adjusting contested elections, the enemy would
have rallied from his first consternation, and
effected the conquest of the country.
That the assembling of the Cortes would be a
wise and salutary measure, when it could be
effected peaceably and regularly, no doubt was
entertained ; and accordingly the Junta were ad-
wised, and had determined to make it one of their
first acts. But I am not surprised, for one, that
it was not earlier effected. I doubt whether a
general election could be speedily accomplished
here after a long disuse of Parliaments, and with
an enemy occupying all the country north of
Trent. And I cannot but make some allowance
for the Spanish Government, when I recollect, that
at almost every period since the establishment of
the Junta, the French have been masters of Arra-
gon and of the greatest part of the countries be-
hind the Ebro. - .
In truth, the uniform experience of all similar
revolutions shows that time only and practice can
safely be relied on for modelling and perfecting
the form of a government, struck out at a heat, as
VOTE OF CltED IT BILL. 29
it were, by the immediate necessity of the occa-
sion. The natural effect of the pressure of the
immediate exigency is, in all such cases, it was
in this, to unite in one body the two distinct
branches of the legislative and executive autho-
rity. The equally natural tendency of experience,
is to show the expediency of separating these
authorities as soon as proper depositories can be
found, or contrived for them. A Regent, or a
Regency, for the one, and the Cortes for the other,
formed obviously the natural division of the com-
bined authorities of the Junta. And, even if we
had had the right, and the leisure to prescribe the
course which should be taken, I doubt whether it
would have been wise to insist upon erecting these
separate powers in the first instance; whether
the Junta, or something like the Junta, was not
a necessary stage, preparatory to the more regular
distribution of the functions of the government.
It is plain that the Regency could be claimed by
no one, without something like the form of a
choice, and something, or somebody to choose it.
And it may be doubted, whether, if the Cortes
had been called at once, they would have been
contented with their own share of authority and
power; whether the Cortes assembled in the first
instance and exigency would not have been, in
fact, a Junta under another name. At any rate,
these were questions exclusively of domestic cog-
nizance, upon which it was neither our duty, nor
30. VOTE OF CRED IT BILL.
our right to dictate to Spain, if we had even been
competent to do so. Much less should we have
been justified in withholding our assistance, until
this most delicate, difficult, and perplexing ques-
tibn should have been settled to our satisfaction,
at a period so critical to the existence of Spain as
a nation, that the delay of a moment might have
been ruin to the cause. ... 2
Such then were the principles on which the
Government, of which I was a member, acted ; and
such are the answers which I offer to the several
clashing and contradictory charges of having been
too precipitate, and of having been too dilatory; of
having exacted too much, and of having exacted
too little from Spain; of having dictated improperly
the constitution of the government, and of having
suffered the government to constitute itself.
The truth is, that we interfered to the extent,
to which we had a right to interfere, and no fur-
ther, when we insisted that there should be a
central government formed, before a British army
entered Spain.
Sir, in following the honourable gentleman
next to his observations on the conduct of the
war, I pass over the campaign of Sir John Moore,
because it has been, heretofore, the subject of
ample and detailed discussion; and because the
honourable gentleman himself has very properly
avoided dwelling upon it this night. I come now
therefore to the operations of last summer. The
VOTE OF CRED IT BILL. 3I.
honourable gentleman has condemned in strong
terms the impolicy, the madness, as he calls it, of
sending another army into Spain, after the dear-
bought and fatal experience which we had ac-
quired in the campaign which terminated in the
battle of Corunna. But here the honourable
gentleman assumes what was not the fact, in order
to make his unfounded assumption the ground of
a charge to which his Majesty's Government is
not justly liable. The army of Lord Wellington
was not sent out to penetrate into Spain; it was
sent out to liberate Portugal from the yoke of the
French ; to provide for the security of that king-
dom against any fresh attack; and, so far as could
be done consistently with these objects, and so
far only, upon any favourable occasion that might
be presented, to co-operate with the Spanish
generals and armies in the provinces of Spain,
that border on the Portuguese frontier. Would
the honourable gentleman then have left the
British general inactive in Portugal, after having
accomplished the first object of his expedition by
the expulsion of the enemy from that country?
or would he have restricted him from extending
the line of his operations with a view to the relief
of Spain, when that could be done without aban-
doning or endangering the other object for which
the force under him was immediately destined?
Would he blame Lord Wellington for availing
himself of the latitude given him by his instruc-
32 VOTE OF CRED IT BILL.
tions, occasionally to lengthen the chain which
bound him to the frontiers of Portugal 2 Would
he have prevented him from pursuing that course
which brought on the battle, and led to the bril-
liant victory of Talavera; a victory which covered
the British arms with unfading laurels, and crown-
ed the gallant general and his brave troops with
immortal glory? But, says the honourable gentle-
man, that victory was barren. Barren undoubtedly
it was, if you know no fruits of victory but dis-
tricts overrun, fortresses taken, extent of territory
acquired; yet not barren but fruitful: not unpro-
ductive, but as advantageous as brilliant, if you
take into account, that it immediately opened the
gates of Cadiz, and that it will hereafter open to
yóu the ports of Spanish America. These are
advantages which far outweigh the ordinary mili-
tary results of a victory. But even were the
effects of all our exertions confined to the pro-
longing the struggle against France in European
Spain, so thoroughly am I convinced of the policy
of supporting that struggle to the last extremity,
that were the question at this moment a new and
undecided question; were our armies and our
fleets hitherto not engaged, nor our faith pledged
in the cause, I should be of opinion, that it would
be the duty no less than it would be the interest
of this country, even now to begin our efforts in
aid of the Peninsula, if now, for the first time, we
were called upon to begin them.
VOTE OF CRIEDIT BI L I. 33
It is not, however, only with respect to Spain
itself, to the formation and controul of her Govern-
ment, and to the conduct of the war in the Penin-
sula, that we are accused of great and sinful
negligences and omissions, but with respect to
the Spanish colonies we are said to have been
criminally neglectful. We have been told to-
night, in the course of a discussion upon another
subject, that we should have made it a condition
of our alliance with the Government of Spain,
that the Spaniards should give up the slave trade
in their colonies. The honourable gentleman
(Mr. Brougham), who made that observation,
must be aware, that it would have been much
easier to declare, than to effectuate, our wishes in
such a case. I am as anxious as that honourable
gentleman for the total extermination of that
abominable trade, and with him I am ready to
allow that we ought to make every sacrifice to
principle, whenever such sacrifice may be likely
to advance the principle : but I very much ques-
tion, whether, by such a proposition, prematurely
brought forward, we might not have thrown the
Spanish colonies into the arms of France, without
at all advancing the object of humanity. England
and the abolition, on one side, might possibly
have had but an unfavourable competition against
Buonaparte and unlimited slave trade on the
other, in bidding for the affections of the colonies.
Sir, I have noticed this subject incidentally,
VOL. III, & D
34 VOTE OF CRIF. DIT BILL.
only to show, that, in the colonial no less than in
the European part of this great political question,
the course which the British Government have
had to steer, has not been altogether plain sailing
—has not been so little embarrassed with difficul-
ties of different kinds, as to entitle gentlemen to
turn round upon the King's Ministers and make it
matter of charge against them, that they have not
provided for every interest, and secured the ope-
ration of every principle, which they and we may
concur in our desire to promote and to maintain.
It is true, it is perfectly true, as gentlemen are
fond of observing, that Spain is a country of pre-
judice and of bigotry: bigotry and prejudice,
however, not without their use in such a contest
as that in which they are engaged—prejudice,
which exalts the spirit of patriotism by the rooted
preference for their own manners and institutions
—and bigotry, which, if it is akin to intolerance
on one side, is allied to perseverance on the other;
which, however to be deprecated as an active
principle, is of powerful operation in inspiring
resistance, and sustaining courage under oppres-
sion. I am not sure that, balancing the good and
the evil of such qualities, I would strip the Spanish
nation of them, in their present circumstances, if
I could. But it is enough for my argument that
I could not, if I would. And, with this convic-
tion, nothing can be more unreasonable than to
make it matter of reproach to the British Govern-
VOTE OF CREF) l'I' B I L [.,. 35
ment, that they have not, at the same time that
they were aiding the Spaniards in a struggle for
the preservation of the mother country, been able,
or attempted, to engage them to revise the whole
system of their colonial polity, to adopt reforma-
tions and improvements, which, if they had been
disposed to adopt them, they might have found it
impossible to reconcile to the feelings of the
colonies, and equally impossible to enforce
against those feelings, at a time when the cir-
cumstances of the war must necessarily have
loosened the ties of colonial allegiance.
Advice, however, has not been withheld, nor
has the Spanish Government shewn itself unwil-
ling to listen to the advice which has been offered
to them, for extending privileges to the colonies,
and uniting them closer with the mother country
by community of rights and of interests. To
promote this union has been the object of our
policy. Some, I know, are of opinion, that we
ought rather to have played a separate game with
the colonies. The honourable gentleman who
spoke last, has alluded to the benefits, which
might be derived to this country from a connec-
tion with Spanish America altogether distinct
from Spain. I have only to observe, that in my
opinion, if any advantages are to result to us from
a connection with the Spanish trans-atlantic colo-
nies, we should rather wait for them as a reversion,
as the reward of the success, or the consolation
- D 2 ſº
36 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL.
under the reverses of the European struggle, than
consider them as a temptation to the premature
abandonment of the mother country. With these
feelings deeply impressed upon my mind I shall
never consent that the hand of Great Britain
should be laid, in untimely interference, for the
sake of immediate gain upon Spanish America.
I shall never be one of those, who, professing the
warmest wishes for the success of Spain, would
aim the most deadly blow at her existence, by
robbing her of those foreign dependencies, now
more than ever necessary to enable her to main-
tain her independence, by prosecuting to a suc-
cessful issue the mortal contest in which she is
engaged. Still less will I consent to starve the
Spanish cause, for the sake of hastening that con-
summation of evil, which, if it is not to be averted,
may yet be delayed; and of profiting by the rich
spoil, which we may gather in Spanish America,
after European Spain has fallen. I cannot bring
myself to contemplate the fate of Spain, as our
inimitable dramatic poet describes one of his
most exquisitely drawn characters, Shylock, con-
templating the fate of his daughter, who had fled
from him with a heap of gold and jewels—while
he is lamenting her flight, and his friends under-
take to console him with the hope, that after all
she may be still alive, he presently undeceives
them as to the real cause of his wailing. It is not
his daughter, but his treasure, that is uppermost
VOTE OF C R E O I T B I LL. 37
in his thoughts. “As for her,” says he, “would
she lay dead at my feet, with the jewels in her
ear; would she were coffined at my feet, so that
my ducats were in her coffin ſ” So it is that the
honourable gentleman and others, appear to think
of Spain: they think of the money that she has
cost us; they think of the little return in profit
that she has made to us; they look to the advan-
tages, which we may hope to inherit after her
struggle is well over; and they are disposed
rather to blame the obstinacy of that struggle, and
to deplore the length of that agony, which keeps
us out of our expected inheritance. º
And yet, Sir, surely the coldest heart, the most
calculating head, cannot but be warmed and ex-
alted by such a spectacle as Spain affords to the
world ! There can surely be but one feeling in
this House with regard to the character of the
Spanish cause: no man can entertain a doubt that
a contest of such a description ought to succeed:
and, if in spite of all the difficulties, which the
Spaniards have had to encounter (and formidable
those difficulties have been), they have contended
with unbroken spirit, though with various for-
tunes, against the gigantic power of France, in a
manner, and for a period, to shame by the Com-
parison the efforts of almost all the nations of the
continent, I must again ask, why are we, to
despair : I cannot bring myself yet to despair of
the ultimate success of Spain, because I would
38 V. O'H' E O F C [& E D H 'I' [3 I ſ , (, .
fain believe in the success of any people, that
shall act upon the same principle, and persevere
with the same courage, in so righteous a cause ;
because I would not despair of ourselves under
similar circumstances.
If the enemy should pass those outworks,
which the line of policy recommended by the
honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread),
would level: if ever we shall have to contend
against that enemy on British ground, I trust that
our resistance will be signal, and his defeat cer-
tain : but I doubt how far we can expect to
exceed the example which is set to us by the
Spaniards. In prowess in the field, no doubt we
shall, and must exceed them, because that de-
pends upon a variety of circumstances and advan-
tages, which the Spanish nation did not possess;
not on valour only, but on skill—on discipline in
the soldier—on science and experience in the
officer—and above all, upon an efficient Govern-
ment to organize the establishments, to provide
for the accommodation, and to direct the move-
ments of the various masses of individuals that
compose an army. In these particulars, unques-
tionably we shall have greatly the advantage of
the Spaniards; but in other qualities, not less
essentially necessary for maintaining a defensive
struggle—in firmness under defeat—in content-
ment under privations—in patience and long suf-
VOTE OF CREDIT BILL, 39
fering, we may equal, but I doubt, if we can go
beyond them.
Let any gentleman who hears me, ask his own
mind, and ask impartially, whether he can answer
for the town or city near which he lives, that if
attacked in the same way, it would rival in its
defence the heroic perseverance of Saragossa or
Gerona? If any man, who confides (as I trust every
man does) in the ability of this country to defend
itself against any force of the enemy, yet hesitates
how far he can answer this question in the affir-
mative, that man has no right to despair of the
eventual triumph of Spain. -
The contest is not at an end. The French, it
cannot be denied, have gained very considerable
advantages, and the Spaniards have on the other
hand suffered most severely. But the fortress of
Cadiz, containing the principal arsenal and the
principal naval means of Spain, and garrisoned in
part by British troops, detains before it a large
portion of the French army; no impression of a
serious nature has been made upon the defences
of that important place; every day brings fresh
accounts of the unabated enthusiasm displayed
by the population of the various provinces; the
French troops are harassed in their movements,
and straitened in their quarters, by the desultory
activity of the Spanish peasants; their supplies
cut off, and their communications intercepted;—
place all these things before your eyes, and then
40 VOTE OF CRED IT B I LL.
say, if it be at such a time, and under such cir-
cumstances, that we are to withdraw ourselves
from the support of Spain, and to leave the Penin-
sula to the mercy of its ruthless oppressors ?
I have said that there is a British garrison in
Cadiz. I admit to the honourable gentlemen that
some jealousy has been manifested by the Spanish
Government upon this subject. I must, however,
in this respect, do justice to the Spanish Govern-
ment. It is true, that I thought it my duty to
press earnestly for the admittance of a British
force into Cadiz, after the failure of the first cam-
paign, and to make that admittance the sine quá
non condition of ever again sending British troops
into Spain. It is equally true, that the Spanish
Government would not at that time consent to
receive them. But it is no less true, that in such
refusal, and in the explanation given of the cause
of it, I did not find any just ground for supposing
that it had proceeded from distrust in the British
Government. A Government, depending for its
existence, and certainly for its authority, wholly
upon public opinion, and aware of the jealousy,
(for some jealousy of us did most certainly pre-
vail amongst the people of Spain,) with which
the nation might view the introduction, at that
critical period, of foreign troops into one of their
most important naval stations, might feel itself
obliged to decline opening the gates of Cadiz to
a British corps, until an adequate and obvious
VOTE OF CRED IT BII, L. 41
necessity for that measure had arisen. But al-
though the admittance of our troops was in the
first instance refused on these grounds, I never
had a doubt, but that they would be received
whenever the necessity became obvious. The
period of necessity has since arrived, and the
event has most fully justified my expectation.
Cadiz is now occupied by British conjointly with
Spanish troops: the pledge of that alliance by
which Spain may yet be rescued and saved.
Whilst Cadiz is safe, Spain is not lost; and while
all is not yet lost, all is ultimately retrievable.
The French army has achieved and may con-
tinue to achieve the conquest of province after
province ; but it has not been, and will not be
able to maintain such conquests in a country,
where the influence of the conqueror does not
extend beyond the limits of his military posts |
where his authority is confined within the for-
tresses which he garrisons, or the cantonments
which he occupies; where all that is behind him,
and before him, and around him, is sullen dis-
content, and meditated vengeance—unconquer-
able resistance, and inextinguishable hate.
And if the Spaniards have their sufferings to
endure, at what price do the French carry on this
war ! At a price which no former war with the
other powers of Europe has ever cost them. The
honourable gentleman indeed, has lamented, that
we should be parties, as he expressed himself,
42 VOTE OF CRE DI 'I' B II, L.
to the system of warfare pursued by the Spa-
niards, which he describes as transgressing the
limits of legitimate hostility. I would intreat the
House to contrast that sentiment with what fell
from the same honourable gentleman in a former
debate, when another honourable member detailed
to the House the abominable atrocities committed
by the French on their approach to the Isle of
Leon. On that occasion the honourable gentle-
man affected to discredit the statement of crimes
so shocking in the recital, and warmly depre-
cated the introduction of such horrible details into
the discussions in this House, lest their circula-
tion should have the effect of substituting wicked
enormities of that description for the more humane
spirit of generous warfare! Generous warfare! Good
God! the generous warfare begun by Buonaparte
against unoffending Spain! the generosity of him,
—the outrageous violator of every sacred obligation,
the bloody and unfeeling destroyer of the rights
of sovereigns, and the independence of nations !
Far am I, as far as any man, from justifying the
commission, under any circumstances, of excesses,
which deform the character, and brutalize the
feelings of man. But the crime and the shame
are in the original perpetrator. There are insults
and injuries, which to have endured at the hand
of an oppressor, degrades a man in his own
esteem, and forces him to recover his level by a
signal and terrible revenge. Such are the inflic-
VOTE OF C R F DIT BILL. 43
tions, which the French armies have poured out
upon the Spaniards. If ever acts of ferocious
retaliation might admit of extenuation, it is in
such a cause, and upon such provocation as they
have received, from an enemy unrestrained in his
career of ambition and blood, by any law human
or divine. ... •
Such is, in my opinion, the justification of the
Spaniards. Thus they defend and avenge their
invaded country—their pillaged and desolated
homes—their murdered parents—their violated
wives and daughters—and who shall say, that
such vengeance is not justified in the eyes of
God and man? Who shall pretend that the assail-
ant of unoffending and defenceless innocence is
privileged from resistance or retaliation, that the
invader has a right to make his inroad when he
thinks fit, to commit what excesses he pleases;
—but that he is only to be met in the listed field
and by regular battalions—that the cottage or
the altar are to be defended or avenged only by
an enrolled soldiery; that the peaceful population
of a country must be passive under every species
of outrage and of wrong 7 .
That our army has had any share in committing
or countenancing such excesses is not pretended,
and would not admit of excuse. Our business
with the enemy is in the field. But that I should,
therefore, whine over his sufferings and his losses
—that I should deny or disguise the satisfaction
44 VOTE OF CRED IT B I. L.L.
which I derive from the consideration that every
French soldier, who falls a sacrifice to Spanish
vengeance, is one oppressor the less, for the rest
of the nations of the world—would be a hypo-
crisy, which I disdain. Long may the struggle
bel And be its course as deathful to the French
armies as heretofore ! One French army has
already been worn down and destroyed in Spain:
and I know no precept of humanity that forbids
me to exult in the prospect of a similar fate await-
ing those who are now the instruments of tyranny
and violence.
War is unavoidably attended with calamities,
as well as with glories. Its glories are sullied
and darkened by its calamities: its calamities
redeemed—or in part redeemed—by its glories.
But if we accustom ourselves to look only at one
side of the picture in the case of an enemy, and at
the other in our own;–at all that is gloomy on
one part, and all that is brilliant on the other—if
we count for the enemy all that he gains, and all
that we lose—but for ourselves only our positive
gains, without admitting into the account the
losses of the enemy: against such a mode of cal-
culating results, no spirit can long stand unim-
paired:—we go to the field already half subdued:
we may entitle ourselves to commendation for the
fineness of our sympathies; but we are utterly
unfitted for continuing the contest.
I fear that I may have detained the House
VOTE Ol' CIRET) [T BILL. 45
to an unpardonable length upon the subject of
Spain; though I feel it even now difficult to tear
myself from it. I hope, however, that my excuse
for having dwelt upon it so long may be found in
the share which I personally had in the counsels
and measures of this Government at the com-
mencement of the Spanish struggle, and in the
desire, which I naturally feel, that these counsels
and measures should be dictinctly and fairly
understood, but, above all, in my earnest zeal for
the success of our allies, and for the continuance
of our effective support of a cause involving as
much our interests as our glory.
I shall now proceed to follow the honourable
gentleman briefly into one or two of the other
topics, to which he has alluded. As to the state-
ments made by the honourable gentleman with
respect to Sicily; to the disaffection of its inha-
bitants; to the probable change in the policy of
the Sicilian Government, and the consequent cri-
tical situation of the British army in that island, I
shall only assert, as an individual (having no official
knowledge to support my assertion), that I believe
his opinions and his apprehensions to be unfounded.
I do not believe that there is any correspondence
open between Buonaparte and the Queen of
Naples. I have not seen the letter to which the
honourable gentleman refers, but from the descrip-
tion of it, I should doubt if it be genuine.
As to the effect of the Austrian marriage upon
46 VOTE OF CRED IT BILL.
the politics of the court of Palermo, I cannot
oblige the honourable gentleman to forego his con-
jecture, though I do not agree with him in it. I
will only say by the way, that I am glad to miss,
in the honourable gentleman's speech of to-night,
the epithet of “feliv,” which he applied on a former
night to this inauspicious alliance. The painter of
old, when he drew the picture of the sacrifice of
Iphigenia, despairing to express the workings of
anguish and shame in the countenance of the
father, by whom she was sacrificed, hid Agamem-
non's face in his robe ; so would I have the ho-
nourable gentleman deal on this occasion with the
Emperor of Austria, and, at least, not insult his
paternal feelings by ascribing to them the character
of “felicity.” -
But whatever may be the soundness of the ho-
nourable gentleman’s speculations in respect to the
ultimate policy and conduct of the court of Sicily,
I am not prepared to recommend the anticipation
of treachery: I cannot agree, therefore, with the
honourable gentleman to withhold the Vote of
Credit, lest part of it should be expended in de-
feating the designs of the enemy upon Sicily, and
keeping him out of possession of it too long. I am
still less prepared (even if that were a cheap ex-
pedient) to seize on Sicily for ourselves.
From Sicily—declaring, that in Europe he sees
nothing to require or justify so large a Vote of
Credit—the honourable gentleman passes to Ame-
VOTE OF CRED IT B I L L. 47
rica, and specifically objects to the Vote of Credit,
on the ground, that a war with the United States
is no longer probable. I hope and trust it is not.
The recent proceedings of Congress have effected
so much of what it was the anxious wish of the
Government, of which I was a member, to attain,
that I trust all our differences with America may
be speedily adjusted. In truth I had never much
doubt upon my mind, that America, if left to her
own policy, and to the effect of those discussions,
which would take place in her own legislatures,
general and provincial, would at no distant period
arrive at that point, at which, by the late act of
Congress, she appears to have arrived. No man
is more anxious than I am for an amicable accom-
modation with that power. But I trust, at the
same time, that the change in the policy of the
United States has not been effected by any im-
proper concessions on our part; a circumstance,
which I can fully disclaim, during the period that
I remained in office. I should rather hope, that
it has been the consequence of a determined
adherence to that system, which has been so often
declaimed against in this House, but which has
proved as clearly beneficial to the commercial
interests, as it has been consistent with the poli-
tical dignity of this nation.
The honourable gentleman has introduced into
this part of the discussion a reference to the im-
structions given to our Minister to the United
48 VOTE OF CREDIT BILL.
States (Mr. Erskine), upon which it was not my
wish to have touched, if the honourable gentleman
had not forced me to do so, because I cannot
touch upon it without speaking unfavourably of
the conduct of a gentleman towards whom I
entertain no feeling of hostility whatever. But, as
the honourable gentleman has thought proper
again to advert to the subject, I am compelled, in
my own defence, again to assert, as I have re-
peatedly before asserted, that Mr. Erskine, in the
arrangement which he concluded with the Ame-
rican Government, did violate both the letter and
the spirit of the instructions under which he
acted. That he violated the letter of his instruc-
tions, is admitted by every body—by the ho-
nourable gentleman himself. Mr. Erskine was
expressly directed to do certain things, which he
did not do. But it was not, as the honourable
gentleman insinuates, a mere formal error—a
merely literal mistake. Mr. Erskine violated the
spirit of his instructions, because, being autho-
rised to concede certain points to the American
Government, in consideration only of concessions
to be by them reciprocally and simultaneously
made, he did that absolutely, which he was in-
structed to do only conditionally, and thereby
lowered the tone and just pretensions of his
country. I am still ready, as I ever have been,
to go into the full discussion of this question,
whenever the honourable gentleman may think
VOTE OF CRED IT BILL, 49
proper; but unless he should advert to it again I
shall now take a final leave of it, and never again
revive it. e
Sir, I have now only to add, with respect to the
Bill before the House, that it is not because I
think that a war is to be apprehended with Ame-
rica, or that a question may arise as to the aban-
donment or seizure of the island of Sicily, that I
assent to the Vote of Credit; but because I wish
to enable His Majesty’s Ministers to aid to the
utmost extent, to maintain to the last extremity,
the contest in Portugal and Spain, and also to
take advantage of any opportunities which may
arise for the annoyance of the enemy, and for
which, without a Vote of Credit, they might be
unprovided. For the application of the means,
which this Vote entrusts to them, the Ministers
are responsible. And I can assure the honourable
gentleman, that, if he and his friends had now the
conduct of the Government, for the same purposes,
and under the like responsibility, I should not be
disposed to withhold from them that degree of
confidence (whatever it be) which this Vote may
be construed to imply. -
After some discussion, the Bill was read a third time and
passed.
\
VOL. III, e E
(
50 )
STATE OF THE NATION.—KING’S ILLNESS.
DECEMBER 20th, 1810.
THE CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUER having moved
that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the State
of the Nation, submitted the following Resolutions:–
“First.—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
it is the right and duty of the Lords Spiritual and Tem-
poral and Commons of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, now assembled, and lawfully, fully,
and freely representing all the estates of the people of this
realm, to provide the means of supplying the defect in the
personal exercise of the Royal Authority, arising from His
Majesty's said indisposition, in such manner as the exi-
gency of the case may appear to them to require,
“Secondly.—That it is the opinion of this Committee,
that for this purpose, and for maintaining entire the con-
stitutional authority of the King, it is necessary that the
said Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland, should determine on the
means whereby the royal assent may be given in Parlia-
ment respecting the exercise of the powers and authorities
of the Crown, in the name and on the behalf of the King, :
during the continuance of His Majesty's present indis-
position. - .
“Thirdly.—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
for this purpose, and for maintaining entire the constitu-
tional authority of the King, it is necessary that the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons of the United.
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, should determine
KING's I LLN Ess. 51
on the means whereby the royal assent may be given in
Parliament to such bill as may be passed by the two
Houses of Parliament, respecting the exercise of the powers
and authorities of the Crown, in the name and on the behalf
of the King, during the continuance of His Majesty's present
indisposition.”
The first and second Resolutions were agreed to with
the dissent of Sir F. Burdett, but without a division.
MR. Ponsoxby, on the third Resolution being moved,
proposed the following Amendment:—
“That all the words after the word ‘That' should be
left out, for the purpose of inserting that An humble
Address should be presented to His Royal Highness the
Prince of Wales, requesting that he would be graciously
pleased to assume and exercise the sovereign authority of
these realms, during the continuance of His Majesty's
indisposition, and no longer, under the title of Regent of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.”
MR. CANNING rose and said :—The Committee
has now submitted to their consideration the two
different courses of proceeding, severally recom-
mended on each side of the House, as fittest to
be pursued in the present unfortunate situation of
the country. Upon one side—upon that of my
right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the whole of the plan proposed has
been laid before us. Upon the other side, the
general principle and introductory stage only,
from which, however, we collect the nature of the
E 2
52 STATE OF THE NATION.
intended subsequent proceedings. Thus situated,
we are now to determine what course it will be
best to follow under all the circumstances. The
duty which devolves upon us, is to provide for a
great and pressing emergency, by supplying the
defect which has unfortunately taken place in the
executive power.
In deciding the preference between the two
modes recommended for our adoption, the com-
mittee is first called upon to exercise its judgment
as to the degree of power and authority which
the two Houses of Parliament can justly claim
to belong to them, under the circumstances of so
extraordinary an emergency. That, if not within
the power of the two Houses of Parliament to
supply the remedy which the exigency requires,
it is not of the competence of any other existing
authority, is a point agreed on all hands. Not
the right, therefore, and the power, but the mode
of exercising them is the question in dispute. On
the one hand, it is proposed that the two Houses
of Parliament should set out as nearly as possi-
ble in the ordinary manner of legislation, passing
an act, which, so far as they are concerned, would
be an Act of Parliament in form, and supplying
by a legal fiction the place of the third branch of
the constitution, for the especial purpose of giving
effect and validity to the one necessary act, so
passed by them, and no further. On the other
hand, it is suggested that the deficiency should
i
KING's ILLNESs. 53
be remedied at once by an act, which if it be not
an act of legislation, differs from it, not in being
something less, but in being something more.
To object to either of these modes its own
positive difficulties and embarrassments, is only
in other words to say, that we are in a situation
of great embarrassment and great difficulty; and
there is no course of proceeding under such cir-
cumstances but what is and must be liable to
some objection. It is, however, no fault of ours
that we are so situated. It is not, as in ordinary
cases, to be imputed to any man, or to any mea-
sures, or to any series of measures, that they have
brought us under these circumstances of per-
plexity. The infliction is from Providence alone.
It is one which we all equally feel, and all equally
deplore; and which, while we endure it with
humble and patient resignation, and indulge the
consolatory hope of its speedy termination, the
most anxious wish of every man's mind must be
to alleviate its inconveniencies, while it endures,
so far as may be possible, and in the manner least
productive of inconveniencies of any other kind.
Our situation, however painful, and perplexing
as it is, is not wholly unprecedented. Among the
precedents which we have to guide us, and which
have been referred to in former discussions, I
agree with both the right honourable gentlemen
who have preceded me, in not thinking it neces-
ary for the forming an opinion on this important
54 STATE OF TH E N ATION .
question to look to those which are drawn from
an earlier, and more imperfect state of the consti-
tution, when we have it in our power to appeal to
periods of a more recent, and perfect state of the
constitution; not because I conceive that those
former precedents might not, in the absence of
better guides for the conduct of Parliament, be
resorted to with advantage, but because all the
lights which they afford have been so recently
explored, and brought together by the industry
and intelligence of those who preceded us in this
House, and who had to act two and twenty years
ago in that instance, which bore in its circum-
stances the strongest resemblance, as it is in point
of time, the nearest to that in which we now un-
happily stand.
Of precedents drawn from more modern times,
there are three, which have been particularly
dwelt upon, two of them bearing upon the case
by analogy; the third, that of 1789 (to which I
have just alluded) by direct similarity in all its
parts. It is obvious, that a direct precedent is
likely to afford a more complete and certain
guidance, than one, from which one can reason
only by inference, unless there be in that
direct precedent, some inherent vice and imper-
fection, which renders it wholly unworthy of
imitation. Let us see first what are the circum-
stances of the precedents which bear upon the
question by analogy. .
KING's I LLN I.S.S. 55
The first of these is that of the Restoration.
In the circumstances of this I can find no simili-
tude to the present case. By this an exiled
monarch was to be restored to a situation of
which he had been unjustly deprived—an ac-
knowledged right long unjustly withholden was
to be proclaimed and re-established. Can it
now be said, that any right has been withheld
which we are called upon to adjudicate 7–that
any violation has been offered which we are called
upon to repair : Is there now a monarch waiting
the decision of parliament to be restored to his
rights and reinstated in his sovereignty 2 If such
be the predicament in which we are placed, the
Restoration is an authority to which we may
properly be referred; but if it be clear, that we
have now no right to adjudicate—no violation to
repair—if we are not about to create a power,
but to supply a temporary defect in the exercise
of it, surely the authority of that precedent can-
not be considered as binding, whose circum-
stances are shewn to be so totally dissimilar.
When the right honourable gentleman says, that
both houses of Parliament acted in that instance,
as he has described, he in reality says nothing
more than that they did what was necessary in
the circumstances of that particular case, and
nothing beyond it. In that particular we shall
do well to follow the principle of the example set
us by the Parliament, which called Charles the
56 STATE OF TH E N ATION.
Second home; but the details of the transaction
appear to me to hold out no other light, which
can be of any use to us on the present occasion.
We come next to the precedent of the Revo-
lution. Splendid and cheering to the recollec-
tion of Englishmen, as the great event must
always be, it will be right and wise in the com-
mittee, before they permit their feelings to hurry
them away, to consider what the object was of the
Parliamentary proceedings at that period 2 Was it
to provide for the care and custody of the person of
the monarch 7 Was it to ensure his return to the
government of the country upon his restoration to
health 7 Was it to erect a temporary authority dur-
ing an accidental defect of the competence of the
Sovereign : Or was it not to provide against the
restoration of James, and set up safeguards and
barriers against his return to defend the Crown,
which they proposed to transfer against the hos-
tile approach of its ancient possessor 2 Was not
the throne declared vacant by James's abdication ?
And was not this declared vacancy the ground of
all the subsequent proceedings 2 Is there any
resemblance, therefore, or is there not rather a
direct contrariety between the case of the Revo-
lution, and that for which we are now called upon
to provide 2 Has our Sovereign forfeited his
throne : Is it our purpose to declare the throne
vacant : Or is it not the first and fundamental
principle of our proceeding that it is full ? Is it
KING's ILLNESs. 57
any part of our object to retard and embarrass the
resumption of the exercise of the royal authority by
our Sovereign, or is it not our fervent prayer that it
may be speedily resumed ? I do not mean to
say, that while considering what is to be done in
a crisis of great difficulty, there may not be some
advantage in comparing it with what was done in
cases so far resembling it, as to have some of the
constituent parts the same, but their arrangement
and relations to each other different, and even
opposite. Undoubtedly some suggestions may
be borrowed—some assistance derived from such
cases; but the assistance is that of analogy, and
an analogy founded not upon direct inference and
application, but upon a comparison of points of
difference, and of circumstances directly the re-
verse of each other. -
Some gentlemen, indeed, carry their notions of
the deference which is due to a favourite prece-
dent, to an extent so strict as, in my opinion, to
be almost ludicrous. They insist upon our imi-
tating not only the main scope and action of the
great transaction of which we are speaking, but
its accidental defects; and would have us create
to ourselves deficiencies which those who brought
about the Revolution had, but which, luckily, we
have not to supply, in order that we may copy
them in the manner of supplying them. Thus
the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby)
5
8 STATE OF THE NATION.
has said, that there was no use made of the great
seal in those acts of the Revolution by which
King James was declared to have abdicated the
throne, and the Prince of Orange was called upon
to take the government into his hands. Certainly
there was not—for how could such an attempt
succeed, when there was no king in whose name
the great seal could be used ; when the executive
power was not merely suspended in its functions,
but rendered null by the absolute exclusion of
the King, and the total want of the royal autho-
rity ? Besides, there was this farther practical
difficulty in affixing the great seal to any com.
mission or act, as at that moment the great seal,
from accidental circumstances, was at the bottom
of the Thames. - - . .
The honourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett) carries
this principle still farther. He is so attached to
the Revolution in all its parts, whether principle
or circumstance merely, that he finds a great
defect in that particular of our situation which,
to ordinary observers, would appear a consider-
able, though to be sure only an accidental, advan-
tage. At the time of the Revolution there was
no Parliament sitting. The honourable baronet,
therefore, finds that the first Address to the Prince
of Orange was voted, not by the Parliament, but
by an assembly of persons, to which a deputation
of aldermen and common-council of the city of
KING's I LLN Ess. 59
London had been discreetly called to give their
assistance and advice. In the warmth of his zeal
for the precedent of the Revolution, the honour-
able baronet seems to think that the accidental
circumstance of an existing Parliament should be
got rid of without delay; that we should imme-
diately abdicate our authority, and dissolve our-
selves at once, for the sake of assembling another
body of representatives, who should have the benefit
of advice and assistance from the Lord Mayor, alder-
men, and common-council of the city of London.
It is surely a singular remedy for the unfortu-
nate incapacity of one branch of the Constitu-
tion, to proceed unnecessarily to incapacitate the
branches which happily remain entire. It is
surely a strange application of precedents to con-
tend, that because at the time of the Revolution
there happened to be no Parliament (and that
there was none was, by the way, one of the
grievances which produced and justified the Re-
volution), because, in order to procure the sem-
blance of a Parliament, it was then necessary to
collect the scattered fragments of former Houses
of Commons, of a former reign, and to eke out
their numbers with a deputation from the alder-
men and common-council of London; therefore a
Parliament actually existing ought to be dis-
solved, or rather, ought to dissolve itself (for I
know not what authority there is to dissolve us),
merely that there may be one feature more of
60 STATE OF TH E N ATION.
resemblance between the Revolution and the
present time. It will not be pretended that the
representation of the people was more complete
in an assembly so heterogeneously composed, as
that which first addressed the Prince of Orange,
than in the present or any intervening House of
Commons. It was, as I have said, the remnant
of old Houses of Commons, not specially elected
for the purpose of the time, not chosen in prefer-
ence to a regular Parliament; but called together
hastily for the want of any other mode of collect-
ing any representative body whatever. To this
body, so collected, were added a certain number
of the aldermen and common-council; but, re-
spectable as their authority, and useful as their
advice may be, who would ever have dreamt that
from such an extraordinary Convocation, arising
from an extraordinary necessity, would be de-
duced the inference, in after times, that no House
of Commons was competent to its functions without
the addition of fifty aldermen and common-coun-
cilmen of London 7
I prize the blessings derived from the Revolu-
tion, and respect the authority of those who
conducted it, as highly as the honourable baronet
or any other man: I think the proceedings of
that time wise, and just, and necessary; but
because they were necessary, therefore just and
wise. But I do not think it an indispensable
proof of my value and veneration for that illus-
KING's ILLNESS. 61
trious precedent, that I should consider it as a
rule for all occasions; that I should think the
example of revolutionary times applicable to quiet
times; and should consent, in the language of
one, who said all things well on these subjects,
Mr. Burke, “to make the extreme medicine of
the Constitution its daily bread.” The present
case has difficulty enough, but it has nothing of
revolution in it. -
But after all, is not the very instance which is
held out for our imitation, mistaken and exagge-
rated ? What did this assembly, to whose like-
ness we are bid to conform ourselves, do?
Confer the Crown on the Prince of Orange 2
Declare King James to have abdicated In
fact, bring about the Revolution ? No, they
addressed the Prince to call a Parliament, or
Convocation, by letters instead of writs, since
the authority for issuing writs no where existed.
The Prince of Orange did, in pursuance of this
Address, write letters to convoke a representation
of the people, according to the usual rights and
modes of election; and upon the assembly of
that Convocation it was that the work of the
Revolution went forward. How can it be neces-
sary that we should go through their previous
stages, being already at the point to which they
were intended to lead We have now a Parlia-
ment, full free, and so constituted as to be fully
competent to provide for the exigency that exists.
(32 STA 'FE OF T H E N A TI O N.
Will the honourable baronet, to adopt his prece-
dents in their full extent, contend, that we must
begin by addressing the Prince of Wales to call a
Parliament by letter instead of by writs? (other-
wise he could not till he has the command of the
great seal); and what would be gained by inter-
posing such a stage in our proceedings but delay?
Is it not rather our duty, Parliament being called
together, to consider how we can best provide for
the emergency that has unfortunately occurred,
and remedy the mutilated state in which the
Government is placed by the incompetency of the
King to exercise his royal functions 7
The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Ponson-
by), however, does not partake in these views of
the proceedings of the Revolution. He agrees
that we are a Parliament competent to the dis-
charge of the duty which has devolved upon us;
and that the only question is, how we shall best
discharge it? But he thinks the precedent of the
Revolution binding so far as it prescribes Address
as the mode of our proceeding. In the speech
of the right honourable gentleman, distinguished
as it was by eloquence and acuteness, no part
was more acute or more eloquent than that in
which he displayed the absurdity, as he conceived
it to be, of doing on the King's behalf an act
implying the King's personal will, for the purpose
of declaring and remedying the extinction of that
will by the King's personal incapacity. The fault
K 1 NG's I LLN ESS. 63
of this argument, in my conception, is, not that
it is not applicable to the case, but that it is in
fact the whole of the case. To state that the
King is personally incapable, and that acts never-
theless must be done in his name, and implying
his will, is to state nothing more nor less than the
fact; such is the difficulty in which we are, such
is the absurdity (if that be the fit name for it)
which that difficulty necessarily involves. To
describe its contradictions is an easy task; to
find a solution of it, that shall not be liable to the
charge of contradiction, is perhaps impossible; to
find that which has with as little contradiction as
any other, less of practical mischief or danger, is,
I apprehend, the task which we are this day
assembled to perform. All the right honourable
gentleman's eloquent amplification, therefore,
though I heard it with pleasure and admiration,
is merely a statement of the case, and goes not
one step towards its remedy.
When he comes to state his remedy, Address
instead of Bill, I do not see how he gets rid of
the absurdity which belongs to the constituting a
Regent by the great seal: for the great seal in
the Regent's hands must still speak in the King's
name, and assume to utter his will; but I think
he admits other hazards to which the constituting
a Regent by the great seal is not equally liable.
I have said that the principle of the Revolution
does not bear him out, because the Revolution
64 STATE OF THE NATION.
was not conducted in the King's name, nor pre-
tended, even in legal fiction, to be brought about
or sanctioned by his will. But I should go
farther and say, that this precedent made directly
against his proposal—directly against appointing a
Regent in the way in which King William was
ultimately appointed King. And for this reason:
the question of a Regent was in contemplation at
that time. The Tories, those whose advice was
not adopted, and whose course was not followed
at the Revolution, contended that King James
ought to be considered as still retaining his right
to the Crown, still the lawful Sovereign, but as
being incapable of exercising the functions of
sovereignty, just as if he had been disabled by
mental derangement, and that the Prince of
Orange should be appointed Regent to carry on
the Government in his (King James's) name.
Now, if this suggestion had been made the rule
of proceeding, if such had been, in fact, the
settlement at the Revolution, the right honour-
able gentleman would indeed have a precedent
directly in point. But, as it is, the precedent
appears to me to operate directly against him,
and the more so from the circumstance of the
very case to which the right honourable gentle-
man wishes to apply it, having been actually
under contemplation. As the notion of regency
was suggested and was negatived,” the inference
* See Cobbett's Parliamentary History, vol. 5, pp. 59, 66.
KING's ILLN ESS. 65
certainly is not that the course then adopted
would have been thought applicable to a Regency;
the presumption is strongly the other way.
No argument has been offered to prove, that
we should exercise less power by the mode of
Address, than the one originally proposed to the
House, or be likely to entail less embarrassment
upon ourselves, or fewer difficulties upon the
country. There certainly is one ground, and
only one, upon which the mode of proceeding by
Address might be considered as more applicable
to the case; and that is, supposing a right in the
Prince of Wales to the Regency. For such a
right I have not heard any one contend, and as I
am far, very far indeed, from wishing to revive.
the differences of former times, I will not argue
it. I will say no more than that the circumstance
of adopting an Address now might, in the hands
of an ingenious reasoner, be made to appear like
the implicit acknowledgment of the right formerly
contested. I do not mean, I distinctly disclaim
the meaning, that the right honourable gentleman.
moves his Address with this view; but I think
this may be one effect of its success, and for that,
among other reasons, I object to it. - :
In a balance of difficulties, then, how can we
better make up our decision than by resorting to
the most recent and the most applicable prece-
dent? A precedent, I will not say sanctioned
by the authority of great names, such as the name
VOL. III. Y •
66 STATE OF THE NATION.
of the person who took the lead in this House
on that occasion, weighs with me on every occa-
sion on which it can be cited ; because I am
aware there are others who might naturally be
swayed by the authorities which were opposed to
Mr. Pitt in these discussions; I will not say
sanctioned by great majorities in Parliament,
because I recollect, that to a majority of two
only we owe the blessings derived from the
Revolution: I will say merely to a precedent
which Parliament did adopt—which stands re-
corded on our journals, as the law of Parliament
upon this question, until it shall be repealed
and abrogated. Surely it must be felt that if no
great benefit can be shewn to result from the
abandonment of a recent precedent, it must, on
the other hand, be productive of no inconsiderable
evil. It must throw loose to all succeeding times
a question, which we even now perceive the incon-
venience of having to discuss, on conflicting au-
thorities, and by remote and disputable references;
it must give to both these opposite decisions, and
ensure to those that may be to be discussed
hereafter, the character of so many irregular
impulses of passion, or inclination, controuled
by no general principle, and conformable to no
uniform system. Whereas, if we adopt now the
precedent of 1789, so far as it was completed by
Parliament, the concurrence of these two proceed-
ings will settle the question for all time to come.
KING's I LLN ESS. - 67
There is but one point more which I have to
state on the subject of the proposed proceeding
by Address; and it forms, I confess, in my mind
an insuperable objection to it. I cannot conceive
how we can, satisfactorily to our own sense of
duty, provide for the care of the King's person,
and for the resumption of his authority, in the
happy event of his convalescence, otherwise than
by bill, and by a bill which shall precede the
actual investiture of the sovereign power in any
other hands. That these objects should be amply
provided for, is not more the duty of Parliament
than it must be, and is undoubtedly, the wish of
the illustrious person to whom we are all agreed
in confiding the exercise of the regal authority:
that they would be provided for as amply with
his consent, and without Parliamentary enact-
ment, by the mere impulse of his royal mind,
there can be no question. But we are providing
for all future times, and all possible cases; and
we should not, I think, do our duty fully if even
in an instance where, without any special pro-
vision, we might rest assured that the objects
would be accomplished, we yet were not to take,
upon a strict and abstract view of the case, the
best security that the case admits—that is, the
security of Parliamentary enactment. Other
limitations or restrictions which might be thought
necessary to accompany the delegation of the
regal authority, might perhaps be provided by
F 2
U O -------> --> *fºrt,. - N A IT U N .
Address. But I must take the opportunity of
expressing my opinion, that, as that which I have
just stated is the only provision in the nature of
limitation or restriction (if it can properly be
called either) which I think cannot be properly
made except by bill—so it is the only one which
I should wish to see, under the circumstances of
the present times, attached to the exercise of the
powers of the crown, in the hands in which we
are about to place them, or in any hands in which
it is fit that they should be placed. :
My right honourable friend (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer), has intimated an intention of
proposing other restrictions, on the model, as I
understand, of those proposed in 1789. As he
has not entered into any detail upon them, and
has professed to wish that the discussion of them
may not be anticipated to-night, I will abstain
from any detailed exposition of my view of this
part of the subject. I will only say that, respect-
ing as I do the precedent of 1789, so far as it
rests in principle, and is established by authority,
I do not conceive all parts of all that was pro-
posed on that occasion to be of equally permanent
obligation. What depended upon the circum-
stances of the time—the change of circumstances
may naturally vary. And I own I cannot con-
ceive a period less favourable than that in which
I am now speaking, for the abrogation or sus-
pension of any of the legitimate powers of the
K ING's ILLNESS.. " 69
crown. If I doubted the expediency of such an
experiment before this night, I have heard this
night enough to convince me of its inexpediency.
When the honourable baronet asked why, if such
powers as it is proposed to suspend can be dis-
pensed with for a limited time, they should not
be dispensed with altogether? I do not quarrel
with the justness of his reasoning; but I content
myself with observing that, in 1789, there was no
party in this country which would have been
prepared to apply and to act upon this inference.
That is in my mind a consideration indicating
change enough in the circumstances of the country
to warrant great caution in adopting that part of
the proceeding of 1789. The time will come for
stating more at large this argument, and others
which appear to me to be conclusive against the
policy of such restrictions at this period, as may
cripple and degrade the executive authority.
I will now only add, that I have formed my
opinion upon this point upon the best delibera-
tion that I could give to it, without concert or
understanding with any party, or any set of men
whatever, and with no other object than the con-
sideration of what may be best for the public
service. Having formed this opinion, I have
thought it candid and honest to avow it undis-
guisedly on the first mention of the subject of
restrictions in this House; and while I may yet
hope perhaps that the decision of those who have
70 STATE OF TH E N AT I ON.
the conduct of this measure is not finally and
unalterably made up. I am not one of those
who think the executive power in this country too
strong, or who think it can be weakened, in what-
ever hands, without disadvantage to the public
interests. -
I have now stated my sentiments upon the
whole of this most anxious, painful, and distress-
ing subject to the Committee. I do not concur
with those who blame His Majesty's Ministers
for not having sooner brought it under our con-
sideration. On the contrary, I approve of the
reluctance and delicacy which they have mani-
fested ; and if my right honourable friend could
now assure the House and the country that a
still further procrastination would not be attended
with any injurious consequences to the country,
I should, on that assurance, have no hesitation in
agreeing to defer to a still more distant day the
painful duty which we are now proceeding to
discharge. Called upon to proceed in the dis-
charge of it, we must endeavour to remember and
to combine in our decisions, what we owe to
public duty, and what to our feelings of affection
and veneration for the exalted individual whose
situation is the cause of our discussions; what
we owe “Patria. Priamoque,” to our country and to
our King, not doubting, however, that these duties,
though double in their obligation, will be proved
concurrent in their practical discharge. The
REG EN CY RESO L UTION S. 71
effect of the vote in which I shall concur this
night is, at the same time that we recognize and
record our duty, to assert our right to execute the
awful trust which is unfortunately devolved upon
us. The application of the right and power
which we claim, will be the subject of future dis-
cussions. But I am satisfied that in using our
power liberally, we shall find that we use it
wisely. -
A division took place on the third Resolution.
Ayes ... .................. 269
Noes ..................... 157
Majority 112
REGENCY RESOLUTIONS.
December 31st, 1810.
THE CHANCELLOR of THE ExchEQUER submitted the
following Resolutions respecting the Regency—
“1st. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that for the
purpose of providing for the exercise of the Royal Autho-
rity during the continuance of His Majesty's illness, in such
manner and to such extent as the present circumstances and
the urgent concerns of the nation appear to require, it is
72 STATE OF THE NATION.
expedient that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales,
being resident within the realm, shall be empowered
to exercise and administer the Royal Authority, accord-
ing to the laws and constitution of Great Britain, in the
name and on the behalf of His Majesty, and under the
style and title of Regent of the Kingdom; and to use,
execute, and perform, in the name and on the behalf
of His Majesty, all authorities, prerogatives, acts of govern-
ment, and administration of the same, that belong to the
King of this realm to use, execute, and perform, accord-
ing to the law thereof, subject to such limitations and
exceptions as shall be provided.
“That it is the opinion of this Committee, that, for a time
to be limited, the power so to be given to His Royal High-
ness the Prince of Wales, shall not extend to the granting
of any rank or dignity of the peerage of the realm to any
person whatever, except such person or persons as may per-
form some singular naval or military achievement. That it
is the opinion of this Committee, that, for a time to be
limited, the said power shall not extend to the granting of
any office whatever in reversion, or to the granting of any
office, salary, or premium, for any other term than during
His Majesty's pleasure, except such offices as are by law
required to be granted for life, or during good behaviour.
“That it is the opinion of this Committee, that such parts
of His Majesty's private property as are not vested in
trustees, shall be vested in trustees for the benefit of His
Majesty. . . .
“That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the care
of His Majesty's royal person, during the continuance of His
Majesty's illness, shall be committed to the care of the
Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, and that, for a time to be
limited, Her Majesty shall have power to remove from, and
to nominate and appoint such persons as she shall think
REG F. N. C. Y. R. E. SOLUTION S. 73
proper, to the several offices of His Majesty's household ;
and to dispose, order, and manage all other matters and
things relating to the care of His Majesty's Royal person,
during the time aforesaid; and that, for the better enabling
Her Majesty to discharge this important task, it is also
expedient that a Committee shall be appointed to advise
and assist Her Majesty in the several matters aforesaid; and
with power, from time to time, as they may see cause, to
examine upon oath the physicians and others attending
His Majesty's person, touching the state of His Majesty's
health and all matters relative thereto.”
MR. W. LAMB, on the first Resolution being moved,
submitted an amendment, “That the last words of the first
Resolution ‘subject to such restrictions and limitations as
should be provided,” be omitted.”
MR. CANNING rose and spoke as follows:—
Sir, having upon a former occasion taken the
liberty of intimating to the Committee the opinion
that I had formed respecting the restrictions
which my right honourable friend” then declared
his intention to propose, and which, in a most
perspicuous and able speech, he has now pro-
posed to us, I was anxious to follow my right
honourable friend, and to explain, as early as pos-
sible, the grounds upon which I differ this night
from him in opinion. I was anxious to do this,
before the debate could possibly have grown into
asperity or contention—asperity in which I utterly
disclaim any participation—contention in which,
* The Chancellor of the Exchequer. tº
74 STATE OF THE NATION.
I trust, I need not assure my right honourable
friend I should be most unwilling to engage
with him. I nevertheless most readily gave
way to the honourable gentleman (Mr. Lamb),
who has just sat down, whom, from our con-
currence in sentiment on this occasion, I believe
I may call, in a Parliamentary, as I am happy
to call him in a private sense, my honour-
able friend,-and whom I can with sincerity
assure, that no one has listened to him with more
pleasure than I have done; more particularly
from his having discussed the subject in debate
with that moderation with which such a discus-
sion qught to be commenced, and with which I
hope it is to continue to be conducted.
Sir, after the various and ample discussions
which the great question, upon which we are
engaged, has undergone, we are now arrived at
that point in our proceedings, at which the
opinions of those who have hitherto generally
agreed may naturally be expected to separate
and diverge: at which many of those who have
hitherto felt themselves bound to go along with
my right honourable friend, in pursuance of the
precedent which he most properly has proposed
as the general rule of his conduct, may appre-
hend, and, in my judgment correctly, that the
precedent which has kept us together thus far,
ceases to apply. In short, Sir, we are arrived at
that point where authority fails us, and where
IR E GEN (, Y RESO I, UTIONS. 75
discretion must begin. Justly as the precedent
of 1788 has been represented, as affording a rule
for the conduct of Parliament in all cases of simi-
lar visitation—as the sure basis of all future legis-
lation upon emergencies like that to which it
applied—it seems obvious that it is only so far as
the circumstances of the emergency are alike, and
only so far as the precedent itself was completed,
that there is any just ground for reasoning con-
clusively from its authority. To the discussion
of points not decided in 1788, and of circum-
stances essentially different from those of that
time, we come as to so many new questions; un-
biassed by the authority of a precedent not strictly
applicable, and unfettered in our judgments, so
long as we keep the range of our respective
opinions within the sphere of the constitution.
The authority attributed, and justly attributed,
to the precedent of 1788, is two-fold—that which
belongs to it as a proceeding of Parliament; and
that which it derives from the sanction of the
great names of those who devised and conducted
the Parliamentary proceedings of that day. The
first branch of this division—its authority 3S 3.
proceeding of Parliament—is again distinguish-
able into two parts; that which actually received
the final sanction of the two Houses of Parliament,
and that which was left inchoate but imperfect.
The former may be justly described in strict Par-
liamentary language as a Parliamentary prece-
76 STATE OF T H E N A TI ON .
dent. The latter, whatever opinion we may
entertain of what might possibly or even probably
have been the ultimate decision of the two Houses,
respecting measures in progress, but not com-
pleted, cannot be considered in the light of autho-
ritative precedent.
It has been argued by my right honourable
friend, and well and rightly argued, that the
authority of what was done at that period by the
two Houses of Parliament had been greatly aug-
mented by the subsequent approbation of His
Majesty after his recovery; that the royal autho-
rity having, when revived, sanctioned retrospec-
tively the proceedings adopted during its suspen-
sion, told back upon all the antecedent stages of
their progress, and gave an effect to what had
been done equivalent to the royal assent to any
act of Parliament. But though such may have
been the effect of His Majesty's subsequent ap-
probation upon such part of those proceedings as
had received the final sanction of the two Houses
of Parliament, it cannot be contended, that such
approbation told equally in confirmation of those
other parts of the precedent, which neither had
been previously, nor were subsequently, carried
into effect; which were merely the acts of the
House of Commons, and had never received the
sanction of the other House. On the contrary,
if that which had been agreed to by both Houses
is admitted to have received confirmation by being
REGENCY REsoſ. UTio Ns. 77
subsequently approved of by His Majesty, I am
intitled to insist, by a parity of reasoning, that,
whatever parts are so defective as not to have
received the sanction even of both Houses of Par-
liament, cannot possibly be considered as of
authority equally binding. If such proceedings
being found imperfect and incomplete at the time
of the King’s recovery, because not having then
received the concurrence of one of the branches of
the legislature; if the Regency Bill then in the
House of Lords had been carried forward to its
completion, and passed with a prospective view,
undoubtedly the provisions of that Bill would
have been binding as the act of the whole of the
legislature; and this would surely have been the
course pursued had it been the purpose of the
Parliament, or of the Government of that day, to
make the Regency Bill of 1789 a precedent for
all future occasions. But, if so far from having
been approved of, adopted, and enacted into law,
the Regency Bill was immediately upon the
King’s recovery rejected by the Lords, is the mere
circumstance of its having been proposed and
discussed, and formally decided upon, in one
House of Parliament, to be considered as placing
it on the same footing with proceedings clothed.
with full Parliamentary authority, and having
received their confirmation from the Crown 7
Upon the very grounds upon which my right
honourable friend contends, and I agree with him
78 STATE OF TH E N ATION.
in contending, for the authority of the former part
of the proceedings of 1788, which we have hitherto
faithfully copied, I must deny the same validity
to the remainder; unless we are prepared to exalt
conjecture into precedent; to give the face of
legislation to the projects of former times; and to
equalize solemn and recorded acts of Parliament
with the traced intentions of individuals, or, at most,
of one branch of the legislature.
There is, however, another species of authority,
not binding indeed, as that of the legislature, but
one nevertheless of no small obligation, derived
from the character of those engaged in any great
political transaction. Of him who carried through
this House those proceedings, which furnish the
precedent for the measures now under discussion,
it cannot be necessary for me to say, that I
cherish his memory with as much affection and
veneration as any man who is the most forward
to quote or to imitate his conduct. Yet ardent
as is my attachment to the character, and deep
and unfeigned as is my respect for the opinions
of Mr. Pitt, I still cannot think myself warranted
to claim, nor can I expect that others—that the
House—would allow the authority of those
opinions, great as it may be, an equal weight
with the positive enactments of the legislature.
This I could not do, nor expect others to concur
in doing, even if, in looking back to the history
and progress of the proceedings in 1788, I were
R. E. G E N CY RESOLUTION S. 79.
to find, that the course then pursued, in framing
the provisions for the establishment of the Re-
gency, had been marked from the beginning by
some principle as clearly defined as that which
formed the foundation of the prior part of those
proceedings: namely, of the averment of the
right and duty of the two Houses to provide for
the exercise of the regal power. But nothing can
be more distinguishable than the two different
stages of the proceeding upon that emergency:
that in which Parliament affirmed and established
the right of the two Houses to provide, and that
in which it proceeded to frame the provision; dis-
tinguishable not more in the degrees of their
intrinsic importance, than in those of the autho-
rity which they respectively derive from Par-
liamentary or individual sanction.
The right of the two Houses was proclaimed
and maintained by Mr. Pitt; that is the point on
which his authority is truly valuable; on that
point it was confirmed by the adoption of both
Houses of Parliament: it was acted upon by them
to the fullest extent; and that proceeding of the
two Houses it was, which received the subsequent
sanction of the Crown. The principles upon
which this right was affirmed and exercised, if
true at all, are true universally, for all times and
on all occasions. If they were the principles of
the constitution in 1788, they are equally so in
1811. The lapse of twenty-two years has not
5U) STATE OF THE N A TI ON.
impaired—the lapse of centuries cannot impair
them. But the mode in which the right so as-
serted should be exercised, the precise provisions
to be framed for the temporary substitution of the
executive power—these were necessarily, then, as
they must be now, matters not of eternal and
invariable principle, but of prudence and expedi-
ency. In regard to these, therefore, the authority
of the opinions of any individual, however great,
and wise, and venerable, can be taken only with
reference to the circumstances of the time in
which he had to act, and are not to be applied
without change or modification to other times and
circumstances. We have Mr. Pitt's authority
against such an application of them, for if he had
thought the Regency Bill ought to have passed as
a model for future times, why was it dropped 2
whyxias it not completed and recorded together
with the foregoing part of the proceedings of that
day? Nor is the final fate of the Regency Bill the
only argument against the conclusive authority
of its provisions. In the very progress of it
through this House, any man, who has read or
can remember the history of that period, must
know, that opinions were greatly divided with
respect to many parts of that Bill, even among
those who were generally favourable to its object,
and to Mr. Pitt's administration; and that, in the
very last stage of its progress, when the Bill was
in the hands of the Speaker, and ready to take
REG ENCY RESOLUTIONS. SI
its flight to the Lords, Mr. Pitt consented to two
most material alterations with respect to some of
the restrictions, which we have this night pro-
posed for our adoption: the first limiting the
restriction of the prerogative of creating peers to
three years, recommended, I believe, by the late
Sir William, then Mr. Pulteney; the other re-
serving to Parliament the power of reconsidering
that clause which restricted the grant of offices
for life, in the case of any person whom the
Regent might appoint to the office of Lord Chan-
cellor. I am, therefore, surely borne out in my
argument, that the proceedings upon the Bill are
not fairly to be assimilated in authority to those
previous proceedings of both Houses, which were
founded on constitutional principles, applicable
to all times and all circumstances; but that the
provisions of the Bill were shaped and fashioned
to the particular circumstances and exigency of
the occasion. It follows that they are liable to
be so shaped and fashioned now, without any
derogation from the authority, or any dereliction
of the principles of the legislature of that day; or
of that great man, by whom the deliberations of
this branch of the legislature were particularly
guided. - . . • -
Having thus cleared away from the discussion
all that undue influence, which has been at-
tempted to be raised on presumed authority, and
which, if admitted, would be a bar to any discus-
VOL. III. G
S2 STATE OF THE N AT I O N.
sion at all, I come now, Sir, to an impartial
consideration of the nature and principles of the
question immediately before us. Omitting for
the present any reference to the former period, of
which so much has been said, I shall take the
liberty to consider the measure now proposed to
us, upon its own grounds, and with reference to
the time and to the circumstances in which it is
proposed. What then is the nature of the duty
imposed upon us by the emergency in which we
stand? What steps have been already taken by
us in discharge of that duty ? What is the precise
object of this night's deliberation ?
We have already solemnly determined that it is
the right, as well as the duty of the two Houses of
Parliament to provide for the due discharge of the
royal functions during the lamented incapacity of
the Sovereign. In effecting this purpose we are
all agreed, that, while we provide for the tem-
porary exercise of the regal power, every neces-
sary provision should be made to secure to His
Majesty the effectual resumption of his functions
in the happy event of his recovery. We are all
agreed that the most advisable and expedient
mode of carrying on the executive government
during this interval will be by a sole Regent; and
that the Regent so to be appointed should be no
other than the illustrious individual by birth and
situation nearest to the throne. The question of
to-night is, what portion of the regal powers and
R EG FNC Y IR ESO I, UTION S. S3
prerogatives should be given to the Regent for the
execution of the arduous trust confided to him ;
or what portion withholden from him, for the pur-
pose (as I understand) of marking that it is a
trust confided, and not a right adjudged to him :
Apprehensions have been shadowed out rather
than expressed by my right honourable friend that
if the whole prerogatives were made over to the
illustrious person in question, he but not he more
than any other individual, placed in similar circum-
stances—might be led to regard himself in another
light than that of a trustee : that, in the full and
unrestricted exercise of the powers of the Sove-
reign, he might forget that they were exercised
by him only in the name, and on the behalf of their
rightful possessor; that he might consider them
as an inheritance rather than as a deposit, to be
restored entire and unimpaired, whenever it may
be the will of Providence to re-establish the health
of His Majesty. I confess I do not share in these
apprehensions. The case itself—the discussions
in this and in the other House of Parliament—the
sentiments expressed so distinctly and unequivo-
cally in every part of our recorded proceedings—
the common sense and feeling of the whole
country—all must concur to shew to the Regent
the real nature of his trust and office: even if, in the
absence of any or all of these indications, it were
possible that he could have conceived any powers
3. G 2 - -
84 STATE OF THE NATF ON .
to be vested in him which would not be resumed
by His Majesty at the moment of his recovery.
The quantum of power to be confided to the
Regent, must then be decided by other consi-
derations than that of the danger to be appre-
hended from a mistake so monstrous on the part
of the Regent himself—an apprehension, in my
judgment, altogether visionary. We must con-
sider what is the task which the Regent will have
to perform, and what are the powers requisite for
its due performance. Having found and recorded
the actual incapacity of the Sovereign ; having
assumed and asserted the right and the duty of
the two Houses of Parliament to supply that
incapacity, let us now consider what is the
nature of the business, which, through incapacity,
stands still, and which we are to find the means
of carrying on. It is the business of a mighty
monarchy. It consists in the exercise of functions
as large as the mind of man can conceive—in the
regulation and direction of the affairs of a great,
a free, and a powerful people; in the care of
their internal security and external interests;
in the conduct of foreign negociations; in the
decision of the vital questions of peace and war;
and in the administration of the Government
throughout all the parts, provinces, and depen-
dencies of an empire, extending itself into every
quarter of the globe. -
IR EG E N C Y RE SO L UTION S. S5
This is the awful office of a King ; the tem-
porary execution of which we are now about to
devolve upon the Regent. What is it—consider-
ing the irresponsibility of the Sovereign as an
essential part of the constitution—what is it that
affords a security to the people for the faithful
exercise of all these important functions? The
responsibility of Ministers. What are the means
by which these functions operate 2 They are
those which, according to the inherent imperfec-
tion of human nature, have at all times been the
only motives to human actions, the only controul
'upon them of certain and permanent operation,
the punishment of evil and the reward of merit.
Such then being the functions of monarchical
government, and such being the means of ren-
dering them efficient to the purposes of good
government, are we to be told that, in providing
for its delegation, while it is not possible to cur-
tail those powers, which are in their nature harsh
and unpopular, it is necessary to abridge these
milder, more amiable and endearing prerogatives,
which bear an aspect of grace and favour towards
the subject : Or are we to be told that, in de-
priving the Regent of the means of grace to
sweeten the exercise of power, while we impose
upon him all the invidious functions of Govern-
ment, we are not making a most serious change
in that branch of the Constitution, which we pro-
fess our desire to uphold in all its powers and
prerogatives 7 . . . . . . . . .
S6 STA TE OF 'I' H E N A TI ON .
My right honourable friend says, that our duty,
and indeed our right to act, is limited by the neces-
sity which creates it. We should not be justified,
he contends, in doing any thing but what the pres-
sure of this necessity actually requires to be done.
I adopt my right honourable friend's principle :
but I apply it differently. What is necessary is,
to provide for carrying on the functions of the
disabled Sovereign : what is not necessary is
to change their nature. What is necessary is
that the Government should go on : what is not
necessary is, that part of it should be arrested.
We are compelled, by necessity, to delegate the
exercise of the executive authority to a Regent:
but there is no necessity for making that exercise
more difficult in his hands than in those of the
rightful possessor; for imposing new difficulties
upon this arduous office—diminishing the means
of its efficiency—and adding to the irksomeness
of its burthen. It is neither necessary nor politic,
in my opinion, to mark distrust and jealousy,
when, by the free tender of a magnanimous con-
fidence, we might alleviate at least the heavy
responsibility which we impose, and furnish in-
citements to the faithful discharge of it, such
as jealousy and distrust are little calculated to
inspire. -
But perhaps the prerogatives of the Crown are
more than adequate to the discharge of its im-
portant duties, more than sufficient to maintain
the dignity and lustre of that throne which he,
R. E. G E N C Y RES () I., U'I’IONS. S7
to whom we are now entrusting the support of
its rights and powers, will in due time himself be
called to fill? Perhaps this temporary delegation
affords an opportunity for trying an experiment,
which in the person of the rightful occupant, could
not be tried without danger.
Sir, I confess I dread the example of this ex-
periment, not for any use which I believe to be
intended to be made of it by my right honourable
friend, most assuredly not, but from the manner
in which it is likely to be welcomed, felt, and
treasured up for future use by others, who may
be disposed to employ it for purposes very foreign
to his views. I am not one of those, Sir, who
think the Crown already too powerful. That, I
am convinced, is not the sentiment of my right
honourable friend, any more than it is mine. And
being of opinion that the executive power in this
country does not possess too much influence, or
too extensive means of rewarding public services,
I must, in consistency with that opinion, contend
that, whatever portion of the powers of the Crown
shall be withheld from the Regent, will be so
much taken away from what is necessary for the
due discharge of the indispensable functions of
the monarchy.
This, Sir, is my general view, with regard to
the proposed restrictions, or rather, of the prin-
ciple of restriction itself as applied to the muni-
ficent prerogatives of the Crown in the hands of
88 STATE OF THE N A 'I' I O N.
the Regent. Thus I think of it, as compared
generally with the general principles of the Con-
stitution. But is there any peculiar consideration
arising out of the times in which we live, arising
out of the present circumstances of the country,
which lessens the force of the objections which I
have taken the liberty to urge, and renders that
course safe and profitable now, which I think I
have shewn to be generally inexpedient : The
answer to this question is, the precedent of 1788.
Sir, I will not say that in 1788 restrictions might
not have been expedient. I will not go into the
circumstances, because I will not revive the ani-
mosities of that period. But if not absolutely
necessary then, at least they might have been
harmless. I perfectly concur in the observation
of my right honourable friend opposite (Mr.
Lamb) as to the difference between the circum-
stances of the country in the year 1788, and at
the present moment. I agree with him that my
right honourable friend, in stating that difference
to consist merely in the simple opposition of a
state of war to a state of peace, has treated this
argument with somewhat of levity, and greatly
under-rated its force. My right honourable friend
seems to think, that the only effect of such a
difference in the situation of the country, is to
render such of the royal functions as are particu-
larly and directly applicable to a state of war,
more necessary to be preserved in full efficiency
R E G E N C Y RESOLUTIONS. S9
on this occasion, than in the year 1788. Surely
this is a very narrow and imperfect view of the
question. When I admit that, in time of pro-
found peace, some of the functions of the exe-
cutive government might have remained in repose
with little disadvantage, as compared with that
which would result from suspending their activity
in a time of war, do I, therefore, mean that the
difference between a state of war and a state of
peace, as bearing upon the question, consists ex-
clusively in military operations : Do I mean that
the powers of the executive government, which
enable the Sovereign to meet the exigencies of
war, are those only which are exercised in the
management of fleets and armies : Do I mean
that there are peace prerogatives and war pre-
rogatives, perfectly distinct in their nature, one
half of which may occasionally be suspended, so
that the other half be continued in activity ? No,
Sir; a state of war is not merely a state implying
military enterprises and military dangers, and
requiring military means and exertions. It is a
state of civil, as well as military hazard and diffi-
culty. Failures, as extensive as unexpected, and
as unmerited as either, must at least be contem-
plated as possible in the course of a war: even of
one generally fortunate and well conducted, the
pressure of pecuniary burdens upon all classes.
of the community is necessarily aggravated;
trade suffers; danger is apprehended; and does
90 STATE OF THE N ATION.
my right honourable friend conceive then, that a
state of war, involving the possibility of so many
perils—of so much public embarrassment and
national disappointment—must not materially
augment the difficulties in every part of the home
administration of the Government 2 Does my
right honourable friend state the question fairly,
when he supposes it to bear only on the conduct
of the war itself; and on the powers directly
and specifically applicable to military operations?
Does it not affect the whole of the powers of the
Government 2 And can it be expedient, is it
even consistent with a just regard to the security
of the nation, that the general powers of the
kingly office, necessary even in time of peace for
conducting the administration of the country,
should be restricted at a time when the person in
whose hands they are placed is called to the task
of carrying on an arduous war, encompassed
with all the various and accumulated difficulties,
foreign and domestic, which are inevitably in-
separable from such a state of things :
Do not let it be imagined, Sir, that in stating
these difficulties, it is my wish to magnify them
beyond their just size. I am desirous of being
distinctly understood not to entertain the slightest
apprehension, but that the country possesses, in
ample store, both the spirit and the means to
meet and successfully to overcome them. All
that I mean to infer from this statement is,
IR F. G E N C Y RESOJ,U TI O N S. 9 |
that difficulties of such an extensive and com-
plicated nature, afford strong grounds of ob-
jection against imposing any unnecessary re-
strictions upon any of the functions of the
executive government; that it is not a fair view
of the nature of these functions, to suppose them
capable of being separated and parcelled out—one
for this purpose, one for that—one for time of
peace, another for time of war—but, that the
body of the prerogatives must be considered as a
whole, constituting, by their assemblage and union,
the aggregate power of the kingly office, not as I
think greater than is necessary for the carrying
on the Government well, and more indispensably
necessary than ever in times of national difficulty
and national exertion.
My right honourable friend, therefore, does
not appear to me to have done any thing towards
extenuating the obvious distinction between a
season of peace, such as that of 1788, and one of
war, such as the present, or towards reconciling
the precedent of 1788 in its provisions and details
to the exigency of the present occasion, by
merely keeping alive what he is pleased to con:
sider the warlike part of the prerogative, of
making peers, for instance, while he throws that
prerogative, and others, generally, into abeyance.
In attempting this, he has indeed done quite
enough to shew, that he himself distrusts and
cannot follow out the precedent of 1788, to shew,
92 STATE OF THE N ATION.
that it is not applicable to these times; that he
cannot adopt the restrictions and limitations of
1788, without restricting those restrictions, and
limiting those limitations; and after a forcible
and elaborate panegyric upon the Regency Bill
of 1788; after holding it up and strongly recom-
mending it to the Committee as the rule of their
conduct; after intimating no small surprise, that
any admirer of Mr. Pitt should presume to ques-
tion any part of it as applicable to the present
state of things, he concludes by presenting it in
a changed and mutilated state, and, I will venture
to say, in scarce one material clause precisely the
same as it passed this House in 1789. This is
surely a singular way of proving the veneration
which he feels for this precedent himself, or of
inculcating it in others. . . . .
Now, Sir, I have ventured to give it as my opi-
nion, that the restrictions and limitations of
1789 are not applicable to the present time. My
right honourable friend may, therefore, have flat-
tered himself, that I am one of those who are to
be gratified by his restrictions and limitations
upon them. I do not know whether he is pre-
pared to hear from me that I disapprove his re-
strictions and limitations, upon the restrictions
and limitations, even more than the original ones;
that thinking the plan altogether objectionable, I
think this, which he intends as a mitigation and
improvement, the most objectionable part of it.
REGENCY RESO LUTIONS. 93
Extraordinary as my right honourable friend may
think this declaration at first sight, I flatter myself
I shall be able to make it intelligible to him, if
not to induce him to concur in it.
My sentiments are too well known within these
walls, not to secure me from any imputation of
wishing to shut the ranks of the peerage against
those, whose distinguished merit in their country's
service, by sea or land, shall hereafter entitle
them to such exalted honours. The achievements
of military heroism are, by the common consent
of mankind, fit objects of the highest reward.
Would I consent to check so legitimate and bene-
ficial an ambition ? to damp an ardour as splendid
in its character as pure in its motives? to with-
draw from valour and prowess the just incitement
which arises from an enthusiastic hope of identi-
fying their personal ſame with the greatness and
the glory of their country? What! if Lord Wel-
lington, who has displayed so eminently, during
the late campaign, those distinguished qualities
of a general, which he was supposed, but falsely
supposed, not to possess, should, before the con-
clusion of the present year, exhibit to his admiring
and grateful countrymen another specimen of
those more shining qualities, for which he has
been uniformly acknowledged to be conspicuous;
and should terminate a campaign, signalized by
such consummate prudence and skill, by an
achievement more congenial perhaps to his nature
94 STATE OF THE N ATION.
and habits—a brilliant victory—would I be the
man to deny to him the well merited reward of
more exalted rank in the peerage : Or, if a gal-
lant admiral, with the characteristic enterprise of
his profession, should rush into battle with that
animating exclamation, with which Nelson led on
the battle of the Nile, “A Peerage or West-
minster Abbey,” would I be the man to contend
for closing against his hopes one part of that glo-
rious alternative 2 for leaving him, indeed, the
monument to cover his remains if he should fall;
but for shutting the ranks of the peerage against
his living glory !
I hope and trust, Sir, that no honourable gentle-
man will suppose such to be my feeling. I hope
I shall not be so answered, when I declare that I
must give my opposition to the exception, in
favour of naval and military peerages, now pro-
posed by my right honourable friend. Far, in-
deed, am I from wishing to exclude meritorious
individuals of these descriptions from the well-
earned honours of the peerage. Long may such
honours be so bestowed ! many be the victories
in which they shall be won and worn 1 But the
manner in which I wish such rewards and distinc-
tions to be conferred, is in the ordinary course of
the constitution—in the spontaneous and unfet-
tered exercise of the royal prerogative—such as
it has been for ages, such as it is now—such as
the very exception, proposed by my right honour-
REG ENCY TESO I, UTION S. 95
able friend, proves it ought to continue, but such
as that exception does not leave or make it. I
would accomplish this salutary and necessary
object by the very simple process of leaving things
as they are, not by first lopping off from the royal
prerogative the power of granting peerages gene-
rally; and then turning round again for the purpose
of piecing it again, and restoring its former state
in part, with a view to meet the circumstances of
a particular case. It is not, it cannot, be a sound
or a just principle of legislation, first to undo, and,
in the same breath, partially to re-establish what
we have undone. This in itself is irrational ; but
this is not all. There are other objections much
more conclusive against this exception, than even
against the general limitation as it stood before
the change. The necessary effect of this excep-
tion would be, not to relieve the prerogative from
restraint, but to change its very nature; to strip
that part of it, which would be so withdrawn
from the limitation, of one half of its value. For,
in what does the value of this prerogative consist?
Not surely in any duty and positive obligation
imposed upon the possessor of it to give or assign
a certain stipulated reward for a certain definite
service. He is not to adjudicate the specified and
rightful earnings of valour or merit. There is a
grace and favour in the reward of eminent public
service; there is a discretion in selecting them
for that reward, which can only be found in the
96 STATE OF THE NATION.
free choice of the Sovereign, and in the sponta-
neous exertion of the royal prerogative. It is in
this view that the grant of honours and distinc-
tions is “ twice blessed ;” that
“It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes ;”
that it endears the bestower and receiver to each
other; that the stream of nobility springs, as it
were, warm from the heart of the Sovereign, ere
it descends upon the favoured head of a merito-
rious subject. Strip the prerogative of this grace,
this discretionary power, and you do not only re-
strict its operation, but you destroy its essence.
If the law were to direct such honours to be con-
ferred, where would be the grace? Where would
the gratitude be due ! Where the obligation con-
ferred ? Deprived of all appearance of sponta-
neous bounty, the honour would be claimed as a
right, not acknowledged as a favour; and the
Regent would be placed in the situation of a bare
trustee indeed, but of a trustee without confidence,
authorised only to perform, in previously specified
cases, a prescribed and indispensable duty.
Nor is this the only objection. To change dis-
cretion into necessity, and grace into obligation,
would be bad enough. But how full is the pre-
scribed task itself of difficulties in the execution ?
By the terms of the Resolution it would, ineffect, be
obligatory on the Regent to confer the honours of
the peerage upon any person who may “achieve
REG EN CY RESOLUTIONS. 97
any signal naval or military services.” Such
words allow great latitude of construction; and
may be productive, under the various interpreta-
tions that may be put upon them, of much and
serious embarrassment to the Government of the
Regent. If a signal and decisive victory—such
as should decide the fate of a campaign; or
lead to the conclusion of a peace ; such as
the victories of Marlborough or Prince Eugene—
should be gained, there would unquestionably be
no difficulty; every body would be agreed upon
the merits of such a service, and would admit the
indubitable claim, arising from it, to the rewards
of the peerage. But such decisive actions and
such unquestionable results are not to be looked
for in the ordinary course of war. On the other
hand, a signally disastrous defeat might possibly
befal a country without any blame being imputa-
ble to the commander; nay even after he might
have performed every duty that could be required
of him in a most exemplary manner. Still, how-
ever, in such a case (I trust a most improbable
one) there might be no great embarrassment to the
Regent. No one would blame him for not mark-
ing even consummate ability, shining through un-
merited misfortune, with splendid reward. But
between these two extremes may probably be
found most of those military services, the merits
of which would become the subject of discussion,
if they chanced to be performed during the inter-
vol. III. H -
98 STATE OF THE NATION.
val while the honours of the peerage are exclu-
sively appropriated, and consecrated by Act of
Parliament, to military merit. Numberless cases
may exist between the distant limits which I have
described; and who but must foresee in the prac-
tice of this exception an endless source of embar-
‘rassing discussions, of jealousies and invidious
comparisons, no less injurious to the public ser-
vice, than perplexing and inconvenient to the
Regent : Am I putting an imaginary case? The
course of the last twelve months has furnished
precisely such an instance as I have ventured to
anticipate for the present year. It must be in the
recollection of every gentleman present, that the
glorious victory (so I must call it) of Talavera did
not meet with the unanimous suffrage of this
House. If that had been an “achievement "
under the Regent's cognizance, to be dealt with
according to the provisions of this Bill, he would
have been accused by the honourable gentlemen
opposite of having abused the discretion confided
to him, and squandered the honours of the peer-
age. For I will not put the other supposition,
that he could have withholden the peerage from
Lord Wellington on that occasion, And who is
sanguine enough to hope that all the “achieve-
ments” of the year to come will be of a character
more unequivocal, of less disputable glory, than
the battle of Talavera?
So far, therefore, from correcting the limitation

REG ENCY RESO LUTIONS. x39%
º tº º S$4
as it originally stood, I contend, that the excep- //
tion makes infinitely worse. Whether the Regent
should grant or should withhold the honours of
which he is made the steward, his conduct would
be equally liable to question; nor would it be any
trifling practical inconvenience, that the early part
of the next session of Parliament should be occu-
pied, as it possibly might be, in inquiries how far
that officer of Parliament may have made a proper
use of the portion of the prerogative committed,
not to his discretion, but to his responsible charge.
Much better would it be to suspend the preroga-
tive altogether, than to vest it in so mutilated a
state, and on such perplexing conditions, in the
hands of the Regent. Better would it be, that
for one year military merit should go without its
reward, or that we should at once resolve, as it
were, that this year shall be barren of glory, than
that the royal prerogative should be exhibited in a
state so shackled and degraded—in a state so ina-
dequate to its purposes, and so foreign to its nature.
So much, Sir, for the limitation of the limita-
tion proposed by my right honourable friend. But
now as to the limitation itself. Is it exclusively
in cases of military or naval merit, that it is essen-
tial to the best interests of the state, that the
person exercising the royal authority should have
the unrestricted prerogative of creating peers ?
Are there not other instances in which the exer-
cise of such a prerogative, unfettered by limita-
º: #
&
s & es
H 2
100 STATE OF THE NATION.
tions, is equally necessary to enable a Regent
well and beneficially to administer the affairs of
the nation ? I will suppose, for instance, that the
eminent person now holding the Great Seal, might
be desirous of retiring from office; and that the
Regent might in consequence select for his suc-
cessor, some one of the ornaments of the bar.
Now, under the restriction, which I am now con-
sidering, the Regent could not elevate the object
of his choice to the peerage. A Lord Keeper
might indeed be appointed, and I am aware, that
in the eye of the law, the Lord Keeper and the
Lord Chancellor are the same : whether Lord
Keeper or Lord Chancellor, he is, by virtue of his
office, prolocutor of the House of Lords. But if
he cannot be raised to the peerage, must not great
inconvenience at least, perhaps more than incon-
venience, be felt in the progress of public busi-
ness, when he, who presides over the proceed-
ings of the peers, not being a peer himself, can
take no share in their debates, but must remain as
mute as the mace upon their table 7
Other cases may easily be imagined, wherein
the operation of this limitation would interfere
with the completion of arrangements, either for
forming an administration, or for the conduct of
affairs in Parliament. But I think I have stated
enough to justify the opinion, that the prerogative
ought to remain unfettered; and that, at all events,
it would be more becoming to withhold it altoge-
R. E. G E N CY RESO I, UTIONS. 101
ther, than to grant it under restrictions never
before devised or imagined ; restrictions by which
we should, in effect, reserve to ourselves the
power of controuling the exercise of that part of
the prerogative, which we confer, and should tell
the Prince Regent, that, while we allowed him to
administer the functions of royalty in the name
and on the behalf of the Sovereign, we were deter-
mined to constitute ourselves “Viceroys” over
him.
As to any argument to be deduced from a sup-
posed abuse of this prerogative, or from the too
lavish use of it, either in recent or former times,
the fault of that argument is, that it would lead
not to a temporary, but to perpetual restriction of
it. It would lead to abridging the prerogative in
the possession of the Crown, not to a mere partial
suspension of it in the hands of the Regent. But
I agree with my right honourable friend, and with
my honourable friend on the other side of the
House (Mr. Lamb) that the imputation of an
extravagant use of this prerogative, is at least
excessively exaggerated. In very late times, and
by the present administration, either whilst I was
connected with it or since, certainly there has
been a most sparing use of the power of creating
peers. But, looking back to former administra-
tions, to which this abuse is imputed, I must Say,
I very much doubt, whether the House of Lords,
numerous as it now is, has been so augmented as
102 STATE OF THE N ATION.
to bear a greater proportion than heretofore, to
the weight and influence of the Commons, and
generally to the increased diffusion of wealth
throughout all classes of the community. It is
true, that there is recorded in our history one
instance, and one only, of a flagrant abuse of this
power for political purposes—that in the reign of
queen Anne–when the Tory administration, by
pouring twelve newly created peers in one day
into the House of Lords, established a majority in
their own favour. But even this abuse, if it were
likely to be imitated, could not now be imitated
successfully. It must be admitted, that the addi-
tion of twelve peers, when the whole number con-
sisted but of two hundred must have borne a con-
siderable proportion to the whole. But now when
the House of Lords consists of three hundred peers,
what would be the addition of twelve, even if in the
present times such a stroke were likely to be ven-
tured; and how much greater must the addition
be to make such a stroke permanently decisive 1
And here again the argument goes too far for the
object to which it is applied. If there be this
danger in the unlimited power of creating peers,
the limitation, to be effectual, must be made per-
manent. But to all such stretches of prerogative
the House well knows, that there is a limitation
more operative than the provisions of a bill; more
efficacious than any system of checks and balances,
—the controul of public opinion.
REG EN CY RESOLUTIONS. 103
The same objections, which I have stated to
the general suspension of the prerogative of
making peers, apply according to their kind and
degree to the next restriction — that upon the
grant of patent offices or pensions for life. Much
has been said of late years, of the great extent of
this patronage, and of the expediency of reducing
it. I have never, any more than my right honour-
able friend, allowed the truth of these statements.
Investigation has shewn them to be exaggerated:
and even if it were possible for me to consent to
any change in the system, it certainly should not
be to one, that should materially diminish its
amount, though it might alter the mode of adminis-
tering it. But that there must, and ought to exist,
in the hands and at the discretion of the Crown,
means, and ample means too, for the remuneration
of public service in the civil and political depart-
ments of the state, I am, and have always been,
decidedly of opinion. The legitimate use of such
means appears to be in the facility which they
afford for winning men of ability, who may have
no very ample property, into the public service.
On this ground I have hitherto supported, and on
this ground, I shall continue to support them. On
the bench, from which my right honourable friend
has spoken, may be found sufficient proof of the
utility of such means of remuneration. My right
honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) himself, is a proof of their advantageous
104 STATE OF THE NATION.
application to the public service, brought, as he
was, at the formation of the Government in 1807,
from an honourable profession, of which, if he had
continued a member, he must unquestionably
have risen to the head, to take a share in the
administration of the Government. The sacrifice
these prospects His Majesty had most graciously
intended to compensate by the grant for life of a
sinecure office, had not this House interfered
an Address to His Majesty, that he would be
graciously pleased to grant it only during pleasure.
This vote, if the question shall ever again be
brought before Parliament, I shall most heartily
concur in rescinding, and so giving full effect to
the principle, for the justice of which I am con-
tending. Another instance of the proper applica-
tion of such offices is to be found on the same
bench, in the grant of one of the Tellerships of the
Exchequer, in the last session, to another right
honourable friend of mine (Mr. Yorke). When
I see before me two such instances of the bene-
ficial use of this power of calling great abilities
into the public service, I cannot consent that this
power should be suspended. Perhaps there are
few public men less interested than I am, in any
probable arrangement of a new administration.
I speak, therefore, with the more freedom upon
these subjects. And as to any misuse, which may
be apprehended from favour and partiality in the
distribution of such offices as may fall vacant,
R EG ENCY It ESO LUTIONS. 105
during the continuance of the Regency, I will
fairly own, that, if his Royal Highness should
have the power of rewarding the long and disin-
terested attachment, the steady and tried fidelity,
and the great public talents of any individual,
who even might not have strictly earned such
reward by actual labour in office, I should not
grudge such an exercise of the power of the
Regent ; nor think it more than a reasonable
compensation to His Royal Highness for the
cares, the anxieties, and the embarrassments of
the situation the duties of which he is called upon
to discharge.
One argument for these restrictions, is, that the
powers and prerogatives they withhold, might, if
confided to the Regent, constitute a bar to the
resumption of the Royal functions by His Majesty
on his happy restoration to health. The suppo-
sition, that such an effect could be produced by
such a cause, appears to me in the highest degree
extravagant and ridiculous. Can any man seri-
ously believe, that all the possible chance of the
falling-in of offices for life, all the various casual-
ties, which, within a year, could occur to create
vacancies (for it must be recollected that they
must fall vacant before they can be given away)
—or that even all the abuse which could take
place in the distribution of peerages during the
Regency, could so fortify the government of the
Regent, within that period, as to enable him, (if
106 STATE OF THE N ATION.
so inclined) to prevent His Majesty's ready re-
sumption of his power in case of his recovery :
What tendency even have such causes to produce
such an effect 7 Where is the man who, though
neither formidable, nor mischievous, would yet,
if elevated to the peerage, and made formidable
by a pension or a sinecure, be enabled to stand
in the breach and to obstruct the King's re-occu-
pation of his throne 7
The argument, if argument it may be called,
and the apprehension in which it pretends to be
founded, appear to me perfectly senseless. There
is, moreover, a strange inconsistency in the differ-
ent arguments respecting these powers and prero-
gatives. When it is proposed to us to withhold
them from the Regent ; they are represented
as wholly unnecessary for the well carrying on
of the Government. But they are at the same
time, it seems, as strong to do mischief as they are
weak to do good. They are strong enough to
endanger the whole of the Executive Government,
if abused; and by a strange perverseness, ineffi-
cacious to their legitimate purpose. They are
nothing in positive activity, but every thing in
prospective prevention: they would not, if pro-
perly used, tend to secure a majority in Parlia-
ment; but, with a little stretch, they might effect
a revolution. By what process all that which is
so powerless in esse, can be so formidable in posse,
is what I am at a loss to conceive.
REG E N C Y RESOR. UTIONS. 107
But here again the zeal of controversy appears.
to outrun discretion. For if, in fact, the powers
to be withholden from the Regent can, by
their abuse, be productive of such great incon-
venience, and yet by their proper exercise be pro-
ductive of so little good, that the Executive
Government can go on very well without them,
this surely would be an argument for abolishing
such prerogatives altogether. A power capable
of doing much mischief, and but little good, ought
not to be preserved. -
Fortunately, however, the argument is good for
nothing either way. The apprehension of any
opposition being made to the return of His Majesty
to the exercise of his authority, must be felt, even
by those who use it, to be in the highest degree
extravagant. If I could believe that there existed
a man, so lost to what is due to himself, to his
Sovereign, and to society, as to harbour such an
idea, I would not only not consent to give him
power without restrictions, but I would not con-
fide to him any power at all. I would not arm
with “a pigmy's straw" that man, into whose
mind so monstrous a design could even for a single
moment find admittance. God forbid that any
power should be granted, or any provision made,
which could, either by perversion or by accident,
obstruct His Majesty's resumption of his func-
tions. I would have nothing to impede, nothing
to retard that resumption, beyond the moment at
108 S'I' A TE OF THE N ATION.
which it should please a gracious Providence to
restore him to the wishes of his people. No
effort, no exertion should be necessary on his part.
Like the sun, by the mere act of his appearance,
he should dissolve and dissipate all the clouds and
vapours by which his lustre is obscured.
But in exact proportion as we make anxious
provision for the secure resumption of his power
by the King, I think we should abstain from un-
necessarily restricting the powers of the Regent.
These, Sir, are not times in which any man can
think it desirable to cripple the energies of the
Executive Government, in whatever hands it may
be. But we must recollect, that in the very cir-
cumstances of the King's situation, of his desired,
and (thank God!) probable recovery, there is a
certain source of weakness to the ephemeral and
evanescent Government of the Regent, which
going to repose in the possession of power, can
never be certain that it may not awake and find
itself dissolved in the morning.
There are some species of difficulties, Sir,
which, when a man has to encounter, he feels his
courage rise in proportion to the task, and is ani-
mated by the obstacles which oppose him. This
is the case where he is backed by all that should
be his natural support: where he brings the full
use of all his means and resources to bear upon
the contest in which he is engaged. But not so,
if he goes into the field with his best faculties
R. E. G E N CY RESOLUTION S. 109
shackled, with jealousy instead of encouragement
at his side. The difficulties which we are about
to impose by the restrictions are of this latter
description; and tend to dishearten and unnerve
the executive power, at a moment, when surely
all its energies are necessary to be employed.
And after all, the only reasons for proposing
these restrictions appear to resolve themselves
into this, that they were already proposed in 1788.
To this I have answered, that there are two kinds
of imitation; one, that which catches the spirit
and the principle, and applies them to similar cir-
cumstances; the other that which takes the dry
and dead letter, and attempts to adapt it to cir-
cumstances wholly dissimilar. My right honour-
able friend, indeed, has found that the precedent
of 1788 did not suit his case, and, therefore, has
been reduced to the necessity of endeavouring, by
clipping here and stretching there, to make it fit.
For myself I have truly said, and am anxious
again to repeat, that I can be surpassed by no
man in respect and veneration for the great man
who guided the proceedings of 1788. But I am
convinced that I do that precedent more honour,
in considering and approving of it, with reference
to the circumstances of the period in which it was
proposed, than those do who contend, that the
great, and fertile, and profound mind that framed
it, could, if he had happily survived to the present
110 STATE OF THE NATION.
times, have devised nothing more applicable to
the emergency for which we have to provide.
Sir, as my right honourable friend has expressed
a wish that no discussion should take place this
night upon the last Resolution, it is not my inten-
tion to go much at length into the matter which is
the subject of it. The custody of His Majesty's
person, I take it to be perfectly clear, from every
analogy of private life, and from all the feelings
of nature, should be given to the Queen. With
respect to the household, I must confess, I do not
approve of my right honourable friend’s proposed
arrangement. I should much rather attach a
large portion of that establishment permanently
to the service of His Majesty, than have the
whole of it attached to him for a limited period,
as proposed in the Resolution, then to be revised
and retrenched. I say this with as much frankness
as if advising with my right honourable friend, as
a member of the Government, previous to the
bringing in of his measure. I should have recom-
mended an attempt now to preserve a proper
splendour to surround His Majesty's person during
the whole term of his natural life, should his ill-
ness unfortunately be commensurate with his life,
rather than leave the matter in prospective de-
pendence upon the decision of some future, and,
perhaps less favourably disposed period. I may
be wrongfor fanciful in point of feeling, but, I will
REG EN CY RESOLUTIONS. 1 11
own, I am not satisfied with a provision which
has the appearance of fixing a time, after which
there is to be no hope entertained of His Majesty's
recovery. I do not wish that there should be
added to the preamble of the Bill a clause stating
that a period will come, and that Parliament will
have to declare that period, whether it be six or
twelve months, when the recovery of His Majesty
will be hopeless. Notwithstanding the comments
which have been made upon my former statement
of my readiness to have concurred in further ad-
journments, if proposed, I now repeat that I should
be much better satisfied, that the functions of the
Crown should remain in suspense till the longest
period of which the exigencies of the public service
could possibly admit, than be thus reduced to the
necessity of defining a period at which all hope is
to be abandoned. And this appears to me to be the
effect of providing a larger scale of household for
a limited time, with a recorded admission that it
must then be altered; of accumulating comfort
and splendour upon the period of hope, with an
avowed view of reducing them to a more con-
tracted scale at the era of despair.
Sir, I would do what is right at once, and once
for all: I should not think any thing right but
what was ample both for comfort and for splen-
dour; and I would settle the establishment per-
manently, in order that the portion of patronage,
which may be withheld from the Regent, may not
I 12 STATE OF THE NATION,
be given to any body else. For upon this point
I perfectly concur with my honourable friend on
the other side (Mr. Lamb), that it would be
highly improper to set up a new political power,
growing out of that influence which belongs to
the appointment of the household, and which has
always hitherto been joined to the Executive
Government. Why should that influence subsist
at all during the Regency 2 The Regent certainly
must not have it, and why should Her Majesty
be burthened with it ! Why should not the Lords
of the Bedchamber, and such other attendants, as
ought to be attached to His Majesty's person,
enjoy their places during life, that is, during the
continuance of the King's illness, whatever that
may be, independent alike of the Regent or of
any other political influence whatever ? Some-
thing of this sort, it appears to me, might be
done, and might spare all the jealousies and heart-
burnings, to which disputed patronage and re-
newed discussions, may give rise: while, more
than any other practicable arrangement, it would
secure to His Majesty the most faithful and ac-
reptable attendance. This is not the time, how-
ever, for going into any detail upon this subject.
Generally, I will only say, that no views of nig-
gardly economy ought to be permitted to mix
themselves with the consideration of how we may
best provide for the safe, the tender, and the re-
spectful care of the King. We must not think of
REG ENCY RESOLUTIONs. | 13
saving by his sickness. We must not forget that
he is still our King.
We must not consider him as a remnant to be
thrown aside: but as a relic to be treasured with
pious devotion, to be consecrated with the prayers
and the vows of all good men: to be not im-
mured, but inshrined amidst the gratitude and
veneration of his subjects.
Sir, I will trouble the Committee no further.
The vote to which we are about to come to-night,
is upon the restrictions to be imposed upon the
Regent. I have stated my reasons for thinking
these restrictions inexpedient. I have stated
why I think the limitations introduced to qualify
them more exceptionable even than the restric-
tions themselves. With these opinions I cannot
do otherwise than vote for the amendment, by
which both the one and the other are to be alto-
gether done away. -
The House divided upon Mr. Lamb's Amendment, when
the numbers were—
For Mr. Lamb's Amendment ............ 200
Against it .............................. ..... 224
Majority in favour of the first Resolution 24
On a division upon the second Resolution, for Restricting
the Prerogative as to the Granting of Peerages, the num-
bers were :-
For the second Resolution .......... . . . . . . 226
Against it ..................… 210
Majority for the second Resolution ..... 16
VOL. III. - I ,
114 STATE OF THE N ATION.
On a division upon the third Resolution respecting the
Grant of Pensions, &c. &c., the numbers were—
For the third Resolution.................. 233
Against it .......... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 214
Majority for the third Resolution ...... 19
The fourth Resolution, relative to the disposition of the
King's private property, was agreed to without a division;
and the discussion upon the fifth Resolution respecting the
Household Establishment, was postponed till the follow-
ing day.
RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING THE REGENCY.
January 1st, 1811.
The CHANCELLOR of the ExchequER moved the fifth
Resolution—(see page 72). .
EARL Gower proposed, as an amendment, to omit that
part of the Resolution from the words “ Queen's Most
Excellent Majesty,” and to insert in the room of it, “to-
gether with such direction of his Household as may be
suitable for the care of His Majesty's royal person, and
the maintenance of the royal dignity.”
MR. CANNING having observed, that the greater
portion of the discussion of that night, and espe-
cially the latter part of it, had been conducted,
as if the Committee had lost sight altogether of
REG ENCY RESOLUTIONS. 115
the question actually before them, spoke as fol-
lows:–
I think, therefore, that I may possibly do an
acceptable service, if, studiously passing by all
the extraneous topics which have been intro-
duced into the debate, I confine myself entirely
to the explaining the grounds of the vote which
I mean to give this night, and so recal the
attention of the Committee to the real question
upon which alone we have on this occasion to
decide. During the latter part of the debate,
not only the question of restrictions in general,
but all the various points connected with the
whole complicated subject of the Regency, have
been again discussed, as if the vote of to-night
were to decide them all. But, in my apprehen-
sion, the question now under consideration lies
within a very narrow compass. It is but a small
part even of a small part of the whole subject;
and, however it may be decided, it will not only
not affect the other Resolutions, but not even
decide finally the arrangements, to which it im-
mediately relates. In giving my vote this night,
I certainly reserve to myself the right, when the
bill shall be brought in, of considering minutely
the details by which the principle of the Reso-
lution shall be carried into effect.
The question, then, immediately before us, is
simply this, what degree of power, and whether
any political power, should be granted to Her
. I 2
I 16 STATE OF THE NATION. '
Majesty, to whom, by the consent of all, the care
of His Majesty's sacred person ought to be in-
trusted ? In the settlement of this, as indeed of
every other point of the Regency, I think those
honourable gentlemen go too far, who recom-
mend extraordinary caution in regard to the pre-
sent proceedings, on the notion, that they are to
constitute a fixed rule to guide all future Par-
liaments, who may be called upon to make pro-
vision for a similar emergency. In the present
instance, I certainly have no hesitation in saying,
that the Regency should, and ought to be com-
mitted to the Prince of Wales, and the care of
His Majesty's sacred person to his Majesty's royal
Consort: but I desire to be distinctly understood,
that I do not consider myself as giving in this
admission an opinion, that, in all future possible
cases, either the Regency or the custody of the
King's person must of necessity be so confided.
I utterly deny, that we are, in these particulars,
which are matters not of fixed principles, but of
expediency and discretion, now settling an im-
moveable precedent for the future. This I have
thought it necessary to say, in order to argue
upon the present case with the more freedom.
The Resolution now before the Committee
divides itself into three parts: first, that the cus-
tody of His Majesty's person shall be given to
the Queen; on this point there is in the present
instance no doubt or difference of opinion. The
R E G EN CY It ESOLUTIONS. | 17
second, or rather the third point, as it stands in
the order of the Resolutions, but I take it here
to get it out of the way, is, that it is expedient
that, for the due administration of this trust, Her
Majesty should have a council; on that too, as a
general proposition, there appears no difference
of opinion. The intermediate proposition be-
tween these two, is that which forms the ques-
tion for the present discussion ; namely, whether
the trust to be confided to the Queen shall be
accompanied with a grant of political power;
whether Her Majesty shall be enabled to remove
not only the officers of His Majesty's household—
of less consequence in a political view, though of
great importance with regard to His Majesty's
comforts—but also persons standing in the situa-
tion of great officers of state ; whether we may
not sufficiently provide for the comfort and dig-
nity of His Majesty, without committing consider-
able political authority to hands, in which such
authority has never before been constitutionally
placed. -
According to my view of the state of this ques-
tion, if I were this night to vote for the original
Resolution, I should at once decide affirmatively,
that the Queen should have the power of remov-
ing sixteen great officers sitting in the House of
Lords, and several others having seats in the
House of Commons. The Amendment going, as
I understand it, only to the object of taking care
I 18 STATE OF THE NATION.
that a point of such importance shall not be
hastily decided, the effect of adopting it would
be, not to negative the grant of any power, but
merely to decide that the whole shall not be
granted, to allow sufficient time for deliberation
as to the precise quantum of political power that
ought to be lodged in the hands of the Queen.
The Resolution goes at once to the decision of
the whole case; the Amendment reserves it for
more mature discussion and future decision. Be-
tween these two courses, with the doubts, which
I confess I entertain upon the subject, I cannot
but prefer that, which, pledging the Committee
against nothing but the sweeping grant of the
whole of the household, will not prevent the
giving a due portion of power, even political
power, to Her Majesty, by provisions to be intro-
duced into the Bill, if, upon full consideration,
it shall be thought wise or necessary to do so.
Having only to choose between two proposi-
tions—one deciding the question at once, the
other allowing time for consideration—and the
question being in its nature and its consequences
such, as neither to require nor to admit an in-
stantaneous decision, I am disposed to adopt that
alternative which affords further time for delibe-
ration. -
With regard to the exalted personage, the
object for whom this provision is to be made, it
is unnecessary to say, that he claims every atten-
T. EGENCY RESOLUTION S. I 19
tion, not only from his rank, but from being, as
he is, so justly and tenderly endeared to the
hearts of his subjects. Whatever may be the
arrangement to be made for the care of His Ma-
jesty's sacred person, I hope I need not disclaim
the giving any vote or opinion on the ground of
any paltry and pitiful retrenchment. I would
not economize upon the sufferings of my King ;
nor would I agree, that in the state in which he
at present lies, he should be stripped of that
splendour which must indicate to the world the
consideration in which he is still held by his
faithful and loving subjects. The royal diadem,
however for the moment its lustre may be dimmed,
is not to be altogether shorn of its beams. I
would not in the infirmities of the man forget the
station and character of the monarch. I would
shade the chamber of his sickness, not with the
curtain of oblivion, but with the veil of the sanc-
tuary. I would place to guard it those, whom,
if he should happily recover, he would be glad to
find at his door. And that these chosen sentinels
should be irremoveable by any power whatever is
an opinion, which I shall submit to the House,
when we come to the consideration of the details
of the Bill. I think we should do our duty by
taking care that the Sovereign shall have those
about him whom he himself has chosen, so that,
when, upon waking from his trance, he may pro-
nounce some well known name, he may not be to
120 S'I' ATE OF THE N A TI ON .
be told “ that he whom he calls for is not there.”
On this principle I should think it better to form
an establishment for the Sovereign, somewhat
smaller in extent, but not liable to accident or
uncertainty, than to continue the household alto-
gether on its present scale for a limited time, lia-
ble to change hereafter. I would rather take less,
but have it permanent and unalterable, than have
all for a limited time, subject to future retrench-
ment, and with a power to make any alterations
in it, to whomsoever that power might be given.
It has been well observed that we do not legis-
late upon suspicion. Suspicion of the Prince of
Wales is disclaimed by those who support the
restrictions. I hope that those who may hesi-
tate to concur in giving the whole power of the
household to the Queen, will be equally free from
the charge of entertaining any suspicion as to
the mode in which Her Majesty would administer
that trust. I can truly say, that I am not influ-
enced in my opinions by any feeling of such a
nature. The difficulty which I chiefly feel, in
giving the power of removal to the Queen, is that
of entrusting political power in hands where it
had never formerly lodged, and thus creating an
anomaly in the practice of the constitution. On
the other hand, the Regent, for his own sake, if
for no more weighty reasons, unquestionably
ought not to have the power of removing or ap-
pointing the persons who are to surround the
R E G E N CY RESOLUTIONS. 12 1
sick bed of the King. I see but one mode of
obviating both these difficulties, namely, that of
selecting that portion of the offices, the holders
of which are called on more immediately to give
their attendance on His Majesty's person, and
fixing them immutably by law during the con-
tinuance of His Majesty's indisposition.
Perhaps I should still more completely dis-
charge my mind, if I stated some more detailed
view of this subject. First, then, my object is,
that all those officers whose more peculiar duty it
is to wait on His Majesty—such as the lords and
grooms of the bed-chamber, the groom of the
stole, &c.—should be put out of the power both of
the Queen and of the Regent—should not be
liable to be removed at all during His Majesty's
indisposition. The expence of this establish-
ment would be as nothing. State the whole at
£16,000, of which £4,000 comes back in taxes
into the coffers of the state ; and what is such a
sum compared with that degree of comfort, of
tenderness, and compassionate and respectful
care which belongs to such an arrangement 7
I confess I should have been inclined to have
added to the officers I have named the Lord
Steward, had it not been for what has fallen from
an honourable and learned member on the other
side, (Mr. Adam). The details of the depart-
ments of the household form a very complicated
and abstruse science, with which I do not pre-
122 STATE OF THE N ATION.
tend to be very accurately acquainted. I can,
therefore, only state the application of the prin-
ciple upon which I would act, so far as I have yet
had an opportunity of acquiring information. How
far the office of Lord Steward of the Household is
in the situation stated by the honourable and
learned gentleman, or whether it may safely be
included among those which I have already men-
tioned, and made irremoveable, I am not at pre-
sent able to form a determined opinion. At all
events there would remain the office of Lord
Chamberlain, an office now vacant; that of the
Master of the Horse, and the two Golden Sticks;
offices of pomp and show, which are necessary
to the office of Regent, as having the command of
the guards, to form the foundation of the Regent's
household splendour. The splendour of the
throne, as such, ought in my opinion to accom-
pany the royal dignity, and be attached to the
person charged with the executive power. I
confess I think it is infinitely more desirable, that
the Regent should exhibit himself to the country,
clothed as far as possible in the insignia of his
father's authority, than with any new and sepa-
rate establishment, created for his new situation,
and to pass away together with it. .
The King's Lord Chamberlain, the King's Master
of the Horse—perhaps also (but of that I feel less
confident) the King's Lord Steward—officers, as
they are not merely of domestic service, but of
REG ENCY RESOLUTIONS. 123
state, of pomp, and of political power, ought to
be the officers of the Regent; and whoever sur-
round his person, ought, of course, to be under
his controul. On the other hand, whatever in-
ferior officers, even in the departments of these
greater officers of state, are near the person of
the King, or employed in his immediate service,
and generally all those of whatever rank or sta-
tion who are objects of the King's personal choice
—in short, who are strictly domestic, not state,
and not political officers—ought to be fixed per-
manently and irremoveably around the King, to
watch and wait his recovery. The distribution
and detail of such a plan may be difficult and
troublesome ; but we cannot grudge the trouble,
and we should surely be able to remove the diffi-
culty. To obtain time for this purpose, I must
vote for the Amendment.
But the Resolution is liable to still further
objections. I cannot consent to the erecting, by
a vote of one night, an independent political in-
fluence, which might by possibility be turned
against the executive. I am far from thinking
that the executive power is in a state in which it
can admit of being diminished; but if it could
afford to lose the political influence, now pro-
posed to be transferred from it, if this portion of
the power of the executive is to be in a state of
abeyance, then it ought to be in a state of abey-
ance entirely. What I propose would put the
| 24 STATF, O F TH E N ATION.
offices in question in a state in which, politically
speaking, they could neither do harm nor good.
It would render those offices of the household,
whose attendance about the person of His Majesty
is necessary, an independent body, not transfer-
ring the power of removing them to other hands,
but making them not removeable. The right of
appointing such officers should not remain in an
authority co-ordinate with the Regent. If the
influence belonging to such appointments does
not go with the executive authority, it ought to
be provided at least that it should not go against
it. And if this be necessary for the power of the
Regent, not less necessary is it for the comfort
of the Queen. To give to Her Majesty great
political power and Parliamentary influence,
would be to change the very essence of her situa-
tion, to incumber her with new cares, solicitudes,
and anxieties. We are not calling Her Majesty
to an office of power, but delegating to her a
tender, a delicate, a painful duty, which will
occupy all her mind, and absorb all her attention.
It would be an act of distressing generosity, a
most mistaken compliment to Her Majesty, to
burthen her with the distribution of political
patronage ; and to mix with the sacred trust de-
volved upon her in the custody of His Majesty's
person, another trust of a totally different nature,
and one which, constitutionally speaking, we are
REG EN CY RESO I. UTION. S. " | 25
bound to consider as liable to abuse, not by Her
Majesty, but by her advisers.
There is another objection, Sir, which I feel to
this Resolution, which I do not know if any other
gentleman feels in the same manner. My right
honourable friend has said, that the period for
which he proposes the present plan is short: that,
till the expiration of that period, it is better to
let things remain as they at present stand, and
that it will then be necessary to reconsider and
revise the whole plan; to retrench the household
establishment of His Majesty, and place that of
the Regent on a more enlarged and suitable foot-
ing. I cannot but feel that there is something
not alone not soothing, but revolting, in the idea
of holding out to the country two stages of pro-
ceeding, one as the period of hope, the other as
the period of despair. I would much rather look
to the question once for all, than again return to it
hereafter, with the prospect of regarding His
Majesty's disorder then as a permanent and in-
curable affliction. It is not the lapse of a year
that can induce me to legislate for the indisposi-
tion of the King, as if it were his death. While
there is life, there is hope. The arrangements
which his illness makes necessary, are necessary
now; what are unnecessary, ought not merely to
be delayed, but ought not to be made at all.
What ought to be made at all, I thought it had
been agreed on all hands, ought rather to be made
126 STATE OF THE NATION.
before the Regency is established, and while we
have the power in our own hands, than left to the
Regent and his advisers to propose hereafter.
And surely, of all the points upon which we
ought most carefully to avoid creating a necessity,
or affording a plea for the Regent's interference,
the royal household is the most prominent. It is
that upon which our duty and our feelings most
peremptorily call upon us to see justice done to
the King. It is that, which, if it be not the most
unsafe, is the most invidious to be left to the
Regent. For all these reasons I disapprove of
the original Resolution. The Amendment, as re-
serving for more deliberate consideration the
question as to the exact proportions in which the
household might be allotted to the Regent and to
Her Majesty, I am bound upon my own principle,
to prefer. I shall therefore give my vote for that
Amendment. The Committee on the Bill will
be the proper stage, in which the details of the
plan I have now submitted to the Committee can
be discussed. I shall endeavour by that time to
digest the opinions and principles which I have
taken the liberty to state, into a shape in which I
may venture to submit them to the House; unless
my right honourable friend, or some other gen-
tleman, shall in the mean time suggest some plan
for our adoption, that shall appear to me free
from the objections to which the present Resolu-
tion is liable. -
REGENCY RESOLUTIONS, 127
The House divided—
For the fifth Resolution . . . . 213
Against it . . . . . . . . 226
Majority against the fifth Resolution . . 13
REGENCY RESOLUTIONS.
January 2d, 1811.
On the bringing up the Report of the Committee on the
State of the Nation:—
MR. CANNING rose, amidst loud calls for the
question, and said:—Sir, I can assure the House,
that after the indulgence which I have already
received during the course of these discussions, it
is not my intention to trespass at any length upon
their attention on this night. I do not rise merely
for the purpose of expressing again the sentiments
with which I have more than once had occasion
to trouble them, or of declaring that I shall again
vote in conformity with those sentiments. But
I am anxious—I feel it due to myself—I deem it
necessary for the explanation of my vote, and the
justification of my conduct and motives, to protest
against nine-tenths of the arguments, which have
been urged on, that side of the question which
| 28 STATE OF THE N ATION.
meets with my concurrence. My vote is governed
by far other reasons than those which I have heard
from the other side of the House.
If I am—as I decidedly am—of opinion, that it
is not expedient to fetter the exercise of the Royal
prerogative in the hands to which we are about
to delegate the administration of it, by any of the
restrictions which have been proposed to us, it is
not because I disagree with my right honourable
friends who have thought it their duty to prepare
those restrictions, as to the undoubted right of
this and the other House of Parliament to adopt
that proposition, if it shall seem good and right to
them so to do, and to couple the delegation, which
it is their unquestionable province to make, with
any conditions and limitations which they may
think proper to annex to it. I agree, on the con-
trary, in by far the greater part of the able speech
of my right honourable and learned friend who
sits beside me (the Master of the Rolls)—in all
that part of it, which went to establish the right
of the two Houses to appoint a Regent, and to
negative the existence of a right, or of any thing
like a right in any person to claim that appoint-
ment at their hands—in all that went to prove the
possession by the two Houses of a perfect and
entire discretion to entrust, to the Regent of their
own choice, such portion only of the executive
power as they may think it necessary to entrust
to him. But I differ from him wholly as to the
REG ENCY RESO I,UTIONS. 129
practical application of these doctrines to the ex-
isting case—as to the fit use to be made of our
discretion upon the present exigency. I am for
giving the executive power as free and unfettered
as possible into the hands of the Regent; but not
because I think we have no right to withhold, not
because I think he has any right to claim, the
whole or any part of it: but simply because, in
the full exercise of our right and our discretion,
I think the exigency of the present times requires
that no material portion of the functions of the
executive government should be placed in a state
of abeyance.
This is the practical question upon which the
vote of this night is to decide. But surely to the
decision of this question it was not necessary for
those who agree in favour of the vote, in which
I am also prepared to concur, for my right honour-
able friend, for instance, who spoke just now (Mr.
Sheridan) to pursue the course of argument, which
he has pursued through the greater part of his
speech, and which every feeling of my heart, as
well as every principle of fair reasoning, impels
me to disclaim and disavow. Is my right honour-
able friend jealous of any concurrence of opinion
upon the present occasion, except such as shall
be founded on a participation in the dissensions
and enmities of twenty years ago 2 Is it not
enough for him to obtain our votes in his favour
on the question of the present day ? Does he
vol. III. K
130 STATE O F THE NATION.
consider them as not worth having unless we will
also consent to go back with him to the transac-
tions of 1789, and to enter into all the feelings and
recollections of animosity connected in his mind
with the discussions of that turbulent and agitated
period —unless we will join him in all that he
alleges against his political antagonists of that
day ? Sir, I have heard these things from my
right honourable friend (Mr. Sheridan) with pecu-
liar pain: but he is not the first that has resorted
to this singular species of reasoning. What
advantage any man, or any set of men, can pro-
pose to themselves from substituting for argument
upon the question now actually under discussion,
attacks upon the characters of persons now no
more, and particularly (what from my right
honourable friend I should have expected less
than from any other) upon the memory of that
great man, who bore a principal part in the pro-
ceedings of that period, I am utterly at a loss to
imagine. Can it be necessary in our present diffi-
cult and distressing situation—a situation suffi-
ciently full of divisions and distractions—to rake
up the ashes of the dead, for the purpose of kind-
ling new flames amongst the living? For my own
part I have the satisfaction to feel, that such is
neither my opinion nor my practice. No man can
accuse me of having ever gone out of my way, in
any discussion in this House, to speak with dis-
respect of those who differed from Mr. Pitt when
REG E N C Y RESOLUTION S. 131
living, and who are now gathered together with
him in the peace and shelter of the grave. For
myself, and I hope for all those who have imbibed
their political sentiments from the same master,
I can confidently say, that we do not desire to
erect an altar to the object of our veneration with
materials picked from the sepulchral monuments
of his rival. The character of him whom we reve-
rence and regret, we are satisfied, may safely be
suffered to rest upon its positive merits. It shines
without contrast;-its lustre is all its own, and
requires not the extinction of the reputations of
others to make it blaze with a brighter flame.
I cannot—l own I cannot—conceive the feelings
and policy of those who pursue an opposite sys-
tem. I cannot understand the wisdom of reviving,
at this moment, those party heats and political
and personal animosities which the hand of death,
one should have thought, might well be allowed
to have closed; and which the progress of time
might of itself be supposed to have obliterated.
Is this the foretaste which the honourable and
the right honourable gentlemen opposite think fit
to give of the spirit in which their new Govern-
ment is to be conducted ? Entering upon a new
scene of things, in which, even if they could forget
and cause to be forgotten every subsisting hos-
tility, every partiality and prejudice, by which the
political men now living are divided, they would
still have difficulties enough to encounter; do
- K 2
}32 STATE OF THE NATION.
they think their administration requires any addi-
tional embarrassment? Or do they think that it
will be a facility to it that they should array
against themselves the wishes and the feelings of
every man in this House and in the country who
shares those sentiments, which it is my pride and
satisfaction to cherish and to avow for my late
illustrious find venerated friend ? I doubt, Sir, if
an undeserved attack upon that great man can
add any thing to the strength of their future
Government; I am sure it adds nothing to the
force of their arguments on the question now
before us.
But my right honourable friend (Mr. Sheridan).
was not the first to introduce this invidious topic
into our present deliberations. He has but fol-
lowed the example of an honourable and learned
member (Sir Samuel Romilly), who had last night
the merit, if merit it can be called, of relieving
the dry discussion of the question now at issue by
opening an attack, as unjust as uncalled for, and
as singular as either, upon the memory of Mr.
Pitt. Sir, I then repressed my feelings, strong
as they were at the moment, and resolved to
abstain from any animadversion upon the honour-
able and learned gentleman's proceeding. My
honourable friend opposite to me (Mr. Wilber-
force) had executed that duty, in a way which
left nothing to regret or to supply: and at the
period of the debate at which it was my fortune
REG EN CY RESO LU'I' I () N.S. 133
to rise, I was more anxious to bring back the
attention of the House to the real subject of the
debate, than to lead it back to a topic which I
hoped would not be reverted to again, and the
introduction of which into these discussions, while
I condemned it in others, I would not willingly
countenance by my own example. But when I
find that the honourable and learned gentleman's
example is contagious—that even my right ho-
nourable friend (Mr. Sheridan) is infected by it
—that it appears to be a measure of party to
run down the fame of Mr. Pitt, I could not
answer it to my conscience or to my feelings if I
had suffered repeated provocations to pass without
notice. Mr. Pitt, it seems, was not a great man.
Is it then that we live in such heroic times—that
the presentis a race of such gigantic talents and qua-
lities as to render those of Mr. Pitt, in the compari-
son, ordinary and contemptible % Who, then, is the
man now living—is there any man now sitting in
this House, who, by taking the measure of his own
mind, or of that of any of his contemporaries,
can feel himself justified in pronouncing that Mr.
Pitt was not a great man 7 I admire as much as
any man the abilities and ingenuity of the honour-
able and learned gentleman who promulgated
this opinion. I do not deny to him many of the
qualities which go to constitute the character
which he has described. But I think I may defy
all his ingenuity to frame any definition of that
134 STATE OF THE NATION.
character, which shall not apply to Mr. Pitt—to
trace any circle of greatness from which Mr. Pitt
shall be excluded.
I have no manner of objection to see placed on
the same pedestal with Mr. Pitt, for the admira-
tion of the present age and of posterity, other
distinguished men, and amongst them his great
rival, whose memory is, I have no doubt, as dear
to the honourable gentlemen opposite, as that of
Mr. Pitt is to those who loved him living, and
who revere him dead. But why should the
admiration of one be incompatible with justice
to the other ? Why cannot we cherish the re-
membrance of the respective objects of our
veneration, leaving to each other a similar free-
dom? For my own part, I disclaim such a spirit
of intolerance. Be it the boast and the charac-
teristic of the school of Pitt, that, however pro-
voked by illiberal and unjust attacks upon his
memory, whether in speeches in this House, or in
calumnies out of it, they will never so far forget
the respect due to him or to themselves, as to be
betrayed into reciprocal illiberality and injustice
—that they disdain to retaliate upon the memory
of Mr. Pitt's great rival.
From the honourable gentlemen opposite I see
we are not to expect similar forbearance—they are
not so tolerant. Their feelings appear to be some-
thing like those of a catholic archbishop, of whom
I have heard, in a foreign country, with which a
REG ENCY RESO LUTIONS. 135
treaty was not long ago negociating, in which
treaty was inserted an article stipulating the tole-
ration of the Protestant religion in that country.
This stipulation was vehemently opposed by the
archbishop ; and when it was urged to his emi-
nence that, as the catholic religion was tolerated
in England, the protestant religion ought to be
tolerated by the foreign prince : “The cases,”
he observed, “are widely different: the false
religion is bound to tolerate the true; but it
does not thence follow that the true religion
ought to tolerate the false.” It is on some such
principle of reasoning, I suppose, that the gen-
tlemen opposite, considering their creed as the
only true political faith, and us Pittites as here-
tics, think themselves at liberty to give full
licence to their attacks on the memory of Mr.
Pitt, though never provoked to it by any wanton
or intemperate reflections upon the character of
that statesman, who is the theme of their praise
and the object of their worship.
It is to me matter of equal regret and surprise,
that any set of men should conceive that, by such
means, they can either raise themselves, or
strengthen their party. If persons of that de-
scription should become the advisers of the
Regent, and if the system they mean to recom-
mend is founded not on positive but on negative
principles, not on a practical consideration of the
true interests of the country, but on personal
136 STATE OF T H E N ATION.
antipathies to those who have heretofore con-
ducted its affairs, on a proscription of Mr. Pitt's
foreign and domestic policy, and on a constant
determination to detract from the memory of that
great man (for so I hope I may still call him), my
first wish is undoubtedly that His Royal High-
ness may disdain to act upon such advice. But
even could I be brought to apprehend that His
Royal Highness would adopt such a system, if
recommended to him, and would act upon it, even
that consideration would not alter my conduct to-
night upon the question immediately before us.
My principles indeed would compel me to differ
from such a system of government when carried
into effect; and whilst even to such a govern-
ment I trust I should not give a factious opposi-
tion, I should undoubtedly feel it to be a duty to
watch its measures with jealousy and suspicion.
But even in the contemplation of that possibility,
I would not now vote for disarming the Govern-
ment of the Regent of any of those powers which
are so necessary to its due efficiency, and which
were originally given to the Crown as a trust for
the benefit of the people. If all that the honour-
able gentlemen have had in view is to lessen the
satisfaction with which a vote can be given, in
favour of their amendment, by any man who
agrees with them, not in party, but in principle, on
this particular occasion, in that view they have
succeeded. It is with reluctance that I concur
- “... ºce
- ~...
t
t
J
R. EG EN CY RESOLUTION S. 137
in a vote supported by such arguments as theirs;
but as the vote is in my judgment right, I must
conquer that reluctance. I think it my duty to
lend my feeble aid to constitute an executive
government as strong as the constitution allows
and the times require ; confiding in the virtues of
the illustrious personage to whom the power is to
be entrusted, that no ill use will be made of it
whoever may be his advisers; but confident that,
whoever may advise him, or whatever their advice
may be, the executive power cannot be so strong,
but that Parliament will have strength, if neces-
sary, to check and to controul it. \
The first, second, third, and fourth Resolutions passed
as originally proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Upon the fifth Resolution, which had been amended in the
Committee by a majority of thirteen, (see p. 114), the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer divided the House, and his Amend-
ment, which went to restore it to its original shape, was
negatived by a majority of three.
For the fifth Resolution, as amended
in the Committee . . . . . . 217
Against it . . . . . . . . . 214
Majority . . . . . 3
( 138 )
ON THE REPORT OF THE BULLION
COMMITTEE.
MAY 8th, 1811.
Mr. HoRNER, as Chairman of the Bullion Committee,
moved the following Resolutions:—
First.—That the only money which can be legally ten-
dered in Great Britain, for any sum above twelve-pence in
the whole, is made either of gold or silver; and that the
weight, standard, and denomination, at which any such
money is authorized to pass current, is fixed, under His
Majesty's prerogative, according to law.
Second.—That since the forty-third year of the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, the Indentures of His Majesty's Mint
have uniformly directed that all silver used for coin should
consist of eleven ounces two pennyweights of fine silver,
and eighteen pennyweights of alloy in each pound troy ;
and that the said pound troy should be divided into sixty-
two shillings, or into other coins in that proportion.
Third.—That since the fifteenth year of the reign of
King Charles the Second, the Indentures of His Majesty's
Mint have uniformly directed, that all gold used for coin,
should consist of eleven ounces of pure gold and one ounce
of alloy in each pound troy ; and that the said pound troy
should be divided and coined into forty-four guineas and
one half-guinea, or into other coins in that proportion.
Fourth-That by a Proclamation of the fourth year of
the reign of King George the First, it was ordered and
directed, that guineas and the several other gold coins
therein named, should be current at the rates and values
then set upon them; viz. The guinea at the rate of twenty-
THE PULLION COM MITTEE. 139
one shillings, and other gold coins in the same proportion:
thereby establishing, that the gold and silver coins of the
realm should be a legal tender in all money payments, and
a standard measure for ascertaining the value of all con-
tracts for the payment of money, in the relative proportion
of 15.1% pounds weight of sterling silver to one pound
of sterling gold.
Fifth.-That by a statute of the fourteenth year of the
reign of His present Majesty, subsequently revived and
made perpetual by a statute of the thirty-ninth year of his
reign, it is enacted, that no tender in payment of money
made in the silver coin of this realm, of any sum exceeding
the sum of twenty-five pounds at any one time, shall be
reputed in law, or allowed to be a legal tender, within Great
Britain or Ireland, for more than, according to its value by
weight, after the rate of 58. 2d. for each ounce of silver.
Sixth.—That by a Proclamation of the sixteenth year of
the reign of His present Majesty, confirmed by several sub-
sequent Proclamations, it was ordered and directed, that if
the weight of any guinea shall be less than five penny-
weights eight grains, such guinea shall cease to be a legal
tender for the payment of any money within Great Britain
or Ireland; and so in the same proportion for any other
gold coin.
Seventh.--That under these laws (which constitute the
established policy of this realm in regard to money), no con-
tract or undertaking for the payment of money, stipulated to
be paid in pounds sterling, or in good and lawful money of
Great Britain, can be legally satisfied and discharged in
gold coin, unless the coin tendered shall weigh in the pro-
portion of ## parts of five pennyweights eight grains of
standard gold for each pound sterling, specified in the said
contract; nor in silver coin, for a sum exceeding twenty-
five pounds, unless such coin shall weigh in the proportion
140 ON THE REPORT OF
of #3 of a pound troy of standard silver for each pound
sterling specified in the contract.
Eighth.--That the promissory notes of the Bank of
England are stipulations to pay, on demand, the sum in
pounds sterling, respectively specified in each of the said
notes.
Ninth.—That when it was enacted by the authority of
Parliament, that the payment of the promissory notes of the
Bank of England, in cash, should for a time be suspended,
it was not the intention of Parliament that any alteration
whatsoever should take place in the value of such promis-
sory notes.
Tenth.—That it appears, that the actual value of the
promissory notes of the Bank of England (measuring such
value by weight of standard gold and silver as aforesaid)
has been, for a considerable period of time, and still is,
considerably less than what is established by the laws of
the realm to be the legal tender in payment of any money
contract or stipulation.
Eleventh.--That the fall which has thus taken place in
the value of the promissory notes of the Bank of England,
and in that of the country bank paper which is exchange-
able for it, has been occasioned by too abundant issue of
paper currency, both by the Bank of England, and by the
country banks; and that this excess has originated, from
the want of that check and controul on the issues of the
Bank of England, which existed before the suspension of
cash payments. ..
Twelfth.-That it appears that the exchanges with
foreign parts have for a considerable period of time been
unfavourable to this country, in an extraordinary degree.
Thirteenth.--That, although the adverse circumstances
of our trade, together with the large amount of our mili-
tary expenditure abroad, may have contributed to render
THE BUILLION COMMITTEE. 141
our exchanges with the continent of Europe unfavourable;
yet the extraordinary degree, in which the exchanges have
been depressed for so long a period, has been in a great
measure occasioned by the depreciation which has taken
place in the relative value of the currency of this country,
as compared with the money of foreign countries.
Fourteenth.--That during the continuance of the sus-
pension of cash payments, it is the duty of the Directors
of the Bank of England, to advert to the state of the
Foreign Exchanges, as well as to the price of bullion, with
a view to regulate the amount of their issues.
Fifteenth-That the only certain and adequate security
to be provided, against an excess of paper currency, and
for maintaining the relative value of the circulating medium
of the realm, is the legal convertibility, upon demand, of
all paper currency into lawful coin of the realm.
Sixteenth-That in order to revert gradually to this
security, and to enforce meanwhile a due limitation of the
paper of the Bank of England, as well as of all the other
bank paper of the country, it is expedient to amend the act
which suspends the cash payments of the Bank, by altering
the time, till which the suspension shall continue, from six
months after the ratification of a definitive treaty of peace,
to that of two years from the present time.
MR. CANNING.—After the ample discussion
which this question has undergone, I rise, Sir, not
in the presumption that I am able to add any
thing to the information which the Committee has
already received from gentlemen the best qualified
by their talents and their acquirements, by their
142 ON THE l? EPORT OF
professional pursuits, and their official situations,
to throw light upon the subject in all its principles
and details; but simply for the purpose of stating
the grounds of my own vote upon the several pro-
positions which are submitted to our considera-
tion. -
In discharging this duty—a duty which I feel
to be incumbent upon me as a Member of Parlia-
ment—I beg to be considered as speaking in that
character only; as delivering freely and honestly,
a sincere and unbiassed opinion, upon a question
so important, that I did not think myself at liberty
to let it pass without forming, to the best of my
judgment, some opinion upon it; as neither adopt-
ing nor countenancing the prejudices of any set
of men whatever; as neither the advocate nor the
antagonist of the Bullion Committee; neither the
advocate nor the antagonist of the Bank.
With respect to both those bodies, I firmly
believe, that they have, each according to their
measure, performed conscientiously a very diffi-
cult duty.
Of the Bank it is always to be remembered,
that the condition in which they have found them-
selves has been none of their own seeking; that
the original restriction, in 1797, was imposed upon
them by Parliament, upon their own shewing
indeed of their difficulties—difficulties, however,
arising out of circumstances over which the Bank
had no controul ; and that the restriction was
THE BU L L ION COMMITTEE. 143
renewed after they had declared their readiness
to resume their payments in cash. Of the neces-
sity of the first restriction I have no doubt: of the
policy of the terms upon which it was last re-
newed, I certainly entertain great doubts; but the
error of that policy, whatever it may have been,
is not justly to be visited on the Bank. Placed,
as the Directors of the Bank have been by the
effect of that last renewal, and by the events which
have since occurred, in a situation perfectly novel;
having—from the mere managers of the affairs
of a great money corporation,--become, by the
force of circumstances, the sole issuers and regu-
lators of the whole currency of the country; —itis
surely not to be wondered at that, in such a situa-
tion, they may have found the maxims of their
original and habitual occupation either inappli-
cable to their new and enlarged sphere of action,
or insufficient for it; and may have committed
mistakes in the exercise of one of the highest pre-
rogatives of the Sovereign, which they would
easily have avoided in conducting the concerns of
their constituents. If they have fallen into such
errors, I am not inclined to blame them. I would
correct the errors, but without imputation on the
men. .
On the other hand, I must as fairly confess that
I think the Bullion Committee has been hardly
dealt with in the course of these discussions.
A stranger who had derived his only knowledge
144 ON THE REPORT OF
of the case from the debates of the two last nights,
would almost have been led to imagine that the
Bullion Committee was some strange and self-
erected power, wholly extrinsic to the constitution,
and independent of the controul of this House;
who, without commission, and without provoca-
tion, had thought fit to intermeddle in the affairs
of the Government and of the Bank, and to attempt
the subversion of a system not only eminently
beneficial, but confessedly without fault, without
mischief, and without danger; a system with
which all the world was perfectly satisfied in all
its parts, until this officious Committee thought
fit to disturb the general satisfaction. But what
is the true history of this proceeding ' A Com-
mittee was appointed last year by the House of
Commons to inquire into the causes of the high
price of gold bullion, and into the state of the
foreign exchanges and of the currency of the
country. They took these subjects into their
consideration : they brought to that consideration
talents and information such as have rarely been
collected together in any one Committee of this
House; and they bestowed upon it (that praise
no man denies to the Committee) unremitted dili-
gence and labour. The result of their investiga-
tions they submitted to the House, according to
its injunction and to their duty. And because
that result was to some persons unexpected, and
is to others unpalatable, are we therefore justified
THE BU I, I, ION CO M M ITTF E. 145
in turning round upon the Committee of our own
appointment, and rebuking them for the execution
of the task which we had imposed upon them?—
What would we have had them do 2 refuse the
task allotted to them by the House 7–or decline
to render an account of the inquiries which we
had ordered them to institute 2—Or would we
have had them fashion their Report, in spite of
their own conviction, to the creed or the conve-
nience of any persons or party, and recommend
only whatever might best flatter our prejudices
and justify our inaction ?
If such were our wish, why was the Committee
named ? Why was not the proposal for its appoint-
ment rejected, or at least opposed ? I was in the
House on the day when it was proposed; and, so
far as I recollect, not a single voice was raised
against it. If the subject did not require inves-
tigation, it was idle, and not only idle, but mis-
chievous, to set the investigation on foot. If it
was apprehended that the possible or probable
result might be prejudicial to the interests of the
country, then was the time to stop. It would then
have been perfectly easy to do so. A single word,
the intimation of a doubt from any quarter of the
House, might, at that moment, have checked the
proceeding. But to institute an inquiry upon a
matter of great difficulty, with a pre-determina-
tion to come to but one conclusion, is neither
vol. III. L
146 ON THE REPORT OF
very creditable to those who appoint, nor very
just to those who are appointed the conductors
of it. -
Although I do not go with the Committee (as
I shall presently have occasion to explain) to the
length of their practical conclusion; and although
the details of this intricate and perplexing subject
are as little agreeable to my taste, or habits, as to
those of any person in the House;—although
I would as gladly as any body have turned aside
from the task of examining the reasonings and
deductions of the Report;-yet I cannot in justice
throw upon the members of the Committee the
blame of those inconveniences which are inherent
in the nature of the subject referred to their
inquiry. However much I may dislike the un-
pleasant truths which are told in the Report, I do
not think myself warranted to transfer that dislike
to those whose duty it has been to tell them.
The Committee, then, I say, have only done
their duty. Nor can we avoid the performance of
the duty which now devolves upon ourselves,
Distasteful as the matter may be, it is before us,
and we must dispose of it. ,
I do not share in the apprehensions of those
persons who predict danger and mischief from this
discussion. I have seldom known an instance in
which more good than evil has not arisen out of
the parliamentary discussion of subjects, however
THE BUIL I, ION COMMITTEE. 147
delicate, upon which the public mind had been
previously agitated and divided.
As little do I agree with those who think that
the discussion must necessarily be barren and
useless. Even if it should not terminate (as pro-
bably it may not) in the adoption of the practical
remedy suggested by the Committee, or in the
suggestion of any other in its room, I do not think
that the time and the trouble of the House will
therefore have been entirely thrown away. The
discussion which has already taken place out of
doors, renders some decision of this House neces-
sary. In the course of that discussion, the fun-
damental principles of our whole money system
have been disputed and denied ;—all that had long
been considered as fixed and determinate in them
has been shaken, or at least attempted to be
shaken :--a mischief more serious than even that
which the Committee has proposed to cure; and
one to which a cure may be (and ought to be)
administered by the Resolutions of this House,
whatever may become of the practical recommen-
dation of the Committee.
Nor is it only out of doors that these funda-
mental principles have been questioned. The
right honourable gentleman opposite to me (Mr.
Vansittart)—a gentleman for whom personally I
entertain the sincerest respect as well as regard,
and whose just reputation for knowledge upon
these subjects entitles his opinions upon them £O
L 2 -
| 48 O N THI E. REPORT OF
very peculiar attention—has countenanced, by
himself adopting it, a mode of reasoning which
has been much employed in the written contro-
versy, but which I had hoped no man in this
House, and least of all any man of such extensive
information and such high authority would have
been found to endure, much less to sanction. He has
rejected altogether the established doctrine of a
fixed standard of the currency of the realm; and,
instead of trying the disputed value of our present
circulating medium, by reference to that which
has always hitherto been taken as the settled
measure in all such inquiries, he has thought
himself at liberty to bend and accommodate the
fundamental principles of our money system to
the state of our currency, such as he happens to
find it.
Others who have supported the right honourable
gentleman's propositions have carried this licence
still farther. They have not only considered the
principles of all our coinage laws, so far as they
relate to the value of our money, as inapplicable
to the present state of our currency, but as alto-
gether obsolete. They appear to look upon the
law by which Bank paper is made inconvertible
into cash, not as an occasional law growing out
of a temporary necessity, and determinable with
that necessity, but as a wise and provident con-
trivance to substitute absolutely and indefinitely
for the ancient coin of the kingdom, a currency
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 149
better adapted in their opinion to the present
state of the world and to the peculiar exigencies
of this country. The suspension of the cash
payments of the Bank had hitherto always been
treated as a necessary evil; as an expedient upon
which we were forced with reluctance, and of
which we had the decency at least to pretend to
desire and to anticipate the discontinuance: but,
in the view of the subject which has been taken
by these supporters of the right honourable gen-
tleman's propositions, the Bank restriction is now
become the staple resource in our pecuniary sys-
tem; it is to be avowed as the standing policy of
the State; and to be prized as an invention long
desired, and now happily found, for supplying
boundless exertion with inexhaustible and unex-
hausting finance.
The decision of the House, therefore, important
as it would undoubtedly be, if it should either
confirm the recommendation of the Bullion Com-
mittee, or substitute in its stead some other prac-
tical measure for the termination of the Bank
restriction, will yet be not less (I had almost said
will be more) important, if, even rejecting that
recommendation, and confirming the continuance
of the restriction, it shall nevertheless at the same
time recognise the general principles which that
Committee have laid down; and shall separate
and distinguish the measure of the restriction
itself, from the false and dangerous arguments by
150 ON THE REPORT OF
which it has been not only justified as an expe-
dient, but recommended as a system.
To record principles which are true, and which
have been called in question, is not of itself an
idle nor an unparliamentary practice: and it is
no paradox to say, that to record principles is
never so much a matter of duty as when some
over-ruling necessity obliges us to a practical de-
parture from them. It then becomes incumbent
upon us to prove that we are acting indeed from
necessity, not from indifference or change of sys-
tem; to take care that our deviation shall not be
made a precedent to be resorted to hereafter on
occasions of less urgency; to provide that the ex-
ception shall not be erected into the rule.
This then is the answer which I give to those
who represent the concluding Resolution of the
honourable and learned Chairman (Mr. Horner)
of the Bullion Committee, as the only essential
object of our deliberations; and who would per-
suade us that, if we are not prepared to decide
with him upon the opening of the Bank, we have
nothing to do with all his preliminary Resolutions
but to get rid of them as quickly as possible. I,
for one, am not prepared to vote with him for the
opening of the Bank; I shall vote against the
honourable gentleman's concluding Resolution:
but I think that, according to all sound and prac-
tical views, the question, important as it is, whe-
ther the Bank shall be opened or shut, sinks into
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 151
insignificance in comparison with that which has
been raised with respect to the principles upon
which the whole money system, and consequently
the whole credit of the country, essentially de-
pends.
Give me the affirmation by Parliament of the
first ten Resolutions of the honourable and learned
gentleman—those Resolutions which state (and
state correctly) the principles of that money sys-
tem, from which we have been compelled to
depart, and the effects of our departure from them
—and I would not unwillingly consent to a com-
promise with the right honourable gentleman
opposite to me (Mr. Vansittart). I would, on
that condition, adopt the two last of his pro-
positions; adopt them in substance at least,-so
far as to agree with him that this is not the mo-
ment at which our cash payments can be resumed,
or at which the precise period of their resumption
can be determined. The right honourable gen-
tleman ought surely to be satisfied with this com-
promise. His conclusion would, to my mind,
even flow more logically from the premises laid
down in the Resolutions of the honourable and
learned gentleman. I certainly cannot subscribe
to it as flowing from his own. I am ready to do
as he would have me do, if he will allow me to
record the reasons of my concurrence: but it is a
concurrence which, I feel, requires explanation:
‘and apology; it is a concurrence which, if I do
152 O N THE RE PORT OF
not altogether withhold it, I certainly cannot give,
except on the condition that I shall be at liberty
to prove at the same time, that it is given not in
consequence of the right honourable gentleman's
reasons, but in spite of them. That our currency
is in such a state that the Bank cannot safely
open, I agree; but it is hard to insist that I should
find every thing right in that state of things which
forces me to come to such an agreement.
My right honourable friend, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer (Mr. Perceval), has, with great
dexterity, as well as eloquence, endeavoured to
divert our attention from the specific object of this
night's deliberation, by directing it to those cir-
cumstances in the present situation of affairs at
home and abroad, upon which there is scarcely
any difference of feeling or opinion. The inordi-
nate ambition and gigantic power of the enemy,
the warfare directed by him against our trade and
our manufactures; these are topics upon which
my right honourable friend has expatiated with a
force of statement, and a warmth of language,
which do full justice to his argument; and has
appealed to us, whether we will wantonly aggra-
vate difficulties already so complicated and so over-
whelming He has availed himself with equal
skill of another argument, which he well knows
would operate upon my mind with no less force
than upon his own, and which, if I could indeed
be convinced that it was legitimately applied to
THE BULLION CO M M ITTEE. 153
the question in the way in which he applies it,
would lead me, I will not say to concur in his
conclusions, but at least to hesitate in rejecting
them. He refers to the recent triumphs of our
arms; he places before our eyes the prospect of
successes still more splendid; he describes the
safety of this country as involved in the war in
the Peninsula; and he asks us, how that war is
to be maintained ? how we are to find the means
of keeping on foot that army which has already
performed such brilliant achievements, and of
seconding the exertions of the Commander who
has carried the British name to the highest point
of military glory? Shall such a contest—a con-
test for all that is interesting to this country and
to Europe, be abandoned ? Shall Lord Welling-
ton be checked in his career ? Shall Portugal
have been liberated only to be again given up to
slavery 7 Shall the hopes of Spain have been
revived only to be finally dashed and extin-
guished God forbid My right honourable
friend well knows that, in calling upon me duly
to weigh these considerations, he interposes the
surest impediment to any rash decision on my
part, by which interests so dear to this country
could by possibility be brought into hazard. He
knows that I must put a violence upon myself
before I can coolly calculate the real bearing of
topics which come home so forcibly to my feel-
ings; before I can dissipate the illusion which
154 ON THE REPORT OF
they throw round the matter in debate, and exa-
mine dispassionately the degree in which they
really apply to it. t
But I will not pay my right honourable friend
so ill a compliment as to suppose that he is not
himself perfectly aware, that in thus shaping his
argument, he has, in fact, either assumed or omit-
ted the question that is in dispute.—The question
is not—whether we shall continue the war in the
Peninsula with all our heart, and with all our
might?—Who doubts, who dissuades that deter-
mination ? That point might have been assumed
without hazard of contradiction. But my right
honourable friend argues that point as if it were
disputed:—and assumes without argument that
which it was necessary for him to prove ;-namely,
that to the continuance of the war, and of our
successes in the Peninsula, it is essential that the
present system of our currency should remain
unchanged. Just as fairly might I assume with-
out argument, that a change in our currency is
necessary to this same purpose of continuing the
war;--and then retort upon my right honourable
friend his own expostulations against fettering
the energies, and cramping the exertions of the
country. In either case the point which alone
is in dispute, remains to be decided.
Why is the continuance of the present system
of currency essential to the continuance of the
war? Is it because that currency is in a sound
THE BU L LION COMMITTE E. 155
state?—or that, being depreciated, a depreciated
currency is the best instrument of foreign exer-
tion ? Which of these two propositions is it that
my right honourable friend intends to maintain :
I ask this question with the more earnestness,
because throughout the whole of his speech, long,
able, and eloquent as it was, I watched in vain
for any sentence which distinctly expressed an
opinion upon either of them. I did not hear him
affirm that the currency was sound; I did not
hear him admit that it was depreciated ; he
always stopped short of this affirmation and of
this admission; and if any distinct proposition
could be collected and embodied out of those
topics with which he endeavoured to cover these
simple questions, it seemed at most to amount
to nothing more than this—that it was best
to go on as we are, avoiding all inquiry on the
subject. - -
To that proposition (if that be the proposition
which my right honourable friend means to main-
tain)—I answer, that it comes too late. The
period for acting upon that policy passed by
when the House consented to the appointment
of the Bullion Committee. • *
To the question, how shall our military exer-
tions be best supported ? I reply—By support-
ing the credit of the country; by ascertaining
the soundness of our currency, if it be sound ;
by ascertaining the degree of its defect, if it be
156 ON THE REPORT OF
defective; with a view in the one case to apply
a remedy so far as a remedy may be applicable ;
and in the other to fix and settle the public opi-
nion, which of itself is no small ingredient in the
financial resources of a state.
I have no right, and certainly full as little de-
sire, to impute to my right honourable friend that
he is avowedly the advocate of a depreciated cur-
rency: but this debate would end most unsatis-
factorily for the public as well as for the House,
if it were to end without its being clearly under-
stood on what precise grounds my right honour-
able friend thinks the present state of our cur-
rency such as it ought to be.—First, whether he
thinks it is not depreciated ; secondly, whether,
admitting it to be depreciated, he considers the
depreciation as incurable, and therefore only
would take no step to cure it; or, thirdly, whether
he concurs with those who see in that deprecia-
tion a fertile source of wealth and blessings to
the country:—these, after all, are the points in
dispute, and these points my right honourable
friend appears to me to have studiously avoided.
Even in that part of his speech in which he
approached the nearest to the question of depre-
ciation, my right honourable friend so managed
the course of his argument as to make it impos-
sible that he should arrive at any definite con-
clusion.—With a semblance of candour which
seemed as if he had adopted an inverted mode
THE BUILLION COMIMITTEE. 157
of reasoning as the best calculated in this par-
ticular instance for discovering the truth, he
begins with examining the question of Excess—
“Prove,” says my right honourable friend, “that
there exists an excess, and then I will be ready
to go with you into an inquiry whether that ex-
cess has produced depreciation.”—Now, it can-
not be necessary to remind my right honourable
friend, that to reason from effect to cause has
always been the course of sound philosophy.—
The Committee affirms the existence of deprecia-
tion ; and, as that depreciation cannot arise from
any doubt of the solidity of the Bank—of its
ability to meet its engagements, they attribute
it (unanswerably, as appears to me) to excessive
issue. “Prove this excessive issue,” says my
right honourable friend. But how is positive ex-
cess (if I may use that expression) susceptible of
proof 7 How is it possible to prove, that too
many bank notes are issued, so long as there is
a single applicant willing to receive them : The
comparison of the amount of bank notes in circu-
lation with that of the aggregate pecuniary tran-
sactions of the community, would of itself afford
no certain criterion of the sufficiency or excess of
that circulation—even if it were possible to state
that comparison with any thing like accuracy.
But who shall pretend to state the actual aggre-
gate amount of all the pecuniary transactions of
158 O N THE REPORT Ol'
the community ? So far as a pretty general in-
crease of prices is any symptom of excessive cur-
rency, that symptom undeniably exists. But I
acknowledge it to be no more than a symptom.
I admit further, that the mere amount of bank
paper in circulation, however large it may be,
does not of itself necessarily constitute excess.
I admit that there is not excess, unless there be
depreciation. Whether depreciation does exist
or not, is, therefore, the question which must
necessarily have the precedency in our exami-
nation. º
The right honourable gentleman opposite to
me (Mr. Vansittart), when he opened his coun-
ter-propositions to the House, put to my Sho-
nourable friend near me (Mr. Huskisson), the
question—“ What do you mean by deprecia-
tion ?” He put this question, rather irregularly,
in the middle of his own speech; and seemed
to think it matter of triumph that he did not
receive, at that moment, an answer in a sin-
gle word. An answer he has, however, since
received, and I should imagine (in one sense at
least) to his complete satisfaction. “By depre-
ciation, do you mean discredit?” said the right
honourable gentleman. If by “discredit,” the
right honourable gentleman means a doubt of the
solidity of the Bank, a doubt whether the out-
standing demands upon the Bank do not exceed
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. | 59
the amount of their assets; unquestionably no
such doubt exists, and consequently “discredit”
enters for nothing into the “depreciation” of
Bank of England paper. - -
But when the right honourable gentleman has
obtained this concession, it appears to me that he
has obtained nothing at all towards overthrowing
the arguments of his antagonists, or towards esta-
blishing his own. For the same concession would
be equally true with respect to a paper currency
which should represent to its full amount the
whole moveable and immoveable property of the
country. There would be assets in existence
adequate to the redemption of that paper. Of a
paper issued to such an amount, although resting
on such unquestionable security, it is probable
that my right honourable friend (Mr. Perceval),
who spoke last, would not dispute the excess;
yet how could that excess be indicated except
by depreciation ? That depreciation, in the case
which I have supposed, the right honourable
gentleman (Mr. Vansittart) could not deny; but
he must acknowledge that it would arise from
other causes than discredit. The argument, there-
fore, or rather the suggestion (for it has not been
distinctly argued), that there can be no deprecia-
tion unless arising from, or accompanied with,
discredit ; and the inference which is covertly
insinuated, that they who affirm bank notes to be
160 ON THE REPORT OF
depreciated, intend to attack the credit of the
Bank, entirely fall to the ground.
The alleged depreciation of bank notes consists
in this—that, whereas they did in fact represent
heretofore the real as well as the nominal value
of the coin which constitutes our lawful money,
they now represent its nominal value only. This
is the answer to the question of the right honour-
able gentleman.
In return, my honourable friend proposed a
question to the right honourable gentleman, to
which I think he has not yet given any answer.
“If you affirm,” said my honourable friend,
“ what I deny, the equivalency of bank notes to
money, tell me, what is the common standard
by which you measure that equivalency?” This
question the right honourable gentleman has alto-
gether evaded. He has given no answer to it.—
Does he mean to acquiesce in those which have
been given for him by others who have taken the
same side with him in this debate, or by some fanci-
ful writers, who, under the guise and garb of prac-
tical men, have indulged themselves in the wildest
theories and imaginations, upon this subject of
the standard 7
“The coin,” says a noble Lord, “is, or was,
the standard of the paper.” But this description
does not advance us a single step 2 for the ques-
tion still remains, “What is the standard of the
THE BUI, LION CO M M IT"TEE. 16]
coin 7 What is that common measure to which
coin and paper may be equally referred for the
purpose of ascertaining their agreement, or dis-
agreement, with it, and with each other ?”
The noble Lord has indeed devised a singular
definition of this measure, in which I should be
exceedingly curious to know whether the right
honourable gentleman concurs. He defines it to
be “a sense of value in reference to currency as
compared with commodities.”—I hope I do not
misquote him. To the best of my recollection,
these were the very words—“A sense of value!”
But whose sense 2 with whom is it to originate?
and how is it to be communicated to others? Who
is to promulgate, who is to acknowledge, or who
is to enforce it ! How is it to be defined ? and
how is it to be regulated ? What ingenuity shall
calculate, or what authority control its fluctua-
tion ?—Is the “sense” of to-day the same as that
of yesterday, and will it be unchanged to-mor-
row ! It does fill me with astonishment that any
man, of an accurate and reasoning mind, should
not perceive that this wild and dangerous prin-
ciple (if principle it can be called) would throw
loose all the transactions of private life, all con-
tracts and pecuniary bargains, by leaving them
to be measured from day to day, and from hour
to hour, by no other rule than that of the fancies
and interests of each individual conflicting with
the fancies and interests of his neighbour. -
VOL. III. M
162 ON THE REPORT OF
A “sense of value!” It is not many days since
an experiment was tried upon this “sense,” which
may serve to illustrate the probable course of its
operations, if left exclusively to its own guidance.
The artisan who on the Thursday night had ex-
changed a one-pound note with his neighbour for
four dollars, found in the morning that he had,
insensibly to himself, become two shillings richer
by the exchange. I am not, here, about to en-
quire whether the Bank were right or wrong in
raising the denomination of the dollar; I refer to
this operation merely as an illustration of the ar-
gument: and I ask, Where would be the end of
such operations if every individual’s “sense of
value” were to be his only guide in his dealings
with his neighbours? In this instance the autho-
rity of the Bank sanctioned and limited the degree
of the rise in the current value of the dollar, or,
to put the same thing in other words, the degree
of the loss which the bank note should sustain in
exchange against the dollar. But, is it to be
imagined that,--if they had merely sanctioned
the principle of such alteration, without limiting
the degree, two shillings in the pound, or ten.
per cent., is the precise amount of the rise on the
one hand, or of the depreciation on the other,
which all the holders of bank notes, and of dollars
respectively, would have agreed to fix by a com-
mon “sense of value 7" Is not such a supposition
utterly absurd : Is it not clear that something.
‘Ā’ IHF IX U L LI O N COMMITTE E. 163
wholly extrinsic to that capricious “sense,” is
necessary to regulate the ordinary dealings be-
tWeen man and man ; and that the course of those
dealings could not be left without a guide, but at
the hazard, or the certainty rather, of immediate
and inextricable confusion ? - .#
If, however, we were persuaded to leave the
proportions and prices of all commodities to be
adjusted by this “sense of value,” we ought at
least to be consistent in our theory and practice.
This “sense of value,” which is now proposed to
be erected into an universal measure, has been
occasionally adopted as such by individuals. There
is a man now expecting the judgment of the law,
whose “sense of value” led him to exchange for
guineas a proportion of Bank of England paper,
which he considered as no more than an equiva-
lent. Of what crime was this man guilty, but of
obeying that natural and instinctive impulse which
the noble Lord is now prepared to set up as a
substitute for the standard of our money? If
there be nothing more fixed and stable than indi-
vidual feeling, to which the estimate of values
can be referred, let us at least refrain from punish-
ing the exercise of that individual feeling. If the
law shall decline to fix a standard measure, it
cannot reserve the right of visiting erroneous
measurement as a crime. This would be an in-
justice like that of the eastern monarch who called
upon the soothsayers to interpret his dream, but
M 2
164 O N T H E R E PORT OF
refused to tell them the dream of which he re-
quired the interpretation.
No dream, it must be owned, could be more
extravagant than the visions of those practical
men who have undertaken to refine away the
standard of the currency of the realm into a pure
abstraction. There is indeed something perfectly
ludicrous in the inconsistency and injustice with
which they impute a love of abstraction to their
opponents, while they are themselves indulging
in the most wanton departures from substance
and reality. “Beware of abstract theories,” say
they to the Bullion Committee, when they find
fact and law laid down as the foundation of its
Report. “Beware of abstract theories,” say they
to the honourable and learned Chairman of the
Committee, when they find, in his first seven Re-
solutions, nothing like theory or imagination; but
a clear, concise, a dry and faithful, recapitulation
of those rules which the statutes of the country
have established for the weight and fineness of its
coin. Nor has the speech with which that ho-
nourable and learned gentleman introduced and
enforced his Resolutions—a speech, which, re-
markable as it was for eloquence and ability of
every kind, was by nothing so distinguished as by
its perpetual appeal to acknowledged principles
and established law, even that speech has not
rescued the honourable and learned gentleman
from the imputations of flightiness and romance.
T H E E U L I, I O N C () M M I "I'T E. E. 165.
The same caution, to “beware of abstract theo-
ries,” is addressed to my honourable friend near
me, whose intelligence, whose accuracy, and
whose official knowledge, digested and assimilated
by a powerful and really practical understanding,
make him perhaps, of all men, the least proper
object of such an admonition. And this admo-
nition comes from whom 7 from the inventors and
champions of “abstract currency;” from those who
after exhausting, in vain, every attempt to find an
earthly substitute for the legal and ancient stand-
ard of our money, have divested the pound sterling
of all the properties of matter, and pursued it,
under the name of the “ideal unit,” into the
regions of nonentity and nonsense! -
When the ingenious sophistry of Dr. Berkeley,
to prove the non-existence of matter, was quoted
to Dr. Johnson as a fallacy not easy to be refuted,
Dr. Johnson stamped his foot with force against
a stone, and exclaimed, “I refute it thus.” Un-
luckily, I know no process of reasoning that can
reduce one of these practical men to the necessity
of admitting, that a pound sterling is not a crea-
ture of the imagination: one cannot appeal even
to their senses, because that sense of theirs, which
I suppose is the most conversant with this sub-
ject, the “sense of value,” is enlisted on the other
side. But one may appeal from their theories to
ancient records, to positive institution, and to
existing law. On those authorities, I contend
4
166 ON THE REPORT OF
that a certain specified weight of gold, or silver,
of a certain fineness, is the only definition of a
pound sterling which an Englishman, desirous of
conforming to the laws of his country, is bound
to regard or to understand.
Here then it is that I should pause for the
answer of the right honourable gentleman opposite
to me to the question of my honourable friend.—
Does he admit or deny this definition of standard?
does he admit or deny the existence of a standard
at this moment conformable to this definition? If
he admits it, then it is possible not only to answer
his question with respect to the meaning of the
word “depreciation,” but also to demonstrate that
a depreciation, in the sense in which that word is
used, does exist. Grant but the lawful standard
as the instrument of mensuration, and nothing is
more easy than to assign the exact proportion in
which coin and bank notes differ in value from
each other. But while the right honourable gen-
tleman denies the existence of any such instru-
ment, how can he reasonably require that the
accuracy of such a measurement should be proved
to his satisfaction ? - - A
A pound sterling is either # of a pound of
standard silver; or, 3% of a guinea weighing not
less than 5" and 8* This is the simple and
the only definition which the practice of our an-
cestors recognises, and the law of the country
allows. Does a one-pound note, represent this
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 167
portion of the precious metals, or does it not ? If
it does, the legal coin of the country, and the notes
of the Bank, are equivalent. If not, either the law
is mis-stated, or the depreciation is proved.
“Oh! but,” says the right honourable gentle-
man, “the bank note represents the coin itself,
quatemus coin; and has no reference or relation
to the quantity of gold or silver which that coin
contains.” But does not the right honourable
gentleman see that it is impossible for him to
avail himself of the law in one instance and to
deny its operation in the other ?—The King's
proclamation confirmed by Act of Parliament has
fixed the denomination of the coin; which deno-
mination it is admitted on all hands, the bank note
continues to represent: but the same Act of Par-
liament has fixed the weight of the coin as the
sole and indispensable test of the value which
that denomination implies. The law (as the right
honourable gentleman well knows) watches with
such scrupulous anxiety over the weight of the
guinea, as to consider the loss of a single grain as
sufficient to destroy its character as a legal coin.
When the law evinces this anxiety about weight,
is it not a little too much to assume in argument
that its only care is denomination ? .
But what is the proposition for the sake of
which this assumption is hazarded ? Not simply
that bank notes are a convenient symbol of coin,
but that they are actually equivalent to it. In
168 ON THE REPORT OF
proof of this equivalency it is contended that the
law has bound them together.
First, this argument would prove too much : it
would undoubtedly get rid of all the embarrassing
considerations of standard, of weight, and of in-
trinsic value; but, on the other hand, those who
maintain it would be involved in absurdities, which
even the ingenuity of the right honourable gentle-
man could not reconcile. They would have to
maintain, for instance, that in the year 1695,
when, previous to the resolution taken to reform
the silver coinage, arguments something like those
which are now used on the right honourable gen-
tleman's side of the question, prevailed upon the
Legislature to try the experiment of a statute by
which it was made penal to receive or tender the
unclipped coin at any higher price than the clipped
coin–they would have to maintain, I say, that
from the passing of that act, the clipped and un-
clipped coin of the country became precisely
equivalent; in other words, that an ounce of
silver in the one became, by the operation of the
statute, equal to an ounce and a quarter of the
same silver in the other. Unquestionably this
cannot be what the right honourable gentleman is
prepared to maintain as true; though I must
admit, on the other hand, that a subject of this
country might at that time have been punished
for acting as if he thought it false. But is the
relation which was thus produced by law between
THE BU L LION COMIMIITTEE. I69
two things, obviously of different values, equiva-
lency 2 Or is it to be imagined, that so forced
and unnatural a state of things, call it by what
name you will, could be maintained by any law,
that any law could continue long in force whose
purpose it was to maintain it? The consequence
of this state of things in 1695, was the disappear-
ance, that is to say, the hoarding, the melting, or
the exportation of the perfect coin : the further
consequence was, that, after a short trial of the
compulsory law, Parliament found itself obliged
to go to the root of the evil, and to reform the
depreciated part of the currency.
But, moreover, the right honourable gentleman's
assertion of the equivalency of coin and bank
notes, is in direct contradiction with admissions of
his own. In the course of this debate he has
admitted (though others have denied) that in the
year 1804 the paper of the Bank of Ireland was
depreciated. I might here ask him in what sense
he understands the word depreciated, when he so
applies it; and he would have to answer me, as it
has been answered to him, that the Irish bank note
did not then represent the intrinsic value of the
coin with which it was interchangeable.
This is a most important admission on the part
of the right honourable gentleman; and it has a
bearing upon the present question, of which one
would almost apprehend he could not have been
aware, but which nevertheless he will find it diffi-
170 ON THE REPORT OF
cult to deny. The premium, as I understand, in
1804, was about one shilling and sixpence on the
guinea. At that period Irish Bank paper, as in-
terchangeable with English, was at a discount
which pretty nearly corresponded with its depre-
ciation in reference to the coin. The premium
now openly paid in Ireland upon guineas is from
three and sixpence to four shillings. But Irish
Bank paper is now exchangeable with English
nearly at par. Whence is it that English Bank
paper, which had an advantage over Irish Bank
paper in 1804, when Irish paper was depreciated
only about seven and a half per cent. should be
now nearly on a par with it, when it is confess-
edly depreciated almost twenty per cent. If
indeed English Bank paper has suffered a depre-
ciation to the same amount, this phenomenon is
perfectly intelligible: but upon the hypothesis of
the perfect and unchanged equivalency of English
Bank paper and coin, it admits of no solution.
To my mind, I do confess, here is one decisive
proof of depreciation.
But, is not the case of the dollar (to which I
have had occasion to refer with another view in a
former part of the argument), itself a conclusive
proof, not only of the existence of a depreciation
of Bank paper, but of the opinion of the Bank,
and of the Government, that such depreciation
does exist? Why was the bank note, which was
equivalent to four dollars on one day, worth two
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. - 171
shillings less than four dollars the next? Those
who claim to themselves exclusively the title of
practical men, take a subtle distinction, and say
that it is not the bank note which is worth less,
but the dollar which is worth more : and they
treat as theorists and visionaries all whose facul-
ties do not enable them to enter into this distinc-
tion. But, however the variation arose, why did
the Government and the Bank think it necessary
to sanction and promulgate it? Why? but be-
cause the dollar, being a coin circulating in this
country by sufferance only, a currency of conven-
tion, would, according to the admission, or rather
the declaration of the Bank, under the authority
of the Privy Council, have been driven out of cir-
culation, that is to say, would have been hoarded,
or melted, or exported, if it had not been allowed
to pass at the marketable value of the silver which
it contains.
With this example before their eyes—with this
admission and declaration still recent before the
eyes of the public, there are yet some persons
who contend, that the disappearance of our legal
coin–the guinea—is no proof of the depreciation
of bank notes, in respect to that coin ; but is
entirely owing to the balance of trade and of pay-
ments, and to the wiles of our inveterate enemy.
The bank note, which, confronted with the dollar,
shrunk from twenty to eighteen shillings, pre-
172 O N THE RE PORT OF
serves, as they affirm, in face of the guinea, an
unaltered, and unalterable equivalency. And
what is it, according to their theory, that occa-
sions this peculiarity ? The law. The law, which
does what? The law, which makes it criminal
(if indeed it be criminal) to exchange the guinea
for more than its denominative value in bank-
notes; and which prohibits the exportation of the
legal coin of the realm.
Let us see what is the mode in which these
powerful and beneficial laws are now actually
operating. The result which they were intended
to obtain confessedly was to keep our legal coin
at home, and to maintain it in circulation. The
result actually is, that such coin has vanished from
domestic circulation, and that it is exported to all
parts of the world. The dollars were sent into
circulation, unprotected by any law which should
prevent their exportation to foreign countries: for
a time they circulated in abundance; at length
they began to disappear. By what process has
it been attempted, and successfully, to check their
disappearance? By the same process which it so
wisely contrived to prevent the disappearance of
guineas 7 By forbidding more to be given for
them than they had hitherto been exchanged for
in bank notes? No, but by a precisely contrary
process—by allowing the dollars to pass at, or
above, their value. The consequence is, a con-
THE BU L L ION COMMITTEE. 173.
tinued circulation of dollars in this country, in
spite of the balance of trade and of the wiles of
the enemy.
Here, then, are two metallic currencies, one of
which continues in circulation, while the other
vanishes from it. The distinctive differences be-
tween them are: First, that of one the exportation
is permitted, and of the other prohibited. I ack-
nowledge the perversity of human nature, and its
proneness to do what is forbidden : but I cannot
think that principle alone sufficient to account for
the exportation of the coin, which it is illegal to
export, and for the continuance in circulation of
that which might be exported without offence.
Secondly, the one is exchangeable for its full
marketable value in our domestic currency,
whereas the law enforces (or is supposed to en-
force) the exchange of the other at no more than.
its denominative rate. The bank note is the com-
mon measure both of the guinea and of the dollar,
of the exportable and unexportable coin: the
guinea it is allowed by law to measure only
according to its denomination; the dollar, by the
ordinance of the Bank, it is allowed to measure
according to its marketable value. What is the
result? The coin, which is by law unexportable,
flies to another market, while the exportable re-
mains at home. -
But let it, for argument's sake, be conceded
that the rise of the dollar is not a proof of depre-
H 74 ON THE REPORT OF
ciation in the bank note. It follows then, that if
the bank note, which would heretofore have pur-
chased four dollars, is not depreciated in respect
to the dollar, because it is now obliged to call in
in two shillings to its aid in order to make the
same purchase, neither would the bank note,
which heretofore purchased a guinea with the aid
of one shilling only be depreciated in respect to
the guinea, if it should now be allowed to make
the same purchase with the aid of four or five
shillings. I think I may defy the most practical
of men to quarrel with this proposition.
Well, then, if this be so, and if it be indeed an
object to keep our guineas at home, why is not
the operation, which has been so successful with
respect to the dollar, applied to the guinea 7
What difference is there in the principle 2 and
what difference in the practical policy of the
transaction, but such as would preponderate in
favour of the guinea? If it be answered, “ that
the guinea is a legal coin, which the dollar is
not; that the dollar might be treated as arbitra-
rily and unceremoniously as we pleased, but that
the same experiment could not be tried upon the
guinea, without an alteration of the law, and that
alterations of the law are dangerous;” I reply,
that the law is much less in our way on this point
than gentlemen seem to apprehend. It is true
that the dollar is a foreign coin, of which our laws
take no specific cognizance; but it is equally
THE BU I.L.ION COMMITTEE. 175
true that there is another coin in the country not
a legal coin–a coin of which the law takes no no-
tice, except to put it out of its protection; which no
man is obliged, or even permitted, to receive from
another in payment; which, in short, is as com-
pletely devoid of the qualities of British coin as
the dollar, and indeed more completely so, since
it is expressly stripped of those qualities by sta-
tute. Now, if such a coin as this can be found,
where is the harm of trying upon it the same ex-
periment which has been so happily applied to
the dollar; especially if it be, as fortunately it is,
a gold coin, and therefore capable of supplying
that share which dollars do not supply towards
the completement of a metallic circulation ? The
coin to which I allude is one which my honour-
able friend near me (Mr. Huskisson) is accused of
having treated in his pamphlet with exaggerated
respect, but which, in the course of this debate,
has, I think, been too much disparaged—I mean
the light guinea. -
The light guinea is not, any more than the
dollar, a legal coin. A guinea having arrived by
wear at a certain degree of lightness, is at once
divested by law of all its qualities of coin, and is
reduced to its intrinsic value, whatever that may
be, as bullion. It happens to be sure, at the pre-
sent moment, that this reduction, as measured in
bank notes is a promotion. But that is equally
true in respect to the dollar. The rate at
176 • ON THE REPORT OF
which the dollar now passes is not only higher
than it was some time ago, but higher than that
which it bears, from its intrinsic value, in com-
parison with the legal coin of the country.
Whether it was right to raise the denomination of
the dollar, I do not think it necessary to give
an opinion :-that is done. But upon the prin-
ciple, whatever it was, on which the denomina-
tion of the dollar was raised, there can surely
be no objection to suffering the light guinea
to go for what it is worth, and thereby obtain-
ing an anomalous gold currency to correspond
with the anomalous silver currency, each alike
independent of the legal coin of the realm.
The legal coin — the guinea of full lawful
weight—would still remain, in the eye of the law,
in that of the imagination, and in the argument
of the right honourable gentleman, as the equiva-
lent for bank notes. It would not often come
forth indeed to afford a practical illustration of
his argument: but he might continue to enjoy
the satisfaction of maintaining, as he does now,
as an abstract proposition, that bank notes and
guineas are equivalent in law.
Meantime the advantage derived from the
marketableness of light guineas would be, either
to retain at least that portion of our metallic cir-
culation at home, or to make the foreigner or the
enemy pay its full value for it on exportation.
It is on all hands acknowledged—by the right
THE BULLION COMIM ITTEE. 177
honourable gentleman and his supporters it is
earnestly contended, that our gold finds its way
out of the country, either in discharge of the
balance of payments, or into the coffers of the
enemy. That enemy is by some persons repre-
sented as sitting like a great spider in the midst
of its web, and drawing along the living lines and
fibres of its net all the gold of Great Britain, into
an abyss from which it is never to return. By
what process this can be effected, except by that
of a trade of some sort or other, we are not told,
and I am at a loss to conceive. Among all the
dangers of the country, many of them real and
formidable, a danger happily more visionary than
this was never apprehended by a disordered
imagination.
That our gold, however, goes from us, is gene-
rally asserted and believed ; and whether by a
natural efflux, or by some unheard-of power of
magnetic attraction in Buonaparte, is, in regard
to the question which we are considering, of little
moment. It goes, and we wish to stop it. It
can be stopped effectually only by being retained
in circulation at home. It can be retained in cir-
culation (as those who raised the denomination of
the dollar, and who gave the reasons which were
given for raising it, must of all men be the last to
deny,) only by allowing it to pass for what it is
intrinsically worth, or what it will fetch in the
market. . -- -
VOL. III. N
178 ON 'I' H E REPORT OF
Here, however, I shall be met by an argument
which has been urged with much vehemence and
solemnity by the right honourable gentleman (Mr.
Vansittart), that the law absolutely prohibits the
exportation of our coin, and that any reasoning,
therefore, which is founded upon the supposition
of that exportation, is not only incorrect, but is
of a most immoral and dangerous tendency, as
holding out encouragement to perjury and fraud.
Let us examine this argument.
We are all agreed upon the fact, that gold bul-
lion is at a high price in the currency of this
country. We are all agreed, that either as the
consequence of this high price or as the cause of
it, or both, there is a great scarcity of gold bul-
lion in this country. We are all agreed that the
gold coin has nearly vanished from circulation;
and nobody doubts, so far as I have heard, and
nobody has asserted more strenuously than the
right honourable gentleman and those who side
with him, that this high price and scarcity of
bullion, and this vanishing of our gold coin,
are infallible indications of a large exportation of
gold; of which exportation a large part must, as
infallibly, have consisted of coin, either melted or
unmelted. Upon these facts, I say, we are all
agreed. Now I ask, is it not idle, is it not
absurd, to assume for the purpose of argument a
supposed obedience to the law, which notori-
ously has no existence; and to deny for the
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 179
purpose of argument, a fact which is acknow-
ledged by all to be the surest symptom, and con-
tended by many to be the origin and cause, of
the evils which have brought us to the necessity
of the present discussion ? Is it not wholly
unworthy an assembly of legislators, to pretend
an ignorance in our legislative capacity of that,
which every one of us, in his individual capacity,
perfectly believes to be true 2 Is the existence of
a statute which, as we know, is openly violated
(and for the most part with impunity) every day
in the week, to be pleaded as a bar against any
attempt to remedy the evils which confessedly
result from its violation ?
What then can be more unjust, or more ridi-
culous, than to represent those persons as coun-
tenancing and encouraging perjury and fraud,
who only tell you what you yourselves avow, that
perjury and fraud are and have always been com-
mitted under your present system of law; and
who, inferring that they always will be committed
under that system, suggest to you the expediency
of amending it? Who are the encouragers of
crimes —they who, finding the existing law no-
toriously inadequate to counteract the temptation
to commit them, propose either to change the
law or to remove the temptation;—or they who con-
tent themselves with whimpering over the depra-
vity of human nature, and, instead of endeavouring
to prevent the commission of crime, console them-
N 2
ISO O N T H E H E PORT OF .
selves with the reflection that the mischief to the
public is only in proportion to the guilt of the
criminal 7
He was not an unwise or unjust judge, of whom
it is recorded, that—
“He sent the thief who stole the gold away,
And punish’d him who put it in his way.”
Undoubtedly it is neither wise nor just to place
temptations in men's way, which we know by
constant experience to be sufficient to overpower
the positive enactments of law. It is neither
politic nor moral to resort on every occasion to
the obligation of oaths as supplementary to a de-
fective legislation. This policy unfortunately per-
vades too many of our statutes; and it is but
rarely successful in its object, never perhaps
where considerable gain and great facility con-
spire to tempt to perjury. The exportation of
coin, or of bullion melted from coin, when the
exchanges are unfavourable beyond a certain
limit, is looked upon as so much in the natural
course of things, that most writers, who have
treated of coinage and of trade, have laid it
down as a consequence not to be disputed, and
not even necessary to be proved. According to
the concurrent opinions of such writers, the
efflux of bullion from one country to another is
governed by causes nearly as steady and uniform
in their operation, as those which govern the sea-
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 181
sons or the tides. As well might you pretend to
fix a limit on the shore, and bid the flowing ocean
advance no farther, as attempt by the interpo-
sition of a statute to stop the tide of the precious
metals in whatever direction it is made to flow by
the influence of commercial necessity and com-
mercial demand.
The right honourable gentleman, and those
who adopt his views of the present question, ac-
knowledge the force of these principles: they
attribute, in fact, the whole of our difficulties to
their operation. There is, indeed, a slight differ-
ence of opinion among them as to the cause of
the export of our gold; some attributing it to
the demand for gold in the market of the conti-
nent, others to the necessity of remitting it from
hence, in payment of the balance of trade; but
all concurring that, whatever may be the degree
in which either of these causes, separately or
jointly, operate, the result is an irresistible attrac-
tion of the gold of this country to the continent.
Is it not, then, with marvellous inconsistency that
these same gentlemen oppose the mere existence
of a powerless law, and a high-coloured descrip-
tion of the crimes which it occasions and consti-
tutes, as an answer, and the only answer, to those
who contend, that, if the evil which the law is
intended to prevent, be indeed one which it is
important to check, and if the efflux of our gold
be certain, so long as the force of the temptation
182 () N 'T H E RE PO lº T OF
is stronger than the restraint of the law, it is
necessary, and it would be as wise as humane,
either to alter the law, or to diminish the temp-
tation ?
I may, perhaps, be inclined to believe, that the
repeal of this law would be in itself no unwise
measure. That belief might be supported by the
opinion of many able writers and experienced
statesmen, and by the example of many of those
states in which commerce has been most flourish-
ing, and credit and coin most abundant. I admit
that the immediate, the momentary effect of this
repeal, (if unaccompanied by any other measure),
might be to increase the exportation of our gold,
by removing the scruples of such persons as may
now, perhaps, be wavering between temptation
on the one hand, and obedience to the law on the
other. Even so, however, it would have the
benefit of saving all that perjury and fraud which
shock, so justly, the moral feelings of the House;
and of extending to the honest trader a con-
venience which is now exclusively reserved for
the dishonest one. But in the long run, I cer-
tainly do not believe that the repeal of this law
would swell, by a single guinea, the amount of
the export of our gold. -
It is true that the repeal of this law alone
would not have a necessary tendency to bring
gold again into circulation in this country, either
by recalling what has been exported, or by en-
T H E B U L L I () N CO M M ITTEE. 183
ticing what is now hoarded, out of its hiding
places. That would be the effect of the other
alteration to which I have already alluded, of
suspending the law and the proclamation which
limit the current rate of the guinea, and permit-
ting it to pass according to its intrinsic value.
I have, indeed, stated this proposition hitherto
only as applicable to the light guinea ; of
which the purchase, at its intrinsic value, is
certainly no infringement either of the letter or
the spirit of any existing proclamation or statute.
I do not know whether I might, without presump-
tion, say, that the law is by no means clear on
this point, even with respect to guineas of full
legal weight. Guineas of legal weight, however,
I left out of my proposition in the former part of
my argument, expressly, as I said, in the hope of
conciliating the right honourable gentleman, by
leaving untouched, in respect to guineas of full
weight, his proposition of the equivalency of
bank paper and legal coin. But, if the right
honourable gentleman should be disposed to con-
cur with me at all, I trust, upon reflection, he
would not be prevented from doing so by the con-
templation of this trifling advantage to his argu-
ment. If he will consent to let guineas go for
what they are worth in the market, he will have
a gold currency; he will prevent the exportation
of our coin; he will get rid of fraud and perjury:
and all this benefit he will purchase at no greater
184 O N 'I'lſ E. R. E. PO l{ 'I' O F
expense, than that of being one argument out of
pocket. It will then, to be sure, be vain for him
to contend, against the daily evidence of men's
senses, that bank paper and guineas are, at
their respective denominations, equivalent to each
other: but at least we shall have them both, and
they may circulate amicably together.
That by no other possible means the coin of
the country can be retained in circulation, so long
as the precious metal of which it is composed,
is intrinsically of a value so much higher than the
rate at which it is estimated in our currency, is a
proposition of which all experience, as well as all
reason, establishes the truth. The present state
of the law in the present state of our currency,
operates, in fact, as a bounty upon the exporta-
tion of our coin. -
Of the two causes of the export of gold, which
are admitted by the right honourable gentleman
and his friends, the supposed demand for gold on
the continent, and the supposed necessity for ex-
porting it to set right the balance of our trade,
the first will undoubtedly have an uncontrolled
operation, so long as there is no counter-demand
for gold in the market at home; so long as the
Bank do not purchase, and as no one else pur-
chases here, except for exportation: the second
would, in a natural state of things, find its limit
far within the amount of the balance to be set
right; it would cease to operate, whenever the
THE BULLION COMMITTF E. 185.
scarcity of gold, produced here by exportation,
and the plenty produced on the continent by its
importation, rendered gold less eligible for trans-
mission abroad than any other merchantable com-
modity. But this limit it can never find, so long
as gold is the only merchantable commodity for
which the consumption of this country affords no
market.
Independently, however, of these causes, the
difference between the real value of the precious
metal and that at which it is rated in our cur-
rency, would be itself sufficient to ensure us
against the continuance of a guinea in circula-
tion. Demand on the continent might be coun-
teracted by demand here; and gold would cease
to be a preferable article for transmission abroad,
from the moment at which it, like other articles,
could be sold for its real value at home. But,
imprisoned in the coin, and degraded by its im-
prisonment, gold has an unconquerable tendency
to escape from a situation so unnatural: and it
would make its escape from such a situation, even
although you do not owe the continent any thing;
and although there were no more demand on the
continent for gold, than for any other article of
merchandize. - -
But this, I may be told, is the language of
theory. Is not the principle, then, recognized by
any sober practical authority ? Let us hear the
statute-book itself. “Whereas it has been a
186 O N T H E R E PORT OF
practice,” says the preamble to the Act 14 Geo.
III. c. 70, “to export the new and perfect coin
of the realm for private advantage, and to the
great detriment of the public ; and the like prac-
tice will continue,” (adds this theoretical and
visionary preamble), “ while pieces, differing
greatly in weight, are current under the same
denomination, and at the same rate of value.”
The persons who framed this Act, and framed
it for the express and practical purpose of restor-
ing the credit of our currency, could not be
ignorant of the penalties under which the exporta-
tion of coin was prohibited ; yet we see, that in
spite of these penalties, they take for granted as
inevitable the “continued” exportation of the
coin, so long as the temptation to export it con-
tinues. We see further, that, in their opinion,
conformity to standard weight is the distinctive
quality by which the value of money is to be esti-
mated. We see, lastly, that, without any refer-
ence to demand for gold on the continent,
without any reference to an unfavourable balance
of trade, the certain result of an attempt to cir-
culate together, “under the same denomination
and at the same rate of value,” two descriptions
of currency, differing in intrinsic value from each
other, is to drive that which is of the higher in-
trinsic value out of circulation. *
This is, in fact, as I understand it, the whole
of the Bullion Committee upon this subject; and
TH E BU ſ, L ION COMMITTE F. I S7
so far from having the guilt or the merit of
novelty, we find it assumed six and thirty years
ago, in the preamble of an Act of Parliament, as
a doctrine established and self-evident.
Of this doctrine, thus adopted by Parliament
in the year 1774, there is an earlier and not less
authoritative recognition in the Report of Sir
Isaac Newton, in the year 1717, of the existence
of which Report I was surprised to hear a right
honourable friend of mine, (Mr. Rose) declare him-
self entirely ignorant. A person so distinguished
as my right honourable friend unquestionably is,
by great knowledge and indefatigable research, I
should have thought, could hardly have missed a
document of such interest and importance, and so
immediately bearing upon the subject before us.
This Report was made by Sir Isaac Newton in
his capacity of Master of the Mint, and is to be
found in our Journals.”
It is too long for me to trouble the House with
reading it; but gentlemen will find, upon looking
into it, that upon a reference made to him by the
Lords of the Treasury, as to the best method of
preventing the melting down of the silver coin,
Sir Isaac Newton represents the temptation to
melt and export it as “arising from the higher
price of silver, in other places than in England,
in proportion to gold;” that is to say, from the
N
* Vol. XVIII. p. 664.
I SS ON THE REPORT OF
circumstance, that the silver coin, then our
standard currency, was, by the regulations of our
Mint, exchangeable with the gold coin at a rate
somewhat lower than that at which it was ex-
changeable, as bullion, with gold in the general
market of Europe. So small was this difference,
that the taking of sixpence from the current rate
of the guinea was estimated by Sir Isaac Newton
as sufficient to cure the evil; and yet, small as
this difference was, during its continuance, and
by its operation alone, the silver coin of standard
weight was daily vanishing from circulation.
In this Report of Sir Isaac Newton, and in the
principles which are laid down for it, is to be
found the answer to many of my right honourable
friend's (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) ob-
servations upon that part of the Report of the
Bullion Committee, which refers to the re-coinage
of the silver currency in the year 1696. The
subsequent disappearance of the new silver coin,
is not, as my right honourable friend seemed to
insinuate, a proof that the re-coinage at that time
had been unadvisedly undertaken; or that it was
not the only cure that could be applied to that
depreciation of the currency, which Parliament
had attempted in vain to remedy (as I have
already had occasion to state) by a penal law. It
is true that, by a slight error in the valuation of
the two precious metals with respect to each
other, the silver coin was rated a small degree
THE BU L L ION CO M M ITT E. E. 189
below its just proportion to gold; and that, in
consequence, it began to disappear not long after
the re-coinage was completed. But this technical
error does not in any degree vitiate the principles
on which the re-coinage had been adopted. It
in no degree diminishes or affects the merit of
those who had the courage to undertake, and the
firmness to carry through that important work, in
spite of the prevalence for a time, even in this
House, of prejudices very much akin to those of
the present day. -
Those prejudices were sufficiently strong to
defeat for a considerable time the intentions of
the Government, after they had upon mature de-
liberation convinced themselves of the absolute
necessity of the measure; but the good sense,
temper, and perseverance of that Administration
triumphed in the end, and it is no disparagement
to my right honourable friend to recommend the
example of the Administration of 1696 to his
serious consideration.
The war in which King William was then en-
gaged against France, may not have been equal
with the present war in magnitude of exertion.
Yet if we compare the means of the country at
that period with its present means, and consider
the exertions which were then made, it would
perhaps be difficult to say that any excuse could
be offered now, which was not in a great measure
applicable then, for sparing, amidst the burthens
!90 ON THE REPORT OF
of war, any internal effort which was not abso-
lutely indispensable. But the restoration of the
currency to a sound state was then deemed to be
indispensable ; and the war was considered not
as a reason for postponing the required effort, but
as an additional reason for making it with as little
delay as possible.
The high price of gold was then, as it is now,
one striking indication of the deteriorated state of
the currency. The indication might, indeed, be
at that time more undeniable ; because, gold not
being then our standard coin, and the guinea not
being limited by law as to the rate at which it
should pass current, the high price became im-
mediately visible in the gold coin as well as in
bullion, the guinea being actually exchangeable
for as much as thirty shillings of the clipped
silver. The unfavourable state of our exchanges
with foreign countries afforded then, as it does
now, the other most unerring proof that all was
not sound in the currency of this country; a
proof of which my right honourable friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly admits the
validity, when he admits that the unfavourable-
ness of the exchange might probably now be
corrected by correcting the excess, or (if he ob-
jects to the word ercess) diminishing the abun-
dance of our paper currency. This admission I
understood my right honourable friend, to make
in the most unequivocal terms; not meaning
THE BU LLION COMMITTEE. 191
thereby that I understood him to admit that it
was advisable to diminish the paper currency for
the sake of correcting the unfavourableness of the
exchange, but simply that such a correction of
the exchange would be the effect of such a
diminution of paper.
This leads me to consider the subject of the
exchanges, as it bears upon that of depreciation.
I shall treat it as concisely as I can ; both because
I must confess, that with all the attention which
I have bestowed upon it, I am perfectly conscious
that I have not been able to unravel all the intri-
cacies of the subject; and also, because it appears
to me that the whole question as to depreciation
is disposed of by the preceding part of the argu-
ment; that is to say, by the comparison of cur-
rency with bullion. The state of the exchanges
may add some illustration to that argument,
but is not wanted for the purpose of esta-
blishing it. .--
If that which constitutes the par of exchange
between any two countries be (as, if I am not
mistaken, it is) an equal quantity of precious
metal in their respective currencies, this defini-
tion alone sufficiently shews, that whatever other
considerations there may be, whether growing
out of law or out of opinion, which regulate and
sustain the rate of a currency at home, its value
can be estimated abroad by no other criterion
than that of the quantity of precious metal for
192 O N THE REPORT OF
which a specific portion of it is exchangeable.
The foreigner knows nothing of the value of the
currency of any other country except that a cer-
tain portion of that currency represents, and will
procure in his own country a certain quantity of
precious metal.
The question of the exchanges would there-
'fore be as simple as the question of depreciation,
if there were not confessedly other causes which
operate upon the exchange, and the operation of
which may sometimes be concurrent with that
of the relative values of the respective curren-
cies, and sometimes may tend to counteract it.
A country which imports from another more
than it exports to it of all other articles of com-
merce, is supposed to make up the difference by
a transmission of bullion. In point of fact, this
transmission takes place in much fewer instances
than the theory supposes; but the necessity of
making it either actually or virtually, causes a
variation in the rate of exchange in favour of the
creditor, and to the disadvantage of the debtor
country ; the amount of which variation is mea-
sured by, and expresses, the cost of making the
transmission. -
Supposing the currencies of two countries, each
in a perfectly sound state, any variation from the
par of exchange between them can be produced
only by the one country having a debt to discharge
to the other. Supposing the debts and credits of
THE BU L LI O N CO M M ITTEE. 193
two countries to be exactly balanced, any varia-
tion from the par of exchange between them can
only be produced by a depreciation in the cur-
rency of one of them. These causes, however,
may both exist at the same time; and they may
exist, either on opposite sides, or together; in the
one case aggravating, in the other counteracting
each other. g
A country might be largely in debt to another,
and yet, if its currency were sound, and the cur-
rency of the creditor country deteriorated, the
course of the exchange would exhibit only the
difference between the contending effects of such
deterioration on the one hand, and such debt on
the other: and it might happen that these effects
might be so precisely balanced, as exactly to
neutralise each other. But when a country is in
the situation of being indebted to another, and at
the same time of having a depreciated currency,
the depression of the exchange exhibits the com-
bined effect of both causes
This last may, or may not, be our present situa-
tion. For I am far from taking upon myself to
assert, that the balance of the payments from us
to the Continent, enters for nothing into the
amount of the unfavourable exchange against this
country. I only deny that it can be the sole
cause of that unfavourableness. Still less do I
pretend to define the share which this cause may
have in producing the effect. But as it is obvious
VOL. III. O
194 ON THE REPORT OF
that the depression of the exchange from this
cause can never, for any great continuance of time,
very far exceed the expense of transmitting bul-
lion for the liquidation of the balance of pay-
ments; as it is not only acknowledged but con-
tended, that bullion for this purpose is in fact
transmitted; as the expense of the transmission is
perfectly known, in all its several parts of price,
freight, and insurance; and as their collective
result is notoriously very far within the limits of
the actual depression of the exchange, there will
remain of that depression a large share to be
accounted for, after every deduction that can be
made on account of the balance of payments, and
that remainder can no otherwise be accounted for
than by the deterioration of our currency.
The state of the exchanges, therefore, is a proof,
though I do not admit it to be a necessary proof,
still less could I allow it to be the test, of a de-
preciated currency. I do not admit it to be a
necessary proof; because, the price of bullion in
the currency, is proof sufficient without it. I do
not allow it to be the test; because, under cer-
tain circumstances, a currency might be depre-
ciated to a limited degree, without producing a
visible depression of the exchange; nay, it might
coexist with an exchange positively favourable.
These cases would arise whenever the effect pro-
duced upon the exchange by the balance of pay-
ments in favour of the country whose currency is
THE BUL LION CO M M ITTEE. 195
depreciated in the one case exactly equalled, or,
in the other exceeded, the degree of the depre-
ciation. But though a depreciation of the cur-
rency might thus exist without inducing an
unfavourable exchange, a state of the exchange
unfavourable to a great degree, and progressively
growing worse for a great length of time, is an in-
fallible indication of a depreciated currency.
This is all the use that I think it necessary to
make of the arguments to be drawn from the
exchanges; and so far as this goes, I cannot
understand how any one can doubt as to their
bearing. We do not doubt with respect to other
countries, that a sound or unsound state of their
currency influences the state of their exchanges.
When we see the exchanges between Hamburgh
or Amsterdam on the one hand, and Russia or
Austria on the other, unfavourable in a great
degree to either of the two latter countries, we
have no hesitation in at once ascribing that un-
favourableness, in great part at least, to a depre-
ciation of its currency.
My right honourable friend (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) has taken what I must think not
a very fair advantage of an argument of an honour-
able gentleman opposite to me (Mr. Sharp),
when he has represented him as having recom-
mended the general policy of Holland and of
Hamburgh as an object of imitation for this
country; because, the honourable gentleman
O 2
196 O N THE REPORT OF
stated that by not issuing a paper-money, the
currencies of Holland and of Hamburgh had
been preserved from depreciation. The honour-
able gentleman certainly did not guard and qualify
his statement with all the circumstances which
were nevertheless obviously connected, in his
mind, with the proposition which he was advanc-
ing ; but it is quite as clear that nothing but the
strong temptation of flying from argument to
declamation, could have led my right honourable
friend so far to mistake the honourable gentle-
man's meaning. The meaning of the honourable
gentleman evidently was not to hold out Holland
as having been wise in its submissions and com-
pliances towards France, and as enjoying the
reward of her prudent obedience in a state of
enviable happiness and prosperity. Still less
could he intend (how is it possible that any ra-
tional being could be for a moment suspected of
intending !) to extol the prowess of Hamburgh.
“Prowess” was, I think, the word which my
right honourable friend did not disdain to put into
the honourable gentleman's mouth, for the sake
of making an indignant comment upon it. The
scope of the honourable gentleman's argument I
understood to be simply this:—that if Holland,
impoverished by an exhausting war, and preyed
upon by an exacting despotism—if Hamburgh, in
the very clutches of the French power—if these
unhappy states, stripped of their commerce and
THE BULL | ON COMMITTEE. I97
independence, could yet maintain their respective
currencies undepreciated, it would seem to follow
that a state of war, however expensive and burthen-
some—that stagnation of commerce—that even
the oppression of a conquering enemy—were not
sufficientjustifications, much less necessary causes,
of such a system of currency as that which (ac-
cording to the honourable gentleman's argument)
now existed in this country, and of which my
right honourable friend and others seemed pre-
pared to justify the continuance, so long at least
as the war shall continue, as our commerce shall
be embarrassed, and as our enemy shall persevere
in his present system of measures. This is what
I understood the honourable gentleman to con-
tend ; and, whatever might be the worth of his
argument, it surely was not open to the imputa-
tion which my right honourable friend found it
convenient to attach to it; as if the honourable
gentleman had been guilty of the egregious ab-
surdity of proposing for the imitation of this
country the political courage of the Dutch, and
the military prowess of the Hamburghers.
I am not, however, disposed to deny the as-
sertion which my right honourable friend has
grounded upon this argument, that inferences are
not to be conclusively drawn from the establish-
ments of other countries, whether political or
commercial, to our own. The principles of public
credit are so much better understood, and so
198 ON THE REPORT OF
much more religiously observed in this country,
the line of separation between the financial ope-
rations of the State, and the concerns of the
National Bank, confounded too often by arbitrary
governments, is here so distinctly marked, that it
cannot be doubted but many general propositions
are true of paper currencies abroad, which would
be utterly inapplicable to the system of the Bank
of England. -
The depreciation of the Austrian paper money,
therefore, which has been cited and commented
upon by my honourable friend near me (Mr.
Huskisson), is not precisely an example; it is not
a counterpart of our actual situation; but it does
afford a most useful warning, it shews how rapidly
paper money sinks in value, when once power has
been in any degree substituted for confidence;
and how tremendously, when once the first im-
pulse has been given, the force of descent accu-
mulates and increases. The depreciation of Aus-
trian paper was not, in its origin, like that which
we are now discussing; there was, in its origin,
something of discredit, of a distrust (that is) of
the solidity of the funds upon which the paper
was issued.
If solidity of funds, however, were alone suffi-
cient to keep up the credit of a paper, even the
assignats of France would not have fallen so soon
and so rapidly in value. The rulers of France by
whom that paper money was coined, affected to
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 199
be surprised at the depreciation of securities,
resting, as they contended, on foundations more
solid than those of the Bank of England—and
calculated, like the paper of the Bank, to pro-
mote the prosperity of the country in which it
circulated. Well and wisely did Mr. Burke,
when, in the language of an orator, and in the
spirit of a prophet, he foreshewed that series and
succession of calamities, which the principles of
the French Revolution, in all its parts, must in-
evitably produce—well and wisely did he de-
scribe those essential qualities of the paper of the
Bank of England which constitute its real value.
“They (said he, speaking of the National As-
sembly) imagine, that our flourishing state in
England is owing to bank paper, and not the
bank paper to the flourishing condition of our
commerce, to the solidity of our credit, and to the
total exclusion of all idea of power from any part
of the transaction. They forget that in England
not one shilling of paper money of any descrip-
tion is received but of choice; that the whole had
its origin in cash actually deposited; and that it
is convertible at pleasure, in an instant, and with-
out the smallest loss, into cash again. Our paper,
is of value in commerce, because in law it is of
none. It is powerful on Change, because in
Westminster Hall it is impotent. In payment of
a debt of 20l. a creditor may refuse all the paper
of the Bank of England. Nor is there among us.
200 O N 'I' HE REPORT () F
a single public security, of any quality or nature
whatsoever, that is enforced by authority. In
fact, it might easily be shewn, that our paper
wealth, instead of lessening the real coin, has a
tendency to increase it; that instead of being a
substitute for money, it only facilitates its entry,
its exit, and its circulation; that it is the symbol
of prosperity, not the badge of distress. Never
was a scarcity of cash and an exuberance of
paper a subject of complaint in this nation.”
These were the characteristics of the paper of
the Bank of England, when Mr. Burke contrasted
it with the assignats of France. Its converti-
bility into specie upon demand, was suspended
by the Act of 1797, on grounds which it is not
now necessary to discuss. The suspension was,
for a series of years, unattended with any symp-
toms that indicated depreciation. And it must
be our wish, as well as our interest, to believe
(what from reasoning also appears most probable),
that this suspension alone, if not followed up by
excessive issue, might have endured, as long as
the political circumstances of the state might have
rendered its endurance necessary, without pro-
ducing that effect. But if that effect has been
produced, as seems to be established beyond the
possibility of contradiction, let us not, instead of
attempting to correct it, endeavour rather to
palliate its evils, and to reconcile ourselves to its
consequences. Even under the change produced
THE BU LLION COMMITTEE. 201
by the temporary suspension of cash payments,
let us remember, that the essential and funda-
mental principles upon which the character and the
utility of bank paper rest, are those described in
the extract which I have just quoted from Mr.
Burke. Let us not, under the pressure of what
has been always considered as a temporary neces-
sity, and in the despair of meeting what I trust is
no more than a transitory, and, as yet, a curable
evil, abjure this language and these doctrines of
Mr. Burke, and adopt in their stead the cant and
sophistry of those against whom his arguments
were directed.
Far be it from me to imagine that between the
notes of the Bank of England and the assignats of
the National Assembly, there now exists that re-
semblance of which Mr. Burke, in 1791, denied and
disproved the existence | But in proportion as I
am satisfied that the bank note is of a different
nature from the assignat, in that proportion do I
dislike to hear them defended by the same argu-
ments. “Ce n'est pas l'assignat qui perd, c'est l'ar-
gent qui gagne,” was the motto and the doctrine of
a treatise, published in Paris during the reign of
the National Assembly, for the purpose of main-
taining the credit of assignats, by accounting for
the difference between their nominal and ex-
changeable values. “It is not the bank note
which loses, but the dollar which gains,” is the
argument by which we have heard the rise in the
202 ON THE REPORT OF
denomination of the dollar explained: “It is not
paper which has fallen, but gold which has risen,”
is the argument which has filled all the pamphlets
and all the speeches which we have read and
heard upon the subject. The arguments are
identically and undistinguishably the same. I
wish that any of my honourable friends, who main-
tain the undepreciated state of our paper currency,
could satisfy me and the country that there is
some essential difference in their mode of apply-
ing them. I wish they could shew me that the
doctrine of the French pamphlet might be false,
while that of the English pamphlets and of their
own speeches is true.
I do not need to be reminded of the many
essential differences in the circumstances of the
two paper currencies. I am here speaking, not
of the causes of depreciation, but simply of the
fact. That assignats were discredited in all
sorts of ways, no person doubts. But the price
of the precious metals in those assignats was,
after all, the evidence and the measure of their
depréciation. The high price which other com-
modities bore in assignats, afforded, to be sure,
strong suspicions of depreciation; but it proved
the fact, and established the degree of that de-
preciation only as compared with the price for
which the same articles could be obtained in,
gold or silver. I say this to guard myself against
the imputation of disparaging bank notes by com-
THE BULLION COMMITTFE, 203
paring them with a currency so notoriously worth-
less and fraudulent. Paper currency may be
depreciated from various causes, which have no
resemblance to each other; but whatever may
be the causes of depreciation, the test of it is in
all cases the same.
On all these grounds, I own my entire, though
unwilling conviction, that a depreciation of our
paper currency does actually exist;—that the
permanently unfavourable state of the exchanges
with foreign countries, is an indication—and the
long continued high price of bullion at home, the
proof-of it. I can at the same time most truly
say, that I shall hold myself infinitely indebted to
any man who, by reasoning and argument, by re-
ference to admitted facts and established prin-
ciples, can bring me back from this most un-
satisfactory conviction. No man set out in the
examination of the subject with less disposition
to arrive at this conclusion: and no man would
more gladly find reasons that could satisfy his
own mind for receding from it. -
I confess, however, that although I can make
full allowance to others for the same unwilling-
ness which I have felt myself, to believe in the
fact of an existing depreciation, I am more alarmed
than encouraged by the apparent disposition
rather to escape from the avowal of this fact,
than to controvert it. I cannot see, without con-
cern, the constant flight from the point at which
204 ON THE REPORT OF
the controversy really lies, to the war, to the har-
vest, to Portugal, and to Buonaparte; in short,
to every imaginable topic, except those on which
the discussion essentially turns. This may con-
fuse and perplex the argument, by raising a crowd
of images, with which it has no relation. But as
to the point at issue, it seems to me a confession
of weakness, rather than a display of strength.
Still greater is my apprehension, when I hear
what are the motives assigned for continuing the
present state of our currency, whatever it may
be, rather than making any attempt to decide
what that state really is, and, if necessary, to
correct or to improve it. Some persons there are
indeed so sanguine and extravagant, as to deny
altogether that either improvement or correction
is necessary; or, that the ideas which these
words convey, can be applicable to a system
which they consider, not as an evil, but as a
benefit. We have been told of “ localised” cur-
rency, of an “insulated” circulation, as a bless-
ing far outweighing all the other advantages
arising from our peculiar local situation; as some-
thing analogous to them ; something which was
wanting to complete the perfection of our insular
character, and which we have fortunately stum-
bled upon by accident; for I think no man has
been hardy enough to say, that we could have or
ought to have established it by design.
One honourable gentleman (Mr. Baring) only,
THE BU LLION COMMITTEE. 205.
I think, has gone back to the origin of the Bank
restriction in 1797, and has imputed to the great
man who was the author of it, an intention of
laying in that measure the foundation of a system
of fraudulent finance, and of providing for an
indefinite extension of the public expenditure
abroad, by retrenching the just value of the pay-
ment to the public creditor at home. This is the
imputation brought forward by that honourable
gentleman : and, while I fully acquit my right
honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) of any participation in this sentiment, I
cannot but express my regret that he should not
have distinctly disclaimed it; especially as he
thought proper to bestow such lavish and unqua-
lified commendation upon the speech in which it
was contained, and to declare, in more large and
positive terms than I think he would upon reflec-
tion be disposed to confirm, his concurrence in
the general views and doctrines of that speech.
But acquitting my right honourable friend alto-
gether of the wildest and most extravagant of the
tenets which have been advanced by persons who
admit and admire a depreciated currency, I see
cause of sufficient alarm in those which he has
avowed and maintained. If the causes of the
present state of our currency be, as he says, the
unfavourable balance of our trade, and the neces-
sary extent of our war expenditure; if, so long as
those causes continue to operate, gold must, as
he contends, continue to flow out of the country;
206 O N THE REPORT OF
if nothing can contribute to recal it, except a turn
of the exchanges in our favour; if that turn can
never be produced, except either by the previous
turn of the balance of trade in our favour, or by
the reduction of our paper currency; if the balance
of trade, having been turned against us by the
anti-commercial decrees of our enemy, must con-
tinue against us till those decrees are repealed;
and if, of the only other expedient for correcting
the exchanges (viz., the reduction of our paper
currency), my right honourable friend, while he
admits the efficacy to be probable, denies the
application to be possible;—I am afraid the result
of this series of propositions, every one of which
I collect from the speech of my right honourable
friend, is, not only that we have no remedy for
the present evil, but that we are likely to arrive
at a term, when all our exertions for the safety of
the country must cease, from our absolute ina-
bility to maintain them.
. The precious metals are necessary to feed and
sustain our military operations abroad. In all
former wars, what went out in bullion for military
purposes, was replaced in the course of trade by
fresh importations. But now, according to the
argument of my right honourable friend, our com-
merce itself is but another drain for our bullion,
and must continue so long as the enemy pleases.
The time, therefore, must come when the stream—
always flowing, and never replenished—will be
exhausted; and when, consequently, all the ope-
THE BULLION COMIMI ITTEE. 2O7
rations, whether of war or of commerce, to which
it gave motion, will stand still. This, I beg it
may be remembered, is not my statement : it is
that which I collected from the speeches of those
who profess to see nothing requisite to be set
right in the present system of our currency. It
would be a statement of complete despair, if
there were absolutely no check in nature for the
course and progress of the mischief. One check,
one only check, there is—a check, as I should
think, safe as well as effectual. But while we are
comforted with hearing from my right honourable
friend that such a check might, in his opinion
also, be effectual, we hear from him, at the same
time, that it would be absolute destruction to
resort to it.
In addition to these motives of policy, there
are—as I have heard this night, not without asto-
nishment and dismay—considerations of justice,
which preclude any systematic reduction of the
amount of our paper currency. Such a reduc-
tion, it is argued, would change the value of ex-
isting contracts, and throw into confusion every
species of pecuniary transactions, from the rent
of the great landed proprietor down to the wages
of the peasant and the artisan. Good God! what
is this but to say, that the system of irredeemable
paper currency must continue for ever? What is
it but to say, that the debts incurred, and the
contracts entered into, under the old established
208 ON THE REPORT OF
legal standard of the currency, including the debts
and contracts of the State itself, are now to be
lopped and squared to a new measure, set up
originally as a temporary expedient; and that
the sacredness of public faith, and the obligation
of legal engagements, are to be conformed to the
accidental and fluctuating derangement, and not
to the ancient and fixed rule of our currency 3
If this be so, there is indeed no hope that we
shall ever return to our sound and pristine state.
This objection is of a nature to propagate itself
indefinitely. Every day new contracts must
necessarily be made ; and every day successively
(as it is of the essence of depreciation to go on
increasing in degree), at rates diverging more and
more widely from the real standard from which
we have departed. Every day, therefore, must
interpose additional impediments to a return to
the legal standard. Never did the wildest and
most hostile prophesier of ruin to the finances of
this country venture to predict that a time should
come, when, by the avowal of Parliament, nomi-
nal amount in paper, without reference to any real
standard value in gold, would be the payment of
the public creditor. But still less could it ever
be apprehended that such a system was to be
built on the foundations of equity and right—that
it would be considered as unjust to give to the
paper creditor, the real value of his contracts in
gold, but just to compel the creditor who had
THE BU L I, ION COMM ITTEE. 209
trusted in gold, to receive for all time to come the
nominal amount, whatever that might come to be,
of his contract in paper. -
This proposition appears to me so monstrous,
and shews so plainly to what an extravagant and
alarming length we are liable to be hurried, when
once we have lost sight of principle, and given
ourselves up to the guidance of expediency, that
I am sure this House ought to lose no time in
pronouncing its opinion as to the maxims by
which, for centuries, the currency of this country
has been preserved in eminent purity and in-
tegrity; and in declaring its determination to
acknowledge no others in the theory of our
money system, and to look to a practical return
to that system, not only as advantageous to the
state, but as indispensable to its justice and its
honour.
For these purposes, it is in my opinion neces-
sary, in the first place, to enter a distinct record
of what is, in our opinion, the legal standard of
our currency. I know not how this can be done
with greater clearness and correctness, than by
adopting the first” seven of the Resolutions pro-
posed by the honourable and learned Chairman of
the Bullion Committee. •. -
To these seven Resolutions are opposed, and
for them it is intended to substitute, the first of
- * See. Res. 1 to 7, of Mr. Horner.
vo L. III. P
210 ON THE RE PORT OF
the Propositions of the right honourable gentleman
opposite to me.*
I should have no hesitation in affirming these
first seven Resolutions, if they stood simply and
positively on their own merits: but when I find
that we cannot get rid of them without admitting
into their place a Proposition so exceptionable as
the first Proposition of the right honourable gen-
tleman, and one which, when admitted, will bring
in its train other Propositions still more excep-
tionable—one in particular (I mean the third) ab-
solutely repugnant (as it seems to me) to common
sense—I consider the affirmation of the original
Resolutions as doubly important, not only from
what it will establish, but for what it will exclude.
This is not the time to discuss the Propositions
of the right honourable gentleman; otherwise it
would be easy to shew that the doctrine of his
first Proposition, which, referring every thing
relating to the money of the country exclusively
to the prerogative of the Crown, states, as altoge-
ther equal and indifferent, the exercise of that
prerogative by the will of the Crown alone, or
with the concurrence of the two Houses of Par-
liament—that this doctrine, if not absolutely false
in principle and in theory (a question which I will
not now discuss), is, at least in any practical view,
and to any practical purpose, unsound: it is in-
complete, delusive, and dangerous; it states the
* See Res. 1, of Mr. Vansittart.
THE BUILLION COMMITTEE. 2] I
prerogative, indeed, but it does not state it as
defined and regulated by law. This, however, is
a part only of the objections to the right honour-
able gentleman's Propositions. There are others
which I shall reserve till the moment, if unhap-
pily that moment shall arrive, when it becomes
itself the subject of substantive discussion. What
I have now said, in my opinion, is sufficient to
disqualify it as a substitute for the precise and
unimpeachable definition of the monetary system
of this country as established by the joint autho-
rity of the Crown and Parliament, which is con-
tained in the honourable and learned gentleman's.
first seven Resolutions. -
If I do not go at large into those Resolutions
for the purpose of explaining and defending the
vote which I shall give in favour of them, it is
because, in the whole course of this debate, I have
not heard a single objection urged against them.
It is singular that the whole skill of his antago-
nists should have been exhausted, not in attack-
ing, but in evading his statement; that, of a chain
of reasoning, which, if it could be loosened in a
single link, would, I admit, fall to pieces, not a
single link has been attempted to be loosened.
It remains entire and unbroken, and connects un-
disputed premises with an inevitable conclusion.
The eighth and ninth Resolutions * of the
* See Res. 8 and 9 of Mr. Horner.
P 2
212 O N THE lt. E PORT OF
honourable and learned gentleman contain truisms
which no man disputes; and which the right ho-
nourable gentleman, in proposing to substitute for
them his second Proposition, only makes less com-
pletely true by the omission of one essential cir-
cumstance. The eighth Resolution states, that the
notes of the Bank of England are stipulations to
pay on demand. The right honourable gentleman's
second Proposition omits the words, on demand.
Why this omission ? It can hardly be accidental;
it can hardly be without some meaning: and yet
the right honourable gentleman, so far as I have
heard, in the speech with which he introduced
his Propositions, did not offer any thing to ac-
count for so singular an alteration. Is it possible
that he can mean to say, that bank notes are not
stipulations to pay on demand? It is perfectly true
that the restriction law of 1797 suspends the ful-
filment of this stipulation, and protects the Bank
against the consequences of a refusal to fulfil it:
but does not the right honourable gentleman see
the danger of confounding two things so different
as the temporary suspension of the effect of an
obligation, and the actual annulment of the obli-
gation itself? I am almost sure that the right
honourable gentleman must, upon reflection, be
aware of the perilous tendency of such a confu-
sion. But, in the mean time, forasmuch as a cor-
rect and complete definition is preferable to one
which is undeniably and dangerously defective, I
THE BU L I, I O N COMIM ITTEE 213
cannot hesitate to vote for the eighth and ninth
of the original Resolutions, to the exclusion of the
right honourable gentleman’s most unnecessary
and most suspicious amendment.*
The tenth ºf of the original Resolutions contains
a clear, indisputable, and (as I have before de-
scribed it) inevitable conclusion, from the state of
the law, as accurately laid down in the preceding
Resolutions, coupled with the notorious and un-
disputed fact of the high price of bullion. The
truth of the averment contained in this Resolution
is not directly denied. The dispute is only whe-
ther that which is admitted to be true is not ne-
vertheless unfit to be recorded. It is not denied
that the exchangeable value of bank notes is at
this moment considerably less than their denomi-
native value, if those values, respectively be mea-
sured in gold or silver; but it is disputed whether
gold or silver be the fit measure of the value of
Bank notes. This is in effect the whole of the
argument, not upon this Resolution only, but upon
the whole in dispute. It is the single point on
which all our discussions turn.
I have already discussed this point so much at
length, and have so nearly (as I am afraid) ex-
hausted the patient indulgence of the Committee,
that I do not think myself at liberty here to reca-
pitulate the arguments upon it. I will content
* See 2d Res. of Mr. Vansittart.
+ See Res. 10, of Mr. Horner.
2] 4 O N T H E RE PORT OF
myself with asking of those who maintain a con-
trary opinion, and particularly of the right honour-
able gentleman (Mr. Vansittart), “If the precious
metals, and particularly that one which is the
legal standard of the currency of the country, be
not the proper measure of the value of that cur-
rency, what is ? The right honourable gentleman
has his answer ready in his third Proposition :
and a most curious one it is.” “Public estima-
tion” is, according to the right honourable gentle-
man, the true standard measure of the value of a
currency; and the common measure of the two
parts of a currency as compared with each other.
If I felt upon this question with the spirit of a
- partisan—if I had been a member of the Bullion
Committee, and were responsible for their Report,
I should say, that the right honourable gentle-
man’s third Proposition was absolutely beyond
my hopes. Speaking impartially, I must say,
that if I had seen this third Proposition any
where but where it is, fairly printed and num-
bered in the right honourable gentleman's series,
I should have thought it an invention of his anta-
gonists, calculated to place the fallacy of his doc-
trine in the most glaring and ridiculous point of
view, but carrying the license of exaggeration
rather beyond pardonable limits, and defeating
its purpose, by the grossness of the caricature. I
* See 3d Res. of Mr. Vansittart.
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 215
would have taken no other person's word than the
right honourable gentleman’s own, that he, a man
of science, a man of practical knowledge and ex-
perience, was the author of this Proposition.
This Proposition, however, is not now regularly
before us. I think it absolutely incredible that it
should ever be brought before us for our direct
consideration and adoption. It is now only to be
viewed as the contrast and contradiction of the
tenth Resolution of the honourable and learned
gentleman; as intended to divert us by the pros-
pect of something better from sanctioning that
Resolution. And how does it effect that purpose ?
By shewing us that, if we will let that Resolution
alone, and not unsettle the public mind by resolv-
ing any thing at all about the measurement of the
value of Bank notes, there is already a sufficient
rule for the just estimation of their value. What
is that rule 2 “Public estimation.” Good. And
who is the party whose opinion is to be settled ?
The public. To whom do they appeal 7 To the
House of Commons. The public opinion is di-
vided; the public appeal to the House of Com-
mons for judgment; and the House of Commons,
after gravely hearing the arguments on both sides,
delivers, not its own decision of the question in
dispute, but a decree that the opinion of the public
has already decided it.
Is this (I do not say) wise, judicious, satisfac-
tory ! I ask if it be intelligible; if it be not a
216 O N T H E REPORT OF
mockery of the public ; a degradation of our
own character, and an abdication of our own
functions ! -
Again I say, I cannot, will not believe, that we
shall ever be seriously called upon to vote this
third Proposition.
But even so, we must not leave this main point
of inquiry undetermined, nor our determination
upon it unrecorded. The tenth of the original
Resolutions contains the just and indisputable
inference from the known law and the acknow-
ledged facts of the case. Till the indentures of
the Mint be altered, and the statutes which sanc-
tion them repealed, definite weight of precious
metal constitutes the true standard of our cur-
rency. By that standard, while it subsists in law,
every species of our currency must be measured.
Measured by that standard, Bank notes have not
at present a value equal to their denomination.
Unless the premises can be denied, it is vain to
dispute the conclusion. And this conclusion, if
it be true, it is our bounden duty solemnly to
record. -
These ten Resolutions, therefore, expound the
law of our currency; and establish the fact of the
actual depreciation of that part of it which con-
sists in paper. - -
Here I confess I should be contented to leave
the matter: conceiving that the remedy to be
applied to the evil may best be proposed by the
'I' H E BULLION CO M M I"I"I'E E. 217
Executive Government; and that the causes of it,
though to my mind obvious and manifest, yet are
not as capable of certain and demonstrative proof,
as the fact of its existence.
I have myself no doubt of the truth of the
honourable and learned gentleman’s” eleventh
Resolution. But I am not prepared to affirm it
by my vote. I think that, unlike, in this respect,
to those which have preceded it, it asserts more
than it proves; and I think it implies a degree
of blame upon the Bank, which I am not ready
to impute to that body.
When it is stated that the depreciation of Bank
notes is owing to an excessive issue, and that the
excessive issue has been produced by a want of
check and control, it is difficult not to construe
such a statement as imputing to the Bank a heavy
responsibility both for the excess of their issues,
and for a neglect of those precautions by which
such excess might have been prevented. But the
check and control which are said to have been
wanting, may have been, and in point of fact
were, in part at least, extrinsic to the Bank. The
main check was the payment of their notes in
specie upon demand: for the discontinuance of
this check the Bank is obviously not responsible.
If indeed I could agree with my right honourable
friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in con-
* See Res. 11, of Mr. Horner.
218 ON THE REPORT OF
sidering the question of excess as independent of
that of depreciation, and as capable of being satis-
factorily proved or disproved, otherwise than
through the depreciation, I could not affirm the
fact of an excessive issue without imputing to the
Bank the blame of having intentionally produced
that excess. But the check of cash payments
once removed—which was, as I apprehend, the
only infallible guard against excess, I know of no
test by which the Bank could ascertain the fact
that their issues had become excessive, except by
that of their paper having become depreciated.
The degree and the long continuance of the un-
favourableness of the exchange strongly indicate
—and the high price of bullion incontrovertibly
proves—the depreciation; the depreciation proves
the excess. But such being the order of the de-
monstration, it is not till the fact of depreciation
was established that I could consider that of an
excessive issue as proved: and it would not be
until such excess should have been persevered in
against better knowledge, that I should think it
just to animadvert upon the conduct of the Bank
in the sense of this Resolution.
Besides, I confess I think it unnecessary. I
cannot help being satisfied, that without any spe-
cific resolution on the subject of excess, the effect
of this debate, should the first ten Resolutions be
adopted—nay, I cannot help hoping that the effect
of the debate itself—will be to correct that evil.
'I' | [ E B U L L I O N CO M M ITTEE. 219
For this purpose, however, it is undoubtedly
desirable, that the Bank should be disabused of
some notions which it appears to entertain, and of
others which have been suggested in this debate;
at least if those notions are, as they appear to my
understanding, entirely erroneous. “It is impos-
sible that there should be an excess in the issue
of bank notes,” say the Bank, “because those
notes are never issued except upon solid security
—the security of real mercantile transactions.”
Surely it cannot be necessary to shew that,
although this may be an adequate precaution
against loss to the Bank, it is none against an ex-
cessive issue. It surely cannot be contended, that
every mercantile transaction, that is to say, every
object of commerce, may be represented to its full
value in the paper currency of the country—and
represented not once only, but as often as it
changes hands—without any inconvenient aug-
mentation of the mass of that currency. A. sells
to B. a bale of cloth, or a hogshead of sugar, and
receives from B. a bill of exchange payable in two
months. Here is a bill founded upon a real mer-
cantile transaction. A carries B.'s bill to the
Bank for discount; and a Bank note to the amount
of the bill is sent into circulation. Next day B.
transfers his goods to C., and receives from C. a
similar bill of exchange. Here is another bill
founded on a real mercantile transaction. Like
the former, it is carried to the Bank; and, like it,
22() O N T H E REP () IR 'I' O F
is the cause of adding a Bank note of the same
amount to the circulation. Is it not plain that this
transaction may be almost indefinitely repeated,
till the bale of cloth or the hogshead of sugar is
represented a hundred fold in the currency of the
country : The security of the Bank is not in the
rule of its issue, but in the solvency of the several
parties. This may guard their notes against de-
preciation from discredit; but what tendency has
it to secure them from depreciation by excess 2
“It is impossible,” others have said, “that
there should be an excess, when the mass of pro-
perty to be circulated in this country—the rents
of land, the profits of trade, the expenditure of the
state, and the receipt of the revenue—are grown
and daily growing to an amount so much beyond
all former experience.” “The amount of the cir-
culating medium,” it is said, “so far from having
increased in a ratio equal to that of these several
enormous demands for its employment, bears an
infinitely smaller proportion to those demands
than it has done at former periods of our history.
It cannot therefore be in excess.” This proposi-
tion has been much dwelt upon by many gentle-
men who have spoken in this debate; and the
difficulty of dealing with it lies in this—that on
neither side of the comparison are what it assumes
as data, fixed and certain; that, on the one side,
the total amount of the currency of the country,
including paper of all kinds, is necessarily un-
THE BU LLION COMMITTEE. 22 |
known; and on the other side, who is there (as I
have before had occasion to ask) that shall pretend
to estimate with accuracy the aggregate amount
of all the private transactions of the country 2 The
peremptory inference that excess is impossible, is
surely not to be drawn with confidence from pre-
mises necessarily conjectural.
In one sense, indeed, which, however, I can
hardly suppose to be intended, it may be true that
there never can be any such thing as excess or
superabundance of currency in a country: it can-
not be superabundant, if you do not care for its
depreciation. Suppose, for instance, ten millions
sufficient to carry on all the transactions of the
country—fabricate fifteen millions of paper instead
of ten, the whole fifteen will circulate:—the only
consequence will be, that the commodities for
which it is exchanged will rise fifty per cent. in
their nominal price. Make those fifteen millions
twenty; the addition will in like manner be ab-
sorbed into the enhanced prices of commodities.
Excess of currency cannot be proved to the con-
viction of those who will not admit depreciation
to be the proof of it. - -
But again, if we were to allow the accuracy and
certainty of all the data that are assumed by those
persons who have relied on this argument; to
allow whatever amount they please for the pecu-
niary transactions of the country, public and
222 O N THE REP () IRT OF
private; to allow them to fix where they please,
the amount of the currency; and to assume that its
actual amount at the present moment, consisting,
as it does, almost exclusively of paper, is not
greater—is even less—than when it consisted in
part, and in great part, of gold;—still it would
remain for them, before they could infer the im-
possibility of excess, to shew, that there was no
improved mode of carrying on the transactions of
the country, which facilitated and quickened all
pecuniary transfers, and made a less quantity of
currency perform what had required a greater
amount before ;--it would remain for them to
shew that the very substitution of paper for gold
did not greatly contribute to this facility; that a
Bank note of one hundred pounds would not per-
form in a given space of time an infinitely greater
number of operations in exchange of commodities,
than an equal sum in the more bulky and less
transferable shape of guineas.
That these or any other arguments can disprove
the possibility of excess, I utterly deny—and I
trust that the Bank has, by this time, ceased to
believe. On the other hand, that the existence
of excess can be proved by the converse of these
arguments, or that any conclusive inference can
be drawn from the positive amount of paper in
circulation, or from the comparison of that amount,
either with the amount of currency in circulation
THE BU LI, ION COMMITTEE. 223
at any former time, or with that of the pecuniary
transactions, revenue and expenditure of the
country—I do not pretend.
The currency might be increased or diminished
in any assignable degree, without affording any
inference fairly conclusive upon the point in ques-
tion, unless that diminution or increase were
accompanied by a variation of its value. Whether
that value has or has not varied, is therefore the sole
question. It is the point from which we set out,
and that to which we must return. And as it is
one which is capable of being either proved or
disproved directly, they who argue about it ana-
logically, instead of directly, afford a strong indi-
cation of their own distrust in the soundness of
their reasoning.
That excessive issue has therefore been the
cause of depreciation, I entertain no doubt. And
although, for the reasons which I have given, I
do not think it necessary to declare this fact in a
distinct Resolution, I trust that the statement of
principles in those Resolutions which precede, and
those which follow, is sufficient to answer every
practical purpose of such a declaration. -
The twelfth Resolution simply records a fact,
about which there is no dispute—the unfavourable
state of the exchanges.
The thirteenth Resolution attributes this un-
favourable state of the exchanges, in a great mea-
224 ON THE REPORT OF
sure, to the depreciation of the relative value of
the currency of this country, as compared with
that of other countries; without however excluding
the operation of other causes.
The fourteenth” declares it to be the duty of
the Bank, under the present circumstances, to
take the state of foreign exchanges, as well as the
price of bullion, into their view, in regulating the
amount of their issues.
The twelfth Resolution requires no comment.
To the thirteenth and fourteenth, however the
right honourable gentleman opposite to me (Mr.
Vansittart) may object, my right honourable friend
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must agree. He
must agree, at least, unless he thinks either that the
depreciation of our paper currency is a good thing
in itself; or that, being an evil, it is productive of
good by which it is more than counterbalanced.
He must agree to these Resolutions: for he admits
that the reduction of the amount of Bank paper
would have a tendency to set right the exchanges.
‘The state of the exchanges, therefore, is not in his
opinion, as it is in that of others, wholly inde-
pendent of the amount of the Bank issues, and
unaffected by it. If the exchanges are affected
by the issues of the Bank, and affect in their turn,
as they undoubtedly do, and as by some they are
* See Res. 12, 13, and 14, of Mr. Horner.
THE BU L LION COMIMI ITTEE. 225
thought to do exclusively, the price of gold, and
the general commercial interests of the country,
the state of the exchanges cannot be altogether a
matter of indifference in any question respecting
the amount to which the Bank issues should be
carried. But the Bank have told us distinctly,
that they do not advert to the exchanges with a
view to regulate their issues. Their reason for
not doing so, they state to be, that they do not
consider the amount of their issues, and the state
of the exchanges, as having any connection, or
bearing in any degree upon each other. In this
opinion, my right honourable friend (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) thinks, as I think, that
the Bank is wrong. He must, therefore, naturally
agree with me in the necessity and expediency of
correcting their error on this subject. Conse-
quently, I can anticipate no objection on his part
to the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth Reso-
lutions. §
The fifteenth * Resolution cannot be opposed
by any man, who is not prepared to go the full
length of the argument, that excess of paper cur-
rency is a thing of itself physically impossible, or
who is not desirous of converting the temporary
suspension of cash payments into a permanent
system. With these exceptions, every man must
concur in the opinion, that the convertibility upon
* See the 15th Resolution of Mr. Horner.
VOL. III. Q
226 ON THE RE PORT OF
Ay
demand of paper into coin, is the only permanent
and certain security against excess in the issue of
paper; and must be anxious that this principle,
having been called in question, should be unequi-
vocally affirmed. More especially must those
persons be anxious for such an affirmation, who
are prepared to vote for the last but one of the
propositions of the right honourable gentleman
opposite to me (Mr. Vansittart); in which the
expediency of returning to cash payments as
quickly as possible, is so clearly and properly
recognised. I have already declared that I am
one of those who concur in that proposition; and
who would not object to voting, at the same time,
for the concluding proposition of the right honour-
able gentleman, which declares the inexpediency
of reverting to cash payments at the present
moment: but to those propositions, the Resolu-
tions of the honourable and learned gentleman
(Mr. Horner), which I have already discussed,
and especially this fifteenth Resolution, appear
to me to form the best and most natural intro-
duction.
I now come to the concluding Resolution of the
honourable and learned gentleman,” and that with
respect to which alone I differ from him to the ex-
tent of being compelled to vote against it. Agree-
ing with him as I do in all the main principles of
* See Res. 16, of Mr. Horner.
THE BULLION COMIMI ITTEE. 227
his argument; admitting, as I do, that the evil
which he has denounced, exists, and that he and
his fellow-labourers have traced it to its source;
admitting also that it requires remedy, I am cer-
tainly bound to explain why I cannot go along
with him in his practical conclusion : and I will
endeavour to explain myself upon this point, I
hope, to his satisfaction.
The object of this Resolution is to change the
term of the restriction upon cash payments at the
Bank; and to ascertain, though not necessarily to
shorten, the period of its duration.
I have already said, that, throughout the whole
of this business, I consider the Bank as entirely
passive. The restriction was originally imposed
upon them by Parliament. By Parliament it was
renewed more than once during the continuance
of the former war, after the Bank had declared
its readiness to pay in cash;-by Parliament it
was re-enacted at the recommencement of the
war;-and with a policy, which I deeply regret,
but for which the Bank is no way answerable,
was made commensurate in its continuance with
the continuance of the war. If, therefore, the
error has prevailed of considering this as a war
measure, it is not to the Bank, but to the Par-
liament, that this error ought to be imputed. The
Bank was taught by Parliament so to consider the
subject; and it is hard to visit upon the Bank the
consequences of our own error.
Q 2
228 O N T H E REPORT OF
Nothing can be more obvious than that, con-
sidering its own interests as a commercial corpo-
ration, the Bank may have thought itself not only
warranted, but obliged to adopt a different course
of conduct, with a view to prepare for the re-
sumption of cash payments at a period of six
months after a definite treaty of peace, from that
which they would have adopted with a view to a
different period, definite in point of time, but
independent of the consideration of peace or war.
It is possible that, taking the colour of their opi-
nions from Parliament, and considering the war
as the cause of the restriction, and peace, when-
ever it should be made, as certain to supersede
the necessity of it, they may have thought that
the six months which are to intervene between
the conclusion of the definitive treaty and the call
upon them for cash, would be sufficient to enable
them to replenish their coffers; however they
might have exhausted them in the mean time, by
a liberal assistance to Government, and however
they might have omitted to replace their issues
by the purchase of gold in the market. I do not
say that such has been the conduct of the Bank:
I say, that if such has been their conduct, it is
perfectly natural and excusable. We know, in-
deed, in point of fact, that they have omitted to
purchase bullion. I regret this—because I think
that continued purchases, on their part, would have
tended to keep their notes and the precious metals
THE BU LLION CO M M I 'I''TE. E. 229
more nearly on a par. But we have nothing to
do with the policy on which the Bank conducts
its own private concerns; we have no right to
examine into the state of its coffers; and it would
be highly improper and mischievous to do so.
We had a right to require, before the Bank restric-
tion, payment of their notes in specie on demand:
that right we have voluntarily foregone for purposes,
and with a view to interests, not of the Bank, but
of our own ; and all that we have now strictly a
right to require of the Bank is, that it should be
ready to resume its cash payments at the period
which Parliament has fixed for that resumption.
It would, therefore, in my opinion, be unjust to
shorten, by any compulsory measure, the duration,
or to change the nature of the term for which the
restriction has been enacted.
But I also think the change would be impolitic,
as well as unjust. I am for adhering to our bar-
gain; although I do not think it a very wise one.
I am afraid, that if we propose to alter it for our
own convenience, we should not only not obtain
our object, but by throwing loose the terms of
the existing agreement, should risk the non-per-
formance of that agreement when the period for
exacting it arrives. - -
That our first object might be defeated by the
Bank—if we could suppose that the Directors of
the Bank (which, however, I am very far from
believing) were capable of defeating it by design,
—is sufficiently obvious. But even innocently,
230 ON THE REPORT OF
and with the sincerest desire to conform them-
selves to the express wish of Parliament, the Bank
Directors, suddenly driven out of the course which
they may have adopted in reliance upon the former
act, by this new and unlooked-for interposition,
might, by the very measures which that inter-
position rendered necessary, create a state of
things which would oblige us hastily to recall it.
We read in the Report of the Bullion Com-
mittee of the alarming effects of a too sudden and
violent contraction of the Bank issues. We feel
at the present moment the ill effect of an uncon-
trolled augmentation of them. The result of the
present discussion must and will be (I cannot
doubt but it will) to check the latter evil: but I
am afraid, that, by fixing peremptorily a new
period for opening the cash coffers of the Bank,
we should incur a danger of the former kind to an
extent of which the consequences cannot be fore-
seen. Of these consequences, that which I most
apprehend, which I think the most certain, and
consider as the most to be deprecated, would be
that, the act under which the restriction is now
limited being repealed, the new limitation would
be found impracticable ; and that we should thus
be left without the prospect of any definite period
for the restoration of the sound and natural state
of our currency. .
In the present state of this discussion, I shall be
well contented if we come out of the Committee
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 23]
with the principles of our money system unequi-
vocally recognised, and with the prospect of our
return to the practice of them only not impaired.
Of that issue I will not despair. For the rest, I
am willing to leave to the good sense and good
intentions of the Bank, and to the suggestions of
the executive government, that gradual retrench-
ment of the excess of our paper currency, which
can alone correct those evils, the existence of
which we all agree in acknowledging. I impute
nothing to the Bank for whatever has taken place
amiss; I rely confidently on their disposition to
amend it. As to the Government, I am quite sure,
that whatever may be the present feelings of my
right honourable friend, no obstinate attachment
to preconceived opinions will prevent him from
looking at the whole subject with impartiality, or
from setting himself, with that solicitude which its
importance demands, to review and to re-consider
all the facts and arguments connected with it,
and to adapt his conduct (his counsel, rather—for
it is in that way alone that he can properly in-
fluence the Bank) to whatever may, after full
deliberation, be his own final and sincere con-
viction. I think that, after full deliberation, he
cannot be convinced but aright.
If I am asked, “What, will you then be satisfied,
after all, with doing nothing?—with leaving things
as they are?” I answer—We the House of Com-
mons do perhaps as much as at this moment we
232 ON THE REPORT OF
can do; we do something practical, something
essentially useful and important, if we strengthen,
by a declaration of our opinion, the foundations
of the money system of the country; if we re-
establish the credit of the true standard of our
currency, at a moment when it is attempted to be
brought into doubt and disrepute.
The Bullion Committee will not have sat in
vain, if its report shall have recalled the attention
of Parliament to that system, and that standard,
which it was never the intention of Parliament to
abandon. Nor will this House have mis-spent its
time, if, at the conclusion of this long and anxious
investigation, it shall give its sanction to the
principles of the Bullion Committee, so far as the
system of our money and the standard of our cur-
rency are concerned, even although it may with-
hold that sanction from the practical measure
which the report of the Committee recommends.
The Committee then divided on the first of Mr. Horner’s
Resolutions—
Majority against it 76
The fourteen next resolutions were then put and nega-
tived without a division; and on the sixteenth resolution
the Committee again divided:— -
Ayes .................. 45.
Noes ............... ... 180
4.
Majority against it... 135
THE BUIL LION COMIM ITTEE. 233
BULLION COMMITTEE.
May 13th, 1811.
MR. WANSITTART moved the following Resolutions:—
First.—Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Com-
mittee, that the right of establishing and regulating the
legal money of this Kingdom, hath at all times been a
royal prerogative, vested in the Sovereigns thereof, wh
have from time to time exercised the same, as they have
seen fit, in changing such legal money, or altering and vary-
ing the value, and enforcing or restraining the circulation
thereof, by proclamation, or in concurrence with the estates
of the realm, by Act of Parliament: and that such legal
money cannot lawfully be defaced, melted down, or ex-
ported. -
Second.—That it is the opinion of the Committee, that
the promissory notes of the Governor and Company of the
Bank of England, are engagements to pay certain sums of
money, in the legal coin of this kingdom; and that, for
more than a century past, the said Governor and Company
were at all times ready to discharge such promissory notes
in legal coin of the realm, until restrained from so doing on
the 25th February 1797, by an order of council, confirmed
by Act of Parliament. ve
Third.—That it is the opinion of this Committee, tha
the promissory notes of the Company have hitherto been,
and are at this time, held in public estimation to be equiva-
lent to the legal coin of the realm, and generally accepted
234 O N THE REPORT OF
as such in all pecuniary transactions to which such coin is
lawfully applicable.
Fourth.—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that,
at various periods, as well before as since the said restric-
tion, the Exchange between Great Britain and several other
countries have been unfavourable to Great Britain ; and
that during such periods, the prices of gold and silver bul-
lion, especially of such gold bullion as could be legally ex-
ported, have frequently risen above the mint price; and the
coinage of money at the mint has been either wholly sus-
pended or greatly diminished in amount: and that such
circumstances have usually occurred when expensive naval
and military operations have been carried on abroad, and in
times of public danger and alarm, or when large importa-
tions of grain from foreign parts have taken place.
Fifth.--That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
such unfavourable exchanges, and rise in the price of bul-
lion, occurred to a greater or less degree, during the wars
carried on by King William the Third and Queen Anne,
and also during part of the Seven Years' war, and of the
American war, and during the war and scarcity of grain
in 1795 and 1796, when the difficulty of procuring cash or
bullion increased to such a degree, that on the 25th of
February 1797, the Bank of England was restrained from
making payments in cash, by an Order of Council, con-
firmed and continued to the present time by divers Acts of
Parliament; and the exchanges became still more unfa-
vourable, and the price of bullion higher, during the scarcity
which prevailed for two years previous to the peace of
Amiens. . .
Sixth-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
the unfavourable state of the exchanges, and the high price
of bullion, do not, in any of the instances above referred to,
appear to have been produced by the restriction upon cash
THE BU L LION COMMITTEE. 235
payments at the Bank of England, or by any excess in the
issue of bank notes; inasmuch as all the said instances, ex-
cept the last, occurred previously to any restriction on such
cash payments; and because, as far as appears by such
information as has been procured, the price of bullion has
frequently been highest, and the exchanges most unfavour-
able, at periods when the issues of bank notes have been
considerably diminished ; and they have been afterwards
restored to their ordinary rates, although those issues have
been increased.
Seventh.—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
during the period of nearly seventy-eight years, ending with
the 1st of January 1796, and previous to the aforesaid re-
striction, of which period accounts are before the House,
the price of standard gold in bars had been at or under the
Mint price twenty-eight years and five months, and above
the said Mint price forty-eight years and eleven months;
and that the price of foreign gold coin has been at or under
3l. 18s. per ounce thirty-six years and seven months, and
above the said price thirty-nine years and three months;
and that during the remaining intervals, no prices are
stated. And that, during the same period of seventy-eight
years, the price of standard silver appears to have been at
or under the Mint price three years and two months
only. t
Eighth.—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
during the latter part, and for some time after the close of
the American War, during the years 1781, 1782, and
1783, the exchange with Hamburgh fell from 34. 1. to
31. 5. being about eight per cent. ; and the price of foreign
gold rose from 31. 17s. 6d. to 4!. 2s. 8d. per ounce, and
the price of dollars from 5s. 4d. per ounce to 5s. 113a. ;
and that the Bank notes in circulation were reduced between
March 1782 and September 1782, from 9,160,000l. to
236 ON THE REPORT OF
5,995,000l. being a diminution of above one-third, and con-
tinued (with occasional variations) at such reduced rate
until December 1784; and that the exchange with Ham-
burgh rose to 34.6., and the price of gold fell to 31. 17s. 6d.
and dollars to 5s. 1 #d. per ounce before the 25th of Fe-
bruary 1787, the amount of Bank notes being then in-
creased to 8,688,000l.
Ninth.-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
the amount of Bank notes in February 1787, was
8,688,000l. and in February 1791, 11,699,000l. ; and that
during the same period, the sum of 10,704,000l. was coined
in gold, and that the exchange with Hamburgh rose about
3 per cent. •
Tenth.--That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
the average amount of Bank notes in the year 1795 was
about 11,497,000l., and on the 25th of February 1797,
was reduced to 8,640,000l. during which time the exchange
with Hamburgh fell from 36. to 35, being about 3 per
cent. ; and the said amount was increased to 11,855,000l.
exclusive of 1,542,000l. in notes of 11. and 21. each, on the
1st of February 1798, during which time the exchange
rose to 38.2. being about 9 per cent.
Eleventh.—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
the average price of wheat per quarter in England in the
year 1798, was 50s. 3d; in 1799, 67s. 5d. ; in 1800,
113s. 7d.; in 1801, 118s. 3d. ; and in 1802, 67s. 5d. The
amount of Bank notes of 5l. and upwards, was— -
£. #. £. £.
In 1798, about 10,920,400, and under 5, 1,786,000, 12,706,400
In 1799 . 12,048,790 * 1,626,1 10, & 13,674,900
In 1800 . 13,421,920 . 1831,820.9 making {13.253740
In 1801 . 13,454,370 e 2.715 isoſ together | 16165.330
In 1802 . 13,917,980 . 3,136,470, 17,054,450
That the exchange with Hamburgh was, in January
THE BUL LION COMMITTEE. 237
1798, 38. 2.; January 1799, 37.7.; January 1800, 32. ;
January 1801, 29.8. ; being in the whole a fall of above
22 per cent. ; in January 1802, 32. 2.; and December
1802, 34, being in the whole a rise of about 13 per
Cent.
Twelfth.—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that
during all the periods above referred to, previous to the
commencement of the war with France in 1793, the prin-
cipal states of Europe preserved their independence, and
the trade and correspondence thereof were carried on con-
formably to the accustomed law of nations; and that, al-
though from the time of the invasion of Holland by the
French in 1795, the trade of Great Britain with the Con-
tinent was in part circumscribed and interrupted, it was
carried on freely with several of the most considerable ports,
and commercial correspondence was maintained at all times º
previous to the summer of 1807.
Thirteenth-That it is the opinion of this Committee,
that since the month of November 1806, and especially
since the summer of 1807, a system of exclusion has been
established against the British trade on the Continent of
Europe, under the influence and terror of the French power,
and enforced with a degree of violence and rigour never
before attempted; whereby all trade and correspondence
between Great Britain and the continent of Europe has
(with some occasional exceptions, chiefly in Sweden and
in certain parts of Spain and Portugal) been hazardous,
precarious, and expensive, the trade being loaded with ex-
cessive freights to foreign shipping, and other unusual
charges; and that the trade of Great Britain with the
United States of America has also been uncertain and in-
terrupted; and that in addition to these circumstances,
which have greatly affected the course of payments between
this country and other nations, the naval and, military ex-
238 ON THE REPORT OF
penditure of the United Kingdom in foreign parts has, for
three years past, been very great; and the price of grain,
owing to a deficiency in the crops, higher than at any time
whereof the accounts appear before Parliament, except dur-
ing the scarcity of 1800 and 1801, and that large quantities
thereof have been imported.
Fourteenth-That it is the opinion of this Committee,
that the amount of currency necessary for carrying on the
transactions of the country, must bear a proportion to the
extent of its trade and its public revenue and expenditure;
and that the annual amount of the exports and imports of
Great Britain, on an average of three years, ending 5th
January 1797, was 48,732,6511, official value; the average
amount of revenue paid into the Exchequer, including
monies raised by lottery, 18,759,165l.; and of loans,
18,409,8421, making together 37,169,007.; and the aver-
age amount of the total expenditure of Great Britain
42,855,1111. ; and that the average amount of Bank notes
in circulation (all of which were for 5l. or upwards) was
about 10,782,780l. : and that 57,274,617. had been coined
in gold during His Majesty's reign, of which a large sum
was then in circulation. - f
That the annual amount of the exports and imports
of Great Britain, on an average of three years, ending 5th
January 1811, supposing the imports from the East Indies
and China to have been equal to their amount in the pre-
ceding year, was 77,971,318l., the average amount of
revenue paid into the Exchequer, 62,763,746l., and of loans,
12,673,548l., making together 75,437,294l.; and the aver-
age amount of the total expenditure of Great Britain
82,205,066l. ; and that the average amount of Bank notes
above 50l. was about 14,265,850l., and of notes under 5l.
about 5,283,320. ; and that the amount of gold coin in
circulation was greatly diminished.
TH E B U L LION COMIM ITTE. E. 239
Fifteenth.—That it is the opinion of this Committee,
that the situation of this kingdom, in respect of its poli-
tical and commercial relations with foreign countries, as
above stated, is sufficient, without any change in the in-
ternal value of its currency, to account for the unfavourable
state of the foreign exchanges, and for the high price of
bullion.
Sixteenth.—That it is the opinion of this Committee,
that it is highly important that the restriction on the pay-
ments in cash of the Bank of England should be removed,
whenever the political and commercial relations of the
country shall render it compatible with the public in-
terest. -
Seventeenth.—That it is the opinion of this Committee,
that under the circumstances affecting the political and
commercial relations of this kingdom with foreign countries,
it would be highly inexpedient and dangerous now to fix a
definite period for the removal of the restriction of cash
payments at the Bank of England prior to the term already
fixed by the Act 44 Geo. III. c. 1, of six months after the
conclusion of a definite treaty of peace.
. . . .
MR. CANNING.—I should not have thought it
necessary, Sir, to trouble the Committee with
the expression of my sentiments in this night's
debate, after the able and lucid speech of the
honourable gentleman who spoke last (Mr. H.
Thornton), if I had not been desirous of address-
ing myself more particularly than he has done to
the propositions now brought forward, in the
shape of Resolutions, by the right honourable
240 - ON THE REPORT OF
gentleman opposite to me (Mr. Vansittart), which
are the immediate subject of this night's delibe-
ration.
I should, indeed, be unpardonable, if, after
having already trespassed at so great length on
the indulgence of the Committee, when the origi-
nal resolutions were under discussion, I should
again expatiate upon the general subject which I
conceive to have been disposed of by the vote of
the former night. The present, however, is a
very different question from that which was then
decided. We decided by our former vote, not to
adopt the practical recommendation of the Bullion
Committee. In that vote I concurred. We de-
cided farther, not to sanction and record the
declaration of the principles of our money sys-
tem, on which the recommendation of the Bullion
Committee was founded. In that decision I did
not concur, and it is one which I deeply regret;
because those principles were, as I think, cor-
rectly defined in the original Resolutions; and
because I think that a declaration of them, under
the sanction of this House, would have been emi-
nently useful at the present moment.
But the House having thought otherwise, and
having rejected all the Resolutions of the honour-
able and learned gentleman; my next wish would
have been, that with that rejection the whole dis-
cussion should have terminated. Why pursue it
farther ? The Bullion Committee is defeated; its
\
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 241
doctrines are, at least for the present, set aside.
Why could not its antagonists be contented with
this negative victory ! Why must they aim at
the unnecessary and perilous triumph of substi-
tuting their own doctrines in the place of those
which they have discomfited ?
In the majority of the former night were num-
bered many persons who profess to disapprove of
abstract propositions. Those persons must, in
common consistency, oppose the propositions of
the right honourable gentleman, which are to the
full as abstract as the original Resolutions. In
that majority were many who not only did not
agree with the right honourable gentleman oppo-
site to me, in denying the existence of a depre-
ciation of the paper currency; but who distinctly
declared their entire conviction of the existence
of that depreciation, and only thought it too noto-
rious and undeniable to require the formality of
a parliamentary affirmation. Can those persons
be expected by the right honourable gentleman
to concur in the Resolutions which he is now
bringing forward? Others again there were, who,
neither admitting nor denying the depreciation,
were desirous only of escaping from the necessity
of a decision either way: contending that no
result could be so satisfactory, as the discussion
itself was mischievous. Will those persons thank
the right honourable gentleman for reviving a
discussion which, if it had finally closed on Fri-
vol. III. R.
242 O N THE REPORT OF
day night, would have left them in quiet posses-
sion of their doubts, doubts which any man
might very reasonably prefer to a decision in Sup-
port of the right honourable gentleman's third
Resolution?
Independently of this violence to the feelings
and judgments of his supporters, has the right
honourable gentleman no consideration for the
reputation of the House of Commons itself, when
he calls upon us, by voting that Resolution, to
affirm a proposition, which, I will venture to say,
there is no man who, without the doors of the
House, could affirm with a grave countenance 2
The third Resolution is the essential part, the
soul and spirit, of the right honourable gentle-
man's system. Of the other Resolutions, the first
and the fifteenth are the only two, which, in my
view of the subject, appear to require particular
observation. The remainder, from the fourth to
the fourteenth, inclusive, contain a vast variety
of statements, historical, political, commercial,
financial, and agricultural; some accurate, some
inaccurate; but all valuable rather from their in-
trinsic erudition, than from any very near connec-
tion with the subject before us. With none of
these, therefore, shall I presume to meddle.
But, before I proceed to the three Resolutions
in which the whole of the right honourable gen-
tleman's argument lies, I must say a word or two
in answer to a challenge of the right honourable
THE BUIL LION CO M M ITT F. E. 243
gentleman as to his sixteenth and seventeenth
resolutions.” He states, and states very truly,
that I had declared myself ready to vote for
those two Resolutions, provided they were pre-
faced and introduced, not by his own preceding
Resolutions, but by the first ten of the original
Resolutions moved by the honourable and learned
Chairman of the Bullion Committee. The right
honourable gentleman triumphs in this declara-
tion of mine, as if it had been a concession to his
argument, instead of an exposition of my own.
He has caught me in a great inconsistency it
seems. And what is this inconsistency! That I
am ready to affirm two things irreconcilable with
each other ? That I would vote premises that
did not bear out their conclusion, or a conclusion
contradictory to its premises 7 No such thing;
but, simply, that I am ready to adopt the pre-
mises suggested by one man, and the conclusion
drawn by another. This is what he considers as
an inconsistency; as if consistency had reference
not to the compatibility of doctrines, but to the
identity of persons holding them. f
It is true that if the first ten of the original
Resolutions had been carried, I should not have
objected to adding to them the two concluding
propositions of the right honourable gentleman.
But I cannot consent to vote for them by them-
* See Res. 16, 17.
R 2
244 ON THE REPORT OF
selves, nor if introduced by his own preceding
propositions.
I am not, any more than the right honourable
gentleman himself, for changing the period now
fixed by law for the repeal of the Bank restric-
tion. I could therefore have been contented to
vote for the sixteenth and seventeenth of the
right honourable gentleman's propositions, if those
principles, respecting the standard of our money,
which were luminously and accurately developed
in the Resolutions moved by the Chairman of the
Bullion Committee, had been previously recog-
nised and sanctioned. The truth of these prin-
ciples once admitted, there might have been
comparatively little danger in deciding either way
the question, whether the period for returning to
the strict practical application of them should be
accelerated. But to decide that question in a
way which should imply a denial of the truth of
those principles, would be productive of a mis-
chief than which none can be greater, except
indeed that of adopting the right honourable gen-
tleman's Resolutions, in which the truth of those
principles is denied, not by implication, but
directly.
To have abstained from adopting the original
Resolutions provided no others were agreed to in
their room, would be to leave the true principles
of our money system unvouched indeed, but not
discredited, and to leave the Bank restriction
'I' H E 13 U L L ION CO M M ITTE. E. 245
precisely as it stands. To declare the continuance
of the Bank restriction, by adopting the right
honourable gentleman's sixteenth and seventeenth
resolutions only, without adverting at the same
time to the principles laid down by the Bullion
Committee, would be to leave it matter of doubt
whether the restriction was continued because
those principles were false, or only because their
force was overborne by considerations of expe-
diency. This result would be unsatisfactory
enough. To adopt and record the right honour-
able gentleman's premises as the foundation of
his own conclusion, would be, in his view, no
doubt, perfectly consistent; but it would be a
consistency obtained at no less an expense than
that of abrogating, so far as the Resolutions of this
House can abrogate it, the whole system under
which the currency of this country has been
hitherto regulated and preserved in a state of
purity and integrity, equally creditable to the
character of the state, and to the increasing vigi-
lance and anxiety of Parliament.
In matters which have been frequently the ob-
ject of parliamentary revision, it is no light thing
to come to Resolutions of a general and abstract
nature without taking the former proceedings of
Parliament for our guide. .
If they who dissented from the doctrines of the
Bullion Committee thought the errors of that
Committee the more formidable on account of the
246 ON THE REPORT OF
authority by which they were inculcated, how
much more cautious ought we to be in ascertain-
ing, beyond possibility of doubt, the truth of those
doctrines which we are now called upon to pro-
mulgate by the much higher authority of the
House itself?
A declaration of the law by one of the branches
of the Legislature ought not to be made at all but
for a grave and adequate object; and, at least,
ought to be unimpeachably correct.
Let us examine the right honourable gentle-
man's first Resolution, in this double view. First,
let us see how far it is positively correct; and
secondly, what is the object to which it is directed,
and how far it attains that object.”
That the right of establishing and regulating the
legal money of this kingdom is a prerogative of
the Sovereign, is most undoubtedly true : that the
Sovereigns of this kingdom have at different times
altered the value of such money, is also true—if
by value be intended only the denomination of
such money, that is, the rate at which any given
quantity of gold or silver should be current within
these realms. But “value,” absolutely stated, is
by no means a correct expression. To alter the
positive intrinsic value of the precious metals, or
make it other than it is by nature, and by the re-
lation which those metals bear to other commo-
dities, is a power, which neither kings nor parlia-
ments have hitherto, so far as I know, arrogated ;
* See 1st Resolution.
THE BU LLION CO M M ITTEE. 247
but the existence of which, to be sure, would at
once put an end to all dispute, and give to the
right honourable gentleman, and those who side
with him, a complete triumph. If value were,
indeed, the offspring of authority, there is no
doubt but that paper or pasteboard, or any viler
material, might be raised by that authority to a
level with gold. But the only power which Sove-
reigns have ever yet exercised or claimed, has
been to fix the rate or “current” value of coin
within their own dominions. -
Nor is it merely an inaccuracy of expression to
omit this qualification of the word “value.” It
is an inaccuracy which may lead to serious mis-
conception in a case where the whole controversy
turns upon this single question, “whether there
be or be not an inherent inextinguishable value in
the precious metals estimated according to their
relation to other commodities generally, throughout
the world; and independent of any arbitrary valua-
tion, which positive edicts or enactments can affixto
them?” The right honourable gentleman's proposi-
tion, as it stands, without the addition to the word
“value” of the epithets “current” or “denomina-
tive,” would go to favour the notion that edicts and
enactments have this power: a notion so wild
that it might seem almost unnecessary to guard
against it, if it, or something very like it, were not
in fact the foundation of almost all the right
honourable gentleman's arguments.
24 S O N THE RE PO #3 T () F
He cannot, however, intend to avow such a
notion. He will, therefore, I presume, have no
objection to qualify the word “value,” by the
addition of one or other of the epithets which
I have suggested. So qualified, the proposition,
that the Sovereign has at different times varied the
“ current” or “denominative” value of the coin,
would be true, and perfectly harmless.
The Resolution proceeds to state, that this has
been done by proclamation, “ or” by Act of Par-
liament. This is also a true proposition; but upon
this also I must observe, that it is not stated with
sufficient qualification. The Resolution seems to
imply that the option between the two modes of
proceeding is perfectly arbitrary; that Parliament
may be either admitted into, or excluded from, a
share in the operation, exactly according to the
will and pleasure of the Crown. But, I would
take the liberty of suggesting to the right honour-
able gentleman, that it was not enough to state
the abstract principles and theory of the constitu-
tion ; it was incumbent on him to state them as
they have been acted upon, as they are modified
by practice, as they are to be found, not in the
proclamations of Henry the VIIIth, but in the
statute book; in statutes of the last century; in
those of the present reign. - . .
The Sovereign (says the right honourable gen-
tleman) can alter the value of the coin–but can
he do that at the present moment, without consent
'I' H F. B U L I, I () N C () MIM ITT E E. 249
of Parliament? Can he do it against existing
Acts of Parliament 2 Can he, except by the aid
and concurrence of Parliament, repeal the Acts of
the 14th of the present reign, which were passed
on occasion of the last recoinage of the gold; and
which must be repealed or amended, if any altera-
tion should be made in the current value of the
guinea’ Unquestionably the King, according to
the theory of the prerogative, can, by his procla-
mation, reduce or raise the denomination of the
current coin. But, if by doing so, he would place
his subjects in the dilemma of either disregarding
his proclamation, or acting in contravention of an
Act of Parliament, would it be in that case a
sound or a safe statement of the law, to give a
naked definition of the prerogative, without refe-
rence to the practical restrictions by which the
exercise of it must necessarily be controlled ?
Are the opinions of lawyers so settled and uni-
form upon this subject as to warrant the right
honourable gentleman's sweeping and unqualified
assertion ? Do lawyers agree that there is no limit
to the power of the Crown in this respect? that
the Crown may give what current value it pleases
to coin, which it may debase at its pleasure?
I do not mean to assert that all such authorities
are uniformly the other way: it would, perhaps,
be difficult to name that branch of the prerogative
which has not been exalted to an excess in the
speeches or writings of some one or other of the
250 ON 'I' H E REPORT OF
great Crown lawyers who have spoken or written
upon the prerogative. But such opinions, even if
they were more general than they will be found
to be, surely could not avail against positive
Statute.
“The denomination” (says Blackstone), “or the
value for which the coin is to pass current, is like-
wise in the breast of the King; and if any unusual
pieces are coined, that value must be ascertained
by proclamation. In order to fix the value, the
weight and the fineness of the metal are to be
taken into consideration together. When a given
weight of gold or silver is of a given fineness, it is
then of the true standard, and is called sterling.
Of this sterling metal all the coin of the kingdom
must be made by the statute 25 Edw. III. cap. 15;
so that the King's prerogative seemeth not to ex-
tend to the debasing or enhancing the value of the
coin below or above the sterling value: though
Sir Matthew Hale appears to be of another
opinion.” - -
The right honourable gentleman may perhaps
tell me that his opinion agrees with that of Sir
Matthew Hale; to which Judge Blackstone here
refers as seemingly more favourable to the prero-
gative than his own. But if he will look into that
elaborate and instructive treatise, which contains
an abstract of all the learning and all the history
relating to our coinage—I mean the Letter of the
late Earl of Liverpool to the King.—he will there
T H E BU L LION CO M M l'I'TE E. 251
find in what respects the Legislature has limited
the exercise of that prerogative, since the death
of Sir Matthew Hale. He will find it stated that,
even in Sir Matthew Hale's opinion, “though
this great prerogative is unquestionable, it is cer-
tainly advisable that in the exercise of it, when-
ever any great change is intended to be made,
the King should avail himself of the wisdom and
support of his Parliament.” “Sir Matthew Hale
observes,” says Lord Liverpool, “that it is neither
safe nor honourable for the King to imbase his
coin below sterling; if it be at any time done, it
is fit to be done by the assent of Parliament:
and he concludes, that on such occasions “fieri
non debuit, factum valet.’”
Even if such were still the state of the preroga-
tive, would it justify a Resolution of the House of
Commons, which describes that prerogative as
absolute and indefinite, and describes “the assent
of Parliament” not as that with which, according
to Sir Matthew Hale, “it is fit” that such altera-
tion should be made, if made at all ; and without
which, according to the same authority, “fieri
non debuit;” but merely as that which it is op-
tional with the Crown to ask or not to ask, ac-
cording to its good pleasure ? Would such a
Resolution have befitted the House of Com-
mons, even at the time when Sir Matthew Hale
wrote 2 Is it possible to pass it now ; when that
prerogative, which by Sir Matthew Hale was con-
252 ON THE REPO RT () F
sidered as unfit to be exercised without consent
of Parliament, stands actually limited by statute 7
Let us now consider what is the object with a
view to which this exposition of the law is made,
and how far that object is attained by it.
The question in agitation is, whether our paper
currency be or be not depreciated 2 The price of
gold in that paper currency is adduced in proof of
the depreciation. What answer is it to this ques-
tion—what refutation is it of this proof–to say,
“The King's prerogative can alter the value of
the coin'?”—Granted that it can. At least it has
not done so in the present instance. The coin is
not varied in value: the paper currency, it is
contended, is. The King's prerogative has no-
thing to do with the paper of the Bank. The
paper of the Bank is not (God forbid it ever
should be 1) the legal money of the realm. How,
then, does the King's prerogative decide—how
does it even affect—the question as to the depre-
ciation of Bank paper? It can by no possibility
affect it at all, unless the right honourable gentle-
man be prepared to address us in something like
the following manner—“The King has a power
to make whatever he pleases money; and to
make that money of what value he pleases. If
you murmur at this supposed depreciation of Bank
notes, beware that you do not provoke an exercise
of the prerogative, which shall make those Bank
notes to all intents and purposes legal money; or
T H E B U L LION COMMITTEE. 253
which shall cure that pretended disparity be-
tween paper and gold about which you clamour
so loudly, by raising the denomination of the
coin.”
Is this what the right honourable gentleman
means to say? If so, though I do not think that
there would be much wisdom in the measure, I
admit that his Resolution is an apt and natural
introduction to it. I can at least understand its
application to the subject. I can see what is
meant by it. But unless this be his meaning, I am
at a loss to conceive how the assertion that the
paper currency is actually depreciated, is dis-
proved, or even touched, by the assertion of the
King's prerogative to establish and alter at his
pleasure the legal money of the realm.
The Resolutions on the subject of the coinage
laws, which we rejected on a former night, and
for which this of the right honourable gentleman
is intended as a substitute, had a direct and sen-
sible bearing upon the question in dispute. In
affirming the depreciation of the paper currency,
it was necessary to define the standard by which
such currency was to be measured. The honour-
able and learned mover of the original Resolutions
did define it, and, as I think, with perfect truth
as well as precision. Can it be the right honour-
able gentleman's intention, by stating with such
laxity the absolute and indefinite power of the
254 ON THE REPORT OF
Crown over the legal money of the realm, to imply
that, where every thing is liable to such arbitrary
fluctuation, there can be no fixed standard by
which to measure the value of the currency 2 If
his argument be good for any thing, it can only
be so by being pushed to this extent: but even
then it affords no answer to the Resolutions of
the honourable and learned gentleman. Those
Resolutions asserted that the paper currency is in
a state of depreciation, if measured by the existing
standard of our legal currency. The right honour-
able gentleman does not contradict this assertion ;
he passes it by ; he says nothing at all as to what
the standard of our currency really is; but con-
tents himself with disparaging its fitness as a
measure of value, by insinuating that, whatever
it may be at the present moment, the King has,
by his prerogative, an unlimited power of chang-
ing it.
But, again, even if the King has this power, it
is not pretended that he has in point of fact
thought fit to exercise it. If any part of our cur-
rency has been varied in its value, either in re-
spect to another part of it, or in respect to the
standard, it is not pretended that this has been
done by the interposition of the Crown. The
complaint is, however, that such a variation has
in fact taken place in the value of Bank paper.
What answer is it to this complaint, to say, that
THE BU I, LION COMMI l'I'TEE. 255
though the King has not, yet he might, if he
pleased, have made a like variation in the current
value of the coin 7
There is, however, another operation of the
prerogative, which, to make his definition com-
plete, the right honourable gentleman ought to
have noticed : but which he has altogether omit-
ted, perhaps because he saw that it would bear
inconveniently upon his argument: I mean the
King's power of giving currency to foreign coin
within his own dominions. Now one of the
plainest illustrations of the actual depreciation of
our paper currency has been derived from the
change which has been recently made in the cur-
rent value of the dollar.
“The King,” says Mr. Justice Blackstone in the
same part of his work to which I have already re-
ferred, “may also, by his proclamation, legitimate
foreign coin, and make it current here; declaring
at what value it shall be taken in payments. But
this, I apprehend, ought to be by comparison with
the standard of our own coin; otherwise the con-
sent of Parliament will be necessary.”
“This great prerogative,” says Lord Liverpool
in his Letter to the King, “which the Kings of
this realm have immemorially enjoyed and exer-
cised, of giving currency to the coins made at
their mint, and sometimes to foreign coins, at a
determinate rate or value, and of enhancing and
debasing them at their pleasure, is of so important
256 O N T H E REPO RT OF
and delicate a nature, and the justice and honour
of the Sovereign, as well as the interests of the
people, are so deeply concerned in it, that it ought
to be exercised with the greatest judgment and
discretion.” *
We here see the limitations in point of law,
which, in the opinion of so able a lawyer as
Blackstone,—and those in point of prudence and
discretion which, in the opinion of so profound a
practical statesman as the Earl of Liverpool,
would have governed the exercise of the preroga-
tive of the Crown in giving currency to the dollar.
Have these limitations, has this caution, been ob-
served in fixing the rate at which the dollar now
circulates ? The intrinsic value of the dollar “ by
comparison with the standard of our own coin,”—as
compared, for example, with the British crown
piece—is nearly in the proportion of nine to ten.
The current rate at which the dollar circulates, as
compared with the crown piece, is now in the
proportion of eleven to ten.
By what authority has so strange an anomaly
been introduced into our money system —an
anomaly which, according to Blackstone, the
Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, is bound
to avoid. By an ordinance of the Bank. The
prerogative of the Crown, we have seen, might
have given currency to the dollar: but it could
only have done so at a rate proportionate to its
intrinsic value, as compared with the standard of
THE BU LLION CO M M ITTEE. 257
the realm; or for any deviation from that standard
it must have obtained the concurrence of Parlia-
ment. But the thing is done. It is one of the
main features of our present system. It makes
one of the grounds of the complaint which the
right honourable gentleman proposes to answer
by the authoritative language of his first Resolu-
tion. And how does he answer it? By referring
to the prerogative of the Crown as the authority
by which alone the currency can be regulated ;
and yet omitting altogether a part of that prero-
gative, so essential to the present subject, as the
power of giving currency to foreign coin! He
omits it—Why?—Evidently because he could not
state it, without ackowledging, at the same time,
that the rules by which the exercise of that part
of the prerogative has always been governed, have
been entirely neglected in the issue of the dollar
at its present rate; and because he could not
make that acknowledgment without avowing the
depreciation of our currency.
Before the late ordinance of the Bank, nine
crown pieces would have exchanged for ten
dollars. Now, ten dollars cannot be had for less
than eleven crowns. If this be not depreciation,
what is it? Perhaps I shall be warned that this
argument proves too much; for that the depreci-
ation here established would be that of the lawful
coin of the realm, not of the paper currency, of
which alone the depreciation is asserted.
VOL. III. S
258 ON THE REPORT OF
I answer—the depreciation of the lawful coin
in respect to the dollar is effected through the
medium of the paper. If the crown piece and
the dollar circulated together without the inter-
vention of the paper, it would be impossible that
they should bear to each other any other relation
than that which arises naturally from their re-
spective intrinsic values. It is by the interven-
tion of the paper, which measures the one accord-
ing to its nominal, the other according to its
intrinsic value, that this relation is forcibly in-
verted, and the more valuable is degraded below
the less valuable coin.
I shall probably be told, however, that the
dollar is a mere token; it is no more than a pro-
missory note in silver, which no man is bound to
accept in payment This is perfectly true: but
it is a singular argument to be relied upon by the
practical school, since it is no less true that the
dollar, such as it is, constitutes in fact by far the
greater part of the metallic currency now in cir-
culation. In the same way it has been argued,
that a Bank note is not a legal tender—that no
man is bound to take a Bank note from his neigh-
bour in satisfaction of a just debt. This also is
true: but it is no less so that the public creditor
is bound to receive Bank notes, or at least can get
nothing else, in payment of his demand upon the
state; and it seems to be no great consolation to
the public creditor to be assured that what he is
T H E B U LLION COMIM ITTE E. 259
compelled to take from the Government, nobody
is compellable to take from him.
This being then practically the state of our
currency, what satisfaction, I must again ask,
does the first Resolution of the right honourable
gentleman afford to those who complain of the
depreciation of Bank paper, by stating, and stat-
ing, as it appears, incorrectly, the money pre-
rogatives of the Crown 2–prerogatives, which, in
respect to the bulk of our currency, the paper,
have no operation at all; and which in respect to
the small portion of metallic currency which we
possess, have been suffered to lie dormant and
passive, while that currency has been regulated,
by another authority, on principles directly con-
trary to those by which the Crown must have
been guided in giving currency to a foreign
coin. -
This Resolution therefore the House of Com-
mons cannot but reject: first, because it is de-
fective as a definition of the prerogative which it
affects to define; secondly, because it is wholly
inapplicable to the only points about which there
is any dispute, namely, Bank paper, which is
out of the province of the prerogative; and the
foreign silver currency, of which in fact it has
taken no cognizance; and lastly, because it is
calculated, by implication at least, to exclude
Parliament from all share in the regulation of a
subject, in which, in all good times, Parliament
S 2
260 ON THE REPORT OF
has claimed it as a right, and felt it a duty, to
interfere, whenever the occasion has called for its
interference.
It is impossible to pass over the second Reso-
lution without observing, that it remains liable to
the objection which I took the liberty of making
to it in a former debate.* The words “on demand”
are still omitted : I trust, the right honourable
gentleman intends to supply this omission. I
must say, that the persisting in it would afford
just ground of serious suspicion and alarm.
I now come to the main Resolution of all, the
third. This it is that contains the sum and sub-
stance of all the right honourable gentleman’s
arguments and doctrines; and to which I cannot
believe it possible, until the vote shall actually
have passed, that any assembly of reasonable men
can be persuaded to give their concurrence. The
Resolution is as follows:
III. That the Promissory Notes of the said Company
have hitherto been, and are at this time, held in public
estimation to be equivalent to the legal Coin of the
Realm, and generally accepted as such in all pecuniary
transactions to which such Coin is legally applicable,
The right honourable gentleman, in stating what
he considered to be the effect of this Resolution,
made use of an expression which does indeed
most truly describe its character, and the character
* See Second Resolution.
THE BU LLION COMIM ITTEE. 261
of that assent which he reckons upon obtaining to
it. By this Resolution, said the right honourable
gentleman, we “pledge ourselves to believe the
equivalency of Bank notes to coin.” Pledge our-
selves to believe This is perhaps more than any
man ever before avowed of himself; but certainly
more than any man ever openly declared his in-
tention to exact from others. Belief is not usually
matter of volition; therefore, one should think, it
cannot reasonably be made matter of undertaking
and engagement. Of all martyrs of whatever
faith, I have always conceived the just praise to
be, that they adhered stedfastly to a belief founded
on sincere conviction, not that they anticipated
that conviction by pledging themselves before-
hand what their belief should be. The right ho-
nourable gentleman's martyrdom is of a superior
description: it not only professes its faith, but
creates it: and to say the truth, it does require a
faith, rather of the will than of the understand-
ing, to believe the doctrine which the right
honourable gentleman has promulgated in this
third Resolution.
The right honourable gentleman, however, has
not done full justice to his own Resolution. The
pledge which it contains goes much farther than
he describes. It is not we, the resolvers, that are
pledged by it to the creed of the right honourable
gentleman : it pledges all mankind, except our-
Selves. It is so contrived, that even I might con-
262 ON THE REPORT OF
sistently vote for it, denying as I do every syllable
of the doctrine which it contains. Whatever
other merit the Resolution may want, this is at
least ingenious, and I think I may venture to say
it is altogether new in parliamentary proceeding.
The object of the right honourable gentleman
is to settle the public mind on a question on which
there is great division of opinion. There are
various modes in which the public mind may be
settled in matters depending on positive authority.
The first is a proclamation by the King, where
the subject matter is one to which the Royal pre-
rogative is of itself competent; and such the right
honourable gentleman contends this matter to be.
A second mode is by Act of Parliament, in which
the united wisdom of the two branches of the
Legislature is sanctioned by the authority of the
Crown. A third mode is by concurrent resolution
of the two Houses of Parliament, declaring their
joint opinion. A fourth mode is, by resolution of
one or other House of Parliament, declaring its
opinion alone. But to these four recognised
modes, it remained for the ingenuity of the right
honourable gentleman to add a fifth–that of a
resolution of the House of Commons, declaring,
not its own opinion, but that of the litigants
themselves. -
Are Bank notes equivalent to the legal standard
coin of the realm ? This is the question which
divides and agitates the public opinion. I, says
THE BULLION COMIMITTEE. 263
the right honourable gentleman, will devise a
mode of settling this question to the satisfaction
of the public. By advising a proclamation? No.
—By bringing a Bill into Parliament 7 No.—
By proposing to declare the joint opinion of both
Houses, or the separate opinion of one? No.—
By what new process then : Why, simply by
telling the disputants that they are, and have
been all along, however unconsciously, agreed
upon the subject of their variance; and gravely
resolving, for them, respectively, an unanimous
opinion. This is the very judgment, I should
imagine, which Milton ascribes to the venerable
Anarch, whom he represents as adjusting the dis-
putes of the conflicting element:
“Chaos umpire sits,
And by decision more embroils the fray.”
That the public would have bowed in reverence
and submission to the pronounced opinion of the
House of Commons, cannot be doubted : but
when the House of Commons speaks, not as a
judge but as an interpreter, it can hardly expect
to be regarded as infallible by those whose sen-
timents it professes to interpret.
“ In public estimation,” says the right honour-
able gentleman’s Resolution, “Bank notes and
coin are equivalent.” Indeed? What then is
become of all those persons who, for the last six
months have been by every outward and visible
264 O N T H E REPORT OF
indication evincing, maintaining, and inculcating
an opinion diametrically opposite 7 Who wrote
that multitude of pamphlets, with the recollection
of which one's head is still dizzy What is be-
come of the whole class of readers of those
pamphlets, of whom to my cost I was one; and
a great number of whom at least were convinced,
like me, of the actual depreciation of our paper
currency Were these writers and readers no
part of the public 2 or does the right honourable
gentleman apprehend that his arguments must
have wrought their conversion ? Far be it from
me to say that, whatever I may think of his argu-
ments, the authority of his name would not have
great weight with me and with the public. There-
fore do I regret that, if he does not think fit to
frame his Resolution in the name of the House of
Commons, he should not at least resolve in his
own name the equivalency which he is so bent
upon establishing. A Resolution, importing that
“in the estimation” of the right honourable gen-
tleman individually, “Bank notes are equivalent
to the legal coin of the realm,” though I do not
pretend to say it would carry all the force of a
decision of the legislature, would yet be a pro-
digious comfort even to those who are hardened
in their disbelief of that equivalency; as it would
shew them in what quarter to apply when they
wished to make an exchange on equal terms.
Nor would such a declaration of individual
THE BULLION CO M MI'I'TEE. 265
opinion, though unusual, be wholly without ex-
ample. I saw the other day an address to the
public from a patriotic lottery-office keeper, which
in truth I should think had not escaped the right
honourable gentleman's notice, since his third
resolution is nearly a transcript of it. This
worthy distributor of the favours of Fortune dis-
claims, in the most indignant terms, the intention
to “make any distinction between Bank notes,
and the current coin of the realm.” He is “at
all times ready,” he says, “to serve the public
with tickets or shares, on equal terms for either.”
Why should not the right honourable gentleman
give a similar demonstration of the sincerity of
his own opinion ? It is obvious that if the lot-
tery-office keeper, instead of speaking for himself,
had only declared that “in the estimation of the
public,” Bank notes and coin were equal, his as-
surance would have gone but for little: and I
really cannot see why, in adopting, as he has
done, the very words of the lottery advertisment,
the right honourable gentleman should decline
adopting the advertiser's test of his sincerity.
I must, however, observe, that the right honour-
able gentleman carries his doctrine somewhat
farther than his prototype, the lottery-office keeper.
The advertisement is much more cautiously word-
ed than the resolution. The advertisement only
affirms the equivalency of Bank notes to the
“ current” coin of the realm. The resolution
266 ON THE REPORT OF
says, that they are equivalent to the “legal” coin.
Now the assertion of the advertisement may be
perfectly safe from contradiction, forasmuch as
“ current” coin of the realm, there is at this mo-
ment none. But the “legal” coin of the realm,
though driven out of circulation, is capable of
strict definition. The right honourable gentle-
man's proposition therefore admits of a test, which
the advertiser's does not. To make his proposi-
tion perfect, the right honourable gentleman
ought to define both those things which he de-
clares to be equivalent to each other. Bank
notes he has defined in his second Resolution:
they are “engagements to pay certain sums of
money in the legal coin of this kingdom.” But
he has omitted to define the “legal coin.”
With his leave, I will venture to remind him
that one pound in sterling money of this realm, is
either # of a guinea, weighing not less than 5*
8* standard fineness; or it is #} of a lb. of stand-
ard silver. Does the right honourable gentleman
object to either of those definitions 2 If not, does
he maintain his proposition of equivalency? Does
he maintain that a one-pound note is equivalent
to #4 of a lawful guinea, or to #3 of a lb. of stand-
ard silver ? Does he not know that a guinea is
intrinsically worth not a one-pound note, with one
shilling in addition, but with the addition of four
or five shillings, at the present moment?—and that
so far from purchasing nearly the third part of a lb.
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 267
of standard silver, a Bank note of one pound would
now purchase little more than the fourth part
of it 2
But the right honourable gentleman warns us,
that we overlook the force and real meaning of
the word “legal” as employed in his Resolution.
He alludes not to the laws which have fixed the
standard, and which ensure the weight and pu- .
rity of our coin; but to those which provide by
wholesome penalties against the influence of its
real upon its denominative value. The gold of a
guinea may be worth what we will; the Resolu-
tion applies only to the gold in a guinea. It does
not say that a Bank note is worth as much as a
guinea. It says only that the guinea can pass for
no more than the Bank note. It ties the living to
the dead, and then pronounces them equal to
each other. The gold which is necessary to con-
stitute a guinea, may be worth twenty-six or
twenty-seven shillings. The right honourable
gentleman's business with it commences only
when it has received the stamp and sanction of
the Sovereign. It is then that, degraded by this
distinction, and restricted by this guarantee, it
loses about a fifth of its value, and becomes worth
only a one-pound note and one shilling.
Be it so. This then may be the state of the
law: but how does this prove “public estima-
tion ?” If the Resolution had purported merely
that by law the guinea could pass for no more
268 ON THE REPORT OF
than twenty-one shillings, perhaps the right ho-
nourable gentleman may have the law on his side.
But this proposition he had the sagacity to see
would not answer his purpose. It would do
nothing for the Bank note. It would settle the
proportion between gold and silver coin; but not
between either of those metals and Bank paper.
Bank paper, until it is made the paper of the
state, and a legal tender (which as yet happily it
is not), must depend upon confidence for its
value; and I am afraid that confidence may
rather be impaired than restored by such a Reso-
lution as the right honourable gentleman's.
There is, however, yet one addition, which
qualifies the right honourable gentleman's propo-
sition. Bank notes are not only “equivalent to
legal coin,” it seems, but are “generally ac-
cepted as such ;” which to be sure it is natural
to expect they should be, if equivalent. They
are so accepted, however, not in all transactions.
No—only in “transactions to which such coin
is legally applicable.” There are transactions,
then, it seems, in which they are not accepted as
equivalent 2 Yes; but those transactions are not
legal ones. Is the purchase of gold bullion a
legal transaction ? I presume it is. A pound of
gold bullion is at this moment worth about
58l. 16s. in Bank notes: 581. 16s. in guineas, ac-
cording to their current value, makes fifty-six
guineas. Now forty-four and a-half of these
THE BU LLION CO M MITTE E. 269
guineas, we know, weigh exactly one pound.
The right honourable gentleman, therefore, means
gravely to affirm that there exist persons who
will with equal readiness give 5Sl. 16s. in Bank
notes, or fifty-six golden guineas, in payment for
a commodity which is intrinsically worth exactly
forty-four guineas and a-half. It warms one’s
heart to hear such heroic instances of more than
Roman virtue: but I must be permitted to doubt
whether they can be truly stated to be as “gene-
ral,” as the right honourable gentleman sup-
poses. I doubt whether even the patriotic lot-
tery-man, from whom the right honourable gen-
tleman has borrowed his third Resolution, would
make such a sacrifice as this to the laws of his
country. I doubt whether the right honourable
gentleman himself does not stand the single in-
stance of such striking self-devotion : and would
again submit to him, therefore, whether his third
Resolution, instead of affirming any thing about
the public, ought not to run singly in his own
Ilalīle.
But, after all, is the right honourable gentleman
sure that he is prepared to define exactly, at this
moment, the legality or illegality of interchanging
guineas and Bank notes, at any other than the
nominal current value 2 What cognizance does
the law take of the rate at which Bank notes shall
pass 2 Is there any law which touches this mat-
ter? If any body had such a fancy for Bank
270 ON THE REPORT OF
notes, and differed so entirely from the Bullion
Committee, and from the right honourable gen-
tleman, as to think them not only not depreciated
in respect to coin, but as worth being bought up
in coin at a premium ; is there any law which
would prevent him from gratifying his taste in
this particular ! If for more, might he not also
buy them for less, than their nominal value 2 Is
there any law to prevent that ? The man who has
been convicted, and is now expecting judgment
for buying guineas at a premium, might he not
justly aver that he had only sold Bank notes at a
loss 2 Is there any law which forbids that ? The
right honourable gentleman may tell me, that
this question is at this very moment before the
judges of the land, by whose determination the
conviction to which I have referred, will be either
confirmed or reversed. And so I tell the right
honourable gentleman; and from that very cir-
cumstance, from the law on that subject being in
such a state of uncertainty as to require a reference
to the judges, it is, in my opinion, unseemly, and
must be most unsatisfactory, for the House of
Commons to assume the law to be such as
the right honourable gentleman's Resolution de-
clares it. *
But, supposing the declaration of the law by
the right honourable gentleman's Resolution to
be correct, how does it bear out his assertions as
to “public estimation ?”—Does he not know—is
THE BULI, ION CO M M ITTEE. - 271
it not notorious—has it not been admitted in the
course of this debate—that in one part of the
United Kingdom, at least in Ireland, so far are
Bank notes from being “equivalent to the legal
coin in the public estimation,” that a premium is
openly given for guineas 2 Does the right honour-
able gentleman forget, that the House of Com-
mons, to which he proposes his Resolution, is the
House of Commons of Ireland as well as of Great
Britain 7 And can he conceive a proceeding more
likely to bring that House of Commons into con-
tempt with the people of Ireland, than that, with
the perfect knowledge which we have that they
are every day exchanging Bank notes against
guineas at a discount, we should come to a Reso-
lution that—not in our estimation, but in theirs—
Bank notes and guineas are equivalent 7
When Buonaparte, not long ago, was desirous
of reconciling the nations under his dominion to
the privations resulting from the exclusion of all
colonial produce, he published an edict, which
commenced in something like the following man-
ner:—“Whereas sugar made from beet-root or
the maple-tree is infinitely preferable to that of
the sugar-cane....” and then proceeded to de-
nounce penalties against those who should persist
in the use of the inferior commodity. The denun-
ciation might be more effectual than the right
honourable gentleman's Resolution; but the pre-
amble did not go near so far; for though it as-
272 O N T H E R E PORT OF
serted the superiority of the maple and beet-root
sugar, it rested that assertion merely on the autho-
rity of the state, and did not pretend to sanction
it by “public estimation.”
When Galileo first promulgated the doctrine
that the earth turned round the sun, and that the
sun remained stationary in the centre of the uni-
verse, the holy fathers of the Inquisition took
alarm at so daring an innovation, and forthwith
declared the first of these propositions to be false
and heretical, and the other to be erroneous in
point of faith. The Holy Office “pledged itself
to believe” that the earth was stationary and
the sun moveable. This pledge had little effect in
changing the natural course of things: the sun
and the earth continued, in spite of it, to preserve
their accustomed relations to each other, just as
the coin and the Bank note will, in spite of the
right honourable gentleman's Resolution.
The reverend fathers, indeed, had the advantage
of being enabled to call in the aid of the secular
arm, to enforce the acceptance of their doctrines.
I confess, I am not wholly without apprehension
that some of the zealous advocates for the right
honourable gentleman's doctrine may have it in
contemplation to employ similar means of pro-
selytism. There is something ominous in that
mixture of law and opinion, which pervades the
right honourable gentleman’s Resolution. The
business of law is with conduct; but when it is
THE BU L L I O N COMMITTE. E. 273
put forward to influence opinion, pains and
penalties are seldom far behind. I like but little
the period of our history, to which my honour-
able and learned friend, the Attorney-General,
was obliged to go back to find a penal statute
for settling opinions upon the value of money—
that statute upon which the late convictions have
taken place, and upon the applicability of which
to the present times the Judges are now deliberat-
ing. This statute was passed at a period when
our coin had been debased, in the course of three
years, considerably upwards of £200 per cent.
—and when the total debasement, as compared
with the original standard, was not less than £355
per cent. The consequence of this debasement,
as stated by Lord Liverpool, was, that merchants
and tradesmen increased the price of every article
which they had to sell. To counteract this effect,
Government tried every method to keep up the
value of the debased coin; prices were set on all
the necessary articles of consumption; laws were
passed for regulating the manner of buying and
selling; the law against regraters, forestallers,
and engrossers, since repealed, was passed on
that occasion. Amongst those admirable and
judicious efforts of wholesome and enlightened
legislation, was enacted the law for inflicting
penalties on those who should “exchange any
coined gold or coined silver at a greater value
than the same was or should be declared, by His
vol. III. T
274 ON THE REPORT OF
Majesty's proclamation, to be current for within
his dominions.”
Such is the law which, according to the right
honourable gentleman, secures the equivalency of
the different sorts of our currency. Such is the
shelf from which that law has been taken down
and brought into use on the present auspicious
occasion: a law passed at a time which the late
Lord Liverpool forcibly describes as a “period of
convulsion in our monetary system,” and in com-
pany with laws which have since been repealed
as a disgrace to the statute book. Faulty, how-
ever, as our legislation appears to have been at
the period to which we are referring, it at least
did not fall into the absurdity of declaring such
laws to be the opinions of the people. If the
right honourable gentleman is determined to force
opinions to conform to his law, he must come
down a few years later in our history. He must
pass from the reign of Edward the VIth, to that
of Queen Mary, to find the most approved method
of applying the operation of law to the reformation
of speculative opinions.
Even in times, however, of such ignorance, and
such licentious theory, in respect to the value of
money, there were not wanting in one part of this
island shrewder spirits, who saw the errors into
which the English Government were running, and
determined to guard against their effects, at least
upon themselves. In the year 1529, it is related
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 275
in a note to Lord Liverpool's Treatise, “Gavin
Dunbar, Bishop of Aberdeen, in a contract with
William Sutherland, of Duffus, stipulated, that “if
it should happen that the money of Scotland, or
of any other kingdom, which passes in Scotland,
be raised to a higher price than it is now taken in
payment for, whereby the reverend father, his
heirs or assigns, be made poorer or in a worse
condition, he the said William Sutherland should
pay to the possessors (whoever they may be) of
the annual rent reserved therein, for every mark
of thirty-two pennies, one ounce of pure silver of
certain fineness, or else its true value in the usual
money of the kingdom of Scotland.’” This con-
tract took place about twenty years before the
statute of Edward VI. If that statute shall be
revived and acted upon, and if the doctrine of the
right honourable gentleman's Resolutions shall be
sanctioned by Parliament, it requires no great
stretch of apprehension to foresee that men will,
ere long, endeavour to guard themselves against
the effects of such a system by resorting to con-
tracts of a similar nature.
I have now done with the right honourable
gentleman's third Resolution. I will only again
say, that if any man had mentioned it to me out
of this House, as a proposition which the right
honourable gentleman intended to offer for our
acceptance, I should have utterly disbelieved
him: I should have considered such a rumour as
T 2
276 - O'N THE REPORT OF
a mere device on the part of his opponents, to
place in the strongest light imaginable the ab-
surdity to which, if pushed to all their conse-
quences, the right honourable gentleman's argu-
ments were capable of going.
r Passing over the statistical Resolutions, from the
fourth to the fourteenth, inclusive, I come now to
the fifteenth, which contains the right honourable
gentleman's doctrine of exchanges.”
This Resolution partakes, in a very striking
degree, of the faults which I had occasion to
remark upon in the first of the series to which it
belongs. From the vague and imperfect manner
in which it is expressed, the proposition intended
to be conveyed by it is rather insinuated than
affirmed. The right honourable gentleman does
not distinctly deny that the state of our currency
has any influence on the foreign exchanges, or on
the price of bullion; at the same time, he cer-
tainly does not admit that it has any such in-
fluence. He only asserts that there are other
causes “sufficient to account for the unfavourable
state of the exchange, and the high price of bul-
lion, without any change in" (what he calls) “the
internal value of our currency.”
Now it cannot escape so accurate an under-
standing as that of the right honourable gentle-
man, that this mode of stating his argument, is
* See Res. 15.
THE BUILLION COMMITTEE. 277
not an answer to the main points in dispute, but
an evasion of them. The Bullion Report asserts,
that our paper currency is depreciated, and that
the depreciation of our currency has raised the
price of gold, and turned and kept the foreign
exchanges against us. The right honourable
gentleman replies, not by denying both these as-
sertions, but by affirming, with respect to the
latter, that the imputed consequences may have
been produced by other causes, without the
existence of the cause specifically assigned for
them. .
We know, indeed, from the preceding part of
the right honourable gentleman's argument, that
he does deny the depreciation of our currency.
So far he is perfectly intelligible. But as to the
second proposition, “that the depreciated cur-
rency has occasioned the rise in the price of
bullion and the unfavourableness of the foreign
exchanges,” are we to understand him as saying,
that a depreciated currency would not have those
effects? or only, that as our currency is not de-
preciated, such effects cannot in this instance be
attributable to that cause 7
If he admits that such would be the natural
effects of a depreciated currency, admitting at the
same time (as he does) that such effects do exist
the whole of his argument is destroyed by his
own admissions. The utmost advantage that he
could then derive even from the undisputed ad-
278 ON THE REPORT OF
mission of all the facts enumerated in his statis-
tical Resolutions—of his prices of stocks, and prices
of corn, his exports and imports, and revenue and
expenditure—would be to shew that there are
other causes which may enter for something into
the degree of the rise in the price of bullion, and
into the degree of the unfavourableness of the
exchange, which nobody denies.
But to acknowledge the tendency of a depre-
ciated currency to produce certain effects, to
acknowledge these effects to have been produced
to an extent, and to have continued for a length
of time, unexampled in the history of the country,
—and then to expect that upon the mere dictum
of the right honourable gentleman, his adversaries
in the argument shall consent to ascribe those
effects wholly to other causes, of which they deny
the sufficiency, altogether excluding the opera-
tion of that one, the efficacy of which he himself
admits, is to reckon upon a degree of ductility in
those with whom he argues, which even the
right honourable gentleman's authority is not en-
titled to command.
On the other hand, does the right honourable
gentleman contend, that the depreciation of our
currency, even if it existed, would not affect the
exchange 2 To argue that it would not affect the
price of bullion in that currency, is certainly more
than he can venture. But it has been contended
by others who take the same side with him, that
THE BULLION COMIMIT"TEE. 279
depreciation “ of internal value” in the currency
of a country has no tendency to alter the foreign
exchange. Is this the right honourable gentle-
man's meaning?
By “internal value,” I now understand the
right honourable gentleman to signify not “in-
trinsic value,” as I was at first inclined to sup-
pose, but value in internal or domestic currency,
as opposed to value abroad. The proposition then
of those who push the right honourable gentle-
man's argument to its extent is, that the currency
of a country may be depreciated to an indefinite
degree, and yet, if the inhabitants of that country
continue, no matter whether voluntarily or by
legal compulsion, to receive that depreciated cur-
rency at its full nominal value, the foreigner has
no business with it, and the foreign exchange
would not exhibit any symptom of being affected
by it. The very definition of exchange, about
which I apprehend there is no dispute, is of itself
sufficient to confute this doctrine. The par of
exchange between any two countries, being an
equal quantity of precious metal in the respective
currencies of those countries, how is it possible,
that if, by any process, the currency of one of
those countries shall cease to contain or to repre-
sent that quantity of precious metal which it did
represent or contain when the par of exchange
with the other country was assigned—the cur-
rency of that other country remaining precisely
280 O N THE RE PORT OF
the same—there should not take place a propor-
tionate variation in the rate of the exchange ' To
say that the rate of exchange will continue unal-
tered, when one of the currencies between which
the comparison is made has lost part of its value,
is to say, in other words, that an equation is not
destroyed by a change in the value of one of its
terms.
We should be sufficiently alive to the fallacy of
such a doctrine, if applied to the currency of
other countries. In the edict lately published in
Austria, which has been referred to more than
once in the course of these debates, while a
gradual depreciation, amounting in the end to no
less than £400 per cent. is acknowledged, and
the paper directed to be current henceforth at
£400 per cent. below its nominal value; sundry
excellent reasons are given why, in Austria, in
the particular circumstances of that country, this
depreciation ought to occasion no manner of
alarm ; and especially why foreigners ought not to
consider it as vitiating or confounding the trans-
actions of exchange. The foreign creditors of
Austria, however, probably entertain a very dif.
ferent opinion : and it is a curious fact, which has
been vouched to me on what I believe to be
unquestionable authority, that even before the
Austrian paper money was depreciated to the
present extravagant degree, the monied men on
the continent, who were engaged in loans to the
THE BUILI,ION COMMITTEE. 28]
Emperor, were in the habit of stipulating that
those loans, if repaid any where else than at
Hamburgh or at Amsterdam, should be repaid,
not in the currency of Austria, or of any other
country, according to its denomination, but in
specific quantities of gold or silver. And why
this exception in favour of Hamburgh and Am-
sterdam 2 For a reason which at once explains
the nature of exchange, and the true prin-
ciples of value in money, namely, that at the
Banks of Hamburgh and Amsterdam, all payments
are made, not in reference to coins of any country
or any denomination, but by the transfer from the
debtor to the creditor of a specific quantity of
bullion.
Can we really flatter ourselves, then, that the
currency of this kingdom might be depreciated
with impunity so far as relates to transactions
with foreign countries 2 If a bill upon England
for 46l. 14s. 6d. would heretofore have purchased,
on the exchange of Hamburgh or Amsterdam, a
credit on those Banks for a pound of gold bullion,
and if a pound of gold bullion cannot now be
purchased in England for less than 581. in Eng-
lish currency, can we imagine that, never-
theless, the bill upon England for 46l. 14s. 6d.
will still purchase a pound of gold at Ham-
burgh or Amsterdam 2 Yet this is, in fact, the
proposition of those who contend that an altera-
tion in the value of the internal currency of a
282 ON THE REPORT OF
country does not proportionably affect the foreign
exchange.
But while this is the argument of many who
have taken part in the debate—whilst it is
covertly, though not avowedly, the argument of
the right honourable gentleman's fifteenth Reso-
lution—it is not the argument of my right honour-
able friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
has admitted the influence of the internal cur-
rency of a country upon its foreign exchanges, by
admitting that a diminution in the quantity of our
paper would tend to turn the exchanges in our
favour. Does the right honourable gentleman
agree in this admission, or differ from it? If he
differs, I refer him for conviction to my right
honourable friend: if he agrees, there is no
escape from the conclusion to which this admis-
sion leads—that the unfavourableness of the
exchange, which would be, in part at least, cured
by a diminution in the amount, and consequent
rise in the value of our paper currency, is, in part
at least, occasioned by the excess and consequent
depreciation of it. -
What then becomes of the assertion in the
right honourable gentleman's fifteenth Resolu-
tion, whichever sense we assign to it? If it is
meant to deny the connection of internal cur-
rency with foreign exchange, can the House con-
sent to adopt a vote so directly at variance with
the fact? If, admitting that connection, it is
THE BUILLION COMMITTEE. 283
meant only to deny its effect now, why, I should
be glad to know, is the present time to afford an
exception to an universal rule 7 What is there
now to suspend the operation of principles, not
dependent upon circumstances, but inherent in
the nature of things : There is a great stagnation
of commerce it is true, but that stagnation of
commerce is not peculiar to this country. The
continent shares largely in all the distress which
the decrees of the tyrant of the continent pro-
duce; and yet it is in comparison with the con-
tinent that the exchanges are in our disfavour.
True, we are carrying on an expensive and ex-
tended war; but the exchanges have been per-
manently against us in peace as well as in war,
when the same cause, a depreciated currency,
has operated to produce that effect. In 1696, a
period of war, the deterioration of our silver, then
our standard coin—in 1773, a time of peace, the
deterioration of our gold coin, were indicated
alike by the long continued unfavourableness of
the foreign exchanges. In both instances the
reformation of the coin remedied the evil. What
the deterioration of coin occasioned in those in-
stances, the depreciation of paper has occasioned
now. The coin had then ceased to contain, as
the paper has now ceased to represent, the quan-
tity of precious metal implied by its denomination.
Foreign countries estimated the coin then as they
do the paper now, not by what it was called, but
284 - ON THE REPORT OF
by what it would exchange for in those commodi-
ties—gold and silver—which are, by the consent
and practice of mankind, the common measures
of all marketable value. -
However gentlemen may endeavour to disguise
and perplex this simple view of the question, it
is, after all, that by which it must be decided. If
this be not the test, there is no other. If gold
and silver have ceased to be the common measures
of the value of other commodities, and weight
and fineness combined have ceased to be the
“standard of value in gold and silver, there is no
more to be said: but in that case, instead of these
Resolutions, let the right honourable gentleman
come forward boldly at once with an assertion,
not merely that paper is equivalent to the pre-
cious metals, but that it has altogether superseded
them. s >
If, on the other hand, the same standard of value
remains, let not the right honourable gentleman
attempt to draw a veil over it. In all our de-
partures from it, let us fairly own that we are
departing from it—by necessity, if you please, but
with a resolution of returning to it again. Let us
not, like men who, when hurried down a rapid
stream, fancy that the shores are flying from
them— . w . -
“terraeque urbesque recedunt;”
let us not conceive that, by some strange revolu-
TH E BULLION COMIM ITTE. F. 285
tion in the physical world, the precious metals
are retreating beyond our reach ; when it is, in
fact, only by a rapid depreciation that our cur-
rency is leaving them behind. Neither let us
suppose that we have already gone down so far,
that to reascend the stream is impossible—
that,
“Should we wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”
A very little firmness, a very little sacrifice,
might at present enable us to retrace our course.
The half of the ingenuity which is employed in
the right honourable gentleman's Resolutions to
gloss over our situation, might suffice to find a
remedy for it. -
It is asked—shall we attempt this in time of
war ! Can we attempt it without abandoning our
present military system, with all its hopes and all
its glories 2 Undoubtedly, I think, we can. I
never can believe of this mighty empire that it
has not sufficient energy in itself at once to right
whatever may be amiss in its own internal situa-
tion, and to maintain its accustomed place and
movement in the system of the world.
But, it is said, we are only going on in the
course in which greater authorities have led the
way; Mr. Pitt had made up his mind to this
depreciation of our currency. “He contrived it,”
286 ON THE REPORT OF
says one honourable gentleman. “He could not
avoid foreseeing it,” says my right honourable
friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer).
First, the inconveniencies which now result
from that depreciation, and which constitute the
proof of it, were not felt in Mr. Pitt's time.
Neither could they possibly be foreseen by Mr.
Pitt, if they in fact arise only from the causes to
which my right honourable friend and the right
honourable gentleman's fifteenth Resolution as-
cribe them : Mr. Pitt certainly could not foresee
the Berlin and Milan decrees. The war, indeed,
raged in his life-time with not less violence than
since ; ; but yet in the very hottest and most
disastrous part of the war, at the moment of the
greatest public alarm and calamity, the exchanges
were in our favour, and the price of gold did not
materially rise. He therefore did not witness
any of those symptoms which have awakened
anxiety, and led to investigation on the present
occasion.
Further, we have the testimony of my honour-
able friend opposite to me, (Mr. Wilberforce),
that in the year 1802, when the probable ten-
dency of unredeemable Bank paper to excessive
issue, and consequent depreciation, became a sub-
ject of alarm to some men of great ability in
financial matters—we have, I say, that most
satisfactory testimony, that Mr. Pitt at that time
professed his entire agreement in the principles
THE BULLION COMMITTEE. 987
laid down in a very able publication of the hon-
ourable gentleman who preceded me in this
night’s debate (Mr. H. Thornton), which I pre-
sume every man who has attended to this ques-
tion, has read. And what are those principles?
—Why, these—
“It is the maintenance of our general ex-
changes” (says Mr. Thornton), “or, in other
words, it is the agreement of the mint price with
the bullion price of gold, which seems to be the
true proof that the circulating paper is not depre-
ciated.” -
If these are the principles which Mr. Pitt
sanctioned, what pretence is there for saying that
he foresaw the present state of things? or that, if
he had lived to see it, he would now have asserted
our circulating paper to be in an undepreciated
state? Are our “general exchanges” now “main-
tained?” “Does the bullion price of gold” now
“agree with the mint price?” Are not, on the
contrary, the unfavourable exchanges, and the
high price of bullion, the very particulars which
are cited as affording the most irrefragable proof
of a depreciation? If the absence of these criteria
at that time was conclusive one way, must not the
presence of them be now admitted to be conclu-
sive the other ? If Mr. Pitt was then satisfied that
all was right because these symptoms had not ap-
peared, is it fair to infer, that he would have been
equally satisfied now, when they are seen in so
288 ON THE REPORT OF
aggravated a degree ? Is not the fair inference
directly the contrary 2
Nor is it an unimportant evidence of Mr. Pitt's
general view of this subject, that the Letter of
Lord Liverpool to the King was the result of an
investigation commenced in Mr. Pitt's first ad-
ministration in 1798, and concluded in the year
1805, when he was again minister of the country.
In that letter, not only are all the principles of
our money system distinctly and ably expounded,
according to the authority and the practice of the
best times; but, with respect to the system of our
paper currency, the danger of its being carried to
excess, and the necessity of a parliamentary re-
vision of it, are stated in a manner which shews
with how much attention, in the opinion of the
Government of those days, that system required
to be watched. -
But if Mr. Pitt had happily been still alive,
what remedy would he have applied to this evil?
Far be it from me to presume on this or on any
other occasion to usurp the authority of his name,
or to employ it for any purpose, which is not war-
ranted by his recorded opinions. But that he
would have applied some remedy—that he would
not have been contented to let the evil take its
course, if there were in human wisdom the means
of checking it—that he would not have sought to
reconcile delusion with credit, and to palliate a
departure from principles by a denial of the prin-
THE BULLION CO M M ITTF E. 289
ciples themselves; every man who remembers his
characteristic firmness, who recollects the diffi-
culties which he had to combat, and the manner
in which he combated and overcame them, will, I
think, be ready to acknowledge.
If I am asked what remedy I would myself
apply, I again say, as I have said before, that it
must rest with the Executive Government to pro-
pose, as they alone can advantageously carry into
effect, any measure of practical benefit. But I
have no difficulty in offering one suggestion, which
has indeed been in some degree anticipated in the
course of these debates. The Bank proprietors
have made great and unusual gains under the
operation of the Bank restriction. I say this
without the smallest intention of laying blame
upon the Bank, or of exciting any invidious
feeling towards them. The Directors of that
Institution, I again repeat, have, so far as I can
judge, acted for the best in the discharge of a new
and most difficult duty. But the fact I believe
will not be disputed. Great gains have been made
in consequence of the Bank restriction. The
issues of Bank paper, whether too large or not in
another view, have undeniably been much larger
than they could have been, had the obligation to
pay in cash upon demand continued, or been re-
newed. These gains certainly formed no part of
the inducement to lay on or to renew the Bank
restriction. They form no ground to continue it.
VOL. III. U
290 O N THE REPORT OF
But it is obvious—it is in the principles of human
nature—that they must form a temptation to the
Bank proprietors to wish for its continuance. It
is obvious also, that if the issues are inordinately
extended, the difficulty of resuming cash pay-
ments must be proportionably augmented. And
it is still more obvious, that whether those motives
and those causes do in fact so operate or no, from
the natural invidiousness attendant on great gains,
the world in general will be apt to suspect and
impute their operation.
Mow the public has no right to complain that
the Bank restriction, though not laid or continued
in contemplation of advantage to the Bank pro-
prietors, has incidentally been productive of such
advantage; but they have a right to expect that
no impediment shall on that ground be thrown in
the way of the removal of the restriction. A con-
tinued increase of profit, and a continued raising
of the dividends to the Bank proprietors, if it had
not that effect, would have that appearance. The
dividend is now, I believe, ten per cent. There
surely it might stop. All surplus profit beyond
that amount, during the continuance of the re-
striction, might be strictly appropriated as a fund
for the purchase of bullion, at whatever price.
It is not in my contemplation that the public
(as has been suggested in several quarters since
this question has been in discussion) should enter
into any share of the extraordinary profits, or
T H E B UILLION CO M M ITTEE. 291
meddle in any degree in the management, of the
Bank. No such thing. Let those extraordinary
profits remain, in full, undisputed, and unenvied
property, to the Bank. But as they are created
by the suspension of cash payments, let the public
have the assurance that they are so employed by
the Bank, as to ensure their ability to resume
those payments, without convulsion or distress,
at the period which the Legislature has fixed for
the resumption of them.
This, I think, is a suggestion, the adoption of
which would be no less creditable to the Bank
than satisfactory to the public.
For this, or any other measure calculated to
remedy the evils acknowledged to exist, we can,
after the decision to which this House has already
come, rely only on the effect which may be pro-
duced by our discussions upon the advised dis-
cretion of the Bank, and upon the awakened
attention of the public.
But at least, if we will do no good, let us, in
the name of common sense, not do any harm. If
we will not set right the course of the vessel, let
us at least not destroy the chart and compass by
which it may steer.
Let us leave the evil, if it must be so, to the
chance of a gradual and noiseless correction. But
let us not resolve as law, what is an incorrect and
imperfect exposition of the law. Let us not re-
solve as fact, what is contradictory to universal
U 2
292 IBUILT, ION COMMITTEE.
experience. Let us not expose ourselves to ri-
dicule, by resolving, as the opinions of the people,
opinions which the people do not, and which it is
impossible they should, entertain. This is not
the way to settle the public feeling, and to set the
subject at rest. It is the way to ensure renewed
and interminable discussions. That we may at
least not incur this unnecessary mischief, by
adopting the Resolutions now before us, I move,
Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.
The House divided on Mr. Canning's Amendment, when
there appeared—
For Mr. Canning's Amendment 42
Against it . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Majority against it . . . . . 40
Mr. WANSITTART's Resolutions were then agreed to pro
forma, with an understanding that they should be discussed
upon the Report. The discussion on Mr. Vansittari's
Resolutions was resumed on the following day; and on the
15th, after some verbal amendments, they were agreed to.
( 293 )
"THE CATHOIC CLAIMS.
JUNE 22nd, 1812.
MR. CANNING rose, and said—
MR. SPEAKER,
WHEN you consider the extent and magnitude
of the subject which I have undertaken this day
to press upon the attention of the House, with
the hope, that through their decision I may suc-
ceed in recommending it to the serious attention
of the Executive Government; when you recol-
lect the various discussions which this subject has
undergone, as well within these walls as in other
places; when you reflect on the anxiety which it
keeps alive in one part of the united kingdom,
an anxiety of which I am sorry to say, we have,
in the course of this very day, received some
strong and painful indications;* you may perhaps
be led to apprehend that I shall find myself
obliged to trespass on your patience for a consider-
able length of time. In this apprehension, how-
ever, I hope the House will be disappointed: for,
however wide the compass, and however compli-
cated the details of this great question may be,
* The Resolutions passed at the Aggregate Meeting of the
Roman Catholics, in Dublin, on Thursday, June 18th, which were
received in London on the morning of Mr. Canning's motion.
294 THE C A THOLIC CLAIMS.
yet the statement which I think it necessary to
make of it, for the purpose of my present motion,
rests on a few plain and simple principles.
If, Sir, Istood up here this day in the character of
a partisan of those whose claims are involved in our
decision, I confess I should feel myselfunder no small
difficulty and embarrassment. The intelligence
this day received from Ireland, which is probably
within the knowledge of most gentlemen who hear
me, might well perplex an advocate of the Catho-
lics, and might not unnaturally be expected to disin-
cline the House from listening to him with favour.
But in the view which I have always taken and
continue to take of this subject, and which I am
sanguine enough to hope that I may induce the
House to take of it, the recent proceeding of the
Catholic Meeting in Dublin, appears to me only
as one symptom of that habitual irritation of the
public mind in Ireland, which is produced by the
unsettled state of this question; and as one addi-
tional motive for recommending the immediate
consideration of it, in the only quarters, and in the
only mode, by which it can be brought to a final
and satisfactory adjustment.
The information of this day, therefore, so far
from deterring me from the discussion, will only
make me more anxious to treat it in such a man-
ner, as may preclude all invidious topics, and all
inflammatory language. It is not as in a struggle
of conflicting parties, that I would ask the House
THE CATH O LI C C L A 1 MS. 295
to interfere. It is to a great state question, that I
wish to direct their attention—a question en-
veloped, indeed, with many difficulties, and those
difficulties certainly not diminished by the cir-
cumstances to which I have alluded ; but neither
ought such circumstances to weigh in any sober
mind, as reasons for rejecting the motion which I
have to offer to them, much rather should they
induce us to lose no time in looking seriously
and dispassionately at a question which, in my
conscience, I believe must be settled, if we wish
to give peace to the united kingdom.
Not only would I endeavour to steer clear of
every thing that has reference to the temporary
irritation of the moment, but most gladly would
I persuade the House, if possible, to lay out of
its recollection all former debates and differences
on this subject. If we could bring ourselves to
consider this subject as if it were now presented
to us for the first time—to look at it with a fresh eye
--such a view, I really think, might be obtained
of it, as would lead, unless I flatter myself unrea-
sonably, to a pretty general acquiescence in the
motion which I shall have the honour of proposing.
The principles, Sir, on which I rest that motion,
and upon which the whole of this great question
appears to me to rest, are these— -
First, without subjecting myself to the suspicion
of adopting any of those wild theories of abstract
right—of rights of man, and rights of citizens—
296 T H E CAT II () LI C C L A IM S.
which have been afloat in the world for the last
twenty years, I may assume, as a general rule, that
citizens of the same state--subjects living under
the same government—are entitled, primá facie, to
equal political rights and privileges. This, Sir,
I say, is the general rule; exceptions undoubtedly
there are: but upon those who maintain the ex-
ceptions, lies the onus probandi—the shewing that
they are necessary, and therefore just. I am far
from asserting, at this moment, that necessary,
and therefore just exceptions may not have ex-
isted; I am not even asserting that they may not
still exist, in the case of the Roman Catholics.
I am only assuming the general rule to be that
which I have stated; and throwing the burthen
of the argument in favour of the exceptions where,
in truth and in right reason, it ought to lie.
The next principle which I assume is this—
That it is at all times desirable to create and to
maintain the strictest union, the most perfect
identity of interest and of feeling among all the
members of the same community. If this be
desirable at all times, and in all countries, it will
hardly be disputed that it must be more especially
so to the British Empire, in the present state of
the war, and of the world; when the greatest
combination of hostile force of which ancient or
modern history affords an example, is arrayed
against us under a mighty conqueror, before
whom state after state, and kingdom after king-
THE CAT HOLIC C LA IMI S. 297
dom, are falling in prostrate subjection; and who
considers the subjugation of continental Europe
only as the preface and the means of our destruc-
tion. To this, as a general rule, it will not be
contended that there is, in principle, any excep-
tion ; it will not be contended that it can ever be
wise and salutary to divide and dissipate, instead
of uniting the force, the faculties, and the affec-
tions of the people; to afford just grounds for
dissension and discontent; to leave open some
flaw or crevice in the solid body of the state,
through which the machinations of the enemy
may insinuate principles of disunion. But I am
aware that it may be objected, that such an union,
though desirable, is impracticable; that there are
causes of complaint, inevitable and irremoveable,
and differences which, though they ought not to
be fomented, yet cannot be healed. This may be
so : but here again if the general principle be
admitted, the burthen of proof is left with those
who maintain that, in a particular case, it cannot
be reduced into practice. -
The third general principle, and that on which
I most confidently anticipate an undivided coin-
cidence of opinion, is—That where there exists, in
any community, a great permanent cause of poli-
tical discontent, which agitates the minds of men,
and has agitated them for many years past; and
when experience has shewn that, so far from
having any tendency to subside and settle itself
298 T H E CATH O LI C C LA IMS.
by mutual forbearance and accommodation, the
contest only grows more fierce the longer it is
protracted; mingles with all the disquietudes,
and allies itself with all the real or imaginary
grievances of the country; it becomes the duty of
the supreme power of the state, whether residing
in one or in many, whether King, or Senate, or
Parliament, to take a question of such a nature
into its own consideration; to make up its own
mind upon it, and finally to determine in what
mode it may be most advantageously set at rest. To
this general rule, I am not aware of any exception;
for I am not aware of any possible circumstances
in which it must not be infinitely more dangerous
to leave such a question unconsidered and uncon-
trolled, than to attempt the settlement of it; and I
am not prepared to hear that the settlement of any
question, however difficult and complicated, lies
out of the province, or beyond the competency of .
the collective wisdom and authority of the state.
These, Sir, are the principles which I take the
liberty to assume as the foundation of the motion
which I am about to submit to the House. But
I am aware that, in examining any proposition,
the object or tendency of which is to introduce
change of any description in the constitutions of
human society, there are two general considera-
tions, clashing very much with each other, which
naturally present themselves to every reflecting
mind. The one, the most extensive, perhaps the
THE CATH O LIC CLA IMS. 299
most popular, is the dread of innovation; the
other, the expediency of timely reformation or
concession. In reconciling these opposite and
conflicting principles, and in assigning to each
its due weight in human affairs, consists almost
the whole art of practical policy.
They, Sir, who argue against any further con-
cession to the Catholics on the ground of a dread
of innovation, undertake a task of greater diffi-
culty than, so far as I can judge from any discus-
sion which I have yet heard upon this subject,
they seem themselves to be aware. For this
argument naturally implies the previous existence
of some regular, fixed, and intelligible state of
things, formed with deliberate wisdom, or per-
fected by frequent revision, and established by
long consent or beneficial experience—some sys-
tem, sealed and sanctioned by the acquiescence
of successive generations. To innovate upon
such a state of things, would indeed bespeak a
culpable degree of rashness, and must throw upon
the presumptuous innovator the duty of a most
difficult justification. But, looking at the code
of laws under which the Catholics have lived, and
at the remains of that code under which they still
live, I should be glad to ask those who stand
upon long-established usage; who protest against
being led astray from the ancient ways; who
will not launch into untried experiments; I should
be glad to ask them, at what period of our history
300 THE CATH O LI C C LA IMIS.
they conceive that system upon which they are
so fearful of encroaching, to have flourished in
full perfection ? I ask what was its origin 7 On
what design was it framed ? When did it receive
the finishing hand, and become incorporated into
the institutions of the country, an integral part of
a blameless and perfect constitution ? Will they
look back for this perfection to that period, when
the corruptions and disorders of the church first
provoked that just inquiry and indignation, and
gave rise to those discussions, which convulsed
Europe, which split the Christian world into con-
tending sects, and ended in the establishment of
the Reformation ? Great and manifold as are the
blessings which the whole civilized world, and
this nation in particular, have derived from the
transactions of that time ; indebted as we are to
them for the substitution of a pure and perfect
form of worship, in the place of a system of faith
defiled with innumerable corruptions, and incum-
bered with superstitious usages; yet, can any one
be so blind to fact as to contend that the blessings
which have been thus derived to us, ought to re-
commend to our respect and imitation the vio-
lences which accompanied their origin It is the
prerogative of Providence to bring good out of evil.
The lust and tyranny, the rapine and prodigality,
of Henry VIII. were instruments in the hand of
Heaven for bringing about the Reformation. But
are we therefore to look to the reign of Henry the
THE C A THO LI C C I, AIM. S. 301
Eighth for specimens of civil legislation ?—a
reign in which the conscience of the subject was
made to conform, under bloody penalties, to every
varying caprice of the judgment or passion of the
sovereign, in which, according to the historians of
that period, “ those who were for the Pope were
hanged, and those against the Pope were
burned?” The same Parliament, which, by the
sanguinary law of the Six Articles, enabled the
Defender of the Faith and Head of the Church
to exercise these indiscriminate and impartial
severities in matter of religion, did not scruple to
bow quite as low in matter of temporal policy;
and surrendered into the monarch's hands the
liberties of his people, by giving to his proclama-
tion the authority of law. It is not surely to such
a reign, or to statutes passed by such Parliaments,
that we can be taught to refer for a pure specimen
of British legislation, applicable to the times in
which we live
During the succeeding reign, these laws were
repealed or suspended, and the Reformation was
silently making progress and gaining strength.
The horrible butcheries of Queen Mary, while
they curdle the blood, and make the soul, sick in
the contemplation of them, dispose us to look with
an eye of peculiar favour upon her successor Eli-
zabeth; and to fancy that the reign of that great
and admirable Princess was illustrated by the
complete enjoyment of civil freedom, as well as
302 THE CATH O LI C C LA IMS.
by glory abroad and prosperity at home. Un-
doubtedly the government of Elizabeth was con-
ducted with a wisdom and success that covered
the British Empire with glory and prosperity;
but it is surely not to that reign that the oppo-
nents of all change will refer us, as to the time at
which the system which they wish to uphold was
in a state that should have been preserved in-
violate. In the latter years of that reign, a spirit
of persecution arose, for which even her warmest
admirers think it necessary to apologise. Bishop
Burnett himself, in his History of the Reforma-
tion, quotes the testimony of Walsingham to this
effect—not denying the severities to which Eliza-
beth had recourse; but justifying them as neces-
sary to the security of her crown, against the
plots and conspiracies of the Pope and his adhe-
rents. Where is now the popish conspiracy
against which the Crown has to guard 2 Or are
the enemies of innovation desirous only of ad-
hering to Queen Elizabeth's severities, but care-
less of her justification?
It is not to the reign of James I., when the
gunpowder treason naturally excited a horror of
papists, and forbade any relaxation of the laws in
force against them—it is not to the turbulent and
unfortunate times of Charles I. that we shall be
taught to look back for a model for any part of our
legislative system. If the troubles of Charles the
First's time are to be connected with religious
TIH E CATHIO L I C C LA IMS. 303
tenets, assuredly the Roman Catholic religion is
not that to which we have to attribute the over-
throw of the monarchy and of the established
church. During the Protectorate, a regular
system, not of coercion and penal law, not of
confiscation merely, but of extirpation, was acted
upon towards the Catholics of Ireland. In the
reign of Charles II. we find the establishment of
the test, and the exclusion of the Roman Ca-
tholics of this country from Parliament; trans-
actions, however, which must be coupled in our
recollection with the special grounds of jealousy
and alarm, which dictated and justified such pre-
cautions. \ -
But the Revolution is the period to which we
are desired to refer most particularly, as well for
the laws against Roman Catholics as for the spirit
in which they were framed, and in which we
ought to maintain them. It is undoubtedly true
that great restraints were at that period imposed
upon the Catholics, both in England and Ireland,
as the consequence, and a just and legitimate
consequence, of the intimate connection of the
Catholic religion, at that time, with political doc-
trines hostile to the civil and religious establish-
ments of this country, and with the interests of
an exiled and abdicated Sovereign. But neither
would the policy of those times be necessarily
just, when the connection between the religious
and political doctrines no longer subsisted; nor
304 THE CATHolic c1.A IMs.
is it true, that the penal and disabling statutes
which were passed in Ireland immediately after
the Revolution, statutes which gleaned the refuse
of the sword of the conqueror, and which are
fairly to be considered rather as means of en-
forcing and ensuring the obedience of a conquered
country, than as sound legislative enactments for
the government of a kingdom in loyalty and
peace; it is not true, I say, that these statutes
did in fact constitute the whole, or near the whole,
of that code of penal laws, which we are called
upon to preserve as the legacy of our forefathers,
as the testament of our civil freedom. That code
was not completed until a much later period. We
must come down through the reigns of Anne, and
of the two first princes of the House of Hanover,
before we find the system brought to perfection.
The House will therefore observe, that it was
not till the middle of the last century that this
system of laws was really matured. In latter
times, the character of the enactments became less
sanguinary, though hardly less severe. Under the
furious and fanatical government of Cromwell,
the active principle was that of absolute exter-
mination. At the Revolution, a civil war and a
contested crown naturally led to confiscations and
proscriptions. Subsequently to the Revolution,
and up to the period at which the last penal law
was passed, the principle upon which the system
has proceeded, has been calculated to stunt the
THE CATHOLIC C LA IMS. 305
growth; to destroy the moral energies; and to
cramp the industry of the Irish Catholic popula-
tion ; to keep the mass of the people of Ireland,
for such they may be called, in poverty and
ignorance, for the purpose of ensuring their sub-
mission. That such a plan of policy should have
been acted upon, nay avowed, by statesmen of
splendid abilities and comprehensive minds, by
ministers who served this their country with zeal
and honour, and whose names are held in venera-
tion among us, may be matter of curious and
indignant speculation to the philosophical in-
quirer: but I think we want other arguments
than a mere appeal to great names, to reconcile
us to the adhering to such a system, or to induce
us to regret that it has been abandoned.
Let us look at the state of the Catholic in the
year 1760, at the accession of his present Majesty,
when the system in Ireland had received the
finishing hand, and before any remedial or allevi-
ating measures had been applied to it. We find
him cut off from all the relations of social life;
we find the law interfering between the parent
and child—between the husband and the wife ;
stimulating the wife to treachery against her hus-
band—and the son to disobedience towards his
parent; establishing a line of separation in the
nuptial bed, and offering an undivided inheritance
as the tempting prize for filial disobedience. I
am sure that no man will now venture to say,
VOL. III. . X
306 THE CAT HOL I C C L AIMS.
that this is a state in which, consistently with the
spirit of British legislation, any class of His
Majesty's subjects ought to be placed : yet this is
the state to which those who admire the penal
code in its perfection must refer: and it is to this
state that we should return, if we were to reject,
as innovation, every amelioration that has been
made in that code since the period of its maturity.
But it belongs to this system, in a degree
beyond other systems of unnatural violence, that
no sooner had it arrived at its maturity, than it
began to decay. Other systems have had a period
during which they grew, a period during which
they flourished, and in which they flourished for
some time before their vigour began to decline:
but in this, ripeness and decay were nearly coin-
cident. After the greater part of two centuries
had been spent in bringing it to maturity, this
code existed in perfection only about fourteen
years. From the beginning of his present Majes-
ty's reign, to the year 1774, when the first re-
laxing statute was enacted, is the short period
during which it was at once complete and sta-
tionary. That, therefore, is the period at which
those must look who would admire it in all the
fulness of its glory. Every step taken in respect
to it since 1774, has been in the spirit, so much
deprecated, of irreverent innovation.
On what grounds have those several steps been
taken? What is the justification of the Parlia-
THE CATH O LIC CIA IMS. 307
ments of George III. for having undone, piece
by piece, the measures of his royal predeces-
sors? What but this? That in every stage of our
preceding history, not religious tenets, but political
disaffection, was the cause of the severities against
the Catholics; that the penal code was not in-
tended to exclude the believers in transubstan-
tiation, as a sect; but to repress, or disarm, or
punish them as traitors or rebels. Such, as I
have already said, was the defence which the
apologists of Elizabeth thought necessary for the
rigour of the latter years of her reign; such is the
language of every penal statute since the Revolu-
tion; in none of which do we find the imputations
against the religious creed of the Papists, dis-
sociated from the charge of treason or treasonable
design. The preambles to these statutes recite,
not that the Catholics are bigots, but that they
are disloyal subjects. On this alone, the best
constitutional writers, lawyers, and others, whose
opinions are the most entitled to our reverence,
have undertaken the defence of these harsh,
though, at some time, necessary laws. See how
Mr. Justice Blackstone describes the nature and
effect of the penal statutes against the Catholics:
—“This is a short summary (says he) of the laws
against the papists, under three several classes of
persons professing the popish religion; Popish
recusants, convict, and Popish priests; of which
the President Montesquieu observes, that they
x 2
308 • THE CATH O LIC CLAIMS.
are so rigorous, though not professedly of the san-
guinary kind, that they do all the hurt that can
possibly be done in cold blood. But in answer
to this, it may be observed (what foreigners who
only judge from our statute-book, are not fully
apprised of), that these laws are seldom exerted
to their utmost rigour: and, indeed if they were,
it would be very difficult to excuse them; for
they are rather to be accounted for from their
history, and the urgency of the times that pro-
duced them, than to be approved (upon a cool
review), as a standing system of law.”
The learned writer proceeds with some histori-
cal allusions to the events which gave birth, suc-
cessively, to the different parts of the penal code
affecting Catholics, and then goes on to say—
“But if a time should ever arrive, and perhaps
it is not very distant, when all fears of a Preten-
der shall have vanished, and the power and in-
fluence of the Pope shall become feeble, ridiculous
and despicable,”—(who but must think that the
learned judge anticipated the moment in which I
am now speaking 2)—“not only in England, but
in every kingdom of Europe; it probably would
not then be amiss to review and soften these
rigorous edicts, at least till the civil principles of the
Roman Catholics called again upon the legislature
to renew them; for it ought not to be left in the
breast of every merciless bigot, to drag down the
vengeance of these occasional laws upon inoffen-
THE CATH OLIC CLAIMS. 309.
sive, though mistaken subjects, in opposition to
the lenient inclinations of the civil magistrate, and
to the destruction of every principle of toleration
and religious liberty.”
What, Sir, is the fair inference from these sen-
timents : That not the religious tenets of the
Catholics, but their political opinions and attach-
ments, operating upon their civil conduct, were
the grounds of the penal statutes against them:—
That not their religious differences from the
Church of England, but their connection with
foreign powers, and with interests politically
hostile to the state, constituted the justification of
the enactment of that code, and furnished the
only apology that could be equitably urged for
its continuance.
We have then to ask, if this be so, whether
the relaxations which have actually taken place
in the latter part of the reign of his present Ma-
jesty, have been made in a spirit of just indul-
gence and political wisdom 7–a proposition which,
be it remembered, the clamourers against inno-
vation are bound to controvert with all their
might. -
With a view to the solution of this question, it
will be curious to trace the history of the relax-
ing statutes, and to ascertain how far they have
proceeded in conformity to the principle thus
laid down by Mr. Justice Blackstone. A short
examination of their preambles will be sufficient
310 THE CATHOLIC CLAIM S.
to shew that the legislature uniformly had that
principle in their contemplation; that they uni-
formly looked at the religious tenets of the
Catholics, but as the signs and symbols of their
political opinions. The first relaxation was by
the Irish Act of 1774, the preamble of which is
as follows:— -
“Whereas, many of His Majesty's subjects in
this kingdom are desirous to testify their loyalty
and allegiance to His Majesty, and their abhor-
rence of certain doctrines imputed to them, and
to remove jealousies which hereby have for a
length of time subsisted between them and others
of His Majesty's loyal subjects; but, upon account
of their religious tenets are, by the laws now in
being, prevented from giving public assurances of
such allegiance, and of their real principles and
good will and affection towards their fellow sub-
jects,” &c. &c. It then proceeds to describe that
test, the taking which is to entitle the Catholics
to be considered as good subjects.
Four years afterwards, in the year 1778, another
relaxing statute sets out with the following de-
claration as to the conduct of the Catholics—
“Whereas, from their uniform peaceable be-
haviour for a long series of years, it appears
reasonable and expedient to relax the same,” (the
laws of Anne); “and it must tend not only to the
cultivation and improvement of this kingdom,
but to the prosperity and strength of all His
THE CATH O LI C CLAIMI S. 3.11
Majesty's dominions, that his subjects of all de-
nominations should enjoy the blessings of a free
constitution, and should be bound to each other by
mutual interest and mutual affection,” &c. &c.
Is not this a distinct legislative recognition of
the capacity of a Catholic to become a good sub-
ject to a Protestant state, as well as of the prin-
ciple which I am desirous this day to recommend
to the House, of identifying the allegiance, the
interests, and the affections of both classes of
His Majesty's subjects 2 Is not this a clear and
indisputable acknowledgment on the part of the
legislature, that such common interest and mu-
tual affection are necessary, or mainly conducive
at least, to the prosperity and strength of His.
Majesty’s dominions !
Pursuing the same course, in four years after,
we find another statute, the preamble of which,
referring to the statute of 1774, runs in these
words:–“Whereas all such of His Majesty’s
subjects in this kingdom, of whatever persuasion,
as have heretofore taken and subscribed, or shall
hereafter take and subscribe, the oath of alle-
giance and declaration prescribed by an act passed
in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of his pre-
sent Majesty's reign, entitled an Act to enable
His Majesty's subjects, of whatever persuasion,
to testify their allegiance to him, ought to be con-
sidered as good and loyal subjects to His Ma-
jesty, his Crown, and Government,” &c.
312 THE C A THOLIC C LA IMS.
Here we have that quality and character as-
signed to the Catholics, the quality and character
of “good and loyal subjects,” which alone can
be wanting to entitle men to participate in that
free constitution which His Majesty's Protestant
subjects enjoy; and the absence of which has
been imputed, and is imputed still, by the few
who still maintain the argument as the single,
but unchangeable ground of disability and ex-
clusion.
The most recent of the relaxing statutes is
that well-known one of 1793, the preamble of
which declares that—
“Various Acts of Parliament have been passed,
imposing on His Majesty’s subjects professing the
Popish or Roman Catholic religion, many re-
straints and disabilities to which other subjects of
this realm are not liable; and that, from the peace-
able and loyal demeanour of His Majesty’s Po-
pish or Roman Catholic subjects, it is fit that
such restraints and disabilities shall be discon-
tinued.” ar
Upon this I need make no further comment,than
that the principle plainly laid down is notoriously
not followed out by corresponding enactments:
that many disabilities do still continue, and that
the question which Parliament has now to deter-
mine, is not whether these disabilities were ori-
ginally right, but whether, having been pronounced
in principle wrong, the time is yet come when it
THE CATHOLIC CIA IMS. 313
is safe wholly to “ discontinue” them ? I beg
not to be understood as intending to imply that
more could properly have been done than was
done in 1793: I merely mean to say, that the
principle then laid down was wider than the prac-
tical consequences which were then drawn from
it; that near twenty years have since elapsed;
and that the question is therefore now not upon
the principle itself (which was then settled), but
upon the extension of its operation.
Again, then, I ask those who rail against inno-
vation; who warn us against departing from the
established usage; who tell us that we ought to
adhere to the wisdom of our ancestors; who dread
that we are now, as if for the first time, in danger
of breaking in upon a wise and perfect system :
when and where, and for how long that system
existed in perfection ? What is the prescriptive
veneration, what the authority of usage and of
opinion, due to a code of laws, which, after a
growth of near two centuries, remained only for
fourteen years in a state of maturity, and has been
for half a century sinking into gradual decay ?
To what point of time, I again ask them, do they
mean to refer, when they exhort us to adhere to
the wisdom of our ancestors, and to avoid inno-
vating upon the system which our ancestors had
framed 7 - - *
Let it not be supposed, however, that I mean to
disparage our ancestors for the failure of their ex-
314 THE C A THOLIC C LA IMI S.
periments in legislation upon this subject. Most
true it is, that the government of Popish Ireland
has been to this Protestant country a problem of
infinite difficulty. It is true that the most en-
lightened statesmen have found—or thought—it
impossible to apply to that country the same
principles of rule upon which the legislation of
this country has been conducted; and it must be
confessed that the impediments which stood in
their way, have been of no ordinary magnitude.
It must be confessed that they had no precedent
to guide them; and if, in the absence of such
experience, nothing less than the extermination
of the Catholic population of Ireland was con-
sidered at one time as consistent with the safety
of the state; if afterwards it was attempted to
grind down that population by statute; the harsh-
ness of such expedients must be attributed partly
to the necessities, and partly to the temper, of the
times in which they were tried. But it is not less
true that both these expedients utterly failed.
We may surely have become wise from the
example of our ancestors, and may adopt or pur-
sue a better course of experiments, after the trial
and failure of theirs, without being supposed to
cast blame upon them. We ought to make full
allowance for the different genius of different ages.
I leave to philosophers the problem, whether the
human race upon the whole degenerates or im-
proves; but this at least must be admitted to be
THE CATHOL I C C LA IMS. 315
a fact, whatever be its bearing, that in modern
days a spirit of mildness and lenity has pervaded
and influenced legislation, unknown to times more
remote. An honourable and learned gentleman,
who the other night brought under the considera-
tion of the House, a subject of much commercial
and national importance—I mean the Orders in
Council—in his eloquent and able speech upon that
occasion, introduced a remark which is not inap-
plicable to my present argument. He said, that
in the treaty of Utrecht, on many other accounts
the subject of violent condemnation (more violent
indeed than I think it really deserved), there was
this blot, which was sufficient to damn it to all
posterity, that the chief commercial advantage
which it secured to this country, was the Assiento
Contract, or a participation of the African Slave
Trade. There cannot be a circumstance which
more strikingly marks the progress of opinion,
and the improvement of the human mind, within
the space of one century. The reign of Queen
Anne has been justly styled the Augustan age of
England. Nobody can impute to the statesmen
of that period a deficiency in knowledge of the
science of legislation. Nobody can deny that
there were moral writers, at that time, eminently
qualified to correct and purify the feelings, as
well as the taste of their countrymen; to mark,
with the nicest discrimination, the boundaries of
right and wrong; to be the guides of their own
316 THE CATH O LI C C LA IMS.
age, and the instructors of posterity. Yet at that
time not a voice was lifted against the immorality,
injustice, and inhumanity of the Slave Trade.
Let any man suppose the possible case of a
minister in the present day, standing up in Parlia-
ment, with a treaty in his hand, similar to that of
Utrecht, securing to Great Britain a regulated
monopoly of the African Slave Trade—and on
that, and no other ground, claiming the approba-
tion and congratulations of Parliament. Let him
imagine how such a proposition would be this day
received, even though supported by an appeal to
the practice of our ancestors:—and thence let him
be convinced of this plain fact, that, whether for
better or for worse, the genius of the times is dif-
ferent; and that we may be permitted to legislate
on some subjects in a different spirit. -
The question, therefore, is not—whether we
shall maintain the system which exists, for no
system exists whole and unbroken: it is not (at
least I hope it is not) whether we shall recur to
a system which formerly existed, but which we
have partially abandoned:—it is—whether, hav-
ing abandoned that system, as altogether inefficient
in politics, and unjustifiable in morals, we ought
to be now contented with negative, advantage,
or whether we should not rather endeavour to
give effectual operation and fair play to those
other principles of which we have recognized
the superior justice, and those other measures
THE CATHOLIC CLA IMS. 317
we have begun to adopt, but not thoroughly
pursued.
We read, Sir, in the history of ancient Rome,
that when one of the armies of the republic had
fallen into the power of the enemy, and was sur-
rounded by the Samnites at the Caudine Forks, the
victorious General, desirous to make the most of
the advantage which he had obtained, dispatched
a message to his father, a Senator celebrated for
his wisdom, to counsel him as to the most expe-
dient mode of disposing of his captives.—“Dis-
miss them unransomed and unmolested;”—was
the answer of the aged Senator. This was a strain
of generosity too high for the comprehension of
the son. He re-dispatched his messenger to con-
sult his oracle again. The answer then was ;
“Exterminate them to the last man.” This
advice was so unlike the former, that it excited a
suspicion that the old man's intellects were de-
ranged:—he was brought to the camp to explain
the discordancy of his counsel. “By my first
advice,” said he, “which was the best, I recom-
mended to you to insure the everlasting gratitude
of a powerful people; by my second, which was
the worst, I pointed out to you the policy of
getting rid of a dangerous enemy. There is no
third way. Tertium nullum consilium.” When
asked, what if a middle course should be taken,
what if they should be dismissed unhurt, but if
at the same time harsh laws should be imposed
upon them as a conquered enemy? Ista quidem
3.18 THE CATH O LIC C LA IMS.
5
sententia,” said the old man, “ea est, qua, neque
amicos parat meque inimicos tollit.” The son, how-
ever, unhappily for his country, thought himself
wiser than his father; the middle course was
adopted: he neither liberated the Romans, nor
exterminated them; he passed their necks under
the yoke, and sent them home.
Sir, in respect to Ireland, the severe, the ex-
terminating counsel has been tried—and it has
been found inefficient for its own purposes. We
have adopted the principle of the more generous
counsel; shall we halt in the pursuit of it, or try
it fairly to its end?
I would have recommended the latter policy,
even while Ireland was a separate kingdom. How
much more safe as well as more desirable must it
be, now, when she is inseparably united with this
country !—The Protestants of Ireland were here-
tofore but as a garrison in the midst of a subdued
country, obliged for their own safety to keep
down the people among whom they were sta-
tioned. United now with the mass of the Pro-
testants of England, they form part of the great
majority of the inhabitants of the whole empire,
instead of being a small minority in a detached
fortress surrounded by overwhelming numbers.
Formerly justice and prudence might point dif-
ferent ways; at present surely they are united,
with the union of the kingdoms. a
I imagine, that it will not be denied that such
complete identification of Catholic and Protestant
THE CATHOLIC CLA IMS. 319
interests is desirable: it will be only contended
that it is impossible. It is impossible, because,
we are told, there is in the genius of the religious
profession of the Catholics, something which can
never be reconciled to the government of a Pro-
testant state ;-there is in it a perfect faithlessness
of principle towards other religious persuasions;
a spirit of encroachment never at rest; a bigotry
and spirit of persecution, which, if once let loose
by indulgence, would make us speedily wish to
retrace our steps, and to recal even the boons
which have already been lavished upon the
Catholics. I am no advocate or panegyrist of the
Roman Catholic religion: but let these charges
be tried by comparison with the history of the
two last centuries. If the Catholic religion be of
so encroaching a disposition, and so formidable
in its encroachments, how happens it that it has
lost one-third of Europe, not one inch of which it
has ever been able to regain : The spirit of per-
secution may not be extinct. Nor is there any
question, I trust, of arming it with power. But
the proof of the continued existence of that spirit
in the modern Catholic Church,--that proof at
least which has been most frequently adduced in
the debates of this House,_is not, I think, so
clear as it has been supposed to be. “Hareticos
persequaret eagugnabo’—is said to be still the doc-
trine of their Church, and to be incorporated in
the solemn oath of their episcopal ordination.
320 THE CATH O LIC C LA IMIS.
God forbid that I should say a word in palliation
of so detestable a clause, if it be really to be con-
strued literally, or as practically influencing their
conduct. But they deny that sense, they dis-
claim and abjure it. They profess their entire
abhorrence of it, and give it up to the execration
of mankind. Yes, but it is said, we ought to
distrust their abjuration. Let us be quite sure that
such an example of distrust might not go farther
than we might desire. In the oath taken by
King William and Queen Mary, on becoming
King and Queen of Scotland, is the following
clause: “We swear to root out all heretics and
enemies to the true worship of God, that shall be
convicted, by the true kirk of God, of the foresaid
crimes, out of our lands and empire of Scotland,
&c.” Are we ready to admit that William and
Mary were pledged by this oath literally to exter-
minate all heretics with the sword 7 Such an
imputation, we know, would be most unjust.
Yet it might be countenanced by citations from
ancient Scottish Acts of Parliament, and from
commentators upon the Scottish Law, in one
of whom (Stewart of Purdevan), we find it asserted
that, “The severity of the laws against Papists
will be further justified, if we consider that by the
Law of God Idolaters were put to death ; and
agreeable thereto, Popish idolaters are to be
punished with death—by the 104th Act of the
7th Parliament of James VIth.” How would
THE CATH O LI C C LA IMS. 321
such a passage be hailed, if quoted from the de-
crees of Lateran or Constance –King William,
however, we are told, remonstrated against the
obligation to be imposed upon him by this clause
of the oath. The Commissioners quieted his
conscience by leaving the words to his own con-
struction. With this explanation he took the
Oath in his own sense of it, which meant we know
not exactly what; but certainly no such thing as
the words appear to imply. I do not urge this
as a justification of the doctrine of the Popish
Church: God forbid!—but, if we claim to our-
selves the liberty of construing our own doctrines,
it is perhaps somewhat hard to refuse the same
privilege to others. It is hard to say, that when
King William swore to “root out” heretics in
Scotland, he was to be taken metaphorically;
but, that when the Catholics swore persequi et
expugnare heretics in Ireland, they were to be
taken as actually and literally entertaining that
precise intention; it is hard to say, that King
William did not mean any thing like extermi-
nation, but that the Catholics, even at this time
of day, are prepared with the sword and the torch
to spread their tenets through the world. It is
farther to be observed, that though the oath taken
by King William was never repealed till the
union of the two Crowns, that of the Catholics,
so far at least as relates to the Irish Roman Catho-
lic Bishops, was repealed by the Pope, in 1791.
But what trust can be reposed by a Protestant
VOL. III. Y - -
322 T H E CATH O LI C C LA IM S.
government in Roman Catholic subjects, consi-
dering that it is one acknowledged principle of
their religion “never to keep faith with heretics?”
The answer to this question is to be found in the
whole series of relaxing statutes in their favour;
in the oaths which these statutes prescribe to be
taken by the Catholics. Oaths to be taken by
men whom it is said no oaths can bind! oaths ten-
dered to persons whose profession and creed is
perjury oaths of allegiance to a Protestant
government, exacted from those who are previously
sworn to overturn it! It must be admitted that
our practice is not very consistent with our theory:
and if our theory be true, if the oath of a Catholic
is really no security, it is vain to deny that we
ought at once to repeal all the statutes that have
passed in favour of the Catholics. This is the
vice or the force, be it which it may, of the whole
of the reasoning drawn from the unalterable nature
of the Roman Catholic religion. It is generally,
and I believe truly, understood, that a right ho-
nourable and learned gentleman, whom I do not
now see in the House (Dr. Duigenan), was the
framer of the last oath imposed upon the Irish
Catholics—that of 1793. He, in common with
those who contend that, by the tenets of the Catholic
Church, oaths with Protestants are not binding
upon Catholics, so far forgot the clear and inevi-
table consequence of this assumption (if true),
as to exert his utmost industry and ingenuity in
drawing up such a test as must, in his opinion,
THE CATHOLIC C LA IMS. 323
be binding on the most fugitive and volatile
conscience.
Surely all this labour was misapplied. Surely
it was futile to forge chains of this sort for minds
incapable of being restrained by any obligation.
If such be the minds of the Catholics, where is
the chance of their refusing, and what is the use
of their taking, any oath that could be tendered
for their acceptance? I am afraid, Sir, that you
must either give up your past policy to maintain
your argument; or that, till human wit can devise
some other bond for the consciences of men, you
must be contented to rest on that very principle
of good faith attested and confirmed by those very
sanctions, the obligation of which upon the Catho-
lics you are so forward to deny.
In the late debate on this important question,
we were told by the right honourable doctor (whose
absence on the present occasion I deplore), that
the Catholics ought to be quiet and contented;
that they should make themselves satisfied with
their condition in Ireland, by looking abroad and
comparing their own lot with that of the people
of the rest of Europe: by which they would see
how much happier they are, or may be, under
the limited franchise of which they are possessed,
than the inhabitants of other countries, of what-
ever religious persuasions, are under their respec-
tive governments. Now, Sir, I have two objec-
tions to this advice. In the first place, I should
. Y 2
324 THE CATH O LI C C LA IMS.
not like to teach the Catholics to look abroad, if
I could : secondly, I could not, if I would, prevent
them from looking at home, and comparing and
contrasting their situation with that of their fellow
subjects. It is natural that they should do this:
and it is better that they should do it, rather than
get a habit of indulging in any foreign speculations.
Their feelings, their views, and their wishes should
be bounded by the country which gave them birth,
and the government under which they live. But,
granting that they do look abroad, what do they
see there to reconcile them to their own peculiar
fate 2 If they look at the enemy, they will see
all nations, and tongues, and creeds, united under
the same banner against us and our allies. If they
look at those allies, at the Emperor of Russia, for
instance (whom I may perhaps, venture to class
under that description, as in heart and principle
he must be with us), they will see the Emperor of
Russia marching to meet the congregated forces
of his enemy, at the head of an army composed
of different religions, and surrounded by ministers
representing that diversity of creeds, by a schis-
matic arch-chancellor, a Roman Catholic secretary,
and a Protestant general. If they look at another
great power of Europe, Austria, and if they advert
to the circumstances of the late war in which she
was engaged with France, they will recollect that,
in 1809, Buonaparte issued a proclamation to the
Hungarians, inviting them to throw off the Austrian
THE CATH O LI C C LA IMS. 325
yoke, and offering them, amongst other things, the
free exercise of their several forms of worship.
To the Hungarians, however, this was no temp-
tation; for in Hungary, a Roman Catholic esta-
blishment, co-existing with a Greek hierarchy,
amidst a Protestant population, does not prevent
all the offices of the state, civil and military, from
being open to the ambition of individuals of every
class and religion. But the Catholics may perhaps
be invited to direct their attention to Spain. In
Spain, I am sorry to say, they may find, in a recent
public act, something to countenance, though not
to justify, the state of degradation in which they
are kept at home: an act which, like some others
of narrow and illiberal policy, has disappointed
the hopes entertained by the friends of religious,
liberty, has, in my opinion, disgraced the Cortes,
from which it emanated. But in what country
has this occurrence taken place : In a country
notoriously the most bigoted in Europe, and the
most blind in religious prejudices. Has this act
been approved by us? We know how freely the
conduct of Spain in other respects has been dis-
cussed in this country. Our Government, we know,
has, with all the freedom allowable to an ally, ad-
vised the rulers of Spain, in other particulars, to
correct and enlarge their system of policy—to
ameliorate, for instance, the condition of their co-
lonies, to place their commercial policy on true
and sound principles. No doubt we have pro-
326 THE C A THOLIC C L AI MIS.
tested also against their late declaration of intoler-
ance. In truth, Sir, we are pretty lavish in advice
to others: and it may be lamented, perhaps, that
we have not kept some of our counsel to guide our
own policy at home. Perhaps Spain, when we
have been recommending to her the practice of
liberality and toleration, might have retorted upon
us, not wholly without justice, and asked whether
Ireland, adult and mature Ireland—Ireland, now
a co-ordinate part of the united kingdom, ought
still to be governed on those principles, or on the
remnant of those principles, which were applied,
justly perhaps, in former times, to the population
of a conquered state, or to an insignificant and
rebellious colony? - -
Of the cruelties exercised against the first re-
formers by the ancient church, then struggling
for the maintenance of its authority, history
speaks with just horror and indignation. But can
any man now entertain a serious apprehension
that it is necessary to be on our guard against
their recurrence 2 Good God, Sir, what should
we say if the early violences of the Reformation
itself were to be arrayed against Protestants as a
lasting and inexpiable reproach ' If the outrages
and extravagancies of the Anabaptists of Munster
—the tyrannical caprices of Henry VIII.-the
severities of the latter part of the reign of Eliza-
beth—the burning of Servetus, by Calvin, at
Geneva–the coarse and sacrilegious fury of
'THE CATH O LI C C LA IMS. 327
John Knox and his followers in Scotland—nay,
and the oath taken by King William himself—
were to be alleged as evidence that the several
descriptions of reformed religion are necessarily
and eternally of a violent and sanguinary cha-
racter ? We should object to such an inference
as absurd and unjustifiable ; and may not the
Catholics of the present day protest in like
manner against conclusions being drawn against
them, from the crimes and cruelties, the perfidies
and atrocities, of those who held the same faith
two hundred years ago? •
I have been shocked at seeing exposed to sale,
in the shop-windows of this metropolis, an ad-
dress to the worst passions of the vulgar, entitled,
“An Awful Warning, or the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew.” Who the writer is I know not.
It is not right to attribute bad motives to any
man, but I am at a loss to conceive a good one
for such a publication as this which I hold in my
hand. Why publish such a narrative at the pre-
sent moment? What purpose, what legitimate
feeling can it be intended to gratify 7 What have
the public now to do with Charles the Ninth and
Admiral Coligny ? By what sentiment can any
one feel himself called upon at this time of day.
to narrate that the Guises sprinkled themselves
with the blood of their unfortunate victim, and
that the Duke d’Angouleme viewed his butchered
corpse with emotions of delight? Why repre-
328 THE CATH O LIC C LA IMS.
sent these horrid scenes to the eyes of the popu-
lace 7 What good can it do to recal the memory
of them : If the torch of religious animosity
could be rekindled at the present moment, what
would the effect be but to risk the safety of the
British empire ? This mischievous publication is
illustrated by plates, to heighten the horrors of
the narrative. In one is exhibited the assassina-
tion of Coligny, in another the Duke d’Angouleme
dipping his handkerchief in his blood. Does not
this mode of illustration clearly show to what
description of readers the publication is pecu-
liarly addressed ? upon what class of understand-
ings it is intended to operate 2
But neither are there wanting other indications
of the same purpose ; among these is the dedica-
tion. It is dedicated to the memory of that
eminent and virtuous man whose loss in this
House we are still deploring, and who, had he
been alive, warm as he was in his resistance to
the question now before the House, would as-
suredly have disdained and discountenanced such
a mode of resisting it. The dedication is as fol-
lows:—“ Sacred to the memory of the Right
Honourable Spencer Perceval, Prime Minister of
these realms, whose relative situation in respect
of the established religion of the United King-
dom, was similar to that of De Coligny in France.”
What does this mean 2 . How was Mr. Perceval’s
situation, with respect to the established religion
THE CATH O LI C C LA IMIS. 329
of this kingdom, similar to that of De Coligny
with respect to the established religion of France 2
So much for the accuracy of the fact. This cir-
cumstance is one which also clearly shows for
what scale of intellect this writer calculated his
publication. On human beings, capable of inves-
tigation and discussion, he knew that he should
make no impression ; he therefore directed his
efforts to infuriate the mob, not, I hope, in this
day, to be infuriated by such unhallowed means.
The dedication proceeds, after this comparison
between the situation of Mr. Perceval and that of
the Admiral De Coligny, to say that Mr. Perceval
“fell like him, a martyr to his duty to his King,
to his country, and to his God.” History, we
know, is sufficiently liable to misrepresentation
and perversion; but so shameless an attempt
as this, within one short month after the trans-
action to which it refers, I should think is
not to be found in the records of historical falsifi-
cation. * -- |
If, Sir, with a deep sense of a dispensation so
awful and afflicting as that with which we have
recently been visited, it may yet be permitted to
us to render thanks to Providence for having
intermixed some qualification of mercy in its
wrath, that gratitude is justly due, when we
image to our minds the mischiefs that might have
been occasioned, had the desperate wretch who
committed this detested deed been either a Ca-
330 THE CATH O L I C C L A IMS.
tholic or an Irishman. It is very possible that he
might have been either, or both, and yet not have
been influenced by any motive of religious fana-
ticism. But I appeal to the common sense of
the House whether, if, by accident, the assassin
of Mr. Perceval had been born in the sister
island, if by accident he had been a Roman Ca-
tholic (as, in the paragraph I have just read to
them, it is not asserted indeed, but, with jesuitical
ambiguity, is more than insinuated); whether, I
say, the same blind zeal which is manifested in
this publication, would not in all probability have
availed itself of that circumstance to stir up a
furious and fanatical spirit, which might have laid
both countries in blood
Sir, when I first gave notice of the motion
which I have this day brought forward, many
weeks ago, it was my expectation that I should
have to contend with my late lamented Friend, as
my most formidable antagonist upon it. I really
wished for the opportunity of such a contest; I
wished to see the side of the question which he
espoused, arrayed in its most striking colours; I
wished to hear all that could have been said upon it,
and from him I should have heard it all; I wished
for this contest for the sake of thorough discussion,
and of arriving at the truth : but I anticipated it,
God knows, with no feelings of hostility; I should
have come to it with sentiments the very reverse
of personal animosity; I should have argued the
THE CATH O L I C C L AI M.S. 331
question with him in no other spirit, and with no
other feelings, than
“If a brother should a brother dare”
to the proof and exercise of arms. I know not
who is to buckle on his armour, and to wield his
weapons against me on this day. Would to God
that he were here to wield them with his own
hand Would to God that the cause had the
advantage of his abilities, so that we had the ad-
vantage and delight of his presence
“Tuque tuis armis, nos te poteremur, Achille !”
Before I dismiss the publication to which I have
alluded, I wish to notice a passage which appears
to me conclusive as to the real object of the
writer. It is the concluding paragraph of the
work, and is couched in the following words: “A
slight examination of the principal contemporary
and other historians, will readily prove that the
massacre must ever remain a blot in the annals of
France and of Rome: may it also operate as an
awful warning—as the warning of St. Bartholo-
mew, nay, even of Heaven itself—to Protestants
of this and every age, to convince posterity, but
more especially the supine, we cannot say blind,
of 1812, of the great truth that PAPIsTs KEEP No
TAITH witH PROTESTANTs.” .
Can any man doubt what this means ? or at
least what feelings it tends to excite, what pur-
332 THE C A THOLIC C L A IMIS.
poses it is calculated to encourage This, Sir,
is not the first time that the history of the massacre
of St. Bartholomew has been so employed, in
modern times. The author of this work might
imagine that he was performing his duty to his
country, by awakening the attention of the Pro-
testant Church to the dangers with which, in his
opinion, it was threatened. But example is not
in his favour. In the early periods of the French
Revolution, a representation of the massacre of St.
Bartholomew was brought on the theatre of Paris.
Was that done with a view of mitigating the vio-
lent spirit of the Catholic Church, of extinguishing
religious animosities, of healing the grievances, or
of reconciling the differences which distracted the
country 2 Hear what Mr. Burke says upon this
subject: “Your citizens of Paris,” said Mr.
Burke, in his letter to a member of the National
Assembly, “ your citizens of Paris, formerly had
lent themselves as the ready instruments to
slaughter the followers of Calvin at the infamous
massacre of St. Bartholomew. What should we
say to those who could think of retaliating on the
Parisians of this day, the abominations and hor-
rors of that time ! It was but the other day that
they caused this very massacre to be acted on the
stage. They introduced the Cardinal of Lorraine,
in his robes of function, ordering general slaughter.
Was this spectacle intended to make the Parisians
abhor persecution and loath the effusion of blood?
-º-
THE CATH O LI C C LA IMS. 333
No! it was to teach them to persecute l’ I will
not say, that such must be the intentions of any
man who represents such scenes as these at the
present moment, and forces the record of such
transactions upon the public eye. I will not say,
such must be his deliberate intentions : but I
must say, that the mistaken zeal and perverse
ingenuity which such a publication displays,
naturally subject him to observations such as
these of Mr. Burke. *
Sir, out of the contents of this work which I
have brought under your notice, no less than out
of the intelligence which has this day arrived from
Ireland, I collect additional motives for taking
into consideration the situation of the Catholics,
and for discussing their claims with that temper
which their importance demands.
The mention of the name of Mr. Burke, and of
that of my late right honourable friend, naturally
suggests the consideration of the authorities by
which the view that I take of the great question
now before us, has been supported or opposed.
No man can deem more highly than I do of the
sagacity, the integrity, the force of my late right
honourable friend's understanding; of the purity
of his mind, the charity of his temper, and the un-
affected piety by which he was so eminently dis-
tinguished. But, considering this, as I must always
do, as a great state question, I hope I may be
excused if I cannot put his authority in competi-
334 T H E C A THO LIC CILA IMS,
tion with the united authorities of so many great
men who have preceded him ; with the autho-
rity not of Mr. Burke alone, who, on this as well
as on other subjects, outran, with a prophetic
celerity the progress of the public sentiment, and
had arrived many years ago at that opinion in
which I believe it may be said that the generality
of the public are now agreed ; not only of Mr.
Fox, whose general love of liberty, and whose
ardent and hardy and uncompromising spirit.
naturally inclined him to extend to the widest
range the limits of freedom and toleration; not
only, I say, with the authorities of these great
men—men who, being of a warm and sanguine
temperament, might be subjected to the accusa-
tion of adopting too eagerly every proposition
which tended towards the liberty of mankind:
but to these are to be added the name of Mr.
Windham, whose mind was cast in a different
mould, whose disposition, so far from being rash
and sanguine, inclined him rather to view every
approach to an enlargement of popular privilege
with jealousy, and to suspect all general proposi-
tions of fallacy and danger. I must add also the
great and venerable name of Mr. Pitt, whose
generous philanthropy, whose attachment to
civil and religious liberty, were as warm and sin-
cere as those of any man that ever lived ; but in
whom those feelings were tempered and dis-
ciplined by early habits of business and long
THE CATHolic CDA IMs. 335
practical experience, which had taught him to
examine specious theories with distrust, and to
build his plans for the public good on sure and solid
foundations. If then the question were to rest
upon authority, I could have no apprehension as
to the decision.
But to return to the argument: it is the mis-
fortune of all those topics which are derived from
the bloody history of earlier times, and from the
alleged unchangeable nature of the popish reli-
gion; that, if good for any thing, they are good
for too much. They are good against what has
already been done, as well as against that which
it is proposed to do. The practical question now
before us is, not—what are the existing dangers
from concessions already made? but, whether or
not those dangers will be increased, whether they
may not even be removed, by further concessions?
If I could be made to think that by taking one
more step we should destroy our Protestant in-
stitutions, and establish in their stead a Roman
Catholic hierarchy and Roman Catholic ascen-
dancy in church and state, most undoubtedly I
would stop where we are: but I maintain that
this is the very point where the necessity of
proof lies heaviest on those who contend against
further concession. It is for them to show, not
the advantage and security which might have
been derived from the continuance of the total
disqualification of the Catholics; not the absolute
336 THE CATH O LIC C LA IMS.
incompatibility of any concessions to the Catholics
with the safety of the Protestant establishment:
what they have to show is this, that the conces-
sions already granted, are at once safe for the
Protestant establishment, and calculated to satisfy
the cravings which they are unquestionably cal-
culated to excite in the Catholic mind; but, that
a single step beyond the point at which we stand,
is danger and destruction ; that it is safe to fill
the ranks of your army with Catholic soldiers and
Catholic subalterns, but that a Catholic major-
general would bring confusion upon your arms;
that the four Courts of Dublin may swarm with
popish lawyers in stuff gowns, and law and justice
flourish by their labours, but that if one of them
had a gown of silk, he would infallibly overturn
the whole frame of your legal constitution. They
who are for retracing our steps, and recalling
what we have, according to them, improvidently
granted, are consistent and intelligible. But the
present controversy lies between those who would
go on with me, and those who see no danger in
what we have given, but yet would give no more.
This is the point upon which illustration is re-
quired; this is the hinge on which the dispute
turns. To this I hope that those who are this day
to oppose my motion, will have the goodness to
address themselves; for it is here that their argu-
ment labours, and wants a helping hand.
You say, you will not give to the Catholics
THE CATH O LI C C LA IM. S. 337
political power; I say, you have given them po-
litical power: how wisely, I will not inquire—but
you have given them the elective franchise. If
the option were now to be argued, it would not
be difficult (in my opinion) to show that the intro-
duction of twenty or thirty Catholic gentlemen in
this House would by no means operate such power-
ful political effects, as the letting loose to two
or three hundred thousand of the Catholic popu-
lation of Ireland the right of electing members of
Parliament. I do not mean to say, that I there-
fore impeach the wisdom of the decision which,
in 1793, gave the preference to the one mode of
concession over the other. I can easily under-
stand the apprehension which might exist in a
limited and local Parliament, lest the Protestants,
should in time have been outnumbered by the
admission of Catholic representatives. But,
speaking of the Parliament of the united empire
as it is now constituted, I have little hesitation in
saying, that the admission to seats among us of
twenty or thirty Catholic gentlemen would be
less dangerous, (if indeed the term dangerous be
applicable to the subject, which I do not believe it
to be), than the boon, which has been already
granted, of the elective franchise to the large
body of the Catholics. . , 4
What then is it that you have done towards
reconciling the Protestants and Catholics : Re-
solving to introduce, the Catholics partially at
vol. III. Z
338 TH E CATH O LI C C L A 1 M S.
least into the bosom of the constitution, whom
among them have you chosen to associate in the
first instance with yourselves? Those of them
who were peculiarly distinguished for rank, for
property, for talents? those who, from their sta-
tion and their character, are naturally looked up
to as leaders of the body? those with whom you
are in the habit of mixing in every other place,
and whose admission into this House, you would
therefore hardly perceive? those who, from their
property and their rank, have a decided interest
in the conservation of the present frame and system
of society 2 No such thing. All these you have
rejected, and still continue to reject: while, on
the principle of universal suffrage, or something
very like it, you have admitted to a participation
in the constitution, to political power, the great
mass of the Catholic population, without distinc-
tion or selection. You adopt the peasantry, and
reject the gentry.
With this choice, the next danger which is
stated, appears to be somewhat inconsistent. The
Catholic priesthood possess a great and alarming
influence over the Catholic peasantry. True: and
when had not a priesthood great influence over
the mass of the people? And ought they not to
have it, and more especially over a rude and
uncultivated people? But what is it that has
augmented this influence of the Catholic Priests,
if it be augmented, beyond its due proportion?
THE CATH O L I C C L Al MIS. 339
What but their poverty, and still more, in former
times, the persecution which they have undergone?
In proportion as these causes are removed, the
effects cease. The influence of the Priests will
always continue, and it is to be wished that it
always should continue, adequate to the perform-
ance of their spiritual duties. Its salutary ef-
fects will not cease; but the obedience of their
flocks will be divested by degrees of that blind
and slavish principle from which so much danger
is apprehended.
But, it is not the influence of the clergy alone,
that is an object of apprehension. The great
body of Irish Catholics are, it is said, in the hands
of agitators, who wish to keep their discontents
alive; who care not for the professed object of
Catholic desire, but look to ulterior purposes of
mischief, to separation and revolution. If this be
so, we can only defeat the evil intentions of such
men in two ways: either by correcting their dis-
position, or by taking away their means. The
former is beyond human power. Let us avail
ourselves of the latter. Let us remove those
circumstances which, operating upon the feelings
of the Catholics, render them fit instruments in
the hands of agitators, for the promotion of such
dangerous designs. I am inclined to believe,
that there are those who have ulterior views and
objects. Of those who are the most clamorous
for concession, there are some, I do believe, who
z 2
340 THE CATH O LIC CLA IMS.
would be most disappointed if that concession
were granted. And next to the gratification
which I should feel in tranquillizing a loyal and
high-minded people, by the introduction of that
equality of rights, without which there can be no
reciprocal liking and confidence, is that of disap-
pointing the guilty hopes of those who delight
not in tranquillity and concord, but in grievances
and remonstrance; who use their sincere and
warmhearted countrymen as screens to their own
ambitious purposes; and who consider a state of
turbulence and discontent, as best suited to the
ends which they have in view. That state it may
be their wish to prolong, but so much the rather
is it our interest and our duty to terminate it as
speedily as possible.
But, what are the securities to be taken against
the dangers of further concession? (for be it always
remembered, that the question is further conces-
sion; it is not the introduction of a new principle,
but the following up of one already established.)
It has been lately stated in another place, that
when the Catholics are called upon to show their
securities, their answer is, “Show us your dan-
gers;” and this has been complained of, as a saucy
way of begging the question. Sir, it is a fair answer.
I do not mean that it is absolutely and abstractedly
an answer to the question proposed: but I say it
is a fair answer on the part of the Catholics. The
Catholics see no danger; they deny the existence
THE CATH O LI C C L AI MS. 341
of any danger; and they therefore are the last
persons who can be expected to devise securities.
It is certainly the duty of the Catholic to submit
to any provisions that the Legislature may think
necessary for that purpose: but it is not his
business, nor can he be competent to suggest
those securities himself. How can he provide
against dangers of which he is not aware ? How
is he to fit that which he has no means of measur-
ing?—It is the province of the Legislature to say
to the Catholic—“These are the dangers which
we apprehend; and these the securities which we
deem to be requisite for guarding against them.”
Let the boon be accompanied with the condition
that is to make it safe to the giver: and I feel
confident, notwithstanding the delusion and irrita-
tion of the moment, that the Catholic will joyfully
accept, and thankfully acknowledge it.
What may be the plan of securities to be an-
nexed to concession, this is not the time to dis-
cuss. I know that we have to guard not against
real dangers only, but against the imagination of
dangers that perhaps may not exist. Of this
imagination much, I hope and believe, is to be
done away by previous discussion. I hope also
that discussion may soften the temper of the
Catholics, and prepare them to receive as they
ought whatever may be tendered to them. But
I am sure that to bring forward any specific
plan at this moment, would be only to throw it
342 'I'HE CATH O LI C C LA IMS.
wide for misapprehension and misrepresentation;
for the fears of the timid, and the cavils of the
disaffected; to be held up to obloquy and
suspicion by those, whose object is not settle-
ment but continued irritation. It is not at a
moment of violence and clamour, that the voice
of reason can be heard. But such violence and
clamour, however they may disgust or dishearten
us; however much they may increase the difficul-
ties of the discussion, by increasing or creating
distrust and indignation among the people of
this country; or, however much they may damp
one's hopes of an arrangement of mutual satis-
faction and concord, yet ought they not for a
moment to interrupt the sober and straight-for-
ward course of Parliament.
Parliament would not legislate wisely, if it suf-
fered itself to be swayed by clamour either way,
by appeals to their fear on the one hand, or to
their pride on the other. Nothing can be more
erroneous for a government, than to erect a dis-
puted question into a point of honour. This may
be necessary to the character of individuals, but
it would be mischievous in administering the
affairs of a great state. It is to the indulgence,
during the American war, of such feelings as
those which I now deprecate, that the disastrous
result of that contest may in great measure be
attributed. How much wiser would it have been
in the Parliament of that day, if they had not
THE CATH O LI C C LA IMIS. 343
permitted any thing like pique and ill-humour to
mix in their proceedings; if they had not treated
the speeches of a few obnoxious individuals in
America, or the clamours of a few popular meet-
ings, as the deliberate voice of regular defiance,
or grounded upon them acts of premature and
decisive severity
Let us be cautious how we permit the sayings
and writings of unauthorised individuals, or the
exaggerated declarations of tumultuous assem-
blies, to generate a feeling of impatience in this
House, and to turn us from the grave con-
sideration of a subject, involving the welfare
and happiness of the kingdom. A few angry
demagogues may declare that they will hear of
no arrangement—will consent to no securities.
And there are not wanting those on this side of
the water, who will be glad to lay hold of this
declaration, as a clear and authentic exposition
of the general and deliberate feeling of the Catho-
lics; and as a sufficient ground for putting an end,
at once, to every attempt at considering a question,
the result of which, they say, must be hopeless.
I agree with neither the one nor the other of these
parties. I cannot think the existence, if it were
proved, of an irritated, and unruly, and unrea-
sonable spirit on the part of the Catholics, a suffi-
cient ground for our leaving this question loose,
to float upon the breath of popular opinion, and to
be mixed with every ebullition of public discon-
344 THE CATH O LI C C LA IMIS.
tent. Neither can I do the Catholics, on the other
hand, so much injustice as to believe that they
entertain and avow the design of disobedience to
the law. Whatever is done in their favour, will
be done by the enactment of Parliament. By the
same act which confers the boon, will be imposed
the corresponding obligation, whatever it may be.
To accept the one, and reject the other, will not be
in the power of the Catholics. Be assured they
will not attempt it. Be assured they have no such
serious intention. They will accept your benefit:
and they will obey your law. Listen, therefore,
with dignified coolness and indulgence, equally
unmoved either by anger or by fear, to the lan-
guage of temporary disappointment and vexa-
tion : but do not set down the ungoverned
effusions of the tongue as the settled purpose of
the heart. -
At all events let us put ourselves in the right.
If this question is unhappily to be a source of
eternal disquiet to these nations, let it not be
through our fault. Let us do our part to settle it
in a manner conformable at once to justice and to
policy: and if, after all our endeavours, such a
settlement cannot be made, on their heads be the
blame who shall reject the good work, and dis-
appoint the good intentions of the Legislature !
But I hope for better things. -
A refusal by the Catholics to come into such
arrangements as the fears, even of the liberal, of -
THE CATH O LIC CLAIM S. 345
the wise, and of the just among their Protestant
fellow subjects might require, would put them
decidedly in the wrong. The very arguments that
are now most strong in their behalf, would in that
case be turned against themselves. The examples
of other countries would then be used, not to show
how much is unnecessarily withholden from the
Catholics here, but to show how unreasonable
they are in their exactions. If in the great empire
of Russia we see Catholics in office, if we see there
a Catholic Church, and even an acknowledged
Catholic Episcopacy;-be it remembered that this
establishment exists without any dependence upon
the Pope, except in matters of a merely spiritual
nature. Even in France we see the Gallican
Church secured at this moment, by the late con-
cordat, from undue subjection to the papal power.
Consider then, how impossible it is that the Pope,
under the present circumstances of Europe, even
if restored to his dignity and independence, should
recover his ancient authority, be looked to with
that awe, or possess that influence, in other coun-
tries, which he formerly enjoyed. Consider how
much the progress of public opinion has mitigated
the violence of religious dissensions. Surely these
are favourable circumstances for enabling us to
unite with concession to the Catholics the indis-
pensable condition of security to the Protestant
Church; and it will be hard, indeed, if, in propor-
tion as the obstacles diminish on the side of those
346 THE CATH O LI C C LA IMI S.
who are to grant, they shall rise up and multiply
on the side of those who solicit concession. I hope
better things.
But, Sir, upon this part of the subject, I am un-
willing to detain the House. It has already been
ably and amply discussed in former debates, par-
ticularly by an honourable baronet (Sir J. C. Hip-
pisley), from whose speeches and publications on
these topics, I confess I have derived no small
share of whatever information I have upon them.
This only I beg the House to believe, that it cer-
tainly is not from any doubt as to the practicability
of framing adequate arrangements for combining
the security of our Protestant establishments with
the concession of what remains to be conceded to
the Catholics, that I abstain from any detail at
the present moment. I think it, in the present
instance, sufficient for the House of Commons to
declare their determination to take the whole
question into their consideration, early in the next
session of Parliament; defining only the great ob-
ject we have thereby in view, namely, conciliation;
and leaving the measure to be deliberated upon
in the interval between the sessions, in order that
it may be so modified, when it comes to be pro-
posed next year, as to secure the attainment of all
the objects which we have in contemplation. I
have in my own mind a tolerably clear conception
of what, as it appears to me, might be the fit
course to be taken; but my conception may be
THE CATH O LI C CLA IMS. 347
just or incorrect. It is a work upon which the
wisdom of Parliament and the prudence of Go-
vernment must be exercised.
Sir, in framing the specific motion which I am
about to submit to the House, I have followed and
endeavoured to unite two precedents: The first,
a precedent of the most auspicious nature—that
of the message brought down to the House
by Mr. Fox, in 1782, which led to the “final
adjustment,” as it was called, that gave to Ireland
her political constitution: the other—no less auspi-
cious—the Resolution of the year 1806, which
produced the ultimate settlement of the so long
agitated question of the Slave Trade. For eigh-
teen years had my honourable friend (Mr. Wilber-
force), the able and indefatigable advocate for the
abolition of the Slave Trade, laboured, to his own
immortal honour, but in vain. In 1806, Mr. Fox,
then a Minister, moved a Resolution, that the House
of Commons would, early in the next Session of
Parliament, take the subject into consideration.
This Resolution was agreed to ; it was communi-
cated to the House of Lords; and early in the next
session of Parliament (although a dissolution had
intervened), a Bill founded on that Resolution
was brought in, and happily carried almost
without opposition. I indulge a sanguine and
earnest hope that the motion with which I shall
conclude will be equally fortunate with the prece-
dents on which it is framed. -
348 THE CATH OLIC CLAIMS.
It is true, as I have said, that when Mr. Fox
moved the Resolution to which I have alluded,
he was in power; and it was therefore to be in-
ferred that the Executive Government of that day
were through him made a party to the decision of
the House of Commons. To supply in the pre-
sent case that advantage, it will be necessary that,
if my Resolution should be successful (as I trust
it will), it should be laid before the Throne, in
order that the Executive Government may be for-
mally apprised of the intention of the House, and
prepared to co-operate for its due execution.
Upon the two precedents then which I have
quoted—of which the one gave to Ireland her
political constitution, and the other removed from
the character of this country the foulest blot with
which it was ever stained—I have framed a Re-
solution which I now offer to the House—a Reso-
lution which, if carried, will be equally conducive
to the happiness, to the honour, and to the mutual
good will of Great Britain and Ireland. I con-
jure the House to consider that if they do not
take this question into their own hands, it will
not be, it cannot be, set at rest. Even if it were
not altogether vain to suppose that it can be put
aside, and kept quiet till we have more leisure
upon our hands—nay, if it could be put out of
sight or out of memory by a wish—still I should
not hesitate (although others perhaps might) to
bring a proposition, which I am convinced is just
THE CATHOLIC CLAIMs. 349
and beneficial, under consideration. But to ima-
gine that a question of this sort, affecting the
interests and feelings of so large a population, can
remain unagitated, is to indulge a visionary hope,
a hope unauthorised either by the particular cir-
cumstances of the case, or by the general course
of human conduct. The difference is simply
this :—if we leave it to be discussed out of doors,
we know to what tongues and to what pens we
commit the discussion; we know in what tone
and with what temper it will be treated ; we ab-
dicate the functions of Parliament and of Govern-
ment, and incur a deep and awful responsibility
for consequences which it is better to imagine
than to describe. On the other hand, the deli-
berate consideration of the question by this and
the other House of Parliament, may lead—I trust
will lead—to a result satisfactory to all parties
interested in it, a result which will command
their acquiescence, and tranquillize their agita-
tion. The interference of Parliament may be
often wisely withholden in cases where the fer-
ment of the people arises from temporary causes,
and is therefore likely to subside of its own
accord: but where the causes are permanent and
deep-seated, the time of interfering and the mode
are the only points admitting of doubt. I trust
the moment is not past at which our interference
may be effectual; but most sincerely do I think
that it ought not to be much longer delayed. We
350 TH E CATHOLIC CLA IM S.
have already decided that no practical step is to
be taken in this House this session. The know-
ledge of our intention to enter upon the subject
early in the next will, I hope, have the effect of
procuring an interval of quiet and confidence;
and I trust that interval may be well employed.
I conclude then, Sir, with moving—
“That this House will, early in the next ses-
sion of Parliament, take into its most serious
consideration the state of the laws affecting His
Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects in Great Bri-
tain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and
conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to
the peace and strength of the United Kingdom,
to the stability of the Protestant establishment,
and to the general satisfaction and concord of all
classes of His Majesty’s subjects.”
One word, Sir, before you read the motion
from the chair, on a point which I should be sorry
to have left unexplained. I have not in the
course of my argument adverted specifically to
the condition of the Roman Catholics of Eng-
land, as distinct from that of the Roman Catho-
lics of Ireland. Their situation is, however, in
many respects different; and the difference is
greatly to the disadvantage of the English Catho-
lics; while their exemplary conduct and distin-
guished loyalty entitle them to the most kind,
partial consideration. But they have themselves
waived this year any separate application to Par-
THE CATH O LI C C LA IMS. 35]
liament: they have been contented to abide the
result of a general consideration of the question,
and it is hardly necessary to say, that they must
in justice be comprehended in any general mea-
sure of relief which Parliament may hereafter
think fit to sanction.
The House divided—
For the original Resolution ......... 235
Noes ........................... ........ 106
Majority in favour of the Resolution ...... 129
NEGOCIATIONS FOR A CHANGE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION.
MAY 21st, 1812.
MR. S. WoRTLEY this day moved, “That an humble
Address be presented to His Royal Highness the Prince
Regent, humbly praying that he will be pleased to take
such measures as will enable him, under the present cir-
cumstances of the country, to form a strong and efficient
Administration.
The House divided:—
For the Motion .................. 174
Against it ... ... .................. 170
Majority ........................... 4.
352 N EGO CIATIONS FOR A C H A N G E
JUNE 11th, 1812.
THE Address agreed to on the 21st of May, was pre-
sented to the Prince Regent, who returned an answer,
“That he would take into his serious and immediate con-
sideration the Address which he had received from the
House of Commons.”
Negociations for forming a new Administration were
carried on immediately subsequent to his answer; but with-
Out Success.
MR. STUART WoRTLEY on the 11th of June, moved the
following Address, respecting the failure of the negocia-
tions:—“That an humble Address be presented to His
Royal Highness the Prince Regent, to express our regret
that the expectations held out in His Royal Highness’s
most gracious answer to our Address of the 21st of May,
have not yet been realized ; to assure His Royaſ Highness
of our determination to support, with undiminished zeal,
such measures as may appear calculated to ensure pros-
perity at home, and respect abroad; but, at the same time,
humbly to represent, that (consistently with the duty we
owe our Sovereign and our constituents) we can no longer
defer the expression of our earnest entreaties that His
Royal Highness would, without delay, form such an Ad-
ministration, as may be entitled to the support of Par-
liament, and the confidence of the N ation.”
Two amendments were moved upon this Address by
Lord Folkstone and Lord Milton.
OF A D M IN IST R A TION. 353
MR. CANNING* observed, that the manner in which the
right honourable gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby), had done him
the honour to allude to him, and the share which it had been
his lot, humble as he was, to take in the recent negociations,
induced him to trespass for a short time on the attention of
the House. The part which he had acted under a noble lord,
(Marquis of Wellesley), in the course of these transactions,
left him no option but to come to the defence of the noble per-
sons, who were the immediate friends of the right honour-
able gentleman, against any charge of want of candour and
liberality on their part; and he now entered on this discus-
sion with the same temper and moderation which his floble
friend had displayed throughout the whole negociation, for
the purpose of stating the colour and nature of those transac-
tions in which he was personally engaged, abstaining cau-
tiously from any comment, and from any mention of himself
beyond what might be inevitably forced upon him by the
circumstances of the case. The right honourable gentle-
man had truly stated the wish which prevailed on both
sides, to have been to provide a strong and efficient Adminis-
tration. He had also justly characterised and defined
wherein such an Administration might be supposed to con-
sist, at least in point of principle and public confidence.
But there was one error under which it appeared to him
the right honourable gentleman and his friends laboured,
and that was, that such an Administration could only be
understood in one way; which was, in fact, leaving all
others who might join them nothing to do but to surrender
the pre-eminence into the hands of him who could count
the most numerous supporters in that House. Now obvi-
ously Lord Wellesley did not stand in that situation; he
had not the numerical followers who could give this sort of
strength to an Administration. Undoubtedly then, they
differed in their views on this point. It was not Lord
vol. III. A A
354 N EGOC I ATIONS FOR A C HI A N G E
Wellesley's opinion, that, because his force was not the
larger of the two, therefore he was to pursue all the mea-
sures of the larger party with which he might connect him-
self, and into whose power his power must merge, but
rather that mutual consideration, and weighing of those
measures, should be the consequence. True it was, that
an Administration might then be pronounced most strong
when it contained no conflicting principles, and no contra-
dictory opinions; when it came forward with long con-
certed plans on public subjects, and when its members had
been connected for a series of years past, in political agree-
ment. But still when such a description of men came into
power, it could not be said to be an union of parties on an
extended basis, but a transfer of power from one party in
the state to another. When the commission was first offered
to Lord Wellesley, he was aware, that to lay the founda-
tion of an extended and efficient Administration, though
differences of opinion might exist as to points of inferior
importance, yet an understanding should be come to with
regard to the two great points of our external and internal
policy—the conduct of the war, and the claims of the
Catholics. Besides these, there were others which might
become matters of mutual discussion. He now referred to
the orders in council, which involved much matter of
serious deliberation, and about which there might be some
difficulty in coming to a practical conclusion. This then
was a point which Lord Wellesley conceived might remain
fairly open in all its bearings to mature consideration. But
he did imagine that an union on the two great points of
external and internal policy to which he had alluded, might
form a basis sufficiently strong and extended for the super-
structure of an efficient ministry to be erected upon it. He
did not deny that the American question was extremely
important, but still it was so complicated in its details, and
O F A D M I N I S'I' R A TI O N . 355
so many recent negociations had taken place upon it, that
it at least required the most serious and dispassionate atten-
tion. Were he called upon to yield any of the great prin-
ciples of maritime law on which this country had acted, he
had no hesitation in refusing his assent to any such propo-
sition. With regard to the conduct of the war in the
Peninsula, no man could mean to offer the proposition that
it should be persisted in at all events, or that the blood and
treasure of the country should be drained in a contest evi-
dently hopeless. In the proposition which his noble friend
made to Lords Grey and Grenville, it was perfectly under-
stood that they might retain their opinions on the origin of
that war; all that was wished was, that they should be
prepared to agree to its maintenance in the mean time, and
that they should reserve to themselves the right of examin-
ing the means, the extent, and the mode of carrying it on.
The difficulty of complete concurrence of opinion on these
and other points, his noble friend and himself did not dis.
guise from themselves; nor did they disguise, that if they
required conciliation upon all points, it would be impossible
to form any administration. They thought it better, there-
fore, to limit themselves to two great objects—the one a
leading feature of internal policy—the other embracing
almost our whole external system. Upon these it was ne-
cessary to ascertain an union of sentiment; and that union,
if complete, would, they thought, be sufficiently strong to
bear the superstructure of a combined administration,
though differing upon other questions, not perhaps of infe-
rior importance, but not so immediately affecting the leading
features of our present policy. - -
With these impressions, his noble friend made a commu-
nication to Lords Grey and Grenville; of which the fol-
lowing was a minute: • . ſ
* A A 2
356 NEG O CIATIONS FOR A CHANGE
Minute of a Communication made by Lord Wellesley to
Lords Grey and Grenville, at Lord Grey's house, dated
May 23d, 1812.
“Lord Wellesley stated, that he had received the com-
mands of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, to lay
before His Royal Highness the plan of such an Administra-
tion as he (Lord Wellesley) might deem adapted to the
present crisis of affairs.
“That he had apprised His Royal Highness of the
necessity of ascertaining the views and dispositions of all
parties with regard to certain general principles, previously
to the formation of any such plan.
“That he considered himself merely as the instrument
of executing His Royal Highness's commands on this occa-
sion; and that he neither claimed nor desired for himself
any station in the Administration which it was in His Royal
Highness's contemplation to form.
“ Under these circumstances, he requested to know
whether any obstacle existed to the concurrence of Lords
Grey and Grenville, or their friends, in the following
general principles, as the basis upon which an Administration
might be formed:—
“ 1st. That the state of the laws affecting the Roman
Catholics, and the claims of that body of His Majesty's
subjects should be taken into immediate consideration, with
a view to a conciliatory adjustment of those claims.
“2nd. That the war in the Peninsula should be prose-
cuted on a scale of adequate vigour.
“Lord Wellesley stated, that as Mr. Canning and he
agreed in these principles, he had requested Mr. Canning
to communicate them to Lord Liverpool.
“Lord Wellesley has reduced the substance of this
OF A D M I N I STRATION. 357
communication to writing, and now submits it to Lord Grey
and Lord Grenville. (Signed) “WELLESLEY.”
To this communication the noble lords made the follow-
ing reply:
Memorandum from Lords Grey and Grenville, dated
May 24th, 1812.
“In such a moment as the present, we feel it to be the
duty of all public men, both by frank and conciliatory ex-
planations of principle, and by the total abandonment of
every personal objection, to facilitate as far as may be in
their power, the means of giving effect to the late vote of
the House of Commons, and of averting the imminent and
unparalleled dangers of the country.
“Lord Wellesley has selected two, among the many im-
portant subjects which must engage the attention of any
men, who could, in such circumstances, be called upon to
consider of the acceptance of stations of public trust.
“On those two points our explanation shall be as distinct
as it is in our power to make it. # -
“On the first, indeed, our opinion is too well known, and
has been too recently expressed, to need repetition.
“We have derived a very high gratification from Lord
Wellesley's powerful exertions in support of the claims of
the Roman Catholics; as well as from the manner in which
that subject is adverted to in his minute; and we do not
hesitate to assure him, that we will warmly support any
proposal made by any Ministers, for the immediate consi-
deration of those claims with a view to their conciliatory
adjustment; a measure, without which, we have already
declared, that we can entertain no hope in any case of
rendering our own services useful. . . .
“As to the second point, no person feels more strongly
than we do the advantages which would result from a suc-
358 N EGO C.I.A.'I'I O N S FOR A C H A N G E
cessful termination of the present contest in Spain. But we
are of opinion, that the direction of military operations in an
extensive war, and the more or less vigorous prosecution of
those operations, are questions not of principle but of policy;
to be regulated by circumstances, in their nature temporary
and fluctuating, and in many cases known only to persons
in official stations, by the engagements of the country, the
prospects of ultimate success, the extent of the exertions
necessary for its attainment, and the means of supporting
those efforts without too great a pressure on the finances and
internal prosperity of the country.
“On such questions, therefore, no public men, whether
in or out of office, can undertake for more than a deliberate
and dispassionate consideration, according to the circum-
stances of the case as it may appear, and to such means of
information as may then be within their reach. But we
cannot in sincerity conceal from Lord Wellesley, that, in the
present state of the finances, we entertain the strongest
doubts of the practicability of an increase in any branch of
the public expenditure.”
Lord Wellesley's declared object being to form a com-
prehensive administration, which should unite, if possible,
all the great parties of the state, it was necessary that a pro-
position should also be made to the members of the suspended
Government.
At the same moment, therefore, at which his noble friend
made the communication which he had read to Lords Grey
and Grenville, he (Mr. Canning) made a proposition to
Lord Liverpool, of which the following was a minute:
Minute of Mr. Canning's Proposition to Lord Liverpool,
dated Fife-house, May 23d, 1812.
“The Prince Regent having laid his commands upon
Lord Wellesley to form a plan of an administration, to be
OF A D M I NIS'I’lt. A "l'I () N. . 359
submitted for his Royal Highness's approbation, Mr.
Canning was requested by Lord Wellesley (as the channel
of communication thought likely to be most agreeable to
Lord Liverpool) to inquire of Lord Liverpool, whether there
would be a disposition on the part of Lord Liverpool, and
of his colleagues, or of any of them, to entertain any pro-
posal which should be made to them for forming part of
that administration.
“The principles upon which the administration was
intended to be formed were stated to be, first, the taking
into the early and serious consideration of the Executive
Government the state of the laws affecting the Roman
Catholics, with a sincere and earnest desire to bring that .
important question to a final and satisfactory settlement:
secondly, the prosecution of the war in the Peninsula with
the best means of the country.
“It was stated, that there would be the strongest wish
to comprehend in the arrangement, without any individual
or party exclusion whatever, as many as possible of such
persons as might be able to agree in giving their public
services to the country on these two principles.
“With respect to the distribution of offices, it was stated,
that nothing of any sort was decided or stipulated; but
that every thing would be open to be arranged to the
honour and satisfaction of all parties.”
To this proposition the noble earl answered as follows:
Letter from Lord Liverpool to Mr. Canning, dated Fife-
house, May 23d, 1812.
“MY DEAR CANNING.—I have communicated to my col-
leagues the memorandum which I received from you this
afternoon. . - -a--
“They do not think it necessary to enter into any dis-
cussion of the principles stated in that memorandum; be-,
360 NEC; () CIAT I ONS F O R A C H A N G E
cause they all feel themselves bound, particularly after
what has recently passed, to decline the proposal of becom-
ing members of an administration to be formed by Lord
Wellesley.—Believe me to be, with sincere personal regard,
my dear Canning, very faithfully your’s,
(Signed) “LIVERPool.”
With regard to the proposals made by his noble friend
to Lords Grey and Grenville, he was willing to admit that
they were met in a fair, frank, and conciliatory manner.
He would willingly admit also, the force of the objection
made by the noble lords to the second proposition, that it
was a matter of policy rather than of principle, and that its
adoption was to be regulated by considerations that could
arise only from knowledge of official details. At the same
time, however, the right honourable gentleman would con-
cede to him, that to form an Administration, without know-
ing, generally, what were the opinions of its members, upon
certain great leading questions, would be to risk dissension
and discord in the very outset. It was no part of his noble
friend's desire to dictate to the noble lords, that they should
carry on the war in the Peninsula, under all circumstances,
that they should drain the country of its resources to prose-
cute a hopeless contest, and they should disclaim all consider-
ations of expediency; but he was justified in asking, if they
would come to the question with the disposition to continue
the war, if they found its continuance a matter justified by
every circumstance they should learn? and if they replied,
that their disposition was to continue the war, provided
they should be convinced, from official details, that it would
be a measure of sound policy, then their demand to know
those details before they gave any pledge, would be con-
sidered only as the demand of men acting from the dictates
of just discrimination and good sense.
O F A D M I N H S T R A TI O N . 361
The right honourable gentleman had stated, that there
was some difference in the terms of Lord Wellesley's com-
munication to Lords Grey and Grenville, and in those of his
(Mr. Canning's) communication to Lord Liverpool; but he
had not distinctly described the extent of that difference, or
the mode in which it was subsequently explained. Lord
Grey required an explanation in the following letter:
Letter of Lord Grey to Lord Wellesley, dated Portman-
square, May 27th, 1812. -
“My LoRD,--I have the honour of returning the papers
which your lordship was so good as to put into my hands
this morning. t -
“I observe a material difference between the terms in
which the two principles, proposed as the basis of a new
administration, are stated in Mr. Canning's minute, and in
that sent to Lord Grenville and me by your lordship. I
think it necessary to call your lordship's attention to this
circumstance, because if these discussions should proceed
further, it may become of the utmost importance. I am,
with the highest regard, my lord, your lordship's very
faithful humble servant, -
(Signed) “GREY.”
To this letter Lord Wellesley replied as follows:
Letter of Lord Wellesley, to Lord Grey, dated Apsley-house,
May 28th, 1812.
“My LoRD,--I should have returned an earlier acknow-
ledgment of the honour of your lordship's letter of yester-
day, had I not thought it necessary to see Mr. Canning
before I troubled your lordship with any answer to your
observations on our respective minutes.
“Having carefully examined those papers, and compared
them with our view of the points to which they refer, we
have drawn the enclosed paper for your lordship's informa-
362 N EG O C I ATIONS FOR A C H A N G E
tion, and have authenticated it by our respective signatures.
—I have the honour to be, &c.
(Signed) “WELLESLEY.”
Paper signed by Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning.
“The variance in point of phrase in the two propositions
as stated by Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning in their
minutes of conference, arises from this circumstance, that
Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning went to their respective
conferences without having thought it necessary previously
to reduce into a written form the communications which they
were to make, being in full possession of each other's senti-
ments upon the subject of them.
“The two minutes were written by them as containing the
substance of their respective communications; that of Mr.
Canning in Lord Liverpool's presence; that of Lord Welles-
ley immediately after his return from Lord Grey.
“There does not appear to Lord Wellesley and Mr.
Canning to be any substantial variance in the first pro-
position. -
“The word “early” in Mr. Canning's minute might be
exchanged for the word ‘immediate,” used by Lord Welles-
ley, without in any degree altering the sense: as with a
motion actually pending in the House of Commons, which,
(but for the events that have recently taken place) would
have come on this very day, the object of which was to
compel the Executive Government to take the subject of the
Catholic question into consideration, it cannot be necessary
to say that Mr. Canning has no wish to defer that con-
sideration. On the other hand, consideration by the Exe-
cutive Government is the object which it is Lord Wellesley's
intention to recommend: nor does he conceive any farther
parliamentary proceeding to be necessary or practicable
this session than such as might be sufficient to insure,
OF A D M IN ISTRATION. 363
either by compulsion upon a hostile Administration, or by
pledge from a friendly one, the consideration of the ques-
tion during the recess, with a view to its being brought
before Parliament by the recommendation of the Crown,
early in the ensuing session.
“A committee to inquire into the state of the laws has
been already negatived in both Houses this session.
“A “conciliatory adjustment' of the claims of the Irish
Catholics is the object which Lord Wellesley and Mr.
Canning have equally at heart; and it enters equally into
both their views that to be “conciliatory’ that adjustment
must be so framed as to embrace the interests and opinions
of the English Catholics, also to obtain the enlightened
and deliberate consent of the Protestants of both countries.
They would think any adjustment very imperfect, which
instead of extinguishing discontent, only transferred it from
the Catholic to the Protestant.
“But they concur in entertaining a confident belief,
that the great purpose of securing the peace of the empire
may be best answered, not by giving a triumph to any one
party, but by reconciling all.
“In the substance of the second proposition, there is no
variance as to any practical and prospective purpose, though
undoubtedly there is, and it is natural there should be, some
as to the past, arising from the difference of Mr. Canning's
and Lord Wellesley's respective situations. - r
“When Mr. Canning says, that the Peninsular War is
to be carried on “with the best means of the country,” he
intends the greatest scale of exertion which the means of
the country may be found capable of sustaining.
“If Lord Wellesley's expression, “a scale of adequate
vigour, may be construed to imply the proposition, that the
late exertions of this country have not been proportioned to
the great object of the war, or have not been duly dis-
364 N EGO CIATIONS FOR A C EIANGE
tributed or apportioned, this prosposition Mr. Canning
certainly does not intend either to affirm, or to deny; simply
because, not having been in the Government during the last
two years, he has not sufficient information to be able to
pronounce an opinion, whether the exertions of those two
years have or have not been below the proper scale, or have
been well or ill administered; nor how far they may now
admit of being extended or more judiciously applied.
“He concurs, however, entirely with Lord Wellesley,
in wishing to extend thom to the utmost power of the
country; and to apply them in the manner best calculated
to answer their end.
. (Signed) “ WELLESLEY.
“ GEORGE CANNING.”
To this communication Lord Grey made the following
rejoinder:
Letter from Lord Grey to Lord Wellesley, dated Portman-
- square, May 29th, 1812.
“My LoRD,--I had last night the honour of receiving
your lordship's letter, enclosing a paper explanatory of
the difference which I had remarked between your lord-
ship's minute and Mr. Canning's, together with a copy of
the latter.
“I beg your lordship to be assured that in the obser-
vation to which I had thought it necessary to call your
lordship's attention, I could have no object but that of
preventing the possibility of any future misunderstanding.
We had not entered into any explanation, which, under the
circumstances of the moment, would perhaps have been
premature, of the details of conduct necessary to give effect
to the first of the propositions, offered by your lordship
as the basis of a new Administration. From the difference
of the time used by Mr. Canning in stating that proposi-
OF A D M I NISTRATION. 365
tion, I was apprehensive that it might be his opinion, in
concurrence with your lordship's, that no parliamentary
proceedings with reference to the claims of the Catholics,
should take place during the present session. To such an
opinion I could not have assented; and I felt it to be due
both to your lordship and to Mr. Canning, immediately
to draw your attention to a point on which it was so desirable
that there should be a clear understanding between us.
“I hope it is unnecessary for me to state, that I can
look at the situations of the Catholics (both Irish and Eng-
lish) with no other view than that of the public interest;
and that nothing can be further from my disposition, or my
intention, in a matter of such pre-eminent importance, than
to give to any one party a triumph at the expence of ano-
ther. But I do not conceive, that the repeal of the dis-
abilities of which the Catholics complain, can give any just
cause for discontent to their Protestant fellow subjects; and
I am strongly of opinion, that the efficacy of that measure
must in a great degree depend on its being carried into
effect with the least possible delay, and with the clearest
demonstrations of a conciliatory and confiding spirit. Under
this impression I should very reluctantly abandon the hope
of passing a Bill for such repeal, even during the present
session; but if this cannot be done, I hold it to be indis-
pensable, that the most distinct and authentic pledge should
be given of the intention, both of the Executive Government
and of Parliament, to take this matter up as one of the first
measures of the next. To a proceeding of this nature, from
the paper signed by your lordship and Mr. Canning, I
am led to hope that you would not be averse. {
“As to the second proposition, the difference which I
had observed was much less important. It is impossible to
reduce a question of this nature to any fixed principle.
Whatever we can say with our present means of informa-
Up
366 N EGO CIATIONS FOR A C H A N G E
tion must necessarily be general and inconclusive, the whole
subject being left open to future consideration and decision.
I can have no hesitation in subscribing to the proposition,
that, if it shall be found expedient to continue the exertions
we are now making in the Peninsula, they should be con-
ducted in the manner best calculated to answer their end.
“I have, I fear, troubled your lordship much more
than is necessary under the circumstances of our present
situation; and I will only add, that if we should be called
upon to pursue these considerations in their practical de-
tails, it will be my most anxious wish, that no difference of
opinion may be found to exist between us, respecting the
conduct to be adopted by a government equally solicitous
for the internal peace and harmony of the empire, and for
the prosecution of military operations in such a mode as
may appear most conducive to our ultimate security. Lord
Grenville, to whom I have communicated your lordship's
letter, and its enclosures, desires me to express his cordial
concurrence in this wish. I have the honour to be, with the
highest regard, my lord, your lordship's very faithful
humble servant, .
(Signed) “ GREY.”
In consequence of the declaration on the part of Lord
Liverpool and his colleagues, that they must decline be-
coming members of any administration to be formed by
Lord Wellesley, he (Mr. Canning) had thought it his duty
to write the following private letter to Lord Liverpool:
Letterfrom Mr. Canning to Lord Liverpool, dated Gloucester
Lodge, May 24th, 1812; half past eight, A.M.
“MY DEAR LIVERPool, I have received your letter of
last night, which I will immediately transmit to Lord
Wellesley. .
OF A DM IN ISTRATION. 367
“Before I do so, however, and of course, therefore, with-
out Lord Wellesley's consent or privity, I cannot forbear
suggesting to you to consider, whether the sort of personal
objection which your letter evidently and exclusively im-
plies, will stand fairly before the country, at such a
moment, as a justification for refusing to act in an Adminis-
tration, to the public principles of which you do not feel,
or at least do not state, any insurmountable repugnance.
“I would suggest to you further to consider, whether,
resting your refusal on an objection merely personal, you
do quite justly either by yourselves or by the individual
concerned, in leaving the precise nature of that objection
wholly unexplained.
“In offering these suggestions, I perhaps exceed the
limits of a correspondence such as ours is, upon this occa-
sion: but they strike me so forcibly, that I think I owe it
to you, not to withhold them. Whether to communicate
them to your colleagues or not, I leave entirely to your
discretion; but you at least will not resent, so far as you
are yourself concerned, a freedom which may be justified b
that regard with which I am, ever, &c.
(Signed) “GEORGE CANNING...”
To this private letter Lord Liverpool sent the following
reply:
Letter from Lord Liverpool to Mr. Canning, dated Fife-
house, May 24th, 1812.
“MY DEAR CANNING, -I have this moment received
your answer to my letter of last night.
“As that letter was not written without all due con-
sideration, I do not feel that it can be necessary for me to
call my colleagues again together upon the subject of it.
36S NEG O C I ATIONS FOR A C H A N G E
“I can answer, however, for myself (and I am con-
fident equally for them), that I am not actuated, in declin-
ing the proposal made to us, by any objection of a nature
purely personal. But when I advert to the opinions and
statements recently sent forth to the world respecting
public men with whom I have been connected, and public
measures in which I have been engaged, I do not feel that
I should have acted consistently with my own honour and
character, or with the respect which I must ever owe, and
shall ever feel, to my departed friend, if under such cir-
cumstances, I could have consented to have entertained the
proposal which you were authorised to submit to me.
“As these considerations afforded an insuperable obsta-
cle to my becoming a party to the proposed arrangements,
I thought it wholly unnecessary to enter into any expla-
nation on the two principles on which the Administration is
stated as intended to be formed, or on other points of the
greatest public imporance; and I must protest against any
inference whatever being drawn from my silence in this
respect. g
“I can assure you that I am most willing to render you
every degree of justice for the motives which have dictated
your answer to my letter.
“And I remain, with sincere regard, &c.
“Liverpool.”
He had entered into these details, because he thought
it due to both parties to do so; and because he wished to
render exact justice to all. Lord Wellesley had had the
opportunity of such complete and ample justification in
another place, that it would be quite unnecessary for him
to travel over the same grounds. He would content him-
self with observing, that the whole of the noble lord's
OF A D M IN ISTRATION. 369
negociation discovered the most marked characteristics of a
magnanimous spirit and an innocent heart. The right
honourable gentleman had justly stated, that there was here
an interval, during which nothing appeared to be done. It
was his duty to account for that interval; and he could
assure the House, that it was not unemployed,—that the
commission of his noble friend was not suspended, but that
attempts had been making to induce the late colleagues of
Lord Wellesley to form part of the intended Administra-
tion. It was true that these attempts had not been success-
ful ; but surely upon their own principles, the gentlemen
opposite could not censure the effort. Upon the principle
of numerical strength, on which they acted, they had no
right to quarrel with what was not a very unusual thing,-
a stipulation of numbers in, or a balancing of the cabinet.
It ought, however, at the same time to be remembered,
that however balanced, or however dissected, the cabinet
might be, there was a majority of one offered to the noble
lords. This concession of his noble friend, might, on the
principle of a balanced cabinet, be considered even rash ;
but under the present circumstances of the state, in the
present divisions of public men, he did not know how a
cabinet could be got together, between no two of whom
there should be a difference of opinion. All hope of such
a cabinet was now gone; and it was not too much to
assume, that they who had put an end to that hope,
thought that they ought to have, and to continue to pos-
sess, exclusively the power of the Government. He did
not say that that might not be very fit, but it was not
certainly the principle on which the negociation was
founded; and on the whole he could not help again de-
claring, that the offer made by his noble friend to the noble
lords was generous, was liberal, was even rash: that offer
was rejected, and it was not for him to say one word on the
VOL. III. B B
370 NEGOC I ATIONS FOR A C H A N G E
motives which dictated that rejection. He did not by any
means impeach their conduct, but they withheld their
services; and it was in his opinion a just conclusion, that
unless the whole power of the Government was put into
their hands, their pretensions could not be satisfied. Again
he begged leave to observe that he did not attach blame to
the noble lords. He did not say that they rated their
political consequence too high, but he only wanted to show
the principle on which they acted. The right honourable
gentleman complained, that the noble lords were not
honoured by the Prince with a personal interview ; his
answer to that complaint was, that somebody was sent for.
And here again, what could those complaints mean, but that
the right honourable gentleman thought, that the whole
Government should be yielded to the disposal of his noble
friends? He did not blame the noble lords, nor the right
honourable gentleman, for thinking they had a right to such
disposal: he was only explaining the principle on which
Lord Wellesley's offer was rejected. That offer being,
however, thus rejected, Lord Wellesley surrendered his
authority, and it was then consigned to Lord Moira. As
to Lord Moira's negociation with the noble lords, he of his
own knowledge could say nothing, nor indeed should he
advert to it at all, except that he wished to do justice to the
noble lord, whose efforts had been rendered unsuccessful by
the condition made so peremptorily and entirely by the
noble lords. He had before stated, that he could say nothing
of his own knowledge of the steps taken by Lord Moira
subsequent to the failure of Lord Wellesley’s negociation.
The reason that he was thus ignorant was, that as he had
been one of those mentioned as a Cabinet Minister in the first
proposition, he had a motive of delicacy in wishing not to
be mentioned by Lord Moira in his transactions with Lords
Grey and Grenville, until he saw what progress would be
O F A D M IN ISTRATION . 37]
made in the arrangement between them. He wished to
watch their proceedings; reserving to himself, after what
had passed, the right of acceding or not to any proposal
which might be made to him. He at the same time told
Lord Moira, that if this new negociation should happen to
be broken off, then his services would be at his lordship's
command. This was, perhaps, all that he was called upon
to say concerning the late negociations, as far as they
regarded himself; but he thought it was due to Lord
Moira, to give all that evidence of the sincerity with which
he acted, by alluding to the letters which passed between
him and the noble lords. On the 4th or 5th of June he
sent his compliments to the noble lords, “begging them
to advert to his communication of the 3d of June, and
stating how happy he should be to obtain permission
from the Prince Regent to address them formally,
with respect to the very objects they all had in view.”
This letter was written by Lord Moira, under a notion
that his former communication was some way or other con-
sidered disrespectful, and that the noble lords did not con-
ceive themselves approached in a manner consistent with
their dignity. The answer of the noble lords to this com-
munication declared, “how desirable any personal commu-
nication of the noble lord could be always to them, but
that they did not conceive how any unauthorised discussion
could be useful.” It stated also, “that they would ever
receive, with feelings of the highest respect, every commu-
nication from His Royal Highness, and that they yielded in
zeal for his interests to none others whosoever.” To this
Lord Moira replied, “that he would leave no efforts untried
in the pursuit of the object he had in view, and that he was
authorised to communicate with them from the Prince, but
that he wished Lord Erskine to be present with him, at
his interview with the noble lords.” This brought down
B B 2
372 N E G O C I ATION S FO lö A C Iſ A N C E
the transactions to the minute read by the right honourable
gentleman, which was commented upon in a manner that
to him appeared the most unfair. It was said by the right
honourable gentleman, that Lord Moira insisted on a denial
of power which the noble lords considered inseparable con-
stitutionally from the Government. In the right honourable
gentleman's view, it would appear that Lord Moira thought
as if some “hedge or sanctity” had been thrown over the
household which protected no other political department:
but Lord Moira thought no such thing. With that candour
and frankness which ever distinguished Lord Moira, and
which, to say the truth, were called for by the equal candour
and frankness of the noble lords, that noble lord said, it was
not to the existence of the power of displacing the house-
hold, but to the application of that power, now, under all
the circumstances of the case, that he objected: and he -
himself would contend, that in thus acting, Lord Moira
was swayed as well by public principle as by private feel-
ing; and that if he had acted otherwise, he would have
betrayed both. Lord Moira did not hold that in ordinary
cases this power should not be exercised; but what he pro-
tested against was, the making the exercise of it, in the
present instance, the very first act of the new Administra-
tion. The noble lord was of opinion, that the present
exercise of that power would be fastening on a quarter
which it was most desirable should be free from imputation,
those calumnies which were so much in the mouths of men.
He did not object to the right of the new Administration
to displace the great officers of the household, but it was
the policy of doing so which he condemned. Such policy,
he knew would tend to fix a stain indelibly, where no spot
ought to be allowed to remain. . -
Now in this conduct of the noble lord, he would ask
the right honourable gentleman, could he be accused of any
OF A D MII NISTRATION. 373
partiality or predilection for the persons whose interests
seemed to be declining? Could it be thought, that he
wished to stand in the way of realizing that efficient
Government of the formation of which he himself was to
have had the credit and the honour P The fact was, that
Lord Moira acted solely on public grounds. He saw that
a construction would be given to the displacing of the
officers of the household far beyond the opinion of the noble
lords, and that great public mischief would be the direct
consequence. He, in one word, resisted the application of
a power which he acknowledged to exist. There was one
point connected with this part of Lord Moira's conduct
which he was authorised to state particularly. Fearing
that he was not entirely understood by the Prince when he
received his unrestricted commands to form an Administra-
tion, when he returned to the royal presence, he put this
question directly: “Is your Royal Highness prepared, if
I should so advise it, to part with all the officers of your
household P” The answer was, “I am ;” “Then,” said Lord
Moira, “ your Highness shall not part with one of them.”
In this conduct of Lord Moira, he (Mr. C.) saw nothing but
what was most honourable, and it was quite unfair to say
with the right honourable gentleman, that this was an attempt
to put persons holding high offices beyond the controul of
government. But supposing, as a preliminary step, that
Lord Moira had agreed to the exercise of the power alluded
to, and that afterwards some other point of difference should
arise which would be fatal to Lord Moira's patriotic efforts,
what would the country say of the failure ? The country,
panting with the expectation of an Administration, would
have said, “You have come out of a five hours' negociation,
and what have you done? You have disjointed a house-
hold, but you have not formed a government.” Whatever
others might think of Lord Moira's conduct, he thought
374 NEG O CIATION S FOR A C H A N G E
him right; and he, therefore, upon the failure of the
negociation with the noble lords, placed his humble
services at his disposal. What happened afterwards it was
unnecessary for him to state; but on Monday morning the
noble lord surrendered his commission. As to any further
mention or defence of the noble lord, he had now only
to correct a misapprehension which had gone abroad, that
on surrendering that commission he advised the revival of
the present Administration. It was not for him to say what
passed between the noble lord and his Prince; but of this
he was assured, that five minutes after the interview between
them, the noble lord related to him every thing that had
passed, and in the whole of what he said, there was not one
tittle as to any such advice. He stated this with no particular
view, but merely for truth’s sake; wishing to correct an
erroneous impression, and not caring how that correction
might be felt. As he was on the subject of correcting
erroneous impressions, he thought it right to advert to
a misapprehension of the right honourable gentleman, in
an allusion to the speech of a noble lord (Yarmouth). In
speaking of the household, that noble lord did not say
that there would be, if Lords Grey and Grenville were
in power, more removals than are usual on ordinary
changes of Administration, but that there would be more
voluntary resignations. He had now gone through the
course of those transactions which afforded an opportunity
of confiding the affairs of the country to that powerful
phalanx, so splendid in great names, and so brilliant in
ability. On public grounds alone he believed they most
sincerely acted, and from him they should ever have the
credit of having withheld their services from public views
alone. He lamented that such an opportunity was not
likely soon to occur again. (Here Mr. Whitbread smiled.)
The honourable gentleman might smile, because he, per-
OF ADMINISTRATION. 375
haps, thought that the talents and character of his friends
would yet force their way into power; but notwithstanding,
he should continue to lament, that such an opportunity had
been lost for realizing what had been long considered by
many a mere creature of imagination, namely, an honest
coalition of public men sacrificing some of their opposite
doctrines to the general good of their country. He could
not help thinking that such an opportunity would not
speedily recur, whatever the honourable gentleman opposite
might hope for. To those who looked on such a coalition
as that to which he alluded as a mere chimerical experi-
ment in politics, the present failure would be a matter of
rejoicing ; but to him, who had always held a contrary
opinion, it was matter of sincere regret. He should now
allude to one point more, and then sit down. The right
honourable gentleman, and those on his side of the House,
seemed to consider, that the great families and connections
of this country had a kind of right to interfere in the nomina-
tion of Ministers. He himself, who was so very humble an
individual, who could not boast of any of those high con-
nections, and who, perhaps, though unknown to himself,
was influenced by those circumstances of his humble rank,
did not certainly believe in the existence of any such right
or pretension in the aristocracy. He thought that in the
very best spirit of the constitution, the Crown had exclu-
sively the appointment of Ministers, subject, of course, to
the controul or advice of a free Parliament. He did not,
however, blame many of the gentlemen opposite for hold-
ing such an opinion. It was one that did not want the
sanction of exalted authority; for even that great man,
whose genius, infinitely more than that of all his cotempo-
raries, would mark our time with posterity, Mr. Burke
himself, held that opinion. He concluded his speech by
saying, that he did not feel himself called upon to vote for
376 A DID RESS RESPECTING
any of the amendments; and advised his honourable
friend, in the peculiar circumstances of the present Govern-
ment, to withdraw his motion.
The original address moved by Mr. S. Wortley, as well
as the two amendments, were negatived.
ADDRESS RESPECTING THE WAR WITH
AMERICA.
FEBRUARY 18th, 1813.
LoRD CASTLEREAGH moved the following Address:
“That an humble Address be presented to His Royal
Highness the Prince Regent, to acquaint His Royal High-
ness that we have taken into our consideration the papers laid
before us, by His Royal Highness's commands, relative to
the late discussions with the Government of the United States
of America. That, whilst we deeply regret the failure of
the endeavours of His Royal Highness to preserve the rela-
tions of peace and amity between this country and the United
States, we entirely approve of the resistance which has been
opposed by His Royal Highness to the unjustifiable preten-
sions of the American Government; being satisfied that those
pretensions could not be admitted without surrendering some
of the most ancient, undoubted, and important rights of
the British empire. That, impressed as we are with these
sentiments, and fully convinced of the justice of the war in
which His Majesty has been compelled to engage, His Royal
Highness may rely on our most zealous and cordial support
in every measure which may be necessary for prosecuting the
war with vigour, and for bringing it to a safe and honour-
able termination.” h .
}
THE WAR WITH A M ERIC A. 377
Mr. Canning and Mr. Stephen rose together; a general
wish being expressed by the House, that the former should
proceed, the latter gave way, and Mr. CANNING addressed
the House nearly as follows:
I should not have persisted, Sir, in claiming
the attention of the House, in opposition to the
learned gentleman to whom personal allusions have
just been made, had not my opinions also been
called in question in more than one sense, at an
earlier period of the debate. I have been asked,
from two different, indeed opposite quarters,
whether I still persist in the opinions which I for-
merly stated on the subject of America. Those
opinions were of two descriptions; the one relating
to the justice of the war into which the United
States have thought proper to plunge us, the
other to the management of that war on our part.
I retain both. But the noble lord has very pro-
perly said, that the main question, indeed the
only question for deliberation and decision to-night,
is, whether we will uphold, by our votes, the
justice of the cause of our country, laying aside
all dispute upon the less important point of the
practical management of the war. . And agreeing
with the noble lord in this view of our present
and most pressing duty; agreeing that our first
object must be to inform our new enemy that we,
the Parliament of the British Empire, think our
country in the right, and that we are determined to
stand by the Executive Government in maintain-
37S A DI) R.ESS RESPECTING
ing that right against any power that may venture
to dispute it, and thinking, at the same time, that
any very anxious or angry discussion, as to the
vigour and effect with which the cause of the
country has hitherto been maintained by the Exe-
cutive Government, might, if it impaired the una-
nimity of this vote, detract from its weight and
consideration with the Government and people of
the United States of America, I confess that I
am glad to postpone all such details, however
important they may be in other views of the subject,
or however fit for separate discussion hereafter ;
and I shall be much less solicitous to examine
this night the conduct of Administration, since
the war has began, than to vindicate the principles
on which this and preceding Administrations have
acted, in the transactions from which the war has
sprung, and to establish those upon which it must
be maintained, and upon which alone it can be
concluded with safety and with honour.
The honourable gentleman (Mr. Baring) who
spoke last, observed at the outset of his speech,
with regret, mingled with some consolation, that the
differences with the United States, were now re-
duced to a single point, and he recommended that
the negociations should be revived, with a view to
an amicable conclusion on that point. I agree with
the honourable gentleman that the grounds of
dispute are ostensibly so much narrowed, that if
a negociation could be set on foot, which should
THE WAR WITH A MIERIC A. 379
have regard merely to the true interests of the
republic of the United States, and should not be
disturbed and diverted from its course by the in-
fluence of those passions by which its Government
has been agitated, then, indeed, we might hope
for conciliation and tranquillity; but I cannot con-
cur with him, either that the point in dispute is of
such easy settlement, complicated as it has been
in the course of the negociations with national feel-
ings and animosities. Still less do I think that so
prompt a solution of the difficulty, as he seems
to reckon upon, is afforded by his construction of
the English Act of Parliament to which he has
referred. If, indeed, the true meaning and intent
of the statute of Anne, were to give to foreign
sailors, entering and serving on board the British
navy, not only all those privileges here, but all
that protection against their natural sovereigns and
native governments, which the United States
both claim the right of conferring, and in practice
attempt to confer upon British sailors, seduced or
deserting into their service, then I admit that
this country would have to make to America an
equal concession for an equal infringement of na-
tional rights; and that as there would have been
a parity in the infringement, there could be no diffi-
culty in a parity of concession. Neither Govern-
ment could in that case have had any thing to
reproach to the other: and instead of a question
of violation of the law of nations, on the one side,
380 A DIDRESS RESPECTING
and of forcible and summary self-redress on the
other, the whole matter would be one of mutual
acknowledgment, as to the past, and of conven-
tional arrangement for the future. There would
be no difference of principle, and the point in
dispute would be settled only on grounds of reci-
procal convenience. But I acknowledge that my
construction of the act of Anne, was altogether
different. I understood that by it this country
professed to give that only which it is competent
to bestow, without interfering in any degree with
the rights or claims of other powers—that it im-
parted to foreigners, on certain conditions, certain
municipal privileges, but leaves untouched and
unimpaired their native allegiance. The operation
of this act, as I understood it, before the honour-
able gentleman's commentary, was not to hold out
to foreign seamen, that at the same time that they
may become entitled to possess or to inherit pro-
perty, and to participate in all the blessings of the
British constitution, all the ties which bind them
to their native country, are loosened; not to assert
that by any service to a foreign state, he can re-
lieve himself from that indelible allegiance which
he owes to the Government under which he was
born. The enactments of this statute are a testi-
mony of national gratitude to brave men, of what-
ever country, who may lend their aid in fighting
the battles of Great Britain; but not an invitation
to them to abandon the cause of their own country
THE WAR WITH A MERIC A. 381
when it may want their aid; not an encourage-
ment to them to deny or to undervalue the sacred
and indestructible duty which they owe to their
own Sovereign, and to their native soil. Such
being the real intention of the act, what similitude,
what analogy can be drawn between it and the
pretensions of America? In the papers upon the
table of the House, it is asserted by our enemies,
that British seamen once enrolled in the Ame-
rican service, become the seamen of the United
States of America: and the Government of that
country declares that it must protect them against
the claims of their undoubted Sovereign, even
when he on their allegiance demands their service
in war; in the present war, for instance, which he
is unwillingly compelled to wage. Taking the
converse of the honourable gentleman's proposi-
tion, then, I should say, that if the American
Government would adopt such a provision as that
quoted by the honourable gentleman, from the act
of Queen Anne, in that case, if all differences
were not instantly and altogether removed, at least
the question in dispute would be greatly and ad-
vantageously narrowed.
. But, coupled with the inordinate and unheard-of
rights of citizenship which the United States pretend
to confer, to theannihilation of the claims of nativity
and allegiance, the practicalabuses of which we have
also a right to complain, in seducing or harbour-
ing our seamen, even independently of the princi-
382 A DT) RESS RESPECTING
ples and pretensions by which they are defended,
would be of themselves matter of serious grievance.
Were these principles and pretensions, once
fairly given up, indeed, the road would be opened
to the discussion of the practice. It would be open
to consider whether any adequate security could
be provided by diplomatic arrangement, and mu-
nicipal regulation, against a grievance which it is
impossible that we should tolerate; such as should
supersede the necessity of that summary and ef-
fectual method of doing ourselves justice, which
we cannot relinquish till some satisfactory sub-
stitute is found for it : but the exercise of which,
it must be admitted, may be liable to some abuse
or irregularity. Now, on a fair perusal of the
documents, I find nothing which proves any dis-
position, in the English Ministry, to shut the
door against a consideration of that important
question. The fact is, that different modes of
entering upon the subject have been suggested,
but there is one preliminary demand on the part
of America, which it is absurd to suppose that
we could comply with. We are, by ancient
and unquestioned usage, and by the law of
nations, as they are now understood, in the
possession of the right of search. It has been,
and is, of ancient and uninterrupted usage. It is
proposed by both parties, that a discussion should
be commenced, as to the more unexceptionable
mode of exercising this right; but what does
THE WAR WITH A MIERI C. A. 383
the American Executive insist upon 2 That we
should first abandon it, and trust for its restora-
tion to the result of the negociation. We are re-
quired to trust to an act to be hereafter passed by
the American Legislature, for the restoration of
this right, or for the provision of an equivalent.
Can any thing be more manifestly absurd and
unjust 2 Is not the natural course, not by the
law of nations only, but by the rules of common
sense, that we should retain that which we right-
fully possess, until the equivalent for which it is
to be exchanged shall be fully discussed, and sa-
tisfactorily ascertained? The honourable gentle-
man says, that it will cost us a war to maintain
the possession of it. I wish to ask him what wars
would it not cost us to regain possession, if it were
once resigned? At least, maintaining our right,
we are safe until force compel us to resign it.
I am sure that gentlemen, upon reflection,
must see the proposed compromise is at least
attended with difficulties which, if not absolutely
insuperable, are extremely hard to be surmounted.
The appointment of a tribunal similar to a prize
court, as suggested by an honourable gentleman
(Mr. Baring) in this debate, approaches nearest to
my ideas of possibility; but is this likely to be
found practicable or palatable to America, if the
proposal of it should come from this country :
Were it suggested by America, it might perhaps
produce some beneficial result; but if proposed
384 ADDRESS RESPECTING
by Great Britain, would it not be repelled with
indignation ? Would America bear to see her
citizens made subjects of judicature, like bales of
contraband goods? Would she endure that a judge
of our appointment should settle the fate of her
natives, as we assign chattels to the right owner 2
Or would not such a proposal, instead of tending
to the settlement of differences, and the extinction
of animosities, be employed by the demagogues
on the other side of the Atlantic to inflame the
public mind, to exasperate the jealousies and
hatreds of the enemies of Great Britain, and to
make all amicable arrangement utterly hopeless’
I have, however, as I have said, no objection,
and the British Government has not shown any,
throughout the correspondence now under our
consideration, to any attempt to make the exer-
cise of this right the subject of diplomatic arrange-
ment, provided the principle of the right itself be
unequivocally acknowledged; provided the sus-
pension, or tacit abandonment of it be not ex-
pected to precede the substitution of some other
effectual mode of securing the objects to which it
applies; and provided it be distinctly understood
that, failing the attempt to effect that substitution,
our right, and the practice of it, are to continue
not only unimpaired, but thenceforth unquestioned.
The dispute relating to the impressment (as it is
termed) or rather the recal of our own seamen,
is not, however, as the honourable gentleman ad-
THE WAT WITH A M F. RIC A. 3S5
mits, the only point to be adjusted, before we can
return to a good understanding with the United
States. The American Government also requires
the renunciation of the system and principle of
what they call paper blockades; that is to say, of
the right which we claim and have exercised
under the orders in council of 1807, and should,
I trust, exercise again, if again occasion arose for
it, of retorting upon the enemy any attempt which
he may make to wound us through the sides, or
by the instrumentality of neutrals. With respect
to blockades, the honourable gentleman has ap-
pealed to my recollection, whether the blockade
of 1806 did not stand on different principles from
those of 1807 ? The honourable gentleman is
perfectly correct. The order of 1806 established,
or professed to establish a blockade upon the old
principles, by the application of a specific and
competent force to particular ports. In January
1807, an order was issued professedly of a retalia-
tory character. The order of 1806 merged in it.
What had intervened between the order of May
1806, and that of January 1807? The French
Berlin Decree. In retaliation, and avowedly in
retaliation for that decree, the order of January
1807 was issued; doing away the strict legal
blockade, and instituting what has been and may
justly be described as a constructive blockade,
not supported by an adequate specific force, but
excluding neutrals from the coasting trade of the
VOL. III. C C
386 ADDRESS RESPECTING
enemy by a prohibition retaliatory of that sweep-
ing prohibition of the Berlin Decree by which
they were precluded from all trade with Great
Britain. The orders of November, 1807, ex-
tended the operation of the order of January:
but did not vary its principle. I have no wish to
revive the differences which the honourable gen-
tleman and I have so often discussed upon that
subject, but I am equally prepared to contend
now, as four years ago, that though there was
some difference in degree between the orders of
November, and that of January 1807, there was
no difference in the principle; and certainly the
honourable gentleman must own that the Ameri-
cans have made no such distinction in their re-
monstrances. -
The orders in council, however, both of January
and, November were abandoned: wisely or not,
there is now no advantage in enquiring; with
little chance of satisfying America, as I thought
at the time, and as must now be manifest to all
mankind: and for this plain reason that the Ame-
rican Government was not to be satisfied. They
had an itch for war with this country, and they
were determined to have it. Although, therefore,
these are the only two points on which any prac-
tical discussion is pending, I cannot agree that
they only entered the minds of the American
Executive when they declared war (for be it
always remembered, that the war originated in
4
THE WAR WITH AM ERIC A. 387
their declaration). The spirit of animosity to
this country, indeed, was not confined to the per-
sons forming the cabinet of the United States;
the gall of bitterness not only overflowed in Wash-
ington, but at the very court of London. The
notes of the republican Chargé d'Affaires, Mr.
Russell, contain abundant evidence not only of
the predetermination to war, but of the real mo-
tives of that policy. In the month of August, he,
with warning voice, pointed out to Ministers the
consequences of hostility; he told them “if con-
cessions are not speedily made, the passions of the
inhabitants of the United States will be roused,
and conquests may be gained on terms that forbid
restoration.” When this sentence was penned,
had not Mr. Russell Canada before his eyes :
Was he not in the transport of his visions of
success betraying incautiously the secrets of his
employers, which were not to be divulged till
the promulgation of the declaration? Low as
he was in the rank of diplomacy, he was intrusted
with this grand and favourite design; and it is
impossible for any man not to see from the com-
mencement to the termination of all the proceed-
ings of the Government of the United States an
eager desire to gain possession of our North
American territories: a plan long cherished, and
not wholly, I fear, repugnant to the sentiments
even of that party in the United States whom it
is usual to designate as our friends. Even when
C C 2
388 A DDRESS RESPECTING
their whole military establishment was 1,000 men,
the American Government and its partizans loudly
proclaimed their sanguine hopes of victory in an
expedition against British America, and delighted
their fancies by imaginary conquests. I say, that
even those who are called our friends in the
United States, are not averse from this enterprise,
and would be won by the acquisition of Canada
to the support and approbation of the war. But
I use the expression “friends of this country,”—
as I do that of friends of France,—not as imply-
ing on the one hand a British influence, nor on
the other hand, imputing an actual conscious sub-
serviency to Buonaparte: (though it must be
owned that for the latter imputation there are
appearances of but too probable grounds): but
simply as designating the two parties in the United
States who respectively think the interests of their
country best consulted, the one by a British, the
other by a French connection.
And here I must confess that the censure of the
honourable gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) upon that
part of the noble lord’s (Lord Castlereagh’s) speech
which referred to the period chosen by the Ame-
rican Government for declaring war, appears to
me exceedingly ill-founded. The noble lord's
remarks upon that subject did not appear to me
unjust or unnecessary. Looking at the present
state of the world, who shall say what America
might not have achieved? Not by mixing in the
THE WAR WITH A MERIC A. 389
contest, and involving herself in the complicated
relations of European politics; (for I have never
wished to see America involved in the war,) but
merely by abstaining from the course which she
has unfortunately taken, by refusing to administer
to the passions, to flatter the hatred of the tyrant,
to afford him that new hope of victory, and that
consolation in defeat, which he boasts of deriving,
from the diversion of our means, and the distrac-
tion of our efforts by the American war? What
assistance might she not have rendered to the late
glorious struggle in the north, not by active con-
cert, but merely in forbearing to aid Buonaparte's
arms by partly occupying ours? Who would have
expected to have seen this favourite child of free-
dom leagued with the oppressor of the world?
She who, twenty years ago, shed her blood for
independence—She that, ever since that time,
has boasted of the superiority of her citizens above
all the nations of the globe—She that, watched
over in her infancy by Great Britain, with parental
tenderness and anxiety, nursed in the very lap of
liberty, and educated in the school of republi-
canism, is now seen truckling to France, and
condescending to become the tool of an ambition
which threatens to lay prostrate at its feet the
independence of every government, and of every
people! Is this the same nation that we once
remember to have heard shouting for emancipa-
tion? Is this the people that was to set an
390 A DIDIRESS RESPISCTING
example of magnanimity to the world ! I can
scarcely believe it: I would willingly persuade
myself that I am deceived; but facts cannot be
discredited, and I behold the free republic of
America lending her aid to crush those principles
to which she owes her own existence, and to sup-
port the most desolating tyranny that ever afflicted
the race of man. It is impossible not to lament
the loss to such a nation, of such an opportunity,
which no combination of circumstances can ever
restore. I do not say, that America should have
been induced to assist us against France. I would
not have asked her to risk her tender and un-
confirmed existence in a war, and to endure all
the dangers, or to incur all the expences that must
have ensued from her taking part in such an enter-
prize. She might have maintained a just and
noble neutrality. But were it put to me indeed
as matter of opinion, supposing (what I do not
suppose) that she could not avoid deciding one
way or other, and that the risk of war on one
side must be run, which would best become her
history, her character, and her constitution, to
unite with England or to league with France;—
I should not have hesitated in my determination.
There was a time when I hoped that her choice,
under such an alternative, would have required
little deliberation; but though I should have
applauded her option in such a case, I would not
have forced nor even have solicited it. She was
THE WAR WITH A MERIC A. 391
welcome to be neuter, could she but have per-
suaded herself to be impartial.—There is still
something imposing in the name of a republic.
The veneration for that form of government is,
even in this monarchical country, interwoven with
our earliest impressions of honour, of liberty, and
of virtue. But, I fear, that in the republic of
America we look for the realization of our visions
of republican virtue in vain. The sacred love of
freedom, displayed in the annals of Greece and
Rome, “made ambition virtue,” and consecrated
even the weapons of the conqueror. The modern
republics of Europe polished mankind by their
industry, and their arts. But I am afraid that
neither the hardy valour, the ardent patriotism and
the lofty magnanimity of ancient Greece and
Rome, nor the gentle manners and artificial refine-
ments of Genoa or Florence, are to be traced
in the hard' features of transatlantic democracy.
Would it were otherwise ! The heartless and
selfish policy pursued by America will lead her
far astray from her real interest. The first conse-
quence of it will be, the loss of much internal
prosperity, and I am much deceived if she will
compensate this loss by the acquisition of much
military glory. The honourable gentleman (Mr.
Foster,) describes a thousand soldiers, four or five
frigates, to guard an extent of coast of fifteen hun-
dred miles, and a revenue of only two millions and
a half of dollars, I think, or thereabouts, as the
392 ADD l{ESS RESPECTING
means, physical and pecuniary, of which the
United States were in possession, when they
declared war against this country. Undoubtedly
no man could hear the statement without exclaim-
ing—“And could a nation so circumstanced
venture upon a war with the mighty empire of
Great Britain, with the most distant prospect of
success?” Unluckily it did. The unwelcome
truth cannot be concealed. Two out of these
four or five frigates have captured two frigates
from the British navy. I advert with unwilling-
ness to this part of the subject, because in my
opinion, (an opinion before expressed and still
retained) vigorous measures becoming this great
nation might have averted disasters which may
have the effect of prolonging hostilities. It is no
answer to say, that our navy is immense, but
that it is proportionably extended on the different
stations. I complain not of the naval department,
but of the policy which controuled its operations.
I complain that the arm which should have launch-
ed the thunderbolt, was occupied in guiding the
pen: that Admiral Warren was busied in negociat-
ing, when he ought to have been sinking, burning,
and destroying. Admiral Warren sails from this
country in the middle of August, and on the 27th
of September he reaches Halifax with his squadron,
where he employs himself in writing despatches to
the American Government; while Commodore
Rogers on the 10th of October, sails unmolested
THE WAR WITH A MIERIC A. 393
from Boston. But we waited, it seems, to be
quite sure that we were actually at war? Granted
for argument’s sake (for no other purpose could I
consent to grant it) that in the first instance there
might be not full conviction of the certainty of
war; but even after the American declaration was
received in the end of July, no hostile measure
was resorted to by this country till the 14th of
October, when letters of marque were issued,
upon the receipt here of the intelligence (and as
might be not unfairly suspected, in consequence
of that intelligence) that the Guerriere frigate had
been captured by the Americans.—What is the
next advance towards actual war? The blockade
of the Chesapeake; and the order in council an-
nouncing that blockade, was issued, when?—the
day after the arrival of the intelligence that the
Macedonian, another of our frigates, had fallen
into the power of the Republic. The loss of these
two fine ships of war, produced a sensation in
the country scarcely to be equalled by the most
violent convulsion of nature. I do not attribute
the slightest blame to our gallant sailors, they
always do their duty; but neither can I agree
with those who complain of the shock of conster-
nation throughout Great Britain, as having been
greater than the occasion justified. Who would
represent the loss as insignificant, and the feelings
of shame and indignation occasioned by it as ex-
aggerated and extravagant? That indignation was
39.1 A DDRESS RESPECTING
a wholesome feeling, which ought to be cherished
and maintained. It cannot be too deeply felt that
the sacred spell of the invincibility of the British
navy was broken by those unfortunate captures;
and however speedily we must all wish the war
to terminate, I hope I shall not be considered as
sanguinary and unfeeling, when I express my
devout wish that it may not be concluded before
we have re-established the character of our naval
superiority, and smothered in victories the dis-
asters which we have now to lament, and to which
we are so little habituated.—Sir, I entered on
these points reluctantly on the present occasion.
Other occasions will arise for their discussion.
I hasten to quit them. But having been expressly
called upon to declare if I retained the sentiments
which I before expressed upon the conduct of the
war, I felt bound in fairness not to decline the
avowal that my opinion not only remains unaltered,
but has received additional confirmation from sub-
sequent events. If it be true (as I believe it to be)
in general, that indecision and delay are the parents
of failure; that they take every possible chance
of detriment to the cause in which they are em-
ployed, and afford every advantage and encourage-
ment to the adversary; it was peculiarly true in
the present instance, that promptitude and vigour
afforded at once the surest pledge of success in
the war, and the only hope of averting it altoge-
ther, if while the elections were pending, the
THE WAR WITH A M ERIC A. 395
result of which was to place Mr. Madison, the
arch enemy of this country, in the president's chair,
a decisive blow had been struck by this country,
the tide of popular opinion in America might have
been turned, and the consequences of a long and
ruinous war might have been avoided. I lament,
for the general happiness of mankind, that no such
vigorous exertion was attempted; and though I
am not disposed to unnecessary cruelties, nor
would countenance the wanton effusion of human
blood, yet I cannot help thinking that if some
signal act of vengeance had been inflicted on any
part of the United States exposed to maritime
attack, but particularly on any portion of their
territory where there prevailed the greatest attach-
ment to the interests of France, it would have at
least been a useful warning, and might have pre-
vented the continuance of the contest, if they
had not prevented its commencement. I protest
against the doctrine of half measures, and for-
bearance in war; for where vigour has a tendency
to decide the contest, hesitation is cruelty. But
with these topics I have done. Whatever may
be the result of the contest, after the declaration
issued by the United States, this country will
stand right in the eyes of the world and of pos-
terity. Nay, it is not paradoxical to say that we
shall stand right, at no distant time, in the eyes
even of our enemies in the United States; for by
a singular anomaly, upon the issue of this struggle
396 COM MIITTEE ON THE LAWS
in which America is attempting to cripple our
resources, depends not only the independence of
Europe, but perhaps ultimately, the freedom of
America herself.
The question was put and carried mem. con.
COMMITTEE ON THE LAWS AFFECTING
ROMAN CATHOLICS.
MARCH 11th, 1813.
Sir J. C. HIPPEsley moved, “That a Select Committee
be appointed, to examine and reportthe state of the laws affect-
ing His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects within the Realm:
the state and number of the Roman Catholic clergy, their
religious institutions and their intercourse with the See of
Rome, or other foreign jurisdictions: the state of the laws
and regulations affecting His Majesty's Roman Catholic
subjects in the several Colonies of the United Kingdom :
the regulations of foreign states (as far as they can be sub-
stantiated by evidence), respecting the nomination, collation,
or institution of the Episcopal order of the Roman Catholic
clergy, and the regulations of their intercourse with the See
of Rome.” -
MR. CANNING rose, and before he proceeded
desired that the motion might be read; he desired
also that the resolution moved by Mr. Grattan
A FFECTING RO M A N C A THO LI C.S. 397
in April last, and then negatived, might be read
also. These documents were accordingly read,
the former by the Speaker, and the latter by the
Clerk at the table.
And (said Mr. Canning) it is after this (Mr.
Grattan’s) resolution for referring the Roman
Catholic petition to a Committee, has been nega-
tived by a majority, of which my right honour-
able friend (Mr. Ryder) was one, that he comes
forward this night to support the motion of the
honourable baronet; and to accuse those of in-
consistency who disapprove of that motion I
really do wonder at the versatility displayed upon
this occasion by my right honourable friend, a
versatility not at all belonging to his general
character; but entirely owing, I must presume,
to the helplessness of his cause. Nothing in my
recollection of parliamentary tactics ever sur-
prised me so much as the tactics of this evening.
When I heard the honourable baronet express a
doubt, whether his motion would be seconded, I
confess that I felt some surprise: but when that
doubt was removed by his finding a seconder in
my right honourable friend, my surprise was in-
deed of a different description, but much greater
in degree. The nature of the honourable baronet's
motion; the manner in which it has been sup-
ported; the attempt made to impute inconsistency
to those who dissent from that motion, because
they see plainly that it can mean nothing but
398 CO M M ITTEE O N T H E L A VVS
delay, after the House has, by no equivocal majo-
rities, determined in favour of the principle of the
Bill brought forward by my right honourable
friend; the still bolder attempt to arraign the
determinations of the House itself; and the asper-
sions thrown on the proceedings of those members
to whom the House was pleased to entrust the
difficult and sacred duty of framing this Bill; all
these things present an appearance in this even-
ing's debate, to which my memory cannot furnish
a parallel; and show how flexibly extremes can
be made to meet, and how harmoniously contra-
dictions can be reconciled, to answer a particular
purpose.
The House and the country cannot fail to see
the tendency of the honourable baronet's motion.
It is visible to the world. It calls upon the
House to retrace its steps. It proposes by am-
biguous words, to effect an object which cannot
but be plainly understood. There is one language
proper to be used within the doors of this House,
and another without ; but it cannot but be plain
to the lowest intellect, that this motion, however
innocent its author, or disguised its character,
can have no other effect than to defeat the Bill
to which it refers, and to disappoint the recorded
intentions of the House of Commons. Is it
possible that the honourable baronet himself
should not see his motion in this light? The
honourable baronet has been loudly cheered by
A FFECTING R O M A N CATH O LIC S. 399
those who, should his motion succeed, will no
doubt indemnify themselves out of doors for their
acclamations within, by unconstrained laughter
and exultation at the honourable baronet’s un-
intentional defeat of his own (I really believe)
sincere intentions, in favour of the cause which
he has so long espoused. It is we (the supporters
of the Bill,) and not those who flatter the honour-
able baronet into this motion, that are his true
friends: they will triumph in his success (if un-
happily he should succeed) this night, not from
participation in his immediate views, but from
enmity to his ultimate objects. The honourable
baronet professes to desire a pause for inquiry:
they well know that a pause to-night will be
a pause of which this session will not see the
end.
The honourable baronet tells you that you ought
to have all the information connected with the
Catholic religion, before you agree to a Bill,
upon the principle of which you have already de-
cided. He says, that he has thought so for eight
years. To attain the information desired by the
honourable baronet, a circuit of the world must
be taken—every quarter where the Catholic re-
ligion is known, must be explored. How such an
inquiry is to be prosecuted—by what process
this House or its Committee can reach the infor-
mation sought for—has not been explained. But
if the progress of the Bill is to be suspended until
400 C O M M ITTEE ON THE LAWS
returns can be had from Africa; until the prac-
tice and effect of the Catholic religion in Canada
shall be ascertained; until commissioners sent
out for these purposes (and I should recommend
the honourable baronet himself, as one of the
commissioners to be selected, if by such appoint-
ment I should not have to deplore his absence
from this House) shall have returned ; if the
Committee must continue its office, until the arch-
bishop of Mohilow is brought before it for exami-
nation, with his patent in his hand, to explain the
degree of his dependence upon the see of Rome;
it requires no great sagacity to foresee that the
Bill must stand still for more sessions than one ;
and that this House and the Catholics must lay in
a good stock of patience, if they are to look to no
end of their anxiety, till this incalculable labour
shall be completed.—Looking indeed at the
honourable baronet's motion, as it has been an-
nounced, it is impossible to say where his pro-
posed inquiry is to terminate—for it is not only
all the learned lore which the honourable baronet
has treasured up in his own mind that is to be
laid before the Committee; it is not only (let not
the House be deluded into the hope that it is
only) the contents of that bursting box which is
placed beside your table; but all the theological
controversy in existence must be thoroughly sifted
and understood before this inquiry can close, if
the honourable baronet's motion, such as I hold
A FFECTING ROMAN C A THOLIC S. 40]
it in my hand, be indeed, to be fully complied
with. Nay, and after all the various branches of
his motion shall have been disposed of, the labours
of the Committee will not be at an end—for at
the end of the motion I find a saving clause, as
follows, “Sir J. H. proposes to move for various
other papers to refer to the Committee.” I am
not so wholly unlearned in those branches of
study, in which the honourable baronet peculiarly
delights, as to be ignorant from what original
author the honourable baronet derived this style;
for I find its archetype in the great Smalgruenus,
who first published a treatise “De omnibus rebus,”
and then added a supplemental discourse, “ De
quibusdam aliis.”
To take the motion in its most restricted shape,
does it not call for information respecting the
nomination, collation, and institution of the Catho-
Hic clergy, in all Roman Catholic, as well as other
countries in Europe 2 The honourable baronet
may smile, but will the House be so ready to
smile with him, when they learn that this would
require at least one hundred folio volumes to be
laid before the Committee ? Can they look for-
ward without dismay, to the wading through such
a mass of learning—however interesting in itself,
or however lightened their toil might be, by the
able comments of the learned chairman (such I
am sure the honourable baronet would be), ad-
dressed to a listening Committee, or to a despair-
VOL. III. D D -
402 COMMITTEE ON TH F L A WS
ing quorum ? One hundred volumes in folio, did
I say? One hundred would not comprise even
the elementary books. They would be but a
specimen—a mere scantling. In the first place,
there are the works of Saint Augustine, in eleven
folio volumes, who was called by Erasmus, “ Doc-
tor ecclesia, incomparabilis.” Then there is an
author familiar to the honourable baronet; Thomas
Aquinas, who was called, “ Doctor Angelicus sive
Theologiae Aquila.” His works are in nineteen
volumes folio. Of him it was said, “animam
Augustini migrasse in Thomam,” that the soul of
Augustine had migrated into Aquinas. Into
whom the soul of Aquinas has migrated this is
not the place to inquire. Next comes Duns
Scotus, who was called, “ Doctor Subtilis,” and
he was opposed to Aquinas tooth and nail : not
with less violence, hitherto, have been opposed
the honourable baronet and my right honourable
friend, (Mr. Ryder). Duns Scotus only wrote
twelve volumes folio in his controversy with
Aquinas. But following these writers, who must
be consulted, before, as the honourable baronet
expressed himself, any one could step over the
threshold to the proposed investigation, we must
resort to Bellarmine, a name more familiar to us,
a great luminary of the church, who wrote “Circa
potestatem Pontificum in secularibus,” and whose
works are comprised in four quarto volumes,
which may be read through in a short sitting of
AFFECTING ROMAN CATH OLICS. 403
the Committee. Bellarmine again is opposed by
Dr. Milner, and that reverend doctor is opposed
by the honourable baronet on this very point de
potestate Pontificum. I say nothing of the diffi-
culty and perplexity occasioned to this unhappy
Committee by such opposition and contradiction
of equiponderant opinions.—But in addition to
the works I have mentioned, I have another,
which must be particularly inspected, which is
indeed the very grammar—the accidence—of theo-
logical policy—which every member of the Com-
mittee must have at his finger's ends. I mean
the “Oceanus juris civilis sive Tractatus Trac-
tatuum de Ecclesiá,” in twenty-nine volumes,
folio. -
After reading these few books, the Committee,
to attain all the honourable baronet's objects,
would be under the necessity of resorting to the
examination of numerous individuals, in order to
ascertain the universal practice of the Catholic
Church. Nay, the Pope himself should be forth-
coming; his examination would be very material,
to show not only the existing practice of the
church, and also what new regulations his holi-
ness would be willing to make with a view to the
conclusion of a concordat with this country for
the future government of our Catholic fellow
subjects. ! -
On some points, however, particularly on one
which appears to occasion great alarm to the
D D 2
4()4 C O M M IT’ſ F. F. O N T H E L A WS
honourable baronet, it was not necessary to resort
to distant parts of the world for information. I
refer to his apprehension that the Lord Mayor
and Aldermen of London might, after the passing
of this bill, go in procession to a Catholic chapel.
Now, by a law of the 5th of George I. any cor-
porate officers who should proceed with their
official paraphernalia to any other place of wor-
ship than that of the Church of England, would
be subject to certain penalties, and be for ever
disabled from holding such office, and this statute
is left untouched by the bill. Therefore the
honourable baronet's apprehension is wholly un-
founded in this particular ; and for ascertaining
the necessity of a provision on this head, his Com-
mittee is wholly unnecessary. -
Another part of the honourable baronet's
speech, which appeared to deserve great atten-
tion, and to which my right honourable friend
(Mr. Ryder) has very naturally been eager to
attach more weight than it deserves, related to
the establishment of a society of Jesuits” in this
* Some members of this excellent Society (to which the
civilized world owes more for its substantial services in the
diffusion of useful knowledge of every kind than to any body
of men that ever existed), have founded a College for the edu-
cation of youth in England, and a most able and learned
divine,—the Rev. Mr. Kenny, has formed a similar establishment
in Ireland. In the latter I was educated : it contains some of
the best men I ever met ; and it is with the utmost satisfaction,
avail myself of the opportunity which the present publication
A F FEC'I' I N G R () MI A N C A THO LI C S. 405
country. Undoubtedly, that such a society should
be established in this country, after having been
abolished in every Popish country in Europe, is a
fact of a very alarming nature; but still more alarm-
ing is it, that the fact of such an establishment
should be communicated, for the first time,
to the Executive Government of the country by
a private individual, for the sake of pointing an
argument in a debate ' But more alarming still
to my mind (if it were not so ludicrous as almost
to preclude the more serious feeling of alarm)
would be the inference which a person of my right
honourable friend's wisdom and gravity draws
from such a fact, viz.--that the system of laws
under which this takes place, is one which must
not be touched till you have made a tour of the globe.
Other visions of danger arise to the eyes of the
honourable baronet, and are magnified to those
of my right honourable friend. The honourable
baronet has, with infinite assiduity and industry,
collected information that not more than 5,000
Catholics had taken the oath prescribed by the
last Act passed for the relief of the Roman Catho-
lic body. The fact, admitting its correctness,
furnishes no valid objection. The statute con-
taining those oaths presents nothing imperative.
It is a law granting cértain immunities upon cer-
affords, of bearing my willing and grateful testimony to the
principles of obedience to the laws, and of loyalty to the King and
constituted authorities of the land, which they inculcate with a zeal
and earnestness not inferior to any Protestant seminary throughout
the British Empire.—EDITOR. • *
406 C O M M ITT E E O N T H E LA WS
tain conditions, among which conditions were
these oaths; and those who do not seek the im-
munities, do not comply with the conditions.
But would any considerate man seriously main-
tain that the neglect to take certain oaths of a
public nature furnished any evidence against the
loyalty of any man, or body of men 2 If indeed
such a criterion of loyalty were established, how
many persons would unjustly suffer. Suppose in
the case of Protestants that a return was ordered
of the number, who in the several districts had
taken the oath of allegiance, and that in any par-
ticular district none, or but few, were found to
have taken that oath, would any rational being
propose, that such district should be placed under
a separate system of coercive law 2 Certainly
not. Then upon what principle could any por-
tion of the Catholics be doomed to censure for
omitting some oaths which were in fact not oaths
of infliction, but of qualification ? The bill now
undergonsideration, providing, as it does, a general
oath to be taken by all the Roman Catholic
clergy, containing an imperative provision with
respect to oaths; without any reference to im-
munity, or any object of advantage to the indi-
vidual to whom the provision applies.
Such are the only novelties in argument which
the honourable baronet has carried with him to
the side of the question which he espouses to-
night. I give the honourable baronet full credit
for having persuaded himself, though I know not
A F FECTI N G R O M A N CATH O L I C.S. 407
by what process of reasoning, that he is not, by
his present conduct, essentially prejudicing the
cause of which he has so long been one of the
most eminent supporters. I am willing to go as
far as I can in believing that he has persuaded
himself that he is doing that cause a service.
But, in the name of common sense, I conjure
those who wish well to that cause, to beware how
they suffer the honourable baronet to persuade
them of that, of which he must, no doubt, have
persuaded himself. Let them not imagine for a
moment, that the adoption of this motion (with
whatever good intentions it may have been brought
forward) is any thing but hostile to the ultimate
success of the bill. To pause now—to retrograde
now—to descend from the pinnacle on which we
are now placed, and which commands a view of
the affection, the harmony, and the gratitude of
our Roman Catholic fellow subjects, would be to
lose all the ground that we have gained. That
ground once lost, will not be easily recovered.
“There is a tide in the affairs of men,” on the
height of which we are now riding towards the
accomplishment of our object. The hands of
Protestant and Catholic are outstretched to meet
each other, and nearly touching. The interposi-
tion of this motion, if unfortunately it should be
carried, may drive us as far asunder as ever.
And why? for what reason is this mighty mis-
chief to be incurred ? An intemperate paragraph,
it seems, has appeared in the most intemperate
408 C O M M ITTEE O N 'I' H E LA WS
publication in Ireland. Be it so : but have we
no more safe rule and guidance for our own con-
duct than the intemperance of an Irish journalist?
Let the House recollect that last year they
pledged themselves to take the Catholic claims
into their consideration early in the next session.
Very soon after the close of that session Parlia-
ment was dissolved, and the pledge so recently
given was in great hazard of being done away.
It happened fortunately, however, that the merits
of the question had, from repeated discussions,
made so deep an impression on the minds of
men, that the new Parliament had sat but a very
little time before they renewed the pledge given
by their predecessors; and by a very considerable
majority, gave leave to my right honourable friend
to bring in the bill which is now the subject of
discussion. We are come to the second reading
of that bill. Is it proposed that the second read-
ing shall be negatived, and the bill thrown out,
because an Irish newspaper has been absurd and
impertinent 2 That would be foolish and illogical
enough ; but that, it seems, is not what is pro-
posed to-night. Oh, no! the bill is to go on. The
motion of to-night is all for the good of the bill.
But somehow or other it so happens that all the
sworn enemies of the bill are highly in good
humour with this motion, which is so eminently
calculated to promote it; and their reasoning
upon it, I suppose, must be this, “ because an
Irish newspaper is very absurd, let us match it in
A FFECTING ROM A N C A TiH O Ll C.S. 409
absurdity by going into the honourable baronet's
committee.” I really see not in what other way
the argument from the Irish newspaper bears
upon this question. - -
But, Sir, the plain truth is, that the enemies of
the bill see they have no chance of throwing it
out by a direct opposition, and therefore they
would endeavour to get rid of it by a side wind.
Accordingly, no mode of attack upon the bill, in-
dependent of the substance and merits of it, comes
amiss to its opponents. One gentleman com-
plains of hurry and precipitation—another of delay
in bringing it forward. It has been stated that
my honourable friend had given notice that he
should bring his bill forward before the recess.
No such thing: he had said, indeed, that if he
could hope to get it through the second reading
before the recess, he should be glad to have it
printed and circulated, that gentlemen might be
in possession of the contents. But in conse-
quence of the press of business, and particularly
of the inquiry into East India affairs, it was found
that it would be impossible to get it farther than
to the first reading, and nothing would have been
more improper than to send it out to the world
in that imperfect and immature state. My right
honourable friend, the seconder of the honourable
baronet's motion, himself fixed the second reading
of the bill, by fixing this day for the call of the
House; my right honourable friend (Mr. Grattan),
having declared that he would not move the
410 COMMITTEE Q N T H E L.A WS
second reading till the day of the call. Had he
done otherwise, what triumphant sarcasms should
we not have heard against him for taking the
House by surprise, and flying from the test of a
full attendance! But after all, how is it possible
that the enemies of the bill should still flatter
themselves with the hope of being able entirely
to prevent a measure which the House has so
unequivocally declared to be necessary In fact,
they do not entertain that hope. Delay is all
that they now venture to contend for. The lan-
guage which we heard last session from the
learned and right honourable member for the
University of Oxford, the venerable magistrate
(Sir William Scott), whom I see on the bench
above me, sufficiently shewed that in the opinion
even of the persons most adverse to unnecessary
change, the laws respecting the Catholics could
not remain in their present state; that it was
necessary to adopt some measure ; and this
opinion the House adopted, in giving leave to
bring in the bill of my right honourable friend.
In the first instance, my right honourable friend
had been divided in his opinion, whether, having
obtained his Committee, he should proceed by
way of resolutions, or should bring in a bill at
once. His adversaries said, “take the manly
course, and bring in a bill.” He adopted their
advice; but as soon as he has done so, they im-
mediately turn round on him and say, “we will
have another Committee.”
A FFECTING ROMAN CATH O LI C.S. 411
What may be the fate of the bill in this or in
the other House of Parliament, I certainly do not
presume to predict ; but of one thing I am cer-
tain, that if it should happily find its way through
this House to the other, it will not there be
combated in the miserable manner in which it is
attacked by this night’s motion. My noble friend
in the other House (Lord Liverpool), said fairly
on this question, “Let the House decide upon
the principle, and I won't be shabby enough to
dispute with you the details.” And still less, I
am sure, would he stoop to attempt defeating
such a measure, by interposing vexatious proposi-
tions for delay.
The principle, Sir, which has been agreed upon
in the Committee, and which the House has con-
firmed, is, that the disabilities of the Catholics
should be removed, taking security that their ad-
mission into the franchises of the state shall be
in no way dangerous to the Protestant establish-
ments. So far as we have gone, difficulties have
vanished, not before vague inquiries into Africa
and America, but before discussion. Pursuing
the same course, difficulties will gradually disap-
pear, and the public mind will become calm and
satisfied. Not that it may not still be possible to
hire a corner in some venal newspaper, to undo
the work of legislation, and restore the empire to
disorder; if with most unaccountable and unex-
ampled folly we determine that this question,
412 . COMIMI ITT E. E. O. N. 'I H E L A VVS
Munlike all others, and of all others the most unfit
to be left to the mercy of popular discussion,
shall in fact be liable to be turned round by every
breath of prejudice or disaffection. Such is not
the policy which this House ought to pursue :
such is not the duty which this House has to
perform. Our duty as well as our policy in the
state to which the question has now been brought
is, to proceed without further delay to those
stages of the bill, in which it can, consistently
with the forms of the House, be moulded into
that shape, and receive those additions and im-
provements by which its principle is to be carried
into most effectual and most beneficent operation.
Thinking every moment that is wasted before
we proceed to this great work, an interval of un-
necessary inconvenience, disquietude, and danger,
I certainly shall give my vote against the honour-
able baronet’s motion for delay, and for imme-
diately reading the bill a second time. -
[Mr. Canning proceeded to say that he coul
have wished to avoid troubling the House further
on this occasion, especially as other occasions
would occur more proper for entering into the
detail of the provisions which he thought neces-
sary to be introduced into the bill; but as it might
be expected of him that he should not omit to
explain generally the nature and object of those
provisions, he would do so as shortly as possible.
The principle which the Resolution of the House
and the Committee had sanctioned, was this, that
A FFECTING ROM A N (! A THOLIC S. 413
it was expedient to afford substantial relief to the
Catholics, with certain exceptions, and under cer-
tain regulations. Now, if the right honourable
framer of the bill had dealt altogether in abstract
rights and universal propositions, it might have
justly been objected that he had outgone the
principle on which the measure professed to be
founded. But he had not gone into any extreme
of that kind, he had professed his readiness to
receive into his bill exceptions and restrictions
which he himself should not have ventured to
propose. The amendments which he (Mr. Can-
ning) wished to introduce into the bill, he had given
into the hands of the right honourable member,
(Mr. Grattan). If he (Mr. Grattan), had thought
proper to adopt them, he should have given his
most cordial support to the whole measure, with-
out indulging the poor ambition of vindicating
any part of it as peculiarly his own.—There
were three points to which it was necessary to
look. The first was, the ascertaining the loyalty
of the Catholic hierarchy; the second was the pre-
vention of foreign interference; the third was the
finding some security that our concessions to the
Catholic body should not be thrown away, but
should be met by a corresponding spirit of con-
ciliation on their part. On the first point—of the
veto, he had given no opinion, nor was it now
before the House; in his judgment, testimony
and not nomination, testimony that the person
chosen (no matter by whom) was a peaceful and
414 COMMITTEE OF THE LAWS
well-disposed subject, was all that was requisite.
The next question was, how this testimony was
to be obtained : The difference between his
plan and that of the veto would be, that upon
the one, this information would be collected pri-
vately and anonymously, and upon the other from
acknowledged and regular sources. It was his
intention to fill up the blanks in his clause with
the names of the five oldest Catholic peers, whom
he proposed to constitute a commission for this
purpose. Their responsibility would ensure to
their testimony to the character of the person to
be made a bishop, the highest possible authority.
- On the second point all parties were so far
agreed as to concur in admitting the necessity of
preventing foreign interference. It appeared from
the honourable baronet's information that night,
if indeed it were not before sufficiently notorious,
that the existing laws were insufficient for this
purpose; and it was a consideration well worthy
the attention of those who are against making
any changes whatever, and who are at the same
time in alarm at the power of the See of Rome
in this country, that by rejecting the present bill,
they would leave the correspondence between the
Catholics and Rome unrestrained. There was, it
is true, a law in this country which made the re-
ceiving of bulls and other instruments from the
court of Rome high treason; yet bulls and in-
struments were continually received, without any
notice being taken of them; and this was the
A FFECTING ROM A N CATH O LIC S. 415
state of things which the tremblers at foreign
interference would continue ! Would the House
accept of some such plan, or by rejecting the bill
render the illicit correspondence between the
Catholics and the court of Rome immortal 7 The
opposers of the bill were driven to this dilemma,
unless indeed they avowed that they had some
measure of unmitigated severity in contemplation;
and then the question would be, whether the
severity would be more effectual without the
boon, or whether we should take advantage of the
boon to make the severity palatable He was
not so bigotted to his own particular opinions as
not to change them if good reasons were offered
against them; the Committee would, however, be
the place to inquire into the details. At any
rate, the security allowed on all hands to be
necessary to the state, ought no longer to slumber
in obsolete black letter —The third point to
which he should now come, was but a short one ;
it was the obtaining some pledge that our conces-
sions to the Catholics should not be thrown away
—that they should be received in the same spirit
in which they were granted. “You may pass
your bill—you may enact and concede what you
please, but the Roman Catholics will give you
nothing in return. How do you know that your
proffered boon will be acceptable to those whom
you profess to relieve by it? Have you ascer-
tained the sense of the Roman Catholics on this
question ?” To such interrogatories he should
416 COMMITTE E O N T H E LAWS
answer, that it was nonsense to talk of obtaining
the opinion of four millions of people indivi-
dually ; and it must be remembered that we had
laws (he was bound to believe wise and provi-
dent laws), which prevented the expression of it
by delegation. The sense of the Catholics there-
fore could only be collected by the measure of a
parliamentary enactment, and their consequent
reception or rejection of the opportunities which
such an enactment would open to them. So far,
however, as it was possible to obtain a previous
signification of their concurrence, he thought that
purpose answered by the last clause of his pro-
posed amendments, which enacted that the
Roman Catholic lay commissioners should meet,
within a given time after the passing of the Act,
and that all the other enactments of the bill
should take effect from the date of the day on
which the commission should be constituted. By
this clause the onus of putting the statute in force
was, in fact, thrown upon the Roman Catholics:
if they refused to constitute the commission, the
whole of the provisions in their favour would, ipso
facto, fall to the ground. He should not hesitate to
say, that so far as his communications with English
Roman Catholics had extended, he had found no
reason whatever but to believe in, and to hope
for a cheerful and ready acquiescence in the pro-
visions of his clauses as they now stood—some
alterations might probably render them still more
acceptable; but he believed that no changes in
A FF ECTI N (; R () M A N C A T H O LIC S. 417
them, made in an amicable spirit, would be seri-
ously objectionable. His knowledge, with re-
spect to the Catholics of Ireland, did not enable
him to speak of their sentiments with confidence;
but he had grounds for believing that, though some
alterations might be wished for, there was no con-
tumacious or unthankful spirit prevailing among
the Catholics of that country : and that, more
especially among those whose opinions were the
most to be valued, there existed a disposition to
acquiesce in whatever the wisdom and benevolence
of Parliament might ultimately decide. He hoped
and trusted that no turbulent spirit would step in
between the good will and beneficent intentions
of Parliament, and the acquiescence and grati-
tude of the Catholics, to prevent a settlement so
desirable to the whole empire. This, however,
was more than he could be expected to undertake
for, or to promise. But he most anxiously hoped,
that those who sought to overthrow the Bill, that
night, would not find themselves able, in the
event of their success, to cast the blame upon
the misconduct of the Catholics. Mr. Canning
concluded by exhorting the opposers of the Bill,
who aimed at defeating it through the honourable
baronet's motion, rather to come forward manfully,
and defeat it in the face of day; not to shelter
themselves in the cloud which the honourable
baronet's learned dust raised around them—in
that misty obscurity which Homer described as
VOL. III. E E
418 COM MI ITTEE O N T H E LAWS
“better than night for evil deeds.” If they really
thought that we could best maintain the domestic
security and tranquillity of the empire upon the
anomalies of a tattered legislation, let them avow
it boldly; if they admitted measures of concili-
ation to be necessary, let them not put off those
measures till messengers had been sent to the
north, and to the south, to the east, and to the
west, and till the honourable baronet, like another
Sinbad, should return from a series of voyages of
discovery, with an abstract of the manners and
customs, the religion and polity, of half man-
kind For the peace and safety of the country,
for their own honour and reputation, he conjured
them, if they felt themselves strong enough
openly to oppose the Bill, to cast away the armour
which they had borrowed from another, and to
display their force, effectually and finally, by
putting an end to the Bill that night. He conjured
the honourable baronet, from whom he said that
he had learned all that he knew, and all he wished
to know, on abstruse points of theological contro-
versy, and to whose extraordinary erudition, in-
defatigable industry, and meritorious exertions,
he bore the most ample testimony, to pause ere
he frustrated all the important services which
he had formerly rendered to the cause, by now
throwing his great weight into the scale of the
enemy. He conjured him to remember his past
deeds, and, like another repentant Coriolanus, to
A F FECTING R O M A N C A THO LI C.S. 419
quit the camp of his Volscian allies, and return
to Rome again.
The Motion was negatived on a division :-
For the Motion . . . . . . . . 187
Against it . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Majority against it . . . . . 48
VOTE OF THANKS TO THE MARQUIS OF
WELLINGTON.
JULY 7th, 1813.
LoRD CASTLEREAGH moved, “That the thanks of the
House be given to Field Marshal the Marquis of Welling-
ton, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, for
the energy and distinguished ability with which he had
conducted the late operations of the allied forces in Spain,
and particularly for the splendid and decisive victory
obtained upon the 21st of June last, near Vittoria, when the
French army was completely routed, with the loss of all its
artillery, stores, and baggage!”
MR. FREEMANTLE seconded the motion.
MR. CANNING “ said, he felt in common with the honour-
able gentleman who had seconded the motion, and with the
gallant general (Sir Eyre Coote), who had just addressed
them, the difficulty (a difficulty in which no man had more
frequently placed his friends, the House, and the country,
than Lord Wellington) of expressing, in adequate terms, the
feelings which filled the mind of every man in the country.
And he was persuaded, that the strongest language he could
E E 2
420 VOT E OF TH AN KS TO THE
use would be but a faint echo of the public sentiment on this
glorious occasion. If the honourable gentleman (Mr. Free-
mantle,) from his private feelings on this occasion, and if the
gallant general, from his feelings as a soldier, could not refrain
from trespassing on the House, however unnecessary their
apology for doing so; he trusted the interest which he had ever
taken in the cause of Spain would excuse him for offering a
few words on the same subject. It was now five years since
this country, involved as it was in difficulties, and engaged
in a contest the end of which it was impossible to foresee,
had the glorious prospect opened to it of what this splendid
achievement led to the hope of having brought to a happy
consummation. At that particular period, amidst the pres-
sure of events, and all the troubles peculiarly her own, she
had not hesitated one moment in becoming the friend of
those whose only claim to her friendship was their being the
victims of tyranny and oppression. This choice was crowned
with success; but it was a choice which they would not have
had cause to regret, even had the struggle ended in hopeless-
ness and disappointment. Thank Heaven, the result was of
another character, and proved that generosity and justice,
while they were the most liberal, were also the wisest system
of policy, and that honourable feeling for others was nearly
connected with our own national safety. At the period to
which he had alluded, there were many who despaired of
the success of the cause, and who, though forced into the
current, had expressed their disapprobation of it. That
enterprize, which many thought rash and hazardous, which
many believed almost hopeless, had ended in a blaze of .
glory, that will live recorded on the glowing page of
history, even if glory should be its only result; but he
did not despair to see added to it other pages of political
arrangement and final settlement, calculated to promote the
happiness and secure the liberties of mankind. With regard
MIA R QUIS () F W ELLINGTON. 42 |
to the honours to be bestowed upon Lord Wellington and
his companions in arms, they could not be too lavish of
them—but to this subject the word ‘lavish” could not be
applied—but, while they expressed their sentiments on this
subject, they ought also to pay the tribute merited by those
whose pains, care, anxiety, solicitude, and attention, had
been unceasingly cherished to prepare at home the mighty
means for the accomplishment of this mighty achievement.
Not only his Majesty's Ministers, but this House and the
country had also to congratulate themselves, as well on the
generosity and wisdom of their first determination, as on the
firmness with which, under every variety of circumstance,
and vicissitude of fortune, in the course of a long contest,
sometimes unpromising, sometimes leading to despondency,
(though never those who felt that confidence in the com-
manding genius of the great leader of our armies, which
this day would render universal,) and amid every difficulty
under which the country laboured, they had continued the
contest in a way which demonstrated that it never had been
the prevailing sentiment of the nation, that they ought to
shrink from the task they had undertaken, to be guilty of
a dereliction of principle, or give up the glorious cause in
despair. The confidence with which he and many others
had set out in this contest, the present victory had now
made general. It was now that the fruits of their exertions
began to appear. It was now that they had to look for the
reward of their policy in engaging in, and their constancy
in persevering in this arduous conflict. The revolution (as
it had been called) of 1808, seemed as if given by Provi-
dence in contrast to that mighty and dreadful revolution,
whose tremendous successes had almost led mankind to be-
lieve that success was inseparably linked to the car of those,
who assailed with insatiable fury every established institu-
tion. But the Spanish revolution, exhibiting the same
422 VOTE OF TH AN KS TO THE
splendid successes as those which marked the early career
of that of France, had proved, that triumph is not unachiev-
able by those who are attached to the sovereignty, and
whose principle is to conserve rather than to destroy. It
was not to Spain alone that the effects of the late victory
will be confined. Spain had been the theatre of Lord
Wellington's glory, but it would not be the boundary of
the beneficial result of his triumph. The same blow which
has broken the talisman of the French power in Spain, had
disenchanted the North. How was their prospect changed
In those countries, where at most a short struggle had been
terminated by a result disastrous to their wishes, if not
altogether closing in despair, they had now to contemplate
a very different aspect of affairs. Germany crouched no
longer, trembling, at the feet of the tyrant, but maintained
a balanced contest. The mighty deluge by which the Con-
tinent had been overwhelmed began to subside. The limits
of nations were again visible, and the spires and turrets of
ancient establishments began to re-appear above the subsiding
wave.” It was this victory which had defined these objects,
* Mr. Canning delivered this passage with great animation;
the effect which it produced upon the House was quite electrical.
The idea of illustrating the political aspect which the nations of
Europe at this time presented, by the sublime image of the earth
on its first and gradual reappearance above the subsiding wave of
the great deluge, is new, both in its conception and application;
and in both it is as beautiful as original. It possesses a Burke-
like elevation of style and sentiment, and displays a kindred glow
and vigour of imagination to those of that illustrious statesman,
which Pitt and Fox never—and Sheridan seldom—reached. Many
passages of corresponding excellence are profusely scattered
throughout the Speeches in the present collection.
Sir Walter Scott, in his Life of Napoleon, makes the same
MIA RQU IS OF WE L LIN G TO N. 423
so lately involved in overwhelming confusion. To whom,
under God, were they indebted for this To the man to
whom they were this day voting their thanks. As the noble
lord had justly said, it would be presumptuous to anticipate
the result of this heroic achievement. But they knew that it
must be good. If war continued, in war it would furnish
means and heart for the maintenance of the struggle; for
peace, it would furnish the best of means, the association of
peace and victory, without which, he would not say that peace
ought never to be attempted, but without which, he would
say, it could never be secure with the enemy against whom
they had to contend. It was the illustrious Wellington who
furnished them with these means so to be applied. His
admirable conception of what ought to be done; his rapi-
dity in executing the designs he formed; his wonderful
comprehension of measures directed to one end; the com-
pleteness of his plans, and the thunderbolt of war which he
launched at last upon the foe, enabled this country to fur-
nish the most ample data ever given as the basis of a secure
and lasting peace. One topic more, and he would intrude
upon the House no longer. The honourable seconder, from
the warmth of his feelings, had intimated a wish, that a
simile as Mr. Canning uses here, and introduces it in illustration of
the same sentiment. It is not however so beautiful as Mr. Can-
ning's, and, besides, it has not the merit of originality.—EDITOR.
“The retreat of the French armies, or their relics, across the
land which they had so long overrun, and where they had levelled
and confounded all national distinctions, might be compared to
the abatement of the great deluge, when land marks, which had
been long hid from the eye, began to be once more visible and
distinguished. The reconstruction of the ancient sovereignties
was the instant occupation of the allies.”—Scott's Napoleon,
Vol. VII. page 606.
** *
424 voTE OF THANKS, &c.
special mode of transmitting their thanks should be adopted,
in order to mark their high sense of this glorious victory :
greatly as he felt the transcendent merits of Lord Welling-
ton, he also felt for the dignity of that House; and he
considered that there was nothing within the power of a
subject to execute which would not be adequately rewarded
by their thanks, conveyed in the ordinary forms. He trusted
therefore that the honourable gentleman would not press
any proposition which might cause a difference of opinion,
while on the main question there could be but one unani-
mous and cordial feeling. He apologised to the House for
having occupied so much of their time, and sat down amid
loud cheering.
The Resolution was put, and carried, mem. con.
I'OREIGN TREATIES.
NOVEMBER 17th, 1813.
Lond CastLEREACH moved, “That the sum of three
millions be granted to enable His Majesty to carry into
effect certain engagements with foreign powers.”
The motion being put—
MR. CANNING rose, and spoke nearly in the
following terms :-Having been unfortunately ab-
FO RE I GN TREATIES. 425
sent when the general assurances of support on
the part of the House were given in answer to the
speech from the throne, of which the vote of this
day is a partial performance, I am anxious to take
this opportunity of expressing, as strongly and
as warmly as I am able, both my concurrence in
those assurances, and my disposition to make
them good, by the way and in the proportion re-
commended by the noble lord. If in the present
state of this country, and of the world, those who,
during the course of the tremendous and pro-
tracted struggle, on various occasions called upon
Parliament to pause, to retard its too rapid and
too rash advance, and to draw back from the task
it had unwisely undertaken to perform, have man-
fully and honourably stepped forward to join their
congratulations to the joyful acclamations of the
nation, and to admit the present to be the period
favourable to a mighty and decided effort; how
much more grateful must it be to those, who at no
time during the struggle have lifted up their
voices in this place, excepting to recommend and
to urge new exertions; to those who, when the
prospects were most dreary and melancholy, in-
sisted that there was but one course becoming
the character and honour of Great Britain; a per-
severing, an undaunted resistance to the over-
whelming power of France. To an individual
who, under the most discouraging circumstances,
426 FOREIGN TR E A TIES.
still maintained that the deliverance of Europe
(often a derided term) was an object not only
worthy of our arms, but possible to be achieved,
it must be doubly welcome to come forward to
acknowledge his transports, and to vindicate his
share in the national exultation. If too, on the
other hand, there have been those who, having
recommended pacification when the opportunity
was less favourable, are now warranted, as un-
doubtedly they are, in uttering the same senti-
ments, in the confidence that the country will
sympathize with them ; it is natural for those
who, under other circumstances, have discouraged
the expectation of peace, and have warned the
nation against precipitate overtures, now to be
anxious to embrace this occasion of stating their
sincere conviction and their joy, as strongly felt
by them as by others, that by the happy course of
events during the last year, and by the wise policy
we shall now pursue, peace may not, perhaps, be
within our grasp, but is at least within our view.
The vote we are this might called upon to make
is in part prospective, and in part retrospective for
services actually performed. Of that portion
which is prospective, the lord noble has properly
deferred the discussion; but of that portion which
is retrospective, we are enabled to judge; and,
large as the expenditure now proposed may seem,
I think no man, who compares the station we
FOR EIGN TREAT I ES. 427
now hold with that which we occupied at any
former period of the contest, can doubt that the
expenditure has been wisely incurred, and that
the services actually performed have fully merited
the disbursement. I agree with those who are of
opinion, that the time is now arrived when we
may look forward to the attainment of peace; but
I am far from disguising from myself, and I deem
it of infinite importance that the country should
not disguise from itself, the difficulties with which
we may have still to struggle. We must not de-
ceive ourselves by supposing that the game is
actually won; that the problem is mathematically
solved; that we have done all that is necessary to
insure a lasting tranquillity. What we have ac-
complished is, establishing the foundation upon
which the temple of peace may be erected ; and
imagination may now picture the completion of
that structure, which, with hopes less sanguine,
and hearts less high, it would have been folly to
have attempted to raise. We may now confidently
hope to arrive at the termination of labour, and
the attainment of repose. It is impossible to look
back to those periods when the enemy vaunted,
and we, perhaps, feared that we should have been
compelled to sue for peace, amid all the ebul-
litions of joy, without returning thanks to that
Providence, which gave us courage and heart still
to bear up against accumulating calamity. Peace
is safe now, because it is not dictated; peace is
428 FOREIGN 'I REAT I ES.
safe now, for it is the fruit of exertion, the child
of victory: peace is safe now, because it will not
be purchased at the expense of the interest and
of the honour of the empire: it is not the ransom
to buy off danger ; but the lovely fruit of the
mighty means we have employed to drive danger
from our shores. I must with heartfelt delight
congratulate my country, that, groaning as she
has done at former periods under the heavy pres-
sure of adverse war, still “peace was despaired
of; for who could think of submission ?” Her
strength, her endurance, have been tried and
proved, by every mode of assault, that the most
refined system of hostility could invent, not only
by open military attacks, but by low attempts to
destroy her commercial prosperity: the experiment
has been made; the experiment has failed; and we
are now triumphantly, but not arrogantly, to con-
sider, what measures of security should be adopted
—on what terms a peace should be concluded. But,
as I before remarked, peace is only within our
view, not within our grasp ; we must still look for-
ward to an arduous struggle with an enemy, whose
energies have grown with his misfortunes, and who
will leave no efforts untried to remove us from
the lofty pinnacle that we have attained. We are
not yet in a situation in which we have a right
to discuss the terms of pacification; but so far I
agree with the noble lord, that the happy changes
which have taken place, must not alter the prin-
FORE I GN TRE. A 'I'l E.S. 429
ciple on which a treaty should be founded : they
do not vary with circumstances; we must secure
and guard our own honour and interest; but we
must not expect from our enemy that to which
we ourselves should not submit, that he should
sacrifice to us his own honour and interest, to
him equally dear. All will agree, however, that
this is not precisely the time for these discus-
sions; we must expect from him a renewed and
vehement struggle; he will not tamely submit
to degradation, but will continue his efforts; and
if we arrive at the desired goal, it can only be by
the road we are now pursuing.
With reference, however, to the vote of this
might, as far as it may be considered prospective,
as to the exertions we are called upon in future
to make, I must observe, that even if our hopes
of peace should be postponed, or even disappointed,
is it nothing to reflect upon the posture we are
enabled to assume, by the achievements we have
already performed ? Is it nothing, to look back
upon the fallen, the crouching attitude of enslaved.
Europe, at a period not long distant, and compare
it with the upright, free, undaunted posture in
which she now stands 2 Living memory can recal
no period when she was entitled to hold her head
so high, and to bid such bold defiance to her
enemy. What, let me ask, is the first and brightest
fruit of the late successful conflict? First, that
continuity of system, that instrument of not wholly
430 FOREIGN TRE A TIES,
ineffectual hostility against Great Britain, which,
until lately, was supposed to be growing in
strength and perfection, has been destroyed; that
complex machine directed against our trade, has
received a blow which has shivered it to atoms
The enemy is doubly defeated ; his arms and
his artifices have failed : burdened as it was,
still there is something in the incompressible
nature of commerce which rises under the weight
of the most powerful tyranny: his efforts have
been exhausted; his monarchy was reduced, to
sink our commerce; but, rising with tenfold
vigour, it has defied his puny efforts, never to be
repeated. The next point that we have attained
is, the destruction of his own darling system of
confederation? I mean, that system by which he
had formed all the states of continental Europe
into satellites of the French empire, that moved
only as it moved, and acted only by its influence.
They are now emancipated; the yoke has been
removed from their shoulders; the nations rise
superior to themselves, •
“Free, and to none accountable, preferring
Hard liberty, before the easy yoke
Of servile pomp.”
But, since all the events of war are precarious,
is it impossible, that, after retiring awhile, the
tyrant of Europe (now no longer its tyrant) may
again burst forward, and again, with desolation in
his train, awhile victorious, attempt to collect the
F ORF, IGN TREATIES. 431
fragments of that system, and to reconstruct that
mighty engine which we have shattered, but
which once, guided by his hand, hurled destruc-
tion on his foes? It is impossible. After the de-
feats that he has sustained, all confidence between
him and his vassal states must be annihilated.
Admitting that they may be compelled again to
act, can he rely upon their exertions, or can they
depend upon his support 2 He may go forth like
that foul idol, of which we heard so much in the
last year, crushing his helpless victims beneath
his chariot wheels; but he never again can yoke
them to his car as willing instruments of destruc-
tion. Even if Austria, by base submission to the
sacrifice of her honour, were to add the sacrifice
of another daughter, and of another army of 30,000
men, that mutual confidence which existed at the
commencement of the last campaign can never be
restored.
So much for the present state of Europe: but
has this country gained nothing by the glorious
contest, even supposing peace should be far dis-
tant? Is it nothing to Great Britain, even pur-
chased at the high price stated by the noble lord,
that under all the severity of her sufferings, while
her trade declined, her military character has been
exalted ? Is it no satisfaction, no compensation
to her, to reflect that the splendid scenes dis-
played on the Continent are owing to her efforts?
that the victories of Germany are to be attributed
432 F ORE I GN TRE ATI ES.
to our victories in the Peninsula? That spark,
often feeble, sometimes so nearly extinguished as
to excite despair in all hearts that were not above
it, which we lighted in Portugal, which was fed
and nourished there, has at length burst into a
flame that has dazzled and illuminated Europe.
Shall it then be said, that this struggle has had
no effect upon the military character of Great
Britain 7 At the commencement of this war, our
empire rested upon one majestic column, our
naval power. In the prosecution of the war, a
hero has raised another stupendous pillar of
strength to support our monarchy—our military
pre-eminence. It is now that we may boast, not
only of superiority at sea, but on shore: the same
energy and heroism exist in both the arms of
Great Britain; they are rivals in strength, but
inseparable in glory. If, at a future period, by
successes which we cannot foresee, and by ag-
gressions which we cannot resist, war should
again be threatened upon our own shores, what
consolation will the reflection afford, that out of the
calamities and the privations of war has arisen a
principle of safety, that, superior to all attacks,
shall survive through ages, to which even our
posterity shall look.forward | Compare the situa-
tion of England with her condition even at the
beginning of the last campaign, much more with
her condition at the renewal of the war. Were
we not then threatened by the aggressions of an
FO REIGN TRIE ATI ES. 433
enemy even upon our own shores: were we not
then trembling for the safety and sanctity even of
our homes Now contemplate Wellington en-
camped on the Bidassoal I know that a sickly
sensibility prevails abroad, which leads some to
doubt whether the advance of Lord Wellington
was not rash and precipitate. Of the political
expediency of that advance I can entertain but
one opinion : I cannot enter into that refinement
which induces those who affect to know much,
to hesitate upon the subject: I cannot look with
regret at a British army encamped upon the fertile
plains of France: I cannot believe that any new
grounds for apprehension are raised by an addi-
tional excitement being afforded to the irritability
of the French people: I foresee no disadvantage
resulting from entering the territories of our
enemy, not as the conquered but the conquerors:
I cannot believe that there are any so weak as to
imagine that England wishes to maintain a position
within the heart of the enemy's country, or that
Spain will attempt to extend her dominion be-
yond that vast chain of impregnable mountains
that seem to form her natural boundary. What is
the fact? The Portuguese are now looking upon
the walls of Bayonne, “ that circles in those
wolves” which would have devastated their
capital; the Portuguese now behold, planted on
the towers of Bayonne, that standard which their
enemy would have made to float upon the walls
VOL. III. F F
434 FOR EIGN TRE ATI E. S.
of Lisbon. I cannot think it a matter of regret
that Spaniards are now recovering, from the grasp
of an enemy on his own shores, that diadem which
was stripped from the brow of the Bourbons, to
be pocketed by an usurper. I cannot think it a
matter of regret that England, formerly threatened
with invasion, is now the invader—that France,
instead of England, is the scene of conflict:
66 Ultrö Inachias venisset ad urbes
Dardanus, et versis lugeret Graecia fatis.”
I cannot think all this matter of regret; and of
those who believe that the nation or myself are
blinded by our successes, I entreat that they will
leave me to my delusion, and keep their philoso-
phy to themselves. There are other observations,
growing not only out of the proceedings of the
last year, but since the commencement of the
war, that to my mind are highly consoling. It is
a fact acknowledged by all, that our enemy, who
has enslaved the press, and made it contribute so
importantly to his own purposes of ambition, at
various periods, during the hostilities, has endea-
voured to impress upon all those who are likely
to be our allies, a notion, that Great Britain only
fought to secure her own interest—that her views
were completely selfish. That illusion is now de-
stroyed, and the designs of this country are vindi-
cated by recent events. We call on all the powers
with whom we are at war, to dous justice in this
FO R F I C N T R F A TIES, 435
respect: above all, we claim it of America, with
which, as much as any man, I wish for reconcilia-
tion. If she were now hesitating and wavering,
which of the two great contending parties she
should join, would not the conduct of England now
decide the doubt 7 I ask her to review her own,
and the policy of this country, and to acknowledge
that we are deserving, not only of her confidence,
but of the support of mankind. Now, she can be-
hold Buonaparte in his naked deformity, stripped
of the false glory which success had cast around
him—the spell of his invincibility is now dissolved
——she can now look at him without that awe which
an uninterrupted series of victories had created.
Were she now to survey him as he is, what would
be the result 2. She would trace him by the de-
solation of empires, and the dismemberment of
states; she would see him pursuing his course over
the ruins of men and of things: slavery to the
people, and destruction to commerce—hostility
to literature, to light, and life, were the princi-
ples on which he acted. His object was, to ex-
tinguish patriotism, and to confound allegiance—
to darken as well as to enslave—to roll back the
tide of civilization—to barbarize, as well as to
desolate mankind. Then let America turn from
this disgusting picture, these scenes of bloodshed
and horror, and compare with them the effect of
British interference! She will see that wherever
this country has exerted herself, it has been to
F F 2
436 FOR EIGN TRF, A TIES.
raise the fallen, and to support the falling—to
raise, not to degrade the national character—to
rouse the sentiments of patriotism which tyranny
had silenced—to enlighten, to reanimate, to libe-
rate. Great Britain has resuscitated Spain, and
re-created Portugal. Germany is now a nation
as well as a name, and all these glorious effects
have been produced by the efforts and by the
example of our country. If to be the deliverers
of Europe; if to have raised our own national
character, not upon the ruins of other kingdoms:
if to meet dangers without shrinking, and to pos-
sess courage rising with difficulties, be admirable,
surely we may not unreasonably hope for the ap-
plause of the world. If we have founded our
strength upon a rock, and possess the implicit
confidence of those allies we have succoured when
they seemed beyond relief, then, I say, that our
exertions during the last year, all our efforts during
the war, are cheaply purchased. If we have
burdened ourselves, we have relieved others, and
we have the inward, the soul-felt, the proud sa-
tisfaction of knowing that a selfish charge is that
which, with the faintest shadow of justice, cannot
be brought against us. - *
[Mr. Canning then proceeded to applaud the
system of affording aid by bills of credit, which,
without danger to ourselves, mixed the credit of
this country with that of our allies. He also
stated his concurrence in the treaty with Sweden,
FOREIGN TREAT I ES. 437
to which last year he had objected, in consequence
of the provision regarding Norway. A majority
of both Houses had determined in its favour, and
he was satisfied with that vote. He also approved
of the continuance of the aid to that power. He
congratulated the House upon the accession of
Austria to the confederacy, whose aid was so ne-
cessary to its success. Next to his joy in voting
these supplies, would be the indignation he should
feel, if either of the three great powers were to
forsake the league, and make a separate treaty to
secure its own peculiar interests. He did not be-
lieve that there was the least reason to apprehend
such a defection ; for he was convinced that all
were now sensible, that the fate of each depended
upon the firm union of all, at the present crisis,
when the liberty of the world was the prize for
which they were contending.]—He concluded in
the following words:—
It has been often said, that the language of true
poetry is the language of universal nature; but I
believe, that the Empress of France was little
conscious when she made her speech to the senate
respecting her husband, that she was employing
almost the very words of our great epic poet,
who put them in the mouth of the first rebel and
usurper on record, who is speaking of the disap-
pointment of the followers whom he had se-
duced—
438 FOREIGN TRIE A TIES.
“Ah me! They little know
How dearly I abide that boast I made;
Under what torments inwardly I groan,
While they adore me on the throne of hell!”
Thus have I stated a few of the remarks which
press upon me in the present posture of affairs.
I ardently hope that the result will be a gene-
ral pacification, in which the interests of the
civilized world will be duly consulted: if it should
be necessary to continue hostilities, may we con-
tend, as we have fought, during the last campaign,
with matchless strength, arising from the firmness
of the indissoluble union of the allies, whose
cause is, and whose exertions ought to be one.
May Great Britain still maintain that dignity
of station, and support that grandeur and libe-
rality of design, upon which she has hitherto
acted 1 May she continue the unoppressive guar-
dian of the liberties that she has vindicated, and
the disinterested protectress of the blessings that
she has bestowed
The motion was agreed to.
( 439 )
SEDITIOUs MEETINGs BILL
FEBRUARY 24th, 1817.
THE order of the day having been read for taking into
consideration the Report of the Committee of Secrecy;
LoRD CASTLEREAGH moved, “That leave be given to
bring in a Bill for the more effectually preventing Seditious
Meetings and Assemblies.”
MR. CANNING rose and said :
It has often been remarked, Sir, that no creed
is so extravagant as the creed of unbelief; that
those who are the most incredulous themselves
are apt to draw most largely on the credulity of
others: but never in my life have I seen this so
strongly exemplified as in the present debate, by
the argument of some of the honourable gentle-
men opposite. They utterly disbelieve all that
has been reported to the House, by the Secret
Committee—a Committee comprehending friends
of their own, who were unanimous in giving their
sanction to that Report; and they call upon the
House, instead of placing credit in the Report so
framed, and so sanctioned, to adopt the extrava-
44() SEL) [TIO US MIEETINGS B I LL.
gant fiction—that all the matter of the Report was
a plot invented by Ministers.
The object of this ingenious and diabolical in-
vention, it seems, was to defeat the efforts of the
mighty phalanx which is combined to investigate
our conduct, and drive us from our seats. . And
for this purpose we have, it is supposed, gone
through the following elaborate but compendious
system of operations. We have first devised or
resuscitated a set of extravagant and pernicious
principles, hostile alike to the peace of nations,
and to the welfare of mankind, which we have
caused to be circulated throughout the country,
and particularly throughout the distressed and
suffering parts of it. We have next selected a
certain number of desperate, but trustworthy in-
cendiaries to act upon these principles, to the full
extent of direct physical resistance and rebellion
—risking their own lives, but keeping our counsel
all the time. Next, so secure have we felt in the
framing and jointing of our conspiracy against
ourselves—so confident that nothing would ap-
pear that should betray the secret of its fabrica-
tion—that we have ventured to submit it to the
inspection of a Secret Committee, composed, aS
I have stated, and as we all know that Committee
to have been : and so entirely has the event jus-
tified our confidence, that we have been enabled
to procure a Report—an unanimous Report from
that Committee, affirming the existence of the
SEDITIO US M E. ETINGS B I LL. 44 l
plot, but without a hint at the suspiciousness of
its origin. Why, Sir, all this sounds very foolish:
and it is so. But it is the creed, real or pre-
tended, of those who say that the plot is the plot
of Ministers: and it is, as I have said, the ordi-
nary course of those who hardly deny what,
according to all fair rules of evidence, they cannot
avoid believing, to take refuge in some extra-
vagant hypothesis, by which the most implicit
credulity would be staggered.
But there is another sense in which the Govern-
ment are held responsible for the plot, and another
charge which we are required to answer. It is
said to be very extraordinary that, as appears
from the Report of the Committee, Government
had information of some of the proceedings which
are the subject of it, in the month of November—
and that yet, notwithstanding this information, they
advised the Prince Regent to prorogue the Par-
liament till January. What is there extraordinary
in this? Though certain circumstances connected
with the subject of the Report, had come to the
knowledge of Ministers in the month of November,
yet does it appear that at that period, the designs
of the conspirators wore that alarming aspect
which they assumed in subsequent stages 2 Does
it appear on the face of the Report, that up to the
first, or even the second meeting at Spa-fields,
Ministers had reason to believe that those who
442 SED IT I O US MI E. ET IN G. S B I L I,
took the most prominent part at those meetings,
were engaged in a plan for the subversion of the
state 7 For aught that was then brought to the
knowledge of Government, the real plotters and
leaders of the conspiracy might then have been
as little prepared to attempt an insurrection, as
that unhappy man whose petition has this day
been laid on the table (Mr. Hunt), and who, it
should seem, mounted the temporary rostrum pre-
pared for him, in the innocence and vanity of his
heart; and, only intending to make a splash, un-
consciously forwarded the views of rebellion.
The members of the Government, like every
other individual in the nation, could not but know
that a very strong and alarming inquietude and
agitation had been excited in the metropolis and
throughout the country. They knew that in a
time of public distress certain classes of the
people were liable to be operated upon by de-
signing men, in a way likely to lead to much
practical mischief, and to the misery and ruin of
those who were led astray. They knew these
things; but with such knowledge, would it have
been wise to call the members of this and the
other House of Parliament (composing so consi-
derable a part of the resident gentry of the
country), from their homes, where it might rea-
sonably be hoped that their presence would tend
most effectually to check the practices of the dis-
SE DITIO U S M EET IN C S B I LL. 443
affected, and to watch over and alleviate the dis-
tresses of the suffering and honest classes of the
community?
Undoubtedly, even after affairs began to as-
sume a more serious aspect—after information
had been received by the Government, which
cast back upon the meetings in Spa-fields a
deeper shade of criminality than had been origi-
nally supposed to belong to them—there was a
great reluctance on the part of Ministers to bring
the matter under the cognizance of Parliament;
at least until it had been ascertained whether the
existing laws were strong enough to meet the
mischief. I am indeed surprised that there should
be a disposition to attribute to us as a crime this
reluctance to come to Parliament for extraor-
dinary powers. When it was seen that bad men
were labouring to graft sedition on distress, to
stimulate want to rebellion, and to make public
calamity subservient to proceedings dangerous to
the state—to come to Parliament for extraor-
dinary powers was our duty—a painful duty,
though an indispensable one; but we take no
blame to ourselves for having waited, in the first
instance, a reasonable time, till other means for
averting the evil had been tried and found in-
sufficient. -
The honourable gentlemen, indeed, object even
now to our taking into consideration the propo-
sitions which are brought before us, till it shall
444 SEIDITIO U S MIE ET IN GS BILL.
have been first solemnly decided by the House
that the laws already in force are not equal to the
circumstances of the times. Surely, Sir, this
would be to interpose unnecessary delay in our
proceedings. The House will practically decide
on that question this night, in deciding on my
noble friend's (Lord Castlereagh) motion. If the
House are of opinion that the present laws are
sufficient, of course they will reject the motion,
and thus declare new ones to be unnecessary. I
see no advantage in submitting to the House an
abstract Resolution that the laws now in force
are inadequate to the suppression of the present
mischief. The proposal of new laws shows this
to be the opinion of the Government—the Report
upon your table pronounces it as the opinion of
your Committee. Those who hold the opposite
opinion, will of course mark their dissent from
the Committee, and their distrust of the Govern-
ment, by voting against the present motion.
One honourable gentleman, while he objects
to the measures proposed for meeting the danger,
does not go so far as some others have done—to
deny the existence of the danger itself; but he is
very angry with the Report for not defining the
extent of it. But the honourable gentleman has
fallen into a similar error: for, admitting, as he
does, the danger to be great, I watched in vain
through the whole course of his speech, to hear
him set limits to its magnitude, and define that
SEDITIOU S M EFT IN GS BILL. 445
line of demarcation which separates his own
opinions from those of his friends in the Com-
mittee.—What is the nature of this danger? Why,
Sir, the danger to be apprehended is not to be
defined in one word. It is rebellion ; but not
rebellion only : it is treason; but not treason
merely: it is confiscation; but not confiscation
within such bounds as have been usually applied
to it in the changes of dynasties, or the revolu-
tions of states;–it is an aggregate of all these
evils; it is all that dreadful variety of sorrow and
of suffering which must follow the extinction of
loyalty, morality, and religion; which must follow
upon the accomplishment of designs, tending not
only to subvert the Constitution of England, but
to overthrow the whole frame of society. Such is
the nature and extent of the danger which would
attend the success of the projects developed in the
Report of the Committee.
But these projects are said to be visionary;
they would never have been of importance, it is
affirmed, had they not been brought into notice
by persecution. Persecution l—Does this cha-
racter belong to the proceedings instituted against
those who had set out on their career in opposi-
tion to all law ; and who, in their secret cabals,
and midnight counsels, and mid-day harangues,
have been noting for destruction every individual,
and every class of individuals, which may stand
in their way ? But the schemes of these persons
446 SEI) IT IOU S M E ETINGS BILL.
are visionary. I admit it. They have lain by
these twenty years, without being found to pro-
duce mischief. Be it so. The doctrines, when
dormant, may be harmless enough, and their in-
trinsic absurdity may make it appear incredible
that they should ever be called up into action.
But when this incredible resurrection actually
takes place, when the votaries of these doctrines
actually go forth armed, to exert physical strength
in furtherance of them, then it is that I think it
time to be on my guard, not against the accom-
plishment of their plans (that is, I am willing to
believe, impracticable), but against the mischiefs
which must attend the attempt to accomplish
them by force. -
I do not impute to the Spenceans that they
really wish to partition the whole property of the
kingdom; that they would carry into effect their
scheme for an agrarian division of land. No, but
I sincerely believe (and all history teaches that
the opinion is not unfounded), that they would
labour hard to accomplish the spoliation of its
present possessors. In Rome, schemes of agra-
rian division were often brought forward, and
always found partisans. No man ever appre-
hended from them an actual division of all landed
estates; but every man knew and saw that they
furnished matter for seditions, which shook the
security of the state and the liberties of the
people to their foundation.
SE DITIO U S M IEET IN GS B II, L. 447
As to the wild theories of Parliamentary Reform,
propagated with so much industry throughout the
country, I am relieved from the necessity of any
laborious argument by the unexpected and almost
unqualified concurrence of some of those who are
opposed to me in this debate. They have de-
clared their opinion, that if those plans were car-
ried into effect, they must lead to confusion and
ruin. I need only ask, therefore, is there nothing
alarming in plans which gentlemen, who make it
their boast to be so exclusively friendly to the
liberties of the people, think likely to be as ruinous
if they are reduced to practice, as they are absurd
in theory ! Does such a danger require no vigi-
lance—justify no apprehension—call for no exer-
tion on the part of the legislative authorities of
the state—to meet and put down, not the opinions
themselves (an old and idle fallacy), but the
practical assertion of those opinions. It is to
check evils so alarming—it is in mercy to those
who are engaged in such designs, that the mea-
sures now called for are required—in the hope
that they may cut short the mischief in its career,
recall the wavering, restrain the half-resolved, and
avert, even in the case of the guilty deluders
themselves, the necessity of having recourse to
the last extremity of punishment.
It is not desired of the House that it should
enable Ministers to wield at their pleasure an un-
constitutional authority—an authority with which
448 SE DITIOU S M EETING S B I LL.
any man who could wish wantonly to possess it,
must be utterly unworthy to be entrusted. The
Executive Government do not ask for these addi-
tional powers as a boon (God knows they are no
object of desire); but for the due discharge of an
embarrassing and distressing duty, we feel bound
to receive them as a trust—to support them as a
burthen, which we shall most unwillingly carry,
and shall most gladly lay down. We ask them—
we will accept them—only for the conservation of
the public safety. At our own suggestion the
duration of the most onerous and delicate part of
this trust, is to be limited to a period during
which it will be exercised under the immediate
observation of Parliament. Does this look as if
our application had in view any object which we
fear to describe 2
It has been asserted, however, that Ministers
call for these powers, the better to enable them
to make war against the people. We repel the
accusation with disdain. We ask them for the
people—for the protection of that sound and
sober majority of the nation, for that bulk and
body of the community, which are truly and legi-
timately the people. How few, how very few,
among the millions that make up that aggregate,
will ever be subject to the operation of these
laws But these laws are nevertheless neces-
sary (in our consciences we believe them to be
so), to protect the many against the few, who fail
SEDITIOUS MEETINGs BILL. 449
not to make up in violence what they want in
numbers.
For let us not be imposed upon, Sir, by the
trite and futile argument that our would-be re-
formers and revolutionists are but few in number.
This may be, and it will be, a consolation when
the attempt shall have been suppressed; but it is
no security against its success, if we omit to take
vigorous measures for its suppression. Experience
is all the other way. When was a revolution
effected in any state but by an active and enter-
prising minority ? If ancient times were barren
of examples, has not the history of the last five
and twenty years sufficiently proved that the dis-
affected are not to be despised because their
number is not preponderating Can it be for-
gotten how frequently, in the course of the French
Revolution, the world has seen sanguinary mino-
rities riding in blood over the necks of their pros-
trate countrymen :
As little should we lay to our souls the flattering
hope that the bare absurdity—the monstrousness
of any doctrine is a sufficient security against the
attempt to reduce it into practice. The same
French Revolution, in which the blood-stained
few were seen triumphant over the subdued and
trembling many, exhibits abundant instances of
absurd and incredible theories, reduced into tre-
mendous practice. When Atheism was professed
in France as a faith, when it was declared by the
VOL. III. G. G. .
450 SEDITIOUS M EETING. S BILL.
National Assembly that “ death was an eternal
sleep,” who believed that such impious absurdity
could flourish 7 Who would not have held up his
hands in astonishment at the folly which feared
that the professors of such opinions could make
proselytes? But what followed Proselytes were
made, and a great nation, robbed of its religion
and its morality, was thus stripped of the armour
and of the shield which might have protected her
from anarchy and desolation. The “sovereignty
of the people” was preached up not as a doctrine
of abstract theory only, but as a principle and
ground of practical political experiment. Wise
and experienced men smiled at the gross delu-
sion. They apprehended little from the attempt
to act upon it. But again, what followed ? On
behalf of the “sovereign people,” and in their
name, France saw the whole of the upper orders
of society swept from the face of the earth; that
earth deluged with the best blood of the nation,
and crimes followed by crimes, in a long train of
horrors, which ended at last in an overwhelming
but comparatively salutary despotism.
But still, it seems, there is no great danger in
our case; for our philosophers want influence,
and our desperate revolutionists want leaders:
nothing has yet appeared among them but what
is insignificant and obscure. Let us not rely too
confidently on this ground of security. First of
all, names will be used—names are used—without
SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 451
the consent of their owners, to give to the mass
of the disaffected the confidence which arises
from believing themselves to be highly coun-
tenanced and ably led. Next, although we do
not know that any man now exists who has deli-
berately taken the resolution, to come forward
and place himself at the head of the conspirators,
we must remember that circumstances make men.
Is it to be believed that Robespierre had from
infancy contemplated the bad eminence to which
he attained Assuredly, no. A disposition, so
fiend-like never came from the hands of nature;
or if the principle of it were implanted in the
heart, the circumstances of the time alone could
have fostered and stimulated it into action.
Robespierre grew from crime to crime, and be-
came gradually familiarized with blood. He
learned lessons of atrocity from companions over
whom his superior energy enabled him to gain
ascendancy and controul. And thus it always is,
that bad men reciprocally corrupt each other, till
the aggregate of wickedness to which their minds
are finally made up, is such as would, at the
first moment of their outset, have startled the
fiercest spirit and the hardiest imagination among
them. -
I do not say, therefore, that any man now
exists, formed, and trained, and disciplined, to
take the lead in the mischievous and malignant
plans which are in agitation; but I do say that
G G 2 t
452 S EDITIO U S M EETINGS B I [, I.,
the training by which such men are to be formed,
is in progress, and is well adapted to its end.
The first object is to eradicate all sense of re-
ligion. Respect for religion once eradicated,—
the name of God once erased from the human
heart, it is easy to pour into a heart so void, a
spirit of hatred towards its fellow creatures. That
this operation is diligently carrying on, will not
be doubted by any man who has read but a tenth
part of the publications circulated in all parts of
the country with a devilish zeal, for the destruc-
tion of that religious belief which is the best guard
of all human virtue, the best consolation of all
human misery. These publications meet the eye
in all quarters, wherever there is distress to be
aggravated, or discontent to be inflamed. In the
nightly councils of the disaffected the discussions
upon political subjects are interspersed with di-
gressions into impiety; the overthrow of the state
being settled, that of the religious establishments
of the country is next taken into consideration;
and the sportive relaxation of rebellion is in
blasphemy. *
If then, the Government demands extraordinary
powers, I ask, on the other hand, are these or are
they not, extraordinary times? Have we, has
England, ever seen the like before ? We have
had our share, in this country, of every species of
political dissension; disputed titles to the crown;
disputed rights in the people; invasions; rebel-
SEDITIO US MEETINGS BILL. 453
lions; the struggles of rival dynasties; and civil
wars both of politics and of religion. But in all
our varieties of agitation and convulsion, were we
ever exposed to such pests as these of the present
day? In our civil wars, there was enough of
violence and of blood. But principle was opposed
to principle, and honest and upright men might
be found on either side. Republicanism was op-
posed to monarchy, and monarchy was overthrown.
But the overthrow of monarchy was not effected
for the sake of throwing all government into con-
fusion: they destroyed not in those days for the
sake of destruction alone. In religion, indepen-
dency was opposed to episcopacy, and indepen-
dency triumphed. But it was still for some form
of religion that the contest was carried on : it was
not for the destruction of all religious principle ; it
was not the opposition of mere negation, to God.
It was left for the reformers of modern times to
endeavour to strip the mind of all reverence for
the Deity, in order to prepare the man to become a
mere instrument of ruin, a remorseless agent of evil.
The discipline I have said, is well suited to its
purposes; it is our business to take care that the
purposes themselves shall not be fulfilled.
Sir, the same sense of duty which has now
caused Ministers to apply for these bills, would
cause them to apply to Parliament for still
greater powers, if they should become necessary;,
but those which we have asked, we are satisfied
454 SEDITIOUS MIEETINGS BILL.
will prove sufficient, because we are satisfied that
it is only necessary to check the progress of the
disaffected for a season, in order that the sound
part of the nation may have opportunity to
recover and to array themselves, that the first
passive impressions of alarm may be converted
into determined confidence, and zealous action.
The nation is sound at heart: and when once
apprized of the nature of the danger, and secure
in the vigilance of the Government, we can have
no doubt but they will co-operate with the Govern-
ment, and that such co-operation will be effectual
for the safety of the state, and for the preservation
of all that they hold dear.
Two of the four proposed laws are almost
generally approved. The third is not wholly
objected to, though gentlemen reserve to them-
selves the right of criticising it in its passage
through the House. It is only the fourth—the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus—that incurs the
unqualified disapprobation of some of the honour-
able gentlemen on the other side of the House.
The Committee has declared, that the ordinary
powers given to the Executive Government by
the constitution, are not sufficient for the crisis.
If new powers are denied to them, Ministers will
be left to combat with comparatively less effect,
the growing boldness of sedition, encouraged and
inflamed by the rejection of these propositions.
It is the joint obligation of Ministers and of Par-
SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 455
liament to preserve the constitution. Ministers
have done all that it was for them to do: what
remains is in the hands of this House; and it is
for the House to say, whether or not the con-
stitution shall be guarded by those new outworks
which the perils of the times have rendered
necessary, against the assaults of furious and
desperate men; whether that system of law and
liberty, under which England has so long flou-
rished in happiness and glory, in internal tran-
quillity, and external grandeur, shall be sacrificed
or saved.
The House divided—
Ayes - - - - 190
Noes - - - - - 14
Majority for it - - 176
M. R. H OR, N E R.
MARCH 3rd, 1817.
LoRD MoRPETH moved for a new Writ for St. Mawes,
in the room of Mr. Horner.
MR. CANNING.—Of all the instances, wherein
the same course has been adopted as that which
my noble friend (Lord Morpeth) has pursued with
so much feeling and good taste on this occasion,
456 M. R. H. O RN ER.
I do not remember one more likely than the pre-
sent, to conciliate the general approbation and sym-
pathy of this House. I, Sir, had not the happiness
(a happiness now counterbalanced by a proportion-
ate excess of sorrow and regret) to be acquainted
personally, in private life, with the distinguished and
amiable individual whose loss we have to deplore.
I knew him only within the walls of the House of
Commons. And even here, from the circumstances
of my absence during the last two sessions, I had
not the good fortune to witness the later and more
matured exhibition of his talents; which (as I am
informed, and can well believe) at once kept the
promise of his earlier years, and opened still wider
expectations of future excellence. But I had seen
enough of him to share in those expectations; and
to be sensible of what this House and the country
have lost by his being so prematurely taken from
us. He had, indeed, qualifications eminently cal-
culated to obtain and to deserve success. His
sound principles, his enlarged views, his various
and accurate knowledge, the even tenour of his
manly and temperate eloquence, the genuineness
of his warmth, when into warmth he was be-
trayed, and, above all, the singular modesty with
which he bore his faculties, and which shed a
grace and lustre over them all; these qualifications,
added to the known blamelessness and purity of
his private character, did not more endear him to
his friends, than they commanded the respect of
M R. H ORNER. 457
those to whom he was opposed in adverse politics;
they ensured to every effort of his abilities an at-
tentive and favouring audience; and secured for
him, as the result of all, a solid and unenvied
reputation.—I cannot conclude, Sir, without ad-
verting to a topic in the latter part of the speech
of my noble friend, upon which I most entirely
concur with him. It would not be seemly to mix
with the mournful subject of our present contem-
plation any thing of a controversial nature. But
when, for the second time within a short course of
years, the name of an obscure borough is brought
before us, as vacated by the loss of conspicuous
talents and character,” it may be permitted to me,
with my avowed and notorious opinions on the
subject of our parliamentary constitution, to state,
without offence, that it is at least some consola-
tion for the imputed theoretical defects of that
constitution, that in practice it works so well. A
system of representation cannot be wholly vicious,
and altogether inadequate to its purposes, which
sends to this House a succession of such men as
those whom we have now in our remembrance,
here to develope the talents with which God has,
endowed them, and to attain that eminence in the
view of their country, from which they may be
one day called to aid her counsels, and to sustain
her greatness and her glory.
* Mr. Windham, who represented St. Mawes in 1806, died mem-
ber for Higham Ferrers, in 1810.
(458 )
MR. CANNING’S EMBASSY TO LISBON.
MAY 6th, 1817.
MR. LAMBTon this day brought forward the motion of
which he had given notice, respecting Mr. Canning's Em-
bassy to Lisbon. In bringing forward this motion, he
disclaimed any intention of attack upon the right honour-
able gentleman (Mr. Canning), whose name was prominently
connected with the transactions to which it referred. It
was not the conduct of an individual that he arraigned;
but the charge which he had to prefer was against His
Majesty's Ministers of delinquency, by which, in his
opinion, they had subjected themselves to an impeachment
(if that was not an obsolete proceeding), on a charge of a
criminal misapplication of the public money for the most
corrupt private purposes. This was not the first time when
this transaction had been made the subject of discussion.
Both within and without those walls it had been regarded as
a measure resorted to, purely for the purpose of supplying
the weakness of the members of Government, by calling to
their assistance the talents of the right honourable gentle-
man (Mr. C.), talents too useful indeed to languish in ob-
scurity. It had every where been asserted, that there were
no public grounds for sending an Ambassador to Lisbon after
the conclusion of the Peninsular War; that it was a dis-
graceful waste of public money, and solely to be attributed
to the lowest species of political barter and intrigue. The
papers which had been laid upon the table of the Housefully
proved that the mission to Lisbon was undertaken with no
EMI BASSY TO LIS BON. 459
prospect of advantage to the interests of this country in its
political or commercial relations, but with a view solely to
the political, and he might almost say, commercial, advan-
tages of the Ministers themselves; and that for these sinister
objects they consented to add to the burthens of the people,
already groaning under the weight of an insupportable
taxation.
The statement of the case was this:–In July, 1814, a
negociation was entered into by the Ministers for the pur-
pose of obtaining the co-operation of the right honourable
gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning) and his friends in both
Houses. On the 29th of June that negociation was brought
to a successful issue, Mr. Canning being appointed Am-
bassador to Lisbon, Mr. Huskisson Surveyor-General of
Woods and Forests, and Mr. Wellesley Pole Master of the
Mint. On the 30th of July, the member for Liverpool
moved for a new writ in the room of his friend, Mr. Hus-
kisson, on the appointment of that gentleman. The mo-
tives assigned for the appointment of an Ambassador to
Lisbon had been two despatches from Lord Strangford, the
Minister at the court of Brazil to Wiscount Castlereagh,
respecting the intention of the Prince Regent of Portugal
to return to Europe. The first of these despatches had
been received on the 24th of April, 1814, the second on
the 26th of August. As these were the only authorities on
which the measure rested, he should read them. The first
was in these words:— *.
“I should fail in my duty, did I not earnestly recom-
mend to the consideration of His Royal Highness's Govern-
ment, the speedy return to Europe of the Portuguese
Royal Family. The Prince's own feelings, and those of
every member of his family, are earnestly in favour of this
measure. Some degree of apprehension may, perhaps,
operate upon the mind of the Prince himself, to prevent
460 EMBASSY TO LIS BON.
him from coming forward as eagerly as the other individuals
of the royal family would wish; but this sentiment would
be easily removed, and His Royal Highness has explicitly
stated to me, that as soon as ever Great Britain declares
that his return to Portugal is necessary, he will accede to
any intimation to that effect.”
This, it would be observed, contained merely a declara-
tion of the line of policy which Lord Strangford had
thought fit to adopt. The next despatch was received on
the 26th of August, and was in these words:—
“The glorious events which have given peace and inde-
pendence to Europe, have revived in the mind of the Prince
of Brazil those eager desires to revisit his native country,
which had been for a time suppressed. His Royal High-
ness has lately done me the honour to state his anxious
hope that Great Britain will facilitate the completion of his
wishes upon this subject, and that he may return to Por-
tugal under the same protection as that under which he
left it. And His Royal Highness has, during the last
week, intimated to me four or five times, as well publicly
as privately, that in case Great Britain should send a squa-
dron of ships of war to this place, for the purpose of
escorting His Royal Highness to Europe, it would be par-
ticularly and personally gratifying to His Royal Highness
that should be selected for this service.”
The blank, he believed, had been filled up by the name
of Sir Sidney Smith. Now, on one or other of the des-
patches which he had read, the appointment of the Lisbon
Ambassador must have been founded, if it had any founda-
tion but the desire to find an appointment for the right
honourable gentleman. It was ascertained that, in the
interval between the 24th of April and the 26th of
August, no communication had been made from the Por-
tuguese Ambassador to our Government. An Address had
EMBASSY TO LISBON. 461
been voted for all the communications from the Portuguese
Ambassador respecting the return of the Prince Regent of
Portugal, and the answer was, that no written communica-
tion had been made. Indeed, he could prove at the bar
that not only had the Portuguese Minister made no com-
munication of the probability of the return of the Prince
of Brazil, but he had asserted that the Government had
quite misunderstood the intention of his master. The
appointment could not have been in consequence of the
despatch received in April, for it was on the 6th of June
that Mr. Sydenham was appointed; and on the 18th of
July, when the noble lord opposite had written to Mr.
Sydenham, telling him that he could not anticipate any
public grounds why he (Mr. S.) should not confine himself
within his ordinary allowances, he of course could have had
no contemplation of any such appointment. It was still more
impossible that the appointment could have been occasioned
by the despatch received on the 26th of August, for that
was a month after the appointment of the right honourable
gentleman had been announced to the public in the news-
papers. He supposed it would not be contended that the
appointment did not take place until it was formerly
announced in the Gazette—the evidentia rei, the previous
notoriety of the transaction, was a sufficient contradiction
of any such idea, and he did not think any of the Ministers
would stand forward in their places and assert, that the
appointment did not take place in July. But if the right
honourable gentleman had really been appointed for the
purpose of welcoming the Prince Regent on his return, by
what pretence could the appointment be justified in August,
when the fleet intended to convey the Prince of Brazil to
Europe did not sail till the 29th of October P It was
morally impossible, therefore, that His Royal Highness
462 EM BASSY TO LIS BON.
could have reached Europe till the month of May fol.
lowing.
He should now call the attention of the House to the
expenses of the missions:–On the 18th of July, 1814,
Lord Castlereagh had written a letter to Mr. Sydenham,
then the Minister at Lisbon, in which he stated that it was
the Prince Regent's pleasure that the expenses of the mis-
sion should be reduced to the lowest scale, and stating, that
he could not contemplate any reasons for continuing the
scale of expenditure which had been adopted during the
Peninsular War. He had been rather surprised to find this
economical disposition in any production of the noble
lord’s; but his surprise was of short duration, for only ten
days after Mr. Sydenham had been reduced to a salary of
£5,200 a year, the right honourable gentleman was ap-
pointed Ambassador Extraordinary with a salary of nearly
treble that amount. On the 31st of October, in the absence g
of the noble lord (Castlereagh) at the Congress, Lord
Bathurst wrote to Mr. Canning, then in England, to inform
him that he was to be allowed £14,200 a year, on the
same grounds on which Mr. Sydenham had been limited to
£5,200. Why such a change had taken place in the
allowance to the Minister, while no change had taken place
in the circumstances of the embassy, and when no chance
existed of the immediate return of the Prince of Brazil to
Europe, yet remained to be explained. The expense of
Sir Charles Stuart had been referred to, but that could
form no precedent for the expenditure of the right honour-
able gentleman. The whole of Sir Charles Stuart's ex-
penses were occasioned by the Peninsular War. He actually
held the reins of the Portuguese Government. He was a
member, he believed the sole efficient member, of the
Regency, and was forced to incur the whole of his large
FM BASSY TO LI SB O N. 463
expenditure, to discharge the high official duties of his
situation. But the case was very different when the war
had ceased, and when the Ambassador was no longer a
member of the Portuguese Government. On the 30th of
May, 1815, the right honourable gentleman had found out
a reason for this increased scale of allowance. In a letter
to the noble lord (Castlereagh) of that date, he stated,
that “the rank of ambassador, which could make no prac-
tical difference in expenses, of which the salary (whether
as ambassador or as envoy) supplied only a part, was poli-
tically important, as counterbalancing the positive loss of
rank and influence, which would otherwise have been occa-
sioned by the British Minister's being no longer a member
of the Regency.” The right honourable gentleman had
by that time forgotten the letter of Lord Castlereagh, in
which Mr. Sydenham was directed to reduce his expenses
to the lowest scale. He seemed to have taken a former
suggestion of his noble friend—to have “two strings to
his bow”—for when he was forced to acknowledge that the
object of his mission had ceased, as there was no proba-
bility of the Prince of Brazil's return to Europe, he con-
trived to discover that it was essential to the political
welfare of England that his salary should be continued;
he discovered, in short, that as Sir Charles Stuart had a
large allowance, because he was a member of the Regency,
so he (the right honourable gentleman) ought to have a
large allowance, because he was not a member of the
Regency. The rest of this letter of the right honourable
gentleman's was unimportant, except as it displayed talents
for finance, which, although in this instance elicited for his
own advantage, it was to be hoped he would henceforward
contribute to the public service, and in support of his friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in this season of financial
difficulty.
464 E M BASSY TO LIS BON.
From all these documents it was evident, that the plain
and almost avowed purpose of the mission was, to procure
a place for the right honourable gentleman. He was there-
fore sent, with a salary of £14,000 a-year to a capital where
there was no court, and to which, even while it had a court,
no ambassador had been sent for almost a century. He
superseded a deserving servant of the public acting there,
as envoy with a salary of £5,000 a year. He said, super-
seded designedly, for Mr. Sydenham's intention of resign-
ing was not known to Ministers when they made Mr.
Canning's appointment, and when he had amassed a suffi-
cient sum, or when a place was provided for him, or when
the job became too glaring and called forth the public
censure, he left the important business of the Lisbon mission
under the sole guidance of a chargé d'affaires; and during
the whole of this mission, the only duty performed by him
was a speech to the factory. The defenders of this mission
had talked of the efforts which the right honourable gentle-
man had made to complete the abolition of the Slave Trade;
and one of his friends, on a former occasion, had said,
“ that if there was the least chance that the abolition of
the Slave Trade would be accelerated by this measure, the
opposers of the appointment of the right honourable gentle-
man should pause before they called on the country to pro-
nounce it a gross and scandalous job.” He could prove,
however, that since the appointment of the right honour-
able gentleman, the trade of Portugal in human flesh had
increased instead of decreasing; and that not one single
favourable declaration was procured from the Portuguese
Government by the efforts of the Ambassador.
Under all these considerations, he called on the House
to come to a decision on the merits of the case. He had
now to put to the test the sincerity of the professions of the
House, of economy and vigilance over the extravagant
EMBASS Y TO LIS BON . 465
conduct of Ministers. He showed them a case in which the
public money had been most culpably and disgracefully
Squandered;—no sort of necessity had been shown in the
papers which the Government had submitted as their justi-
fication; on the contrary, every document tended to prove
most clearly that in no one instance had they more abused
the confidence reposed in them by Parliament than in the
present. If, in these times of distress and discontent, it
was important for the House to acquire a reputation for
strict public virtue, and incorruptibility, they would mark
their sense of this proceeding, and show the people that
they still retained within themselves the means of satisfying
their just claims, and of protecting them against the culp-
able and profligate extravagance of Ministers. He should
move the following Resolutions:
1. “That it appears to this House, that on the 18th of
July 1814, Lord Wiscount Castlereagh addressed an official
despatch to Thomas Sydenham, Esq. then His Majesty's
Minister at Lisbon, acquainting him that it was the com-
mand of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, that
during his residence at the Court of Portugal, he should
confine his personal expenses within his ordinary allowances
as Envoy Extraordinary and Ministry Plenipotentiary, viz.
£5,200 per annum ; that he had directed Mr. Casamajor
to lose no time in removing the mission from the house of
the Marquis de Pombal, and that he could not anticipate
any public grounds for continuing the expenditure of His
Majesty's servants at Lisbon on the scale on which it had
been conducted during the war in the Peninsula.
2. “That it appears that under the pretence of congra-
tulating the Prince of Brazil, on his return to his native
dominions, the Right Honourable George Canning was ap-
pointed Ambassador Extraordinary to the court of Lisbon,
with the increased emoluments and allowances belonging
VOL. III. H. H.
466 F.M.B.A. S.SY TO LI SB O N.
to that character, viz. £8,200 as salary, £6,000 as extra-
ordinaries, 91,500 as outfit, and £3,180 as plate money,
amounting in the whole to the sum of eighteen thousand
eight hundred and eighty pounds.
3. “That such an appointment, on such a scale of ex-
pense, appears to this House inconsistent with the recorded
declaration in Lord Castlereagh’s despatch to Mr. Syden-
ham, of the 18th of July 1814; was uncalled for by any
change in the circumstances of the mission subsequent to
Mr. Sydenham's appointment; and has been attended
with an unnecessary and unjustifiable waste of the public
money.”
After the speech of Admiral Sir John Beresford, there
was a considerable pause in the House,_Sir Francis Bur-
dett alone having spoken in support of Mr. Lambton’s
Motion. At length, no other Member offering himself,
and the Question being about to be put from the chair,
MR. CANNING rose, and spoke nearly as follows:—
SIR,-Upon a question which, however dis-
guised in form, I cannot but feel in common
with every Member who hears me—in com-
mon with the honourable mover of the Reso-
lutions, and in common with the honourable
baronet, who has fairly stated the real object in
view,--to be an attack directed against me indi-
vidually, I trust I shall not be considered as
having shown any blameable reluctance in pausing
before I offered myself to the attention of the
House. Sir, I could not bring myself to believe,
that, in the two speeches of the honourable
E M BASSY TO LIS B O N. 467
mover, and the honourable baronet, I had heard
the whole of what is to be alleged against me;
and yet I must suppose that, if others intended
to add their weight to the accusation, I must sup-
pose that, in a case in which every thing that is
dear to man, in character, in reputation, and in
honour, is at stake, they would have had the fair-
ness to give to the accused an advantage which is
not withholden from the meanest criminal,—that of
hearing the whole indictment to which he is to plead.
If, after a year of menace, and after three
months of preparation, from amidst all the array
which I see opposed to me, these” are my only
accusers; if the speeches which I have heard,
contain the whole of the charges which are to be
urged against me; charges, which those who
bring them forward, state to be directed to no
other object than the public weal,—but which I
know, and which they know, to be intended to
disqualify me for ever from serving the public
with credit to myself or with advantage to the
state ; if this be all,—it falls, indeed, far short of
the expectations excited by such mighty menace
and by such deliberate preparation ? But, Sir, if
this is not all,—if there are gentlemen, who hold
themselves in readiness to aggravate the matter
preferred against me, whose speeches, prepared
for the occasion and now throbbing in their
breasts, are reserved till I shall be disabled from
* Mr. Lambton and Sir Francis Burdett.
H H 2
468 I.M BASS Y TO I, ISBON.
answering them,-from such I appeal to the can-
dour of the House and of the world; declaring, and
desiring it to be understood, both within and with-
out the walls of this House, that if I do not refute
what they may hereafter advance against me, it
will be only because I am precluded by the forms
of the House from speaking a second time (cries
of No, no). Oh, Sir, I am not to be told that the
motion consists of a string of Resolutions—that
each Resolution is a separate question—and that
upon each separate question I may speak :—but
neither are my accusers to be told that this is
technical nonsense : —that the effective debate
must take place upon the first Resolution,-and
that the question upon that Resolution once put
to the vote, I should be heard upon those which
follow, to very little purpose indeed.
I agree with the honourable baronet, that I
have often deplored and deprecated; and, in
spite of the honourable baronet's warning, I shall
continue (not for myself but for the public good) to
deprecate and to deplore—the practice of calum-
niating public men on either side of this House,
by imputing to them motives of action, the insi-
nuation of which would not be tolerated in the
intercourse of private life. If, indeed, I shall be
found to have forfeited all claim to the confidence
of the House, the honourable baronet needs not
fear that I shall again offend him by such unplea-
sant animadversions. But if on the other hand,
F. M. B.A. SS Y 'I'O L T S BON. 469
I shall be fortunate enough to make plain to
others, that which I myself confidently feel—my
perfect clearness from any of the imputations
attempted to be thrown upon me—the honourable
baronet may depend upon hearing from me here-
after the same language which I have used here-
tofore on this, and on other subjects still more
disagreeable to the honourable baronet and his
followers.
Sir, the charge which the honourable gentle-
man’s Resolutions involve, is this, That the Go-
vernment, being perfectly aware that the Prince
Regent of Portugal had no intention of returning
to Europe, pretended a belief in such intention,
for the express purpose of corruptly offering that
mission which I corruptly accepted. It is true,
that a distinction is most disingenuously affected
to be drawn between the Government and me, of
which it is hardly necessary to say, that I disdain
to take advantage. It is pretended, that a charge
is brought forward only against the Government
for making the offer, but that I might have ac-
cepted that offer, if not altogether without blame,
at least without absolute criminality. Sir, I dis-
claim this insidious distinction. I will allow no
such exception in my favour. As my noble
friend has claimed that my case shall be consi-
dered as that of the Government; so do I declare
on my part, that the case of the Government is
II].11162,
470 E M BASS Y TO LI SHO N.
The first head of charge, therefore, against the
Government and myself is, that there was no
belief on the part of the Government, or on mine,
that the Prince Regent of Portugal intended to
return to Europe: the second is, that the Mission
sent to receive and congratulate the Prince Regent
on his return was on a scale of unnecessary, un-
exampled, profligate prodigality. To both these
issues, distinctly, I mean to plead. All that I
require of those who are to judge me is, that they
will keep these two issues separate in their minds;
that they will not confound them, as has been in-
dustriously done in the speeches of the honour-
able gentleman and the honourable baronet. If a
fraud were purposed—if the Government did not
believe in the return of the Royal Family of Por-
tugal—there is crime enough for an impeachment,
if you will, without entering into the question of
expense. In that case the expense of one far-
thing was too much. But if, on the contrary, the
Government was sincere in its belief of the occa-
sion for the appointment when they made it,-
and I, when I accepted it, then the question of
expense is indeed a fair subject of parliamentary
jealousy (I am far from denying that it is so); but
the amount of that expense must be estimated,
with reference to its object, and not upon the
unfair and fallacious assumption that there was
no occasion for any expense at all.
EMIB A SSY 'I'O LIS BON. 47 I
As to the first point, if I were pleading for
myself alone, all that it would be necessary for
me to do, would be to refer to one only of the
papers before the House :—the extract of Lord
Strangford's despatch to Lord Castlereagh, dated
Rio de Janeiro, June 21st, 1814. It is in these
words:—
“The glorious events which have given peace and inde-
pendence to Europe, have revived in the mind of the Prince
of Brazil those eager desires to revisit his native country,
which had been for a time suppressed.
“His Royal Highness has done me the honour to state
his anxious hope that Great Britain will facilitate the com-
pletion of his wishes upon this subject; and that he may
return to Portugal under the same protection as that under
which he left it.”
The despatch, of which this is an extract, was,
in fact, the only one upon the subject that I hap-
pened to see before I went to Portugal. -
Before I proceed further, I must here vindicate
my noble friend the Secretary of State for the
Foreign Department, from the allegation of the
honourable gentleman, that my noble friend
studiously delayed, or wilfully confounded, the
papers moved for by the honourable gentleman
or his friends. The honourable gentleman accuses
my noble friend of having produced a despatch,
addressed to me by Lord Bathurst (No. 2, of the
papers first presented to Parliament), instead of
472 E M BASS Y TO LIS BON .
the despatch of my noble friend to Mr. Syden-
ham of the 18th of July—well knowing that this
latter was the paper really moved for. Now, Sir,
I cannot pretend to say in what terms the motion
of the honourable gentleman was conceived : I
was not in the House (so far as I know) when he
made it. The first knowledge that I had of it
was from a note of my noble friend, inclosing a
copy of the despatch addressed to me by Lord
Bathurst; informing me that this despatch was to
be laid before the House of Commons; and de-
siring to know, whether there were any papers
which I might wish to be produced in order to
meet the charge, whatever it might be, which
appeared, by the call for this despatch, to be
meditated against me. This was a courtesy which
my noble friend, or any Minister, would have
equally shown to any other individual menaced
with a parliamentary attack; and I only men-
tion it, as affording a strong proof of the sincerity
of my noble friend's belief that the paper first pro-
duced was that which had been moved for by the
honourable gentleman. Lord Strangford's de-
spatch being (as I have said) the only document
that I happened ever to have seen, relating to the
Prince Regent of Portugal’s return, it was the
only one that occurred to me as at all necessary
to illustrate that matter. It was the only one
therefore, of which, with that view, I sug-
EMI B A SSY TO LIS BON. 473
gested the production ; and, upon looking it over
—as I was extremely desirous to bring forward
nothing but what was absolutely necessary—I
thought the two or three sentences, which are
given in the first set of papers presented to the
House, amply sufficient. I knew, indeed, that
the Prince Regent of Portugal's intention of re-
turning to Europe had been questioned; but it
was not until after the production of these papers
that I had any suspicion that it was denied. The
honourable gentleman now professes that his in-
tention was to move, not for any despatch to me,
but for a despatch to Mr. Sydenham. It is to be
regretted, in that case, that the honourable gen-
tleman did not mention Mr. Sydenham's name in
his motion, which would have obviated any pos-
sibility of misapprehension. I am not without
my suspicions, indeed, that if in return to the
honourable gentleman's ambiguous motion my
noble friend had laid upon the table the despatch
to Mr. Sydenham, he would then have been ac-
cused of keeping back the despatch to me. In
truth, Sir, if the honourable gentlemen wanted
complete information, their obvious course was to
move for all despatches relating to the subject in
question, within a certain specified period. But
if their object was to feel their way, paper by
paper, in order that they might proceed or not,
according as the information obtained by their
successive motions should or should not corres-
474 EMBASS Y TO LIS BON.
pond with the prejudices which they had en-
deavoured to raise; why, then, Sir, perhaps they
had not gone far in this course of discovery before
they repented of having engaged in it.
But to return to the despatch of Lord Strang-
ford.—-The extract from that despatch which
I have just read, appeared to me quite sufficient
to establish the Prince Regent of Portugal's
intention.—I confess, indeed, that my belief in
that event rested on authority short even of this
extract. It rested on the authority of a private
letter from Lord Liverpool, received by me on the
28th August, at a considerable distance from Lon-
don; which,--though it is not pleasant to quote
in public discussion the contents of private letters,
I will now (having my noble friend’s permission),
read to the House. It is dated, London, August
26th, 1814.
“Letters have been this day received from Lord Strang-
ford, by which it appears, that the Prince of Brazil has
intimated his desire to return to Portugal (in consequence
of the recent events in Europe), and the gratification which
he would feel at the arrival of a British squadron at Rio de
Janeiro, for the purpose of conveying the royal family to
Lisbon. /
“Under these circumstances, Melville has given orders
for preparing a proper squadron for this service, and it will
sail as soon as the necessary arrangements can be completed.”
This letter, sir, I received on the 28th of
August, at Manchester, in my way from London
EM! BASSY TO LIS BON . 475
to a distant part of the country, from whence I had
no thoughts of returning till the middle of Septem-
ber. My right honourable friend, now sitting near
me (Mr. Huskisson,) was with me when I received
it. Now, the hypothesis of my accusers is, that the
whole notion of the Prince Regent's return was a
feint and a fraud on the part of the Government, if
not on mine. But, I ask of any candid man, if
he can believe, I ask of any man living, if he will
avow the belief, that supposing a fraud to have
been intended, it is likely that such a letter as this
from Lord Liverpool, written in the unguarded
style of private friendship, and addressed (as any
gentleman who would take the trouble to look at
it would see that it is) with the usual formulary of
the most familiar correspondence, should have
been one of the documents got up for such a pur-
pose ? Is it likely, that of two men, known to
each other by nearly thirty years of intimacy, one
should practise such a delusion upon the other ?
Or, is it likely that two such men should carry
hypocrisy so far as to provide beforehand for the
support of a public fraud, by the contrivance of
such a private communication? -
This letter from Lord Liverpool was founde
upon that despatch from Lord Strangford of
which I have already read the extract, and
which appears at full length in the papers last
laid upon the table. The extract was moved
for at my desire, the extract only, when I con-
4,76 EM BASSY TO LISBON.
ness that
ceived that my justification alone was in question:
the whole despatch was afterwards moved for, also
at my suggestion, when I found that the Govern-
ment were suspected of having deceived me into a
belief, for which they had no foundation. I will
now take the liberty of reading the whole des-
patch.
“Rio de Janeiro, June 21, 1814.
[Received August 26th, 1814.]
“My LoRD,
“The glorious events which have given peace and inde-
pendence to Europe, have revived in the mind of the Prince
of Brazil those eager desires to revisit his native country,
which had been for a time suppressed.
“His Royal Highness has lately done me the honour to
state his anxious hope, that Great Britain will facilitate the
completion of his wishes upon this subject, and that he may
return to Portugal under the same protection as that under
which he left it. And His Royal Highness has, during the
last week, intimated to me, four or five times, as well
publicly as privately, that, in case Great Britain should
send a squadron of ships of war to this place, for the pur-
pose of escorting His Royal Highness to Europe, it would
be particularly and personally gratifying to His Royal High-
- should be selected for this service.
“I have the honour to be, &c.
“STRANGFoED.
“To Viscount Castlereagh, &c. &c. &c.”
(The name of the officer is omitted from motives
of delicacy. Sir John Beresford had been already
appointed and announced to the Court of Rio de
Janeiro, before this despatch was received.)
E M BASS Y TO I, ISBON. 477
Submit this document to any man in the habit
of canvassing evidence, and ask him, whether
there is any thing in it that could create a
suspicion of the sincerity of the wish which it
announces 7–whether the Government could rea-
sonably doubt the authenticity of the intelligence
conveyed in it, any more than I doubted the
fidelity of the abstract of that intelligence trans-
mitted to me by Lord Liverpool? A man might
say, that he intended to go a journey, and the
fact of his entertaining that intention might, per-
haps, not be considered as altogether established
by the mere intimation of it: but, when he
ordered his carriage to the door, and named the
servants by whom he wished to be conducted,
then, surely, one would consider him to be really
in earnest.
This despatch, however, I did not see till after
my return to London in September, I was quite
satisfied of the fact, as stated to me by Lord
Liverpool. Nothing is more easy than, when
an event has, or has not, actually taken place, to
find out that you ought to have foreseen how
likely, or to have discovered how unlikely, it was
to happen. But who balances probabilities in
this way, in the ordinary transactions of life?
Who is the wise and happy man that receives
every friendly communication with distrust; that
calls for proofs of the most credible expectancies,
and deems every occurrence problematical till it
478 EMP A SSY TO LIS BON.
has actually occurred 2 The Prince Regent of
Portugal announced to the British Cabinet his
intention of returning; he requested that a
squadron might be sent to escort him to Europe;
he named the officer by whom he wished that
squadron to be commanded: yet Ministers were
to suspect that he entertained no intention of the
kind! For myself, I protest, that no shadow of
doubt ever crossed my mind, as to the reality
of this intention. Perhaps it may have been rash
to believe: if so, I must acknowledge my error.
But when, in addition to such positive testimony,
I considered how desirable it was, with a view to
the interests of the Portuguese Monarchy, of this
country, and of the world; how essential to the
complete restoration and tranquillity of that order
of things which the French Revolution had dis-
jointed and broken up, that Portugal, now sunk
into a province, should resume her station among
the States of Europe;—when I felt that no efforts
of the British Government ought to have been
spared, and had reason to be assured that none
had been spared, to induce that return, I confess
I know not on what I could have founded the
smallest doubt that the return of the Court of
Portugal was really determined upon, and that
this determination was upon the eve of execution.
It may be true, that there were, as has been
asserted, at the precise period to which I am
alluding, conflicting reports, on this subject; that
EMBASSY TO LIS BON. 479
merchants in Lisbon had received letters from
their friends in Brazil, contradicting the opinion
that the Prince Regent would return; that there
were rumours of opposition to the measure in the
councils of Rio de Janeiro; and that persons, sup-
posed to have access to correct intelligence, avow-
ed the conviction that the Court would remain in
South America. If there were such reports, I
knew nothing of them. But I fairly own that had
they come distinctly to my knowledge, had I
even been consulted as to the weight to be allowed
to them, I should have considered the British
Minister's testimony as outweighing them all. I
will tell the House why the testimony of Lord
Strangford would have had so powerful a weight
with me on this subject. In 1807, at the time
when the Court of Portugal emigrated to the
Brazils, I had the honour to fill the office now
filled by my noble friend—(Lord Castlereagh.)
When the first intelligence of the intended emi-
gration reached this country, there was then, also,
an abundance of conflicting and contradictory
reports; and I believe I may say that for several
days I alone, in London, alone perhaps among my
colleagues, was persuaded of the existence of that
intention. At that time, I knew nothing of Lord
Strangford, except from his official correspon-
dence: but that correspondence had inspired me
with a full reliance upon the authenticity of his
sources of information, and upon his knowledge
/
480 EMBASSY TO LISBON.
of the Prince Regent's mind; and Lord Strang-
ford all along affirmed, that the Prince Regent
intended to emigrate. The general persuasion at
Lisbon was that the Court would not emigrate;
even up to the very day, when, as Lord Strang-
ford had predicted, the Prince actually embarked
in the Tagus, and set sail for Brazil.
My belief therefore in the present instance was
founded, first, on positive information,-secondly,
on the obvious desirableness of the return of the
Prince Regent to Europe, and on the certainty
that this country must have used all means of
counsel and persuasion to ensure that event. I
was persuaded both of the reality of the inten-
tion, and of the probability of its instant execu-
tion. Nothing, absolutely nothing, had come to
my knowledge that could excite a reasonable dis-
trust. But even had such distrust been excited
in my mind by any rumour, or any testimony
less than official, it would have been dispelled by
the assurances of Lord Strangford. Such was
my belief, my credulity, if you will—but a cre-
dulity of which I have assigned the grounds,--a
credulity which was assuredly not so fatuitous as
to be fairly construed into crime.
I must, however, beg not to have it understood
that my belief in the return of the Prince Regent
at once determined my acceptance of the mis-
sion; though it might have done so, for aught
that I can see, without blame. Undoubtedly no
li. M. B. A SSY 'I' () I., IS BON . 48 |
earthly consideration would have induced me to
accept it without an assurance as to that return:
but it required a combination of other circum-
stances, with which I need not trouble the House,
to induce me to go in an official character to
Lisbon ; and in fact my acceptance was not
determined till after my return to town, late in
September.
The Government had stronger grounds for their
belief than I had. They had before them the
communications contained, or referred to, in the
papers last submitted to the House :--letters,
namely, from Lord Strangford, of so early a date
as February, and the autograph letter of the
Prince Regent of Portugal to the Prince Regent
of Great Britain, dated the 2nd of April. Of
these I knew nothing till the other day, when
the honourable gentleman's inquiries and denun-
ciations led to an examination of the correspon-
dence in the Foreign Office. This autograph
letter disproves the notion of the honourable
gentleman, that there was an interval between
the month of February and the month of August
in the communications respecting the Prince
Regent's intended return. This letter fills up
the supposed chasm in the correspondence. The
reason why a copy of this document has not been
laid before the House, is, that as many gentlemen
who hear me must know, it is contrary to the
etiquette observed towards Sovereign Princes so
VOL. III, I I
º
4S2 E M B A SS Y TO LIS BO N.
to make their letters public. The practice is for
the Secretary of State to refer to the substance of
such letters in an official despatch accompanying
them, or acknowledging their receipt: and such
a record of the letter in question is to be found
in the despatch from the Secretary of State to
Lord Strangford, of the 25th of July. In that des-
patch, this autograph letter is noticed as stating
that the Prince Regent of Portugal only waited
for intelligence of the final success of the allies,
in order to determine his return to Europe.
But all this evidence, all this testimony, is, it
seems, to be considered as fallacious, if not abso-
lutely false, because there is a solemn, indubit-
able, irrefragable witness at variance with it—a
paragraph in a newspaper of the 29th of July,
which announced my actual appointment as Am-
bassador to Portugal' An appointment of the
29th of July could not be in consequence of in-
formation received on the 26th of August.—
Clearly. But events might be contemplated as
probable before the 29th of July, which intelli-
gence of the 26th of August might confirm : and
a speculation might be founded upon those pro-
babilities, contingent upon their fulfilment or non-
fulfilment. I do not affirm that some such specu-
lation, founded on some such possible contingency,
but absolutely dependent for its realization on the
happening or not happening of that contingency,
might not be afloat before the 29th of July.
E M B A SSY TO H. I SB () N. 4S3
The despatch, of the 25th of July (of which, how-
ever, any more than of the autograph letter al-
luded to in it, I had not any distinct knowledge
till it was brought into notice the other day in
consequence of the honourable gentleman's in-
quiries)—the date, I say, of this despatch renders
it not improbable that it may have been about
that time that a mission to Portugal began to be
contemplated as probable. But that I was at
that time, or near that time appointed, that I
then accepted such appointment, if offered to me,
or that it could then have been offered to me, if
I had been willing to accept it, I utterly deny.
I deny here, Sir, in your presence, and in the
presence of my country, that which has been
assumed as established because I did not deny
it when asserted in a newspaper. Sir, I value
as much as any man the liberty of the press; I
acknowledge its utility, I bow to its power; in
common with all public men, I listen to its sug-
gestions, and receive its chastisements, with all
due humility and thankfulness: but I will not
plead at its bar ! I will continue to treat with
scorn the attacks of anonymous malice. I disdain
to make any answer to such charges, whilst there
is a House of Commons before which I can vindi-
cate my character. This is the place where it is
my right as well my duty to plead, before a com-
petent tribunal, and in the face of known and
accountable accusers. And in behalf of all that
I I 2
484 E M BASSY TO [.. I SB O N.
is sacred and decent in private life, as well as in
behalf of the honour of public men, I protest
against the inference, that he is to be held guilty
of a charge, who resolutely declines to answer it
at the bar of the daily press.
But the newspaper had, it seems, announced
not only that I was appointed Ambassador to
Lisbon ; but that my right honourable friend near
me (Mr. Huskisson,) was appointed Surveyor of
the Woods and Forests, and my right honourable
friend (Mr. W. W. Pole), at the end of the bench,
Master of the Mint ; both which nominations were
immediately verified. It is very true that the latter
office was shortly afterwards filled by my right
honourable friend (Mr. W. W. Pole), who has dis-
charged the duties of it with so much honour to
himself, and advantage to the public : but I dis-
claim in the most peremptory terms any merit or
influence of mine in that appointment. My right
honourable friend (Mr. Huskisson) near me, was,
it is also true, appointed to the office of Surveyor
of Woods, and undoubtedly not without my inter-
vention. On the 30th of July I think it was that
I moved the new writ for my right honourable
friend. I moved that writ for the express purpose
of showing that I approved, and was party to, the
accession of my right honourable friend, and of
other friends of mine; to the Administration. And
had I myself accepted office at that time, I should
have been equally ready, nay, anxious to avow it.
E M BASS Y 'I' O L I SBO N. 485
At different periods of my political life, I have held,
I have resigned, I have refused, and I have accepted
office. And there is no occasion on which I have
taken either of these courses, on which I am not
perfectly prepared to vindicate (I will not say
always the prudence, but I will say confidently)
the purity and honourableness of my conduct.
I know, Sir, how difficult it is to speak plainly
on subjects of this nature, without transgressing
the decorum, if not the strict order of our debates.
But is it brought as an accusation against me,
that, having no difference of opinion with the
Administration, I did not neglect an opportunity
which presented itself of furnishing an accession
of strength to that Administration, which I wished
to strengthen and uphold 2 Why ought I to
have declined this? And by whom am I accused
for not declining it? By those who consider the
principle of party as a virtue—as a badge of
distinction, and a pledge of purity, when predi-
cated of themselves; but who are intolerant of
any party, presuming to connect itself together,
except under their banners. And, what is the
bond of party? what are the boasted ties that
connect the honourable gentlemen on the other
side of the House with each other ? Fidelity in
private friendship, as well as consistency in public
principle. Their theory of party is a theory
which they would confine exclusively to their
own practice. One may become a satellite in
their system, and welcome; but any eccentric
4 S6 E M B A SS Y 'I'O L J S B O N .
planet, moving in another system, they view with
jealous, yet with scornful eyes, and denounce its
course as baleful and destructive. To this exclu-
sive doctrine I have never subscribed. To these
pretensions I have never listened with submission.
I have never deemed it reasonable that any con-
federacy of great names should monopolize to
themselves the whole patronage and authority of
the state : should constitute themselves, as it
were, into a corporation, a bank for circulating
the favours of the Crown and the suffrages of the
people, and distributing them only to their own
adherents. I cannot consent that the adminis-
tration of the Government of this free and enlight-
ened country shall be considered as rightfully
belonging to any peculiar circle of public men,
however powerful, or of families however prepon-
derant; and though I cannot stand lower in the
estimation of the honourable baronet than I do in
my own, as to my own pretensions, I will (to use
the language of a statesman,” so eminent that I
cannot presume to quote his words without an
apology), I will, as long as I have the faculty to
think and act for myself, “ look those proud com-
binations in the face.” I plead guilty, then, to
the charge, if it be one, of having treated with
an Administration, with the principles of which
I perfectly agreed. I plead guilty to the charge,
if it be one, of having on this, aye, and on
* Mr. Burke.
E M BASS Y TO LIS B O N . 4.87
other occasions, postponed my own interest to
that of my friends. If, indeed, the charge could
be turned the other way; if, occupied exclu-
sively with any personal objects of my own, it
could be said that I had neglected the claims, the
interests, or the feelings of any individual con-
nected with me in political life, I should, indeed,
hear that charge with sensations very different
from those which I now experience: then, indeed,
should I hide my head with shame.
When I moved the writ of my right honourable
friend, on the 30th of July, I declare, upon my
honour, that I thought it very doubtful whether
I should myself have any official connection what-
ever with the Government. I do not mean to
say, that the question had not been mooted, as to
my undertaking the mission to Portugal, if it
should turn out that such a mission was to be sent.
But many circumstances might have prevented the
result that did afterwards happen. I was not
pledged, I was very far from having made up my
own mind, to accept the mission if it should be
offered to me; nor had the Government, as yet, any
assurance that they should have it to offer. I had
previously made arrangements of my own. My
plans were to go where I did go, but from differ-
ent motives and with a different object. What
that object and those motives were, I am not
called upon, nor do I think it necessary to state
in this place. It is sufficient for me to say that
488 E M BASS Y TO LISP, O N.
I was master of my own actions, and that I chose
to go. My intention was known to my private
friends, and had been communicated to my con-
stituents two months before the close of the
session.
The first official tender of the mission was
made to me by my noble friend, the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, I think about the end of the
first week of August:-I cannot be positive as
to the day; but I recollect perfectly that I had
but two interviews with my noble friend upon the
subject, within a few days of each other, and
that at the date of one of those interviews, Mr.
Sydenham had arrived in England. He arrived
on or about the 8th of August. My noble friend
was then on the eve of his departure for Vienna.
His tender to me was altogether contingent and
conditional. The way in which the matter was
left, was this; that if the certainty of the Prince
Regent of Portugal's immediate return should
be established, I should hear from him (or, in
his absence, from Lord Liverpool) again. I did
hear again, in the manner that I have stated :
but, in proof that I had not, in the mean time,
acted on the presumption that I should go out
in an official character, I can appeal to some of
the members of the Board of Admiralty who sit
near me, that I was, so late as in the month of
September, a supplicant at the Admiralty, as a
private person, for a ship to convey me and my
E M P A SS Y TO LIS BON. 489
family to Lisbon ; and when I arrived in Portu-
gal, I found a house provided for me, as a pri-
vate person, through the kindness of a friend,---
a house in the neighbourhood of Lisbon, which, in
my official character, I could not occupy.
But all this, it may be said, was but con-
trivance,—an artificial chain of circumstances
forged and linked together, with a view to the
present discussion. Has such an imputation the
colour of probability ? What I have now stated
both as to facts and motives is the truth. If any
man shall contradict this statement, I can only
say that he will affirm that which is not true.
Where a matter rests—and from its nature must
rest solely—on the consciousness of an indi-
vidual, there is no other answer (that I know of)
to be given to an arbitrary contradiction. I speak
this, I hope, without offence. But, on this part
of my case, I know of no other possible answer.
I did believe then in the intention of the Prince
Regent to return. The Government believed in
it. Their belief would have been ground enough
for mine. But I have shown that they had good
grounds for their belief. Further, it appears,
from what has been stated by the gallant admiral
behind me, (Sir John Beresford,) in anticipation
of a question which I might perhaps have taken
the liberty to put to him, that not only had the
royal family really entertained that intention, but
that the disposition to carry it into execution
490 E MIB A SSY TO LIS B O N .
survived the report of its abandonment; that he
was repeatedly requested by the Prince Regent
of Portugal to defer his departure from Rio de
Janeiro from time to time, in hopes that the next
arrivals from Europe might bring intelligence
decisive of the voyage; and that it was not until
the beginning of April that those hopes were
finally relinquished, and the gallant admiral per-
mitted to take his leave.
Contrary and contradictory rumours did, no
doubt, continue to prevail on this subject, in
London, as they certainly did in Lisbon. Even
when I received at Lisbon, in the beginning
of April 1815, the first intimation from England
on which I founded my resignation, I was in
possession of most positive assurances the other
way; and on the very day on which I sent off
my resignation, I had heard through what I
might have considered as authentic channels,
that the Prince would certainly embark. The
day was specified on which the embarkation was
to take place; and we were to look for the first
news of that event in the arrival of the squadron
off the bar. But did I act on this informa-
tion ? Did I endeavour to shake any credit
which the Government at home might be dis-
posed to give to their accounts from Rio de
Janeiro ! Did I contrast the rumours of Lisbon
with the rumours of London, for the purpose of
clinging to my office 2 No. It appears, from
EMBASS Y TO LIS BON. 491
the papers on the table, that upon the 29th of
March the information of the Prince Regent’s
abandonment of his design was received here in
an official shape. Probably this official informa-
tion must have been preceded some days by
private intelligence. The intimation which
reached me on the 9th of April certainly was not
official; I did not wait, however, for its official
confirmation: on the 10th of April, I wrote and
sent off by an express packet the following
despatch to the Foreign Office :
“By the mails which came in yesterday, I learn, (though
not officially,) that the accounts received in England from
Rio de Janeiro since Admiral Sir John Beresford’s arrival
there, create a doubt of the Prince Regent of Portugal's
present intention to return to his European dominions.
“Nothing has been received here from the Brazils,
which indicates any such change in His Royal Highness's
intention. But should any impediments have been inter-
posed to delay the execution of it, until the intelligence of
the late astonishing and afflicting revolution in the state
of Europe shall reach Rio de Janeiro, it is possible that
the receipt of that intelligence may determine His Royal
Highness to remain there for the present.
“In that case, or in the event of your lordship's receiv-
ing such positive accounts, as satisfy your lordship's mind
that such a determination has been taken by the Prince
Regent of Portugal, I have to request your lordship, to
lay at the feet of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent
my humble resignation of the commission with which he
was graciously pleased to honour me, in contemplation of
the Prince Regent of Portugal's return.” .
492 E M B A SSY TO LIS BO N.
So much for the first head of the charge against
me, and against the Government. I have shown,
I hope to the satisfaction of the House, that we
did believe in the return of the Court of Portugal
to Europe;—that we had good grounds for that
belief;-and that, upon that belief exclusively,
any mission to Lisbon was founded.
It remains to be considered, whether upon that
ground, such a mission was necessary or justifi-
able. And this question again divides itself into
two heads; first, whether necessary at all; second-
ly, (if admitted to be necessary,) whether con-
ducted on a scale of disproportionate expense—
disproportionate either to the unavoidable ex-
penditure of the mission, or to its political im-
portance. -
In the first of these questions—Was an em-
bassy to Lisbon necessary, in the event of the
Prince Regent's return ?—is involved another
more personal question, from which I must not
shrink:—namely—Was there any unfitness in the
offer of that mission to me, or in my acceptance of
it?—I feel all the difficulty of arguing this point
in a manner at once satisfactory to the House and
not unjust to myself. It is distasteful and re-
volting to one's feelings to be obliged to speak of
one's-self, and of one's own fitness for any situation,
or any undertaking. But it will be remembered,
that I am upon my trial—that I am defending
myself against a criminal charge; and if in such
E M BASSY TO LIS BON. 493
a defence, something like egotism should be un-
avoidable, I hope the House will have the good-
ness to excuse it.
Sir, to place this question in its true point of
view, I must once more go back to the year 1807.
I have said that when in that year the royal
family of Portugal adopted the resolution of
emigrating to the Brazils, I had the honour to
hold the Seals of the Foreign Office. I had thus
an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the
wishes of the Prince Regent of Portugal in favour
of Lord Strangford, who had been employed to
advise and to urge that splendid and magnanimous
emigration. It was my duty to report these
wishes, and to recommend the services of Lord
Strangford to the consideration of my royal
master. The result was, that his lordship was
appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary; was invested with a red ribbon;
and might also have received an advance in the
peerage—which (for reasons nothing to the pur-
pose of this night's discussion) he declined. There
was, however, another point respecting which the
Court of Portugal was extremely solicitous, -a.
reciprocation of missions of the highest rank; and
this point, from the period of which I am speak-
ing to the last moment at which I held the Seals
of Office, the Portuguese Minister never lost an
opportunity of pressing upon my attention. It
has been said, by shrewd observers of domestic
494 E M B A SS Y TO L I SIE O N.
politics, that when once a coronet gets into a
man's head there is no driving it out again : and I
believe it may be as justly said, that when once a
Court takes up the notion of reciprocation of em-
bassies, it is no easy matter to get the better of it.
Such a notion reproduces itself on every occasion.
A Secretary of State is sure to be assailed with
repeated solicitation till the favourite measure is
accomplished.
To this application I at that time did not listen.
And I believe I reconciled the Court of Portugal
to the refusal of it, by showing that it could not
then be granted in the person of Lord Strangford;
whose diplomatic standing would not admit of
such an advancement—having been already so
recently raised from the station of Chargé-d'Af-
faires. I promised, however, that on the occur-
rence of any signal event which might constitute
a proper occasion for an embassy, (and the two
possible events in contemplation were either the
final establishment of the Portuguese Court at the
Brazils—should the cause of Europe be lost, or,
what was then a distant, though never with me a
hopeless prospect—its restoration to Europe on a
successful termination of the war,) I would re-
commend to my Sovereign—should I be then in
office—a compliance with the wishes of the Court
of Portugal.
Long after I quitted office, and more than once,
or twice, or three times, I was appealed to for
E. M.B.A. S.SY T() LIS B O N. 495
the truth of the assertion, that such a promise had
been given ; not that any engagement of mine
could be binding on my successors. At last, I
believe in 1811, without waiting for these long
coming events, the Portuguese Minister here as-
sumed the character of Ambassador. The recipro-
cation was declined. Much discussion, it seems,
followed during the three succeeding years upon
the refusal to name an Ambassador at the Court
of Brazil : and I perfectly remember, that in one
of the conversations which I had with my noble
friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he re-
minded me of the circumstances which I have
here recapitulated, and observed, “We shall,
besides, thus have the long disputed point of a
reciprocation of embassies settled, and your pledge
to the Court of Portugal redeemed in your own
person.”
If it is supposed by honourable gentlemen, that
the aggregate allowances of the mission were
necessarily increased by giving the name and
rank of Ambassador, instead of that of Envoy
Extraordinary, to my appointment, I assure them
they are mistaken. The question of expense I
reserve for separate consideration; but as it here
mixes itself with the question of the rank of the
mission, I am compelled shortly to advert to it,
a little before its time. There are (or were before
the regulation of 1815,) two different scales of
ambassadorial allowances; the higher scale with
496 E VI FB A SS Y TO LIS B O N .
a salary of £11,000 a year, and the other, on what
is called the old salary of £8,200. The differ-
ence between these two salaries is nearly the
same as the difference between the lower of them
and that of an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary, -which is £5,200. Now, Sir, a
man who coveted an embassy for the sake of
emolument would hardly fail, once Ambassador,
to choose the higher scale of salary. I chose
the lower. But I do not claim any merit from
this preference. For as neither £5,200, (the
salary of Envoy Extraordinary,) nor £8,200, (the
salary of Ambassador on the old scale,) nor even
the higher salary of £11,000 reduced by deduc-
tions at home and abroad, was expected to cover
all the expenses of the mission, without an ad-
dition of extraordinaries (as I shall presently
show) it became indifferent in that point of view,
what should be the nominal rank of the mission.
But it was not indifferent in other respects. I
flatter myself, that I shall not be suspected of the
idle and stupid vanity of caring under what name
I did the public business. I believe, however,
that it will be generally acknowledged, that
having once,—with however little pretension to so
high a station—filled that office which presides
over the diplomacy of the country, I could not
consistently assume any other than the highest
diplomatic rank—that which alone represents the
Sovereign—in any mission on which I should
EMI E3 A SS Y TO LISBON . 497
happen to be employed. Much less could I have
done so with propriety on a mission to the Court
of Portugal, with which I had, as Secretary of
State, engaged for those exertions, and (san-
guinely, perhaps, but, as it has turned out, safely)
anticipated those results, by which that Court
was now enabled, if it so thought fit, to accom-
plish its return to Europe.
But neither was the question of what might be
individually becoming, the whole of this question.
The character of Ambassador, though it may
make little difference here, where every negocia-
tion passes through responsible Ministers, is by
no means a matter of indifference in many foreign
courts. The mere question of precedency, trifling
as it may seem in itself, is not a thing of no moment,
in diplomatic transactions. The facility of access
to the person of the Sovereign, without the inter-
vention of a Minister, perhaps hostile to our in-
terests—and the right of pre-audience of that
Sovereign himself—are advantages of no incon-
siderable moment in courts where the will of the
Sovereign is mainly the policy of the State.
But what good did I expect to achieve through
these advantages 2 What was there for me to do?
What did I expect to be able to do First, it
was not for me to judge of my own qualifications;
it was for the Government. I might entrench
myself behind this answer. But in the spirit in
which I am stating my argument, taking the de-
VOL. III. K. K.
49S E M BASSY TO LIS B O N .
fence of the Government upon myself (as my noble
friend has taken mine upon the Government) I
will not do so. I must again remind the House,
that I speak of myself, only because I am upon
my trial. With the allowance belonging to that
consideration, I may be permitted to say, I think
that there was good to be done; and I think
that I had as fair means, and as probable a chance,
as any other man, of doing it. -
I pass by many obvious difficulties and embar-
rassments in the present state of the relations of
the Court of Portugal with other Governments in
Europe, which might have been avoided had that
Court returned. But there is one subject which
seems to be comparatively forgotten at this
moment, but which, in 1814 (the year of my
appointment) was the theme of loud remonstrance
and incessant reproach against the Government—
as though they had been indifferent or lukewarm
in their exertions upon it, —I mean the Slave
Trade. I did hope to be able to effect something
on this great and interesting subject. I cannot
conceive a more favourable opportunity for this
purpose than would have been afforded by the
return of the Prince Regent to the kingdom of
his ancestors: a kingdom saved, through the bless-
ing of Providence upon the arms and counsels of
this country. Of those counsels I had, from my
official situation, been the humble instrument and
organ: nor was it perhaps altogether an unreason-
REM B A SSY TO LI SBON . 499
able presumption, to hope that the share which I
had accidentally had in them might have conci-
liated, even to so humble an individual as myself,
something of kindness from the Sovereign whose
crown and whose dominions had been thus pre-
served and restored to him. I say, therefore, Sir,
I cannot conceive circumstances which would
have afforded a better chance of making some im-
pression on the mind of a prince naturally good
—naturally religious—upon a matter in which his
personal character was the best, perhaps the one,
hope of success. -
I can assure the honourable gentlemen, that of
the instructions which I carried out with me,
three-fourths were directed to this object. And,
besides the instructions of my noble friend, the
Secretary of State, I had with me ample and most
useful suggestions from an honourable friend of
mine (Mr. Wilberforce), whom I do not now see
in his place, which should not have lain idle in
my desk. I hoped nothing, indeed, from the
“oratory” which the honourable baronet is pleased
(I suppose ironically) to attribute to me; but
much from a good cause in zealous hands. I did
believe—I do still believe, that had I had the op-
portunity of personal intercourse with the Prince,
I might have effected some good in this matter;
and if it had pleased God that I should succeed init,
I should neither have thought the expences of my
K K 2
500 EM B A SSY TO LIS B() N.
mission ill employed, nor have felt any disparage-
ment to myself in having undertaken it.
So much for the objects in contemplation at the
commencement of the mission. But these objects
were not attained.—True. And it is supposed, that
not to have attained them was to me matter of
great disappointment. In one sense, undoubt-
edly it was so. I should have thought the settle-
ment of the question of the Slave Trade with one
of the Peninsular Powers, an object of importance
not easily to be over-rated. In another sense, I
do assure the honourable baronet and the honour-
able gentleman, that I had not experienced one
half of the satisfaction in accepting my office which
I felt when I was permitted to resign it.
When, after writing the letter of April the 10th,
tendering my resignation, I yielded to the request
of my noble friend, and consented to remain at
my post so long as my services might be thought
necessary, I must beg the House to observe that
the whole question of the mission had assumed an
entirely new form. The war had broken out; and
if there had not then been a Minister of high diplo-
matic rank at Lisbon, it would have been abso-
lutely necessary to appoint one. I failed, it is
true, in the main object of my negociations during
the war, the obtaining the aid of a corps of Por-
tuguese troops to act with the Allies in Flanders.
But why did I fail? Precisely because that state
EMI B A SS Y TO L I SB O N . 501
of things existed in Portugal—because that form
of local government remained there—which it
was the interest and the wish of this country to
See altered. I failed because the Sovereign him-
self was not at Lisbon ; an additional proof, if
any had been wanting, of the advisableness of
that return which we had endeavoured to invite
by every proper inducement; an additional proof
of the inconvenience of leaving one of the king-
doms of Europe with which Great Britain is most
intimately allied, under a delegated Government;
a Government incapable, from the very nature of
their trust, and from the immensity of distance
which separates them from their Sovereign, of
acting in all cases with the promptness and
energy necessary for the glory of the absent
Sovereign, and for the welfare of his people.
Sir, I venture to hope that the House will feel
that I have satisfactorily disposed of the first part
of the question as to the embassy, and justified
the nomination of a mission of that character, on
the supposition (which I had before justified) of
the Prince Regent of Portugal's return. I now
proceed to the second part of that question, the
expense of the mission. - -
If there was no delusion in the cause assigned
for the embassy—if I have shown that it was
necessary or highly expedient in the case sup-
posed to exist—it still remains to be inquired
whether or not it was conducted on too costly a
502 E M BASSY 'TO LI SIB O N.
scale. I must observe, however, again, that if the
belief in the return of the Prince and the expe-
diency of an embassy to welcome him are not
made out, one farthing of expenditure was too
much ; and if, therefore, in the opinion of one
honest and impartial man who has heard me,
what I have stated appears to be founded in fraud
or artifice, the question of pecuniary expense is
at an end. On the other hand, if I have been so
far successful, I am prepared to challenge a like
decision on the issue now to be joined ; and to
demonstrate that the cost of this mission was
not only not prodigal in proportion to its rank
and character, but that it was economical, in
comparison with any standard with which it can
in fairness be compared.
The honourable baronet has quoted a dictum
of Sir Robert Walpole's, that “every man has
his price.” I do not think this maxim true of
men:—I do not think it true that even every thing
has its price. Things must be estimated not merely
by their intrinsic qualities, but by their relative
fitness and value. There is no rule for judging
absolutely what ought to be the cost of an em-
bassy. There is no forming such an estimate à
priori. Facts and experience are the only grounds
on which you can safely or justly proceed.
I beg gentlemen then to look at the printed
accounts of missions in the years 1812, 1813, and
1814, and I ask who could tell, on going to Lisbon
E M BASSY TO LIS B O N. 503
in the autumn of the latter year, what his ex-
penses were likely to be 2 Who is there, that
having before him the expenditure of Sir Charles
Stuart for the years 1812-13, and 1813-14, would
have ventured upon such a mission, without com-
ing to some understanding as to the extent of his
expenditure, and as to the principles of its limi-
tation?
I shall perhaps surprise the honourable baronet
when I confess that an application on the subject
of extraordinaries was made by me to the Go-
vernment. But in what sense was this applica-
cation made 7 Was it for latitude and indulgence 2
Was it that I might be put upon the same footing
and allowed the same range as my predecessor 7
No, Sir ; it was for strictness, for definition, for
restraint. In the beginning of October I wrote
a letter to my noble friend, Lord Liverpool, (my
noble friend, Lord Castlereagh, near me, was then
abroad), an extract of which, with their permis-
sion, I will now read to the House. The House
will see that it was of as private and familiar a
style, and as little destined for public citation as
that from Lord Liverpool to me, which I read to
the House a short time ago. -
“ I have been looking over Stuart's extraordinaries,
and they really frighten me. It may be very well for him
or any man not connected with politics, to draw thus at
discretion, but it would not do for me. For God's sake,
limit me to what you think right—I can form no judg-
504 EM B A SSY TO LIS BON.
ment of the matter: only limit me, so that I may have no
responsibility.”
This letter shows at least the quo animo—the
disposition with which I entered upon the sub-
ject. Is this the language of rapacity ? Is this
a petition for large emolument and unbounded
discretion ? Or does it not rather indicate a
cautious dislike of discretionary power, arising
from a dread of responsibility, and an anticipa-
tion of injustice—the former of which I am not
ashamed of confessing I did feel; the latter, I
have at this moment, God knows, no reason to
disavow.
Sir, in entering upon this most disagreeable
discussion—disagreeable, because I must mention
the names of honourable men in a way which
may be liable to misconstruction—disagreeable,
because I must speak (though but to repel them
with scorn) of imputations with which I never
thought my own name liable to be stained, I beg
leave to preface what I have to say by observing,
that the name of Sir Charles Stuart, or of any
other person whom I may have occasion to men-
tion in my defence, is brought forward by me
most reluctantly. I have no choice, the necessity
is forced upon me. The name of Sir Charles
Stuart I mention with the respect due to his
talents and character. I consider him as one
who has rendered eminent services to his country,
EMI B A SSY TO LISBON . 505
and from whom his country may confidently look
for such services hereafter. I believe him to be
as free from pecuniary taint, as I know myself to
be. Large as his expenditure at Lisbon may
appear, I am persuaded that it was at once justi-
fied and limited by the necessity of the case. It
is to be borne in mind also, that of the aggregate
sums which appear to have been expended by
him, no small proportion was simply and abso-
lutely loss upon the exchange, and upon the con-
version of English into Portuguese money. After
these declarations, I proceed to state the expen-
diture of the Lisbon mission, as it stood in Sir
Charles Stuart's time, and the amount of his
regular and extraordinary allowance.
For the year, from the 5th of April, 1812, to
the 5th of April, 1813, Sir Charles Stuart's extra-
ordinaries appear to have been ............... £26,807
Salary ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 5,200
Total........................................................ £32,007
For the next year, from the 5th of April, 1813,
to the 5th of April, 1814, the extraordinaries are
stated at................................ • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * £26,006
Salary .................... e o e o 'º e º e º e º & © tº C e º g º g g g us e e º 'º e º gº 5,200
Total .......................................................f31,206
This was the conclusion of Sir Charles Stuart's
506 EMIBA SSY TO LISBO N.
mission. These statements are all before the
House. They are to be found in pages 30 and
31 of the Report of the Committee on the Civil
List, in June, 1815;-which Report I wish that
the honourable gentlemen opposite would have
the goodness to take into their hands, as I shall
have many occasions to refer to it.
Then comes a period which is particularly
selected as a contrast to my expenditure;—
namely, the half year, beginning the 5th of April,
1814, (the termination of Sir Charles Stuart's
mission,) and ending the 10th of October, 1814,
(the commencement of mine). Here my accusers
take their grand position. This is the narrow
isthmus between two rushing seas of expense, on
which they plant their standard of economy l—
I do not complain of them for doing so. I do not
blame the honourable gentleman who brought
forward this question, for moving for papers to
illustrate this position. But what I do think I
have some right to complain of is, that having ob-
tained these documents, they have somehow or
other totally forgotten to notice their results.
When it suited the honourable mover's purpose,
he asked for the information; and when he got it,
and found that it was not precisely what he
wanted, it suited his purpose to abstain from any
observation upon it. In this respect, he will
excuse me if, instead of following his example, I
endeavour to supply his omissions.
E M BASSY TO LI SIBO N. 507
At Sir Charles Stuart's departure from Lisbon,
Mr. Casamajor, the Secretary of Legation, was
appointed Chargé-d'Affaires, receiving of course
the regular salary belonging to these two appoint-
ments. As Mr. Casamajor's salary during this
half year was nearly the same as his salary of
Secretary of Embassy with me, and made but a
trifling part of the expenses of either mission, I
shall not take it into calculation. Not so, how-
ever, as to his evtraordinary allowances; which
during this economical half-year appear, by the
Civil-List Report, p. 32, as well as by Mr.
Sydenham’s testimony, to have amounted to
upwards of £2,500.
I am not exactly informed at what period
between April and July Mr. Sydenham was
named Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni-
potentiary to the Local Government of Portugal.
The first official despatch to him that I have seen
is dated in July : but his nomination must have
preceded that despatch by some weeks. He
had from the 5th of April the same salary as
had been enjoyed by Sir Charles Stuart. I
speak here of the regular salary of £5,200 a
year, not of extraordinary allowances. Mr.
Sydenham arrived at Lisbon the end of the first
week of July. He remained there until the 27th
or 28th of that month, when he embarked for
England, being obliged to quit his station sud-
denly on account of his health. These three
508 EMIB A SSY TO LIS BON.
weeks (or thereabouts) were the whole of Mr.
Sydenham's residence at Lisbon; and for these
he received (I am not blaming him, but I
state the fact) two quarters’ salary, at the rate of
£5,200 a year—that is to say .................... £2,600
He received also, for outfit, ........................ 1,500
He received for his journey to Lisbon........ 1,100
And lastly he received (at a subsequent
period) for losses occasioned by his sud-
den relinquishment of the mission ........ 2,000
In all £7,200
Add to this sum, Mr. Casamajor's extra-
ordinaries for the same period ................ 2,500
The result of cost to the public, for the
half-year intervening between Sir C.
Stuart's mission and mine, is therefore £9,700
This was the reformed period which is to put
all past and future Ministers to shame ! This
was the rigid scale of economy which I ought to
have taken for my guide, and for departing from
which I am arraigned before this House and the
country ! Yet hear how Mr. Sydenham describes
Mr. Casamajor's way of life. “I find,” (says Mr.
Sydenham, in his letter to Mr. Hamilton of the
8th July, written immediately upon his arrival at
Lisbon), -
E M BASSY TO LIS BON. 509
“I find that Mr. Casamajor has been living in a very
quiet retired way, with no suite to feed and lodge; and by
the examination of his books I perceive that he does not
live on less than £100 a week.”
Here was no establishment, no representation,
no call for display of any kind; and yet the ordi-
nary expenses of Mr. Casamajor’s household were
£100 a week, or at the rate of £5,200 a year !
It is true, at least I have heard and believe,
that during the three weeks that Mr. Sydenham
passed at Lisbon he lived in Mr. Casamajor's
house. But, as to charge upon the public,
Mr. Sydenham was then in the enjoyment of a
yearly salary of £5,200, which comes to exactly
another £100 a week. So that independently
of the eartraordinary allowances of Mr. Syden-
ham, for outfit, journey, and losses, the aggregate
of the regular salary received by him, joined to
the extraordinaries allowed to Mr. Casamajor for
weekly expenditure; for victus and convictus,
during the economical half year, was at the rate
of upwards of £10,000 a year.
There is not upon earth a more honourable
mind than Mr. Casamajor's ; and I had myself
the opportunity of verifying the statement re-
specting his expenditure, by the inspection of his
books, at his own particular desire. But I must
take the liberty of reminding the House, that
from the moment at which I arrived at Lisbon,
Mr. Casamajor, then becoming Secretary of Em-
510 - EMI BASSY TO LISBON.
bassy, became part of my family; and as such,
lived at my table. From that time, therefore his
expenses (salary excepted) were involved in mine.
Why, Sir, if I were to calculate by simple addi-
tion, or by the rule of three, I might say, that,
according to what I have shown you, on Mr.
Sydenham's testimony as well as my own—two
Casamajors ought to have eaten up my whole
allowances, ordinary and extraordinary. And,
by the way, I had two Casamajors—for in addi-
tion to the gentleman of whom I have been speak-
ing, and of whom I speak with every feeling of
kindness and of respect, another gentleman, Mr.
Croft, who was recommended to me by my noble
friend as Secretary for the Portuguese Language,
(and who had been with Sir C. Stuart in the same
capacity) lived with me as one of my family,
during the whole period of my mission. I, of
course, do not mean seriously to state that the
increase of my expences was in exact proportion
to the number of persons whom I had to maintain.
But I do mean seriously to show the different
footing upon which Mr. Sydenham and Mr. Casa-
major separately, or even Mr. Sydenham and Mr.
Casamajor jointly—stood, in respect to the claims
upon their expenditure, from that in which I
stood, with all, the accessary burdens, and all
the unavoidable representation, of an embassy.
With neither of the two gentlemen, whom I had
the good fortune to have attached to me—Mr.
E M BASSY TO LISBON. 511
Casamajor or Mr. Croft—had I any personal
acquaintance before my mission began. I learnt,
during our official and domestic intercourse, to
value and esteem them both. I am sorry to be
forced to mention their names in connection with
these miserable details; but I am driven to it by
the unsparing coarseness of the attacks which
have been made upon me, and by the foolish, fal-
lacious, and dishonest contrast of my expenditure
with that of Mr. Sydenham :—Mr. Sydenham's,
who, during his three weeks’ residence at Lisbon,
was an inmate in the house of Mr. Casamajor,
—and mine, who, during the whole period of my
mission, had the suite of an embassy to main-
tain l
And now, Sir, come we to the famous letter of
letters, upon which it seems that the whole of the
case against me is made to turn—the letter from
the Secretary of State to Mr. Sydenham, directing
him to confine his expenditure within his regular
allowances. Before this letter is made conclu-
sive against me, I might perhaps contend that it
should be shown that I was in some degree, if not
party to it, cognizant of it. Upon my honour, I
never saw it till after the honourable gentleman's
first notice of his motion. I cannot say that I had
never heard of it. I had heard, or perhaps seen in a
newspaper, that some such letter had been written
to Mr. Sydenham by my noble friend: and I well
remember that the same authority stated the rate
512 E M BASSY TO LIS BON.
of £5,000 a year as that which covered all Mr.
Sydenham's allowances. I have already shown
the accuracy of that statement.
But I waive this plea : I acknowledge the
authority of the letter; and, if the circumstances
of Mr. Sydenham's situation and mine were the
same, and if the meaning of this letter was what
has been attributed to it; and if that meaning
was enforced against Mr. Sydenham, or was not
remonstrated against by him ; I will admit that,
notwithstanding my ignorance of the law, I was
bound by it, and am guilty of not conforming
to it.
And, first, what was Mr. Sydenham's situation?
That of Envoy to the Local Government; mine,
that of Ambassador to the Sovereign. (With the
propriety of the appointment we have in this
part of the argument nothing to do). Secondly,
What was the meaning of the letter 2 My noble
friend, the writer of it, has told you, that it did
not mean the absolute exclusion of extraordi-
naries, which he held to be almost impossible;
but it did mean to prescribe the discontinuance
of that rate of expenditure which had brought,
during the war, such heavy charge upon the
public. The letter itself says,
“I cannot anticipate any public grounds for continuing
the expenditure of His Majesty's servants at Lisbon, on
the scale on which it has been conducted during the continu-
ance of the War in the Peninsula.” - -
E. ſ. B A SSY 'I'O LIS BON. 5] 3
To be sure he could not. Who dreamt of an
expenditure of upwards of £30,000 a year in time
of peace : Lastly, the instructions which were
given, were they executed ? Did Mr. Sydenham
think it practicable to conform to them 2 Did he
receive them without a remonstrance, and act
up to them with strictness and fidelity ? With
fidelity, in the moral sense of the word, I have
no doubt he would have acted up to them if he
had remained at Lisbon; but have we no positive
proof that he regarded the literal execution of
them as impossible? t
And here, Sir, again I feel myself called upon
to guard against being supposed to mean any
thing unkind in the reference which I am com-
pelled to make to Mr. Sydenham. That gentle-
man is no more ! He has closed a distinguished
and honourable life, during which he endeared
himself to his friends, and has left behind him
an unspotted character. I implore of those who
hear me, that if a word should escape me in the
heat of argument, which can be thought to bear
any colour of disrespect to Mr. Sydenham's me-
mory, they will believe it to be wholly uninten-
tional. I am the last man living who would
wantonly throw a slur upon his reputation, or
give a wound to the feelings of those who mourn
his loss. I would most gladly have avoided any
* allusion to him: but his name has been made the
.vehicle for a foul calumny against my character;
vol. III. L L.
514 EMIBA SS Y TO LIS BON.
and the House will feel that not to me who repel
an attack, but to those who have misused Mr.
Sydenham's name for the purposes of attack
upon me, is to be imputed the guilt of profaning
(if it be profaned) the sanctity of the tomb.
The fact is, that while the mandate to Mr.
Sydenham, directing him to confine his expenses
within certain limits, was traversing the ocean
in one direction, a remonstrance, by anticipation,
against such a limitation was on its passage to
the Foreign Office. Mr. Sydenham, I suppose,
might have heard rumours of such intended
restriction; he knew, from what he saw of
Lisbon himself (in the amount of Mr. Casamajor's
weekly bills,) and from what he had heard of it
from others, that a literal compliance with that
restriction was impracticable; and, on the 8th
of July, the very day (I believe) after his arrival
at Lisbon, he thus addressed himself to Mr.
Hamilton, the Under Secretary of State (for the
information of my noble friend), in the letter from
which I have already quoted an extract:—
“While the Duke of Wellington was at Madrid, he
spoke to me on the subject of my allowances at Lisbon,
and he gave me the comfortable assurance of my being
ruined, unless Government allowed me something more
than the usual salary, diminished by the usual deductions
in England, and the loss of exchange. He promised to
mention the subject to Lord Castlereagh; and I have
written to him to remind him of his promise. I find that Mr.
EMſ B A SS Y TO LIS BON. 515
Casamajor has been living in a very quiet, retired way,
with no suite to feed and lodge, and by the examination of
his books, I perceive that he does not live on less than
f 100 a week.”
So far is printed. Further on, in the same
letter, the extract of which now lies before me,
he states that he “shall live with the greatest
possible economy; but that what he cannot pay
out of his allowances he shall trust to the Govern-
ment to pay for him.”
Mr. Sydenham, as I have before observed, re-
sided about three weeks in Lisbon, namely, from
about the 7th or 8th to the 27th or 28th of July.
I have already stated the allowances, regular
and extraordinary, which he received during that
period or on account of it—viz. £2,600 salary;
£1,500 outfit; £1,100 for the journey from Paris
and Madrid to Lisbon. All these sums are in
the printed accounts of the Civil List Report;
and therefore gentlemen might have known them
without moving for papers: but I was not aware,
and I suppose they were not aware, till in an
evil hour they brought it out by their own motion
for papers, of the sum of £2,000 for losses, which
makes up the aggregate of Mr. Sydenham’s re-
ceipts on account of his half-year's mission, to
£7,200. --
If it is said, that as this sum of £7,200 includes
outfit, and allowances for journey and for losses,
it is not fairly to be stated as Mr. Sydenham's
L L 2 .
516 EMIB A SSY TO LIS BON.
expenditure for half a year, I readily admit that
it is not so : but then I must observe, that, on
the same ground the aggregate of my allowances
cannot be fairly stated as the expenditure of a
Ayear. The cost of outfit and plate in my case
would not have been repeated another year, any
more than that of outfit, and allowances for jour-
ney and for losses would, in Mr. Sydenham's
case, have been repeated in another half year.
But it is quite fair—it is indeed absolutely neces-
sary, since the contrast between Mr. Sydenham's
half year and my year, has been so much in-
sisted on—to state, as I have done, Mr. Sydenham's
salary, joined to Mr. Casamajor’s evtraordinaries,
for the same half year, as constituting the expen-
diture of the mission for that period. And it is
fair to state the whole of Mr. Sydenham's receipts
joined to Mr. Casamajor's evtraordinaries, as the
aggregate expense of that half year with which
the aggregate of my receipts for a whole year is
to be compared.
Whatever comments, therefore, gentlemen may
think proper to make on my conduct in other
respects, they will at least, I think, abandon the
contrast between Mr. Sydenham's mission and
mine, as to the rate of their respective cost to the
public. This point, on which they relied so con-
fidently, completely fails them. They may, if
they will, continue to arraign my political sins;
but if comparison with the period of Mr. Syden-
*
EMIB A SSY TO LIS BON. 5 17
ham's mission be a decisive test of economy, they
must on that comparison absolve me from pecu-
niary transgression.
But, Sir, it is not on pecuniary matters only
that they have guessed wrong as to me and Mr.
Sydenham. They flattered themselves that they
had another case against me on his account; a
case of hardship—as if this valuable public ser-
vant had been displaced purposely to make way
for me. It has been asserted that I superseded
Mr. Sydenham. Sir, I did not supersede Mr.
Sydenham. If the fact were so, I know not that
it would constitute any charge against me. It
would, I believe, be the first time that the un-
doubted right of the Crown to appoint and to
change its foreign Ministers has been made matter
of charge, or even of question, in Parliament. But
the fact is not so. Mr. Sydenham's mission was
irretrievably at an end before mine began. He
quitted Lisbon not only unrecalled, but without
leave. He did this from necessity, on account of
the impaired state of his health. He arrived in
England (as I have already had occasion to say) on
or about the 8th of August. From that day to
the 10th of October he received in England his
appointments as Minister at Lisbon. Are the
economists angry that he did not continue so to
receive them longer ? He was neither then, nor
at any subsequent period before his death (as I
shall presently show, by a document founded on
518 E M BASSY TO LI SBO N.
his own representations) in a state of health to
admit of his resuming the Lisbon mission—or
accepting any other. If he had happily been so,
my noble friend will bear testimony not only to
the fact, but to my knowledge of the fact, that
another and more important employment was
in contemplation for him. So much for that
charge. -
I have in my hand a copy of the letter from the
Foreign Office to the Treasury, which authorized
the payment to Mr. Sydenham of that sum of
£2,000 for losses, which forms the last item in his
account. I almost wonder, by the bye, that I
have not been told, in distinct terms, that this
£2,000 was given to Mr. Sydenham to reconcile
him to my supersession of him. The House, if
they will allow me to take the liberty of reading
this letter to them, will see how that matter
stands. I am ready to move for its being laid on
the table, if they think it necessary. It is luckily
the last document of the kind with which I shall
have occasion to try their patience. It is as
follows:
“Foreign Office, Oct. 25th, 1815.
“My Lords,
“Thomas Sydenham, Esq. late His Majesty's Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court
of Lisbon, has represented to me the very great expense he
was at in making preparations to undertake that mission,
with a view to a permanent residence at Lisbon, and the
EMBASSY TO LIS BON. 519
great loss he sustained by the sudden disposal of his effects,
&c. on his being obliged to relinquish that mission, on ac-
count of the dangerous state of his health, after a residence
of only a few months, whereby he has been a loser of con-
siderably more than £2,000 and is thereby involved in diffi-
culties beyond the reach of his private fortune to satisfy.”
(There is a slight error of inadvertency here
as to the period of Mr. Sydenham's actual resi-
dence at Lisbon—which was, as I have shown,
weeks only and not months. I now come to a
passage to which I particularly wish to call the
attention of the House.)—
“Having considered this application, it has appeared to
me, under the peculiar circumstances of the case (Mr.
Sydenham's state of health still preventing his being em-
ployed in the diplomatic service of His Majesty), to be
just and reasonable that Mr. Sydenham should receive a
compensation on account of these losses.—I am, therefore,
to desire your lordships will be pleased to take the com-
mands of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, with
regard to the issue of the sum of two thousand pounds,
nett, to Mr. Sydenham, or his assigns, as a compensation
for the losses above-stated.”
Is this also a sham letter and a concerted
fraud? Perhaps the date will help us to a solu-
tion of this question. It is dated the 25th Octo-
ber, 1815,-that is to say, six months after I had
tendered the resignation of my mission, and three
months after my resignation had been accepted—
a period, therefore, when, if Mr. Sydenham's
520 E M BASSY TO LIS BO N.
health had been sufficiently restored to enable
him to resume his station at Lisbon, there had
been for three months no impediment whatever,
and for six months no impediment on my part,
to his resuming it. It was manifestly the hope-
lessness of his return to public life that weighed
with the Foreign Office in writing this letter,
to which I am happy to have had an opportunity
of referring, both for the proof which it affords
of good-natured and considerate disposition, and
the just testimony which it bears to the merits
and character of Mr. Sydenham. I had not
the honour and the happiness of a personal
acquaintance with Mr. Sydenham. I knew him
only by reputation; by the report of common
friends, whose report would of itself have been
sufficient to ensure my belief of his good qua-
lities,—and by the exhibition of his talents in that
memorable investigation which was carried on in
a Committee of this House upon the renewal of
the East-India Company's Charter. In the course
of that examination the gentlemen connected with
India displayed a degree of ability and informa-
tion, which perhaps could not have been matched,
certainly not excelled, in any other service, or in
any other country. Among these very able men
Mr. Sydenham stood eminently distinguished,—
evincing a capacity for great affairs and a fitness
for important employments, such as are rarely to
be found even in more practised statesmen. If,
EMBASSY TO LIS BON. - 521
therefore, I have been driven to say any thing of
this gentleman (I hope I have not, I am sure I
have not intended it) which may have appeared
in any degree disrespectful or disparaging,-if I
have been obliged to soil the name of a high-
minded and liberal man with money, the blame
(I repeat it) is not with me, but with those who
forced Mr. Sydenham's name into this discussion.
I now, Sir, come to the details of the expendi-
ture of my own mission, the account of which is
among the papers upon the table. The honour-
able gentleman who made the motion, has had
the goodness to compliment me on the minuteness
and accuracy of my calculations. I understand
the nature of the honourable gentleman's com-
pliment; and I see that he has been taught
thoroughly to understand the nature of the advan-
tage which he has over me on this day. Un-
doubtedly any charge connected with money
places the accused in a dilemma of painful diffi-
culty,+a difficulty the more painful in proportion
to the consciousness of his innocence, and to the
warmth of his indignation. If he contents him-
self—as is the first natural impulse of every
honourable mind—with general and lofty denial,
he exposes himself to be triumphed over as
having evaded investigation;–and figures are
then invoked as the only test of truth. If on the
other hand he condescends to detailed arithmetical
calculation, he becomes liable to such compli-
522 EMBASSY TO LI SE ON.
ments as those of the honourable gentleman; and
must feel (as I do now) a certain inevitable
degradation in the very process by which he is
to be justified. It is certainly not without such
pain that I made up my mind to this latter alter-
native. Those who know me in private life are,
I am afraid, too well aware how little I am versed
in questions either of arithmetic or of economy,
not to have been as much surprised, as the
honourable gentleman professes himself to be
gratified, at the proficiency in figures which is
displayed in the papers before the House; parti-
cularly in that laboured despatch of mine of the
30th May, 1815. In truth, I availed myself,
for the purpose of those statements and calcula-
tions, of the aid of persons much more conver-
sant with such matters than I can pretend to be.
I beg the honourable gentleman also to under-
stand that I do not profess, in these accounts, to
state my whole expenditure at Lisbon, but only
my expenditure of public money, -
Sir, the expenditure of Sir Charles Stuart's
mission for the two years, 1812-13, and 1813-14,
and that of the interval between the conclusion
of Sir Charles Stuart's mission and my appoint-
ment, can hardly be denied to justify the nominal
amount of the allowances assigned to me. But
that nominal amount and the real effective value
were very different indeed. For my actual ev-
penditure (as distinguished from nominal receipt, .
EM B A SSY TO LISBON. 523
or rather nominal issue), a fair but strict standard
of comparison is furnished by the Report of the
Civil-List Committee of June, 1815. If it shall
appear that my whole actual expenditure as Am-
bassador, tallied within a very trifle with the
amount fixed by that Committee and sanctioned
by the House for a Minister at Lisbon of the
second order, I think it will not be imputed that I
abused the discretion confided to me.
Assuredly I did not, on going out to Lisbon,
anticipate the trial of this day; but I did, as has
been seen, dread and deprecate any unlimited
pecuniary discretion. It has been shown how
anxious I was to have the limits of my expen-
diture defined : and within those limits, whatever
they might be, I resolved to restrict myself.
My nominal allowances were, as I have said,
and as appears from the papers upon the table—
Salary .......................... ........................ £8,200
Extraordinaries, not to exceed ......... ... 6,000
Total £14,200
Of this amount of extraordinaries I drew only
for three-fourths, or £4,500. I received (like
every other Minister of whatever rank), the sum
of £1,500 for outfit. If that sum be taken as
replacing the £1,500 extraordinaries which I
declined to draw, the result of salary, extraor-
dinaries, and outfit for that one year (outfit could
524 EMBASSY TO LIS BON.
only be a charge on the first year,) is, as above,
£14,200. I had plate, like other Ambassadors and
Envoys Extraordinary, &c., but upon the scale of
an Envoy.
Having no rule or experience to guide me, all
that I could determine was to consider the esta-
blished recognized amount of the salary as the
limit of my public expenditure, and to draw for
no more evtraordinaries than should make up the
nominal salary of £8,200 to that effective amount.
Had therefore that salary been paid free from
deductions at home, and without loss on the
exchange and on the conversion into Portuguese
money, I should not have drawn for one shilling
of extraordinaries for my expenses at Lisbon.
But the case was very different. This nominal
salary was liable to deductions amounting to no
less than about sixteen per cent. in England,
which reduced it from £8,200 to about £6,900;
and this latter sum again to a loss of something
more than twelve per cent. in its transit and con-
version, reducing it from £6,900 to somewhere
between £6,100 and £6,000.
This statement applies to the first three quar-
ters of the year, ending the 5th of July, 1815.
In July I received the Report of the Civil List
Committee, to which I have so often had occasion
to refer. From that time, therefore, I had—what
I had always wished—a positive written public
rule, not laid down indeed for my mission, but
EMBASSY TO LIS BON. 525
which I might safely take for my guide. By the
Civil List Report, the Minister to Portugal was
considered prospectively on the footing not of an
Ambassador, but of an Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary. To that Minister of
the second order, the Report assigned a salary of
£8,000 a year. It further recommended that all
sums for foreign missions should be paid free of
all deductions except the property tax; thus
relieving the issues of salary from all the esta-
blished legal defalcations at home, amounting to
about six per cent. (in addition to the property
tax), and from all losses by exchange or other-
wise, in the transmission abroad. At the same
time, the allowance for outfit—which had been
hitherto in all cases, and for all ranks, only £1,500
—a sum which is stated by the Report not to be
sufficient to cover above one-third or one-fourth
of the real expense, was raised to £4,000, and an
annual allowance of £500 was given for house
rent. The several arrangements are to be found
in pp. 47 and 48 of the Civil List Report, to
which I beg the gentlemen who do me the honour
to watch what I am saying, to refer. Deducting
£800 the property tax, from the salary of £8,000,
these issues to the new Envoy would amount to
£11,700 nett for the first year; and to £7,700 nett
for every subsequent year. And this, exclusive
of plate, for which the Report makes a special
provision. - g
526 EMBASSY TO LISBO N.
When I received the copy of this Report, I
instantly determined that, so long as the mission
continued in my hands, I would limit myself
strictly to the amount specified in it. For the
last quarter, therefore (from July the 5th to Oc-
tober 10th, 1815), I conformed to the new scale
of ordinary allowances, and received only £1,800
nett, without any extraordinaries whatever. The
exchange was now, in consequence of the ter-
mination of the war, become so favourable as in
a great measure to counteract the loss upon the
paper money, which continued to be about seven
per cent. The result of this counteraction was, that
the loss upon £1,800 by the exchange and paper
money jointly, which three months before would
have been about £220 and now only about £70.
Of the £6,000 extraordinaries which I had
liberty to draw, I drew only for so much as was
sufficient— ...’
First, to replace the deductions on £6,150 being
three quarters of nominal salary at the old rate of
£8,200 (gross), and on £1,800 one quarter at the
new rate of £7,200 (nett). º
Secondly, to make up the old allowance for
outfit, viz. £1,500 to the sum of £4,000 speci-
fically allowed by the Committee, and not one
farthing more, so help me God. -
So scrupulously did I adhere to these limits,
(which seemed to me to have been formed on a
clear principle, and which had the sanction of the
EMBASSY TO LISBON. . 527
House of Commons), that finding that my agent
had drawn for the last quarter a sum of £1,500 as
evtraordinaries (at the rate of the £6,000 origi-
nally allowed to me), I directed him to return
that sum to the Treasury: and I declare, on my
conscience, that when I gave this direction, I had
no more expectation that the transaction would
ever be known to any one except to my agent,
to my right honourable friend near me, Mr. Hus-
kisson, whom. I requested to see my direction
executed, to my noble friend, Lord Castlereagh,
(whose permission was necessary); and to the
Treasury, (to which the return was made), I had
no more expectation that I should ever have to
state this transaction privately or publicly in vin-
dication of my character, than I had apprehen-
sion that on such grounds my character would
ever be assailed. . .
It is undoubtedly still open to the honourable
gentlemen who are the framers and supporters of
the impeachment against me, to recur to the
charge that the mission to Lisbon was unneces-
sary; to find fault, if they please, with my per-
sonal conduct in accepting it (of which a word
by-and-by), and to censure the mode in which I
may have discharged the duties of it. But as to
pecuniary imputation, I stand upon a rock—I
stand upon the authority of a Committee of this
House, appointed long after my embassy was
established and endowed, and not merely approv-
528 EMBASSY TO LIS BON.
ing by retrospect the amount of its actual endow-
ment, but recommending prospectively the same
endowment for a mission of a lower character.
Before that Report was known to me, with the
power to go to a certain extent of expense, I
restrained myself within that extent, to limits
narrowed by my own sense of what was right.
As soon as I had the authority of that Report to
guide me, I adhered to it voluntarily and strictly,
living as an Ambassador, within the allowances
assigned for an Envoy. To other allegations of
misconduct, political or prudential, I may be ob-
noxious; but surely no fair adversary, after this
exposition, will impute to my embassy either a
wasteful prodigality on the part of the Govern-
ment, or a corrupt rapacity on mine.
I am afraid I have already wearied the House
with figures, but there is another calculation, of
which the result is so striking, that I cannot help
requesting of the House to allow me to state it
to them. Its elements are few, and the process
short and simple. I particularly request atten-
tion to it from the right honourable gentleman
(Mr. Tierney), who sits opposite to me, whose
skill in these matters peculiarly qualifies him to
detect any error in the statement.
The Report of the Committee on the Civil List
fixes the salary of the Lisbon Envoy at £8,000 to
be reduced by the deduction of the property tax
to £7,200. This sum of £7,200 was to be received
E M BASSY TO LIS BON. 529
mett at Lisbon, free from all other deductions at
home, and from loss by exchange and conversion
abroad. Sir, I desired a person far better skilled
in calculations than I am, to make out for me how
much must have been received nett from the
Treasury here, to produce £7,200 nett, in Lisbon,
during the years 1814-15? The following is the
statement of my arithmetician.
The first addition to be made is that of the
amount necessary to cover the average loss of
something more than 12 per cent. by exchange
and paper money: this would be about £ 980
which being added to ................................ 7,200
as the sum necessary to have been received nett
in England, in order to produce £7,200 nett in
Lisbon. - *
But, again; how much would it have been
necessary for the Treasury to issue gross to pro-
duce (on the footing on which my salary was
issued) f$,180 nett in England? The deductions
at the Exchequer, I have shown, amounted to
about 16 per cent., the property-tax included.
The sum necessary to cover these deductions,
would be about.......................................... ... f. 1,556
Which, added to .............. ......................” 8,180
VOL. III. M. M.
530 E M BASSY TO LIS BON.
Shews, that the gross issue at the Treasury
must have been about ............................ £9,736
Add to this sum the allowance for outfit 4,000
Add the allowance for house-rent (to which,
by the way, might be added 12 per cent.
for loss on exchange, &c.) .................... 500
And the gross nominal issues at the Trea-
sury to meet the recommendation of the
Committee, for the first year of the new
Envoy, must have been ........................ £14,236
Does not the very sound of this sum carry con-
viction,-and I could almost hope compunction, to
the bosoms of my accusers ? Does it not excite
in the minds of all impartial men, an indignant
recollection of the arts and the clamours, by which,
during two years and a half, I have been stig-
matized to the country as an instance of unex-
ampled waste, as an insatiable pillager of the
Exchequer?
Sir, of the pecuniary charge I trust that I may
here take my leave. After my ownvindication, how-
ever (which must on every account be nearest to
my heart), I confess, I am most anxious to put the
well-intentioned part of the nation on their guard
against those exaggerations, for mischievous pur-
poses, by which public men are run down. If
the result of this night shall warn them not to be
3.
E M BASSY TO LIS BON. 531
too easily misled into the belief of monstrous and
improbable corruptions, I cannot say that I shall
not still regret the calumnies with which I have
been overwhelmed ; but I shall be in some de-
gree rewarded and consoled for them.
I have thus disposed of the two main heads of
accusation. I have shown that there was a sin-
cere and well-grounded belief in the return of the
Prince Regent of Portugal to Europe: and I have
shown that the cost of the embassy appointed
to receive him on his return was not only not
extravagant, but that according to every test
by which expenditure can be tried, whether of
contrast with what had gone before, or of com-
parison with what has been deliberately estab-
lished for the future, it was limited by a reason-
able and scrupulous economy.
Some minor charges remain to be refuted.
I am accused of having held the mission after
all hope of executing the duty which I undertook
to fulfil was abandoned. But, before I enter on
this point, I am reminded that I am accused also of
having assumed the mission too soon. It is said
that I assumed it in October, although the Prince
of Brazil could not be expected in Europe for six
months from that date. Now if there were any
ground for supposing that the return was alto-
gether a false pretence, the acceptance of the
Embassy sooner or later would be of no conse-
quence; the acceptance of it at all was a crime.
M. M. 2
532 EM B A SSY TO I, IS BON.
But if the Prince Regent of Portugal was to come
to Europe, there was fair probability that Sir John
Beresford might have landed him at Lisbon in
February. Sir John Beresford sailed from Ports-
mouth on the fifth of October. True, he was
driven back to Plymouth after having been some
days at sea. But, as to the length of the passage,
he did reach the Brazils in seven weeks from the
date of his last sailing (that too with a convoy
under his protection); and it was not only no im-
probable expectation, but it was the belief of Sir
John Beresford himself, stated repeatedly to the
Prince Regent of Portugal, that from five to six
weeks would be sufficient for the voyage from
Rio de Janeiro. It is true, that the hypothesis
was, that the Prince Regent would be ready to
embark, and would have made all the prepara-
tions necessary for his departure, between the
period of his writing for a squadron and its arrival.
Such in fact was our expectation ; and upon that
supposition (as I have said before) the arrival at
Lisbon of the Prince Regent himself would have
been the first intelligence that would have been
received there of his departure from Rio de Ja-
neiro. I sailed in the beginning of November. I
landed at Lisbon (I think) on the first of the fol-
lowing month. I had no more doubt of the im-
patience of the Portuguese royal family to return
to Europe than I have that I am now addressing
this House. I consequently reckoned upon
E M BASSY TO LIS BON . 533
their arrival in Lisbon almost as soon after my own
as I could conveniently be prepared to receive
them. In the month of February, I well remem-
ber, we used to be looking out at Lisbon, at every
favourable turn of the wind, for the arrival of
Sir John Beresford with his royal passengers,
in the Tagus. The only period, therefore, during
which I can be accused of receiving a salary with-
out executing a public duty, is that between the
date of my appointment and my sailing for Lis-
bon, a period of about three weeks. Surely this
then is a charge of minute and petty captiousness.
It is said that nature abhors a vacuum ; and I be-
lieve it may be equally said that an Exchequer
Quarter abhors a fraction. My salary was reckoned
from the 10th of October, the quarter-day which
preceded by about ten days my taking leave at
Carlton House;—and which preceded my actual
departure (as I have said) by about three weeks.
Of the scores or hundreds of missions which have
gone out from this country for the last century, I
very much doubt whether one could be found
whose allowances had begun to run from so short
a period before its departure. If this, Sir, be
not a sufficient defence on such a matter, I can
only give myself up to the mercy of the House,
with a frank expression of my regret that I was
gazetted three weeks too soon. -
As to retaining my office too long, I have al-
ready answered to this point incidentally; but I
534 E M BASSY TO LISBO N.
must briefly answer to it again here in its proper
order. The first loose intimations of a doubt of
the return of the Prince Regent to his European
dominions, arrived in England in the month of
March. They reached me at Lisbon on the 9th
of April. On the 10th of April I wrote to the
Foreign Office, tendering my resignation. I was
desired to continue in the exercise of my functions;
and from that moment the mission entirely changed
its character. I was no longer the pageant Am-
bassador to a non-forthcoming Sovereign. The war
had broken out, with the ominous re-appearance of
Buonaparte: and who was there in this country, or
in Europe, that ventured to predict its speedy, its
miraculous termination? Who could presume to
say what might be its course; or what the extent
of effort required to give effect to its operations?
Henceforth, therefore, I filled (whether worthily
or not, is another question), a situation of business
at a not insignificant post, and at a most eventful
crisis. If I had not been on the spot, another
must have been appointed—a Minister of the
second order, if you please—but even if so, with
all the allowances and expenses incident to a
Minister of the second order at Lisbon—which I
have already shown to be, according to the re-
commendation of the Civil List Report, substan-
tially the same as mine. Henceforth, therefore, I
did not add one farthing to the unavoidable ex-
penses of the country. It may be alleged, that a
E M BASS Y TO LIS B O N . 535
more able individual might have been found to
discharge the duties of the mission; and that I
did wrong in continuing to do what others might
have done better; but there is not a shadow of
pretence for affirming that my continuance at
Lisbon laid any burden upon the public, or that
any saving could have been effected by the accept-
ance of my resignation on the 10th of April.
It is obvious that in the refusal to accept my
resignation, I was wholly passive; but neither
does my noble friend require any justification for
having recommended to the Prince Regent to de-
cline accepting it. My noble friend is sufficiently
justified by the case itself, and by his subsequent
conduct. For no sooner was the battle of Water-
loo fought, and the war thus happily ended,
(almost as soon as begun,) than my noble friend
signified to me His Royal Highness's acceptance
of the resignation which had been before declined.
It is true, that it was not until three months after
this notification that I was finally relieved from
the mission. Amidst the important negociations
in which my noble friend was then engaged, he
appears to have forgotten that he had not ap-
pointed any one to receive the business and cor-
respondence of the Lisbon mission, out of my
hands. Portugal and myself had (no wonder)
sunk into insignificance and oblivion; and up to
the beginning of August, no successor to me was
appointed. Did I think this a lucky chance’
536 EM B A SSY TO LIS BON.
Did I go on quietly to enjoy the advantage of this
oblivion ? No. After about a month had elapsed
without hearing anything from the Foreign Office,
I wrote to my noble friend, to remind him of my
existence : and, apprehending him to be—as he
in fact was—absent from England, I wrote by the
same packet a private letter to Lord Bathurst,
begging leave, in case any difficulty should have
occurred in the nomination of a successor, to re-
commend Mr. Croft (whom I have already men-
tioned as having been first introduced to me by
my noble friend,) as a person perfectly competent
to act as Chargé d'Affaires; and offering, at the
same time, the aid of my unofficial advice, so long
as I should remain (which I intended to do
through the winter) in Portugal. I desire to
know if this conduct can be characterized as a
clinging to my office 7 or whether my pertinacity
in adhering to it was more than exactly on a par
with my eagerness in seeking it?
Perhaps, Sir, I might now sit down, perfectly
satisfied with having cleared the integrity of my
conduct; and, perhaps, with a feeling rather of
gratitude than of hostility towards those who, by
manfully giving a distinct and substantive shape
to their allegations, have afforded me an oppor-
tunity of refuting them. But I cannot pass by the
taunts of the honourable baronet, and the grave
admonitions of the honourable mover of the ques-
tion, without assuring them, that so long as I
EMI BASSY TO LIS BON . 537
possess in my own breast the consciousness of
integrity, such assailments, whether taunting or
monitory, will excite in it no emotion warmer
than contempt. I must above all things assure
the honourable baronet, that no attempt to im-
peach my character and to degrade me (as he
flattered himself this proceeding might do) in that
estimation with this House which constitutes all
that is valuable, and all that is efficient in a public
man—no such attempt, I say, will cause me to
lower my voice one key, or to abate one jot of my
exertions, in opposing and exposing those doc-
trines of which the honourable baronet is the
representative and the champion. Let not the
honourable baronet flatter himself with any such
result from this attack upon my reputation. Let
him not flatter himself with the hope of such a re-
sult from his asperity to-night, or from his menaces
for the future. If I am satisfied to have done
right, for the peace of my own conscience—I am
also glad to have made that right apparent, mainly
because I know how necessary are the good
opinion and the favouring attention of this House,
to enable me to exert myself successfully for the
defeat of those projects which the honourable
baronet has at heart, and which, I verily believe,
would bring this country to ruin. The honour-
able baronet has spoken out: and the only
sentiment with which I am inspired by the bit-
terness of his declared enmity, and by the burst
538 EMBASSY TO LIS B () N.
of his anticipated triumph, is that of a pride—I
hope an honest and pardonable pride—at the proof
which he has thus unintentionally afforded of the
reasons to which I am indebted for his hostility.
It is because I am held in hatred and in fear by
those who share the honourable baronet’s opinions,
that by them I have been sought to be destroyed.
I have been sought to be destroyed, because I
have declared myself—(with what effect it becomes
not me to say, but with all my heart and soul)—
against schemes, which, if unchecked, would bring
destruction upon those hallowed institutions by
which the mixed and free Government of this
great kingdom is upholden, and from which the
practical blessings of our constitution are derived.
Sir, I thus dismiss all that part of the charges
which, if substantiated, would have established
against me the guilt of criminality or of culpable
misconduct. But I wish to leave nothing un-
noticed, whether of charge or of insinuation ;
whether conveying the imputation of positive
guilt, or only implying discredit and disparage-
ment.
It is made matter of accusation and reproach
against me that I have accepted office with my
noble friend (Lord Castlereagh) who sits beside
me, between whom and myself it is assumed
that our former differences had placed an im-
passable barrier. First, from what quarter comes
this reproach and accusation? From a bench, on
1. M BASSY TO LI SBO N. 539
which I do not see any two neighbours who have
not differed from each other, and that within short
memory too, much more essentially than myself
and my noble friend. But it is insinuated that
the differences between my noble friend and
myself were of a sort which precluded reconcili-
ation 1 Since when have such matters become
topics of parliamentary discussion? Since when
has it been the practice of this House to take
cognizance of the disagreements of individuals,
and to indulge in such animadversions on the
most delicate topics of personal conduct as in
private society no gentleman would venture to
hazard? Since when, I say, has this practice
commenced? and how far is it to be carried? I
know of no precedent for it. I know of no au-
thority. It is not for my own sake, but for the
sake of this House, that I protest against it; for,
if this practice be permitted, our discussions
must inevitably sink into grosser personalities
than have disgraced the meetings of Palace Yard
and of Spa Fields.
The honourable baronet is entirely mistaken as
to what he supposes me to have addressed to my
constituents at Liverpool in 1812. Nothing that I
then said was intended to convey, or did convey,
the notion that I was precluded by any feeling,
or (in my own judgment) by any principle, from
acting in office with my noble friend. I. had
W
540 EM B A SS Y TO LIS BON.
declared the directly contrary opinion some
months before, in a correspondence respecting the
formation of an Administration, which the dis-
cussions of those times brought before the public,
and which is now upon record. What is not
publicly recorded is, that some time after those
discussions had closed, but six or eight weeks
before my Election at Liverpool, other negocia-
tions, which had for their object my return to
office, had taken place; amongst the proposed
arrangements of which, my noble friend, with a
manliness and generosity which I hope I felt as
they deserved, had voluntarily tendered to my
acceptance the seals of the office which he now
holds. Other reasons induced me to decline that
tender; I might be right or wrong in my view of
those reasons. One among them was, that I was
at that time embarrassed with respect to a most
important question (the discussion of which is
now fixed for no distant day) by pledges which I
could best hope to redeem with unquestioned
fidelity and honour, by remaining out of office
till I had redeemed them. But what would be
thought of me, what should I deserve to be thought
of by any liberal mind, if, after such a transaction
as I have described, I could ever pause for a mo-
ment, to consider in what order with respect to
each other my noble friend and I should march
towards our common objects in the service of
EMBASSY TO LIS BON. 54 |
the country : In that transaction, any feelings
which had previously separated my noble friend
and myself were buried for ever. The very
memory of them was effaced from our minds:
nor can I compliment the good taste of those who
would call them up from oblivion; surely not with
the vain hope of exasperating differences anew,
but with the purpose of making a reconcilement
now of five years' standing, a subject of suspicion,
taunt and obloquy. - " " , ;
What I have said, Sir, is, I hope, a sufficient
comment upon the notable discovery that I ac-
cepted public employment not with, but under,
my noble friend. This paltry distinction, I can
assure those who are so vain of it, occasions me
not the slightest uneasiness. When Lord Pem-
broke went out to Vienna, and the Marquis Wel-
lesley to Spain, during (or under, if you will) my
administration of the Foreign Department, had I
the ridiculous vanity to fancy that these distin-
guished noblemen acted under me, in any sense
of degrading subordination ? Or is it imagined
that when the Duke of Wellington undertook his
mission to Paris, my noble friend, conceived that
he was therefore entitled to claim a pre-eminence
over the deliverer of Europe? They know little,
Sir, of the spirit of our Constitution, they are
very ill acquainted with the duties that it imposes,
and the privileges that it confers, who are not
542 EMBASSY TO LIS BON.
aware, that in whatever station a man may be
called upon to serve his Sovereign and his
country, there is among statesmen, co-operating
honestly for the public good, a real substantive
equality which no mere official arrangement can
either create or destroy; they, who are yet to
learn, that in a free country like ours, it is for
the man to dignify the office, not for the office to
dignify the man.
Sir, I have now done. I have humbly to apo-
logize to the House for having trespassed upon
them so long, and to thank them for their indul-
gent attention. The manner in which I have been
heard by the House, has been such as satisfies
me that they justly and kindly considered how
much I had at stake on this day. If I have suc-
ceeded, (as my conscience tells me that I must
have done,) in refuting the charges brought
against me, I have not spoken in vain; and you,
Sir, will not regret having listened to me. If I
have not succeeded; if the House shall be of
opinion that any stain remains upon my character,
then indeed, Sir, have I troubled you too long;
but I have troubled you for the last time.
SIR. T. AcKLAND said, that he was confident the candour
of the honourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett) would not per-
mit him to hesitate in pronouncing the full acquittal of a
person accused, who had proved himself to be innocent.
EMBASSY TO LIS BON. 543
After a speech so eloquent, which had thrilled through
every heart in the House, he should have been proud to
have been so accused, in order to have so defended himself.
The House divided :-
For Mr. Lambton’s Motion......... 96
Against it ....... .................... 870
*
Majority .............................. 174
i
}.
END OF WOL. III.
shACKELL AND BAYLIS, Johnson’s-Court.

UNIVERSITY OF MICH IGAN
||||||||||
|（
ſ.
ſ.
（ ）
|-
ſ.
ſ.|
ſ.
|
-
|-
|-
ſ.
-
- ）
|×
-
|
-
|×
.
）
|× ：
ſ.
-|-
：
|×|×
-
|
-
（ſ.
|-
ſae
：
ſ.|-
ſ.