§ The Duke of Wellington, after presenting a Petition from Cambridge, against Reform, proceeded to say—My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have risen to address you since his Majesty confided a most important duty to my charge, and your Lordships, or, at least, some noble Lords here present, are, I am sure, desirous that I should avail myself of this, or some other early opportunity, to explain the nature of the transactions in which I have been engaged. I confess, too, my Lords, that, exposed as I have been to the extreme of misrepresentations, and vilified as I have been in another place, by persons of h gh condition, and otherwise respectable, I am anxious to take the first opportunity of explaining the nature of the transactions in which I have been engaged, and the grounds on which I acted. Your Lordships will recollect, that, in the course of the last week—I believe on Wednesday last—his Majesty's Ministers informed your Lordships, that, in consequence of their having tendered advice upon an important subject to his Majesty, and his Majesty's not having thought proper to avail himself of that advice, they considered it their duty to tender their resignations to his Majesty, which he was pleased to accept. His Majesty, my Lords, was graciously pleased on that very day, when he was left entirely alone by his Ministers, to send for a noble friend of mine, who had held a high place as well in the service as in the confidence of his Majesty, to inquire if, in his opinion, there were any means, and, if so, what means, of forming a Government for his Majesty, on the principle of carrying an extensive Reform in the Representation of the people. His Majesty, when he had the misfortune of disagreeing with his servants respecting the advice which had been tendered to him, happened to have had so little communication with other men, and was so little acquainted with other opinions on public affairs, that he felt it necessary to send for my noble and learned friend, who was nut of the im- 994 mediate line of politics, and seek for information at his hands. My noble and learned friend informed me of his Majesty's situation, and I considered it my duty to inquire from others, for I was as equally unprepared as his Majesty for the consideration of such a question. I then found that a large number of friends of mine were not unwilling to give their support to a Government formed upon such a principle, and with the positive view of resistance to that advice which was tendered to his Majesty. Under these circumstances I waited on his Majesty on Saturday, and submitted to him my advice. That was, not to re-appoint his late Ministry; nor was it to appoint myself. I did not look to any objects of ambition. I advised him to seek the assistance of other persons to fill the high situations in the State, expressing myself willing to give his Majesty all assistance, whether in office or out of office, to enable his Majesty to form an Administration to resist the advice which had been given to him. My Lords, these were the first steps of the transaction; and if ever there was an instance in which the Sovereign acted most honestly by his former servants—if ever there was an instance in which public men kept themselves most completely apart from all intrigues, and from all indirect influence—using only those direct and honorable means of opposition, of which no man had reason to be other than proud, this is that instance. And when I came to give my advice to his Majesty, instead of advising him with a view to objects of personal ambition—as I have been accused upon high authority—I gave him that advice which I thought would best lead to another arrangement, and I stated that I was ready to serve his Majesty in any, or in no capacity, so as best to assist him in carrying on a Government to resist the advice which had been given him by his late Ministers. And here I beg your Lordships to examine what was the nature of that advice which was tendered to his Majesty by them? I wish your Lordships to examine it. What was the advice which his Majesty did not deem it proper to follow, and which I considered it my duty to enable his Majesty to resist. I do not ask any man to seek any further explanation of this advice than that which was given by the Ministers themselves. It was neither more nor less than this:—The Government, feeling some difficulty in carrying the Reform Bill through this House, were 995 induced to advise his Majesty to do—what?—to create a sufficient number of Peers to enable them to carry their measure through this House of Lords—to force it through this House of Parliament. My Lords, before I go further, let me beg you to consider what is the nature of that proposition? Ministers found, in the course of last Session, that there was a large majority in this House against the principle of the Reform Bill. Now, my Lords, what is the ordinary course for a Minister, under such circumstances, to pursue? My Lords, it is, to alter the measure—to endeavour to make it More palatable to that branch of the Legislature which is opposed to it. But, in this case, the Minister says "no, I will next Session bring in a Bill as efficient as that which has been just rejected." And what did the Minister do? My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that, notwithstanding the opposition of this House, he brought in a measure stronger and worse than any one of the measures before introduced; and this measure he wished to force through the House by a large creation of Peers. How many Peers it is not necessary to state; it is enough to say, a sufficient number to force it through the House. It is only necessary for me to state the proposition. If this be a legal and constitutional course of conduct—if such projects can be carried into execution by a Minister of the Crown with impunity, there is no doubt that the Constitution of this House and of this country is at an end. I ask, my Lords, is there anybody blind enough not to see that if a Minister can, with impunity, advise his Sovereign to such an unconstitutional exercise of his prerogative as to thereby decide all questions in this House, there is absolutely an end put to the power and objects of deliberation in this House—an end to all just and proper means of decision. I say, then, my Lords, thinking as I do, it was my duty to counsel his Majesty to resist this advice. And, my Lords, my opinion is, that the threat of carrying this measure of creating Peers into execution, if it should have the effect of inducing noble Lords to absent themselves from the House, or to adopt any particular line of conduct, is just as bad as its execution: for, my Lords, it does by violence force a decision on this House, and on a subject, my Lords, on which this House is not disposed to give such a decision. It is true, my Lords, men may be led to adopt such a course, by reflecting, 996 that if they do not adopt it, some fifty or 100 Peers will be introduced, and thus deliberation and decision in this House be rendered impracticable; or men may be led to adopt it with the view of saving the Sovereign from the indignity of having so gross a violation of the Constitution imposed upon him. But I say, my Lords, that the effect of any body of men agreeing publicly to such a course, will be to make themselves parties to this very proceeding, of which, I say, we have so much reason to complain. The only course of proceeding at this eventful crisis worthy of the men with whom I have the honour to be connected was, to advise his Majesty—to counsel his Majesty—to resist the advice which had been given him, if he could find means of carrying on the Government of the country without acceding to it. But this part of the transaction, my Lords, requires particular explanation on my part. His Majesty insisted that some extensive measure of Reform (I use his Majesty's own words) should be carried. I always was of opinion, and am still of opinion, that this measure of Reform is unnecessary, and will prove most injurious to the country. But on the last occasion when I addressed your Lordships.—I believe in the Committee on Monday se'nnight—I stated my intention to endeavour to amend the Bill in Committee, and to do it honestly and fairly: still, however, I thought that, amend it as we might in Committee, it was not a measure which would enable this country to have a Government capable of encountering the critical circumstances to which every man must expect this country to be exposed. This was, my Lords, this is my opinion. I do not think that, under the influence of this measure, it is possible that any Government can expect to overcome the dangers to which this country must be exposed. But, my Lords, this was not the question before me; I was called on to assist my Sovereign in resisting a measure which would lead to the immediate overthrow of one branch of the Legislature—a measure which would enable the Ministry to carry through this House the whole Bill, unmodified, unimproved, and unmitigated. I had then, my Lords, only the choice of adopting such part of that Bill as this House might please to send down to the House of Commons, suffering the Government hereafter to depend upon the operation of that part of the Bill rather than upon the whole Bill; or else of suf- 997 fering the whole Bill to be carried and the House of Lords to be destroyed. My Lords, my opinion is not altered; no part of the Bill is safe; but, undoubtedly, a part of the Bill is better, that is to say less injurious, than the whole Bill; and, certainly, it must at least be admitted that it is better than the whole Bill accompanied by the destruction of the Constitution of the country, by the destruction of the independence of this House. Under these circumstances, my Lords, I gave my consent to assist his Majesty in forming an Administration upon the condition his Majesty mentioned. I know that many noble Lords may be of opinion that I should have acted a more prudent part if I had looked to anterior circumstances, and if I had regarded the opinions and pledges I have already given; and if, placing my attention exclusively upon the desire of acting a consistent part in public life, I had pursued a different course, and refused my assistance to his Majesty, noble Lords will think I should have done better, and have acted more wisely, I do not mean to detract from the merits of those who have thought proper to pursue a course contrary to mine upon this occasion. I am grieved, in particular, that it should have been my misfortune to differ with some right hon. friends of mine, with whom I have been for many years in habits of cordial union, co-operation, and friendship, and from whom I hope this momentary separation will not dissever me. Their position, my Lords, was different from mine. I was situated in a position very different from that in which they felt themselves to stand. They regretted that they could not take the same course with me; but for myself, my Lords, I cannot help feeling, that if I had been capable of refusing my assistance to his Majesty—if I had been capable of saying to his Majesty, "I cannot assist you in this affair," I do not think, my Lords, that I could have shown my face in the streets from shame of having done it—for shame of having abandoned my Sovereign under such distressing circumstances. I have, indeed, the misfortune of differing from friends of mine upon this subject, but I cannot regret the steps I have taken. If I have made a mistake, I regret it; but I am not aware that I have made any mistake. It was impossible that I could shrink from his Majesty under the distressing circumstances in which he was placed. I will not detain your Lordships longer with a detail of the circum- 998 stances which led to the dilemma in which we are now placed. But, my Lords, I wish to call your attention to the commencement of those transactions, and if your Lordships look to the Speech which his Majesty made from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, in June, 1831—if you recollect that his Majesty stated in strong terms, that that important question should receive the earliest and most attentive consideration, with a due consideration of the rights of Parliament, you will be surprised to find us in our present situation. His Majesty then said— "Having had recourse to that measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency of a Reform in the Representation, I have now to recommend that important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration; confident that, in any measure which you may propose for its adjustment, you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the Constitution, by which the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are equally secured."* Now, my Lords, I ask, could it be believed at the time his Majesty made this Speech, that the rights of this House—the power of deliberating and deciding independently upon such a question as this, would be destroyed by a creation of Peers, and by a creation to an extent which could not be much less than 100. If any man at the time foretold this, it would have been said he was dreaming of things that were impossible. But to this state, my Lords, have we been brought by this measure. When I first heard of this Bill being proposed to be carried by a creation of Peers I said it was quite impossible. I could not believe that any Minister of England would be led by any considerations whatsoever to recommend such a measure to his Majesty. The first time, indeed, I ever heard the matter mentioned with any degree of authority was, when a right rev. Prelate thought proper to write upon the subject to some people in a town in Sussex. I can appeal to those sitting near me, if this is not the fact—if I did not uniformly declare that the thing was impossible—that the very idea of it ought not to be mentioned; that it never should be imagined that any Minister could be found who would recommend such an unconstitu-
*Hansard, (third series)vol. iv. p. 85.999 tional—such a ruinous exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. For, my Lords, I do maintain, that the just exercise of the prerogative of the Crown does by no means go to the extent of enabling his Majesty to create a body of Peers with the view to carry any particular measure. Under the circumstances, then, I believe your Lordships will not think it unnatural, when I considered his Majesty's situation, that I should endeavour to assist his Majesty. But, my Lords, when I found that, in consequence of the discussions on Monday in another place (which, by the way, proved so clearly that the sentiments of the leading men then were, that Peers should not be created for such a purpose)—when I found from these discussions that it was impossible to form a Government from that House of such a nature as would secure the confidence of the country, I felt it my duty to inform his Majesty, that I could not fulfil the commission with which he was pleased to honour me, and his Majesty informed me that he would renew his communications with his former Ministry.
§ Lord Lyndhurst saidMy Lords, I am anxious to explain my part in these transactions. I feel that it is a duty I owe to my Sovereign—a duty I owe to the country—a duty I owe to your Lordships' House, and, if your Lordships will permit me to say so, a duty which I owe to myself. On the day when his Majesty accepted the resignations of his late Ministers, he was graciously pleased to desire me to attend him at St. James's. I had had no previous communication with his Majesty for a long period. His Majesty said, he was wholly unprepared for the situation in which he was placed—that he sent to me, as his former Chancellor, to consult as to the course he should pursue, and that he was desirous I should collect all the information possible upon the subject, and communicate to him the state of the country and of parties, with the view of affording materials to guide him in his conduct. He gave me permission to communicate with those whom I considered might be useful to me, and he appointed me to meet him at Windsor on the following night. I, of course, as it was my bounden duty to do, obeyed his Majesty. I should have basely shrunk from my duty if I had declined. In consequence of this interview, I waited on my noble friend, the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Wellington), and communicated to him the task which 1000 had been imposed upon me by my Sovereign, and the distressing position in which his Majesty was placed. With a spirit worthy of that illustrious individual, he told me that there was no sacrifice he would not make—no obloquy to which he would not expose himself, no misinterpretation to which he would not submit, to rescue his Sovereign from the situation in which he had been placed. It was a duty he owed, the noble Duke said, to his Sovereign and his country, and there was no situation, the highest or the lowest, in which he would not act, as might be most advantageous to his Majesty's service. I communicated also, my Lords, with a few other individuals, on whose judgment I place the greatest reliance, about six, I believe, and I communicated the result of my inquiry to his Majesty at the time appointed; all that was best calculated to afford him assistance—all that I had heard—all that I had learned—the result of my own meditations, I frankly communicated to my Sovereign. His Majesty requested me to invite my noble friend to call on him on Saturday; I did so and thus my mission terminated. It is for this, my Lords, of which I have now given you a full and faithful narrative, that I have been traduced, maligned, calumniated. It is for this I have been grossly and cruelly calumniated by persons high in station—persons filling the situation and position of Gentlemen. It is for this I have been traduced and vilified by the periodical Press, which now reigns paramount throughout the land, unrestrained by Government. My Lords, I should be ashamed to be a Minister of the Crown one hour, and suffer The Times newspaper to go unprosecuted. I should conceive that I had been guilty of little short of treason to my Sovereign, that I had tolerated the degradation of the monarchy, and had been guilty of the most scandalous dereliction of duty towards the laws and Constitution;—if I overlooked its flagrant abuse of Majesty and of your Lordships, I should feel that I had forgotten what I owe to your Lordships, and to a Sovereign, and a free Constitution. As far as relates to myself, I despise these publications. They may wound me, and wound me deeply too, through connexions which are dear to me; but as far as I am myself concerned, I treat them with ineffable scorn. Not so, however, the charges made against me by individuals who are Members of the other House. I should not, however, say made, for I have no accurate means of knowing whether they 1001 were made or no? but let me say, the charges published with the names of these individuals. To these I refer. An hon. Baronet, one of the members for Westminster, Sir Francis Burdett, is represented to have said, that as a Judge I had deserted my duty, in the course I pursued when—
The Earl of Suffolkhere interrupted the noble Lord, and although vehemently called on by a great number of noble Lords to resume his seat, persisted in his attempt to address the House. He said be rose to speak to order. He had suffered the noble Lord to proceed until he named an hon. Member of the other House. He might have been content with designating him as the hon. member for Westminster, but it was most disorderly to name him.
§ It was decided that Lord Lyndhurst was in order.
§ Lord Lyndhurstresumed: The noble Lord who stated I was out of order, and who was pleased to interrupt me, has only proved that he knew nothing of the orders of this House. I do not say that Sir Francis Burdett has made use of such expressions. I do not believe he can have made use of such expressions. I am not replying to what he said; I am replying to what has been put into his mouth by that calumniating Press. He is reported to have stated that I acted inconsistently with my duty as a Judge of the land. I say, that if he asserted this, he must, taking it at the best, be ignorant of the Constitution of the country. He ought to know, that, as a member of the Privy Council, I am bound, by virtue of my office, to give advice to my Sovereign if he requires it. More than this he ought to know, if he knows anything of the Constitution, that I have taken an oath to this effect; and more, he ought to know, that as a Judge, I am bound to volunteer my advice to his Majesty if I consider any course of proceeding inimical to the safety of the Crown; so that if the hon. Baronet made the assertion which is attributed to him, he has shown himself perfectly ignorant of the Constitution. My Lords, excuse me if I go one step further. He has charged me, as a Judge, with being the leader of a violent and virulent party in your Lordships' House. Talk of order—talk of the irregularity of naming Members of another House! When here you have a Member of Parliament boldly asserting that your Lordships arc entertaining and nurturing in your bosom a violent mid virulent faction. Whether there is 1002 not such a faction in this House I will not stay to inquire; I wish to have no motives imputed to me; I impute none to other men. I will only say, that I never aspired to such a position as leader of a party; it is alike foreign to my inclination and my habits. I have neither the disposition nor the leisure for such a place. Since the noble Earl became a Minister of the Crown, I have seldom attended the House; I have taken no part in its proceedings; I never engaged in any political discussions. At last, when the Reform Bill was introduced, I did come forward. My opinions on the measure were expressed long since, in a letter to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, written from Warwick, when I heard the first Reform Bill was brought forward; and if these were my honest opinions (and who will question it?)—if I thought that the tendency of this measure was to destroy the Sovereignty and the Constitution, was it not my duty as a Judge of the land, as a Privy Councillor, as a Member of your Lordships' House, with all my power to oppose it? If this measure had originated with, and was supported by my earliest and most valued friends—by the very friends of my bosom—I would have acted in the same way. So much for my conduct, and the attacks upon me. For the rest, the Reformers are triumphant—the barriers are broken down—the waters are out—who can predict their course, or tell the devastation they will occasion? I hope, however, my anticipations may prove unfounded, and that the country will not be ruined by the measure which has been forced upon us by the noble Earl.
§ Earl Greysaid, it is not my intention to do or say anything which can add to the irritation which prevails; therefore I shall carefully abstain from saying anything which might call into question the personal conduct of either the noble Duke or the noble and learned Lord who has just addressed your Lordships. It was for them to judge what their duty required, and to what extent they were called on by their duty to make a sacrifice of their former opinions, and even to contradict by practice their former declarations. All this was for them to consider—all this might have been required; I, however, impute no improper motives to any man; but, on an occasion of this kind, what I expected was, a temperate explanation from the noble and learned Lord; but, instead of this, we have had a violent invective against the measure. Again have we heard the Reform Bill ar- 1003 raigned as revolutionary, and as tending to destroy the Constitution: this we have heard repeated by the noble and learned Lord: we have been arraigned, too, for our conduct in giving advice to his Majesty which, it is said, if followed, would prove fatal to the independence and character of this House. Before I enter upon a consideration of these charges, let me ask if a course of conduct might not be persevered in which would be scarcely less dangerous to the independence of this House? Might not a course be persevered in which would bring this House into conflict with the other House of Parliament, and with the prevailing sense of the people; and might not this expose the House to far greater dangers than that course which we propose to pursue? But laying this aside for the moment—first, as to Reform in Parliament: I have so often explained the grounds and motives on which it was proposed, that it would be a mere waste of time again to enter at any length, into similar statements. The opinions I expressed on the subject are no new opinions. I have long been convinced of the necessity of Reform, to place the Constitution upon a sound, permanent, and safe foundation. Looking at the situation of the country, I thought the measure could no longer safely be deferred without danger. When, therefore, the noble Duke's Administration resigned—when, according to the new construction, they left the Sovereign alone—when I was called on to assist his Majesty in forming a new Administration—I adhered to those opinions upon the subject which I had asserted out of office, and from which, for the purpose of obtaining office, I certainly would not have departed, and which I never have abandoned; and I, accordingly, made it a condition of my accepting power, that I should have the liberty of proposing a measure of Reform to Parliament. This condition was acceded to, and it then became my duty to consider the extent of the measure; and I determined, that the best and safest course to pursue was, to bring in a measure of such extent as would give satisfaction to the country, and which would be not only consistent with, but conducive to, the safety of the Constitution. It was on this principle I brought in the Bill; but the noble and learned Lord considers it revolutionary, and, therefore, feels it his duty to oppose it. I do not quarrel with his opinions; all I can state is, that my opinions on the subject differ as widely from his as it is possible for difference to extend. I do 1004 not complain of the opposition made by the noble Lord; but I do complain of the manner in which it was conducted, in not confining itself to the subject, but branching out into direct personal attacks, which I feel myself called on to disclaim as indignantly as the noble and learned Lord did those matters imputed to him. It is not necessary to go into this long-disputed question of Reform. The Bill, when it was brought forward, received the general approbation of the country, such as no former measure had ever yet commanded. I should like to know if it had not some effect in controlling public opinion, and quieting that agitation which the resistance to that measure raised? I should like to know how it is that even the greatest enemies to Reform now acknowledge that some Reform is necessary—that they no longer oppose it, and at last confess, that it must also be an extensive Reform? I think, then, I was justified in bringing in a measure consistent with those principles I have maintained through life; and if it had been suffered to pass, as it ought to pass, I have no doubt it would have given universal satisfaction throughout the country. This Bill met with a formidable opposition. It passed the House of Commons, after an appeal to the country, by a triumphant majority. Most unfortunately it was rejected by this House. Another Bill, as efficient as this, the noble Duke says, was brought in; but that it is more dangerous I dispute and deny: it had the good fortune to receive the sanction to its principles of a majority of your Lordships on the second reading. I now come to the point which conduced to the present state of affairs. I had hoped that it would pass the Committee without such a change as would render it impossible for me to consent to its being sent down to the other House; but, on the very first clause, a motion was made, the result of which was described as trifling and unimportant; but, in my opinion, it proved such a disposition in this House, and was essentially of such injury to the Bill, that I felt I should not be justified in going further, in deluding the people with the prospect of a success which was never to be attained, and in continuing, by the discussions in the Committee, that irritation throughout the country which it was so necessary to allay. It was then for me to consider which of two courses I would pursue—whether I would abandon the Bill altogether, or whether I would recommend that measure to his Majesty which could 1005 alone enable the Government to go on with the Bill. We adopted the latter alternative, and did propose to his Majesty that advice which the noble Duke has arraigned so severely In the course of his observations the noble Duke stated, that this had been acted on as a threat. I am not sensible that I am liable to that imputation. Pressed and goaded as I have been upon the subject, I do not think I breathed a syllable of the matter, excepting once. It was to state that I felt as strongly as most noble Lords the objections to a measure of the description alluded to, unless in such a case of necessity as would justify the constitutional exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, to prevent a collision between the two Houses of Parliament; that was the precise situation in which we were placed; we had either to recommend this measure, with all the risk of consequences, or suffer this House to come into collision with public opinion and the other House of Parliament—a collision to which, if this House were unwise enough to commit itself, it is not easy to suppose that it can be victorious. The noble Duke, in referring to his Majesty's Speech from the Throne in June, asked who could have thought that a measure of this kind would have been proposed That passage in the Speech which related to a measure of Reform—and I contend that the measure of Reform before your Lordships does possess the qualities there described: it does adhere to the acknowledged principles of the Constitution, and it does preserve the prerogatives of the Crown, the authorities of both Houses of Parliament, and it does secure the rights and liberties of the People. We were under the necessity of offering the advice to create as many new Peers as would carry the measure of Reform through this House unmutilated in any of its essential provisions, or resign our offices. Now I say that, under these circumstances, the advice to create new Peers was required. The noble and learned Lord says, that it was not constitutional; but I say that it was constitutional, and I can refer him to books of authority on that subject, in which it is distinctly asserted, that one of the uses of vesting the prerogative of creating new Peers in the Crown is, to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of those evils which must otherwise result from a permanent collision between the two Houses of Parliament; and this danger was rendered imminent by the opposition made to the Reform Bill by the noble Lords on the 1006 other side of the House. And, I ask, what would be the consequences if we were to suppose that such a prerogative did not exist, or could not be constitutionally exercised? The Commons have a control over the power of the Crown by the privilege, in extreme cases, of refusing the Supplies; and the Crown has, by means of its power to dissolve the House of Commons, a control upon any violent and rash proceedings on the part of the Commons; but if a majority of this House is to have the power, whenever they please, of opposing the declared and decided wishes both of the Crown and the people, without any means of modifying that power, then this country is placed entirely under the influence of an uncontrollable oligarchy. I say that, if a majority of this House should have the power of acting adversely to the Crown and the Commons, and was determined to exercise that power without being liable to check or control, the Constitution is completely altered, and the government of this country is not a limited monarchy: it is no longer, my Lords, the Crown, the Lords, and Commons, but a House of Lords—a separate oligarchy—governing absolutely the others. On these grounds we tendered that advice to his Majesty which we were well justified, by the spirit and by the letter of the Constitution, in tendering; nay, more—which, under the circumstances, it was our imperative duty to tender, considering the consequences that were likely to result from the failure of the measure. But then it is said by the noble Duke, that the Ministers had, by their resignation, left his Majesty alone, and this was said as if there had been something invidious and improper in this conduct of Ministers. I would ask in what this conduct differs from any other resignation? The Ministers offered that advice to his Majesty which they thought themselves called upon to offer in the situation in which we were placed. His Majesty was pleased to refuse compliance with our advice, and then we most respectfully tendered our resignations, being the only course which remained for us to follow, if we were prepared to act as honest and independent men. We did not, however, leave his Majesty alone, or abandon him, in any invidious or ungenerous sense of the word, but merely acted in the manner that was due to our character and honour as honest and independent men. I believe that the noble Duke himself, on reflection, will be convinced that there was no want on our part 1007 of respectful duty to his Majesty; and that there was nothing extraordinary in our resignation, considering the circumstances in which we were placed; and that we have deserved no reproaches for any audacious or ungracious abandonment of his Majesty. If we could have been guilty of any invidious or ungracious proceeding towards his Majesty, or any want of duty with respect to him, we must have been the most ungrateful of men; for never did men owe more to a Sovereign for the uniform kindness, condescension, and confidence with which we have been treated by his Majesty; and as to the attacks to which the noble Duke alludes, as having been made on his Majesty in the public Press, all I can say is, that I had no concern whatever in these attacks, and that neither the noble Duke, nor any other Peer in this House, can be more distressed at them than I have been. I have always proclaimed, and now do in the most public manner proclaim, that I have always firmly believed, and do firmly believe, that his Majesty was actuated by the very best motives on this, as on every other occasion. I do not think it necessary for me to say any more on the present occasion, for I suppose nobody will expect that I should disclose what has passed confidentially between his Majesty and myself, without having first distinctly obtained his Majesty's consent and permission; and it ought always to be recollected, that it is contrary to the principles and the practice of the Constitution to arraign the personal conduct of the Sovereign. This much I thought it my duty to say in vindication of his Majesty, to whom I must ever remain bound in gratitude for the kindness and confidence with which he has been pleased always to treat me; for the present it is not fitting that I should make any communication as to what has passed between his Majesty and myself, beyond what I before stated. I before stated that I was again in communication with his Majesty, because I thought that, as to that particular, and as to the views which I myself entertained, there ought to be no concealment from this House; but I cannot state at this moment that this communication between his Majesty and myself has been attended with any result: all I can state is, that I still continue to be of opinion, that full effect ought to be given to the Bill of Reform now on your Lordships' Table, and that it ought to be passed unmutilated and unimpaired in all its main principles and essential provisions.
The Earl of Mansfieldspoke as follows:—My Lords;—If upon ordinary occasions I feel embarrassment in addressing your Lordships, and that awe which such an assembly is calculated to inspire, that feeling must now be much stronger, when I have to direct your attention from that important subject which is uppermost in all our thoughts, and under discussion, to circumstances which concern one of the humblest individuals in this House, who has now the honour to address you. When at any time I have ventured to speak, though with diffidence as to the correctness of my judgment of my power of supporting, by convincing arguments, the opinions which I entertained, I have always endeavoured to express my sentiments without ambiguity, nor do I know that there was even one which I was ever tempted to retract; but opinions or expressions which are erroneously imputed to me, when they affect others, it is my duty to disclaim. If, in such misrepresentation I only were concerned, I should treat it, I do assure your Lordships, with unaffected contempt; but I observed a statement in the public papers, that the noble and illustrious Duke near me had invited me to take office, and that I had declined that invitation. I also observed a statement, that his Majesty had invited me to support the Administration formed by the noble Duke, and that I had replied, that I had had enough of the Duke of Wellington and his conduct. Of these statements I can only say, that they are false, and that the latter is not only false, but grossly insulting to his Majesty. In the audience which I had of his Majesty, there were only two persons present, and it is insulting to his Majesty that any account, and particularly so very incorrect an account, should have been given of what passed at that interview. I thought it my duty to state thus much in regard to the interview I had with his Majesty.
With regard to the speech of the noble Duke near me, that must have made a due impression, No doubt the Duke was placed in a painful situation, and every one must applaud the explanation which he has given, whether they concur with him in the course which he has felt himself constrained to adopt, or not. It was no doubt painful to him to submit to imputations which he knew were unjust; but, with his usual forbearance, he delayed giving an explanation which might impede the settlement of the Government, 1009 considering the situation in which his Majesty was placed. The calumnies which have been circulated he anticipated and disregarded—they can only impose on the credulous and the prejudiced; but it appears strange that those who, not incapable of generous actions themselves, and, therefore, disposed to appreciate fairly the motives of others, should not have been more active in discountenancing reports which they knew to be unfounded. As for myself, whenever I opposed the measures of the noble Duke, or any other Minister, it was from objecting to the measures themselves, and not from enmity to those from whom they emanated; nor have I, on the other hand, ever submitted my judgment to the control of any individual, however illustrious, but have overcome the feelings of private friendship and of esteem for public character, when, upon public grounds, I thought that opposition was necessary: I have assumed neither the habit nor the language of dependence. But I should do violence to my feelings if I were not to make some remarks upon the statement we have heard, though it is quite impossible for me to express, in adequate terms, my admiration of the noble, patriotic, and disinterested conduct of the noble Duke. I may express my opinions more freely, because I have every reason to believe that, in the progress of the discussion on the Bill, even if the resignation of Ministers had not taken place, I should not have concurred with him in those concessions which he, from the best and purest of motives, appeared disposed to make, although to that extent the majority of the House would probably have consented. But the matter of the greatest importance is, to see what took place in the course of this business. His Majesty found himself placed in a painful situation, and sent for the noble Duke, who, when so called upon, could not refuse to comply with the invitation. The noble Duke did not, however, propose that he himself should take office, but, on the contrary, advised his Majesty to take others into his councils. Did that spew any eagerness for place?
The noble Earl opposite could not deny that Ministers had left his Majesty in a painful and distressing predicament; but be said that Ministers were placed in circumstances in which they could not act otherwise; and what are these circumstances? On Monday the House proceeded to discuss the clauses of the Bill in Committee, and that was the occasion for 1010 proposing such alterations and amendments as might be deemed requisite. It was, indeed, a main argument for the second reading, that alterations and amendments might be proposed in the Committee. That was the proper time for proposing such alterations and amendments, and for making such alterations they had the example of the noble Earl himself, who had made an alteration, and that not an unimportant one, in his measure. It was proposed that in the discussion of the clauses, preference should be given to the enfranchising part of the Bill. I think this was not of sufficient importance to justify the opposition which Ministers made to it, and so I said at the time. The noble Earl has explained the reason why he thought otherwise; and yet this is somewhat strange, when it is considered that a colleague of the noble Earl said, in another place, that it was a matter of indifference whether the other House began with the enfranchising, or disfranchising, clauses. The noble Earl, however, says, that no one could give the preference to the enfranchising clauses, but from hostility to the Bill. According to my experience as to what has been the practice in Committee, I have always understood, that those who objected to a Bill might act according to circumstances, propose amendments or alterations which might disfigure a bill in the eyes of its supporters, and this with perfect fairness; but the noble Duke declared, before the Second reading, that if the Bill should go to the Committee, he would endeavour to amend it. He made the same declaration in the Committee; and, though this straightforward course was natural to him, I own that I did not like his expression, that proposing alterations which were not to be amendments, was a "dirty course of proceeding," for it seemed to me not to be inconsistent with parliamentary practice; but this proved the sincerity of the noble Duke as to the view with which he proposed the alteration. If I understand the practice of this House aright, I should say that no noble Lord is expected to throw up a bill which he has introduced, merely because some alterations of it may be proposed in Committee. But the noble Earl, it appears, so far from being willing to accommodate himself to the usual practice of the House, resolves that there shall be not only no alterations, but he even will not allow a transposition of the clauses.
Now I should have thought that the 1011 most natural proceeding was, to begin with the enfranchising clauses, and that the first consideration ought to be—not that Old Sarum had Members, but that Manchester had none. That was naturally the first grievance to be considered; and when it had been seen which towns were entitled to send Members, Parliament should have that power which was formerly possessed by the Crown, of sending writs to populous towns, which was for the last time exerted in the case of Newark, and which, whether it continues to exist or not, was virtually taken away by the union with Scotland, which limited the number of Members; then, as any addition to this number would be inconvenient, enfranchisement must be met by proportionate disfranchisement; and, after having settled what places ought to be enfranchised, and what additional Members should be given to Scotland and to Ireland (if any), we might then have gone on to consider how far the disfranchisement ought to be carried, in order to refrain from adding to the actual number of the present House of Commons. No good reason was assigned for refusing to adopt this course. The matter was of no serious importance, and the opposition of Ministers appears rather unaccountable. Indeed, it had been reported that his Majesty's Ministers intended to give up the point; and this was so much believed, that, to my knowledge, several Peers were leaving the House, and were only detained by the consideration that there might be a division, if not upon that, upon other clauses. I will appeal to the recollection of many of your Lordships, whether the noble Earl's statement, that it was impossible for him to go on with the Bill, did not cause great surprise? The reason which was avowed could hardly be the true one, and we asked each other, what could be the real reason; was it that Ministers were conscious that they had involved themselves so deeply in the Irish Reform Bill, more revolutionary than this, and which must lead to the separation of Ireland from England—or was it, perhaps, a tardy acknowledgment of their own unfitness—had the distracted state of Ireland, or the flames and insurrections in the West Indies, caused by their orders, touched their hearts, that they were anxious to get rid of offices which they were not fit to hold, and, therefore, had resolved to give advice which they could hardly expect his Majesty to follow, and then, that advice having been rejected, they resigned? 1012 It has been imputed, and I really should have thought with, no great injustice, that the noble Earl used the intended creation of Peers as a threat. Now, he denies that he ever used any such threat; but, I believe it will be acknowledged, that something of that nature has been circulated by those supposed to be connected with Ministers. The noble Earl said, that he mentioned the subject only once; but, goaded and taunted as he had been, when allusions had been made, as they were frequently (indeed, upon two occasions, by myself), they were not serious; for, in fact, it was supposed that the noble Lords were incapable of offering such advice, or that, if it were given, it would be rejected. The noble Earl, however, has given that advice—has declared it to be a just exercise of the royal prerogative, and that it was inevitable. I will, therefore, now particularly advert to this declaration. Even if the proposed amendments had all been adopted, yet they would still have left in force the three great principles of the Bill—namely, enfranchisement, disfranchisement, and an extension of the franchise; indeed, to such a degree would this have been the ease, that, when the noble Baron detailed the nature of those amendments which the Bill he wished to introduce would embrace, the noble Earl admitted that he found the noble Baron was adopting the principal provisions of his Bill, but declared that the noble Baron was carrying his principles to an excess, and was proposing what, in the noble Earl's opinion, was too democratical. But, my Lords, what argument has the noble Earl adduced to justify the extreme measure he has ventured upon advising his Majesty to adopt? It is this—that there was no other alternative by which the continuance of the collision between the two Houses of Parliament could be prevented, than by applying to his Majesty to exercise his prerogative in the creation of Peers. But, my Lords, admitting (though only for the sake of argument) that there really exists that collision between this and the other House of Parliament, which it is alleged by the noble Earl does exist, still, in my humble opinion, there was another alternative to which the noble Earl might have had recourse, besides the extreme and dangerous one to which he has thought it proper to advise his Majesty to resort. It is true, my Lords, that in consequence of the King's appeal to the voice and sense of the people upon the 1013 subject of Reform, the present House of Commons was returned; and, by returning such a House, the country has certainly declared itself in favour of Reform; but the country could not have declared itself in favour of this particular Bill, nor even of the bill of the last Session of Parliament, from which the present Bill varies in so many of its provisions; and, if not of that, much less of this Bill; therefore, my Lords, I submit there was still another alternative open to the noble Earl, and it was this—if the amendments proposed in Committee had been adopted by this House, but rejected by the House of Commons, he should have resorted to the step of appealing to the sense of the people, and of ascertaining whether they were in favour of the Bill as amended, or not. That, my Lords, was an alternative which the noble Earl might have well adopted before he proposed to his Majesty to infuse such a number of Peers into this House as was necessary to enable the noble Earl to carry the present measure.
The noble Earl conceives, that, if he were to allow this House such a concession as is required, the country would be governed by an oligarchy; and therefore, my Lords, the independence of this House, and the honest efforts of noble Lords to amend this Bill, are to be neutralized by a large infusion of new Peers, whose votes are to be at the nod and bidding of the noble Earl; that is, indeed, governing by an oligarchy. Now, my Lords, the number of Peers which the noble Earl proposed to his Majesty to create is certainly unknown to me. I know not whether the number can be distinctly stated; but that the creation must be to a very considerable extent there can be no doubt—whether it be forty, fifty, sixty, or even a hundred, as some have alleged.
No attempt has been made on this side of the House to deprecate the exercise of the royal prerogative in such a manner as we know to be constitutional; upon that point, this side of the House, notwithstanding its just apprehensions, has uniformly conducted itself with a proper sense of the respect which is due to the constitutional privileges of the Crown. But, supposing the noble Earl's advice had been adopted, and that, for the purpose of drowning the independent voice of your Lordships, a large creation of Peers was determined upon, where, I would ask, are those new Peers to be found? I admit that there are many individuals, well en- 1014 titled by their character, their property, and their talent to look forward to be at some time introduced within the walls of this House, but where the noble Earl could have found such a number as is necessary for his purpose, ready to prostitute their honour to party purposes and political intrigues, I know not—indeed, it would have been impossible.
I remember, and it will never be effaced from my memory, when the noble Duke returned from Spain, and his patents were read at that Table, the reading whereof occupied such a time as almost to fatigue the Officer of the House, without, however, exhausting his patience, and I will ask, when we saw the noble Duke standing at that Table, thus hearing his great and splendid services recorded, and the manner in which they were, by a grateful Monarch, acknowledged and rewarded, what British heart, either of your Lordships or of the other spectators, on that day did not beat high at such a magnificent spectacle—did not swell at the exulting thought? How glorious was that country which could produce a man who had rendered such splendid services—how happy that people, and the Sovereign who could so reward him! But, if the noble Earl should be allowed to create Peers with whom one "would not march through Coventry," when they shall come to this Table, perhaps some Wednesday, when there may be few to see them, and have their patents read, in which their services cannot be recorded, for they will have performed none, but when it could only be stated, that his Majesty, ex mero motu, had determined to promote them to the dignity of Peers of the realm, and having called upon their Maker to witness their determination to discharge the obligations they have contracted, and faithfully perform their duty to their country, they may then enroll their names on the list of the Members of this House, who will feel themselves contaminated by such an association, and that the persons thus introduced are consigned to infamy, which—such is the envious nature of mankind—is much more durable than fame! That the noble Duke attempted to extricate the King from his present most painful and difficult position is not to be lamented, even though his efforts have not been attended with success. It is not for the concessions which he was prepared to make that political inconsistency could be fairly imputed to him, especially by those whom I have so often heard in this House 1015 declare, that Statesmen ought to yield to the imperiousness of circumstances. Nor, indeed, was this the offence alleged against him. How often has the noble Duke been told by the noble Lords opposite, that, great and various as his life had been, he possessed no knowledge of mankind, and was, consequently, incompetent to govern an enlightened people. It was not, then, that he was accused of error, or inconsistency, in being willing to make concessions, but his crime was, that those concessions were coupled with office. The noble Duke, however, has this night told your Lordships, that he has not accepted office; that office was a thing which he did not desire or seek, but that he would rather that office should be held by those to whom he could conscientiously give his support.
But, my Lords, is there not something to be said as to the passion displayed for office on the part of others? On a former occasion, noble Lords, after having long and ardently supported Catholic Emancipation, were content to see that measure carried by the noble Duke. Have they less zeal now? Was not their language on that occasion to this effect—"true, it is hard to see that a measure originating with us is to be carried by our political adversaries; but still, it is one of such great consequence to the country, that we are ready to accept from their hands the important boon." Now, my Lords, you are not willing to accept a similar boon from any other hands than those by whom it has been first offered. I ask, whether this change of conduct does not evince that you have a greater predilection for office than for Reform? It is true, my Lords, the noble Duke has found it impossible to form an Administration; but I, nevertheless, wish to speak in terms of the greatest esteem towards those who, on this occasion, have declined co-operating with the noble Duke, because I am convinced, that, although they may not agree with the noble Duke on the necessity of concession, yet there is not one of them who does not view his character and conduct at this conjuncture with admiration. Every fair and impartial person must see that it was perfectly possible, considering the situation in which a Minister at the head of an Administration would, in the present state of the country, he placed, that both parties may be actuated by the purest motives, and yet not be able to come to the same conclusion. But, my Lords, there is some- 1016 thing more than mere success that constitutes the reward of our exertions—it is the consciousness of the rectitude of our conduct.
Although the noble Duke has failed in the attempt to serve his Sovereign, yet it will always be to him a proud reflection that he made that attempt. And, my Lords, it appears to me, that certain verses, describing the feelings of another illustrious character, may be well applied on this occasion to the noble Duke; and as they will serve better to express my feelings on the subject than any language which I can command, I will venture to quote them to your Lordships. The power of virtue would be thus acknowledged by the noble Duke. He knows
How her unshaken power Is independent of success; That no defeat can make it less, No conquest make it more.And this reflection—'Midst sorrow, cares, and dire dismay Brought calm and sure relief; He scrutiniz'd his noble heart, Found virtue had perform'd her part, And peaceful slept the Chief.I wish I could speak in the same way of the measure of the noble Earl—that revolutionary measure which the noble Earl has adopted. But, my Lords, the fact cannot be so disguised. My opinion of that measure is recorded. I will not do the noble Earl the injustice to suppose that he can at all contemplate the injurious consequences which I am certain will flow from the adoption of that measure. My Lords, I am not vindictive; and, therefore, I do earnestly pray that the noble Earl, for his own sake, may, in his dying hour, reflect with as calm satisfaction upon his conduct as he does now. I wish it, my Lords, I say, for his own sake, but he may take warning from a political adversary, and I tell him, that I think it impossible that such calm self-approbation can await him at that hour, when reflecting on his conduct. Hurt, my Lords, although his feelings may be, wounded, if I may say so, as his pride may be (for it is not uncharitable to impute to him those frailties from which none are exempt), I again entreat him to reflect on the consequences that must result from the line of conduct which he is now pursuing. I have had an audience of his Majesty, and I then ventured to give that advice which I had a right to do; I implored his Majesty to pause before he resorted to that measure—the creation of 1017 Peers, by which the independence of the House of Lords would be destroyed. The same advice which I gave to his Majesty I now give to the noble Earl, and I now call on him to pause before he does that which will annihilate the independence, and threatens the existence of this House. I have no right to say what are the motives or what are the future views of the noble Earl, but I should be abstaining from saying here what I have constantly said without these walls, and what has been often addressed to me by others, if I did not now state, that it is suspected, that the creation of Peers is not merely for the purpose of carrying this Bill. That, indeed, is the ostensible purpose; that is the pretence, but not the reason of their creation. The real object in view is, that Ministers may fortify their party, and reduce the majority of this House to become their dependents. But here again I would warn the noble Earl to take a lesson from history, and to look at the consequences of the acts of two Ministers of France, who resorted to a similar expedient for overwhelming the House of Peers, and who were, in the course of a few months, deprived of their power, and in the majority which thus drove them from office were to be found a great number of those Peers whom they had themselves so lately created. But such is not my object, nor the object of my noble friends around me; nay, I go further, and declare, that, so far from entertaining any hostility that way towards the noble Earl, and imitating a great example, I would rather that the noble Earl and his colleagues should continue in office, though differing so much as I do on most questions, both of our domestic and foreign policy, than that they should give way to those who, if this unlimited Bill should pass, must succeed them; those successors will be, not the noble Duke, nor any of my noble friends around me, they will be individuals whom I will not particularly designate or name, but, borrowing an expression from our neighbours, they will be persons coming from the extrême gauche, and then I should like to know whether, when these anticipations become realized, the noble Lords themselves will any further doubt, that the introduction of those persons into power was the natural and inevitable consequence of that measure which they have themselves originated and carried into effect.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that when he looked at the extraordinary situation in 1018 which the country and the Sovereign were placed, and when he considered that perhaps this was the last time that he should ever have an opportunity to address himself to their Lordships as an independent branch of the Legislature, he found it impossible to refrain from giving expression to his opinions. And, in the first place, he was anxious to give expression to that feeling which was uppermost in his heart—that feeling which be should retain to the last moment of his existence—a feeling of unbounded gratitude to his Sovereign for having scorned and scouted an advice which went to swamp the independence of that House, and which tended to the certain destruction of the monarchy of this country. He could not, in the next place, refrain from expressing the feelings of scalding indignation which he entertained towards his Majesty's Government for having given such an advice, at the same time that he felt joy and satisfaction in reflecting that a member of that Government—a noble individual, on whose friendship he placed, as he ought, the highest value—was reported, and he believed truly reported, to have stood alone in his opinion against the adoption of such a measure. With respect to the line of conduct which the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government had thought proper to pursue, in placing the Sovereign in the most extraordinary situation that a Monarch of this country had ever been placed in, he, for one, could not dive into the motives which had influenced that noble Earl in pursuing such a line of conduct. The noble Earl had, in the discussion on the Amendment which had been carried by their Lordships, told them, that he considered it as fatal to the Bill; whereas, when the Bill was in the other House of Parliament, one of the noble Earl's colleagues there had declared, that it was a perfect matter of indifference whether they commenced in the first instance with the enfranchisement or the disfranchisement clause. He, therefore, did not know, as he had said already, looking merely at that Amendment, what motives the noble Earl had in giving such advice to the Sovereign. But when, after that Amendment was carried, a noble Baron, who had hitherto opposed the Bill, stood up and stated the course which he and his friends intended to pursue, intimating his intention to concede the great leading principles of the Bill—namely, schedule A, and the 10l. qualification, in such a way as that it would be a bonâ fide qualification—that the noble 1019 Earl, after such an intimation, should have acted as he had, confirmed almost to a certainty the suspicion which he (the Earl of Winchilsea) entertained, that this measure had merely been brought forward by the noble Earl ostensibly for the purpose of tranquillizing the public mind and satisfying the people; and had induced him to doubt as to whether the noble Earl and his colleagues were sincere in their declarations as to this measure, and whether they had not ulterior objects in view—namely, the making this Bill the plea for creating Peers, so as to render themselves independent of that House. Again he would express that feeling of indignation which he entertained for the line of conduct pursued in this instance by his Majesty's Government, and by the noble Earl—a feeling which he should entertain to the last hour of his life. He was anxious to say so much, for God only knew how long he should live, and he should not wish to outlive the downfall of that House. He wished to say so much before that House, which had been graced by so many men of whom any country in the world might be justly proud, should be consigned to destruction. He would say this, that the advice which the noble Earl had given to the King was the most insulting and most daring that had ever been given to a Sovereign of this country. He did not deny the power of the Sovereign to create Peers, or to issue writs, and to give Representatives to any places that might have grown up in the country—he did not deny the power of the Crown to do all that without the consent of that House; but what was it the noble Lord contended for? Why, that if any measure should be carried by the other House of Parliament, in accordance with the wishes of the people, the power of the Crown should be exercised in such a way as to destroy the independence of that House, and to gratify the desires of the people. If the noble Earl had felt what was due to that House, he would not have endeavoured to drown its voice in a question of such importance as that of reforming the House of Commons. He begged, for one, to return his heartfelt thanks to the noble Duke near him for his disinterested conduct. If justice were done to that noble Duke, the country would deeply appreciate and highly approve of his conduct in this instance. The noble Duke found his Sovereign placed in a situation of the utmost difficulty. He highly appreciated the efforts which were made by the noble Duke 1020 and his friends to form an Administration under such circumstances; and this he would say, in the face of their Lordships and of the country, that for the purpose of rescuing the Sovereign from the degrading situation in which he had been placed by the noble Earl and his Majesty's Government, there was no sacrifice which he should not be ready to make, even the sacrifice of his consistency. He would ask himself, in thus acting, this question—if there were men so deprived of every feeling that ought to animate British statesmen, that however deep might be their sense of the necessity of a measure, they would propose to strike a blow, not only at the independence of that House, but at the liberties of the people (for where would there be any security for the liberties of the people if that House, an independent branch of the Legislature, should be destroyed?)—if there were men, and men in power, ready so to act, should not every thing be done that was possible to avert such a calamity? This he would say, that it was his conviction, that if a creation of Peers should take place, Parliament would become a mere cipher, and would cease to exist as an independent organ of the voice of the people. When he saw in that House so many noble Lords who could boast of ancestors that had done great things for their country's good—when he reflected what would be the feelings of such men if they beheld such a blow aimed at the independence of the House of Peers, he called upon them, who valued life less than honour, to evince for the advice which had been offered to his Majesty the utmost scorn and contempt, and to oppose, to the last hour of their lives, the measure that was to be carried into effect by the ruin of the House of Peers of England.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that he merely rose for the purpose of stating to their Lordships the opinion which had been communicated to him on this subject from a respectable part of the country. He had been intrusted with the presentation of an Address to his Majesty, from the town of Belfast, signed by 4,000 or 5,000 persons, and adopted, after the fact had been promulgated as to the advice supposed to have been given by Ministers to the Sovereign, respecting the creation of Peers. He would not trust himself in expressing his own feelings on that subject, but he would state to their Lordships the opinion expressed in this Address—an 1021 opinion which he was sure would soon prevail from one end of the country to the other. The individuals who signed this Address, and who resided in the town of Belfast, congratulated his Majesty on his having resisted the unconstitutional advice which had been given him to create a number of Peers for the purpose of carrying a particular measure; and expressed themselves satisfied, that his Majesty would call to his councils men who would endeavour to promote the good of the country at large. He thought it right to state the opinion expressed in that Address, which he was certain only expressed the rising feeling of the country on the subject. He could not sit down without asking the noble Earl opposite a question. The noble Earl and his colleagues were at present addressed as the Ministers of the country; now he wished to know, whether they were to understand that the noble Earl was at present the first Minister of the Crown, and whether they were to understand that the advice given by him to his Majesty had been accepted or refused?
§ Earl Greysaid, that the question which the noble Marquis put to him had already been answered by him that evening, for he had already stated, that the communication which he had received from his Majesty had not as yet led to any conclusive result, and he could not, at present, state more. He, therefore, now stood in the same situation that every Minister stood who had tendered his resignation—whose resignation had been accepted, and in whose instance it remained undecided whether he should return to office or not. With regard to the subject to which the noble Marquis alluded, perhaps he (Earl Grey) had already stated all that it was necessary for him to state on that point; but a charge had been raised against him of having done something unfair and improper towards the Sovereign, which he would, once for all, briefly notice. He was charged with haying left his Majesty alone, deserted, and unprovided. Now, he begged to say, as, indeed, he had already stated, that he had done nothing more than any other Minister had ever done, whose advice had been rejected. It was not he and his colleagues who had left his Majesty in an unprovided situation, and without an Administration, but it was the noble Lords on the other side who, the House had been told, over and over again, were the fittest persons in the country for office, and yet who, when his Majesty wanted an Administration, refused to form 1022 one. If, then, his Majesty had been left alone, his being so was not to be attributed to those who had felt it their duty to resign, but to those persons who, considering the Administration an injurious one, and opposing it as such, when it was at an end would not themselves take office. "I beg," continued the noble Earl, "again to state, that, unless I can be assured of the ability of carrying the Bill fully and efficiently through this House, I shall not again return to office."
The Lord ChancellorI do not mean to occupy your Lordships' time in adding a word to what has dropped from my noble friend except to state, that which, I am sure, was passing across his mind at the time he addressed your Lordships; namely, that, considering the absolute necessity, in the present state of the country, of passing this measure, we shall not again return to office except upon the condition, not only of our possessing the ability to carry the Bill efficiently through this House, but also to carry it through with every reasonable despatch, consistently with the due discussion of its various provisions.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that, after the speech of the noble Earl opposite, whom he must still call the head of the Government, he wished to offer a few observations to their Lordships. The noble Earl bad endeavoured to show, that the Constitution of this country, as laid down by the ablest writers, intrusted a power to the Crown to make a great increase of the peerage on emergencies of urgent importance; and, be had attempted to prove, that this House had placed itself in the situation contemplated by those writers, as justifying the exercise of such a prerogative. Wishing to avoid all topics of irritation, he would riot now enter into an argument upon the general question, but he must protest against the statement of the noble Earl. There was nothing in the conduct of that House, from the commencement to the end of the discussion on this subject, that could by possibility place it in collision with the House of Commons; and there was nothing it, the conduct of their Lordships that could justify any constitutional Minister, for the purpose of passing a measure like the present, to advise his Majesty to stifle the voice and annihilate the independence of that branch of the Legislature, and thereby to lay the foundation of the ultimate ruin of the Monarchy itself. The conduct of the noble Duke had been called into question because 1023 he had obeyed the voice of his Sovereign in coming forward to assist him in his utmost need. He had never been a partisan of that noble Duke. As far as there had been an opposition to the noble Duke, he might be said to have belonged to it. He had formed no connexion with that noble Duke, but he felt that he should be acting a base part if he did not come forward and state, in the face of their Lordships and of the country, however such a statement might expose him to obloquy and abuse, that the noble Duke was entitled to the gratitude of their Lordships for doing what he had done. They talked of principles as being what should influence the conduct of Gentlemen, but surely no man would say that time and circumstances might not become so altered as to render the application of the principles which an individual had adopted totally impracticable. Was there a man who would not be guided in his conduct by the dangers and difficulties by which he might be surrounded, and who might not feel it necessary, on some occasions, to give up some of his principles in order to avert the occurrence of greater evils? Though the course of the noble Duke had, up to the last moment, been that of uncompromising opposition to the Reform Bill, and though he might consider it a measure fatal to the Monarchy of England, yet, when he found his Sovereign placed in the dilemma into which he had been thrown, if he had not attempted to assist that Sovereign, would he not be justly chargeable with contributing to the dilemma in which his Sovereign was placed, and to the difficulties by which he was surrounded? Again, he repeated, that the noble Duke was entitled to their gratitude for the course which he had taken. If the, noble Duke had succeeded in forming an Administration on the principle that he proposed to make it—namely, to proceed with the Reform Bill, and to settle that question in a manner least detrimental to the interests of the Monarchy of this country—he would have been entitled to, and should have had, his humble but hearty support.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, he should not commence the observations he was about to address to their Lordships by pronouncing an eulogium on the noble Duke near him, (the Duke of Wellington), nor offer anything in praise of that noble Duke's conduct on a recent occasion: it was above all praise. If he (the Earl of Carnarvon) adopted any mode of eulogizing 1024 or offering the meed of praise to the noble Duke, it would be by contrasting the conduct he had pursued with that of those to whom he had been politically opposed; and if he imputed to the noble Duke any motive by which he might have been led into error, it would be to ignorance of existing facts. But to turn to his Majesty's present Government. It was said by them, that the great object of their Administration had been to allay external irritation; but, from what he (the Earl of Carnarvon) had heard to-night, he was induced to think the endeavours of no Ministry could have been further from the object. And here he could not help adverting to what he had heard as having fallen from an individual of considerable moment in the financial world. That individual was reported to have said, "Well, a Whig Minister is the strangest man I ever saw: he continues heaping fresh coals on the fire, and at the same time exclaims it is too hot to be borne." Of the line of conduct which the present Government were reported to pursue to his Majesty, and which it was said they were still pursuing (and which, perhaps, was the reason why they were not now prepared to report the determination of the Monarch), he would say (if it were true), that a more cruel duress had never before been put upon a most excellent Sovereign—a Sovereign' who was entitled to the love and gratitude of all his subjects. But they now said, indeed, that they had done with violent steps, while, in point of fact, the more than revolutionary measure of Reform was again actually being pressed upon a reluctant Sovereign—reluctant because he was constitutional. If he (the Earl of Carnarvon) was now to say that the statement of the present Government in this respect was not accurate, he should be charged with making a most uncourteous attack upon them, and that, too, by those who had charged noble Lords sitting on his side of the House with a most uncourteous and ungracious trick on the occasion of the division last week. If, however, he were to make any comment on the accuracy of the Representation of the Government, he should say, that they had hurried on in a most violent course, because they feared that if noble Lords sitting at his side of the House were permitted to introduce their measure of Reform, not all their power or influence could have produced the collision which they certainly having, as he thought, the power, had not prevented. Collision did he say? Why, 1025 the colleagues of the noble Earl opposite in another place, it had been told their Lordships, regarded the only vote to which their Lordships had come in Committee as a vote of indifference: so that, while the event was regarded by the members of the Government sitting in their Lordships' House as a collision, it was looked upon elsewhere with indifference. With respect to the right of his Majesty to create Peers, he was not prepared to admit all the principles which had been urged, and the arguments which had been offered, in favour of such a proceeding under the present state of affairs. The history of the country recorded only one such act, and it also recorded that the Minister who recommended that Act was impeached. But he would contend, that before such advice had been offered to his Majesty—even had a collision really taken place—his Majesty's Ministers ought to have first tried what would have been effected by their opponents in the Committee. They well knew that no one act in Committee was definitive, and they ought to have waited to have seen what amendments were made, and then it would have been time enough, if they thought the amendments tended to endanger the safety of the Crown or of the State, to have called on his Majesty to exercise his prerogative of creating Peers, if he possesses any such prerogative. That, however, had not been their course, for they well knew, if noble Lords had been permitted to bring forward their amendments to the provisions of the measure, neither in the House of Commons nor in the country would they have been enabled to have kept alive the agitation which was the object of their Administration. He would here beg to inquire if it was true, that Ministers had not only asked the King to make twenty-five or twenty-six Peers, but, that he had already made them; and if, in addition, they had sought an abstract promise from his Majesty to create as many Peers as they might think necessary to secure the success of their measure of Reform? Was such a demand any thing less than seeking to put the Crown of these realms in commission, and to make the noble Earl opposite first commissioner? This demand, too, was made to secure the passing of a measure, the object of which was, to abolish all corrupt proprietary boroughs, while the framers of that measure wished to make the House of Lords a most abject corrupt borough in the hands of the Lord Protector. He 1026 conceived the question between the Minister and his Majesty at present really to be—is William the 4th King of these realms, or is the noble Earl opposite the Lord Protector? He had already said, that had the noble Lords who sat near him been heard in Committee, agitation in the country would have been suspended, and though he did not mean to impute to the noble Earl an intention to practise a deception on their Lordships, yet he could not but think, that a cessation of agitation was not desired; for, he did not hesitate to say, that in no other state of the country than that of irritable excitement would any Minister avow such a proposition as that which had been made to his Majesty, for he was sure that no Englishman, a friend to Reform, would endure the thought that the King, himself a Reformer, though wishing for a modification of the Bill now on their Lordships' Table, and anxious for conciliation, should be pressed to a violation of his royal prerogative. He could not but also complain of the line of conduct pursued by the noble Earl towards their Lordships after the division of last week. He would ask the noble Earl, who was once a Whig, but, what was he now?—he would ask the noble Earl whether a more cool and deliberate insult was ever offered by any Minister to an independent Legislature since the days when Cromwell ordered that "that bauble (pointing to the mace) should be removed?" If such a course of conduct was to be pursued or continued, he should feel it his duty to move, that in their Lordships' House the bauble should also be taken away; for, instead of that, as the proper accompaniment of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the cart-whip of the slave-driver would be better calculated to awe into control such an assembly as their Lordships' House would be, if the degradation proposed was really inflicted upon it. The proposition to create Peers, as well as the determination not to alter one single portion of the Bill, was in strict accordance with the demand of The Times—a journal which, it would seem, would not suffer or permit the slightest modification of the Bill: nay, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) much doubted if it would permit even the Ministers themselves to rectify even a clerical mistake. The Ministry dared not suffer the slightest alteration in the Bill. The Opposition had been asked whether it was worth their while longer to continue their war against the Bill; but Ministers 1027 asked no such questions of those persons whom it was their duty to control, not to obey. Ministers dared not rule those whom it was their duty to restrain, and they dared not protect their Lordships in the temperate and calm exercise of their duty. When they gave their Sovereign that advice they quitted the path of error, and took the bolder road of crime. The noble Earl would find, that in that road there was no halting, but on he must proceed. If the noble Earl had already played the part of a Necker he would hereafter be compelled to play the part of a Robespierre, or fall to the ground. [Laughter.] He was happy to see noble Lords opposite meet his last observation with a laugh, and trusted they would long enjoy it, and that the course they were pursuing would leave them the power of smiling; but after a careful study of the history of this country for the last forty years, every page had tended the more to convince him of the correctness of his remarks, and of the dangers of the career pursued by his Majesty's Government. He now felt it to be his duty to dispose of the Order of the Day with respect to the Reform Bill, following the example of the noble Earl opposite, whom he should be sorry in other respects to imitate, and should, therefore, move that the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Reform in Parliament Bill be discharged, and thus he would leave it to the noble Lords to do their dirty work themselves.
The Earl of Mulgraveobserved, that he had expected that the noble Earl who had just sat down—the advocate of conciliation—the would-be step-father of a measure of Reform, would have temperately pursued the task he so prematurely commenced; but he thought the noble Earl was not so much the master of events as he would have their Lordships to believe. He also could not but think, that if the noble Earl had become connected with office, be would have treated the Bill with much more tenderness and kindness. The noble Earl had been also much too eager when, on a preceding evening, he had communicated to their Lordships, that a Government was forming, but not then complete—a declaration not at all in unison with the statement made this day by the noble Duke who was said to be Premier, but who had himself declared he had not taken office at all. If, then, the noble Duke was not Premier of the new Administration to which the noble Earl referred, who was? 1028 Perhaps it was the noble Earl himself. The noble Earl had, in the course of the speech which he had just concluded, used the most injudicious of all sarcasms that he could by any possibility raise against his (the Earl of Mulgrave's) noble friend (Earl Grey). He alluded to the observation that his noble friend (Earl Grey) was a Whig, and the inquiry what was he now? The noble Earl opposite was a Member of this House of Parliament at a period when the noble Duke (Wellington) had once before attempted to form an Administration; and though he (the Earl of Mulgrave) had not then a seat in this House, yet he was present when the noble Earl—who made up his want of firmness of purpose by his strength of language—stated something about the "Liverpool worm" not being united, and observed, that the object of the formation of such a Ministry was, not to change principles, but to get two or three honest men into the service of the State, and prevent the "Liverpool worm" from reuniting. This time the noble Earl had tried his hand at the operation; but with the aid of all his cement and sticking-plaister, the "Liverpool worm" was not to be united. If the noble Duke (Wellington) had not left his place, he (the Earl of Mulgrave) would have offered some observations to his ear; and if that noble Duke (the foremost of anti-reformers, had assumed the reins of Government, and come forward with his measure of Reform, he (the Earl of Mulgrave) would have,stood up in his place in that House, with the noble Duke's protest in his hand—the noble Duke should have heard it all, paragraph by paragraph, and he doubted not but that noble Duke would have found, that the cheers of those by whom he was surrounded would have become silent, and they would have quailed on that protest being read. He felt confident that the result of all these recent debates, including that of this night, would be, that in a few days, by some means or other, a full and efficient Reform in the Representation of the people would be made, by which alone tranquillity would be restored to the country.
The Marquis of Salisburycould not sufficiently admire the address of the noble Earl (Mulgrave), who had waited till the noble Duke (Wellington) left the House—who had waited, he repeated, till the noble Duke left the House—before he commenced an attack, which he had no he sitation in pronouncing one of the most unfair, unjust, and uncourteous attacks ever made by 1029 one Peer against another in that House. The noble Lord had made no attack—he did not even mention the name of the noble Duke until after his noble friend left the House, and then it was, that he made that attack to which he did not think it worth his while to reply. The statement that noble Duke had made, reflected as much honour on him as it did disgrace on those pretended friends of the monarchy who had dared to insult their Sovereign by offering him advice which he did not scruple to pronounce highly treasonable, and one which, in other and better times, would have been instantly followed by the impeachment of those who tendered it. The time might yet come when they would be called to the bar of the House to answer for that advice; but, at all events, he had the consolation of knowing, that history would mark them as the destroyers of their country. He did not ascribe motives; that would be disorderly, but he knew that those who had done their best endeavours to ruin their country, would go down with disgrace to posterity.
The Marquis of Clanricardedenied that his noble friend (Earl Musgrave) had taken any undue advantage, or acted unfairly towards the noble Duke (Wellington) who had left the House. His noble friend had risen no less than four times to address the House during the presence of the noble Duke, who was present when his noble friend had risen, and who, as their Lordships had met to hear his explanation, it was not too much to suppose would at least have remained in the House. He could not avoid expressing his surprise that the debate of this evening should have turned into an attack upon his Majesty's Ministers, who were at present in so embarrassing a situation. He should not say one word on the conduct of the noble Duke. He would impute motives to no man, but he could not but deplore as a calamity any event by which a public man might be lowered in the estimation of his country. His noble friend (Earl Grey) had held office with honour to himself, with the approbation and love of his country, and with the confidence of his King; he had retired from it still honoured with the kindest expressions from his Sovereign, and with nothing on earth opposed to him but the very party which had so long held office that it thought office its property, though it could not form a Government to succeed that of his noble friend, not because there was any want of ambition among its mem- 1030 bers, but because they had no stay and support in the country. If his noble friend: should again return to office, he was sure it would be with equal honour to himself and satisfaction to the country. When he should leave it, either at the close of his natural or public life, it would be with the mingled feelings of regret, esteem, and gratitude of the nation.
The Earl of Mulgravebegged to say, in explanation, after what had fallen from the noble Marquis opposite (Salisbury), that he had carefully abstained from stating so much as he had intended, in consequence of the absence of the noble Duke; and be so expressed himself when he before addressed their Lordships; at the same time, he could not but think it was too much to stop the mouth of any noble Lord because another Member of their Lordships' House chose to leave his place.
The Earl of Carnarvon, in explanation, begged to say, that he had confined his observations solely to the subject of a creation of Peers, and he was anxious to be understood as having done so. In answer to the question which had been put to him, as to what he had meant by stating, on a former evening, that a Government was forming, but not yet formed, he could only say, that he was not concerned, nor in any way a party to the formation of such Government, but that, knowing it was necessary to dispose of the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Reform Bill, he had applied to and learned, from what he considered a sufficient authority, that an Administration was forming, and had, therefore, felt it his duty to move the postponement of the question.
§ Earl De La Warrsaid, he would only make one or two observations on what had fallen from a noble Lord opposite, who had asserted that the chief, if not the only, consolation of the noble Duke, to whom allusion had been so frequently made that night, would be found in the cheers of his friends and supporters. Now he should blush for his country if this were a correct statement. The noble Duke had other and far more satisfactory sources of consolation; and when the delusion and mystification which now prevailed had passed away—that delusion and mystification which it was the tendency of the acts of the noble Lords opposite, ever since they took office up to the present hour, to create—when that delusion and mystification had passed away, as he hoped in God they would ere long—then the actions 1031 of the noble Duke would be duly appreciated by the British public. That noble Duke's conduct, in the last three days, had manifested a more perfect devotion to the interests of his Sovereign and of his country than he had even displayed on the field of Waterloo. He could not find language to express the feelings with which he had read the calumnies that had been circulated against that noble Duke; but of this he was well convinced, that they found no echo in the breasts of the respectable and truly thinking part of his countrymen. Let them, however, and here he spoke of all who were on that (the Opposition) side of the House—let them, he would say, in the present perilous situation, he might almost call it the present agony, of the country—let them preserve for themselves this consolation, that, rising superior to selfish considerations, and careless of any but the public interest, they had exerted themselves to the utmost of their power to rescue the State from the dangers by which it was threatened. What had they done that deserved to be visited with blame? They had voted that the first clause of the Bill should be postponed, not rejected; and they had declined to advise their Sovereign to pass the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Surely they had a right, as independent legislators, to take that step—surely they were bound calmly and deliberately to consider all the provisions of the measure. He should not trouble their Lordships further. He should conclude with simply saying, that be lamented the necessity which compelled him to say a word on the subject to which he had at first referred; but he could not avoid making these few observations, as insinuations had been thrown out in that House, and injurious assertions had been made elsewhere, relative to the noble Duke, of whom he would say—
Virtus, repulsæ nescia sordidæ, Intaminatis fulget honoribus: Nec sumit, aut ponit secures, Arbitrio popularis auræ.
The Earl of Rodenhad understood the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) to have said, that he "would not continue longer in office than he had a reasonable hope to carry this Bill through their Lordships' House unimpaired." He had been anxious to know from whence this "reasonable hope" was to arise. He had considered it to be his duty to oppose the bringing in of the measure, because he firmly believed it would prove destructive to the Constitution of the 1032 country; and, therefore, the whole Bill would receive his most decided opposition in all its stages. While he felt it to be a measure of this nature, he thought it right to make a declaration of his opinion. He would prefer its adoption in consequence of the noble Earl's exertion, rather than be in any way a party to it himself. He wished to put this his opinion upon record, and he trusted that, William 4th, the son of George 3rd, would never consent to allow any Minister to swamp their Lordships' House, by the creation of a large number of Peers, for the purpose of carrying a particular measure.
§ The motion "That the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Reform Bill be discharged" was then agreed to.