diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/55491-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/55491-0.txt | 7912 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 7912 deletions
diff --git a/old/55491-0.txt b/old/55491-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 242502a..0000000 --- a/old/55491-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7912 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Representative British Orations with -Introductions and Explanatory Notes,, by Charles Kendall Adams - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Representative British Orations with Introductions and Explanatory Notes, Volume III (of 4) - -Author: Charles Kendall Adams - -Release Date: September 6, 2017 [EBook #55491] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK REPRESENTATIVE BRITISH ORATIONS, VOL 3 *** - - - - -Produced by Larry B. Harrison, Charlie Howard, and the -Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net -(This file was produced from images generously made -available by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - -Uniform with British Orations - - - AMERICAN ORATIONS, to illustrate American Political - History, edited, with introductions, by ALEXANDER - JOHNSTON, Professor of Jurisprudence and Political - Economy in the College of New Jersey. 3 vols., 16 mo, - $3.75. - - PROSE MASTERPIECES FROM MODERN ESSAYISTS, comprising - single specimen essays from IRVING, LEIGH HUNT, LAMB, - DE QUINCEY, LANDOR, SYDNEY SMITH, THACKERAY, EMERSON, - ARNOLD, MORLEY, HELPS, KINGSLEY, RUSKIN, LOWELL, - CARLYLE, MACAULAY, FROUDE, FREEMAN, GLADSTONE, - NEWMAN, LESLIE STEPHEN. 3 vols., 16 mo, bevelled - boards, $3.75 and $4.50. - - - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, NEW YORK AND LONDON - - - - - REPRESENTATIVE - BRITISH ORATIONS - - WITH - INTRODUCTIONS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES - - BY - CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS. - - _Videtisne quantum munus sit oratoris historia?_ - —CICERO, _DeOratore_, ii, 15 - - - ✩✩✩ - - - NEW YORK & LONDON - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS - The Knickerbocker Press - 1884 - - - - - COPYRIGHT - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS - 1884. - - - Press of - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS - New York - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - PAGE - GEORGE CANNING 1 - - GEORGE CANNING 13 - ON THE POLICY OF GRANTING AID TO PORTUGAL WHEN INVADED - BY SPAIN; HOUSE OF COMMONS, DECEMBER 12, 1826. - - LORD MACAULAY 50 - - LORD MACAULAY 62 - ON THE REFORM BILL OF 1832; HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH - 2, 1831. - - RICHARD COBDEN 95 - - RICHARD COBDEN 109 - ON THE EFFECTS OF PROTECTION ON THE AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS - OF THE COUNTRY; HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1845. - - JOHN BRIGHT 155 - - JOHN BRIGHT 159 - ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND; DELIVERED AT A BANQUET - GIVEN IN HONOR OF MR. BRIGHT, AT BIRMINGHAM, - OCTOBER 29, 1858. - - LORD BEACONSFIELD 204 - - LORD BEACONSFIELD 216 - ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY; DELIVERED - AT MANCHESTER, APRIL 3, 1872. - - WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE 277 - - WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE 287 - ON DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS; DELIVERED AT WEST - CALDER, NOVEMBER 27, 1879. - - - - -GEORGE CANNING. - - -The subject of this sketch was born in London in 1770. When he was only -one year old, the death of his father threw the responsibility of his -training and education upon his mother. Dependent upon her own energies -for the support of herself and her child, she at first established -a small school in London, and a little later fitted herself for the -stage, where she achieved considerable success. - -As soon as George entered school, he began to show remarkable -proficiency in the study of Latin and Greek, as well as in English -literature. Mr. Stapleton, his biographer, tells us that when still -a child, young Canning was incidentally called upon to recite some -verses, when he began with one of the poems of Gray, and did not stop -or falter till he repeated the contents of the entire volume. At the -age of fifteen he went to Eton, where he was at once recognized as a -boy of surpassing abilities and attainments. In the following year -some of his school-fellows joined him in starting a weekly paper, -called the _Microcosm_, to which he acted the part of editor and -chief contributor. The brilliancy and wit of the paper were such as -to attract even the attention of the leading reviews. He also paid -great attention to the art of extemporaneous speaking. A society had -been established in the school in which all the forms and methods of -the House of Commons were rigidly observed. The Speaker, the Cabinet, -and the Opposition played their mimic parts with all the energy and -interest so many of the members afterward displayed in Parliament -itself. George became “Captain” of the school, and, when in 1788 he -went up to Oxford, he carried with him a reputation for accuracy and -maturity of scholarship which at once drew the eyes of the whole -university upon him. Even in his first year he entered the list of -competitors for the Chancellor’s Prize offered for the best Latin -poem, and was successful over all the upper classmen. Throughout his -course his attention was absorbed with the study of literature and the -practice of writing and speaking. - -He left the University at the age of twenty-two, and at once began the -study of law. His great reputation, however, had already attracted the -attention of Pitt, who now invited him to take a seat in the House of -Commons from one of the Government boroughs. With this request Canning -complied; and, accordingly, he became a member of the House in 1793 in -the twenty-fourth year of his age. - -His maiden speech, delivered some two months after he entered the -House, was brilliant, but was generally thought to be somewhat lacking -in the qualities of solidity and good judgment. His tastes were so -eminently rhetorical in their nature, that, for some years to come, he -was inclined to excess of ornamentation. Joined to this peculiarity -was an irresistible inclination to indulge in wit and badinage at -the expense of his fellow-members. This tendency was so predominant -that for a long time it was said that he never made what he called a -successful speech without making an enemy for life. - -In 1797, in connection with a few friends, Canning projected the -journal known as the _Anti-Jacobin Review_. Its object was to -counteract those peculiar doctrines of the French Revolution which -its contributors thought dangerous. Many of Canning’s articles were -satires, and were so admirable in their way as to be worthy of a place -among the most noted extravaganzas of English literature. The “Knife -Grinder,” and the drama entitled “The Rovers,” are perhaps the most -successful. “The Rovers” was written to ridicule the German drama then -prevailing, and it was regarded as of so much consequence that Niebuhr -in one of his gravest works has devoted nearly a page to a refutation -of it.[A] A good impression of Canning’s peculiar wit will be conveyed -by “Rogers’ Song,” taken from “The Rovers.” Mr. Hayward[B] informs us -that Canning had written the first five stanzas of the song, when Pitt, -coming into his room and accidentally seeing it, was so amused that he -took up a pen and added the fifth stanza on the spot. The following is -the song entire:— - - [A] “Geschichte des Zeitalters der Revolution,” ii., 242. - - [B] “Biographical Essays,” i., 211. - - - I. - - “When’er with haggard eyes I view - This dungeon that I’m rotting in, - I think of those companions true - Who studied with me at the U— - —niversity of Gottingen, - —niversity of Gottingen. - - - II. - - “Sweet kerchief, checked with heavenly blue, - Which once my love sat knotting in! - Alas! Matilda then was true, - At least I thought so at the U— - —niversity of Gottingen, - —niversity of Gottingen. - - - III. - - “Barbs! Barbs! alas! how swift you flew, - Her neat post-wagon trotting in; - Ye bore Matilda from my view; - Forlorn I languished at the U— - —niversity of Gottingen— - —niversity of Gottingen. - - - IV. - - “This faded form! this pallid hue! - This blood my veins is clotting in - My years are many—they were few - When first I entered at the U— - —niversity of Gottingen— - —niversity of Gottingen. - - - V. - - “There first for thee my passion grew, - Sweet! sweet Matilda Pottingen! - Thou wast the daughter of my tu— - —tor, law professor at the U— - —niversity of Gottingen— - —niversity of Gottingen. - - - VI. - - “Sun, moon, and thou, vain world, adieu, - That kings and priests are plotting in: - Here doomed to starve on water-gru— - el, never shall I see the U— - —niversity of Gottingen— - —niversity of Gottingen.” - -Unfortunately for his influence, Canning could not limit his wit -or his pasquinades to the Germans and French. The _Anti-Jacobin_ -contained many ludicrous satires on the personal peculiarities of -men like Erskine, Mackintosh, and Coleridge. Some of these made -bitter complaints that the Government should lend its influence to -and should reward the authors of these atrocious calumnies. There is -evidence that the publication was discontinued at the suggestion of -the Prime-Minister in consequence of these complaints, and it is very -probable that Canning’s advancement was retarded by his utter lack of -self-restraint. - -On the accession of the Duke of Portland, in 1807, Canning became -Secretary of Foreign Affairs, an office which he held for two years, -till he had a quarrel with Lord Castlereagh, which resulted in a duel, -and not only drove them both out of office, but overthrew the Portland -Ministry. During the next seven years he was out of power, though he -was regular in his parliamentary duties, and it was to him especially -that Lord Wellington was indebted for the firm and even enthusiastic -support of England during his military career. - -Canning always regarded himself as the political disciple of Pitt. -To his constituents at Liverpool he said: “In the grave of Mr. Pitt -my political allegiance lies buried.” He owned no other master, -and all his energies were devoted to carrying out Pitt’s policy -of foreign affairs. The part of England in the protection of the -smaller nationalities against the larger ones,—that policy which has -preserved Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Portugal, and Turkey,—was -but a continuance of the policy of Pitt, though it took definite form -under the influence of Canning, and is quite as often associated with -his name. The doctrine was strongly put forward on three important -occasions. The first was in his speech urging England to join her -fortunes with those of Spain in driving Bonaparte from the Peninsula. -This, as Mr. Seeley, in his “Life of Stein” has shown, was the -turning point in Napoleon’s career, and it is the peculiar glory of -Canning that England was brought into the alliance by his influence. -With pardonable exultation he once said: “If there is any part of -my political conduct in which I _glory_, it is that in the face of -every difficulty, discouragement, and prophecy of failure, _mine_ -was the hand that committed England to an alliance with Spain.” The -second occasion was when, in 1822, he was a second time Minister of -Foreign Affairs, and when France was collecting troops to overthrow -constitutional government in Spain, and urging the other foreign -powers, assembled at Verona, to unite in the same purpose, he -despatched Wellington to Verona with so energetic a protest that even -France was dissuaded from the course she had intended to pursue. Again, -in 1826, Canning took a similar course in giving aid to Portugal when -invaded by Spain. His continental policy might be said to consist of -two parts: England should insist that the small governments should not -be disturbed by the larger, and that each nation should be allowed to -regulate its own internal affairs. - -On the death of Lord Liverpool, in 1827, Canning became Prime-Minister. -The great question then before the country was the political -emancipation of the Roman Catholics. The Test Act, adopted in the reign -of Charles II., had excluded Catholics from political rights—from seats -in Parliament and from the privilege of voting—and the act was still -in force. With the agitation that was now endeavoring to secure the -emancipation of the Catholics from political disabilities, Canning was -in hearty sympathy. When he was called into supreme power, therefore, -the inference was natural that Catholic emancipation was to be carried -through. Wellington, Peel, and nearly all the Tories in the ministry -threw up their places. Their purpose was to compel Canning to resign; -for knowing his views on the question of emancipation, they were -unwilling to hold office under him. Unfortunately, while the struggle -involved in their resignation was going on, Canning’s health suddenly -gave way, and sinking rapidly, he expired on the 8th of August, -1827, in the fifty-eighth year of his age. It is a singular and an -interesting fact that the very men who, in 1827, refused to follow -Canning in the work of emancipation, were driven two years later by -public opinion to put themselves at the head of the movement. - -By many excellent judges Canning is regarded as one of the foremost of -English orators. Brougham speaks of him in terms of almost the highest -praise, and so judicious a critic as Sir James Mackintosh says that -“Mr. Canning seems to have been the best model among our orators of the -adorned style. In some qualities,” he continues, “Mr. Canning surpassed -Mr. Pitt. His diction was more various—sometimes more simple—more -idiomatical, even in its more elevated parts. It sparkled with imagery, -and was brightened by illustration, in both of which Mr. Pitt, for so -great an orator, was defective. Had he been a dry and meagre speaker, -Mr. Canning would have been universally allowed to have been one of the -greatest masters of argument; but his hearers were so dazzled by the -splendor of his diction that they did not perceive the acuteness and -the occasional excessive refinement of his reasoning; a consequence -which, as it shows the injurious effects of a seductive fault, can with -the less justness be overlooked in the estimate of his understanding.” - - - - -GEORGE CANNING. - -ON THE POLICY OF GRANTING AID TO PORTUGAL WHEN INVADED BY SPAIN; HOUSE -OF COMMONS, DECEMBER 12, 1826. - - - When Mr. Canning was Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1826, a body of - Absolutists attempted to destroy the existing Portuguese Government, - which had been founded on the basis of a liberal constitution, and - had been acknowledged by England, France, Austria, and Russia. - This government was obnoxious to Ferdinand, King of Spain; and, - accordingly, supported by the sympathy of Austria and Russia, as well - as by the active assistance of Spain, the Portuguese Absolutists - organized a military expedition on Spanish soil for the overthrow - of the Portuguese Government. Portugal asked for the protection of - England. Five thousand troops were instantly ordered to Lisbon. This - action was in strict accordance with what is sometimes known as “Mr. - Canning’s Foreign Policy,”—that of allowing every nation to manage - its own internal affairs, and of allowing no interference with the - smaller nations by the larger. - - The following speech in explanation of his reasons for prompt action - is the masterpiece of his eloquence. - - -MR. SPEAKER: - -In proposing to the House of Commons to acknowledge, by an humble and -dutiful address, his Majesty’s most gracious message, and to reply -to it in terms which will be, in effect, an echo of the sentiments -and a fulfilment of the anticipations of that message, I feel that, -however confident I may be in the justice, and however clear as to the -policy of the measures therein announced, it becomes me, as a British -minister, recommending to Parliament any step which may approximate -this country even to the hazard of a war, while I explain the grounds -of that proposal, to accompany my explanation with expressions of -regret. - -I can assure the House, that there is not within its walls any set -of men more deeply convinced than his Majesty’s ministers—nor any -individual more intimately persuaded than he who has now the honor -of addressing you—of the vital importance of the continuance of -peace to this country and to the world. So strongly am I impressed -with this opinion—and for reasons of which I will put the House more -fully in possession before I sit down—that I declare there is no -question of doubtful or controverted policy—no opportunity of present -national advantage—no precaution against remote difficulty—which I -would not gladly compromise, pass over, or adjourn, rather than call -on Parliament to sanction, at this moment, any measure which had a -tendency to involve the country in war. But, at the same time, sir, I -feel that which has been felt, in the best times of English history, -by the best statesmen of this country, and by the Parliaments by whom -those statesmen were supported—I feel that there are two causes, and -but two causes, which can not be either compromised, passed over, or -adjourned. These causes are: adherence to the national faith, and -regard for the national honor. - -Sir, if I did not consider both these causes as involved in the -proposition which I have this day to make to you, I should not address -the House, as I now do, in the full and entire confidence that the -gracious communication of his Majesty will be met by the House with the -concurrence of which his Majesty has declared his expectation. - -In order to bring the matter which I have to submit to you, under the -cognizance of the House, in the shortest and clearest manner, I beg -leave to state it, in the first instance, divested of any collateral -considerations. It is a case of law and of fact: of national law on the -one hand, and of notorious fact on the other; such as it must be, in -my opinion as impossible for Parliament, as it was for the government, -to regard in any but one light, or to come to any but one conclusion -upon it. - -Among the alliances by which, at different periods of our history, -this country has been connected with the other nations of Europe, -none is so ancient in origin, and so precise in obligation—none has -continued so long, and been observed so faithfully—of none is the -memory so intimately interwoven with the most brilliant records of our -triumphs, as that by which Great Britain is connected with Portugal. -It dates back to distant centuries; it has survived an endless variety -of fortunes. Anterior in existence to the accession of the House of -Braganza to the throne of Portugal—it derived, however, fresh vigor -from that event; and never from that epoch to the present hour, has -the independent monarchy of Portugal ceased to be nurtured by the -friendship of Great Britain. This alliance has never been seriously -interrupted; but it has been renewed by repeated sanctions. It has been -maintained under difficulties by which the fidelity of other alliances -was shaken, and has been vindicated in fields of blood and of glory. - -That the alliance with Portugal has been always unqualifiedly -advantageous to this country—that it has not been sometimes -inconvenient and sometimes burdensome—I am not bound nor prepared -to maintain. But no British statesman, so far as I know, has ever -suggested the expediency of shaking it off; and it is assuredly not at -a moment of need that honor and what I may be allowed to call national -sympathy would permit us to weigh, with an over-scrupulous exactness, -the amount of difficulties and dangers attendant upon its faithful and -steadfast observance. What feelings of national honor would forbid, is -forbidden alike by the plain dictates of national faith. - -It is not at distant periods of history, and in by-gone ages only, -that the traces of the union between Great Britain and Portugal are -to be found. In the last compact of modern Europe, the compact which -forms the basis of its present international law—I mean the treaty -of Vienna of 1815,—this country, with its eyes open to the possible -inconveniences of the connection, but with a memory awake to its past -benefits, solemnly renewed the previously existing obligations of -alliance and amity with Portugal. I will take leave to read to the -House the third article of the treaty concluded at Vienna, in 1815, -between Great Britain on the one hand and Portugal on the other. It -is couched in the following terms: “The treaty of Alliance, concluded -at Rio de Janeiro, on the 19th of February, 1810, being founded on -circumstances of a temporary nature, which have happily ceased to -exist, the said treaty is hereby declared to be void in all its parts, -and of no effect; _without prejudice, however, to the ancient treaties -of alliance, friendship, and guarantee, which have so long and so -happily subsisted between the two Crowns, and which are hereby renewed -by the high contracting parties, and acknowledged to be of full force -and effect_.” - -In order to appreciate the force of this stipulation—recent in point -of time, recent, also, in the sanction of Parliament—the House will, -perhaps, allow me to explain shortly the circumstances in reference to -which it was contracted. In the year 1807, when, upon the declaration -of Bonaparte, that the House of Braganza had ceased to reign, the -King of Portugal, by the advice of Great Britain, was induced to set -sail for the Brazils; almost at the very moment of his most faithful -Majesty’s embarkation, a secret convention was signed between his -Majesty and the King of Portugal, stipulating that, in the event of -his most faithful Majesty’s establishing the seat of his government -in Brazil, Great Britain would never acknowledge any other dynasty -than that of the House of Braganza on the throne of Portugal. That -convention, I say, was contemporaneous with the migration to the -Brazils; a step of great importance at the time, as removing from the -grasp of Bonaparte the sovereign family of Braganza. Afterward, in -the year 1810, when the seat of the King of Portugal’s government was -established at Rio de Janeiro, and when it seemed probable, in the -then apparently hopeless condition of the affairs of Europe, that it -was likely long to continue there, the secret convention of 1807, of -which the main object was accomplished by the fact of the emigration -to Brazil, was abrogated, and a new and public treaty was concluded, -into which was transferred the stipulation of 1807, binding Great -Britain, so long as his faithful Majesty should be compelled to reside -in Brazil, not to acknowledge any other sovereign of Portugal than a -member of the House of Braganza. That stipulation, which had hitherto -been _secret_, thus became _patent_, and part of the known law of -nations. - -In the year 1814, in consequence of the happy conclusion of the war, -the option was afforded to the King of Portugal of returning to his -European dominions. It was then felt that, as the necessity of his most -faithful Majesty’s absence from Portugal had ceased, the ground for the -obligation originally contracted in the secret convention of 1807, and -afterward transferred to the patent treaty of 1810, was removed. The -treaty of 1810 was, therefore, annulled at the Congress of Vienna; and -in lieu of the stipulation not to acknowledge any other sovereign of -Portugal than a member of the House of Braganza, was substituted that -which I have just read to the House. - -Annulling the treaty of 1810, the treaty of Vienna renews and confirms -(as the House will have seen) all _former_ treaties between Great -Britain and Portugal, describing them as “ancient treaties of alliance, -friendship, and guarantee”; as having “long and happily subsisted -between the two Crowns”; and as being allowed, by the two high -contracting parties, to remain “in full force and effect.” - -What, then, is the force—what is the effect of those ancient treaties? -I am prepared to show to the House what it is. But before I do so, I -must say, that if all the treaties to which this article of the treaty -of Vienna refers, had perished by some convulsion of nature, or had by -some extraordinary accident been consigned to total oblivion, still it -would be impossible not to admit, as an incontestable inference from -this article of the treaty of Vienna alone, that, in a moral point -of view, there is incumbent on Great Britain a decided obligation to -act as the effectual defender of Portugal. If I could not show the -letter of a single antecedent stipulation, I should still contend -that a solemn admission, only ten years old, of the existence at that -time of “treaties of alliance, friendship, and guarantee,” held Great -Britain to the discharge of the obligations which that very description -implies. But fortunately there is no such difficulty in specifying the -nature of those obligations. All of the preceding treaties exist—all of -them are of easy reference—all of them are known to this country, to -Spain, to every nation of the civilized world. They are so numerous, -and their general result is so uniform, that it may be sufficient to -select only two of them to show the nature of all. - -The first to which I shall advert is the treaty of 1661, which was -concluded at the time of the marriage of Charles the Second with the -Infanta of Portugal. After reciting the marriage, and making over to -Great Britain, in consequence of that marriage, first, a considerable -sum of money, and, secondly, several important places, some of which, -as Tangier, we no longer possess, but others of which, as Bombay, still -belong to this country, the treaty runs thus: “In consideration of -all which grants, so much to the benefit of the King of Great Britain -and his subjects in general, and of the delivery of those important -places to his said Majesty and his heirs forever, etc., the King of -Great Britain does profess and declare, with the consent and advice of -his council, that he will take the interest of Portugal and all its -dominions to heart, defending the same with his utmost power by sea and -land, _even as England itself_”; and it then proceeds to specify the -succors to be sent, and the manner of sending them. - -I come next to the treaty of 1703, a treaty of alliance contemporaneous -with the Methuen treaty, which has regulated, for upward of a century, -the commercial relations of the two countries. The treaty of 1703 was a -tripartite engagement between the States-General of Holland, England, -and Portugal. The second article of that treaty sets forth, that, -“If ever it shall happen that the Kings of Spain and France, either -the present or the future, that both of them together, or either of -them separately, shall make war, or give occasion to suspect that -they intend to make war, upon the kingdom of Portugal, either on the -continent of Europe, or on its dominions beyond the seas, her Majesty -the Queen of Great Britain, and the Lords the States-General, shall use -their friendly offices with the said Kings, or either of them, in order -to persuade them to observe the terms of peace toward Portugal, and not -to make war upon it.” The third article declares, “That in the event of -these good offices not proving successful, but altogether ineffectual, -so that war should be made by the aforesaid Kings, or by either of -them, upon Portugal, the above-mentioned powers of Great Britain and -Holland shall make war with all their force upon the aforesaid Kings -or King who shall carry hostile arms into Portugal; and toward that -war, which shall be carried on in Europe, they shall supply twelve -thousand men, whom they shall arm and pay, as well when in quarters -as in action; and the said high allies shall be obliged to keep that -number of men complete, by recruiting it from time to time at their own -expense.” - -I am aware, indeed, that with respect to either of the treaties which -I have quoted, it is possible to raise a question—whether variation -of circumstances or change of times may not have somewhat relaxed its -obligations. The treaty of 1661, it might be said, was so loose and -prodigal in the wording—it is so unreasonable, so wholly out of nature, -that any one country should be expected to defend another, “_even -as itself_”; such stipulations are of so exaggerated a character, -as to resemble effusions of feeling, rather than enunciations of -deliberate compact. Again, with respect to the treaty of 1703, if the -case rested on that treaty alone, a question might be raised, whether -or not, when one of the contracting parties—Holland—had since so -changed her relations with Portugal, as to consider her obligations -under the treaty of 1703 as obsolete—whether or not, I say, under -such circumstances, the obligation on the remaining party be not -likewise void. I should not hesitate to answer both these objections -in the negative. But without entering into such a controversy, it -is sufficient for me to say that the time and place for taking such -objections was at the Congress at Vienna. Then and there it was that -if you, indeed, considered these treaties as obsolete, you ought -frankly and fearlessly to have declared them to be so. But then and -there, with your eyes open, and in the face of all modern Europe, you -proclaimed anew the ancient treaties of alliance, friendship, and -guarantee, “so long subsisting between the Crowns of Great Britain and -Portugal,” as still “acknowledged by Great Britain,” and still “of full -force and effect.” It is not, however, on specific articles alone—it -is not so much, perhaps, on either of these ancient treaties, taken -separately, as it is on the spirit and understanding of the whole body -of treaties, of which the essence is concentrated and preserved in the -treaty of Vienna, that we acknowledge in Portugal a right to look to -Great Britain as her ally and defender. - -This, sir, being the state, morally and politically, of our obligations -toward Portugal, it is obvious that when Portugal, in apprehension of -the coming storm, called on Great Britain for assistance, the only -hesitation on our part could be—not whether that assistance was due, -supposing the occasion for demanding it to arise, but simply whether -that occasion—in other words, whether the _casus fœderis_ had arisen. - -I understand, indeed, that in some quarters it has been imputed to his -Majesty’s ministers that an extraordinary delay intervened between the -taking of the determination to give assistance to Portugal and the -carrying of that determination into effect. But how stands the fact? -On Sunday, the third of this month, we received from the Portuguese -embassador a direct and formal demand of assistance against a hostile -aggression from Spain. Our answer was, that although rumors had reached -us through France, his Majesty’s Government had not that accurate -information—that official and precise intelligence of facts—on which -they could properly found an application to Parliament. It was only on -last Friday night that this precise information arrived. On Saturday -his Majesty’s confidential servants came to a decision. On Sunday -that decision received the sanction of his Majesty. On Monday it was -communicated to both Houses of Parliament; and this day, sir, at the -hour in which I have the honor of addressing you, the troops are on -their march for embarkation. - -I trust, then, sir, that no unseemly delay is imputable to government. -But undoubtedly, on the other hand, when the claim of Portugal for -assistance—a claim clear, indeed, in justice, but at the same time -fearfully spreading in its possible consequences, came before us, it -was the duty of his Majesty’s Government to do nothing on hearsay. The -eventual force of the claim was admitted; but a thorough knowledge -of facts was necessary before the compliance with that claim could -be granted. The government here labored under some disadvantage. The -rumors which reached us through Madrid were obviously distorted, to -answer partial political purposes; and the intelligence through the -press of France, though substantially correct, was, in particulars, -vague and contradictory. A measure of grave and serious moment could -never be founded on such authority; nor could the ministers come down -to Parliament until they had a confident assurance that the case which -they had to lay before the Legislature was true in all its parts. - -But there was another reason which induced a necessary caution. In -former instances, when Portugal applied to this country for assistance, -the whole power of the state in Portugal was vested in the person of -the monarch. The expression of his wish, the manifestation of his -desire, the putting forth of his claim, was sufficient ground for -immediate and decisive action on the part of Great Britain, supposing -the _casus fœderis_ to be made out. But, on this occasion, inquiry -was in the first place to be made whether, according to the new -constitution of Portugal, the call upon Great Britain was made with -the consent of all the powers and authorities competent to make it, -so as to carry with it an assurance of that reception in Portugal for -our army, which the army of a friend and ally had a right to expect. -Before a British soldier should put his foot on Portuguese ground, -nay, before he should leave the shores of England, it was our duty to -ascertain that the step taken by the Regency of Portugal was taken with -the cordial concurrence of the Legislature of that country. It was but -this morning that we received intelligence of the proceedings of the -Chambers at Lisbon, which establishes the fact of such concurrence. -This intelligence is contained in a dispatch from Sir W. A’Court, -dated 29th of November, of which I will read an extract to the House. -“The day after the news arrived of the entry of the rebels into -Portugal, the ministers demanded from the Chambers an extension of -power for the executive government, and the permission to apply for -foreign succors, in virtue of ancient treaties, in the event of their -being deemed necessary. The deputies gave the requisite authority by -acclamation; and an equally good spirit was manifested by the peers, -who granted every power that the ministers could possibly require. They -even went further, and, rising in a body from their seats, declared -their devotion to their country, and their readiness to give their -personal services, if necessary, to repel any hostile invasion. The -Duke de Cadaval, president of the Chamber, was the first to make this -declaration; and the minister who described this proceeding to me, said -it was a movement worthy of the good days of Portugal!” - -I have thus incidentally disposed of the supposed imputation of delay -in complying with the requisition of the Portuguese Government. The -main question, however, is this: Was it obligatory upon us to comply -with that requisition? In other words, had the _casus fœderis_ arisen? -In our opinion it had. Bands of Portuguese rebels, armed, equipped, and -trained in Spain, had crossed the Spanish frontier, carrying terror -and devastation into their own country, and proclaiming sometimes the -brother of the reigning sovereign of Portugal, sometimes a Spanish -princess, and sometimes even Ferdinand of Spain, as the rightful -occupant of the Portuguese throne. These rebels crossed the frontier, -not at one point only, but at several points; for it is remarkable that -the aggression, on which the original application to Great Britain for -succor was founded, is not the aggression with reference to which that -application has been complied with. - -The attack announced by the French newspapers was on the north of -Portugal, in the province of Tras-os-Montes; an official account of -which has been received by his Majesty’s Government only this day. -But on Friday an account was received of an invasion in the south of -Portugal, and of the capture of Villa Vicosa, a town lying on the -road from the southern frontier to Lisbon. This new fact established -even more satisfactorily than a mere confirmation of the attack first -complained of would have done, the systematic nature of the aggression -of Spain against Portugal. One hostile irruption might have been made -by some single corps escaping from their quarters—by some body of -stragglers, who might have evaded the vigilance of Spanish authorities; -and one such accidental and unconnected act of violence might not have -been conclusive evidence of cognizance and design on the part of those -authorities; but when a series of attacks are made along the whole line -of a frontier, it is difficult to deny that such multiplied instances -of hostility are evidence of concerted aggression. - -If a single company of _Spanish_ soldiers had crossed the frontier -in hostile array, there could not, it is presumed, be a doubt as to -the character of that invasion. Shall bodies of men, armed, clothed, -and regimented by Spain, carry fire and sword into the bosom of her -unoffending neighbor, and shall it be pretended that no attack, no -invasion has taken place, because, forsooth, these outrages are -committed against Portugal by men to whom Portugal had given birth and -nurture? What petty quibbling would it be to say, that an invasion of -Portugal from Spain was not a _Spanish_ invasion, because Spain did not -employ her own troops, but hired mercenaries to effect her purpose? And -what difference is it, except as an aggravation, that the mercenaries -in this instance were natives of Portugal. - -I have already stated, and I now repeat, that it never has been the -wish or the pretension of the British Government to interfere in the -internal concerns of the Portuguese nation. Questions of that kind -the Portuguese nation must settle among themselves. But if we were to -admit that hordes of traitorous refugees from Portugal, with Spanish -arms, or arms furnished or restored to them by Spanish authorities, -in their hands, might put off their country for one purpose, and put -it on again for another—put it off for the purpose of attack, and put -it on again for the purpose of impunity—if, I say, we were to admit -this juggle, and either pretend to be deceived by it ourselves, or -attempt to deceive Portugal, into a belief that there was nothing of -external attack, nothing of foreign hostility, in such a system of -aggression—such pretence and attempt would, perhaps, be only ridiculous -and contemptible; if they did not require a much more serious character -from being employed as an excuse for infidelity to ancient friendship, -and as a pretext for getting rid of the positive stipulations of -treaties. - -This, then, is the case which I lay before the House of Commons. Here -is, on the one hand, an undoubted pledge of national faith—not taken -in a corner—not kept secret between the parties, but publicly recorded -among the annals of history, in the face of the world. Here are, on -the other hand, undeniable acts of foreign aggression, perpetrated, -indeed, principally through the instrumentality of domestic traitors, -but supported with foreign means, instigated by foreign councils, and -directed to foreign ends. Putting these facts and this pledge together, -it is impossible that his Majesty should refuse the call that has been -made upon him; nor can Parliament, I am convinced, refuse to enable -his Majesty to fulfil his undoubted obligations. I am willing to rest -the whole question of to-night, and to call for the vote of the House -of Commons upon this simple case, divested altogether of collateral -circumstances; from which I especially wish to separate it, in the -minds of those who hear me, and also in the minds of others, to whom -what I now say will find its way. If I were to sit down this moment, -without adding another word, I have no doubt but that I should have the -concurrence of the House in the address which I mean to propose. - -When I state this, it will be obvious to the House, that the vote -for which I am about to call upon them is a vote for the defence of -Portugal, not a vote for war against Spain. I beg the House to keep -these two points entirely distinct in their consideration. For the -former I think I have said enough. If, in what I have now further to -say, I should bear hard upon the Spanish Government, I beg that it -may be observed that, unjustifiable as I shall show their conduct -to have been—contrary to the law of nations, contrary to the law of -good neighborhood, contrary, I might say, to the laws of God and -man—with respect to Portugal—still I do not mean to preclude a _locus -pœnitentiæ_, a possibility of redress and reparation. It is our duty -to fly to the defence of Portugal, be the assailant who he may. And, -be it remembered, that, in thus fulfilling the stipulation of ancient -treaties, of the existence and obligation of which all the world are -aware, we, according to the universally admitted construction of the -law of nations, neither make war upon that assailant, nor give to that -assailant, much less to any other power, just cause of war against -ourselves. - -Sir, the present situation of Portugal is so anomalous, and the recent -years of her history are crowded with events so unusual, that the House -will, perhaps, not think that I am unprofitably wasting its time, if -I take the liberty of calling its attention, shortly and succinctly, -to those events, and to their influence on the political relations of -Europe. It is known that the consequence of the residence of the King -of Portugal in Brazil was to raise the latter country from a colonial -to a metropolitan condition; and that, from the time when the King -began to contemplate his return to Portugal, there grew up in Brazil -a desire of independence that threatened dissension, if not something -like civil contest, between the European and American dominions of the -House of Braganza. It is known, also, that Great Britain undertook a -mediation between Portugal and Brazil, and induced the King to consent -to a separation of the two crowns—confirming that of Brazil on the -head of his eldest son. The ink with which this agreement was written -was scarcely dry, when the unexpected death of the King of Portugal -produced a new state of things, which reunited on the same head the two -crowns which it had been the policy of England, as well as of Portugal -and of Brazil, to separate. On that occasion, Great Britain, and -another European court, closely connected with Brazil, tendered advice -to the Emperor of Brazil, now become King of Portugal, which advice -it can not be accurately said that his Imperial Majesty followed, -because he had decided for himself before it reached Rio de Janeiro; -but in conformity with which advice, though not in consequence of it, -his Imperial Majesty determined to abdicate the crown of Portugal in -favor of his eldest daughter. But the Emperor of Brazil had done more. -What had not been foreseen—what would have been beyond the province -of any foreign power to advise—his Imperial Majesty had accompanied -his abdication of the crown of Portugal with the grant of a free -constitutional charter for that kingdom. - -It has been surmised that this measure, as well as the abdication -which it accompanied, was the offspring of our advice. No such -thing—Great Britain did not suggest this measure. It is not her duty -nor her practice to offer suggestions for the internal regulation of -foreign states. She neither approved nor disapproved of the grant of -a constitutional charter to Portugal; her opinion upon that grant was -never required. True it is, that the instrument of the constitutional -charter was brought to Europe by a gentleman of high trust in the -service of the British Government. Sir C. Stuart had gone to Brazil -to negotiate the separation between that country and Portugal. In -addition to his character of Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, as the -mediating power, he had also been invested by the King of Portugal -with the character of his most faithful Majesty’s Plenipotentiary for -the negotiation with Brazil. That negotiation had been brought to a -happy conclusion; and therewith the British part of Sir C. Stuart’s -commission had terminated. But Sir C. Stuart was still resident at -Rio de Janeiro, as the Plenipotentiary of the King of Portugal, for -negotiating commercial arrangements between Portugal and Brazil. In -this latter character it was that Sir C. Stuart, on his return to -Europe, was requested by the Emperor of Brazil to be the bearer to -Portugal of the new constitutional charter. His Majesty’s government -found no fault with Sir C. Stuart for executing this commission; but it -was immediately felt that if Sir C. Stuart were allowed to remain at -Lisbon, it might appear, in the eyes of Europe, that England was the -contriver and imposer of the Portuguese constitution. Sir C. Stuart -was, therefore, directed to return home forthwith, in order that the -constitution, if carried into effect there, might plainly appear to -be adopted by the Portuguese nation itself, not forced upon them by -English interference. - -As to the merits, sir, of the new constitution of Portugal, I have -neither the intention nor the right to offer any opinion. Personally, -I may have formed one; but as an English minister, all I have to say -is: May God prosper this attempt at the establishment of constitutional -liberty in Portugal! and may that nation be found as fit to enjoy and -to cherish its new-born privileges, as it has often proved itself -capable of discharging its duties among the nations of the world! - -I, sir, am neither the champion nor the critic of the Portuguese -constitution. But it is admitted on all hands to have proceeded from -a legitimate source—a consideration which has mainly reconciled -continental Europe to its establishment; and to us, as Englishmen, -it is recommended by the ready acceptance which it has met with from -all orders of the Portuguese people. To that constitution, therefore, -thus unquestioned in its origin, even by those who are most jealous of -new institutions—to that constitution, thus sanctioned in its outset -by the glad and grateful acclamations of those who are destined to -live under it—to that constitution, founded on principles, in a great -degree, similar to those of our own, though differently modified,—it -is impossible that Englishmen should not wish well. But it would not -be for us to force that constitution on the people of Portugal, if -they were unwilling to receive it, or if any schism should exist among -the Portuguese themselves, as to its fitness and congenialty to the -wants and wishes of the nation. It is no business of ours to fight its -battles. We go to Portugal in the discharge of a sacred obligation, -contracted under ancient and modern treaties. When there, nothing shall -be done by us to enforce the establishment of the constitution; but we -must take care that nothing shall be done by others to prevent it from -being fairly carried into effect. Internally, let the Portuguese settle -their own affairs; but with respect to external force, while Great -Britain has an arm to raise, it must be raised against the efforts of -any power that should attempt forcibly to control the choice and fetter -the independence of Portugal. - -Has such been the intention of Spain? Whether the proceedings which -have lately been practised or permitted in Spain were acts of a -government exercising the usual power of prudence and foresight -(without which a government is, for the good of the people which -live under it, no government at all), or whether they were the acts -of some secret illegitimate power—of some furious fanatical faction, -over-riding the counsels of the ostensible government, defying it in -the capital, and disobeying it on the frontiers,—I will not stop to -inquire. It is indifferent to Portugal, smarting under her wrongs—it -is indifferent to England, who is called upon to avenge them,—whether -the present state of things be the result of the intrigues of a -faction, over which, if the Spanish Government has no control, it -ought to assume one as soon as possible; or of local authorities, over -whom it has control, and for whose acts it must, therefore, be held -responsible. It matters not, I say, from which of these sources the -evil has arisen. In either case, Portugal must be protected; and from -England that protection is due. - -It would be unjust, however, to the Spanish Government, to say that -it is only among the members of that government that an unconquerable -hatred of liberal institutions exists in Spain. However incredible -the phenomena may appear in this country, I am persuaded that a vast -majority of the Spanish nation entertain a decided attachment to -arbitrary power, and a predilection for absolute government. The -more liberal institutions of countries in the neighborhood have not -yet extended their influence into Spain, nor awakened any sympathy -in the mass of the Spanish people. Whether the public authorities of -Spain did or did not partake of the national sentiment, there would -almost necessarily grow up between Portugal and Spain, under present -circumstances, an opposition of feelings which it would not require -the authority or the suggestions of the government to excite and -stimulate into action. Without blame, therefore, to the government -of Spain—out of the natural antipathy between the two neighboring -nations—the one prizing its recent freedom, the other hugging its -traditionary servitude,—there might arise mutual provocations and -reciprocal injuries, which, perhaps, even the most active and vigilant -ministry could not altogether restrain. I am inclined to believe that -such has been, in part at least, the origin of the differences between -Spain and Portugal. That in their progress they have been adopted, -matured, methodized, combined, and brought into more perfect action, -by some authority more united and more efficient than the mere feeling -disseminated through the mass of the community, is certain; but I do -believe their origin to have been as much in the real sentiment of the -Spanish population, as in the opinion or contrivance of the government -itself. - -Whether this be or be not the case, is precisely the question between -us and Spain. If, though partaking in the general feelings of the -Spanish nation, the Spanish Government has, nevertheless, done nothing -to embody those feelings, and to direct them hostilely against -Portugal; if all that has occurred on the frontiers has occurred only -because the vigilance of the Spanish Government has been surprised, -its confidence betrayed, and its orders neglected; if its engagements -have been repeatedly and shamefully violated, not by its own good-will, -but against its recommendation and desire, let us see some symptoms of -disapprobation, some signs of repentance, some measures indicative of -sorrow for the past and of sincerity for the future. In that case, his -Majesty’s message, to which I propose this night to return an answer of -concurrence, will retain the character which I have ascribed to it—that -of a measure of defence for Portugal, not a measure of resentment again -Spain. - -With these explanations and qualifications, let us now proceed to -the review of facts. Great desertions took place from the Portuguese -army into Spain, and some desertions took place from the Spanish army -into Portugal. In the first instance, the Portuguese authorities were -taken by surprise; but in every subsequent instance, where they had -an opportunity of exercising a discretion, it is but just to say that -they uniformly discouraged the desertions of the Spanish soldiery. -There exist between Spain and Portugal specific treaties, stipulating -the mutual surrender of deserters. Portugal had, therefore, a right to -claim of Spain that every Portuguese deserter should be forthwith sent -back. I hardly know whether from its own impulse, or in consequence -of our advice, the Portuguese Government waived its right under those -treaties; very wisely reflecting that it would be highly inconvenient -to be placed by the return of their deserters in the difficult -alternative of either granting a dangerous amnesty or ordering numerous -executions. The Portuguese Government, therefore, signified to Spain -that it would be entirely satisfied if, instead of surrendering the -deserters, Spain would restore their arms, horses, and equipments; and, -separating the men from their officers, would remove both from the -frontiers into the interior of Spain. Solemn engagements were entered -into by the Spanish Government to this effect—first with Portugal, next -with France, and afterward with England. Those engagements, concluded -one day, were violated the next. The deserters, instead of being -disarmed and dispersed, were allowed to remain congregated together -near the frontiers of Portugal, where they were enrolled, trained, and -disciplined for the expedition which they have since undertaken. It is -plain that in these proceedings there was perfidy somewhere. It rests -with the Spanish Government to show that it was not with them. It rests -with the Spanish Government to prove that, if its engagements have not -been fulfilled—if its intentions have been eluded and unexecuted,—the -fault has not been with the government, and that it is ready to make -every reparation in its power. - -I have said that these promises were made to France and to Great -Britain as well as to Portugal. I should do a great injustice to France -if I were not to add, that the representations of that government upon -this point to the cabinet of Madrid, have been as urgent, and alas! -as fruitless, as those of Great Britain. Upon the first irruption -into the Portuguese territory, the French Government testified its -displeasure by instantly recalling its embassador; and it further -directed its chargé d’affaires to signify to his Catholic Majesty, -that Spain was not to look for any support from France against the -consequences of this aggression upon Portugal. I am bound, I repeat, -in justice to the French Government, to state, that it has exerted -itself to the utmost in urging Spain to retrace the steps which she -has so unfortunately taken. It is not for me to say whether any more -efficient course might have been adopted to give effect to their -exhortations; but as to the sincerity and good faith of the exertions -made by the government of France to press Spain to the execution of her -engagements, I have not the shadow of a doubt, and I confidently reckon -upon their continuance. - -It will be for Spain, upon knowledge of the step now taken by his -Majesty, to consider in what way she will meet it. The earnest hope -and wish of his Majesty’s Government is, that she may meet it in such -a manner as to avert any ill consequences to herself from the measure -into which we have been driven by the unjust attack upon Portugal. - -Sir, I set out with saying that there were reasons which entirely -satisfied my judgment that nothing short of a point of national faith -or national honor would justify, at the present moment, any voluntary -approximation to the possibility of war. Let me be understood, -however, distinctly as not meaning to say that I dread war in a good -cause (and in no other way may it be the lot of this country ever to -engage!) from a distrust of the strength of the country to commence -it, or of her resources to maintain it. I dread it, indeed—but upon -far other grounds: I dread it from an apprehension of the tremendous -consequences which might arise from any hostilities in which we might -now be engaged. Some years ago, in the discussion of the negotiations -respecting the French war against Spain, I took the liberty of -adverting to this topic. I then stated that the position of this -country in the present state of the world was one of neutrality, not -only between contending nations, but between conflicting principles; -and that it was by neutrality alone that we could maintain that -balance, the preservation of which I believed to be essential to the -welfare of mankind. I then said, that I feared that the next war which -should be kindled in Europe would be a war not so much of armies as -of opinions. Not four years have elapsed, and behold my apprehension -realized! It is, to be sure, within narrow limits that this war of -opinion is at present confined; but it _is_ a war of opinion that Spain -(whether as government or as nation) is now waging against Portugal; -it is a war which has commenced in hatred of the new institutions -of Portugal. How long is it reasonable to expect that Portugal will -abstain from retaliation? If into that war this country shall be -compelled to enter, we shall enter into it with a sincere and anxious -desire to mitigate rather than exasperate—and to mingle only in the -conflict of arms, not in the more fatal conflict of opinions. But -I much fear that this country (however earnestly she may endeavor -to avoid it) could not, in such case, avoid seeing ranked under her -banners all the restless and dissatisfied of any nation with which she -might come in conflict. It is the contemplation of this new _power_ in -any future war which excites my most anxious apprehension. It is one -thing to have a giant’s strength, but it would be another to use it -like a giant. The consciousness of such strength is, undoubtedly, a -source of confidence and security; but in the situation in which this -country stands, our business is not to seek opportunities of displaying -it, but to content ourselves with letting the professors of violent and -exaggerated doctrines on both sides feel, that it is not their interest -to convert an umpire into an adversary. The situation of England, amid -the struggle of political opinions which agitates more or less sensibly -different countries of the world, may be compared to that of the Ruler -of the Winds, as described by the poet: - - “Celsâ sedet Æolus arce, - Sceptra tenens; mollitque animos et temperat iras - Ni faciat, maria ac terras cœlumque profundum - Quippe ferant rapidi secum, verrantque per auras.”[1] - -The consequence of letting loose the passions at present chained and -confined, would be to produce a scene of desolation which no man can -contemplate without horror; and I should not sleep easy on my couch if -I were conscious that I had contributed to precipitate it by a single -moment. - -This, then, is the reason—a reason very different from fear—the -reverse of a consciousness of disability—why I dread the recurrence of -hostilities in any part of Europe; why I would bear much, and would -forbear long; why I would (as I have said) put up with almost any -thing that did not touch national faith and national honor, rather than -let slip the furies of war, the leash of which we hold in our hands—not -knowing whom they may reach, or how far their ravages may be carried. -Such is the love of peace which the British Government acknowledges; -and such the necessity for peace which the circumstances of the world -inculcate. I will push these topics no further. - -I return, in conclusion, to the object of the address. Let us fly to -the aid of Portugal, by whomsoever attacked, because it is our duty to -do so; and let us cease our interference where that duty ends. We go to -Portugal not to rule, not to dictate, not to prescribe constitutions, -but to defend and to preserve the independence of an ally. We go to -plant the standard of England on the well-known heights of Lisbon. -Where that standard is planted, foreign dominion shall not come. - - - - -LORD MACAULAY. - - -In August of 1825 there appeared in the _Edinburgh Review_ an article -on Milton which attracted instantaneous and universal attention. Though -it did not, perhaps, go to the bottom of the various topics it had to -deal with, it displayed so wonderful a range of knowledge, so great -a variety of strong and striking thoughts, and such a splendor of -rhetoric, that it dazzled and drew into an earnest enthusiasm the host -of readers of that already famous journal. When it came to be known -that the author of this marvellous piece of literary workmanship was -a young man of only twenty-five, it was at once perceived that a new -luminary had made its appearance in the galaxy of English authorship. -From that time till the day when, nearly thirty years later, his -services in behalf of letters were rewarded with a grave in the Poets’ -Corner at Westminster Abbey, Thomas Babington Macaulay wielded a -literary influence not surpassed by that of any other master of English -prose. - -He was the son of Zachary Macaulay, a man who had distinguished -himself as an anti-slavery philanthropist even among men like Stephen, -Clarkson, and Wilberforce. His mother was a daughter of Thomas Mills, a -bookseller, and a Quaker. Though the lad did not inherit a fortune, his -father was able without much inconvenience to give him the advantages -of an education at one of the universities. Up to the age of thirteen -he was taught almost exclusively by his mother; and when he was at -length placed in a private school, his brightness and eagerness of mind -astonished all those with whom he came in contact. That most charming -of all biographies of literary men, Trevelyan’s “Life and Letters of -Macaulay,” teems with evidence of his singular attainments at an early -age. - -At Cambridge, which he entered at the age of eighteen, he devoted -himself with great fervor to the study of the classics, to reading in -history and general literature, and to the development of his abilities -as an extemporaneous speaker. He took whatever prizes came in his way, -but, owing to his distaste for the mathematics, did not try for honors -at the completion of his course. On leaving the university with the -degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1822, his mental habits and peculiarities -seem to have been substantially fixed. He was already master of vast -stores of information, which he always seemed to keep under the play -of his wit and his imagination. His memory was so prodigious that he -could repeat the names of the popes either backward or forward; and -he once remarked that if every copy of the “Paradise Lost” were to be -destroyed, he thought he could reproduce the poem from memory. He read -with such marvellous rapidity that he would devour a book in the course -of a morning walk in London; and the vast accumulations which he -thus brought into the range of his knowledge were so vitalized by his -feelings and his imagination that they were always completely at his -service. - -Though his biographer shows us that he was one of the most charming -and lovable of men, his writings would convey another impression. He -appears never to have had any self-distrust; he was seldom in doubt -on any subject; what to others seemed mere probabilities were to him -positive certainties; indeed, on whatever question he wrote or spoke -his opinions always seemed to have been irrevocably fixed long before. -Lord Melbourne told the whole story when he once said: “I wish I was as -cock-sure of any thing as Tom Macaulay is of every thing.” - -The essay on Milton was followed at brief intervals by that remarkable -series on Machiavelli, Dryden, Hallam, Hampden, Ranke, and others, -which has been the delight and inspiration of so many students in -England and America. Macaulay studied law, but we never hear that -his literary labors were disturbed by clients. The prices which his -articles commanded in the market of the Reviews enabled him to gratify -his tastes; and he seems never to have had any inclination to push -himself into an active practice of his profession. - -One of the peculiar merits claimed for the old borough system by -its friends was that it enabled young men of great promise to find -an easy way into the House of Commons. Pitt, Channing, and Brougham -had first been appointed from pocket boroughs, and now Macaulay was -to receive a similar favor. In 1830, the very year when the Whigs, -after a long exclusion from office, came into power under Lord Grey, -Macaulay, through the favor of Lord Lansdowne, entered the House, as -the Member for Calne. Though he afterward boasted that, while sitting -as the nominee of Lord Lansdowne, he was as independent as when at a -later period he represented the popular constituencies of Leeds and -Edinburgh, it is worthy of note that from the first he was an ardent -and unqualified supporter of the Whigs. In the great question of -Representative Reform his sympathies were thoroughly enlisted on the -side of Earl Grey; and his speeches on the subject, four in number, -contributed not a little to the final triumph of that great movement. -Some of his letters, given by Trevelyan, reveal in the most graphic -light the intensity of public feeling while the contest was going on. - -In the reformed Parliament of 1834 he took a seat as a member from -Leeds; but in that same year his place was made vacant by his -appointment as one of the Government Council for India. For this -position he was amply qualified. His essays on the “Utilitarian Theory -of Government” and “Dumont’s Recollections of Mirabeau” showed that he -had studied jurisprudence as a science, and even that he considered -the province of a jurist as superior to that of a statesman. Moreover -he had made an especial study of India. In July of 1833 the Government -brought forward its new India Bill, and Macaulay’s speech on the -measure left perhaps even a deeper impression than had been made by -either of his speeches on the Reform Bill. Jeffrey, who happened to -be present, wrote to one of his correspondents: “Mack is a marvellous -person. He made the very best speech that has been made this session on -India. The Speaker, who is a severe judge, says he rather thinks it the -best speech he ever heard.” - -Trevelyan, in his life of Macaulay, has thrown out into clear light -the object of his uncle in exiling himself from England during four -years by going to India. While Macaulay was not without faith that he -could be of service to the Government, the consideration which led -to his decision was of a pecuniary nature. Though unmarried, he was -not in a condition to be strictly independent, and without pecuniary -independence, he was open to the charge while in Parliament of being -an adventurer. The salary of the position offered was liberal, even in -the English sense of that term. He was to receive £10,000 a year; and -his letters show with what care he computed that, being a bachelor, he -could live in India even in a governmental position on $25,000 a year, -and save a similar amount for permanent investment. His hope was that -at the end of five years he would be able to return with about $125,000 -and henceforth devote himself with entire independence to a higher -range of literary study. He had already begun to make plans for his -great History. - -There were, however, those who regarded the appointment as an unmerited -reward for political services. When some one sneered at his abilities, -Shiel, in his mocking way, replied: “Nonsense, sir! Don’t attempt to -run down Macaulay; he’s the cleverest man in Christendom. Didn’t he -make four speeches on the Reform Bill and get £10,000 a year? Think of -that and be dumb!” - -While in India Macaulay’s chief energies were devoted to the -preparation of a code, by which he hoped to solve the perplexing -problems that constantly thrust themselves forward in the government -of that teeming peninsula. Though in this effort he was not successful, -the ability and ingenuity of his work were generally acknowledged. His -code was regarded as impracticable, and was finally rejected. It was -during his stay in India that the essays on Mackintosh and Bacon were -prepared. - -Soon after his return in 1838 an election to Parliament by the -important constituency of Edinburgh once more brought him into -legislative activity. He supported Lord Melbourne till the downfall of -his ministry, in 1841, and then became an opponent of Sir Robert Peel, -in opposition to whose policy he delivered some of his ablest speeches. -When a candidate for reëlection in 1847, he was defeated on account of -some offence he had given in advocating a policy of liberality toward -the means of educating Catholics in Ireland. But this defeat, though -deeply mortifying to him at the time, was not without compensating -advantages. He now had leisure to devote himself to the great literary -work which for a considerable time had already been under his pen. In -1848 appeared the first two volumes of the “History of England from the -Time of James the Second.” The work sprang at once into that phenomenal -popularity which has scarcely yet abated, for it still enjoys the -high distinction of having been more read than any other historical -work in the language. The third and fourth volumes were given to the -world in 1855, just as he was beginning to feel the approaches of that -irresistible disease which was soon to bring his labors to an untimely -end. Two years after the appearance of the fourth volume his services -in behalf of history and letters were rewarded with the peerage. The -numerous essays flowing from his pen still showed that the splendor of -his faculties was undimmed, and it was therefore with surprise as well -as sorrow that, late in December of 1859, the English-speaking world -learned of his death from disease of the heart. With the unanimous -concurrence of a mourning nation, he was given the highest literary -honor of a burial in the Poet’s Corner of Westminster Abbey. - -The peculiarities of Macaulay’s oratory were strikingly similar to -those of his writings. With the exception, however, of his speech on -the government of India, no one of his orations has the elaborateness -so characteristic of his essays. Perhaps the most vivid notion of the -methods and qualities of his address is conveyed by the description -that appeared in the “Noctes Ambrosianæ” immediately after the delivery -of the speech selected for this volume. It is the description of a -most ardent political enemy and a most energetic hater of all Whigs. -After saying that Macaulay is “the cleverest declaimer on the Whig -side of the House,” Wilson goes on to say: “He is an ugly, cross-made, -splay-footed, shapeless little dumpling of a fellow, with a featureless -face too—except, indeed, a good expansive forehead,—sleek, puritanical, -sandy hair, large glimmering eyes, and a mouth from ear to ear. He has -a lisp and burr, moreover, and speaks thickly and huskily for several -minutes before he gets into the swing of his discourse; but after that -nothing can be more dazzling than his whole execution. What he says -is substantially, of course, stuff and nonsense; but it is so well -worded, and so volubly and forcibly delivered—there is such an endless -string of epigram and antithesis—such a flashing of epithets, such -an accumulation of images, and the voice is so trumpet-like, and the -action so grotesquely emphatic, that you might hear a pin drop in the -House. Even Manners Sutton himself listens.” - - - - -LORD MACAULAY. - -ON THE REFORM BILL OF 1832; HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 2, 1831. - - - The privilege of representation in the House of Commons was early - conferred on different localities for a variety of reasons. Before - the end of the seventeenth century the constituency of the House had - come to be fixed. Seats were held by representatives of counties and - of such cities and boroughs as for one reason or another had been - admitted as a mark of royal favor. In the course of the eighteenth - century it came to be plainly seen that the development of the - country was constantly increasing the anomalies and inequalities - of representation. Boroughs which in the fourteenth and fifteenth - centuries had received the right of representation continued to send - one or two members, even though as in some localities the population - had entirely dwindled away; and large cities like Liverpool, - Manchester, and Leeds had grown up to a population of hundreds of - thousands without any representation whatever. - - This system gave every encouragement to corruption. The smaller - boroughs were eagerly bought by those who desired to control the - politics of the Lower House; and consequently, before the end of the - last century it was found that so many of the boroughs were owned by - members of the House of Lords that both Houses of Parliament were - under the control of the nobility. Some of the peers, besides sitting - in person in the House of Lords, virtually appointed four, five, - six, or, in one instance, nine members of the House of Commons. Of - the decayed boroughs some were held by the government, some by peers, - and some by unscrupulous speculators who were in the habit of selling - the representation to the highest bidders. In times of political - excitement bribery became systematic, and in some cases assumed - colossal proportions. That the constitution was able to survive - the strain put upon it, is perhaps the most striking proof of its - remarkable vitality and strength. - - The necessity of a fundamental reform in the methods of - representation was first publicly announced by Lord Chatham in his - speech on the right of taxing the American colonies. The younger - Pitt, in the early years of his administration, made several attempts - to bring the subject into parliamentary favor. But the excesses of - the French Revolution made even reformers timid; and the government - was so exclusively occupied with the Napoleonic wars that the - agitation made but slow progress. It happened, moreover, that for - several years the most eloquent and influential members of the House - of Commons were opposed to the measure. From 1807 to 1830 the Tories - were in power, and during this period, therefore, there was no reason - to hope that any thing could be done except in the way of creating - public opinion. - - At the head of the movement in behalf of reform was Earl Grey. For - nearly half a century he devoted his great energies and his excellent - judgment to the subject with such skill and discretion that constant - inroads were made on public opinion. At length the subject took - so strong hold of the people that in spite of the fact that the - Tories were intrenched in power behind the old system, the Whigs - were victorious in the election of 1830. Earl Grey was appointed - Prime-Minister, and it was universally understood that the first - object of the government would be the passage of a reform bill. - - The leader of the government in the House of Commons was Lord John - Russell, who had been scarcely second to Earl Grey in active sympathy - for reform. To him, therefore, was intrusted the introduction of - the measure. His speech explaining the provisions of the bill at - once placed it before Parliament and the country as a question of - the most momentous importance. The sweeping provisions of the act - aroused the most violent opposition and even the ridicule of the - Tories. It proposed to disfranchise fifty-six rotten boroughs and - to redistribute the 143 seats thus made vacant. It also changed the - basis of franchise in constituencies not otherwise disturbed. But - the country favored the movement, and soon the cry was raised that - nothing would satisfy the nation but “the whole bill and nothing but - the bill.” - - When the measure, after a most able discussion on both sides, finally - came to a second reading, it was carried in the House of Commons, - amid unparalleled excitement, by a majority of 302 to 301. The - smallness of this majority made it doubtful whether the bill could - be finally carried even in the House of Commons. An amendment was - offered on which the government was defeated. As the subject was now - the all-absorbing question before the nation, the ministry determined - to dissolve Parliament, and thus bring public opinion to a definite - expression. The result showed the wisdom of the course; for more than - a hundred who had voted against the bill lost their seats. With some - trifling changes the measure was re-introduced into the House of - Commons, and speedily carried. It then went to the House of Lords, - where it was discussed perhaps with even greater ability than had - been shown in the Lower House. Grey and Brougham urged the measure - with great earnestness, while Eldon and Lyndhurst opposed it with - scarcely less skill and power. On coming to a final vote the bill was - defeated by a majority of forty-three. - - The excitement in the country over this result was unparalleled. - The attitude of the Lords was in evident opposition to the will of - the country; and there was much speculation as to the course which - ought to be pursued. At length the ministry determined not only to - re-introduce the measure, but also to advise the king to create - new peers in sufficient number to carry the bill through the Upper - House. A list of about eighty names was made out for this purpose. - The House of Lords, however, at the last moment gave way. The Duke of - Wellington and a knot of his followers, unwilling that so violent a - method should be resorted to, absented themselves from the House in - order that the bill might be carried in their absence, and without - any responsibility on their part. This most important measure of - modern English legislation became a law on the 7th of June, 1832. - - The action taken has generally been considered as establishing an - important constitutional precedent. The significance of the method - resorted to has been well indicated by Bagehot in his brilliant work - on the English constitution. He says of the Lords: “Their veto is a - sort of hypothetical veto. They say: We reject your bill this once, - or these twice, or even these thrice; but if you keep sending it - up, at the last we won’t reject it. The House has ceased to be one - of latent directors, and has become one of temporary rejectors and - palpable alterers.” - - The following speech of Macaulay was one of the first of those - delivered on the bill in the House of Commons. No other speech in - the whole course of the discussion gave a more comprehensive view - of the vast interests involved in the great measure. The day after - the delivery of the speech his sister wrote: “His voice from cold - and over-excitement got quite into a scream towards the last part. A - person told him that he had not heard such speaking since Fox. ‘You - have not heard such screaming since Fox,’ he replied.” - - -It is a circumstance, sir, of happy augury for the motion before -the House, that almost all those who have opposed it have declared -themselves hostile on principle to parliamentary reform. Two members, -I think, have confessed that, though they disapprove of the plan now -submitted to us, they are forced to admit the necessity of a change -in the representative system. Yet even those gentlemen have used, as -far as I have observed, no arguments which would not apply as strongly -to the most moderate change as to that which has been proposed by -his Majesty’s Government. I say, sir, that I consider this as a -circumstance of happy augury. For what I feared was, not the opposition -of those who are averse to all reform, but the disunion of reformers. -I knew that during three months every reformer had been employed -in conjecturing what the plan of the government would be. I knew -that every reformer had imagined in his own mind a scheme differing -doubtless in some points from that which my noble friend, the Paymaster -of the Forces (Lord John Russell), has developed. I felt, therefore, -great apprehension that one person would be dissatisfied with one part -of the bill, that another person would be dissatisfied with another -part, and that thus our whole strength would be wasted in internal -dissensions. That apprehension is now at an end. I have seen with -delight the perfect concord which prevails among all who deserve the -name of reformers in this House; and I trust that I may consider it as -an omen of the concord which will prevail among reformers throughout -the country. I will not, sir, at present express any opinion as to the -details of the bill; but having during the last twenty-four hours given -the most diligent consideration to its general principles, I have no -hesitation in pronouncing it a wise, noble, and comprehensive measure, -skilfully framed for the healing of great distempers, for the securing -at once of the public liberties, and of the public repose, and for the -reconciling and knitting together of all the orders of the state. - -The honorable baronet who has just sat down (Sir Robert Peel) has -told us that the ministers have attempted to unite two inconsistent -principles in one abortive measure. Those were his very words. He -thinks, if I understand him rightly, that we ought either to leave -the representative system such as it is, or to make it perfectly -symmetrical. I think, sir, that the ministers would have acted unwisely -if they had taken either course. Their principle is plain, rational, -and consistent. It is this, to admit the middle class to a large and -direct share in the representation, without any violent shock to the -institutions of our country. [Hear! hear!] I understand those cheers; -but surely the gentlemen who utter them will allow that the change -which will be made in our institutions by this bill is far less -violent than that which, according to the honorable baronet, ought to -be made if we make any reform at all. I praise the ministers for not -attempting, at the present time, to make the representation uniform. I -praise them for not effacing the old distinction between the towns and -the counties, and for not assigning members to districts, according -to the American practice, by the Rule of Three. The government has, -in my opinion, done all that was necessary for the removal of a great -practical evil, and no more than was necessary. - -I consider this, sir, as a practical question. I rest my opinion on -no general theory of government. I distrust all general theories of -government. I will not positively say, that there is any form of polity -which may not, in some conceivable circumstances, be the best possible. -I believe that there are societies in which every man may safely be -admitted to vote. [Hear! hear!] Gentlemen may cheer, but such is my -opinion. I say, sir, that there are countries in which the condition -of the laboring classes is such that they may safely be entrusted with -the right of electing members of the legislature. If the laborers of -England were in that state in which I, from my soul, wish to see them; -if employment were always plentiful, wages always high, food always -cheap; if a large family were considered not as an encumbrance but -as a blessing, the principal objections to universal suffrage would, -I think, be removed. Universal suffrage exists in the United States -without producing any very frightful consequences; and I do not believe -that the people of those States, or of any part of the world, are -in any good quality naturally superior to our own countrymen. But, -unhappily, the laboring classes in England, and in all old countries, -are occasionally in a state of great distress. Some of the causes of -this distress are, I fear, beyond the control of the government. We -know what effect distress produces, even on people more intelligent -than the great body of the laboring classes can possibly be. We know -that it makes even wise men irritable, unreasonable, credulous, eager -for immediate relief, heedless of remote consequences. There is no -quackery in medicine, religion, or politics, which may not impose even -on a powerful mind, when that mind has been disordered by pain or fear. -It is therefore no reflection on the poorer class of Englishmen, who -are not, and who cannot in the nature of things be, highly educated, to -say that distress produces on them its natural effects, those effects -which it would produce on the Americans, or on any other people; that -it blinds their judgment, that it inflames their passions, that it -makes them prone to believe those who flatter them, and to distrust -those who would serve them. For the sake, therefore, of the whole -society; for the sake of the laboring classes themselves, I hold it -to be clearly expedient that, in a country like this, the right of -suffrage should depend on a pecuniary qualification. - -But, sir, every argument which would induce me to oppose universal -suffrage induces me to support the plan which is now before us. I am -opposed to universal suffrage, because I think that it would produce -a destructive revolution. I support this plan, because I am sure that -it is our best security against a revolution. The noble Paymaster of -the Forces hinted, delicately indeed and remotely, at this subject. He -spoke of the danger of disappointing the expectations of the nation; -and for this he was charged with threatening the House. Sir, in the -year 1817, the late Lord Londonderry proposed a suspension of the -habeas-corpus act. On that occasion he told the House that, unless the -measures which he recommended were adopted, the public peace could -not be preserved. Was he accused of threatening the House? Again, -in the year 1819, he proposed the laws known by the name of the Six -Acts. He then told the House that, unless the executive power were -reinforced, all the institutions of the country would be overturned by -popular violence. Was he then accused of threatening the House? Will -any gentleman say that it is parliamentary and decorous to urge the -danger arising from popular discontent as an argument for severity; but -that it is unparliamentary and indecorous to urge that same danger as -an argument for conciliation? I, sir, do entertain great apprehension -for the fate of my country; I do in my conscience believe that, unless -the plan proposed, or some similar plan, be speedily adopted, great -and terrible calamities will befall us. Entertaining this opinion, -I think myself bound to state it, not as a threat, but as a reason. -I support this bill because it will improve our institutions; but I -support it also because it tends to preserve them. That we may exclude -those whom it is necessary to exclude, we must admit those whom it may -be safe to admit. At present we oppose the schemes of revolutionists -with only one half, with only one quarter, of our proper force. We say, -and we say justly, that it is not by mere numbers, but by property and -intelligence, that the nation ought to be governed. Yet, saying this, -we exclude from all share in the government great masses of property -and intelligence, great numbers of those who are most interested in -preserving tranquillity, and who know best how to preserve it. We do -more. We drive over to the side of revolution those whom we shut out -from power. Is this a time when the cause of law and order can spare -one of its natural allies? - -My noble friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, happily described the -effect which some parts of our representative system would produce -on the mind of a foreigner, who had heard much of our freedom and -greatness. If, sir, I wished to make such a foreigner clearly -understand what I consider as the great defects of our system, I -would conduct him through that immense city which lies to the north -of Great Russell Street and Oxford Street, a city superior in size -and population to the capitals of many mighty kingdoms; and probably -superior in opulence, intelligence, and general respectability, to -any city in the world. I would conduct him through that interminable -succession of streets and squares, all consisting of well-built and -well-furnished houses. I would make him observe the brilliancy of the -shops and the crowd of well-appointed equipages. I would show him that -magnificent circle of palaces which surrounds the Regent’s Park. I -would tell him that the rental of this district was far greater than -that of the whole kingdom of Scotland at the time of the Union. And -then I would tell him, that this was an unrepresented district.[2] It -is needless to give any more instances. It is needless to speak of -Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, with no representation, or -of Edinburgh and Glasgow with a mock representation.[3] If a property -tax were now imposed on the principle that no person who had less than -a hundred and fifty pounds a year should contribute, I should not be -surprised to find that one half in number and value of the contributors -had no votes at all; and it would, beyond all doubt, be found that one -fiftieth part in number and value of the contributors had a larger -share of the representation than the other forty-nine fiftieths. This -is not government by property. It is government by certain detached -portions and fragments of property, selected from the rest, and -preferred to the rest, on no rational principle whatever. - -To say that such a system is ancient is no defence. My honorable -friend, the member for the University of Oxford, challenges us to -show that the constitution was ever better than it is. Sir, we are -legislators, not antiquaries. The question for us is, not whether the -constitution was better formerly, but whether we can make it better -now. In fact, however, the system was not in ancient times, by any -means, so absurd as it is in our age. One noble Lord [Lord Stormont] -has to-night told us that the town of Aldborough, which he represents, -was not larger in the time of Edward the First than it is at present. -The line of its walls, he assures us, may still be traced. It is now -built up to that line. He argues, therefore, that as the founder of -our representative institutions gave members to Aldborough when it -was as small as it now is, those who would disfranchise it on account -of its smallness have no right to say that they are recurring to the -original principle of our representative institutions. But does the -noble Lord remember the change which has taken place in the country -during the last five centuries? Does he remember how much England -has grown in population, while Aldborough has been standing still? -Does he consider, that in the time of Edward the First the kingdom -did not contain two millions of inhabitants? It now contains nearly -fourteen millions. A hamlet of the present day would have been a town -of some importance in the time of our early Parliaments. Aldborough -may be absolutely as considerable a place as ever, but, compared with -the kingdom, it is much less considerable, by the noble Lord’s own -showing, than when it first elected burgesses. My honorable friend, the -member for the University of Oxford, has collected numerous instances -of the tyranny which the kings and nobles anciently exercised, both -over this House and over the electors. It is not strange that, in -times when nothing was held sacred, the rights of the people, and of -the representatives of the people, should not have been held sacred. -The proceedings which my honorable friend has mentioned no more prove -that, by the ancient constitution of the realm, this House ought to be -a tool of the king and of the aristocracy, than the benevolences and -the shipmoney prove their own legality, or than those unjustifiable -arrests, which took place long after the ratification of the Great -Charter, and even after the Petition of Right, prove that the subject -was not anciently entitled to his personal liberty. We talk of the -wisdom of our ancestors; and in one respect at least they were wiser -than we. They legislated for their own times. They looked at the -England which was before them. They did not think it necessary to give -twice as many members to York as they gave to London, because York -had been capital of Britain in the time of Constantius Chlorus; and -they would have been amazed indeed if they had foreseen that a city -of more than a hundred thousand inhabitants would be left without -representatives in the nineteenth century, merely because it stood on -ground which, in the thirteenth century, had been occupied by a few -huts. They framed a representative system, which, though not without -defects and irregularities, was well adapted to the state of England -in their time. But a great revolution took place. The character of the -old corporations changed. New forms of property came into existence. -New portions of society rose into importance. There were in our rural -districts rich cultivators, who were not freeholders. There were in -our capital rich traders, who were not livery men. Towns shrank into -villages. Villages swelled into cities larger than the London of the -Plantagenets. Unhappily, while the natural growth of society went on, -the artificial polity continued unchanged. The ancient form of the -representation remained, and precisely because the form remained, the -spirit departed. Then came that pressure almost to bursting, the new -wine in the old bottles, the new society under the old institutions. -It is now time for us to pay a decent, a rational, a manly reverence -to our ancestors, not by superstitiously adhering to what they, in -other circumstances, did, but by doing what they, in our circumstances, -would have done. All history is full of revolutions, produced by -causes similar to those which are now operating in England. A portion -of the community which had been of no account, expands and becomes -strong. It demands a place in the system, suited, not to its former -weakness, but to its present power. If this is granted, all is well. -If this is refused, then comes the struggle between the young energy -of one class and the ancient privileges of another. Such was the -struggle between the Plebeians and the Patricians of Rome. Such was -the struggle of the Italian allies for admission to the full rights of -Roman citizens. Such was the struggle of our North American colonies -against the mother country. Such was the struggle which the Third -Estate of France maintained against the aristocracy of birth. Such was -the struggle which the Roman Catholics of Ireland maintained against -the aristocracy of creed. Such is the struggle which the free people of -color in Jamaica are now maintaining against the aristocracy of skin. -Such, finally, is the struggle which the middle classes in England -are maintaining against an aristocracy of mere locality, against an -aristocracy, the principle of which is to invest a hundred drunken -potwallopers in one place, or the owner of a ruined hovel in another, -with powers which are withheld from cities renowned to the farthest -ends of the earth for the marvels of their wealth, and of their -industry. - -But these great cities, says my honorable friend, the member for the -University of Oxford, are virtually, though not directly, represented. -Are not the wishes of Manchester, he asks, as much consulted as those -of any town which sends members to Parliament? Now, sir, I do not -understand how a power which is salutary when exercised virtually can -be noxious when exercised directly. If the wishes of Manchester have as -much weight with us as they would have under a system which should give -representatives to Manchester, how can there be any danger in giving -representatives to Manchester? A virtual representative is, I presume, -a man who acts as a direct representative would act; for surely it -would be absurd to say that a man virtually represents the people of -Manchester, who is in the habit of saying No, when a man directly -representing the people of Manchester would say Aye. The utmost that -can be expected from virtual Representation is, that it may be as good -as direct representation. If so, why not grant direct representation -to places which, as everybody allows, ought, by some process or other, -to be represented? - -If it be said that there is an evil in change as change, I answer -that there is also an evil in discontent as discontent. This, indeed, -is the strongest part of our case. It is said that the system works -well. I deny it. I deny that a system works well, which the people -regard with aversion. We may say here that it is a good system and a -perfect system. But if any man were to say so to any six hundred and -fifty-eight respectable farmers or shop-keepers, chosen by lot in -any part of England, he would be hooted down and laughed to scorn. -Are these the feelings with which any part of the government ought -to be regarded? Above all, are these the feelings with which the -popular branch of the legislature ought to be regarded? It is almost -as essential to the utility of a House of Commons, that it should -possess the confidence of the people, as that it should deserve that -confidence. Unfortunately, that which is in theory the popular part -of our government, is in practice the unpopular part. Who wishes to -dethrone the king? Who wishes to turn the Lords out of their House? -Here and there a crazy Radical, whom the boys in the street point at as -he walks along. Who wishes to alter the constitution of this House? The -whole people. It is natural that it should be so. The House of Commons -is, in the language of Mr. Burke, a check, not on the people, but for -the people. While that check is efficient, there is no reason to fear -that the king or the nobles will oppress the people. But if that check -requires checking, how is it to be checked? If the salt shall lose its -savor, wherewith shall we season it? The distrust with which the nation -regards this House may be unjust. But what then? Can you remove that -distrust? That it exists cannot be denied. That it is an evil cannot be -denied. That it is an increasing evil cannot be denied. One gentleman -tells us that it has been produced by the late events in France and -Belgium;[4] another, that it is the effect of seditious works which -have lately been published. If this feeling be of origin so recent, -I have read history to little purpose. Sir, this alarming discontent -is not the growth of a day, or of a year. If there be any symptoms by -which it is possible to distinguish the chronic diseases of the body -politic from its passing inflammations, all those symptoms exist in -the present case. The taint has been gradually becoming more extensive -and more malignant, through the whole lifetime of two generations. We -have tried anodynes. We have tried cruel operations. What are we to -try now? Who flatters himself that he can turn this feeling back? Does -there remain any argument which escaped the comprehensive intellect -of Mr. Burke, or the subtlety of Mr. Windham? Does there remain any -species of coercion which was not tried by Mr. Pitt and by Lord -Londonderry? We have had laws. We have had blood. New treasons have -been created. The press has been shackled. The habeas-corpus act has -been suspended. Public meetings have been prohibited. The event has -proved that these expedients were mere palliatives. You are at the end -of your palliatives. The evil remains. It is more formidable than ever. -What is to be done? - -Under such circumstances, a great plan of reconciliation, prepared by -the ministers of the crown, has been brought before us in a manner -which gives additional lustre to a noble name, inseparably associated -during two centuries with the dearest liberties of the English people. -I will not say that this plan is in all its details precisely such -as I might wish it to be; but it is founded on a great and a sound -principle. It takes away a vast power from a few. It distributes that -power through the great mass of the middle order. Every man, therefore, -who thinks as I think, is bound to stand firmly by ministers who are -resolved to stand or fall with this measure. Were I one of them, I -would sooner, infinitely sooner, fall with such a measure than stand by -any other means that ever supported a cabinet. - -My honorable friend, the member for the University of Oxford [Sir -Robert Inglis] tells us that if we pass this law England will soon be a -republic. The reformed House of Commons will, according to him, before -it has sat ten years, depose the king and expel the Lords from their -House. Sir, if my honorable friend could prove this, he would have -succeeded in bringing an argument for democracy infinitely stronger -than any that is to be found in the works of Paine. My honorable -friend’s proposition is in fact this: that our monarchical and -aristocratical institutions have no hold on the public mind of England; -that these institutions are regarded with aversion by a decided -majority of the middle class. This, sir, I say, is plainly deducible -from his proposition; for he tells us that the representatives of the -middle class will inevitably abolish royalty and nobility within ten -years; and there is surely no reason to think that the representatives -of the middle class will be more inclined to a democratic revolution -than their constituents. Now, sir, if I were convinced that the great -body of the middle class in England look with aversion on monarchy -and aristocracy, I should be forced, much against my will, to come to -this conclusion, that monarchical and aristocratical institutions are -unsuited to my country. Monarchy and aristocracy, valuable and useful -as I think them, are still valuable and useful as means and not as -ends. The end of government is the happiness of the people, and I do -not conceive that, in a country like this, the happiness of the people -can be promoted by a form of government in which the middle classes -place no confidence, and which exists only because the middle classes -have no organ by which to make their sentiments known. But, sir, I am -fully convinced that the middle classes sincerely wish to uphold the -royal prerogatives and the constitutional rights of the peers. What -facts does my honorable friend produce in support of his opinion? One -fact only, and that a fact which has absolutely nothing to do with the -question. The effect of this reform, he tells us, would be to make the -House of Commons more powerful. It was all-powerful once before, in the -beginning of 1649. Then it cut off the head of the king, and abolished -the House of Peers. Therefore, if it again has the supreme power, it -will act in the same manner. Now, sir, it was not the House of Commons -that cut off the head of Charles the First; nor was the House of -Commons then all-powerful. It had been greatly reduced in numbers by -successive expulsions. It was under the absolute dominion of the army. -A majority of the House was willing to take the terms offered by the -king. The soldiers turned out the majority; and the minority, not a -sixth part of the whole House, passed those votes of which my honorable -friend speaks,—votes of which the middle classes disapproved then, and -of which they disapprove still. - -My honorable friend, and almost all the gentlemen who have taken the -same side with him in this debate, have dwelt much on the utility of -close and rotten boroughs. It is by means of such boroughs, they tell -us, that the ablest men have been introduced into Parliament.[5] It -is true that many distinguished persons have represented places of -this description. But, sir, we must judge of a form of government by -its general tendency, not by happy accidents. Every form of government -has its happy accidents. Despotism has its happy accidents. Yet we are -not disposed to abolish all constitutional checks to place an absolute -master over us, and to take our chance whether he may be a Caligula or -a Marcus Aurelius. In whatever way the House of Commons may be chosen, -some able men will be chosen in that way who would not be chosen in any -other way. If there were a law that the hundred tallest men in England -should be members of Parliament, there would probably be some able men -among those who would come into the House by virtue of this law. If the -hundred persons whose names stand first in the alphabetical list of -the Court Guide were made members of Parliament, there would probably -be able men among them. We read in ancient history that a very able -king was elected by the neighing of his horse, but we shall scarcely, -I think, adopt this mode of election. In one of the most celebrated -republics of antiquity, Athens, senators and magistrates were chosen -by lot; and sometimes the lot fell fortunately. Once, for example, -Socrates was in office. A cruel and unjust proposition was made by a -demagogue.[6] Socrates resisted it at the hazard of his own life. There -is no event in Grecian history more interesting than that memorable -resistance. Yet who would have officers appointed by lot, because the -accident of the lot may have given to a great and good man a power -which he would probably never have attained in any other way? We must -judge, as I said, by the general tendency of a system. No person can -doubt that a House of Commons, chosen freely by the middle classes, -will contain many very able men. I do not say that precisely the same -able men who would find their way into the present House of Commons -will find their way into the reformed House; but that is not the -question. No particular man is necessary to the state. We may depend -on it, that if we provide the country with popular institutions, those -institutions will provide it with great men. - -There is another objection, which, I think, was first raised by the -honorable and learned member for Newport [Mr. Horace Twiss]. He tells -us that the elective franchise is property; that to take it away from a -man who has not been judicially convicted of malpractices is robbery; -that no crime is proved against the voters in the closed boroughs; that -no crime is even imputed to them in the preamble of the bill; and that -therefore to disfranchise them without compensation would be an act of -revolutionary tyranny. The honorable and learned gentleman has compared -the conduct of the present ministers, to that of those odious tools -of power who, toward the close of the reign of Charles the Second, -seized the charters of the Whig corporations. Now, there was another -precedent, which I wonder that he did not recollect, both because it is -much more nearly in point than that to which he referred, and because -my noble friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, had previously alluded to -it. If the elective franchise is property, if to disfranchise voters -without a crime proved, or a compensation given, be robbery, was -there ever such an act of robbery as the disfranchising of the Irish -forty-shilling freeholders?[7] Was any pecuniary compensation given -to them? Is it declared in the preamble of the bill which took away -their franchise, that they had been convicted of any offence? Was any -judicial inquiry instituted into their conduct? Were they even accused -of any crime? Or if you say it was a crime in the electors of Clare to -vote for the honorable and learned gentleman who now represents the -County of Waterford [Mr. O’Connell], was a Protestant freeholder in -Louth to be punished for the crime of a Catholic freeholder in Clare? -If the principle of the honorable and learned member for Newport be -sound, the franchise of the Irish peasant was property. That franchise -the ministers under whom the honorable and learned member held office -did not scruple to take away. Will he accuse those ministers of -robbery? If not, how can he bring such an accusation against their -successors? - -Every gentleman, I think, who has spoken from the other side of -the House, has alluded to the opinions which some of his Majesty’s -ministers formerly entertained on the subject of reform. It would be -officious in me, sir, to undertake the defence of gentlemen who are so -well able to defend themselves. I will only say that, in my opinion, -the country will not think worse either of their capacity or of their -patriotism, because they have shown that they can profit by experience, -because they have learned to see the folly of delaying inevitable -changes. There are others who ought to have learned the same lesson. I -say, sir, that there are those who, I should have thought, must have -had enough to last them all their lives of that humiliation which -follows obstinate and boastful resistance to charges rendered necessary -by the progress of society and by the development of the human mind. -Is it possible that those persons can wish again to occupy a position -which can neither be defended nor surrendered with honor? I well -remember, sir, a certain evening in the month of May, 1827. I had not -then the honor of a seat in this House; but I was an attentive observer -of its proceedings. The right honorable baronet opposite [Sir Robert -Peel], of whom personally I desire to speak with that high respect -which I feel for his talents and his character, but of whose public -conduct I must speak with the sincerity required by my public duty, was -then, as he is now, out of office. He had just resigned the seals of -the Home Department, because he conceived that the recent ministerial -arrangements had been too favorable to the Catholic claims. He rose to -ask whether it was the intention of the new cabinet to repeal the Test -and Corporation Acts, and to reform the Parliament. He bound up, I -well remember, those two questions together; and he declared that, if -the ministers should either attempt to repeal the Test and Corporation -Acts, or bring forward a measure of Parliamentary reform, he should -think it his duty to oppose them to the utmost. Since that declaration -was made, four years have elapsed; and what is now the state of the -three questions which then chiefly agitated the minds of men? What -is become of the Test and Corporation Acts? They are repealed. By -whom? By the right honorable baronet. What has become of the Catholic -disabilities? They are removed. By whom? By the right honorable -baronet.[8] The question of parliamentary reform is still behind. But -signs, of which it is impossible to misconceive the import, do most -clearly indicate that, unless that question also be speedily settled, -property, and order, and all the institutions of this great monarchy, -will be exposed to fearful peril. Is it possible that gentlemen long -versed in high political affairs cannot read these signs? Is it -possible that they can really believe that the representative system of -England, such as it now is, will last till the year 1860? If not, for -what would they have us wait? Would they have us wait merely that we -may show to all the world how little we have profited by our own recent -experience? - -Would they have us wait, that we may once again hit the exact point -where we can neither refuse with authority nor concede with grace? -Would they have us wait, that the numbers of the discontented party -may become larger, its demands higher, its feelings more acrimonious, -its organization more complete? Would they have us wait till the whole -tragi-comedy of 1827 has been acted over again; till they have been -brought into office by a cry of “No Reform,” to be reformers, as they -were once before brought into office by a cry of “No Popery,” to be -emancipators? Have they obliterated from their minds—gladly, perhaps, -would some among them obliterate from their minds—the transactions -of that year? And have they forgotten all the transactions of the -succeeding year? Have they forgotten how the spirit of liberty in -Ireland, debarred from its natural outlet, found a vent by forbidden -passages? Have they forgotten how we were forced to indulge the -Catholics in all the license of rebels, merely because we chose -to withhold from them the liberties of subjects? Do they wait for -associations more formidable than that of the Corn Exchange, for -contributions larger than the Rent, for agitators more violent than -those who, three years ago, divided with the king and the Parliament -the sovereignty of Ireland? Do they wait for that last and most -dreadful paroxysm of popular rage, for that last and most cruel test -of military fidelity? Let them wait, if their past experience shall -induce them to think that any high honor or any exquisite pleasure is -to be obtained by a policy like this. Let them wait, if this strange -and fearful infatuation be indeed upon them, that they should not see -with their eyes, or hear with their ears, or understand with their -heart. But let us know our interest and our duty better. Turn where -we may, within, around, the voice of great events is proclaiming to -us: Reform, that you may preserve. Now, therefore, while every thing -at home and abroad forebodes ruin to those who persist in a hopeless -struggle against the spirit of the age; now, while the crash of the -proudest throne of the continent is still resounding in our ears; now, -while the roof of a British palace affords an ignominious shelter to -the exiled heir of forty kings; now, while we see on every side ancient -institutions subverted, and great societies dissolved; now, while -the heart of England is still sound; now, while old feelings and old -associations retain a power and a charm which may too soon pass away; -now, in this your accepted time, now, in this your day of salvation, -take counsel, not of prejudice, not of party spirit, not of the -ignominious pride of a fatal consistency, but of history, of reason, -of the ages which are past, of the signs of this most portentous time. -Pronounce in a manner worthy of the expectation with which this great -debate has been anticipated, and of the long remembrance which it will -leave behind. Renew the youth of the state. Save property, divided -against itself. Save the multitude, endangered by its own ungovernable -passions. Save the aristocracy, endangered by its own unpopular power. -Save the greatest, and fairest, and most highly civilized community -that ever existed, from calamities which may in a few days sweep away -all the rich heritage of so many ages of wisdom and glory. The danger -is terrible. The time is short. If this bill should be rejected, I pray -to God that none of those who concur in rejecting it may ever remember -their votes with unavailing remorse, amidst the wreck of laws, the -confusion of ranks, the spoliation of property, and the dissolution of -social order. - - - - -RICHARD COBDEN. - - -The name of Cobden will always be associated with the great changes -that took place in the economic policy of England about the middle of -the nineteenth century. As the result of a public agitation that was -carried into every hamlet of Great Britain, and that extended over -a period of seven years, the policy of Protection was practically -abandoned, and the policy of Free Trade practically adopted. Of that -remarkable movement Cobden was the directing and inspiring genius. - -Born in 1804, Cobden’s childhood was passed in the disastrous years of -the later Napoleonic wars, and the financial distresses that followed. -His father’s moderate fortune was involved in the ruin that was so -general. As there were eleven children in the family, and as the means -rescued from the financial wreck were but slender, the educational -advantages of Richard were not great. At fifteen he was obliged to -leave the grammar-school in order to enter the counting-house of his -uncle in London. The most that can be said of his education is that -it was enough to give him an insatiable taste for knowledge, that it -implanted within him so ardent a desire, that throughout life he was -indefatigable in the work of self-development. - -At the age of twenty he became a commercial traveller for his uncle, -and, in the course of the six years that followed, acquired a very -comprehensive knowledge of the industrial condition of England. When -he attained eminence there were many who remembered the discussions -on political economy and kindred subjects with which he had enlivened -his travelling associates. At twenty-six he induced two of his -acquaintances to join with him in entering upon a business of their -own. They founded an industry of calico-printing, and were so -successful that the firm soon had three establishments, one at Sabden, -where the printing works were, and one each at London and Manchester, -for the sale of their products. Cobden prints soon becoming famous for -the excellence of their material and the beauty of their design; the -sales were large and the income of the firm very considerable. In eight -years from the establishment of the partnership, the business was so -flourishing and so well organized that Cobden was able to devote his -energies almost exclusively to matters of public importance. - -His first pamphlet, that entitled “England, Ireland, and America,” -was published in 1835, and attracted such attention for its breadth -and boldness that it ran rapidly through several editions. The views -advocated were those of peace, non-intervention, retrenchment, and free -trade,—in fact, the doctrines which he continued to hold throughout -life. A tour of observation in the United States and Canada, as well -as in the countries of Europe, intensified his convictions; and -consequently when, in 1838, the Anti-Corn-Law Association was formed, -it found him in every way fitted to take a leading part in the work of -agitation. It was at his suggestion that the local association was soon -changed into the National Anti-Corn-Law League. - -The so-called Corn Laws have a long history. As early as 1436 an -attempt was made to regulate the price of grain in England by means of -export and import duties. The amount of duties imposed varied from time -to time according to the needs of the state treasury and the prices -of corn. It was not until the passage of what is known as Burke’s Act -of 1773 that any deliberate attempt was made to bring the Corn Laws -into some degree of reason and order. This act was the beginning of -a policy which some years later resulted in the adoption of what is -known as the sliding scale of rates. This policy culminated in the law -of 1828, which proceeded upon the general plan of making the duty vary -inversely with the price of grain in the home market. When the price -of wheat, for example, was sixty-four shillings a quarter, the duty was -twenty-three shillings and eight pence. For every rise of a shilling in -the market-price, the duty was diminished; while, on the other hand, -for every decline in the price the duty was increased. This was the -general character of the law which prevailed when the agitation of the -Anti-Corn-Law League began. - -For some years before 1838 the impression had become more or less -prevalent that the influence of the Corn Laws was favorable to the -landowners and the landowners alone. The system was devised as a means -of protecting the interests of agriculture. The financial disturbances -occasioned partly by the Napoleonic wars, partly by the invention of -labor-saving machines, and partly by a succession of bad crops, tended -at once to diminish the price of labor and increase the prices of -food. The consequence was a universal prevalence of suffering among -the wage-receiving class. Cobden and his associates believed that the -suffering was chiefly due to the system of protection. The league was -formed for the purpose of arousing public opinion in opposition to the -prevailing system; and it did not rest till, after the most remarkable -agitation in the history of reform, it had convinced the public of its -errors, and swept the Corn Laws from the statute-books. - -For seven years Cobden had the ear of the public, and during that -period his labors were incessant. He not only spoke in all the large -towns and cities, but he directed and inspired the movements of -hundreds of others. The policy of the league was not only to send -speakers into every electoral district, but to flood the country -with the most effective writings on the subject in hand. What may be -called the statistics of the league are impressive and instructive. -Five hundred persons were employed to distribute tracts from house to -house. In a single year five millions of such tracts were put into -the families of electors in England and Scotland, and the number -distributed to non-electors exceeded nine millions. This work of 1843 -was done at a cost of about £50,000; in the following year it was -resolved to redouble the efforts, and before the end of 1844 nearly -£90,000 had been raised and expended. - -The whole theory of Cobden’s propagandism was simply that, if the -truth was brought to people’s doors, they would embrace it. The method -was twofold. It sought to bring the facts bearing on the question to -the attention of the people by means of the press, and then by public -speech to persuade and arouse them to action. Of all the speakers of -the time probably Cobden was the most effective. His methods were -always plain and straightforward, showing a transparent honesty, a -definite purpose, an argumentative keenness, and an almost irresistible -persuasiveness. - -Cobden entered the House of Commons in 1841, and, from his first -speech, delivered five days after the opening of the session, was an -acknowledged power in Parliament. He compelled attention even from an -unfriendly audience, by his thorough mastery of the subject and by -the directness and boldness with which he charged upon the ranks of -his adversaries. His methods of address were new in the House; but -it soon came to be universally conceded that he was one of the most -powerful debaters in Parliament. It is the unique distinction of Cobden -among English orators that he converted to his views a government long -opposed to him, and finally persuaded a Prime-Minister to reverse -his policy and become champion of the very cause he had formerly -condemned. In the March of 1845 Cobden thought the time had come for -the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the causes of the -prevailing agricultural distress. It was in moving for such a committee -that he made the speech selected for this collection. That the argument -made a great impression may be inferred from Mr. Morley’s account of -its effect on Peel. “The Prime-Minister,” he says, “had followed every -sentence with earnest attention; his face grew more and more solemn as -the argument proceeded. At length he crumpled up the notes which he -had been taking, and was heard by an onlooker who was close by to say -to Mr. Sidney Herbert who sat next him on the bench: ‘You must answer -this, for I cannot.’ And in fact Mr. Sidney Herbert did make the answer -while Peel listened in silence.” - -During the summer of 1845 the agitation went on without any very -obvious results. Indeed the cause seemed to be making no headway in -Parliament, and Mr. Disraeli, in one of his characteristic phrases, -spoke of the appeals, varied even by the persuasive ingenuity of Mr. -Cobden, as a “wearisome iteration.” But Cobden meantime felt sure of -his ground. Speaking to one of those immense multitudes, “which,” he -said, “could only be assembled in ancient Rome to witness the brutal -conflicts of men, or can now be found in Spain to witness the brutal -conflicts of animals,” he exclaimed: “What, if you could get into the -innermost minds of the ministers, would you find them thinking as to -the repeal of the Corn Laws? I know it as well as though I were in -their hearts. It is this: they are afraid that the Corn Law cannot be -maintained—no, not a rag of it, during a period of scarcity prices, of -a famine season, such as we had in ’39, ’40, and ’41. They know it. -They are prepared, when such a time comes, to abolish the Corn Laws, -and they have made up their minds to it. There is no doubt in the world -of it. They are going to repeal it, as I told you,—mark my words,—at a -season of distress. That distress may come; aye, three weeks of showery -weather when the wheat is in bloom or ripening, would repeal these Corn -Laws.” - -This remarkable prophecy was now to have a startling fulfilment. The -autumn of 1845 was a long succession of rains. Disquieting rumors and -even portents of actual famine came from all parts of the islands. -On the last day of October the cabinet met in great haste; and three -other meetings took place within a week. Peel was in favor of calling -a meeting of Parliament at once, and suspending for a limited period -the duty on importation. Others declared that it would be impossible to -restore the duty when it was once removed; and the cabinet separated on -the 6th of November without coming to any decision. But on the 22d of -the same month the public was thrown into great commotion by an address -launched from Edinburgh by Lord John Russell to his constituents of -London. He declared that “procrastination might produce a state of -suffering that was frightful to contemplate.” “Let us all unite,” -cried he, “to put down a system which has been proved to be the blight -of commerce, the bane of agriculture, the source of bitter division -among classes, the cause of penury, fever, mortality, and crime among -the people. If this end is to be achieved, it must be gained by the -unequivocal expression of the public voice.” This was the first -announcement that Lord John Russell was a convert to the doctrines of -the league. As the old reformer was on his way to London, Mr. John -Bright met him at a railway station in Yorkshire, and said: “Your -letter has now made the total and immediate repeal of the Corn Law -inevitable; nothing can save it.” - -Another cabinet meeting was called, but still there was no agreement -as to the policy of convoking Parliament. The public distress and -excitement were such that the Prime-Minister now felt it his duty -to resign. That event took place on the 5th of December. It was -universally understood that the strenuous opposition was in the Duke of -Wellington and Lord Stanley. In a great gathering at Birmingham, Cobden -exclaimed: “The Duke is a man whom all like to honor for his high -courage, his firmness of resolve, his indomitable perseverance; but let -me remind him,” added the orator, in a magnificent outburst and amidst -a storm of approval, “that notwithstanding all his victories in the -field, he never yet entered into a contest with Englishmen in which he -was not beaten.” - -The voice of the public could not be resisted. On the 4th of December -the _Times_ newspaper announced that Parliament would meet early -in January, and that an immediate repeal of the Corn Laws would be -proposed. On the day following this announcement, Peel tendered his -resignation. The Queen sent for Lord John Russell; but the attempt -of the Opposition to form a ministry was not successful, and Peel -reluctantly consented to resume the leadership. The speech of the -Queen in opening Parliament made it evident that the occasion of -the meeting was the repeal of the obnoxious laws. The question was -practically settled when Parliament met; and the long debate is chiefly -memorable for the extraordinary succession of excoriations to which -the Prime-Minister was subjected by Disraeli. But in spite of a most -energetic opposition the repealing bill slowly made its way to ultimate -triumph. It was on the 26th of June, 1846, that the bill was passed, -and that the great reformer’s work was done. - -Until his death in 1865, Cobden continued to exert a powerful influence -in behalf of the ideas which from the first he had advocated. His -political opponents were among the most hearty to recognize his worth; -and his most intimate friend, Mr. Bright, spoke of him in the House -of Commons as “the manliest and gentlest spirit that ever quitted or -tenanted a human form.” - - - - -RICHARD COBDEN. - -ON THE EFFECTS OF PROTECTION ON THE AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS OF THE -COUNTRY; HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1845. - - -SIR: - -I am relieved upon the present occasion from any necessity for -apologizing to the other side of the House for the motion which I am -about to submit. It will be in the recollection of honorable members, -that a fortnight before putting this notice upon the book, I expressed -a hope that the matter would be taken up by some honorable member -opposite. I do not think, therefore, that in reply to any observations -I may have to make upon the question, I shall hear, as I did last -year, an observation that the quarter from which this motion came was -suspicious.[9] I may also add, sir, that I have so framed my motion as -to include in it the objects embraced in both the amendments which are -made to it. I therefore conclude, that having included the honorable -gentlemen’s amendments [Mr. Stafford O’Brien and Mr. Wodehouse], they -will not now feel it necessary to press them. - -Sir, the object of this motion is to appoint a select committee to -inquire into the present condition of the agricultural interests; -and, at the same time, to ascertain how the laws regulating the -importation of agricultural produce have affected the agriculturists -of this country. As regards the distress among farmers, I presume we -cannot go to a higher authority than those honorable gentlemen who -profess to be the farmers’ friends and protectors. I find it stated -by those honorable gentlemen who recently paid their respects to -the Prime-Minister, that the agriculturists are in a state of great -embarrassment and distress. I find that one gentleman from Norfolk [Mr. -Hudson] stated that the farmers in the county are paying their rents, -but paying them out of capital, and not profits. I find Mr. Turner of -Upton, in Devonshire, stating that one half of the smaller farmers in -that county are insolvent, and that the others are rapidly falling into -the same condition; that the farmers with larger holdings are quitting -their farms with a view of saving the rest of their property; and that, -unless some remedial measures be adopted by this House, they will be -utterly ruined. The accounts which I have given you of those districts -are such as I have had from many other sources. I put it to honorable -gentlemen opposite, whether the condition of the farmers in Suffolk, -Wiltshire, and Hampshire, is better than that which I have described in -Norfolk and Devonshire? I put it to county members, whether—taking the -whole of the south of England, from the confines of Nottinghamshire to -the Land’s End,—whether, as a rule, the farmers are not now in a state -of the greatest embarrassment? There may be exceptions; but I put it to -them whether, as a rule, that is not their condition in all parts? - -Then, sir, according to every precedent in this House, this is a fit -and proper time to bring forward the motion of which I have given -notice. I venture to state that had his Grace of Buckingham possessed a -seat in this House, he would have done now what he did when he was Lord -Chandos—have moved this resolution which I am now about to move. The -distress of the farmers being admitted, the next question which arises -is, What is its cause? I feel a greater necessity to bring forward this -motion for a committee of inquiry, because I find great discrepancies -of opinion among honorable gentlemen opposite as to what is the cause -of the distress among the farmers. In the first place there is a -discrepancy as to the generality or locality of the existing distress. -I find the right honorable baronet at the head of the government [Sir -Robert Peel] saying that the distress is local; and he moreover says -it does not arise from the legislation of this House. The honorable -member for Dorsetshire declares, on the other hand, that the distress -is general, and that it does not arise from legislation. I am at a loss -to understand what this protection to agriculture means, because I find -such contradictory accounts given in this House by the promoters of -that system. For instance, nine months ago, when my honorable friend, -the member for Wolverhampton [Mr. Villiers], brought forward his motion -for the abolition of the Corn Laws,[10] the right honorable gentleman, -then the President of the Board of Trade, in replying to him, said that -the present Corn Law had been most successful in its operations. He -took great credit to the government for the steadiness of price that -was obtained under that law. I will read you the quotation, because we -find these statements so often controverted. He said: - -“Was there any man who had supported the law in the year 1842 who could -honestly say that he had been disappointed in its workings? Could any -one point out a promise or a prediction hazarded in the course of the -protracted debates upon the measure, which promise or prediction had -been subsequently falsified.” - -Now, recollect that the right honorable gentleman was speaking when -wheat was 56_s._ per quarter, and that wheat is now 45_s._ The -right honorable baronet at the head of the government now says: “My -legislation has had nothing to do with wheat at 45_s._ a quarter”; but -how are we to get over the difficulty that the responsible member of -government at the head of the Board of Trade, only nine months ago, -claimed merit for the government having kept up the price of wheat -at 56_s._? These discrepancies themselves between the government and -its supporters, render it more and more necessary that this question -of protection should be inquired into. I ask, What does it mean? The -price of wheat is 45_s._ this day. I have been speaking to the highest -authority in England upon this point—one who is often quoted by -this House—within the last week, and he tells me, that with another -favorable harvest, he thinks it very likely that wheat will be 35_s._ -a quarter. What does this legislation mean, or what does it purport to -be, if you are to have prices fluctuating from 56_s._ down to 35_s._ -a quarter, and probably lower? Can you prevent it by the legislation -of this House? That is the question. There is a great delusion spread -abroad amongst the farmers; and it is the duty of this House to have -that delusion dissipated by inquiring into the matter. - -Now, there are these very different opinions on the other side of the -House; but there are members upon this side representing very important -interests, who think that farmers are suffering because they have this -legislative protection. There is all this difference of opinion. Now, -is not that a fit and proper subject for your inquiry? I am prepared to -go into a select committee, and to bring forward evidence to show that -the farmers are laboring under great evils—evils that I would connect -with the legislation of this House, though they are evils which appear -to be altogether dissociated from it. The first great evil under which -the farmer labors is the want of capital. No one can deny that. I do -not mean at all to disparage the farmers. The farmers of this country -are just the same race as the rest of us; and, if they were placed in -a similar position, theirs would be as good a trade—I mean that they -would be as successful men of business—as others; but it is notorious, -as a rule, that the farmers of this country are deficient in capital; -and I ask, How can any business be carried on successfully where -there is a deficiency of capital? I take it that honorable gentlemen -opposite, acquainted with farming, would admit that 10_l._ an acre, on -an arable farm, would be a sufficient amount of capital for carrying -on the business of farming successfully. I will take it, then, that -10_l._ an acre would be a fair capital for an arable farm. I have made -many inquiries upon this subject in all parts of the kingdom, and I -give it you as my decided conviction, that at this present moment -farmers do not average 5_l._ an acre capital on their farms. I speak -of England, and I take England south of the Trent, though, of course, -there are exceptions in every county; there are men of large capital -in all parts—men farming their own land; but, taking it as a rule, -I hesitate not to give my opinion—and I am prepared to back that -opinion by witnesses before your committee—that, as a rule, farmers -have not, upon an average, more than 5_l._ an acre capital for their -arable land. I have given you a tract of country to which I may add all -Wales; probably 20,000,000 of acres of cultivable land. I have no doubt -whatever, that there are 100,000,000_l._ of capital wanting upon that -land. What is the meaning of farming capital? There are strange notions -about the word “capital.” It means more manure, a greater amount of -labor, a greater number of cattle, and larger crops. Picture a country -in which you can say there is a deficiency of one half of all those -blessings which ought to, and might, exist there, and then judge what -the condition of laborers wanting employment and food is. - -But you will say, capital would be invested if it could be done with -profit. I admit it; that is the question I want you to inquire into. -How is it that in a country where there is a plethora of capital, where -every other business and pursuit is overflowing with money, where you -have men going to France for railways and to Pennsylvania for bonds, -embarking in schemes for connecting the Atlantic with the Pacific by -canals, railways in the valley of the Mississippi, and sending their -money to the bottom of the Mexican mines; while you have a country -rich and overflowing, ready to take investments in every corner of the -globe; how is it, I say, that this capital does not find its employment -in the most attractive of all forms—upon the soil of this country? The -cause is notorious—it is admitted by your highest authorities; the -reason is, there is not security for capital in land. Capital shrinks -instinctively from insecurity of tenure; and you have not in England -that security which would warrant men of capital investing their money -in the soil. - -Now, is it not a matter worthy of consideration, how far this -insecurity of tenure is bound up with that protective system of which -you are so enamoured? Suppose it can be shown that there is a vicious -circle; that you have made politics of Corn Laws, and that you want -voters to maintain them; that you very erroneously think that the -Corn Laws are your great mine of wealth, and, therefore, you must -have a dependent tenantry, that you may have their votes at elections -to maintain this law in Parliament. Well, if you will have dependent -voters, you cannot have men of spirit and capital. Then your policy -reacts upon you. If you have not men of skill and capital, you cannot -have improvements and employment for your laborers. Then comes round -that vicious termination of the circle—you have pauperism, poor-rates, -county-rates, and all the other evils of which you are now speaking and -complaining.[11] * * * - -Now, sir, not only does the want of security prevent capital flowing -into the farming business, but it actually deters from the improvement -of the land those who are already in the occupation of it. There are -many men, tenants of your land, who could improve their farms if they -had a sufficient security, and they have either capital themselves or -their friends could supply it; but with the absence of leases, and -the want of security, you are actually deterring them from laying out -their money on your land. They keep every thing the same from year to -year. You know that it is impossible to farm your estates properly -unless a tenant has an investment for more than one year. A man ought -to be able to begin a farm with at least eight years before him, -before he expects to see a return for the whole of the outlay of his -money. You are, therefore, keeping your tenants-at-will at a yearly -kind of cultivation, and you are preventing them carrying on their -businesses in a proper way. Not only do you prevent the laying out of -capital upon your land, and disable the farmers from cultivating it, -but your policy tends to make them servile and dependent; so that they -are actually disinclined to improvement, afraid to let you see that -they can improve, because they are apprehensive that you will pounce -upon them for an increase of rent. I see the honorable member for -Lincolnshire opposite, and he rather smiled at the expression when I -said that the state of dependence of the farmers was such that they -were actually afraid to appear to be improving their land. Now that -honorable gentleman, the member for Lincolnshire [Mr. Christopher], -upon the motion made last year for agricultural statistics, by my -honorable friend, the member for Manchester [Mr. Milner Gibson], made -the following statement: - -“It is most desirable for the farmer to know the actual quantity of -corn grown in this country, as such knowledge would insure steadiness -of prices, which was infinitely more valuable to the agriculturist than -fluctuating prices. But to ascertain this there was extreme difficulty. -They could not leave it to the farmer to make a return of the quantity -which he produced, for it was not for his interest to do so. If in any -one or two years he produced four quarters per acre on land which had -previously grown but three, he might fear that his landlord would say: -‘Your land is more productive than I imagined, and I must therefore -raise your rent.’ The interest of the farmers, therefore, would be to -underrate, and to furnish low returns.” - -Now, I ask honorable gentlemen here, the landed gentry of England, what -a state of things is that when, upon their own testimony respecting the -farming capitalists in this country, they dare not appear to have a -good horse—they dare not appear to be growing more than four quarters -instead of three? [Mr. Christopher: Hear!] The honorable member cheers, -but I am quoting from his own authority. I say this condition of -things, indicated by these two quotations, brings the tenant-farmers—if -they are such as these gentlemen describe them to be,—it brings them -down to a very low point of servility. In Egypt Mehemet Ali takes -the utmost grain of corn from his people, who bury it beneath their -hearthstones in their cottages, and will suffer the bastinado rather -than tell how much corn they grow. Our tenants are not afraid of the -bastinado, but they are terrified at the rise of rent. This is the -state of things amongst the tenant-farmers, farming without leases.[12] -In England leases are the exception, and not the rule. But even where -you have leases in England—where you have leases or agreements—I doubt -whether they are not in many cases worse tenures than where there is no -lease at all; the clauses being of such an obsolete and preposterous -character as to defy any man to carry on the business of farming under -them profitably. - -Now, I do not know why we should not in this country have leases for -land upon similar terms to the leases of manufactories, or any “plant” -or premises. I do not think that farming will ever be carried on as -it ought to be until you have leases drawn up in the same way as a -man takes a manufactory, and pays perhaps a £1,000 a year for it. I -know people who pay £4,000 a year for manufactories to carry on their -business, and at fair rents. There is an honorable gentleman near me -who pays more than £4,000 a year for the rent of his manufactory. -What covenants do you think he has in his lease? What would he think -if it stated how many revolutions there should be in a minute of the -spindles, or if they prescribed the construction of the straps or the -gearing of the machinery? Why, he takes his manufactory with a schedule -of its present state—bricks, mortar, and machinery—and when the lease -is over, he must leave it in the same state, or else pay a compensation -for the dilapidation. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: Hear! hear!] -The right honorable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, cheers -that statement. I want to ask his opinion respecting a similar lease -for a farm. I am rather disposed to think that the Anti-Corn-Law -Leaguers will very likely form a joint-stock association, having none -but free traders in the body, that we may purchase an estate and -have a model farm; taking care that it shall be in one of the rural -counties, one of the most purely agricultural parts of the country, -where we think there is the greatest need of improvement—perhaps in -Buckinghamshire,—and there shall be a model farm, homestead, and -cottages; and I may tell the noble Lord, the member for Newark, that -we shall have a model garden, and we will not make any boast about it. -But the great object will be to have a model lease. We will have as the -farmer a man of intelligence and capital. - -I am not so unreasonable as to tell you that you ought to let your -land to men who have not a competent capital, or are not sufficiently -intelligent; but I say, select such a man as that, let him know his -business and have a sufficient capital, and you cannot give him too -wide a scope. We will find such a man, and will let him our farm; there -shall be a lease precisely such as that upon which my honorable friend -takes his factory. There shall be no clause inserted in it to dictate -to him how he shall cultivate his farm; he shall do what he likes with -the old pasture. If he can make more by ploughing it up he shall do so; -if he can grow white crops every year—which I know there are people -doing at this moment in more places than one in this country,—or if he -can make any other improvement or discovery, he shall be free to do so. -We will let him the land, with a schedule of the state of tillage and -the condition of the homestead, and all we will bind him to will be -this: “You shall leave the land as good as when you entered upon it. -If it be in an inferior state it shall be valued again, and you shall -compensate us; but if it be in an improved state it shall be valued, -and we, the landlords, will compensate you.” We will give possession -of every thing upon the land, whether it be wild or tame animals; he -shall have the absolute control. Take as stringent precautions as you -please to compel the punctual payment of the rent; take the right of -re-entry as summarily as you like if the rent be not duly paid; but let -the payment of rent duly be the sole test as to the well-doing of the -tenant; and so long as he can pay the rent, and do it promptly, that is -the only criterion you need have that the farmer is doing well; and if -he is a man of capital, you have the strongest possible security that -he will not waste your property while he has possession of it. - -Now, sir, I have mentioned a deficiency of capital as being the primary -want among farmers. I have stated the want of security in leases as -the cause of the want of capital; but you may still say: “You have not -connected this with the Corn Laws and the protective system.” I will -read the opinion of an honorable gentleman who sits upon this side of -the House; it is in a published letter of Mr. Hayter, who, I know, is -himself an ardent supporter of agriculture. He says: - -“The more I see of and practise agriculture, the more firmly am I -convinced that the whole unemployed labor of the country could, under -a better system of husbandry, be advantageously put into operation; -and, moreover, that the Corn Laws have been one of the principal causes -of the present system of bad farming and consequent pauperism. Nothing -short of their entire removal will ever induce the average farmer to -rely upon any thing else than the legislature for the payment of his -rent; his belief being that all rent is paid by corn, and nothing else -than corn, and that the legislature can, by enacting Corn Laws, create -a price which will make his rent easy. The day of their [the Corn -Laws’] entire abolition ought to be a day of jubilee and rejoicing to -every man interested in land.” - -Now, sir, I do not stop to connect the cause and effect in this -matter, and inquire whether your Corn Laws or your protective system -have caused the want of leases and capital. I do not stop to make -good my proof, and for this reason, that you have adopted a system of -legislation in this House by which you profess to make the farming -trade prosperous. I show you, after thirty years’ trial, what is the -depressed condition of the agriculturists; I prove to you what is the -impoverished state of farmers, and also of laborers, and you will -not contest any one of those propositions. I say it is enough, having -had thirty years’ trial of your specific with no better results than -these, for me to ask you to go into committee to see if something -better cannot be devised. I am going to contend that free trade in -grain would be more advantageous to farmers—and with them I include -laborers—than restriction; to oblige the honorable member for Norfolk, -I will take with them also the landlords; and I contend that free trade -in corn and grain of every kind would be more beneficial to them than -to any other class of the community. I should have contended the same -before the passing of the late tariff, but now I am prepared to do so -with tenfold more force. What has the right honorable baronet [Sir R. -Peel] done? He has passed a law to admit fat cattle at a nominal duty. -Some foreign fat cattle were selling in Smithfield the other day at -about 15_l._ or 16_l._ per head, paying only about seven and one half -per cent. duty; but he has not admitted the raw material out of which -these fat cattle are made. Mr. Huskisson did not act in this manner -when he commenced his plan of free trade.[13] He began by admitting -the raw material of manufactures before he admitted the manufactured -article; but in your case you have commenced at precisely the opposite -end, and have allowed free trade in cattle instead of that upon which -they are fattened. I say give free trade in that grain which goes to -make the cattle. I contend that by this protective system the farmers -throughout the country are more injured than any other class in the -community. I would take, for instance, the article of clover-seed. The -honorable member for North Northamptonshire put a question the other -night to the right honorable baronet at the head of the government. -He looked so exceedingly alarmed that I wondered what the subject was -which created the apprehension. He asked the right honorable baronet -whether he was going to admit clover-seed into this country. I believe -clover-seed is to be excluded from the schedule of free importation. -Now, I ask for whose benefit is this exception made? I ask the -honorable gentleman, the member for North Northamptonshire, whether -those whom he represents, the farmers of that district of the county, -are, in a large majority of instances, sellers of clover-seed? I will -undertake to say they are not. How many counties in England are there -which are benefited by the protection of clover-seed? I will take -the whole of Scotland. If there be any Scotch members present, I ask -them whether they do not in their country import the clover-seed from -England? They do not grow it. I undertake to say that there are not ten -counties in the United Kingdom which are interested in the importation -of clover-seed out of their own borders. Neither have they any of this -article in Ireland. But yet we have clover-seed excluded from the -farmers, although they are not interested as a body in its protection -at all. - -Again, take the article of beans. There are lands in Essex where they -can grow them alternate years with wheat. I find that beans come from -that district to Mark Lane; and I believe also that in some parts of -Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire they do the same; but how is it with -the poor lands of Surrey or the poor downland of Wiltshire? Take the -whole of the counties. How many of them are there which are exporters -of beans, or send them to market? You are taxing the whole of the -farmers who do not sell their beans, for the pretended benefit of a -few counties or districts of counties where they do. Mark you, where -they can grow beans on the stronger and better soils, it is not in one -case out of ten that they grow them for the market. They may grow them -for their own use; but where they do not cultivate beans, send them to -market, and turn them into money, those farmers can have no interest -whatever in keeping up the money price of that which they never sell. - -Take the article of oats. How many farmers are there who ever have oats -down on the credit side of their books, as an item upon which they -rely for the payment of their rents? The farmers may, and generally -do, grow oats for feeding their own horses; but it is an exception -to the rule—and a rare exception too—where the farmer depends upon -the sale of his oats to meet his expenses. Take the article of hops. -You have a protection upon them for the benefit of the growers in -Kent, Sussex, and Surrey; but yet the cultivators of hops are taxed -for the protection of others in articles which they do not themselves -produce. Take the article of cheese. Not one farmer in ten in the -whole country makes his own cheese, and yet they and their servants -are large consumers of it. But what are the counties which have the -protection in this article? Cheshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, -part of Derbyshire, and Leicestershire. Here are some four or five -dairy counties having an interest in the protection of cheese; but -recollect that those counties are peculiarly hardly taxed in beans and -oats, because in those counties where they are chiefly dairy farms, -they are most in want of artificial food for their cattle. There are -the whole of the hilly districts; and I hope my friend, the member for -Nottingham [Mr. Gisborne], is here, because he has a special grievance -in this matter. He lives in Derbyshire, and very commendably employs -himself in rearing good cattle upon the hills: but he is taxed for your -protection for his beans, peas, oats, Indian corn, and every thing -which he wants for feeding them. He told me, only the other day, that -he should like nothing better than to give up the little remnant of -protection on cattle, if you would only let him buy a thousand quarters -of black oats for the consumption of his stock. Take the whole of the -hilly districts, and the down country of Wiltshire; the whole of that -expanse of downs in the south of England; take the Cheviots, where -the flock-masters reside; the Grampians in Scotland; and take the -whole of Wales, they are not benefited in the slightest degree by the -protection on these articles; but, on the contrary, you are taxing the -very things they want. They require provender as abundantly and cheaply -as they can get it. Allowing a free importation of food for cattle is -the only way in which those counties can improve the breed of their -lean stocks, and the only manner in which they can ever bring their -land up to any thing like a proper state of fertility. - -I will go further and say, that farmers with thin soil,—I mean the -stock farmers, whom you will find in Hertfordshire and Surrey, farmers -with large capitals, arable farmers,—I say those men are deeply -interested in having a free importation of food for their cattle, -because they have thin, poor land. This land of its own self does not -contain the means of its increased fertility; and the only way is the -bringing in of an additional quantity of food from elsewhere, that -they can bring up their farms to a proper state of cultivation. I -have been favored with an estimate made by a very experienced, clever -farmer in Wiltshire—probably honorable gentlemen will bear me out, -when I say a man of great intelligence and skill, and entitled to -every consideration in this House. I refer to Mr. Nathaniel Atherton, -Kingston, Wilts. That gentleman estimates that upon 400 acres of land -he could increase his profits to the amount of 280_l._, paying the same -rent as at present, provided there was a free importation of foreign -grain of all kinds. He would buy 500 quarters of oats at 15_s._, or -the same amount in beans or peas at 14_s._ or 15_s._ a sack, to be -fed on the land or in the yard; by which he would grow additional 160 -quarters of wheat, and 230 quarters of barley, and gain an increased -profit of 300_l._ upon his sheep and cattle. His plan embraces the -employment of an additional capital of 1,000_l._; and he would pay -150_l._ a year more for labor. I had an opportunity, the other day, of -speaking to a very intelligent farmer in Hertfordshire, Mr. Lattimore, -of Wheathampstead. Very likely there are honorable members here to -whom he is known. I do not know whether the noble Lord, the member -for Hertfordshire is present; if so, he will, no doubt, know that Mr. -Lattimore stands as high in Hertford market as a skilful farmer and a -man of abundant capital as any in the county. He is a gentleman of most -unquestionable intelligence; and what does he say? He told me that last -year he paid 230_l._ enhanced price on his beans and other provender -which he bought for his cattle:—230_l._ enhanced price in consequence -of that restriction upon the trade in foreign grain, amounting to -14_s._ a quarter on all the wheat he sold off his farm. - -Now, I undertake to say, in the name of Mr. Atherton, of Wiltshire, and -Mr. Lattimore, of Hertfordshire, that they are as decided advocates -for free trade in grain of every kind as I am. I am not now quoting -merely solitary cases. I told honorable gentlemen once before that I -have probably as large an acquaintance among farmers as any one in -the House. I think I could give you from every county the names of -some of the first-rate farmers who are as ardent free-traders as I am. -I requested the Secretary of this much dreaded Anti-Corn-Law League -to make me out a list of the farmers who are subscribers to that -association, and I find there are upward of one hundred in England -and Scotland who subscribe to the league fund, comprising, I hesitate -not to say, the most intelligent men to be found in the kingdom. -I went into the Lothians, at the invitation of twenty-two farmers -there, several of whom were paying upward of 1,000_l._ a year rent. I -spent two or three days among them, and I never found a body of more -intelligent, liberal-minded men in my life. Those are men who do not -want restrictions upon the importation of grain. They desire nothing -but fair play. They say: “Let us have our Indian corn, Egyptian beans, -and Polish oats as freely as we have our linseed cake, and we can bear -competition with any corn-growers in the world.” But by excluding the -provender for cattle, and at the same time admitting the cattle almost -duty free, I think you are giving an example of one of the greatest -absurdities and perversions of nature and common-sense that ever was -seen. - -We have heard of great absurdities in legislation in commercial matters -of late. We know that there has been such a case as sending coffee from -Cuba to the Cape of Good Hope, in order to bring it back to England -under the law; but I venture to say, that in less than ten years from -this time, people will look back with more amazement in their minds, at -the fact that, while you are sending ships to Ichaboe to bring back the -guano, you are passing a law to exclude Indian corn, beans, oats, peas, -and every thing else that gives nourishment to your cattle, which would -give you a thousand times more productive manure than all the guano of -Ichaboe. - -Upon the last occasion when I spoke upon this subject, I was answered -by the right honorable gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade. -He talked about throwing poor lands out of cultivation, and converting -arable lands into pasture. I hope that we men of the Anti-Corn-Law -League may not be reproached again with seeking to cause any such -disasters. My belief is—and the conviction is founded upon a most -extensive inquiry among the most intelligent farmers, without stint of -trouble and pains,—that the course you are pursuing tends every hour -to throw land out of cultivation, and make poor lands unproductive. Do -not let us be told again that we desire to draw the laborers from the -land, in order that we may reduce the wages of the work-people employed -in factories.[14] I tell you that, if you bestow capital on the soil, -and cultivate it with the same skill as manufacturers bestow upon their -business, you have not population enough in the rural districts for -the purpose. I yesterday received a letter from Lord Ducie, in which -he gives precisely the same opinion. He says: “If we had the land -properly cultivated, there are not sufficient laborers to till it.” -You are chasing your laborers from village to village, passing laws -to compel people to support paupers, devising every means to smuggle -them abroad—to the antipodes, if you can get them there; why, you would -have to run after them, and bring them back again, if you had your land -properly cultivated. I tell you honestly my conviction, that it is by -these means, and these only, that you can avert very great and serious -troubles and disasters in your agricultural districts. - -Sir, I remember, on the last occasion when this subject was discussed, -there was a great deal said about disturbing an interest.[15] It was -said this inquiry could not be gone into, because we were disturbing -and unsettling a great interest. I have no desire to undervalue the -agricultural interest. I have heard it said that they are the greatest -consumers of manufactured goods in this country; that they are such -large consumers of our goods that we had better look after the home -trade, and not think of destroying it. But what sort of consumers of -manufactures think you the laborers can be, with the wages they are -now getting in agricultural districts? Understand me; I am arguing -for a principle that I solemnly believe would raise the wages of the -laborers in the agricultural districts. I believe you would have no men -starving upon 7_s._ a week, if you had abundant capital and competent -skill employed upon the soil; but I ask what is this consumption of -manufactured goods that we have heard so much about? I have taken -some pains, and made large inquiries as to the amount laid out in -the average of cases by agricultural laborers and their families for -clothing; I probably may startle you by telling you that we have -exported in one year more of our manufactures to Brazil than have -been consumed in a similar period by the whole of your agricultural -peasantry and their families. You have 960,000 agricultural laborers -in England and Wales, according to the last census; I undertake to -say they do not expend on an average 30_s._ a year on their families, -supposing every one of them to be in employ. I speak of manufactured -goods, excluding shoes. I assert that the whole of the agricultural -peasantry and their families in England and Wales do not spend a -million and a half per annum for manufactured goods, in clothing and -bedding. And, with regard to your excisable and duty-paying articles, -what can the poor wretch lay out upon them, who out of 8_s._ or 9_s._ -a week has a wife and family to support? I undertake to prove to your -satisfaction—and you may do it yourselves if you will but dare to look -the figures in the face,—I will undertake to prove to you that they do -not pay, upon an average, each family, 15_s._ per annum; that the whole -of their contributions to the revenue do not amount to 700,000_l._ -Now, is not this a mighty interest to be disturbed? I would keep -that interest as justly as though it were one of the most important; -but I say, when you have by your present system brought down your -agricultural peasantry to that state, have you any thing to offer for -bettering their condition, or at all events to justify resisting an -inquiry? - -On the last occasion when I addressed the House on this subject, I -recollect stating some facts to show that you had no reasonable ground -to fear foreign competition; those facts I do not intend to reiterate, -because they have never been contradicted. But there are still attempts -made to frighten people by telling them: “If you open the ports to -foreign corn, you will have corn let in here for nothing.” One of -the favorite fallacies which are now put forth is this: “Look at the -price of corn in England, and see what it is abroad; you have prices -low here, and yet you have corn coming in from abroad and paying the -maximum duty. Now, if you had not 20_s._ duty to pay, what a quantity -of corn you would have brought in, and how low the price would be!” -This statement arises from a fallacy—I hope not dishonestly put -forth—in not understanding the difference between the real and the -nominal price of corn. The price of corn at Dantzic now, when there is -no regular sale, is nominal; the price of corn when it is coming in -regularly is the real price. Now, go back to 1838. In January of that -year the price of wheat at Dantzic was nominal; there was no demand -for England; there were no purchasers except for speculation, with the -chance, probably, of having to throw the wheat into the sea; but in -the months of July and August of that year, when apprehensions arose -of a failure of our harvest, then the price of corn in Dantzic rose -instantly, sympathizing with the markets of England; and at the end of -the year, in December, the price of wheat at Dantzic had doubled the -amount at which it had been in January; and during the three following -years, when you had a regular importation of corn,—during all that -time, by the averages laid upon the table of this House, wheat at -Dantzic averaged 40_s._ Wheat at Dantzic was at that price during the -three years 1839, 1840, and 1841. Now, I mention this just to show the -fact to honorable gentlemen, and to entreat them that they will not -go and alarm their tenantry by this outcry of the danger of foreign -competition. You ought to be pursuing a directly opposite course—you -ought to be trying to stimulate them in every possible way, by showing -that they can compete with foreigners; that what others can do in -Poland, they can do in England. - -I have an illustration of this subject in the case of a society of -which the honorable member for Suffolk is chairman. We have lately seen -a new light spreading amongst agricultural gentlemen. We are told the -salvation of this country is to arise from the cultivation of flax. -There is a National Flax Society, of which Lord Rendlesham is the -president. This Flax Society state in their prospectus, a copy of which -I have here, purporting to be the First Annual Report of the National -Flax Agricultural Improvement Association,—after talking of the -ministers holding out no hope from legislation, the report goes on to -state that upon these grounds the National Flax Society call upon the -nation for its support, on the ground that they are going to remedy the -distress of the country. The founder of this society is Mr. Warnes of -Norfolk. I observe Mr. Warnes paid a visit to Sussex, and he attended -an agricultural meeting at which the honorable baronet, the member for -Shoreham [Sir Charles Burrell], presided. After the usual loyal toasts, -the honorable baronet proposed the toast of the evening: “Mr. Warnes -and the cultivation of flax.” The honorable baronet was not aware, -I dare say, that he was then furnishing a most deadly weapon to the -lecturers of the Anti-Corn-Law League. We are told you cannot compete -with foreigners unless you have a high protective duty. You have a high -protective duty on wheat, amounting at this moment to 20_s._ a quarter. -A quarter of wheat at the present time is just worth the same as one -cwt. of flax. On a quarter of wheat you have a protective duty against -the Pole and Russian of 20_s._; upon the one cwt. of flax you have a -protective duty of 1_d._ And I did not hear a murmur from honorable -gentlemen opposite when the Prime-Minister proposed to take off that -protective duty of 1_d._ totally and immediately. - -But we are told that English agriculturists cannot compete with -foreigners, and especially with that serf labor that is to be found -somewhere up the Baltic. Well, but flax comes from the Baltic and there -is no protective duty. Honorable gentlemen say we have no objection -to raw materials where there is no labor connected with them; but we -cannot contend against foreigners in wheat, because there is such -an amount of labor in it. Why, there is twice as much labor in flax -as there is in wheat; but the member for Shoreham favors the growth -of flax in order to restore the country, which is sinking into this -abject and hopeless state for want of agricultural protection. But the -honorable baronet will forgive me—I am sure he will, he looks as if -he would—if I allude a little to the subject of leases. The honorable -gentleman on that occasion, I believe, complained that it was a great -pity that farmers did not grow more flax. I do not know whether it was -true or not that the same honorable baronet’s leases to his own tenants -forbade them to grow that article. - -Now, it is quite as possible that the right honorable baronet does not -exactly know what covenants or clauses there are in his leases. But I -know that it is a very common case to preclude the growth of flax; and -it just shows the kind of management by which the landed proprietors -have carried on their affairs, that actually, I believe, the original -source of the error that flax was very pernicious to the ground was -derived from Virgil; I believe there is a passage in the Georgics to -that effect.[15a] From that classic authority, no doubt, some learned -lawyer put this clause into the lease, and there it has remained ever -since. - -Now, I have alluded to the condition of the laborers at the present -time; but I am bound to say that while the farmers at the present -moment are in a worse condition than they have been for the last ten -years, I believe the agricultural laborers have passed over the winter -with less suffering and distress, although it has been a five-months’ -winter, and a severer one, too, than they endured in the previous year. -[Hear!] I am glad to find that corroborated by honorable gentlemen -opposite, because it bears out, in a remarkable degree, the opinion -that we, who are in connection with the free-trade question, entertain. -We maintain that a low price of food is beneficial to the laboring -classes. We assert, and we can prove it, at least in the manufacturing -districts, that whenever provisions are dear wages are low, and -whenever food is cheap wages invariably rise. We have had a strike in -almost every business in Lancashire since the price of wheat has been -down to something like 50_s._; and I am glad to be corroborated when I -state that the agricultural laborers have been in a better condition -during the last winter than they were in the previous one. But does -not that show that, even in your case, though your laborers have in a -general way only just as much as will find them a subsistence, they -are benefited by a great abundance of the first necessaries of life? -Although their wages may rise and fall with the price of food,—although -they may go up with the advance in the price of corn, and fall when -it is lowered,—still, I maintain that it does not rise in the same -proportion as the price of food rises, nor fall to the extent to -which food falls. Therefore in all cases the agricultural laborers -are in a better state when food is low than when it is high. I have -a very curious proof that high-priced food leads to pauperism in the -agricultural districts, which I will read to you. It is a laborer’s -certificate seen at Stowupland, in Suffolk, in July, 1844, which was -placed upon the mantel-piece of a peasant’s cottage there: - -“West Suffolk Agricultural Association, established in 1833 for the -advancement of agriculture and the encouragement of industry and -skill and good conduct among laborers and servants in husbandry, -President—the Duke of Grafton, Lord-Lieutenant of the county: This is -to certify that a prize of 2_l._ was awarded to William Burch, aged -82, laborer of the parish of Stowupland, in West Suffolk, September -25, 1840, for having brought up nine children without relief, except -when flour was very dear; and for having worked on the same farm -twenty-eight years. (Signed) Rt. Rushbrooke, Chairman.” - -Now I need not press that point. It is admitted by honorable gentlemen -opposite—and I am glad it is so—that after a very severe winter, in the -midst of great distress among farmers, when there have been a great -many able-bodied men wanting employment, still there have been fewer in -the streets and work-houses than there had been in the previous year; -and I hope we shall not again be told by honorable gentlemen opposite -that cheap bread is injurious to the laborers. - -But the condition of the agricultural laborer is a bad case at the -very best. You can look before you, and you have to foresee the means -of giving employment to those men. I need not tell you that the late -census shows that you cannot employ your own increasing population -in the agricultural districts. But you say the farmer should employ -them. Now, I am bound to say that, whatever may be the condition of -the agricultural laborer, I hold that the farmer is not responsible -for that condition while he is placed in the situation in which he -now is by the present system. I have seen during the last autumn and -winter a great many exhortations made to the farmers, that they should -employ more laborers. I think that is very unfair towards the farmer; -I believe he is the man who is suffering most; he stands between you -and your impoverished, suffering peasantry; and it is rather too bad -to point to the farmer as the man who should relieve them. I have an -extract from Lord Hardwick’s address to the laborers of Haddenham. He -says: - -“Conciliate your employers, and if they do not perform their duty to -you and themselves, address yourselves to the landlords, and I assure -you that you will find us ready to urge our own tenants to the proper -cultivation of their farms, and, consequently, to the just employment -of the laborer.” - -Now, I hold that this duty begins nearer home, and that the landed -proprietors are the parties who are responsible if the laborers have -not employment. You have absolute power; there is no doubt about that. -You can, if you please, legislate for the laborers, or yourselves. -Whatever you may have done besides, your legislation has been adverse -to the laborer, and you have no right to call upon the farmers to -remedy the evils which you have caused. Will not this evil—if evil -you call it—press on you more and more every year? What can you do to -remedy the mischief? I only appear here now because you have proposed -nothing. We all know your system of allotments, and we are all aware of -its failure. What other remedy have you? for, mark you, that is worse -than a plaything, if you were allowed to carry out your own views. -[Hear!] Aye, it is well enough for some of you that there are wiser -heads than your own to lead you, or you would be conducting yourselves -into precisely the same condition in which they are in Ireland, but -with this difference—this increased difficulty,—that there they do -manage to maintain the rights of property by the aid of the English -Exchequer and 20,000 bayonets; but divide your own country into small -allotments, and where would be the rights of property? What do you -propose to do now? That is the question. Nothing has been brought -forward this year, which I have heard, having for its object to -benefit the great mass of the English population; nothing I have heard -suggested which has at all tended to alleviate their condition. - -You admit that the farmer’s capital is sinking from under him, and that -he is in a worse state than ever. Have you distinctly provided some -plan to give confidence to the farmer, to cause an influx of capital -to be expended upon his land, and so bring increased employment to -the laborer? How is this to be met? I cannot believe you are going -to make this a political game. You must set up some specific object -to benefit the agricultural interest. It is well said that the last -election was an agricultural triumph. There are two hundred county -members sitting behind the Prime-Minister who prove that it was so. -What, then, is your plan for this distressing state of things? That -is what I want to ask you. Do not, as you have done before, quarrel -with me because I have imperfectly stated my case; I have done my best; -and I again ask you what you have to propose? I tell you that this -“Protection,” as it has been called, is a failure. It was so when you -had the prohibition up to 80_s._ You know the state of your farming -tenantry in 1821. It was a failure when you had a protection price -of 60_s._; for you know what was the condition of your farm tenantry -in 1835. It is a failure now with your last amendment, for you have -admitted and proclaimed it to us; and what is the condition of your -agricultural population at this time? I ask, what is your plan? I -hope it is not a pretence; a mere political game that has been played -throughout the last election, and that you have not all come up here -as mere politicians. There are politicians in the House; men who look -with an ambition—probably a justifiable one—to the honors of office. -There may be men who—with thirty years of continuous service, having -been pressed into a groove from which they can neither escape nor -retreat—may be holding office, high office, maintained there, probably, -at the expense of their present convictions which do not harmonize very -well with their early opinions. I make allowances for them; but the -great body of the honorable gentlemen opposite came up to this House, -not as politicians, but as the farmers’ friends, and protectors of the -agricultural interests. Well, what do you propose to do? You have heard -the Prime-Minister declare that, if he could restore all the protection -which you have had, that protection would not benefit agriculturists. -Is that your belief? If so, why not proclaim it? and if it is not your -conviction, you will have falsified your mission in this House, by -following the right honorable baronet out into the lobby, and opposing -inquiry into the condition of the very men who sent you here.[16] - -With mere politicians I have no right to expect to succeed in this -motion. But I have no hesitation in telling you, that, if you give me -a committee of this House, I will explode the delusion of agricultural -protection! I will bring forward such a mass of evidence, and give -you such a preponderance of talent and of authority, that when the -Blue-Book is published and sent forth to the world, as we can now send -it, by our vehicles of information, your system of protection shall -not live in public opinion for two years afterward.[17] Politicians -do not want that. This cry of protection has been a very convenient -handle for politicians. The cry of protection carried the counties at -the last election, and politicians gained honors, emoluments, and place -by it. But is that old tattered flag of protection, tarnished and torn -as it is already, to be kept hoisted still in the counties for the -benefit of politicians; or will you come forward honestly and fairly to -inquire into this question? I cannot believe that the gentry of England -will be made mere drum-heads to be sounded upon by a Prime-Minister -to give forth unmeaning and empty sounds, and to have no articulate -voice of their own. No! You are the gentry of England who represent -the counties. You are the aristocracy of England. Your fathers led our -fathers; you may lead us if you will go the right way. But, although -you have retained your influence with this country longer than any -other aristocracy, it has not been by opposing popular opinion, or by -setting yourselves against the spirit of the age. - -In other days, when the battle and the hunting-fields were the tests -of manly vigor, your fathers were first and foremost there. The -aristocracy of England were not like the noblesse of France, the mere -minions of a court; nor were they like the hidalgos of Madrid, who -dwindled into pigmies. You have been Englishmen. You have not shown a -want of courage and firmness when any call has been made upon you. This -is a new era. It is the age of improvement, it is the age of social -advancement, not the age for war or for feudal sports. You live in a -mercantile age, when the whole wealth of the world is poured into your -lap. You cannot have the advantages of commercial rents and feudal -privileges; but you may be what you always have been, if you will -identify yourselves with the spirit of the age. The English people look -to the gentry and aristocracy of their country as their leaders. I, -who am not one of you, have no hesitation in telling you that there is -a deep-rooted, an hereditary prejudice, if I may so call it, in your -favor in this country. But you never got it, and you will not keep -it, by obstructing the spirit of the age. If you are indifferent to -enlightened means of finding employment to your own peasantry; if you -are found obstructing that advance which is calculated to knit nations -more together in the bonds of peace by means of commercial intercourse; -if you are found fighting against the discoveries which have almost -given breath and life to material nature, and setting up yourselves as -obstructives of that which destiny has decreed shall go on,—why, then, -you will be the gentry of England no longer, and others will be found -to take your place. - -And I have no hesitation in saying that you stand just now in a very -critical position. There is a wide-spread suspicion that you have -been tampering with the best feelings and with the honest confidence -of your constituents in this cause. Everywhere you are doubted and -suspected. Read your own organs, and you will see that this is the -case. Well, then, this is the time to show that you are not the mere -party politicians which you are said to be. I have said that we shall -be opposed in this measure by politicians; they do not want inquiry. -But I ask you to go into this committee with me. I will give you a -majority of county members. You shall have a majority of the Central -Society in that committee. I ask you only to go into a fair inquiry as -to the causes of the distress of your own population. I only ask that -this matter may be fairly examined. Whether you establish my principle -or yours, good will come out of the inquiry; and I do, therefore, beg -and entreat the honorable independent country gentlemen of this House -that they will not refuse, on this occasion, to go into a fair, a full, -and an impartial inquiry. - - - - -JOHN BRIGHT. - - -The most eloquent of the orators of the Liberal party in England -was born at Greenbank, a village now forming a part of Rochedale, -in 1811. His father was a manufacturer of some prominence, and the -son at the age of fifteen left school and became identified with -the business interests of the firm. The education of John Bright -was neither comprehensive nor thorough. He early showed an unusual -fondness for English literature, and he acquired a large knowledge of -English history; but in other respects his education was simply of -that fragmentary nature which comes from quick intelligence and large -opportunities of observation. His teachers have left no record of any -remarkable promise in his early days. About the time of attaining his -majority he travelled extensively on the continent; and the first -evidence of great oratorical promise was given in a course of lectures -embodying his recollections of a tour in Europe and the Holy Land in -1835. - -Though Bright had taken an active part in the local agitation for -reform in 1832, it was not till he became identified with the -Anti-Corn-Law League in 1839 that he became prominent as a public -speaker. In the course of the agitation that followed he was closely -identified with Cobden in the work of the league. Bright’s oratory, -while less persuasive than that of Cobden, was of a loftier tone, -and was better adapted to arouse the attention of the people to the -importance of the subject. Throughout the whole of the Anti-Corn-Law -movement the names of Cobden and Bright were closely associated, and -the intimate and beautiful friendship then begun continued without -interruption till Cobden’s death. It was the popular influence they -acquired by their speeches in behalf of free trade that brought them -both into Parliament. Bright took his seat in 1843, and delivered -his maiden speech in August of the same year in behalf of extending -the principles of free trade. Though defeated in 1857 by the city of -Manchester, on account of his energetic opposition to the course of -the government in the Crimean War, he was immediately taken up by the -electors of Birmingham and returned by a triumphant majority. His -career in the House of Commons, therefore, has been uninterrupted for -more than thirty years. - -During the whole of this period Mr. Bright’s powers have been -consistently exerted in behalf of certain definite lines of political -policy. From first to last he has been the uncompromising advocate -and champion of the principles of free trade. He has been a thorough -student of American affairs; and at the time of the American civil -war, it was his eloquence more than any other one thing that -restrained England from following the lead of France into the policy -of acknowledging the independence of the seceding States. In domestic -affairs he has advocated the general policy of retrenchment, a more -equitable distribution of the seats with reference to population, and -a wide extension of the rights of suffrage. In 1857 his strenuous and -eloquent opposition to the methods of Palmerston cost him his seat in -the House; and in 1882 he resigned his place in the cabinet, because -he was unwilling to share the policy of Mr. Gladstone which led to the -bombardment of Alexandria. On each of these subjects he has left a -group of speeches that are likely to retain an honorable and permanent -place in the history of British eloquence. It has been his lot to be -more frequently opposed to the government than in sympathy with it; and -although he can hardly be said to have originated any great lines of -policy, his influence has always been felt in behalf of peace and of an -extension of popular freedom. - - - - -JOHN BRIGHT. - -ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND; DELIVERED AT A BANQUET GIVEN IN HONOR -OF MR. BRIGHT, AT BIRMINGHAM, OCTOBER 29, 1858. - - - [The foreign policy of Lord Palmerston in the Crimean War had been - severely criticized by Cobden and Bright, and in consequence of - this criticism, Bright had lost his seat for Manchester. He was at - once, however, elected by Birmingham; and the speech here given was - delivered in the Town-Hall on the occasion of his first visit to his - constituents.] - - -The frequent and far too complimentary manner in which my name has -been mentioned to-night, and the most kind way in which you have -received me, have placed me in a position somewhat humiliating, and -really painful; for to receive laudation which one feels one cannot -possibly have merited, is much more painful than to be passed by in a -distribution of commendation to which possibly one might lay some claim. - -If one twentieth part of what has been said is true, if I am -entitled to any measure of your approbation, I may begin to think -that my public career and my opinions are not so un-English and so -anti-national as some of those who profess to be the best of our public -instructors have sometimes assumed. How, indeed, can I, any more than -any of you, be un-English and anti-national? Was I not born upon the -same soil? Do I not come of the same English stock? Are not my family -committed irrevocably to the fortunes of this country? Is not whatever -property I may have depending, as much as yours is depending, upon -the good government of our common fatherland? Then how shall any man -dare to say to any one of his countrymen, because he happens to hold a -different opinion on questions of great public policy, that therefore -he is un-English, and is to be condemned as anti-national? There are -those who would assume that between my countrymen and me, and between -my constituents and me, there has been, and there is now, a great gulf -fixed, and that if I cannot pass over to them and to you, they and you -can by no possibility pass over to me. - -Now, I take the liberty here, in the presence of an audience as -intelligent as can be collected within the limits of this island, and -of those who have the strongest claims to know what opinions I do -entertain relative to certain great questions of public policy, to -assert that I hold no views, that I have never promulgated any views, -on those controverted questions with respect to which I cannot bring as -witnesses in my favor, and as fellow-believers with myself, some of the -best and most revered names in the history of English statesmanship. - -About 120 years ago, the government of this country was directed by -Sir Robert Walpole, a great minister, who for a long period preserved -the country in peace, and whose pride it was that during those years -he had done so. Unfortunately, toward the close of his career, he was -driven by faction into a policy which was the ruin of his political -position.[18] - -Sir Robert Walpole declared, when speaking of the question of war as -affecting this country, that nothing could be so foolish, nothing so -mad, as a policy of war for a trading nation. And he went so far as to -say, that any peace was better than the most successful war. - -I do not give you the precise language made use of by the minister, for -I speak only from memory; but I am satisfied I am not misrepresenting -him in what I have now stated. - -Come down fifty years nearer to our own time, and you find a statesman, -not long in office, but still strong in the affections of all persons -of Liberal principles in this country, and in his time representing -fully the sentiments of the Liberal party—Charles James Fox. - -Mr. Fox, referring to the policy of the government of his time, which -was one of constant interference in the affairs of Europe, and by which -the country was continually involved in the calamities of war, said -that although he would not assert or maintain the principle, that under -no circumstances could England have any cause of interference with the -affairs of the continent of Europe, yet he would prefer the policy of -positive non-interference and of perfect isolation, rather than the -constant intermeddling to which our recent policy had subjected us, and -which brought so much trouble and suffering upon the country. In this -case also I am not prepared to give you his exact words, but I am sure -that I fairly describe the sentiments which he expressed. - -Come down fifty years later, and to a time within the recollection -of most of us, and you find another statesman, once the most popular -man in England, and still remembered in this town and elsewhere with -respect and affection. I allude to Earl Grey. When Earl Grey came -into office for the purpose of carrying the question of parliamentary -reform, he unfurled the banner of peace, retrenchment, and reform, -and that sentiment was received in every part of the United Kingdom, -by every man who was or had been in favor of Liberal principles, as -predicting the advent of a new era which should save his country from -many of the calamities of the past. - -Come down still nearer, and to a time that seems but the other day, -and you find another minister, second to none of those whom I have -mentioned—the late Sir Robert Peel. I had the opportunity of observing -the conduct of Sir Robert Peel, from the time when he took office in -1841; I watched his proceedings particularly from the year 1843, when -I entered Parliament, up to the time of his lamented death[19]; and -during the whole of that period, I venture to say, his principles, if -they were to be discovered from his conduct and his speeches, were -precisely those which I have held, and which I have always endeavored -to press upon the attention of my countrymen. If you have any doubt -upon that point I would refer you to that last, that beautiful, that -most solemn speech, which he delivered with an earnestness and a sense -of responsibility as if he had known he was leaving a legacy to his -country. If you refer to that speech, delivered on the morning of the -very day on which occurred the accident which terminated his life, you -will find that its whole tenor is in conformity with all the doctrines -that I have urged upon my countrymen for years past with respect to our -policy in foreign affairs. When Sir Robert Peel went home just before -the dawn of day, upon the last occasion that he passed from the House -of Commons, the scene of so many of his triumphs, I have heard from -what I think a good authority, that after he entered his own house he -expressed the exceeding relief which he experienced at having delivered -himself of a speech which he had been reluctantly obliged to make -against a ministry which he was anxious to support, and he added, if I -am not mistaken: “I have made a speech of peace.” - -Well, if this be so, if I can give you four names like these,—if there -were time I could make a longer list of still eminent, if inferior -men,—I should like to know why I, as one of a small party, am to be set -down as teaching some new doctrine which is not fit for my countrymen -to hear, and why I am to be assailed in every form of language, as if -there was one great department of governmental affairs on which I was -incompetent to offer any opinion to my countrymen. - -But leaving the opinions of individuals, I appeal to this audience, to -every man who knows any thing of the views and policy of the Liberal -party in past years, whether it is not the fact that, up to 1832, -and indeed to a much later period, probably to the year 1850, those -sentiments of Sir Robert Walpole, of Mr. Fox, of Earl Grey, and of Sir -Robert Peel, the sentiments which I in humbler mode have propounded, -were not received unanimously by the Liberal party as their fixed and -unchangeable creed? And why should they not? Are they not founded -upon reason? Do not all statesmen know, as you know, that upon peace, -and peace alone can be based the successful industry of a nation, -and that by successful industry alone can be created that wealth -which, permeating all classes of the people, not confined to great -proprietors, great merchants, and great speculators, not running in a -stream merely down your principal streets, but turning fertilizing -rivulets into every by-lane and every alley, tends so powerfully to -promote the comfort, happiness, and contentment of a nation? Do you not -know that all progress comes from successful and peaceful industry, -and that upon it is based your superstructure of education, of morals, -of self-respect among your people, as well as every measure for -extending and consolidating freedom in your public institutions? I am -not afraid to acknowledge that I do oppose—that I do utterly condemn -and denounce—a great part of the foreign policy which is practised and -adhered to by the government of this country. - -You know, of course, that about one hundred and seventy years ago there -happened in this country what we have always been accustomed to call a -“Glorious Revolution”—a Revolution which had this effect: that it put -a bit into the mouth of the monarch, so that he was not able of his -own free will to do, and he dared no longer attempt to do, the things -which his predecessors had done without fear. But if at the Revolution -the monarchy of England was bridled and bitted, at the same time the -great territorial families of England were enthroned: and from that -period until the year 1831 or 1832—until the time when Birmingham -politically became famous,—those territorial families reigned with -an almost undisputed sway over the destinies and the industry of the -people of these kingdoms.[20] If you turn to the history of England -from the period of the Revolution to the present, you will find that -an entirely new policy was adopted, and that while we had endeavored -in former times to keep ourselves free from European complications, we -now began to act upon a system of constant entanglement in the affairs -of foreign countries, as if there were neither property nor honors, nor -any thing worth striving for, to be acquired in any other field. The -language coined and used then has continued to our day. Lord Somers, in -writing for William III., speaks of the endless and sanguinary wars of -that period as wars “to maintain the liberties of Europe.” There were -wars “to support the Protestant interest,” and there were many wars to -preserve our old friend “the balance of power.” - -We have been at war since that time, I believe, with, for, and against -every considerable nation in Europe. We fought to put down a pretended -French supremacy under Louis XIV. We fought to prevent France and -Spain coming under the sceptre of one monarch, although, if we had -not fought, it would have been impossible in the course of things -that they should have become so united.[21] We fought to maintain the -Italian provinces in connection with the House of Austria. We fought -to put down the supremacy of Napoleon Bonaparte; and the minister who -was employed by this country at Vienna, after the great war, when it -was determined that no Bonaparte should ever again sit on the throne -of France, was the very man to make an alliance with another Bonaparte -for the purpose of carrying on a war to prevent the supremacy of the -late Emperor of Russia.[22] So that we have been all around Europe, and -across it over and over again, and after a policy so distinguished, so -pre-eminent, so long continued, and so costly, I think we have a fair -right—I have, at least—to ask those who are in favor of it to show us -its visible result. Europe is not at this moment, so far as I know, -speaking of it broadly, and making allowance for certain improvements -in its general civilization, more free politically than it was before. -The balance of power is like perpetual motion, or any of those -impossible things which some men are always racking their brains and -spending their time and money to accomplish. - -We all know and deplore that at the present moment a larger number -of the grown men of Europe are employed, and a larger portion of -the industry of Europe is absorbed, to provide for, and maintain, -the enormous armaments which are now on foot in every considerable -continental state. Assuming, then, that Europe is not much better in -consequence of the sacrifices we have made, let us inquire what has -been the result in England, because, after all, that is the question -which it becomes us most to consider. I believe that I understate -the sum when I say that, in pursuit of this will-o’-the-wisp (the -liberties of Europe and the balance of power), there has been extracted -from the industry of the people of this small island no less an -amount than 2,000,000,000_l._ sterling.[23] I cannot imagine how much -2,000,000,000_l._ is, and therefore I shall not attempt to make you -comprehend it. - -I presume it is something like those vast and incomprehensible -astronomical distances with which we have been lately made familiar; -but, however familiar, we feel that we do not know one bit more -about them than we did before. When I try to think of that sum of -2,000,000,000_l._ there is a sort of vision passes before my mind’s -eye. I see your peasant laborer delve and plunge, sow and reap, sweat -beneath the summer’s sun, or grow prematurely old before the winter’s -blast. I see your noble mechanic with his manly countenance and his -matchless skill, toiling at his bench or his forge. I see one of the -workers in our factories in the north, a woman—a girl it may be—gentle -and good, as many of them are, as your sisters and daughters are—I -see her intent upon the spindle, whose revolutions are so rapid, that -the eye fails altogether to detect them, or watching the alternating -flight of the unresting shuttle. I turn again to another portion of -your population, which, “plunged in mines, forgets a sun was made,” -and I see the man who brings up from the secret chambers of the earth -the elements of the riches and greatness of his country. When I see -all this I have before me a mass of produce and of wealth which I am -no more able to comprehend than I am that 200,000,000_l._ of which I -have spoken, but I behold in its full proportions the hideous error of -your governments, whose fatal policy consumes in some cases a half, -never less than a third, of all the results of that industry which -God intended should fertilize and bless every home in England, but the -fruits of which are squandered in every part of the surface of the -globe, without producing the smallest good to the people of England. - -We have, it is true, some visible results that are of a more positive -character. We have that which some people call a great advantage—the -national debt—a debt which is now so large that the most prudent, the -most economical, and the most honest have given up all hope, not of its -being paid off, but of its being diminished in amount.[24] - -We have, too, taxes which have been during many years so onerous that -there have been times when the patient beasts of burden threatened to -revolt—so onerous that it has been utterly impossible to levy them -with any kind of honest equality, according to the means of the people -to pay them. We have that, moreover, which is a standing wonder to -all foreigners who consider our condition—an amount of apparently -immovable pauperism which to strangers is wholly irreconcilable with -the fact that we, as a nation, produce more of what should make us all -comfortable than is produced by any other nation of similar numbers -on the face of the globe. Let us likewise remember that during the -period of those great and so-called glorious contests on the continent -of Europe, every description of home reform was not only delayed, but -actually crushed out of the minds of the great bulk of the people. -There can be no doubt whatever that in 1793 England was about to -realize political changes and reforms, such as did not appear again -until 1830,[25] and during the period of that war, which now almost all -men agree to have been wholly unnecessary, we were passing through a -period which may be described as the dark age of English politics; when -there was no more freedom to write or speak, or politically to act, -than there is now in the most despotic country of Europe. - -But, it may be asked, did nobody gain? If Europe is no better, and the -people of England have been so much worse, who has benefited by the -new system of foreign policy? What has been the fate of those who were -enthroned at the Revolution, and whose supremacy has been for so long a -period undisputed among us? Mr. Kinglake, the author of an interesting -book on Eastern travel, describing the habits of some acquaintances -that he made in the Syrian deserts, says, that the jackals of the -desert follow their prey in families like the place-hunters of -Europe. I will reverse, if you like, the comparison, and say that the -great territorial families of England, which were enthroned at the -Revolution, have followed their prey like the jackals of the desert. -Do you not observe at a glance, that, from the time of William III., -by reason of the foreign policy which I denounce, wars have been -multiplied, taxes increased, loans made, and the sums of money which -every year the government has to expend augmented, and that so the -patronage at the disposal of ministers must have increased also, and -the families who were enthroned and made powerful in the legislation -and administration of the country must have had the first pull at, -and the largest profit out of, that patronage? There is no actuary in -existence who can calculate how much of the wealth, of the strength, of -the supremacy of the territorial families of England, has been derived -from an unholy participation in the fruits of the industry of the -people, which have been wrested from them by every device of taxation, -and squandered in every conceivable crime of which a government could -possibly be guilty. - -The more you examine this matter the more you will come to the -conclusion which I have arrived at, that this foreign policy, this -regard for the “liberties of Europe,” this care at one time for “the -Protestant interests,” this excessive love for “the balance of power,” -is neither more nor less than a gigantic system of out-door relief -for the aristocracy of Great Britain. [Great laughter.][26] I observe -that you receive that declaration as if it were some new and important -discovery. In 1815, when the great war with France was ended, every -Liberal in England, whose politics, whose hopes, and whose faith had -not been crushed out of him by the tyranny of the time of that war, -was fully aware of this, and openly admitted it, and up to 1832, and -for some years afterward, it was the fixed and undoubted creed of -the great Liberal party. But somehow all is changed. We, who stand -upon the old landmarks, who walk in the old paths, who would conserve -what is wise and prudent, are hustled and shoved about as if we were -come to turn the world upside down. The change which has taken place -seems to confirm the opinion of a lamented friend of mine, who, not -having succeeded in all his hopes, thought that men made no progress -whatever, but went round and round like a squirrel in a cage. The idea -is now so general that it is our duty to meddle everywhere, that it -really seems as if we had pushed the Tories from the field, expelling -them by our competition. - -I should like to lay before you a list of the treaties which we have -made, and of the responsibilities under which we have laid ourselves -with respect to the various countries of Europe. I do not know where -such an enumeration is to be found, but I suppose it would be possible -for antiquaries and men of investigating minds to dig them out from -the recesses of the Foreign Office, and perhaps to make some of them -intelligible to the country. I believe, however, that if we go to the -Baltic we shall find that we have a treaty to defend Sweden, and the -only thing which Sweden agrees to do in return is not to give up any -portion of her territories to Russia. Coming down a little south we -have a treaty which invites us, enables us, and perhaps, if we acted -fully up to our duty with regard to it, would compel us to interfere -in the question between Denmark and the Duchies.[27] If I mistake not, -we have a treaty which binds us down to the maintenance of the little -kingdom of Belgium, as established after its separation from Holland. -We have numerous treaties with France. We are understood to be bound -by treaty to maintain constitutional government in Spain and Portugal. -If we go round into the Mediterranean, we find the little kingdom of -Sardinia, to which we have lent some millions of money, and with which -we have entered into important treaties for preserving the balance of -power in Europe. If we go beyond the kingdom of Italy, and cross the -Adriatic, we come to the small kingdom of Greece, against which we have -a nice account that will never be settled; while we have engagements -to maintain that respectable but diminutive country under its present -constitutional government.[28] Then leaving the kingdom of Greece we -pass up the eastern end of the Mediterranean, and from Greece to the -Red Sea, wherever the authority of the Sultan is more or less admitted, -the blood and the industry of England are pledged to the permanent -sustentation of the “independence and integrity” of the Ottoman -Empire.[29] - -I confess that as a citizen of this country, wishing to live peaceably -among my fellow-countrymen, and wishing to see my countrymen free, -and able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, I protest against a -system which binds us in all these networks and complications from -which it is impossible that one can gain one single atom of advantage -for this country. It is not all glory after all. Glory may be worth -something, but it is not always glory. We have had within the last -few years despatches from Vienna and from St. Petersburg, which, if -we had not deserved them, would have been very offensive and not a -little insolent.[30] We have had the ambassador of the Queen expelled -summarily from Madrid, and we have had an ambassador driven almost -with ignominy from Washington.[31] We have blockaded Athens for a -claim which was known to be false.[32] We have quarrelled with Naples, -for we chose to give advice to Naples, which was not received in the -submissive spirit expected from her, and our minister was therefore -withdrawn.[33] Not three years ago, too, we seized a considerable -kingdom in India, with which our government had but recently entered -into the most solemn treaty, which every lawyer in England and in -Europe, I believe, would consider binding before God and the world.[34] -We deposed its monarch; we committed a great immorality and a great -crime, and we have reaped an almost instantaneous retribution in the -most gigantic and sanguinary revolt which probably any nation ever made -against its conquerors. Within the last few years we have had two wars -with a great empire, which we are told contains at least one third of -the whole human race.[35] The first war was called, and appropriately -called, the Opium War. No man, I believe, with a spark of morality -in his composition, no man who cares any thing for the opinion of -his fellow-countrymen, has dared to justify that war. The war which -has just been concluded, if it has been concluded, had its origin in -the first war; for the enormities committed in the first war are the -foundation of the implacable hostility which it is said the inhabitants -of Canton bear to all persons connected with the English name. Yet, -though we have these troubles in India—a vast country which we do not -know how to govern,—and a war with China—a country with which, though -everybody else can remain at peace, we cannot,—such is the inveterate -habit of conquest, such is the insatiable lust of territory, such is, -in my view, the depraved, unhappy state of opinion of the country on -this subject, that there are not a few persons, Chambers of Commerce, -to wit, in different parts of the kingdom (though I am glad to say -it has not been so with the Chamber of Commerce at Birmingham), who -have been urging our government to take possession of a province of -the greatest island in the Eastern seas; a possession which must at -once necessitate increased estimates and increased taxation, and which -would probably lead us into merciless and disgraceful wars with the -half-savage tribes who inhabit that island.[36] - -I will not dwell upon that question. The gentleman who is principally -concerned in it is at this moment, as you know, stricken down with -affliction, and I am unwilling to enter here into any considerable -discussion of the case which he is urging upon the public; but I say -that we have territory enough in India; and if we have not troubles -enough there, if we have not difficulties enough in China, if we have -not taxation enough, by all means gratify your wishes for more; but -I hope that whatever may be the shortcomings of the government with -regard to any other questions in which we are all interested—and may -they be few!—they will shut their eyes, they will turn their backs -obstinately from adding in this mode, or in any mode, to the English -possessions in the East. I suppose that if any ingenious person were -to prepare a large map of the world, as far as it is known, and -were to mark upon it, in any color that he liked, the spots where -Englishmen have fought and English blood has been poured forth, and the -treasures of English industry squandered, scarcely a country, scarcely -a province of the vast expanse of the habitable globe, would be thus -undistinguished. - -Perhaps there are in this room, I am sure there are in the country, -many persons who hold a superstitious traditionary belief that, somehow -or other, our vast trade is to be attributed to what we have done in -this way, that it is thus we have opened markets and advanced commerce, -that English greatness depends upon the extent of English conquests -and English military renown. But I am inclined to think that, with the -exception of Australia, there is not a single dependency of the crown -which, if we come to reckon what it has cost in war and protection, -would not be found to be a positive loss to the people of this -country. Take the United States, with which we have such an enormous -and constantly increasing trade. The wise statesmen of the last -generation, men whom your school histories tell you were statesmen, -serving under a monarch who they tell you was a patriotic monarch, -spent 130,000,000_l._ of the fruits of the industry of the people in -a vain—happily a vain—endeavor to retain the colonies of the United -States in subjection to the monarchy of England. - -Add up the interest of that 130,000,000_l._ for all this time, and how -long do you think it will be before there will be a profit on the trade -with the United States which will repay the enormous sum we invested -in a war to retain those States as colonies of this empire? It never -will be paid off. Wherever you turn, you will find that the opening of -markets, developing of new countries, introducing cotton cloth with -cannon balls, are vain, foolish, and wretched excuses for wars, and -ought not to be listened to for a moment by any man who understands the -multiplication table, or who can do the simplest sum in arithmetic. - -Since the “Glorious Revolution,” since the enthronization of the -great Norman territorial families, they have spent in wars, and we -have worked for, about 2,000,000,000_l._ The interest on that is -100,000,000_l._ per annum, which alone, to say nothing of the principal -sum, is three or four times as much as the whole amount of your annual -export trade from that time to this.[37] - -Therefore, if war has provided you with a trade, it has been at an -enormous cost; but I think it is by no means doubtful that your trade -would have been no less in amount and no less profitable, had peace and -justice been inscribed on your flag instead of conquest and the love -of military renown. But even in this year, 1858—we have got a long way -into the century,—we find that within the last seven years our public -debt has greatly increased. Whatever be the increase of our population, -of our machinery, of our industry, of our wealth, still our national -debt goes on increasing.[38] Although we have not a foot more territory -to conserve, or an enemy in the world who dreams of attacking us, we -find that our annual military expenses during the last twenty years -have risen from 12,000,000_l._ to 22,000,000_l._ - -Some people believe that it is a good thing to pay a great revenue -to the state. Even so eminent a man as Lord John Russell is not -without a delusion of this sort. Lord John Russell, as you have heard, -while speaking of me in flattering and friendly terms, says he is -unfortunately obliged to differ from me frequently; therefore, I -suppose there is no particular harm in my saying that I am sometimes -obliged to differ from him. Some time ago he was a great star in the -northern hemisphere, shining, not with unaccustomed, but with his usual -brilliancy at Liverpool. He made a speech, in which there was a great -deal to be admired, to a meeting composed, it was said, to a great -extent of working men; and in it he stimulated them to a feeling of -pride in the greatness of their country, and in being citizens of a -state which enjoyed a revenue of 100,000,000_l._ a year, which included -the revenues of the United Kingdom and of British India. But I think it -would have been far more to the purpose if he could have congratulated -the working men of Liverpool on this vast empire being conducted in an -orderly manner, on its laws being well administered and well obeyed, -its shores sufficiently defended, its people prosperous and happy, on a -revenue of 20,000,000_l._ The state indeed, of which Lord John Russell -is a part, may enjoy a revenue of 100,000,000_l._, but I am afraid the -working men can only be said to enjoy it in the sense in which men not -very choice in their expressions say that for a long time they have -enjoyed very bad health. - -I am prepared to admit that it is a subject of congratulation that -there is a people so great, so free, and so industrious that it can -produce a sufficient income out of which 100,000,000_l._ a year, if -need absolutely were, could be spared for some great and noble object; -but it is not a thing to be proud of that our government should require -us to pay that enormous sum for the simple purposes of government and -defence. - -Nothing can by any possibility tend more to the corruption of a -government than enormous revenues. We have heard lately of instances -of certain joint-stock institutions with very great capital collapsing -suddenly, bringing disgrace upon their managers and ruin upon hundreds -of families. A great deal of that has arisen, not so much from -intentional fraud as from the fact that weak and incapable men have -found themselves tumbling about in an ocean of bank-notes and gold, and -they appear to have lost all sight of where it came from, to whom it -belonged, and whether it was possible by any maladministration ever to -come to an end of it. That is absolutely what is done by governments. -You have read in the papers lately some accounts of the proceedings -before a commission appointed to inquire into alleged maladministration -with reference to the supply of clothing to the army, but if anybody -had said any thing in the time of the late government about any such -maladministration, there is not one of those great statesmen, of whom -we are told we ought always to speak with so much reverence, who would -not have got up and declared that nothing could be more admirable than -the system of book-keeping at Weedon, nothing more economical than the -manner in which the War Department spent the money provided by public -taxation. But we know that it is not so. I have heard a gentleman—one -who is as competent as any man in England to give an opinion about it—a -man of business, and not surpassed by any one as a man of business, -declare, after a long examination of the details of the question, that -he would undertake to do everything that is done not only for the -defence of the country, but for many other things which are done by -your navy, and which are not necessary for that purpose, for half the -annual cost that is voted in the estimates. - -I think the expenditure of these vast sums, and especially of those -which we spend for military purposes, leads us to adopt a defiant and -insolent tone towards foreign countries. We have the freest press in -Europe, and the freest platform in Europe, but every man who writes an -article in a newspaper, and every man who stands on a platform, ought -to do it under a solemn sense of responsibility. Every word he writes, -every word I utter, passes with a rapidity of which our forefathers -were utterly ignorant, to the very ends of the earth; the words become -things and acts, and they produce on the minds of other nations effects -which a man may never have intended. Take a recent case; take the case -of France. I am not expected to defend, and I shall certainly not -attack, the present government of France. - -The instant that it appeared in its present shape the minister of -England conducting your foreign affairs, speaking ostensibly for the -cabinet, for his sovereign, and for the English nation, offered his -congratulations, and the support of England was at once accorded to the -re-created French empire.[39] Soon after this an intimate alliance was -entered into between the Queen of England, through her Ministers, and -the Emperor of the French. - -I am not about to defend the policy which flowed from that alliance, -nor shall I take up your time by making any attack upon it. An -alliance was entered into and a war was entered into. English and -French soldiers fought on the same field, and they suffered, I fear, -from the same neglect. They now lie buried on the bleak heights of -the Crimea, and except by their mothers, who do not soon forget their -children, I suppose they are mostly forgotten. I have never heard it -suggested that the French Government did not behave with the most -perfect honor to this government and to this country all through these -grave transactions; but I have heard it stated by those who most -know, that nothing could be more honorable, nothing more just, than -the conduct of the French Emperor to this government throughout the -whole of that struggle. More recently, when the war in China was begun -by a government which I have condemned and denounced in the House -of Commons, the Emperor of the French sent his ships and troops to -co-operate with us, but I never heard that any thing was done there -to create a suspicion of a feeling of hostility on his part toward -us. The Emperor of the French came to London, and some of those -powerful organs of the press that have since taken the line of which I -am complaining, did all but invite the people of London to prostrate -themselves under the wheels of the chariot which conveyed along our -streets the revived monarchy of France. The Queen of England went to -Paris, and was she not received there with as much affection and as -much respect as her high position and her honorable character entitled -her to? - -What has occurred since? If there was a momentary unpleasantness, I am -quite sure every impartial man will agree that, under the peculiarly -irritating circumstances of the time there was at least as much -forbearance shown on one side of the Channel as on the other. Then -we have had much said lately about a naval fortification recently -completed in France, which has been more than one hundred years in -progress, and which was not devised by the present Emperor of the -French. - -For one hundred years great sums had been spent on it, and at last, -like every other great work, it was brought to an end. The English -Queen and others were invited over, and many went who were not invited. -And yet in all this we are told that there is something to create -extreme alarm and suspicion; we, who never fortified any places; we, -who have not a greater than Sebastopol at Gibraltar; we who have not -an impregnable fortress at Malta, who have not spent the fortune of -a nation almost in the Ionian Islands, and who are doing nothing at -Alderney; we are to take offence at the fortifications of Cherbourg! -There are few persons who at some time or other have not been brought -into contact with a poor unhappy fellow-creature who has some peculiar -delusion or suspicion pressing on his mind. I recollect a friend of -mine going down from Derby to Leeds in the train with a very quiet and -respectable looking gentleman sitting opposite to him. They had both -been staying at the Midland Hotel, and they began talking about it. -All at once the gentleman said: “Did you notice any thing particular -about the bread at breakfast?” “No,” said my friend, “I did not.” “Oh! -but I did,” said the poor gentleman, “and I am convinced there was an -attempt made to poison me, and it is a very curious thing that I never -go to an hotel without I discover some attempt to do me mischief.” The -unfortunate man was laboring under one of the greatest calamities which -can befall a human creature. But what are we to say of a nation which -lives under a perpetual delusion that it is about to be attacked—a -nation which is the most combined on the face of the earth, with little -less than 30,000,000 of people all united under a government which, -though we intend to reform we do not the less respect, and which has -mechanical power and wealth to which no other country offers any -parallel? There is no causeway to Britain; the free waves of the sea -flow day and night forever round her shores, and yet there are people -going about with whom this hallucination is so strong that they do not -merely discover it quietly to their friends, but they write it down in -double-leaded columns, in leading articles,—nay, some of them actually -get up on platforms and proclaim it to hundreds and thousands of their -fellow-countrymen. I should like to ask you whether these delusions -are to last forever, whether this policy is to be the perpetual policy -of England, whether these results are to go on gathering and gathering -until there come, as come there must inevitably, some dreadful -catastrophe on our country. - -I should like to-night, if I could, to inaugurate one of the best and -holiest revolutions that ever took place in this country. We have -had a dozen revolutions since some of us were children. We have had -one revolution in which you had a great share—a great revolution of -opinion on the question of the suffrage. Does it not read like madness -that men, thirty years ago, were frantic at the idea of the people -of Birmingham having a 10_l._ franchise? Does it not seem something -like idiocy to be told that a banker in Leeds, when it was proposed to -transfer the seats of one rotten borough to the town of Leeds, should -say (and it was repeated in the House of Commons on his authority) that -if the people of Leeds had the franchise conferred upon them it would -not be possible to keep the bank doors open with safety, and that he -should remove his business to some quiet place, out of danger from the -savage race that peopled that town? But now all confess that the people -are perfectly competent to have votes, and nobody dreams of arguing -that the privilege will make them less orderly. - -Take the question of colonial government. Twenty years ago the -government of our colonies was a huge job. A small family party in -each, in connection with the Colonial Office, ruled our colonies. We -had then discontent, and now and then a little wholesome insurrection, -especially in Canada. The result was that we have given up the colonial -policy which had hitherto been held sacred, and since that time -not only have our colonies greatly advanced in wealth and material -resources, but no parts of the empire are more tranquil and loyal.[40] - -Take also the question of protection. Not thirty years ago, but twelve -years ago, there was a great party in Parliament, led by a Duke in one -House, and by a son and brother of a duke in the other, which declared -that utter ruin must come, not only on the agricultural interest, but -upon the manufactures and commerce of England, if we departed from our -old theories upon this subject of protection. They told us that the -laborer—the unhappy laborer—of whom it may be said in this country: - - “Here landless laborers hopeless toil and strive, - But taste no portion of the sweets they hive,” - -that the laborer was to be ruined; that is, that the paupers were to -be pauperized. These gentlemen were overthrown. The plain, honest, -common-sense of the country swept away their cob-web theories, and -they are gone. What is the result? From 1846 to 1857 we have received -into this country of grain of all kinds, including flour, maize, or -India corn—all objects heretofore not of absolute prohibition, but -which were intended to be prohibited until it was not safe for people -to be starved any more,—not less than an amount equal in value to -224,000,000_l._ That is equal to 18,700,000_l._ per annum on the -average of twelve years. During that period, too, your home growth -has been stimulated to an enormous extent. You have imported annually -200,000 tons of guano, and the result has been a proportionate increase -in the productions of the soil, for 200,000 tons of guano will grow an -equal weight and value of wheat. With all this, agriculture was never -more prosperous, while manufactures were never, at the same time, more -extensively exported; and with all this, the laborers, for whom the -tears of the Protectionist were shed, have, according to the admission -of the most violent of the class, never been in a better state since -the beginning of the great French war. - -One other revolution of opinion has been in regard to our criminal -law. I have lately been reading a book which I would advise every -man to read—the “Life of Sir Samuel Romilly.” He tells us in simple -language of the almost insuperable difficulties he had to contend with -to persuade the legislature of this country to abolish the punishment -of death for stealing from a dwelling-house to the value of 5_s._, an -offence which now is punished by a few weeks’ imprisonment. Lords, -bishops, and statesmen opposed these efforts year after year, and there -have been some thousands of persons put to death publicly for offences -which are not now punishable with death. Now every man and woman in the -kingdom would feel a thrill of horror if told that a fellow-creature -was to be put to death for such a cause. - -These are revolutions in opinion, and let me tell you that when you -accomplish a revolution in opinion upon a great question, when you -alter it from bad to good, it is not like charitably giving a beggar -6_d._ and seeing him no more, but it is a great beneficent act, which -affects not merely the rich and the powerful, but penetrates every -lane, every cottage in the land, and wherever it goes brings blessings -and happiness. It is not from statesmen that these things come. It -is not from them that have proceeded these great revolutions of -opinion on the questions of reform, protection, colonial government, -and criminal law—it was from public meetings such as this, from the -intelligence and conscience of the great body of the people who have -no interest in wrong, and who never go from the right but by temporary -error and under momentary passion. - -It is for you to decide whether our greatness shall be only temporary, -or whether is shall be enduring. When I am told that the greatness of -our country is shown by the 100,000,000_l._ of revenue produced, may I -not also ask how it is that we have 1,100,000 paupers in this kingdom, -and why it is that 7,000,000_l._ should be taken from the industry -chiefly of the laboring classes to support a small nation, as it -were, of paupers? Since your legislation upon the Corn Laws, you have -not only had nearly 20,000,000_l._ of food brought into the country -annually, but such an extraordinary increase of trade that your exports -are about doubled, and yet I understand that in the year 1856, for I -have no later return, there were no less than 1,100,000 paupers in the -United Kingdom, and the sum raised in poor-rates was not less than -7,200,000_l._[41] And that cost of pauperism is not the full amount, -for there is a vast amount of temporary, casual, and vagrant pauperism -that does not come in to swell that sum. - -Then do not you well know—I know it, because I live among the -population of Lancashire, and I doubt not the same may be said of the -population of this city and county—that just above the level of the -1,100,000 there is at least an equal number who are ever oscillating -between independence and pauperism, who, with a heroism which is not -the less heroic because it is secret and unrecorded, are doing their -very utmost to maintain an honorable and independent position before -their fellow-men? - -While Irish labor, notwithstanding the improvement which has taken -place in Ireland, is only paid at the rate of about one shilling a -day; while in the straths and glens of Scotland there are hundreds of -shepherd families whose whole food almost consists of oatmeal porridge -from day to day, and from week to week; while these things continue, -I say that we have no reason to be self-satisfied and contented with -our position; but that we who are in Parliament and are more directly -responsible for affairs, and you who are also responsible though in a -lesser degree, are bound by the sacred duty which we owe our country -to examine why it is that with all this trade, all this industry, and -all this personal freedom, there is still so much that is unsound at -the base of our social fabric? - -Let me direct your attention now to another point which I never think -of without feelings that words would altogether fail to express. You -hear constantly that woman, the helpmate of man, who adorns, dignifies, -and blesses our lives, that woman in this country is cheap; that -vast numbers whose names ought to be synonyms for purity and virtue, -are plunged into profligacy and infamy. But do you not know that you -sent 40,000 men to perish on the bleak heights of the Crimea, and -that the revolt in India, caused, in part at least, by the grievous -iniquity of the seizure of Oude, may tax your country to the extent of -100,000 lives before it is extinguished; and do you not know that for -the 140,000 men thus drafted off and consigned to premature graves, -nature provided in your country 140,000 women? If you have taken the -men who should have been the husbands of these women, and if you have -sacrificed 100,000,000_l._, which as capital reserved in the country -would have been an ample fund for their employment and for the -sustentation of their families, are you not guilty of a great sin in -involving yourselves in such a loss of life and of money in war, except -on grounds and under circumstances which, according to the opinions of -every man in the country, should leave no kind of option whatever for -your choice? - -I know perfectly well the kind of observations which a certain class of -critics will make upon this speech. - -I have been already told by a very eminent newspaper publisher in -Calcutta, who, commenting on a speech I made at the close of the -session with regard to the condition of India, and our future policy -in that country, said, that the policy I recommended was intended to -strike at the root of the advancement of the British empire, and that -its advancement did not necessarily involve the calamities which I -pointed out as likely to occur. - -My Calcutta critic assured me that Rome pursued a similar policy for -a period of eight centuries, and that for those eight centuries she -remained great. Now, I do not think that examples taken from pagan, -sanguinary Rome, are proper models for the imitation of a Christian -country, nor would I limit my hopes of the greatness of England even -to the long duration of 800 years. - -But what is Rome now? The great city is dead. A poet has described her -as “the lone mother of dead empires.” Her language even is dead. Her -very tombs are empty; the ashes of her most illustrious citizens are -dispersed. - -“The Scipios’ tomb contains no ashes now.” Yet I am asked, I, who am -one of the legislators of a Christian country, to measure my policy by -the policy of ancient and pagan Rome! - -I believe there is no permanent greatness to a nation except it be -based upon morality. I do not care for military greatness or military -renown. I care for the condition of the people among whom I live. -There is no man in England who is less likely to speak irreverently -of the crown and monarchy of England than I am; but crowns, coronets, -mitres, military display, the pomp of war, wide colonies, and a huge -empire are, in my view, all trifles, light as air, and not worth -considering, unless with them you can have a fair share of comfort, -contentment, and happiness among the great body of the people. Palaces, -baronial castles, great halls, stately mansions, do not make a nation. -The nation in every country dwells in the cottage; and unless the -light of your constitution can shine there, unless the beauty of your -legislation and the excellence of your statesmanship are impressed -there on the feelings and condition of the people, rely upon it you -have yet to learn the duties of government. - -I have not, as you have observed, pleaded that this country should -remain without adequate and scientific means of defence. I acknowledge -it to be the duty of your statesmen, acting upon the known opinions -and principles of ninety-nine out of every hundred persons in the -country, at all times, with all possible moderation, but with all -possible efficiency, to take steps which shall preserve order within -and on the confines of your kingdom. But I shall repudiate and denounce -the expenditure of every shilling, the engagement of every man, the -employment of every ship, which has no object but intermeddling in the -affairs of other countries, and endeavoring to extend the boundaries -of an empire which is already large enough to satisfy the greatest -ambition, and I fear is much too large for the highest statesmanship to -which any man has yet attained. - -The most ancient of profane historians has told us that the Scythians -of his time were a very warlike people, and that they elevated an -old cimeter upon a platform as a symbol of Mars, for to Mars alone, -I believe, they built altars and offered sacrifices. To this cimeter -they offered sacrifices of horses and cattle, the main wealth of the -country, and more costly sacrifices than to all the rest of their gods. -I often ask myself whether we are at all advanced in one respect beyond -those Scythians. What are our contributions to charity, to education, -to morality, to religion, to justice, and to civil government, when -compared with the wealth we expend in sacrifices to the old cimeter? -Two nights ago I addressed in this hall a vast assembly composed to a -great extent of your countrymen who have no political power, who are at -work from the dawn of the day to the evening, and who have therefore -limited means of informing themselves on these great subjects. Now I -am privileged to speak to a somewhat different audience. You represent -those of your great community who have a more complete education, who -have on some points greater intelligence, and in whose hands reside -the power and influence of the district. I am speaking, too, within -the hearing of those whose gentle nature, whose finer instincts, -whose purer minds, have not suffered as some of us have suffered in -the turmoil and strife of life. You can mould opinion, you can create -political power;—you cannot think a good thought on this subject and -communicate it to your neighbors,—you cannot make these points topics -of discussion in your social circles and more general meetings, without -affecting sensibly and speedily the course which the government of your -country will pursue. - -May I ask you, then, to believe, as I do most devoutly believe, that -the moral law was not written for men alone in their individual -character, but that it was written as well for nations, and for nations -great as this of which we are citizens. If nations reject and deride -that moral law, there is a penalty which will inevitably follow. It may -not come at once, it may not come in our lifetime; but rely upon it, -the great Italian is not a poet only, but a prophet, when he says: - - “The sword of heaven is not in haste to smite, - Nor yet doth linger.” - -We have experience, we have beacons, we have landmarks enough. We -know what the past has cost us, we know how much and how far we -have wandered, but we are not left without a guide. It is true we -have not, as an ancient people had, Urim and Thummim—those oraculous -gems on Aaron’s breast,—from which to take counsel, but we have the -unchangeable and eternal principles of the moral law to guide us, and -only so far as we walk by that guidance can we be permanently a great -nation, or our people a happy people. - - - - -LORD BEACONSFIELD. - - -In 1825 the novel-reading public of England was thrown into not a -little excitement by the appearance of a curious but brilliant work of -imagination entitled “Vivian Grey.” This piece of literary pyrotechny -was rapidly followed by “The Young Duke,” “Henrietta Temple,” -“Contarini Fleming,” “Alroy,” and other curious compounds of fiction -and politics. The name of the author did not at first appear; but it -soon came to be known that the series was the product of a student of -law, not yet twenty-five years of age, and the son of Isaac Disraeli, -the author of the “Curiosities of Literature.” This young novelist was -described by the society journals of the day as a man who frequented -Gore House, and not only poured out upon society there torrents of -remarkable talk on literary and political affairs, but made himself -amusingly conspicuous by his decorations of gaudy waistcoats and gold -chains. It came soon to be universally known in London society that -this eccentric genius, though educated in private under his father’s -care, had been a great reader of literature and history, and had come -to have very definite notions in regard to almost every question under -the sun. - -Flushed with the success of his literary experiences, young Disraeli -travelled extensively in Europe and the East, and then returned in -1831, resolved to secure a seat in Parliament. In his first efforts -he was not successful; but in 1837, the year of Queen Victoria’s -accession, the electors of Maidstone gave him a seat, and accordingly -he entered the House of Commons in the thirty-third year of his age. - -His first speech was generally regarded as a singular, even a -ridiculous, failure. Those who depend for their impression on its words -as they appear in Hansard or in Lord Beaconsfield’s selected speeches, -will hardly perceive in its fanciful flights the reasons for the -outbursts of laughter and jeers with which it was greeted and finally -brought to an end. It must have been the gaudiness of the speaker’s -dress, and the violent and theatrical manner of his speech, quite as -much as the irrelevancy of what he said, that threw the House into -roars of laughter, and led them to suppress the speaker altogether. -He did not, however, take his seat without thundering out the -prophecy—which appeared at the time quite as much like a threat—that -the time would come when they would hear him. It was long before he -secured the ear of the House. Between 1840 and 1845 he was largely -occupied with literary works, and during that period he published -“Coningsby,” “Sybil,” and “Tancred,” a trio of really remarkable -political novels, designed to present a picture of the forces at work -in the nation and of the way in which they should be dealt with by -Parliament. The conversations of Sidonia in “Coningsby” give a clear -and probably correct notion of Disraeli’s political opinions. He -advanced with great emphasis the doctrine that the Tory party was the -party of the people, and that the welfare of the lower classes was only -to be secured by the prevalence of Tory principles. Holding these views -he attached himself firmly to the party led by Sir Robert Peel; and -it was not until 1846, when the leader announced his determination to -bring in a bill for the modification of the Corn Laws, that Disraeli -deserted him. The eccentric young member was an ardent Protectionist. -In the course of the ten years that had elapsed since his first sad -experience he had become a master of argumentative fence, and in the -years that followed he developed such extraordinary abilities in his -assaults upon the government that he was universally recognized as a -consummate master of parliamentary invective and the most powerful -orator of the Opposition. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was -followed by a succession of poor harvests and by great suffering. -In a series of speeches extending over the years from 1846 to 1852, -Disraeli, with a skill and an eloquence that raised him to the front -rank of British orators, attributed this suffering to the financial and -economic policy of the government. These repeated and well-directed -blows finally broke the power of the ministry, and when, in 1852, the -Liberals went out of office, the Tories came in with Lord Derby as -Prime-Minister and Mr. Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer. - -This position was held by Disraeli through each of Derby’s three -administrations; and on the resignation of that nobleman in February -of 1868 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was raised to the post of -Prime-Minister. This, however, he was obliged to resign before the end -of the year; but in 1873, when Mr. Gladstone’s Government was defeated -on the Irish Education Bill, the position was again tendered him. The -circumstances of the situation, however, did not encourage him to -accept. The Liberal ministry had been defeated not by the Conservatives -alone, but by a combination with the Home Rulers, a group of some -sixty Irish members who were likely to vote with the Liberals on all -other questions. The offer, therefore, was declined; but when in the -following year Mr. Gladstone decided to test the relative strength -of the parties by a dissolution and an appeal to the country, the -Conservatives were returned in triumphant majority, and Mr. Disraeli, -in February, 1874, was called a second time to the head of the -government. This position he continued to hold till the election of -1880, when, under the rigorous assaults of Gladstone and his followers, -the Conservative policy was rejected by the country. Meanwhile, in -August of 1876, Disraeli had been raised to the peerage with the title -of Earl of Beaconsfield, and in July of 1878 had been invested with the -Order of the Garter. With the downfall of his ministry in 1880, Lord -Beaconsfield’s political career came to an end, though he continued to -inspire the Opposition to the policy of his opponents till the time of -his death in 1881. - -Throughout Disraeli’s political career, or at least ever after -the very first years of it, he was a staunch advocate of the old -Tory principles advocated by Lord Bolingbroke and Lord Shelburne. -In “Coningsby” and cropping out here and there in his speeches we -find constant evidences of his belief that the welfare of the common -people depends upon the union of the upper and the lower classes under -the guidance of the Conservative party. He held that the triumph of -the Whigs was the triumph of the middle class in opposition to the -interests of the lower, and that the inevitable results of a triumph -of Whig principles must be the creation of irreconcilable differences -between classes that ought to be cordially united. These views were -elaborated in his “Life of Lord George Bentinck,” in his “Defence of -the English Constitution,” and to some extent in his speeches on the -Reform Bill of 1867. - -Two portions of Lord Beaconsfield’s career were very violently -criticised. The first was his course in regard to the reform of 1867. -Immediately after Lord Palmerston’s death in 1865, and the accession -of Earl Russell’s ministry, it became evident that the popular demand -could only be satisfied with a reform of the franchise. A bill was -accordingly introduced with the design of further extending the -right of suffrage in the manner of the great measure of 1832. The -bill was powerfully advocated by Mr. Gladstone, the Chancellor of -the Exchequer in the House, and was opposed with equal vigor by Mr. -Disraeli. On a motion to amend, the government was defeated, and -Russell and Gladstone going out of power, Derby and Disraeli came in. -As to what would be done, the public were not long left in doubt. On -the 18th of March, 1867. Mr. Disraeli came forward with a measure of -reform far more sweeping in its nature than that which he had in the -previous administration so vigorously and successfully opposed. The -extension of suffrage was to be made on a new principle, or at least -a principle which appeared to be new, though in fact it had been -advocated in Disraeli’s early writings. In his speech introducing the -measure he called attention to the fact that no less than five times -since 1832 attempts had been made to place the right of suffrage on a -firm basis, but that all of these had failed. He declared that they -had failed because they were mere expedients, whereas the question -could only be settled by the adoption of a clearly defined principle. -Hitherto the right to vote had depended upon income; it ought to -depend, he declared, upon permanency of interest. He therefore -proposed the substitution of the principle of household suffrage in -the place of suffrage founded upon the payment of a fixed rate. The -measure was looked upon with consternation by the Liberals, and was -most strenuously opposed by Gladstone and his followers; but it was -advocated in a succession of speeches of so much power and skill by -Disraeli that no opposition could prevent its final passage. But the -author of the measure, always more or less distrusted, was henceforth -regarded as a political adventurer who had stolen into the camp of his -enemy and run off with the spoils. - -The foreign policy of Disraeli was equally obnoxious to his opponents. -In one respect he was the lineal successor of Pitt, Canning, and -Palmerston. Though he differed with many of the views held by those -great foreign ministers, and did not shrink from criticising them -with great severity, he was always in favor of a vigorous assertion -of the rights and interests of Great Britain. This, in the opinion -of his opponents, descended into a meddlesome interference with the -affairs of other nations. In Afghanistan, in Abyssinia, in South -Africa, and especially in the Eastern Mediterranean, his policy was -thought to be aggressive, and provoked the most violent opposition of -the Liberal party. By the treaty of San Stefano, concluded in 1878 -between Russia and Turkey at the close of the war between these powers, -Turkey was reduced almost to a cipher in the hands of Russia. In the -opinion of Lord Beaconsfield this solution imperilled the interests of -Great Britain in the Mediterranean. Russia was accordingly required -by the English Government to submit the treaty to a congress of -European powers. This at first Russia refused to do, whereupon the -Prime-Minister moved an address to the Queen asking her to call out the -Reserves. This was done, and was immediately followed by the still more -vigorous step of bringing up to Malta a division of the Indian army. -Russia at once began to lower her pretensions, and finally agreed that -the treaty should be submitted to a European Congress. In June of 1878 -Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury went as English Plenipotentiaries -to the Congress at Berlin called to consider the whole question. The -result was an important modification of the Treaty of San Stefano and a -practical restoration of the independence of the Turkish empire. On the -return of the Ambassadors, bringing back, as Beaconsfield said, “peace -with honor,” they were received with an ovation which has not often -had a parallel in English history. Three years later, Mr. Gladstone, -in paying a tribute to his deceased rival, singled out his reception -in the House of Lords as the culminating point of his greatness in the -eyes of all those who regarded his policy with admiration; and applied -to the Berlin triumph the well-known words of Virgil: - - Aspice et insignis spoliis Marcellus opimis - Ingreditur, victorque viros supereminet omnes. - - - - -LORD BEACONSFIELD. - -ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY; DELIVERED AT MANCHESTER, -APRIL 3, 1872. - - - [In November of 1871, Sir Charles Dilke delivered an address at - Newcastle, in which he denounced the cost of royalty. The popular - agitation that followed throughout the country was very considerable; - and, as Mr. Gladstone was then Prime-Minister, there were not a - few that supposed this attack upon the support of the crown to be - a premonition of a policy to be adopted by the government. The - position of Dilke met with no popular encouragement, but it gave an - opportunity to the Opposition which they were by no means reluctant - to avail themselves of. The agitation that followed had not a little - influence in bringing on the downfall of Gladstone’s ministry in - 1874. Lord Beaconsfield was at the head of the Opposition, and the - following speech was at once the most effective assault made upon - the policy of Gladstone, and the most comprehensive statement of the - principles advocated by the Conservative party.] - - -GENTLEMEN: - -The Chairman has correctly reminded you that this is not the first time -that my voice has been heard in this hall. But that was an occasion -very different from that which now assembles us together—was nearly -thirty years ago, when I endeavored to support and stimulate the -flagging energies of an institution in which I thought there were the -germs of future refinement and intellectual advantage to the rising -generation of Manchester, and since I have been here on this occasion -I have learned with much gratification that it is now counted among -your most flourishing institutions. There was also another and more -recent occasion when the gracious office fell to me to distribute among -the members of the Mechanics’ Institution those prizes which they had -gained through their study in letters and in science. Gentlemen, these -were pleasing offices, and if life consisted only of such offices you -would not have to complain of it. But life has its masculine duties, -and we are assembled here to fulfil some of the most important of -these, when, as citizens of a free country, we are assembled together -to declare our determination to maintain, to uphold the constitution to -which we are debtors, in our opinion, for our freedom and our welfare. - -Gentlemen, there seems at first something incongruous that one should -be addressing the population of so influential and intelligent a -county as Lancashire who is not locally connected with them, and, -gentlemen, I will frankly admit that this circumstance did for a -long time make me hesitate in accepting your cordial and generous -invitation. But, gentlemen, after what occurred yesterday, after -receiving more than two hundred addresses from every part of this -great county, after the welcome which then greeted me, I feel that -I should not be doing justice to your feelings, I should not do my -duty to myself, if I any longer considered my presence here to-night -to be an act of presumption. Gentlemen, though it may not be an act -of presumption, it still is, I am told, an act of great difficulty. -Our opponents assure us that the Conservative party has no political -programme; and, therefore, they must look with much satisfaction -to one whom you honor to-night by considering him the leader and -representative of your opinions when he comes forward, at your -invitation, to express to you what that programme is. The Conservative -party are accused of having no programme of policy. If by a programme -is meant a plan to despoil churches and plunder landlords, I admit we -have no programme. If by a programme is meant a policy which assails -or menaces every institution and every interest, every class and -every calling in the country, I admit we have no programme. But if -to have a policy with distinct ends, and these such as most deeply -interest the great body of the nation, be a becoming programme for a -political party, then I contend we have an adequate programme, and one -which, here or elsewhere, I shall always be prepared to assert and to -vindicate. - -Gentlemen, the programme of the Conservative party is to maintain -the constitution of the country. I have not come down to Manchester -to deliver an essay on the English constitution; but when the banner -of Republicanism is unfurled—when the fundamental principles of -our institutions are controverted—I think, perhaps, it may not be -inconvenient that I should make some few practical remarks upon the -character of our constitution—upon that monarchy limited by the -co-ordinate authority of the estates of the realm, which, under the -title of Queen, Lords, and Commons, has contributed so greatly to the -prosperity of this country, and with the maintenance of which I believe -that prosperity is bound up. - -Gentlemen, since the settlement of that constitution, now nearly -two centuries ago, England has never experienced a revolution, -though there is no country in which there has been so continuous and -such considerable change. How is this? Because the wisdom of your -forefathers placed the prize of supreme power without the sphere of -human passions. Whatever the struggle of parties, whatever the strife -of factions, whatever the excitement and exaltation of the public -mind, there has always been something in this country round which -all classes and parties could rally, representing the majesty of the -law, the administration of justice, and involving, at the same time, -the security for every man’s rights and the fountain of honor. Now, -gentlemen, it is well clearly to comprehend what is meant by a country -not having a revolution for two centuries. It means, for that space, -the unbroken exercise and enjoyment of the ingenuity of man. It means -for that space the continuous application of the discoveries of science -to his comfort and convenience. It means the accumulation of capital, -the elevation of labor, the establishment of those admirable factories -which cover your district; the unwearied improvement of the cultivation -of the land, which has extracted from a somewhat churlish soil harvests -more exuberant than those furnished by lands nearer to the sun. It -means the continuous order which is the only parent of personal liberty -and political right. And you owe all these, gentlemen, to the Throne. - -There is another powerful and most beneficial influence which is also -exercised by the crown. Gentlemen, I am a party man. I believe that, -without party, parliamentary government is impossible. I look upon -parliamentary government as the noblest government in the world, and -certainly the one most suited to England. But without the discipline -of political connection, animated by the principle of private honor, -I feel certain that a popular assembly would sink before the power -or the corruption of a minister. Yet, gentlemen, I am not blind to -the faults of party government. It has one great defect. Party has a -tendency to warp the intelligence, and there is no minister, however -resolved he may be in treating a great public question, who does not -find some difficulty in emancipating himself from the traditionary -prejudice on which he has long acted. It is, therefore, a great merit -in our constitution, that before a minister introduces a measure to -Parliament, he must submit it to an intelligence superior to all -party, and entirely free from influences of that character. - -I know it will be said, gentlemen, that, however beautiful in theory, -the personal influence of the sovereign is now absorbed in the -responsibility of the minister. Gentlemen, I think you will find -there is great fallacy in this view. The principles of the English -constitution do not contemplate the absence of personal influence on -the part of the sovereign; and if they did, the principles of human -nature would prevent the fulfilment of such a theory. Gentlemen, I need -not tell you that I am now making on this subject abstract observations -of general application to our institutions and our history. But take -the case of a sovereign of England who accedes to his throne at the -earliest age the law permits and who enjoys a long reign,—take an -instance like that of George III. From the earliest moment of his -accession that sovereign is placed in constant communication with -the most able statesmen of the period, and of all parties. Even with -average ability it is impossible not to perceive that such a sovereign -must soon attain a great mass of political information and political -experience. Information and experience, gentlemen, whether they are -possessed by a sovereign or by the humblest of his subjects, are -irresistible in life. No man with the vast responsibility that devolves -upon an English minister can afford to treat with indifference a -suggestion that has not occurred to him, or information with which he -had not been previously supplied. But, gentlemen, pursue this view of -the subject. The longer the reign, the influence of that sovereign must -proportionately increase. All the illustrious statesmen who served his -youth disappear. A new generation of public servants rises up, there -is a critical conjuncture in affairs—a moment of perplexity and peril. -Then it is that the sovereign can appeal to a similar state of affairs -that occurred perhaps thirty years before. When all are in doubt among -his servants, he can quote the advice that was given by the illustrious -men of his early years, and though he may maintain himself within -the strictest limits of the constitution, who can suppose when such -information and such suggestions are made by the most exalted person in -the country that they can be without effect? No, gentlemen; a minister -who could venture to treat such influence with indifference would not -be a constitutional minister, but an arrogant idiot.[42] - -Gentlemen, the influence of the crown is not confined merely to -political affairs. England is a domestic country. Here the home is -revered and the hearth is sacred. The nation is represented by a -family—the royal family; and if that family is educated with a sense -of responsibility and a sentiment of public duty, it is difficult to -exaggerate the salutary influence they may exercise over a nation.[43] -It is not merely an influence upon manners; it is not merely that they -are a model for refinement and for good taste—they affect the heart -as well as the intelligence of the people; and in the hour of public -adversity, or in the anxious conjuncture of public affairs, the nation -rallies round the family and the throne, and its spirit is animated -and sustained by the expression of public affection. Gentlemen, there -is yet one other remark that I would make upon our monarchy, though -had it not been for recent circumstances, I should have refrained from -doing so. An attack has recently been made upon the throne on account -of the costliness of the institution.[44] Gentlemen, I shall not dwell -upon the fact that if the people of England appreciate the monarchy, -as I believe they do, it would be painful to them that their royal -and representative family should not be maintained with becoming -dignity, or fill in the public eye a position inferior to some of the -nobles of the land. Nor will I insist upon what is unquestionably the -fact, that the revenues of the crown estates, on which our sovereign -might live with as much right as the Duke of Bedford, or the Duke -of Northumberland, has to his estates, are now paid into the public -exchequer. All this, upon the present occasion, I am not going to -insist upon. What I now say is this: that there is no sovereignty -of any first-rate state which costs so little to the people as the -sovereignty of England. I will not compare our civil list with those -of European empires, because it is known that in amount they treble -and quadruple it; but I will compare it with the cost of sovereignty -in a republic, and that a republic with which you are intimately -acquainted—the republic of the United States of America. - -Gentlemen, there is no analogy between the position of our sovereign, -Queen Victoria, and that of the President of the United States. The -President of the United States is not the sovereign of the United -States. There is a very near analogy between the position of the -President of the United States and that of the Prime-Minister of -England, and both are paid at much the same rate—the income of a -second-class professional man.[45] The sovereign of the United States -is the people; and I will now show you what the sovereignty of the -United States costs. Gentlemen, you are aware of the Constitution of -the United States. There are thirty-seven independent States, each with -a sovereign Legislature. Besides these, there is a Confederation of -States to conduct their external affairs, which consists of the House -of Representatives and a Senate. There are two hundred and eighty-five -members of the House of Representatives, and there are seventy-four -members of the Senate, making altogether three hundred and fifty-nine -members of Congress. Now each member of Congress receives 1,000_l._ -sterling per annum. In addition to this he receives an allowance called -“mileage,” which varies according to the distance which he travels, but -the aggregate cost of which is about 30,000_l._ per annum. That makes -389,000_l._, almost the exact amount of our civil list. - -But this, gentlemen, will allow you to make only a very imperfect -estimate of the cost of sovereignty in the United States. Every -member of every Legislature in the 37 States is also paid. There are, -I believe, 5,010 members of State Legislatures, who receive about $350 -per annum each. As some of the returns are imperfect, the average -which I have given of expenditure may be rather high, and therefore -I have not counted the mileage, which is also universally allowed. -Five thousand and ten members of State Legislatures at $350 each make -$1,753,500, or 350,700_l._ sterling a year. So you see, gentlemen, that -the immediate expenditure for the sovereignty of the United States -is between 700,000_l._ and 800,000_l._ a year. Gentlemen, I have not -time to pursue this interesting theme, otherwise I could show that -you have still but imperfectly ascertained the cost of sovereignty in -a republic. But, gentlemen, I cannot resist giving you one further -illustration. - -The government of this country is considerably carried on by the aid -of royal commissions. So great is the increase of public business that -it would be probably impossible for a minister to carry on affairs -without this assistance. The Queen of England can command for these -objects the services of the most experienced statesmen, and men of the -highest position in society. If necessary, she can summon to them -distinguished scholars or men most celebrated in science and in art; -and she receives from them services that are unpaid. They are only -too proud to be described in the commission as her Majesty’s “trusty -councillors”; and if any member of these commissions performs some -transcendent services, both of thought and of labor, he is munificently -rewarded by a public distinction conferred upon him by the fountain of -honor. Gentlemen, the government of the United States, has, I believe, -not less availed itself of the services of commissions than the -government of the United Kingdom; but in a country where there is no -fountain of honor, every member of these commissions is paid. - -Gentlemen, I trust I have now made some suggestions to you respecting -the monarchy of England which at least may be so far serviceable that -when we are separated they may not be altogether without advantage; -and now, gentlemen, I would say something on the subject of the House -of Lords. It is not merely the authority of the throne that is now -disputed, but the character and influence of the House of Lords that -are held up by some to public disregard. Gentlemen, I shall not stop -for a moment to offer you any proofs of the advantage of a second -chamber; and for this reason. That subject has been discussed now -for a century, ever since the establishment of the government of the -United States, and all great authorities, American, German, French, -Italian, have agreed in this, that a representative government is -impossible without a second chamber. And it has been, especially of -late, maintained by great political writers in all countries, that the -repeated failure of what is called the French republic is mainly to be -ascribed to its not having a second chamber. - -But, gentlemen, however anxious foreign countries have been to enjoy -this advantage, that anxiety has only been equalled by the difficulty -which they have found in fulfilling their object. How is a second -chamber to be constituted? By nominees of the sovereign power? What -influence can be exercised by a chamber of nominees? Are they to be -bound by popular election? In what manner are they to be elected? If -by the same constituency as the popular body, what claim have they, -under such circumstances, to criticise or to control the decisions of -that body? If they are to be elected by a more select body, qualified -by a higher franchise, there immediately occurs the objection, why -should the majority be governed by the minority? The United States of -America were fortunate in finding a solution of this difficulty; but -the United States of America had elements to deal with which never -occurred before, and never probably will occur again, because they -formed their illustrious Senate from materials that were offered them -by the thirty-seven States. We, gentlemen, have the House of Lords, -an assembly which has historically developed and periodically adapted -itself to the wants and necessities of the times. - -What, gentlemen, is the first quality which is required in a second -chamber? Without doubt, independence. What is the best foundation of -independence? Without doubt, property. The Prime-Minister of England -has only recently told you, and I believe he spoke quite accurately, -that the average income of the members of the House of Lords is -20,000_l._ per annum. Of course there are some who have more, and -some who have less; but the influence of a public assembly, so far as -property is concerned, depends upon its aggregate property, which, in -the present case, is a revenue of 9,000,000_l._ a year. But, gentlemen, -you must look to the nature of this property. It is visible property, -and therefore it is responsible property, which every rate-payer in -the room knows to his cost. But, gentlemen, it is not only visible -property; it is, generally speaking, territorial property; and one of -the elements of territorial property is, that it is representative. -Now, for illustration, suppose—which God forbid—there was no House -of Commons, and any Englishman—I will take him from either end of -the island—a Cumberland, or a Cornish man, finds himself aggrieved, -the Cumbrian says: “This conduct I experience is most unjust. I know -a Cumberland man in the House of Lords, the Earl of Carlisle or the -Earl of Lonsdale; I will go to him; he will never see a Cumberland -man ill-treated.” The Cornish man will say: “I will go the Lord of -Port Eliot; his family have sacrificed themselves before this for the -liberties of Englishmen, and he will get justice done me.”[46] - -But, gentlemen, the charge against the House of Lords is that the -dignities are hereditary, and we are told that if we have a House of -Peers they should be peers for life. There are great authorities in -favor of this, and even my noble friend near me [Lord Derby], the other -day, gave in his adhesion to a limited application of this principle. -Now, gentlemen, in the first place, let me observe that every peer -is a peer for life, as he cannot be a peer after his death; but some -peers for life are succeeded in their dignities by their children. -The question arises, who is most responsible—a peer for life whose -dignities are not descendible, or a peer for life whose dignities -are hereditary? Now, gentlemen, a peer for life is in a very strong -position. He says: “Here I am; I have got power and I will exercise -it.” I have no doubt that, on the whole, a peer for life would exercise -it for what he deemed was the public good. Let us hope that. But, after -all, he might and could exercise it according to his own will. Nobody -can call him to account; he is independent of everybody. But a peer -for life whose dignities descend is in a very different position. He -has every inducement to study public opinion, and, when he believes it -just, to yield; because he naturally feels that if the order to which -he belongs is in constant collision with public opinion, the chances -are that his dignities will not descend to his posterity.[47] - -Therefore, gentlemen, I am not prepared myself to believe that a -solution of any difficulties in the public mind on this subject -is to be found by creating peers for life. I know there are some -philosophers who believe that the best substitute for the House of -Lords would be an assembly formed of ex-governors of colonies.[48] -I have not sufficient experience on that subject to give a decided -opinion upon it. When the Muse of Comedy threw her frolic grace over -society, a retired governor was generally one of the characters -in every comedy; and the last of our great actors—who, by the by, -was a great favorite at Manchester—Mr. Farren, was celebrated for -his delineation of the character in question. Whether it be the -recollection of that performance or not, I confess I am inclined to -believe that an English gentleman—born to business, managing his own -estate, administering the affairs of his county, mixing with all -classes of his fellow-men, now in the hunting-field, now in the railway -direction, unaffected, unostentatious, proud of his ancestors, if they -have contributed to the greatness of our common country—is, on the -whole, more likely to form a senator agreeable to English opinion and -English taste than any substitute that has yet been produced. - -Gentlemen, let me make one observation more, on the subject of the -House of Lords, before I conclude. There is some advantage in -political experience. I remember the time when there was a similar -outcry against the House of Lords, but much more intense and powerful; -and, gentlemen, it arose from the same cause. A Liberal government -had been installed in office, with an immense Liberal majority. They -proposed some violent measures. The House of Lords modified some, -delayed others, and some they threw out. Instantly there was a cry -to abolish or to reform the House of Lords, and the greatest popular -orator (Daniel O’Connell) that probably ever existed was sent on a -pilgrimage over England to excite the people in favor of this opinion. -What happened? That happened, gentlemen, which may happen to-morrow. -There was a dissolution of Parliament. The great Liberal majority -vanished. The balance of parties was restored. It was discovered -that the House of Lords had behind them at least half of the English -people. We heard no more cries for their abolition or their reform, -and before two years more passed England was really governed by the -House of Lords, under the wise influence of the Duke of Wellington and -the commanding eloquence of Lyndhurst; and such was the enthusiasm of -the nation in favor of the second chamber that at every public meeting -its health was drunk, with the additional sentiment, for which we are -indebted to one of the most distinguished members that ever represented -the House of Commons: “Thank God, there is the House of Lords.”[49] - -Gentlemen, you will perhaps not be surprised that, having made some -remarks upon the monarchy and the House of Lords, I should say -something respecting that House in which I have literally passed the -greater part of my life, and to which I am devotedly attached. It is -not likely, therefore, that I should say any thing to depreciate the -legitimate position and influence of the House of Commons. Gentlemen, -it is said that the diminished power of the throne and the assailed -authority of the House of Lords are owing to the increased power of -the House of Commons, and the new position which of late years, and -especially during the last forty years, it has assumed in the English -constitution. Gentlemen, the main power of the House of Commons depends -upon its command over the public purse, and its control of the public -expenditure; and if that power is possessed by a party which has a -large majority in the House of Commons, the influence of the House of -Commons is proportionately increased, and, under some circumstances, -becomes more predominant. But, gentlemen, this power of the House of -Commons is not a power which has been created by any reform act, from -the days of Lord Grey in 1832 to 1867. It is the power which the House -of Commons has enjoyed for centuries, which it has frequently asserted -and sometimes even tyrannically exercised. Gentlemen, the House of -Commons represents the constituencies of England, and I am here to -show you that no addition to the elements of that constituency has -placed the House of Commons in a different position with regard to the -throne and the House of Lords from that it has always constitutionally -occupied. - -Gentlemen, we speak now on this subject with great advantage. We -recently have had published authentic documents upon this matter which -are highly instructive. We have, for example, just published the census -of Great Britain, and we are now in possession of the last registration -of voters for the United Kingdom. Gentlemen, it appears that by the -census the population at this time is about 32,000,000. It is shown -by the last registration that, after making the usual deductions for -deaths, removals, double entries, and so on, the constituency of the -United Kingdom may be placed at 2,200,000. So, gentlemen, it at once -appears that there are 30,000,000 people in this country who are as -much represented by the House of Lords as by the House of Commons, and -who, for the protection of their rights, must depend upon them and the -majesty of the throne. And now, gentlemen, I will tell you what was -done by the last reform act. - -Lord Grey, in his measure of 1832, which was no doubt a statesman-like -measure, committed a great, and for a time it appeared an -irretrievable, error. By that measure he fortified the legitimate -influence of the aristocracy; and accorded to the middle classes great -and salutary franchises; but he not only made no provision for the -representation of the working classes in the constitution, but he -absolutely abolished those ancient franchises which the working classes -had peculiarly enjoyed and exercised from time immemorial. Gentlemen, -that was the origin of Chartism, and of that electoral uneasiness which -existed in this country more or less for thirty years. - -The Liberal party, I feel it my duty to say, had not acted fairly by -this question. In their adversity they held out hopes to the working -classes, but when they had a strong government they laughed their vows -to scorn. In 1848 there was a French revolution, and a republic was -established. No one can have forgotten what the effect was in this -country. I remember the day when not a woman could leave her house in -London, and when cannon were planted on Westminster Bridge. When Lord -Derby became Prime-Minister affairs had arrived at such a point that -it was of the first moment that the question should be sincerely dealt -with. He had to encounter great difficulties, but he accomplished his -purpose with the support of a united party. And, gentlemen, what has -been the result? A year ago there was another revolution in France, -and a republic was again established of the most menacing character. -What happened in this country? You could not get half a dozen men to -assemble in a street and grumble. Why? Because the people had got what -they wanted. They were content, and they were grateful.[50] - -But, gentlemen, the constitution of England is not merely a -constitution in state, it is a constitution in Church and State. The -wisest sovereigns and statesmen have ever been anxious to connect -authority with religion—some to increase their power, some, perhaps, -to mitigate its exercise. But the same difficulty has been experienced -in effecting this union which has been experienced in forming a second -chamber—either the spiritual power has usurped upon the civil, and -established a sacerdotal society, or the civil power has invaded -successfully the rights of the spiritual, and the ministers of religion -have been degraded into stipendiaries of the state and instruments -of the government. In England we accomplish this great result by an -alliance between Church and State, between two originally independent -powers. I will not go into the history of that alliance, which is -rather a question for those archæological societies which occasionally -amuse and instruct the people of this city. Enough for me that this -union was made and has contributed for centuries to the civilization -of this country. Gentlemen, there is the same assault against the -Church of England and the union between the State and the Church as -there is against the monarchy and against the House of Lords. It is -said that the existence of Nonconformity proves that the Church is a -failure. I draw from these premises an exactly contrary conclusion; -and I maintain that to have secured a national profession of faith with -the unlimited enjoyment of private judgment in matters spiritual, is -the solution of the most difficult problem, and one of the triumphs of -civilization. - -It is said that the existence of parties in the Church also proves its -incompetence. On that matter, too, I entertain a contrary opinion. -Parties have always existed in the Church; and some have appealed to -them as arguments in favor of its divine institution, because, in the -services and doctrines of the Church have been found representatives of -every mood in the human mind. Those who are influenced by ceremonies -find consolation in forms which secure to them the beauty of holiness. -Those who are not satisfied except with enthusiasm find in its -ministrations the exaltation they require, while others who believe -that the “anchor of faith” can never be safely moored except in the dry -sands of reason find a religion within the pale of the Church which can -boast of its irrefragable logic and its irresistible evidence. - -Gentlemen, I am inclined sometimes to believe that those who advocate -the abolition of the union between Church and State have not carefully -considered the consequences of such a course. The Church is a powerful -corporation of many millions of her Majesty’s subjects, with a -consummate organization and wealth which in its aggregate is vast. -Restricted and controlled by the state, so powerful a corporation may -be only fruitful of public advantage, but it becomes a great question -what might be the consequences of the severance of the controlling -tie between these two bodies. The State would be enfeebled, but the -Church would probably be strengthened. Whether that is a result to be -desired is a grave question for all men. For my own part, I am bound -to say that I doubt whether it would be favorable to the cause of -civil and religious liberty. I know that there is a common idea that -if the union between Church and State was severed, the wealth of the -Church would revert to the State; but it would be well to remember that -the great proportion of ecclesiastical property is the property of -individuals. Take, for example, the fact that the great mass of Church -patronage is patronage in the hands of private persons. That you could -not touch without compensation to the patrons. You have established -that principle in your late Irish bill, where there was very little -patronage. And in the present state of the public mind on the subject, -there is very little doubt that there would be scarcely a patron in -England—irrespective of other aid the Church would receive—who would -not dedicate his compensation to the spiritual wants of his neighbors. - -It was computed some years ago that the property of the Church in this -manner, if the union was terminated, would not be less than between -80,000,000_l._ and 90,000,000_l._, and since that period the amount -of private property dedicated to the purposes of the Church has very -largely increased. I therefore trust that when the occasion offers -for the country to speak out, it will speak out in an unmistakable -manner on this subject; and recognizing the inestimable services of the -Church, that it will call upon the government to maintain its union -with the State. Upon this subject there is one remark I would make. -Nothing is more surprising to me than the plea on which the present -outcry is made against the Church of England. I could not believe that -in the nineteenth century the charge against the Church of England -should be that churchmen, and especially the clergy, had educated the -people. If I were to fix upon one circumstance more than another which -redounded to the honor of churchmen, it is that they should fulfil this -noble office; and, next to being “the stewards of divine mysteries,” I -think the greatest distinction of the clergy is the admirable manner in -which they have devoted their lives and their fortunes to this greatest -of national objects. - -Gentlemen, you are well acquainted in this city with this controversy. -It was in this city—I don’t know whether it was not in this hall—that -that remarkable meeting was held of the Nonconformists to effect -important alterations in the Education Act, and you are acquainted -with the discussion in Parliament which arose in consequence of that -meeting. Gentlemen, I have due and great respect for the Nonconformist -body. I acknowledge their services to their country, and though I -believe that the political reasons which mainly called them into -existence have entirely ceased, it is impossible not to treat with -consideration a body which has been eminent for its conscience, its -learning, and its patriotism; but I must express my mortification that, -from a feeling of envy or of pique, the Nonconformist body, rather than -assist the Church in their great enterprise, should absolutely have -become the partisans of a merely secular education. I believe myself, -gentlemen, that without the recognition of a superintending Providence -in the affairs of this world all national education will be disastrous, -and I feel confident that it is impossible to stop at that mere -recognition. Religious education is demanded by the nation generally -and by the instincts of human nature. I should like to see the Church -and the Nonconformists work together; but I trust, whatever may be the -result, the country will stand by the Church in its efforts to maintain -the religious education of the people. Gentlemen, I foresee yet trials -for the Church of England; but I am confident in its future. I am -confident in its future because I believe there is now a very general -feeling that to be national it must be comprehensive. I will not use -the word “broad,” because it is an epithet applied to a system with -which I have no sympathy. But I would wish churchmen, and especially -the clergy, always to remember that in our “Father’s home there are -many mansions,” and I believe that comprehensive spirit is perfectly -consistent with the maintenance of formularies and the belief in dogmas -without which I hold no practical religion can exist. - -Gentlemen, I have now endeavored to express to you my general views -upon the most important subjects that can interest Englishmen. They -are subjects upon which, in my mind, a man should speak with frankness -and clearness to his countrymen, and although I do not come down here -to make a party speech, I am bound to say that the manner in which -those subjects are treated by the leading subject of this realm is -to me most unsatisfactory. Although the Prime-Minister of England is -always writing letters and making speeches, and particularly on these -topics, he seems to me ever to send forth an “uncertain sound.” If a -member of Parliament announces himself a Republican, Mr. Gladstone -takes the earliest opportunity of describing him as a “fellow-worker” -in public life. If an inconsiderate multitude calls for the abolition -or reform of the House of Lords, Mr. Gladstone says that it is no easy -task, and that he must think once or twice, or perhaps even thrice, -before he can undertake it. If your neighbor the member for Bradford, -Mr. Miall, brings forward a motion in the House of Commons for the -severance of Church and State, Mr. Gladstone assures Mr. Miall with the -utmost courtesy that he believes the opinion of the House of Commons -is against him, but that if Mr. Miall wishes to influence the House of -Commons he must address the people out of doors; whereupon Mr. Miall -immediately calls a public meeting, and alleges as its cause the advice -he has just received from the Prime-Minister. - -But, gentlemen, after all, the test of political institutions is the -condition of the country whose fortunes they regulate; and I do not -mean to evade that test. You are the inhabitants of an island of no -colossal size; which, geographically speaking, was intended by nature -as the appendage of some continental empire—either of Gauls and Franks -on the other side of the Channel, or of Teutons and Scandinavians -beyond the German Sea. Such indeed, and for a long period, was your -early history. You were invaded; you were pillaged and you were -conquered; yet amid all these disgraces and vicissitudes there was -gradually formed that English race which has brought about a very -different state of affairs. Instead of being invaded, your land is -proverbially the only “inviolate land”—“the inviolate land of the sage -and free.” Instead of being plundered, you have attracted to your -shores all the capital of the world. Instead of being conquered, -your flag floats on many waters, and your standard waves in either -zone. It may be said that these achievements are due to the race -that inhabited the land, and not to its institutions. Gentlemen, in -political institutions are the embodied experiences of a race. You have -established a society of classes which give vigor and variety to life. -But no class possesses a single exclusive privilege, and all are equal -before the law. You possess a real aristocracy, open to all who desire -to enter it. You have not merely a middle class, but a hierarchy of -middle classes, in which every degree of wealth, refinement, industry, -energy, and enterprise is duly represented. - -And now, gentlemen, what is the condition of the great body of the -people? In the first place, gentlemen, they have for centuries been in -the full enjoyment of that which no other country in Europe has ever -completely attained—complete rights of personal freedom. In the second -place, there has been a gradual, and therefore a wise, distribution -on a large scale of political rights. Speaking with reference to the -industries of this great part of the country, I can personally contrast -it with the condition of the working classes forty years ago. In that -period they have attained two results—the raising of their wages and -the diminution of their toil.[51] Increased means and increased leisure -are the two civilizers of man. That the working classes of Lancashire -and Yorkshire have proved not unworthy of these boons may be easily -maintained; but their progress and elevation have been during this -interval wonderfully aided and assisted by three causes, which are not -so distinctively attributable to their own energies. The first is the -revolution in locomotion, which has opened the world to the working -man, which has enlarged the horizon of his experience, increased his -knowledge of nature and of art, and added immensely to the salutary -recreation, amusement, and pleasure of his existence. The second -cause is the cheap postage, the moral benefits of which cannot be -exaggerated. And the third is that unshackled press which has furnished -him with endless sources of instruction, information, and amusement. - -Gentlemen, if you would permit me, I would now make an observation -upon another class of the laboring population. This is not a civic -assembly, although we meet in a city. That was for convenience, but -the invitation which I received was to meet the county and all the -boroughs of Lancashire; and I wish to make a few observations upon the -condition of the agricultural laborer. That is a subject which now -greatly attracts public attention. And, in the first place, to prevent -any misconception, I beg to express my opinion that an agricultural -laborer has as much right to combine for the bettering of his condition -as a manufacturing laborer or a worker in metals. If the causes of his -combination are natural—that is to say, if they arise from his own -feelings and from the necessities of his own condition, the combination -will end in results mutually beneficial to employers and employed. If, -on the other hand, it is factitious and he is acted upon by extraneous -influences and extraneous ideas, the combination will produce, I fear, -much loss and misery both to employers and employed; and after a time -he will find himself in a similar, or in a worse, position. - -Gentlemen, in my opinion, the farmers of England cannot, as a body, -afford to pay higher wages than they do, and those who will answer -me by saying that they must find their ability by the reduction of -rents are, I think, involving themselves with economic laws which -may prove too difficult for them to cope with. The profits of a -farmer are very moderate. The interest upon capital invested in land -is the smallest that any property furnishes. The farmer will have -his profits and the investor in land will have his interest, even -though they may be obtained at the cost of changing the mode of the -cultivation of the country. Gentlemen, I should deeply regret to see -the tillage of this country reduced, and a recurrence to pasture take -place. I should regret it principally on account of the agricultural -laborers themselves. Their new friends call them Hodge, and describe -them as a stolid race. I must say that, from my experience of them, -they are sufficiently shrewd and open to reason. I would say to them -with confidence, as the great Athenian said to the Spartan who rudely -assailed him: “Strike, but hear me.” - -First, a change in the cultivation of the soil of this country would -be very injurious to the laboring class; and secondly, I am of opinion -that that class instead of being stationary has made, if not as much -progress as the manufacturing class, very considerable progress -during the last forty years. Many persons write and speak about the -agricultural laborer with not so perfect a knowledge of his condition -as is desirable. They treat him always as a human being who in every -part of the country finds himself in an identical condition. Now, on -the contrary, there is no class of laborers in which there is greater -variety of condition than that of the agricultural laborers. It changes -from north to south, from east to west, and from county to county. It -changes even in the same county, where there is an alteration of soil -and of configuration. The hind in Northumberland is in a very different -condition from the famous Dorsetshire laborer; the tiller of the soil -in Lincolnshire is different from his fellow-agriculturist in Sussex. -What the effect of manufactures is upon the agricultural districts in -their neighborhood it would be presumption in me to dwell upon; your -own experience must tell you whether the agricultural laborer in North -Lancashire, for example, has had no rise in wages and no diminution -in toil. Take the case of the Dorsetshire laborer—the whole of the -agricultural laborers on the southwestern coast of England for a very -long period worked only half the time of the laborers in other parts of -England, and received only half the wages. In the experience of many, -I dare say, who are here present, even thirty years ago a Dorsetshire -laborer never worked after three o’clock in the day; and why? Because -the whole of that part of England was demoralized by smuggling. No one -worked after three o’clock in the day, for a very good reason—because -he had to work at night. No farmer allowed his team to be employed -after three o’clock, because he reserved his horses to take his illicit -cargo at night and carry it rapidly into the interior. Therefore, as -the men were employed and remunerated otherwise, they got into a habit -of half work and half play so far as the land was concerned, and when -smuggling was abolished—and it has only been abolished for thirty -years,—these imperfect habits of labor continued, and do even now -continue to a great extent. That is the origin of the condition of the -agricultural laborer in the southwestern part of England. - -But now, gentlemen, I want to test the condition of the agricultural -laborer generally; and I will take a part of England with which I -am familiar, and can speak as to the accuracy of the facts—I mean -the group described as the south-midland counties. The conditions of -labor there are the same, or pretty nearly the same, throughout. The -group may be described as a strictly agricultural community, and they -embrace a population of probably a million and a half. Now, I have -no hesitation in saying that the improvement in their lot during the -last forty years has been progressive and is remarkable. I attribute -it to three causes. In the first place, the rise in their money -wages is no less than fifteen per cent. The second great cause of -their improvement is the almost total disappearance of excessive and -exhausting toil, from the general introduction of machinery. I don’t -know whether I could get a couple of men who could, or, if they could, -would thresh a load of wheat in my neighborhood. The third great cause -which has improved their condition is the very general, not to say -universal, institution of allotment grounds. Now, gentlemen, when I -find that this has been the course of affairs in our very considerable -and strictly agricultural portion of the country, where there have -been no exceptional circumstances, like smuggling, to degrade and -demoralize the race, I cannot resist the conviction that the condition -of the agricultural laborers, instead of being stationary, as we are -constantly told by those not acquainted with them, has been one of -progressive improvement, and that in those counties—and they are -many—where the stimulating influence of a manufacturing neighborhood -acts upon the land, the general conclusion at which I arrive is that -the agricultural laborer has had his share in the advance of national -prosperity. Gentlemen, I am not here to maintain that there is -nothing to be done to increase the well-being of the working classes -of this country, generally speaking. There is not a single class in -the country which is not susceptible of improvement; and that makes -the life and animation of our society. But in all we do we must -remember, as my noble friend told them at Liverpool, that much depends -upon the working classes themselves; and what I know of the working -classes in Lancashire makes me sure that they will respond to this -appeal. Much also may be expected from that sympathy between classes -which is a distinctive feature of the present day; and, in the last -place, no inconsiderable results may be obtained by judicious and -prudent legislation. But, gentlemen, in attempting to legislate upon -social matters, the great object is to be practical—to have before -us some distinct aims and some distinct means by which they can be -accomplished. - -Gentlemen, I think public attention as regards these matters ought to -be concentrated upon sanitary legislation. That is a wide subject, -and, if properly treated, comprises almost every consideration which -has a just claim upon legislative interference. Pure air, pure -water, the inspection of unhealthy habitations, the adulteration of -food,—these and many kindred matters may be legitimately dealt with -by the Legislature; and I am bound to say the Legislature is not idle -upon them; for we have at this time two important measures before -Parliament on the subject. One—by a late colleague of mine, Sir Charles -Adderley—is a large and comprehensive measure, founded upon a sure -basis, for it consolidates all existing public acts, and improves them. -A prejudice has been raised against that proposal, by stating that -it interferes with the private acts of the great towns. I take this -opportunity of contradicting that. The bill of Sir Charles Adderley -does not touch the acts of the great towns. It only allows them, if -they think fit, to avail themselves of its new provisions. - -The other measure by the government is of a partial character. What -it comprises is good, so far as it goes, but it shrinks from that -bold consolidation of existing acts which I think one of the great -merits of Sir Charles Adderley’s bill, which permits us to become -acquainted with how much may be done in favor of sanitary improvement -by existing provisions. Gentlemen, I cannot impress upon you too -strongly my conviction of the importance of the Legislature and society -uniting together in favor of these important results. A great scholar -and a great wit, three hundred years ago, said that, in his opinion, -there was a great mistake in the Vulgate, which, as you all know, -is the Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures, and that, instead -of saying “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity”—_Vanitas vanitatum, -omnia vanitas_—the wise and witty king really said: “_Sanitas -sanitatum, omnia sanitas_.” Gentlemen, it is impossible to overrate -the importance of the subject. After all the first consideration of -a minister should be the health of the people. A land may be covered -with historic trophies, with museums of science and galleries of art, -with universities and with libraries; the people may be civilized and -ingenious; the country may be even famous in the annals and action of -the world, but, gentlemen, if the population every ten years decreases, -and the stature of the race every ten years diminishes, the history of -that country will soon be the history of the past.[52] - -Gentlemen, I said I had not come here to make a party speech. I have -addressed you upon subjects of grave, and I will venture to believe -of general, interest; but to be here and altogether silent upon the -present state of public affairs would not be respectful to you, and, -perhaps, on the whole, would be thought incongruous. Gentlemen, I -cannot pretend that our position either at home or abroad is in my -opinion satisfactory. At home, at a period of immense prosperity, with -a people contented and naturally loyal, we find to our surprise the -most extravagant doctrines professed and the fundamental principles -of our most valuable institutions impugned, and that, too, by -persons of some authority. Gentlemen, this startling inconsistency -is accounted for, in my mind, by the circumstances under which the -present administration was formed. It is the first instance in my -knowledge of a British administration being avowedly formed on a -principle of violence.[53] It is unnecessary for me to remind you of -the circumstances which preceded the formation of that government. -You were the principal scene and theatre of the development of -statesmanship that then occurred. You witnessed the incubation of the -portentous birth. You remember when you were informed that the policy -to secure the prosperity of Ireland and the content of Irishmen was -a policy of sacrilege and confiscation. Gentlemen, when Ireland was -placed under the wise and able administration of Lord Abercorn, Ireland -was prosperous, and I may say content. But there happened at that time -a very peculiar conjuncture in politics. The civil war in America had -just ceased; and a band of military adventurers—Poles, Italians, and -many Irishmen—concocted in New York a conspiracy to invade Ireland, -with the belief that the whole country would rise to welcome them. How -that conspiracy was baffled—how those plots were confounded, I need -not now remind you. For that we were mainly indebted to the eminent -qualities of a great man who has just left us.[54] You remember how -the constituencies were appealed to to vote against the government -which had made so unfit an appointment as that of Lord Mayo to the -Viceroyalty of India. It was by his great qualities when Secretary -for Ireland, by his vigilance, his courage, his patience, and his -perseverance that this conspiracy was defeated. Never was a minister -better informed. He knew what was going on at New York just as well as -what was going on in the city of Dublin. - -When the Fenian conspiracy had been entirely put down, it became -necessary to consider the policy which it was expedient to pursue in -Ireland; and it seemed to us at that time that what Ireland required -after all the excitement which it had experienced was a policy which -should largely develop its material resources. There were one or two -subjects of a different character, which, for the advantage of the -state, it would have been desirable to have settled, if that could have -been effected with a general concurrence of both the great parties in -that country. Had we remained in office, that would have been done. But -we were destined to quit it, and we quitted it without a murmur. The -policy of our successors was different. Their specific was to despoil -churches and plunder landlords, and what has been the result?[55] -Sedition rampant, treason thinly veiled, and whenever a vacancy occurs -in the representation a candidate is returned pledged to the disruption -of the realm. Her Majesty’s new ministers proceeded in their career -like a body of men under the influence of some delirious drug. Not -satiated with the spoliation and anarchy of Ireland, they began to -attack every institution and every interest, every class and calling in -the country.[56] - -It is curious to observe their course. They took into hand the army. -What have they done? I will not comment on what they have done. I will -historically state it, and leave you to draw the inference. So long -as constitutional England has existed there has been a jealousy among -all classes against the existence of a standing army. As our empire -expanded, and the existence of a large body of disciplined troops -became a necessity, every precaution was taken to prevent the danger to -our liberties which a standing army involved. - -It was a first principle not to concentrate in the island any -overwhelming number of troops, and a considerable portion was -distributed in the colonies. Care was taken that the troops generally -should be officered by a class of men deeply interested in the property -and the liberties of England. So extreme was the jealousy that the -relations between that once constitutional force, the militia, and the -sovereign were rigidly guarded, and it was carefully placed under -local influences. All this is changed. We have a standing army of large -amount, quartered and brigaded and encamped permanently in England, and -fed by a considerable and constantly increasing Reserve. - -It will in due time be officered by a class of men eminently -scientific, but with no relations necessarily with society; while the -militia is withdrawn from all local influences, and placed under the -immediate command of the Secretary of War. Thus, in the nineteenth -century, we have a large standing army established in England, contrary -to all the traditions of the land, and that by a Liberal government, -and with the warm acclamations of the Liberal party. - -Let us look what they have done with the Admiralty. You remember, -in this country especially, the denunciations of the profligate -expenditure of the Conservative government, and you have since had -an opportunity of comparing it with the gentler burden of Liberal -estimates. The navy was not merely an instance of profligate -expenditure, but of incompetent and inadequate management. A great -revolution was promised in its administration. A gentleman [Mr. -Childers], almost unknown to English politics, was strangely preferred -to one of the highest places in the councils of her Majesty. He set -to at his task with ruthless activity. The Consultative Council, -under which Nelson had gained all his victories, was dissolved. The -Secretaryship of the Admiralty, an office which exercised a complete -supervision over every division of that great department,—an office -which was to the Admiralty what the Secretary of State is to the -kingdom,—which, in the qualities which it required and the duties which -it fulfilled, was rightly a stepping-stone to the cabinet, as in the -instances of Lord Halifax, Lord Herbert, and many others—was reduced -to absolute insignificance. Even the office of Control, which of all -others required a position of independence, and on which the safety of -the navy mainly depended, was deprived of all its important attributes. -For two years the Opposition called the attention of Parliament to -these destructive changes, but Parliament and the nation were alike -insensible. Full of other business, they could not give a thought to -what they looked upon merely as captious criticism. It requires a great -disaster to command the attention of England; and when the “Captain” -was lost, and when they had the detail of the perilous voyage of the -“Megara,” then public indignation demanded a complete change in this -renovating administration of the navy.[57] - -And what has occurred? It is only a few weeks since that in the House -of Commons I heard the naval statement made by a new First Lord -[Mr. Goschen], and it consisted only of the rescinding of all the -revolutionary changes of his predecessor, the mischief of every one of -which during the last two years has been pressed upon the attention of -Parliament and the country by that constitutional and necessary body, -the Opposition. Gentlemen, it will not do for me—considering the time I -have already occupied, and there are still some subjects of importance -that must be touched—to dwell upon any of the other similar topics, -of which there is a rich abundance. I doubt not there is in this hall -more than one farmer who has been alarmed by the suggestion that his -agricultural machinery should be taxed.[58] - -I doubt not there is in this hall more than one publican who remembers -that last year an act of Parliament was introduced to denounce him as a -“sinner.” I doubt not there are in this hall a widow and an orphan who -remember the profligate proposition to plunder their lonely heritage. -But, gentlemen, as time advanced it was not difficult to perceive that -extravagance was being substituted for energy by the government. The -unnatural stimulus was subsiding. Their paroxysms ended in prostration. -Some took refuge in melancholy, and their eminent chief alternated -between a menace and a sigh. As I sat opposite the treasury bench -the ministers reminded me of one of those marine landscapes not very -unusual on the coast of South America. You behold a range of exhausted -volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest. But the -situation is still dangerous. There are occasional earthquakes, and -ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea. - -But, gentlemen, there is one other topic on which I must touch. If the -management of our domestic affairs has been founded upon a principle -of violence, that certainly cannot be alleged against the management -of our external relations. I know the difficulty of addressing a body -of Englishmen on these topics. The very phrase “Foreign Affairs” makes -an Englishman convinced that I am about to treat of subjects with -which he has no concern. Unhappily the relations of England to the -rest of the world, which are “Foreign Affairs,” are the matters which -most influence his lot. Upon them depends the increase or reduction -of taxation. Upon them depends the enjoyment or the embarrassment of -his industry. And yet, though so momentous are the consequences of the -mismanagement of our foreign relations, no one thinks of them till the -mischief occurs and then it is found how the most vital consequences -have been occasioned by mere inadvertence. - -I will illustrate this point by two anecdotes. Since I have been in -public life there has been for this country a great calamity and there -is a great danger, and both might have been avoided. The calamity was -the Crimean War. You know what were the consequences of the Crimean -War: A great addition to your debt, an enormous addition to your -taxation, a cost more precious than your treasure—the best blood of -England. Half a million of men, I believe, perished in that great -undertaking. Nor are the evil consequences of that war adequately -described by what I have said. All the disorders and disturbances -of Europe, those immense armaments that are an incubus on national -industry and the great obstacle to progressive civilization, may be -traced and justly attributed to the Crimean War. And yet the Crimean -War need never have occurred. - -When Lord Derby acceded to office, against his own wishes, in 1852, the -Liberal party most unconstitutionally forced him to dissolve Parliament -at a certain time by stopping the supplies, or at least by limiting -the period for which they were voted. There was not a single reason to -justify that course, for Lord Derby had only accepted office, having -once declined it, on the renewed application of his sovereign. The -country, at the dissolution, increased the power of the Conservative -party, but did not give to Lord Derby a majority, and he had to retire -from power. There was not the slightest chance of a Crimean War when -we retired from office; but the Emperor of Russia, believing that the -successor of Lord Derby was no enemy to Russian aggression in the East, -commenced those proceedings, with the result of which you are familiar. -I speak of what I know, not of what I believe, but of what I have -evidence in my possession to prove—that the Crimean War never would -have happened if Lord Derby had remained in office.[59] - -The great danger is the present state of our relations with the -United States. When I acceded to office, I did so, so far as regarded -the United States of America, with some advantage. During the whole -of the civil war in America both my noble friend near me and I had -maintained a strict and fair neutrality.[60] This was fully appreciated -by the government of the United States, and they expressed their wish -that with our aid the settlement of all differences between the two -governments should be accomplished. They sent here a plenipotentiary, -an honorable gentleman, very intelligent and possessing general -confidence. My noble friend near me, with great ability, negotiated -a treaty for the settlement of all these claims. He was the first -minister who proposed to refer them to arbitration, and the treaty -was signed by the American Government. It was signed, I think, on -November 10th, on the eve of the dissolution of Parliament. The borough -elections that first occurred proved what would be the fate of the -ministry, and the moment they were known in America the American -Government announced that Mr. Reverdy Johnson [the American Minister] -had mistaken his instructions, and they could not present the treaty -to the Senate for its sanction—the sanction of which there had been -previously no doubt.[61] - -But the fact is that, as in the case of the Crimean War it was supposed -that our successors would be favorable to Russian aggression, so it -was supposed that by the accession to office of Mr. Gladstone and a -gentleman you know well, Mr. Bright, the American claims would be -considered in a very different spirit. How they have been considered -is a subject which, no doubt, occupies deeply the minds of the people -of Lancashire. Now, gentlemen, observe this—the question of the Black -Sea involved in the Crimean War, the question of the American claims -involved in our negotiations with Mr. Johnson, are the two questions -that have again turned up, and have been the two great questions that -have been under the management of his government. - -How have they treated them? Prince Gortschakoff, thinking he saw an -opportunity, announced his determination to break from the Treaty of -Paris, and terminate all the conditions hostile to Russia which had -been the result of the Crimean War. What was the first movement on -the part of our government is at present a mystery. This we know, -that they selected the most rising diplomatist of the day [Mr. Odo -Russell, later Lord Ampthill], and sent him to Prince Bismarck with -a declaration that the policy of Russia, if persisted in, was war -with England. Now, gentlemen, there was not the slightest chance of -Russia going to war with England, and no necessity, as I shall always -maintain, of England going to war with Russia. I believe I am not -wrong in stating that the Russian Government were prepared to withdraw -from the position they had rashly taken; but suddenly her Majesty’s -Government, to use a technical phrase, threw over the plenipotentiary, -and, instead of threatening war, if the Treaty of Paris was violated, -they agreed to arrangements by which the violation of that treaty -should be sanctioned by England, and, in the form of a congress, they -showed themselves guaranteeing their own humiliation. That Mr. Odo -Russell made no mistake is quite obvious, because he has since been -selected to be her Majesty’s ambassador at the most important court of -Europe. Gentlemen, what will be the consequence of this extraordinary -weakness on the part of the British Government it is difficult to -foresee. Already we hear that Sebastopol is to be refortified, nor can -any man doubt that the entire command of the Black Sea will soon be in -the possession of Russia.[62] The time may not be distant when we may -hear of the Russian power in the Persian Gulf, and what effect that may -have upon the dominions of England and upon those possessions on the -productions of which you every year more and more depend, are questions -upon which it will be well for you on proper occasions to meditate. - -I come now to that question which most deeply interests you at this -moment, and that is our relations with the United States. I approved -the government referring this question to arbitration. It was only -following the policy of Lord Stanley. My noble friend disapproved -the negotiations being carried on at Washington. I confess that I -would willingly have persuaded myself that this was not a mistake, -but reflection has convinced me that my noble friend was right. I -remember the successful negotiation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty by -Sir Henry Bulwer. I flattered myself that treaties at Washington might -be successfully negotiated; but I agree with my noble friend that his -general view was far more sound than my own. But no one, when that -commission was sent forth, for a moment could anticipate the course -of their conduct under the strict injunctions of the government. We -believed that commission was sent to ascertain what points should be -submitted to arbitration, to be decided by the principles of the law of -nations. We had not the slightest idea that that commission was sent -with power and instructions to alter the law of nations itself.[63] -When that result was announced, we expressed our entire disapprobation; -and yet trusting to the representations of the government that matters -were concluded satisfactorily, we had to decide whether it were wise, -if the great result was obtained, to wrangle upon points, however -important, such as those to which I have referred. - -Gentlemen, it appears that, though all parts of England were ready -to make those sacrifices, the two negotiating states—the government -of the United Kingdom and the government of the United States—placed -a different interpretation upon the treaty when the time had arrived -to put its provisions into practice. Gentlemen, in my mind, and in -the opinion of my noble friend near me, there was but one course to -take under the circumstances, painful as it might be, and that was -at once to appeal to the good feeling and good sense of the United -States, and, stating the difficulty, to invite confidential conference -whether it might not be removed.[64] But her Majesty’s Government -took a different course. On December 15th her Majesty’s Government -were aware of a contrary interpretation being placed on the Treaty of -Washington by the American Government. The Prime-Minister received a -copy of their counter case, and he confessed he had never read it. He -had a considerable number of copies sent to him to distribute among -his colleagues, and you remember, probably, the remarkable statement -in which he informed the House that he had distributed those copies to -everybody except those for whom they were intended. - -Time went on, and the adverse interpretation of the American Government -oozed out, and was noticed by the press. Public alarm and public -indignation were excited; and it was only seven weeks afterward, on the -very eve of the meeting of Parliament—some twenty-four hours before -the meeting of Parliament—that her Majesty’s Government felt they were -absolutely obliged to make a “friendly communication” to the United -States that they had arrived at an interpretation of the treaty the -reverse of that of the American Government. What was the position of -the American Government. Seven weeks had passed without their having -received the slightest intimation from her Majesty’s ministers. They -had circulated their case throughout the world. They had translated -it into every European language. It had been sent to every court and -cabinet, to every sovereign and prime-minister. It was impossible for -the American Government to recede from their position, even if they -had believed it to be an erroneous one. And then, to aggravate the -difficulty, the Prime-Minister goes down to Parliament, declares that -there is only one interpretation to be placed on the treaty, and defies -and attacks everybody who believes it susceptible of another. - -Was there ever such a combination of negligence and blundering? And -now, gentlemen, what is about to happen? All we know is that her -Majesty’s ministers are doing everything in their power to evade -the cognizance and criticism of Parliament. They have received an -answer to their “friendly communication”; of which, I believe, it -has been ascertained that the American Government adhere to their -interpretation; and yet they prolong the controversy. What is about to -occur it is unnecessary for one to predict; but if it be this—if after -a fruitless ratiocination worthy of a schoolman, we ultimately agree so -far to the interpretation of the American Government as to submit the -whole case to arbitration, with feeble reservation of a protest, if it -be decided against us, I venture to say that we shall be entering on a -course not more distinguished by its feebleness than by its impending -peril. There is before us every prospect of the same incompetence that -distinguished our negotiations respecting the independence of the Black -Sea; and I fear that there is every chance that this incompetence will -be sealed by our ultimately acknowledging these direct claims of the -United States, which, both as regards principle and practical results, -are fraught with the utmost danger to this country. Gentlemen, don’t -suppose, because I counsel firmness and decision at the right moment, -that I am of that school of statesmen who are favorable to a turbulent -and aggressive diplomacy. I have resisted it during a great part of my -life. I am not unaware that the relations of England to Europe have -undergone a vast change during the century that has just elapsed. -The relations of England to Europe are not the same as they were in -the days of Lord Chatham or Frederick the Great. The Queen of England -has become the sovereign of the most powerful of Oriental states. On -the other side of the globe there are now establishments belonging -to her, teeming with wealth and population, which will, in due time, -exercise their influence over the distribution of power. The old -establishments of this country, now the United States of America, throw -their lengthening shades over the Atlantic, which mix with European -waters. These are vast and novel elements in the distribution of power. -I acknowledge that the policy of England with respect to Europe should -be a policy of reserve, but proud reserve; and in answer to those -statesmen—those mistaken statesmen who have intimated the decay of -the power of England and the decline of its resources, I express here -my confident conviction that there never was a moment in our history -when the power of England was so great and her resources so vast and -inexhaustible.[65] - -And yet, gentlemen, it is not merely our fleets and armies, our -powerful artillery, our accumulated capital, and our unlimited credit -on which I so much depend, as upon that unbroken spirit of her people, -which I believe was never prouder of the imperial country to which they -belong. Gentlemen, it is to that spirit that I above all things trust. -I look upon the people of Lancashire as a fair representative of the -people of England. I think the manner in which they have invited me -here, locally a stranger, to receive the expression of their cordial -sympathy, and only because they recognize some effort on my part to -maintain the greatness of their country, is evidence of the spirit of -the land. I must express to you again my deep sense of the generous -manner in which you have welcomed me, and in which you have permitted -me to express to you my views upon public affairs. Proud of your -confidence, and encouraged by your sympathy, I now deliver to you, as -my last words, the cause of the Tory party, the English constitution, -and of the British empire. - - - - -WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE. - - -Mr. Gladstone, the fourth son of the late Sir John Gladstone, a -prominent and prosperous merchant of Liverpool, was born in 1809. -He was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, where his -scholarship was at once so thorough and so comprehensive as to win -for him at his graduation in 1831 the great distinction of a double -first-class. Having spent nearly a year in a continental tour, he was -elected to the House of Commons in December, 1832, at the election -which immediately followed the passage of the great reform bill. In -political sympathies he ranked with the Tories, and followed with -little reserve the leadership of Sir Robert Peel. The great reputation -he had acquired at the university, his mercantile habits, his high -character, and his manifest abilities as a speaker, recommended -him at once to the favor of the Premier, who admitted him to the -ministry as Junior Lord of the Treasury, in December of 1834, and as -Under-Secretary for Colonial Affairs in February of the following -year. In 1841 Mr. Gladstone became Vice-President of the Board of -Trade and Master of the Mint, and in the same year was sworn in as a -member of the Privy Council. In the position now held it devolved upon -him to explain and defend the commercial policy of the government. -The revision of the tariff in 1842 was entrusted to his energy and -industry, as a part of this duty, and so admirably was the laborious -task executed, not only in its mastery of general principles, but in -its command of details, that the bill received the sanction of both -Houses with scarcely an alteration. Gladstone’s great abilities as a -financier were at once universally recognized; and, accordingly, his -appointment as President of the Board of Trade and his admission to the -cabinet in 1843 were generally approved. - -In 1846, Sir Robert Peel, who up to this time had been regarded as -the most strenuous opponent of free trade, announced his intention of -bringing in a bill to modify the existing Corn Laws. The announcement -created great popular agitation. Gladstone determined to support -Peel; but holding his seat from Newark, the property of the Duke -of Newcastle, who sympathized strongly with the Opposition, he was -unwilling to appear to be in a false position, and accordingly he -resigned, and remained out of Parliament for about a year. This -voluntary withdrawal from the House is worthy of note, not only on -account of the honorable motives which prompted it, but also as the -only interruption of a parliamentary career of more than half a -century. His parliamentary abilities, however, were not long permitted -to be idle, for in 1847 he was returned as one of the members for the -University of Oxford. - -Up to this time he had appeared to sympathize strongly with the -principles of the Tory party. His work on “The State in its Relations -with the Church,” published in 1838, had not only proved him to be, -even when still a young man, a deep and original thinker, but had also -shown that his sympathies were unmistakably with the Tories and the -High Church. Macaulay, in his elaborate and critical review of the -work, introduced Gladstone to his readers as “the rising hope of those -stern and unbending Tories who follow, reluctantly and mutinously, -a leader whose experience and eloquence are indispensable to them, -but whose cautious temper and moderate opinions they abhor.” But if -the “stern and unbending Tories” had any such “rising hope” in Mr. -Gladstone, they were destined to be disappointed. In the four years -that followed 1847 the member for Oxford found himself frequently -opposed to his former friends; and in 1851 he formally separated -himself from the great body of the Conservative party. He was -re-elected for Oxford, though as the result of a very bitter contest; -and on the defeat of the Derby-Disraeli ministry and the succession -of the “Coalition” under Lord Aberdeen in 1852, he was appointed to -the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, where his thorough knowledge of -finance was of the greatest assistance to the government during the -Crimean War. - -In the fifteen years that followed, Mr. Gladstone came to be more and -more generally recognized, not only as one of the ablest, but also as -one of the most influential members of the House of Commons. Meanwhile -his reputation was considerably advanced by the numerous literary -productions which came from his pen. On the death of Lord Palmerston -in 1865, he became leader of the House of Commons, retaining the -Chancellorship of the Exchequer in the second administration of Earl -Russell. It was at this time that Gladstone’s career as the leader of -the great reformatory movement may be said to have begun. - -Early in the session of 1866, he brought forward a reform bill designed -to extend the franchise substantially on the line of advance that had -been adopted in 1832. On the 18th of June, the measure was defeated -by a majority of eleven votes, and Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues at -once resigned. During the next administration, the ranks of the Liberal -party, however, were divided, and therefore it was found impossible to -defeat the Derby-Disraeli reform bill, which Mr. Gladstone strenuously -opposed. The Conservatives, however, were unable to hold their -position, and when the Ministry resigned, in December of 1868, Mr. -Gladstone succeeded Disraeli as Prime-Minister. - -And now began that remarkable series of legislative enactments for -which Mr. Gladstone’s career will be remembered. In 1869 was passed -the Irish Church Disestablishment Act; in 1870, the Irish Land Act; in -the same year, the Elementary Education Act; in 1871, the Abolition of -Purchase in the Army Act; in 1872, the Ballot Act; and in 1873, the -Supreme Court of Judicature Act. In 1873 the country seemed disposed -to call a halt. The government was defeated on the Irish University -Education Bill; and, in consequence, Mr. Gladstone tendered his -resignation. The Queen sent for Mr. Disraeli, but as the defeat had -been occasioned by a temporary union of the Roman Catholics with the -Conservatives, Mr. Disraeli saw no hope of commanding a majority, and -therefore declined to attempt to form a ministry. Mr. Gladstone was -recalled, and reluctantly consented to reconstruct a cabinet. He was -unwilling, however, to go forward in any uncertainty, and accordingly, -in January of 1874, he surprised the country by announcing an immediate -dissolution of Parliament. - -The result of the ensuing canvass and election was most disastrous to -the Liberal party. The returns, completed in February, showed that -351 out and out Conservatives had been elected; while the Liberals, -including the Home Rulers, who, in fact, declined to identify -themselves with the party, numbered only 302. Mr. Gladstone, of course, -resigned at once, and Mr. Disraeli, for a second time, was appointed -Prime-Minister in his place. - -During the next two years, Mr. Gladstone, though retaining his seat, -was not often seen in the House of Commons. In January of 1875 he -announced his determination to retire from the leadership of the -Liberal party, and the Marquis of Hartington was accordingly chosen -to act in his place. For a time he gave himself up to authorship, and -published a considerable number of controversial articles on Church -and State. As Disraeli’s ministry, however, became involved in the -entanglement of Eastern affairs, Gladstone was more and more drawn -back into something like his old parliamentary activity. In 1879 was -invited to become the candidate for Mid-Lothian, and the canvass that -followed was perhaps the most remarkable exhibition of energy and -oratorical skill that the history of British eloquence has to show. -He set out from Liverpool on November 24th, and from that date, with -the exception of two days’ rest, till his return on December 9th, his -journey was a long succession of enthusiastic receptions and unwearied -speech-making in condemnation of the Conservative government. The -addresses delivered in the course of this canvass were printed in -all the leading papers of the kingdom, and were subsequently brought -together in a volume. As a whole, they form what is probably the most -remarkable series of political criticisms ever addressed by one man to -the people of his country. The result was not only the election of Mr. -Gladstone, but also, when in the following spring a general election -took place, the triumphant return of the Liberal party to power. While -the Conservatives had only 243 seats, the Liberals had 349, and the -Home Rulers, 60 in number, were quite likely, in all general measures, -to ally themselves with their old friends. - -As Mr. Gladstone had for some years not been at the nominal head of -the Liberal party, it was not certain what policy would be pursued. -The Marquis of Hartington was the leader in the Lower House, and Earl -Granville in the Upper. Either of these might have been called to the -head of the ministry by constitutional usage; but the natural primacy -of Mr. Gladstone was so universally acknowledged that the Queen decided -to hold a consultation with the chiefs of the party. The conference -resulted in recommending the Queen to entrust the forming of a cabinet -to Mr. Gladstone; and accordingly the great leader entered upon the -work of Prime-Minister for a second time in April, 1880. It is a proof -of his extraordinary vigor that at the age of seventy-one he should -choose to superadd to the duties of First Lord of the Treasury, those -of Chancellor of the Exchequer, a position which he continued to hold -till, in 1883, the multiplicity of his duties led him to turn it over -to Mr. Childers. - -His second administration will probably be remembered for the -disturbances in Ireland, and the consequent Irish Land Act of 1881; the -Municipal Corporation Act of 1882; the difficulties in Egypt in 1883 -and 1884; and the Extension of Suffrage Act, introduced in the spring -of 1884. His career as a whole may be considered as perhaps the most -remarkable illustration of a system which, whatever its faults, brings -the most eminent men into power, and gives them a wide field in which -to exert their continuous influence and power. - - - - -WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE. - -ON DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS; DELIVERED AT WEST CALDER, NOVEMBER 27, -1879. - - - The following speech was the third of the series delivered by Mr. - Gladstone in the course of his Mid-Lothian canvass, extending from - November 24th to December 9th. These assaults on the policy of Lord - Beaconsfield had not a little to do with the triumph of the Liberals - and the return of Gladstone to power in the following spring. - - -MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN: - -In addressing you to-day, as in addressing like audiences assembled -for a like purpose in other places of the county, I am warmed by the -enthusiastic welcome which you have been pleased in every quarter -and in every form to accord to me. I am, on the other hand, daunted -when I recollect, first of all, what large demands I have to make on -your patience; and secondly, how inadequate are my powers, and how -inadequate almost any amount of time you can grant me, to set forth -worthily the whole of the case which ought to be laid before you in -connection with the coming election. - -To-day, gentlemen, as I know that many among you are interested in -the land, and as I feel that what is termed “agricultural distress” -is at the present moment a topic too serious to be omitted from -our consideration, I shall say some words upon the subject of that -agricultural distress, and particularly, because in connection with -it there have arisen in some quarters of the country proposals, which -have received a countenance far beyond their deserts, to reverse or to -compromise the work which it took us one whole generation to achieve, -and to revert to the mischievous, obstructive, and impoverishing system -of protection.[66] Gentlemen, I speak of agricultural distress as a -matter now undoubtedly serious. Let none of us withhold our sympathy -from the farmer, the cultivator of the soil, in the struggle he has -to undergo. His struggle is a struggle of competition with the United -States. But I do not fully explain the case when I say the United -States. It is not with the entire United States, it is with the Western -portion of these States—that portion remote from the seaboard; and I -wish in the first place, gentlemen, to state to you all a fact of -very great interest and importance, as it seems to me, relating to -and defining the point at which the competition of the Western States -of America is most severely felt. I have in my hand a letter received -recently from one well known, and honorably known, in Scotland—Mr. Lyon -Playfair, who has recently been a traveller in the United States, and -who, as you well know, is as well qualified as any man upon earth for -accurate and careful investigation.[67] The point, gentlemen, at which -the competition of the Western States of America is most severely felt -is in the Eastern States of America. Whatever be agricultural distress -in Scotland, whatever it be, where undoubtedly it is more felt, in -England, it is greater by much in the Eastern States of America. In the -States of New England the soil has been to some extent exhausted by -careless methods of agriculture, and these, gentlemen, are the greatest -of all the enemies with which the farmer has to contend. - -But the foundation of the statement I make, that the Eastern States of -America are those that most feel the competition of the West, is to be -found in facts,—in this fact above all, that not only they are not -in America, as we are here, talking about the shortness of the annual -returns, and in some places having much said on the subject of rents, -and of temporary remission or of permanent reduction. That is not the -state of things; they have actually got to this point, that the capital -values of land, as tested by sales in the market, have undergone an -enormous diminution. Now I will tell you something that actually -happened, on the authority of my friend Mr. Playfair. I will tell you -something that has happened in one of the New England States,—not, -recollect, in a desert or a remote country,—in an old cultivated -country, and near one of the towns of these States, a town that has the -honorable name of Wellesley. - -Mr. Playfair tells me this: Three weeks ago—that is to say, about -the first of this month, so you will see my information is tolerably -recent,—three weeks ago a friend of Mr. Playfair bought a farm near -Wellesley for $33 an acre, for £6 12_s._ an acre—agricultural land, -remember, in an old settled country. That is the present condition of -agricultural property in the old States of New England. I think by the -simple recital of that fact I have tolerably well established my case, -for you have not come in England, and you have not come in Scotland, -to the point at which agricultural land is to be had—not wild land, -but improved and old cultivated land,—is to be had for the price of £6 -12_s._ an acre. He mentions that this is by no means a strange case, an -isolated case, that it fairly represented the average transactions that -have been going on; and he says that in that region the ordinary price -of agricultural land at the present time is from $20 to $50 an acre, or -from £4 to £10. In New York the soil is better, and the population is -greater; but even in the State of New York land ranges for agricultural -purposes from $50 to $100, that is to say, from £10 to £20 an acre. - -I think those of you, gentlemen, who are farmers will perhaps derive -some comfort from perceiving that if the pressure here is heavy the -pressure elsewhere and the pressure nearer to the seat of this very -abundant production is greater and far greater still. - -It is most interesting to consider, however, what this pressure is. -There has been developed in the astonishing progressive power of the -United States—there has been developed a faculty of producing corn for -the subsistence of man, with a rapidity and to an extent unknown in -the experience of mankind. There is nothing like it in history. Do not -let us conceal, gentlemen, from ourselves the fact; I shall not stand -the worse with any of you who are farmers if I at once avow that this -greater and comparatively immense abundance of the prime article of -subsistence for mankind is a great blessing vouchsafed by Providence -to mankind. In part I believe that the cheapness has been increased by -special causes. The lands from which the great abundance of American -wheat comes are very thinly peopled as yet. They will become more -thickly peopled, and as they become more thickly peopled a larger -proportion of their produce will be wanted for home consumption and -less of it will come to you, and at a higher price. Again, if we are -rightly informed, the price of American wheat has been unnaturally -reduced by the extraordinary depression, in recent times, of trade -in America, and especially of the mineral trades, upon which many -railroads are dependent in America, and with which these railroads -are connected in America in a degree and manner that in this country -we know but little of. With a revival of trade in America it is to -be expected that the freights of corn will increase, and all other -freights, because the employment of the railroads will be a great deal -more abundant, and they will not be content to carry corn at nominal -rates. In some respects, therefore, you may expect a mitigation of the -pressure, but in other respects it is likely to continue. - -Nay, the Prime-Minister is reported as having not long ago said,—and he -ought to have the best information on this subject, nor am I going to -impeach in the main what he stated,—he gave it to be understood that -there was about to be a development of corn production in Canada which -would entirely throw into the shade this corn production in the United -States. Well, that certainly was very cold comfort, as far as the -British agriculturist is concerned, because he did not say—he could not -say—that the corn production of the United States was to fall off, but -there was to be added an enormous corn production from Manitoba,[68] -the great province which forms now a part of the Canada Dominion. -There is no doubt, I believe, that it is a correct expectation that -vast or very large quantities of corn will proceed from that province, -and therefore we have to look forward to a state of things in which, -for a considerable time to come, large quantities of wheat will be -forthcoming from America, probably larger quantities, and perhaps -frequently at lower prices than those at which the corn-producing and -corn-exporting districts of Europe have commonly been able to supply -us. Now that I believe to be, gentlemen, upon the whole, not an unfair -representation of the state of things. - -How are you to meet that state of things? What are your fair claims? I -will tell you. In my opinion your fair claims are, in the main, two. -One is to be allowed to purchase every article that you require in the -cheapest market, and have no needless burden laid upon any thing that -comes to you and can assist you in the cultivation of your land. But -that claim has been conceded and fulfilled. - -I do not know whether there is an object, an instrument, a tool of -any kind, an auxiliary of any kind, that you want for the business -of the farmer, which you do not buy at this moment in the cheapest -market. But beyond that, you want to be relieved from every unjust and -unnecessary legislative restraint. I say every unnecessary legislative -restraint, because taxation, gentlemen, is unfortunately a restraint -upon us all, but we cannot say that it is always unnecessary, and we -cannot say that it is always unjust. Yesterday I ventured to state—and -I will therefore not now return to the subject—a number of matters -connected with the state of legislation in which it appears to me to -be of vital importance, both to the agricultural interest and to the -entire community, that the occupiers and cultivators of the land of -this country should be relieved from restraints under the operation -of which they now suffer considerably. Beyond those two great heads, -gentlemen, what you have to look to, I believe, is your own energy, -your own energy of thought and action, and your care not to undertake -to pay rents greater than, in reasonable calculation, you think you can -afford. I am by no means sure, though I speak subject to the correction -of higher authority,—I am by no means sure that in Scotland within -the last fifteen or twenty years something of a speculative character -has not entered into rents, and particularly, perhaps, into the rents -of hill farms. I remember hearing of the augmentations which were -taking place, I believe, all over Scotland—I verified the fact in a -number of counties—about twelve or fourteen years ago, in the rents -of hill farms, which I confess impressed me with the idea that the -high prices that were then ruling, and ruling increasingly from year -to year, for meat and wool, were perhaps for once leading the wary and -shrewd Scottish agriculturist a little beyond the mark in the rents -he undertook to pay. But it is not this only which may press. It is, -more broadly, in a serious and manful struggle that you are engaged, -in which you will have to exert yourselves to the uttermost, in which -you will have a right to claim every thing that the legislature can do -for you; and I hope it may perhaps possibly be my privilege and honor -to assist in procuring for you some of those provisions of necessary -liberation from restraint; but beyond that, it is your own energies, of -thought and action, to which you will have to trust. - -Now, gentlemen, having said thus much, my next duty is to warn you -against quack remedies, against delusive remedies, against the quack -remedies that there are plenty of people found to propose, not so -much in Scotland as in England; for, gentlemen, from Mid-Lothian at -present we are speaking to England as well as to Scotland. Let me give -a friendly warning from this northern quarter to the agriculturist of -England not to be deluded by those who call themselves his friends -in a degree of special and superior excellence, and who have been too -much given to delude him in other times; not to be deluded into hoping -relief from sources from which it can never come. Now, gentlemen, there -are three of these remedies. The first of them, gentlemen, I will not -call a quack remedy at all, but I will speak of it notwithstanding in -the tone of rational and dispassionate discussion. I am not now so much -upon the controversial portion of the land question—a field which, -Heaven knows, is wide enough—as I am upon matters of deep and universal -interest to us in our economic and social condition. There are some -gentlemen, and there are persons for whom I for one have very great -respect, who think that the difficulties of our agriculture may be got -over by a fundamental change in the land-holding system of this country. - -I do not mean, now pray observe, a change as to the law of entail and -settlement, and all those restraints which, I hope, were tolerably well -disposed of yesterday at Dalkeith[69]; but I mean those who think that -if you can cut up the land, or a large part of it, into a multitude of -small properties, that of itself will solve the difficulty, and start -everybody on a career of prosperity. - -Now, gentlemen, to a proposal of that kind, I, for one, am not going -to object upon the ground that it would be inconsistent with the -privileges of landed proprietors. In my opinion, if it is known to be -for the welfare of the community at large, the legislature is perfectly -entitled to buy out the landed proprietors. It is not intended probably -to confiscate the property of a landed proprietor more than the -property of any other man; but the state is perfectly entitled, if it -please, to buy out the landed proprietors as it may think fit, for -the purpose of dividing the property into small lots. I don’t wish to -recommend it, because I will show you the doubts that, to my mind, hang -about that proposal; but I admit that in principle no objection can -be taken. Those persons who possess large portions of the spaces of -the earth are not altogether in the same position as the possessors of -mere personalty; that personalty does not impose the same limitations -upon the action and industry of man, and upon the well-being of the -community, as does the possession of land; and, therefore, I freely own -that compulsory expropriation is a thing which for an adequate public -object is in itself admissible and so far sound in principle. - -Now, gentlemen, this idea about small proprietors, however, is one -which very large bodies and parties in this country treat with the -utmost contempt; and they are accustomed to point to France, and say: -“Look at France.” In France you have got 5,000,000—I am not quite sure -whether it is 5,000,000 or even more; I do not wish to be beyond the -mark in any thing—you have 5,000,000 of small proprietors, and you do -not produce in France as many bushels of wheat per acre as you do in -England. Well, now I am going to point out to you a very remarkable -fact with regard to the condition of France. I will not say that -France produces—for I believe it does not produce—as many bushels of -wheat per acre as England does, but I should like to know whether -the wheat of France is produced mainly upon the small properties of -France. I believe that the wheat of France is produced mainly upon -the large properties of France, and I have not any doubt that the -large properties of England are, upon the whole, better cultivated, -and more capital is put into the land than in the large properties of -France. But it is fair that justice should be done to what is called -the peasant proprietary. Peasant proprietary is an excellent thing, if -it can be had, in many points of view. It interests an enormous number -of the people in the soil of the country, and in the stability of its -institutions and its laws. But now look at the effect that it has upon -the progressive value of the land—and I am going to give you a very few -figures which I will endeavor to relieve from all complication, lest I -should unnecessarily weary you. But what will you think when I tell you -that the agricultural value of France—the taxable income derived from -the land, and therefore the income of the proprietors of that land—has -advanced during our lifetime far more rapidly than that of England? -When I say England I believe the same thing is applicable to Scotland, -certainly to Ireland; but I shall take England for my test, because -the difference between England and Scotland, though great, does not -touch the principle; and, because it so happens that we have some means -of illustration from former times for England, which are not equally -applicable for all the three kingdoms. - -Here is the state of the case. I will not go back any further than -1851. I might go back much further; it would only strengthen my case. -But for 1851 I have a statement made by French official authority of -the agricultural income of France, as well as the income of other real -property, viz., houses. In 1851 the agricultural income of France was -£76,000,000. It was greater in 1851 than the whole income from land -and houses together had been in 1821. This is a tolerable evidence of -progress; but I will not enter into the detail of it, because I have no -means of dividing the two—the house income and the land income—for the -earlier year, namely, 1821. In 1851 it was £76,000,000—the agricultural -income; and in 1864 it had risen from £76,000,000 to £106,000,000. That -is to say, in the space of thirteen years the increase of agricultural -values in France—annual values—was no less than forty per cent., or -three per cent. per annum. Now, I go to England. Wishing to be quite -accurate, I shall limit myself to that with respect to which we have -positive figures. In England the agricultural income in 1813–14 was -£37,000,000; in 1842 it was £42,000,000, and that year is the one I -will take as my starting-point. I have given you the years 1851 to 1864 -in France. I could only give you those thirteen years with a certainty -that I was not misleading you, and I believe I have kept within the -mark. I believe I might have put my case more strongly for France. - -In 1842, then, the agricultural income of England was £42,000,000; in -1876 it was £52,000,000—that is to say, while the agricultural income -of France increased forty per cent. in thirteen years, the agricultural -income of England increased twenty per cent. in thirty-four years. -The increase in France was three per cent. per annum; the increase in -England was about one half or three fifths per cent. per annum. Now, -gentlemen, I wish this justice to be done to a system where peasant -proprietary prevails. It is of great importance. And will you allow -me, you who are Scotch agriculturists, to assure you that I speak -to you not only with the respect which is due from a candidate to a -constituency, but with the deference which is due from a man knowing -very little of agricultural matters to those who know a great deal? -And there is one point at which the considerations that I have been -opening up, and this rapid increase of the value of the soil in France, -bear upon our discussions. Let me try to explain it. I believe myself -that the operation of economic laws is what in the main dictates the -distribution of landed property in this country. I doubt if those -economic laws will allow it to remain cut up into a multitude of small -properties like the small properties of France. As to small holdings, -I am one of those who attach the utmost value to them. I say that in -the Lothians—I say that in the portion of the country where almost -beyond any other large holdings prevail—in some parts of which large -holdings exclusively are to be found—I attach the utmost value to them. -But it is not on that point I am going to dwell, for we have no time -for what is unnecessary. What I do wish very respectfully to submit -to you, gentlemen, is this. When you see this vast increase of the -agricultural value of France, you know at once it is perfectly certain -that it has not been upon the large properties of France, which, if any -thing, are inferior in cultivation to the large properties of England. -It has been upon those very peasant-properties which some people are so -ready to decry. What do the peasant-properties mean? They mean what, in -France, is called the small cultivation—that is to say, cultivation of -superior articles, pursued upon a small scale—cultivation of flowers, -cultivation of trees and shrubs, cultivation of fruits of every kind, -and all that, in fact, which rises above the ordinary character of -farming produce, and rather approaches the produce of the gardener. - -Gentlemen, I cannot help having this belief, that, among other means -of meeting the difficulties in which we may be placed, our destiny -is that a great deal more attention will have to be given than -heretofore by the agriculturalists of England, and perhaps even by -the agriculturalists of Scotland, to the production of fruits, of -vegetables, of flowers, of all that variety of objects which are sure -to find a market in a rich and wealthy country like this, but which -have hitherto been consigned almost exclusively to garden production. -You know that in Scotland, in Aberdeenshire—and I am told also in -Perthshire—a great example of this kind has been set in the cultivation -of strawberries—the cultivation of strawberries is carried on over -hundreds of acres at once. I am ashamed, gentlemen, to go further -into this matter, as if I was attempting to instruct you. I am sure -you will take my hint as a respectful hint—I am sure you will take -it as a friendly hint. I do not believe that the large properties of -this country, generally or universally, can or will be broken up into -small ones. I do not believe that the land of this country will be -owned, as a general rule, by those who cultivate it. I believe we shall -continue to have, as we have had, a class of landlords and a class -of cultivators, but I most earnestly desire to see—not only to see -the relations of those classes to one another harmonious and sound, -their interests never brought into conflict; but I desire to see both -flourishing and prospering, and the soil of my country producing, as -far as may be, under the influence of capital and skill, every variety -of product which may give an abundant livelihood to those who live upon -it. I say, therefore, gentlemen, and I say it with all respect, I hope -for a good deal from the small culture, the culture in use among the -small proprietors of France; but I do not look to a fundamental change -in the distribution of landed property in this country as a remedy for -agricultural distress. - -But I go on to another remedy which is proposed, and I do it with a -great deal less of respect; nay, I now come to the region of what I -have presumed to call quack remedies. There is a quack remedy which -is called Reciprocity, and this quack remedy is under the special -protection of quack doctors, and among the quack doctors, I am sorry -to say, there appear to be some in very high station indeed; and if I -am rightly informed, no less a person than her Majesty’s Secretary -of State for Foreign Affairs has been moving about the country, and -indicating a very considerable expectation that possibly by reciprocity -agricultural distress will be relieved.[70] Let me test, gentlemen, the -efficacy of this quack remedy for your, in some places, agricultural -pressure, and generally distress—the pressure that has been upon you, -the struggle in which you are engaged. Pray watch its operation; pray -note what is said by the advocates of reciprocity. They always say, -We are the soundest and best free-traders. We recommend reciprocity -because it is the truly effectual method of bringing about free trade. -At present America imposes enormous duties upon our cotton goods and -upon our iron goods. Put reciprocity into play, and America will become -a free-trading country. Very well, gentlemen, how would that operate -upon you agriculturists in particular? Why, it would operate thus: If -your condition is to be regretted in certain particulars, and capable -of amendment, I beg you to cast an eye of sympathy upon the condition -of the American agriculturist. It has been very well said, and very -truly said,—though it is a smart antithesis,—the American agriculturist -has got to buy every thing that he wants at prices which are fixed in -Washington by the legislation of America, but he has got to sell every -thing that he produces at prices which are fixed in Liverpool—fixed -by the free competition of the world. How would you like that, -gentlemen—to have protective prices to pay for every thing that you -use—for your manures, for your animals, for your implements, for all -your farming stock, and at the same time to have to sell what you -produce in the free and open market of the world? But bring reciprocity -into play, and then, if reciprocity doctors are right, the Americans -will remove all their protective duties, and the American farmer, -instead of producing, as he does now, under the disadvantage, and -the heavy disadvantage, of having to pay protective prices for every -thing that constitutes his farming stock, will have all his tools, and -implements, and manures, and every thing else purchased in the free, -open market of the world at free-trade prices. So he will be able to -produce his corn to compete with you even cheaper than he does now. So -much for reciprocity considered as a cure for distress. I am not going -to consider it now in any other point of view. - -But, gentlemen, there are another set of men who are bolder still, -and who are not for reciprocity; who are not content with that milder -form of quackery, but who recommend a reversion, pure and simple, to -what I may fairly call, I think, the exploded doctrine of protection. -And upon this, gentlemen, I think it necessary, if you will allow me, -to say to you a few words, because it is a very serious matter, and -it is all the more serious because her Majesty’s government—I do not -scruple to say—are coquetting with this subject in a way which is -not right. They are tampering with it; they are playing with it. A -protective speech was made in the House of Commons, in a debate last -year by Mr. Chaplin, on the part of what is called “the agricultural -interest.” Mr. Chaplin did not use the word protection, but what he -did say was this: he said he demanded that the malt tax should be -abolished, and the revenue supplied by a tax upon foreign barley or -some other foreign commodity. Well, if he has a measure of that kind -in his pocket, I don’t ask him to affix the word protection to it. I -can do that for myself. Not a word of rebuke, gentlemen, was uttered -to the doctrines of Mr. Chaplin. He was complimented upon the ability -of his speech and the well-chosen terms of his motion. Some of the -members of her Majesty’s government—the minor members of her Majesty’s -government—the humbler luminaries of that great constellation—have been -going about the country and telling their farming constituents that -they think the time has come when a return to protection might very -wisely be tried. But, gentlemen, what delusions have been practised -upon the unfortunate British farmer! When we go back for twenty years, -what is now called the Tory party was never heard of as the Tory -party. It was always heard of as the party of protection. As long as -the chiefs of the protective party were not in office, as long as they -were irresponsible, they recommended themselves to the good-will of -the farmer as protectionists, and said they would set him up and put -his interests on a firm foundation through protection. We brought them -into office in the year 1852. I gave with pleasure a vote that assisted -to bring them into office. I thought bringing them into office was -the only way of putting their professions to the test. They came into -office, and before they had been six months in office they had thrown -protection to the winds. And that is the way in which the British -farmer’s expectations are treated by those who claim for themselves in -the special sense the designation of his friends. - -It is exactly the same with the malt tax. Gentlemen, what is done with -the malt tax? The malt tax is held by them to be a great grievance on -the British farmer. Whenever a Liberal government is in office, from -time to time they have a great muster from all parts of the country -to vote for the abolition of the malt tax. But when a Tory government -comes into office, the abolition of the malt tax is totally forgotten; -and we have now had six years of a Tory government without a word said, -as far as I can recollect,—and my friend in the chair could correct -me if I were wrong,—without a motion made, or a vote taken, on the -subject of the malt tax. The malt tax, great and important as it is, -is small in reference to protection. Gentlemen, it is a very serious -matter indeed if we ought to go back to protection, because how did we -come out of protection to free trade? We came out of it by a struggle -which in its crisis threatened to convulse the country, which occupied -Parliaments, upon which elections turned, which took up twenty years of -our legislative life, which broke up parties. In a word, it effected a -change so serious, that if, after the manner in which we effected that -change, it be right that we should go back upon our steps, then all I -can say is, that we must lose that which has ever been one of the most -honorable distinctions of British legislation in the general estimation -of the world,—that British legislation, if it moves slowly, always -moves in one direction—that we never go back upon our steps. - -But are we such children that, after spending twenty years—as I may -say from 1840 to 1860—in breaking down the huge fabric of protection, -in 1879 we are seriously to set about building it up again? If that be -right, gentlemen, let it be done, but it will involve on our part a -most humiliating confession. In my opinion it is not right. Protection, -however, let me point out, now is asked for in two forms, and I am -next going to quote Lord Beaconsfield for the purpose of expressing my -concurrence with him. - -Mostly, I am bound to say, as far as my knowledge goes, protection has -not been asked for by the agricultural interest, certainly not by the -farmers of Scotland. - -It has been asked for by certain injudicious cliques and classes -of persons connected with other industries—connected with some -manufacturing industries. They want to have duties laid upon -manufactures. - -But here Lord Beaconsfield said—and I cordially agree with him—that he -would be no party to the institution of a system in which protection -was to be given to manufactures, and to be refused to agriculture. - -That one-sided protection I deem to be totally intolerable, and I -reject it even at the threshold as unworthy of a word of examination or -discussion. - -But let us go on to two-sided protection, and see whether that is -any better—that is to say, protection in the shape of duties on -manufactures, and protection in the shape of duties upon corn, duties -upon meat, duties upon butter and cheese and eggs, and every thing that -can be produced from the land. Now, gentlemen, in order to see whether -we can here find a remedy for our difficulties, I prefer to speculation -and mere abstract argument the method of reverting to experience. -Experience will give us very distinct lessons upon this matter. We -have the power, gentlemen, of going back to the time when protection -was in full and unchecked force, and of examining the effect which it -produced upon the wealth of the country. How, will you say, do I mean -to test that wealth? I mean to test that wealth by the exports of the -country, and I will tell you why, because your prosperity depends upon -the wealth of your customers—that is to say, upon their capacity to -buy what you produce. And who are your customers? Your customers are -the industrial population of the country, who produce what we export -and send all over the world. Consequently, when exports increase, your -customers are doing a large business, are growing wealthy, are putting -money in their pockets, and are able to take that money out of their -pockets in order to fill their stomachs with what you produce. When, on -the contrary, exports do not increase, your customers are poor, your -prices go down, as you have felt within the last few years, in the -price of meat, for example, and in other things, and your condition -is proportionally depressed. Now, gentlemen, down to the year 1842 no -profane hand had been laid upon the august fabric of protection. For -recollect that the farmers’ friends always told us that it was a very -august fabric, and that if you pulled it down it would involve the ruin -of the country. That, you remember, was the commonplace of every Tory -speech delivered from a country hustings to a farming constituency. -But before 1842 another agency had come into force, which gave new -life in a very considerable degree to the industry of the country, -and that was the agency of railways, of improved communication, which -shortened distance and cheapened transit, and effected in that way an -enormous economical gain and addition to the wealth of the country. -Therefore, in order to see what we owe to our friend protection, I -won’t allow that friend to take credit for what was done by railways -in improving the wealth of the country. I will go to the time when I -may say there were virtually no railways—that is the time before 1830. -Now, gentlemen, here are the official facts which I shall lay before -you in the simplest form, and, remember, using round numbers. I do -that because, although round numbers cannot be absolutely accurate, -they are easy for the memory to take in, and they involve no material -error, no falsification of the case. In the year 1800, gentlemen, -the exports of British produce were thirty-nine and a half millions -sterling in value. The population at that time,—no, I won’t speak of -the exact figure of the population, because I have not got it for -the three kingdoms.[71] In the years 1826 to 1830,—that is, after a -medium period of eight-and-twenty years,—the average of our exports for -those five years, which had been thirty-nine and a half millions in -1800, was thirty-seven millions. It is fair to admit that in 1800 the -currency was somewhat less sound, and therefore I am quite willing to -admit that the thirty-seven millions probably meant as much in value -as the thirty-nine and a half millions; but substantially, gentlemen, -the trade of the country was stationary, practically stationary, under -protection. The condition of the people grew, if possible, rather worse -than better. The wealth of the country was nearly stationary. But now I -show you what protection produced; that it made no addition, it gave no -onward movement to the profits of those who are your customers. But on -these profits you depend; because, under all circumstances, gentlemen, -this I think, nobody will dispute,—a considerable portion of what the -Englishman or the Scotchman produces will, some way or other, find its -way down his throat. - -What has been the case, gentlemen, since we cast off the superstition -of protection, since we discarded the imposture of protection? I will -tell you what happened between 1830, when there were no railways, -and 1842, when no change, no important change, had been made as to -protection, but when the railway system was in operation, hardly in -Scotland, but in England to a very great extent, to a very considerable -extent upon the main lines of communication. The exports which in 1830 -had been somewhere about £37,000,000, between 1840 and 1842 showed -an average amount of £50,000,000. That seems due, gentlemen, to the -agency of railways; and I wish you to bear in mind the increasing -benefit now derived from that agency, in order that I may not claim -any undue credit for freedom of trade. From 1842, gentlemen, onward, -the successive stages of free trade began; in 1842, in 1845, in 1846, -in 1853, and again in 1860, the large measures were carried which have -completely reformed your customs tariff, and reduced it from a taxation -of twelve hundred articles to a taxation of, I think, less than twelve. - -Now, under the system of protection, the export trade of the country, -the wealth and the power of the manufacturing and producing classes -to purchase your agricultural products, did not increase at all. In -the time when railways began to be in operation, but before free -trade, the exports of the country increased, as I have shown you, by -£13,000,000 in somewhere about thirteen years—that is to say, taking it -roughly, at the rate of £1,000,000 a year. - -But since 1842, and down to the present time, we have had, along with -railways, always increasing their benefits,—we have had the successive -adoption of free-trade measures; and what has been the state of the -export business of the country? It has risen in this degree, that -that which from 1840 to 1842 averaged £50,000,000, from 1873 to -1878 averaged £218,000,000. Instead of increasing, as it had done -between 1830 and 1842, when railways only were at work, at the rate -of £1,000,000 a year—instead of remaining stagnant as it did when the -country was under protection pure and simple, with no augmentation of -the export trade to enlarge the means of those who buy your products, -the total growth in a period of thirty-five years was no less than -£168,000,000, or, taking it roughly, a growth in the export trade of -the country to the extent of between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 a year. -But, gentlemen, you know the fact. You know very well, that while -restriction was in force, you did not get the prices that you have -been getting for the last twenty years. The price of wheat has been -much the same as it had been before. The price of oats is a better -price than was to be had on the average of protective times. But the -price, with the exception of wheat, of almost every agricultural -commodity, the price of wool, the price of meat, the price of cheese, -the price of every thing that the soil produces, has been largely -increased in a market free and open to the world; because, while the -artificial advantage which you got through protection, as it was -supposed to be an advantage, was removed, you were brought into that -free and open market, and the energy of free trade so enlarged the -buying capacity of your customers, that they were willing and able -to give you, and did give you, a great deal more for your meat, your -wool, and your products in general, than you would ever have got under -the system of protection. Gentlemen, if that be true—and it cannot, I -believe, be impeached or impugned—if that be true, I don’t think I need -further discuss the matter, especially when so many other matters have -to be discussed. - -I will therefore ask you again to cross the seas with me. I see that -the time is flying onward, and, gentlemen, it is very hard upon you -to be so much vexed upon the subject of policy abroad. You think -generally, and I think, that your domestic affairs are quite enough to -call for all your attention. There was a saying of an ancient Greek -orator, who, unfortunately, very much undervalued what we generally -call the better portion of the community—namely, women; he made a very -disrespectful observation, which I am going to quote, not for the -purpose of concurring with it, but for the purpose of an illustration. - -Pericles, the great Athenian statesman, said with regard to women, -their greatest merit was to be never heard of. - -Now, what Pericles untruly said of women, I am very much disposed to -say of foreign affairs—their great merit would be to be never heard -of. Unfortunately, instead of being never heard of, they are always -heard of, and you hear almost of nothing else; and I can’t promise -you, gentlemen, that you will be relieved from this everlasting din, -because the consequences of an unwise meddling with foreign affairs are -consequences that will for some time necessarily continue to trouble -you, and that will find their way to your pockets in the shape of -increased taxation. - -Gentlemen, with that apology I ask you again to go with me beyond the -seas. And as I wish to do full justice, I will tell you what I think -to be the right principles of foreign policy; and then, as far as your -patience and my strength will permit, I will, at any rate for a short -time, illustrate those right principles by some of the departures from -them that have taken place of late years. I first give you, gentlemen, -what I think the right principles of foreign policy. - -The first thing is to foster the strength of the empire by just -legislation and economy at home, thereby producing two of the great -elements of national power—namely, wealth, which is a physical element, -and union and contentment, which are moral elements,—and to reserve the -strength of the empire, to reserve the expenditure of that strength, -for great and worthy occasions abroad. Here is my first principle of -foreign policy: good government at home. - -My second principle of foreign policy is this: that its aim ought to -be to preserve to the nations of the world—and especially, were it but -for shame, when we recollect the sacred name we bear as Christians, -especially to the Christian nations of the world—the blessings of -peace. That is my second principle. - -My third principle is this: Even, gentlemen, when you do a good -thing, you may do it in so bad a way that you may entirely spoil the -beneficial effect; and if we were to make ourselves the apostles of -peace in the sense of conveying to the minds of other nations that we -thought ourselves more entitled to an opinion on that subject than they -are, or to deny their rights—well, very likely we should destroy the -whole value of our doctrines. In my opinion the third sound principle -is this: to strive to cultivate and maintain, aye, to the very -uttermost, what is called the concert of Europe; to keep the powers -of Europe in union together. And why? Because by keeping all in union -together you neutralize, and fetter, and bind up the selfish aims of -each. I am not here to flatter either England or any of them. They have -selfish aims, as, unfortunately, we in late years have too sadly shown -that we too have had selfish aims; but their common action is fatal to -selfish aims. Common action means common objects; and the only objects -for which you can unite together the powers of Europe are objects -connected with the common good of them all. That, gentlemen, is my -third principle of foreign policy. - -My fourth principle is: that you should avoid needless and entangling -engagements. You may boast about them, you may brag about them, you -may say you are procuring consideration for the country. You may say -that an Englishman can now hold up his head among the nations. You -may say that he is now not in the hands of a Liberal ministry, who -thought of nothing but pounds, shillings, and pence. But what does all -this come to, gentlemen? It comes to this, that you are increasing -your engagements without increasing your strength; and if you increase -engagements without increasing strength, you diminish strength, you -abolish strength; you really reduce the empire and do not increase it. -You render it less capable of performing its duties; you render it an -inheritance less precious to hand on to future generations. - -My fifth principle is this, gentlemen: to acknowledge the equal rights -of all nations. You may sympathize with one nation more than another. -Nay, you must sympathize in certain circumstances with one nation more -than another. You sympathize most with those nations, as a rule, with -which you have the closest connection in language, in blood, and in -religion, or whose circumstances at the time seem to give the strongest -claim to sympathy. But in point of right all are equal, and you have -no right to set up a system under which one of them is to be placed -under moral suspicion or espionage, or to be made the constant subject -of invective. If you do that, but especially if you claim for yourself -a superiority, a pharisaical superiority over the whole of them, then -I say you may talk about your patriotism if you please, but you are -a misjudging friend of your country, and in undermining the basis of -the esteem and respect of other people for your country you are in -reality inflicting the severest injury upon it. I have now given you, -gentlemen, five principles of foreign policy. Let me give you a sixth, -and then I have done. - -And that sixth is: that in my opinion foreign policy, subject to all -the limitations that I have described, the foreign policy of England -should always be inspired by the love of freedom. There should be a -sympathy with freedom, a desire to give it scope, founded not upon -visionary ideas, but upon the long experience of many generations -within the shores of this happy isle, that in freedom you lay the -firmest foundations both of loyalty and order; the firmest foundations -for the development of individual character, and the best provision for -the happiness of the nation at large. In the foreign policy of this -country the name of Canning ever will be honored. The name of Russell -ever will be honored. The name of Palmerston ever will be honored by -those who recollect the erection of the kingdom of Belgium, and the -union of the disjoined provinces of Italy. It is that sympathy, not a -sympathy with disorder, but, on the contrary, founded upon the deepest -and most profound love of order,—it is that sympathy which in my -opinion ought to be the very atmosphere in which a foreign secretary of -England ought to live and to move. - -Gentlemen, it is impossible for me to do more to-day than to attempt -very slight illustrations of those principles. But in uttering those -principles, I have put myself in a position in which no one is entitled -to tell me—you will hear me out in what I say—that I simply object -to the acts of others, and lay down no rules of action myself, I am -not only prepared to show what are the rules of action which in my -judgment are the right rules, but I am prepared to apply them, nor -will I shrink from their application. I will take, gentlemen, the name -which, most of all others, is associated with suspicion, and with -alarm, and with hatred in the minds of many Englishmen. I will take -the name of Russia, and at once I will tell you what I think about -Russia, and how I am prepared as a member of Parliament to proceed in -any thing that respects Russia. You have heard me, gentlemen, denounced -sometimes, I believe, as a Russian spy, sometimes as a Russian agent, -sometimes as perhaps a Russian fool, which is not so bad, but still -not very desirable. But, gentlemen, when you come to evidence, the -worst thing that I have ever seen quoted out of any speech or writing -of mine about Russia is that I did one day say, or I believe I wrote, -these terrible words: I recommended Englishmen to imitate Russia in her -good deeds. Was not that a terrible proposition? I cannot recede from -it. I think we ought to imitate Russia in her good deeds, and if the -good deeds be few, I am sorry for it, but I am not the less disposed on -that account to imitate them when they come. I will now tell you what I -think just about Russia. - -I make it one of my charges against the foreign policy of her -Majesty’s government, that, while they have completely estranged from -this country—let us not conceal the fact—the feelings of a nation -of eighty millions, for that is the number of the subjects of the -Russian empire,—while they have contrived completely to estrange the -feelings of that nation, they have aggrandized the power of Russia. -They have aggrandized the power of Russia in two ways, which I will -state with perfect distinctness. They have augmented her territory. -Before the European powers met at Berlin, Lord Salisbury met with -Count Schouvaloff, and Lord Salisbury agreed that, unless he could -convince Russia by his arguments in the open Congress of Berlin, he -would support the restoration to the despotic power of Russia of that -country north of the Danube which at the moment constituted a portion -of the free state of Roumania. Why, gentlemen, what had been done by -the Liberal government, which forsooth, attended to nothing but pounds, -shillings, and pence? The Liberal government had driven Russia back -from the Danube. Russia, which was a Danubian power before the Crimean -War, lost this position on the Danube by the Crimean War; and the Tory -government, which has been incensing and inflaming you against Russia, -yet nevertheless, by binding itself beforehand to support, when the -judgment was taken, the restoration of that country to Russia,[72] has -aggrandized the power of Russia. - -It further aggrandized the power of Russia in Armenia; but I would not -dwell upon that matter if it were not for a very strange circumstance. -You know that an Armenian province was given to Russia after the war, -but about that I own to you I have very much less feeling of objection. -I have objected from the first, vehemently, and in every form, to the -granting of territory on the Danube to Russia, and carrying back the -population of a certain country from a free state to a despotic state; -but with regard to the transfer of a certain portion of the Armenian -people from the government of Turkey to the government of Russia. I -must own that I contemplate that transfer with much greater equanimity. -I have no fear myself of the territorial extensions of Russia, in Asia, -no fear of them whatever. I think the fears are no better than old -women’s fears. And I don’t wish to encourage her aggressive tendencies -in Asia, or anywhere else. But I admit it may be, and probably is, -the case that there is some benefit attending upon the transfer of a -portion of Armenia from Turkey to Russia. - -But here is a very strange fact. You know that that portion of Armenia -includes the port of Batoum. Lord Salisbury has lately stated to the -country that, by the Treaty of Berlin, the port of Batoum is to be -only a commercial port. If the Treaty of Berlin stated that it was -to be only a commercial port, which, of course, could not be made an -arsenal, that fact would be very important. But happily, gentlemen, -although treaties are concealed from us nowadays as long and as often -as is possible, the Treaty of Berlin is an open instrument. We can -consult it for ourselves; and when we consult the Treaty of Berlin, -we find it states that Batoum shall be essentially a commercial port, -but not that it shall be only a commercial port. Why, gentlemen, Leith -is essentially a commercial port, but there is nothing to prevent -the people of this country, if in their wisdom or their folly they -should think fit, from constituting Leith as a great naval arsenal -or fortification; and there is nothing to prevent the Emperor of -Russia, while leaving to Batoum a character that shall be essentially -commercial, from joining with that another character that is not in -the slightest degree excluded by the treaty, and making it as much -as he pleases a port of military defence. Therefore, I challenge the -assertion of Lord Salisbury; and as Lord Salisbury is fond of writing -letters to the _Times_ to bring the Duke of Argyll to book, he perhaps -will be kind enough to write another letter to the _Times_, and tell in -what clause of the Treaty of Berlin he finds it written that the port -of Batoum shall be only a commercial port. For the present, I simply -leave it on record that he has misrepresented the Treaty of Berlin. - -With respect to Russia, I take two views of the position of Russia. The -position of Russia in Central Asia I believe to be one that has, in the -main, been forced upon her against her will. She has been compelled—and -this is the impartial opinion of the world,—she has been compelled to -extend her frontier southward in Central Asia by causes in some degree -analogous to, but certainly more stringent and imperative than, the -causes which have commonly led us to extend, in a far more important -manner, our frontier in India; and I think it, gentlemen, much to the -credit of the late government, much to the honor of Lord Clarendon -and Lord Granville, that, when we were in office, we made a covenant -with Russia, in which Russia bound herself to exercise no influence or -interference whatever in Afghanistan, we, on the other hand, making -known our desire that Afghanistan should continue free and independent. -Both the powers acted with uniform strictness and fidelity upon this -engagement until the day when we were removed from office. But Russia, -gentlemen, has another position—her position in respect to Turkey; and -here it is that I have complained of the government for aggrandizing -the power of Russia; it is on this point that I most complain. - -The policy of her Majesty’s government was a policy of repelling -and repudiating the Slavonic populations of Turkey-in-Europe, and -of declining to make England the advocate for their interests. Nay, -more, she became in their view the advocate of the interests opposed -to theirs. Indeed, she was rather the decided advocate of Turkey; and -now Turkey is full of loud complaints—and complaints, I must say, not -unjust—that we allured her on to her ruin; that we gave the Turks a -right to believe that we should support them; that our ambassadors, -Sir Henry Elliot and Sir Austin Layard, both of them said we had most -vital interests in maintaining Turkey as it was, and consequently -the Turks thought if we had vital interests, we should certainly -defend them; and they were thereby lured on into that ruinous, cruel, -and destructive war with Russia. But by our conduct to the Slavonic -populations we alienated those populations from us. We made our name -odious among them. They had every disposition to sympathize with us, -every disposition to confide in us. They are, as a people, desirous -of freedom, desirous of self-government, with no aggressive views, -but hating the idea of being absorbed in a huge despotic empire like -Russia. But when they found that we, and the other powers of Europe -under our unfortunate guidance, declined to become in any manner their -champions in defence of the rights of life, of property, and of female -honor,—when they found that there was no call which could find its way -to the heart of England through its government, or to the hearts of -other powers, and that Russia alone was disposed to fight for them, -why naturally they said, Russia is our friend. We have done every -thing, gentlemen, in our power to drive these populations into the -arms of Russia. If Russia has aggressive dispositions in the direction -of Turkey—and I think it probable that she may have them,—it is we -who have laid the ground upon which Russia may make her march to the -south,—we who have taught the Bulgarians, the Servians, the Roumanians, -the Montenegrins, that there is one power in Europe, and only one, -which is ready to support in act and by the sword her professions of -sympathy with the oppressed populations of Turkey.[73] That power is -Russia, and how can you blame these people if, in such circumstances, -they are disposed to say, Russia is our friend? But why did we make -them say it? Simply because of the policy of the government, not -because of the wishes of the people of this country. Gentlemen, this is -the most dangerous form of aggrandizing Russia. If Russia is aggressive -anywhere, if Russia is formidable anywhere, it is by movements toward -the south, it is by schemes for acquiring command of the Straits or -of Constantinople; and there is no way by which you can possibly so -much assist her in giving reality to these designs, as by inducing and -disposing the populations of these provinces, who are now in virtual -possession of them, to look upon Russia as their champion and their -friend, to look upon England as their disguised, perhaps, but yet real -and effective enemy. - -Why, now, gentlemen, I have said that I think it not unreasonable -either to believe, or at any rate to admit it to be possible, that -Russia has aggressive designs in the east of Europe. I do not mean -immediate aggressive designs. I do not believe that the Emperor of -Russia is a man of aggressive schemes or policy. It is that, looking -to that question in the long run, looking at what has happened, and -what may happen in ten or twenty years, in one generation, in two -generations, it is highly probable that in some circumstances Russia -may develop aggressive tendencies toward the south. - -Perhaps you will say I am here guilty of the same injustice to Russia -that I have been deprecating, because I say that we ought not to -adopt the method of condemning anybody without cause, and setting -up exceptional principles in proscription of a particular nation. -Gentlemen, I will explain to you in a moment the principle upon which -I act, and the grounds upon which I form my judgment. They are simply -these grounds: I look at the position of Russia, the geographical -position of Russia relatively to Turkey. I look at the comparative -strength of the two empires; I look at the importance of the -Dardanelles and the Bosphorus as an exit and a channel for the military -and commercial marine of Russia to the Mediterranean; and what I say -to myself is this: If the United Kingdom were in the same position -relatively to Turkey which Russia holds upon the map of the globe, I -feel quite sure that we should be very apt indeed both to entertain -and to execute aggressive designs upon Turkey. Gentlemen, I will go -further, and will frankly own to you that I believe if we, instead -of happily inhabiting this island, had been in the possession of the -Russian territory, and in the circumstances of the Russian people, we -should most likely have eaten up Turkey long ago. And consequently, -in saying that Russia ought to be vigilantly watched in that quarter, -I am only applying to her the rule which in parallel circumstances I -feel convinced ought to be applied, and would be justly applied, to -judgments upon our own country. - -Gentlemen, there is only one other point on which I must still say a -few words to you, although there are a great many upon which I have a -great many words yet to say somewhere or other. - -Of all the principles, gentlemen, of foreign policy which I have -enumerated, that to which I attach the greatest value is the principle -of the equality of nations; because, without recognizing that -principle, there is no such thing as public right, and without public -international right there is no instrument available for settling -the transactions of mankind except material force. Consequently the -principle of equality among nations lies, in my opinion, at the very -basis and root of a Christian civilization, and when that principle is -compromised or abandoned, with it must depart our hopes of tranquillity -and of progress for mankind. - -I am sorry to say, gentlemen, that I feel it my absolute duty to make -this charge against the foreign policy under which we have lived -for the last two years, since the resignation of Lord Derby.[74] It -has been a foreign policy, in my opinion, wholly, or to a perilous -extent, unregardful of public right, and it has been founded upon the -basis of a false, I think an arrogant and a dangerous, assumption, -although I do not question its being made conscientiously and for what -was believed the advantage of the country,—an untrue, arrogant, and -dangerous assumption that we are entitled to assume for ourselves some -dignity, which we should also be entitled to withhold from others, and -to claim on our own part authority to do things which we would not -permit to be done by others. For example, when Russia was going to -the Congress at Berlin, we said: “Your Treaty of San Stefano is of no -value. It is an act between you and Turkey; but the concerns of Turkey -by the Treaty of Paris are the concerns of Europe at large. We insist -upon it that the whole of your Treaty of San Stefano shall be submitted -to the Congress at Berlin, that they may judge how far to open it in -each and every one of its points, because the concerns of Turkey are -the common concerns of the powers of Europe acting in concert.” - -Having asserted that principle to the world, what did we do? These -two things, gentlemen: secretly, without the knowledge of Parliament, -without even the forms of official procedure, Lord Salisbury met Count -Schouvaloff in London, and agreed with him upon the terms on which the -two powers together should be bound in honor to one another to act upon -all the most important points when they came before the Congress at -Berlin. Having alleged against Russia that she should not be allowed to -settle Turkish affairs with Turkey, because they were but two powers, -and these affairs were the common affairs of Europe, and of European -interest, we then got Count Schouvaloff into a private room, and on the -part of England and Russia, they being but two powers, we settled a -large number of the most important of these affairs in utter contempt -and derogation of the very principle for which the government had been -contending for months before, for which they had asked Parliament to -grant a sum of £6,000,000, for which they had spent that £6,000,000 in -needless and mischievous armaments.[75] That which we would not allow -Russia to do with Turkey, because we pleaded the rights of Europe, we -ourselves did with Russia, in contempt of the rights of Europe. Nor -was that all, gentlemen. That act was done, I think, on one of the -last days of May, in the year 1878, and the document was published, -made known to the world, made known to the Congress at Berlin, to its -infinite astonishment, unless I am very greatly misinformed. - -But that was not all. Nearly at the same time we performed the same -operation in another quarter. We objected to a treaty between Russia -and Turkey as having no authority, though that treaty was made in the -light of day—namely, to the Treaty of San Stefano; and what did we do? -We went not in the light of day, but in the darkness of the night,—not -in the knowledge and cognizance of other powers, all of whom would have -had the faculty and means of watching all along, and of preparing and -taking their own objections and shaping their own policy,—not in the -light of day, but in the darkness of the night, we sent the ambassador -of England in Constantinople to the minister of Turkey, and there he -framed, even while the Congress of Berlin was sitting to determine -these matters of common interest, he framed that which is too famous, -shall I say, or rather too notorious, as the Anglo-Turkish Convention. - -Gentlemen, it is said, and said truly, that truth beats fiction; that -what happens in fact from time to time is of a character so daring, -so strange, that if the novelist were to imagine it and put it upon -his pages, the whole world would reject it from its improbability. -And that is the case of the Anglo-Turkish Convention. For who would -have believed it possible that we should assert before the world the -principle that Europe only could deal with the affairs of the Turkish -empire, and should ask Parliament for six millions to support us in -asserting that principle, should send ministers to Berlin who declared -that unless that principle was acted upon they would go to war with -the material that Parliament had placed in their hands, and should at -the same time be concluding a separate agreement with Turkey, under -which those matters of European jurisdiction were coolly transferred -to English jurisdiction; and the whole matter was sealed with the -worthless bribe of the possession and administration of the island of -Cyprus![76] I said, gentlemen, the worthless bribe of the island of -Cyprus, and that is the truth. It is worthless for our purposes—not -worthless in itself; an island of resources, an island of natural -capabilities, provided they are allowed to develop themselves in the -course of circumstances, without violent and unprincipled methods -of action. But Cyprus was not thought to be worthless by those who -accepted it as a bribe. On the contrary, you were told that it was to -secure the road to India; you were told that it was to be the site of -an arsenal very cheaply made, and more valuable than Malta; you were -told that it was to revive trade. And a multitude of companies were -formed, and sent agents and capital to Cyprus, and some of them, I -fear, grievously burned their fingers there. I am not going to dwell -upon that now. What I have in view is not the particular merits of -Cyprus, but the illustration that I have given you in the case of the -agreement of Lord Salisbury with Count Schouvaloff, and in the case of -the Anglo-Turkish Convention, of the manner in which we have asserted -for ourselves a principle that we had denied to others—namely, the -principle of overriding the European authority of the Treaty of Paris, -and taking the matters which that treaty gave to Europe into our own -separate jurisdiction. - -Now, gentlemen, I am sorry to find that that which I call the -pharisaical assertion of our own superiority has found its way alike -into the practice, and seemingly into the theories of the government. -I am not going to assert any thing which is not known, but the -Prime-Minister has said that there is one day in the year—namely, -the 9th of November, Lord Mayor’s Day—on which the language of sense -and truth is to be heard amidst the surrounding din of idle rumors -generated and fledged in the brains of irresponsible scribes. I do -not agree, gentlemen, in that panegyric upon the 9th of November. -I am much more apt to compare the ninth of November—certainly a -well-known day in the year—but as to some of the speeches that have -lately been made upon it, I am very much disposed to compare it with -another day in the year, well known to British tradition, and that -other day in the year is the first of April. But, gentlemen, on that -day the Prime-Minister, speaking out,—I do not question for a moment -his own sincere opinion,—made what I think one of the most unhappy and -ominous allusions ever made by a minister of this country. He quoted -certain words, easily rendered as “Empire and Liberty”—words (he said) -of a Roman statesman, words descriptive of the state of Rome—and he -quoted them as words which were capable of legitimate application -to the position and circumstances of England.[77] I join issue with -the Prime-Minister upon that subject, and I affirm that nothing can -be more fundamentally unsound, more practically ruinous, than the -establishment of Roman analogies for the guidance of British policy. -What, gentlemen, was Rome? Rome was indeed an imperial state, you may -tell me,—I know not, I cannot read the counsels of Providence,—a state -having a mission to subdue the world, but a state whose very basis it -was to deny the equal rights, to proscribe the independent existence -of other nations. That, gentlemen, was the Roman idea. It has been -partially and not ill described in three lines of a translation from -Virgil by our great poet Dryden, which runs as follows: - - “O Rome! ’tis thine alone with awful sway - To rule mankind, and make the world obey, - Disposing peace and war thine own majestic way.” - -We are told to fall back upon this example. No doubt the word “Empire” -was qualified with the word “Liberty.” But what did the two words -“Liberty” and “Empire” mean in a Roman mouth? They meant simply this: -“Liberty for ourselves, Empire over the rest of mankind.” - -I do not think, gentlemen, that this ministry, or any other ministry, -is going to place us in the position of Rome. What I object to is the -revival of the idea. I care not how feebly, I care not even how, -from a philosophic or historical point of view, how ridiculous the -attempt at this revival may be. I say it indicates an intention—I say -it indicates a frame of mind, and the frame of mind, unfortunately, I -find, has been consistent with the policy of which I have given you -some illustrations—the policy of denying to others the rights that we -claim ourselves. No doubt, gentlemen, Rome may have had its work to -do, and Rome did its work. But modern times have brought a different -state of things. Modern times have established a sisterhood of nations, -equal, independent, each of them built up under that legitimate defence -which public law affords to every nation, living within its own -borders, and seeking to perform its own affairs; but if one thing more -than another has been detestable to Europe, it has been the appearance -upon the stage from time to time of men who, even in the times of -the Christian civilization, have been thought to aim at universal -dominion. It was this aggressive disposition on the part of Louis XIV., -King of France, that led your forefathers, gentlemen, freely to spend -their blood and treasure in a cause not immediately their own, and to -struggle against the method of policy which, having Paris for its -centre, seemed to aim at an universal monarchy.[78] - -It was the very same thing, a century and a half later, which was the -charge launched, and justly launched, against Napoleon, that under his -dominion France was not content even with her extended limits, but -Germany, and Italy, and Spain, apparently without any limit to this -pestilent and pernicious process, were to be brought under the dominion -or influence of France, and national equality was to be trampled under -foot, and national rights denied. For that reason, England in the -struggle almost exhausted herself, greatly impoverished her people, -brought upon herself, and Scotland too, the consequences of a debt -that nearly crushed their energies, and poured forth their best blood -without limit, in order to resist and put down these intolerable -pretensions. - -Gentlemen, it is but in a pale and weak and almost despicable miniature -that such ideas are now set up, but you will observe that the poison -lies—that the poison and the mischief lie—in the principle and not the -scale. - -It is the opposite principle which, I say, has been compromised by the -action of the ministry, and which I call upon you, and upon any who -choose to hear my views, to vindicate when the day of our election -comes; I mean the sound and the sacred principle that Christendom is -formed of a band of nations who are united to one another in the bonds -of right; that they are without distinction of great and small; there -is an absolute equality between them,—the same sacredness defends -the narrow limits of Belgium as attaches to the extended frontiers -of Russia, or Germany, or France. I hold that he who by act or word -brings that principle into peril or disparagement, however honest his -intentions may be, places himself in the position of one inflicting—I -won’t say intending to inflict—I ascribe nothing of the sort—but -inflicting injury upon his own country, and endangering the peace and -all the most fundamental interests of Christian society. - - - - -ILLUSTRATIVE NOTES. - - -NOTE 1, p. 48. - - Æolus sits upon his lofty tower - And holds the sceptre, calming all their rage; - Else would they bear sea, earth, and heaven profound - In rapid flight, and sweep them through the air. - - —_Virgil’s Æneid_, book i., lines 56–59. - -NOTE 2, p. 73.—Only so much of London was represented as was included -in the territory of the Corporation—scarcely more than one square -mile in the heart of the metropolis. The other portions of the city, -Westminster, Southwark, Paddington, Chelsea, etc., were subsequently -enfranchised as individual boroughs. - -NOTE 3, p. 73.—The condition of representation in Scotland before the -passage of the Reform Bill was worse than that in England. The county -franchise consisted of what were known as “superiorities,” which were -bought and sold like stocks in open market. The County of Argyll, for -example, with a population of 100,000 had only 115 electors, of whom -84 resided outside the county, and were known as “out voters.” The -city and borough franchise was vested in the town-councillors, who -constituted a close corporation, with the right of electing their own -successors. Edinburgh and Glasgow, the two first cities in Scotland, -elected their representatives in this way, each having a constituency -of thirty-three persons. See May, “Con. Hist.,” Am. ed., i., 284. - -NOTE 4, p. 81.—The revolution of 1830 resulted in a complete change in -political affairs both in Belgium and in France. The restoration of -the Bourbons and the doctrines of the Holy Alliance led to the general -policy of repression. This policy culminated in July, 1830, with the -publication of five ordinances issued by Charles X. of France. These -ordinances, which were an audacious violation of the constitution, -suspended the liberty of the press, dissolved the newly elected Chamber -of Deputies, changed the system of election and reduced the number -of representatives, convoked the two Chambers, and appointed a new -Council of State from the extreme Royalist party. The city was thrown -into immediate revolt, and within four days the royal palace was in -the hands of the mob. On the 2d of August the king was obliged to -abdicate in favor of Louis Philippe. The revolution outside of France -made itself felt chiefly in Belgium, where, as the result of a violent -struggle, the friends of liberal government succeeded in adopting a -constitution modelled after that of England. - -NOTE 5, p. 86.—Sir Robert Peel, in his argument in opposition to the -bill, had urged that Pitt, Fox, Canning, Brougham, and Macaulay himself -had been brought into Parliament from nomination boroughs. - -NOTE 6, p. 87.—There were two memorable instances during the short -political experience of Socrates, to either of which Macaulay may have -referred. In B.C. 406 he was a member of the Senate and one of the -Prytanes, when he refused to put an unconstitutional question to vote -on the trial of the six generals, though all of the other Prytanes -were against him. Amid great political uproar he persisted in holding -out, and thus prevented the required unanimity. The other instance was -his refusal to obey an unconstitutional order of the Thirty Tyrants to -arrest Leon the Salaminian. See Plato, “Apol. Socr.,” c. 20; and Grote, -“Hist. of Greece,” viii., 200. - -NOTE 7, p. 88.—Reference is made to the repeal of the Oath of Supremacy -Act, by which, in 1829, Irish Roman Catholics otherwise qualified were -admitted to the rights of franchise. In order to prevent too large an -influx of new voters into political power, the forty-shilling condition -of rating was raised to a ten-pound condition. Mr. O’Connell was twice -elected for Clare before he could be admitted to Parliament. - -NOTE 8, p. 91.—Sir Robert Peel, in the early part of his career, had -attached himself to the Tories, and had been elected to the House by -the University of Oxford, with the expectation that he would be the -successful champion of Toryism. When the Irish question, under the lead -of O’Connell, first assumed formidable proportions, Peel was ardently -opposed to the project of emancipation. In the course of the debate, -however, his opposition weakened, and he finally, on coming into the -ministry, became the champion of the cause which he formerly opposed. -Macaulay possibly hoped to draw him into a similar course on the Reform -Bill,—at all events to weaken the force of his opposition to it. He was -not successful; but, as we shall hereafter see, Sir Robert pursued a -nearly identical course in regard to the Corn Laws. - -NOTE 9, p. 109.—On the 12th of March, in the preceding year, Cobden had -moved for a select committee to inquire into the effects of protective -duties on agricultural tenants and laborers. His speech on the occasion -is one of great importance, and may be read with profit in connection -with the speech here given. As Cobden himself was a manufacturer, and -as the repeal sought was believed to be especially in the interests -of his class, the remark was made that this new argument came “from a -suspicious source.” - -NOTE 10, p. 112.—Mr. Villiars was one of the earliest to advocate the -abolition of the Corn Laws, and in 1839 was a recognized leader. In -1841 he was given charge of the interests of the movement in the House -of Commons, where he annually “brought forward his motion.” - -NOTE 11, p. 118.—Quotations in support of the positions taken were here -introduced from speeches of Mr. Pusey, Mr. Hobbes, and Lord Stanley. - -NOTE 12, p. 121.—It should not be forgotten by the reader that the -lands of England are very generally owned in large estates, and that -these are rented in portions to the farmers, who usually pay a fixed -rent to the landlords in money. Sometimes the agreement is for a -long term of years, taking the form of a lease, but more frequently, -as Cobden shows, it is simply an agreement for a short term only, -sometimes even for a single year. - -NOTE 13, p. 126.—Mr. Huskisson, in the distressing period after the -close of the Napoleonic wars, grew into almost universal favor by the -wisdom of his financial methods. In 1823 he became President of the -Board of Trade, and from that time till he was killed at the opening -of the railway between Liverpool and Manchester in 1830, was the most -eminent financial authority in the kingdom. He was the successor of -Pitt in the advocacy of greater freedom of trade, and the advocate of -methods which it was now Cobden’s work to develop. - -NOTE 14, p. 135.—In the debate of March 12, 1844, it had been hinted -that Mr. Cobden, a manufacturer, was in a position to be benefited by -such agricultural distress as his measures were calculated to bring on. -It was urged that by admitting grain free, farmers would be ruined, -laborers driven out of employment, wages would be depressed, and -manufacturers would secure labor at a reduced price. - -NOTE 15, p. 136.—This assertion was also made at the debate a year -before. - -NOTE 15a, p. 143.—The passage referred to, in what can hardly have been -other than mere playfulness, is the following: - - Urit enim lini campum seges, urit avenæ; - Urunt Lethæo perfusa papavera somno. - -For a crop of flax burns the land, also of oats; also poppies -impregnated with Lethæan sleep.—Georgics, Lib. i., 77. - -NOTE 16, p. 150.—At the time Cobden was speaking it was the custom, -whenever there was a “division,” for those in opposition to the motion -to go out into the “lobby,” and for those favoring the motion to remain -in the House. The official count was then made by two sets of tellers. -At the present time, both the “Ayes” and “Noes” go into lobbies, the -“ayes” to the left of the speaker, the “noes” to the right. - -NOTE 17, p. 150.—The repealing bill, it will be remembered, finally -passed the House of Lords June 26, 1846. It was not the report, -however, but what Sir Robert Peel called “the cogency of events,” that -hastened the final action. - -NOTE 18, p. 161.—During the whole of Walpole’s career he held the -views here attributed to him. But his love of office was greater -than his love of peace. When, therefore, the nation clamored for war -with Spain, he declared war, though, as Lord Mahon says: “No man -had a clearer view of the impending mischief and misery.” The same -historian writes that when the bells from every steeple in the city -proclaimed the satisfaction of the people over the declaration of war, -Walpole remarked: “They may ring the bells now; before long they will -be wringing their hands.” Walpole knew that the country was utterly -without preparation for war; and yet rather than lose his place, he -was willing to be the instrument of immeasurable mischief and misery. -When the disasters of the war came on, the Opposition forced the -responsibility of it on the Prime-Minister, and drove him from power in -1742. - -NOTE 19, p. 163.—The speech of Sir Robert Peel here referred to was -a part of a memorable debate in June, 1850, on what is known as the -“Don Pacifico Affair.” Don Pacifico was a Jew born at Gibraltar (and -therefore an English subject), who settled in Athens. In a riot -his house was assailed and its furniture destroyed. His claim was -presented to the English officials, who at once demanded £500 damages -for Don Pacifico. After some delays the English brought a man-of-war -from Constantinople, blockaded the harbor of Athens, and declined to -allow any vessel to depart till the claim was settled. The French and -Russian governments were thrown into considerable excitement, and the -French ambassador left the English court. A resolution of censure was -introduced into the House of Lords, and was carried by a majority -of thirty-seven. In the House of Commons, however, matters took a -different turn. Mr. Roebuck introduced a resolution of general approval -of the foreign policy of the government, intended, of course, to give -the government a better chance to escape the downfall that seemed -impending. Lord Palmerston, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, defended -the government in a speech of extraordinary power, extending, as Mr. -Gladstone said, “from the dusk of one day till the dawn of the next.” -The opponents claimed that Don Pacifico should have sought redress in -the Greek courts, while Palmerston claimed that the condition of the -Greek courts was such as to make a judicial appeal simply a mockery. -The debate extended over four nights, closing with the speech of Peel -in opposition to the government. The resolution of approval was carried -by a majority of forty-six. The Don Pacifico case was finally submitted -to French commissioners, by whom the amount of damages was fixed. The -speech of Peel was memorable for its pacific and judicial tone, as -well as for the fact that it was delivered only a few hours before the -accident from which he died on the 2d of July. See Peel’s “Speeches,” -vol. iv.; Hansard’s “Debates” for 1850, and “Ann. Reg.,” xcii., 57–88; -Phillimore, “Int. Law,” iii., 76. - -NOTE 20, p. 167.—The important assertion here made can hardly be -successfully disputed, though there are many who would be reluctant -to admit its truth. The modern Tories, with Disraeli at their head, -have held that the reform of 1832 tended still further to weaken the -masses of the people. This position, fully elaborated and defended in -Disraeli’s “Defence of the Constitution,” his “Life of Lord George -Bentinck,” and his speech introducing the Reform Bill of 1867, is -touched upon briefly also in the same orator’s speech on “Conservative -Principles” given below. The question is elaborately considered in the -first two chapters of Lecky’s “History of England.” - -NOTE 21, p. 168.—This must be regarded as mere conjecture, though -stated as a fact. Even the formidable alliances against Louis XIV. in -the War of the Spanish Succession were not able to prevent the French -king from keeping his heir upon the Spanish throne. If the Bourbons, in -spite of the allied armies with Marlborough at their head, were able -to hold their position, they would hardly have done less if England -had not interfered. To say that a union of the crowns “would have -been impossible in the nature of things,” is to presume that the line -of succession must have been just what it was. But this, of course, -could not have been foreseen. If a disturbance of the balance of power -ever justifies war, it did so in the case of the War of the Spanish -Succession. - -NOTE 22, p. 168.—This statement is not quite correct. The English -Plenipotentiaries at Vienna were Lord Castelreagh and Lord Wellington. -Castelreagh died in 1822 and Wellington in 1852; whereas the alliance -between the governments of England and France to prevent the -aggressions of Russia did not occur till August, 1853. On the 12th of -August Lord Aberdeen declared that the four great powers, England, -France, Austria, and Prussia, were acting cordially together; but on -the 20th of the same month Lord Clarendon announced that an offensive -alliance had been formed between England and France. It was this -alliance which made all further efforts in behalf of peace hopeless. -It was the opinion not only of Cobden and Bright, but also of Disraeli -and of the Tories generally, that the act which made the war inevitable -was the abandonment of Austria and Prussia and the formation of this -alliance with France. Such is also the opinion of Mr. Kinglake. See -Hansard’s “Debates,” cxxix., 1424, 1768, and 1826; also Kinglake’s -“Crimean War,” _passim_. - -NOTE 23, p. 169.—The so-called doctrine of the “balance of power,” -whatever may be said against it, has been generally held by Europe -ever since it was so energetically advocated by Henry IV., of France, -at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The doctrine may be said -to exercise the functions of a general European police to prevent any -inequitable disturbance of territorial limits. It is difficult to see -what but that doctrine could have prevented France under Napoleon from -getting and holding two thirds of Europe; what would have prevented -Russia long since from destroying Turkey; indeed what would prevent -the strongest power from ultimately absorbing the whole. It did not -prevent the destruction of Poland, partly because there was a general -conviction that Poland was hardly worth saving, and partly because the -partitioning powers were so strong as to make interference at least a -very costly operation. These facts are enough to show that there is -a very important other side to Mr. Bright’s attractive doctrine of -non-interference. The question is not simply whether Europe has been -made better, but also whether she has not been prevented from being -made worse. - -NOTE 24, p. 171.—The orator might also have said that the English -people have very largely given up all _desire_ that the national debt -should be paid off. It affords a convenient investment, which restrains -an undue inclination to speculation and affords a steady and certain -income to vast numbers of the people. Its payment would create a -disturbance which no English minister would venture to advocate. - -NOTE 25, p. 172.—This statement is undoubtedly true; and yet it can -hardly be denied that the course taken by England in the Napoleonic -wars added very greatly to the importance of England as a power. A -little later, Mr. Bright objects to the policy pursued, because “it -is impossible that we can gain one single atom of advantage for this -country.” His opponents would claim that England has gained immense -advantages from the very influence she has acquired, and as shown by -the very examples given by the orator. They would probably also say -that no other class gained so much as the manufacturers, the very class -to which Mr. Bright belonged. - -NOTE 26, p. 174.—The wit of this passage consists in its use of the -expression “out-door relief.” In England the poor laws provide for two -kinds of relief—that afforded in the work-houses and that afforded to -the poor in their own homes. The latter is popularly known as “out-door -relief.” - -NOTE 27, p. 175.—When the claim of Denmark to the Duchies of -Schleswig-Holstein came forward, in consequence of the death of the -last ducal peer, England decided that she had no right to interfere, -though the claims of Denmark were earnestly pressed by the Crown -Princess of England, a daughter of the Danish king. The question was -finally taken up by Prussia, in opposition to the claims of Denmark, in -a manner that aroused the hostility of Austria, and brought on the war -of 1866 between Austria and Prussia. - -NOTE 28, p. 176.—In 1830 the governments of Great Britain, France, -and Russia entered into a treaty, establishing and guaranteeing the -constitutional monarchy of Greece. This was in effect acknowledging -the independence of Greece from Turkey, and guaranteeing to defend -that independence. Mr. Bright could hardly mean to be understood as -objecting to such a guarantee. A loan, furnished by the Rothschilds, -of £2,343,750 was also guaranteed by the three powers, each being -responsible for one third. As the Greek Government did not pay, the -guarantors were held responsible; and in 1866 the amount that had -been paid by England was £1,060,385. This, of course, was held as -a claim against Greece. In 1866 a convention of the powers agreed -that the Greek Government should pay £12,000 a year till all is -liquidated.—Martin’s “Statesman’s Year-Book for 1873,” p. 285. - -NOTE 29, p. 176.—“Animated by the desire of maintaining the integrity -and independence of the Ottoman empire as a security for the peace of -Europe,” is the avowal of the object of the treaty of July 15, 1840, -entered into at London by all the powers except France. The occasion of -it was the revolt of Egypt under Mehemet Ali.—Phillimore, “Int. Law,” -i., 86. - -NOTE 30, p. 177.—As indicated in NOTE 22, the diplomatic act which -precipitated the Crimean War was the offensive alliance of England and -France against Russia. The cause of this alliance was the attitude of -Prussia, which at that time was very weak, and was under the powerful -influence of Russia. After the practical withdrawal of Prussia from her -treaty obligations to protect Turkey, Austria decided not to venture -upon war without the coöperation of Prussia, unless her own Danubian -principalities should be threatened. The withdrawal of Russia from the -mouth of the Danube, and the transfer of the seat of war to the Crimea, -left Austria free to decline to act with England and France. Some of -the diplomatic correspondence was spirited, though perhaps it is going -too far to call it either “offensive” or “insolent.” - -NOTE 31, p. 177.—It is an established principle of international usage -that no nation is obliged to accept or retain a foreign minister that -is offensive to it, and any nation has a right to request the recall -of a minister who is for any reason offensive to it. In 1789 Jefferson -requested the French Government to recall Count de Moustier because he -was “politically and morally offensive.”—Trescott’s “Am. Dip. Hist.,” -34. America requested the recall of Genet, and France in turn requested -the recall of Morris, in 1794, for political reasons.—Hildreth, 2d -series, i., 477. America also requested the recall of Poussin in -1849.—“Ammaire,” xl., 665. In 1872 the Russian minister Catacazy -engaged in writing political articles for the _New York Herald_ -offensive to the government, and his recall was requested. In 1809 -the English Government was requested to recall Minister Jackson from -Washington, “for questioning the word of the Government.” The case -alluded to by Mr. Bright was doubtless that of Sir John Crampton, whose -recall was requested in 1856, because he was found to be enlisting -troops in the United States for the Crimean War.—“Am. Reg. for 1856,” -277; “Ex. Docs. Thirty-fourth Congress,” 107. In all these cases the -request was acceded to without delay. According to Phillimore, ii., -149: “It is in the discretion of the receiving state to refuse the -reception of a certain diplomatic agent.” - -NOTE 32, p. 177.—This is a very immoderate statement, certainly not -justified by the facts. Everybody conceded that “Don Pacifico” had a -claim that was not “false.” The only question in dispute was whether -the claim ought not to have been first presented to the Greek courts. -See Note 19. - -NOTE 33, p. 177.—In 1856 the conduct of the King of Naples toward -political offenders was so tyrannical as to be a scandal to all -Christendom. The governments of England and France addressed -a remonstrance to the government of Naples “upon the general -maladministration of justice in that country, and upon the danger -thereby accruing to the Italian peninsula especially, and generally to -the peace of Europe.” As the remonstrance was rejected by the King of -Naples, England and France showed their condemnation of the internal -policy of the Neapolitan Government by withdrawing their ambassadors, -as under the law of nations they had a perfect right to do. See -Phillimore, ii., 148, and iii. Preface, ix. - -NOTE 34, p. 177.—In 1856 Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General of India, -annexed the kingdom of Oude under the following circumstances: The -East India Company had bound themselves by treaty “to defend the -sovereigns of Oude against foreign and domestic enemies, on condition -that _the State should be governed in such a manner as to render the -lives and property of its population safe_.” Lord Dalhousie found on -investigation that “while the Company performed their part of the -contract, the King of Oude so governed his dominions as to make his -rule a curse to his own people, and to all neighboring territories.” -McCarthy (“Hist. of Our Own Time,” Eng. ed., iii., 61), though an -extreme Liberal in his sympathies, speaks of Lord Dalhousie’s act as -“not only justifiable, but actually inevitable.” The act was only one -of many causes of the Sepoy rebellion. The language of the orator seems -altogether extravagant and unwarranted. - -NOTE 35, p. 178.—The “Opium War” of 1839, and the “Lorcha Arrow War” -of 1856, are now generally and justly condemned. But to say that “no -man with a spark of morality in his composition,” or “who cares any -thing for the opinion of his fellow-countrymen,” “has dared to justify -that war,” is scarcely less than an absurd and amusing exaggeration. -The election of 1856 turned expressly on the justification of Lord -Palmerston in the “Lorcha Arrow War,” and it was Bright’s opposition -to the war which caused his defeat at Birmingham, and obliged him to -take a seat for Manchester. The causes of both of these wars are given -with admirable spirit in McCarthy’s “History of Our Own Time,” chapters -viii. and ix. Cobden also lost his seat for opposition to the war. - -NOTE 36, p. 179.—At the conclusion of the Chinese War in 1858 there -were some who desired a foothold in Japan. Lord Elgin went to the -Japanese capital and succeeded in negotiating a treaty of “peace, -friendship, and commerce,” the first concluded by Japan with any -Western power. This treaty, signed Aug. 26, 1858, and ratified July 11, -1859, is given in “Am. Reg.,” ci., 216, 268. - -NOTE 37, p. 182.—This statement is very difficult to understand. The -exports of British produce have varied not very greatly during the -past twenty years. In 1873 the exports amounted to £255,164,603. -This amount declined with considerable regularity till 1879, when -it was £191,531,756. It then began to increase, and in 1883 reached -£241,461,162. Martin, “Statesman’s Year-Book, for 1884,” 264. It seems -impossible to reconcile these figures with Mr. Bright’s statements, -unless he means _profit_ instead of “trade.” - -NOTE 38, p. 182.—The facts do not justify this statement. At the time -of the Peace of Paris, in September, 1815, the national debt of Great -Britain was £900,436,845. In March of 1855 it had been diminished to -£808,518,448, £91,918,397 having been paid off. The two years of the -Crimean War increased the debt by £30,399,995. But since March, 1857, -the decrease has been £82,541,924, leaving the debt March 31, 1883, -£756,376,519, a diminution of £144,060,326 since 1815. By a law of 1875 -provision was made for the gradual extinction of the debt by means of a -sinking fund to be annually provided for in the budget. In 1883 a bill -passed providing still further for a series of terminable annuities, -by which, in the next twenty years, £173,000,000 will be paid.—Martin, -“Statesman’s Year-Book, for 1884,” 230. - -NOTE 39, p. 186.—This is not quite accurately stated. At the time of -the _coup d’état_ Lord Palmerston was Minister of Foreign Affairs. -He did indeed in a conversation with Count Walewski, the French -Ambassador at London, express his approval of the course of the French -Government, but so far from speaking “ostensibly for the cabinet, for -the sovereign, and the English nation,” he offered simply his private -opinion. The English Government formally determined upon a course of -the strictest neutrality; and when it was found that Palmerston’s -approval had been sent by Walewski to France, the message was not only -disavowed, but Palmerston was summarily dismissed. See McCarthy, ii., -chap. xxii., 148–154, Eng. ed. The _coup d’état_ was in December, 1851; -but there was no alliance till August of 1853, long after the people of -France had given their sanction to the empire. - -NOTE 40, p. 192.—This hardly accords with what the orator said a -few moments ago of India—“a vast country which we do not know how -to govern.” The East India Company’s power was broken by the Sepoy -rebellion, and the government was transferred to the crown in 1858. -The government of Canada was made substantially what it now is, on the -recommendation of Lord Durham, in 1839. - -NOTE 41, p. 195.—The aggregate number of paupers has changed but -slightly during the last twenty years. In 1874 the total number in -England and Wales was 829,281; in 1883, 799,296. But in Ireland the -number has increased from 79,050 in 1874 to 115,684 in 1883. In -Scotland the number has diminished from 111,996 in 1873, to 95,081 in -1882.—Martin, “Statesman’s Year-Book, for 1884,” 253, 257, 261. - -NOTE 42, p. 223.—The daily political duties of the Queen are described -somewhat in detail in Ewald’s “The Crown and its Advisers,” where -the influence of the crown is held to be much greater than it has -sometimes been supposed to be. In 1850 the question was very fully -considered by the government, and the requirement of the Queen, that -no important action should be taken that had not first received her -consideration and sanction, was set forth in a “memorandum” written to -the Prime-Minister. Because of a violation of the principles set forth -in this memorandum, Lord Palmerston was dismissed in the following -year. The details of the controversy, which ended in the more complete -establishment of the constitutional principle, are given in McCarthy, -“History of Our Own Time,” chap. xxii., Eng. ed., vol. ii., pp. 124–163. - -NOTE 43, p. 224.—The ablest and most suggestive discussion of this -important topic is to be found in Bagehot’s volume on “The English -Constitution.” In the second chapter the author, with characteristic -ability, traces “how the actions of a retired widow and an unemployed -youth became of such importance” to the English people. - -NOTE 44, p. 224.—Reference is here made to Sir Charles Dilke’s speech -at Nottingham adverted to in the sketch of the orator. - -NOTE 45, p. 226.—The salaries of English ministers are fixed not -by Parliament but by the ministers themselves. This subject was -considered at length in 1831, and again in 1834, when it was held in -Parliament that the determination of salaries of executive officers is -an executive and not a legislative function. The salaries, therefore, -are fixed by the government, and are included in the budget presented -to the Commons. The ministers, of course, act in full view of their -responsibility; but the estimates for salaries have never, except in -one instance, been modified. The salaries of ministers in England -are generally £5,000, though that of the Lord Chancellor, who is at -the head of the Department of Justice, is £10,000. The salary of the -President of the United States was $25,000 until 1872, when it was -fixed by Congress at $50,000. On the salaries of English officials, see -Todd, “Parliamentary Government in England,” i., 396–420. Members of -Parliament, as such, receive no salaries whatever. - -NOTE 46, 231.—In Bagehot’s “English Constitution,” chap. iv., is a very -brilliant and suggestive discussion of the several political as well -as social functions of the House of Lords. In this chapter, p. 100, -Eng. ed., is to be found a remarkable letter of Lord Wellington to Lord -Derby on “managing” the House of Lords. Bagehot argues that a second or -revising chamber, to perform its work well, must have “independence,” -“leisure,” and “intelligence,” and that on the whole these qualities -are found in large measure in the House of Lords. Though many of the -lords are ignorant of political affairs, the ignorant ones generally -are so good as to remain away from the House and leave matters in the -hands of those who are not ignorant. - -NOTE 47, p. 232.—The question of raising persons to a life peerage -has often been considered in England. In 1856 Lord Wensleydale was -summoned “for and during the term of his natural life,” in imitation -of what had been done four hundred years before; but the measure -awakened violent opposition on the part of the House of Lords, which -held that the independence of the House was thereby imperilled. The -House decided that although the crown had the right to create “life -peers,” such peers had no right to sit and vote in the House of Peers. -After this decision, Lord Wensleydale did not attempt to take his seat, -until shortly afterward he was created an hereditary peer as Baron -Parke.—Hansard clviii. 1457, 1469; Todd, i. 368. In this same year a -committee of the House of Lords was appointed to further consider the -question, and reported recommending a statute “to confer life peerages -upon two persons who had served for five years as judges, and that -they should sit with the Lord Chancellor, as Judges of Appeal.” A bill -founded on this recommendation passed the Lords, but was thrown out -by the Commons. The principle was revived, however, in the “Appellate -Jurisdiction Act of 1876,” by which provision was made for the constant -presence in the House of Lords of four “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,” -to rank as Barons. They are selected from those who have held “high -judicial office” and their dignity “does not descend to their -heirs.”—Amos’ “Fifty Years of the English Constitution.” 19. - -NOTE 48, p. 233.—This suggestion probably had its origin in the -organization of the Roman Senate, which was made up of persons -appointed for life from those who had been elected to the higher -offices in the state. - -NOTE 49, p. 235.—The period referred to was that immediately after -1832. The reformed parliament was strongly Liberal, and several -measures were proposed to alter the constitution of the House of Lords. -The headlong rate of the reformers was checked by the accession of the -opposite party in 1835; but O’Connell was still clamorous for reform -of the Lords, and in May of 1836 he introduced a resolution to make -the Upper House elective, but the motion was received with universal -derision.—Martineau, “Hist. of the Peace,” iii. 552. - -NOTE 50, p. 238.—After the Reform Bill of 1832 was passed it was -soon evident that it would have to be supplemented. Again and again -attempts were made to carry a measure that would extend the franchise -on the same principles as those acted on in 1832. But the nobility and -the middle classes appeared to have no further interest in reform. -Meantime there were others who had thought of reform in a different -method. As early as 1821 Lord Durham had proposed the establishment of -electoral districts, essentially according to the custom in America. -In 1859, when Derby and Disraeli were in power, Disraeli introduced a -bill enlarging the suffrage and essentially modifying the methods of -determining qualifications. But this, too, failed. Another reform bill -was introduced by Palmerston’s government in 1860, and still another -by Gladstone in 1866. But all were unsuccessful till Mr. Disraeli’s -bill of 1867. This was founded on the principle that the franchise -should depend on permanency of interest, rather than amount of tax -paid.—McCarthy, iv., 94–117; Molesworth, iii., 303–347. - -NOTE 51, p. 248.—On the question here raised, there is a great variety -of opinion, but the best authorities will accept the statement of -the orator as substantially correct. The most careful consideration -of the question has been presented in “Six Centuries of Work and -Wages,” by Professor Thorold Rogers, who has devoted many years to -the subject, and is unquestionably the highest living authority. On -p. 522 (Am. ed.) he says: “Through nearly three centuries the condition -of the English laborer was that of plenty and hope; from perfectly -intelligible causes it sunk within a century to so low a level as to -make the workman practically helpless, and the lowest point was reached -just about the outbreak of the great war between King and Parliament. -From this time it gradually improved, till in the first half of the -eighteenth century, though still far below the level of the fifteenth, -it achieved comparative plenty. Then it began to sink again, and the -workmen experienced the direst misery during the great continental -war. Latterly, almost within our own memory and knowledge, it has -experienced a slow and partial improvement, the causes of which are to -be found in the liberation of industry from protective laws, in the -adoption of certain principles which restrained employment in some -directions, and, most of all, in the concession to laborers of the -right, so long denied, of forming labor partnerships.” - -NOTE 52, p. 257.—The rate of increase in the population of Great -Britain is such that there need be no especial alarm. In 1879, -according to the official statistics, the number of births in Great -Britain and Ireland in excess of the deaths was 436,780, while in -France it was only 96,647. To every 10,000 inhabitants in Great Britain -the annual addition is 101, while in France it is only 96. In Germany -it is 115; in the United States (largely through immigration, of -course) it is 260. The number of births per 1,000 in France is annually -26; in Switzerland, 30; in Denmark, 31; in Belgium, 32; in England, -35; in Austria, 38; in Saxony, 40; and in Russia, 50.—Raoul Frary, -“Le National Peril”; also “Bradstreet’s” for Oct. 27, 1883, on “Vital -Statistics,” 259. - -NOTE 53, p. 257.—The question most prominently before the English -people at the time of the fall of Disraeli’s government in December of -1868 was the bill for disestablishing the Irish Church. This was the -real issue at the election in November, and is what Disraeli called the -policy of “violence.” The local reference was doubtless to the fact -that Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington were both defeated in Lancashire -as candidates for the House of Commons. Gladstone, however, accepted a -seat for Greenwich. - -NOTE 54, p. 258.—Lord Mayo, in consequence of his successful -administration of the affairs of Ireland, was appointed by Disraeli’s -Ministry Viceroy of India. He was assassinated early in 1872. His -administration was such as to win the admiration of all discriminating -men of all parties. - -NOTE 55, p. 259.—When Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1868, one of his -early measures was bill for the disendowment of the Irish State Church. -The controversy over the measure was one of great earnestness, but it -was finally carried and went into effect January 1, 1871. This was -followed by the Irish Land Bill, which aimed to overthrow the doctrine -of the landlord’s absolute and unlimited rights, and to recognize -certain property of the tenant in the land. This doctrine was carried -still further in the Irish Land Bill of 1882.—McCarthy, chap. lviii. - -NOTE 56, p. 260.—This subject is well presented in McCarthy’s chap. -lix., “Reformation in a Flood.” For a list of the most important of -these measures, see the Introduction to Mr. Gladstone. - -NOTE 57, p. 263.—The “Captain” was a six-gun turret-ship, which, with -a crew of five hundred men, foundered at sea on the 7th of September, -1870. The court of enquiry found that the disaster was owing to faulty -construction of the vessel, which had been built “in deference to -public opinion, as expressed in Parliament and through other channels, -and in opposition to the views and opinions of the Controller of the -Navy.”—“Ann. Reg. for 1870,” 107, 119. The “Megara” was an iron screw -troop-ship that was run aground in a sinking state at St. Paul’s, -Ireland, June 19, 1871. The commissioners of enquiry into the causes -of the disaster reported their “decided opinion that the state and -condition of the ‘Megara’ was such that she ought never to have been -selected for the voyage.” After giving the details that led to their -conclusion, the commissioners said: “It is with reluctance and pain -that we express unfavorable opinions with respect to the conduct of -officers and the management of a great department.”—“Ann. Reg. for -1881,” 96, and for 1882, 257, 260. - -NOTE 58, p. 263.—This had been suggested by Mr. Lowe, the Chancellor of -the Exchequer. - -NOTE 59, p. 266.—Mr. Cobden was of the same opinion. In 1854 he said: -“I look back with regret on the vote which changed Lord Derby’s -government; I regret the result of that motion, for it has cost the -country a hundred millions of treasure and between thirty and forty -thousand good lives.”—Morley’s “Life of Cobden,” Eng. ed., ii., 151. - -NOTE 60, p. 267.—During the Civil War Mr. Gladstone as well as Lord -Russell had inclined to favor the Southern cause by a recognition of -the Southern States. To this Mr. Disraeli and Lord Stanley (the present -Lord Derby) were strenuously opposed. During Mr. Disraeli’s first -administration Lord Stanley was Secretary of State for Foreign affairs. - -NOTE 61, p. 268.—This statement is not quite justified by the facts. -At the conclusion of the Civil War, intense feeling of indignation -pervaded the United States against Great Britain, for three reasons: -first, for a premature recognition of the belligerency of the -Southern States; secondly, for the direct aid and supplies furnished -the Southern States in British ports; and thirdly, for allowing -the fitting out of cruisers in British ports to prey upon Northern -commerce. The people of the United States held that Great Britain -through her government had disregarded the obligations of neutrality -imposed upon her by the law of nations. The United States Government -remonstrated with the British Government, demanding reparation for -past wrong, and cessation from a continuance of the wrong. But so -long as Lord John Russell was in power (through whose negligence or -misjudgment the wrong had been done) no progress was made toward a -settlement. The Derby-Disraeli government succeeded that of Russell -in 1866, with Lord Stanley as Minister of Foreign Affairs. About the -end of 1866 Lord Stanley, through Sir Frederick Bruce, offered to -submit the Alabama Claims to arbitration. To this Mr. Seward assented -“on condition that the whole controversy between the two governments -should be deferred.” Lord Stanley asked for information as to what -was meant by the expression “the whole controversy,” but the answer -was not free from ambiguity, and was supposed to refer to damages for -“premature recognition of the Confederacy.” As Lord Stanley had refused -to submit this subject to arbitration, negotiations were broken off. -The matter rested till March 6, 1868, when it was brought up in the -House of Commons, and was fully debated. This was followed by a debate -March 20th in the House of Lords, both in excellent spirit. It was -in the following November that negotiations were again opened with -a view to submitting the differences to arbitration. A preliminary -agreement was reached and signed November 10th, by Lord Stanley and -Mr. Johnson, the American minister. It was not, however, acceptable to -Mr. Seward, who telegraphed November 26th: “Claims Convention unless -amended is useless.” In a long despatch of the same date sent by mail -the objections were duly pointed out, the most important of which were -in regard to Article IV. of the Protocol, and were stated in these -words: “While the Convention provides that the United States claims -and the British claims shall be settled and determined by a majority -of the Commissioners, this Article IV. _requires entire unanimity of -the Commissioners for a derision upon any of the Alabama Claims_.” -Other objections were given, but this was the most important one why, -as Mr. Seward said, “the United States are obliged to disallow this -Article IV.” On November 28th Mr. Johnson had an interview with Lord -Stanley, when the latter said he had received a despatch from the -British minister at Washington, which stated “that it was understood -that all the cabinet disapprove of it.” On the 5th of December Mr. -Johnson wrote to Mr. Seward that he just had an interview with Lord -Stanley, who “expressed no willingness to change the mode of appointing -the arbitrator who is to decide the question of the liability of -this government for the Alabama Claims.” In the same letter Mr. -Johnson announced the resignation of the Disraeli government, and the -necessity of postponing all further negotiations. On the whole subject -see “Diplomatic Correspondence,” 3d Sess., 40th Cong., vol. i., pp. -361–391. Soon after the Gladstone-Clarendon government came into power -the subject was again taken up, and a Protocol was agreed upon between -Mr. Johnson and Lord Clarendon, providing that “_all claims_ should -be submitted to arbitration.” This treaty was submitted to the Senate -of the United States, and April 19, 1869, was rejected with but one -dissenting voice. The grounds of objection were that the Alabama Claims -were so obscured by minor matters that they would not receive due -attention. The Johnson-Clarendon treaty is given in the “Diplomatic -Correspondence” and in “Ann. Reg. for 1869,” p. 282. The subject was -not again renewed till the outbreak of the Franco-German War, in regard -to which see note 63. - -NOTE 62, p. 270.—At the conclusion of the Crimean War the great powers -in the Treaty of Paris agreed to impose and enforce the neutrality of -the Black Sea. The waters and the ports were “perpetually interdicted -to the flag of war of either of the powers possessing its coasts,” -excepting certain small armed vessels to act as a sort of maritime -police. As was not unnatural, Russia chafed under this interdiction. -The Franco-German War broke out in July of 1870. In October of that -year, when France and Germany were so occupied as scarcely to be -able to protest, Prince Gortschakoff addressed a circular despatch -to the European powers, stating that Russia no longer recognized -the obligations of the Treaty of 1856. This despatch called forth a -courteous but firm reply from Lord Granville, in which the obligatory -nature of the treaty was insisted upon. It was feared that Prussia -had secretly assented to the claims now put forward by Russia, in -compensation for grants made to Prussia on the Baltic. Accordingly -Mr. Odo Russell was sent to the German head-quarters at Versailles -to ascertain the attitude of the Prussian Government. Count Bismarck -assured the English ambassador that Prussia had given no sanction to -the step, and proposed that the whole question should be submitted -to a conference of the powers, to be held at London. This proposal -of Prussia was assented to by England and Russia, and the conference -took place in January of 1871. The result was the neutralization of -the Black Sea was abrogated. The prediction of Beaconsfield, that “the -entire command of the Black Sea will soon be in the possession of -Russia,” has been amply justified by subsequent history.—“Ann. Reg., -1870,” 109; 1871, 3–17. - -NOTE 63, p. 271.—The Washington Treaty of June 17, 1871, provided -for referring five important questions in dispute to a Committee -of Arbitration, consisting of one member appointed by the Queen of -England, one by the President of the United States, one by the King of -Italy, one by the President of the Swiss Confederation, and one by the -Emperor of Brazil. The sixth article of the treaty provided that the -Arbitrators should be guided in their decision of the “Alabama Claims” -by “three rules” which were given in the article, and which virtually -acknowledged the responsibility of England for allowing the “Alabama” -to be fitted up in a British port, and allowing her to escape. The -adoption of these “three rules” unquestionably gave the United States -great advantage and made, it nearly certain that the case would be -adjudicated in their favor. But the opposition in England steadily held -that the “three rules” that were made the basis of the arbitration -were not justified by the requirements of international law. This view -has since been held by many prominent publicists, American as well as -European. The rules are of at least questionable advantage, and have -not been assented to by any other powers than England and the United -States. The result of the arbitration, which was held at Geneva in 1871 -and 1872, was to award “the sum of $15,500,000 in gold as the indemnity -to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction -of all claims referred to the consideration of the tribunal.” The -treaty and the award are printed at length in Cushing’s “Treaty of -Washington,” pp. 257–280. What made England willing to adopt the “three -rules” for the sake of speedily reaching a final settlement, was the -condition of affairs in Europe. In case England had become involved in -war, her commerce would have been at the mercy of American privateers. -But the treaty and the award were very unpopular in England. Mr. -McCarthy (iv., 347) says: “What most of the English people saw was -that England had been compelled, in homely phrase, to ‘knuckle down’ -to America.” This unpopularity of the measure and the good use made of -it by Lord Beaconsfield had not a little to do with bringing on the -downfall of Gladstone’s government. - -NOTE 64, p. 272.—Reference is here made to the so-called “indirect -claims” which the United States Government insisted on having -considered by the Arbitrators, but which the English as strenuously -refused to submit. The claim was in substance that the “Alabama” and -other cruisers had not only directly destroyed much of our commerce, -but had indirectly prolonged the war, and that for this prolongation -the United States should be paid. Though this doctrine was presented in -the so-called “American Case,” which, as Beaconsfield amusingly says, -was translated into all languages and sent into all European courts, -it was not formally objected to until the Arbitrators met at Geneva. -The question there seemed likely to bring arbitration abruptly to an -end. But finally the Arbitrators, in an informal manner, declared that -“in case the indirect claims _should_ come before them, they should be -obliged to reject them,” whereupon the Americans said that all they -insisted on was a _decision_, not necessarily a decision in their -favor. The difficult question thus happily disposed of, other matters -were settled with substantial unanimity. - -NOTE 65, p. 275.—It is not difficult to understand the great influence -of passages like this in stirring the national feeling of Great -Britain. Lord Beaconsfield knew how to move the British heart as no -other modern statesman except Palmerston has done. - -NOTE 66, p. 288.—In 1879 the people of England were confronted with -problems which a long succession of good harvests had caused them -to forget. The failure of four successive crops had brought about -unexampled distress. The cry for protection was revived, and in the -spring of 1879 was brought in various forms before Parliament. Lord -Beaconsfield, the Prime-Minister, in a succession of quite remarkable -speeches, took the ground that “the country had settled the question in -another generation,” and that the distress was not to be relieved by a -return to the former policy. Among other interesting things shown by -the Prime-Minister, was the fact that the loss to the nation from bad -harvests had been in four years not less than about 80,000,000 pounds -sterling.—Beaconsfield’s “Speeches,” i., 327. - -NOTE 67, p. 289.—Mr. Gladstone’s praise of Mr. Playfair’s -qualifications was not extravagant. Playfair first became eminent as -a chemist, having been a successful student under Liebig at Giessen, -and subsequently Professor of Chemistry in the Royal Institution at -Manchester and in the University of Edinburgh. In 1844 he was appointed -chairman of a commission to examine into the sanitary condition -of English towns, and in 1851 was sent by the government into the -manufacturing districts to prepare a classification of the various -objects of industry. At the World’s Exposition he was placed in charge -of the department of jurors, and so well did he perform his work -that at the next World’s Exposition, in 1862, he was entrusted with -the selection of the jurors, some six hundred in number, to be drawn -from the most eminent men of all countries. In 1874 he prepared the -elaborate scheme for the reorganization of the English civil service, -a work which he was well fitted to perform by reason of his labors in -1873–4 as Postmaster-General. During his visit to the United States -he delivered an important address in Boston on the civil service in -England as compared with that in the United States. - -NOTE 68, p. 293.—The development of Manitoba has quite justified the -predictions of Beaconsfield, which Mr. Gladstone seemed to make light -of. - -NOTE 69, p. 297.—In the second Mid-Lothian speech, Mr. Gladstone had -spoken at length on the tenure of land and the land laws. Among other -statements, he said concerning the law of entail and settlement: “I -believe that you view that law with disapproval, as being itself one -of the most serious restraints upon the effective prosecution of the -agriculture of the country. Gentlemen, I need not dwell upon that -matter. I heartily agree with you on the point at issue. I am for -the alteration of that law. I disapprove of it on economic grounds. -I disapprove of it on social and moral grounds. I disapprove of the -relation which it creates between father and son. I disapprove of -the manner in which it makes provision for the interests of children -to be born. Was there ever in the history of legislation a stranger -expedient? * * * The law of England is wiser than the Almighty; it -improves upon Divine Providence.”—Gladstone, “Speeches in Scotland,” -83. - -NOTE 70, p. 306.—In the preceding April, Lord Bateman had moved in -Parliament “That, this House fully recognizing the benefits which would -result to the community if a system of free trade were universally -adopted, it is expedient, in all future commercial negotiations with -other countries, to advocate a policy of reciprocity between all -inter-trading nations.” The policy was opposed by Lord Beaconsfield, -because, as he said, he was convinced it was “a proposition which can -lead to no public benefit.” Lord Salisbury, the Secretary of State for -Foreign Affairs, in the course of the summer appeared to favor it. - -NOTE 71, p. 315.—The first census of Great Britain was taken in 1801, -when the population was found to be as follows: England, 8,331,434; -Wales, 541,546; Scotland, 1,599,068; army and navy, 470,598; total -in Great Britain, 10,942,646. The first census in Ireland was taken -in 1813, but the returns were so imperfect as to be valueless. In -1821 Ireland had a population of 6,801,827.—Porter, “Progress of the -Nation,” 8. - -NOTE 72, p. 327.—The events alluded to in this and in following -passages may be thus summarized. The war between Russia and Turkey -terminated in the treaty of San Stefano, in the spring of 1878. Turkey -had been overwhelmed by the war, and was now practically reduced to -a cipher by the treaty. In the opinion of the English Government, -Lord Beaconsfield being then in power, the interests of England in -the eastern Mediterranean were imperilled by this aggrandizement of -Russia. Russia was required by the British Government to submit the -treaty of San Stefano to a European Congress. This Russia at first -declined to do, whereupon the English Government at once moved an -address requesting the Queen to call out the Reserves. This vigorous -measure was at once followed by the still more decisive step of -bringing up a division of the British army in India to the island of -Malta. The right of the crown to employ Indian troops in European war -was questioned, and gave rise to animated debate; but the measure was -at least successful on diplomatic grounds. Russia at once lowered her -pretensions, and arrangements were soon made for a General Congress -at Berlin, in June of 1878, where the interests of Great Britain were -represented by Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury. The result of the -Congress was a modification of the treaty of San Stefano, by which -the independence of Turkey was once more restored, and the dependent -provinces were put on a substantial footing. The outcome was regarded -as a great diplomatic triumph of Lord Beaconsfield. The agreement -between Lord Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff is treated more fully -later in the speech. - -NOTE 73, p. 332.—This statement, while substantially correct, is a -little misleading. The provinces alluded to were all more or less -dependent on Turkey, and England was at no time quite willing to adopt -a military policy in their defence. Neither was any other government -of Europe, excepting Russia, and Russia was willing simply because it -opened the way for her own advance toward the south. - -NOTE 74, p. 335.—In 1877, Lord Derby had resigned the post of Secretary -of State for Foreign Affairs, and had been succeeded by Lord Salisbury. - -NOTE 75, p. 337.—The “needless and mischievous armaments” were the -calling out of the Reserves, and the bringing to Malta of the Indian -army. Mr. Gladstone’s adjectives can only mean that in his opinion the -Berlin Treaty was not desirable, since without the military movements -the treaty would have been impossible. The statement of the orator -as to the agreement between Salisbury and Schouvaloff is not quite -correct. There was no pretence to making a treaty or settling any -question whatever, but simply an understanding as to what England -demanded, and what she desired to submit to a Congress. After this -conference, which Mr. Gladstone criticises with so much severity, -Count Schouvaloff went to St. Petersburg, pausing at Berlin for an -interview with Prince Bismarck. At St. Petersburg he appears to have -convinced the Czar that nothing short of a submission of the question -at issue to a General Congress would satisfy England. Soon after the -Count’s return to London, the Prussian Government invited the powers -to a Congress at Berlin; and Russia not only accepted the invitation, -but agreed to submit to the powers, all the terms of the Treaty of San -Stefano. During the whole of these negotiations English public opinion -was wrought up to the most intense excitement and anxiety. The course -of the government was assailed and defended with the utmost vigor, -everybody supposing, meanwhile, that peace or war between the two great -nations hung upon the issue. In the “Ann. Reg. for 1878,” all the -official papers are given, and on pp. 40–64 is to be found an abstract -of the discussions in Parliament. - -NOTE 76, p. 339.—The reader perhaps hardly needs to be reminded that -the cases were not parallel. Russia had overwhelmed her weak foe, and -now proposed to dismember her fallen enemy as a reward for her trouble. -This was not only in clear violation of the principles set down by the -Treaty of Paris in 1856, but also obnoxious to the traditional policy -of Great Britain, as held by Pitt. But neither international obligation -nor British usage offered any objection to a peaceful and voluntary -treaty between England and Turkey, by which for a just consideration -the one should cede a bit of territory to the other. - -NOTE 77, p. 341.—On the 9th of November, 1879, Lord Beaconsfield, at -the Lord Mayor’s banquet, had expounded his imperial policy, and in the -course of his speech had used the words “_imperium et libertas_.” The -speech attracted great attention as an authoritative exposition of the -Prime-Minister’s views on domestic and foreign affairs. - -NOTE 78, p. 344.—With this position Lord Beaconsfield would probably -have heartily agreed. He might even have asked Mr. Gladstone, “Was -it not to prevent just such aggrandizement as you condemn that we -objected to the Treaty of San Stefano, and insisted upon a Congress?” -More than that, he might have asked: “How do you reconcile your plea -for the independence of the smaller states with your denunciation of -the Congress of Berlin, brought about by ‘needless and mischievous -armaments,’ by which alone the independence of Turkey could be saved?” -To these questions Mr. Gladstone would probably have replied: “Yes; but -you ought to have accomplished all this by preventing the war between -Russia and Turkey in the beginning.” How Mr. Gladstone thought this -might have been done and ought to have been done he pointed out in the -first of the Mid-Lothian speeches, delivered at Edinburgh. - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes - - -Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant -preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed. - -Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced -quotation marks retained. - -Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences of -inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Representative British Orations with -Introductions and Explanatory Notes,, by Charles Kendall Adams - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK REPRESENTATIVE BRITISH ORATIONS, VOL 3 *** - -***** This file should be named 55491-0.txt or 55491-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/5/4/9/55491/ - -Produced by Larry B. Harrison, Charlie Howard, and the -Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net -(This file was produced from images generously made -available by The Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |