Part 15 (2/2)
_Defence of the Government from the Charge of Inconsistency._
Another subject to which I wish to advert, is a charge brought against several of my colleagues, and also against myself, of a want of consistency in our conduct. My Lords, I admit that many of my colleagues, as well as myself, did on former occasions, vote against a measure of a similar description with this; and my Lords, I must say, that my colleagues and myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that we should be sacrificing ourselves, and our popularity to that which we felt to be our duty to our sovereign and our country.
We knew very well that if we put ourselves at the head of the Protestant cry of ”No Popery,” we should be much more popular even than those who have excited that very cry against us. But we felt that, in so doing, we should have left on the interests of the country a burden, which must end in bearing them down; and further, that we should deserve the hate and execration of our countrymen. The n.o.ble Earl on the cross bench (Winchelsea) has adverted particularly to me, and has mentioned in terms of civility the services which he says I have rendered to the country; but I must tell the n.o.ble Earl that be those services what they may, I rendered them through good repute, and through bad repute, and that I was never prevented from rendering them by any cry which was excited against me at the moment. Then, I am accused by a n.o.ble and learned friend of mine, (the Earl of Eldon) of having acted with great secresy respecting this measure. Now I beg to tell my n.o.ble and learned friend--and I am sorry that, in the course of these discussions, anything has pa.s.sed which has been unpleasant to my n.o.ble and learned friend,--I beg to tell him, I say, that, he has done that to me in the course of this discussion which he complains of others having done to him;--in other words, he has, in the words of a right honourable friend of his and mine, thrown a large paving stone, instead of throwing a small pebble stone. I say, that if my n.o.ble and learned friend accuses me of acting with secresy on this question, he does not deal with me altogether fairly. He knows, as well as I do, how the Cabinet was constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a single word to any man whatsoever on this measure, until the person most interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my speaking out? I say, that before my n.o.ble and learned friend accused me of secresy, and improper secresy too, he ought to have known the precise day upon which I received the permission of the highest personage in this country; and he ought not to have accused me of improper conduct, until he knew the day on which I had leave to open my mouth upon this measure. There is another point also upon which the n.o.ble Earl accused me of misconduct, and that is that I did not at once dissolve the parliament. Now, I must say, that I think n.o.ble Lords are mistaken in the notion of the benefits which they think they would derive from a dissolution of parliament at this crisis. I believe that many of them are not aware of the consequences and of the inconveniences of a dissolution of parliament at any time. But when I knew, as I did know, and as I do know, the state of the elective franchise in Ireland in the course of last summer,--when I knew the consequences which a dissolution would produce on the return to the house of commons, to say nothing of the risk which must have occurred at each election,--of collisions that might have led to something little short of civil war,--I say, that knowing all these things, I should have been wanting in duty to my Sovereign, and to my country, if I had advised his Majesty to dissolve his parliament.
_April 4, 1829._
_No Danger to the Church from the Emanc.i.p.ation Bill._
It has been repeatedly a.s.sumed by many of your Lords.h.i.+ps in the course of the discussion, but particularly by the right reverend Prelates who have spoken, that the church of Ireland (or, as I have recently been reminded, the church of England in Ireland) is in danger. I call on those who apprehend that danger to state clearly whether that danger, on this particular occasion, is more to be expected as resulting from legislation, or from violence. If they say it is resulting from legislation, I answer that their apprehensions are puerile. It is impossible to suppose that a small number of persons admitted into this house, and a small number admitted into the other house, while we have a Protestant Sovereign upon the throne, should be productive of legislative danger to the church of England in Ireland. I beg to observe, with respect to the point relating to the union of the two countries, that a fundamental article of the union is the junction of the two Churches, called the United Churches of England and Ireland. It is impossible, therefore, that any mischief can occur to the Church of Ireland, without a breach in the union of the two countries. There is another point to which I beg leave to advert for a moment. Although it is true that we do admit into parliament members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, yet, at the same time, by another measure brought forward with it, and on which we equally rely, we propose regulations which will have the effect of destroying the influence of the Catholic priesthood in the election of members of parliament. We have carefully examined the measure, and do expect that it will give additional security to all the interests of the state.
_April 4, 1829._
_English Soldiers respect the Religion of other Nations._
Although I have served in my profession in several countries, and among foreigners, some of whom professed various forms of the Christian religion, while others did not profess it at all; I never was in one in which it was not the bounden duty of the soldier to pay proper deference and respect to whatever happened to be the religious inst.i.tutions or ceremonies of the place where he might happen to be. We soldiers do not go into these foreign countries to become parties to the religious differences of the people, or to trouble ourselves with their notions upon matters of faith. We go to perform a very different kind of duty,--one which is purely military, and has no reference to the people's religion. I confess I never heard, however, that it was our custom to take any part in their religious rites, nor do I believe we have taken any such part. Indeed, I have never heard of anything like any co-operation by our soldiers of military parade, except at Malta, where I know it has long been the practice of the garrison to direct some artillery officers to cause a few small guns to be fired, as some particular procession pa.s.ses the platform. And I know that certain officers of the artillery, or military, three of them, I believe, thought proper on military grounds, and not upon religious scruples, to refuse to fire, according to the usual order of their commandant--for such refusal they were brought to a court-martial, and sentenced to be cas.h.i.+ered, not because they would not form a part of any religious procession to which they were hostile--not because they would not conform to the rites of the natives, and wors.h.i.+p any relic that was honoured by them; but for this plain and intelligible reason,--that they had taken upon themselves to refuse obedience to the orders of the commander-in-chief on the spot.
_April 8, 1829._
_The real meaning of Irish Agitation._
If you glance at the history of Ireland during the last ten years, you will find that agitation really means something just short of rebellion; that, and no other, is the exact meaning of the word. It is to place the country in that state in which its government is utterly impracticable, except by means of an overawing military force.
_May 4, 1829._
_Theory of a Metallic Currency._
The restoration of the currency, my Lords, has, in truth, but little to do with the distress of the country. Since the restoration of the currency, the revenue has risen to the amount which has been stated to your Lords.h.i.+ps, notwithstanding the repeal of taxes to the amount of 27,000,000 l., since 1814. The fact is, that at the present moment, the revenue produces, in real currency, much more than it produced when the war was terminated. Is not that circ.u.mstance alone, I ask your Lords.h.i.+ps, a proof of the increasing prosperity of the country? But, my Lords, I did not rest my argument on that fact only. Notwithstanding, there is, at present, much distress, still, in the last year, there was an increase of produce in every branch of manufacture, in every branch of industry, beyond what was apparent in the three preceding years.
Under these circ.u.mstances, your Lords.h.i.+ps must ascribe the distress of the country to something else, rather than to the alteration of the currency. My opinion is, that the people, during the lengthened war which existed previously to the peace of 1815--during that period, when there was an enormous expenditure--acquired habits which they cannot readily throw aside. During that time, any man, of whatever description of credit, could obtain money, or the semblance of money, to carry on any speculation. The people then employed a fict.i.tious wealth; they proceeded on a system, which could not be continued, without mining and destroying the country; and that system having been destroyed, that fict.i.tious wealth having been removed, they cannot immediately come down to those quiet habits, which are required from them under that state of things now prevailing in the empire. That, my Lords, is the real cause of the distress under which they are at present suffering. Besides, your Lords.h.i.+ps will recollect, that the population of the country has enormously increased; and it should also be taken into the calculation, that the power of production by machinery has increased in an incalculable degree. As much can now be produced in one year, as formerly could be produced in five years; and the produce of one year now amounts to more than can be taken off our hands in a year and a half, or even two years. Distress, therefore, has occurred, notwithstanding that the utmost exertions have been made to repel it; and notwithstanding the great and general prosperity of trade throughout the world. My Lords, the plain fact is, that owing to the alterations of trade--a great demand at one time, and a want of demand at another--the manufacturers, and those engaged in commercial pursuits, must sustain considerable distress at different periods. It has been recommended as a remedy, that Government should go back to the system of the circulation of the notes. Now, my Lords, with respect to the one-pound bank notes--it will be well to recollect what has been the proceeding of Parliament on that subject. In 1826, Parliament having seen the facility with which speculations could be undertaken by persons possessing no capital, in consequence of the circulation of those one-pound bank-notes--looking to the evils that resulted from those speculations, and finding that a great number of banks in the country had failed in consequence of such speculations--thought proper to pa.s.s a law to prevent the circulation of this species of paper, after the lapse of three years. A n.o.ble Lord has said, that this measure of Parliament occasioned the failure of a great number of country bankers. But, I beg the n.o.ble Lord's pardon, he has not stated the fact correctly. Most of the banks which about that period failed, it ought to be recollected, broke previously to the meeting of Parliament. The fact is, that it was the breaking of the banks which occasioned the measure, and not the measure the breaking of the banks. But we have now accomplished the measure adopted in 1826; that measure is now carried into execution; the currency of the country is now sufficient; bank notes, 5l., and above 5l., in value, are in circulation; and I will a.s.sert this fact, that there is at present more of what I may call State currency in circulation--more notes of the Bank of England and sovereigns--a greater quant.i.ty of circulating medium of those two denominations, than there has been at any former period before the late war, or before the Bank Restriction Act was pa.s.sed. I beg leave, my Lords, to ask, what want is there of any additional circulation, when the circulation is at present greater than it ever was? Is it necessary to have a more extended circulation, to afford the means of procuring loans of money to those who have no capital and no credit? I contend that this is a state of things that ought not to exist in any country. Persons who really possess credit, can raise money at the present moment with every facility that is reasonable or proper. But, undoubtedly, those who have no credit, are deprived of the facilities of borrowing money, which they formerly enjoyed, because there is no longer a large cla.s.s of persons dealing in one-pound notes, to a.s.sist them in carrying on their speculations. This is the real state of the case. It was this situation of affairs that gave rise, and justly gave rise, to the measure of 1826--a measure which, I trust, that Parliament will persevere in, for the purpose of placing the country in a proper state. It has been said truly, that nothing is so desirable as to see the country carrying on its mercantile transactions with a paper currency founded on, and supported by, a metallic basis. Now, your Lords.h.i.+ps must be aware, that is exactly the sort of currency which the country has got at present; and, in proportion as the country goes on conquering its difficulties--the existence of that currency still being continued--we shall see prosperity daily revive, and we shall see mercantile transactions carried on as they ought to be, without any mixture of those ruinous speculations, to which so much of the prevailing distress must be attributed. But, my Lords, the n.o.ble Lord in tracing out the sources of this distress, has omitted one of the great causes of it. He has not adverted to the immense loss of capital which has been sustained by the country during the last six or eight years, in consequence of loans to foreign powers--of which neither princ.i.p.al or interest has been paid, nor ever will, in my opinion, be paid. The n.o.ble Lord has not adverted to the effect which that loss of capital must have produced, with respect to the employment of industry in all parts of the country.
In the next place, the n.o.ble Lord has not adverted to the effect which those loans must have had on the trade and manufactures of the country, in consequence of the glut in foreign markets, occasioned by the forced exportation of goods on account of such transactions. In most instances, my Lords, no returns were made on account of those goods, and even when returns were made, they were of the most unsatisfactory description. The n.o.ble Lord has not adverted to the fact, that these returns, when any were received, came home in the shape of interest, and did not, of course, require any demand or export from this country. Surely all these things should be considered, when the n.o.ble Lord speaks of the distress the country is labouring under. That distress has fallen not only on the manufacturing and commercial interests, but also on those who have encouraged and embarked in the various schemes and speculations which have done the country so much mischief.
_May 26, 1829._
_Extended Currency means unlimited creation of Paper Money by Individuals._
I will now say a few words upon the remedy proposed by the n.o.ble Lord (the Earl of Carnarvon), who has totally misunderstood the argument of the n.o.ble Viscount (G.o.derich). My n.o.ble Friend stated that the revenue, in 1815, was 80,000,000 l. sterling, in paper currency; that taxes were first of all repealed to the amount of 18,000,000 l., and afterwards to the amount of 9,000,000 l., making in all 27,000.000 l.; and he says that the revenue now produces, in a sound currency, as great an amount as it produced in a depreciated currency; that is to say, that it produces now a sum, in sound currency, which, in paper currency, would amount to 80,000,000 l. sterling. Those persons who consume the articles which produce the revenue, must be able to purchase them, or the revenue could not exist. The increase of the revenue is a proof, then, that consumption has increased full one-third since the time when the taxes were reduced. It is utterly impossible that a country in which, within a period of fifteen years, the revenue has risen one-third, can be suffering universal and unexampled distress. The n.o.ble Lord has thought proper to refer the distress to a deficient circulation, and he recommends a system which he thinks would remedy the evil. Now, I will tell the n.o.ble Earl that the largest amount of currency in circulation, at any time during the Bank Restriction Act, was 65,000,000 l. sterling.
The Bank of England notes were 20,000,000 l.; country bank paper, 23,000,000 l.; gold, 4,000,000 l.; and, silver, 7,000,000 l. But, in 1830, the amount of Bank of England paper in circulation is 19,900,000 l.; and, of country bank paper, 9,200,000 l.; of gold, 28,000,000 l.; and, of silver. 8,000,000 l.; making a total of 65,000,000 l. It is certain, therefore, that there is more money in circulation now, than there was at any period of the Bank restriction. There can be no want, therefore, of more currency. The n.o.ble Earl says he wants an extended currency; but what he, in fact, wants, is not an extended currency, but an unlimited currency. He would give an unlimited power to certain individuals, not to the Crown, to coin as much money as they please. The n.o.ble Lord wants to give them the power of lending capital to whomsoever they might think proper thus to indulge. That is what the n.o.ble Lord recommends, but that is what, I say, cannot be allowed, without bringing the country again to the brink of ruin, from which it was extricated in the year 1826.
<script>