It appears that this system (Socialism) has spread itself over a great part of the country; and, upon inquiry, I find that it has taken root rather extensively in the county in which I reside. I find that in Hampshire, or on the borders of the two counties, Wiltshire and Hampshire, there is a large inst.i.tution for the propagation of Socialist principles, spreading over no less than five hundred acres of land, which this society have purchased for their purposes. In reference to that inst.i.tution, I have this day presented a pet.i.tion to your lordships, containing statements as to the doctrines of this society, regarding religion, the holy scriptures, G.o.d Almighty, and all the great points of our belief; which statements, in my estimation, demand the most serious inquiry. When I read that pet.i.tion, which I did the moment it was placed in my hands, I felt it to be my duty, as the lord lieutenant of the county, to call the attention of the magistracy to the facts which it set forth. That I considered to be my duty; and I say, also, that the House of Lords, now that the facts have been brought before them, have a duty to perform to the country, on this question.
These doctrines of Socialism are rapidly gaining strength--are spreading themselves throughout the country. They have now got beyond that point at which your lordships might say, "We will take no steps in the matter; the system is absurd, and will fall to pieces of itself." I say, my lords, we have got beyond that point; and the people should be made to understand that the legislature and the government look on those inst.i.tutions only with disfavour, and are determined to discountenance them. And they should also be made to know, that wherever, in the promulgation of the doctrines of this society, there shall be a breach of the law committed, it will be treated as such, and punished as such.
I say, then, that it is inc.u.mbent on your lordships to take such steps as will satisfy the country that your attention has been directed to the subject, with the view to remove the evil and ensure tranquillity. If the government will allow the motion to pa.s.s, and take the subject into their own hands, and inquire into it, through the magistracy, or by any other means, I, for one, am willing to leave the matter with them on that condition, merely adding that I shall be happy to afford them any a.s.sistance in my power in carrying out their inquiry, and in enabling them to annihilate this mischievous and demoralising system.
_February 4, 1840._
_Compliment to the Navy._
I know a great deal of the gentlemen of that profession; and, for my own part, I have always had, and still have, the greatest and the highest respect for them, and the very utmost confidence in them. I have always endeavoured to emulate their services in the service in which I have myself been engaged; and I am sure that in nothing have I endeavoured to emulate them in a greater degree than in that confidence which they feel, not only in themselves, and in the officers of their own rank, but in all officers and troops under their command.
_February 6, 1840._
_Eulogium on Lord Seaton._
I had the honour of being connected with the n.o.ble and gallant lord in service at an early period of his life; and I must declare that, at all times, and under all circ.u.mstances, he gave that promise of prudence, zeal, devotion, and ability, which he has so n.o.bly fulfilled in his services to his sovereign and his country, during the recent proceedings in Canada. I entirely agree with the n.o.ble viscount in all that he has said, respecting the conduct of my n.o.ble and gallant friend, in remaining, under all circ.u.mstances, at his post, and in taking the command of the troops, although it was not thought expedient by the government to place him again in the government of the provinces. I agree with the n.o.ble viscount in wishing that such examples as that which has been shewn may be always followed in her majesty"s service; for I must say that there never was a brighter example of fort.i.tude and discretion than that which has been manifested by the n.o.ble and gallant lord.
_March 27, 1840._
_Opinion on the Printed Papers" Question._
I wish--as, indeed, everybody wishes--that the House of Commons should have the power of printing and publishing its papers. But what I want to do is this--to provide that, when it proceeds to the sale of them, the law should take its course. As to the printing and publishing of papers, I have no objection, until it comes to the point of sale. The sale ought not, in my opinion, to be made by the authority of the house; it ought to be made by individuals, and they should be responsible for what they sell, as they were previously to the pa.s.sing of the resolution in 1835; and, up to that time, it must be admitted that the House of Commons and the House of Lords had the advantage of all their privileges quite as much as they have had ever since. My lords, I must confess that I look a little further into this question than the mere matter of libelling individuals. I consider all this as it affects the public generally; and, I say, the public is mainly interested in its being understood that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are not to be the privileged sellers of libels against individuals.
_April 6, 1840._
_Libels on foreign Sovereigns ought not to be permitted._
I remember reading with great satisfaction, the history of a great case, which was pleaded and argued at considerable length, some years ago, in this country--I mean the case of the "King v. Peltier," in the court of King"s Bench. That was the case of an action brought against an obscure individual, for a libel which he had published upon the sovereign of a neighbouring country, with whom we were then in a state of peace and amity. Now, I ask your lordships whether, supposing, in the course of the late Polish revolution, the libels, some of which we have seen printed in this country, and others which we have heard spoken of in the other, and, I believe, in this house of parliament, reviling, in the strongest terms, the sovereign of Russia, had been stated in the pet.i.tions, or in the proceedings of the House of Commons, and had been printed, published, and sold by its authority; I ask your lordships whether such a proceeding would not have been calculated to disturb the peace of this country, and of the world at large? In short, I ask your lordships whether it is desirable that there should be an opportunity of publishing and selling, on the part of the two houses of parliament, libels against the sovereigns of all the foreign powers in Europe? My lords, I am one of those who consider that the greatest political interest of this country is, to remain at peace and amity with all the nations of the world. I am for avoiding even the cause of war, and of giving offence to any one, and of seeking a quarrel, either by abuse, or by that description of language which is found in these libels. I am against insulting the feelings of any sovereign, at whom individuals may have taken offence, and against whom they may seek to publish libels under the sanction of parliament. Let them state what they please in their private capacity, and let them be answerable for it individually, as Peltier was. What I want is, that parliament should not, by the combined privilege of publication and sale, run the risk of involving the country in the consequences of a discussion of such subjects, and in all the mischiefs and inconveniences which might arise from it.
_April 6, 1840._
_Reasons why the Chinese stopped the Opium Trade._
It is perfectly true, as is stated by the n.o.ble earl, that the trade in opium has been carried on contrary to the laws of China. But then, my lords, it has been so carried on with the knowledge of the local authorities on the spot, who received large payments, in the shape of bribes, or in the way of duties, possibly both, for allowing the import of this opium,--its admission into the ports of China. It appears that, although the trade was forbidden by the law of China, it was known to the authorities of China, to the emperor himself, and to all the servants of the government, that it had existed for many years, and that the discussion had continued for many months, upon the question, whether the trade should be allowed, and continued, under a duty, or whether it should be discontinued altogether. Allow me to ask the n.o.ble earl, who has contended so very strongly for the Emperor of China, whether that morality was so very great while he allowed that trade to be continued? and whether his morality can be improved in any respect by opium being introduced upon the payment of a large duty, instead of its being introduced by means of smuggling, and under bribes paid to the officers of his government; and even, as it has been shown, from the exterior waters into the interior of the country, in the Mandarin boats, that is, in boats, either in the service of the country, or, at all events, under the charge of officers of the government? I really cannot see the force of the n.o.ble earl"s argument with respect to the illegality of the trade, when it is as clear as possible that its existence was well known to the government of China, and that no step had ever been taken to put it down; but, on the contrary, the means of continuing it, and of raising a larger duty upon it, were under consideration; and, in fact, the trade was finally put down, and discontinued only because it was supposed that it occasioned the export of a larger quant.i.ty of native or Sycee silver.
_May 12, 1840._
_The Opium not the cause of the war with China. Defence of Captain Elliot._
The n.o.ble earl says that this war is to be attributed to the opium!
Why? there was no British opium in China at the very time these other outrages were committed, and when this very language was held; and, as far as I am able to judge, there was then no opium in the possession of the British merchants there. An order had been issued to deliver it up, and this gentleman had gone down the river for the purpose of surrendering the whole. The war, then, has grown out of another state of circ.u.mstances. First of all, there was a claim for the surrender of an Englishman to be put to death, because a Chinese had lost his life in an affray. Captain Elliot, as became an English officer, inst.i.tuted an inquiry to discover whether a certain number of persons, stated to have been in an affray, had been guilty of the murder or not, and the result of the inquiry was, that he could not bring the charge home to any one; that he had no reason to suspect any one. The Chinese government still insisted that these six men should be given up. Captain Elliot refused, and that, I take it, is one of the causes of the war.
Another of the causes of the war is this--that a provision had been made that matters should be restored to their former state, in proportion as the opium should be delivered up; that the British inhabitants should have the use of the native servants; that they should have the common comforts of life, provisions, and all that was necessary for subsistence; and, finally, that the trade should be re-opened, and matters allowed to resume their usual course. After having given that promise, it is discovered that this Chinese lost his life in an affray in which American seamen were engaged as well as the English; and then a fourth proposition was advanced, which was this, that every master of a vessel, proceeding up the Canton river, should sign a bond, submitting himself, and all on board his ship, to be dealt with according to the laws of China. The n.o.ble lord has found fault with Captain Elliot upon this, as well as upon another matter. Now, this objection is most extraordinary, and it rather tends to prove that the n.o.ble earl, though he has paid great attention to this particular blue book, is not very well acquainted with former transactions in that country, or he would have found that former traders with China had invariably refused to subscribe to such proposals, and that they had broken off the trade with the Chinese, rather than do it; rather than give up British subjects to be dealt with according to the laws of China. I think they acted most properly; and that Captain Elliot, very much to his credit, refused to do it; at the same time, he did no more than his duty. He did what others would I trust have done under the same circ.u.mstances; and he is ent.i.tled to great praise for his firmness in resisting that demand. Then there is another circ.u.mstance in which Captain Elliot acted as became him. I allude particularly to his refusal to give up Mr. Dent. It was declared that the opium trade was not to be continued; that it was an illegal trade; and that dealing in opium should not be suffered. It was supposed that Mr. Dent had been a person very much concerned in that trade, and had made a large fortune, as I believe many others have done, by that illicit trade. And Captain Elliot was blamed, when it was sought to have Mr. Dent given up, because he, her majesty"s representative and the chief superintendent of trade in that country, stepped forward and said, "I won"t allow this gentleman to be given over to the Chinese government, and to be tried as the Chinese government may direct." I should, my lords, be ashamed of the name of Englishman, if there could be found one in her majesty"s service capable of acting otherwise than this gentleman did, under such circ.u.mstances. The n.o.ble earl has stated that a great deal of difficulty would have been got rid of, if Captain Elliot had complied with the request of the Chinese; and that the Americans gave up a seaman to be dealt with according to the Chinese laws. I am sorry for it. I must say, it was not their duty to do so. They would have done better to have taken a leaf out of our book, and to have followed the example of the East India Company, to put an end to the trade rather than risk the life of one of her majesty"s subjects, or give him up to be tried by the Chinese government.
_May 12, 1840._
If we cannot sustain our power in the Canadas, we must necessarily lose all our dominions in North America.
_June 30, 1840._
Colonial responsible government, and the sovereignty of Great Britain, are completely incompatible.
_June 30, 1840._
_Importance of Colonies to the Mother Country._
I have observed in this country, for some length of time, a growing desire to get rid of our North American dominions--a desire that they should become republics. This desire prevails amongst a very large party in this country. I am aware that there are also others--not, however, acting from the same motive--who desire that the separation should take place; tranquilly, if possible, but that at all events it should take place. In my opinion, these gentlemen are mistaken. It is my decided opinion, that, considering the resources and the power of these colonies, this country would sustain a heavy loss, indeed, if these colonies were to be separated from it.
_June 30, 1840._
_Religious Education must be provided out of the Funds of the Church._
It appears to me that there is no difference of opinion amongst us on these points--namely, that means must be found of preaching the word of G.o.d to the people of England; and I go further--for this point is also not disputed--and I say that those means must proceed, in the first instance, from the church, and that they must be exhausted before the public is called on for other means; in providing those means, you will not only be performing a duty inc.u.mbent upon you, but you will also be following the example of every other nation in the world. It has been my lot to live among idolaters--among persons of all creeds, and of all religions; but I never knew yet of a single instance in which public means were not provided sufficient to teach the people the religion of their country. They might be false religions; I know but of one true one; but yet means were never wanting to teach those false religions; and I hope that we shall not have done with this subject until we have found sufficient means for teaching the people of England their duty to their Maker, and their duty to one another, founded on their duty to that Maker.
_July 30, 1840._
_Necessity of administering Oaths._
I entreat your lordships to pause, and recollect that the foundation of all justice is truth; and that the mode of discovering truth has always been to administer an oath, in order that the witness may give his deposition under a high sanction. I hope your lordships will not adopt another of those bills which have been before your lordships only a few days, and which suggest, in truth, nothing more than a way of enabling a witness, who thinks proper to say he has conscientious scruples, to escape the solemnity of an oath. I admit that the inconvenience of the present state of the law falls on the community rather than on the individuals; but, at the same time, I think that, by every one of those relaxations, we shake the foundations of justice.
_August 4, 1840._
_Church-rate Martyrs--true state of the Case._
In my opinion, this case is a very simple one, and one on which there can be no doubt as to the course which should be taken. Here is a man who has been sued for a sum of money, which, it is understood, was lawfully due by him. The law renders him liable to pay that sum of money, and the law supports the proceedings against him for the recovery of it. This person could have easily avoided these proceedings, by simply paying the sum of 5s. 6d., which was demanded of him; or he could have gone into court and had the question fairly tried, whether he was lawfully bound to pay it or not, according to the laws of the country in which he resides; for, of course, he must be bound by the laws of his country, as well as all other British subjects. But he has not chosen to take either course. He has said, "I will not pay that money;" and, in consequence of his own conduct, a large amount has been incurred in the way of costs. These costs are not matters of speculation or amus.e.m.e.nt, they are realities; they are sums of money paid for the labour of certain individuals, for certain services performed in the execution of their duties, under the legal authority of the ecclesiastical courts, and in this suit. Now, those costs must be paid. Were we to let the man off from paying the 5s. 6d. for the rate, that remission would not get rid of his liability for the costs; these latter must be paid, either by himself or his friends, or else they must be paid by the other party, by the lawful suitors, by the lawful plaintiffs, who had a right originally to recover the money. They are the persons who would have to pay the costs, unless your lordships consent to insert the clause proposed by my n.o.ble friend. Somebody must pay the costs after all. But it is said that the defendant is not to pay the costs, and that he is to be let out of prison. Well, you may let him out, if you please; but, surely, you would not call upon the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred by _his_ conduct? That would not be justice. That would not be fair between man and man. Not a soul in this house could be of that opinion.
It is not consistent either with law or justice to throw these expenses upon those on whom the law of the country has laid the necessity of incurring them. Not they, but he who, by his own conduct, rendered the proceedings imperative, ought to be made to pay the costs.
_August 7, 1840._
_The Duke of Wellington not a War Minister._