SPEECHES

_ON QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY_

BYJOHN BRIGHT, M. P. 

EDITED BYJAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL. I. 

'BE JUST AND FEAR NOT'

SECOND EDITION

 * * * * *

PREFACE. 

The speeches which have been selected for publication in these volumespossess a value, as examples of the art of public speaking, which noperson will be likely to underrate. Those who may differ from Mr. Bright's theory of the public good will have no difficulty inacknowledging the clearness of his diction, the skill with which hearranges his arguments, the vigour of his style, the persuasiveness ofhis reasoning, and above all, the perfect candour and sincerity withwhich he expresses his political convictions. 

It seems likely that the course of events in this country will leadthose, who may desire to possess influence in the conduct of publicaffairs, to study the art of public speaking. If so, nothing which canbe found in English literature will aid the aspirant after this greatfaculty more than the careful and reiterated perusal of the speechescontained in these volumes. Tried indeed by the effect produced upon anyaudience by their easy flow and perfect clearness, or analysed by any ofthose systems of criticism which under the name of 'rhetoric' have beensaved to us from the learning of the ancient world, these speeches wouldbe admitted to satisfy either process. 

This is not the occasion on which to point out the causes which conferso great an artistic value on these compositions; which give them now, and will give them hereafter, so high a place in English literature. Atthe present time nearly a hundred millions of the earth's inhabitantsspeak the English tongue. A century hence, and it will probably be thespeech of nearly half the inhabitants of the globe. I think that nomaster of that language will occupy a loftier position than Mr. Bright;that no speaker will teach with greater exactness the noblest and rarestof the social arts, the art of clear and persuasive exposition. Butbefore this art can be attained (so said the greatest critic that theworld has known), it is necessary that the speaker should secure thesympathies of his audience, should convince them of his statesmanship, should show that he is free from any taint of self-interest ordissimulation. These conditions of public trust still form, asheretofore, in every country of free thought and free speech, thefoundation of a good reputation and of personal influence. It is withthe fact that such are the characteristics of my friend's eloquence, that I have been strongly impressed in collecting and editing thematerials of these volumes. 

Since the days of those men of renown who lived through the first halfof the seventeenth century, when the liveliest religious feeling wasjoined to the loftiest patriotism, and men laboured for their conscienceand their country, England has witnessed no political career like thatof Cobden and Bright. Cobden's death was a great loss to his country, for it occurred at a time when England could ill spare a conscientiousstatesman. Nations, however, cannot be saved by the virtues, nor needthey be lost by the vices, of their public men. But Cobden's death wasan irreparable loss to his friends--most of all to the friend who hadbeen, in an incessant struggle for public duty and truth, of one heartand of one purpose with him. 

Those who have been familiar with Cobden's mind know how wide was hisknowledge, how true was his judgment of political events. The vastmajority of those who followed his public career had but a scantyacquaintance with the resources of his sagacity and foresight. He spoketo the people on a few subjects only. The wisdom of Free Trade; thenecessity of Parliamentary Reform; the dangerous tendency of those lawswhich favour the accumulation of land in few hands; the urgent need fora system of national education; the mischief of the mere militaryspirit; the prudence of uniting communities by the multiplication ofinternational interests; the abandonment of the policy of diplomatic andmilitary intermeddling; the advocacy, in short, of the common good inplace of a spurious patriotism, of selfish, local, or class aims, formedthe subject of Cobden's public utterances. But his intimate friends, andin particular his regular correspondents, were aware that his politicalcriticism was as general as it was accurate. The loss then of his wiseand lucid counsel was the greatest to the survivor of a personal and apolitical friendship which was continued uninterruptedly through so longand so active a career. 

At the commencement of Mr. Bright's public life, the shortsightedselfishness of a landlords' parliament was afflicting the United Kingdomwith a continuous dearth. Labour was starved, and capital was madeunproductive by the Corn-laws. The country was tied to a system by whichGreat Britain and her Colonies deliberately chose the dearest market fortheir purchases. In the same spirit, the price of freights was wilfullyheightened by the Navigation-laws. Important branches of home industrywere crippled by prying, vexatious, and wasteful excises. And thissystem was conceived to be the highest wisdom; or at any rate, to be soinvincible a necessity that it could not be avoided or altered withoutdanger. The country, if it were to make its way, could make it onlybecause other nations were servile imitators of our commercial policy, and, in the vain hope of retaliation, were hindering their own progress. 

The foreign policy of Great Britain was suspicious and irritating, forit was secret, busy, and meddling, insolent to the weak, conciliatory, even truckling, to the strong. The very name of diplomacy is and hasbeen odious to English Liberals, for by means of it a reactionaryGovernment could check domestic reforms, and hinder the community ofnations indefinitely. The policy of the Foreign Office was constantlydirected towards embittering, if not embroiling, the relations betweenthis and other countries. It is difficult to account for theseintrigues, except on the ground that successive Governments were anxiousto maintain political and social anomalies at home, while they wereaffecting to support 'the balance of power' abroad. The abandonment ofintervention in foreign politics was the beginning of agitation fordomestic reforms. 

Perhaps no part of the public administration was worse than that ofIndia. The great Company had lost its monopoly of trade in the Easternseas, but retained its administrative powers over the subject races anddependent princes of India. Its system of finance was wasteful andoppressive. Its policy was that of aggression and annexation. Inpractice, the Government was irresponsible. Nobody listened to Indianaffairs in Parliament, except on rare occasions, or for party purposes. The Governor-General did as he pleased. The President of the Board ofControl did as he pleased. If the reader wishes to see how the formeracted, Mr. Cobden's pamphlet, 'How Wars are got up in India' willenlighten him. If it be necessary to inquire what the policy of thelatter might be, the disastrous and disgraceful Affghan War is anillustration. Never perhaps was a war commenced more recklessly. It iscertain that when loss and dishonour fell on the English arms, thestatesmen who recommended and insisted on the war tried to screenthemselves from just blame by the basest arts. 

The internal resources of India were utterly neglected. The Companycollected part of its revenue from a land-tax, levied in the worstshape. In order to secure an income through a monopoly, it constrainedthe cultivation of certain drugs for which there was a foreign demand;and neglected to encourage the cultivation of cotton, for which the homedemand was wellnigh boundless, and to which the Indian supply might bemade to correspond. The Company constructed neither road nor canal. Itdid nothing towards maintaining the means of communication which eventhe native governments had adopted. It suffered the ancient roads andtanks to fall into decay. It neglected to educate the native gentry, much more the people. In brief, the policy of the Company in dealingwith India was the policy of Old Spain with her Transatlanticpossessions, only that it was more jealous and illiberal. 

Against these social and political evils, and many others which might beenumerated, a very small body of true and resolute statesmen arrayedthemselves. Among these statesmen the most eminent were the two chiefsof the Anti-Corn-law agitation. Never did men lead a hope which seemedmore forlorn. They had as opponents nearly the whole Upper House ofParliament, a powerful and compact party in the Lower. The EstablishedChurch was, of course, against them. The London newspapers, at that timealmost the only political power in the press, were against them. The'educated' classes were against them. Many of the working people wereunfriendly to them, for the Chartists believed that the repeal of theCorn-laws would lower the price of labour. After a long struggle theygained the day; for an accident, the Irish famine, rendered a change inthe Corn-laws inevitable. But had it not been for the organization ofthe League, the accident would have had no effect; for it is a rule inthe philosophy of politics that an accident is valuable only when themachinery for making use of the accident is at hand. Calamities neverteach wisdom to fools, they render it possible that the wise shouldavail themselves of the emergency. 

A similar calamity, long foreseen by prudent men, caused the politicalextinction of the East India Company. The joint action of the Board ofControl and the Directors led to the Indian mutiny. The suppression ofthe Indian mutiny led to the suppression of the Leadenhall Street Divan. Another calamity, also foreseen by statesmen, the outbreak of theAmerican Civil War, gave India commercial hope, and retrieved thefinances which the Company's rule had thrown into hopeless disorder. 

I have selected the speeches contained in these two volumes, with a viewto supplying the public with the evidence on which Mr. Bright's friendsassert his right to a place in the front rank of English statesmen. Isuppose that there is no better evidence of statesmanship thanprescience; that no fuller confirmation of this evidence can be foundthan in the popular acceptance of those principles which were onceunpopular and discredited. A short time since, Lord Derby said that Mr. Bright was the real leader of the Opposition. It is true that he hasgiven great aid to that opposition which Lord Derby and his friends haveoften encountered, and by which, to their great discredit, but to theirgreat advantage, they have been constantly defeated. If Lord Derby is inthe right, Mr. Bright is the leader of the People, while his Lordshiprepresents a party which is reckless because it is desperate. The policywhich Mr. Bright has advocated in these pages, and throughout a quarterof a century, a policy from which he has never swerved, has at last beenaccepted by the nation, despite the constant resistance of Lord Derbyand his friends. It embodies the national will, because it has attacked, and in many cases vanquished, institutions and laws which have becomeunpopular, because they have been manifestly mischievous anddestructive. No one knows better how conservative and tolerant is publicopinion in England towards traditional institutions, than Mr. Brightdoes; or how indifferent the nation is to attacks on an untenablepractice and a bad law, until it awakens to the fact that the law or thepractice is ruinous. 

Mr. Bright's political opinions have not been adopted because they werepopular. He was skilfully, and for a time successfully, maligned by LordPalmerston, on account of his persevering resistance to the policy ofthe Russian War. But it is probable that the views he entertained atthat time will find more enduring acceptance than those which LordPalmerston and Lord Palmerston's colleagues promulgated, and that he hasdone more to deface that Moloch, 'the balance of power, ' than any otherman living. Shortly after the beginning of the Planters' War, almost allthe upper, and many of the middle classes, sympathized with the Slave-owners' conspiracy. Everybody knows which side Mr. Bright took, and howjudicious and far-sighted he was in taking it. But everybody shouldremember also how, when Mr. Bright pointed out the consequences likelyto ensue from the cruise of the _Alabama_, he was insulted by Mr. Laird in the House of Commons; the Mr. Laird who launched the_Alabama_, who has been the means of creating bitter enmity betweenthe people of this country and of the United States, and has contrivedto invest the unlawful speculation of a shipbuilder with the dignity ofan international difficulty, to make it the material for an unsettleddiplomatic question. 

There are many social and political reforms, destined, it may be hoped, to become matter of debate and action in a Reformed Parliament, towardsthe accomplishment of which Mr. Bright has powerfully contributed. Thereis that without which Reform is a fraud, the redistribution of seats;that without which it is a sham, the ballot; that without which it ispossibly a danger, a system of national education, which should be, ifnot compulsory, so cogently expedient that it cannot be rejected. Thereis the great question of the distribution of land, its occupancy, andits relief from that pestilent system of game preserving which robs thefarmer of his profit and the people of their home supplies. There is thepacification of Ireland. The only consolation which can be gathered fromthe condition of that unhappy country is, that reforms, which are highlyexpedient in Great Britain, are vital in Ireland, and that theytherefore become familiar to the public mind. There is the developmentof international amity and good-will, first between ourselves and thepeople of our own race, next between all nations. There is therecognition of public duty to inferior or subject races, a duty whichwas grievously transgressed before and after the Indian mutiny, and hasbeen still more atrociously outraged in the Jamaica massacre. Upon theseand similar matters, no man who wishes to deserve the reputation of ajust and wise statesman, --in other words, to fulfil the highest andgreatest functions which man can render to man, --can find a worthierstudy than the public career of an Englishman whose guiding principlethroughout his whole life has been his favourite motto, 'Be just andfear not. '

I have divided the speeches contained in these volumes into groups. Thematerials for selection are so abundant, that I have been constrained toomit many a speech which is worthy of careful perusal. I have naturallygiven prominence to those subjects with which Mr. Bright has beenespecially identified, as, for example, India, America, Ireland, andParliamentary Reform. But nearly every topic of great public interest onwhich Mr. Bright has spoken is represented in these volumes. 

A statement of the views entertained by an eminent politician, whowields a vast influence in the country, is always valuable. It is morevaluable when the utterances are profound, consistent, candid. It ismost valuable at a crisis when the people of these islands are invitedto take part in a contest where the broad principles of truth, honour, and justice are arrayed on one side, and their victory is threatened bythose false cries, those reckless calumnies, those impudent evasionswhich form the party weapons of desperate and unscrupulous men. 

All the speeches in these volumes have been revised by Mr. Bright. TheEditor is responsible for their selection, for this Preface, and for theIndex at the close of the second volume. 

JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS. 

OXFORD, _June_ 30, 1868. 

 * * * * *

The Second Edition of these volumes is an exact reprint of the first, certain obvious errors of the press only having been corrected. 

OXFORD, _Dec_. 21, 1868. 

 * * * * *

CONTENTS OF VOL. I. 

INDIA. 

I. House of Commons, June 3, 1853

II. House of Commons, June 24, 1858

III. House of Commons, May 20, 1858

IV. House of Commons, August 1, 1859

V. House of Commons, March 19, 1861

CANADA. 

I. House of Commons, March 13, 1865

II. _The Canadian Fortifications_. House of Commons, March 23, 1865

III. _The Canadian Confederation Scheme_. House of Commons, February 28, 1867

AMERICA. 

I. The _'Trent' Affair_. Rochdale, December 4, 1861

II. _The War and the Supply of Cotton_. Birmingham, December 18, 1862

III. _Slavery and Secession_. Rochdale, February 3, 1863

IV. _The Struggle in America_. St. James's Hall, March 26, 1863

V. London, June 16, 1863

VI. _Mr. Roebuck's Motion for Recognition of the Southern Confederacy_. House of Commons, June 30, 1863

VII. London, June 29, 1867

IRELAND. 

I. _Maynooth Grand_. House of Commons, April 16, 1845

II. _Crime and Outrage Bill_. House of Commons, December 13, 1847

III. _Employment of the Poor_. House of Commons, August 25, 1848

IV. _Rate in Aid_. House of Commons, April 2, 1849

V. _Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill_. House of Commons, February 17, 1866

VI. Dublin, October 30, 1866

VII. Dublin, November 2, 1866

VIII. House of Commons, March 14, 1868

IX. House of Commons, April 1, 1868

RUSSIA. 

I. _War with Russia--The Queen's Message_. House of Commons, March 31, 1854

II. _Enlistment of Foreigners' Bill_. House of Commons, December 22, 1854

III. _Negotiations at Vienna_. House of Commons, February 23, 1855

IV. _On the Prosecution of the Russian War_. House of Commons, June 7, 1855

Letter of John Bright to Absalom Watkin on the Russian War

 * * * * *

INDIA

I

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 3, 1853. 

_From Hansard_. 

[The ministerial measure for the government of India was introduced bySir Charles Wood on June 3, 1853. The particulars of the Bill were asfollows: The Government proposed that for the future the relationsbetween the Directors and the Board of Control should be unchanged, butthat the constitution of the former should be altered and its patronagecurtailed. It reduced the number of the Members of the Court fromtwenty-four to eighteen, of whom twelve were to be elected as before, and six nominated by the Crown from Indian servants who had been tenyears in the service of the Crown or the Company. One-third of thisnumber was to go out every second year, but to be re-eligible. Nominations by favour were to be abolished. The governorship of Bengalwas to be separated from the office of Governor-General. The legislativecouncil was to be improved and enlarged, the number to be twelve. TheBill passed the House of Lords on June 13. ]

I feel a considerable disadvantage in rising to address the House afterhaving listened for upwards of five hours to the speech of the righthon. Gentleman. But the question is one, as the right hon. Gentleman hassaid, of first-rate importance; and as I happen from a variety ofcircumstances to have paid some attention to it, and to have formed somestrong opinions in regard to it, I am unwilling even that the Billshould be brought in, or that this opportunity should pass, withoutsaying something, which will be partly in reply to the speech of theright hon. Gentleman, and partly by way of comment on the plan which hehas submitted to the House. There is, as it appears to me, greatinconsistency between the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and thatwhich he proposes should be done; because, really, if we take his speechas a true and faithful statement of the condition of India, and of thepast proceedings of the Government in that country, our conviction mustbe that the right hon. Gentleman will be greatly to be blamed in makingany alteration in that Government. At the same time, if it be not afaithful portraiture of the Government, and of its transactions inIndia, then what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do in regard tothe home administration of that country is altogether insufficient forthe occasion. I cannot on the present occasion go into many of thedetails on which the right hon. Gentleman has touched; but theobservations which I have to make will refer to matters of government, and those will be confined chiefly to the organisation of the homeadministration. I am not much surprised that the Government should havetaken what I will call a very unsatisfactory course with regard to themeasure they have propounded, because they evidently did not seemexactly to know what they ought to do from the very first moment thatthis question was brought before them. I do not allude to the whole ofthe Treasury bench, but I refer particularly to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), because he was at the head of the Government when thisquestion was first brought before them. Lord Broughton, then Sir JohnHobhouse, was at that time the President of the Board of Control, and hewas not in favour of a Committee to inquire into the past government andpresent condition of India. Shortly afterwards, however, it wasconsidered by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that it would bedesirable to have such a Committee appointed. A Committee was appointed, and it sat. 

But at the commencement of the present Session the noble Lord intimatedvery distinctly, in answer to a question which I put to him, and whichseemed to make the noble Lord unnecessarily angry, that it was theintention of the Government to legislate, and in such a way as to leavethe Indian Government almost entirely the same as it had hitherto been. ['No, no!'] Well, I thought that the noble Lord said so, and incorroboration of that I may mention that the noble Lord quoted--and Ibelieve that it was the noble Lord's only authority--the opinion of theright hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), whoconsidered that no material change was required in the constitution ofthe home Indian Government. Well, when the noble Lord made thatannouncement, considerable dissatisfaction was manifested on both sidesof the House, some hon. Members speaking in favour of a delay of one, two, or three years, or declaring themselves strongly against thepresent constitution of the Indian Government. However, from that timeto this, various rumours were afloat, and everybody was confident oneweek that there would be no legislation, or only a postponement; inanother week it was thought that there was to be a very sweeping measure(which last report, I must say, I never believed); and the week afterthat people were again led to the conclusion that there would be ameasure introduced such as the one this night submitted to the House. Again, it was understood so lately as last Saturday that there would beno legislation on the subject, excepting a mere temporary measure for apostponement. I confess that I was myself taken in by that announcement. On Monday the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour) gave notice of aquestion on the same subject, and he was requested not to ask it tillTuesday. On Tuesday there was a Cabinet Council, and whether there was achange of opinion then I know not, but I presume that there was. Theopinion that was confidently expressed on Saturday gave way to a newopinion, and the noble Lord announced that legislation would beproceeded with immediately. All this indicates that there was a gooddeal of vacillation on the part of the Government. At last, however, hascome the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Boardof Control. There were some good things in it, no doubt. I do notsuppose that any man could stand up, and go on speaking for five hours, without saying something that was useful. But as to the main question onwhich this matter rests, I do not believe that the plan which theGovernment proposes to substitute will be one particle better than thatwhich exists at the present moment. 

With regard to the question of patronage, I admit, so far as that goes, that the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman will be animprovement on the present system. But I do not understand that theparticular arrangement of the covenanted service is to be broken up atall. That is a very important matter, because, although he might throwopen the nominations to the Indian service to the free competition ofall persons in this country, yet if, when these persons get out toIndia, they are to become a covenanted service, as that service now isconstituted, and are to go on from beginning to end in a system ofpromotion by seniority--and they are to be under pretty much the samearrangement as at present--a great deal of the evil now existing willremain; and the continuance of such a body as that will form a great barto what I am very anxious to see, namely, a very much wider employmentof the most intelligent and able men amongst the native population. 

The right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, made a long speech wholly indefence of the Indian Government; and I cannot avoid making some remarksupon what he has stated because I wholly dissent from a large portion ofthe observations which he has made. But the right hon. Gentleman, aboveall things, dreads that this matter should be delayed. Now I will justtouch upon that point. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has notmet any one who does not consider it highly desirable that the Houseshould legislate upon the subject of the Government of India this year;and that it will be a great evil if such legislation is postponed. Insupport of this view he produces a private letter from Lord Dalhousieupon the subject. Now I do not consider such evidence as by any meansconclusive, because the House knows that Lord Dalhousie has beenconnected with the system that now exists. That noble Earl is alsosurrounded by persons who are themselves interested in maintaining thepresent system. From his elevated position also in India--I do not meanhis location at Simlah--but from his being by his station removed fromthe mass of the European population, and still more removed from thenative population, I do not think it at all likely that Lord Dalhousiewill be able to form a sounder opinion upon this question than personswho have never been in India. In my opinion, no evil can possibly arisefrom creating in the minds of the population of India a feeling that thequestion of Indian Government is considered by the House of Commons tobe a grave and solemn question; and I solemnly believe that if thedecision on the question be delayed for two years, so as to enableParliament to make due inquiries as to the means of establishing abetter form of government in India, it will create in the minds of allthe intelligent natives of India a feeling of confidence and hope, andthat whatever may be done by them in the way of agitation will be ratherfor the purpose of offering information in the most friendly andgenerous spirit, than of creating opposition to any Governmentlegislation. However, the question of delay is one which the House inall probability will be called upon to decide on another occasion. 

But passing from that subject, I now come to the principle upon whichthe right hon. Gentleman founded his Motion. The speech of I he righthon. Gentleman was throughout that of an advocate of the IndianGovernment, as at present constituted; and, if Mr. Melville had saideverything that could possibly be dragged into the case, he could nothave made it more clearly appear than the right hon. Gentleman has donethat the Government of India has been uniformly worthy of the confidenceof the country. My view of this matter, after a good deal ofobservation, is, that the Indian Government, composed of two branches, which the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to amalgamate into one, is a Government of secrecy and irresponsibility to a degree that shouldnot be tolerated in a country like this, where we have a constitutionaland Parliamentary Government, I have not the least idea in anyobservations which I may make either in this House or elsewhere ofbringing a charge against the East India Company--that is to say, against any individual member of the Board of Directors, as if they wereanxious to misgovern India. I never had any such suspicion. I believethat the twenty-four gentlemen who constitute the Board of Directorswould act just about as well as any other twenty-four persons elected bythe same process, acting under the same influences, and surrounded bythe same difficulties--having to act with another and independent body--the Board of Control. Neither am I hostile to the Board of Control, because I think that the duty imposed upon it is greater than any suchbody can properly perform. The right hon. Gentleman, the enormouslabours of whose office could not be accomplished by any one man, cominginto office in December, and having to propose a new Government forIndia in the month of May or June, must have found it extremelydifficult to make himself master of the question. But beyond this theHouse should bear in mind, that during the last thirty years there hasbeen a new President of the Board of Control every two years. Nay, inthe course of last year there were no less than three Presidents of theBoard of Control. Thus that Board seems framed in such a manner as tomake it altogether impossible that any one man should be able to conductit in the way which it ought to be conducted. Beyond this, the Presidentof that Board has to act in conjunction with the Court of Directors. Without saying anything which would impute blame to any party, it mustbe obvious that two such bodies combined can never carry on thegovernment of India wisely, and in accordance with those principleswhich have been found necessary in the government of this country. Theright hon. Gentleman has been obliged to admit that the theory of theold Government of India was one which could not be defended, and thateverybody considers it ridiculous and childish. I am not at all certainthat the one that is going to be established is in any degree better. Itwas in 1784 that this form of government was established, amid the fightof factions. In 1813 it was continued for twenty-years longer, during atime when the country was involved in desperate hostilities with France. In 1833 another Bill, continuing that form of government, passed throughParliament immediately after the hurricane which carried the ReformBill. All these circumstances rendered it difficult for the Government, however honestly disposed, to pass the best measure for the governmentof India. But all the difficulties which then existed appear to mewholly to have vanished. Never has any question come before Parliamentmore entirely free from a complication of that nature, or one which theHouse has the opportunity of more quietly and calmly considering, thanthe question now before them. 

I should have been pleased if the right hon. Gentleman had given theHouse the testimony of some two or three persons on his own side of thequestion. But, as he has not done so, I will trouble the House byreferring to some authorities in support of my own views. I will firstrefer to the work of Mr. Campbell, which has already been quoted by theright hon. Gentleman. It is a very interesting book, and gives a greatdeal of information. That writer says--

 'The division of authority between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors, the large number of directors, and the peculiar system by which measures are originated in the Court, sent for approval to the Board, then back again to the Court, and so on, render all deliverances very slow and difficult; and when a measure is discussed in India, the announcement that it has been referred to the Court of Directors is often regarded as an indefinite postponement. In fact, it is evident that (able and experienced as are many of the individual directors) twenty-four directors in one place, and a Board of Control in another, are not likely very speedily to unite in one opinion upon any doubtful point. '

That, I think, is likely to be the opinion of any man on the Governmentof India. There is another authority to which I will refer, Mr. Kaye, who has also written a very good book. It was actually distributed bythe Court of Directors; I have therefore a right to consider it a fairrepresentation of their views of what was done, especially as theChairman of the Court has given me a copy of the book. Mr. Kaye, inreferring to the double Government which existed in Bengal in 1772, makes use of these expressions. When I first read them, I thought theywere a quotation from my own speeches:--

 'But enlightened as were the instructions thus issued to the supervisors, the supervision was wholly inadequate to the requirements of the case. The double Government, as I have shown, did not work well. It was altogether a sham and an imposture. It was soon to be demolished at a blow.... The double Government had, by this time, fulfilled its mission. It had introduced an incredible amount of disorder and corruption into the State, and of poverty and wretchedness among the people; it had embarrassed our finances, and soiled our character, and was now to be openly recognised as a failure. '

This is only as to Bengal. The following are the words he uses inrespect to the double Government at home:--

 'In respect of all transactions with foreign Powers--all matters bearing upon questions of peace and war--the President of the Board of Control has authority to originate such measures as he and his colleagues in the Ministry may consider expedient. In such cases he acts presumedly in concert with the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors--a body composed of the chairman, deputy-chairman, and senior member of the Court. The Secret Committee sign the despatches which emanate from the Board, but they have no power to withhold or to alter them. They have not even the power to record their dissent. In fact, the functions of the Committee are only those which, to use the words of a distinguished member of the Court (the late Mr. Tucker), who deplored the mystery and the mockery of a system which obscures responsibility and deludes public opinion, could as well be performed "by a secretary and a seal. "'

Further on he says--

 'In judging of responsibility, we should remember that the whole foreign policy of the East India Company is regulated by the Board of Control; that in the solution of the most vital questions--questions of peace and war--affecting the finances of the country, and, therefore, the means of internal improvement, the Court of Directors have no more power than the mayor and aldermen of any corporate town. India depends less on the will of the twenty-four than on one man's caprice--here to-day and gone to-morrow--knocked over by a gust of Parliamentary uncertainty-- the mistaken tactics of a leader, or negligence of a whipper-in. The past history of India is a history of revenue wasted and domestic improvement obstructed by war. '

This is very much what I complain of. I admit the right of the EastIndia Company to complain of many things done by the Board of Control;and I am of opinion, that if the House left the two bodies to combat oneanother, they would at last come to an accurate perception of what theyboth are. The East India Company accused the Board of Control of makingwars and squandering the revenue which the Company collected. But Mr. Kaye said that Mr. Tucker deplored the mystery and the mockery of asystem which obscured responsibility and deluded public opinion. It isbecause of this concealment, of this delusion practised upon publicopinion, of this evasion of public responsibility and Parliamentarycontrol, that you have a state of things in India which the hon. Memberfor Guildford (Mr. Mangles) has described, when he says that the Companymanages the revenues, collects the taxes, and gets from20, 000, 000_l_. To 30, 000, 000_l_. A-year, and nobody knows howmuch more. But, whatever it is, such is the system of foreign policypursued by the Board of Control--that is to say, by the gentlemen whodrop down there for six or eight or twelve months, never beyond twoyears--that, whatever revenues are collected, they are squandered onunnecessary and ruinous wars, till the country is brought to a state ofembarrassment and threatened bankruptcy. That is the real point whichthe House will have to consider. 

With regard to some of the details of the Government plan, we should nodoubt all agree: but this question of divided responsibility, ofconcealed responsibility, and of no responsibility whatever, that is thereal pith of the matter. The House should take care not to be divertedfrom that question. [Mr. Mangles: 'Produce your own plan. '] An hon. Gentleman has asked me to produce my plan. I will not comply with thatrequest, but will follow the example of a right hon. Gentleman, a greatauthority in this House, who once said, when similarly challenged, thathe should produce his plan when he was called in. I believe that theplan before the House to-night was concocted by the Board of Control andthe hon. Member for Guildford and his Colleagues I shall, therefore, confine myself at present to the discussion of that plan. Some personsare disposed very much (at least I am afraid so) to undervalue theparticular point which I am endeavouring to bring before the House; andthey seem to fancy that it does not much matter what shall be the formof government in India, since the population of that country will alwaysbe in a condition of great impoverishment and much suffering; and thatwhatever is done must be done there, and that after all--after havingconquered 100, 000, 000 of people--it is not in our power to interfere forthe improvement of their condition. Mr. Kaye, in his book, commences thefirst chapters with a very depreciating account of the character of theMogul Princes, with a view to show that the condition of the people ofIndia was at least as unfavourable under them as under British rule. Iwill cite one or two cases from witnesses for whose testimony the righthon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) must have respect. Mr. Marshman is agentleman who is well known as possessing a considerable amount ofinformation on Indian affairs, and has, I presume, come over on purposeto give his evidence on the subject. He was editor of a newspaper whichwas generally considered throughout India to be the organ of theGovernment; in that newspaper, the _Friend of India_, bearing thedate 1st April, 1852, the following statement appears:--

 'No one has ever attempted to contradict the fact that the condition of the Bengal peasantry is almost as wretched and degraded as it is possible to conceive--living in the most miserable hovels, scarcely fit for a dog-kennel, covered with tattered rags, and unable, in too many instances, to procure more than a single meal a-day for himself and family. The Bengal ryot knows nothing of the most ordinary comforts of life. We speak without exaggeration when we affirm, that if the real condition of those who raise the harvest, which yields between 3, 000, 000_l_. And 4, 000, 000_l_. A-year, was fully known, it would make the ears of one who heard thereof tingle. '

It has been said that in the Bengal Presidency the natives are in abetter condition than in the other Presidencies; and I recollect thatwhen I served on the Cotton Committee the evidence taken before it beingconfined to the Bombay and Madras Presidencies, it was then said that ifevidence had been taken about the Bengal Presidency it would haveappeared that the condition of the natives was better. But I believethat it is very much the same in all the Presidencies. I must say thatit is my belief that if a country be found possessing a most fertilesoil, and capable of bearing every variety of production, and that, notwithstanding, the people are in a state of extreme destitution andsuffering, the chances are that there is some fundamental error in thegovernment of that country. The people of India have been subjected byus, and how to govern them in an efficient and beneficial manner is oneof the most important points for the consideration of the House. Fromthe Report of the Indian Cotton Committee it appears that nearly everywitness--and the witnesses were nearly all servants of the Company--gaveevidence as to the state of destitution in which the cultivators of thesoil lived. They were in such an abject condition that they were obligedto give 40 or 50 per cent, to borrow money to enable them to put seedinto the ground. I can, if it were necessary, bring any amount ofevidence to prove the miserable condition of the cultivators, and thatin many places they have been compelled to part with their personalornaments. Gentlemen who have written upon their condition have drawn afrightful picture, and have represented the persons employed to collectthe revenue as coming upon the unhappy cultivators like locusts, anddevouring everything. With regard to the consumption of salt, looking atthe _Friend of India_, of April 14, 1853, it appears that it is onthe decline. In the year 1849-50, the consumption was 205, 517 tons; in1850-51, 186, 410 tons; and in 1851-2, 146, 069 tons. Thus, in the shortperiod of three years, there has been a decrease in the consumptionamounting to 59, 448 tons, which will involve a loss to the revenue of416, 136_l_. [Footnote: The _Friend of India_ was incorrect inthis statement the real decline in the consumption of salt was about12, 000 tons. ] Salt is one of those articles that people in India willuse as much of as they can afford, and the diminution in the consumptionappears to me to be a decided proof of the declining condition of thepopulation, and that must affect adversely the revenue of the IndianGovernment. Now there is another point to which the right hon. Gentlemanhas slightly alluded; it is connected with the administration ofjustice, and I will read from the _Friend of India_ a caseillustrative of the efficiency of the police. The statement is soextraordinary that it would be incredible but for the circumstance ofits having appeared in such a respectable journal:--

 'The affair itself is sufficiently uninteresting. A native Zemindar had, or fancied he had, some paper rights over certain lands occupied by a European planter, and, as a necessary consequence, sent a body of armed retainers to attack his factory. The European resisted in the same fashion by calling out his retainers. There was a pitched battle, and several persons were wounded, if not slain; while the Darogah, the appointed guardian of the peace, sat on the roof of a neighbouring hut and looked on with an interest, the keenness of which was probably not diminished by the fact of his own immunity from the pains and perils of the conflict. There has been a judicial investigation, and somebody will probably be punished, if not by actual sentence, by the necessary disbursement of fees and douceurs, but the evil will not be thereby suppressed or even abated. The incident, trifling as it may appear--and the fact that it is trifling is no slight evidence of a disorganised state of society--is an epitome in small type of our Bengal police history. On all sides, and in every instance, we have the same picture--great offences, the police indifferent or inefficient, judicial investigations protracted till the sufferers regret that they did not patiently endure the injury, and somebody punished, but no visible abatement of the crime. The fact is, and it is beginning at last to be acknowledged everywhere, except perhaps at home, that Bengal does not need so much a "reform" or reorganisation of the police, as a police, a body of some kind, specially organised for the preservation of order. Why the change is so long postponed, no one, not familiar with the _arcana_ of Leadenhall-street and Cannon-row, can readily explain. '

Mr. Marshman uses the expression, 'the incident, trifling as it mayappear;' but I will ask the House if they can conceive a state ofsociety in a country under the Government of England where a scene ofviolence such as has been described could be considered trifling?

The right hon. Gentleman has, while admitting that the want of roads insome districts of India is a great evil, endeavoured to show that agreat deal has been done to remedy the deficiency, and that on someroads the mails travel as fast as ten miles an hour. Now, I believe thatif the speed were taken at five miles an hour, it would be nearer thetruth; and I will beg the House to excuse me if I read another extractfrom the _Friend of India_ of April 14, 1853:--

 'The Grand Trunk, however, is the only road upon which a good speed has been attained, remarks being attached to all of the remainder strongly indicative of the want of improved means of communication. From Shergotty to Gyah, and Gyah to Patna, for instance, the pace is four miles and a half an hour; but then "the road is cutcha, and the slightest shower of rain renders it puddly and impracticable for speedy transit. " From Patna to Benares the official account is the same, but the rate increases at one stage to five miles and a half. The southern roads are, however, in the worst condition, the mails travelling to Jelazore at three miles an hour, or less than a groom can walk; and even between Calcutta and Baraset the rate rises to only four miles and a half an hour, while everywhere we have such notices as "road intersected by numerous unbridged rivers and nullahs, " "road has not been repaired for these many years, " "road not repaired for years, " the "road in so bad a state, and so much intersected by rivers and nullahs, that no great improvement in the speed of the mails can be effected. " And yet the surplus Ferry Funds might, one would think, if economically administered, be sufficient to pay at least for the maintenance of the roads already in existence. New roads, we fear, are hopeless until Parliament fixes a _minimum_, which must be expended on them; and even then it may be allowed to accumulate, as the Parliamentary grant for education has done at Madras. '

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the subject of irrigation; andI hold in my hand an extract from the Report of the Commission whichinquired into the subject. The Report states that--

 'The loss of revenue by the famine of 1832-33 is estimated at least at 1, 000, 000_l_. Sterling; the loss of property at a far greater amount; of life, at 200, 000 or 300, 000; and of cattle, at 200, 000 at the lowest, in Guntore alone, besides the ruin of 70, 000 houses. The famine of the Northern Circars in 1833, and that of the north-western provinces of India at a later period, prove with irresistible force that irrigation in this country is properly a question, not of profit, but of existence. '

The right hon. Gentleman has also quoted from a Report by Colonel Cottonon the subject of the embankment of the Kistna. Now, the embankment ofthe Kistna has been recommended as far back as the year 1792, and fromthat time has been repeatedly brought forward. The whole estimate for itis but 155, 000_l_. , and it was not until September, 1852, that thepreliminary operations were commenced. I find this officer stating withrespect to the district of Rajamundry, that if a particular improvementthat had been recommended above twenty years ago had been carried out, it would have saved the lives of upwards of 100, 000 persons who perishedin the famine of 1837. I say that such facts as these are ajustification of stronger language than any in which I have indulged inreference to the neglect of the Indian Government whether in this Houseor out of it. The right hon. Gentleman candidly informs us that thisvery embankment has been recently stopped by order of the MadrasGovernment, because the money was wanted for other purposes--the Burmesewar, no doubt. In the year 1849 it was reported that Colonel Cottonwrote a despatch to the Madras Government, in which, after mentioningfacts connected with the famines, he insisted, in strong and indignantlanguage, that the improvements should go on. I believe that there wasan allusion in the letter to the awkward look these things would have, pending the discussions on the Government of India, and I understandthat it was agreed that the original letter, which countermanded theimprovements, should be withdrawn, and that then the remonstrance fromColonel Cotton should also be withdrawn. A gentleman who has been in theCompany's service, and who has for some time been engaged inimprovements, chiefly in irrigation, writes in a private letter asfollows:--

 'From my late investigations on this subject, I feel convinced that the state of our communications is the most important subject which calls for consideration. I reckon that India now pays, for want of cheap transit, a sum equal to the whole of the taxes; so that by reducing its cost to a tenth, which might easily be done, we should as good as abolish all taxes. I trust the Committees in England are going on well, in spite of the unbecoming efforts which have been made to circumscribe and quash their proceedings. Woe be to India, indeed, if this opportunity is lost! Much will depend upon you--

(the letter was not addressed to myself)--

 and others now in England, who know India, and have a single eye to its welfare. It behoves you to do your utmost to improve this most critical time, and may God in his mercy overrule all the efforts of man for its good! What abominations, villanies, and idiotcies there still are in our system! Is there no hope, no possibility, of infusing a little fresh blood from some purer source into these bodies?

(the ruling authorities). 

 It is quite clear that no radical improvement can take place till some influences can be applied to stimulate our rulers to more healthy, wholesome action; health can never be looked for in a body constituted as the Court of Directors now is; nothing but torpid disease can be expected as matters now stand. 

With respect to the administration of justice, I shall not go at anylength into that subject, because I hope it will be taken up by someother Gentleman much more competent than myself, and I trust that asufficient answer will be given to what has been stated by the righthon. Gentleman. However, as far as I am able to understand, thereappears to be throughout the whole of India, on the part of the Europeanpopulation, an absolute terror of coming under the Company's Courts forany object whatever. Within the last fortnight I have had a conversationwith a gentleman who has seen a long period of service in India, and hedeclared it was hopeless to expect that Englishmen would ever investtheir property in India under any circumstances which placed theirinterests at the disposal of those courts of justice. That is one reasonwhy there appears no increase in the number of Europeans or Englishmenwho settle in the interior of India for the purpose of investing theircapital there. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make an excuse onthe ground that the Law Commission had done nothing. I was not in theHouse when the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) broughtforward the Bill of 1833, but I understand it was stated that the LawCommission was to do wonders; yet now we have the evidence of the righthon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, that the Report ofthe Law Commission has ever since been going backwards and forwards, like an unsettled spirit, between this country and India. Mr. Cameron, in his evidence, said (I suppose it is slumbering somewhere on theshelves in the East India House) that the Court of Directors actuallysneered at the propositions of their officers for enactments of anykind, and that it was evidently their object to gradually extinguish theCommission altogether. Yet the evidence of Mr. Cameron went to show theextraordinary complication and confusion of the law and lawadministration over all the British dominions in India. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control also referred to thestatistics laid before the public; but I want to know why Colonel Sykes'statistical tables are not before the House. They are at the IndiaHouse; but a journey to Leadenhall-street seems to be as long as one toIndia, and one can as soon get a communication by the overland mail asany information from the India House. What did Colonel Sykes say, withrespect to a subject referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, who hadgiven the House to suppose that a great deal had been done in respect toimprovements in India? Colonel Sykes stated that in fifteen years, from1838 to 1852, the average expenditure throughout the whole of India onpublic works, including roads, bridges, tanks, and canals, was299, 732_l_. The north-west appeared to be the pet district; and in1851 the total expenditure was 334, 000_l_. , of which the north-westdistrict had 240, 000_l_. In 1852 the estimate was 693, 000_l_. , of which the north-west district was to have 492, 000_l_. , leavingonly 94, 000_l_. In 1851, and 201, 000_l_. In 1852, for publicworks of all kinds in the three Presidencies of Bengal, Madras, andBombay, with a population of 70, 000, 000 souls. The right hon. Gentlemanthen referred to the exports from this country, and the increase oftrade with India; and a kindred subject to that was the mode in whichEnglishmen settle in India. What I want to show is, that the reason whyso little is done with India by Englishmen is, that there does not existin that country the same security for their investments as in almostevery other country in the world. I recollect receiving from Mr. Mackay, who was sent out by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, a letterexpressing his amazement on finding that in the interior of India anEnglishman was hardly known, unless he now and then made his appearanceas a tax collector. The following Return shows in what small numbersEuropeans resort to India:--

 'British-born subjects in India not in the service of the Queen or the Company:--

 Bengal 6, 749 Madras 1, 661 Bombay 1, 596 ------ 10, 006

 'In the interior of the country, engaged in agriculture or manufactures--

 Bengal 273 Madras 37 Bombay 7 ------ 317'

I cannot believe, if the United States had been the possessors of India, but that where there are tens of Europeans now in that country therewould have been, not hundreds, but thousands of the people of America. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the exports to India, and wanted toshow how large they were. Certainly they have increased very much, because they started from nothing at all. Before the opening of thetrade, the Court of Proprietors, by resolution, declared that it wasquite a delusion to suppose it possible to increase the trade withIndia. In 1850 the total exports to India from Great Britain and Irelandwere 8, 024, 000_l_. , of which cotton goods alone amounted to5, 220, 000_l_. , leaving 2, 804, 000_l_. For the total exportsfrom Great Britain and Ireland upon all other branches of industry otherthan cotton. Now, let the House make a comparison with another country, one with which a moderately fair comparison might be made. Brazil has apopulation of 7, 500, 000 souls, half of whom are reckoned to be slaves, yet the consumption of British goods is greater in Brazil, in proportionto the population, than in India--the former country, with a populationof 7, 500, 000, taking British goods to the amount of 2, 500, 000_l_. If India took but half the quantity of our exports that Brazil did inproportion to her population, she would take more than five times whatshe now takes. Yet Brazil is a country upon which we have imposed thepayment of exorbitant duties, which we have almost debarred from tradingwith us by an absurd monopoly in sugar, while India is a countryentirely under our own government, and which, we are told, is enjoyingthe greatest possible blessings under the present administration, compared with what it enjoyed under its former rulers. Our exports toIndia in 1814 were 826, 000_l_. ; in 1832 they were3, 600, 000_l_. ; in 1843 they were 6, 500, 000_l_. ; and in 1850they were 8, 000, 000_l_. India consumes our exports at the rate of1_s_. 3 _d_. Per head; whilst in South America, including thewhole of the slave population, the consumption per head is 8 _s_. 8_d_. These are facts which the right hon. Baronet is bound to payserious attention to. For myself, representing, as I do, one of ourgreat seats of manufacturing industry, I feel myself doubly called uponto lose no opportunity of bringing such facts before the House, satisfied as I am that there is no Member of this House so obtuse as notto comprehend how materially the great manufacturing interests of thiscountry are concerned in the question--what shall be the futureGovernment of India?

Another subject requiring close attention on the part of Parliament isthe employment of the natives of India in the service of the Government. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), in proposing theIndian Bill of 1833, had dwelt on one of its clauses, which providedthat neither colour, nor caste, nor religion, nor place of birth, shouldbe a bar to the employment of persons by the Government; whereas, asmatter of fact, from that time to this, no person in India has been soemployed, who might not have been equally employed before that clausewas enacted; and, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman thePresident of the Board of Control, that it is proposed to keep up thecovenanted service system, it is clear that this most objectionable andmost offensive state of things is to continue. Mr. Cameron, a gentlemanthoroughly versed in the subject, as fourth member of Council in India, President of the Indian Law Commission, and of the Council of Educationfor Bengal--what does he say on this point? He says--

 'The statute of 1833 made the natives of India eligible to all offices under the Company. But during the twenty years that have since elapsed, not one of the natives has been appointed to any office except such as they were eligible to before the statute. It is not, however, of this omission that I should feel justified in complaining, if the Company had shown any disposition to make the natives fit, by the highest European education, for admission to their covenanted service. Their disposition, as far as it can be devised, is of the opposite kind. 

 'When four students (added Mr. Cameron) were sent to London from the Medical College of Calcutta, under the sanction of Lord Hardinge, in Council, to complete their professional education, the Court of Directors expressed their dissatisfaction; and when a plan for establishing a University at Calcutta, which had been prepared by the Council of Education, was recommended to their adoption by Lord Hardinge, in Council, they answered that the project was premature. As to the Law Commission, I am afraid that the Court of Directors have been accustomed to think of it only with the intention of procuring its abolition. '

Under the Act of 1833 the natives of India were declared to be eligibleto any office under the Company. No native has, in the twenty yearswhich have since elapsed, been appointed to any office in pursuance ofthat clause which he might not have held before the Bill passed, or hadit never passed at all. There might not, perhaps, have been so muchreason to complain of this circumstance, had the Government of Indiameanwhile shown a disposition to qualify the natives for the covenantedservice; but the fact is that the Government has, on the contrary, manifested a disposition of a totally opposite character. The House mustbe very cautious not to adopt the glossed and burnished statement of theright hon. Gentleman as exhibiting the real state of things in India;for it is essential, in the highest degree, that in the present criticaljuncture of things the whole truth should be known. The right hon. Baronet, towards the close of his speech, has gone into the subject ofeducation, and not so much into that of ecclesiastical establishments inIndia, but somewhat into that of religion. Now, with reference toeducation, so far as can be gathered from the Returns before the House--I have sought to obtain Returns of a more specific character, but to nopurpose, having received the usual answer in these matters, that therewas no time for preparing them--but from the Returns we have before us Ifind that while the Government has overthrown almost entirely thatnative education which had subsisted throughout the country souniversally that a schoolmaster was as regular a feature in everyvillage as the 'potail' or head man, it has done next to nothing tosupply the deficiency which has been created, or to substitute a bettersystem. Out of a population of 100, 000, 000 natives we instruct but25, 000 children; out of a gross revenue of 29, 000, 000_l_. Sterling, extracted from that population, we spend but 66, 000_l_. In theireducation. In India, let it be borne in mind, the people are not in theposition with regard to providing for their own education which thepeople of this country enjoy, and the education which they have providedthemselves with, the Government has taken from them, supplying noadequate system in its place. The people of India are in a state ofpoverty, and of decay, unexampled in the annals of the country undertheir native rulers. From their poverty the Government wrings a grossrevenue of more than 29, 000, 000_l_. Sterling, and out of that29, 000, 000_l_. , return to them 66, 000_l_. Per annum for thepurposes of education!

What is our ecclesiastical establishment in India? Three bishops and aproportionate number of clergy, costing no less than 101, 000_l_. A-year for the sole use of between 50, 000 and 60, 000 Europeans, nearlyone-half of whom, moreover--taking the army--are Roman Catholics. Imight add, that in India, the Government showed the same discriminationof which the noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell)seemed to approve so much the other night, for, although they give toone Protestant bishop 4, 000_l_. A-year, with 1, 2OO_l_. A-yearmore for expenses and a ship at his disposal, and to two otherProtestant bishops between 2, 000_l_. And 3, 000_l_. A-year, they give to the Roman Catholic bishop a paltry sum of about250_l_. A-year. The East India Company are not, perhaps, herein somuch to blame, seeing that they do but follow the example of what isgoing on in this country. 

There is another question--perhaps the most important of all--thequestion of Indian finance, which, somehow or other, the right hon. Baronet has got over in so very lame a manner, in so particularlyconfused a style, that had I not known something of the matterpreviously, I should have learnt very little from the right hon. Baronet's statement. A former Director of the East India Company has, onthis subject, issued a book--of course, in defence of the Company. Hereare two or three facts extracted from this book:--From 1835 to 1851--sixteen years--the entire net taxation of India has produced340, 756, 000_l_. ; the expenditure on the Government in the sameperiod having been 341, 676, 000_l_. --an amount somewhat in excess ofthe revenue. During these sixteen years there has been also expended onpublic works of all kinds 5, 000, 000_l_. , and there has been paid, in dividends, to the proprietors of East India stock, 10, 080, 000_l_. ; making a total expenditure of 356, 756, 000_l_. In the same period the Company has contracted loans to the extent of16, 000, 000_l_. ; every farthing of which has gone to improvements, the stated extent of which I believe to have been greatly magnified, andto pay the amiable ladies and gentlemen whose votes return toLeadenhall-street those immaculate Directors whom the Government seemsso desirous of cherishing. All expenditure for improvements of everykind, and all dividends to stockholders, have been paid from loanscontracted during the last sixteen years; so that the whole revenue hasbeen expended, leaving nothing for improvements and nothing for theCompany's dividends. This seems to me a formidable, an alarming state ofthings. 

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Indian debt coming upon the peopleof this country, expressing the opinion that if the Government of Indiawere transferred to the Crown--which assuredly it ought to be--the debtought so to be transferred. The debt is not in the present Budget, indeed, but it will certainly come before the House. I have alreadyreferred to a memorable speech of the late Sir Robert Peel on thissubject, in 1842, just after he had come into office, and when, findingthe country left by the Whigs with an Exchequer peculiarly discouragingto a Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was about to propose that temporaryincome-tax which has since become permanent. He said, after referring tothe affairs of Canada and China--

 'For the purpose of bringing before the House a full and complete view of our financial position, as I promised to do, I feel it to be my duty to refer to a subject which has of late occupied little attention in the House, but which I think might, with advantage to the public, have attracted more of their regard--I refer to the state of Indian finance, a subject which formerly used to be thought not unworthy of the consideration of this House. I am quite aware that there may appear to be no direct and immediate connexion between the finances of India and those of this country; but that would be a superficial view of our relations with India which should omit the consideration of this subject. Depend upon it, if the credit of India should become disordered, if some great exertion should become necessary, then the credit of England must be brought forward to its support, and the collateral and indirect effect of disorders in Indian finances would be felt extensively in this country. Sir, I am sorry to say that Indian finance offers no consolation for the state of finance in this country. I hold in my hand an account of the finances of India, which I have every reason to believe is a correct one. It is made up one month later than our own accounts-- to the 5th of May. It states the gross revenue of India, with the charges on it; the interest of the debt; the surplus revenue, and the charges paid on it in England; and there are two columns which contain the net surplus and the net deficit. In the year ending May, 1836, there was a surplus of 1, 520, 000_l_. From the Indian revenue. In the year ending the 5th of May, 1837, there was a surplus of 1, 100, 000_l_. , which was reduced rapidly in the year ending May, 1838, to one of 620, 000_l_. In the year ending the 5th of May, 1839, the surplus fell to 29, 000_l_. ; in the year ending the 5th of May, 1840, the balance of the account changed, and so far from there being any surplus, the deficit on the Indian revenue was 2, 414, 000_l_. I am afraid I cannot calculate the deficit for the year ending May, 1841, though it depends at present partly on estimate, at much less than 2, 334, 000_l_. The House, then, will bear in mind, that in fulfilment of the duty I have undertaken, I present to them the deficit in this country for the current year to the amount of 2, 350, 000_l_. , with a certain prospect of a deficit for the next year to the amount of at least 2, 470, 000_l_. , independently of the increase to be expected on account of China and Affghanistan, and that in India, that great portion of our Empire, I show a deficit on the two last years which will probably not be less than 4, 700, 000_l_. '-- [3 _Hansard_, lxi. 428-9. ]

Now, this deficit has in the period since 1842 been growing every year, with the exception of two years, when, from accidental and precariouscircumstances, a surplus of between 300, 000_l_. And400, 000_l_. Was made out. The course of deficit has now, however, been resumed, and there is probably no one in this House or in thecountry but the right hon. President of the Board of Control, who doesnot perceive that the Burmese war will materially aggravate the amountof that deficit. Where is this to end? When the Board of Control wasfirst established, the debt was 8, 000, 000_l_. ; in 1825 it was25, 000, 000_l_. ; in 1829 it was 34, 000, 000_l_. ; in 1836, 37, 000, 000_l_. ; in 1843, 36, 000, 000_l_. ; in 1849, 44, 000, 000_l_. ; in 1853, 47, 000, 000_l_. ; and now, includingthe bond debt at home and the debt in India, it is about51, 000, 000_l_. The military expenditure of India has increasedsince the last Charter Act from 8, 000, 000_l_. A-year to more than12, 000, 000_l_. A-year, and now forms no less than 56 per cent. Ofthe whole expenditure. I believe that if the Indian Government wouldendeavour to improve the condition of the people by attending toeconomic principles, by establishing better means of communication, bypromoting irrigation, and by affording facilities for education, theIndian population would at once be convinced that there was a feeling ofsympathy entertained towards them on the part of their rulers andconquerors, and the idea--which I believe prevails very extensively--that we held India more with the object of extorting taxation than ofbenefiting the people, would speedily be removed. 

When I come to consider the amount of the revenue, and its pressure uponthe population, I think I can show a state of things existing in Indiawhich cannot be paralleled in any other country in the world. Theevidence of Mr. Davies and Mr. Stewart, collectors in Guzerat, showsthat in that district the actual taxation varies from 60 to 90 per cent. Upon the gross produce of the soil. Mr. Campbell calculates the grossrevenue of India at about 27, 000, 000_l_. ; and Mr. Kaye, a recentauthority, who, I presume, wrote his book at the India House, statesthat the gross revenue was 29, 000, 000_l_. The land revenue is12, 000, 000_l_. Or 13, 000, 000_l_. ; and although the Governmenttook, or intended to take, all the rent, it is not half enough for them, and they are obliged to take as much more from other sources in order toenable them to maintain their establishments. I mention this fact toshow the enormous expense of the Indian Government, and theimpossibility of avoiding a great and dangerous financial crisis unlesssome alteration is made in the present system. Mr. Campbell, speaking ofthe Indian revenues under the Mogul Princes, says--

 'The value of food, labour, &c. , seems to have been much the same as now--that is, infinitely cheaper than in Europe; and, certainly, in comparison to the price of labour and all articles of consumption, the revenue of the Moguls must have been more effective than that of any modern State--I mean that it enabled them to command more men and luxuries, and to have a greater surplus. '

I would ask the House to imagine that all steam engines, and allapplications of mechanical power, were banished from this country; thatwe were utterly dependent upon mere manual labour. What would you thinkif the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under such circumstances, endeavoured to levy the same taxation which is now borne by the country?From one end of India to the other, with very trifling exceptions, thereis no such thing as a steam engine; but this poor population, without asteam engine, without anything like first-rate tools, are called upon tobear, I will venture to say, the very heaviest taxation under which anypeople ever suffered with the same means of paying it. Yet the whole ofthis money, raised from so poor a population, which would in India buyfour times as much labour, and four times as much of the productions ofthe country, as it would obtain in England, is not enough to keep up theestablishments of the Government; for during the last sixteen years theIndian Government has borrowed 16, 000, 000_l_. To pay the dividendsto the proprietors in England. 

The opium question has been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (SirC. Wood). I must say I do not know any one connected with China, or atall acquainted with the subject, who is not of opinion that the opiumrevenue is very near its termination. Even the favourite authority ofthe President of the Board of Control, Mr. Marshman, declared hisopinion that India was on the verge of a great financial crisis. Whetherthe present Chinese Government retains its power, or the insurgents besuccessful and a new dynasty be established, the scruple against theimportation of opium into China from India having once been removed, thetransition to the growth of the drug in China is very easy, and therecan scarcely be a doubt that opium will soon be as extensivelycultivated in that country as ever it was in India. This might very soonproduce a loss of 3, 000, 000_l_. Of revenue to the East India Company. There has already been an annual deficit in the revenues of the EastIndia Company for the last fifteen years; they have to bear the cost ofa Burmese war; and the annexation of new territory will only bring uponthem an increased charge, for Pegu will probably never repay itsexpenses, and yet they have the prospect of losing 3, 000, 000_l_. Oftheir revenue within a very few years. Now, what would the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer say if the President of the Board of Control came to thatHouse and proposed to raise a loan upon the credit of this country forthe purpose of maintaining our territory in India? Would it not bebetter at once to ascertain whether the principles and policy on whichwe have hitherto proceeded have not been faulty? Should we not ratherendeavour to reduce our expenditure, to employ cheaper labour, toincrease the means of communication in India, which would enable us todispense with a portion of our troops, and to make it a rule that theGovernor-General should have more honour when he came home, for nothaving extended by an acre the territory of our Indian possessions, thanif he had added a province or a kingdom to them?

The plan proposed by the President of the Board of Control appears to mevery closely to resemble that which exists at present. The result, sofar as regards the real question, about which the public are mostinterested, is this, that the twenty-four gentlemen who are directors ofthe East India Company are, by a process of self-immolation, to bereduced to fifteen. I think this reduction will be one of the mostaffecting scenes in the history of the Government of India. As the EastIndia Company keep a writer to record their history, I hope they alsokeep an artist to give us an historical painting of this great event. There we shall see the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles), the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg), one of the hon. Members for theCity of London, and the other directors, meeting together, and lookingmuch like shipwrecked men in a boat casting lots who should be thrownoverboard. To the fifteen directors who are to remain, three others areto be added, and the result will be that, instead of having twenty-fourgentlemen sitting in Leadenhall-street, to manage the affairs in India, there will be eighteen. The present constituency is so bad that nothingthe President of the Board of Control can do can make it worse; but asthat right hon. Gentleman finds it impossible to make it better, he letsthe constituency remain as it was. The right hon. Baronet proposes thatthe Crown should appoint six members of the Board who have been at leastten years in India, so that there may at all events be that number ofgentlemen at the Board lit for the responsible office in which they areplaced. But this is an admission that the remaining twelve members ofthe Board are not fit for their office. They have two ingredients--theone wholesome, the other poisonous; but there are two drops of poison toone of wholesome nutriment. The right hon. Gentleman mixes themtogether, and then wants Parliament and the country to believe that hehas proposed a great measure. 

As regards the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I must say that I havenever heard so great a one--I mean as to length--where the result, sofar as the real thing about which people wish to know, was so little. The twelve gentlemen appointed by the present constituency are degradedalready by the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, that they are notelected in a satisfactory manner, and that they are not fit persons forthe government of India. They are, in fact, bankers and brewers, and menof all sorts, in the City of London, who find it their interest to getinto the Court of Directors--no matter by what channel--because it addsto the business of their bank, or whatever else may be the undertakingin which they are engaged; but who have no special qualification for thegovernment of India. If the Government thinks it right to have six gooddirectors, let them abolish the twelve bad ones. Then it appears thatthe Secret Department is to be retained. Speaking of this, Mr. Kaye, quoting the authority of Mr. Tucker, a distinguished director, said itwas no more than a secretary and a seal. Next comes a most extraordinaryproposition. Hitherto the directors have undergone all the hardship ofgoverning India for 300_l_. A-year; but the right hon. Gentlemannow proposes to raise their wages by 4_l_. Per week each. I mustsay, that if this body is to be salaried at all, and is not to have theprofit of the patronage enjoyed by the present Government, nothing canbe worse economy than this, with a view to obtaining a body which shallcommand the respect, and have the amount of influence, requisite forconducting the Government of India. Sixteen of the directors, receiving500_l_. A-year each--why, they would have to pay their clerks muchmore!--and the chairman and the deputy-chairman 1, 000_l_. A-yeareach. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme seems to bear themarks of--I am almost afraid to say what; but he seems to have tried toplease every one in framing his great proposition, and at last haslanded the House in a sort of half measure, which neither the East IndiaCompany nor India wants. If I had made a speech such as the right hon. Gentleman has delivered, and believed what he said, I would leave theIndian Government as it is; but if I thought it necessary to alter theGovernment, I would do so on principle essentially. The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of bringing the Government of India under theauthority of the Crown. What, I should like to know, would have beendone if India had been conquered by the troops of the Crown? We shouldthen never have sent some thirty men into a bye-street of London todistribute patronage and govern a great country. The Government of Indiawould then have been made a department of the Government, with a Counciland a Minister of State. But it appears that the old system of hocus-pocus is still to be carried on. 

This is no question of Manchester against Essex--of town againstcountry--of Church against Nonconformity. It is a question in which weall have an interest, and in which our children may be more deeplyinterested than we are ourselves. Should anything go wrong with thefinances, we must bear the burden; or should the people of India by ourtreatment be goaded into insurrection, we must reconquer the country, orbe ignominiously driven out of it. I will not be a party to a state ofthings which might lead to the writing of a narrative like this on thehistory of our relations with that empire. Let the House utterlydisregard the predictions of mischief likely to result from such achange in the Government of India as that which I advocate. When thetrade was thrown open, and the Company was deprived of the monopoly ofcarrying, they said the Chinese would poison the tea. There is nothingtoo outrageous or ridiculous for the Company to say in order to preventthe Legislature from placing affairs on a more honest footing. I objectto the Bill, because--as the right hon. Gentleman admitted--itmaintains a double Government. In the unstatesmanlike course which theright hon. Gentleman is pursuing, he will, no doubt, be especiallybacked by the noble Lord the Member for London. I only wish that some ofthe younger blood in the Cabinet might have had their way upon thisquestion. Nothing can induce me to believe, after the evidence which isbefore the public, that this measure has the approbation of an unitedCabinet. It is not possible that thirteen sensible gentlemen, who haveany pretensions to form a Cabinet, could agree to a measure of thisnature. I am more anxious than I can express that Parliament shouldlegislate rightly in this matter. Let us act so at this juncture that itmay be said of us hereafter--that whatever crimes England originallycommitted in conquering India, she at least made the best of herposition by governing the country as wisely as possible, and left therecords and traces of a humane and liberal sway. 

I recollect having heard the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton(Viscount Palmerston) deliver in this House one of the best speeches Iever listened to. On that occasion the noble Lord gloried in the proudname of England, and, pointing to the security with which an Englishmanmight travel abroad, he triumphed in the idea that his countrymen mightexclaim, in the spirit of the ancient Roman, _Civis Romanus sum_. Let us not resemble the Romans merely in our national privileges andpersonal security. The Romans were great conquerors, but where theyconquered, they governed wisely. The nations they conquered wereimpressed so indelibly with the intellectual character of their masters, that, after fourteen centuries of decadence, the traces of civilisationare still distinguishable. Why should not we act a similar part inIndia? There never was a more docile people, never a more tractablenation. The opportunity is present, and the power is not wanting. Let usabandon the policy of aggression, and confine ourselves to a territoryten times the size of France, with a population four times as numerousas that of the United Kingdom. Surely that is enough to satisfy the mostgluttonous appetite for glory and supremacy. Educate the people ofIndia, govern them wisely, and gradually the distinctions of caste willdisappear, and they will look upon us rather as benefactors than asconquerors. And if we desire to see Christianity, in some form, professed in that country, we shall sooner attain our object by settingthe example of a high-toned Christian morality, than by any other meanswe can employ. 

 * * * * *

INDIA

II. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 24, 1858. 

_From Hansard_. [After the suppression of the Indian mutiny, Lord Palmerston'sGovernment determined to introduce a Bill the object of which was toplace the possessions of the East India Company under the directauthority of the Crown. This Bill was introduced by Lord Palmerston onFebruary 12. But the Government fell a few days afterwards, on theConspiracy Bill, and Lord Palmerston's Bill was withdrawn. On March 26the new Government introduced their own Bill, which was known as theIndia Bill No. 2. The chief peculiarity of this Bill was that fivemembers in the proposed council of eighteen should be chosen by theconstituencies of the following cities:--London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Belfast. The scheme was unpopular, and Lord Russellproposed that it should be withdrawn, and that resolutions should bepassed in a Committee of the whole House, the acceptance of which mightprove a guide to the proceedings of the Government. The suggestion wasaccepted by Mr. Disraeli, and in consequence India Bill No. 3 wasbrought in, and read a second time on June 24. ]

I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the second reading of thisBill--on the contrary, if any hon. Member thinks proper to divide theHouse upon it, I shall vote with the noble Lord. I must say, however, that there are many clauses in the Bill to which I entertain seriousobjections. Some of them will, I hope, be amended as the Bill passesthrough Committee; but if that is not the case, I can only hope that, asthe Bill of 1853 is abandoned in 1858, within the next five years theHouse of Commons will take some further steps with regard to thisquestion, with the view of simplifying the Government of India ascarried on in England. I wish to take this opportunity of making someobservations upon the general question of Indian government, which itmight have been out of place to have made during the discussion of thevarious Resolutions which have been agreed to by the House. 

I think it must have struck every hon. Member that, while twoGovernments have proposed great changes with regard to the government ofIndia, no good case has really been made out for such changes in thespeeches of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman by whom the twoIndia Bills have been introduced. That opinion, I know, will meet with aresponse from two or three hon. Gentlemen on this (the Opposition) sideof the House. It occurred to me when the noble Lord at the head of thelate Government (Viscount Palmerston) introduced his Bill--and I madethe observation when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer broughtforward his measure--that if the House knew no more of the question thanthey learned from the speeches of the Ministers, they could not form anyclear notion why it was proposed to overthrow the East India Company. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) has expressed a similaropinion several times during the progress of these discussions. Theright hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) has also said that theEast India Company was being dealt with in a manner in which animalsintended for sacrifice were treated in Eastern countries and in ancienttimes, --they were decked with garlands when they were led out forimmolation. That is true; but it does not therefore follow that theHouse is not quite right in the course it is taking. It must be clearthat the moment the House of Commons met this Session there was only onecourse which the then Government could adopt with reference to thisquestion. A feeling existed throughout the country--I believe I may sayit was universal--that for a long time past the government of India hadnot been a good government; that grave errors--if not grievous crimes--had been committed in that country. I think the conscience of the nationhad been touched on this question, and they came by a leap, as it were--by an irrepressible instinct--to the conclusion that the East IndiaCompany must be abolished, and that another and, as the nation hoped, abetter government should be established for that country. There was ageneral impression, arising from past discussion in Parliament, that theindustry of the people of India had been grievously neglected; thatthere was great reason for complaint with respect to the administrationof justice; and that with regard to the wars entered into by the IndianGovernment, there was much of which the people of England had reason tobe ashamed. 

It has been said by some that these faults are to be attributed to theBoard of Control; but I have never defended the Board of Control. Ibelieve everything the East India Company has said of the Board ofControl--to its discredit; and I believe that everything the Board ofControl has said to the discredit of the East India Company to beperfectly true. There was also a general impression that the expenditureof the East India Government was excessive; and that it had been provedbefore more than one Committee that the taxes imposed upon the people ofIndia were onerous to the last degree. These subjects were discussed in1853, at which time, in my opinion, the change now proposed ought tohave been effected. Subsequently the calamitous events of 1857 and 1858occurred; and the nation came at once to the conclusion--a conclusionwhich I think no disinterested person could resist--that it wasimpossible that India and its vast population could any longer beretained under the form of government which has existed up to thisperiod. If, then, a change was inevitable, the question was how itshould be accomplished and what should be done. I think it is quiteclear that the course the noble Lord has pursued is right--namely, thatof insisting that during this present Session, and without delay, thefoundation of all reform in the government of India should be commencedat home, because we cannot take a single step in the direction of anyreal and permanent improvement in the Indian Government until we havereformed what I may call the basis of that Government by changes to beeffected in this country. 

What, then, is the change which is proposed, and which ought to be made?For my own part, in considering these questions, I cannot altogetherapprove the Bill now before the House. What we want with regard to thegovernment of India is that which in common conversation is called 'alittle more daylight. ' We want more simplicity and more responsibility. I objected to the scheme originally proposed by the Chancellor of theExchequer because it did not provide these requisites; that scheme soclosely resembled the system we were about to overthrow that I could notbring myself to regard it favourably. In considering the subject beforeParliament met, I asked myself this question:--'Suppose there had neverbeen an East India Company or any such corporation, --suppose India hadbeen conquered by the forces of the Crown, commanded by generals actingunder the authority of the Crown, --how should we then have proposed togovern distant dominions of vast extent, and with a population thatcould scarcely be counted?' I believe such a system of government as hashitherto existed would never have been established; and if such a systemhad not existed I am convinced that no Minister would have proposed theplan now submitted to the House. 

I think the government would have been placed in the hands of aSecretary of State, with his secretaries, clerks, and staffs ofofficers, or of a small Board, so small as to prevent responsibilityfrom being diffused and divided, if not actually destroyed. I suspectthat the only reason why the Country or Parliament can be disposed toapprove the large Council now proposed is, that they have seen somethinglike a Council heretofore, formerly of twenty-four, and subsequently ofeighteen members, and I believe there is something like timidity on thepart of the House, and probably on the part of the Government, whichhinders them from making so great a change as I have suggested to thesimple plan which would probably have existed had no such body as theEast India Company ever been established. I am willing to admit candidlythat if the government of India at home should be so greatly simplifiedit will be necessary that very important changes should be made in thegovernment in India. I agree with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) that therepresentatives of the Crown in India must have power as well asresponsibility; that they should be enabled to deal with emergencies, and to settle the hundred or the thousand questions that must ariseamong 100, 000, 000 of people, without sending 10, 000 miles to thiscountry to ask questions which ought to be settled at once by somecompetent authority on the spot. 

There are two modes of governing India, and the hon. Member forLeominster (Mr. Willoughby), who has been a very distinguished servantof the East India Company, has publicly expressed his views upon thisquestion. I have been very much struck with a note attached to thepublished report of his speech, referring to the multifarious dutiesdischarged by the Directors of the East India Company. That note statesthat--

 'A despatch may be received, containing 60, or 100, or 200 cases; and the despatch, in itself voluminous, is rendered more so by collections attached to it, containing copies of all former correspondence on the subject or subjects, and of all letters written thereon by various local officers, and all papers relating thereto. There has not long since been in the Revenue Department a despatch with 16, 263 pages of collections. In 1845 there was one in the same Department with 46, 000 pages, and it was stated that Mr. Canning, some years since in the House of Commons, mentioned a military despatch to which were attached 13, 511 pages of collections. '

The hon. Gentleman did not say in his speech that anybody at the IndiaHouse ever read all these things. It was quite dear that if theDirectors were to pretend to go through a waggon-load of documentscoming to Leadenhall-street every year it must be only a pretence, andif they want to persuade the House that they give attention to only one-tenth part of these papers they must think the House more credulous thanit is in matters of this kind. That is one mode of governing India. Itis the mode which has been adopted and the mode which has failed. If weare to have the details settled here, I am perfectly certain we can haveno good government in India. I have alluded on a former occasion to amatter which occurred in a Committee upstairs. A gentleman who wasexamined stated that he had undertaken to brew a wholesome beer, andquite as good as that exported for the supply of the troops, somewherein the Presidency of Madras, for one-sixth of the price paid byGovernment for that exported to India from England; that the experimentwas completely successful; that the memorandum or record with regard toit was sent home, no doubt forming part of the thousands of pages towhich reference has been made; and that it was buried in the heap inwhich it came, because for years nothing was heard of a propositionwhich would have saved the Government a very large amount annually andopened a new industry to the population and capital of India. I believethis system of government is one of delay and disappointment--one, actually, of impossibility--one which can by no means form a completetheory of government as held by any persons in the House; and that theother, the simpler system, which I wish the House to undertake, would beone of action, progress, and results, with regard to India, such as wehave never yet seen and never can see until there is a completesimplification of the Indian Government in this country. 

I come now to the question--and it is for this question that I havewished principally to address the House--if at any time we obtain thesimplicity which I contend for with regard to the government at home, what changes will it be desirable to make in the government in India?And I would make one observation at this point, that in all thestatements and arguments which I hope to use, I beg the House to believethat I use them with the greatest possible deference, with the feelingthat this is a question upon which no man is at all entitled todogmatize, that it is a vast question which we all look at as one we arescarcely capable of handling and determining. I submit my views to theHouse because I have considered the subject more or less for many years, and I believe I am actuated by the simple and honest desire ofcontributing something to the information and knowledge of Parliamentwith regard to its duty upon this great question. 

What is it we have to complain of in India? What is it that the peopleof India, if they spoke by my mouth, have to complain of? They wouldtell the House that, as a rule, throughout almost all the Presidencies, and throughout those Presidencies most which have been longest underBritish rule, the cultivators of the soil, the great body of thepopulation of India, are in a condition of great impoverishment, ofgreat dejection, and of great suffering. I have, on former occasions, quoted to the House the report of a Committee which I obtained ten yearsago, upon which sat several members of the Court of Directors; and theyall agreed to report as much as I have now stated to the House--theReport being confined chiefly to the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras. If I were now submitting the case of the population of India I would saythat the taxes of India are more onerous and oppressive than the taxesof any other country in the world. I think I could demonstrate thatproposition to the House. I would show that industry is neglected by theGovernment to a greater extent probably than is the case in any othercountry in the world which has been for any length of time under what istermed a civilized and Christian government. I should be able to showfrom the notes and memoranda of eminent men in India, of the Governor ofBengal, Mr. Halliday, for example, that there is not and never has beenin any country pretending to be civilized, a condition of things to becompared with that which exists under the police administration of theprovince of Bengal. With regard to the courts of justice I may say thesame thing. I could quote passages from books written in favour of theCompany with all the bias which the strongest friends of the Company canhave, in which the writers declare that, precisely in proportion asEnglish courts of justice have extended, have perjury and all the evilswhich perjury introduces into the administration of justice prevailedthroughout the Presidencies of India. With regard to public works, if Iwere speaking for the Natives of India, I would state this fact, that ina single English county there are more roads--more travelable roads--than are to be found in the whole of India; and I would say also thatthe single city of Manchester, in the supply of its inhabitants with thesingle article of water, has spent a larger sum of money than the EastIndia Company has spent in the fourteen years from 1834 to 1848 inpublic works of every kind throughout the whole of its vast dominions. Iwould say that the real activity of the Indian Government has been anactivity of conquest and annexation--of conquest and annexation whichafter a time has led to a fearful catastrophe which has enforced on theHouse an attention to the question of India, which but for thatcatastrophe I fear the House would not have given it. 

If there were another charge to be made against the past Government ofIndia, it would be with regard to the state of its finances. Where wasthere a bad Government whose finances were in good order? Where wasthere a really good Government whose finances were in bad order? Isthere a better test in the long run of the condition of a people and themerits of a Government than the state of the finances? And yet not inour own time, but going back through all the pages of Mill or of anyother History of India we find the normal condition of the finances ofIndia has been that of deficit and bankruptcy. I maintain that if thatbe so, the Government is a bad Government. It has cost more to governIndia than the Government has been able to extract from the populationof India. The Government has not been scrupulous as to the amount oftaxes or the mode in which they have been levied; but still, to carry onthe government of India according to the system which has heretoforeprevailed, more has been required than the Government has been able toextract by any system of taxation known to them from the population overwhich they have ruled. It has cost more than 30, 000, 000_l_. A-yearto govern India, and the gross revenue being somewhere about30, 000, 000_l_. , and there being a deficit, the deficit has had tobe made up by loans. The Government has obtained all they could from thepopulation; it is not enough, and they have had to borrow from thepopulation and from Europeans at a high rate of interest to make up thesum which has been found to be necessary. They have a debt of60, 000, 000_l_. ; and it is continually increasing; they always havea loan open; and while their debt is increasing their credit has beenfalling, because they have not treated their creditors very honourablyon one or two occasions, and chiefly, of course, on account of thecalamities which have recently happened in India. There is one pointwith regard to taxation which I wish to explain to the House, and I hopethat, in the reforms to which the noble Lord is looking forward, it willnot be overlooked. I have said that the gross revenue is30, 000, 000_l_. Exclusive of the opium revenue, which is not, strictly speaking, and hardly at all, a tax upon the people, I set downthe taxation of the country at something like 25, 000, 000_l_. Hon. Gentlemen must not compare 25, 000, 000_l_. Of taxation in India with60, 000, 000_l_. Of taxation in England. They must bear in mind thatin India they could have twelve days' labour of a man for the same sumin silver or gold which they have to pay for one day's labour of a manin England; that if, for example, this _l_. 25, 000, 000 were expendedin purchasing labour, that sum would purchase twelve times as much inIndia as in England--that is to say, that the 25, 000, 000_l_. Wouldpurchase as many days' labour in India as 300, 000, 000_l_. Wouldpurchase in England. [An Hon. Member: 'How much is the labour worth?']That is precisely what I am coming to. If the labour of a man is onlyworth 2_d_. A-day, they could not expect as much revenue from himas if it were 2_s_. A-day. That is just the point to which I wishthe hon. Gentleman would turn his attention. We have in England apopulation which, for the sake of argument, I will call 30, 000, 000. Wehave in India a population of 150, 000, 000. Therefore, the population ofIndia is five times as great as the population of England. We raise inIndia, reckoning by the value of labour, taxation equivalent to300, 000, 000_l_. , which is five times the English revenue. Some onemay probably say, therefore, that the taxation in India and in Englandappears to be about the same, and no great injury is done. But it mustbe borne in mind that in England we have an incalculable power of steam, of machinery, of modes of transit, roads, canals, railways, andeverything which capital and human invention can bring to help theindustry of the people; while in India there is nothing of the kind. InIndia there is scarcely a decent road, the rivers are not bridged, thereare comparatively no steam engines, and none of those aids to industrythat meet us at every step in Great Britain and Ireland. Suppose steam-engines, machinery, and modes of transit abolished in England, how muchrevenue would the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtain from the people ofEngland? Instead of 60, 000, 000_l_. A-year, would he get10, 000, 000_l_. ? I doubt it very much. If the House will follow outthe argument, they will come to the conclusion that the taxes of thepeople of India are oppressive to the last degree, and that theGovernment which has thus taxed them can be tolerated no longer, andmust be put an end to at once and for ever. I wish to say somethingabout the manner in which these great expenses are incurred. Theextravagance of the East India Government is notorious to all. I believethere never was any other service under the sun paid at so high a rateas the exclusive Civil Service of the East India Company. Clergymen andmissionaries can be got to go out to India for a moderate sum--privatesoldiers and officers of the army go out for a moderate remuneration--merchants are content to live in the cities of India for a percentage orprofit not greatly exceeding the ordinary profits of commerce. But theCivil Service, because it is bound up with those who were raised by itand who dispense the patronage of India, receive a rate of payment whichwould be incredible if we did not know it to be true, and which, knowingit to be true, we must admit to be monstrous. The East India Governmentscatters salaries about at Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Agra, Lahore, andhalf a dozen other cities, which are up to the mark of those of thePrime Minister and Secretaries of State in this country. These salariesare framed upon the theory that India is a mine of inexhaustible wealth, although no one has found it to be so but the members of the CivilService of the East India Company. The policy of the Government is atthe bottom of the constant deficit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hastwice recently declared that expenditure depends upon policy. That is astrue in India as in England, and it is the policy that has been pursuedthere which renders the revenue liable to this constantly recurringdeficit. 

I have come to the conclusion, which many hon. Members probably sharewith me, that the edifice we have reared in India is too vast. There arefew men now, and least of all those connected with the East IndiaCompany, who, looking back to the policy that has been pursued, will notbe willing to admit that it has not been judicious but hazardous--thatterritories have been annexed that had better have been leftindependent, and that wars have been undertaken which were as needlessas they were altogether unjustifiable. The immense empire that has beenconquered is too vast for management, its base is in decay, and duringthe last twelve months it has appeared to be tottering to its fall. Whoor what is the instrument--the Cabinet, the Government, or the person--by whom this evil policy is carried on?

The greatest officer in India is the Governor-General. He is the rulerof about one-fifth--certainly more than one-sixth--of the human race. The Emperors of France and Russia are but the governors of provincescompared with the power, the dignity, and the high estate of theGovernor-General of India. Now, over this officer, almost no realcontrol is exercised. If I were to appeal to the two hon. Gentlemen whohave frequently addressed the House during these debates (Colonel Sykesand Mr. Willoughby), they would probably admit that the Governor-Generalof India is an officer of such high position that scarcely any controlcan be exercised over him either in India or in England. Take the caseof the Marquess of Dalhousie for example. I am not about to make anattack upon him, for the occasion is too solemn for personalcontroversies. But the annexation of Sattara, of the Punjab, of Nagpore, and of Oude occurred under his rule. I will not go into the case ofSattara; but one of its Princes, and one of the most magnanimous Princesthat India ever produced, suffered and died most unjustly in exile, either through the mistakes or the crimes of the Government of India. This, however, was not done under the Government of Lord Dalhousie. Asto the annexation of Nagpore, the House has never heard anything aboutit to this hour. There has been no message from the Crown or statementof the Government relative to that annexation. Hon. Members have indeedheard from India that the dresses and wardrobes of the ladies of itsCourt have been exposed to sale, like a bankrupt's stock, in thehaberdashers' shops of Calcutta--a thing likely to incense and horrifythe people of India who witnessed it. 

Take, again, the case of the Burmese war. The Governor-General enteredinto it, and annexed the province of Pegu, and to this day there hasbeen no treaty with the King of Burmah. If that case had been broughtbefore the House, it is impossible that the war with Burmah could havebeen entered upon. I do not believe that there is one man in Englandwho, knowing the facts, would say that this war was just or necessary inany sense. The Governor-General has an army of 300, 000 men under hiscommand; he is a long way from home; he is highly connected with thegoverning classes at home; there are certain reasons that make warpalatable to large classes in India; and he is so powerful that heenters into these great military operations almost uncontrolled by theopinion of the Parliament and people of England. He may commit anyamount of blunders or crimes against the moral law, and he will stillcome home loaded with dignities and in the enjoyment of pensions. Doesit not become the power and character of this House to examine narrowlythe origin of the misfortunes and disgraces of the grave catastrophewhich has just occurred? The place of the Governor-General is too high--his power is too great--and I believe that this particular office andofficer are very much responsible--of course under the Government athome--for the disasters that have taken place. 

Only think of a Governor-General of India writing to an Indian Prince, the ruler over many millions of men in the heart of India, 'Remember youare but as the dust under my feet' Passages like these are left out ofdespatches, when laid on the table of the House of Commons:--it wouldnot do for the Parliament or the Crown, or the people of England to knowthat their officer addressed language like this to a Native Prince. Thefact is that a Governor-General of India, unless he be such a man as isnot found more than once in a century, is very liable to have his headturned, and to form ambitious views, which are mainly to be gratified bysuccessful wars and the annexation of province after province during theperiod of his rule. The 'Services' are always ready to help him in theseplans. I am not sure that the President of the Board of Control couldnot give evidence on this subject, for I have heard something of whathappened when the noble Lord was in India. When the Burmese war brokeout, the noble Lord could no doubt tell the House that, withoutinquiring into the quarrel or its causes, the press of India, which wasdevoted to the 'Services', and the 'Services' themselves, united inuniversal approbation of the course taken by the Governor-General. Justice to Pegu and Burmah and the taxes to be raised for the support ofthe war were forgotten, and nothing but visions of more territory andmore patronage floated before the eyes of the official English in India. I contend that the power of the Governor-General is too great and theoffice too high to be held by the subject of any power whatsoever, andespecially by any subject of the Queen of England. 

I should propose, if I were in a position to offer a scheme in the shapeof a Bill to the House, as an indispensable preliminary to the wisegovernment of India in future, such as would be creditable to Parliamentand advantageous to the people of India, that the office of Governor-General should be abolished. Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may think thisa very unreasonable proposition. Many people thought it unreasonable in1853 when it was proposed to abolish the East India Company; but nowParliament and the country believe it to be highly reasonable andproper; and I am not sure that I could not bring before the Housereasons to convince them that the abolition of the office of Governor-General is one of the most sensible and one of the most Conservativeproposals ever brought forward in connection with the Government ofIndia. I believe the duties of the Governor-General are far greater thanany human being can adequately fulfil. He has a power omnipotent tocrush anything that is good. If he so wishes, he can overbear andoverrule whatever is proposed for the welfare of India, while, as todoing anything that is good, I could show that with regard to the vastcountries over which he rules, he is really almost powerless to effectanything that those countries require. The hon. Gentleman behind me(Colonel Sykes) has told us there are twenty nations in India, and thatthere are twenty languages. Has it ever happened before that any one mangoverned twenty nations, speaking twenty different languages, and boundthem together in one great and compact empire? [An hon. Member here madean observation. ] My hon. Friend mentions a great Parthian monarch. Nodoubt there have been men strong in arm and in head, and of sternresolution, who have kept great empires together during their lives; butas soon as they went the way of all flesh, and descended, like themeanest of their subjects, to the tomb, the provinces they had ruledwere divided into several States, and their great empires vanished. Imight ask the noble Lord below me (Lord John Russell) and the noble Lordthe Member for Tiverton (the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn hasnot as yet experience on this point), whether, when they came to appointa Governor-General of India, they did not find it one of the mostserious and difficult duties they could be called on to perform? I donot know at this moment, and I never have known, a man competent togovern India; and if any man says he is competent, he sets himself up ata much higher value than those who are acquainted with him are likely toset him. Let the House look at the making of the laws for twenty nationsspeaking twenty languages. Look at the regulations of the police fortwenty nations speaking twenty languages. Look at the question of publicworks as it affects twenty nations speaking twenty languages; wherethere is no municipal power and no combinations of any kind, such asfacilitate the construction of public works in this country. Inevitablyall those duties that devolve on every good government must be neglectedby the Governor-General of India, however wise, capable, and honest hemay be in the performance of his duties, because the duties laid uponhim are such as no man now living or who ever lived can or couldproperly sustain. 

It may be asked what I would substitute for the Governor-Generalship ofIndia. Now, I do not propose to abolish the office of Governor-Generalof India this Session. I am not proposing any clause in the Bill, and ifI were to propose one to carry out the idea I have expressed, I might beanswered by the argument, that a great part of the population of Indiais in a state of anarchy, and that it would be most inconvenient, if notdangerous, to abolish the office of Governor-General at such a time. Ido not mean to propose such a thing now; but I take this opportunity ofstating my views, in the hope that when we come to 1863, we may perhapsbe able to consider the question more in the light in which I amendeavouring to present it to the House. I would propose that, insteadof having a Governor-General and an Indian empire, we should haveneither the one nor the other. I would propose that we should havePresidencies, and not an Empire. If I were a Minister--which the Housewill admit is a bold figure of speech--and if the House were to agreewith me--which is also an essential point--I would propose to have atleast five Presidencies in India, and I would have the governments ofthose Presidencies perfectly equal in rank and in salary. The capitalsof those Presidencies would probably be Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Agra, and Lahore. I will take the Presidency of Madras as an illustration. Madras has a population of some 20, 000, 000. We all know its position onthe map, and that it has the advantage of being more compact, geographically speaking, than the other Presidencies. It has a Governorand a Council. I would give to it a Governor and a Council still, butwould confine all their duties to the Presidency of Madras, and I wouldtreat it just as if Madras was the only portion of India connected withthis country. I would have its finance, its taxation, its justice, andits police departments, as well as its public works and militarydepartments, precisely the same as if it were a State having noconnection with any other part of India, and recognized only as adependency of this country. I would propose that the Government of everyPresidency should correspond with the Secretary for India in England, and that there should be telegraphic communications between all thePresidencies in India, as I hope before long to see a telegraphiccommunication between the office of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) andevery Presidency over which he presides. I shall no doubt be told thatthere are insuperable difficulties in the way of such an arrangement, and I shall be sure to hear of the military difficulty. Now, I do notprofess to be an authority on military affairs, but I know that militarymen often make great mistakes. I would have the army divided, eachPresidency having its own army, just as now, care being taken to havethem kept distinct; and I see no danger of any confusion ormisunderstanding, when an emergency arose, in having them all broughttogether to carry out the views of the Government. There is one questionwhich it is important to bear in mind, and that is with regard to theCouncils in India. I think every Governor of a Presidency should have anassistant Council, but differently constituted from what they now are. Iwould have an open Council. The noble Lord the Member for London usedsome expressions the other night which I interpreted to mean that it wasnecessary to maintain in all its exclusiveness the system of the CivilService in India. In that I entirely differ from the noble Lord. [LordJ. Russell here indicated dissent. ] The noble Lord corrects me in thatstatement, and therefore I must have been mistaken. What we want is tomake the Governments of the Presidencies governments for the people ofthe Presidencies; not governments for the civil servants of the Crown, but for the non-official mercantile classes from England who settlethere, and for the 20, 000, 000 or 30, 000, 000 of Natives in eachPresidency. 

I should propose to do that which has been done with great advantage inCeylon. I have received a letter from an officer who has been in theservice of the East India Company, and who told me a fact which hasgratified me very much. He says--

 'At a public dinner at Colombo, in 1835, to the Governor, Sir Wilmot Horton, at which I was present, the best speech of the evening was made by a native nobleman of Candy, and a member of Council. It was remarkable for its appropriate expression, its sound sense, and the deliberation and ease that marked the utterance of his feelings. There was no repetition or useless phraseology or flattery, and it was admitted by all who heard him to be the soundest and neatest speech of the night. '

This was in Ceylon. It is not, of course, always the best man who canmake the best speech; but if what I have read could be said of a nativeof Ceylon, it could be said of thousands in India. We need not go beyondthe walls of this House to find a head bronzed by an Indian sun equal tothe ablest heads of those who adorn its benches. And in every part ofIndia we all know that it would be an insult to the people of India tosay that it is not the same. There are thousands of persons in India whoare competent to take any position to which the Government may choose toadvance them. If the Governor of each Presidency were to have in hisCouncil some of the officials of his Government, some of the non-official Europeans resident in the Presidency, and two or three at leastof the intelligent Natives of the Presidency in whom the people wouldhave some confidence, you would have begun that which will be ofinestimable value hereafter--you would have begun to unite thegovernment with the governed; and unless you do that, no government willbe safe, and any hurricane may overturn it or throw it into confusion. 

Now, suppose the Governor-General gone, the Presidencies established, the Governors equal in rank and dignity, and their Councils constitutedin the manner I have indicated, is it not reasonable to suppose that thedelay which has hitherto been one of the greatest curses of your IndianGovernment would be almost altogether avoided? Instead of a Governor-General living in Calcutta, or at Simla, never travelling over the wholeof the country, and knowing very little about it, and that little onlythrough other official eyes, is it not reasonable to suppose that theaction of the Government would be more direct in all its duties and inevery department of its service than has been the case under the systemwhich has existed until now? Your administration of the law, marked byso much disgrace, could never have lasted so long as it has done if theGovernors of your Presidencies had been independent Governors. So withregard to matters of police, education, public works, and everythingthat can stimulate industry, and so with regard to your system oftaxation. You would have in every Presidency a constant rivalry forgood. The Governor of Madras, when his term of office expired, would bedelighted to show that the people of that Presidency were contented, that the whole Presidency was advancing in civilization, that roads andall manner of useful public works were extending, that industry wasbecoming more and more a habit of the people, and that the exports andimports were constantly increasing. The Governors of Bombay and the restof the Presidencies would be animated by the same spirit, and so youwould have all over India, as I have said, a rivalry for good; you wouldhave placed a check on that malignant spirit of ambition which hasworked so much evil--you would have no Governor so great that you couldnot control him, none who might make war when he pleased; war andannexation would be greatly checked, if not entirely prevented; and I doin my conscience believe you would have laid the foundation for a betterand more permanent form of government for India than has ever obtainedsince it came under the rule of England. 

But how long does England propose to govern India? Nobody answers thatquestion, and nobody can answer it. Be it 50, or 100, or 500 years, doesany man with the smallest glimmering of common sense believe that sogreat a country, with its twenty different nations and its twentylanguages, can ever be bound up and consolidated into one compact andenduring empire? I believe such a thing to be utterly impossible. Wemust fail in the attempt if ever we make it, and we are bound to lookinto the future with reference to that point. The Presidency of Madras, for instance, having its own Government, would in fifty years become onecompact State, and every part of the Presidency would look to the cityof Madras as its capital, and to the Government of Madras as its rulingpower. If that were to go on for a century or more, there would be fiveor six Presidencies of India built up into so many compact States; andif at any future period the sovereignty of England should be withdrawn, we should leave so many Presidencies built up and firmly compactedtogether, each able to support its own independence and its ownGovernment; and we should be able to say we had not left the country aprey to that anarchy and discord which I believe to be inevitable if weinsist on holding those vast territories with the idea of building themup into one great empire. But I am obliged to admit that mere machineryis not sufficient in this case, either with respect to my own scheme orto that of the noble lord (Lord Stanley). We want something else thanmere clerks, stationery, despatches, and so forth. We want what I shalldesignate as a new feeling in England, and an entirely new policy inIndia. We must in future have India governed, not for a handful ofEnglishmen, not for that Civil Service whose praises are so constantlysounded in this House. You may govern India, if you like, for the goodof England, but the good of England must come through the channels ofthe good of India. There are but two modes of gaining anything by ourconnection with India. The one is by plundering the people of India, andthe other by trading with them. I prefer to do it by trading with them. But in order that England may become rich by trading with India, Indiaitself must become rich, and India can only become rich through thehonest administration of justice and through entire security of life andproperty. 

Now, as to this new policy, I will tell the House what I think the PrimeMinister should do. He ought, I think, always to choose for hisPresident of the Board of Control or his Secretary of State for India, aman who cannot be excelled by any other man in his Cabinet, or in hisparty, for capacity, for honesty, for attention to his duties, and forknowledge adapted to the particular office to which he is appointed. Ifany Prime Minister appoint an inefficient man to such an office, he willbe a traitor to the Throne of England. That officer, appointed for thequalities I have just indicated, should, with equal scrupulousness andconscientiousness, make the appointments, whether of the Governor-General, or (should that office be abolished) of the Governors of thePresidencies of India. Those appointments should not be rewards for oldmen simply because such men have done good service when in their prime, nor should they be rewards for mere party service, but they should beappointments given under a feeling that interests of the very highestmoment, connected with this country, depend on those great offices inIndia being properly filled. The same principles should run throughoutthe whole system of government; for, unless there be a very high degreeof virtue in all these appointments, and unless our great object be togovern India well and to exalt the name of England in the eyes of thewhole Native population, all that we have recourse to in the way ofmachinery will be of very little use indeed. 

I admit that this is a great work; I admit, also, that the further I gointo the consideration of this question, the more I feel that it is toolarge for me to grapple with, and that every step we take in it shouldbe taken as if we were men walking in the dark. We have, however, certain great principles to guide us, and by their light we may makesteps in advance, if not fast, at any rate sure. But we start from anunfortunate position. We start from a platform of conquest by force ofarms extending over a hundred years. There is nothing in the world worsethan the sort of foundation from which we start. The greatest genius whohas shed lustre on the literature of this country has said, 'There is nosure foundation set on blood;' and it may be our unhappy fate, in regardto India, to demonstrate the truth of that saying. We are alwayssubjugators, and we must be viewed with hatred and suspicion. I say wemust look at the thing as it is, if we are to see our exact position, what our duty is, and what chance there is of our retaining India and ofgoverning it for the advantage of its people. Our difficulties have beenenormously increased by the revolt. The people of India have only seenEngland in its worst form in that country. They have seen it in itsmilitary power, its exclusive Civil Service, and in the supremacy of ahandful of foreigners. When Natives of India come to this country, theyare delighted with England and with Englishmen. They find themselvestreated with a kindness, a consideration, a respect, to which they werewholly strangers in their own country; and they cannot understand how itis that men who are so just, so attentive to them here, sometimes, indeed too often, appear to them in a different character in India. Iremember that the Hon. Frederic Shaw, who wrote some thirty years since, stated, in his able and instructive book, that even in his time theconduct of the English in India towards the Natives was less agreeable, less kindly, less just than it had been in former years; and in 1853, before the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Huntingdon(Mr. T. Baring), evidence was given that the feeling between the rulersand the ruled in India was becoming every year less like what could bedesired. It was only the other day there appeared in a letter of _TheTimes_' correspondent an anecdote which illustrates what I am saying, and which I feel it necessary to read to the House. Mr. Russell, of_The Times_, says:--

 'I went off to breakfast in a small mosque, which has been turned into a _salle à manger_ by some officers stationed here, and I confess I should have eaten with more satisfaction had I not seen, as I entered the enclosure of the mosque, a native badly wounded on a charpoy, by which was sitting a woman in deep affliction. The explanation given of this scene was, that "---- [the name of the Englishman was left blank] had been licking two of his bearers (or servants), and had nearly murdered them. " This was one of the servants, and, without knowing or caring to know the causes of such chastisement, I cannot but express my disgust at the severity--to call it by no harsher name--of some of our fellow-countrymen towards their domestics. '

The reading of that paragraph gave me extreme pain. People may fancythat this does not matter much; but I say it matters very much. Underany system of government you will have Englishmen scattered all overIndia, and conduct like that I have just described, in any district, must create ill feeling towards England, to your rule, to yoursupremacy; and when that feeling has become sufficiently extensive, anylittle accident may give fire to the train, and you may have calamitiesmore or less serious, such as we have had during the last twelve months. You must change all this if you mean to keep India. I do not now makeany comment upon the mode in which this country has been put intopossession of India. I accept that possession as a fact. There we are;we do not know how to leave it, and therefore let us see if we know howto govern it. It is a problem such as, perhaps, no other nation has hadto solve. Let us see whether there is enough of intelligence and virtuein England to solve the difficulty. In the first place, then, I say, letus abandon all that system of calumny against the Natives of India whichhas lately prevailed. Had that people not been docile, the mostgovernable race in the world, how could you have maintained your powerfor 100 years? Are they not industrious, are they not intelligent, arethey not--upon the evidence of the most distinguished men the IndianService ever produced--endowed with many qualities which make themrespected by all Englishmen who mix with them? I have heard that frommany men of the widest experience, and have read the same in the worksof some of the best writers upon India. Then let us not have theseconstant calumnies against such a people. Even now there are men who goabout the country speaking as if such things had never beencontradicted, and talking of mutilations and atrocities committed inIndia. The less we say about atrocities the better. Great politicaltumults are, I fear, never brought about or carried on without grievousacts on both sides deeply to be regretted. At least, we are in theposition of invaders and conquerors--they are in the position of theinvaded and the conquered. Whether I were a native of India, or ofEngland, or of any other country, I would not the less assert the greatdistinction between their position and ours in that country, and I wouldnot permit any man in my presence, without rebuke, to indulge in thecalumnies and expressions of contempt which I have recently heard pouredforth without measure upon the whole population of India. 

There is one other point to which I wish to address myself before I sitdown, and in touching upon it I address myself especially to the nobleLord (Lord Stanley) and his colleagues in the Government. If I had theresponsibility of administering the affairs of India, there are certainthings I would do. I would, immediately after this Bill passes, issue aProclamation in India which should reach every subject of the BritishCrown in that country, and be heard of in the territories of everyIndian Prince or Rajah. I would offer a general amnesty. It is all verywell to talk of issuing an amnesty to all who have done nothing; but whois there that has done nothing in such a state of affairs as hasprevailed during the past twelve months? If you pursue your vengeanceuntil you have rooted out and destroyed every one of those soldiers whohave revolted, when will your labour cease? If you are to punish everynon-military Native of India who has given a piece of bread or a cup ofwater to a revolted trooper, how many Natives will escape yourpunishment and your vengeance? I would have a general amnesty, whichshould be put forth as the first great act done directly by the Queen ofEngland in the exercise of Sovereign power over the territories ofIndia. In this Proclamation 1 would promise to the Natives of India asecurity for their property as complete as we have here at home; and Iwould put an end to all those mischievous and irritating inquiries whichhave been going on for years in many parts of India as to the title tolanded estates, by which you tell the people of that country that unlesseach man can show an unimpeachable title to his property for ninetyyears you will dispossess him. What would be the state of things here ifsuch a regulation were adopted?

I would also proclaim to the people of India that we would hold sacredthat right of adoption which has prevailed for centuries in thatcountry. It was only the other day that I had laid before me the case ofa Native Prince who has been most faithful to England during theselatter trials. When he came to the throne at ten years of age he wasmade to sign a document, by which he agreed that if he had no childrenhis territories should be at the disposal of the British Government, orwhat was called the paramount power. He has been married; he has had oneson and two or three daughters; but within the last few weeks his onlyson has died. There is grief in the palace, and there is consternationamong the people, for the fact of this agreement entered into by the boyof ten years old is well known to all the inhabitants of the country. Representations have already been made to this country in the hope thatthe Government will cancel that agreement, and allow the people of thatState to know that the right of adoption would not be taken from theirPrince in case he should have no other son. Let the Government do that, and there is not a corner of India into which that intelligence wouldnot penetrate with the rapidity of lightning. And would not that calmthe anxieties of many of those independent Princes and Rajahs who areonly afraid that when these troubles are over, the English Governmentwill recommence that system of annexation out of which I believe allthese troubles have arisen?

I would tell them also in that Proclamation, that while the people ofEngland hold that their own, the Christian religion, is true and thebest for mankind, yet that it is consistent with that religion that theywho profess it should hold inviolable the rights of conscience and therights of religion in others. I would show, that whatever violent, over-zealous, and fanatical men may have said in this country, the Parliamentof England, the Ministers of the Queen, and the Queen herself areresolved that upon this point no kind of wrong should be done to themillions who profess the religions held to be true in India. I would doanother thing. I would establish a Court of Appeal, the Judges of whichshould be Judges of the highest character in India, for the settlementof those many disputes which have arisen between the Government of Indiaand its subjects, some Native and some European. I would not sufferthese questions to come upon the floor of this House. I would not forbidthem by statute, but I would establish a Court which should render itunnecessary for any man in India to cross the ocean to seek for thatjustice which he would then be able to get in his own country withoutcorruption or secret bargain. Then I would carry out the propositionwhich the noble Lord has made to-night, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made when he introduced hisBill, that a Commission should be issued to inquire into the question offinance. I would have other commissions, one for each Presidency, and Iwould tell the people of India that there should be a searching inquiryinto their grievances, and that it was the interest and the will of theQueen of England that those grievances should be redressed. 

Now, perhaps I may be told that I am proposing strange things, quite outof the ordinary routine of government. I admit it. We are in a positionthat necessitates something out of the ordinary routine. There arepositions and times in the history of every country, as in the lives ofindividuals, when courage and action are absolute salvation; and now theCrown of England, acting by the advice of the responsible Ministers, must, in my opinion, have recourse to a great and unusual measure inorder to allay the anxieties which prevail throughout the whole ofIndia. The people of India do not like us, but they scarcely know whereto turn if we left them. They are sheep literally without a shepherd. They are people whom you have subdued, and who have the highest andstrongest claims upon you--claims which you cannot forget--claims which, if you do not act upon, you may rely upon it that, if there be ajudgment for nations--as I believe there is--as for individuals, ourchildren in no distant generation must pay the penalty which we havepurchased by neglecting our duty to the populations of India. 

I have now stated my views and opinions on this question, not at all ina manner, I feel, equal to the question itself. I have felt thedifficulty in thinking of it; I feel the difficulty in speaking of it--for there is far more in it and about it than any man, however much hemay be accustomed to think upon political questions, and to discussthem, can comprise at all within the compass of a speech of ordinarylength. I have described the measures which I would at once adopt forthe purpose of soothing the agitation which now disturbs and menacesevery part of India, and of inviting the submission of those who are nowin arms against you. Now I believe--I speak in the most perfect honesty--I believe that the announcement of these measures would avail more inrestoring tranquillity than the presence of an additional army, and Ibelieve that their full and honest adoption would enable you to retainyour power in India. I have sketched the form of government which Iwould establish in India and at home, with the view of securing perfectresponsibility and an enlightened administration. I admit that thesethings can only be obtained in degree, but I am convinced that aGovernment such as that which I have sketched would be free from most ofthe errors and the vices that have marked and marred your past career inIndia. I have given much study to this great and solemn question. Ientreat the House to study it not only now, during the passing of thisBill, but after the Session is over, and till we meet again next year, when in all probability there must be further legislation upon thisgreat subject; for I believe that upon this question depends very much, for good or for evil, the future of this country of which we arecitizens, and which we all regard and love so much. You have had enoughof military reputation on Eastern fields; you have gathered largeharvests of that commodity, be it valuable or be it worthless. I inviteyou to something better, and higher, and holier than that; I invite youto a glory not 'fanned by conquest's crimson wing, ' but based upon thesolid and lasting benefits which I believe the Parliament of Englandcan, if it will, confer upon the countless populations of India. 

 * * * * *

INDIA. 

III. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 20, 1858. 

_From Hansard_. 

[A despatch of Lord Ellenborough, the President of the Board of Control, to Lord Canning, the Governor-General of India, had been laid before thetwo Houses. This document severely censured the Governor-General'spolicy in dealing with the talookdars of Oude. Immediate advantage wastaken of this document by the Opposition, and on the 10th of May Mr. Cardwell gave notice in the Commons of a motion condemnatory of LordEllenborough's despatch. Lord Ellenborough retired from the Government. On May 14, however, Mr. Cardwell brought forward his motion in the Houseof Commons, but, after a lengthened debate, consented to withdraw it, atthe earnest entreaty of many from his own side of the House. ]

I am afraid I shall hardly be able to take part in this discussion in amanner becoming the magnitude of the question before us, and in anydegree in accordance with the long anxiety which I have felt in regardto Indian affairs, but I happen to have been unfortunately andaccidentally a good deal mixed up with these matters, and my name hasfrequently been mentioned in the course of debate, not only in this butin the other House of Parliament, and I am unwilling, therefore, to votewithout expressing my opinion upon the matter under discussion. First, Imay be allowed to explain that I think almost everything that has beensaid and imagined with regard to the part that I have had in bringing onthis discussion has been altogether erroneous, and has no foundationwhatever. There was no arrangement between the hon. Gentleman theSecretary of the Board of Control and myself with regard to the questionthat I thought it my duty to put to him on the subject of Lord Canning'sProclamation. I had spoken two or three weeks before the date of thatquestion to the hon. Gentleman, because I had been informed by arespected friend of mine, Mr. Dickinson, the hon. Secretary of the IndiaReform Society, who has very great information on Indian affairs, thathe had received communications to the effect that some Proclamation ofthis character was in preparation and was about to be issued. I spoke tothe hon. Member with regard to that report; and he told me that he hadreceived no communication which enabled him to give me any informationon the subject. I then intimated to him that in case there was anythingof the kind I should certainly put a question to the Governmentrespecting it. This was three weeks before the date of my question. Well, I read the Proclamation in _The Times_ newspaper, the sameday that every one else read it; and I came down to the House, nothaving seen the hon. Gentleman in the meantime. I met my hon. Friend theMember for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) in Westminster Hall, and he toldme that having read the despatch, and knowing my intention with regardto it, he, having met the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) that evening, said to him he had no doubt that when I came down to the House I shouldput a question respecting it. When I came down I put a question andreceived an answer; both question and answer are before the House andthe country. But I confess I did not anticipate that we should lose aweek from the discussion of the Indian Resolutions on account of thequestion which I then asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to theBoard of Control. 

Now, Sir, with respect to the question before the House, I should havebeen content to let it end when the hon. And learned Gentleman theSolicitor-General sat down. I think, Sir, the House might have come to avote when the Solicitor-General finished his speech. I could not butcompare that speech with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman whomoved the Resolution now before the House. I thought the right hon. Gentleman raked together a great many small things to make up a greatcase. It appeared to me that he spoke as if his manner indicated that hewas not perfectly satisfied with the course he was pursuing. I think hefailed to stimulate himself with the idea that he was performing a greatpublic duty; for if he had been impressed with that idea I think hissubject would have enabled him to deliver a more lively and impressivespeech than that which he has made. But, Sir, I believe that every onewill admit that the speech of the Solicitor-General was characterised bythe closest logic and the most complete and exhaustive argument. Thereis scarcely a Gentleman with whom I have spoken with regard to thatspeech who does not admit that the hon. And learned Gentleman has seemedto have taken up the whole question, and to have given a complete answerto all serious charges brought against the Government. 

This Motion is an important one in two aspects. First of all as respectsthe interests of parties at home--which some people, probably, think themore important of the interests concerned; and, secondly, as respectsthe effect which will be produced in India when this discussion, withthe vote at which we arrive, reaches that country and is read there. Theprinces, the rajahs, and intelligent landholders, whether under theEnglish Government or independent, will know very little about what weunderstand by party; and any cabal or political conspiracy here willhave no influence on them. They know little of the persons who conductand take a part in the debate in this House; and the 'loud cheers' whichthey will read of in our discussions Will be almost nothing to them. Thequestion to them will be, What is the opinion of the Parliament ofEngland as to the policy announced to India in the Proclamation?

Now, Sir, I complain of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the Househas reason to complain, that in his Resolution he endeavours to evadethe real point of discussion. The noble Lord who has just sat down(Viscount Goderich) says he will not meet this matter in any suchindirect manner as that proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member forSwansea (Mr. Dillwyn); but what can be less direct than the issueoffered by the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member forOxford? This is proved by the fact that, throughout the course of thisdiscussion, every serious argument and every serious expression has hadreference to the character of the Proclamation, and not to those littlematters which are mixed up in this Resolution. Nobody, I believe, defends the Proclamation in the light in which it is viewed by theGovernment, and censured by the Government. All that has been done is anendeavour to show that it is not rightly understood by those who censureit as announcing a policy of confiscation. In fact, in endeavouring todefend it, hon. Members insist that it does not mean something which itsays it does mean, and which if any of us understand the Englishlanguage it assuredly does mean. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to dothat which I think is an absolute impossibility. He wants us to condemnthe censure, and wishes at the same time--and I give him credit forthis--that we should pronounce no approval of the thing censured. I donot think the right hon. Gentleman, though unfortunately he has been ledinto this movement, wishes the House to pronounce an opinion in favourof confiscation. I do not believe that any Member of this House asks usto come to a conclusion in such a way as that our decision shall be anapproval of that which the Government has condemned in the despatch. Butif we affirm the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, how is itpossible for the people of India to understand our decision in any othersense than as an approval of the policy of Lord Canning's Proclamation?With regard to the publication of the Government despatch, it is not alittle remarkable how men turn round and object to what they formerlywere so loud in demanding. On this side of the House it has been thecommonest thing to hear hon. Gentlemen say that all this secrecy on thepart of the Foreign Office and the Board of Control is a cause of thegreatest mischief. Assume for a moment that the publication of thisdespatch was injudicious--after all, it was no high crime andmisdemeanour. We on this side of the House, and hon. Gentlemen below thegangway, ought to look with kindness on this failing, which, if afailing, leans to virtue's side. Then, Sir, with regard to the languageof the despatch, I do not know of any Government or Minister who wouldnot be open to censure if we chose to take up every word in a despatch. A man of firmer texture, of stronger impulse, and more indignantfeelings will, on certain occasions, write in stronger terms than othermen--and I confess I like those men best who write and speak so that youcan really understand them. Now I say that the proposition before theHouse is a disingenuous one. It attempts to lead the House into a veryunfortunate dilemma. I think that no judicial mind--seeing that theresult of a decision in favour of this Resolution will be theestablishment of the policy of the Proclamation--will fail to beconvinced that we ought not to arrive at such a decision without greathesitation, and that we cannot do so without producing a very injuriouseffect on the minds of the people of India. 

We now come to what all parties admit to be the real question--theProclamation and the policy of confiscation announced in it. There arecertain matters which I understand all sides of the House to be agreedon. They agree with the Government and the East India Company that thepeople of Oude are enemies but that they are not rebels [Cries of 'Yes, yes!'--'No, no!'] I thought the supporters of the Resolution of theright lion. Gentleman the Member for Oxford told us that if theGovernment had written a judicious despatch like that of the East IndiaCompany, they would have applauded and not censured it. Well, the EastIndia Directors--and they are likely to know, for they were connectedwith the commission of the Act that brought this disturbance in Oudeupon us--say that the people of Oude are not rebels; that they are notto be treated as rebels; but as enemies. If so, the Government have aright to treat them according to those rules which are observed bynations which are at war with each other. Will the House accept thatproposition? ['No, no!'--'Yes, yes!'] Well, if hon. Gentlemen on thisside will not accept it, I hope the noble Lord the Member for the WestRiding (Viscount Goderich) will not include them amongst those who arein favour of clemency. I am quite sure the people of England will acceptthat definition--that civilised Europe will accept it; and that history--history which will record our proceedings this night, and our vote onthis Resolution--will accept it. Sir, I do not see how any one claimingto be an Englishman or a Christian can by any possibility escape fromcondemning the policy of this Proclamation. 

I now come--and on that point I will be as brief as possible--to thequestion. What is the meaning of confiscating the proprietary rights inthe soil? We have heard from a noble Lord in 'another place' and it hasbeen stated in the course of the debate here, that this sentence ofconfiscation refers only to certain unpleasant persons who are calledtalookdars, who are barons and robber chiefs and oppressors of thepeople. This is by no means the first time that, after a great wrong hasbeen committed, the wrongdoer has attempted to injure by calumny thoseupon whom the wrong has been inflicted. Lord Shaftesbury, who is a sortof leader in this great war, has told the world that this Proclamationrefers only to 600 persons in the kingdom of Oude. 

The kingdom of Onde has about five millions of people, or one-sixth ofthe population of the United Kingdom. Applied to the United Kingdom inthe same rate of the population it would apply to 3, 600 persons. Now, inboth Houses of Parliament there are probably 700 landed proprietors. Itwould, therefore, be an edict of confiscation to the landed proprietorsof the United Kingdom equal to five times all the landed proprietors inboth Houses of Parliament. An hon. Gentleman says I am all wrong in myfigures. I shall be glad to hear his figures afterwards. But that is notthe fact; but if it were the fact, it would amount not to a political, but to an entire social revolution in this country. And surely, when youlive in a country where you have, as in Scotland, a great province underone Member of the House of Lords, and seventy or eighty miles ofterritory under another, and where you have Dukes of Bedford and Dukesof Devonshire, as in England--surely, I say, we ought to be a littlecareful, at any rate, that we do not overturn, without just cause, theproprietary rights of the great talookdars and landowners in India. Itis a known fact, which anybody may ascertain by referring to books whichhave been written, and to witnesses who cannot be mistaken, that thisedict would apply to more than 40, 000 landowners in the kingdom of Oude. And what is it that is meant by these proprietary rights? We must seewhat is the general course of the policy of our government in India. Ifyou sweep away all proprietary rights in the kingdom of Oude you willhave this result--that there will be nobody connected with the land butthe Government of India and the humble cultivator who tills the soil. And you will have this further result, that the whole produce of theland of Oude and of the industry of its people will be divided into twomost unequal portions; the larger share will go to the Government in theshape of tax, and the smaller share, which will be a handful of rice perday, will go to the cultivator of the soil. Now, this is the Indiansystem. It is the grand theory of the civilians, under whose advice, Ivery much fear, Lord Canning has unfortunately acted; and you will findin many parts of India, especially in the Presidency of Madras, that thepopulation consists entirely of the class of cultivators, and that theGovernment stands over them with a screw which is perpetually turned, leaving the handful of rice per day to the ryot or the cultivator, andpouring all the rest of the produce of the soil into the Exchequer ofthe East India Company. Now, I believe that this Proclamation sanctionsthis policy; and I believe further that the Resolution which the righthon. Gentleman asks the House to adopt, sanctions this Proclamation;that it will be so read in India, and that whatever may be theinfluence, unfortunate as I believe it will be, of the Proclamationitself, when it is known throughout India that this--the highest courtof appeal--has pronounced in favour of Lord Canning's policy, it will beone of the most unfortunate declarations that ever went forth from theParliament of this country to the people of that empire. 

Let me then for one minute--and it shall be but for one minute--ask theattention of the House to our pecuniary dealings with Oude. A friend ofmine has extracted from a book on this subject two or three facts whichI should like to state to the House, as we are now considering thepolicy of England towards that afflicted country. It is stated that, under the government of Warren Hastings, to the arrival of LordCornwallis in 1786, the East India Company obtained from the kingdom ofOude, and therefore from the Exchequer of the people of Oude, the sum of9, 252, 000_l_. ; under Lord Cornwallis, 4, 290, 000_l_. ; underLord Teignmouth, 1, 280, 000_l_. ; under Lord Wellesley, 10, 358, 000_l_. This includes, I ought to observe, the Doab, takenin 1801 in lieu of subsidy, the annual revenue of that district being1, 352, 000_l_. Coming down to the year 1814, there was a loan of amillion; in 1815 a loan of a million; in 1825 a loan of a million; in1826 a loan of a million; in 1829 a loan of 625, 000_l_. ; and in1838 a loan of 1, 700, 000_l_. Some of these sums, the House willobserve, are loans, and in one case the loan was repaid by a portion ofterritory which the Company, in a very few years, under an excuse whichI should not like to justify, re-annexed to themselves, and thereforethe debt was virtually never repaid. The whole of these sums comes to31, 500, 000_l_. ; in addition to which Oude has paid vast sums insalaries, pensions, and emoluments of every kind to servants of theCompany engaged in the service of the Government of Oude. 

I am not going further into detail with regard to that matter; but I saythat the history of our connection with the country, whose interests weare now discussing, is of a nature that ought to make us pause before weconsent to any measure that shall fill up the cup of injury which wehave offered to the lips of that people. After this, two years ago, wedeposed the Sovereign of Oude. Everything that he had was seized--muchof it was sold. Indignities were offered to his family. Their ruin wasaccomplished, though they were the governors of that kingdom. Some hon. Gentleman, speaking on this side of the House, has tried to persuade theHouse that this confiscation policy only intends that we should receivethe taxes of Oude. But that is altogether a delusion. That is astatement so absurd that I am astonished that any one, even of those whosupport the Resolution, should offer it to the House. In 1856, when youdethroned the King of Oude, you stepped into his place, and became therecipients of all the legitimate national taxes of the kingdom of Oude;and now, having seized the 500, 000_l_. A year, the revenue of thatcountry, after a solemn treaty which contained a clause that if therewere a surplus of revenue it should be paid to the credit of the kingdomof Oude; after having applied that surplus, contrary to that clause ofthe treaty, to the general purposes of India; you now step in and youdescend below the King, to every talookdar, to every landowner, large orsmall, to every man who has proprietary rights in the soil, to everyman, the smallest and humblest capitalist who cultivates the soil--toevery one of these you say in language that cannot be mistaken--'Comedown from the independence and dignity you have held. As we have done inother provinces of India we shall do here. Two-thirds of you have notbeen mixed up in this war; but in this general confiscation the innocentmust suffer with the guilty, for such is the misfortune of war, and suchis the penalty which we shall inflict upon you. ' Sir, if thisProclamation be not a Proclamation of unheard-of severity, how comes itthat so many persons have protested against it? Does any man believethat the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Viscount Goderich)understands this Proclamation better than the high military authoritieswho have so long known India? Does he suppose that the House of Commonswill take his authority upon a matter of this kind in preference to theauthority of the whole united press of India? ['Oh! oh!'] Well, I daresay that hon. Members who cry 'Oh!' have not read the newspapers ofIndia upon the subject. Some of them uphold it because they say that atone fell swoop it has done that which it took us twenty years to do inother districts of India, and destroys every man who could influence thepeople against the British Government. Others say that it is aProclamation of such a character that it must cause 'war to the knife'against the English, and that the Governor-General who issued such aProclamation should have been prepared with a new army at his back thathe might have power to enforce it. 

The learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland referred in hisspeech the other night to what had been said by the hon. And learnedMember for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) on the occasion of a question that Ihad put some two or three weeks ago. Now I call the House to witnesswhether when I put the question which brought out this despatch, andwhen the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose inhis place and gave the answer that with respect to the policy ofconfiscation--for that is the only thing there is any dispute about inthe Proclamation--the Government disavowed it in every sense--I call theHouse to witness whether every Gentleman present in this part of theHouse did not cheer that sentiment. Of course, every man cheered it. They would not have been men; they would not have been Englishmen; theywould not have been legislators; they would have been men who had neverheard of what was just and right, if every instinct within them, at theinstant they heard the declaration of the Government, did not compelthem to an enthusiastic assent. And it was only when the fatal influenceof party, and the arts which party knows how to employ, were put inmotion, that hon. Gentlemen began to discover that there was somethingserious and something dangerous in this memorable despatch. Now, I wouldask the House this question--are we prepared to sanction the policy ofthat despatch?

I am very sorry that I have not done what only occurred to me after thisdebate commenced, and after the Amendment was proposed, or I should haveproposed another Amendment to the House that went expressly upon thatpoint, because--and I speak it without the smallest reference to theinfluence which it may have on any party in this House--I think it ofthe very highest consequence that, whatever decision we come to, itshould be liable to no misinterpretation when it arrives in India. Then, Sir, we have been treated to a good deal of eloquence upon the manner ofthe despatch; and with regard to that I must say a word or two. Thenoble Lord the Member for London, who sits below me, has, I think, fallen into the error of most of the speakers in favour of theResolution; that is, of treating some of the outside circumstances ofthe case as if they were the case itself. I do not think, however, thathe stated there was a word in the despatch which was not true, althoughhe did express what I thought was rather an immoral sentiment for soeminent a statesman. The noble Lord told us that after a crime had beencommitted, men in office were never to let it be known or suspected thatthey thought it was a crime. [Lord John Russell: 'The hon. Gentleman ismistaken; I never said anything of the kind. '] I did not hear it myself, but I read it, and many of my friends came to the same conclusion. ['Oh!oh!'] Well, I understand, then, that he did not say it; but what he didsay was, that there was a great deal of sarcasm and invective in thedespatch, and he read a passage to show that such was the case. But thefact is that a great deal depends upon the reading. I could take adespatch of the noble Lord himself and read it in a manner that wouldperfectly astonish him. He said, if I am not mistaken, that if the Housewere to approve of that despatch as a proper despatch, then Lord Canningwas not fit to occupy the meanest political or official situation. Indian despatches have, to my mind, never been very gentle. I recollecthaving read in _Mill's History of British India_, and in otherhistories also, despatches that have been sent from the President of theBoard of Control, the Secret Committee, and the Court of Directors, overand over again; and I have thought that they were written in a tonerather more authoritative and rather more dictatorial than I should havebeen disposed to write, or than I should have been pleased to receive. It arose from this--that in old times the magnates sitting inLeadenhall-street were writing, not to Lord Canning and men of thataltitude, but to merchants and agents whom they had sent out, who wereentirely dependent upon them, and to whom they could say just what theyliked; and for 100 years past, as far as I have seen, their despatcheshave had a character for severity, and that which men call'dictatorial, ' which I think might be very well dispensed with. But thatis a matter which should certainly be taken into consideration, when alarge portion of this House are disposed not only to censure LordEllenborough, but to overturn the Government, because a despatch is notwritten precisely in those gentle terms which some hon. Gentlemen thinkto be right when inditing a letter to a Governor-General of India. 

There is one other point which I must notice, and that is the supposedeffect of this despatch upon the feelings of Lord Canning. I am not sointimate with Lord Canning as many Members of this House, but I have hadthe pleasure of his acquaintance, and have always believed that he wasone of the last men who would knowingly do anything that was inhuman orunjust, and that is my opinion now. I think he is to be commiserated, asany other man would have been who happened to be in India at such a timeas this; and I think we are bound also to take a lenient view even ofsuch errors as we may think he has committed. If I had gone to India, orinto any service under the State, I should expect that there would be ageneral disposition to give me fair play in the exercise of my office, and that no strained construction to my injury would be put uponanything which I did. Well, that is the view which I entertain withregard to Lord Canning. I have never uttered a syllable against him inpublic, although I think that some of his acts have been open to greatobjection; and I am not about to say anything against him now. I wouldnot support a Resolution which was intended to damage Lord Canning; andI think the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) has not done wrong inoffering to the House the Amendment he has placed before us. But it isjust possible that Lord Canning is in the midst of circumstances whichhave rendered it very difficult, perhaps impossible, for him to exercisehis own calm judgment on the great question which forms the subject ofthis Proclamation, I see in that Proclamation not so much an emanationfrom the humane and just mind of Lord Canning, as the offspring of thatmixture of red tape and ancient tradition which is the foundation of thepolicy of the old civilian Council of Calcutta. But, Sir, if it were aquestion of hurting Lord Canning's feelings and denouncing thisProclamation, I could have no hesitation as to the choice which I shouldmake. A man's private and personal feelings are not a matter ofimportance for the House when compared with the vast and permanentinterests involved in the dangerous policy which we are now discussing. And I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell), the nobleLord the Member for the West Riding (Viscount Goderich), and the nobleLord the Member for London, have any right to throw themselves intosomething like a contortion of agony with regard to the manner of thisdespatch; because, as was stated to the House the other night by thelearned Attorney-General for Ireland, they did not tell us much aboutthe feelings of another public servant, acting on behalf of the Crown ata still greater distance from England, when last year they gave a voteon the China question which pronounced a most emphatic condemnation onthe conduct of Sir John Bowring. Now, I like fair play. I would treatLord Canning as I would treat Sir John Bowring; and I would treat SirJohn Bowring as I would treat Lord Canning. Do not let us have in theservice of the State low-caste men who may be trampled upon at pleasure, and high-caste men whom nobody dare criticise. 

I said, when I began, that this Resolution is important in reference tosomething else besides India; that it is important with reference to theposition of parties in this House. I would ask the attention of theHouse for a few moments to that branch of the subject. I am afraid--andI hope I am not slandering anybody in saying it--that there is quite asmuch zeal for what is called 'place' as there is for the good of Indiain the proposition brought before us. If that despatch had beenpublished three months ago, when we were all sitting on that side of theHouse, it is very probable that many Gentlemen who now speak against itwould have thought it a noble despatch, containing noble sentiments, expressed in noble language. But now, Sir, there has been for the lasttwo months a growing irritation observable, particularly in this part ofthe House. There has been a feeling which no ingenuity has been able todisguise--a fear that if the present Government should, by some means orother, remain in office over the Session, no small difficulty would befound in displacing it--lest, like the tree, which, when first planted, may be easily pulled up, it should by and bye strike its roots downwardsand its branches outwards, and after a year or two no man would be ableto get it out of the ground. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that I differvery widely from them on many public questions, and probably at some notdistant day they may find it out in some act of severe hostility; but Iput it to the House, whether, out of doors, the reputation of thepresent Government is not, in many respects, better than the last? Take, for instance, the Gentlemen who come up from the country on variousdeputations to the Ministers--the judgment of these deputations, withoutan exception, is in favour of the manner in which they have beenreceived by the present Ministers, and of the way in which theirsuggestions and requests have been treated. Now, this may be no greatmatter, and I do not say that it is; but I make the observation for thebenefit of the Gentlemen who sit on these benches, because it is justpossible that they may some time have to receive deputations again. Thentake their conduct in this House. 'Oh, yes. ' hon. Gentlemen may say, 'but they are a weak Government; they have not a majority, and they areobliged to be very civil. ' But what I maintain is, that every Ministryought to be very civil, and what I am prepared to assert is--and I askevery man on this side of the House if he does not agree with me, for Ihave heard dozens of them say it out of the House--that when the lateGovernment were in office civility was a thing unknown. 

Take another point--for it is worthy of consideration by Gentlemen onthis side of the House, and I ask hon. Gentlemen who sit below thegangway especially to consider it--look at the heritage of trouble withregard to our foreign policy which the existing Government found ontheir accession to office. Three months of what was going on upon theConspiracy Bill would have landed you on the very verge of a war, if notin a war, with France, and that danger has been avoided certainly by noconcession which is injurious to the honour of England. Take thequestion which has agitated the public mind with regard to Naples. I amnot going into any details; but so far as a Government could act, thisGovernment appears to have acted with judgment. I think the noble Lordbelow me (Lord J. Russell) admitted that himself. I did not say that thenoble Lord said anything against them. On the contrary, I rejoice tohave him with me as a witness to what I am stating. With regard, then, to these questions, seeing the dilemma into which the foreign affairs ofthe country were brought under the last Administration, I think it isbut fair, just, and generous that Members on this side of the House, atleast, should take no course which wears the colour of faction, for thepurpose of throwing the present Government out of office. Whenever Ijoin in a vote to put Gentlemen opposite out of office, it shall be forsomething that the country will clearly understand--something that shalloffer a chance of good to some portion of the British empire--somethingthat shall offer a chance of advancing distinctly the great principlesfor which we--if we are a party at all on this side of the House--profess to care. 

But there is another reason. Not only is it feared that hon. Gentlemenopposite will get firm in their seats, but it is also feared that somehon. Gentlemen near me will get less firm in their alliance with theright hon. Gentlemen on this side. I have heard of mutinous meetings anddiscussions, and of language of the most unpardonable character uttered, as Gentlemen now say, in the heat of debate. But there was somethingmore going on, which was traced to a meeting of independent Membersrecently held in Committee-room No. 11; and if a stop were not put toit, the powerful ranks on these benches might be broken up, which, ifunited, it was believed, would storm the Treasury benches and replacethe late Government in office. I believe it was intended that adesperate effort should be made to change the state of things herebefore Whitsuntide. That was a resolution which had been come to longbefore any one knew anything about Lord Ellenborough's despatch. And thepresent seems to be a convenient opportunity, inasmuch as it has this inits favour, that it appears to be defending an absent servant of theCrown; that it appears to be teaching a lesson to the Government whohave acted injudiciously in publishing a despatch; altogether it hasthat about it which makes it an excellent pretext on which hon. Gentlemen may ride into office. Now, I do not speak to Whigs in officeor to those Gentlemen who have been in office and expect to be in officeagain; but I should like to say what I believe to be true to thoseGentlemen who call themselves independent Members, who come here with nopersonal object to serve, not seeking place, patronage, or favour, butwith an honest desire, as far as they are able, to serve their countryas Members of the House of Commons. If this Resolution be carried, it issupposed that the old Government, or something very like it, will comeback again. Now, there was great discontent with that old Governmentbefore it went out; yet no pledge whatever has been given that itsconduct will be better or different; no new measures have been promised, no new policy has been avowed, no new men, that I have seen, have beenheld forth to the public very distinctly as likely to take high officein the State. There have been some things which I should think Membersof this House must have felt pain at witnessing. There are newspapers inthe interest of this ex-Treasury bench which have, in the mostunblushing manner, published articles emanating from the pen of somebodywho knew exactly what was wanted to be done. In the case of a gentleman, for example, who was engaged in Committee-room No. 11--a gentleman whom Ineed not mention because the House knows all the circumstances of thiscase, but a gentleman who took a most prominent part in the proceedingsin that Committee-room--and no one is probably more indignant at whathas been done than himself--those newspapers have positively fixed uponand designated him for a certain office, if the present Government goout and another comes in; another gentleman who seconded a Resolution onthat occasion is also held up for an office; but they do not stateexactly what his precise position is to be; and the glittering bauble ofsome place in the incoming Government is hung up before many hon. Gentlemen who sit around me. It is not said, 'It is for you' and 'It isfor you;' but it is hung up dangling before them all, and every man isexpected to covet that glittering bauble. 

But this is not all. These are not the only arts which are employed. Members of this House sitting below the gangway, who have been here foryears--Gentlemen of the most independent character--receive flatteringand beautifully engraved cards to great parties at splendid mansions;and not later than Friday last, of all times, those invitations werescattered, if not with a more liberal, no doubt with a much morediscriminating hand than they ever were before. [An hon. Member:'Absurd!'] Of course it is very absurd; there is no doubt about that, andthat is precisely why I am explaining it to the House. Why, Sir, ifthose cards of invitation contained a note with them, giving the exacthistory of what was really meant, it would say to hon. Gentlemen, 'Sir, we have measured your head, and we have gauged your soul, and we know orbelieve'--for I believe they do not know--'we believe that yourprinciples which you came into Parliament to support--your character inthe House--your self-respect will go for nothing if you have a miserabletemptation like this held up before you. ' Sir, if we could see themtaking a course which is said to be taken by the celebrated horse-tamer, who appeals, as I am told, to the nobler and more intelligent instinctsof the animal which he tames, then I should not complain. But theyappeal to instincts which every honourable mind repudiates, and toaspirations which no hon. Gentleman on this side of the House can for amoment admit. 

Well, then, if they succeed, what sort of a Government shall we have? Iam as anxious for a Liberal Government as any man in this House, but Icannot believe that, in the present position of things on this side ofthe House, a Liberal and solid Government can be formed. We are told, and the whole country has been in a state of expectation and wonder uponit, that two eminent statesmen have actually dined together; and I amvery glad to hear that men engaged in the strife of politics can dinetogether without personal hostility. I say nothing of the viands thatwere eaten. I say nothing of the beverage that was in the 'loving cup'that went round. One of our oldest and greatest poets has told us that--

 'Nepenthe is a drink of soverayne grace. '

He says that it was devised by the gods to subdue contention, andsubject the passions; but that it was given only to the aged and thewise, who were prepared by it to take their places with ancient heroesin a higher sphere. But that could not have been the contents of the'loving cup' in this instance, for these aged statesmen are stilldetermined to cling to this world, and to mix, as heretofore, with allthe vigour and the fire of youth in the turmoil and contention of publiclife. But does the fact of this dinner point to reconciliation, and to afirm and liberal administration? I believe that any such Governmentwould be the worst of all coalitions. I believe that it would be builtupon insincerity, and I suspect it would be of no advantage to thecountry. Therefore I am not anxious to see such a Government attempted. 

I ask the House, then, are they prepared to overthrow the existingGovernment on the question which the right hon. Gentleman has broughtbefore us--a question which he has put in such ambiguous terms? Are theywilling in overthrowing that Government to avow the policy of thisProclamation for India? Are they willing to throw the country into allthe turmoil of a general election--a general election at a moment whenthe people are but just slowly recovering from the effects of the mosttremendous commercial panic that this country ever passed through? Arethey willing to delay all legislation for India till next year, and alllegislation on the subject of Parliamentary reform till the year afterthat? Are they willing, above all, to take the responsibility which willattach to them if they avow the policy contained in this Proclamation?

I confess, Sir, I am terrified for the future of India when I look atthe indiscriminate slaughter which is now going on there. I have seen aletter, written, I believe, by a missionary, lately inserted in a mostrespectable weekly newspaper published in London, in which the writerestimates that 10, 000 men have been put to death by hanging alone. I askyou, whether you approve of having in India such expressions as these, which I have taken this day from a Calcutta newspaper, and whichundoubtedly you will be held to approve if you do anything which can becharged with a confirmation of the tenor of this Proclamation. Here isan extract from _The Englishman_, which, speaking of the men of thedisarmed regiments, who amount to some 20, 000 or 30, 000, or even 40, 000men, says:--

 'There is no necessity to bring every Sepoy to a court-martial, and convict him of mutinous intentions before putting him down as guilty. We do not advocate extreme or harsh measures, nor are we of those who would drench the land with blood; but we have no hesitation in saying, that, were the Government to order the execution of all these Sepoys, they would be legally and morally justified in doing so. There would be no injustice done. '

No injustice would be done! I ask the House to consider that these menhave committed no offence; their military functions were suspendedbecause it was thought they were likely to be tempted to commit anoffence, and therefore their arms were taken from them; and now anEnglishman--one of your own countrymen--writing in a newspaper publishedin Calcutta, utters sentiments so atrocious as those which I have justread to the House. I believe the whole of India is now trembling underthe action of volcanic fires; and we shall be guilty of the greatestrecklessness, and I will say of great crime against the Monarchy ofEngland, if we do anything by which we shall own this Proclamation. I amasked on this question to overturn Her Majesty's Government. The policyadopted by the Government on this subject is the policy that was cheeredby hon. Members on this side when it was first announced. It is a policyof mercy and conciliation. False--may I not say?--or blundering leadersof this party would induce us, contrary to all our associations and allour principles, to support an opposite policy. I am willing to avow thatI am in favour of justice and conciliation--of the law of justice and ofkindness. Justice and mercy are the supreme attributes of the perfectionwhich we call Deity, but all men everywhere comprehend them; there is nospeech nor language in which their voice is not heard, and they cannotbe vainly exercised with regard to the docile and intelligent millionsof India. Yon have had the choice. You have tried the sword. It hasbroken; it now rests broken in your grasp; and you stand humbled andrebuked. You stand humbled and rebuked before the eyes of civilizedEurope. You may have another chance. You may, by possibility, haveanother opportunity of governing India. If you have, I beseech you tomake the best use of it. Do not let us pursue such a policy as many menin India, and some in England, have advocated, but which hereafter youwill have to regret, which can end only, as I believe, in somethingapproaching to the ruin of this country, and which must, if it bepersisted in, involve our name and nation in everlasting disgrace. 

 * * * * *

INDIA. 

IV. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 1, 1859. _From Hansard. _[On August 1 Sir Charles Wood made his financial statement on India tothe House of Commons. One of his proposals was that the Governmentshould be empowered to raise 5, 000, 000_l_. In the United Kingdom inorder to meet the demands of the present year. The Loan Bill passedthrough both Houses. ]

I have so often addressed the House upon the question of India that Ifeel some hesitation in asking a portion of the time of the Committeethis evening. But notwithstanding an observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India that he does not see anything gloomyin the future of India, I confess that to my view the question assumesyearly a greater magnitude, and I may say a greater peril. I think, therefore, that having given some attention to this subject in yearspast, I may be permitted to bring my share, be its value more or less, to the attempt which we are now making to confront this great evil. Whenwe recollect how insufficient are the statements which he has fromIndia, the right hon. Gentleman has given us as clear an account of thefinances of India as it was possible for him to do, and looking at themin the most favourable point of view we come to this conclusion:--Wehave what we have had for twenty years, only more rapidly accumulating, deficit on deficit and debt on debt. 

The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that when he left theGovernment of India, I think in 1855, everything was in a mostsatisfactory condition. Well, it did happen in that year, perhaps bysome of that kind of management which I have observed occasionally inIndian finance, that the deficit was brought down to a sum not exceeding150, 000_l_. [Sir C. Wood: 'There was a surplus of 400, 000_l_. '] Thedeficit, I believe, before the mutiny was 143, 000_l_. But, if the righthon. Gentleman will allow me to take the three years preceding themutiny, I think that will give a much fairer idea of the real state ofthe case, and it is not the least use shutting our eyes to the realstate of the case, because some day or other it will find us out, or weshall find it out. The real state of the case in the three yearspreceding the mutiny, 1855, 1856 and 1857, ending the 30th of April, isa deficit of 2, 823, 000_l_. , being an average not very far short of1, 000, 000_l_. A-year. That is the state of things immediately after theright hon. Gentleman left office. I do not in the least find fault withhim. He did not make the deficit, but I merely state this to show thatthings are not at the moment in that favourable state which the righthon. Gentleman would induce the Committee to believe. Keeping ourattention to that period, there is another point of view, which is alsovery important. It appears to me that any Government must be anexcessively bad Government which cannot defray its expenses out of thetaxes which it levies on its people. We know, and every one has foryears known, that in India there is a source of revenue, not from taxeslevied on the people, but from opium, and which is very like the revenuederived by the Peruvian Government from guano. If we turn to those threeyears and see what relation the expenditure of the Government had totaxes levied on the people of India, we shall find, though we may hearthat the taxes are not so much as we imagine, or that the people areextremely poor, or that the Government is very extravagant--we shallfind that the sum levied for the sale of opium and transit was no lessthan 10, 500, 000_l_. , and if we add that to the 2, 800, 000_l_. , we get asum of 13, 300, 000_l_. , which is the exact sum which the Government ofIndia cost in those three years over and above what was raised from thepeople by actual taxation. I say that this is a state of things whichought to cause alarm, because we know, and we find it stated in the lastdespatches, that the income derived from opium is of a precariouscharacter, and from the variation of climate in India, or from avariation of policy in the Chinese Government, that revenue maysuddenly either be very much impaired or be cut off altogether. 

The right hon. Gentleman brings us to the condition in which we are now, and it may be stated in the fewest possible words to be this, --that thedebt of India has been constantly rising, and that it amounts now to100, 000, 000_l_. Sterling. ['No, no!'] The right hon. Gentleman said95, 000, 000_l_. , but he said there would be 5, 000, 000_l_. Nextyear, and I will undertake to say that it is fair to argue on the basisthat the debt of India at this moment is about 100, 000, 000_l_. , that there is a deficit of 12, 000, 000_l_. This year, and that theremay be expected to be a deficit of 10, 000, 000_l_. Next year. It isnot to be wondered at that it should be difficult to borrow money onIndian account. 

I am not surprised at the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) being solively in the House to-night, and other hon. Gentlemen connected withthe City, who, I understand, have been impressing on the Secretary ofState the fact that money cannot be had in the City for the purpose forwhich he wants it. I do not wonder that it is difficult to raise moneyon Indian account. I should think it extraordinary if it could beborrowed without a high rate of interest. That it can be borrowed at allcan only arise from the fact that England, whatever disasters she getsinto, generally contrives, by the blood of her soldiers or by thetaxation of her people, to scramble through her difficulties, and tomaintain before the world, though by enormous sacrifices, a characterfor good faith which is scarcely held by any other country in the world. With regard to the question of an Imperial guarantee, I take an oppositeview from the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) on that particular point, thoughI agree with what he said as to certain expenses thrown on the IndianGovernment. 

Last year I referred to the enormous expense of the Affghan war--about15, 000, 000_l_. --the whole of which ought to have been thrown on thetaxation of the people of England, because it was a war commanded by theEnglish Cabinet, for objects supposed to be English, but which, in myopinion, were of no advantage either to England or India. It was mostunjust that this enormous burden should have been thrown upon thefinances of the Indian Government. But I do not oppose an Imperialguarantee because I particularly sympathize with the English taxpayersin this matter. I think the English taxpayers have generally neglectedall the affairs of India, and might be left to pay for it. But there wasno justice in imposing on the unfortunate millions of India the burdenof a policy with which they had nothing to do, and which could not bringany one of them a single handful of rice more--it did bring them ratherless than more--than they would have eaten without it. But I object toan Imperial guarantee on this ground, --if we let the Services of India, after exhausting the resources of India, put their hands into thepockets of the English people, the people of England having no controlover the Indian expenditure, it is impossible to say to what lengths ofunimagined extravagance they would go; and in endeavouring to save Indiamay we not go far towards ruining England?

But look at this question of Indian finance from another point of view. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretaryfor India have both referred to the enormous amount of the wholetaxation of India taken by the Military Service. I believe it has beenshown that at this moment almost, if not altogether, the whole of thenet revenue of India is being absorbed by the Military Service of thatempire; that not a farthing is left out of the whole net revenue ofIndia to pay the expenses of the civil government or the publiccreditor. If we leave out the opium duty, perhaps we shall see how farthe Military Service bears on the taxation of India; we shall see thatmore than its net amount is absorbed by the Military Service. That is astate of things that has never existed in any other country or among anyother people, for any considerable period, without bringing that countryto anarchy and ruin. We have been told by the Governor-General that thegreat bulk of the revenue of India is not elastic; that with regard tothe land-tax there has been for a long period no increase in it; that, on the contrary, that large source of income has decreased. He tells us, further, that the army cannot, at present, be largely reduced withsafety. If so, what is the end to which we must come? Either theGovernment of India must come to an end, or England itself must becometributary to India. Seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer haswithin the last fortnight asked 70, 000, 000_l_. Of the Englishtaxpayer for the expenses of the English Government, to ask nine or tenmillions more for the government of India would certainly cause greatdissatisfaction in this country. The picture is, to my mind, an alarmingone, notwithstanding the cheerful view taken of it by the Secretary forIndia; and it has filled many besides myself with dismay. 

Now, looking round for modes of escape from this position, I believethey exist, if we had the courage to adopt them. An hon. Friend hasasked me, 'Is there nobody to tell the House of Commons the truth onthis matter?' I might ask why he has not done it himself. I suppose heis afraid of being thought rash; but his advice is, that the Governmentshould re-establish the independence of the Punjab, recall the Ameers ofScinde, restore the Government of the King of Oude, giving to it thedependency of Nagpore. I confess, whether it be rash or not, that Ithink it would be wise to restore the Government of the Punjab and togive independence to that province which is called Scinde, because as norevenue is received from that part of the country in excess of theexpense which its retention causes to this country, we should endeavourto bring our dominions in India within a reasonable and manageablecompass. No policy can be more lunatic than the policy of annexation wehave pursued of late years in India, and the calamity we are now meetingis the natural and inevitable consequence of the folly we havecommitted. It is not easy for great generals and statesmen who have beenmade earls and marquesses and had bronze statues put up in their honourin our public squares--it is not easy for the statesmen who have doneall this to turn round and reverse it all; they have not the moralcourage to do it; it might be an act of peril; it might appear a descentfrom the summit of empire and be wrongly construed throughout the world. But as a question of finance and good government we should, a few yearshence, admit that it was a sound policy. But I will not pursue thissubject, for I may fairly take it for granted that the House of Commonsand the Government of England are not likely to take such a course tillwe are reduced to some extremity even greater than that which now meetsus. 

But there is another course that may fairly be recommended. It is totake India as it is, the empire with all your annexations as it stands, and to see if it is not possible to do something better with it than youhave done before, and to give it a chance in future years of redeemingnot only the character of the Government but its financial andlegislative position. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) says there cannot beany great diminution in the expenditure for the Civil Service of India;but I do not in the least agree with the Secretary for India when hesays that the gentlemen of the Civil Service in that country are notoverpaid. Every one knows that they are overpaid; except some very high-salaried bishops of whom we have heard, no men are so grossly overpaidas the officials of the Civil Service in India. The proof of this may befound everywhere. Look at the Island of Ceylon; there the duties are asarduous and the climate as unfavourable as in India; yet the Governmentdoes not pay its officials there more than one-half or two-thirds of thesalaries they are paid in India. There are in India itself many hundredsof Europeans, the officers of the Indian army, all the Indian clergy, and missionaries; there are also English merchants, carrying on theirbusiness at rates of profit not much exceeding the profits made in thiscountry. But the Civil Service of the Indian Government, like everythingprivileged and exclusive, is a pampered body; and, notwithstanding ithas produced some few able men who have worthily done their duty, I donot think the Civil Service of India deserves the loud praise we have sofrequently heard awarded to it by speakers in this House. Now if youcould reduce the expense of the Civil Service by any considerableamount, the best thing you could do with the money would be to increasethe establishment by sending a greater number of competent persons asmagistrates, collectors, and officials into the distant provinces, andthereby double the facilities for good government in those districts. Ifyou could reduce the income of the Civil Service one half, you could forthe same money have a more efficient Service throughout India than atpresent. You might not save money, but you would get a more completeService for it. 

But the military question the House of Commons will certainly have totake in hand; though Secretaries for India are afraid to grapple withit, I am not astonished that they feel some hesitation in doing so, forfrom every one connected with the Military Service they would hear thestrongest objections to reducing the number of the troops. But let meask the Committee to consider what it has just heard. Before the Revoltthe European troops in India numbered 45, 000 and the Native troops250, 000; now the 45, 000 European troops are 110, 000, and the 250, 000Native soldiers are raised to 300, 000. What was it that we heard duringthe Indian mutiny; what was the cause of all the letters that appearedin the newspapers? Every man said that the great evil was having aNative army far larger than was required. That has been the source ofperil, and that was the real cause of the mutiny. Now we have even alarger portion of this most perilous element than we had before. Theauthorities of India do not appear to have learnt anything from themutiny, or they have learnt that all that was said in this House and inthis country was untrue, because they have 50, 000 more Native troopsthan they had before the mutiny. Therefore, the mode of argument appearsto be this:--A Native army was the cause of the mutiny, the cause of allour perils, and now it is necessary to have more of it; and, as that isthe perilous element, of course 45, 000 troops are not sufficient to keepthem in check; therefore, you have at present 110, 000; and certainofficers who were examined, and the Commissioners who reported, recommended that you should always have at least 80, 000 Europeans there. If we are only to have one body of troops to watch another, it seems tome there can be no hope of any diminution of our military force, nor anyreal reduction in our expenditure. Why is it that you require all thisarmy? Let me ask the Committee to look at the matter as sensible men ofbusiness. The Revolt, which has been such a terrible affair, has beensuppressed. It was suppressed mainly by the 45, 000 men in India, and notby the 110, 000 you have succeeded in placing there at a later period. More than that, there is not at the present moment any alarming amountof dissatisfaction in India, or at least the dissatisfied aredispirited, and have lost all hope of resisting the power of England, and must for a long period, I think, remain wholly dispirited. At thesame time, you have disarmed the people over a vast province. There aremillions of people in India, a great number of whom were previously inpossession of arms, who do not now possess a single weapon. I have seenin the last accounts, only a day or two since, a statement that not lessthan 1, 400 forts in the kingdom of Oude alone have been destroyed, andwe know that many more have been destroyed in other parts. There is atthis moment no power for combined organized armed resistance againstyou, except that which is in the Native army, which the IndianGovernment has been building up of late to a greater extent than ever. 

The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) spoke of one point--the great importanceof which I admit--the want of confidence and sympathy that must havearisen between the two races in consequence of the transactions of thelast two years. The shock of revolt must have created great suspicionand hatred and fear, and there is nothing out of which panic grows soeasily as out of those conditions. I believe that is the case in India, and perhaps there are indications of something of the kind at home. There is a panic, therefore, and neither the Governor-General nor theCivil Service nor military officers can make up their minds that theyare safe, recollecting the transactions of the past two years, in havinga less military force than we now have in India. But if you ask thosegentlemen they will never say they have enough. There are admirals here, as we know, who are perfectly wild about ships, with whom arithmetic onsuch a question goes for nothing. They would show you in the clearestpossible manner that you have not ships enough. So also, although I amglad to find not to the same extent, as to troops. Some one said theother night, in answer to an hon. Gentleman, about an increased force ofa particular kind, 'There is nothing like leather' and it is so. I saynaval officers and military officers are not the men to whom theChancellor of the Exchequer should depute the great and solemn duty ofdetermining what amount shall be expended for military purposes. Thereis not a country in the world that would not have been bankrupt longsince, and plunged into irretrievable ruin, if the military authoritieshad been allowed to determine the amount of military force to be keptup, and the amount of revenue to be devoted to that purpose. 

I have another objection to this great army, and I now come to thequestion of policy, which, I am sorry to say for India, has not beentouched upon. I do not think this is a question to be merely settled bya very clever manner of giving the figures of the case. Those figuresdepend upon the course you intend to pursue, upon the policy which theGovernment intends to adopt, in that country. With this great army twothings are certain--we can have no reform of any kind in the Governmentof India, nor an improved conduct on the part of the English in Indiatowards the Natives of India. With a power like this--110, 000 Englishtroops, with an English regiment within an hour's reach of each civilservant, you will find that the supremacy of the conquering race will bedisplayed in the most offensive manner. 

Everybody connected with India--the hon. Member for Devonport (SirErskine Perry), the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes)--all whoare connected with India, know well that when the English were feeble inIndia, when they had not a great army in the field or a great revenue tosupport it, every Englishman treated the Natives by whom he wassurrounded rather with the feeling that he was an intruder in thecountry, and that it was not only proper but absolutely necessary todeal in a conciliatory and just manner with the great body of theNatives of India; but precisely as our power increased the conduct ofour countrymen changed, and I find in the excellent book of Mr. Shorethat thirty years ago he describes this as the very source of thegrowing ill feeling between the races in India. It has grown from thattime to this, until we have an irritation and animosity which in ourtime, it may be, we shall see very little removed, and which may perhapsnever be wholly allayed. A Government, then, with this vast army, mustalways be in a difficulty. Lord Canning--lord anybody else--cannot turnhis attention to anything but this wearing, exasperating question of howmoney is to be got for the next quarter to pay this army. He cannot turnhis attention in any way to reforms, and I am convinced that this Housemust insist upon the Government reducing its army, whatever be the risk. A large army will render it impossible for you to hold the country, foryou will have a constantly increasing debt, and anarchy must inevitablyoverwhelm you in the end. A small army, a moderate, conciliatory, andjust Government, with the finances in a prosperous condition;--and Iknow not but that this country may possess for generations and centuriesa share, and a large share, in the government of those vast territorieswhich it has conquered. 

As to measures of reduction, I admit that it is of little use attemptingthem unless they are accompanied by other changes. Here I have a chargeto bring against the Indian Government. I did hope when the noble Lordspoke to-night that he would have told us something which I am sure hemust have known; that there is no such thing as a real Government inIndia at all; that there is no responsibility either to a public opinionthere, or to a public opinion at home; and that therefore we cannotexpect a better policy or happier results. Let hon. Gentlemen imagine aGovernment like that in India, over which the payers of the taxes havenot the slightest control; for the great body of the people in Indiahave, as we all know, no control in any way over the Government. Neitheris there any independent English opinion that has any control over theGovernment, the only opinions being those of the Government itself, orthose of the Military and Civil Services, and chiefly of the latter. They are not the payers of taxes; they are the spenders and the enjoyersof the taxes, and therefore the Government in India is in the mostunfortunate position possible for the fulfilment of the great dutiesthat must devolve upon every wise and just Government. The CivilService, being privileged, is arrogant, and I had almost said tyrannous, as any one may see who reads the Indian papers, which mainly representthe opinion of that Service and the Military Service, which, aseverywhere else where it is not checked by the resolution of thetaxpayers and civilians, is clamorous and insatiable for greaterexpenditure. The Governor-General himself, --and I do not make any attackupon Lord Canning, although I could conceive a Governor-General moresuited to his great and difficult position, --he is a creature of thesevery Services. 

I now ask the noble Lord to remember a case which happened during thetime he held office, and if the Committee will allow me, for the sake ofillustration, to refer to it, I do not think it will be any waste oftime. Hon. Gentlemen will recollect that during the last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith), who has paid greatattention to Indian subjects, put a question to the noble Lord relatingto the annexation of a small territory called Dhar. What has been thecourse of events in relation to that case? The news of the annexationreached this country on the 20th of March last year. Upon the 23rd thequestion was put in this House, when the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Baillie), then Under-Secretary, replied, that the Government had justbeen informed of it by the Governor-General, and that he was solelyresponsible for the act, the Government here having had no previouscommunication upon it. Upon the 11th of June the noble Lord (LordStanley) announced to the House, in answer to a question, that he haddisallowed the annexation of Dhar. The despatch disallowing it has sincebeen laid upon the table. It is dated June 22, and it asks forinformation from the Governor-General. In India they assumed thisunfortunate Rajah to be guilty of misdemeanour, because his troops hadrevolted, and the noble Lord in his despatch said, as I think verysensibly, 'If we cannot keep our own troops, what argument is it foroverturning the independence of the territory of Dhar, seeing that theRajah himself has been faithful towards us, but his troops haverebelled?' The noble Lord asked for further information. In thepreceding April the Ranee, the mother or step-mother of the Rajah, amere boy of thirteen, sent two memorials to the Governor-General, one bypost, and the other through the local British officer, remonstratingagainst the annexation, and proving, as far as she could, that the Rajahhad not been guilty of any wrong against us. This memorial was notacknowledged until August, when the Secretary for the Government ofIndia desired the Ranee to forward the memorial through the Governor-General's agent in Central India. In April these papers were laid uponthe table of the House with one exception. The Ranee's memorial was notincluded in those papers. 

Now, when those papers were laid before the House, why was not thatmemorial, relating to the annexed territory, sent home and printed withthe other papers, so that hon. Members of this House might have read it?The letter of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) was dated the 22nd of June, 1858, and to this hour it has never been answered. The noble Lord'sdespatch disallowed the annexation; it condemned it, and asked forinformation. From the date of that despatch to this present 1st ofAugust, 1859, there has not come any official information from theGovernor-General as to what he has done, or any answer to the nobleLord's despatch, although sixteen months have elapsed. I say it is notfitting that the Secretary of State for India should be treated withutter disregard, if not with something like contempt, by any greatsatrap who happens to be sent out to govern any of the provinces of thiscountry. This very case shows, that in the midst of the terriblehurricane of the mutiny, the thirst for annexation was unslaked. At thevery moment, or just before, that the Queen issued her graciousProclamation here, the Government in India annexed the territory of thisRajah, a boy of thirteen years of age, manifesting at the same time anutter disregard of the Government at home and the just sentiments, ifthey could have been ascertained, of the whole body of the people ofthis country. And this must be so as long as you have a Government likethat of Calcutta. Procrastination is its very nature. 

The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) did an excellent thing. He didhonour to himself by appointing a man of a new sort as Governor ofMadras. I have not much acquaintance with Sir C. Trevelyan, but Ibelieve him to be a very intelligent man and very earnest for the goodof India. But he finds that at Madras he is like a man who is manacled, as all the Governors are. He is able to do almost nothing. But he has aspirit above being the passive instrument for doing nothing in the handsof the Governor-General, and he has been disposed to make severalchanges which have looked exceedingly heterodox to those who areconnected with the old Government of India, and which have shocked thenerves of the fifteen old gentlemen who meet in Leadenhall-street, andtheir brethren in India. I find that among the changes endeavoured to beeffected by Sir C. Trevelyan, the following are enumerated:--He hasendeavoured to conciliate the Natives by abolishing certain ceremonialdistinctions which were supposed to degrade them when visiting theGovernment House; he has shown that personal courtesy to them whichappears to be too much neglected in India; he has conspicuously rewardedthose who have rendered services to the State; he has made one of theNatives his aide-de-camp; he has endeavoured to improve the land tenure, to effect a settlement of the Enam, and to abolish the impress of cattleand carts. He has also abolished three-fourths, or perhaps more, of thepaper work of the public servants. He also began the great task ofjudicial reform, than which none is more urgently pressing. But what issaid of Sir C. Trevelyan for instituting these reforms? He has raised ahornets' nest about him. Those who surround the Governor-General atCalcutta say, 'We might as well have the Governors of the Presidenciesindependent, if they are to do as they like without consulting theGovernor-General as has been done in past times' The _Friend ofIndia_ is a journal not particularly scrupulous in supporting theCalcutta Government, but it has a horror of any Government of Indiaexcept that of the Governor-General and the few individuals who surroundhim. A writer in the _Friend of India_ says:--

 'Sir C. Trevelyan relies doubtless on Lord Stanley, and we do not dream of denying that the Secretary of State has provocation enough to excuse the unusual course he seems obliged to pursue. To send a reform to Calcutta is, at present, simply to lay it aside. It will probably not even be answered for two years, certainly not carried in five. Even when sanctioned, it will have to pass through a crucible through which no plan can escape entire. That weary waiting for Calcutta, of which all men, from Lord Stanley to the people of Singapore, now bitterly complain, may well tempt the Secretary to carry on his plans by the first mode offered to his hand. '

Here are only a dozen lines from a long article, and there are otherarticles in the same paper to the same purport. I think, then, that I amjustified in condemning any Secretary for India who contents himselfwith giving us the figures necessary to show the state of the finances, which any clerk in the office could have done, and abstains from goinginto the questions of the government of India and that policy upon whichalone you can base any solid hope of an improvement in the condition ofthat country. 

There is another point I would mention. The Governor-General of Indiagoes out knowing little or nothing of India. I know exactly what he doeswhen he is appointed. He shuts himself up to study the first volumes ofMr. Mill's _History of India_, and he reads through this laboriouswork without nearly so much effect in making him a good Governor-Generalas a man might ignorantly suppose. He goes to India, a country of twentynations, speaking twenty languages. He knows none of those nations, andhe has not a glimmer of the grammar and pronunciation or meaning ofthose languages. He is surrounded by half-a-dozen or a dozen gentlemenwho have been from fifteen to forty years in that country, and who havescrambled from the moderate but sure allowance with which they began inthe Service to the positions they now occupy. He knows nothing of thecountry or the people, and they are really unknown to the Government ofIndia. To this hour the present Governor-General has not travelledthrough any considerable portion of the territory of India. If he did, he would have to pay an increased insurance upon his life for travellingthrough a country in which there are very few roads and no bridges atall. Observe the position, then, in which the Governor-General isplaced. He is surrounded by an official circle, he breathes an officialair, and everything is dim or dark beyond it. You lay duties upon himwhich are utterly beyond the mental or bodily strength of any man whoever existed, and which he cannot therefore adequately perform. 

Turning from the Governor-General to the Civil Service, see how shortthe period is in which your servants in that country remain in anyparticular office. You are constantly criticising the bad customs of theUnited States, where every postmaster and many other officers lose theirsituations, and where others are appointed whenever a new President iselected. You never make blunders like the United States, and you willtherefore be surprised at a statement given in evidence by Mr. Underbill, the Secretary of the Baptist Missionary Society. He says thatin certain districts in Bengal there are three or four Englishmen to1, 000, 000 inhabitants, and that the magistrates are perpetually movingabout. I have here the names of several gentlemen cited. Mr. HenryLushington went to India in 1821, and remained till 1842. During thesetwenty-one years he filled twenty-one different offices; he went toEurope twice, being absent from India not less than four and a quarteryears. Upon an average, therefore, he held his twenty-one offices notmore than nine months each. Mr. J. P. Grant was Governor of Bengal. Thatwas so good a place that he remained stationary in it. But he went toIndia in 1828 and remained there until 1841. In those thirteen years heheld twenty-four different situations, being an average of less than sixmonths for each. Mr. Charles Grant--and I may say that Grant is a namewhich for three or four generations has been found everywhere in India, --he was in India from 1829 to 1842, and in those thirteen years hefilled seventeen offices, being an average of only eight months for eachoffice. Mr. Halliday, Governor of Bengal, went to India in 1825, andremained until 1843. In those eighteen years he held twenty-one offices, and he did not become stationary until he was accredited to thelucrative and great office of Governor of Bengal. 

I think these facts show that there is something in the arrangements ofthe Indian Government which makes it no Government at all, except forthe purpose of raising money and spending taxes. It is no Government forwatching over the people and conferring upon them those blessings whichwe try to silence our consciences by believing the British Government isestablished in India to promote. What can a Governor-General do withsuch a Council, and with servants who are ever changing in all thedepartments? I am not stating my own opinion, but what is proved by theblue-books. Mr. Halliday stated that the police of Bengal were morefeared than the thieves and dacoits. But how is this Government, sooccupied and so embarrassed, to be expected to put the police on asatisfactory footing? With regard to justice, I might appeal to anygentleman who has been in India whether, for the most part, the Judgesin the Company's Courts are not without training, and if they arewithout training, whether they will not probably be without law. Thedelay is something of which we can have no conception, even with ourexperience of the Court of Chancery in this country. Perjury and wrongare universal wherever the Courts of the Company's Service have beenestablished in India. Of their taxation we hear enough to-night. It isclumsy and unscientific. In their finance there is such confusion thatthe Government proposes to send out somebody, not to raise revenue, notto spend it, but somebody who will be able to tell you how it is raisedand spent, for that is what you want to know. They have no system ofbook-keeping whatever. The Secretary of State gives us a statement ofrevenue and expenditure up to the 30th of April, 1858, sixteen monthsback, and even for the year preceding he can only furnish what he callsan 'estimate. ' Would any other Legislative Assembly in the whole world, except this, tolerate such a state of things? I did try myself severalyears ago to get a statement of the accounts up to a later period; but Ifound it was of no use. They ought to be brought up to a later period;the thing is quite within the range of possibility; it is simply notdone because there is no proper system of book-keeping, and no oneresponsible for not doing it. 

You have no Government in India; you have no financial statement; youhave no system of book-keeping; no responsibility; and everything goesto confusion and ruin because there is such a Government, or noGovernment, and the English House of Commons has not taken the pains toreform these things. The Secretary of State to-night points to theincrease in the English trade. In that trade I am myself interested, andI am delighted to see that increase; but it should be borne in mind thatjust now it is not a natural increase, and therefore not certain to bepermanent. If you are spending so many millions in railroads and incarrying on war--that is, 22, 000, 000_l_. For your armaments inIndia instead of 12, 000, 000_l_. --is not that likely to make a greatdifference in your power to import more largely from this country? Donot we know that when the Government of the day was pouring Englishtreasure into the Crimea the trade with the Levant was most materiallyincreased? And, therefore, I say it will be a delusion for the righthon. Gentleman to expect that the extraordinary increase which has takenplace within the last three years will go on in future in the sameproportion. 

Now, the point which I wish to bring before the Committee and theGovernment is this, because it is on this that I rely mainly--I think Imay say almost entirely--for any improvement in the future of India. Itwould be impertinent to take up the time of the Committee by merelycavilling at what other people have said, and pointing out their errorsand blunders, if I had no hope of being able to suggest any improvementin the existing state of things. I believe a great improvement may bemade, and by a gradual progress that will dislocate nothing. I dare sayit may disappoint some individuals, but where it will disappoint one manin India it will please a thousand. What you want is to de-centralizeyour Government. I hold it to be manifestly impossible to govern150, 000, 000 of persons, composing twenty different nations, speaking asmany different languages, by a man who knows nothing of India, assistedby half-a-dozen councillors belonging to a privileged order, many ofwhom have had very little experience in India, except within narrowlimits, and whose experience never involved the consideration andsettlement of great questions of statesman ship. If you could have anindependent Government in India for every 30, 000, 000 of its people, I donot hesitate to say, though we are so many thousand miles away, thatthere are Englishmen who, settling down among those 20, 000, 000 ofpeople, would be able to conduct the Government of that particularprovince on conditions wholly different and immeasurably better thananything in the way of administration which we have ever seen in India. 

If I were Secretary of State for India, --but as I am not, I willrecommend the right hon. Gentleman to do that which I would do myself, or I would not hold his office for one month; because, to hold officeand come before the House Session after Session with a gloomy statement, and with no kind of case to show that you are doing anything for India, or that you are justified in holding possession of it at all, is nothingbut to receive a salary and to hold a dignity without any adequatenotion of the high responsibility attaching to them. I am not blamingthe right hon. Gentleman in particular; he is only doing what all hispredecessors before him have done. There has been no real improvementsince I have sat in Parliament in the government of India, and I believethe Bill of last year is not one whit better for purposes ofadministration than any that has gone before. But I would suggest to theright hon. Gentleman, whether it would not be a good thing to bring in aBill to extend and define the powers of the Governors of the variousPresidencies in India? I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn outthe fifteen gentlemen who assist him in Leadenhall-street to vegetate ontheir pensions, but I ask him to go to India and to take the Presidencyof Madras for an instance. Let arrangements be made by which thatPresidency shall be in a position to correspond directly with him inthis country, and let every one connected with that Government of Madrasfeel that, with regard to the interests and the people of thatPresidency, they will be responsible for their protection. At presentthere is no sort of tie between the governors and the governed. Why isit that we should not do for Madras what has been done for the Island ofCeylon? I am not about to set up the Council of Ceylon as a modelinstitution--it is far from that; but I will tell you what it is, andyou will see that it would not be a difficult thing to make the change Ipropose. The other day I asked a gentleman holding an office in theGovernment, and who had lived some years in Ceylon, what was the stateof the Council? He said it was composed of sixteen members, of whom sixwere non-official and independent, and the Governor had always amajority. He added that at the present moment in that Council there wasone gentleman, a pure Cingalese by birth and blood, another a Brahmin, another a half-caste, whose father was a Dutchman and whose mother was aNative, and three others who were either English merchants or planters. The Council has not much _prestige_, and therefore it is not easyto induce merchants in the interior to be members and to undertake itsmoderate duties; but the result is that this Cingalese, this Brahmin, this half-caste, and these three Englishmen, although they cannot out-vote Sir H. Ward, the Governor, are able to discuss questions of publicinterest in the eye and the ear of the public, and to tell what theindependent population want, and so to form a representation of publicopinion in the Council, which I will undertake to say, although soinefficient, is yet of high importance in the satisfactory government ofthat island. Why is it that we can have nothing like this in theCouncils of Madras or Bombay? It would be an easy thing to do, and Ibelieve that an Act of Parliament which would do it would lay thefoundation of the greatest reform that has yet taken place in India. Atpresent all the Governors are in fetters; and I see that blame has beenimputed to Sir Charles Trevelyan for endeavouring to break through thosefetters. No doubt an attempt will be made to have him recalled, but Ihope that the right hon. Gentleman, while he moderates the ardour of theGovernor so far as to prevent a rebellion among the civilians, willsupport him honestly and faithfully in all those changes which the righthon. Gentleman knows as well as I do are essential to the improvement ofthe government of that country. 

There is yet another question, and that is, what is to be done withregard to the people of India on the subject of education, andespecially with reference to the matter of religious instruction? I begthe right hon. Gentleman to be cautious how he takes the advice of anygentleman in this country, who may ask him to make changes in theestablished order of things there by appearing in the slightest degreeto attempt to overthrow the caste and religion of the Natives of India. I have here an extract from a letter written by a gentleman who waspresent at one of the ceremonies of reading the Queen's Proclamation inNovember last. He says:--

 'Not less than 7, 000 Natives of all ranks and conditions and religions flocked to the esplanade at Tellicherry, where there was no show but the parading of a company of Sepoys, who fired a _feu de joie_ very badly, to hear the Queen's Proclamation read. All who heard, all who heard not, manifested the deepest interest in it. The pledged inviolability of their religion and their lands spread like wildfire through the crowd, and was soon in every man's mouth. Their satisfaction was unbounded.... I mentioned that I went to Tellicherry to hear the Queen's Proclamation read. We have since had it read here (Anjarakandy). You will see an account of what took place on the occasion in the accompanying copy of an official report I addressed to the assistant-magistrate. What I have described understates the feeling manifested by the people. They were all eyes and ears, listening breathlessly to what was being read. You will observe that convening them for any public purpose whatever, except here, was a thing unknown, and would have been a thing scouted under the Company's Government. Here I always assemble them, communicate everything they ought to know and hear, and talk it over with them. But a Queen's Proclamation is not an every-day affair, so they came in crowds, and I will venture to say that there is not another place in the Queen's India where it was so clearly explained to them or so thoroughly understood. But the impartial toleration of their religion and caste was the be-all and end-all of their comments, praise, and individual satisfaction. One Mafitta said, "They had had scores of proclamations upon every conceivable subject, but never one so wise and sensible as this. "

The East India Company was a wonderful Company for writing despatches. There was nothing so Christian as their doctrine, nothing so unchristianas their conduct. That Proclamation has in it the basis of all youshould aim at in future in India--a regard to the sacredness of theirproperty, and the sacredness of their religion, and an extension to themof as regular and full justice as is shown to your own countrymen. Depend upon it these Natives of India can comprehend this as well as wecomprehend it; and, if you treat them as we are treated, and as theyought to be treated, you will not require 400, 000 men to help you togovern a people who are notoriously among the most industrious and mostpeaceable to be found on the face of the earth. There has lately been anact done by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) to which I must allude. Why hedid it I do not know. I am sure the noble Lord did not mean to do an actof injustice--though very great injustice has been done. A question wasput the other night about a Native of India who had come to this countryto qualify himself for entering into competition for employment in theCivil Service of his country. I have seen that young gentleman, andconversed with him; and when I state his case, it will be seen whetherhe has been treated well or wisely, though the regulation under which hehas suffered may have been made without any reference to himindividually. He arrived in this country in June, 1856, and remainedpreparing himself for competition for two years and a-half tillDecember, 1858, when a new regulation came out, which made twenty-twoinstead of twenty-three years of age the period for entering the CivilService. He might have been ready for competition in July, 1860, but hecould not be ready in July, 1859. Under these circumstances he would bepast the age of twenty-two before he could be able to present himselffor examination. The consequence is, that he has been obliged to turnhimself to another channel for employment. His father is an assistant-builder in the Government dockyard of Bombay, and has been in England. There was great interest excited among the Natives when the young manleft India to come to England, and there is great disappointment amonghis friends at the result. He has been laughed at for trusting theGovernment, and it is said that while Government go on changing theirregulations in this way no faith can be put in them. Now this is thefirst case of this kind that has happened. This young gentleman (or hisfather) has expended 1, 500_l_. In coming here and in endeavouringto get the best education, solely with a view to be suited for the CivilService. If he had entered into that Civil Service a great thing wouldhave been accomplished. The result would have been that the House andthe Secretary for India would have seen that it was very unjust, whilethe son of any one here could pursue his studies at home and enter intocompetition for the Civil Service, that the sons of the Natives of Indiawho wish to enter into the service of their own country must comethousands of miles at great expense, and live apart from their familiesfor years, before they are able to accomplish their object, and theresult must have been that you would have established in some city inIndia the same mode of examination that you have established here. Youmust have been led to do that which would have enabled young men inIndia to offer themselves for the Civil Service of their country on asfavourable terms as could be done in England. I am sure the noble Lordnever had the slightest idea of the regulation having reference to thisyoung man, or of injuring him; yet it has been done, and what hasoccurred leads to the conclusion that either somebody very deep in thesematters has been at the bottom of this change, or that some combinationof unfortunate circumstances has been at work, by which that which wehave all so much at heart has been retarded. If the noble Lord hadstruck out this regulation, or made a new one, by which this young mancould have had a chance of going home as a servant of the Civil Service, the fact would have been worth many regiments of soldiers in India. 

In speaking on this subject I have nothing new to offer to the attentionof the House. I have propounded the very same theories and remediesyears ago. They are not my remedies and theories. I am not the inventorof local government for India; but the more I have considered thesubject--the more I have discussed it with the Members of this House andwith gentlemen connected with India--the more I am convinced that youwill not make a single step towards the improvement of India unless youchange your whole system of government--unless you give to eachPresidency a government with more independent powers than are nowpossessed by it. What would be thought if the whole of Europe was underone governor, who knew only the language of the Feejee Islands, and thathis subordinates were like himself, only more intelligent than theinhabitants of the Feejee Islands are supposed to be? You set a governorover 150, 000, 000 of human beings, in a climate where the European cannotdo the work he has to do so well as here, where neither the moral norphysical strength of the individual is equal to what it is at home, --andyou do not even always furnish the most powerful men for the office;--you seem to think that the atmosphere will be always calm and the seaalways smooth. And so the government of India goes on; there arepromises without number of beneficial changes, but we never heard thatIndia is much better or worse than before. Now, that is not the way todo justice to a great empire like India. If there had been a bettergovernment in India, the late disturbances among your own troops wouldnot have happened; and I own I tremble when I reflect that every postmay bring us, in the present temper of the European troops in India, some dire intelligence of acts which they may have committed, becausethey may think that this is a convenient opportunity for pressing somegreat claim of their own. 

I beg the Committee to consider this matter, notwithstanding that theright hon. Gentleman is not disposed to take a gloomy view of the stateof India. Look at your responsibilities. India is ruled by Englishmen, but remember that in that unfortunate country you have destroyed everyform of government but your own; that you have cast the thrones of theNatives to the ground. Princely families, once the rulers of India, arenow either houseless wanderers in the land they once called their own, or are pensioners on the bounty of those strangers by whom theirfortunes have been overthrown. They who were noble and gentle for agesare now merged in the common mass of the people. All over those vastregions there are countless millions, helpless and defenceless, deprivedof their natural leaders and their ancient chiefs, looking with onlysome small ray of hope to that omnipresent and irresistible Power bywhich they have been subjected. I appeal to you on behalf of thatpeople. I have besought your mercy and your justice for many a yearpast; and if I speak to you earnestly now, it is because the object forwhich I plead is dear to my heart. Is it not possible to touch a chordin the hearts of Englishmen, to raise them to a sense of the miseriesinflicted on that unhappy country by the crimes and the blunders of ourrulers here? If you have steeled your hearts against the Natives, ifnothing can stir you to sympathy with their miseries, at least have pityupon your own countrymen. Rely upon it the state of things which nowexists in India must, before long, become most serious. I hope that youwill not show to the world that, although your fathers conquered thecountry, you have not the ability to govern it. 

You had better disencumber yourselves of the fatal gift of empire thanthat the present generation should be punished for the sins of the past. I speak in condemnatory language, because I believe it to be deserved. Ihope that no future historian will have to say that the arms of Englandin India were irresistible, and that an ancient empire fell before theirvictorious progress, --yet that finally India was avenged, because thepower of her conqueror was broken by the intolerable burdens and evilswhich she cast upon her victim, and that this wrong was accomplished bya waste of human life and a waste of wealth which England, with all herpower, was unable to bear. 

 * * * * *

INDIA. 

V. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 19, 1861. 

_From Hansard_. 

[Mr. Dunlop brought forward a motion to inquire into the discrepanciesbetween certain sets of documents, relating to the Afghan war of 1837-8. It appeared that some passages in the despatches of Sir Alexander Burneshad been mutilated, in order to make it appear that he advised a policywhich he really condemned. Mr. Dunlop moved for a Committee to inquireinto this alleged mutilation of despatches presented to the House. Themotion was negatived. ]

When the noble Lord rose, I observed, from his countenance and from hislanguage, that he seemed to be suffering from the passion of anger. [Viscount Palmerston: 'Not much. '] 'Not much, ' the noble Lord says. Iadmit that in the course of his speech he calmed down; but he was so farled from what I think was a fair course as to charge the hon. Andlearned Gentleman who introduced this Motion with making a violent andvituperative speech, and he spoke of 'that vocabulary of abuse of whichthe hon. Gentleman appeared to be master. ' Now, I will undertake to saythat I am only speaking the opinion of every Gentleman in the House whoheard the speech which introduced this question, when I say that therehas rarely been delivered here on any subject a speech more strictlylogical, more judicially calm, and more admirable than that which wehave heard to-night from the hon. And learned Member for Greenock. Butthe fact is the noble Lord felt himself hit. 

The noble Lord is on his trial in this case; and on that account Iexpect that at the conclusion of the debate he will not feel himself atliberty to object to the appointment of this Committee. After a fewsentences the noble Lord touched upon the case of Sir Alexander Burnes, and he made a very faint denial of the misrepresentations which arecharged against the Government of that day in the case of thatgentleman. But he went on to say that, after all, these things were ofno importance; that what was in, or what was left out, was unimportant. But I should like to ask the noble Lord what was the object of theminute and ingenious, and I will say unmatched care which was taken inmutilating the despatches of a gentleman whose opinions were of noimportance and whose writings could not make the slightest differenceeither to the question or to the opinions of any person concerned? Thenoble Lord, too, has stooped to conduct which, if I were not in thisHouse, I might describe in language which I could not possibly use herewithout being told that I was transgressing the line usually observed indiscussions in this assembly. The noble Lord has stooped so low as toheap insult, throughout the whole of his speech, upon the memory of aman who died in the execution of what he believed to be his public duty--a duty which was thrust upon him by the mad and obstinate policy of thenoble Lord; and whilst his blood cries to Heaven against that policy, the noble Lord, during a three-quarters of an hour's speech in thisHouse, has scarcely ceased to heap insult on his memory. 

What the noble Lord told us throughout his speech was that Sir AlexanderBurnes was a man of the greatest simplicity of character. I could not, however complimentary I were disposed to be, retort that upon the nobleLord. He says that Sir Alexander Burnes--of whom he spoke throughout inthe most contemptuous manner--an eminent political agent at the Court ofDost Mahommed, was beguiled by the treachery of that Asiatic ruler; thathe took everything for truth which he heard, and that, in point of fact, he was utterly unfit for the position which he held at Cabul. Butalthough the noble Lord had these despatches before him, and knew allthe feelings of Sir Alexander Burnes, he still continued Sir AlexanderBurnes there. He was there two years after these despatches werewritten, in that most perilous year when not only himself but the wholearmy--subjects of the Queen--fell victims to the policy of the nobleLord. Now, I must tell the noble Lord what my hon. And learned Friend, the Member for Greenock, did not discuss, and what the Committee is notto do--because every Member who heard the speech of the hon. And learnedMember for Greenock, and those who listened to the speech of the nobleLord, must have seen that from the first the noble Lord evaded the wholequestion. He endeavoured to lead the House to believe that my hon. Andlearned Friend was going into some antiquarian researches about thepolicy of the English or the Indian Government twenty years ago, andthat it was proposed to have a Committee to dig up all the particularsof our supposed peril from the designs of Russia at that time. But thefact is that my hon. And learned Friend had no such intention; and therewas no man in the House more cognizant of that fact than the noble Lordwhen he ingeniously endeavoured to convey a contrary impression to theHouse. 

It is not proposed to go into the policy of the war. And there isanother question that it is not proposed to go into. It is not proposedto inquire whether Sir Alexander Burnes or Lord Auckland was Governor-General. We know that Lord Auckland was Governor-General; but we knowthat a Governor-General who may be many hundreds, or in India, perhaps, 2, 000 miles away from the place where particular events are transpiring, must rely to a considerable extent on the information he receives fromthe political agent who is on the spot. If this be so, clearly what SirAlexander Burnes thought, and what he said, and what he wrote, is ofsome importance. At least, if the House of Commons has any evidenceplaced before it, the noble Lord will agree that in a great questionlike this--I am not speaking of the present time, but of the time whenthese events happened--it is of first-rate importance that the Houseshould have evidence not on one side only, but on both sides. There isanother thing we do not propose to inquire into, and that is the policyof Russia at that time. I cannot very well understand the course whichthe noble Lord has taken on this point; for I find that about twelvemonths after the writing of these very despatches, the mutilation ofwhich is now complained of, the noble Lord made a reply to the RussianMinister who had declared that there was nothing whatever hostile toEngland in the instructions which were furnished to Vicovich. He says--

 'There has not existed the smallest design hostile to the English Government, nor the smallest idea of endangering the tranquillity of the British possessions in India. '

The noble Lord, in reply to that, on the 20th December, 1838, just ayear after the writing of these despatches by Sir Alexander Burnes, said:--

 'Her Majesty's Government accept as entirely satisfactory the declaration of the Russian Government that it does not harbour any designs hostile to the interests of Great Britain in India. '

I may leave that question there, because I can assure the noble Lordthat my hon. And learned Friend has not the smallest intention--I judgeso, at least, from his speech--of bringing anybody before the Committeeto attack or defend the policy of the Government in the war which thenunhappily took place. Nor do I suppose it is intended to arraign anybodyfor a policy that sacrificed at least 20, 000 human lives--20, 000 livesof the subjects of the Queen of England. Nor is it intended to inquirehow far the loss of more than 15, 000, 000_l_. Sterling by thatpolicy has affected for all future time the finances and thecircumstances of the Government of India. These are crimes--the whole ofthat policy is a crime--of a nature never to be answered for. No man canaccurately measure it. No Committee of this House could adequatelypunish those who were the perpetrators of it. No, Sir, my hon. Andlearned Friend has not the slightest idea of going back twenty years forthe purpose of bringing the noble Lord, or any one else who may beguilty of that great crime, to the bar of public opinion by thisCommittee. 

But it is worth while that the House should know whether the Governmentin whom it placed confidence at that time, and in whom the Queen placedconfidence--whether that Government was worthy of their confidence, andwhether any members of the Government of that day are members of theGovernment at this day. It is worth while knowing whether there was andis a man in high position in the Government here or in India who had solow a sense of honour and of right that he could offer to this Housemutilated, false, forged despatches and opinions of a public servant, who lost his life in the public service. Conceive any man at this momentin India engaged, as many have been during the last three years, inperilous services--conceive that any man should know that to-morrow, ornext week, or any time this year, he may lay his bones in that distantland, and that six months afterwards there may be laid on the table ofthis House by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or by theSecretary of State for India, letters or despatches of his from whichpassages have been cut out, and into which passages have been inserted, in which words have been so twisted as wholly to divert and distort hismeaning, and to give to him a meaning, it may be, utterly the contraryto that which his original despatch intended to convey. I cannotconceive any anticipation more painful or more bitter, more likely toeat into the heart of any man engaged in the service of his country in adistant land. 

It is admitted, and the noble Lord has not flatly denied it--he cannotdeny it--he knows it as well as the hon. And learned Member forGreenock--he knows it as well as the very man whose hand did the evil--he knows there have been garbling, mutilation, practically andessentially falsehood and forgery, in these despatches which have beenlaid before the House. Why was it refused to give the originaldespatches when they were asked for in 1842 by the hon. Member forInverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie), and when they were asked for at alater period by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield)? Why was itthat the originals were so consistently withheld? That they have beengiven now I suppose is because those who were guilty of the outrage onthe faith of Parliament thought, as twenty years had elapsed, thatnobody would give himself the trouble to go into the question, and thatno man would be so earnest as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock inbringing the question before the notice of Parliament. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) informs me thatit was the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) whoconsented to the production of the original despatches when he was inoffice. I was not aware of that fact; but I am free here to tender himmy thanks for the course which he took. I am sure he is the last manwhom any one would suspect of being mixed up in any transaction of thiskind, except with a view to give the House and the country fullinformation with regard to it. I say, then, avoiding all the long speechof the noble Lord, that the object of the Committee is to find out whodid this evil thing--who placed upon the table of the House informationwhich was knowingly false, and despatches that were actually forged--because if you add to or detract from, or so change a coin, or note, ordeed, as to make any of them bear a meaning contrary to its original andintended meaning, of course you are guilty of such an act as I havedescribed, and that is precisely what somebody has done in thedespatches which we are now discussing. I say an odious offence has beencommitted against the House, and against the truth; and what we want toknow is, who did it?

Now, will the noble Lord be candid enough--he does not think there isanything wrong--he says there is not much--it is very trifling--that SirAlexander Burnes's opinions are not worth much--supposing it to be so--for the sake of argument, let me grant it; but if it is a matter of noimportance, will the noble Lord be so candid as to tell us who did it?When Lord Broughton was examined before the Official Salaries Committeesome years ago, he, as the noble Lord is aware, said that he took uponhimself as President of the Board of Control at the time the entireresponsibility of the Affghan war. The noble Lord now at the head of theGovernment was then a member of the India Board, and so I believe wasthe noble Lord the Member for the City of London. But the noble Lord atthe head of the Government was also Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Now, I do not think I am wrong in supposing that this question lies betweenthe noble Lord the Prime Minister and Lord Broughton, once a Member ofthis House. This thing was not done by some subordinate who cannot befound out. 

My hon. And learned Friend says it has been done with marvellous care, and even with so much ability that it must have been done by a man ofgenius. Of course there are men of genius in very objectionable walks oflife; but we know that the noble Lord at the head of the Government is aman of genius; if he had not been, he would not have sat on that benchfor the last fifty years. And we know that Lord Broughton is a man ofmany and varied accomplishments. And once more I ask the noble Lord totell us who did it? He knows who did it. Was it his own right-hand, orwas it Lord Broughton's right-hand, or was it some clever secretary inthe Foreign Office or in the India Office who did this work? I say theHouse has a right to know. We want to know that. We want to drag thedelinquent before the public. This we want to know, because we wish todeter other Ministers from committing the like offence; and we want toknow it for that which most of all is necessary--to vindicate thecharacter and honour of Parliament. Nothing can sink Parliament to alower state of degradation and baseness than that it should permitMinisters of the Crown to lay upon the table, upon questions involvingthe sacrifice of 20, 000, 000_l_. Of money and 20, 000 lives, documents which are not true--which slander our public servants, andwhich slander them most basely when they are dead and are not here toanswer. I do not believe that the Gentlemen of England in this House--upon that side of the House or upon this--will ever consent to sit downwith a case proved so clearly as this is without directing theomnipotent power and eye of Parliament into the matter. I say, seeingthe charge, seeing that the noble Lord was at the head of the ForeignOffice at the time, that the policy of the Affghan war was alwaysconsidered to be his, that the responsibility of this act must restbetween him and Lord Broughton, --I should not like to hold the opinion, and I do not hold the opinion, that the noble Lord will object to aCommittee to inquire into a matter in which he is himself so directlyconcerned. 

 * * * * *

CANADA. 

I. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1865. 

_From Hansard_. [Delivered during the debate on Colonel Jervois' Report on the Defencesof Canada. ]

I am not sure that I should have addressed the House on this occasionbut for the observations which have been made by the noble Lord. I thinkhe has been perhaps a little more frank in his declarations on thisoccasion, and in pointing out the real thing which I suspect is passingin his mind, and in the minds of very many Members of the House who havemade no statement of their own opinions during this debate. I hope thedebate will be useful, although I am obliged to say, while I admit theimportance of the question that has been brought before us, that I thinkit is one of some delicacy. That it is important is clear, because itrefers to the possibility of war between this country and the UnitedStates, and its delicacy arises from this--that it is very difficult todiscuss this question without saying things which tend rather in thedirection of war than in the direction of peace. 

The difficulty which is now before us is this--that there is anextensive colony or dependency of this country lying adjacent to theUnited States, and if there be a war party in the United States--a partyhostile to this country--that circumstance affords to it a very strongtemptation to enter without much hesitation into a war with England, because it may feel that through Canada it can inflict a greathumiliation upon this country. And at the same time it is perfectly wellknown to all intelligent men, especially to the statesmen and public menof the United States--it is as well known to them as it is to us--thatthere is no power whatever in this United Kingdom to defend successfullythe territory of Canada against the power of the United States. Now weought to know that, in order to put ourselves right upon this question, and that we may not talk folly and be called upon hereafter to actfolly. The noble Lord at the head of the Government--or the Government, at any rate is responsible for having compelled this discussion; becauseif a Vote is to be asked for during this Session--and it is only thebeginning of other Votes--it is clearly the duty of the House to bringthe subject under discussion. I think the Vote now is particularlyinopportune for many reasons, but especially as we have heard from theGovernor-General of Canada that they are about, in the North-AmericanProvinces, to call into existence a new nationality; and I, for one, shall certainly object to the taxes of this country being heedlesslyexpended in behalf of any nationality but our own. 

Now, what I should like to ask the House is this--first of all, willCanada attack the States? Clearly not. Next, will the States attackCanada--I am keeping out of view England altogether? Clearly not. Thereis not a man in the United States, probably, whose voice or whoseopinion would have the smallest influence in that country, who wouldrecommend or desire that an attack should be made by the United Statesupon Canada with a view to its forcible annexation to the Union. Therehave been lately, as we know, dangers on the frontier. The Canadianpeople have been no wiser than some Members of this House--or than agreat many men amongst the richer classes in this country. And when therefugees from the South--I am not speaking now of respectable andhonourable men from the South, many of whom have left that countryduring these troubles, and for whom I feel the greatest commiseration, but I mean the ruffians from the South--who in large numbers haveentered Canada and have employed themselves there in a course of policylikely to embroil us with the United States--I say that the people ofCanada have treated these men with far too much consideration. Theyexpressed very openly opinions hostile to the United States, whose powerlay close to them. 

I will not go into a detail of that which we are all sufficiently wellacquainted with--the seizing of American ships on the Lakes, the raidinto the State of Vermont, the robbing of a bank, the killing of a manin his own shop, the stealing of horses in open day, and anothertransaction of which we have very strong proof, that men of this classactually conspired to set fire to the largest cities of the Union. Allthese things have taken place and the Canadian Government made scarcelyany sign. I believe that an application was made to the noble Lord atthe head of the Foreign Office nearly a year ago, that he shouldstimulate the Canadian Government to some steps to avoid the dangersthat have since arisen; but with that sort of negligence which has beenso much seen here, nothing was done until the American Government andpeople, aroused by the nature of these transactions, showed that theywere no longer about to put up with them. Then the Canadian Governmentand people took a little notice. Now, Lord Monck, the Governor-Generalof Canada--about whose appointment I have heard some people complain, saying that he was a mere follower of the noble Lord at the head of theGovernment, who lost his election and was therefore sent out to govern aprovince--Lord Monck, I am bound to say, from all I have heard fromCanada, has conducted himself in a manner very serviceable to thecolony, and with the greatest possible propriety as representing theSovereign there. Lord Monck has been all along favourable to the UnitedStates, and I believe his Cabinet has also. I know that at least themost important newspaper there has always been favourable to the North. Still nothing was done; but the moment these troubles arose theneverything was done. Volunteers have been sent to the frontier; thetrial of the raiders has been proceeded with, and possibly they will besurrendered; and the Canadian Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed avote in their House of Parliament to restore to the persons at St. Albans, who were robbed by the raiders, the 50, 000 dollars that weretaken from them. 

And what is the state of things now? There is the greatest possible calmon the frontier. The United States have not a word to say againstCanada. The Canadian people have found that they were in the wrong andhave now returned to their right mind. There is not a man in Canada atthis moment, I believe, who has any idea that the United StatesGovernment has the smallest notion of attacking them, now or at anyfuture time, on account of anything that has transpired between theUnited States and Canada during these trials. But if there comes a warin which Canada shall suffer and be made a victim, it will be a war gotup between the Government of Washington and the Government of London. And it becomes us to inquire whether that is at all probable. Is thereanybody in this House in favour of such a war? I notice with generaldelight--and I was not a false prophet when I said some time ago thatsome day it would be so--I say I notice with delight the changed tonemanifested here with regard to these American questions. Even the nobleLord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) can speak withoutanger, and without any of that ill feeling which I am sorry to say onpast occasions he has manifested in discussing these questions. 

Now, I believe there are no men out of Bedlam--or at least who ought tobe out of it--and I suspect there are very few men in Bedlam, who are infavour of our going to war with the United States. And in taking thisview I am not arguing that it is because we see the vast naval andmilitary power and apparently inexhaustible resources of that country. Iwill not assume that you or my countrymen have come to the conclusionthat it is better for us not to make war with America, because you andthey find her with a strength that you did not even suspect: I will saythat it is upon higher grounds that we are all against a war with theUnited States. Our history for the last 200 years, and further back, isa record of calamitous, and for the most part, unnecessary wars. We havehad enough of whatever a nation can gain by military successes andmilitary glory. I will not turn to the disasters that might follow toour commerce nor to the wide-spread ruin that might be occasioned. Iwill say that we are a wiser and a better people than we were in theserespects, and that we should regard a war with the United States as evena greater crime, if needlessly entered into, than war with almost anyother country in the world. 

Looking at our Government, we have preserved, with a good many blunders--one or two of which I shall comment upon by-and-by--neutrality duringthis great struggle. We have had it stated in this House, and we havehad a Motion in this House, that the blockade was ineffective and oughtto be broken. Men of various classes, some of them agents of theRichmond conspiracy--persons, it is said, of influence from France--allthese are reported to have brought their influence to bear on the nobleLord at the head of the Government and his colleagues, with a view ofinducing them to take part in this quarrel, and all this has failed tobreak our neutrality. Therefore, I should say, we may clearly come tothe conclusion that England is not in favour of war; and if there shouldbe any act of war, or any aggression whatever, out of which Canada willsuffer, I believe honestly that it will not come from this country. Thatis a matter which gives me great satisfaction, and I believe the Housewill agree with me that I am not misstating the case. 

Now let us ask, Is the United States for war? I know the noble Lord theMember for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) has a lurking idea that there issome danger from that quarter; I am not at all certain that it does notprevail in other minds, and in many minds not so acute as that withwhich the noble Lord is gifted. If we had at the Bar of the House, LordRussell as representing the English Government, and Mr. Adams as therepresentative of the Government of President Lincoln, and if we were toask their opinion, they would tell us that which the Secretary for theColonies has this night told us--that the relations between the twocountries, so far as it is possible to discover them, are perfectlyamicable; and I know from the communications between the Minister of theUnited States and our Minister for Foreign Affairs that they have beengrowing more and more amicable for many months past. Now, I take theliberty of expressing this opinion--that there has never been anadministration in the United States since the time of the RevolutionaryWar, up to this hour, more entirely favourable to peace with all foreigncountries, and more especially favourable to peace with England, thanthe Government of which President Lincoln is the head. I will undertaketo say that the most exact investigator of what has taken place will notbe able to point to a single word he--President Lincoln--has said, or asingle line he has written, or a single act he has done, since his firstaccession to power, that betrays anger against this country, or any ofthat vindictive feeling which some persons here may imagine to inflamethe breasts of the President and his Cabinet. 

Then if Canada is not for war, if England is not for war, and if theUnited States are not for war, whence is the war to come? That is what Ishould like to ask. I wish the noble Lord the Member for Stamford hadbeen a little more frank. I should like to ask whence comes the anxiety, which undoubtedly to some extent prevails? It may be assumed even thatthe Government is not wholly free from it; for they have shown it in analmost ludicrous manner by proposing a vote of 50, 000_l_. It issaid the newspapers have got into a sort of panic. They can do that anynight between the hours of six and twelve o'clock, when they write theirarticles. They are either very courageous or very panic-stricken. 

It is said that 'the City' joins in this feeling. We know what 'theCity' means--the right hon. Gentleman alluded to it to-night. It meansthat the people who deal in shares--though that does not describe thewhole of them--'the moneyed interest' of the City, are alarmed. Well, Inever knew the City to be right. Men who are deep in great monetarytransactions, and who are steeped to the lips sometimes in perilousspeculations, are not able to take broad and dispassionate views ofpolitical questions of this nature. 

As to the newspapers, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member forBradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when, referring to one of them inparticular, he intimated that he thought its course was indicated by awish to cover its own confusion. Surely, after four years' uninterruptedpublication of lies with regard to America, I should think it has donepretty much to destroy its influence on foreign questions for ever. 

But there is a much higher authority--that is the authority of thePeers. I do not know why we should be so much restricted with regard tothe House of Lords in this House. I think I have observed that in theirplace they are not so squeamish as to what they say about us. Itappeared to me that in this debate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) felt it necessary to get up and endeavour to defend his chief. Now, if I were to give advice to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, it wouldbe this--for while stating that during the last four years many nobleLords in the other House have said foolish things, I think I should beuncandid if I did not say that you also have said foolish things--learnfrom the example set you by the right hon. Gentleman. He, with athoughtfulness and statesmanship which you do not all acknowledge, hedid not say a word from that bench likely to create difficulty with theUnited States. I think his chief and his followers might learn somethingfrom his example. 

But I have discovered one reason why in that other place mistakes ofthis nature are so often made. Not long ago there was a great panicraised, very much by what was said in another place about France. Now anattempt is made there to create a panic upon this question. In the hallof the Reform Club there is affixed to the wall a paper which gives atelegraphic account of what is being done in this House every night, andwhat is also being done in the other House, and I find almost everynight from the beginning of the Session that the only words that haveappeared on the side which is devoted to a record of the proceedings ofthe House of Lords are these, 'Lords adjourned. ' The noble Lord at thehead of the Government is responsible for much of this. He has broughtthis House into nearly the same condition. We do very little, and theydo absolutely nothing. All of us in our younger days, I am quite sure, were taught by those who had the care of us a verse which was intendedto inculcate the virtue of industry. One couplet was to this effect--

 'Satan still some mischief finds For idle hands to do. '

And I do not believe that men, however high in station, are exempt fromthat unfortunate effect which arises to all of us from a course ofcontinued idleness. But I should like to ask this House in a mostserious mood, what is the reason that any man in this country has nowmore anxiety with regard to the preservation of peace with the UnitedStates than he had a few years ago? Is there not a consciousness in ourheart of hearts that we have not during the last five years behavedgenerously to our neighbours? Do not we feel in some sort a pricking ofconscience, and are we not sensible that conscience tends to make uscowards at this particular juncture?

I shall not review the past transactions with anger, but with feelingsof sorrow; for I maintain, and I think history will bear out what I say, that there is no generous and high-minded Englishman who can look backupon the transactions of the last four years without a feeling of sorrowat the course we have pursued on some important occasions. As I amwishful to speak with a view to a better state of feeling, both in thiscountry and in the United States, I shall take the liberty, if the Housewill permit me for a few minutes, to refer to two or three of thesetransactions, where, I think, though perhaps we were not in the maingreatly wrong, yet in some circumstances we were so far unfortunate asto have created an irritation which at this moment we wish did notexist. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald) referred tothe course taken by the Government with regard to the acknowledgment ofthe belligerent rights of the South. Now I have never been one tocondemn the Government for acknowledging those belligerent rights, except upon this ground--I think it might be logically contended that itmight possibly have become necessary to take that step--but I do thinkthe time and manner in which it was done were most unfortunate, andcould not but produce very evil effects. 

Going back nearly four years, we recollect what occurred when the newsarrived of the first shot having been fired at Fort Sumter. That, Ithink, was about the 12th of April. Immediately after that time it wasannounced that a new Minister was coming to this country. Mr. Dallas hadintimated to the Government that as he did not represent the newPresident he would rather not undertake anything of importance; but thathis successor was on his way and would arrive on such a day. When a manleaves New York on a given day you can calculate to about twelve hourswhen he will be in London. Mr. Adams, I think, arrived in London aboutthe 13th of May, and when he opened his newspaper next morning he foundthe Proclamation of neutrality, acknowledging the belligerent rights ofthe South. I say that the proper course to have taken would have been tohave waited till Mr. Adams arrived here, and to have discussed thematter with him in a friendly manner, explaining the ground upon whichthe English Government had felt themselves bound to issue thatProclamation, and representing that it was not done in any manner as anunfriendly act towards the United States Government. But no precautionwhatever was taken; it was done with unfriendly haste; and it had thiseffect, that it gave comfort and courage to the conspiracy at Montgomeryand at Richmond, and caused great grief and irritation amongst thatportion of the people of America who were most strongly desirous ofmaintaining friendly relations between their country and England. 

To illustrate this point allow me to suppose a great revolt had takenplace in Ireland, and that we had sent over within a fortnight of theoccurrence of such an unfortunate event a new Minister to Washington, and that on the morning after arriving there he had found, that withoutconsulting him, the Government had taken a hasty step by which thebelligerent rights of the insurgents had been acknowledged, and by whichcomfort and support had been given them. I ask any man whether, undersuch circumstances, the feeling throughout the whole of Great Britain, and in the mind of every man anxious to preserve the unity of GreatBritain and Ireland, would not necessarily be one of irritation andexasperation against the United States?

I will not argue this matter further--to do so would be simply todepreciate the intellect of the hon. Gentlemen listening to me. Seven oreight months afterwards there happened another transaction of a verydifferent but unfortunate nature--that is the transaction arising out ofthe seizure of two Southern envoys on board an English ship--the_Trent_. I recollect making a speech down at Rochdale about thetime of that occurrence. It was a speech entirely in favour of theUnited States Government and people--but I did not then undertake, as Ido not undertake now, in the slightest degree to defend the seizure ofthose two envoys. I said that although precedents for such an actionmight possibly be found to have occurred in what I will call some of theevil days in our history, at any rate it was opposed to the maxims andprinciples of the United States Government, and was, as I thought, a badact--an act which should not have been done. Well, I do not complain ofthe demand that those men should be given up; but I do complain of themanner in which that demand was made, and the menaces by which it wasaccompanied. I think it was wrong and unstatesman-like that at themoment we heard of the seizure, when there was not the least foundationfor supposing that the United States Government were aware of the act, or had in the slightest degree sanctioned it, as we since well know theydid not, that we should immediately get ships ready, and send offtroops, and incite the organs of the press--who are always too ready toinflame the passions of the people to frenzy--to prepare their minds forwar. 

But that was not all; because before the United States had heard a wordof the matter from this country their Secretary of State had written toMr. Adams a despatch, which was communicated to our Government, and inwhich it was stated that the transaction had not been done by any ordersof theirs, and that therefore, as far as they and we were concerned, itwas a pure accident, which they should consider with the most friendlydisposition towards this country. How came it that this despatch wasnever published for the information of the people of this country? Howhappened it that, during one whole month the flame of war was fanned bythe newspapers, particularly by those supposed to be devoted to theGovernment, and that one of those newspapers, supposed to be peculiarlydevoted to the Prime Minister, had the audacity--I do not know whence itobtained its instructions--to deny that any such despatch had beenreceived? Now, Sir, I am of opinion that it is not possible to maintainamicable relations with any great country--I think it is not possible todo so with any little one--unless Governments will manage thesetransactions in what I will call a more courteous and more honourablemanner. I happen to know--for I received a letter from the UnitedStates, from one of the most eminent men in that country, dated only twodays before those men were given up, in which the writer said--that thereal difficulty in the course of the President was that the menaces ofthe English Government had made it almost impossible for them toconcede; and that the question they asked themselves was whether theEnglish Government was intending to seek a cause of quarrel or not. AndI am sure the noble Lord at the head of the Government, if such a demandhad been made upon him with courtesy and fairness, as should be betweenfriendly nations, would have been more disposed to concede, and wouldhave found it much more easy to concede, than if the demand had beenaccompanied by menaces such as his Government offered to the Governmentof the United States. Now the House will observe that I am notcondemning the Government of this country on the main point of what theydid. I am only condemning them because they did not do what they had todo in that manner which would be most likely to remove difficulties andpreserve a friendly feeling between the two nations. 

Then I come to the last thing I shall mention--to the question of theships which have been preying upon the commerce of the United States. Ishall confine myself to that one vessel, the _Alabama_. She wasbuilt in this country; all her munitions of war were from this country;almost every man on board her was a subject of Her Majesty. She sailedfrom one of our chief ports. She is known to have been built by a firmin which a Member of this House was, and I presume is, interested. Now, Sir, I do not complain--I know that once, when I referred to thisquestion two years ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bradfordbrought it forward in this House, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) was excessively angry--I do not complain that the Member forBirkenhead has struck up a friendship with Captain Semmes, who mayprobably be described, as another sailor once was of similar pursuits, as being 'the mildest mannered man that ever scuttled ship. ' Therefore, I do not complain of a man who has an acquaintance with that notoriousperson, and I do not complain, and did not then, that the Member forBirkenhead looks admiringly upon the greatest example which men haveever seen of the greatest crime which men have ever committed. I do notcomplain even that he should applaud that which is founded upon agigantic traffic in living flesh and blood--a traffic into which nosubject of this realm can enter without being deemed a felon in the eyesof our law and punished as such. But what I do complain of is this, thatthe hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead, a magistrate of a county, a deputy-lieutenant--whatever that may be--a representative of aconstituency, and having a seat in this ancient and honourable Assembly--that he should, as I believe he did, if concerned in the building ofthis ship, break the law of his country, by driving us into aninfraction of International Law, and treating with undeserved disrespectthe Proclamation of neutrality of the Queen. 

I have another complaint to make, and in allusion to that hon. Member. It is within your recollection that when on a former occasion he madethat speech and defended his course, he declared that he would rather bethe builder of a dozen _Alabamas_ than do something which nobodyhas done. That language was received with repeated cheering from theOpposition side of the House. Well, Sir, I undertake to say that thatwas at least a most unfortunate circumstance, and I beg to tell the hon. Gentleman that at the end of last Session, when the great debate tookplace on the question of Denmark, there were many men on this side ofthe House who had no objection whatever to see the present Governmentturned out of office, for they had many grounds of complaint againstthem, but they felt it impossible that they should take theresponsibility of bringing into office the right hon. Member forBuckinghamshire or the party who could utter such cheers on such asubject as that. 

Turning from the Member for Birkenhead to the noble Lord at the head ofthe Foreign Office, he, who in the case of the acknowledgment ofbelligerent rights had proceeded with such remarkable celerity, suchundue and unfriendly haste, amply compensated for it when he came to thequestion of the _Alabama_, by his slowness of procedure. And thisis a strange circumstance, which even the noble Lord's Colleagues havenever been able to explain, that although he sent orders to Cork to stopthe _Alabama_ if she arrived there, he allowed her afterwards, whenshe had gone out of the jurisdiction of the Crown in these islands, togo into a dozen or a score of ports belonging to this country indifferent parts of the world. It seems to me that this is rather aspecial instance of that feebleness of purpose and of action on the partof the noble Lord which I regret to say has on many occasions done muchto mar what would otherwise be a great political career. I will notdetain the House on the question of the rams. The hon. Member forBirkenhead, or the firm or the family, or whoever the people are atBirkenhead who do these things, this firm at Birkenhead, after they hadseen the peril into which the country was drifting on account of the_Alabama_, proceeded most audaciously to build those two rams; andit was only at the very last moment, when on the eve of a war with theUnited States on account of those rams, that the Government happily hadthe courage to seize them, and thus the last danger was averted. 

I suppose there are some shipowners here. I know there are many inLondon--there are many in Liverpool--what would be the feeling in thiscountry if they suffered in this way from ships built in the UnitedStates? There is a shipowner in New York, Mr. Lowe, a member of theChamber of Commerce of New York. He had three large ships destroyed bythe _Alabama_; and the _George Griswold_, which came to thiscountry freighted with a heavy cargo of provisions of various kinds forthe suffering people of Lancashire, was destroyed on her return passage, and the ship that destroyed it may have been, and I believe was, builtby these patriotic shipbuilders of Birkenhead. These are things thatmust rankle in the breast of a country which is subjected to such lossesand indignities. Even to-day I see in the newspapers that a vessel thatwent out from this country has destroyed ten or eleven ships between theCape of Good Hope and Australia. I have thought it unnecessary to bringcontinually American questions before the House, as some Gentlemen havedone during the last two or three Sessions. They should have asked a fewquestions in regard to these ships; but no, they asked no question uponthese points. They asked questions upon every point on which theythought they might embarrass the Government and make the greatdifficulties of the Government greater in all their transactions withthe United States. 

But the Members of the Government have not been wise. I hope it will notbe thought that I am unnecessarily critical if I say that Governmentsare not generally very wise. Two years ago the noble Lord at the head ofthe Government and the Attorney-General addressed the House. I asked thenoble Lord--I do not often ask him for anything--to speak, if only forfive minutes, words of generosity and sympathy to the Government andpeople of the United States. He did not do it. Perhaps I was foolish toexpect it. The Attorney-General made a most able speech. It was the onlytime that I have listened to him, ever since I have known him in thisHouse, with pain, for I thought his speech was full of bad morals andbad law. I am quite certain that he even gave an account of the facts ofthe case which was not as ingenuous and fair as the House had a right toexpect from him. Next Session the noble Lord and the Attorney-Generalturned quite round. They had a different story about the sametransaction, and gradually, as the aspect of things was changed on theother side of the Atlantic, there has been a gradual return to goodsense and fairness, not only on the part of Members upon the TreasuryBench, but on that of other Members of the House. 

Now, Sir, I would not willingly say a word that would wound either thenoble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office or the Chancellor of theExchequer, because I do not know amongst the official statesmen of thiscountry two men for whom I have greater sympathy or more respect; but Ihave to complain of them. I do not know why it is that they both go downto Newcastle--a town in which I feel a great interest--and there giveforth words of offence and unwisdom. I know that what the noble Lordsaid was all very smart, but really it was not true, and I have not muchrespect for a thing that is merely smart and is not true. The Chancellorof the Exchequer made a statement too. The papers made it appear that hedid it with exultation; but that is a mistake. But he made a statement, and though I do not know what will be in his Budget, I know his wishesin regard to that statement--namely, that he had never made it. 

Those Gentlemen, bear in mind, sit, as it were, on a hill; they are notobscure men, making speeches in a public-house or even at a respectablemechanics' institution; they are men whose voice is heard wherever theEnglish language is known. And knowing that, and knowing what effecttheir speeches will have, especially in Lancashire, where men are intrade, and where profits and losses are affected by the words ofstatesmen, they use the language of which I complain; and beyond this, for I can conceive some idea of the irritation those statements musthave caused in the United States. I might refer to the indiscriminatingabuse of the hon. And learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield; and Imay add to that the unsleeping ill-will of the noble Lord the Member forStamford. I am not sure that these two Members of the House are in theleast degree converted yet. I think I heard the hon. Member forSheffield utter to-night some ejaculation that looked as if he retainedall his old sentiments. [Mr. Roebuck: 'Exactly. '] I am sorry it is so. Idid expect that these things would be regretted and repented of; and Imust express my hope that if any one of you who have been thusungenerous shall ever fall into trouble of any kind that you will findyour friends more kind and more just than you have been to your fellow-countrymen--for I will still call them so--at the other side of theAtlantic. And as to the press, Sir, I think it is unnecessary to saymuch about that, because every night those unfortunate writers are nowendeavouring to back out of everything they have been saying; and I canonly hope that their power for evil in future will be greatly lessenedby the stupendous exhibition of ignorance and folly which they have madeto the world. 

Now, Sir, having made this statement, I suppose the noble Lord theMember for Stamford, if he were to get up after me, would say: 'Well, ifall this be true--if we have done all these injurious things, if we havecreated all this irritation in the United States--will it not be likelythat this irritation will provoke a desire for vengeance, and that thechances of war are greatly increased by it?' I do not know whether thechances of war are increased, but I will say that not only is war notcertain, but it is to the last degree improbable. 

But, Sir, there is another side to this question. All England is notincluded in the rather general condemnation which I have thought it myduty to express. There is another side. Looking to our own population, what have the millions been saying and doing--the millions you are somuch afraid of?--especially the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, whoobjects to the transference of power to those millions from those whonow hold it, and, from his position, naturally objects. I beg leave totell the House that, taking the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire--your great counties of population--the millions of men there, whoseindustry has not only created but sustains the fabric of your nationalpower, have had no kind of sympathy with the views which I have beencondemning. They have been more generous and more wise; they have shownthat magnanimity and love of freedom are not extinct. And, speaking ofthe county from which I come--the county of many sorrows, whose griefshave hung like a dark cloud over almost every heart during the lastthree years--all the attempts which the agents of the Confederacy havemade there by money, by printing, by platform speeches, by agitation, have utterly failed to get from that population one expression ofsympathy with the American insurrection. And, Sir, if the bond of unionand friendship between England and America shall remain unbroken, weshall not have to thank the wealthy and the cultivated, but thoselaborious millions whom statesmen and histories too frequently takelittle account of. They know a little of the United States, whichGentlemen opposite and some on this side the House do not appear toknow. They know that every man of them would be better off on theAmerican continent, if he chose to go there, and would be welcome toevery right and privilege that the people there are in possession of. They know further that every man may have from the United StatesGovernment a free gift of 160 acres of the most fertile land in theworld. [A laugh. ] I do not understand that laugh, but the gift, underthe Homestead Act of America, of 160 acres of land is a great deal for aman who has no land. I can tell you that the Homestead Act and theliberality of the American Government have had a great effect upon thepopulation of the North of England, and I can tell you further--that thelabouring population of this country--the artisans and the mechanics--will never join heartily in any policy which is intended to estrange thepeople of the United States from the people of the United Kingdom. 

But, Sir, we have other securities for peace which are not less thanthese, and I find them in the character of the Government and people ofthe American Union. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member forBuckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) referred to what must reasonably besupposed to happen in case this rebellion should be put down--that whena nation is exhausted it will not rush rashly into a new struggle. Theloss of life has been great, the loss of treasure enormous. Happily forthem, this life and this treasure have not been sacrificed to keep aBourbon on the throne of France, or to keep the Turks in Europe; thesacrifice was for an object which every man could comprehend, whichevery man could examine by the light of his own intelligence and his ownconscience; for if these men have given their lives and theirpossessions, it was for the attainment of a great end, the maintenanceof the unity and integrity of a great country. History in future timemust be written in a different spirit from all history in the past, ifit should express any condemnation of that people. Mr. Lincoln, who isnow for the second time President of the United States, was electedexclusively by what was termed the Republican party. He is now electedby what may be called the Great Union party of the nation. But Mr. Lincoln's party has always been for peace. That party in the North hasnever carried on any war of aggression, and has never desired one. Ispeak of the North only, the Free States. And let the House rememberthat in that country landed property, property of all kind, is moreuniversally distributed than in any other nation, that instruction andschool education are also more widely diffused there than amongst anyother people. I say, they have never carried on hitherto a war foraggrandizement or for vengeance, and I believe they will not begin onenow. 

Canada, I think the noble Lord will admit, is a very tempting bait, notindeed for the purpose of annexation, but for the purpose of humiliatingthis country. I agree with hon. Gentlemen who have said that it would bediscreditable to England, in the light of her past history, that sheshould leave any portion of her Empire which she could defend, undefended. But still it is admitted--and I think the speech of theright hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) produced a greateffect upon those who heard it--the House admitted that in case of warwith the United States, Canada could not be defended by any power onland or at sea which this country could raise or spare for that purpose. I am very sorry, not that we cannot defend Canada, but that any portionof the dominions of the British Crown is in such circumstances as totempt evil-disposed people to attack it with the view of humiliating us, because I believe that transactions which humiliate a Government and anation are not only disagreeable, but a great national harm. 

But, now, is there a war party in the United States? I believe there issuch a party. It is that party which was a war party eighty years ago. It is the party represented by hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench--theIrish party. They who are hostile to this country in the United Statesare those who were recently malcontent subjects of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth. It is these, and such as these, towhom the noble Lord at the head of the Government offers only suchconsolation as that of telling them that 'the rights of the tenants arethe wrongs of the landlords, ' who constitute the only war party in theUnited States; and it was the war party there in the days of Lord North. But the real power of the United States does not rest on that class. American mobs--and, excepting some portion of the population of NewYork, I would not apply the language even to them--for the sake offorcing their Congress and their Executive to a particular course, arealtogether unknown. The real mob in your sense, is that party ofchivalrous gentlemen in the South, who have received, I am sorry to say, so much sympathy from some persons in this country and in this House. But the real power depends upon another class--the landowners throughoutthe country, and there are millions of them. In this last election forPresident of the United States, I was told by a citizen of New York, whowas most active in the election, that in the State of New York alone100, 000 Irish votes were given, as he expressed it, solidly--that is, inone mass--for General M'Clellan, and that not more than 2, 000 were givenfor President Lincoln. You see the preponderance of that party in thecity of New York, and that is the feeling amongst them throughout theState of New York; but, throughout the whole of the United States, it ismerely a small per-centage, which has no sensible effect upon theconstitution of Congress, or upon legislation or government. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) referred to apoint which I suppose has really been the cause of this debate, and thatis the temper of the United States in making certain demands upon ourGovernment. I asked a question the other night after the noble Lord hadasked a question upon the subject--I asked whether we had not claimsagainst them. I understand that claims were made upon us by the UnitedStates amounting to 300, 000_l_. Or 400, 000_l_. I am afraidthat we have claims against them, amounting probably to as much as that. If any man thinks he has a right to go to law with another, and thatother has an answer to his claim, the case must be heard. And so betweentwo great nations and two free Governments. If one has claims againstthe other, and the other has counter claims, clearly nothing can be morefair than that those claims should be courteously and honestlyconsidered. It is quite absurd to suppose that the English Governmentand the Government at Washington can have a question about half amillion of money which they cannot amicably settle. The noble Lord, Ibelieve, thinks it is not a question for arbitration, but that it is aquestion of principle. Well, all questions of property almost arequestions of law, and you go to a lawyer and settle them if you can. Inthis case it would be surely as easy to have the matter settled by someimpartial person as it was to ask the Senate or other authority atHamburg to settle a question between this country and the Empire ofBrazil. Our most perfect security is, that as the war in America drawsto a close--if it should happily soon draw to a close--we shall becomemore generous to them, and their Government and people will probablybecome less irritated towards us. And when the passions have cooleddown, I am quite sure that Mr. Seward on that side and Earl Russell onthis, Mr. Adams here and Sir Frederick Bruce there, will be able, without much difficulty, to settle this, which is, after all, anunimportant matter, as a question of accounts between the two nations. 

I have only one more observation to make, and it is this--I suspect theroot of all the unfortunate circumstances that have occurred is thefeeling of jealousy which we have cherished with regard to the Americannation. It was very much shown at the beginning of this war, when aMember whom I will not name, for I am sure his wish is that his nameshould not be mentioned in connection with it now, spoke of the burstingof the bubble republic. I recollect that Lord John Russell, as he thenwas speaking from that bench, turned round and rebuked him in languagewhich was worthy of his name, and character, and position. I beg to tellthat Gentleman, and anybody else who talks about a bubble republic, thatI have a strong suspicion he will see that a great many bubbles willburst before that. Why should we fear a great nation on the Americancontinent? Some people fear that, should America become a great nation, she will be arrogant and aggressive. It does not follow that it shouldbe so. The character of a nation does not depend altogether upon itssize, but upon the instruction, the civilization, and the morals of itspeople. You fancy the supremacy of the sea will pass away from you; andthe noble Lord, who has had much experience, and is supposed to be wiseron the subject than any other man in the House, will say that 'RuleBritannia' may become obsolete. Well, inasmuch as the supremacy of theseas means arrogance and the assumption of a dictatorial power on thepart of this country, the sooner that becomes obsolete the better. I donot believe that it is for the advantage of this country, or of anycountry in the world, that any one nation should pride itself upon whatis termed the supremacy of the sea; and I hope the time is coming--Ibelieve the hour is hastening--when we shall find that law and justicewill guide the councils and will direct the policy of the Christiannations of the world. Nature will not be baffled because we are jealousof the United States--the decrees of Providence will not be overthrownby aught we can do. 

The population of the United States is now not less than 35, 000, 000. When the next Parliament of England has lived to the age which this haslived to, that population will be 40, 000, 000, and you may calculate theincrease at the rate of rather more than 1, 000, 000 of persons per year. Who is to gainsay it? Will constant snarling at a great republic alterthis state of things, or swell us up in these islands to 40, 000, 000 or50, 000, 000, or bring them down to our 30, 000, 000? Hon. Members and thecountry at large should consider these facts, and learn from them thatit is the interest of the nations to be at one--and for us to be inperfect courtesy and amity with the great English nation on the otherside of the Atlantic. I am sure that the longer that nation exists theless will our people be disposed to sustain you in any needlesshostility against them or jealousy of them. And I am the more convincedof this from what I have seen of the conduct of the people in the northof England during the last four years. I believe, on the other hand, that the American people, when this excitement is over, will be willing, so far as aggressive acts against us are concerned, to bury in obliviontransactions which have given them much pain, and that they will makethe allowance which they may fairly make, that the people of thiscountry--even those high in rank and distinguished in culture--have hada very inadequate knowledge of the real state of the events which havetaken place in that country since the beginning of the war. 

It is on record that when the author of _The Decline and Fall of theRoman Empire_ was about to begin his great work, David Hurne wrote aletter to him urging him not to employ the French but the Englishtongue, 'because' he said, 'our establishments in America promisesuperior stability and duration to the English language. ' How far thatpromise has been in part fulfilled we who are living now can see; buthow far it will be more largely and more completely fulfilled in aftertimes we must leave after times to tell. I believe that in the centurieswhich are to come it will be the greatest pride and the highest renownof England that from her loins have sprung a hundred millions--it may betwo hundred millions--of men who dwell and prosper on that continentwhich the grand old Genoese gave to Europe. Sir, if the sentiments whichI have uttered shall become the sentiments of the Parliament and peopleof the United Kingdom--if the moderation which I have described shallmark the course of the Government and of the people of the UnitedStates--then, notwithstanding some present irritation and some presentdistrust--and I have faith both in us and in them--I believe that thesetwo great commonwealths will march abreast, the parents and theguardians of freedom and justice, wheresoever their language shall bespoken and their power shall extend. 

 * * * * *

CANADA. 

II. 

THE CANADIAN FORTIFICATIONS. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 23, 1865. I shall ask the attention of the House for only a few moments. If thehon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) divides, I shall go into the same lobby withhim. I am afraid that, in making that announcement, I shall excite somelittle alarm in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. I wish therefore to say, that I shall not in going into the lobby agree with him in many of thestatements he has made. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) said, that he approached the military question with great diffidence, and Iwas very glad to see any signs of diffidence in that quarter. After thatexplanation, he asked the House with a triumphant air whether there isany difficulty in defending a frontier of one thousand or fifteenhundred miles, and whether the practicability of doing so is a newdoctrine in warfare. But one thousand or fifteen hundred miles offrontier to defend at the centre of your power, is one thing; but atthree thousand or four thousand miles from the centre, it is an entirelydifferent thing. I venture to say, that there is not a man in thisHouse, or a sensible man out of it, who, apart from the consideration ofthis vote, or some special circumstances attending it, believes that thepeople of this country could attempt a successful defence of thefrontier of Canada against the whole power of the United States. I saidthe other night, that I hoped we should not now talk folly, andhereafter, in the endeavour to be consistent, act folly. We all knowperfectly well that we are talking folly when we say that the Governmentof this country would send either ships or men to make an effectualdefence of Canada against the power of the United States, supposing warto break out. Understand, I am not in the least a believer in theprobability of war, but I will discuss the question for one moment as ifwar were possible. I suppose some men in this House think it probable. But if it be possible or probable, and if you have to look thisdifficulty in the face, there is no extrication from it but in theneutrality or independence of Canada. 

I agree with those Members who say that it is the duty of a great empireto defend every portion of it. I admit that as a general proposition, though hon. Gentlemen opposite, and some on this side, do not apply thatrule to the United States. But, admitting that rule, and supposing thatwe are at all points unprepared for such a catastrophe, may we not, asreasonable men, look ahead, and try if it be not possible to escape fromit? [An hon. Member: 'Run away?'] No, not by running away, though thereare many circumstances in which brave men run away; and you may get intodifficulty on this Canadian question, which may make you look back andwish that you had run away a good time ago. I object to this vote on aground which, I believe, has not been raised by any Member in thepresent discussion. I am not going to say that the expenditure of fiftythousand pounds is a matter of great consequence to this country, thatthe expenditure of this money in the proposed way will be taken as amenace by the United States. I do not think that this can be fairlysaid; for whether building fortifications at Quebec be useless or not, such a proceeding is not likely to enable the Canadians to overrun theState of New York. The United States, I think, will have no right tocomplain of this expenditure. The utmost it can do will be to show themthat some persons, and perhaps the Government of this country, have somelittle distrust of them, and so far it may do injury. I complain of theexpenditure and the policy announced by the Colonial Secretary, on aground which I thought ought to have been urged by the noble Lord theMember for Wick, who is a sort of half-Canadian. He made a speech whichI listened to with great pleasure, and told the House what some of us, perhaps, did not know before; but if I had been connected, as he is, with Canada, I would have addressed the House from a Canadian point ofview. 

What is it that the Member for Oxford says? He states, in reference tothe expenditure for the proposed fortifications, that, though a portionof the expenditure is to be borne by us, the main portion is to be borneby Canada; but I venture to tell him, that, if there shall be anyoccasion to defend Canada at all, it will not arise from anything Canadadoes, but from what England does; and therefore I protest against thedoctrine that the Cabinet in London may get into difficulties, andultimately into war, with the Cabinet at Washington; that because Canadalies adjacent to the United States, and may consequently become a greatbattle-field, this United Kingdom has a right to call on Canada for themain portion of that expenditure. Who has asked you to spend fiftythousand pounds, and the hundreds of thousands which may be supposed tofollow, but which perhaps Parliament may be indisposed hereafter togrant? What is the proportion which Canada is to bear? If we are tospend two hundred thousand pounds at Quebec, is Canada to spend fourhundred thousand pounds at Montreal? If Canada is to spend doublewhatever we may spend, is it not obvious that every Canadian will askhimself--what is the advantage of the connection between Canada andEngland?

Every Canadian knows perfectly well, and nobody better than the nobleLord the Member for Wick, that there is no more prospect of a warbetween Canada and the United States alone, than between the Empire ofFrance and the Isle of Man. If that is so, why should the Canadians betaxed beyond all reason, as the Colonial Secretary proposes to tax them, for a policy not Canadian, and for a calamity which, if ever it occurs, must occur from some transactions between England and the United States?There are Gentlemen here who know a good deal of Canada, and I seebehind me one who knows perfectly well what is the condition of theCanadian finances. We complain that Canada levies higher duties onBritish manufactures than the United States did before the present war, and much higher than France does. But when we complain to Canada ofthis, and say it is very unpleasant usage from a part of our empire, theCanadians reply that their expenditure is so much, and their debt, withthe interest on it, so much, that they are obliged to levy these heavyduties. If the Canadian finances are in the unfortunate positiondescribed; if the credit of Canada is not very good in the market ofthis country; if you see what are the difficulties of the Canadiansduring a period of peace; consider what will be their difficulties ifthe doctrine of the Colonial Secretary be carried out, which is thatwhatever expenditure is necessary for the defence of Canada, though webear a portion, the main part must be borne by Canada. 

We must then come to this inevitable conclusion. Every Canadian willsay, 'We are close alongside of a great nation; our parent state isthree thousand miles away; there are litigious, and there may be evenwarlike, people in both nations, and they may occasion the calamity of agreat war; we are peaceable people, having no foreign politics, happily;we may be involved in war, and while the cities of Great Britain are nottouched by a single shell, nor one of its fields ravaged, there is not acity or a village in this Canada in which we live which will not beliable to the ravages of war on the part of our powerful neighbour. 'Therefore the Canadians will say, unless they are unlike all otherEnglishmen (who appear to have more sense the farther they go from theirown country), that it would be better for Canada to be disentangled fromthe politics of England, and to assume the position of an independentstate. 

I suspect from what has been stated by official Gentlemen in the presentGovernment and in previous Governments, that there is no objection tothe independence of Canada whenever Canada may wish it. I have been gladto hear those statements, because I think they mark an extraordinaryprogress in sound opinions in this country. I recollect the noble Lordat the head of the Foreign Office on one occasion being very angry withme, he said I wished to make a great empire less; but a great empire, territorially, may be lessened without its power and authority in theworld being diminished. I believe if Canada now, by a friendlyseparation from this country, became an independent state, choosing itsown form of government--monarchical, if it liked a monarchy, orrepublican, if it preferred a republic--it would not be less friendly toEngland, and its tariff would not be more adverse to our manufacturesthan it is now. In the case of a war with America, Canada would then bea neutral country; and the population would be in a state of greatersecurity. Not that I think there is any fear of war, but the Governmentadmit that it may occur by their attempt to obtain money for thesefortifications. I object, therefore, to this vote, not on that account, nor even because it causes some distrust, or may cause it, in the UnitedStates; but I object to it mainly because I think we are commencing apolicy which we shall either have to abandon, because Canada will notsubmit to it, or else which will bring upon Canada a burden in the shapeof fortification expenditure that will make her more and moredissatisfied with this country, and that will lead rapidly to herseparation from us. I do not object to that separation in the least; Ibelieve it would be better for us and better for her. But I think that, of all the misfortunes which could happen between us and Canada, thiswould be the greatest, that her separation should take place after aperiod of irritation and estrangement, and that we should have on thatcontinent to meet another element in some degree hostile to thiscountry. 

I am sorry, Sir, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, andhis colleagues, have taken this course; but it appears to me to bewonderfully like almost everything which the Government does. It is aGovernment apparently of two parts, the one part pulling one way and theother part pulling another, and the result generally is something whichdoes not please anybody, or produce any good effect in any direction. They now propose a scheme which has just enough in it to create distrustand irritation, enough to make it in some degree injurious, and they donot do enough to accomplish any of the objects for which, according totheir statements, the proposition is made. Somebody asked the othernight whether the Administration was to rule, or the House of Commons. Well, I suspect from the course of the debates, that on this occasionthe Administration will be allowed to rule. We are accustomed to saythat the Government suggests a thing on its own responsibility, andtherefore we will allow them to do it. But the fact is, that theGovernment knows no more of this matter than any other dozen gentlemenin this House. They are not a bit more competent to form an opinion uponit. They throw it down on the table, and ask us to discuss and vote it. 

I should be happy to find the House, disregarding all the intimationsthat war is likely, anxious not to urge Canada into incurring anexpenditure which she will not bear, and which, if she will not bear, must end in one of two things--either in throwing the whole burden uponus, or in breaking up, perhaps suddenly and in anger, the connectionbetween us and that colony, and in making our future relations with hermost unsatisfactory. I do not place much reliance on the speech of theright honourable Member for Buckinghamshire, not because he cannot judgeof the question just as well as I or any one of us can do, but because Inotice that in matters of this kind Gentlemen on that (the Opposition)bench, whatever may have been their animosities towards the Gentlemen onthis (the Treasury) bench on other questions, shake hands. They may tellyou that they have no connection with the House over the way, but thefact is, their connection is most intimate. And if the right honourableMember for Buckinghamshire were now sitting on the Treasury bench, andthe noble Viscount were sitting opposite to him, the noble Viscount, Ihave no doubt, would give him the very same support that he now receivesfrom the right hon. Gentleman. 

This seems to me a question so plain, so much on the surface, appealingso much to our common sense, having in it such great issues for thefuture, that I am persuaded it is the duty of the House of Commons onthis occasion to take the matter out of the hands of the executiveGovernment, and to determine that, with regard to the future policy ofCanada, we will not ourselves expend the money of the English tax-payers, and not force upon the tax-payers of Canada a burden which, I amsatisfied, they will not long continue to bear. 

 * * * * *

CANADA. 

III. 

THE CANADIAN CONFEDERATION SCHEME. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 28, 1867. Although this measure has not excited much interest in the House or inthe country, yet it appears to me to be of such very great importancethat it should be treated rather differently, or that the House shouldbe treated rather differently in respect to it. I have never beforeknown of any great measure affecting any large portion of the empire orits population which has been brought in and attempted to be hurriedthrough Parliament in the manner in which this bill is being dealt with. Eat the importance of it is much greater to the inhabitants of thoseprovinces than it is to us. It is on that account alone that it might beexpected we should examine it closely, and see that we commit no errorin passing it. 

The right hon. Gentleman has not offered us, on one point, anexplanation which I think he will be bound to make. This bill does notinclude the whole of the British North American Provinces. I presume thetwo left out have been left out because it is quite clear they did notwish to come in. [Mr. Adderley: 'I am glad I can inform the hon. Gentleman that they are, one of them at least, on the point of comingin. '] Yes; the reason of their being left out is because they were notwilling to come in. They may hereafter become willing, and if so thebill will admit them by a provision which appears reasonable. But theprovince of Nova Scotia is also unwilling to come in, and it is assumedthat because some time ago the Legislature of that province voted aresolution partly in favour of some such course, therefore thepopulation is in favour of it. 

For my part, I do not believe in the propriety or wisdom of theLegislature voting on a great question of this nature with reference tothe Legislature of Nova Scotia, if the people of Nova Scotia have neverhad the question directly put to them. I have heard there is at presentin London a petition complaining of the hasty proceeding of Parliament, and asking for delay, signed by 31, 000 adult males of the province ofNova Scotia, and that that petition is in reality signed by at leasthalf of all the male inhabitants of that province. So far as I know, thepetition does not protest absolutely against union, but against themanner in which it is being carried out by this scheme and bill, and thehasty measures of the Colonial Office. Now, whether the scheme be a goodor bad one, scarcely anything can be more foolish, looking to thefuture, than that any of the provinces should be dragged into it, eitherperforce, by the pressure of the Colonial Office, or by any hasty actionon the part of Parliament, in the hope of producing a result whichprobably the populations of those provinces may not wish to see broughtabout. 

I understand that the general election for the Legislature of NovaScotia, according to the constitution of that colony, will take place inthe month of May or June next; that this question has never been fairlyplaced before the people of that province at an election, and that ithas never been discussed and decided by the people; and seeing that onlythree months or not so much will elapse before there will be anopportunity of ascertaining the opinions of the population of NovaScotia, I think it is at least a hazardous proceeding to pass this billthrough Parliament, binding Nova Scotia, until the clear opinion of thatprovince has been ascertained. If, at a time like this, when you areproposing a union which we all hope is to last for ever, you create alittle sore, it will in all probability become a great sore in a shorttime, and it may be that the intentions of Parliament will be almostentirely frustrated by the haste with which this measure is being pushedforward. 

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, inthe early part of the evening, in answer to a question from this side, spoke of this matter as one of extreme urgency. Well, I cannot discoverany urgency in the matter at all. What is urgent is this, that when doneit ought to be done wisely, and with the full and free consent of allthose populations who are to be bound by this Act and interested in itsresults. Unless the good-will of those populations is secured, in allprobability the Act itself will be a misfortune rather than a blessingto the provinces to which it refers. 

The right hon. Gentleman amused me in one part of his speech. He spokeof the filial piety--rather a curious term--of these provinces, andtheir great anxiety to make everything suit the ideas of this country;and this was said particularly with reference to the proposition for aSenate selected, not elected, for life, by the Governor-General ofCanada. He said they were extremely anxious to follow as far as possiblethe institutions of the mother country. I have not the smallestobjection to any people on the face of the earth following ourinstitutions if they like them. Institutions which suit one country, aswe all know, are not very likely to suit every other country. Withregard to this particular case, the right hon. Gentleman said it is tobe observed that Canada has had a nominated council, and has changed itfor an elected one, and that surely they had a right if they pleased togo back from an elected council to a nominated council. Well, nobodydenies that, but nobody pretends that the people of Canada prefer anominated council to an elected council. And all the wisdom of the wisemen to whom the right hon. Gentleman the member for Oxford has referredin such glowing terms, unless the experience of present and past timesgoes for nothing, is but folly if they have come to the conclusion thata nominated council on that continent must be better than an electedcouncil. Still, if they wish it, I should not interfere and try toprevent it. But I venture to say that the clause enabling the Governor-General and his Cabinet to put seventy men in that council for lifeinserts into the whole scheme the germ of a malady which will spread, and which before very long will require an alteration of this Act and ofthe constitution of this new Confederation. 

But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that with regard to therepresentative assembly--which, I suppose, is to be called according tohis phrase the House of Commons--they have adopted a very differentplan. There they have not followed the course of this country. They haveestablished their House of Representatives directly upon the basis ofpopulation. They have adopted the system which prevails in the UnitedStates, which upon every ten years' summing up of the census in thatcountry the number of members may be changed, and is by law changed inthe different States and districts as the rate of population may havechanged. Therefore, in that respect his friends in Canada have notadopted the principle which prevails in this country, but that whichprevails in the United States. I believe they have done that which isright, and which they have a right to do, and which is inevitable there. I regret very much that they have not adopted another system with regardto their council or senate, because I am satisfied--I have not aparticle of doubt with regard to it that we run a great danger of makingthis Act work ill almost from the beginning. 

They have the example of thirty-six States in the United States, inwhich the Senate is elected, and no man, however sanguine, can hope thatseventy-two stereotyped provincial peers in Canada will workharmoniously with a body elected upon a system so wide and so general asthat which prevails in the States of the American Union. There is onepoint about which the right hon. Gentleman said nothing, and which Ithink is so very important that the Member for Oxford, his predecessorin office, might have told us something about it. We know that Canada isa great country, and we know that the population is, or very soon willbe, something like 4, 000, 000, and we may hope that, united under onegovernment, the province may be more capable of defence. But what isintended with regard to the question of defence? Is everything to bedone for the province? Is it intended to garrison its fortresses byEnglish troops? At the present moment there are, I believe, in theprovince 12, 000 or 15, 000 men. 

There are persons in this country, and there are some also in the NorthAmerican provinces, who are ill-natured enough to say that not a littleof the loyalty that is said to prevail in Canada has its price. I thinkit is natural and reasonable to hope that there is in that country avery strong attachment to this country. But if they are to be constantlyapplying to us for guarantees for railways, and for grants forfortresses, and for works of defence, then I think it would be farbetter for them and for us--cheaper for us and less demoralising forthem--that they should become an independent State, and maintain theirown fortresses, fight their own cause, and build up their own futurewithout relying upon us. And when we know, as everybody knows, that thepopulation of Canada is in a much better position as regards thecomforts of home, than is the great bulk of the population of thiscountry, I say the time has come when it ought to be clearly understoodthat the taxes of England are no longer to go across the ocean to defrayexpenses of any kind within the Confederation which is about to beformed. 

The right hon. Gentleman has never been an advocate for greatexpenditure in the colonies by the mother country. On the contrary, hehas been one of the members of this House who have distinguishedthemselves by what I will call an honest system for the mother country, and what I believe is a wise system for the colonies. But I think thatwhen a measure of this kind is being passed, having such stupendousresults upon the condition and the future population of these greatcolonies, we have a right to ask that there should be some considerationfor the revenue and for the taxpayers of this country. In discussingthis Bill with the delegates from the provinces, I think it was the dutyof the Colonial Secretary to have gone fairly into this question, and, if possible, to have arranged it to the advantage of the colony and themother country. 

I believe there is no delusion greater than this--that there is anyparty in the United States that wishes to commit any aggression uponCanada, or to annex Canada by force to the United States. There is not apart of the world, in my opinion, that runs less risk of aggression thanCanada, except with regard to that foolish and impotent attempt ofcertain discontented not-long-ago subjects of the Queen, who have leftthis country. America has no idea of anything of the kind. No Americanstatesman, no American political party, dreams for a moment of anaggression upon Canada, or of annexing Canada by force. And therefore, every farthing that you spend on your fortresses, and all that you dowith the idea of shutting out American aggression, is money squanderedthrough an hallucination which we ought to get rid of. I have not risenfor the purpose of objecting to the second reading of this Bill. Underthe circumstances, I presume it is well that we should do no other thanread it a second time. But I think the Government ought to have given alittle more time. I think they have not treated the province of NovaScotia with that tenderness, that generosity, and that considerationwhich is desirable when you are about to make so great a change in itsaffairs and in its future. For my share, I want the population of theseprovinces to do that which they believe to be best for their owninterests--to remain with this country if they like it, in the mostfriendly manner, or to become independent States if they wish it. Ifthey should prefer to unite themselves with the United States, I shouldnot complain even of that. But whatever be their course, there is no manin this House or in those provinces who has a more sincere wish fortheir greatness and their welfare than I have who have taken the libertythus to criticise this Bill. 

 * * * * *

AMERICA. 

I. 

THE 'TRENT' AFFAIR. 

ROCHDALE, DECEMBER 4, 1861. 

[During the excitement caused by the seizure of Messrs. Mason andSlidell, the envoys of the Slaveholders' Confederation, on board the_Trent_ steamer, Mr. Bright's townsmen invited him to a PublicBanquet, that they might have the opportunity of hearing his opinions onthe American Civil War, and on the duty of England in regard to it. Thisspeech was delivered on the occasion of that Banquet. ]

When the Gentlemen who invited me to this dinner called upon me, I felttheir kindness very sensibly, and now I am deeply grateful to my friendsaround me, and to you all, for the abundant manifestations of kindnesswith which I have been received to-night. I am, as you all know, surrounded at this moment by my neighbours and friends, and I may saywith the utmost truth, that I value the good opinions of those who nowhear my voice far beyond the opinions of any equal number of theinhabitants of this country selected from any other portion of it. Youhave, by this act of kindness that you have shown me, given proof that, in the main, you do not disapprove of my course and labours, that atleast you are willing to express an opinion that the motives by which Ihave been actuated have been honest and honourable to myself, and thatthat course has not been entirely without service to my country. Comingto this meeting, or to any similar meeting, I always find that thesubjects for discussion appear too many, and far more than it ispossible to treat at length. In these times in which we live, by theinfluence of the telegraph, and the steamboat, and the railroad, and themultiplication of newspapers, we seem continually to stand as on the topof an exceeding high mountain, from which we behold all the kingdoms ofthe earth and all the glory of them, --unhappily, also, not only theirglory, but their follies, and their crimes, and their calamities. 

Seven years ago, our eyes were turned with anxious expectation to aremote corner of Europe, where five nations were contending in bloodystrife for an object which possibly hardly one of them comprehended, and, if they did comprehend it, which all sensible men amongst them musthave known to be absolutely impracticable. Four years ago, we werelooking still further to the East, where there was a gigantic revolt ina great dependency of the British Crown, arising mainly from grossneglect, and from the incapacity of England, up to that moment, togovern the country which it had known how to conquer. Two years ago, welooked South, to the plains of Lombardy, and saw a great strife there, in which every man in England took a strong interest; and we havewelcomed, as the result of that strife, the addition of a great kingdomto the list of European States. Now, our eyes are turned in a contrarydirection, and we look to the West. There we see a struggle in progressof the very highest interest to England and to humanity at large. We seethere a nation which I shall call the Transatlantic English nation--theinheritor and partaker of all the historic glories of this country. Wesee it torn with intestine broils, and suffering from calamities fromwhich for more than a century past--in fact, for more than two centuriespast--this country has been exempt. That struggle is of especialinterest to us. We remember the description which one of our great poetsgives of Rome, --

 'Lone mother of dead empires. '

But England is the living mother of great nations on the American and onthe Australian continents, which promise to endow the world with all herknowledge and all her civilization, and with even something more thanthe freedom she herself enjoys. 

Eighty-five years ago, at the time when some of our oldest townsmen werevery little children, there were, on the North American continent, Colonies, mainly of Englishmen, containing about three millions ofsouls. These Colonies we have seen a year ago constituting the UnitedStates of North America, and comprising a population of no less thanthirty millions of souls. We know that in agriculture and manufactures, with the exception of this kingdom, there is no country in the worldwhich in these arts may be placed in advance of the United States. Withregard to inventions, I believe, within the last thirty years, we havereceived more useful inventions from the United States than from all theother countries of the earth. In that country there are probably tentimes as many miles of telegraph as there are in this country, and thereare at least five or six times as many miles of railway. The tonnage ofits shipping is at least equal to ours, if it does not exceed ours. Theprisons of that country--for, even in countries the most favoured, prisons are needful--have been models for other nations of the earth;and many European Governments have sent missions at different times toinquire into the admirable system of education so universally adopted intheir free schools throughout the Northern States. 

If I were to speak of that country in a religious aspect, I should saythat, considering the short space of time to which their history goesback, there is nothing on the face of the earth besides, and never hasbeen, to equal the magnificent arrangement of churches and ministers, and of all the appliances which are thought necessary for a nation toteach Christianity and morality to its people. Besides all this, when Istate that for many years past the annual public expenditure of theGovernment of that country has been somewhere between 10, 000, 000_l_. And15, 000, 000_l_. , I need not perhaps say further, that there has alwaysexisted amongst all the population an amount of comfort and prosperityand abounding plenty such as I believe no other country in the world, inany age, has enjoyed. 

This is a very fine, but a very true picture; yet it has another side towhich I must advert. There has been one great feature in that country, one great contrast, which has been pointed to by all who have commentedupon the United States as a feature of danger, as a contrast calculatedto give pain. There has been in that country the utmost liberty to thewhite man, and bondage and degradation to the black man. Now rely uponit, that wherever Christianity lives and flourishes, there must grow upfrom it, necessarily, a conscience hostile to any oppression and to anywrong; and therefore, from the hour when the United States Constitutionwas formed, so long as it left there this great evil--then comparativelysmall, but now so great--it left there seeds of that which an Americanstatesman has so happily described, of that 'irrepressible conflict' ofwhich now the whole world is the witness. It has been a common thing formen disposed to carp at the United States to point to this blot upontheir fair fame, and to compare it with the boasted declaration offreedom in their Deed and Declaration of Independence. But we mustrecollect who sowed this seed of trouble, and how and by whom it hasbeen cherished. 

Without dwelling upon this stain any longer, I should like to read toyou a paragraph from the instructions understood to have been given tothe Virginian delegates to Congress, in the month of August, 1774. , byMr. Jefferson, who was perhaps the ablest man the United States hadproduced up to that time, and who was then actively engaged in itsaffairs, and who afterwards for two periods filled the office ofPresident. He represented one of these very Slave States--the State ofVirginia--and he says:--

 'For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his Majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those Colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibition, and by imposing duties which might amount to prohibition, have hitherto been defeated by his Majesty's negative, --thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American States, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. '

I read this merely to show that, two years before the Declaration ofIndependence was signed, Mr. Jefferson, acting on behalf of those herepresented in Virginia, wrote that protest against the course of theEnglish Government which prevented the Colonists from abolishing theslave trade, preparatory to the abolition of slavery itself. 

Well, the United States Constitution left the slave question for everyState to manage for itself. It was a question too difficult to settlethen, and apparently every man had the hope and belief that in a fewyears slavery itself would become extinct. Then there happened a greatevent in the annals of manufactures and commerce. It was discovered thatin those States that article which we in this country now so much dependon, could be produced of the best quality necessary for manufacture, andat a moderate price. From that day to this the growth of cotton hasincreased there, and its consumption has increased here, and a valuewhich no man dreamed of when Jefferson wrote that paper has been givento the slave and to slave industry. Thus it has grown up to thatgigantic institution which now threatens either its own overthrow or theoverthrow of that which is a million times more valuable--the UnitedStates of America. 

The crisis at which we have arrived--I say 'we, ' for, after all, we arenearly as much interested as if I was making this speech in the city ofBoston or the city of New York--the crisis, I say, which has nowarrived, was inevitable. I say that the conscience of the North, neversatisfied with the institution of slavery, was constantly urging somemen forward to take a more extreme view of the question; and there grewup naturally a section--it may not have been a very numerous one--infavour of the abolition of slavery. A great and powerful party resolvedat least upon a restraint and a control of slavery, so that it shouldnot extend beyond the States and the area which it now occupies. But, ifwe look at the Government of the United States almost ever since theformation of the Union, we shall find the Southern power has been mostlydominant there. If we take thirty-six years after the formation of thepresent Constitution--I think about 1787--we shall find that for thirty-two of those years every President was a Southern man; and if we takethe period from 1828 until 1860, we shall find that, on every electionfor President, the South voted in the majority. 

We know what an election is in the United States for President of theRepublic. There is a most extensive suffrage, and there is the ballot-box. The members of the House of Representatives are elected by the samesuffrage, and generally they are elected at the same time. It is thustherefore almost inevitable that the House of Representatives is inaccord in public policy with the President for the time being. Everyfour years there springs from the vote created by the whole people aPresident over that great nation. I think the world offers no finerspectacle than this; it offers no higher dignity; and there is nogreater object of ambition on the political stage on which men arepermitted to move. You may point, if you will, to hereditary rulers, tocrowns coming down through successive generations of the same family, tothrones based on prescription or on conquest, to sceptres wielded overveteran legions and subject realms, --but to my mind there is nothing soworthy of reverence and obedience, and nothing more sacred, than theauthority of the freely chosen by the majority of a great and freepeople; and if there be on earth and amongst men any right divine togovern, surely it rests with a ruler so chosen and so appointed. 

Last year the ceremony of this great election was gone through, and theSouth, which had been so long successful, found itself defeated. Thatdefeat was followed instantly by secession, and insurrection, and war. In the multitude of articles which have been before us in the newspaperswithin the last few months, I have no doubt you have seen it stated, asI have seen it, that this question was very much like that upon whichthe Colonies originally revolted against the Crown of England. It isamazing how little some newspaper writers know, or how little they thinkyou know. When the War of Independence was begun in America, ninetyyears ago, there were no representatives there at all. The question thenwas, whether a Ministry in Downing-street, and a corrupt and borough-mongering Parliament, should continue to impose taxes upon threemillions of English subjects, who had left their native shores andestablished themselves in North America. But now the question is not thewant of representation, because, as is perfectly notorious, the South isnot only represented, but is represented in excess; for, in distributingthe number of representatives, which is done every ten years, three outof every five slaves are counted as freemen, and the number ofrepresentatives from the Slave States is consequently so much greaterthan if the freemen, the white men only, were counted. From this causethe Southern States have twenty members more in the House ofRepresentatives than they would have if the members were apportioned onthe same principle as in the Northern Free States. Therefore you willsee at once that there is no comparison between the state of things whenthe Colonies revolted, and the state of things now, when this wickedinsurrection has broken out. 

There is another cause which is sometimes in England assigned for thisgreat misfortune, which is, the protective theories in operation in theUnion, and the maintenance of a high tariff. It happens with regard tothat, unfortunately, that no American, certainly no one I ever met with, attributed the disasters of the Union to that cause. It is an argumentmade use of by ignorant Englishmen, but never by informed Americans. Ihave already shown you that the South, during almost the whole existenceof the Union, has been dominant at Washington; and during that periodthe tariff has existed, and there has been no general dissatisfactionwith it. Occasionally, there can be no doubt, their tariff was higherthan was thought just, or reasonable, or necessary by some of the Statesof the South. But the first Act of the United States which levied dutiesupon imports, passed immediately after the Union was formed, recitedthat 'It is necessary for the encouragement and protection ofmanufactures to levy the duties which follow;' and during the war withEngland from 1812 to 1815, the people of the United States had to payfor all the articles they brought from Europe many times over thenatural cost of those articles, on account of the interruption to thetraffic by the English nation. 

When the war was over, it was felt by everybody desirable that theyshould encourage manufactures in their own country; and seeing thatEngland at that precise moment was passing a law to prevent any wheatcoming from America until wheat in England had risen to the price of84_s_. Per quarter, we may be quite satisfied that the doctrine ofprotection originally entertained did not find less favour at the closeof the war in 1815. 

There is one remarkable point with regard to this matter which shouldnot be forgotten. Twelve months ago, at the meeting of the Congress ofthe United States, on the first Monday in December--when the Congressmet, you recollect that there were various propositions of compromise, committee meetings of various kinds to try and devise some mode ofsettling the question between the North and the South, so that disunionmight not go on--though I read carefully everything published in theEnglish papers from the United States on the subject, I do not recollectthat in a single instance the question of the tariff was referred to, orany change proposed or suggested in the matter as likely to have anyeffect whatever upon the question of Secession. 

There is another point, --whatever might be the influence of the tariffupon the United States, it is as pernicious to the West as it is to theSouth; and further, that Louisiana, which is a Southern State and aseceded State, has always voted along with Pennsylvania until last yearin favour of protection--protection for its sugar, whilst Pennsylvaniawished protection for its coal and iron. But if the tariff was onerousand grievous, was that any reason for this great insurrection? Was thereever a country that had a tariff, especially in the article of food, more onerous and more cruel than that which we had in this countrytwenty years ago? We did not secede. We did not rebel. What we did wasto raise money for the purpose of distributing among all the peopleperfect information upon the question; and many men, as you know, devoted all their labours, for several years, to teach the great andwise doctrine of free trade to the people of England. The price of asingle gunboat, the equipment of a single regiment, the garrisoning of asingle fort, the cessation of their trade for a single day, cost morethan it would have cost to have spread among all the intelligent peopleof the United States the most complete statement of the whole case; andthe West and South could easily have revised, or, if need had been, haverepealed the tariff altogether. 

The question is a very different and a far more grave question. It is aquestion of slavery, and for thirty years it has constantly been comingto the surface, disturbing social life, and overthrowing almost allpolitical harmony in the working of the United States. In the Norththere is no secession; there is no collision. These disturbances andthis insurrection are found wholly in the South and in the Slave States;and therefore I think that the man who says otherwise, who contends thatit is the tariff, or anything whatsoever else than slavery, is eitherhimself deceived or endeavours to deceive others. The object of theSouth is this, to escape from the majority who wish to limit the area ofslavery. They wish to found a Slave State freed from the influence andopinions of freedom. The Free States in the North now stand before theworld as the advocates and defenders of freedom and civilization. TheSlave States offer themselves for the recognition of a Christian nation, based upon the foundation, the unchangeable foundation in their eyes, ofslavery and barbarism. 

I will not discuss the guilt of the men who, ministers of a great nationonly last year, conspired to overthrow it. I will not point out orrecapitulate the statements of the fraudulent manner in which theydisposed of the funds in the national exchequer. I will not point out byname any of the men, in this conspiracy, whom history will designate bytitles they would not like to hear; but I say that slavery has sought tobreak up the most free government in the world, and to found a newState, in the nineteenth century, whose corner-stone is the perpetualbondage of millions of men. 

Having thus described what appears to me briefly the literal truth ofthis matter, what is the course that England would be expected topursue? We should be neutral as far as regards mingling in the strife. We were neutral in the strife in Italy; but we were not neutral inopinion or sympathy; and we know perfectly well that throughout thewhole of Italy at this moment there is a feeling that, though no shotwas fired from an English ship, and though no English soldier trod theirsoil, yet still the opinion of England was potent in Europe, and didmuch for the creation of the Italian kingdom. 

With regard to the United States, you know how much we hate slavery, --that is, some years ago we thought we knew; that we have given twentymillions sterling, --a million a year, or nearly so, of taxes for ever, --to free eight hundred thousand slaves in the English colonies. We knew, or thought we knew, how much we were in love with free governmenteverywhere, although it might not take precisely the same form as ourown government. We were for free government in Italy; we were for freegovernment in Switzerland; and we were for free government, even under arepublican form, in the United States of America; and with all this, every man would have said that England would wish the American Union tobe prosperous and eternal. 

Now, suppose we turn our eyes to the East, to the empire of Russia, fora moment. In Russia, as you all know, there has been one of the mostimportant and magnificent changes of policy ever seen in any country. Within the last year or two, the present Emperor of Russia, followingthe wishes of his father, has insisted upon the abolition of serfdom inthat empire; and twenty-three millions of human beings, lately serfs, little better than real slaves, have been raised to the ranks offreedom. Now, suppose that the millions of the serfs of Russia had beenchiefly in the South of Russia. We hear of the nobles of Russia, to whomthose serfs belonged in a great measure, that they have been hostile tothis change; and there has been some danger that the peace of thatempire might be disturbed during the change. Suppose these nobles, forthe purpose of maintaining in perpetuity the serfdom of Russia, andbarring out twenty-three millions of your fellow-creatures from therights of freedom, had established a great and secret conspiracy, andthat they had risen in great and dangerous insurrection against theRussian Government, --I say that you, the people of England, althoughseven years ago you were in mortal combat with the Russians in the Southof Europe, --I believe at this moment you would have prayed Heaven in allsincerity and fervour to give strength to the arm and success to thegreat wishes of the Emperor, and that the vile and atrociousinsurrection might be suppressed. 

Well, but let us look a little at what has been said and clone in thiscountry since the period when Parliament rose at the beginning ofAugust. There have been two speeches to which I wish to refer, and interms of approbation. The Duke of Argyll, a member of the presentGovernment, --and, though I have not the smallest personal acquaintancewith him, I am free to say that I believe him to be one of the mostintelligent and liberal of his order, --the Duke of Argyll made a speechwhich was fair and friendly to the Government of the United States. LordStanley, only a fortnight ago, I think, made a speech which it isimpossible to read without remarking the thought, the liberality, andthe wisdom by which it is distinguished. He doubted, it is true, whetherthe Union could be restored. A man need not be hostile, and must notnecessarily be unfriendly, to doubt that or the contrary; but he spokewith fairness and friendliness of the Government of the United States;and he said that they were right and justifiable in the course theytook; and he gave us some advice, --which is now more important than atthe moment when it was given, --that amid the various incidents andaccidents of a struggle of this nature, it became a people like this tobe very moderate, very calm, and to avoid, as much as possible, anyfeeling of irritation, which sometimes arises, and sometimes leads todanger. 

I mention these two speeches as from Englishmen of great distinction inthis country--speeches which I believe will have a beneficial effect onthe other side of the Atlantic. Lord John Russell, in the House ofCommons, during the last session, made a speech also, in which herebuked the impertinence of a young Member of the House who had spokenabout the bursting of the 'bubble republic. ' It was a speech worthy ofthe best days of Lord John Russell. But at a later period he spoke atNewcastle on an occasion something like this, when the inhabitants, orsome portion of the inhabitants, of the town invited him to a publicdinner. He described the contest in words something like these--I speakfrom memory only: 'The North is contending for empire, the South forindependence. ' Did he mean contending for empire, as England contendsfor it when making some fresh conquest in India? If he meant that, whathe said was not true. But I recollect Lord John Russell, some years ago, in the House of Commons, on an occasion when I made some observation asto the unreasonable expenditure of our colonies, and said that thepeople of England should not be taxed to defray expenses which thecolonies themselves were well able to bear, turned to me with asharpness which was not necessary, and said, 'The honourable Member hasno objection to make a great empire into a little one; but I have. 'Perhaps if he had lived in the United States, if he was a member of theSenate or the House of Representatives there, he would doubt whether itwas his duty to consent at once to the destruction of a great country byseparation, it may be into two hostile camps, or whether he would nottry all the means which were open to him, and would be open to theGovernment, to avert so unlooked-for and so dire a calamity. 

There are other speeches that have been made. I will not refer to themby any quotation, --I will not, out of pity to some of the men whouttered them. I will not bring their names even before you, to givethem an endurance which I hope they will not otherwise obtain. I leavethem in the obscurity which they so richly merit. But you know as wellas I do, that, of all the speeches made since the end of the lastsession of Parliament by public men, by politicians, the majority ofthem have either displayed a strange ignorance of American affairs, or astranger absence of that cordiality and friendship which, I maintain, our American kinsmen have a right to look for at our hands. 

And if we part from the speakers and turn to the writers, what do wefind there? We find that which is reputed abroad, and has hitherto beenbelieved in at home, as the most powerful representative of Englishopinion--at least of the richer classes--we find in that particularnewspaper there has not been since Mr. Lincoln took office, in Marchlast, as President of the United States, one fair and honourable andfriendly article on American affairs. Some of you, I dare say, read it;but, fortunately, every district is now so admirably supplied with localnewspapers, that I trust in all time to come the people of England willdrink of purer streams nearer home, and not of those streams which aremuddled by party feeling and political intrigue, and by many motivesthat tend to anything rather than the enlightenment and advantage of thepeople. It is said, --that very paper has said over and over again, --'Whythis war? Why not separate peaceably? Why this fratricidal strife ?' Ihope it is equally averse to fratricidal strife in other districts; forif it be true that God made of one blood all the families of man todwell on the face of all the earth, it must be fratricidal strifewhether we are slaughtering Russians in the Crimea or bombarding townson the sea-coast of the United States. 

Now no one will expect that I should stand forward as the advocate ofwar, or as the defender of that great sum of all crimes which isinvolved in war. But when we are discussing a question of this nature, it is only fair that we should discuss it upon principles which areacknowledged not only in the country where the strife is being carriedon, but are universally acknowledged in this country. When I discussedthe Russian war, seven or eight years ago, I always condemned it, onprinciples which were accepted by the Government and people of England, and I took my facts from the blue-books presented to Parliament. I takethe liberty, then, of doing that in this case; and I say that, lookingat the principles avowed in England, and at its policy, there is no man, who is not absolutely a non-resistant in every sense, who can fairlychallenge the conduct of the American Government in this war. It wouldbe a curious thing to find that the party in this country which on everypublic question affecting England is in favour of war at any cost, whenthey come to speak of the duty of the Government of the United States, is in favour 'of peace at any price. '

I want to know whether it has ever been admitted by politicians, orstatesmen, or people, that a great nation can be broken up at any timeby any particular section of any part of that nation. It has been triedoccasionally in Ireland, and if it had succeeded history would have saidthat it was with very good cause. But if anybody tried now to get up asecession or insurrection in Ireland, --and it would be infinitely lessdisturbing to everything than the secession in the United States, because there is a boundary which nobody can dispute--I am quite surethe _Times_ would have its 'Special Correspondent, ' and woulddescribe with all the glee and exultation in the world the manner inwhich the Irish insurrectionists were cut down and made an end of. 

Let any man try in this country to restore the heptarchy, do you thinkthat any portion of the people would think that the project could betolerated for a moment? But if you look at a map of the United States, you will see that there is no country in the world, probably, at thismoment, where any plan of separation between the North and the South, asfar as the question of boundary is concerned, is so surrounded withinsurmountable difficulties. For example, Maryland is a Slave State; butMaryland, by a large majority, voted for the Union. Kentucky is a SlaveState, one of the finest in the Union, and containing a fine people;Kentucky has voted for the Union, but has been invaded from the South. Missouri is a Slave State; but Missouri has not seceded, and has beeninvaded by the South, and there is a secession party in that State. There are parts of Virginia which have formed themselves into a newState, resolved to adhere to the North; and there is no doubt aconsiderable Northern and Union feeling in the State of Tennessee. Ihave no doubt there is in every other State. In fact, I am not sure thatthere is not now within the sound of my voice a citizen of the State ofAlabama, who could tell you that in his State the question of secessionhas never been put to the vote; and that there are great numbers of men, reasonable and thoughtful and just men, in that State, who entirelydeplore the condition of things there existing. 

Then, what would you do with all those States, and with what we may callthe loyal portion of the people of those States? Would you allow them tobe dragooned into this insurrection, and into the formation or thebecoming parts of a new State, to which they themselves are hostile? Andwhat would you do with the City of Washington? Washington is in a SlaveState. Would anybody have advised that President Lincoln and hisCabinet, with all the members of Congress, of the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate, from the North, with their wives andchildren, and everybody else who was not positively in favour of theSouth, should have set off on their melancholy pilgrimage northwards, leaving that capital, hallowed to them by such associations, --having itsname even from the father of their country, --leaving Washington to theSouth, because Washington is situated in a Slave State?

Again, what do you say to the Mississippi River, as you see it upon themap, the 'father of waters, ' rolling its gigantic stream to the ocean?Do you think that the fifty millions which one day will occupy the banksof that river northward, will ever consent that its great stream shallroll through a foreign, and it may be a hostile State? And more, thereare four millions of negroes in subjection. For them the American Unionis directly responsible. They are not secessionists; they are now, asthey always were, not citizens nor subjects, but legally under the careand power of the Government of the United States. Would you consent thatthese should be delivered up to the tender mercies of their taskmasters, the defenders of slavery as an everlasting institution?

But if all had been surrendered without a struggle, what then? Whatwould the writers in this newspaper and other newspapers have said? If abare rock in your empire, that would not keep a goat--a single goat--alive, be touched by any foreign power, the whole empire is roused toresistance; and if there be, from accident or passion, the smallestinsult to your flag, what do your newspaper writers say upon thesubject, and what is said in all your towns and upon all your Exchanges?I will tell you what they would have said if the Government of theNorthern States had taken their insidious and dishonest advice. Theywould have said the great Republic was a failure, that democracy hadmurdered patriotism, that history afforded no example of such meannessand of such cowardice; and they would have heaped unmeasured obloquy andcontempt upon the people and Government who had taken that course. 

They tell you, these candid friends of the United States, --they tell youthat all freedom is gone; that the Habeas Corpus Act, if they ever hadone, is known no longer; and that any man may be arrested at the dictumof the President or of the Secretary of State. Well, but in 1848 yourecollect, many of you, that there was a small insurrection in Ireland. It was an absurd thing altogether; but what was done then? I saw, in onenight, in the House of Commons, a bill for the suspension of the HabeasCorpus Act passed through all its stages. What more did I see? I saw abill brought in by the Whig Government of that day, Lord John Hussellbeing the Premier, which made speaking against the Government andagainst the Crown--which up to that time had been sedition--whichproposed to make it felony; and it was only by the greatest exertions ofa few of the Members that the Act, in that particular, was limited to aperiod of two years. In the same session a bill was brought in called anAlien Bill, which enabled the Home Secretary to take any foreignerwhatsoever, not being a naturalized Englishman, and in twenty-four hoursto send him out of the country. Although a man might have committed nocrime, this might be done to him, apparently only on suspicion. 

But suppose that an insurgent army had been so near to London that youcould see its outposts from every suburb of your Capital, what then doyou think would have been the regard of the Government of Great Britainfor personal liberty, if it interfered with the necessities, and, asthey might think, the salvation of the State? I recollect, in 1848, whenthe Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in Ireland, that a number of personsin Liverpool, men there of position and of wealth, presented a petitionto the House of Commons, praying--what? That the Habeas Corpus Actshould not be suspended? No. They were not content with its suspensionin Ireland; and they prayed the House of Commons to extend thatsuspension to Liverpool. I recollect that at that time--and I am sure myfriend Mr. Wilson will bear me out in what I say--the Mayor of Liverpooltelegraphed to the Mayor of Manchester, and that messages were sent onto London nearly every hour. The Mayor of Manchester heard from theMayor of Liverpool that certain Irishmen in Liverpool, conspirators, orfellow-conspirators with those in Ireland, were going to burn the cottonwarehouses in Liverpool and the cotton mills of Lancashire. I read thatpetition from Liverpool. I took it from the table of the House ofCommons, and read it, and I handed it over to a statesman of greateminence, who has been but just removed from us--I refer to Sir JamesGraham, a man not second to any in the House of Commons for hisknowledge of affairs and for his great capacity--I handed to him thatpetition. He read it; and after he had read it, he rose from his seat, and laid it upon the table with a gesture of abhorrence and disgust. Nowthat was a petition from the town of Liverpool, in which some personshave been making themselves very ridiculous of late by reason of theirconduct on this American question. 

There is one more point. It has been said, 'How much better it wouldbe'--not for the United States, but--'for us, that these States shouldbe divided. ' I recollect meeting a gentleman in Bond-street one daybefore the session was over. He was a rich man, and one whose voice ismuch heard in the House of Commons; but his voice is not heard when heis on his legs, but when he is cheering other speakers; and he said tome: 'After all, this is a sad business about the United States; butstill I think it very much better that they should be split up. Intwenty years, ' or in fifty years, I forget which it was, 'they will beso powerful that they will bully all Europe. ' And a distinguished Memberof the House of Commons--distinguished there by his eloquence, distinguished more by his many writings--I mean Sir Edward BulwerLytton--he did not exactly express a hope, but he ventured on somethinglike a prediction, that the time would come when there would be, I donot know how many, but about as many independent States on the AmericanContinent as you can count upon your fingers. 

There cannot be a meaner motive than this I am speaking of, in forming ajudgment on this question, --that it is 'better for us'--for whom? thepeople of England, or the Government of England?--that the United Statesshould be severed, and that the North American continent should be asthe continent of Europe is, in many States, and subject to all thecontentions and disasters which have accompanied the history of theStates of Europe. I should say that, if a man had a great heart withinhim, he would rather look forward to the day when, from that point ofland which is habitable nearest to the Pole, to the shores of the GreatGulf, the whole of that vast continent might become one greatconfederation of States, --without a great army, and without a greatnavy, --not mixing itself up with the entanglements of Europeanpolitics, --without a custom-house inside, through the whole length andbreadth of its territory, --and with freedom everywhere, equalityeverywhere, law everywhere, peace everywhere, --such a confederationwould afford at least some hope that man is not forsaken of Heaven, andthat the future of our race may be better than the past. 

It is a common observation, that our friends in America are veryirritable. And I think it is very likely, of a considerable number ofthem, to be quite true. Our friends in America are involved in a greatstruggle. There is nothing like it before in their or in any history. Nocountry in the world was ever more entitled, in my opinion, to thesympathy and the forbearance of all friendly nations, than are theUnited States at this moment. They have there some newspapers that areno wiser than ours. They have there some papers, which, up to theelection of Mr. Lincoln, were his bitterest and most unrelenting foes, who, when the war broke out, and it was not safe to take the line ofSouthern support, were obliged to turn round and to appear to supportthe prevalent opinion of the country. But they undertook to serve theSouth in another way, and that was by exaggerating every difficulty andmisstating every fact, if so doing could serve their object of creatingdistrust between the people of the Northern States and the people ofthis United Kingdom. If the _Times_ in this country has done allthat it could do to poison the minds of the people of England, and toirritate the minds of the people of America, the _New York Herald_, I am sorry to say, has done, I think, all that it could, or all that itdared to do, to provoke mischief between the Government in Washingtonand the Government in London. 

Now there is one thing which I must state that I think they have a solidreason to complain of; and I am very sorry to have to mention it, because it blames our present Foreign Minister, against whom I am notanxious to say a word, and, recollecting his speech in the House ofCommons, I should be slow to conclude that he had any feeling hostile tothe United States Government. You recollect that during the session--itwas on the 14th of May--a Proclamation came out which acknowledged theSouth as a belligerent power, and proclaimed the neutrality of England. A little time before that, I forget how many days, Mr. Dallas, the lateMinister from the United States, had left London for Liverpool andAmerica. He did not wish to undertake any affairs for his Government, bywhich he was not appointed, --I mean that of President Lincoln, --and heleft what had to be done to his successor, who was on his way, and whosearrival was daily expected. Mr. Adams, the present Minister from theUnited States, is a man whom, if he lived in England, you would speak ofas belonging to one of the noblest families of the country. His fatherand his grandfather were Presidents of the United States. Hisgrandfather was one of the great men who achieved the independence ofthe United States. There is no family in that country having more claimsupon what I should call the veneration and the affection of the peoplethan the family of Mr. Adams. 

Mr. Adams came to this country. He arrived in London on the night of the13th of May. On the 14th, that Proclamation was issued. It was knownthat he was coming; but he was not consulted; the Proclamation was notdelayed for a day, although there was nothing pressing, no reason whythe Proclamation should not have been notified to him. If communicationsof a friendly nature had taken place with him and with the AmericanGovernment, they could have found no fault with this step, because itwas perhaps inevitable, before the struggle had proceeded far, that thisProclamation would be issued. But I have the best reasons for knowingthat there is no single thing that has happened during the course ofthese events which has created more surprise, more irritation, and moredistrust in the United States, with respect to this country, than thefact that that Proclamation was not delayed one single day, until theMinister from America could come here, and until it could be done, ifnot with his consent, or his concurrence, yet in that friendly mannerthat would probably have avoided all the unpleasantness which hasoccurred. 

Now I am obliged to say--and I say it with the utmost pain--that if wehave not done things that are plainly hostile to the North, and if wehave not expressed affection for slavery, and, outwardly and openly, hatred for the Union, --I say that there has not been that friendly andcordial neutrality which, if I had been a citizen of the United States, I should have expected; and I say further, that, if there has existedconsiderable irritation at that, it must be taken as a measure of thehigh appreciation which the people of those States place upon theopinion of the people of England. If I had been addressing this audienceten days ago, so far as I know, I should have said just what I have saidnow; and although, by an untoward event, circumstances are somewhat, even considerably, altered, yet I have thought it desirable to make thisstatement, with a view, so far as I am able to do it, to improve theopinion of England, and to assuage feelings of irritation in America, ifthere be any, so that no further difficulties may arise in the progressof this unhappy strife. 

But there has occurred an event which was announced to us only a weekago, which is one of great importance, and it may be one of some peril. It is asserted that what is called 'international law' has been brokenby the seizure of the Southern Commissioners on board an English tradingsteamer by a steamer of war of the United States. Now, what isinternational law? You have heard that the opinions of the law officersof the Crown are in favour of this view of the case--that the law hasbeen broken. I am not at all going to say that it has not. It would beimprudent in me to set my opinion on a legal question which I have onlypartially examined, against their opinion on the same question, which Ipresume they have carefully examined. But this I say, that internationallaw is not to be found in an Act of Parliament--it is not in so manyclauses. You know that it is difficult to find the law. I can ask theMayor, or any magistrate around me, whether it is not very difficult tofind the law, even when you have found the Act of Parliament, and foundthe clause. But when you have no Act of Parliament, and no clause, youmay imagine that the case is still more difficult. 

Now, maritime law, or international law, consists of opinions andprecedents for the most part, and it is very unsettled. The opinions arethe opinions of men of different countries, given at different times;and the precedents are not always like each other. The law is veryunsettled, and, for the most part, I believe it to be exceedingly bad. In past times, as you know from the histories you read, this country hasbeen a fighting country; we have been belligerents, and, asbelligerents, we have carried maritime law, by our own powerful hand, toa pitch that has been very oppressive to foreign, and especially so toneutral nations. Well, now, for the first time, unhappily, --almost forthe first time in our history for the last two hundred years, --we arenot belligerents, but neutrals; and we are disposed to take, perhaps, rather a different view of maritime and international law. 

Now, the act which has been committed by the American steamer, in myopinion, whether it was legal or not, was both impolitic and bad. Thatis my opinion. I think it may turn out, almost certainly, that, so faras the taking of those men from that ship was concerned, it was an actwholly unknown to, and unauthorized by, the American Government. And ifthe American Government believe, on the opinion of their law officers, that the act is illegal, I have no doubt they will make fittingreparation; for there is no Government in the world that has sostrenuously insisted upon modifications of international law, and beenso anxious to be guided always by the most moderate and mercifulinterpretation of that law. 

Now, our great advisers of the _Times_ newspaper have beenpersuading people that this is merely one of a series of acts whichdenote the determination of the Washington Government to pick a quarrelwith the people of England. Did you ever know anybody who was not verynearly dead drunk, who, having as much upon his hands as he couldmanage, would offer to fight everybody about him? Do you believe thatthe United States Government, presided over by President Lincoln, soconstitutional in all his acts, so moderate as he has been--representingat this moment that great party in the United States, happily now in theascendancy, which has always been especially in favour of peace, andespecially friendly to England--do you believe that such a Government, having now upon its hands an insurrection of the most formidablecharacter in the South, would invite the armies and the fleets ofEngland to combine with that insurrection, and, it might be, to renderit impossible that the Union should ever again be restored? I say, thatsingle statement, whether it came from a public writer or a publicspeaker, is enough to stamp him for ever with the character of being aninsidious enemy of both countries. 

Well, now, what have we seen during the last week? People have not been, I am told--I have not seen much of it--quite as calm as sensible menshould be. Here is a question of law. I will undertake to say, that whenyou have from the United States Government--if they think the act legal--a statement of their view of the case, they will show you that, fiftyor sixty years ago, during the wars of that time, there were scores ofcases that were at least as bad as this, and some infinitely worse. Andif it were not so late to-night--and I am not anxious now to go into thequestion further--I could easily place before you cases of extremeoutrage committed by us when we were at war, and for many of which, I amafraid, little or no reparation was offered. But let us bear this inmind, that during this struggle incidents and accidents will happen. Bear in mind the advice of Lord Stanley, so opportune and so judicious. Do not let your newspapers, or your public speakers, or any man, takeyou off your guard, and bring you into that frame of mind under whichyour Government, if it desires war, may be driven to engage in it; forone may be almost as fatal and as evil as the other. 

What can be more monstrous than that we, as we call ourselves, to someextent, an educated, a moral, and a Christian nation--at a moment whenan accident of this kind occurs, before we have made a representation tothe American Government, before we have heard a word from it in reply--should be all up in arms, every sword leaping from its scabbard, andevery man looking about for his pistols and his blunderbusses? I thinkthe conduct pursued--and I have no doubt just the same is pursued by acertain class in America--is much more the conduct of savages than ofChristian and civilized men. No, let us be calm. You recollect how wewere dragged into the Russian war--how we 'drifted' into it. You knowthat I, at least, have not upon my head any of the guilt of that fearfulwar. You know that it cost one hundred millions of money to thiscountry; that it cost at least the lives of forty thousand Englishmen;that it disturbed your trade; that it nearly doubled the armies ofEurope; that it placed the relations of Europe on a much less peacefulfooting than before; and that it did not effect one single thing of allthose that it was promised to effect. 

I recollect speaking on this subject, within the last two years, to aman whose name I have already mentioned, Sir James Graham, in the Houseof Commons. He was a Minister at the time of that war. He was remindingme of a severe onslaught which I had made upon him and Lord Palmerstonfor attending a dinner at the Reform Club when Sir Charles Napier wasappointed to the command of the Baltic fleet; and he remarked, 'What asevere thrashing' I had given them in the House of Commons! I said, 'SirJames, tell me candidly, did you not deserve it?' He said, 'Well, youwere entirely right about that war; we were entirely wrong, and we nevershould have gone into it. ' And this is exactly what everybody will say, if you go into a war about this business, when it is over. When yoursailors and soldiers, so many of them as may be slaughtered, are gone totheir last account; when your taxes are increased, your businesspermanently--it may be--injured; and when embittered feelings forgenerations have been created between America and England--then yourstatesmen will tell you that f we ought not to have gone into the war. '

But they will very likely say, as many of them tell me, 'What could wedo in the frenzy of the public mind?' Let them not add to the frenzy, and let us be careful that nobody drives us into that frenzy. Remembering the past, remembering at this moment the perils of afriendly people, and seeing the difficulties by which they aresurrounded, let us, I entreat of you, see if there be any realmoderation in the people of England, and if magnanimity, so often to befound amongst individuals, is absolutely wanting in a great nation. 

Now, Government may discuss this matter--they may arrange it--they mayarbitrate it. I have received here, since I came into the room, adespatch from a friend of mine in London, referring to this matter. Ibelieve some portion of it is in the papers this evening, but I have notseen them. He states that General Scott, whom you know by name, who hascome over from America to France, being in a bad state of health--theGeneral lately of the American army, and a man whose reputation in thatcountry is hardly second to that which the Duke of Wellington heldduring his lifetime in this country--General Scott has written a letteron the American difficulty. He denies that the Cabinet of Washington hadordered the seizure of the Southern Commissioners, if found under aneutral flag. The question of legal right involved in the seizure, theGeneral thinks a very narrow ground on which to force a quarrel with theUnited States. As to Messrs. Slidell and Mason being or not beingcontraband, the General answers for it, that, if Mr. Seward cannotconvince Earl Russell that they bore that character, Earl Russell willbe able to convince Mr. Seward that they did not. He pledges himselfthat, if this Government cordially agreed with that of the United Statesin establishing the immunity of neutrals from the oppressive right ofsearch and seizure on suspicion, the Cabinet of Washington will nothesitate to purchase so great a boon to peaceful trading-vessels. 

Now, then, before I sit down, let me ask you what is this people, aboutwhich so many men in England at this moment are writing, and speaking, and thinking, with harshness, I think with injustice, if not with greatbitterness? Two centuries ago, multitudes of the people of this countryfound a refuge on the North American continent, escaping from thetyranny of the Stuarts and from the bigotry of Laud. Many noble spiritsfrom our country made great experiments in favour of human freedom onthat continent. Bancroft, the great historian of his own country, hassaid, in his own graphic and emphatic language, 'The history of thecolonization of America is the history of the crimes of Europe. ' Fromthat time down to our own period, America has admitted the wanderersfrom every clime. Since 1815, a time which many here remember, and whichis within my lifetime, more than three millions of persons haveemigrated from the United Kingdom to the United States. During thefifteen years from 1845 or 1846 to 1859 or 1860--a period so recent thatwe all remember the most trivial circumstances that have happened inthat time--during those fifteen years more than two million threehundred and twenty thousand persons left the shores of the UnitedKingdom as emigrants for the States of North America. 

At this very moment, then, there are millions in the United States whopersonally, or whose immediate parents, have at one time been citizensof this country. They found a home in the Far West; they subdued thewilderness; they met with plenty there, which was not afforded them intheir native country; and they have become a great people. There may bepersons in England who are jealous of those States. There may be men whodislike democracy, and who hate a republic; there may be even thosewhose sympathies warm towards the slave oligarchy of the South. But ofthis I am certain, that only misrepresentation the most gross or calumnythe most wicked can sever the tie which unites the great mass of thepeople of this country with their friends and brethren beyond theAtlantic. 

Now, whether the Union will be restored or not, or the South achieve anunhonoured independence or not, I know not, and I predict not. But thisI think I know--that in a few years, a very few years, the twentymillions of freemen in the North will be thirty millions, or even fiftymillions--a population equal to or exceeding that of this kingdom. Whenthat time comes, I pray that it may not be said amongst them, that, inthe darkest hour of their country's trials, England, the land of theirfathers, looked on with icy coldness and saw unmoved the perils andcalamities of their children. As for me, I have but this to say: I ambut one in this audience, and but one in the citizenship of thiscountry; but if all other tongues are silent mine shall speak for thatpolicy which gives hope to the bondsmen of the South, and which tends togenerous thoughts, and generous words, and generous deeds, between thetwo great nations who speak the English language, and from their originare alike entitled to the English name. 

 * * * * *

AMERICA. 

II. 

THE WAR AND THE SUPPLY OF COTTON. BIRMINGHAM, DECEMBER 18, 1862. 

I am afraid there was a little excitement during a part of my honourableColleague's speech, which was hardly favourable to that impartialconsideration to which he appealed. He began by referring to a question--or, I might say, to two questions, for it was one great question in twoparts, --which at this moment occupies the mind, and, I think, mustafflict the heart of every thoughtful man in this country--the calamitywhich has fallen upon the county from which I come, and the strife whichis astonishing the world on the other side of the Atlantic. 

I shall not enter into details with regard to that calamity, because youhave had already, I believe, meetings in this town, many details havebeen published, contributions of a generous character have been made, and you are doing--and especially, if I am rightly informed, are yourartisans doing--their duty with regard to the unfortunate condition ofthe population amongst which I live. But this I may state in a sentence, that the greatest, probably the most prosperous, manufacturing industrythat this country or the world has ever seen, has been suddenly andunexpectedly stricken down, but by a blow which had not been unforeseenor unforetold. Nearly five hundred thousand persons--men, women, andchildren--at this moment are saved from the utmost extremes of famine, not a few of them from death, by the contributions which they arereceiving from all parts of the country. I will not attempt here anelaborate eulogy of the generosity of the givers, nor will I endeavourto paint the patience and the gratitude of those who suffer and receive;but I believe the conduct of the country, with regard to this greatmisfortune, is an honour to all classes and to every section of thispeople. 

Some have remarked that there is perfect order where there has been somuch anxiety and suffering. I believe there is scarcely a thoughtful manin Lancashire who will not admit that one great cause of the patienceand good conduct of the people, besides the fact that they know so muchis being done for them, is to be found in the extensive information theypossess, and which of late years, and now more than ever, has beencommunicated to them through the instrumentality of an untaxed press. Noble Lords who have recently spoken, official men, and public men, havetaken upon them to tell the people of Lancashire that nobody has donewrong, and that, in point of fact, if it had not been for a familyquarrel in that dreadful Republic, everything would have gone onsmoothly, and that nobody can be blamed for our present sufferings. 

Now, if you will allow me, I should like to examine for a few minuteswhether this be true. If you read the papers with regard to thisquestion, you will find that, barring whatever chance there may be ofour again soon receiving a supply of cotton from America, the hopes ofthe whole country are directed to India. Our Government of India is notone of to-day. It is a Government that has lasted as long as theGovernment of the United States, and it has had far more insurrectionsand secessions, not one of which, I suppose some in this meeting mustregret, has been tolerated by our Government or recognised by France. Our Government in India has existed for a hundred years in some portionof the country where cotton is a staple produce of the land. But we havehad under the name of a Government what I have always described as apiratical joint-stock company, beginning with Lord Clive, and ending, asI now hope it has ended, with Lord Dalhousie. And under that GovernmentI will undertake to say that it was not in nature that you could havesuch improvement as should ever give you a fair supply of cotton. 

Up to the year 1814, the whole trade of India was a monopoly of the EastIndia Company. They took everything there that went there; they broughteverything back that came here; they did whatsoever they pleased in theterritories under their rule. I have here an extract from a report of aMember of Council in India, Mr. Richards, published in the year 1813. Hereports to the Court of Directors, that the whole cotton produce of thedistrict was taken, without leaving any portion of the avowed share ofthe Ryots, that is, the cultivators, at their own free disposal; and hesays that they are not suffered to know what they shall get for it untilafter it has been far removed from their reach and from the country byexportation coastwise to Bombay; and he says further, that the Company'sservants fixed the prices from ten to thirty per cent, under the generalmarket rate in the districts that were not under the Company's rule. During the three years before the Company's monopoly was abolished, in1814, the whole cotton that we received from India (I quote from thebrokers' returns from Liverpool), was only 17, 000 bales; in the threeyears afterwards, owing, no doubt, partly to the great increase inprice, we received 551, 000 bales, during which same three years theUnited States only sent us 611, 000. Thus you see that in 1817, 1818, and1819, more than forty years ago, the quantity we received from India wasclose upon, and in the year 1818 it actually exceeded, that which wereceived from the United States. 

Well, now I come down to the year 1832, and I have then the report ofanother Member of Council, and beg every working man here, every man whois told that there is nobody to blame, to listen to one or two extractsfrom the report. Mr. Warden, Member of the Council, gave evidence in1832 that the money-tax levied on Surat cotton was 56 rupees per candy, leaving the grower only 24 rupees, or rather less than 3/4_d_. Perpound. In 1846 there was so great a decay of the cotton-trade of WesternIndia, that a committee was appointed in Bombay, partly of Members ofthe Chamber of Commerce and partly of servants of the Government, andthey made a report in which they stated that from every candy of cotton--a candy is 7 cwt. Or 784 lbs. --costing 80 rupees, which is 160shillings in Bombay, the Government had taken 48 rupees as land-tax andsea-duty, leaving only 32 rupees, or less than 3/4_d_. Per pound, to be divided among all parties, from the Bombay seller to the Suratgrower. 

In 1847 I was in the House of Commons, and I brought forward aproposition for a select committee to inquire into this whole question;for in that year Lancashire was on the verge of the calamity that hasnow overtaken it; cotton was very scarce, for hundreds of the mills wereworking short time, and many were closed altogether. That committeereported that, in all the districts of Bombay and Madras where cottonwas cultivated, and generally over those agricultural regions, thepeople were in a condition of the most abject and degraded pauperism;and I will ask you whether it is possible for a people in that conditionto produce anything great, or anything good, or anything constant, whichthe world requires?

It is not to be wondered at that the quality of the cotton should bebad--so bad that it is illustrated by an anecdote which a very excellentman of the Methodist body told me the other day. He said that at aprayer-meeting, not more than a dozen miles from where I live, one ofthe ministers was earnest in supplication to the Supreme; he detailed, no doubt, a great many things which he thought they were in want of, andamongst the rest, a supply of cotton for the famishing people in thatdistrict. When he prayed for cotton, some man with a keen sense of whathe had suffered, in response exclaimed, 'O Lord! but not Surat. '

Now, my argument is this, and my assertion is this, that the growth ofcotton in India, --the growth of an article which was native and commonin India before America was discovered by Europeans, --that the growth ofthat article has been systematically injured, strangled, and destroyedby the stupid and wicked policy of the Indian Government. 

I saw, the other day, a letter from a gentleman as well acquainted withIndian affairs, perhaps, as any man in India, --a letter written to amember of the Madras Government, --in which he stated his firm opinionthat, if it had not been for the Bombay Committee in 1846, and for myCommittee in 1848, there would not have been any cotton sent from Indiaat this moment to be worked up in Lancashire. Now, in 1846, the quantityof cotton coming from India had fallen to 94, 000 bales. How has itincreased since then? In 1859 it had reached 509, 000 bales; in 1860, 562, 000 bales; and last year, owing to the extraordinarily high price, it had reached 986, 000 bales, and I suppose this year will be about thesame as last year. 

I think, in justification of myself and of some of those with whom Ihave acted, I am entitled to ask your time for a few moments, to showyou what has been not so much done as attempted to be done to improvethis state of things; and what has been the systematic opposition thatwe have had to contend with. In the year 1847, I moved for thatCommittee, in a speech from which I shall read one short extract. I saidthat, 'We ought not to forget that the whole of the cotton grown inAmerica is produced by slave labour, and this, I think, all will admit, --that, no matter as to the period in which slavery may have existed, abolished it will ultimately be, either by peaceable means or by violentmeans. Whether it comes to an end by peaceable means or otherwise, therewill in all probability be an interruption to the production of cotton, and the calamity which must in consequence fall upon a part of theAmerican Union will be felt throughout the manufacturing districts ofthis country. '

The committee was not refused;--Governments do not always refusecommittees; they do not much fear them on matters of this kind; they putas many men on as the mover of the committee does, and sometimes more, and they often consider a committee, as my honourable Colleague willtell you, rather a convenient way of burying an unpleasant question, atleast for another session. The committee sat during the session of 1848, and it made a report, from which I shall quote, not an extract, but thesense of an extract. The evidence was very extensive, very complete, andentirely condemnatory of the whole system of the Indian Government withregard to the land and agricultural produce, and one might have hopedthat something would have arisen from it, and probably something hasarisen from it, but so slowly that you have no fruit, --nothing on whichyou can calculate, even up to this hour. 

Well, in 1850, as nothing more was done, I thought it time to takeanother step, and I gave notice of a motion for the appointment of aRoyal Commission to go to India for the express purpose of ascertainingthe truth of this matter, I moved, 'That a Royal Commission proceed toIndia to inquire into the obstacles which prevent the increased growthof cotton in India, and to report upon any circumstance which mayinjuriously affect the economical and industrial condition of the nativepopulation, being cultivators of the soil, within the Presidencies ofMadras and Bombay. '

Now I shall read you one extract from my speech on that occasion, whichrefers to this question of peril in America. I said, 'But there isanother point, that, whilst the production of cotton in the UnitedStates results from slave labour, whether we approve of any particularmode of abolishing slavery in any country or not, we are all convincedthat it will be impossible in any country, and most of all in America, to keep between two and three millions of the population permanently ina state of bondage. By whatever means that system is to be abolished, whether by insurrection, --which I should deplore, --or by some greatmeasure of justice from the Government, --one thing is certain, that theproduction of cotton must be interfered with for a considerable timeafter such an event has taken place; and it may happen that the greatestmeasure of freedom that has ever been conceded may be a measure theconsequence of which will inflict mischief upon the greatest industrialpursuit that engages the labour of the operative population of thiscountry. '

Now, it was not likely the Government could pay much attention to this, for at that precise moment the Foreign Office--then presided over byLord Palmerston--was engaged with an English fleet in the waters ofGreece, in collecting a bad debt for one Don Pacifico, a Jew, who made afraudulent demand on the Greek Government for injuries said to have beencommitted upon him in Greece. Notwithstanding this, I called upon LordJohn Russell, who was then the Prime Minister, and asked him whether hewould grant the Commission I was going to move for. I will say this forhim, he appeared to agree with me that it was a reasonable thing. Ibelieve he saw the peril, and that my proposition was a proper one, buthe said he wished he could communicate with Lord Dalhousie. But it wasin the month of June, and he could not do that, and hear from him againbefore the close of the session. He told me that Sir John Hobhouse, thenPresident of the India Board, was very much against it; and I answered, 'Doubtless he is, because he speaks as the mouthpiece of the East IndiaCompany, against whom I am bringing this inquiry. '

Well, my proposition came before the House, and, as some of you mayrecollect, it was opposed by the President of the India Board, and theCommission was consequently not granted. I had seen Sir Robert Peel, --this was only ten days before his death, --I had seen Sir Robert Peel, acquainted as he was with Lancashire interests, and had endeavoured toenlist him in my support. He cordially and entirely approved of mymotion, and he remained in the House during the whole of the time I wasspeaking; but when Sir John Hobhouse rose to resist the motion, and hefound the Government would not consent to it, he then left his seat, andleft the House. The night after, or two nights after, he met me in thelobby; and he said he thought it was but right he should explain why heleft the House after the conversation he had held with me on thisquestion before. He said he had hoped the Government would agree to themotion, but when he found they would not, his position was so delicatewith regard to them and his own old party, that he was most anxious thatnothing should induce him, unless under the pressure of some greatextremity, to appear even to oppose them on any matter before the House. Therefore, from a very delicate sense of honour, he did not say what Iam sure he would have been glad to have said, and the proposition didnot receive from him that help which, if it had received it, would havesurmounted all obstacles. 

To show the sort of men who are made ministers--Sir John Hobhouse had onthese occasions always a speech of the same sort. He said this: 'Withrespect to the peculiar urgency of the time, he could not say thehonourable Gentleman had made out his case; for he found that theimportation of cotton from all countries showed an immense increaseduring the last three years. ' We know that the importation of cotton hasshown an 'immense increase' almost every three years for the last fiftyyears. But it was because that increase was entirely, or nearly so, fromone source, and that source one of extreme peril, that I asked for theinquiry for which I moved. He said he had a letter in his hand--and heshook it at me--from the Secretary of the Commercial Association ofManchester, in which the directors of that body declared by specialresolution that my proposition was not necessary, that an inquiry mightdo harm, and that they were abundantly satisfied with everything thatthese lords of Leadenhall-street were doing. He said, 'Such was theletter of the Secretary of the Association, and it was a complete answerto the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this motion. '

At this moment one of these gentlemen to whom I have referred, thenPresident of the Board of Control, Governor of India, author, as he tolda committee on which I sat, of the Affghan war, is now decorated with aNorman title--for our masters even after a lapse of eight hundred yearsape the Norman style--sits in the House of Peers, and legislates foryou, having neglected in regard to India every great duty whichappertained to his high office; and to show that it is not only cabinetsand monarchs who thus distribute honours and rewards, the President ofthat Commercial Association through whose instigation that letter waswritten is now one of the representatives of Manchester, the greatcentre of that manufacture whose very foundation is now crumbling intoruin. 

But I was not, although discouraged, baffled. I went down to the Chamberof Commerce in Manchester, and along with Mr. Bazley, then the Presidentof the Chamber, I believe, and Mr. Henry Ashworth, who is now thePresident of that Chamber, and many others, we determined to have aCommission of Inquiry of our own. We raised a subscription of more than2, 000_l_. ; we selected a gentleman--Mr. Alexander Mackay, theauthor of one of the very best books ever written by an Englishman uponAmerica, _The Western World_--and we invited him to become ourCommissioner, and, unfortunately for him, he accepted the office. Hewent to India, he made many inquiries, he wrote many interestingreports; but, like many others who go to India, his health declined; hereturned from Bombay, but he did not live to reach home. 

We were greatly disappointed at this on public grounds, besides ourregret for the loss of one of so much private worth. Some of us, Mr. Bazley particularly, undertook the charge of publishing these reports, and a friend of Mr. Mackay's, now no longer living, undertook theeditorship of them, and they were published in a volume called_Western India_; and that volume received such circulation as awork of that nature is likely to have. 

In the year 1853 there came the proposition for the renewal of the EastIndia Company's charter. I opposed that to the utmost of my power in theHouse of Commons, and some of you will recollect I came down here withMr. Danby Seymour, the Member for Poole, a gentleman well acquaintedwith Indian affairs, and attended a meeting in this very hall, todenounce the policy of conferring the government of that great countryfor another twenty years upon a Company which had so entirely neglectedevery duty belonging to it except one--the duty of collecting taxes. In1854, Colonel Cotton--now Sir Arthur Cotton, one of the mostdistinguished engineers in India--came down to Manchester. We had ameeting at the Town Hall, and he gave an address on the subject ofopening the Godavery River, in order that it might form a mode oftransit, cheap and expeditious, from the cotton districts to the northof that river; and it was proposed to form a joint-stock company to doit, but unfortunately the Russian war came on and disturbed allcommercial projects, and made it impossible to raise money for any--assome might call it--speculative purpose, like that of opening an Indianriver. 

Well, in 1857 there came the mutiny. What did our rulers do then? SirCharles Wood, in 1538, had made a speech five hours long, most of it inpraise of the government of the East India Company. In 1858--at theopening of the session in 1858, I think--the Government brought in aBill to abolish that Company, and to establish a new form of governmentfor India. That was exactly what we asked them to do in 1853; but, as ineverything else, nothing is done until there comes an overwhelmingcalamity, when the most obtuse and perverse is driven from his position. In 1858 that Bill passed, under the auspices of Lord Stanley. It was nota Bill such as I think Lord Stanley approved when he was not a Minister;it was not a Bill such as I believe he would have brought in if he hadbeen permitted by the House and the Cabinet to have brought in a betterBill. It abolished the East India Company, established a new Council, and left things to a great extent much in the same state as they were. 

During the discussion of that Bill, I made a speech on Indian affairs, which I believe goes to the root of the matter. I protested then as nowagainst the notion of governing one hundred and fifty millions ofpeople--twenty different nations, with twenty different languages--froma little coterie of rulers in the city of Calcutta. I proposed that thecountry should be divided into five or six separate, and, as regardseach other, independent Presidencies of equal rank, with a governor andcouncil in each, and each government corresponding with, and dependentupon, and responsible to, a Secretary of State in this country. I am ofopinion that if such a Government were established, one in eachPresidency, and if there was a first-class engineer, with an efficientstaff, whose business should be to determine what public works should becarried on, some by the Government and some by private companies--Ibelieve that ten years of such judicious labours would work an entirerevolution in the condition of India; and if it had been done when Ifirst began to move in this question, I have not the smallest doubt wemight have had at this moment any quantity of cotton whatever that themills of Lancashire require. 

Well, after this, I am afraid some of my friends may feel, and myopponents will say, that it is very egotistical in me to have enteredinto these details. But I think, after this recapitulation, I am atliberty to say I am guiltless of that calamity which has fallen upon us. And I may mention that some friends of mine--Mr. John Dickinson, nowChairman of the Indian Reform Association, Mr. Bazley, one of themembers for Manchester, Mr. Ashworth, the President of the Chamber ofCommerce of Manchester, and Mr. John Benjamin Smith, the Member forStockport--present themselves at this moment to my eyes as those whohave been largely instrumental in calling the attention of Parliamentand of the country to this great question of the reform of ourGovernment in India. 

But I have been asked twenty, fifty times during the last twelve months, 'Why do you not come out and say something? Why can you not tell ussomething in this time of our great need?' Well, I reply, 'I told yousomething when speaking was of use; all I can say now is this, or nearlyall, that a hundred years of crime against the negro in America, and ahundred years of crime against the docile natives of our Indian empire, are not to be washed away by the penitence and the suffering of anhour. '

But what is our position? for you who are subscribing your money herehave a right to know. I believe the quantity of cotton in the UnitedStates is at this moment much less than many people here believe, andthat it is in no condition to be forwarded and exported. And I suspectthat it is far more probable than otherwise, notwithstanding some of thestrange theories of my honourable Colleague, that there never will againbe in America a crop of cotton grown by slave labour. You willunderstand--I hope so, at least--that I am not undertaking the office ofprophet, I am not predicting; I know that everything which is notabsolutely impossible may happen, and therefore things may happen whollydifferent to the course which appears to me to be likely. But I say, taking the facts as they are before us--with that most limited visionwhich is given to mortals--the high probability is that there will neverbe another considerable crop, or one available for our manufactories, from slave labour in the United States. 

We read the American papers, or the quotations from them in our ownpapers, but I believe we can form no adequate conception of thedisorganization and chaos that now prevail throughout a great portion ofthe Southern States. It is natural to a state of war under thecircumstances of society in that region. But then we may be asked, Whatare our sources of supply, putting aside India? There is the colony ofQueensland, where enthusiastic persons tell you cotton can be grownworth 3_s_. A pound. True enough; but when labour is probably worth10_s_. A-day, I am not sure you are likely to get any large supplyof that material we so much want, at a rate so cheap that we shall belikely to use it. Africa is pointed to by a very zealous friend of mine;but Africa is a land of savages, and with its climate so much againstEuropean constitutions, I should not entertain the hope that any greatrelief at any early period can be had from that continent. Egypt willsend us 30, 000 or 40, 000 bales more than last year; in all probabilitySyria and Brazil, with these high prices, will increase their productionto some considerable extent; but I believe there is no country atpresent from which you can derive any very large supply, except you canget it from your own dependencies in India. Now if there be no morecotton to be grown for two, or three, or four years in America, for oursupply, we shall require, considering the smallness of the bales and theloss in working up the cotton--we shall require nearly 6, 000, 000 ofadditional bales to be supplied from some source. 

I want to put to you one question. It has taken the United States twentyyears, from 1840 up to 1860, to increase their growth of cotton from2, 000, 000 bales to 4, 000, 000. How long will it take any other country, with comparatively little capital, with a thousand disadvantages whichAmerica did not suffer from--how long will it take any other country, orall other countries, to give us 5, 000, 000 or 6, 000, 000 additional balesof cotton? There is one stimulus--the only one that I know of; andalthough I have not recommended it to the Government, and I know notprecisely what sacrifice it would entail, yet I shall mention it, and Ido it on the authority of a gentleman to whom I have before referred, who is thoroughly acquainted with Indian agriculture, and whose familyhave been landowners and cultivators in India for sixty years. He saysthere is only one mode by which you can rapidly stimulate the growth ofcotton in India, except that stimulus coming from the high prices forthe time being, --he says that, if the Government would make a publicdeclaration that for five years they would exempt from land-tax all landwhich during that time shall grow cotton, there would be the mostextraordinary increase in the growth of that article which has ever beenseen in regard to any branch of agriculture in the world. 

I do not know how far that would act, but I believe the stimulus wouldbe enormous, --the loss to the Government in revenue would be something, but the deliverance to the industry of Lancashire, if it succeeded, asmy friend thinks, would of course be speedy, and perhaps complete. Shortof this, I look upon the restoration of the prosperity of Lancashire asdistant. I believe this misfortune may entail ruin upon the wholeworking population, and that it may gradually engulf the smaller tradersand those possessing the least capital. I do not say it will, because, as I have said, what is not impossible may happen, --but it may for yearsmake the whole factory property of Lancashire almost entirely worthless. Well, this is a very dismal look-out for a great many persons in thiscountry; but it comes, as I have said, --it comes from that utter neglectof their opportunities and their duties which has distinguished theGovernment of India. 

Now, Sir, before I sit down I shall ask you to listen to me for a fewmoments on the other branch of this great question, which refers to thatsad tragedy which is passing before our eyes in the United States ofAmerica. I shall not, in consequence of anything you have heard from myhon. Friend, conceal from you any of the opinions which I hold, andwhich I proposed to lay before you if he had not spoken. Having given tohim, notwithstanding some diversity of opinion, a fair and candidhearing, I presume that I shall receive the same favour from those whomay differ from me. If I had known that my hon. Friend was going to makean elaborate speech on this occasion, one of two things I should havedone: I should either have prepared myself entirely to answer him, or Ishould have decided not to attend a meeting where there could by anypossibility of chance have been anything like discord between so many--his friends and my friends--in this room. 

Since I have been Member for Birmingham, Mr. Scholefield has treated mewith the kindness of a brother. Nothing could possibly be more generousand more disinterested in every way than his conduct towards me duringthese several years, and therefore I would much rather--far rather--thatI lost any opportunity like this of speaking on this question, than Iwould have come here and appeared to be at variance with him. But I amhappy to say that this great question does not depend upon the opinionof any man in Birmingham, or in England, or anywhere else. And thereforeI could--anxious always, unless imperative duty requires, to avoid evena semblance of difference--I could with a clear conscience haveabstained from coming to and speaking at this meeting. 

But I observe that my hon. Friend endeavoured to avoid committinghimself to what is called sympathy with the South. He takes a politicalview of this great question, --is disposed to deal with the matter as hewould have dealt with the case of a colony of Spain or Portugalrevolting in South America, or of Greece revolting from Turkey. I shouldlike to state here what I once said to an eminent American. He asked meif I could give him an idea of the course of public opinion in thiscountry from the moment we heard of the secession of the Cotton States;and I endeavoured to trace it in this way, --and I ask you to say whetherit is a fair and full description. 

I said--and my hon. Friend has admitted this--that when the revolt orsecession was first announced, people here were generally against theSouth. Nobody thought then that the South had any cause for breaking upthe integrity of that great nation. Their opinion was, and what peoplesaid, according to their different politics in this country was, 'Theyhave a Government which is mild, and not in any degree oppressive; theyhave not what some people love very much, and what some people dislike, --they have not a costly monarchy, and an aristocracy, creating andliving on patronage. They have not an expensive foreign policy; a greatarmy; a great navy; and they have no suffering millions discontented andendeavouring to overthrow their Government;--all which things have beensaid against Governments in this country and in Europe a hundred timeswithin our own hearing, '--and therefore, they said, 'Why should thesemen revolt?'

But for a moment the Washington Government appeared paralyzed. It had noarmy and no navy; everybody was traitor to it. It was paralyzed andapparently helpless; and in the hour when the government was transferredfrom President Buchanan to President Lincoln, many people--such was theunprepared state of the North, such was the apparent paralysis ofeverything there--thought there would be no war; and men shook handswith each other pleasantly, and congratulated themselves that thedisaster of a great strife, and the mischief to our own trade, might beavoided. That was the opinion at that moment, so far as I can recollect, and could gather at the time, with my opportunities of gathering suchopinion. They thought the North would acquiesce in the rending of theRepublic, and that there would be no war. 

Well, but there was another reason. They were told by certain publicwriters in this country that the contest was entirely hopeless, as theyhave been told lately by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am veryhappy that, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to decide toa penny what shall be the amount of taxes to meet public expenditure inEngland, he cannot decide what shall be the fate of a whole continent. It was said that the contest was hopeless, and why should the Northcontinue a contest at so much loss of blood and treasure, and at sogreat a loss to the commerce of the whole world? If a man thought--if aman believed in his heart that the contest was absolutely hopeless--noman in this country had probably any right to form a positive opinionone way or the other--but if he had formed that opinion, he might think, 'Well, the North can never be successful; it would be much better thatthey should not carry on the war at all; and therefore I am rather gladthat the South should have success, for by that the war will be thesooner put an end to. ' I think this was a feeling that was abroad. 

Now I am of opinion that, if we judge a foreign nation in thecircumstances in which we find America, we ought to apply to it our ownprinciples. My hon. Friend has referred to the question of the Trent. Iwas not here last year, but I heard of a meeting--I read in the papersof a meeting held in reference to that affair in this very hall, andthat there was a great diversity of opinion. But the majority weresupposed to indorse the policy of the Government in making a greatdemonstration of force. And I think I read that at least one minister ofreligion took that view from this platform. I am not complaining of it. But I say that if you thought when the American captain, even if he hadacted under the commands of his Government, which he had not, had takentwo men most injurious and hostile to his country from the deck of anEnglish ship--if you thought that on that ground you were justified ingoing to war with the Republic of North America, then I say you oughtnot to be very nice in judging what America should do in circumstancesmuch more onerous than those in which you were placed. 

Now, take as an illustration the Rock of Gibraltar. Many of you havebeen there, I dare say. I have; and among the things that interested mewere the monkeys on the top of it, and a good many people at the bottom, who were living on English taxes. Well, the Rock of Gibraltar was takenand retained by this country when we were not at war with Spain, and itwas retained contrary to every law of morality and honour. [A Voice:'No! No!'] No doubt the Gentleman below is much better acquainted withthe history of it than I am, but I may suggest to him that very likelywe have read two different histories. But I will let this pass, and Iwill assume that it came into the possession of England in the mosthonourable way, which is, I suppose, by regular and acknowledgednational warfare. 

Suppose, at this moment, you heard, or the English Government heard, that Spain was equipping expeditions, by land and sea, for the purposeof retaking that fortress and rock. Now, although it is not of theslightest advantage to any Englishman living, excepting to those whohave pensions and occupations upon it; although every Government knowsit, and although more than one Government has been anxious to give itup, and I hope this Government will send my friend, Mr. Cobden, toMadrid, with an offer that Gibraltar shall be ceded to Spain, as beingof no use to this country, and only embittering, as statesmen haveadmitted, the relations between Spain and England, --and if he were to goto Madrid with an offer of the Rock of Gibraltar, I believe he mightobtain a commercial treaty with Spain, that would admit every Englishmanufacture and every article of English produce into that country at aduty of not more than ten per cent. ;--I say, do you not think that, ifyou heard that Spain was about to retake that useless rock, musteringher legions and her fleets, the English Government would combine all thepower of this country to resist it?

If that be so, then I think--seeing that there was a fair election twoyears ago, and that President Lincoln was fairly and honestly elected--that when the Southern leaders met at Montgomery in Alabama, on the 6thof March, and authorized the raising of a hundred thousand men, andwhen, on the 15th of April, they attacked Fort Sumter--not a fort ofSouth Carolina, but a fort of the Union--then, upon all the principlesthat Englishmen and English Governments have ever acted upon, PresidentLincoln was justified in calling out seventy-five thousand men--whichwas his first call--for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of thatnation, which was the main purpose of the oath which he had taken at hiselection. 

Now I shall not go into a long argument upon this question, for thereason that a year ago I said what I thought it necessary to say uponit, and because I believe the question is in the hand, not of my hon. Friend, nor in that of Lord Palmerston, nor in that even of PresidentLincoln, but it is in the hand of the Supreme Ruler, who is bringingabout one of those great transactions in history which men often willnot regard when they are passing before them, but which they look backupon with awe and astonishment some years after they are past. So Ishall content myself with asking one or two questions. I shall notdiscuss the question whether the North is making war for theConstitution, or making war for the abolition of slavery. 

If you come to a matter of sympathy with the South, or recognition ofthe South, or mediation or intervention for the benefit of the South, you should consider what are the ends of the South. Surely the UnitedStates Government is a Government at amity with this country. ItsMinister is in London--a man honourable by family, as you know, inAmerica, his father and his grandfather having held the office ofPresident of the Republic. You have your own Minister just returned toWashington. Is this hypocrisy? Are you, because you can cavil at certainthings which the North, the United States Government, has done or hasnot done, are you eagerly to throw the influence of your opinion into amovement which is to dismember the great Republic?

Is there a man here that doubts for a moment that the object of the waron the part of the South--they began the war--that the object of the waron the part of the South is to maintain in bondage four millions ofhuman beings? That is only a small part of it. The further object is toperpetuate for ever the bondage of all the posterity of those fourmillions of slaves. [A few cries of 'No! No!'] You will hear that I amnot in a condition to contest vigorously anything that may be opposed, for I am suffering, as nearly everybody is, from the state of theweather, and a hoarseness that almost hinders me from speaking. I couldquote their own documents till midnight in proof of what I say; and if Ifound a man who denied it, upon the evidence that had been offered, Iwould not offend him, or trouble myself by trying further to convincehim. 

The object is, that a handful of white men on that continent shall lordit over many millions of blacks, made black by the very Hand that madeus white. The object is, that they should have the power to breednegroes, to work negroes, to lash negroes, to chain negroes, to buy andsell negroes, to deny them the commonest ties of family, or to breaktheir hearts by rending them at their pleasure, to close their mentaleye to but a glimpse even of that knowledge which separates us from thebrute--for in their laws it is criminal and penal to teach the negro toread--to seal from their hearts the Book of our religion, and to makechattels and things of men and women and children. 

Now I want to ask whether this is to be the foundation, as it isproposed, of a new slave empire, and whether it is intended that on thisaudacious and infernal basis England's new ally is to be built up. Ithas been said that Greece was recognized, and that other countries hadbeen recognized. But Greece was not recognized till after she had foughtTurkey for six years, and the Republics of South America, some of them, not till they had fought the mother country for a score of years. Francedid not recognize the United States of America till some, I think, sixyears, five certainly, after the beginning of the War of Independence, and even then it was received as a declaration of war by the EnglishGovernment. I want to know who they are who speak eagerly in favour ofEngland becoming the ally and friend of this great conspiracy againsthuman nature. 

Now I should have no kind of objection to recognize a country because itwas a country that held slaves--to recognize the United States, or to bein amity with it. The question of slavery there, and in Cuba and inBrazil, is, as far as respects the present generation, an accident, andit would be unreasonable that we should object to trade with and havepolitical relations with a country, merely because it happened to havewithin its borders the institution of slavery, hateful as thatinstitution is. But in this case it is a new State intending to setitself up on the sole basis of slavery. Slavery is blasphemouslydeclared to be its chief corner-stone. 

I have heard that there are, in this country, ministers of state who arein favour of the South; that there are members of the aristocracy whoare terrified at the shadow of the Great Republic; that there are richmen on our commercial exchanges, depraved, it may be, by their riches, and thriving unwholesomely within the atmosphere of a privileged class;that there are conductors of the public press who would barter therights of millions of their fellow-creatures that they might bask in thesmiles of the great. 

But I know that there are ministers of state who do not wish that thisinsurrection should break up the American nation; that there are membersof our aristocracy who are not afraid of the shadow of the Republic;that there are rich men, many, who are not depraved by their riches; andthat there are public writers of eminence and honour who will not barterhuman rights for the patronage of the great. But most of all, and beforeall, I believe, --I am sure it is true in Lancashire, where the workingmen have seen themselves coming down from prosperity to ruin, fromindependence to a subsistence on charity, --I say that I believe that theunenfranchised but not hopeless millions of this country will neversympathize with a revolt which is intended to destroy the liberty of acontinent, and to build on its ruins a mighty fabric of human bondage. 

When I speak to gentlemen in private upon this matter, and hear theirown candid opinion, --I mean those who differ from me on this question, --they generally end by saying that the Republic is too great and toopowerful, and that it is better for us--not by 'us' meaning you, but thegoverning classes and the governing policy of England--that it should bebroken up. But we will suppose that we are in New York or in Boston, discussing the policy and power of England. If any one there were topoint to England, --not to the thirty-one millions of population in theseislands, but to her one hundred and fifty millions in India, and nobodyknows how many millions more in every other part of the globe, --might henot, whilst boasting that America has not covered the ocean with fleetsof force, or left the bones of her citizens to blanch on a hundredEuropean battle-fields, --might he not fairly say, that England is greatand powerful, and that it is perilous for the world that she is sogreat?

But bear in mind that every declaration of this kind, whether from anEnglishman who professes to be strictly English, or from an Americanstrictly American, or from a Frenchman strictly French, --whether itasserts in arrogant strains that Britannia rules the waves, or speaks of'manifest destiny' and the supremacy of the 'Stars and Stripes' orboasts that the Eagles of one nation, having once overrun Europe, maypossibly repeat the experiment, --I say all this is to be condemned. Itis not truly patriotic; it is not rational; it is not moral. Then, Isay, if any man wishes the Great Republic to be severed on that ground:in my opinion, he is doing that which tends to keep alive jealousieswhich, as far as he can prevent it, will never die; though if they donot die, wars must be eternal. 

But then I shall be told that the people of the North do not like us atall. In fact, we have heard it to-night. It is not reasonable that theyshould like us. If an American be in this room to-night, will he feelthat he likes my honourable Friend? But if the North does not likeEngland, does anybody believe the South does? It does not appear to meto be a question of liking or disliking. Everybody knows that when theSouth was in power, --and it has been in power for the last fifty years, --everybody knows that hostility to this country, wherever it existed inAmerica, was cherished and stimulated to the utmost degree by some ofthose very men who are now leaders of this very insurrection. 

My hon. Friend read a passage about the _Alabama_. I undertake tosay that he is not acquainted with the facts about the _Alabama_, That he will acknowledge, I think. The Government of this country haveadmitted that the building of the _Alabama_, and her sailing fromthe Mersey, was a violation of international law. In America they say, and they say here, that the _Alabama_ is a ship of war; that shewas built in the Mersey; that she was built, and I have reason tobelieve it, by a member of the British Parliament; that she is furnishedwith guns of English manufacture; that she is manned almost entirely byEnglishmen; and that these facts were represented, as I know they wererepresented, to the collector of customs in Liverpool, who pooh-poohedthem, and said there was nothing in them. He was requested to send thefacts up to London to the Customs' authorities, and their solicitor, nota very wise man, but probably in favour of breaking up the Republic, didnot think them of much consequence; but afterwards the opinion of aneminent counsel, Mr. Collier, the Member for Plymouth, was taken, and hestated distinctly that what was being done in Liverpool was a directinfringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and that the Customs'authorities of Liverpool would be responsible for anything that happenedin consequence. 

When this opinion was taken to the Foreign Office the Foreign Office wasa little astonished and a little troubled; and after they had consultedtheir own law officers, whose opinions agreed with that of Mr. Collier, they did what Government officers generally do, and as promptly, --atelegraphic message went down to Liverpool to order that this vesselshould be seized, and she happened to sail an hour or two before themessage arrived. She has never been into a Confederate port--they havenot got any ports; she hoists the English flag when she wants to comealongside a ship; she sets a ship on fire in the night, and when, seeingfire, another ship bears down to lend help, she seizes it, and pillagesand burns it. I think that, if we were citizens of New York, it wouldrequire a little more calmness than is shown in this country to look atall this as if it was a matter with which we had no concern. Andtherefore I do not so much blame the language that has been used inAmerica in reference to the question of the _Alabama_. 

But they do not know in America so much as we know--the whole truthabout public opinion here. There are ministers in our Cabinet asresolved to be no traitors to freedom, on this question, as I am; andthere are members of the English aristocracy, and in the very highestrank, as I know for a certainty, who hold the same opinion. They do notknow in America--at least, there has been no indication of it until theadvices that have come to hand within the last two days--what is theopinion of the great body of the working classes in England. There hasbeen every effort that money and malice could make to stimulate inLancashire, amongst the suffering population, an expression of opinionin favour of the Slave States. They have not been able to get it. And Ihonour that population for their fidelity to principles and to freedom, and I say that the course they have taken ought to atone in the minds ofthe people of the United States for miles of leading articles, writtenby the London press, --by men who would barter every human right, --thatthey might serve the party with which they are associated. 

But now I shall ask you one other question before I sit down, --How comesit that on the Continent there is not a liberal newspaper, nor a liberalpolitician, that has said, or has thought of saying, a word in favour ofthis portentous and monstrous shape which now asks to be received intothe family of nations? Take the great Italian Minister, Count Cavour. You read some time ago in the papers part of a despatch which he wroteon the question of America--he had no difficulty in deciding. AskGaribaldi. Is there in Europe a more disinterested and generous friendof freedom than Garibaldi? Ask that illustrious Hungarian, to whosemarvellous eloquence you once listened in this hall. Will he tell youthat slavery has nothing to do with it, and that the slaveholders of theSouth will liberate the negroes sooner than the North through theinstrumentality of the war? Ask Victor Hugo, the poet of freedom, --theexponent, may I not call him, of the yearnings of all mankind for abetter time? Ask any man in Europe who opens his lips for freedom, --whodips his pen in ink that he may indite a sentence for freedom, --whoeverhas a sympathy for freedom warm in his own heart, --ask him, --he willhave no difficulty in telling you on which side your sympathies shouldlie. 

Only a few days ago a German merchant in Manchester was speaking to afriend of mine, and said he had recently travelled all through Germany. He said, 'I am so surprised, --I don't find one man in favour of theSouth' That is not true of Germany only, it is true of all the worldexcept this island, famed for freedom, in which we dwell. I will tellyou what is the reason. Our London press is mainly in the hands ofcertain ruling West End classes; it acts and writes in favour of thoseclasses. I will tell you what they mean. One of the most eminentstatesmen in this country, --one who has rendered the greatest servicesto the country, though, I must say, not in an official capacity, inwhich men very seldom confer such great advantages upon the country, --hetold me twice, at an interval of several months, 'I had no idea how muchinfluence the example of that Republic was having upon opinion here, until I discovered the universal congratulation that the Republic waslikely to be broken up. '

But, Sir, the Free States are the home of the working man. Now, I speakto working men particularly at this moment. Do you know that in fifteenyears two million five hundred thousand persons, men, women, andchildren, have left the United Kingdom to find a home in the Free Statesof America? That is a population equal to eight great cities of the sizeof Birmingham. What would you think of eight Birminghams beingtransplanted from this country and set down in the United States?Speaking generally, every man of these two and a half millions is in aposition of much higher comfort and prosperity than he would have beenif he had remained in this country. I say it is the home of the workingman; as one of her poets has recently said, --

 'For her free latch-string never was drawn in Against the poorest child of Adam's kin. '

And in that land there are no six millions of grown men--I speak of theFree States--excluded from the constitution of their country and itselectoral franchise; there, you will find a free Church, a free school, free land, a free vote, and a free career for the child of the humblestborn in the land. My countrymen who work for your living, remember this:there will be one wild shriek of freedom to startle all mankind if thatAmerican Republic should be overthrown. 

Now for one moment let us lift ourselves, if we can, above the narrowcircle in which we are all too apt to live and think; let us putourselves on an historical eminence, and judge this matter fairly. Slavery has been, as we all know, the huge, foul blot upon the fame ofthe American Republic; it is a hideous outrage against human right andagainst Divine law; but the pride, the passion of man, will not permitits peaceable extinction. The slave-owners of our colonies, if they hadbeen strong enough, would have revolted too. I believe there was no modeshort of a miracle more stupendous than any recorded in Holy Writ thatcould in our time, or in a century, or in any time, have brought aboutthe abolition of slavery in America, but the suicide which the South hascommitted and the war which it has begun. 

Sir, it is a measureless calamity, --this war. I said the Russian war wasa measureless calamity, and yet many of your leaders and friends toldyou that it was a just war to maintain the integrity of Turkey, somethousands of miles off. Surely the integrity of your own country at yourown doors must be worth as much as the integrity of Turkey. Is not thiswar the penalty which inexorable justice exacts from America, North andSouth, for the enormous guilt of cherishing that frightful iniquity ofslavery for the last eighty years? I do not blame any man here whothinks the cause of the North hopeless and the restoration of the Unionimpossible. It may be hopeless; the restoration may be impossible. Youhave the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point. TheChancellor of the Exchequer, as a speaker, is not surpassed by any manin England, and he is a great statesman; he believes the cause of theNorth to be hopeless; that their enterprise cannot succeed. 

Well, he is quite welcome to that opinion, and so is anybody else. I donot hold the opinion; but the facts are before us all, and, as far as wecan discard passion and sympathy, we are all equally at liberty to formour own opinion. But what I do blame is this. I blame men who are eagerto admit into the family of nations a State which offers itself to us, based upon a principle, I will undertake to say, more odious and moreblasphemous than was ever heretofore dreamed of in Christian or Pagan, in civilized or in savage times. The leaders of this revolt propose thismonstrous thing--that over a territory forty times as large as England, the blight and curse of slavery shall be for ever perpetuated. 

I cannot believe, for my part, that such a fate will befall that fairland, stricken though it now is with the ravages of war. I cannotbelieve that civilization, in its journey with the sun, will sink intoendless night in order to gratify the ambition of the leaders of thisrevolt, who seek to

 'Wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind. '

I have another and a far brighter vision before my gaze. It may be but avision, but I will cherish it. I see one vast confederation stretchingfrom the frozen North in unbroken line to the glowing South, and fromthe wild billows of the Atlantic westward to the calmer waters of thePacific main, --and I see one people, and one language, and one law, andone faith, and, over all that wide continent, the home of freedom, and arefuge for the oppressed of every race and of every clime. 

 * * * * *

AMERICA. 

III. 

SLAVERY AND SECESSION. ROCHDALE, FEBRUARY 3, 1863. 

[This speech was delivered at a public meeting held in the Public Hall, Rochdale, for the purpose of passing a resolution of thanks to themerchants of New York, for their generous contributions to the relief ofthe suffering population of the cotton districts. ]

I feel as if we were in our places to-night, for we are met for thepurpose of considering, and, I doubt not, of agreeing to a resolutionexpressive of our sense of the generosity of the merchants of New York, and other citizens of the United States, who have, in the midst of somany troubles and such great sacrifices, contributed to the relief ofthat appalling distress which has prevailed, and does still prevail, inthis county. 

I regard this transmission of assistance from the United States as aproof that the world moves onward in the direction of a better time. Itis an evidence that, whatever may be the faults of ambitious men, andsometimes, may I not say, the crimes of Governments, the peoples aredrawing together, and beginning to learn that it never was intended thatthey should be hostile to each other, but that every nation should takea brotherly interest in every other nation in the world. There has been, as we all know, not a little jealousy between some portions of thepeople of this country and some portions of the people of the UnitedStates. Perhaps the jealousy has existed more on this side. I think ithas found more expression here, probably through the means of the publicpress, than has been the case with them. I am not alluding now to thelast two years, but as long as most of us have been readers ofnewspapers and observers of what has passed around us. 

The establishment of independence, eighty years ago; the war of 1812; itmay be, occasionally, the presumptuousness and the arrogance of agrowing and prosperous nation on the other side of the Atlantic--thesethings have stimulated ill feeling and jealousy here, which have oftenfound expression in language which has not been of the very kindestcharacter. But why should there be this jealousy between these twonations? Mr. Ashworth has said, and said very truly, 'Are they not ourown people?' I should think, as an Englishman, that to see that peopleso numerous, so powerful, so great in so many ways, should be to us acause, not of envy or of fear, but rather of glory and rejoicing. 

I have never visited the United States, but I can understand thepleasure with which an Englishman lands in a country three thousandmiles off, and finds that every man he meets speaks his own language. Irecollect some years ago reading a most amusing speech delivered by aSuffolk country gentleman, at a Suffolk agricultural dinner, I think itwas, though I do not believe the speeches of Suffolk country gentlemenat Suffolk agricultural meetings are generally very amusing. But thiswas a very amusing speech. This gentleman had travelled; he had been inthe United States, and being intelligent enough to admire much that hesaw there, he gave to his audience a description of some things that hehad seen; but that which seemed to delight him most was this, that whenhe stepped from the steamer on to the quay at New York, he found that'everybody spoke Suffolk. ' Now, if anybody from this neighbourhoodshould visit New York, I am afraid that he will not find everybodyspeaking Lancashire. Our dialect, as you know, is vanishing into thepast. It will be preserved to future times, partly in the works of TimBobbin, but in a very much better and more instructive form in theadmirable writings of one of my oldest and most valued friends, who isnow upon this platform. But if we should not find the people of New Yorkspeaking Lancashire, we should find them speaking English. And if wefollowed a little further, and asked them what they read, we should findthat they read all the books that we read that are worth reading, and agood many of their own, some of which have not yet reached us; thatthere are probably more readers in the United States of Milton, andShakespeare, and Dryden, and Pope, and Byron, and Wordsworth, andTennyson, than are to be found in this country; because, I think, itwill probably be admitted by everybody who understands the facts of bothcountries, that out of the twenty millions of population in the FreeStates of America, there are more persons who can read well than thereare in the thirty millions of population of Great Britain and Ireland. 

And if we leave their literature and turn to their laws, we shall findthat their laws have the same basis as ours, and that many of the greatand memorable judgments of our greatest judges and lawyers are of highauthority with them. If we come to that priceless possession which wehave perhaps more clearly established than any other people in Europe, that of personal freedom, we shall find that in the Free States ofAmerica personal freedom is as much known, as well established, as fullyappreciated, and as completely enjoyed as it is now in this country. Andif we come to the form of their government, we shall find that it is inits principle, in its essence, not very dissimilar from that which ourConstitution professes in this kingdom. The difference is this, that ourConstitution has never yet been fully enjoyed by the people; the Housein which forty-eight hours hence I may be sitting, is not as full andfair and free a representation of the people as is the House ofRepresentatives that assembles at Washington. But, if there bedifferences, are there not great points of agreement, and are there anyof these differences that justify us or them in regarding either nationas foreign or hostile?

Now, the people of Europe owe much more than they are often aware of tothe Constitution of the United States of America, and to the existenceof that great Republic. The United States have been in point of fact anark of refuge to the people of Europe, when fleeing from the storms andthe revolutions of the old continent. They have been, as far as theartisans and labouring population of this country are concerned, a life-boat to them; and they have saved hundreds of thousands of men and offamilies from disastrous shipwreck. The existence of that free countryand that free government has had a prodigious influence upon freedom inEurope and in England. If you could have before you a chart of thecondition of Europe when the United States became a nation, and anotherchart of the condition of Europe now, you would see the difference, theenormous stride which has been made in Europe; and you may rely upon itthat not a little of it has been occasioned by the influence of thegreat example of that country, free in its political institutions beyondall other countries, and yet maintaining its course in peace, preservingorder, and conferring upon all its people a degree of prosperity whichin these old countries is as yet unknown. 

I should like now to speak specially to the working men who are here, who have no capital but their skill and their industry and their bodilystrength. In fifteen years from 1845 to 1860--and this is a fact which Istated in this room more than a year ago, when speaking on the questionof America, but it is a fact which every working man ought to have inhis mind always when he is considering what America is--in fifteen yearsthere have emigrated to the United States from Great Britain and Irelandnot less than two million four hundred thousand persons. Millions areeasily spoken, not easily counted, with great difficulty comprehended;but the twenty-four hundred thousand persons that I have described meansa population equal to not less than sixty towns, every one of them ofthe size and population of Rochdale. And every one of these men who haveemigrated, as he crossed the Atlantic--if he went by steam, in afortnight, and if he went by sails, in a month or five weeks--foundhimself in a country where to his senses a vast revolution had takenplace, comprehending all that men anticipate from any kind of revolutionthat shall advance political and social equality in their own land--arevolution which commenced in the War of Independence, which has beengoing on, and which has been confirmed by all that has transpired insubsequent years. 

He does not find that he belongs to what are called the 'lower classes;'he is not shut out from any of the rights of citizenship; he is admittedto the full enjoyment of all political privileges, as far as they areextended to any portion of the population; and he has there advantageswhich the people of this country have not yet gained, because we are butgradually making our way out of the darkness and the errors and thetyrannies of past ages. But in America he finds the land not cursed withfeudalism; it is free to every man to buy and sell, and possess andtransmit. He finds in the town in which he lives that the noblestbuildings are the school-houses to which his children are freelyadmitted. And among those twenty millions--for I am now confining myobservations to the Free States--the son of every man has easy admissionto school, has fair opportunity for improvement; and, if God has giftedhim with power of head and of heart; there is nothing of usefulness, nothing of greatness, nothing of success in that country to which he maynot fairly aspire. 

And, Sir, this makes a difference between that country and this, onwhich I must say another word. One of the most painful things to my mindto be seen in England is this, that amongst the great body of thoseclasses which earn their living by their daily labour--it isparticularly observable in the agricultural districts, and it is toomuch to be observed even in our own districts--there is an absence ofthat hope which every man ought to have in his soul that there is forhim, if he be industrious and frugal, a comfortable independence as headvances in life. In the United States that hope prevails everywhere, because everywhere there is an open career; there is no privilegedclass; there is complete education extended to all, and every man feelsthat he was not born to be in penury and in suffering, but that there isno point in the social ladder to which he may not fairly hope to raisehimself by his honest efforts. 

Well, looking at all this--and I have but touched on some very prominentfacts--I should say that it offers to us every motive, not for fear, notfor jealousy, not for hatred, but rather for admiration, gratitude, andfriendship. I am persuaded of this as much as I am of anything that Iknow or believe, that the more perfect the friendship that isestablished between the people of England and the free people ofAmerica, the more you will find your path of progress here made easy foryou, and the more will social and political liberty advance amongst us. 

But this country which I have been in part describing is now the sceneof one of the greatest calamities that can afflict mankind. Afterseventy years of almost uninterrupted peace, it has become the scene ofa civil war, more gigantic, perhaps, than any that we have any record ofwith regard to any other nation or any other people; for the scene ofthis warfare is so extended as to embrace a region almost equal in sizeto the whole of Europe. At this very moment military operations arebeing undertaken at points as distant from each other as Madrid isdistant from Moscow. But this great strife cannot have arisen amongst aneducated and intelligent people without some great and overruling cause. Let us for a moment examine that cause, and let us ask ourselves whetherit is possible at such a time to stand neutral in regard to thecontending parties, and to refuse our sympathy to one or the other ofthem. I find men sometimes who profess a strict neutrality; they wishneither the one thing nor the other. This arises either from the factthat they are profoundly ignorant with regard to this matter, or elsethat they sympathise with the South, but are rather ashamed to admit it. 

There are two questions concerned in this struggle. Hitherto, generally, one only has been discussed. There is the question whether negro slaveryshall continue to be upheld amongst Christian nations, or whether itshall be entirely abolished. Because, bear in mind that if the result ofthe struggle that is now proceeding in America should abolish slaverywithin the territories of the United States, then soon after slavery inBrazil, and slavery in Cuba, will also fall. I was speaking the otherday to a gentleman well acquainted with Cuban affairs; he is often inthe habit of seeing persons who come from Cuba to this country onbusiness; and I asked him what his Cuban friends said of what was goingon in America. He said, 'They speak of it with the greatestapprehension; all the property of Cuba, ' he said, 'is based on slavery;and they say that if slavery comes to an end in America, as they believeit will, through this war, slavery will have a very short life in Cuba. 'Therefore, the question which is being now tried is, not merely whetherfour millions of slaves in America shall be free, but whether the vastnumber of slaves (I know not the number) in Cuba and Brazil shall alsobe liberated. 

But there is another question besides that of the negro, and which toyou whom I am now addressing is scarcely less important. I say that thequestion of freedom to men of all races is deeply involved in this greatstrife in the United States. I said I wanted the working men of thisaudience to listen to my statement, because it is to them that Iparticularly wish to address myself. I say, that not only is thequestion of negro slavery concerned in this struggle, but, if we are totake the opinion of leading writers and men in the Southern States ofAmerica, the freedom of white men is not safe in their hands. Now, Iwill not trouble you with pages of extracts which would confirm all thatI am about to say, but I shall read you two or three short ones whichwill explain exactly what I mean. 

The city of Richmond, as you know, is the capital of what is called theSouthern Confederacy. In that city a newspaper is published, called the_Richmond Examiner_, which is one of the most able, and perhapsabout the most influential, paper published in the Slave States. Listento what the _Richmond Examiner_ says:--

 The experiment of universal liberty has failed. The evils of free society are insufferable. Free society in the long run is impracticable; it is everywhere starving, demoralizing, and insurrectionary. Policy and humanity alike forbid the extension of its evils to new peoples and to coming generations; and therefore free society must fall and give way to a slave society-- a social system old as the world, universal as man. '

Well, on another occasion, the same paper treats the subject in thisway. The writer says:--

 'Hitherto the defence of slavery has encountered great difficulties, because its apologists stopped half way. They confined the defence of slavery to negro slavery alone, abandoning the principle of slavery, and admitting that every other form of slavery was wrong. Now the line of defence is changed. The South maintains that slavery is just, natural, and necessary, and that it does not depend on the difference of complexions. '

But following up this is an extract from a speech by a Mr. Cobb, who isan eminent man in Southern politics and in Southern opinion. He says:--

 'There is, perhaps, no solution of the great problem of reconciling the interests of labour and capital, so as to protect each from the encroachments and oppressions of the other, so simple and effective as negro slavery. By making the labourer himself capital, the conflict ceases, and the interests become identical. '

Now, I do not know whether there is any working man here who does notfully or partly realize the meaning of those extracts. They mean this, that if a man in this neighbourhood (for they pity us very much in ourbenighted condition as regards capital and labour, and they have anadmirable way, from their view, of putting an end to strikes)--they saythat, if a man in this neighbourhood had ten thousand pounds sterling ina cotton or woollen factory, and he employed a hundred men, women, andchildren, that instead of paying them whatever wages had been agreedupon, allowing them to go to the other side of the town, and work wherethey liked, or to move to another county, or to emigrate to America, orto have any kind of will or wish whatever with regard to their owndisposal, that they should be to him capital, just the same as thehorses are in his stable; that he should sell the husband South, --'South' in America means something very dreadful to the negro, --thatthey should sell the wife if they liked, that they should sell thechildren, that, in point of fact, they should do whatsoever they likedwith them, and that, if any one of them resisted any punishment whichthe master chose to inflict, the master should be held justified if hebeat his slave to death; and that not one of those men should have thepower to give evidence in any court of justice, in any case, against awhite man, however much he might have suffered from that white man. 

You will observe that this most important paper in the South writes forthat principle, and this eminent Southern politician indorses it, andthinks it a cure for all the evils which exist in the Old World and inthe Northern and Free States; and there is not a paper in the South, noris there a man as eminent or more eminent than Mr. Cobb, who has daredto write or speak in condemnation of the atrocity of that language. Ibelieve this great strife to have had its origin in an infamousconspiracy against the rights of human nature. Those principles, whichthey distinctly avow and proclaim, are not to be found, as far as Iknow, in the pages of any heathen writer of old times, nor are they tobe discovered in the teachings or the practice of savage nations in ourtimes. It is the doctrine of devils, and not of men; and all mankindshould shudder at the enormity of the guilt which the leaders of thisconspiracy have brought upon that country. 

Now, let us look at two or three facts, which seem to me veryremarkable, on the surface of the case, but which there are men in thiscountry, and I am told they may be found even in this town, whoaltogether ignore and deny. The war was not commenced by those to whomyour resolution refers; it was commenced by the South; they rebelledagainst the majority. It was not a rebellion against a monarchy, or anaristocracy, or some other form of government which has its hold uponpeople, sometimes by services, but often from tradition; but it wasagainst a Government of their own, and a compact of their own, that theyviolently rebelled, and for the expressed and avowed purpose ofmaintaining the institution of slavery, and for the purpose, notdisavowed, of re-opening the slave trade, and, as these extracts show, if their principles should be fully carried out, of making bondageuniversal among all classes of labourers and artisans. When I say thattheir object was to re-open the slave trade, do not for a moment imaginethat I am overstating the case against them. They argue, with a perfectlogic, that, if slavery was right, the slave trade could not be wrong;if the slave trade be wrong, slavery cannot be right; and that if it belawful and moral to go to the State of Virginia and buy a slave for twothousand dollars, and take him to Louisiana, it cannot be wrong to go toAfrica, and buy a slave for fifty dollars, and take him to Louisiana. That was their argument; it is an argument to this day, and is anargument that in my opinion no man can controvert; and the lawfulexistence of slavery is as a matter of course to be followed, and wouldbe followed, wherever there was the power, by the re-opening of thetraffic in negroes from Africa. 

That is not all these people have done. Reference has been made, in theresolution and in the speeches, to the distress which prevails in thisdistrict, and you are told, and have been told over and over again, thatall this distress has arisen from the blockade of the ports of theSouthern States. There is at least one great port from which in pasttimes two millions of bales of cotton a-year have found their way toEurope--the port of New Orleans--which is blockaded; and the UnitedStates Government has proclaimed that any cotton that is sent from theinterior to New Orleans for shipment, although it belongs to persons inarms against the Government, shall yet be permitted to go to Europe, andthey shall receive unmolested the proceeds of the sale of that cotton. But still the cotton does not come. The reason why it does not come is, not because it would do harm to the United States Government for it tocome, or that it would in any way assist the United States Government incarrying on the war. The reason that it does not come is, because itsbeing kept back is supposed to be a way of influencing public opinion inEngland and the course of the English Government in reference to theAmerican war. They burn the cotton that they may injure us, and theyinjure us because they think that we cannot live even for a year withouttheir cotton; and that to get it we should send ships of war, break theblockade, make war upon the North, and assist the slave-owners tomaintain, or to obtain, their independence. 

Now, with regard to the question of American cotton, one or two extractswill be sufficient; but I could give you a whole pamphlet of them, if itwere necessary. Mr. Mann, an eminent person in the State of Georgia, says:--

 'With the failure of the cotton, England fails. Stop her supply of Southern slave-grown cotton, and her factories stop, her commerce stops, the healthful normal circulation of her life- blood stops. '

Again he says:--

 'In one year from the stoppage of England's supply of Southern slave-grown cotton, the Chartists would be in all her streets and fields, revolution would be rampant throughout the island, and nothing that is would exist. '

He also says, addressing an audience:--

 'Why, Sirs, British lords hold their lands, British bishops hold their revenues, Victoria holds her sceptre, by the grace of cotton, as surely as by the grace of God. '

Senator Wigfall says:--

 'If we stop the supply of cotton for one week, England would be starving. Queen Victoria's crown would not stand on her head one week, if the supply of cotton was stopped; nor would her head stand on her shoulders. '

Mr. Stephens, who is the Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy, says:--

 'There will be revolution in Europe, there will be starvation there; our cotton is the element that will do it. '

Now, I am not stating the mere result of any discovery of my own, but itwould be impossible to read the papers of the South, or the speechesmade in the South, before, and at the time of, and after the secession, without seeing that the universal opinion there was, that the stoppageof the supply of cotton would be our instantaneous ruin, and that ifthey could only lay hold of it, keep it back in the country, or burn it, so that it never could be used, that then the people of Lancashire, merchants, manufacturers, and operatives in mills--everybody dependentupon this vast industry--would immediately arise and protest against theEnglish Government abstaining for one moment from the recognition of theSouth, from war with the North, and from a resolution to do the utmostthat we could to create a slave-holding independent republic in theSouth. 

And these very men who have been wishing to drag us into a war thatwould have covered us with everlasting infamy, have sent their envoys tothis country, Mr. Yancey, Mr. Mann (I do not know whether or not thesame Mr. Mann to whom I have been referring), and Mr. Mason, the authorof the Fugitive Slave Law. These men have been in this country, --one ofthem I believe is here now, --envoys sent to offer friendship to theQueen of England, to be received at her Court, and to make friends withthe great men in London. They come, --I have seen them under the galleryof the House of Commons; I have seen Members of the House shaking handswith them and congratulating them, if there has been some militarysuccess on their side, and receiving them as if they were here from themost honourable Government, and with the most honourable mission. Why, the thing which they have broken off from the United States to maintain, is felony by your law. They are not only slave owners, slave buyers andsellers, but that which out of Pandemonium itself was never beforeconceived, --they are slave breeders for the slave market; and these menhave come to your country, and are to be met with at elegant tables inLondon, and are in fast friendship with some of your public men, and areconstantly found in some of your newspaper offices; and they are here toask Englishmen--Englishmen with a history of freedom--to join hands withtheir atrocious conspiracy. 

I regret more than I have words to express this painful fact, that ofall the countries in Europe this country is the only one which has menin it who are willing to take active steps in favour of this intendedslave government. We supply the ships; we supply the arms, the munitionsof war; we give aid and comfort to this foulest of all crimes. Englishmen only do it. I believe you have not seen a single statement inthe newspapers that any French, or Belgian, or Dutch, or Russian shiphas been engaged in, or seized whilst attempting to violate the blockadeand to carry arms to the South. They are English Liberal newspapers onlywhich support this stupendous iniquity. They are English statesmen only, who profess to be liberal, who have said a word to favour the authors ofthis now--enacting revolution in America. 

The other day, not a week since, a member of the present Government, --heis not a statesman--he is the son of a great statesman, and occupies theposition of Secretary for Ireland, --he dared to say to an Englishaudience that he wished the Republic to be divided, and that the Southshould become an independent State. If that island which--I suppose inpunishment for some of its offences--has been committed to his care, --ifthat island were to attempt to secede, not to set up a slave kingdom, but a kingdom more free than it has ever yet been, the Government ofwhich he is a member would sack its cities and drench its soil withblood before they would allow such a kingdom to be established. 

But the working men of England, and I will say it too for the great bodyof the middle classes of England, have not been wrong upon this greatquestion. As for you, --men labouring from morn till night that you mayhonourably and honestly maintain your families, and the independence ofyour households, --you are too slowly emerging from a condition of thingsfar from independent--far from free--for you to have sympathy with thisfearful crime which I have been describing. You come, as it were, frombonds yourselves, and you can sympathize with them who are still inbondage. 

See that meeting that was held in Manchester a month ago, in the FreeTrade Hall, of five or six thousand men. See the address which theythere carried unanimously to the President of the United States. Seethat meeting held the other night in Exeter Hall, in London; that vastroom, the greatest room, I suppose, in the Metropolis, filled so muchthat its overflowings filled another large room in the same building, and when that was full, the further overflowings filled the street; andin both rooms, and in the street, speeches were made on this greatquestion. But what is said by the writers in this infamous Southernpress in this country with regard to that meeting? Who was there? 'Agentleman who had written a novel, and two or three Dissentingministers, ' I shall not attempt any defence of those gentlemen. Whatthey do, they do openly, in the face of day; and if they uttersentiments on this question, it is from a public platform, withthousands of their countrymen gazing into their faces. These men whoslander them write behind a mask, --and, what is more, they dare not tellin the open day that which they write in the columns of their journal. But if it be true that there is nothing in the writer of a successfulnovel, or in two or three pious and noble-minded Dissenting ministers, to collect a great audience, what does it prove if there was a greataudience? It only proves that they were not collected by the reputationof any orator who was expected to address them, but by their cordial andardent sympathy for the great cause which was pleaded before them. 

Everybody now that I meet says to me, 'Public opinion seems to haveundergone a considerable change. ' The fact is, people do not know verymuch about America. They are learning more every day. They have beengreatly misled by what are called 'the best public instructors. 'Jefferson, who was one of the greatest men that the United States haveproduced, said that newspapers should be divided into four compartments:in one of them they should print the true; in the next, the probable; inthe third, the possible; and in the fourth, the lies. With regard tosome of these newspapers, I incline to think, as far as their leadingcolumns go, that an equal division of space would be found veryinconvenient, and that the last-named compartment, when dealing withAmerican questions, would have to be at least four times as large as thefirst. 

Coming back to the question of this war; I admit, of course--everybodymust admit--that we are not responsible for it, for its commencement, orfor the manner in which it is conducted; nor can we be responsible forits result. But there is one thing which we are responsible for, andthat is for our sympathies, for the manner in which we regard it, andfor the tone in which we discuss it. What shall we say, then, withregard to it? On which side shall we stand? I do not believe it ispossible to be strictly, coldly neutral. The question at issue is toogreat, the contest is too grand in the eye of the world. It isimpossible for any man, who can have an opinion worth anything on anyquestion, not to have some kind of an opinion on the question of thiswar. I am not ashamed of my opinion, or of the sympathy which I feel, and have over and over again expressed, on the side of the free North. Icannot understand how any man witnessing what is enacting on theAmerican continent can indulge in small cavils against the free peopleof the North, and close his eye entirely to the enormity of the purposesof the South. I cannot understand how any Englishman, who in past yearshas been accustomed to say that 'there was one foul blot upon the fairfame of the American Republic, ' can now express any sympathy for thosewho would perpetuate and extend that blot. And, more, if we profess tobe, though it be with imperfect and faltering steps, the followers ofHim who declared it to be His Divine mission 'to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovering of sightto the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, ' must we notreject with indignation and scorn the proffered alliance and friendshipwith a power based on human bondage, and which contemplates theoverthrow and the extinction of the dearest rights of the most helplessof mankind?

If we are the friends of freedom, personal and political, --and we allprofess to be so, and most of us, more or less, are striving after itmore completely for our own country, --how can we withhold our sympathyfrom a Government and a people amongst whom white men have always beenfree, and who are now offering an equal freedom to the black? I adviseyou not to believe in the 'destruction' of the American nation. If factsshould happen by any chance to force you to believe it, do not committhe crime of wishing it. I do not blame men who draw differentconclusions from mine from the facts, and who believe that therestoration of the Union is impossible. As the facts lie before oursenses, so must we form a judgment on them. But I blame those men thatwish for such a catastrophe. For myself, I have never despaired, and Iwill not despair. In the language of one of our old poets, who wrote, Ithink, more than three hundred years ago, I will not despair, --

 'For I have seen a ship in haven fall, After the storm had broke both mast and shroud. '

From the very outburst of this great convulsion, I have had but one hopeand one faith, and it is this--that the result of this stupendous strifemay be to make freedom the heritage for ever of a whole continent, andthat the grandeur and the prosperity of the American Union may never beimpaired. 

 * * * * *

AMERICA. 

IV. 

THE STRUGGLE IN AMERICA. ST. JAMES'S HALL, MARCH 26, 1863. 

[The meeting at which this speech was delivered was convened by theTrades' Unions of London to enable the working men to express theirsentiments on the war in the United States. Mr. Bright was Chairman ofthe meeting. ]

When the Committee did me the honour to ask me to attend this meetingto-night and to take the Chair, I felt that I was not at liberty torefuse, for I considered that there was something remarkable in thecharacter of this meeting; and I need not tell you that the cause whichwe are assembled to discuss is one which excites my warmest sympathies. This meeting is remarkable, inasmuch as it is not what is commonlycalled a public meeting, but it is a meeting, as you have seen from theannouncements and advertisements by which it has been called--it is ameeting of members of Trades' Unions and Trades' Societies in London. The members of these Societies have not usually stepped out from theirordinary business to take part in meetings of this kind on publicquestions. 

The subject which we have met to discuss is one of surpassing interest--which excites at this moment, and has excited for two years past, theattention and the astonishment of the civilized world. We see a countrywhich for many years--during the lifetime of the oldest amongst us--hasbeen the most peaceful, and prosperous, and the most free amongst thegreat nations of the earth--we see it plunged at once into the midst ofa sanguinary revolution, whose proportions are so gigantic as to dwarfall other revolutionary records and events of which we have anyknowledge. But I do not wonder at this revolution. No man can read thehistory of the United States from the time when they ceased to bedependent colonies of England, without discovering that at the birth ofthat great Republic there was sown the seed, if not of its dissolution, at least of its extreme peril; and the infant giant in its cradle may besaid to have been rocked under the shadow of the cypress, which is thesymbol of mortality and of the tomb. 

Colonial weakness, when face to face with British strength, made itimpossible to put an end to slavery, or to establish a republic freefrom slavery. To meet England, it was necessary to be united, and to beunited it was necessary to tolerate slavery; and from that hour to this--at least, to a period within the last two or three years--the love ofthe Union and the patriotism of the American people have induced themconstantly to make concessions to slavery, because they knew that whenthey ceased to make concessions they ran the peril of that disruptionwhich has now arrived; and they dreaded the destruction of their countryeven more than they hated the evil of slavery. But these concessionsfailed, as I believe concessions to evil always do fail. Theseconcessions failed to secure safety in that Union. There were principlesat war which were wholly irreconcilable. The South, as you know, hasbeen engaged for fifty years in building fresh ramparts by which it maydefend its institutions. The North has been growing yearly greater infreedom; and though the conflict might be postponed, it was obviouslyinevitable. 

In our day, then, that which the statesmen of America have hopedpermanently to postpone has arrived. The great trial is now going on inthe sight of the world, and the verdict upon this great question must atlast be rendered. But how much is at stake? Some men of this country, some writers, treat it as if, after all, it was no great matter that hadcaused this contest in the United States. I say that a whole continentis at stake. It is not a question of boundary; it is not a question oftariff; it is not a question of supremacy of party, or even of thecondition of four millions of negroes. It is more than that. It is aquestion of a whole continent, with its teeming millions, and what shallbe their present and their future fate. It is for these millions freedomor slavery, education or ignorance, light or darkness, Christianmorality ever widening and all-blessing in its influence, or anovershadowing and all-blasting guilt. 

There are men, good men, who say that we in England, who are opposed towar, should take no public part in this great question. Only yesterday Ireceived from a friend of mine, whose fidelity I honour, a letter, inwhich he asked me whether I thought, with the views which he supposed Ientertain on the question of war, it was fitting that I should appear atsuch a meeting as this. It is not our war; we did not make it. We deeplylament it. It is not in our power to bring it to a close; but I know notthat we are called upon to shut our eyes and to close our hearts to thegreat issues which are depending upon it. Now we are met here, let usask each other some questions. Has England any opinion with regard tothis American question? Has England any sympathy, on one side or theother, with either party in this great struggle? But, to come nearer, Iwould ask whether this meeting has any opinion upon it, and whether oursympathies have been stirred in relation to it? It is true, to thismeeting not many rich, not many noble, have been called. It is a meetingcomposed of artisans and working men of the city of London, --men whoselabour, in combination with capital and directing skill, has built thisgreat city, and has made England great. I address myself to these men. Iask them--I ask you--have you any special interest in this contest?

Privilege thinks it has a great interest in it, and every morning, withblatant voice, it comes into your streets and curses the AmericanRepublic. Privilege has beheld an afflicting spectacle for many yearspast. It has beheld thirty millions of men, happy and prosperous, without emperor, without king, without the surroundings of a court, without nobles, except such as are made by eminence in intellect andvirtue, without State bishops and State priests, --

 'Sole venders of the lore which works salvation, '--

without great armies and great navies, without great debt and withoutgreat taxes. Privilege has shuddered at what might happen to old Europeif this grand experiment should succeed. But you, the workers, --you, striving after a better time, --you, struggling upwards towards thelight, with slow and painful steps, --you have no cause to look withjealousy upon a country which, amongst all the great nations of theglobe, is that one where labour has met with the highest honour, andwhere it has reaped its greatest reward. Are you aware of the fact, thatin fifteen years, which is but as yesterday when it is past, two and ahalf millions of your countrymen have found a home in the UnitedStates, --that a population equal nearly, if not quite, to the populationof this great city--itself equal to no mean kingdom--has emigrated fromthese shores? In the United States there has been, as you know, an opendoor for every man, --and millions have entered into it, and have foundrest. 

Now, take the two sections of the country which are engaged in thisfearful struggle. In the one, labour is honoured more than elsewhere inthe world; there, more than in any other country, men rise to competenceand independence; a career is open; the pursuit of happiness is nothopelessly thwarted by the law. In the other section of that country, labour is not only not honoured, but it is degraded. The labourer ismade a chattel. He is no more his own than the horse that drags acarriage through the next street; nor is his wife, nor is his child, noris anything that is his, his own. And if you have not heard theastounding statement, it may be as well for a moment to refer to it, --that it is not black men only who should be slaves. Only to-day I readfrom one of the Southern papers a statement that--

 'Slavery in the Jewish times was not the slavery of negroes; and therefore, if you confine slavery to negroes, you lose your sheet anchor, which is the Bible-argument in favour of slavery. '

I think nothing can be more fitting for the discussion of the members ofthe Trade Societies of London. You in your Trade Societies help eachother when you are sick, or if you meet with accidents. You do many kindacts amongst each other. You have other business also; you have tomaintain what you believe to be the just rights of industry and of yourseparate trades; and sometimes, as you know, you do things which manypeople do not approve, and which, probably, when you come to think morecoolly of them, you may even doubt the wisdom of yourselves. That isonly saying that you are not immaculate, and that your wisdom, like thewisdom of other classes, is not absolutely perfect. But they have in theSouthern States a specific for all the differences between capital andlabour. They say, --

 'Make the labourer capital; the free system in Europe is a rotten system; let us get rid of that, and make all the labourers as much capital and as much the property of the capitalist and employer as the capitalist's cattle and horses are property, and then the whole system will move with that perfect ease and harmony which the world admires so much in the Southern States of America. '

I believe there never was a question submitted to the public opinion ofthe world which it was more becoming the working men and members ofTrades' Unions and Trade Societies of every kind in this country fullyto consider, than this great question. 

But there may be some in this room, and there are some who say to me, 'But what is to become of our trade, what is to become of the capitalistand the labourer of Lancashire?' I am not sure that much of the capitalof Lancashire will not be ruined. I am not sure that very large numbersof its population will not have to remove to seek other employment, either in this or some other country. I am not one of those whounderrate this great calamity. On the contrary, I have scarcely met withany man, --not more than half a dozen, --since this distress in our countybegan, who has been willing to measure the magnitude of this calamityaccording to the scale with which I have viewed it. 

But let us examine this question. The distress of Lancashire comes froma failure of the supply of cotton. The failure of the supply of cottoncomes from the war in the United States. The war in the United Stateshas originated in the effort of the slaveholders of that country tobreak up what they themselves admit to be the freest and best governmentthat ever existed, for the sole purpose of making perpetual theinstitution of slavery. But if the South began the war, and created allthe mischief, does it look reasonable that we should pat them on theback, and be their friends? If they have destroyed cotton, or withheldit, shall we therefore take them to our bosoms?

I have a letter written by an agent in the city of Nashville, who hadbeen accustomed to buy cotton there before the war, and who returnedthere immediately after that city came into the possession of theNorthern forces. He began his trade, and cotton came in. Not Unionplanters only, but Secession planters, began to bring in the produce oftheir plantations, and he had a fair chance of re-establishing hisbusiness; but the moment this was discovered by the commanders of theSouthern forces at some distance from the city, they issued the mostperemptory orders that every boat-load of cotton on the rivers, everywaggon-load upon the roads, and every car-load upon the railroads, thatwas leaving any plantations for the purposes of sale, should beimmediately destroyed. The result was, that the cotton trade was at onceagain put an end to, and I believe only to a very small extent has itbeen reopened, even to this hour. 

Then take the State of New Orleans, which, as you know, has been now formany months in the possession of the Northern forces. The Northerncommanders there had issued announcements that any cotton sent down toNew Orleans for exportation, even though it came from the most resolvedfriends of secession in the district, should still be safe. It might bepurchased to ship to Europe, and the proceeds of that cotton might bereturned, and the trade be re-opened. But you have not found cotton comedown to New Orleans, although its coming there under those terms wouldbe of no particular advantage to the North. It has been withheld withthis single object, to create in the manufacturing districts of Franceand England a state of suffering that might at last become unbearable, and thus might compel the Governments of those countries, in spite ofall that international law may teach, in spite of all that morality mayenjoin upon them, to take sides with the South, and go to war with theNorth for the sake of liberating whatever cotton there is now in theplantations of the Secession States. 

At this moment, such of you as read the City articles of the dailypapers will see that a loan has been contracted for in the City, to theamount of three millions sterling, on behalf of the SouthernConfederacy. It is not brought into the market by any firm with anEnglish name; but I am sorry to be obliged to believe that manyEnglishmen have taken portions of that loan. Now the one great object ofthat loan is this, to pay in this country for vessels which are beingbuilt--_Alabamas_--from which it is hoped that so much irritationwill arise in the minds of the people of the Northern States, thatEngland may be dragged into war to take sides with the South and withslavery. The South was naturally hostile to England, because England washostile to slavery. Now the great hope of the insurrection has been fromthe beginning, that Englishmen would not have fortitude to bear thecalamities which it has brought upon us; but by some trick or by someaccident we might be brought into a war with the North, and thereby givestrength to the South. 

I should hope that this question is now so plain that most Englishmenmust understand it; and least of all do I expect that the six millionsof men in the United Kingdom who are not enfranchised can have any doubtupon it. Their instincts are always right in the main, and if they getthe facts and information, I can rely on their influence being throwninto the right scale. I wish I could state what would be as satisfactoryto myself with regard to some others. There may be men outside, thereare men sitting amongst your legislators, who will build and equipcorsair ships to prey upon the commerce of a friendly power, --who willdisregard the laws and the honour of their country, --who will trample onthe Proclamation of their sovereign, --and who, for the sake of theglittering profit which sometimes waits on crime, are content to coverthemselves with everlasting infamy. There may be men, too--rich men--inthis city of London, who will buy in the slaveowners' loan, and who, forthe chance of more gain than honest dealing will afford them, will helpa conspiracy whose fundamental institution, whose corner-stone, isdeclared to be felony, and infamous by the statutes of their country. 

I speak not to these men--I leave them to their conscience in that hourwhich comes to all of us, when conscience speaks and the soul is nolonger deaf to her voice. I speak rather to you, the working men ofLondon, the representatives, as you are here to-night, of the feelingsand the interests of the millions who cannot hear my voice. I wish youto be true to yourselves. Dynasties may fall, aristocracies may perish, privilege will vanish into the dim past; but you, your children, andyour children's children, will remain, and from you the English peoplewill be continued to succeeding generations. 

You wish the freedom of your country. You wish it for yourselves. Youstrive for it in many ways. Do not then give the hand of fellowship tothe worst foes of freedom that the world has ever seen, and do not, Ibeseech you, bring down a curse upon your cause which no after-penitencecan ever lift from it. You will not do this. I have faith in you. Impartial history will tell that, when your statesmen were hostile orcoldly neutral, when many of your rich men were corrupt, when yourpress--which ought to have instructed and defended--was mainly writtento betray, the fate of a continent and of its vast population being inperil, you clung to freedom with an unfaltering trust that God in Hisinfinite mercy will yet make it the heritage of all His children. 

 * * * * *

AMERICA. 

V. 

LONDON, JUNE 16, 1863. [On June 16, 1863, a public meeting was held at the London Tavern, atthe instance of the Union and Emancipation Society, in order to hear anaddress from Mr. M. D. Conway, of Eastern Virginia. Mr. Bright was inthe Chair. ]

If we look back a little over two years--two years and a half--when thequestion of secession was first raised in a practical shape, I think weshall be able to remember that, when the news first arrived in England, there was but one opinion with regard to it--that every man condemnedthe folly and the wickedness of the South, and protested against theirplea that they had any grievance which justified them in revolt--andevery man hoped that some mode might be discovered by which the terriblecalamity of war might be avoided. 

For a time, many thought that there would be no war. Whilst the reinswere slipping from the hands--the too feeble hands--of Mr. Buchanan intothe grasp of President Lincoln, there was a moment when men thought thatwe were about to see the wonderful example of a great question, which inall other countries would have involved a war, settled perhaps bymoderation--some moderation on one side, and some concession on theother; and so long as men believed that there would be no war, so longeverybody condemned the South. We were afraid of a war in America, because we knew that one of the great industries of our country dependedupon the continuous reception of its raw material from the SouthernStates. But it was a folly--it was a gross absurdity--for any man tobelieve, with the history of the world before him, that the people, ofthe Northern States, twenty millions, with their free Government, wouldfor one moment sit down satisfied with the dismemberment of theircountry, and make no answer to the war which had been commenced by theSouth. 

I speak not in justification of war. I am only treating this questionupon principles which are almost universally acknowledged throughout theworld, and by an overwhelming majority even of those men who accept theChristian religion; and it is only upon those principles, so almostuniversally acknowledged, and acknowledged as much in this country asanywhere else--it is only just that we should judge the United Statesupon those principles upon which we in this country would be likely toact. 

But the North did not yield to the dismemberment of their country, andthey did not allow a conspiracy of Southern politicians and slaveholdersto seize their forts and arsenals without preparing for resistance. Then, when the people of England found that the North were about toresist, and that war was inevitable, they turned their eyes from theSouth, which was the beginner of the war, and looked to the North, saying that, if the North would not resist, there could be no war, andthat we should get our cotton, and trade would go on as before; andtherefore, from that hour to this, not a few persons in this country, who at first condemned the South, have been incessant in theircondemnation of the North. 

Now, I believe this is a fair statement of the feeling which prevailedwhen the first news of secession arrived, and of the change of opinionwhich took place in a few weeks, when it was found that, by theresolution of the North to maintain the integrity of their country, war, and civil war, was unavoidable. The trade interests of the countryaffected our opinion; and I fear did then prevent, and have sinceprevented, our doing justice to the people of the North. 

Now I am going to transport you, in mind, to Lancashire, and theinterests of Lancashire, which, after all, are the interests of thewhole United Kingdom, and clearly of not a few in this metropolis. Whatwas the condition of our greatest manufacturing industry before the war, and before secession had been practically attempted? It was this: thatalmost ninety per cent. Of all our cotton came from the Southern Statesof the American Union, and was, at least nine-tenths of it, the produceof the uncompensated labour of the negro. 

Everybody knew that we were carrying on a prodigious industry upon amost insecure foundation; and it was the commonest thing in the worldfor men who were discussing the present and the future of the cottontrade, whether in Parliament or out of it, to point to the existence ofslavery in the United States of America as the one dangerous thing inconnection with that great trade; and it was one of the reasons whichstimulated me on several occasions to urge upon the Government of thiscountry to improve the Government of India, and to give us a chance ofreceiving a considerable portion of our supply from India, so that wemight not be left in absolute want when the calamity occurred, which allthoughtful men knew must some day come, in the United States. 

Now, I maintain that with a supply of cotton mainly derived from theSouthern States, and raised by slave labour, two things areindisputable: first, that the supply must always be insufficient; andsecond, that it must always be insecure. Perhaps many of you are notaware that in the United States--I am speaking of the Slave States, andthe cotton-growing States--the quantity of land which is cultivated forcotton is a mere garden, a mere plot, in comparison with the whole ofthe cotton region. I speak from the authority of a report latelypresented to the Boston Chamber of Commerce, containing much importantinformation on this question; and I believe that the whole acreage, orthe whole breadth of the land on which cotton is grown in America, doesnot exceed ten thousand square miles--that is, a space one hundred mileslong and one hundred miles broad, or the size of two of our largestcounties in England; but the land of the ten chief cotton-producingStates is sixty times as much as that, being, I believe, about twelvetimes the size of England and Wales. 

It cannot be, therefore, because there has not been land enough that wehave not in former years had cotton enough; it cannot be that there hasnot been a demand for the produce of the land, for the demand hasconstantly outstripped the supply; it has not been because the price hasnot been sufficient, for, as is well known, the price has been muchhigher of late years, and the profit to the planter much greater; andyet, notwithstanding the land and the demand, and the price and theprofit, the supply of cotton has not been sufficient for the wants ofthe spinners and the manufacturers of the world, and for the wants ofcivilization. 

The particular facts with regard to this I need not, perhaps, enterinto; but I find, if I compare the prices of cotton in Liverpool from1856 to 1860 with the prices from 1841 to 1845, that every pound ofcotton brought from America and sold in Liverpool fetched in the lastfive years more than twenty per cent in excess of what it did in theformer five years, notwithstanding that we were every year in greaterdifficulties through finding our supply of cotton insufficient. 

But what was the reason that we did not get enough? It was because therewas not labour enough in the Southern States. You see every day in thenewspapers that there are four millions of slaves, but of those fourmillions of slaves some are growing tobacco, some rice, and some sugar;a very large number are employed in domestic servitude, and a largenumber in factories, mechanical operations, and business in towns; andthere remain only about one million negroes, or only one-quarter of thewhole number, who are regularly engaged in the cultivation of cotton. 

Now, you will see that the production of cotton and its continuedincrease must depend upon the constantly increasing productiveness ofthe labour of those one million negroes, and on the natural increase ofpopulation from them. Well, the increase of the population of the slavesin the United States is rather less than two and a-half per cent, perannum, and the increase on the million will be about twenty-fivethousand a-year; and the increased production of cotton from thatincreased amount of labour consisting of twenty-five thousand morenegroes every year will probably never exceed--I believe it has notreached--one hundred and fifty thousand bales per annum. The exact factswith regard to this are these: that in the ten years from 1841 to 1850the average crop was 2, 173, 000 bales, and in the ten years from 1851 to1860 it was 3, 252, 000, being an increase of 1, 079, 000 bales in the tenyears, or only about 100, 000 bales of increase per annum. 

I have shown that the increase of production must depend upon theincrease of labour, because every other element is in abundance--soil, climate, and so forth. (A Voice: 'How about sugar?') A Gentleman asksabout sugar. If in any particular year there was an extravagant profitupon cotton, there might be, and there probably would be, someabstraction of labour from the cultivation of tobacco, and rice, andsugar, in order to apply it to cotton, and a larger temporary increase, of growth might take place; but I have given you the facts with regardto the last twenty years, and I think you will see that my statement iscorrect. Now, can this be remedied under slavery? I will show you how itcannot. And first of all, everybody who is acquainted with Americanaffairs knows that there is not very much migration of the population ofthe Northern States into the Southern States to engage in the ordinaryoccupations of agricultural labour. Labour is not honourable and is nothonoured in the South; and therefore free labourers from the North arenot likely to go South. Again, of all the emigration from this country--amounting as it did, in the fifteen years from 1846 to 1860, to twomillions five hundred thousand persons, being equal to the whole of thepopulation of this great city--a mere trifle went South and settledthere to pursue the occupation of agriculture; they remained in theNorth, where labour is honourable and honoured. 

Whence, then, could the planters of the South receive their increasinglabour? Only from the slave-ship and the coast of Africa. But, fortunately for the world, the United States Government has never yetbecome so prostrate under the heel of the slave-owner as to consent tothe reopening of the slave-trade. Therefore the Southern planter was inthis unfortunate position: he could not tempt, perhaps he did not want, free labourers from the North; he could not tempt, perhaps he did notwant, free labourers from Europe; and if he did want, he was notpermitted to fetch slave labour from Africa. Well, that being so, wearrive at this conclusion--that whilst the cultivation of cotton wasperformed by slave labour, you were shut up for your hope of increasedgrowth to the small increase that was possible with the increase of twoand a half per cent per annum in the population of the slaves, about onemillion in number, that have been regularly employed in the cultivationof cotton. 

Then, if the growth was thus insufficient--and I as one connected withthe trade can speak very clearly upon that point--I ask you whether theproduction and the supply were not necessarily insecure by reason of theinstitution of slavery? It was perilous within the Union. In thiscountry we made one mistake in our forecast of this question: we did notbelieve that the South would commit suicide; we thought it possible thatthe slaves might revolt. They might revolt, but their subjugation wasinevitable, because the whole power of the Union was pledged to themaintenance of order in every part of its dominions. 

But if there be men who think that the cotton trade would be safer ifthe South were an independent State, with slavery established there inpermanence, they greatly mistake; because, whatever was the danger ofrevolt in the Southern States whilst the Union was complete, thepossibility of revolt and the possibility of success would surely begreatly increased if the North were separate from the South, and thenegro had only his Southern master, and not the Northern power, tocontend against. 

But I believe there is little danger of revolt, and no possibility ofsuccess. When the revolt took place in the island of St. Domingo, theblacks were far superior in numbers to the whites. In the SouthernStates it is not so. Ignorant, degraded, without organization, withoutarms, and scarcely with any faint hope of freedom for ever, except theenthusiastic hope which they have when they believe that God will someday stretch out His arm for their deliverance--I say that under thesecircumstances, to my mind, there was no reasonable expectation ofrevolt, and that they had no expectation whatever of success in anyattempt to gain their liberty by force of arms. 

But now we are in a different position. Slavery itself has chosen itsown issue, and has chosen its own field. Slavery--and when I sayslavery, I mean the slave power--has not trusted to the future; but ithas rushed into the battle-field to settle this great question; andhaving chosen war, it is from day to day sinking to inevitable ruinunder it. Now, if we are agreed--and I am keeping you still toLancashire and to its interests for a moment longer--that this vastindustry with all its interests of capital and labour has been standingon a menacing volcano, is it not possible that hereafter it may beplaced upon a rock which nothing--can disturb?

Imagine--what of course some people will say I have no right to imagine--imagine the war over, the Union restored and slavery abolished--doesany man suppose that there would afterwards be in the South one singlenegro fewer than there are at present? On the contrary, I believe therewould be more. I believe there is many a negro in the Northern States, and even in Canada, who, if the lash, and the chain, and the branding-iron, and the despotism against which even he dared not complain, wereabolished for ever, would turn his face to the sunny lands of the South, and would find himself happier and more useful there than he can be in amore Northern clime. 

More than this, there would be a migration from the North to the South. You do not suppose that those beautiful States, those regions than whichearth offers nothing to man more fertile and more lovely, are shunned bythe enterprising population of the North because they like the rigoursof a Northern winter and the greater changeableness, of the Northernseasons? Once abolish slavery in the South, and the whole of thecountry will be open to the enterprise and to the industry of all. Andmore than that, when you find that, only the other day, not fewer thanfour thousand emigrants, most of them from the United Kingdom, landed inone day in the city of New York, do you suppose that all those men wouldgo north and west at once? Would not some of them turn their facessouthwards, and seek the clime of the sun, which is so grateful to allmen; where they would find a soil more fertile, rivers more abundant, and everything that Nature offers more profusely given, but from whichthey are now shut out by the accursed power which slavery exerts? Withfreedom you would have a gradual filling up of the wildernesses of theSouthern States; you would have there, not population only, but capital, and industry, and roads, and schools, and everything which tends toproduce growth, and wealth, and prosperity. 

I maintain--and I believe my opinion will be supported by all those menwho are most conversant with American affairs--that, with slaveryabolished, with freedom firmly established in the South, you would findin ten years to come a rapid increase in the growth of cotton; and notonly would its growth be rapid, but its permanent increase would besecured. 

I said that I was interested in this great question of cotton. I comefrom the midst of the great cotton industry of Lancashire; much thelargest portion of anything I have in the world depends upon it; not alittle of it is now utterly valueless, during the continuance of thiswar. My neighbours, by thousands and scores of thousands, are suffering, more or less, as I am suffering; and many of them, as you know--morethan a quarter of a million of them--have been driven from a subsistencegained by their honourable labour to the extremest poverty, and to adependence upon the charity of their fellow-countrymen. My interest isthe interest of all the population. 

My interest is against a mere enthusiasm, a mere sentiment, a merevisionary fancy of freedom as against slavery. I am speaking now as amatter of business. I am glad when matters of business go straight withmatters of high sentiment and morality, and from this platform I declaremy solemn conviction that there is no greater enemy to Lancashire, toits capital and to its labour, than the man who wishes the cottonagriculture of the Southern States to be continued under the conditionsof slave labour. 

One word more upon another branch of the question, and I have done. Iwould turn for a moment from commerce to politics. I believe that ourtrue commercial interests in this country are very much in harmony withwhat I think ought to be our true political sympathies. There is nopeople in the world, I think, that more fully and entirely accepts thetheory that one nation acts very much upon the character and upon thecareer of another, than England; for our newspapers and our statesmen, our writers and our speakers of every class, are constantly telling usof the wonderful influence which English constitutional government andEnglish freedom have on the position and career of every nation inEurope. I am not about to deny that some such influence, andoccasionally, I believe, a beneficent influence, is thus exerted; but ifwe exert any influence upon Europe--and we pride ourselves upon it--perhaps it will not be a humiliation to admit that we feel someinfluence exerted upon us by the great American Republic. Americanfreedom acts upon England, and there is nothing that is better known, atthe west end of this great city--from which I have just come--than theinfluence that has been, and nothing more feared than the influence thatmay be, exerted by the United States upon this country. 

We all of us know that there has been a great effect produced in Englandby the career of the United States. An emigration of three or fourmillions of persons from the United Kingdom, during the last fortyyears, has bound us to them by thousands of family ties, and thereforeit follows that whatever there is that is good, and whatever there isthat is free in America, which we have not, we know something about, andgradually may begin to wish for, and some day may insist upon having. 

And when I speak of 'us, ' I mean the people of this country. When I amasserting the fact that the people of England have a great interest inthe well-being of the American Republic, I mean the people of England. Ido not speak of the wearers of crowns or of coronets, but of the twentymillions of people in this country who live on their labour, and who, having no votes, are not counted in our political census, but withoutwhom there could be no British nation at all. I say that these have aninterest, almost as great and direct as though they were living inMassachusetts or New York, in the tremendous struggle for freedom whichis now shaking the whole North American Continent. 

During the last two years there has been much said, and much written, and some things done in this country, which are calculated to gain usthe hate of both sections of the American Union. I believe that a courseof policy might have been taken by the English press, and by the EnglishGovernment, and by what are called the influential classes in England, that would have bound them to our hearts and us to their hearts. I speakof the twenty millions of the Free North. I believe we might have beenso thoroughly united with that people, that all remembrance of the warof the Revolution and of the war of 1812 would have been obliterated, and we should have been in heart and spirit for all time forth but onenation. 

I can only hope that, as time passes, and our people become betterinformed, they will be more just, and that ill feeling of every kindwill pass away; that in future all who love freedom here will holdconverse with all who love freedom there, and that the two nations, separated as they are by the ocean, come as they are, notwithstanding, of one stock, may be in future time united in soul, and may worktogether for the advancement of the liberties and the happiness ofmankind. 

 * * * * *

AMERICA. 

IV. 

MR. ROEBUCK'S MOTION FOR RECOGNITION OF THESOUTHERN CONFEDERACY. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 30, 1863. 

I will not attempt to follow the noble Lord in the laboured attack whichhe has made upon the Treasury Bench, for these two reasons:--that he didnot appear to me very much to understand what it was he was condemningthem for; and, again, I am not in the habit of defending Gentlemen whosit on that bench. I will address myself to the question before theHouse, which I think the House generally feels to be very important, although I am quite satisfied that they do not feel it to be a practicalone. Neither do I think that the House will be disposed to take anycourse in support of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the resolutionnow before us. 

We sometimes are engaged in discussions, and have great difficulty toknow what we are about; but the hon. Gentleman left us in no kind ofdoubt when he sat down. He proposed a resolution, in words which, undercertain circumstances and addressed to certain parties, might end inoffensive or injurious consequences. Taken in connection with hischaracter, and with the speech he has made tonight, and with the speechhe has recently made elsewhere on this subject, I may say that he wouldhave come to about the same conclusion if he had proposed to address theCrown inviting the Queen to declare war against the United States ofAmerica. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is known not to be veryzealous in the particular line of opinion that I have adopted, addressedthe hon. Gentleman in the smoothest language possible, but still he wasobliged to charge him with the tone of bitter hostility which marked hisspeech. 

On a recent occasion the hon. Member addressed some members of hisconstituency--I do not mean in his last speech, I mean in the speech inAugust last year--in which he entered upon a course of prophecy which, like most prophecies in our day, does not happen to come true. But hesaid then what he said to-night, that the American people and Governmentwere overbearing. He did not tell his constituents that the Governmentof the United States had, almost during the whole of his lifetime, beenconducted by his friends of the South. He said that, if they weredivided, they would not be able to bully the whole world; and he madeuse of these expressions: 'The North will never be our friends; of theSouth you can make friends, --they are Englishmen, --they are not the scumand refuse of the world. '

Mr. Roebuck: 'Allow me to correct that statement. What I said I nowstate to the House, that the men of the South were Englishmen, but thatthe army of the North was composed of the scum of Europe. '

Mr. Bright: I take, of course, that explanation of the hon. And learnedGentleman, with this explanation from me, that there is not, so far as Ican find, any mention near that paragraph, and I think there is not inthe speech a single word, about the army. 

Mr. Roebuck: 'I assure you I said that. '

Mr. Bright: Then I take it for granted that the hon. And learnedGentleman said that, or that if he said what I have read he greatlyregrets it. 

Mr. Roebuck: 'No, I did not say it. '

Mr. Bright: The hon. And learned Gentleman in his resolution speaks ofother powers. But he has unceremoniously got rid of all the powers butFrance, and he comes here to-night with a story of an interview with aman whom he describes as the great ruler of France--tells us of aconversation with him--asks us to accept the lead of the Emperor of theFrench on, I will undertake to say, one of the greatest questions thatever was submitted to the British Parliament. But it is not long sincethe hon. And learned Gentleman held very different language. I recollectin this House, only about two years ago, that the hon. And learnedGentleman said: 'I hope I may be permitted to express in respectfulterms my opinion, even though it should affect so great a potentate asthe Emperor of the French. I have no faith in the Emperor of theFrench. ' On another occasion the hon. And learned Gentleman said, --not, I believe, in this House, --'I am still of opinion that we have nothingbut animosity and bad faith to look for from the French Emperor. ' And hewent on to say that still, though he had been laughed at, he adopted thepatriotic character of 'Tear-'em, ' and was still at his post. 

And when the hon. And learned Gentleman came back, I think from hisexpedition to Cherbourg, does the House recollect the language he usedon that occasion--language which, if it expressed the sentiments whichhe felt, at least I think he might have been content to have withheld?If I am not mistaken, referring to the salutation between the Emperor ofthe French and the Queen of these kingdoms, he said, 'When I saw hisperjured lips touch that hallowed cheek. ' And now, Sir, the hon. Andlearned Gentleman has been to Paris, introduced there by the hon. Memberfor Sunderland, and he has sought to become as it were in the palace ofthe French Emperor a co-conspirator with him to drag this country into apolicy which I maintain is as hostile to its interests as it would bedegrading to its honour. 

But then the high contracting parties, I suspect, are not agreed, because I will say this in justice to the French Emperor, that there hasnever come from him in public, nor from any one of his Ministers, nor isthere anything to be found in what they have written, that is tincturedin the smallest degree with that bitter hostility which the hon. Andlearned Gentleman has constantly exhibited to the United States ofAmerica and their people. France, if not wise in this matter, is atleast not unfriendly. The hon. And learned Member, in my opinion--indeedI am sure--is not friendly, and I believe he is not wise. 

But now, on this subject, without speaking disrespectfully of the greatpotentate who has taken the hon. And learned Gentleman into hisconfidence, I must say that the Emperor runs the risk of being far toomuch represented in this House. We have now two--I will not call themenvoys extraordinary, but most extraordinary. And, if report speakstrue, even they are not all. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy)--I do not see him in his place--came back the other day fromParis, and there were whispers that he had seen the great ruler ofFrance, and that he could tell everybody in the most confidential mannerthat the Emperor was ready to make a spring at Russia for the sake ofdelivering Poland, and that he only waited for a word from the PrimeMinister of England. 

I do not understand the policy of the Emperor if these new Ministers ofhis tell the truth. For, Sir, if one Gentleman says that he is about tomake war with Russia, and another that he is about to make war withAmerica, I am disposed to look at what he is already doing. I find thathe is holding Rome against the opinion of all Italy. He is conqueringMexico by painful steps, every footstep marked by devastation and blood. He is warring, in some desultory manner, in China, and for aught I knowhe may be about to do it in Japan. I say that, if he is to engage, atthe same time, in dismembering the greatest Eastern Empire and the greatWestern Republic, he has a greater ambition than Louis XIV, a greaterdaring than the first of his name; and that, if he endeavours to graspthese great transactions, his dynasty may fall and be buried in theruins of his own ambition. 

I can say only one sentence upon the question to which the noble Lordhas directed so much attention. I understand that we have not heard allthe story from Paris, and further, that it is not at all remarkable, seeing that the secret has been confided to two persons, that we havenot heard it correctly. I saw my hon. Friend, the Member for Sunderland, near me, and his face underwent remarkable contortions during the speechof the hon. And learned Gentleman, and I felt perfectly satisfied thathe did not agree with what his colleague was saying. I am told there isin existence a little memorandum which contains an account of what wassaid and done at that interview in Paris; and before the discussioncloses we shall no doubt have that memorandum produced, and from it knowhow far these two gentlemen are agreed. 

I now come to the proposition which the hon. And learned Gentleman hassubmitted to the House, and which he has already submitted to a meetingof his constituents at Sheffield. At that meeting, on the 27th of May, the hon. And learned Gentleman used these words: 'What I have toconsider is, what are the interests of England: what is for herinterests I believe to be for the interests of the world. ' Now, leavingout of consideration the latter part of that statement, if the hon. Andlearned Gentleman will keep to the first part of it, then what we havenow to consider in this question is, what is for the interest ofEngland. But the hon. And learned Gentleman has put it to-night inalmost as offensive a way as he did before at Sheffield, and has saidthat the United States would not bully the world if they were dividedand subdivided; for he went so far as to contemplate division into morethan two independent sections. I say that the whole of his ease restsupon a miserable jealousy of the United States, or on what I may term abase fear. It is a fear which appears to me just as groundless as any ofthose panics by which the hon. And learned Gentleman has attempted tofrighten the country. 

There never was a State in the world which was less capable ofaggression with regard to Europe than the United States of America. Ispeak of its government, of its confederation, of the peculiarities ofits organization; for the House will agree with me, that nothing is morepeculiar than the fact of the great power which the separate States, both of the North and South, exercise upon the policy and course of thecountry. I will undertake to say, that, unless in a question ofoverwhelming magnitude, which would be able to unite any people, itwould be utterly hopeless to expect that all the States of the AmericanUnion would join together to support the central Government in any planof aggression on England or any other country of Europe. 

Besides, nothing can be more certain than this, that the Governmentwhich is now in power, and the party which have elected Mr. Lincoln tooffice, is a moral and peaceable party, which has been above all thingsanxious to cultivate the best possible state of feeling with regard toEngland. The hon. And learned Gentleman, of all men, ought not toentertain this fear of United States aggression, for he is alwaysboasting of his readiness to come into the field himself. I grant thatit would be a great necessity indeed which would justify a conscriptionin calling out the hon. And learned Gentleman, but I say he ought toconsider well before he spreads these alarms among the people. For thesake of this miserable jealousy, and that he may help to break up afriendly nation, he would depart from the usages of nations, and createan everlasting breach between the people of England and the people ofthe United States of America. He would do more; and, notwithstandingwhat he has said tonight, I may put this as my strongest argumentagainst his case--he would throw the weight of England into the scale infavour of the cause of slavery. 

I want to show the hon. And learned Gentleman that England is notinterested in the course he proposes we should take; and when I speak ofinterests, I mean the commercial interests, the political interests, andthe moral interests of the country. And first, with regard to the supplyof cotton, in which the noble Lord the Member for Stamford takes such aprodigious interest. I must explain to the noble Lord that I know alittle about cotton. I happen to have been engaged in that business, --not all my life, for the noble Lord has seen me here for twenty years, --but my interests have been in it; and at this moment the firm of which Iam a member have no less than six mills, which have been at a stand fornearly a year, owing to the impossibility of working under the presentconditions of the supply of cotton. I live among a people who live bythis trade; and there is no man in England who has a more directinterest in it than I have. Before the war, the supply of cotton waslittle and costly, and every year it was becoming more costly, for thesupply did not keep pace with the demand. 

The point that I am about to argue is this: I believe that the war whichis now raging in America is more likely to abolish slavery than not, andmore likely to abolish it than any other thing that can be proposed inthe world. I regret very much that the pride and passion of men are suchas to justify me in making this statement. The supply of cotton underslavery must always be insecure. The House felt so in past years; for atmy recommendation they appointed a committee, and but for the folly of afoolish Minister they would have appointed a special commission to Indiaat my request. Is there any gentleman in this House who will not agreewith me in this, --that it would be far better for our great Lancashireindustry that our supply of cotton should be grown by free labour thanby slave labour?

Before the war, the whole number of negroes engaged in the production ofcotton was about one million, --that is, about a fourth of the whole ofthe negroes in the Slave States. The annual increase in the number ofnegroes growing cotton was about twenty-five thousand, --only two and a-half per cent. It was impossible for the Southern States to keep uptheir growth of sugar, rice, tobacco, and their ordinary slaveproductions, and at the same time to increase the growth of cotton morethan at a rate corresponding with the annual increase of negroes. Therefore you will find that the quantity of cotton grown, taking tenyears together, increased only at the rate of about one hundred thousandbales a-year. But that was nothing like the quantity which we required. That supply could not be increased, because the South did not cultivatemore than probably one and a-half per cent of the land which was capableof cultivation for cotton. 

The great bulk of the land in the Southern States is uncultivated. Tenthousand square miles are appropriated to the cultivation of cotton; butthere are six hundred thousand square miles, or sixty times as muchland, which is capable of being cultivated for cotton. It was, however, impossible that the land should be so cultivated, because, although youhad climate and sun, you had no labour. The institution of slaveryforbade free-labour men in the North to come to the South; and everyemigrant that landed in New York from Europe knew that the Slave Stateswere no States for him, and therefore he went North or West. The laws ofthe United States, the sentiments of Europe and of the world, beingagainst any opening of the slave-trade, the planters of the South wereshut up, and the annual increase in the supply of cotton could increaseonly in the same proportion as the annual increase in the number oftheir negroes. 

There is only one other point with regard to that matter which is worthmentioning. The hon. And learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield willunderstand it, although on some points he seems to be peculiarly dark. If a planter in the Southern States wanted to grow one thousand bales ofcotton a-year, he would require about two hundred negroes. Taking themat five hundred dollars, or one hundred pounds each, which is not morethan half the price of a first-class hand, the cost of the two hundredwould be twenty thousand pounds. To grow one thousand bales of cotton a-year you require not only to possess an estate, machinery, tools, andother things necessary to carry on the cotton-growing business, but youmust find a capital of twenty thousand pounds to buy the actuallabourers by whom the plantation is to be worked; and therefore, asevery gentleman will see at once, this great trade, to a large extent, was shut up in the hands of men who were required to be richer thanwould be necessary if slavery did not exist. 

Thus the plantation business to a large extent became a monopoly, andtherefore even on that account the production of cotton was constantlylimited and controlled. I was speaking to a gentleman the other day fromMississippi. I believe no man in America or in England is moreacquainted with the facts of this case. He has been for many years aSenator from the State of Mississippi. He told me that every one ofthese facts were true, and said, 'I have no doubt whatever that in tenyears after freedom in the South, or after freedom in conjunction withthe North, the production of cotton will be doubled, and cotton will beforwarded to the consumers of the world at a much less price than wehave had it for many years past. '

I shall turn for a moment to the political interest, to which the hon. And learned Gentleman paid much more attention than to the commercial. The more I consider the course of this war, the more I come to theconclusion that it is improbable in future that the United States willbe broken into separate republics. I do not come to the conclusion thatthe North will conquer the South. But I think the conclusion to which Iam more disposed to come now than at any time since the breaking out ofthe war is this, --that, if a separation should occur for a time, stillthe interest, the sympathies, the sentiments, the necessities of thewhole continent, and its ambition also, which, as hon. Gentlemen havementioned, seems to some people to be a necessity, render it highlyprobable that the continent would still be united under one centralGovernment. I may be quite mistaken. I do not express that opinion withany more confidence than hon. Gentlemen have expressed theirs in favourof a permanent dissolution; but now is not this possible, --that theUnion may be again formed on the basis of the South? There are personswho think that possible. I hope it is not, but we cannot say that it isabsolutely impossible. 

Is it not possible that the Northern Government may be baffled in theirmilitary operations? Is it not possible that, by their own incapacity, they may be humiliated before their own people? And is it not evenpossible that the party which you please to call the Peace party in theNorth, but which is in no sense a peace party, should unite with theSouth, and that the Union should be reconstituted on the basis ofSouthern opinions and of the Southern social system? Is it not possible, for example, that the Southern people, and those in their favour, shouldappeal to the Irish population of America against the negroes, betweenwhom there has been little sympathy and little respect; and is it notpossible they should appeal to the commercial classes of the North--andthe rich commercial classes in all countries, who, from the uncertaintyof their possessions and the fluctuation of their interests, arerendered always timid and very often corrupt--is it not possible, I say, that they might prefer the union of their whole country upon the basisof the South, rather than that union which many Members of this Houselook upon with so much apprehension?

If that should ever take place--but I believe, with my hon. Friend belowme (Mr. Forster), in the moral government of the world, and therefore Icannot believe that it will take place; but if it were to take place, with their great armies, and with their great navy, and their almostunlimited power, they might seek to drive England out of Canada, Franceout of Mexico, and whatever nations are interested in them out of theislands of the West Indies; and you might then have a great State builtupon slavery and war, instead of that free State to which I look, builtup upon an educated people, upon general freedom, and upon morality ingovernment. 

Now there is one more point to which the hon. And learned Gentleman willforgive me if I allude--he does not appear to me to think it of greatimportance--and that is, the morality of this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. Gentleman whospoke from the bench behind--and I think the noble Lord, if I am notmistaken--referred to the carnage which is occasioned by this lamentablestrife. Well, carnage, I presume, is the accompaniment of all war. Twoyears ago the press of London ridiculed very much the battles of theUnited States, in which nobody was killed and few were hurt. There was atime when I stood up in this House, and pointed out the dreadful horrorsof war. There was a war waged by this country in the Crimea; and theChancellor of the Exchequer, with an uneasy conscience, is constantlystriving to defend that struggle. That war--for it lasted about the sametime that the American war has lasted--at least destroyed as many livesas are estimated to have been destroyed in the United States. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, who, I think, is not in theHouse, made a speech in Scotland some time last year, in which he gavethe numbers which were lost by Russia in that war. An hon. Friend nearme observes, that some people do not reckon the Russians for anything. Isay, if you will add the Russians to the English, and the two to theFrench, and the three to the Sardinians, and the four to the Turks, thatmore lives were lost in the invasion of the Crimea, in the two yearsthat it lasted, than have been lost hitherto in the American war. Thatis no defence of the carnage of the American war; but let hon. Gentlemenbear in mind that, when I protested against the carnage in the Crimea--for an object which few could comprehend and nobody can fairly explain--I was told that I was actuated by a morbid sentimentality. Well, if I amconverted, if I view the mortality in war with less horror than I didthen, it must be attributed to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen oppositeand on the Treasury bench; but the fact is, I view this carnage just asI viewed that, with only this difference, that while our soldiersperished three thousand miles from home in a worthless and indefensiblecause, these men were on their own soil, and every man of them knew forwhat he enlisted and for what purpose he was to fight. 

Now, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of theExchequer, and those who are of opinion with him on this question ofslaughter in the American war--a slaughter which I hope there is no hon. Member here, and no person out of this House, that does not in his calmmoments look upon with grief and horror--to consider what was the stateof things before the war. It was this: that every year in the SlaveStates of America there were one hundred and fifty thousand childrenborn into the world--born with the badge and the doom of slavery--bornto the liability by law, and by custom, and by the devilish cupidity ofman--to the lash and to the chain and to the branding-iron, and to betaken from their families and carried they know not where. 

I want to know whether you feel as I feel upon this question. When I canget down to my home from this House, I find half a dozen little childrenplaying upon my hearth. How many Members are there who can say with me, that the most innocent, the most pure, the most holy joy which in theirpast years they have felt, or in their future years they have hoped for, has not arisen from contact and association with our precious children?Well, then, if that be so--if, when the hand of Death takes one of thoseflowers from our dwelling, our heart is overwhelmed with sorrow and ourhousehold is covered with gloom; what would it be if our children werebrought up to this infernal system--one hundred and fifty thousand ofthem every year brought into the world in these Slave States, amongstthese 'gentlemen, ' amongst this 'chivalry, ' amongst these men that wecan make our friends?

Do you forget the thousand-fold griefs and the countless agonies whichbelonged to the silent conflict of slavery before the war began? It isall very well for the hon. And learned Gentleman to tell me, to tellthis House--he will not tell the country with any satisfaction to it--that slavery, after all, is not so bad a thing. The brother of my hon. Friend the Member for South Durham told me that in North Carolina hehimself saw a woman whose every child, ten in number, had been sold whenthey grew up to the age at which they would fetch a price to theirmaster. 

I have not heard a word to-night of another matter--the Proclamation ofthe President of the United States. The hon. And learned Gentleman spokesomewhere in the country, and he had not the magnanimity to abstain froma statement which I was going to say he must have known had no realfoundation. I can make all allowance for the passion--and I was going tosay the malice--but I will say the ill-will of the hon. And learnedGentleman; but I make no allowance for his ignorance. I make noallowance for that, because if he is ignorant it is his own fault, forGod has given him an intellect which ought to keep him from ignorance ona question of this magnitude. I now take that Proclamation. What do youpropose to do? You propose by your resolution to help the South, ifpossible, to gain and sustain its independence. Nobody doubts that. Thehon. And learned Gentleman will not deny it. But what becomes of theProclamation? I should like to ask any lawyer in what light we stand asregards that Proclamation? To us there is only one country in what wascalled the United States; there is only one President, there is only onegeneral Legislature, there is only one law; and if that Proclamation belawful anywhere, we are not in a condition to deny its legality, becauseat present we know no President Davis, nor do we know the men who areabout him. We have our Consuls in the South, but recognizing only oneLegislature, one President, one law. So far as we are concerned, thatProclamation is a legal and effective document. 

I want to know, to ask you, the House of Commons, whether you haveturned back to your own proceedings in 1834, and traced the praiseswhich have been lavished upon you for thirty years by the great and goodmen of other countries, --and whether, after what you did at that time, you believe that you will meet the views of the thoughtful, moral, andreligious people of England, when you propose to remit to slavery threemillions of negroes in the Southern States, who in our views, andregarding the Proclamation of the only President of the United States asa legal document, are certainly and to all intents and purposes free?['Oh!'] The hon. And learned Gentleman may say 'Oh!' and shake his headlightly, and be scornful at this. He has managed to get rid of all thosefeelings under which all men, black and white, like to be free. He hastalked of the cant and hypocrisy of these men. Was Wilberforce, wasClarkson, was Buxton, --I might run over the whole list, --were these menhypocrites, and had they nothing about them but cant?

I could state something about the family of my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Forster), which I almost fear to state in his presence; but his reveredfather--a man unsurpassed in character, not equalled by many inintellect, and approached by few in service--laid down his life in aSlave State in America, while carrying to the governors and legislaturesof every Slave State the protest of himself and his sect against theenormity of that odious system. 

In conclusion, Sir, I have only this to say, --that I wish to take agenerous view of this question, --a view, I say, generous with regard tothe people with whom we are in amity, whose Minister we receive here, and who receive our Minister in Washington. We see that the Governmentof the United States has for two years past been contending for itslife, and we know that it is contending necessarily for human freedom. That Government affords the remarkable example--offered for the firsttime in the history of the world--of a great Government coming forwardas the organized defender of law, freedom, and equality. 

Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot be so ill-informed as to say thatthe revolt of the Southern States is in favour of freedom and equality. In Europe often, and in some parts of America, when there has beeninsurrection, it has generally been of the suffering against theoppressor, and rarely has it been found, and not more commonly in ourhistory than in the history of any other country, that the Governmenthas stepped forward as the organized defender of freedom--of the wideand general freedom of those under its rule. With such a Government, insuch a contest, with such a foe, the hon. And learned Gentleman theMember for Sheffield, who professes to be more an Englishman than mostEnglishmen, asks us to throw into the scale against it the weight of thehostility of England. 

I have not said a word with regard to what may happen to England if wego into war with the United States. It will be a war upon the ocean, --every ship that belongs to the two nations will, as far as possible, beswept from the seas. But when the troubles in America are over, --be theyended by the restoration of the Union, or by separation, --that great andfree people, the most instructed in the world, --there is not an Americanto be found in the New England States who cannot read and write, andthere are not three men in one hundred in the whole Northern States whocannot read and write, --and those who cannot read and write are thosewho have recently come from Europe, --I say the most instructed people inthe world, and the most wealthy, --if you take the distribution of wealthamong the whole people, --will have a wound in their hearts by your actwhich a century may not heal; and the posterity of some of those who nowhear my voice may look back with amazement, and I will say withlamentation, at the course which was taken by the hon. And learnedGentleman, and by such hon. Members as may choose to follow his leading. ['No! No!'] I suppose the hon. Gentlemen who cry 'No!' will admit thatwe sometimes suffer from the errors of our ancestors. There are fewpersons who will not admit that, if their fathers had been wiser, theirchildren would have been happier. 

We know the cause of this revolt, its purposes, and its aims. Those whomade it have not left us in darkness respecting their intentions, butwhat they are to accomplish is still hidden from our sight; and I willabstain now, as I have always abstained with regard to it, frompredicting what is to come. I know what I hope for, --and what I shallrejoice in, --but I know nothing of future facts that will enable me toexpress a confident opinion. Whether it will give freedom to the racewhich white men have trampled in the dust, and whether the issue willpurify a nation steeped in crimes committed against that race, is knownonly to the Supreme. In His hands are alike the breath of man and thelife of States. I am willing to commit to Him the issue of this dreadedcontest; but I implore of Him, and I beseech this House, that my countrymay lift nor hand nor voice in aid of the most stupendous act of guiltthat history has recorded in the annals of mankind. 

 * * * * *

AMERICA. 

VII. 

LONDON, JUNE 29, 1867. 

[The following speech was made at a public breakfast given to WilliamLloyd Garrison, in St. James's Hall, at which Mr. Bright occupied theChair. ]

The position in which I am placed this morning is one very unusual forme, and one that I find somewhat difficult; but I consider it a signaldistinction to be permitted to take a prominent part in the proceedingsof this day, which are intended to commemorate one of the greatest ofthe great triumphs of freedom, and to do honour to a most eminentinstrument in the achievement of that freedom. There may be, perhaps, those who ask what is this triumph of which I speak. To put it briefly, and, indeed, only to put one part of it, I may say that it is a triumphwhich has had the effect of raising 4, 000, 000 of human beings from thevery lowest depth of social and political degradation to that loftyheight which men have attained when they possess equality of rights inthe first country on the globe. More than this, it is a triumph whichhas pronounced the irreversible doom of slavery in all countries and forall time. Another question suggests itself--how has this great triumphbeen accomplished? The answer suggests itself in another question--Howis it that any great thing is accomplished? By love of justice, byconstant devotion to a great cause, and by an unfaltering faith thatwhat is right will in the end succeed. 

When I look at this hall, filled with such an assembly--when I partakeof the sympathy which runs from heart to heart at this moment in welcometo our guest of to-day--I cannot but contrast his present position withthat which, not so far back but that many of us can remember, heoccupied in his own country. It is not forty years ago, I believe aboutthe year 1829, when the guest whom we honour this morning was spendinghis solitary days in a prison in the slave-owning city of Baltimore. Iwill not say that he was languishing in prison, for that I do notbelieve; he was sustained by a hope that did not yield to thepersecution of those who thus maltreated him; and to show that theeffect of that imprisonment was of no avail to suppress or extinguishhis ardour, within two years after that he had the courage, theaudacity--I dare say many of his countrymen used even a stronger phrasethan that--he had the courage to commence the publication, in the cityof Boston, of a newspaper devoted mainly to the question of theabolition of slavery. The first number of that paper, issued on the 1stof January, 1831, contained an address to the public, one passage ofwhich I have often read with the greatest interest, and it is a key tothe future life of Mr. Garrison. He had been complained of for havingused hard language--which is a very common complaint indeed--and he saidin his first number:--

 'I am aware that many object to the severity of my language, but is there not cause for such severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retract a single inch, and I will be heard. '

And that, after all, expresses to a great extent the future course ofhis life. But what was at that time the temper of the people amongstwhom he lived--of the people who are glorying now, as they well mayglory, in the abolition of slavery throughout their country? At thattime it was very little better in the North than it was in the South. Ithink it was in the year 1835 that riots of the most serious charactertook place in some of the Northern cities: during that time Mr. Garrison's life was in imminent peril; and he has never ascertained tothis day how it was that he was left alive on the earth to carry out hisgreat work. Turning to the South, a State that has lately suffered fromthe ravages of armies, the State of Georgia, by its legislature ofHouse, Senate, and Governor, if my memory does not deceive me, passed abill, offering 10, 000 dollars reward--[Mr. Garrison here said '5, 000']--well, they seemed to think there were people who would do it cheap--offering 5, 000 dollars, and zeal, doubtless, would make up thedifference, for the capture of Mr. Garrison, or for adequate proof ofhis death. Now, these were menaces and perils such as we have not in ourtime been accustomed to in this country in any of our politicalmovements, and we shall take a very poor measure indeed of the conductof the leaders of the Emancipation party in the United States if weestimate them by that of any of those who have been concerned inpolitical movements amongst us. But, notwithstanding all drawbacks, thecause was gathering strength, and Mr. Garrison found himself by-and-bysurrounded by a small but increasing band of men and women who weredevoted to this cause, as he himself was. We have in this country a verynoble woman, who taught the English people much upon this question aboutthirty years ago: I allude to Harriet Martineau. I recollect well theimpression with which I read a most powerful and touching paper whichshe had written, and which was published in the number of the_Westminster Review_ for December, 1838. It was entitled 'TheMartyr Age of the United States. ' The paper introduced to the Englishpublic the great names which were appearing on the scene in connectionwith this cause in America. There was, of course I need hardly say, oureminent guest of to-day; there was Arthur Tappan, and Lewis Tappan, andJames G. Birney of Alabama, a planter and slave-owner, who liberated hisslaves and came North, and became, I believe, the first Presidentialcandidate upon Abolition principles in the United States. There werebesides them, Dr. Channing, John Quincy Adams, a statesman and Presidentof the United States, and father of the eminent man who is now Ministerfrom that people amongst us. Then there was Wendell Phillips, admittedto be by all who know him perhaps the most powerful orator who speaksthe English language. I might refer to others, to Charles Sumner, thescholar and statesman, and Horace Greeley, the first of journalists inthe United States, if not the first of journalists in the world. But, besides these, there were of noble women not a few. There was LydiaMaria Child; there were the two sisters, Sarah and Angelina Grimke, ladies who came from South Carolina, who liberated their slaves, anddevoted all they had to the service of this just cause; and Maria WestonChapman, of whom Miss Martineau speaks in terms which, though I do notexactly recollect them, yet I know describe her as noble-minded, beautiful, and good. It may be that there are some of her family who arenow within the sound of my voice. If it be so, all I have to say is, that I hope they will feel, in addition to all they have felt heretoforeas to the character of their mother, that we who are here can appreciateher services, and the services of all who were united with her as co-operators in this great and worthy cause. But there was another whosename must not be forgotten, a man whose name must live for ever inhistory, Elijah P. Lovejoy, who in the free State of Illinois laid downhis life for the cause. When I read that article by Harriet Martineau, and the description of those men and women there given, I was led, Iknow not how, to think of a very striking passage which I am sure mustbe familiar to most here, because it is to be found in the Epistle tothe Hebrews. After the writer of that Epistle has described the greatmen and fathers of the nation, he says:--'Time would fail me to tell ofGideon, of Barak, of Samson, of Jephtha, of David, of Samuel, and theProphets, who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence offire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. ' Iask if this grand passage of the inspired writer may not be applied tothat heroic band who have made America the perpetual home of freedom?

Thus, in spite of all that persecutions could do, opinion grew in theNorth in favour of freedom; but in the South, alas! in favour of thatmost devilish delusion that slavery was a Divine institution. The momentthat idea took possession of the South, war was inevitable. Neitherfact, nor argument, nor counsel, nor philosophy, nor religion, could byany possibility affect the discussion of the question when once theChurch leaders of the South had taught their people that slavery was aDivine institution; for then they took their stand on other anddifferent, and what they in their blindness thought higher grounds, andthey said, 'Evil! be thou my good;' and so they exchanged light fordarkness, and freedom for bondage, and good for evil, and, if you like, heaven for hell. Of course, unless there was some stupendous miracle, greater than any that is on record even in the inspired writings, it wasimpossible that war should not spring out of that state of things; andthe political slaveholders, that 'dreadful brotherhood, in whom allturbulent passions were let loose, ' the moment they found that thepresidential election of 1860 was adverse to the cause of slavery, tookup arms to sustain their cherished and endangered system. Then came theoutbreak which had been so often foretold, so often menaced; and theground reeled under the nation during four years of agony, until atlast, after the smoke of the battle-field had cleared away, the horridshape which had cast its shadow over a whole continent had vanished, andwas gone for ever. An ancient and renowned poet has said--

 'Unholy is the voice Of loud thanksgiving over slaughtered men. '

It becomes us not to rejoice, but to be humbled, that a chastisement soterrible should have fallen upon any of our race; but we may be thankfulfor this--that this chastisement was at least not sent in vain. Thegreat triumph in the field was not all; there came after it anothergreat triumph--a triumph over passion, and there came up before theworld the spectacle, not of armies and military commanders, but of themagnanimity and mercy of a powerful and victorious nation. Thevanquished were treated as the vanquished, in the history of the world, have never before been treated. There was a universal feeling in theNorth that every care should be taken of those who had so recently andmarvellously been enfranchised. Immediately we found that the privilegesof independent labour were open to them, schools were established inwhich their sons might obtain an education that would raise them to anintellectual position never reached by their fathers; and at length fullpolitical rights were conferred upon those who a few short years, orrather months before, had been called chattels, and things, to be boughtand sold in any market. And we may feel assured, that those persons inthe Northern States who befriended the negro in his bondage will not nowfail to assist his struggles for a higher position. May we not say, reviewing what has taken place--and I have only glanced in the briefestpossible way at the chief aspects of this great question--that probablyhistory has no sadder, and yet, if we take a different view, I may sayalso probably no brighter page? To Mr. Garrison more than to any otherman this is due; his is the creation of that opinion which has madeslavery hateful, and which has made freedom possible in America. Hisname is venerated in his own country--venerated where not long ago itwas a name of obloquy and reproach. His name is venerated in thiscountry and in Europe wheresoever Christianity softens the hearts andlessens the sorrows of men; and I venture to say that in time to come, near or remote I know not, his name will become the herald and thesynonym of good to millions of men who will dwell on the now almostunknown continent of Africa. 

But we must not allow our own land to be forgotten or depreciated, evenwhilst we are saying what our feelings bid us say of our friend besideme and of our other friends across the water. We, too, can share in thetriumph I have described, and in the honours which the world is willingto shower upon our guest, and upon those who, like him, are unwearied indoing good. We have had slaves in the colonial territories that ownedthe sway of this country. Our position was different from that in whichthe Americans stood towards theirs; the negroes were far from being sonumerous, and they were not in our midst, but 4, 000 miles away. We hadno prejudices of colour to overcome, we had a Parliament that wasomnipotent in those colonies, and public opinion acting upon thatParliament was too powerful for the Englishmen who were interested inthe continuance of slavery. We liberated our slaves; for the Englishsoil did not reject the bondsman, but the moment he touched it made himfree. We have now in our memory Clarkson, and Wilberforce, and Buxton, and Sturge; and even now we have within this hall the most eloquentliving English champion of the freedom of the slave in my friend, andour friend, George Thompson. Well, then, I may presume to say that weare sharers in that good work which has raised our guest to eminence;and we may divide it with the country from which he comes. Our countryis still his; for did not his fathers bear allegiance to our ancientmonarchy, and were they not at one time citizens of this commonwealth?and may we not add that the freedom which now overspreads his noblenation first sprang into life amongst our own ancestors? To Mr. Garrison, as is stated in one of the letters which has just been read, to William Lloyd Garrison it has been given, in a manner not oftenpermitted to those who do great things of this kind, to see the ripefruit of his vast labours. Over a territory large enough to make manyrealms, he has seen hopeless toil supplanted by compensated industry;and where the bondman dragged his chain, there freedom is establishedfor ever. We now welcome him amongst us as a friend whom some of us haveknown long; for I have watched his career with no common interest, evenwhen I was too young to take much part in public affairs; and I havekept within my heart his name, and the names of those who have beenassociated with him in every step which he has taken; and in publicdebates in the halls of peace, and even on the blood-soiled fields ofwar, my heart has always been with those who were the friends offreedom. We welcome him, then, with a cordiality which knows no stintand no limit for him and for his noble associates, both men and women;and we venture to speak a verdict which, I believe, will be sanctionedby all mankind, not only by those who live now, but by those who shallcome after, to whom their perseverance and their success shall be alesson and a help in the future struggles which remain for men to make. One of our oldest and greatest poets has furnished me with a line thatwell expresses that verdict. Are not William Lloyd Garrison and hisfellow-labourers in that world's work--are they not

 'On Fame's eternal bead-roll worthy to be filed?'

 * * * * *

IRELAND. 

I. 

MAYNOOTH GRANT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 16, 1845. [On April 3rd Sir Robert Peel proposed a Resolution for the improvementof Maynooth College, the grant to consist of 26, 000_l_. Per annum. It was suggested by some speakers, that the act would justify theendowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and Lord John Russellasserted that such a plan would be a larger, more liberal, and morestatesmanlike measure. Others objected to the grant on theologicalgrounds, others for the reason that it was a step towards endowinganother Church Establishment in Ireland. The Resolution was carried by216 to 114. The debate on the Bill was resumed on April 10th, and wascontinued on April 14th and 16th. The second reading was carried on thelast day by 323 votes to 176; on May 2nd the Bill passed throughCommittee. It was opposed again on bringing up the Report, on May 5th, and was finally passed on May 21st, by 317 to 184. The Bill, afteropposition, passed in the Lords on June 10th. ]

I am anxious to make a few observations on the principle on which Ishall give my vote; because I shall be obliged to pass into the lobbyalong with a number of Members of the House from whose principles Ientirely dissent; and after the speech of the noble Lord the Member forBandon, I think that any one who votes with him has need to explain whyhe votes on his side, for anything more unlike the principles of thepresent day, more intolerant, or more insane with respect to the policyto be pursued towards Ireland, I have never heard; and I could not havebelieved that any man coming from that country could have used suchlanguage in addressing this House. I do not think that this question isto be looked at in a favourable or unfavourable light because of theparty from which it comes. Some hon. Members have charged the right hon. Baronet with inconsistency, and have in some degree thrown the blame ofhis conduct on the measure which he has introduced. The right hon. Baronet has, from unfortunate circumstances, been connected inOpposition with a party of such a nature, that he could never promoteany good measure whilst in power without being charged, and justly, withinconsistent conduct. But I will look at the measure as a measure byitself, and if it be a good measure I will vote for it as willingly, coming from the present Government, as if it came from the Governmentwhich preceded it. But I object to this measure on the ground that it isproposed to vote some of the public taxes for the purpose of maintainingan institution purely ecclesiastical, and for the rearing and educatingof the priests of a particular sect. I am the more strongly against theBill, because, from all that has been said on both sides of the House, and from all that I can learn from the public papers, and even from theorgans of the Government, I am convinced that there is no argument whichhas been used in defence of this measure, which would not be just asvalid for the defence of further measures, not for the payment ofCatholic priests of the College of Maynooth only, but for the payment ofall the priests in Ireland or in England. I admit that the principlesand the arguments which have justified the original vote are good tosome extent to justify this vote. The right hon. Baronet in his openingspeech has stated that the principle was conceded, that it is but amatter of a few thousand pounds. But if the principle were conceded now, ten or twenty years hence some Prime Minister might stand up and statethat in 1795 the principle was conceded, and in 1845 that concession--orrather, that principle--was again sanctioned; and then, arguing from thetwo cases, it would be easy to demonstrate that it was no violation ofprinciple whatever to establish a new Church in Ireland, and add therebyto the monstrous evils which exist there now from the establishment ofone in connection with the State. The right hon. Baronet has paid nogreat compliment to the Irish Catholics in the possession of means andproperty, when he has said that the 9, 000_l_. Now voted is justsufficient to damp the generosity of the people of that country. If9, 000_l_. Were enough in some degree to check their generosity, Ishould think that a sum of 26, 000_l_. Is sufficient to destroy italtogether. When I consider that the Catholic gentry of Ireland pay noIncome Tax and no Property Tax, and no Assessed Taxes, I do not think itwould be a thing altogether impossible, or to be unlocked for, that theyshould have supported an establishment for the rearing of priests toteach that religion to which they profess to be so much devoted. 

But the object of this measure was just as objectionable to me when Ilearned that it was intended by this vote to soothe the discontent whichexists in Ireland. I will look at the causes whence this discontentarises. Does it arise because the priests of Maynooth are nowinsufficiently clad or fed? I have always thought that it arose from thefact that one-third of the people are paupers--that almost all of themare not in regular employment at the very lowest rate of wages--and thatthe state of things amongst the bulk of the population is mostdisastrous, and to be deplored; but I cannot for the life of me conceivehow the grant of additional money to Maynooth is to give additionalemployment, or food, or clothing to the people of Ireland, or make themmore satisfied with their condition. I can easily see how, by thegranting of this sum, the Legislature may hear far less in future timesof the sufferings and wrongs of the people of Ireland than they haveheard heretofore; for they may discover that one large means ofinfluence, possessed by those who had agitated for the redress of Irishwrongs, is to be found in the support which the Irish Catholic clergyhas given to the various associations for carrying on politicalagitation; and the object of this Bill is to tame down those agitators--it is a sop given to the priests. It is hush-money given, that they maynot proclaim to the whole country, to Europe, and to the world, thesufferings of the population to whom they administer the rites and theconsolations of religion. I assert that the Protestant Church of Irelandis at the root of the evils of that country. The Irish Catholics wouldthank you infinitely more if you were to wipe out that foul blot, thanthey would even if Parliament were to establish the Roman CatholicChurch alongside of it. They have had everything Protestant--aProtestant clique which has been dominant in the country; a ProtestantViceroy to distribute places and emoluments amongst that Protestantclique; Protestant judges who have polluted the seats of justice;Protestant magistrates, before whom the Catholic peasant could not hopefor justice. They have not only Protestant, but exterminating landlords, and more than that, a Protestant soldiery, who, at the beck and commandof a Protestant priest, have butchered and killed a Catholic peasant, even in the presence of his widowed mother. All these things arenotorious; I merely state them. I do not bring the proof of them: theyare patent to all the world, and that man must have been unobservantindeed who is not perfectly convinced of their truth. The consequence ofall this is, the extreme discontent of the Irish people; and becausethis House is not prepared yet to take those measures which would bereally doing justice to Ireland, and to wipe away that ProtestantEstablishment which is the most disgraceful institution in Christendom;the next thing is, that they should drive off the watch-dogs, if it bepossible, and take from Mr. O'Connell and the Repeal Association thatformidable organization which has been established throughout the wholecountry, through the sympathies of the Catholic priests being bound upwith the interests of the people. Their object is to take away thesympathy of the Catholic priests from the people, and to give them moreLatin and Greek. The object is to make the priests in Ireland as tame asthose of Suffolk and Dorsetshire. The object is, that when the horizonis brightened every night with incendiary fires, no priest of the paidEstablishment shall ever tell of the wrongs of the people amongst whomhe is living; and when the population is starving, and pauperised bythousands, as in the southern parts of England, the priests shall notunite themselves with any association for the purpose of wresting froman oppressive Government those rights to which the people have a claim. 

I am altogether against this system for any purpose, under anycircumstances, at any time whatever. Nothing can be more disastrous tothe best interests of the community, nor more dangerous to religionitself. If the Government wants to make the priests of Ireland asuseless for all practical purposes as the paid priests of their ownEstablishment, they should not give them 26, 000_l_. Merely, but asmuch as they can persuade the House to agree to. Ireland is suffering, not from the want of another Church, but rather because she already hasone Church too many; for with the present Church, having a smallcommunity, overpaid ministers, a costly Establishment, and little work, it is quite impossible to have peace and content in that country. If yougive the Catholic priests a portion of the public funds, as theGovernment has given the _Regium Donum_ to the Presbyterians of theNorth, they will unite with the Church as the Presbyterians did againstany attempt to overturn the old system of Church and State alliance inthat country. 

The experience of State Churches is not of a character to warrant theHouse in going further in that direction. In this country there is aState Church, and I do not deny that there are many excellent ministersin it; but from time immemorial it has been characterized by a mostdeplorable and disastrous spirit of persecution, which even at this hourstill exists; for that Church is now persecuting a poor shoemaker atCambridge for non-payment of Church rates, and pursuing him from courtto court. That Church has been upheld as a bulwark against Catholicism, and yet all the errors of Catholicism find a home and a hearty welcomethere. In Lancashire and Yorkshire, and in other counties, that Churchis found to be too unwieldy a machine, and altogether unfitted to apopulation growing in numbers and intelligence like that of those partsof the kingdom. Even in Scotland, where there is a model of the mostperfect Establishment which perhaps could be raised, there are theSecession Church, the Belief Church, and the Free Church; that which theState upholds being called by the complimentary name of the ResiduaryChurch. After the experience of such State Churches, which have done solittle good and so much evil, is this a time for establishing anotherChurch? If I approved of Church endowments by the State I would vote forthis Bill with all my heart, because it is calculated to create a kinderfeeling towards this country amongst the people of Ireland. 

Two parties opposed to the Bill are represented by hon. Gentlemen on theother side of the House. They state that the Roman Catholic religionshould not be established or helped by the State. But when their Churchis absorbing millions of the public money, while millions of theircountrymen refuse to enter its doors, how can they for a moment objectto the passing of a measure which will give some sort of show ofassistance to that Church to which millions of the Irish people belong?The Nonconformist or Dissenting party in this country are opposed to themeasure; but by some of them a spirit is mixed up with their agitationof this question which shows that they do not understand, or do notvalue, the great principles of Nonconformity, for which theirforefathers struggled and suffered. I allude more especially to aportion of the Wesleyan body, which, I believe, does not altogetherrepudiate the principle of endowment. 

But, with regard to the rest, I am persuaded that their agitationagainst this measure is honest. If the Dissenters look back to all thattheir forefathers have suffered, aye, even within a late period, theywill be recreant to their own principles, and merit the contempt of theHouse and of the world, if they do not come forward manfully to upholdtheir own principles, and dissent from and oppose the measure under theconsideration of the House. For myself, I shall oppose the Bill in everystage, simply on one ground, that I believe the principle of endowmentto be most unjust and injurious to the country, and whatever may be theeffect on any Government, whether that of the right hon. Baronet or anythat has preceded or will succeed him, no strength of attachment toparty or Government will induce me to tamper with what I hold to be thegreatest and dearest principle which any man or any body of men canassert. When I look back to the history of this country, and considerits present condition, I must say, that all that the people possess ofliberty has come, not through the portals of the cathedrals and theparish churches, but from the conventicles, which are despised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. When I know that if a good measure is to be carriedin this House, it must be by men who are sent hither by theNonconformists of Great Britain; when I read and see that the past andpresent State alliance with religion is hostile to religious liberty, preventing all growth and nearly destroying all vitality in religionitself, then I shall hold myself to have read, thought, and lived invain, if I vote for a measure which in the smallest degree shall giveany further power or life to the principle of State endowment; and, inconclusion, I will only exhort the Dissenters of England to act in thesame way, and to stand upon their own great, pure, and unassailableprinciple; for, if they stand by it manfully, and work for itvigorously, the time may come, nay, it will come, when that principlewill be adopted by the Legislature of the country. 

 * * * * *

IRELAND. 

II. 

CRIME AND OUTRAGE BILL. HOUSE OF COMMONS, DECEMBER 13, 1847. 

[Towards the conclusion of this year (1847) numerous crimes and outragesof a serious character were committed in Ireland. They were chieflyagrarian. In order to increase the powers of the Irish Executive, Parliament was invited in the Queen's Speech (Nov. 23) to take furtherprecautions against the perpetration of crime in certain counties inIreland. The Bill was moved by Sir George Grey on Nov. 29, and leave wasgiven, by 224 votes to 18, was read a second time (296 to 19) on Dec. 9, and passed (174 to 14) on Dec. 13. It was passed in the House of Lordson Dec. 19. On July 31, 1848, the Irish Government proclaimed certaindistricts in which rebellion had broken out. Smith O'Brien and the otherleaders of the insurgents were speedily arrested, tried, and convicted. ]

I feel very much in the position of the hon. Member who has justaddressed the House, for I am in some degree compelled to speak beforethis Bill is read a third time. I have presented a petition against theBill, signed by more than 20, 000 persons, inhabitants of the borough ofManchester, and I am unwilling to vote without briefly giving thereasons which make it impossible for me to oppose this Bill. When Irecollect the circumstances attending the rejection of the Bill of 1846, for the protection of life in Ireland, I am convinced that theGovernment would not have brought forward the present measure if it hadnot appeared to them absolutely necessary, and that, but for thissupposed necessity, it would never have been heard of. 

The case of the Government, so far as the necessity for this Bill isconcerned, seems to me to be as clear and as perfect as it can be. Fromthe speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the HomeDepartment, from the unanimous statements of all the newspapers, andfrom the evidence of all parties connected with Ireland, it is placedbeyond a doubt that in the disturbed districts of Ireland the ordinarylaw is utterly powerless. The reason why the law is carried into effectin England is, because the feeling of the people is in favour of it, andevery man is willing to become and is in reality a peace officer, inorder to further the ends of justice. 

But in Ireland this state of things does not exist. The public sentimentin certain districts is depraved and thoroughly vitiated. [Mr. J. O'Connell, 'No! No!'] The hon. Member cries 'No, No;' but I maintainthat in the disturbed districts the public or popular feeling is as Ihave described it. I do not mean to assert that all which the newspaperscontain is true, or that they contain all the truth; but I ask the hon. Gentleman if he has not read accounts which are not contradicted, fromwhich we learn that on the occurrence of some recent cases ofassassination, whole districts have been in a state of rejoicing andexultation? These assassinations are not looked upon as murders, butrather as executions. Take the case of Mr. Lloyd, a clergyman, who wasrecently assassinated. There was no show of vindictive feeling on thepart of his murderers; there was little of the character of ordinarymurders in it. The servant was allowed to depart unharmed; a boy who wasin the carriage was removed that he might not be injured; and theunhappy gentleman was shot with all the deliberation and the calmnesswith which a man would be made to suffer the extreme penalty of the law. It is clear, then, that the ordinary law fails, and that the Governmenthave a case for the demand they make for an extension of the presentpowers of the law. 

I do not say the present Bill will certainly be effective, but it is theless to be opposed because it does not greatly exceed or infringe theordinary law; and it is the duty of the Legislature, when called upon tostrengthen the Executive, to do so by the smallest possible infringementof the law and the constitution. But, to leave the particular measurenow before us, I am bound to say that the case of the Government withrespect to their Irish policy in general is not as good as could bewished. The Government has not shown the courage which is necessary todeal effectually with the difficulties of Ireland. They should rememberwhat passed when the Poor-law was proposed for that country. They weretold it would be a failure--that it could not be worked; butdisregarding these statements, they passed the Bill; and I believe, since the Act of 1829, no measure has passed this House of equal benefitto Ireland. The noble Lord at the head of the Government has said thatall parties are to be blamed for the misgovernment of Ireland; but heshould remember the responsibility which is upon him, for he is now inthe position of dictator on Irish questions, and whatever he proposesfor that country, I verily believe, will find no successful oppositionin this House. 

There is another fact to which I would call attention. The Irish Memberscomplain, and very justly, of the past legislation of this House; butwhen we call to mind that there are 105 of them here, of whom 60 or 70are of Liberal politics or opinions, and that about 30 of them areRepealers, and hold very strong views with regard to the mismanagementof Irish affairs in the Imperial Parliament, I think we have a right tocomplain that they have not laid on the table of the House any onemeasure which they believe to be necessary to the prosperity of theircountry. 

I have been in this House more than four years, and I have never yetseen the Irish Members bringing forward any proposition of a practicalcharacter--nor am I aware that they have supported any measure theydeemed necessary for Ireland, with unanimity and earnestness, or withanything like perseverance and resolution. I am sure that 105, or even30 English Members, sitting in a Parliament in Dublin, and believingtheir country had suffered from the effects of bad legislation, would, by their knowledge of the case, their business habits, activity, union, and perseverance, have showed a powerful front, and by uniting together, and working manfully in favour of any proposition they might thinknecessary to remedy the evils of which they complained, they would haveforced it on the attention of the House. But the Irish Members have notdone this. So far then, they are and have been as much to blame as anyother Member of this House for the absence of good government inIreland. 

I will not, like them, complain of bad legislation, and propose noremedy. What is the condition of Ireland? Last year we voted millions tokeep its population from starvation; and this year we have been askedfor a further sum, but have not granted it. We maintain a large army inIreland, and an armed police, which is an army in everything but inname, and yet we have in that country a condition of things which is notto be matched in any other civilised country on the face of the earth, and which is alike disgraceful to Ireland and to us. The great cause ofIreland's calamities is, that Ireland is idle. I believe it would befound, on inquiry, that the population of Ireland, as compared with thatof England, do not work more than two days per week. Wherever a peopleare not industrious and are not employed, there is the greatest dangerof crime and outrage. Ireland is idle, and therefore she starves;Ireland starves, and therefore she rebels. We must choose betweenindustry and anarchy: we must have one or the other in Ireland. Thisproposition I believe to be incontrovertible, and I defy the House togive peace and prosperity to that country until they set in motion herindustry, create and diffuse capital, and thus establish thosegradations of rank and condition by which the whole social fabric canalone be held together. 

But the idleness of the people of Ireland is not wholly their fault. Itis for the most part a forced idleness, for it is notorious that whenthe Irish come to England, or remove to the United States or theColonies, they are about the hardest working people in the world. Weemploy them down in Lancashire, and with the prospect of good pay theywork about as well, and are as trustworthy, and quiet, and well-disposedto the law as the people of this country. The great secret of theiridleness at home is, that there is little or no trade in Ireland; thereare few flourishing towns to which the increasing population can resortfor employment, so that there is a vast mass of people living on theland; and the land itself is not half so useful for their employment andsustentation as it might be. A great proportion of her skill, herstrength, her sinews, and her labour, is useless to Ireland for thesupport of her population. Every year they have a large emigration, because there are a great number of persons with just enough means totransport themselves to other countries, who, finding it impossible tolive at home in comfort, carry themselves and their capital out ofIreland; so that, year after year, she loses a large portion of thosebetween the very poorest and the more wealthy classes of society, andwith them many of the opportunities for the employment of labour. 

I do not believe that the Bill for regulating the relations of landlordand tenant, as recommended by the hon. Member for the County ofLimerick, will restore prosperity to Ireland. Such a measure may bepassed with great advantage; but if it be intended by a Bill with thistitle to vest the ownership of the land in the present occupiers, Ibelieve this House will never pass it, and if it did, that it wouldprove most fatal to the best interests of the country. I think we have aright to blame the Government that as yet we have not seen the Bill forthe sale of encumbered estates in Ireland. I wish to ask why such a Billis not ready before this? [Lord John Russell: 'The Bill has been ready along time'] The noble Lord says the Bill has been ready long ago; butthat statement only makes the Government open to greater blame, for ifthe Bill is ready, why has it not been brought forward before this? LastSession the Bill was withdrawn, and the reason given was that landlordsand mortgagees did not like it. If the Government wait till thelandlords and mortgagees like it, it will never be brought forward atall. Had they waited till the Irish landlords asked for the Poor-law, there would have been no Poor-law in Ireland now. 

The Government should disregard the opposition of these parties, andshould take their stand above all class interests. They must refuse tolisten to the interested suggestions of one class or the other, and theymust remember that they are the Executive Government of the country, andbound to act for the public good. There is an unanimous admission nowthat the misfortunes of Ireland are connected with the question of themanagement of the land. I have a theory that, in England as well as inIreland, the proprietors of the soil are chiefly responsible forwhatever bad legislation has been inflicted upon us. The ownership ofland confers more political power than the possession of any otherdescription of property. The Irish landowners have been willing partiesto the past legislation for Ireland, and they have also had theadministration and execution of the laws in that country. The encumberedcondition of landed property in Ireland is at this moment the mostpressing question. I am informed by a gentleman in Dublin, of the bestmeans of information and of undoubted veracity, that in the province ofConnaught there is not five per cent, of the land free from settlementsof one kind or other, and that probably not one per cent, is free frommortgages. I have asked Irish Members of all parties if this be true, and not one of them is disposed to deny it; and if it be true, I say itis idle to seek elsewhere for the source of the evils of Ireland; andevery day, nay, every hour we allow to go by without taking instantmeasures to remedy this crying mischief, only adds to the criminalitywhich rests on us for our past legislation. 

Patchwork legislation will not now succeed; speeches from the LordLieutenant--articles in the newspapers--lending to the landowners at 31/2 per cent. Money raised by taxation from the traders of England, whohave recently been paying 8 per cent. --all will fail to revive theindustry of Ireland. I will now state what, in my opinion, is theremedy, and I beg to ask the attention of the Government to it, because, though they may now think it an extreme one, I am convinced that thetime will come when they will be compelled to adopt it. 

In the first place, it is their duty to bring in a Sale of Estates Bill, and make it easy for landowners who wish to dispose of their estates todo so. They should bring in a Bill to simplify the titles to land inIreland. I understand that it is almost impossible to transfer an estatenow, the difficulties in the way of a clear title being almostinsurmountable. In the next place, they should diminish temporarily, ifnot permanently, all stamp duties which hinder the transfer of landedproperty, and they should pass a law by which the system of entailingestates should for the future be prevented. [Laughter. ] I can assurehon. Gentlemen who laugh at this, that at some not distant day this mustbe done, and not in Ireland only, but in England also. It is an absurdand monstrous system, for it binds, as it were, the living under thepower of the dead. 

The principle on which the law should proceed is this, that the owner ofproperty should be permitted to leave it to whomsoever he will, providedthe individual is living when the will is made; but he should not besuffered, after he is dead, and buried, and forgotten, to speak andstill to direct the channel through which the estate should pass. Ishall be told that the law of entail in Ireland is the same as inEngland, and that in Scotland it is even more strict. I admit it; butthe evil is great in England, and in Scotland it has become intolerable, and must soon be relaxed if not abolished. Perhaps I shall be told thatthe laws of entail and primogeniture are necessary for the maintenanceof our aristocratic institutions; but if the evils of Ireland springfrom this source, I say, perish your aristocratic institutions ratherthan that a whole nation should be in this terrible condition. If youraristocratic families would rear up their children in habits ofbusiness, and with some notions of duty and prudence, these mischievousarrangements would not be required, and they would retain in theirpossession estates at least as large as is compatible with the interestsof the rest of the community. If the laws of entail and primogenitureare sound and just, why not apply them to personal property as well asto freehold? Imagine them in force in the middle classes of thecommunity, and it will be seen at once that the unnatural system, ifuniversal, would produce confusion; and confusion would necessitate itstotal abolition. 

I am thoroughly convinced that everything the Government or Parliamentcan do for Ireland will be unavailing, unless the foundation of the workbe laid well and deep, by clearing away the fetters under which land isnow held, so that it may become the possession of real owners, and bemade instrumental to the employment and sustentation of the people. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may fancy themselves interested in maintaining thepresent system; but there is surely no interest they can have in itwhich they will weigh against the safety and prosperity of Ireland? Ispeak as a representative from a county which suffers extremely from thecondition of Ireland. Lancashire is periodically overrun by thepauperism of Ireland; for a year past it has suffered most seriouslyfrom the pestilence imported from Ireland; and many of the evils whichin times past have been attributed to the extension of manufactures inthat county have arisen from the enormous immigration of a suffering andpauperized people driven for sustenance from their own country. 

As a Lancashire representative, I protest most solemnly against a systemwhich drives the Irish population to seek work and wages in this countryand in other countries, when both might be afforded them at home. Parliament is bound to remedy this state of things. The presentParliament contains a larger number of men of business and of membersrepresenting the middle classes than any former Parliament. The presentGovernment is essentially of the middle class--[a laugh]--and itsMembers have on many occasions shown their sympathy with it. Let thehon. Gentleman laugh; but he will not deny that no Government can longhave a majority in this House which does not sympathise with the greatmiddle class of this country. If the Government will manfully andcourageously grapple with the question of the condition of land inIreland, they will, I am convinced, be supported by a majority of theMembers of this House, they will enable the strength and skill ofIrishmen to be expended on their own soil, and lay the foundation of hercertain prosperity by giving that stimulus and reward to industry whichit cannot have in the present circumstances of that country. Sir, I feelit impossible to refuse my vote in favour of the Bill now before us; butI am compelled to say, that unless the Government will zealously promotemeasures in the direction I have indicated, they cannot hope long toretain the confidence of this House or of the country. 

 * * * * *

IRELAND. 

III. 

EMPLOYMENT OF THE POOR. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 25, 1848. From the speeches that have been delivered in this debate, and from whatwe know of Ireland, it is clear that Ireland is so entirelydisorganised, that it is extremely difficult to suggest any means bywhich relief can be extensively given without causing two evils: first, the waste of a great portion of the money which is granted; and next, the demoralization of a large number of those to whom the relief isgiven. It is on account of these difficulties that I am disposed to makegreat allowance for the measures which the Government have undertaken, as well as for any propositions which may be made by the hon. Member forStroud, even when they appear somewhat inconsistent with correcteconomical principles. 

As this is probably the last opportunity during this Session when thequestion of the condition of Ireland can be discussed, I am anxious toavail myself of it to offer a few observations to the House, and toexplain briefly what I conceive to be the course which ought to be takenwith regard to that country, to enable its population to placethemselves in a position of comfort and independence. The past ofIreland is known to us all; it is a tale of idleness, and poverty, andperiodical insurrection; the present of Ireland is like the past, exceptthat at this moment all its ordinary evils are exhibited in anaggravated form. But there are one or two points with regard to thissubject to which I wish especially to ask the attention of the House. Have you ever fully considered the effect which this state of things inIreland has upon the condition of certain districts in England? We havehad some threatenings of disturbances in England, and of disaffection--Ihope it is not wide-spread--here and there in various parts of thecountry. Take the county of Lancaster as an example, and you will seesomething of the consequences of a large influx of the Irish populationinto that district. In Liverpool and Manchester, and in all the belt oftowns which surround Manchester, there is a large Irish population--infact, there is an Irish quarter in each of these towns. It is true thata great number of these persons are steady, respectable, andindustrious, but it is notorious that a portion of them are, in somedegree, the opposite of all this. They bring to this country all thevices which have prevailed so long in Ireland; their influence on thepeople of Lancashire is often of an unfavourable character, and theeffect of their example on the native population must necessarily beinjurious. We find that crimes attended with violence prevail toogenerally in Lancashire and Yorkshire. These crimes to a large extentare committed by persons who are not natives of those counties, but whocome from Ireland, because it is impossible for them to find subsistencein that country. 

There is another point which seems to me important. Driven forth bypoverty, Irishmen emigrate in great numbers, and in whatever quarter ofthe world an Irishman sets his foot, there stands a bitter, animplacable enemy of England. That is one of the results of the wide-spread disaffection that exists in Ireland. There are hundreds ofthousands--I suppose there are millions--of the population of the UnitedStates of America who are Irish by birth, or by immediate descent; andbe it remembered, Irishmen settled in the United States have a largeinfluence in public affairs. They sometimes sway the election of Membersof the Legislature, and may even affect the election of the President ofthe Republic. There may come a time when questions of a critical naturewill be agitated between the Governments of Great Britain and the UnitedStates; and it is certain that at such a time the Irish in that countrywill throw their whole weight into the scale against this country, andagainst peace with this country. These are points which it is necessaryto consider, and which arise out of the lamentable condition in whichIreland is placed. 

When we reflect for a moment upon the destitution which millions of ourcountrymen suffer in that unfortunate island, the conclusion isinevitable that either the Government or the people of Ireland are infault. I think both are in fault. I think the Government has beennegligent of Ireland. I do not mean the present Government inparticular; for they are fully as anxious for the welfare of Ireland asany former Administration has been--but I think the Government generallyhas been negligent of Ireland. It is a common thing to hear it said, andespecially by Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury bench, that the remedyfor Irish evils is difficult, and that the difficulty seemsinsurmountable; but the House may rest assured that no difficulty can beso great as that which must be met if no remedy is applied. To doanything that can be effectual, must be infinitely less dangerous thanto do nothing. 

Now I believe the real difficulties which beset this question do notarise from anything in Ireland, so much as from the constitution of theGovernment. This House, and the other House of Parliament, are almostexclusively aristocratic in their character. The Administration istherefore necessarily the same, and on the Treasury benches aristocracyreigns supreme. No fewer than seven Members of the Cabinet are Membersof the House of Lords; and every other Member of it is either a Lord bytitle, or on the very threshold of the peerage by birth or marriage. Iam not blaming them for this; it may even be that from neither House ofParliament can fourteen better men be chosen to fill their places. But Imaintain that in the present position of Ireland, and looking at humannature as it is, it is not possible that fourteen Gentlemen, circumstanced as they are, can meet round the Council table, and withunbiassed minds fairly discuss the question of Ireland, as it nowpresents itself to this House, to the country, and to the world. 

The condition of Ireland requires two kinds of remedies--one political, the other social; and it is hard to tell where the one ends and theother begins. I will speak first of the political remedies. At present, there prevails throughout three-fourths of the Irish people a totalunbelief in the honesty and integrity of the Government of this country. There may or may not be good grounds for all this ill feeling; but thatit exists, no man acquainted with Ireland will deny. The first step tobe taken is to remove this feeling; and, to do this, some great measureor measures should be offered to the people of Ireland, which will actas a complete demonstration to them that bygones are to be bygones, withregard to the administration of Irish affairs, and that henceforth new, generous, and equal principles of government are to be adopted. 

I have on a former occasion stated my opinions on one or two subjects, and I will venture again briefly to explain them to the House. Irelandhas long been a country of jars and turmoil, and its jars have arisenchiefly from religious dissensions. In respect of matters of religionshe has been governed in a manner totally unknown in England andScotland. If Ireland has been rightly governed--if it has been wise andjust to maintain the Protestant Church established there, you ought, inorder to carry out your system, to establish Prelacy in Scotland, andCatholicism in England; though, if you were to attempt to do either theone or the other, it would not be a sham but a real insurrection thatyou would provoke. There must be equality between the great religioussects in Ireland--between Catholic and Protestant. It is impossible thatthis equality can be much longer denied. 

It is suspected that it is the intention of the Government to bringforward at no distant day, if they can catch the people of Englandnapping, a proposition for paying the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland. On more than one ground I should object to any such scheme. In the firstplace, I believe the Government cannot, from any funds they possess, orfrom any they can obtain, place the Catholic priests on an equality withthe ministers of the Protestant Church; and if they cannot do that inevery respect, the thing is not worth attempting. They will, I think, find it infinitely more easy, and it will certainly be much more inaccordance with political justice, and with the true interests ofreligion, to withdraw from Ireland the Church Establishment which nowexists there, and to bring about the perfect equality which may besecured by taking away so much of the funds as are proved to be totallyunnecessary for the wants of the population. I do not mean that youshould withdraw from the Protestant Church every sixpence now in itspossession; what I mean is, that you should separate it from the State, and appropriate all the funds of which it might justly be deprived tosome grand national object, such as the support and extension of thesystem of education now established in Ireland; an appropriation ofmoney which would, I am sure, produce in the minds of the people ofIreland an entire change of feeling with regard to the legislation ofParliament in relation to their country. 

With regard to the Parliamentary representation of Ireland, havingrecently spent seventy-three days in an examination of the subject, whilst serving as a Member of the Dublin Election Committee, I assertmost distinctly that the representation which exists at this moment is afraud; and I believe it would be far better if there were norepresentation at all, because the people would not then be deluded bythe idea that they had a representative Government to protect theirinterests. The number of taxes which the people have to pay, in order tosecure either the municipal or Parliamentary franchise, is so great thatit is utterly impossible for the constituencies to be maintained, andfor public opinion--the honest, real opinion of intelligent classes inIreland--to obtain any common or decent degree of representation in theImperial Legislature. I feel quite confident that in the next Session ofParliament, the questions of religious equality in Ireland and of Irishrepresentation must receive a much more serious attention than they haveobtained in any past Session. 

I come now to those social questions which must also receive theattention of Parliament; for if they do not, the political remedieswill, after all, be of very little permanent use. I advocate thesepolitical changes on the ground, not that they will feed the hungry oremploy the idle, but that they will be as oil thrown upon the waters, and will induce the people no longer to feel themselves treated as aconquered race. It is agreed on all sides that the social remedies whichare immediately possible to us, are those having reference to the modein which the land of Ireland is owned, or held and cultivated--perhaps'not cultivated' would be a more correct expression. The noble Lord atthe head of the Government has alluded to parts of Ireland in which itis impossible that the land as at present held, or the rates which canbe collected, can find relief or sustentation for the people. It is anotorious fact, that there are vast tracts of land in Ireland, which, ifleft in the hands of nominal and bankrupt owners, will never to the endof time support the population which ought to live upon them. And it ison this ground that I must question the policy of measures for expendingpublic money with a view to the cultivation and reclamation of theselands. 

The true solution of this matter is to get the lands out of the hands ofmen who are the nominal, and not the real, possessors. But Parliamentmaintains laws which act most injuriously in this particular. The lawand practice of entails tends to keep the soil in large properties, andin the hands of those who cannot perform their duty to it. It will besaid that entails exist in Scotland and in England. Yes; but thisSession a law has passed, or is passing, to modify the system as it hasheretofore existed in Scotland; and in England many of its evils havebeen partially overcome by the extraordinary, and, to some degree, theaccidental extension of manufacturing industry among the people. InIreland there are no such mitigations; a code of laws exists, underwhich it is impossible for the land and the people to be brought, as itwere, together, and for industry to live in independence and comfort, instead of crawling to this House, as it does almost annually, to askalms of the hardworking people of England. 

The law and practice of primogeniture is another evil of the samecharacter. It is a law unnatural and unjust at all times; but in thepresent condition of Ireland it cannot much longer be endured. Were Icalled upon--and it is a bold figure of speech to mention such a thing--but were I called upon to treat this Irish question, I would establish, for a limited period at least, a special court in Ireland to adjudicateon all questions connected with the titles and transfers of landedproperty. This court should finally decide questions of title; it shouldprepare and enforce a simple and short form of conveyance, as shortalmost as that by which railway stock is transferred; and, withoutregard to the public revenue, I would abolish every farthing of expensewhich is now incurred in the duties on stamps, for the purpose offacilitating the distribution of land in Ireland, and of allowing thecapital and industry of the people to work out its salvation. All thisis possible; and, more than this, it is all necessary. Well, now, whatis the real obstacle in our path? You have toiled at this Irishdifficulty Session after Session, and some of you have grown almost fromboyhood to grey-headed old men since it first met you in yourlegislative career, and yet there is not in ancient or modern history apicture so humiliating as that which Ireland presents to the world atthis moment; and there is not an English gentleman who, if he crossedthe Channel in the present autumn, and travelled in any foreign country, would not wish to escape from any conversation among foreigners in whichthe question of the condition of Ireland was mooted for a single moment. 

Let the House, if it can, regard Ireland as an English country. Let usthink of the eight millions of people, and of the millions of themdoomed to this intolerable suffering. Let us think of the half-millionwho, within two years past, have perished miserably in the workhouses, and on the highways, and in their hovels--more, far more than ever fellby the sword in any war this country ever waged; let us think of thecrop of nameless horrors which is even now growing up in Ireland, andwhose disastrous fruit may be gathered in years and generations to come. Let us examine what are the laws and the principles under which aloneGod and nature have permitted that nations should become industrious andprovident. 

I hope the House will pardon me if I have said a word that can offendany one. But I feel conscious of a personal humiliation when I considerthe state of Ireland. I do not wish to puff nostrums of my own, thoughit may be thought I am opposed to much that exists in the present orderof things; but whether it tended to advance democracy, or to upholdaristocracy, or any other system, I would wish to fling to the winds anyprejudice I have entertained, and any principle that may be questioned, if I can thereby do one single thing to hasten by a single day the timewhen Ireland shall be equal to England in that comfort and thatindependence which an industrious people may enjoy, if the Governmentunder which they live is equal and just. 

 * * * * *

IRELAND. 

IV. 

RATE IN AID. HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 2, 1849. [On February 7, 1849, a proposal was made by the Chancellor of theExchequer that a sum of 50, 000_l_. Should be granted to certainIrish Unions, in which distress was more than usually prevalent. Theresolution was passed on March 3. On March 27 the second reading of theBill founded on this resolution was moved, and the debate continued tillApril 3, when the second reading was affirmed by 193 votes to 138. Thethird reading was carried by 129 to 55, on April 30. The Bill passed theHouse of Lords on May 18. ]

I ventured to move the adjournment of the debate on Friday night, because I was anxious to have the opportunity of expressing the opinionswhich I entertain on this most important subject. I am one of theCommittee appointed by this House to inquire into the working of theIrish poor-law, and on that Committee I was one of the majority--thelarge majority--by which the resolution for a rate in aid was affirmed. In the division which took place on the same proposition in the House, Ialso voted in the majority. But I am not by any means disposed to saythat there are no reasons against the course which I take, or againstthe proposition which has been submitted to the House by the Government. On the whole, however, I am prepared to-night to justify thatproposition, and the vote which I have given for it. 

As to the project of raising money for the purpose of these distressedUnions, I think there can be no doubt in the mind of any Member of theHouse, that money must come from some quarter. It appears to be aquestion of life or money. All the witnesses who were examined beforethe Committee; the concurrent testimony of all parties in Ireland, ofall the public papers, of all the speeches which have been delivered inthe course of this debate, go to prove, that unless additional funds beprovided, tens of thousands of our unfortunate fellow-countrymen inIreland must perish of famine in the course of the present year. If thisbe true, it is evident that a great necessity is upon us; a graveemergency, which we must meet. I am not prepared to justify theproposition of a rate in aid merely on the ground of this necessity, because it will be said, and justly, that the same amount of funds mightbe raised by some other mode; but I am prepared to justify theproposition which restricts this rate in aid to Ireland, on the groundthat the rest of the United Kingdom has, during the past three years, paid its own rate in aid for Ireland; and this to a far larger amountthan any call which the Government now proposes to make on the rateableproperty in Ireland. 

We have taken from the general taxation of this country, in the last twoor three years, for the purposes of Ireland, several millions, I may saynot fewer than from eight to ten millions sterling. We have paid alsovery large subscriptions from private resources, to the same purpose;the sums expended by the British Association were not less, in theaggregate, than 600, 000_l_. , in addition to other large amountscontributed. The Irish, certainly, gave something to these funds; but byfar the larger amount was paid by the tax-paying classes of GreatBritain. In addition to this special outlay for this purpose, very heavylocal taxation has been incurred by several of the great communities ofthis island, for the purpose of supporting the pauperism which hasescaped from Ireland to Great Britain. In this metropolis, in Glasgow, in Liverpool, and in the great manufacturing town which I have thehonour to represent, the overflow of Irish pauperism has, within thelast two or three years more especially, occasioned a vast additionalburden of taxation. I believe the hon. Member for South Lancashire madesome statement in this House on a former occasion with respect to theburden which was inflicted upon Liverpool by the Irish paupers, whoconstantly flow into that town. As to Glasgow, the poor-rate levied lastyear in the city parish alone, amounted to 70, 000_l_. ; and thisyear, owing to the visitation of cholera and the poverty therebyengendered, there will be an additional assessment of 20, 000_l_. The city parish contains only about 120, 000 or 130, 000 of the 280, 000residents in the mass of buildings known by the general name of Glasgow. Of the sum levied as poor-rate in the city parish, it is estimated that, on an average, two-thirds are spent upon Irish paupers. The ranks ofthese Irish paupers are recruited to a comparatively small extent fromthe Irish workmen, who have been, with their families, attracted by, andwho have found employment in, the numerous manufactories of Glasgow. TheIrish paupers, upon whom two-thirds of the Glasgow poor-rates are spent, are principally squalid and destitute creatures who are brought over asdeck passengers, clustering like bees to the bulwarks and rigging, byalmost every steamer that sails from a northern Irish port. With respectto the town of Manchester, I am able to give some more definiteparticulars as to the burthen imposed upon the inhabitants for thesupport of the Irish casual poor. In the year 1848, the sum expended inthe relief of the settled poor, which term includes the resident Irishwho are not distinguished by name from the English, amounted to37, 847_l_. The sum expended for the relief of the non-settledEnglish paupers in the town of Manchester, in the year 1848, was18, 699_l_. The amount expended for the relief of casual Irish pooralone was 28, 007_l_. The total assessment of Manchester is647, 568_l_. , which, if divided by the amount required to relievethe casual Irish poor, would amount to a rate of 10 1/2 _d_. In thepound upon every pound of rateable property in the town of Manchester;but if estimated according to the property really rated (as there aregreat numbers of persons who, from poverty, do not pay the poor-rates onthe property they occupy), the amount of assessment for the relief ofthe casual Irish poor alone will be from 15_d_. To 18_d_. Inthe pound, and the charge upon the ratepayers of Manchester for therelief of the Irish casual poor during the last year is not less than2_s_. 1_d_. Per head upon the whole population of that town. 

Now, during the last year, Manchester had to struggle with very severedifficulties, and the manufacturers there suffered most acutely fromvarious causes. The failure of the cotton crop of 1846, the panic in thefinancial and commercial world in 1847, the convulsions in the EuropeanStates in 1848--all these contributed to bring upon Manchester enormousevil; and in addition to this we had to bear an additional burden of28, 000_l_. For the maintenance of the casual Irish poor. I havehere an analysis of the poor-rates collected in Manchester during thelast four years, and I will briefly state the results to the House. Inthe year 1845 the amount of rates collected expressly for the relief ofthe casual Irish poor was 3, 500_l_. In 1846 the cost of the casualIrish poor imposed a burden upon Manchester of 3, 300_l_. ; in 1847of 6, 558_l_. ; and in 1848 this item of expenditure reached theextraordinary sum of 28, 007_l_. The people of Manchester haveuttered no loud or clamorous complaints respecting the excessive burdenborne by them for the support of the Irish. They have sent no urgentdeputations to the Government on the subject of this heavy expense. But, seeing that they have paid this money for the relief of Irish paupers, and seeing also that the smaller manufacturing and other towns inEngland have also paid no small sums for Irish paupers, they do think, and I here express my conviction, that it will be seen and admitted thatwe have paid our rate in aid for the relief of Ireland, and that it doesbecome the landowners and persons of property in that country to make aneffort during a temporary period to supply that small sum which is bythis Bill demanded of them. 

I will now pay a few words regarding the province of Ulster. An hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Londonderry, who made a not verycivil speech, so far as it regarded persons who entertain the sameopinions generally which I profess, seemed to allege that there was noparty so tyrannical as those who wished to carry this rate in aid, andthat no body of men on earth were so oppressed as the unfortunateproprietors of Ulster. [Mr. Bateson: 'The farmers of Ulster'] I havemade a calculation, the result of which is, that, with the population ofUlster, a 6_d_. Rate would be 82, 000_l_. A-year, or 164, 000_l_. For thetwo years during which they will be required to pay towards the supportof their fellow-countrymen in the south and west. If I were an Ulsterproprietor, I would not have raised my voice against such a proposition, because it is not a state of things of an ordinary character, nor arethese proprietors called on to do that which nobody else has done beforethem. Neither were they called upon before other sources had beenapplied to. Had I been an Ulster proprietor, I would rather have leftthis House than have taken the course they have pursued in denouncingthis measure. As to the farmers of Ulster, they would not have raisedthis opposition had they not been instigated to do so by hon. Members inthis House, and by the proprietors in that province, whom theyrepresented. It appears by the reports of the inspectors under the poor-law, that where there has been a difficulty in collecting rates, and thepeople have refused to pay, they have followed the example of the higherand landlord class; and the conduct of that class in many cases has beensuch as to render the collection extremely difficult. [Mr. Bateson: 'Notin Ulster'] I do not speak of Ulster particularly in this instance, butthe case has occurred in other places; but happily for Ulster the burdenhas not proved so serious in that province. 

I have heard a good deal said respecting the resignation of Mr. Twisleton, who preferred giving up his situation to supporting the ratein aid. But the reasons assigned by Mr. Twisleton destroy the importanceof his own act. He did not insist upon the question whether Ulster wasable to bear the rate in aid; but his objection was that Ulster wasUlster, and more Ulster than it was Ireland. He said Ulster preferredbeing united with England, rather than with Leinster, Connaught, andMunster; in short, that Ulster was unwilling to be made a part ofIreland. Now, if this Bill can succeed in making Ulster a part ofIreland in interests and sympathies, I think it will be attended with avery happy result, and one that will compensate for some portion of thepresent misfortunes of Ireland. 

But the hon. Member also, in another part of his speech, charged theGovernment with having caused the calamities of Ireland. Now, if I werethe hon. Member, I would not have opened up that question. My opinionis, that the course which Parliament has taken with respect to Irelandfor upwards of a century, and especially since the Union, has been inaccordance with the wishes of the proprietors of the land of thatcountry. If, therefore, there has been misgovernment in Ireland duringthat period, it is the land which has influenced Parliament, and thelandowners are responsible. I do not mean to say that the House ofCommons is not responsible for taking the evil advice which thelandowners of Ireland have proffered; but what I mean to assert is, thatthis advice has been almost invariably acted upon by the Government. This it is which has proved fatal to the interests of Ireland; theUlster men have stood in the way of improvements in the Franchise, inthe Church, and in the Land question; they have purchased Protestantascendancy, and the price paid for it is the ruin and degradation oftheir country. So much for the vote which I am about to give in supportof the rate in aid. 

In the next place, I must observe that if an income tax were to besubstituted for a rate in aid, I think I could show substantial reasonswhy it would not be satisfactory. In the first place, I take anobjection to the imposition of an income tax for the express purpose ofsupporting paupers. This, I apprehend, is a fatal objection at theoutset. I understand that there has been a document issued by aCommittee in another place, which has reported favourably for thesubstitution of an income tax in lieu of the rate in aid. I always findthat if a proposition is brought forward by the Government to impose anew tax, it is always for a tax which is disliked, and I conclude, thatif an income tax for Ireland had been proposed instead of the rate inaid, that would have been repudiated with quite as much vigour as theproposition now before the House. 

And now I will address a few words to the general question of Ireland, which I think may be fairly entered upon in this debate after the speechof the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. What have we beendoing all the Session? With the exception of the Jewish Oaths Bill, andthe Navigation Laws, our attention has been solely taken up with Irishmatters. From the incessant recurrence of the Irish debate, it wouldseem, either that the wrongs and evils endured by the Irish people areincurable, or else that we lack statesmen. I always find that, whoeverhappens to sit on the other side of the table, he always has some schemeto propose for the regeneration of Ireland. The noble Lord on theTreasury bench had his schemes for that purpose when he was seatedopposite. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth now has hisscheme to propose, and if he can succeed in it, he will not only havethe universal wish of the nation in his favour, but the noble Lord alsowho is at the head of the Government will not, I am sure, object to giveway to any man who will settle the Irish question. But the treatment ofthis Irish malady remains ever the same. We have nothing for it stillbut force and alms. You have an armed force there of 50, 000 men to keepthe people quiet, large votes are annually required to keep the peoplequiet, and large votes are annually required to keep the people alive. Ipresume the government by troops is easy, and that the

 'Civil power may snore at ease, While soldiers fire--to keep the peace. '

But the noble Lord at the head of the Government has no policy topropose for Ireland. If he had, he would have told us what it is beforenow. The poor-law as a means of regenerating Ireland is a delusion. Sois the rate in aid. I do not believe in the regenerating power either ofthe poor-law or of the rate in aid. There may occur cases where farmerswill continue to employ labourers for the mere purpose of preventingthem from coming on the poor-rates, but these are exceptions. If thedesire of gain will not cause the employment of capital, assuredly poor-rates wall not. A poor-law adds to pauperism, by inviting to idleness. It drags down the man who pays, and demoralises him who receives. It mayexpose, it may temporarily relieve, it will increase, but it can neverput an end to pauperism. The poor-law and the rate in aid are, therefore, utterly unavailing for such a purpose. 

It is the absence of all demand for labour that constitutes the realevil of Ireland. In the distressed Unions a man's labour is absolutelyworth nothing. It is not that the Irish people will not work. I spoke toan Irish navigator the other day respecting his work, and I asked himwhy his countrymen did not work in their own country. 'Give them2_s_. 8_d_. A-day, ' said he, 'and you will find plenty whowill work. ' There exists in Ireland a lamentable want of employment. Theland there enjoys a perpetual sabbath. If the people of Ireland were setto work, they would gain their subsistence; but if this course is notadopted, they must either continue to be supported out of the taxes, orelse be left to starve. In order to show how great is the generalpoverty in Ireland, I will read a statement of the comparative amount oflegacy duty paid in the two countries. In England, in the year 1844, theamount of capital on which legacy duty was paid was 44, 393, 887_l_. ;in Ireland, in 1845, the amount of capital on which legacy duty was paidwas 2, 140, 021_l_. --the population of the latter being nearly one-half of the former, whilst the proportion between the capital payinglegacy duty is only one-twentieth. In 1844, the legacy duty paid inEngland was 1, 124, 435_l_. , with a population of 16, 000, 000; inScotland it was 74, 116_l_. , with a population of 3, 000, 000; whilstIreland paid only 53, 618_l_. , with a population of 8, 000, 000. Thesefacts offer the strongest possible proof of the poverty of Ireland. 

On looking over the reports of the Poor-law Inspectors, I find themteeming with statements of the wretchedness which prevails in thedistressed districts of Ireland. The general character of the reportsis, that starvation is, literally speaking, gradually driving thepopulation into their graves. The people cannot quit their hovels forwant of clothing, whilst others cannot be discharged from the workhousesowing to the same cause. Men are seen wearing women's apparel, not beingable to procure proper clothing; whilst, in other instances, men, women, and children are all huddled together under bundles of rags, unable torise for lack of covering; workhouses and prisons are crowded beyondtheir capacity to contain, the mortality being very great in them. Persons of honest character commit thefts in order to be sent to prison, and some ask, as a favour, to be transported. 

I know of nothing like this in the history of modern times. The onlyparallel I can find to it is in the work of the great German author(Mosheim), who, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, speaking ofthe inroads of the barbarians into the Roman empire in the fifthcentury, says that in Gaul, the calamities of the times drove many tosuch madness, that they wholly excluded God from the government of theworld, and denied His providence over human affairs. It would almostappear that this state of things is now to be seen in Ireland. Theprisons are crowded, the chapels deserted, society is disorganised andruined; labour is useless, for capital is not to be had for itsemployment. The reports of the Inspectors say that this catastrophe hasonly been hastened, and not originated, by the failure of the potatocrop during the last four years, and that all men possessed of anyintelligence must have foreseen what would ultimately happen. 

This being the case, in what manner are the Irish people to subsist infuture? There is the land, and there is labour enough to bring it intocultivation. But such is the state in which the land is placed, thatcapital cannot be employed upon it. You have tied up the raw material insuch a manner--you have created such a monopoly of land by your laws andyour mode of dealing with it, as to render it alike a curse to thepeople and to the owners of it. Why, let me ask, should land be tied upany more than any other raw material? If the supply of cotton wool werelimited to the hands of the Browns and the Barings, what would be thecondition of the Lancashire manufactories? What the manufactories wouldbe under such a monopoly, the land in the county of Mayo actually isunder the system which prevails with respect to it in Ireland. But landcarries with it territorial influence, which the Legislature will notinterfere with lest it should be disturbed. Land is sacred, and must notbe touched. 

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade willunderstand what I mean when I allude to the Land Improvement Companywhich the Legislature is ready to charter for Ireland, but which itfears to suffer to exist in England, lest the territorial influencewhich ever accompanies the possession of landed estates should be lostor diminished. But one of the difficulties to which a remedy must beapplied is the defective titles, which cannot easily be got rid of underthe present system of entails. This is one of the questions to which theHouse of Commons must very soon give its serious attention. Then therecomes the question of settlements. Now, I do not say there ought not tobe any settlements; but what I mean to say is, that they are so bound upand entangled with the system of entails as to present insuperabledifficulties in the way of dealing with land as a marketable commodity. I have here an Opinion which I will read to the House, which I findrecorded as having been given by an eminent counsel: it is quoted inHayes' work on Conveyancing, and the Opinion was given on the occasionof a settlement on the marriage of a gentleman having a fee-simpleestate:--

 'The proposals extend to a strict settlement by the gentleman upon the first and other sons of the marriage. It will appear from the preceding observations, that where the relative circumstances are such as in the present case, a strict settlement of the gentleman's estate does not ordinarily enter into the arrangement, which begins and ends with his taking the lady's fortune, and imposing an equivalent pecuniary charge upon his estate (for her personal benefit). The proposals seldom go further, unless there is hereditary rank or title to be supported, or it is in contemplation to found a family. The former of those two circumstances do not exist in this case, and the latter would require the settlement of the bulk of the estates. The policy of such settlements is extremely questionable. It is difficult to refer them, in the absence of both the motives already indicated, to any rational principle. The present possessor has absolute dominion; his character is known, his right unquestionable. He is asked to reduce himself to a mere tenant for life in favour of an unborn son, of whose character nothing can be predicted, and who, if he can be said to have any right, cannot possibly have a preferable right. At no very distant period the absolute dominion must be confided to somebody--and why should confidence be reposed in the unborn child rather than the living parent? Such, a settlement has no tendency to protect or benefit the father, whose advantage and comfort ought first to be consulted. It does not shield him from the consequences of his own imprudence. On the contrary, if his expenditure should in any instance exceed his income, he--as a mere tenant for life--is in danger of being obliged to borrow on annuity, a process which, once begun, proceeds generally and almost necessarily to the exhaustion of the life income. The son may be an idiot or a spendthrift. He may be tempted to raise money by _post obit_. If to these not improbable results we add all the family feuds generated between the tenant for life and remainderman, in regard to the management and enjoyment by the former of that estate which was once his own, particularly with reference to cutting timber, the disadvantages of thus fettering the dominion will appear greatly to preponderate. At best, a settlement is a speculation; at worst, it is the occasion of distress, profligacy, and domestic discord, ending not unfrequently, as the Chancery Reports bear witness, in obstinate litigation, ruinous alike to the peace and to the property of the family. Sometimes the father effects an arrangement with his eldest son on his coming of age; the son stipulating for an immediate provision in the shape of an annuity, the father for a gross sum to satisfy his creditors, or to portion his younger children, and for a resettlement of the estate. This arrangement, perhaps, is brought about by means, or imposes terms, which, in the eye of equity, render it a fraud upon the son; and here we have another source of litigation. '

Now, what I have here read is exactly that which everybody's experiencetells us is the fact, and we have recently had a notable case whichexactly answers to that referred to in the last paragraph of thisOpinion. The practice of making settlements of this description ismischievous--leads to endless litigation--and sooner or later the landedclasses must sink under it. 

The Irish proprietors have also another difficulty to contend with, andthat is their extravagance. It is said--for I cannot vouch for the factmyself--that they keep too many horses and dogs. I do not mean to saythat an Irish gentleman may not spend his rents as he pleases; but I cansay that he cannot both spend his money and have it too. I think if theywould cast their pride on one side, and go honestly to work--if, insteadof their young men spending their time 'waiting for a commission' theywere to go into business, they would be far better and more usefullyemployed, and they would find that the less humiliating condition of thetwo. Another bane of Ireland is the prevalence of life interests inlanded property there. Under such a system the land can neither beimproved nor sold. Now what has the noble Lord at the head of theGovernment done towards grappling with all these questions? Nothing--absolutely nothing. I think him very unwise in not propounding tohimself the momentous question, 'What shall be done for Ireland?' Theright hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth has a plan. He entered uponits outline on Friday last. But I doubt whether it has yet taken thatdistinct form which it must assume in order that the House may takecognisance of it. I admire some of the measures which the right hon. Baronet intimates he would carry into effect, but there are other partsof his proposals which are vague and impracticable. I think, if it isbelieved in Ireland that a Commission is to be appointed to take chargeof the distressed Unions of the south and west--that the whole thing isto be managed through a new department of the Government, and allwithout the slightest trouble to the landlords--that there will be morethan ever a clinging to this wretched property in bankrupt estates, andmore than ever an indisposition to adopt those measures which are stillopen to them, in the direction in which the right hon. Baronet wishes toproceed. 

The right hon. Baronet stated in his first speech on this topic, that hedid not wish the transfer of property to be by individual barter; and onFriday he stated that he was very much averse to allowing matters to goon in their natural course, for by that means land would be unnaturallycheapened. Well, but upon what conditions would the right hon. Baronetbuy land in Ireland? would it be under the same circumstances, and atthe same price, that he would buy an estate in Yorkshire orStaffordshire? If any sane man goes to the west or south of Ireland topurchase an estate, he must go on account of the cheapness of thebargain--a cheapness which he hopes will compensate him for all thedisadvantages to which he must necessarily be subjected in such apurchase. There can be no redemption for that part of Ireland--if it isto be through the transfer of land--except the land take its naturalcourse, and come so cheap into the market that Englishmen and Scotchmen, and Irishmen too having capital, will be willing to purchase it, notwithstanding all its disadvantages. [Colonel Dunne: 'Hear, hear!']The hon. Member for Portarlington cheers that, as if it were anextraordinary statement. If the hon. Member prefers purchasing what isdear to what is cheap, he is not a very sensible man to legislate forIreland. If he thinks that a man will go into Galway and pay as much peracre for an estate as he would in England, he is greatly mistaken; butthe fact is, I believe, that not only English and Scotch capital, butthat much Irish capital also, would be expended in the purchase ofestates in the south and west, if the ends which the right hon. Baronethas in view were facilitated by this House. 

But we have a case in point which affords us some guidance upon thisquestion, and it is a case with which the right hon. Baronet the Memberfor Tamworth, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, are veryfamiliar. I allude to the case of Stockport in 1842. Owing to a varietyof circumstances--I will not go into the question of the Corn-law, asthat is settled--but owing to a variety of circumstances, from 1838 to1842 there was a continued sinking in the condition of Stockport--itsproperty depreciated to a lamentable extent. One man left property, ashe thought, worth 80, 000_l_. Or 90, 000_l_. Within two years itsold for little more than 30, 000_l_. Since that time the son of oneman, then supposed to be a person of large property, has had relief fromthe parochial funds. In 1842 the amount of the poor-rate averaged from7_s_. To 8_s_. In the pound. From November 4, 1841, to May 30, 1842, the rates levied were 6_s_. In the pound, realising theamount of 19, 144_l_. From January 28, 1843, to August 2 of the sameyear, the rates levied were 7_s_. In the pound, and the amountraised was 21, 948_l_. And bear in mind that at that time Stockportwas in process of depopulation--many thousands quitted the place--wholestreets were left with scarcely a tenant in them--some public-houses, previously doing a large business, were let for little more than theirrates; in fact, Stockport was as fair a representative of distressamongst a manufacturing community as Mayo, Galway, or any western countyof Ireland can be at this moment of distress amongst an agriculturalcommunity. 

Now what was done in Stockport? There was a Commission of Inquiry, whichthe then Home Secretary appointed. They made an admirable report, thelast paragraph of which ought to be read by every one who wishes to knowthe character of the people of Stockport. Mr. Twisleton, speaking ofthem, said that they were a noble people; and truly the exertions whichthey made to avoid becoming chargeable upon the rates were heroic. Wellnow, all this suffering was going on--the workhouses were crowded, thepeople were emigrating, there was a general desolation, and if it hadnot been for the harvest of 1842, which was a good one, and the gradualrecovery of trade which followed, nothing in Ireland can be worse thanthe condition of Stockport would have been. What was the result?Property was greatly depreciated, and much of it changed hands. Something like half the manufacturers failed, and, of course, gave upbusiness altogether. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport purchasedproperty in the borough at that period, and since then he has laid outnot far short of a hundred thousand pounds, in a very largemanufacturing establishment in that town. In fact, the persons who arenow carrying on the manufacturing business in Stockport are of a moresubstantial character than those who were swept away by the calamitiesof 1842. This is a very sorrowful process. I can feel as much for thosepersons as any man; but we must all submit to circumstances such asthese when they come. 

There are vicissitudes in all classes of society, and in all occupationsin which we may engage; and when we have, as now in Ireland, a state ofthings--a grievous calamity not equalled under the sun, --it is the dutyof this House not to interfere with the ordinary and natural course ofremedy, and not to flinch from what is necessary for the safety of thepeople by reason of any mistaken sympathy with the owners of cottonmills or with the proprietors of landed estates. Now, I want Parliamentto remove every obstacle in the way of the free sale of land. I believethat in this policy lies the only security you have for the restorationof the distressed districts of Ireland. The question of a Parliamentarytitle is most important; but I understand that the difficulty of thisarises from the system of entails beyond persons now living, and becauseyou must go back through a long search of sixty years before you canmake it quite clear that the title is absolutely secure. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth suggested that the Lord Chancellorshould be ousted. I proposed last year that there should be a new courtestablished in Ireland, for the adjudication of cases connected withland, and for no other purpose, and that it should thus relieve thepresent courts from much of the business with which they are nowencumbered. But I do not say that even such a court would effect muchgood, unless it were very much more speedy in its operations than theexisting courts. I believe that the present Lord Chancellor is admittedto be as good a Judge as ever sat in the Court of Chancery; but he israther timid as a Minister, and inert as a statesman; and, if I am notmistaken, he was in a great measure responsible for the failure of theBill for facilitating the sale of encumbered estates last Session. TheGovernment must have known, as well as I do, that such a measure couldnot succeed, and that the clause which was introduced--on the thirdreading, I believe--made it impossible to work it. 

There is another point, with regard to intestate estates. I feel howtenderly one must speak, in this House, upon a question like this. Eventhe right hon. Member for Tamworth, with all his authority, appeared, when touching on this delicate question of the land, as if he werewalking upon eggs which he was very much afraid of breaking. I certainlynever heard the right hon. Gentleman steer through so many sinuositiesin a case; and hardly, at last, dared he come to the question, becausehe was talking about land--this sacred land! I believe land to havenothing peculiar in its nature which does not belong to other property;and everything that we have done with the view of treating landdifferently from other property has been a blunder--a false course whichwe must retrace--an error which lies at the foundation of very much ofthe pauperism and want of employment which so generally prevail. Now, with regard to intestate estates, I am told that the House of Lords willnever repeal the law of primogeniture; but I do not want them to repealthe law of primogeniture in the sense entertained by some people. I donot want them to enact the system of France, by which a division ofproperty is compelled. I think that to force the division of property bylaw is just as contrary to sound principles and natural rights as toprevent its division, as is done by our law. If a man choose to act theunnatural and absurd part of leaving the whole of his property to onechild, I should not, certainly, look with respect upon his memory; but Iwould not interfere to prevent the free exercise of his will. I think, however, if a man die by chance without a will, that it is the duty ofthe Government to set a high moral example, and to divide the propertyequally among the children of the former owner, or among those who maybe said to be his heirs--among those, in fact, who would fairlyparticipate in his personal estate. If that system of leaving all to theeldest were followed out in the case of personalty, it would lead toimmediate confusion, and, by destroying the whole social system, to aperfect anarchy of property. Why, then, should that course be followedwith regard to land? The repeal of the law would not of necessitydestroy the custom; but this House would no longer give its sanction toa practice which is bad; and I believe that gradually there would be amore just appreciation of their duties in this respect by the great bodyof testators. 

Then, with regard to life interests; I would make an alteration there. Ithink that life-owners should be allowed to grant leases--of course, only on such terms as should ensure the successor from fraud--and thatestates should be permitted to be charged with the sums which wereexpended in their improvement. Next, with regard to the registry ofland. In many European countries this is done; and high legalauthorities affirm that it would not be difficult to accomplish it inthis country. You have your Ordnance Survey. To make the Surveynecessary for a perfect registry of deeds throughout the kingdom, wouldnot cost more than 9_d_. An acre; and if you had your plansengraved, it would be no great addition to the expense. There can be noreason why the landowners should not have that advantage conferred uponthem, because, in addition to the public benefit, it would increase thevalue of their lands by several years' purchase. Mr. Senior has stated, that if there were the same ready means for the transfer of land as atpresent exist for the transfer of personalty, the value of land would beincreased, if I mistake not, by nine years' purchase. This is a subjectwhich I would recommend to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, nowdistinguished as the advocate of the landed interest. 

Then with regard to stamps, I think that they might be reduced, at anyrate for a number of years, to a nominal amount. In fact, I would makeany sacrifice for the purpose of changing land from the hands ofinsolvent and embarrassed owners into those of solvent persons, whowould employ it in a manner usefully and advantageously to the countryand themselves. There is another proposition with, regard to the wastelands of Ireland. The Government made a proposal last year for obtainingthose waste lands, and bringing them into cultivation. That I thoughtinjudicious. But they might take those lands at a valuation, and, dividing them into farms and estates of moderate size, might temptpurchasers from different parts of the United Kingdom. By such means Ibelieve that a large proportion of the best of the waste lands might bebrought into cultivation. I believe that these are the only means bywhich capital can be attracted to that country. 

The noble Lord at the head of the Government proposes to attract capitalto Ireland by a maximum rate and a charge upon the Unions. If thatmaximum rate be all you have to propose, there will be no moreprobability of capital flowing into those parts of Ireland where it isso much required, than there was at the time when the poor-rate wasunknown. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth spoke aboutemigration; and I think that he was rather unjust, or at least unwise, in his observations with regard to voluntary emigration. Things that aredone voluntarily are not always done well; neither are things that aredone by the Government; and I know many cases where Governmentundertakings have failed as eminently as any that have been attempted byprivate enterprise. But it does not appear to me that there is muchwisdom in the project of emigration, although I know that some hon. Gentlemen from Ireland place great faith in it as a remedy. I haveendeavoured to ascertain what is the relation of the population to theland in Ireland, and this is what I find. In speaking of the ClifdenUnion, the Inspectors state--

 'In conclusion, we beg to offer our matured opinion that the resources of the Union would, if made available, be amply sufficient for the independent support of its population. '

Mr. Hamilton, who was examined before the Committee of which I am amember, said, speaking of the Unions of Donegal and Glenties--

 'There is no over-population, if those Unions, according to their capabilities, were cultivated as the average of English counties, with the same skill and capital. '

And Mr. Twisleton said--

 'I did not speak of a redundant population in reference to land, only to capital. The land of Ireland could maintain double its present population. '

Then, if that be the case, I am not quite certain that we should be wisein raising sums of money to enable the people to emigrate. The cost oftransporting a family to Australia, or even to Canada, is considerable;and the question is, whether, with the means which it would require toconvey them to a distant shore, they might not be more profitablyemployed at home. 

I probably shall be told that I propose schemes which are a greatinterference with the rights of property. My opinion is that nothing canbe a greater interference and infringement of the rights of propertythan the laws which regulate property now. I think that the landownersare under an impression that they have been maintaining great influence, political power, an hereditary aristocracy, and all those otherarrangements which some think should never be named without reverenceand awe; that they have been accustomed to look at these things, and tofancy that they are worth the price they pay for them. I am of opinionthat the disadvantages under which those rights labour throughout theUnited Kingdom are extreme; but in Ireland the disadvantages arefollowed by results not known in this country. 

You speak of interference with property; but I ask what becomes of theproperty of the poor man, which consists of his labour? Take those4, 000, 000 persons who live in the distressed districts, as described bythe right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. Their property in labouris almost totally destroyed. There they are--men whom God made andpermitted to come into this world, endowed with faculties likeourselves, but who are unable to maintain themselves, and must eitherstarve or live upon others. The interference with their property hasbeen enormous--so great as absolutely to destroy it. Now, I ask thelandlords of Ireland, whether living in the state in which they havelived for years is not infinitely worse than that which I have proposedfor them? Threatening letters by the post at breakfast-time--now andthen the aim of the assassin--poor-rates which are a grievousinterference with the rights of property, and this rate in aid, whichthe gentlemen of Ulster declare to be directly opposed to all the rightsof property--what can be worse?

I shall be told that I am injuring aristocratical and territorialinfluence. What is that in Ireland worth to you now? What is Irelandworth to you at all? Is she not the very symbol and token of yourdisgrace and humiliation to the whole world? Is she not an incessanttrouble to your Legislature, and the source of increased expense to yourpeople, already over-taxed? Is not your legislation all at fault in whatit has hitherto done for that country? The people of Ulster say that weshall weaken the Union. It has been one of the misfortunes of thelegislation of this House that there has been no honest attempt to makea union with the whole people of Ireland up to this time. We have had aunion with Ulster, but there has been no union with the whole people ofIreland, and there never can be a union between the Government and thepeople whilst such a state of things exists as has for many years pastprevailed in the south and west of Ireland. 

The condition of Ireland at this moment is this--the rich are menacedwith ruin, and ruin from which, in their present course, they cannotescape; whilst the poor are menaced with starvation and death. There arehon. Gentlemen in this House, and there are other landed proprietors inIreland, who are as admirable in the performance of all their socialduties as any men to be found in any part of the world. We have hadbrilliant examples mentioned in this House; but those men themselves aresuffering their characters to be damaged by the present condition ofIreland, and are undergoing a process which must end in their own ruin;because this demoralisation and pauperisation will go on in an extendingcircle, and will engulf the whole property of Ireland in one commonruin, unless something more be done than passing poor-laws and proposingrates in aid. 

Sir, if ever there were an opportunity for a statesman, it is this. Thisis the hour undoubtedly, and we want the man. The noble Lord at the headof the Government has done many things for his country, for which Ithank him as heartily as any man--he has shown on some occasions as muchmoral courage as it is necessary, in the state of public opinion, uponany question, for a statesman to show; but I have been much disappointedthat, upon this Irish question, he has seemed to shrink from a fullconsideration of the difficulty, and from a resolution to meet itfairly. The character of the present, the character of any Governmentunder such circumstances, must be at stake. The noble Lord cannot, inhis position, remain inactive. Let him be as innocent as he may, he cannever justify himself to the country, or to the world, or to posterity, if he remains at the head of this Imperial Legislature and is stillunable, or unwilling, to bring forward measures for the restoration ofIreland. I would address the same language also to the noble Lord at thehead of the Irish Government, who has won, I must say, the admiration ofthe population of this country for the temper and manner in which he hasadministered the government of Ireland. But he must bear in mind that itis not the highest effort of statesmanship to preserve the peace in acountry where there are very few men anxious to go to war, and topreserve the peace, too, with 50, 000 armed men at his command, and thewhole power of this empire to back him. All that may be necessary, andpeace at all hazards must be secured; but if that distinguished Noblemanintends to be known hereafter as a statesman with regard to his rule inIreland, he must be prepared to suggest measures to the Government of amore practical and directly operative character than any he has yetinitiated. 

Sir, I am ashamed, I must say, of the course which we have taken uponthis question. Look at that great subscription that was raised threeyears ago for Ireland. There was scarcely a part of the globe from whichsubscriptions did not come. The Pope, as was very natural, subscribed--the head of the great Mahometan empire, the Grand Seignior, sent histhousand pounds--the uttermost parts of the earth sent in theirdonations. A tribe of Red Indians on the American continent sent theirsubscription; and I have it on good authority that even the slaves on aplantation in one of the Carolinas subscribed their sorrowful mite thatthe miseries of Ireland might be relieved. The whole world looked uponthe condition of Ireland, and helped to mitigate her miseries. What canwe say to all those contributors, who, now that they have paid, must heanxious to know if anything is done to prevent a recurrence of thesecalamities? We must tell them with blushes that nothing has been done, but that we are still going on with the poor-rates, and that, havingexhausted the patience of the people of England in Parliamentary grants, we are coming now with rates in aid, restricted altogether to theproperty of Ireland. That is what we have to tell them; whilst we haveto acknowledge that our Constitution, boasted of as it has been forgenerations past, utterly fails to grapple with this great question. 

Hon. Gentlemen turn with triumph to neighbouring countries, and speak inglowing terms of our glorious Constitution. It is true, that abroadthrones and dynasties have been overturned, whilst in England peace hasreigned undisturbed. But take all the lives that have been lost in thelast twelve months in Europe amidst the convulsions that have occurred--take all the cessation of trade, the destruction of industry, all thecrushing of hopes and hearts, and they will not compare for an instantwith the agonies which have been endured by the population of Irelandunder your glorious Constitution. And there are those who now say thatthis is the ordering of Providence. I met an Irish gentleman the othernight, and, speaking upon the subject, he said that he saw no remedy, but that it seemed as if the present state of things were the mode bywhich Providence intended to solve the question of Irish difficulties. But let us not lay these calamities at the door of Providence; it weresinful in us, of all men, to do so. God has blessed Ireland--and doesstill bless her--in position, in soil, in climate; He has not withdrawnHis promises, nor are they unfulfilled; there is still the sunshine andthe shower; still the seed-time and the harvest; and the affluent bosomof the earth yet offers sustenance for man. But man must do his part--wemust do our part--we must retrace our steps--we must shun the blunders, and, I would even say, the crimes of our past legislation. We must freethe land, and then we shall discover, and not till then, that industry, hopeful and remunerated--industry, free and inviolate, is the only surefoundation on which can be reared the enduring edifice of union and ofpeace. 

 * * * * *

IRELAND. 

V. 

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 17, 1866. [The Fenian Conspiracy and threatened Insurrection in Ireland compelledthe Government to introduce a Bill to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. Itwas brought in suddenly, the House meeting on Saturday to consider it. ]

I OWE an apology to the Irish Members for stepping in to make anobservation to the House on this question. My strong interest in theaffairs of their country, ever since I came into Parliament, will be mysufficient excuse. The Secretary of State, on the part of the Governmentof which he is a Member, has called us together on an unusual day and atan unusual hour, to consider a proposition of the greatest magnitude, and which we are informed is one of extreme urgency. If it be so, I hopeit will not be understood that we are here merely to carry out thebehests of the Administration; and that we are to be permitted, if wechoose, to discuss this measure, and if possible to say something whichmay mitigate the apparent harshness of the course which the Governmentfeels itself compelled to pursue. 

It is now more than twenty-two years since I was first permitted to takemy seat in this House. During that time I have on many occasions, withgreat favour, been allowed to address it, but I declare that during thewhole of that period I have never risen to speak here under so strong afeeling, as a Member of the House, of shame and of humiliation, as thatby which I find myself oppressed at this moment. The Secretary of Stateproposes--as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said--to deprive noinconsiderable portion of the subjects of the Queen--our countrymen, within the United Kingdom--of the commonest, of the most precious, andof the most sacred right of the English Constitution, the right to theirpersonal freedom. From the statement of the Secretary of State it isclear that this is not asked to be done, or required to be done, withreference only to a small section of the Irish people. He has namedgreat counties, wide districts, whole provinces, over which this allegedand undoubted disaffection has spread, and has proposed that five or sixmillions of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom shall suffer the lossof that right of personal freedom that is guaranteed to all HerMajesty's subjects by the Constitution of these realms. 

Now, I do not believe that the Secretary of State has overstated hiscase for the purpose of inducing the House to consent to hisproposition. I believe that if the majority of the people of Ireland, counted fairly out, had their will, and if they had the power, theywould unmoor the island from its fastenings in the deep, and move it atleast 2, 000 miles to the West. And I believe, further, that if byconspiracy, or insurrection, or by that open agitation to which alone Iever would give any favour or consent, they could shake off theauthority, I will not say of the English Crown, but of the ImperialParliament, they would gladly do so. 

An hon. Member from Ireland a few nights ago referred to the characterof the Irish people. He said, and I believe it is true, that there is noChristian nation with which we are acquainted amongst the people ofwhich crime of the ordinary character, as we reckon it in this country, is so rare as it is amongst his countrymen. He might have said, also, that there is no people--whatever they may be at home--more industriousthan his countrymen in every other country but their own. He might havesaid more; that they are a people of a cheerful and joyous temperament. He might have said more than this--that they are singularly grateful forkindnesses shown to them, and that of all the people of our race theyare filled with the strongest sentiment of veneration. 

And yet, with such materials and with such a people, after centuries ofgovernment--after sixty-five years of government by this House--you havethem embittered against your rule, and anxious only to throw off theauthority of the Crown and Queen of these realms. Now, this is not asingle occasion we are discussing. This is merely an access of thecomplaint Ireland has been suffering under during the lifetime of theoldest man in this House, that of chronic insurrection. No man can denythis. I dare say a large number of the Members of this House, at thetime to which the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire referred, heardthe same speech on the same subject, from the same Minister to whom wehave listened to-day. [Sir G. Grey: 'No!'] I certainly thought I heardthe right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Departmentmake a speech before on the same question, but he was a Minister of theGovernment on whose behalf a similar speech was made on the occasionreferred to, and no doubt concurred in every word that was uttered byhis Colleague. 

Sixty-five years ago this country and this Parliament undertook togovern Ireland. I will say nothing of the manner in which that duty wasbrought upon us--except this--that it was by proceedings disgraceful andcorrupt to the last degree. I will say nothing of the pretences underwhich it was brought about but this--that the English Parliament andpeople, and the Irish people too, were told, that if they once got ridof the Irish Parliament they would dethrone for ever Irish factions, andthat with a united Parliament we should become a united, and stronger, and happier people. During these sixty-five years--and on this point Iask for the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) who hasjust spoken--there are only three considerable measures which Parliamenthas passed in the interests of Ireland. One of them was the measure of1829, for the emancipation of the Catholics and to permit them to haveseats in this House. But that measure, so just, so essential, and which, of course, is not ever to be recalled, was a measure which the chiefMinister of the day, a great soldier, and a great judge of militarymatters, admitted was passed under the menace of, and only because of, the danger of civil war. The other two measures to which I have referredare that for the relief of the poor, and that for the sale of theincumbered estates; and those measures were introduced to the House andpassed through the House in the emergency of a famine more severe thanany that has desolated any Christian country of the world within thelast four hundred years. 

Except on these two emergencies I appeal to every Irish Member, and toevery English Member who has paid any attention to the matter, whetherthe statement is not true that this Parliament has done nothing for thepeople of Ireland. And, more than that, their complaints have been met--complaints of their sufferings have been met--often by denial, often byinsult, often by contempt. And within the last few years we have heardfrom this very Treasury bench observations with regard to Ireland whichno friend of Ireland or of England, and no Minister of the Crown, oughtto have uttered with regard to that country. Twice in my Parliamentarylife this thing has been done--at least by the close of this day willhave been done--and measures of repression--measures for the suspensionof the civil rights of the Irish people--have been brought intoParliament and passed with extreme and unusual rapidity. 

I have not risen to blame the Secretary of State or to blame hisColleagues for the act of to-day. There may be circumstances to justifya proposition of this kind, and I am not here to deny that thesecircumstances now exist; but what I complain of is this: there is nostatesmanship merely in acts of force and acts of repression. And morethan that, I have not observed since I have been in Parliament anythingon this Irish question that approaches to the dignity of statesmanship. There has been, I admit, an improved administration in Ireland. Therehave been Lord-Lieutenants anxious to be just, and there is one therenow who is probably as anxious to do justice as any man. We haveobserved generally in the recent Trials a better tone and temper thanwere ever witnessed under similar circumstances in Ireland before. Butif I go back to the Ministers who have sat on the Treasury Bench since Ifirst came into this House--Sir Robert Peel first, then Lord JohnRussell, then Lord Aberdeen, then Lord Derby, then Lord Palmerston, thenLord Derby again, then Lord Palmerston again, and now Earl Russell--Isay that with regard to all these men, there has not been any approachto anything that history will describe as statesmanship on the part ofthe English Government towards Ireland. There were Coercion Bills inabundance--Arms Bills Session after Session--lamentations like that ofthe right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was not made perpetual by aclause which he laments was repealed. 

There have been Acts for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, likethat which we are now discussing; but there has been no statesmanship. Men, the most clumsy and brutal, can do these things; but we want men ofhigher temper--men of higher genius--men of higher patriotism to dealwith the affairs of Ireland. I should like to know whether thosestatesmen who hold great offices have themselves comprehended the natureof this question. If they have not, they have been manifestly ignorant;and if they have comprehended it and have not dealt with it, they haveconcealed that which they knew from the people, and evaded the duty theyowed to their Sovereign. I do not want to speak disrespectfully of menin office. It is not my custom in this House. I know something of theworrying labours to which they are subjected, and I know not how fromday to day they bear the burden of the labour imposed upon them; butstill I lament that those who wear the garb--enjoy the emoluments--and Ihad almost said usurp the dignity of statesmanship, sink themselvesmerely into respectable and honourable administrators, when there is awhole nation under the sovereignty of the Queen calling for all theiranxious thoughts--calling for the highest exercise of the highestqualities of the statesman. 

I put the question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is the onlyman of this Government whom I have heard of late years who has spoken asif he comprehended this question, and he made a speech in the lastSession of Parliament which was not without its influence both inEngland and in Ireland. I should like to ask him whether this Irishquestion is above the stature of himself and of his Colleagues? If itbe, I ask them to come down from the high places which they occupy, andtry to learn the art of legislation and government before they practiseit. I myself believe, if we could divest ourselves of the feelingsengendered by party strife, we might come to some better result. Takethe Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is there in any legislative assembly inthe world a man, as the world judges, of more transcendent capacity? Iwill say even, is there a man with a more honest wish to do good to thecountry in which he occupies so conspicuous a place?

Take the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the leader of the Opposition--isthere in any legislative assembly in the world, at this moment, a manleading an Opposition of more genius for his position, who has given inevery way but one in which proof can be given that he is competent tothe highest duties of the highest offices of the State? Well, but thesemen--great men whom we on this side and you on that side, to a largeextent, admire and follow fight for office, and the result is they sitalternately, one on this side and one on that. But suppose it werepossible for these men, with their intellects, with their far-reachingvision, to examine this question thoroughly, and to say for once, whether this leads to office and to the miserable notoriety that mencall fame which springs from office, or not, 'If it be possible, we willact with loyalty to the Sovereign and justice to the people; and if itbe possible, we will make Ireland a strength and not a weakness to theBritish Empire. ' It is from this fighting with party, and for party, andfor the gains which party gives, that there is so little result from thegreat intellect of such men as these. Like the captive Samson of old, --

 They grind in brazen fetters, under task, With their Heaven-gifted strength--'

and the country and the world gain little by those faculties which Godhas given them for the blessing of the country and the world. 

The Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman opposite havereferred, even in stronger language, to the unhappy fact that much ofwhat now exists in Ireland has been brought there from the United Statesof America. That is not a fact for us to console ourselves with; it onlyadds to the gravity and the difficulty of this question. You may dependupon it that if the Irish in America, having left this country, settlethere with so strong a hostility to us, they have had their reasons--andif being there with that feeling of affection for their native countrywhich in all other cases in which we are not concerned we admire andreverence, they interfere in Ireland and stir up there the sedition thatnow exists, depend upon it there is in the condition of Ireland a stateof things which greatly favours their attempts. There can be nocontinued fire without fuel, and all the Irish in America, and all thecitizens of America, united together, with all their organization andall their vast resources, would not raise the very slightest flame ofsedition or of insurrectionary movement in England or in Scotland. Iwant to know why they can do it in Ireland? Are you to say, as somepeople say in America and in Jamaica when speaking of the black man, that 'Nothing can be made of the Irishman'?

Everything can be made of him in every country but his own. When he haspassed through the American school--I speak of him as a child, or in thesecond generation of the Irish emigrant in that country--he is asindustrious, as frugal, as independent, as loyal, as good a citizen ofthe American Republic, as any man born within the dominions of thatPower. Why is it not so in Ireland? I have asked the question before, and I will ask it again--it is a pertinent question, and it demands ananswer. Why is it that no Scotchman who leaves Scotland--and the Scotchhave been taunted and ridiculed for being so ready to leave theircountry for a better climate and a better soil--how comes it, I ask, that no Scotchman who emigrates to the United States, and no Englishmanwho plants himself there, cherishes the smallest hostility to thepeople, to the institutions, or to the Government of his native country?Why does every Irishman who leaves his country and goes to the UnitedStates immediately settle himself down there, resolved to better hiscondition in life, but with a feeling of ineradicable hatred to the lawsand institutions of the land of his birth? Is not this a fit questionfor statesmanship?

If the Secretary of State, since his last measure was brought in, noweighteen years ago, had had time, in the multiplicity of his duties, toconsider this question; instead of now moving for the suspension of theHabeas Corpus Act, he might possibly have been rejoicing at theuniversal loyalty which prevailed, not throughout Great Britain only, but throughout the whole population of Ireland. I spent two autumns inIreland in the years 1849 and 1852, and I recollect making a speech inthis House not long afterwards, which some persons thought was not verywide of the mark. I recommended the Ministers of that time to take anopportunity to hold an Irish Session of the Imperial Parliament--to haveno great questions discussed connected with the ordinary matters whichare brought before us, but to keep Parliament to the consideration ofthis Irish question solely, and to deal with those great matters whichare constant sources of complaint; and I said that a Session that was sodevoted to such a blessed and holy work, would be a Session, if it weresuccessful, that would stand forth in all our future history as one ofthe noblest which had ever passed in the annals of the ImperialParliament. 

Now, Sir, a few days ago everybody in this House, with two or threeexceptions, was taking an oath at that table. It is called the Oath ofAllegiance. It is meant at once to express loyalty and to keep menloyal. I do not think it generally does bind men to loyalty, if theyhave not loyalty without it. I hold loyalty to consist, in a countrylike this, as much in doing justice to the people as in guarding theCrown; for I believe there is no guardianship of the Crown in a countrylike this, where the Crown is not supposed to rest absolutely uponforce, so safe as that of which we know more in our day probably thanhas been known in former periods of our history, when the occupant ofthe Throne is respected, admired, and loved by the general people. Now, how comes it that these great statesmen whom I have named, with alltheir Colleagues, some of them as eminent almost as their leaders, havenever tried what they could do--have never shown their loyalty to theCrown by endeavouring to make the Queen as safe in the hearts of thepeople of Ireland as she is in the hearts of the people of England andof Scotland?

Bear in mind that the Queen of England can do almost nothing in thesematters. By our Constitution the Crown can take no direct part in them. The Crown cannot direct the policy of the Government; nay, the Crowncannot, without the consent of this House, even select its Ministers;therefore the Crown is helpless in this matter. And we have in thiscountry a Queen, who, in all the civilized nations of the world, islooked upon as a model of a Sovereign, and yet her name and fame arediscredited and dishonoured by circumstances such as those which havetwice during her reign called us together to agree to a proposition likethat which is brought before us to-day. 

There is an instructive anecdote to be found in the annals of theChinese Empire. In a remote province there was an insurrection. TheEmperor put down the insurrection, but he abased and humbled himselfbefore the people, and said that if he had been guilty of neglect heacknowledged his guilt, and he humbled himself before those on whom hehad brought the evil of an insurrection in one of his provinces. TheQueen of these realms is not so responsible. She cannot thus humbleherself; but I say that your statesmen for the last forty--for the lastsixty--years are thus guilty, and that they ought to humble themselvesbefore the people of this country for their neglect. But I have heardfrom Members in this House--I have seen much writing in newspapers--andI have heard of speeches elsewhere, in which some of us, who advocatewhat we believe to be a great and high morality in public affairs, arecharged with dislike to the institutions, and even disloyalty to thedynasty which rules in England. There can be nothing more offensive, nothing more unjust, nothing more utterly false. We who ask Parliament, in dealing with Ireland, to deal with it upon the unchangeableprinciples of justice, are the friends of the people, and the reallyloyal advisers and supporters of the Throne. 

All history teaches us that it is not in human nature that men should becontent under any system of legislation, and of institutions such asexist in Ireland. You may pass this Bill, you may put the HomeSecretary's five hundred men into gaol--you may do more than this, youmay suppress the conspiracy and put down the insurrection, but themoment it is suppressed there will still remain the germs of thismalady, and from those germs will grow up as heretofore another crop ofinsurrection and another harvest of misfortune. And it may be that thosewho sit here eighteen years after this moment will find another Ministryand another Secretary of State ready to propose to you anotheradministration of the same ever-failing and ever-poisonous medicine. Isay there is a mode of making Ireland loyal. I say that the Parliamentof England having abolished the Parliament of Ireland is doubly bound toexamine what that mode is, and, if it can discover it, to adopt it. Isay that the Minister who occupies office in this country, merely thathe may carry on the daily routine of administration, who dares notgrapple with this question, who dares not go into Opposition, and whowill sit anywhere except where he can tell his mind freely to the Houseand to the country, may have a high position in the country, but he isnot a statesman, nor is he worthy of the name. 

Sir, I shall not oppose the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. Thecircumstances, I presume, are such that the course which is about to bepursued is perhaps the only merciful course for Ireland. But I supposeit is not the intention of the Government, in the case of persons whoare arrested, and against whom any just complaint can be made, to doanything more than that which the ordinary law permits, and that whenmen are brought to trial they will be brought to trial with all thefairness and all the advantages which the ordinary law gives. I shouldsay what was most unjust to the Gentlemen sitting on that (the Treasury)bench, if I said aught else than that I believe they are as honestlydisposed to do right in this matter as I am and as I have ever been. Iimplore them, if they can, to shake off the trammels of doubt and fearwith regard to this question, and to say something that may be soothing--something that may give hope to Ireland. 

I voted the other night with the hon. Member for Tralee (TheO'Donoghue). We were in a very small minority. ['Hear, hear, '] Yes, Ihave often been in small minorities. The hon. Gentleman would have beencontent with a word of kindness and of sympathy, not for conspiracy, butfor the people of Ireland. That word was not inserted in the Queen'sspeech, and to-night the Home Secretary has made a speech urging theHouse to the course which, I presume, is about to be pursued; but he didnot in that speech utter a single sentence with regard to a questionwhich lies behind, and is greater and deeper than that which isdiscussed. 

I hope, Sir, that if Ministers feel themselves bound to take this courseof suspending the common rights of personal freedom to a whole nation, at least they will not allow this debate to close without giving to usand to that nation some hope that before long measures will beconsidered and will be introduced which will tend to create the sameloyalty in Ireland that exists in Great Britain. If every man outsidethe walls of this House who has the interest of the whole Empire atheart were to speak here, what would he say to this House? Let not oneday elapse, let not another Session pass, until you have done somethingto wipe off this blot--for blot it is upon the reign of the Queen, andscandal it is to the civilization and to the justice of the people ofthis country. 

 * * * * *

IRELAND. 

VI. 

DUBLIN, OCTOBER 30, 1866. [Mr. Bright was invited to a Public Banquet in Dublin. The invitationwas signed by more than twenty Members of Parliament, and by a largenumber of influential Members of the Liberal Party in Ireland. Thisspeech was spoken at the Banquet. The O'Donoghue was in the Chair. ]

I feel myself more embarrassed than I can well describe at the difficultbut honourable position in which I find myself to-night. I am profoundlymoved by the exceeding and generous kindness with which you havereceived me, and all I can do is to thank you for it, and to say howgrateful to my heart it is that such a number as I see before me--I willsay of my countrymen--have approved generally of the political coursewhich I have pursued. But I may assure you that the difficulty of thisposition is not at all of my seeking. I heard during the last Session ofParliament that if I was likely to come to Ireland during the autumn, itwas not improbable that I should be asked to some banquet of this kindin this city. I had an intention of coming, but being moved by thiskindness or menace, I changed my mind, and spent some weeks in Scotlandinstead of Ireland. When I found from the newspapers that an invitationwas being signed, asking me to come here, I wrote to my honourablefriend, Sir John Gray, to ask him if he would be kind enough to put anextinguisher upon the project, inasmuch as I was not intending to crossthe Channel. He said that the matter had proceeded so far that it wasimpossible to interfere with it--that it must take its natural course;and the result was that I received an invitation signed, I think, byabout one hundred and forty names, amongst whom there were not less, Ibelieve, than twenty-two Members of the House of Commons. Well, as youwill probably imagine, I felt that this invitation was of such a naturethat, although it was most difficult to accede to it, it was impossibleto refuse it. This accounts for my being here to-night, and is a simpleexplanation of what has taken place. 

I said amongst the signatures were the names of not less than twenty-twoMembers of the House of Commons. I speak with grief when I say that oneof our friends who signed that invitation is no longer with us. I hadnot the pleasure of a long acquaintance with Mr. Dillon, but I shalltake this opportunity of saying that during the last Session ofParliament I formed a very high opinion of his character. There was thatin his eye and in the tone of his voice--in his manner altogether, whichmarked him for an honourable and a just man. I venture to say that hissad and sudden removal is a great loss to Ireland. I believe amongst allher worthy sons, Ireland has had no worthier and no nobler son than JohnBlake Dillon. 

I shall not be wrong if I assume that the ground of my visit to Dublinis to be found first in the sympathy which I have always felt andexpressed for the condition, and for the wrongs, and for the rights ofthe people of Ireland, and probably also because I am supposed, in somedegree, to represent some amount of the opinion in England, which isalso favourable to the true interests of this island. 

The Irish question is a question that has often been discussed, and yetit remains at this day as much a question as it has been for centuriespast. The Parliament of Kilkenny, --a Parliament that sat a very longtime ago, if indeed it was a Parliament at all, --it was a Parliamentthat sat about five hundred years ago, which proposed, I believe, toinflict a very heavy penalty if any Irishman's horse was found grazingon any Englishman's land, --this Parliament left on record a question, which it may be worth our while to consider to-night. It put thisquestion to the King, 'How comes it to pass that the King was never thericher for Ireland?' We, five hundred years afterwards, venture to askthis question, 'Why is it that the Queen, or the Crown, or the UnitedKingdom, or the Empire, is never the richer for Ireland?'--and if youwill permit me I will try to give you as clearly as I can something likean answer to that very old question. What it may be followed by is this, How is it that we, the Imperial Parliament, cannot act so as to bringabout in Ireland contentment and tranquillity, and a solid union betweenIreland and Great Britain? And that means, further, How can we improvethe condition and change the minds of the people of Ireland? Some say (Ihave heard many who say it in England, and I am afraid there areIrishmen also who would say it), that there is some radical defect inthe Irish character which prevents the condition of Ireland being sosatisfactory as is the condition of England and of Scotland. Now, I aminclined to believe that whatever there is that is defective in anyportion of the Irish people comes not from their race, but from theirhistory, and from the conditions to which they have been subjected. 

I am told by those in authority that in Ireland there is a remarkableabsence of crime. I have heard since I came to Dublin, from those wellacquainted with the facts, that there is probably no great city in theworld--in the civilized and Christian world--of equal population withthe city in which we are now assembled, where there is so little crimecommitted. And I find that the portion of the Irish people which hasfound a home in the United States has in the period of sixteen years--between 1848 and 1864--remitted about 13, 000, 000_l_. Sterling totheir friends and relatives in Ireland. I am bound to place these factsin opposition to any statements that I hear as to any radical defects ofthe Irish character. I say that it would be much more probable that thedefect lies in the Government and in the law. But there are some otherswho say that the great misfortune of Ireland is in the existence of thenoxious race of political agitators. Well, as to that I may state, thatthe most distinguished political agitators that have appeared during thelast hundred years in Ireland are Grattan and O'Connell, and I shouldsay that he must be either a very stupid or a very base Irishman whowould wish to erase the achievements of Grattan and O'Connell from theannals of his country. 

But some say (and this is not an uncommon thing)--some say that thepriests of the popular Church in Ireland have been the cause of muchdiscontent. I believe there is no class of men in Ireland who have adeeper interest in a prosperous and numerous community than the priestsof the Catholic Church; and further, I believe that no men have sufferedmore--have suffered more, I mean, in mind and in feeling--fromwitnessing the miseries and the desolation which during the last century(to go no further back) have stricken and afflicted the Irish people. 

But some others say that there is no ground of complaint, because thelaws and institutions of Ireland are, in the main, the same as the lawsand institutions of England and Scotland. They say, for example, that ifthere be an Established Church in Ireland there is one in England andone in Scotland, and that Nonconformists are very numerous both inEngland and in Scotland; but they seem to forget this fact, that theChurch in England or the Church in Scotland is not in any sense aforeign Church--that it has not been imposed in past times, and is notmaintained by force--that it is not in any degree the symbol ofconquest--that it is not the Church of a small minority, absorbing theecclesiastical revenues and endowments of a whole kingdom; and they omitto remember or to acknowledge that if any Government attempted to plantby force the Episcopal Church in Scotland or the Catholic Church inEngland, the disorders and discontent which have prevailed in Irelandwould be witnessed with tenfold intensity and violence in Great Britain. And these persons whom I am describing also say that the land laws inIreland are the same as the land laws in England. It would be easy toshow that the land laws in England are bad enough, and that but for theoutlet of the population, afforded by our extraordinary manufacturingindustry, the condition of England would in all probability become quiteas bad as the condition of Ireland has been; but if the countries differwith regard to land and the management of it in their customs, may itnot be reasonable that they should also differ in their laws?

In Ireland the landowner is the creature of conquest, not of conquest ofeight hundred years ago, but of conquest completed only two hundredyears ago; and it may be well for us to remember, and for all Englishmento remember, that succeeding that transfer of the land to the new-comersfrom Great Britain, there followed a system of law, known by the name ofthe Penal Code, of the most ingenious cruelty, and such as, I believe, has never in modern times been inflicted on any Christian people. Unhappily, on this account, the wound which was opened by the conquesthas never been permitted to be closed, and thus we have had landownersin Ireland of a different race, of a different religion, and ofdifferent ideas from the great bulk of the people, and there has been aconstant and bitter war between the owners and occupiers of the soil. Now, up to this point I suppose that oven the gentlemen who were diningtogether the other evening in Belfast would probably agree with me, because what I have stated is mere matter of notorious history, and tobe found in every book which has treated of the course of Irish affairsduring the last two hundred years. But I think they would agree with meeven further than this. They would say that Ireland is a land which hasbeen torn by religious factions, and torn by these factions at least inthe North as much as in the South; and I think they would be doing lessthan justice to the inhabitants of the North if they said that they hadin any degree come short of the people of the South in the intensity oftheir passionate feelings with regard to their Church. 

But Ireland has been more than this--it has been a land of evictions--aword which, I suspect, is scarcely known in any other civilized country. It is a country from which thousands of families have been driven by thewill of the landowners and the power of the law. It is a country wherehave existed, to a great extent, those dread tribunals known by thecommon name of secret societies, by which, in pursuit of what some menhave thought to be justice, there have been committed crimes ofappalling guilt in the eye of the whole world. It is a country, too, inwhich--and it is the only Christian country of which it may be said forsome centuries past--it is a country in which a famine of the mostdesolating character has prevailed even during our own time. I think Iwas told in 1849, as I stood in the burial-ground at Skibbereen, that atleast 400 people who had died of famine were buried within the quarterof an acre of ground on which I was then looking. It is a country, too, from which there has been a greater emigration by sea within a giventime than has been known at any time from any other country in theworld. It is a country where there has been, for generations past, ageneral sense of wrong, out of which has grown a state of chronicinsurrection; and at this very moment when I speak, the generalsafeguard of constitutional liberty is withdrawn, and we meet in thishall, and I speak here tonight, rather by the forbearance and permissionof the Irish executive than under the protection of the commonsafeguards of the rights and liberties of the people of the UnitedKingdom. 

I venture to say that this is a miserable and a humiliating picture todraw of this country. Bear in mind that I am not speaking of Polandsuffering under the conquest of Russia. There is a gentleman, now acandidate for an Irish county, who is very great upon the wrongs ofPoland; but I have found him always in the House of Commons taking sideswith that great party which has systematically supported the wrongs ofIreland. I am not speaking about Hungary, or of Venice as she was underthe rule of Austria, or of the Greeks under the dominion of the Turk, but I am speaking of Ireland--part of the United Kingdom--part of thatwhich boasts itself to be the most civilized and the most Christiannation in the world. I took the liberty recently, at a meeting inGlasgow, to say that I believed it was impossible for a class to governa great nation wisely and justly. Now, in Ireland there has been a fieldin which all the principles of the Tory party have had their completeexperiment and development. You have had the country gentleman in allhis power. You have had any number of Acts of Parliament which theancient Parliament of Ireland or the Parliament of the United Kingdomcould give him. You have had the Established Church supported by thelaw, even to the extent, not many years ago, of collecting its revenuesby the aid of military force. In point of fact, I believe it would beimpossible to imagine a state of things in which the principles of theTory party have had a more entire and complete opportunity for theirtrial than they have had within the limits of this island. And yet whathas happened? This, surely. That the kingdom has been continuallyweakened--that the harmony of the empire has been disturbed, and thatthe mischief has not been confined to the United Kingdom, but has spreadto the Colonies. And at this moment, as we know by every arrival fromthe United States, the colony of Canada is exposed to danger ofinvasion--that it is forced to keep on foot soldiers which it otherwisewould not want, and to involve itself in expenses which threaten to beruinous to its financial condition, and all that it may defend itselffrom Irishmen hostile to England who are settled in the United States. 

In fact, the Government of Lord Derby at this moment is doing exactlythat which the Government of Lord North did nearly a hundred years ago--it is sending out troops across the Atlantic to fight Irishmen who arethe bitter enemies of England on the American continent. Now, I believeevery gentleman in this room will admit that all that I have said isliterally true. And if it be true, what conclusion are we to come to? Isit that the law which rules in Ireland is bad, but the people good; orthat the law is good, but the people bad? Now, let us, if we can, getrid for a moment of Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Protestantism, andOrangeism on the one hand, and of Catholicism, Romanism, and Ultra-montanism on the other, --let us for a moment get beyond all these'isms, ' and try if we can discover what it is that is the great evil inyour country. I shall ask you only to turn your eye upon two points--thefirst is the Established Church, and the second is the tenure of land. The Church may be said to affect the soul and sentiment of the country, and the land question may be said to affect the means of life and thecomforts of the people. 

I shall not blame the bishops and clergy of the Established Church. There may be, and I doubt not there are amongst them, many pious anddevoted men, who labour to the utmost of their power to do good in thedistrict which is committed to their care; but I venture to say this, that if they were all good and all pious, it would not in a nationalpoint of view compensate for this one fatal error--the error of theirexistence as the ministers of an Established Protestant Church inIreland. Every man of them is necessarily in his district a symbol ofthe supremacy of the few and of the subjection of the many; and althoughthe amount of the revenue of the Established Church as the sum payableby the whole nation may not be considerable, yet bear in mind that it isoften the galling of the chain which is more tormenting than the weightof it. I believe that the removal of the Established Church would createa new political and social atmosphere in Ireland--that it would make thepeople feel that old things had passed away--that all things had becomenew--that an Irishman and his faith were no longer to be condemned inhis own country--and that for the first time the English people and theEnglish Parliament intended to do full justice to Ireland. 

Now, leaving the Established Church, I come to the question of the land. I have said that the ownership of the land in Ireland came originallyfrom conquest and from confiscation, and, as a matter of course, therewas created a great gulf between the owner and the occupier, and fromthat time to this doubtless there has been wanting that sympathy whichexists to a large extent in Great Britain, and that ought to exist inevery country. I am told--you can answer it if I am wrong--that it isnot common in Ireland now to give leases to tenants, especially toCatholic tenants. If that be so, then the security for the property ofthe tenant rests only upon the good feeling and favour of the owner ofthe land, for the laws, as we know, have been made by the landowners, and many propositions for the advantage of the tenants haveunfortunately been too little considered by Parliament. The result isthat you have bad farming, bad dwelling-houses, bad temper, andeverything bad connected with the occupation and cultivation of land inIreland. One of the results--a result the most appalling--is this, thatyour population are fleeing from your country and seeking a refuge in adistant land. On this point I wish to refer to a letter which I receiveda few days ago from a most esteemed citizen of Dublin. He told me thathe believed that a very large portion of what he called the poor, amongst Irishmen, sympathized with any scheme or any proposition thatwas adverse to the Imperial Government. He said further, that the peoplehere are rather in the country than of it, and that they are lookingmore to America than they are looking to England. I think there is agood deal in that. When we consider how many Irishmen have found arefuge in America, I do not know how we can wonder at that statement. 

You will recollect that when the ancient Hebrew prophet prayed in hiscaptivity he prayed with his window opened towards Jerusalem. You knowthat the followers of Mahommed, when they pray, turn their faces towardsMecca. When the Irish peasant asks for food, and freedom, and blessing, his eye follows the setting sun; the aspirations of his heart reachbeyond the wide Atlantic, and in spirit he grasps hands with the greatRepublic of the West. If this be so, I say, then, that the disease isnot only serious, but it is even desperate; but desperate as it is, Ibelieve there is a certain remedy for it, if the people and theParliament of the United Kingdom are willing to apply it. Now, if itwere possible, would it not be worth while to change the sentiments andimprove the condition of the Irish cultivators of the soil? If we wereto remove the State Church, there would still be a Church, but it wouldnot be a supremacy Church. The Catholics of Ireland have no idea ofsaying that Protestantism in its various forms shall not exist in theirisland. There would still be a Church, but it would be a free Church ofa section of a free people. I will not go into details about the change. Doubtless every man would say that the present occupants of the livingsshould not, during their lifetime, be disturbed; but if the principle ofthe abolition of the State Church were once fixed and accepted, it wouldnot be difficult to arrange the details that would be satisfactory tothe people of Ireland. 

Who objects to this? The men who are in favour of supremacy, and the menwho have a fanatical hatred of what they call Popery. To honest and goodmen of the Protestant Church and of the Protestant faith there is noreason whatever to fear this change. What has the voluntary system donein Scotland? What has it done amongst the Nonconformists of England?What has it done amongst the population of Wales? and what has it doneamongst the Catholic population of your own Ireland? In my opinion, theabolition of the Established Church would give Protestantism itselfanother chance. I believe there has been in Ireland no other enemy ofProtestantism so injurious as the Protestant State Establishment. It hasbeen loaded for two hundred years with the sins of bad government andbad laws, and whatever may have been the beauty and the holiness of itsdoctrine or of its professors, it has not been able to hold its ground, loaded as it has been by the sins of a bad government. One effect of theEstablished Church has been this, the making Catholicism in Ireland notonly a faith but a patriotism, for it was not likely that any member ofthe Catholic Church would incline in the slightest degree toProtestantism so long as it presented itself to his eyes as a wrong-doerand full of injustice in connection with the government of his country. 

But if honest Protestantism has nothing to fear from the changes that Iwould recommend, what has the honest landowner to fear? The history ofEurope and America for the last one hundred years affords scarcely anypicture more painful than that which is afforded by the landowners ofthis kingdom. The Irish landowner has been different from every otherlandowner, for the bulk of his land has only been about half cultivated, and he has had to collect his rents by a process approaching the evilsof civil war. His property has been very insecure--the sale of itsometimes has been rendered impossible. The landowner himself has oftenbeen hated by those who ought to have loved him. He has been banishedfrom his ancestral home by terror, and not a few have lost their liveswithout the sympathy of those who ought to have been their protectorsand their friends. I would like to ask, what can be much worse thanthis? If in this country fifty years ago, as in Prussia, there hadarisen statesmen who would have taken one-third or one-half the landfrom the landowners of Ireland, and made it over to their tenants, Ibelieve that the Irish landowner, great as would have been the injusticeof which he might have complained, would in all probability have beenricher and happier than he has been. 

What is the first remedy which you would propose? Clearly this--thatwhich is the most easily applicable and which would most speedily touchthe condition of the country. It is this--that the property which thetenant shall invest or create in his farm shall be secured to the tenantby law. I believe that if Parliament were fairly to enact this it wouldmake a change in the whole temper of the country. I recollect in theyear 1849 being down in the county of Wexford. I called at the house ofan old farmer of the name of Stafford, who lived in a very good house, the best farm-house, I think, that I had seen since leaving Dublin. Helived on his own farm, which he had bought fifteen years before. Thehouse was a house which he had himself built. He was a venerable oldman, and we had some very interesting conversation with him. I asked howit was he had so good a house? He said the farm was his own, and thehouse was his own, and, as no man could disturb him, he had made it amuch better house than was common for the farmers of Ireland. I said tohim, 'If all the farmers of Ireland had the same security for thecapital they laid out on their farms, what would be the result?' The oldman almost sprang out of his chair, and said, 'Sir, if you will give usthat encouragement, we will _bate_ the hunger out of Ireland. ' Itis said that all this must be left to contract between the landlord andthe tenant; but the public, which may be neither landlord nor tenant, has a great interest in this question; and I maintain that the interestsof the public require that Parliament should secure to the tenant theproperty which he has invested in his farm. But I would not stop here. 

There is another, and what I should call a more permanent and far-reaching remedy for the evils of Ireland, and those persons who stickleso much for political economy I hope will follow me in this. The greatevil of Ireland is this--that the Irish people--the Irish nation--aredispossessed of the soil, and what we ought to do is to provide for, andaid in, their restoration to it by all measures of justice. Why shouldwe tolerate in Ireland the law of primogeniture? Why should we toleratethe system of entails? Why should the object of the law be to accumulateland in great masses in few hands, and to make it almost impossible forpersons of small means, and tenant-farmers, to become possessors ofland? If you go to other countries--for example, to Norway, to Denmark, to Holland, to Belgium, to France, to Germany, to Italy, or to theUnited States, you will find that in all these countries those laws ofwhich I complain have been abolished, and the land is just as free tobuy and sell, and hold and cultivate, as any other description ofproperty in the kingdom. No doubt your Landed Estates Court and yourRecord of Titles Act were good measures, but they were good because theywere in the direction that I want to travel farther in. 

But I would go farther than that; I would deal with the question ofabsenteeism. I am not going to propose to tax absentees; but if myadvice were taken, we should have a Parliamentary Commission empoweredto buy up the large estates in Ireland belonging to the Englishnobility, for the purpose of selling them on easy terms to the occupiersof the farms and to the tenantry of Ireland. Now, let me be fairlyunderstood. I am not proposing to tax absentees; I am not proposing totake any of their property from them; but I propose this, that aParliamentary Commission should be empowered to treat for the purchaseof those large estates with a view of selling them to the tenantry ofIreland. Now, here are some of them--the present Prime Minister LordDerby, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Fitzwilliam, the Marquis of Hertford, theMarquis of Bath, the Duke of Bedford, the Duke of Devonshire, and manyothers. They have estates in Ireland; many of them, I dare say, are justas well managed as any other estates in the country; but what you wantis to restore to Ireland a middle-class proprietary of the soil; and Iventure to say that if these estates could be purchased and could besold out farm by farm to the tenant occupiers in Ireland, that it wouldbe infinitely better in a conservative sense, than that they shouldbelong to great proprietors living out of the country. 

I have said that the disease is desperate, and that the remedy must besearching. I assert that the present system of government with regard tothe Church and with regard to the land has failed disastrously inIreland. Under it Ireland has become an object of commiseration to thewhole world, and a discredit to the United Kingdom, of which it forms apart. It is a land of many sorrows. Men fight for supremacy, and call itProtestantism; they fight for evil and bad laws, and they call it actingfor the defence of property. Now, are there no good men in Ireland ofthose who are generally opposed to us in politics--are there none whocan rise above the level of party? If there be such, I wish my voicemight reach them. I have often asked myself whether patriotism is deadin Ireland. Cannot all the people of Ireland see that the calamities oftheir country are the creatures of the law, and if that be so, that justlaws only can remove these calamities?

If Irishmen were united--if your 105 Members were for the most partagreed, you might do almost anything that you liked--you might do iteven in the present Parliament; but if you are disunited, then I knownot how you can gain anything from a Parliament created as the ImperialParliament is now. The classes who rule in Britain will hear your cry asthey have heard it before, and will pay no attention to it. They willsee your people leaving your shores, and they will think it no calamityto the country. They know that they have force to suppress insurrection, and, therefore, you can gain nothing from their fears. What, then, isyour hope? It is in a better Parliament, representing fairly the UnitedKingdom--the movement which is now in force in England and Scotland, andwhich is your movement as much as ours. If there were 100 more Members, the representatives of large and free constituencies, then your crywould be heard, and the people would give you that justice which a classhas so long denied you. The great party that is now in power--the Toryparty--denies that you have any just cause of complaint. 

In a speech delivered the other day in Belfast, much was said of theenforcement of the law; but there was nothing said about any change oramendment in the law. With this party terror is their only specific, --they have no confidence in allegiance except where there is no power torebel. Now, I differ from these men entirely. I believe that at the rootof a general discontent there is in all countries a general grievanceand general suffering. The surface of society is not incessantlydisturbed without a cause. I recollect in the poem of the greatest ofItalian poets, he tells us that as he saw in vision the Stygian lake, and stood upon its banks, he observed the constant commotion upon thesurface of the pool, and his good instructor and guide explained to himthe cause of it--

 'This, too, for certain know, that underneath The water dwells a multitude, whose sighs Into these bubbles make the surface heave, As thine eye tells thee wheresoe'er it turn. '

And I say in Ireland for generations back, that the misery and thewrongs of the people have made their sign, and have found a voice inconstant insurrection and disorder. I have said that Ireland is acountry of many wrongs and of many sorrows. Her past lies almost all inshadow. Her present is full of anxiety and peril. Her future depends onthe power of her people to substitute equality and justice forsupremacy, and a generous patriotism for the spirit of faction. In theeffort now making in Great Britain to create a free representation ofthe people you have the deepest interest. The people never wish tosuffer, and they never wish to inflict injustice. They have no sympathywith the wrong-doer, whether in Great Britain or in Ireland; and whenthey are fairly represented in the Imperial Parliament, as I hope theywill one day be, they will speedily give an effective and final answerto that old question of the Parliament of Kilkenny--'How comes it topass that the King has never been the richer for Ireland?'

 * * * * *

IRELAND. 

VII. 

DUBLIN, NOVEMBER 2, 1866. 

[This speech was spoken at a public meeting held in Dublin, at which anAddress from the Trades was presented to Mr. Bright. James Haughton, Esq. , was in the Chair. ]

When I came to your city I was asked if I would attend a public meetingon the question of Parliamentary Reform. I answered that I was not ingood order for much speaking, for I have suffered, as I am afraid youwill find before I come to the end of my speech, from much cold andhoarseness; but it was urged upon me that there were at least some, andnot an inconsiderable number, of the working men of this city who wouldbe glad if I would meet them; and it was proposed to offer me someaddress of friendship and confidence such as that which has been read. Ihave no complaint to make of it but this, that whilst I do not say itindicates too much kindness, yet that it colours too highly the smallservices which I have been able to render to any portion of mycountrymen. Your countrymen are reckoned generally to be a people ofgreat gratitude and of much enthusiasm, and, therefore, I accept theAddress with all the kindness and feelings of friendship with which ithas been offered, and I hope it will be, at least in some degree, astimulant to me, in whatever position of life I am placed, to remember, as I have ever in past times remembered, the claims of the people ofthis island to complete and equal justice with the people of GreatBritain. 

Now, there may be persons in this room, I should be surprised if therewere not, who doubt whether it is worth their while even to hope forsubstantial justice, as this address says, from a Parliament sitting inLondon. If there be such a man in this room let him understand that I amnot the man to condemn him or to express surprise at the opinion atwhich he has arrived. But I would ask him in return for that, that hewould give me at least for a few minutes a patient hearing, and he willfind that, whether justice may come from the north or the south, or theeast or the west, I, at any rate, stand as a friend of the most completejustice to the people of this island. When discussing the question ofParliamentary Reform, I have often heard it asserted that the people ofIreland, and I am not speaking of those who are hopeless of good from aParliament in London, but that the people of Ireland generally imaginethat the question of Parliamentary Reform has very little importance forthem. Now I undertake to say, and I think I can make it clear to thismeeting, that whatever be the importance of that question to any man inEngland or Scotland, if the two islands are to continue under ImperialParliamentary Government, it is of more importance to every Irishman. You know that the Parliament of which I am a Member contains 658Members, of whom 105 cross the Channel from Ireland, and when they go toLondon they meet--supposing all the Members of the House of Commons aregathered together--553 Members who are returned for Great Britain. Now, suppose that all your 105 Members were absolutely good and honourablerepresentatives of the people of Ireland--I will not say Tories, orWhigs, or Radicals, or Repealers, but anything you like, --let every manimagine that all these Members were exactly the sort of men he wouldwish to go from Ireland, --when the 105 arrive in London they meet withthe 553 who are returned from Great Britain. Now, suppose that thesystem of Parliamentary representation in Great Britain is very bad, that it represents very few persons in that great island, and that thosewho appear to be represented are distributed in the small boroughs overdifferent parts of the country, and in the counties under the thumb andfinger of the landlords, it is clear that the whole Parliament, althoughyour 105 Members may be very good men, must still be a very badParliament. Therefore, if any man imagines--and I should think no mancan imagine--that the representation of the people in Ireland is in avery good state--still, if he fancies it is in a good state--unless therepresentation of Great Britain were at least equally good, you mighthave a hundred excellent Irish Members in Parliament at Westminster; butthe whole 658 Members might be a very bad Parliament for the UnitedKingdom. 

The Member for a borough or a county in Ireland, when he goes to London, votes for measures for the whole kingdom; and a Member for Lancashire orfor Warwickshire, or for any other county or borough in Great Britain, votes for measures not only for Great Britain but also for Ireland, andtherefore, all parts of the United Kingdom--every county, every borough, every parish, every family, every man--has a clear and distinct andundoubted interest in a Parliament that shall fairly and justlyrepresent the whole nation. Now, look for a moment at two or three factswith regard to Ireland alone. I have stated some facts with regard toEngland and Scotland at recent meetings held across the Channel. 

Now for two or three facts with regard to Ireland. In Ireland you havefive boroughs returning each one Member, the average number of electorsin each of these boroughs being only 172. You have 13 boroughs, theaverage number being 316. You have 9 other boroughs with an averagenumber of electors of 497. You have, therefore, 27 boroughs whose wholenumber of electors, if they were all put together, is only 9, 453, or anaverage of 350 electors for each Member. I must tell you further thatyou have a single county with nearly twice as many voters as the wholeof those 27 boroughs. Your 27 boroughs have only 9, 453 electors, and thecounty of Cork has 16, 107 electors, and returns but two Members. Butthat is not the worst of the case. It happens both in Great Britain andIreland, wherever the borough constituencies are so small, that it isalmost impossible that they should be independent; a very acute lawyer, for example, in one of those boroughs--a very influential clergyman, whether of your Church or ours--when I say ours, I do not mean mine, butthe Church of England--half-a-dozen men combining together, or a littlecorruption from candidates going with a well-filled purse, --these arethe influences brought to bear upon those small boroughs both in Englandand Ireland. A great many of them return their Members by means ofcorruption, more or less, and a free and real representation of thepeople is hardly ever possible in a borough of that small size. 

But if I were to compare your boroughs with your counties, see how itstands. You have thirty-nine borough Members, with 30, 000 electors, andyou have sixty-four county Members, with 172, 000 electors. Therefore yousee that the Members are so distributed that the great populations havenot one quarter of the influence in Parliament which those smallpopulations in the small boroughs have. We come next to another questionwhich is of great consequence. Not only are those small boroughsaltogether too email for independence, but if we come to your largecounty constituencies, we find that from the peculiar circumstances andthe relations which exist between the voter and the owner of the land, there is scarcely any freedom of election. Even in your counties Ishould suppose that if there was no compulsion from the landowners ortheir agents, that in at least three-fourths of this island the vote ofthe county electors would be by a vast majority in favour of the Liberalcandidates. I am not speaking merely of men who profess a sort ofliberality which just enables them to go with their party, but I speakof men who would be thoroughly in earnest in sustaining, as far as theywere able, in Parliament, the opinions which they were sent to representby the large constituencies who elected them. 

The question of the ballot is, in my opinion, of the greatest importancein Great Britain and Ireland, but is of more importance in the countiesthan it is in the large boroughs. For example: in Great Britain, in suchboroughs as Edinburgh and Glasgow, and Manchester and Birmingham, andthe metropolitan boroughs, where the number of electors runs from 10, 000to 25, 000, bribery is of no avail, because you could not bribe thousandsof men. To bribe 100 or 200 would not alter the return at an electionwith so large a constituency. But what you want with the ballot is, thatin the counties where the tenant-farmers vote, and where they live upontheir land without the security of a lease, or without the security ofany law to give them compensation for any improvements they may havemade upon the land, the tenant-farmer feels himself always liable toinjury, and sometimes to ruin, if he gets into a dispute with the agentor the landowner with regard to the manner in which he has exercised hisfranchise. And what will be very important also, if you have the ballot, your elections will be tranquil, without disorder and without riot. Lastweek, or the week before, there was an election in one of your greatcounties. Well, making every allowance that can be made for theexaggerations circulated by the writers of the two parties, it is quiteclear to everybody that the circumstances of that election, though notabsolutely uncommon in Ireland, were still such as to be utterlydiscreditable to a real representative system. And you must bear in mindthat there is no other people in the world that considers that it has afair representative system unless it has the ballot. The ballot isuniversal almost in the United States. It is almost universal in thecolonies, at any rate in the Australian colonies; it is almost universalon the continent of Europe, and in the new Parliament of North Germany, which is about soon to be assembled, every man of twenty-five years ofage is to be allowed to vote, and to vote by ballot. 

Now, I hold, without any fear of contradiction, that the intelligenceand the virtues of the people of Ireland are not represented in theParliament. You have your wrongs to complain of--wrongs centuries old, and wrongs that long ago the people of Ireland, and, I venture to say, the people of Great Britain united with Ireland----My friend up therewill not listen to the end of my sentence. I say that the people ofGreat Britain, acting with the people of Ireland, in a fairrepresentation of the whole, would long ago have remedied every justgrievance of which you could complain. 

I will take two questions which I treated upon the other evening. I willask about one question--that is, the question of the supremacy of theChurch in Ireland. Half the people in England are Nonconformists. Theyare not in favour of an Established Church anywhere, and it is utterlyimpossible that they could be in favour of an Established Church in anisland like this--an Established Church formed of a mere handful of thepopulation, in opposition to the wishes of the nation. Now take thePrincipality of Wales. I suppose that four out of five of the populationthere are Dissenters, and they are not in favour of maintaining areligious Protestant Establishment in Ireland. The people of Scotlandhave also seceded in such large numbers from their Established Church, although of a democratic character, that I suppose those who haveseceded are a considerable majority of the whole people--they are not infavour of maintaining an ecclesiastical Establishment in Ireland inopposition to the views of the great majority of your people. Take theother question--that of land. There is nobody in Great Britain of thegreat town population, or of the middle class, or of the still morenumerous working class, who has any sympathy with that condition of thelaw and of the administration of the law which has worked such mischiefsin your country. But these Nonconformists, whether in England, Wales, orScotland, these great middle classes, and still greater working classes, are in the position that you are. Only sixteen of every hundred have avote, and those sixteen are so arranged that when their representativesget to Parliament they turn out for the most part to be no realrepresentatives of the people. 

I will tell you fairly that you, as the less populous and less powerfulpart of this great nation--you of all the men in the United Kingdom, have by far the strongest interest in a thorough reform of the ImperialParliament, and I believe that you yourselves could not do yourselvessuch complete justice by yourselves as you can do, by fairly acting withthe generous millions of my countrymen in whose name I stand here. Youhave on this platform two members of the Reform League from London. Ireceived yesterday, or the day before, a telegram from the ScottishReform League, from Glasgow. I am not sure whether there is a copy of itin any of the newspapers, but it was sent to me, and I presume it wassent to me that I might read it, if I had the opportunity of meeting anyof the unenfranchised men of this city. It says:--'The Scottish ReformLeague request you to convey to the Reformers in Ireland their deepsympathy. They sincerely hope that soon in Ireland, as in Scotland andEngland, Reform Leagues may be formed in every town to secure to thepeople their political rights. Urge upon our friends in Ireland theirduty to promote this great movement, and to secure at home thosebenefits which thousands of their fellow-countrymen are forced to seekin other lands--where land and State Church grievances are unknown. Wealso seek cooperation, knowing that our freedom, though secure tomorrow, would not be safe so long as one portion of the United Kingdom were lessfree than the other portions. ' There is the outspoken voice of therepresentatives of that great multitude that only a fortnight since Isaw passing through the streets of Glasgow. For three hours theprocession passed, with all the emblems and symbols of their varioustrades, and the streets for two or three miles were enlivened bybanners, and the air was filled with the sounds of music from theirbands. Those men but spoke the same language that was heard in the WestRiding, in Manchester, in Birmingham, and in London; and you men ofDublin, and of Ireland, you never made a mistake more grievous in yourlives than when you come to the conclusion that there are not millionsof men in Great Britain willing to do you full justice. 

I am very sorry that my voice is not what it was, and when I think ofthe work that is to be done sometimes I feel it is a pity we grow old sofast. But years ago, when I have thought of the condition of Ireland, ofits sorrows and wrongs, of the discredit that its condition has broughtupon the English, the Irish, and the British name, I have thought, if Icould be in all other things the same, but by birth an Irishman, thereis not a town in this island I would not visit for the purpose ofdiscussing the great Irish question, and of rousing my countrymen tosome great and united action. 

I do not believe in the necessity of wide-spread and perpetual misery. Ido not believe that we are placed on this island, and on this earth, that one man may be great and wealthy, and revel in every profuseindulgence, and five, six, nine, or ten men shall suffer the abjectmisery which we see so commonly in the world. With your soil, yourclimate, and your active and spirited race, I know not what you mightnot do. There have been reasons to my mind why soil and climate, and thelabour of your population, have not produced general comfort andcompetence for all. 

The Address speaks of the friendly feeling and the sympathy which I havehad for Ireland during my political career. When I first went into theHouse of Commons the most prominent figure in it was Daniel O'Connell. Ihave sat by his side for hours in that House, and listened toobservations both amusing and instructive on what was passing underdiscussion. I have seen him, too, more than once upon the platforms ofthe Anti-Corn-law League. I recollect that on one occasion he sent toIreland expressly for a newspaper for me, which contained a report of aspeech which he made against the Corn-law when the Corn-law was passingthrough Parliament in 1815, and we owe much to his exertions inconnection with that question, for almost the whole Liberal--I supposethe whole Liberal--party of the Irish representatives in Parliamentsupported the measure of free trade of which we were the prominentadvocates; and I know of nothing that was favourable to freedom, whetherin connection with Ireland or England, that O'Connell did not supportwith all his great powers. Why is it, now, that there should be any kindof schism between the Liberal people of Ireland and the Liberal peopleof Great Britain? I do not ask you to join hands with supremacy andoppression, whether in your island or ours. What I ask you is, to openyour heart of hearts, and join hands for a real and thorough workingunion for freedom with the people of Great Britain. 

Before I sit down, I must be allowed to advert to a point which has beenmuch commented upon--a sentence in my speech made the other night withregard to the land. There are newspapers in Dublin which I need notname, because I am quite sure you can find them out--which do not feelany strong desire to judge fairly anything I may propose for thepacification and redemption of the people of Ireland. It was this Isaid: 'It is of the first importance that the people of Ireland, by someprocess or other, should have the opportunity of being made thepossessors of their own soil. ' You will know perfectly well that I amnot about to propose a copy of the villainous crimes of two hundredyears ago, to confiscate the lands of the proprietors, here orelsewhere. I propose to introduce a system which would gradually, nodoubt rapidly and easily, without injuring anybody, make many thousandswho are now tenant-farmers, without lease and security, the owners oftheir farms in this island. This is my plan, and I want to restate itwith a little further explanation, in order that these gentlemen to whomI have referred may not repeat the very untrue, and I may saydishonourable comments which they have made upon me. 

There are many large estates in Ireland which belong to rich families inEngland, --families not only of the highest rank, but of the highestcharacter, --because I will venture to say there are not to be foundamongst the English nobility families of more perfect honourableness andworth than some of those to whom my plan would be offered; and, therefore, I am not speaking against the aristocracy, against thosefamilies, or against property, or against anybody, or against anythingthat is good. I say, that if Parliament were to appoint a Commission, and give it, say, at first up to the amount of five millions sterling, the power to negotiate or treat with those great families in England whohave estates in Ireland, it is probable that some of those great estatesmight be bought at a not very unreasonable price. I am of opinion thatthis would be the cheapest money that the Imperial Parliament everexpended, even though it became possessed of those estates at a priceconsiderably above the market price. But I propose it should be workedin this way. I will take a case. I will assume that this Commission isin possession of a considerable estate bought from some present owner ofit. I will take one farm, which I will assume to be worth1, 000_l_. , for which the present tenant is paying a rent of50_l_. A-year. He has no lease. He has no security. He makes almostno improvement of any kind; and he is not quite sure whether, when hehas saved a little more money, he will not take his family off to theUnited States. Now we will assume ourselves, if you like, to be thatCommission, and that we have before us the farmer who is the tenant onthat particular farm, for which he pays 50_l_. A year, withoutlease or security, and which I assume to be worth 1, 000_l_. TheGovernment, I believe, lends money to Irish landowners for drainagepurposes at about 3-1/2 per cent. Per annum. Suppose the Government wereto say to this farmer, 'You would not have any objection to becomepossessed of this farm?' 'No, not the slightest, ' he might answer, 'buthow is that to be done?' In this way;--You may pay 50_l_. A-year, that is, 5 per cent. On one thousand pounds; the Government can affordto do these transactions for 3-1/2 per cent. ; if you will pay60_l_. A-year for a given number of years, which any of theactuaries of the insurance offices or any good arithmetician may sooncalculate, --if you will pay 60_l_. For your rent, instead of50_l_. , it may be for perhaps twenty years, --at the end of thattime the farm will be yours, without any further payment. 

I want you to understand how this is. If the farmer paid ten pounds a-year more than he now pays, towards buying his farm, and if the1, 000_l_. The Government would pay for the farm would not cost theGovernment more than 35_l_. , the difference between 35_l_. And60_l_. Being 25_l_. , would be the sum which that farmer, inhis rent, would be paying to the Commission, that is, to the Government, for the redemption of his farm. Thus, at the end of a very few years, the farmer would possess his own farm, having a perfect security in themeantime. Nobody could turn him out if he paid his rent, and nobodycould rob him for any improvement he made on his land. The next morningafter he made that agreement, he would explain it to his wife and to hisbig boy, who had perhaps been idling about for a long time, and therewould not be a stone on the land that would not be removed, not a weedthat he would not pull up, not a particle of manure that he would notsave; everything would be done with a zeal and an enthusiasm which hehad never known before; and by the time the few years had run on whenthe farm should become his without any further purchase, he would haveturned a dilapidated, miserable little farm into a garden for himselfand family. Now, this statement may be commented on by some of thenewspapers. You will understand that I do not propose a forced purchase, or any confiscation. I would undertake even to give--if I were theGovernment--to every one of these landlords twenty per cent more for hisestate than it will fetch in the market in London or in Dublin, and Isay that to do this would produce a marvellous change in the sentimentsof the people, and in the condition of agriculture in Ireland. 

But I saw in one of the papers a question to which I may give a reply. It was said, How would you like to have a Commission come down intoLancashire and insist on buying your factories? I can only say that ifthey will give me 20 per cent, or 10 per cent, more than they are worth, they shall have them to-morrow. But I do not propose that the Commissionshould come here and insist on buying these estates. They say, further, Why should a man in Ireland keep his estate, and not a man in Englandwho has an estate in Ireland? There is this difference. A man inIreland, if he has an estate of 10, 000 acres, has in it probably hisancestral home. He has ties to this which it would be monstrous to thinkof severing in such a manner. But a man living in England, who is not anIrishman, and who never comes over here except to receive his rents(which, in fact, he generally receives through his bankers in London), who has no particular tie to this country, and who comes over hereoccasionally merely because he feels that, as a great proprietor inIreland, it would be scandalous never to show his face on his propertyand amongst his tenants--to such a man there would be no hardship if heshould part with his land at a fair price. 

I have been charged with saying severe things of the Englisharistocracy. Now, this is not true in the sense in which it is imputedto me. I have always said that there are many men in the Englisharistocracy who would be noblemen in the sight of their fellow-menalthough they had no titles and no coronets. There are men amongst themof as undoubted patriotism as any man in this building, or in thisisland, and there are men amongst them, who when they saw that a greatpublic object was to be gained for the benefit of their fellow-men, would make as great sacrifices as any one of us would be willing to do. I am of opinion therefore--I may be wrong, but I will not believe ituntil it is proved--I am of opinion that if this question were discussedin Parliament when next the Irish land question is discussed, and ifthere was a general sentiment in the House of Commons that some measurelike this would be advantageous for Ireland, --and if it were soexpressed, it may be assumed that it would be accepted to a large extentby the people of the United Kingdom, --then I think that a Commission soappointed would find no difficulty whatever in discovering noblemen andrich men in England, who are the possessors of great estates in Ireland, who would be willing to negotiate for their transfer, and thatCommission, by the process I have indicated, might transfer themgradually but speedily to the tenant-farmers of this country. 

I am told that I have not been much in Ireland, and do not know much ofit. I recollect a man in England during the American war asking me aquestion about America. When I gave him an answer which did not agreewith his opinion, he said, 'I think you have never been in America, haveyou?' I said I had not; and he replied, 'Well, I have been there threetimes, and I know something of them. ' He was asking me whether I thoughtthe Yankees would pay when they borrowed money to carry on the war; andI thought they would. But, as he had been there, he thought his opinionwas worth more than mine. I told him I knew several people who had livedin England all their lives and yet knew very little about England. I amtold that if I were to live in Ireland, amongst the people I should havea different opinion; that I should think the State Church of a smallminority was honest, in the face of the great Church of the majority;that I should think it was not the fault of the landowners or of the lawin any degree, but the fault of the tenants, that everything went wrongwith regard to the land; and that I should find that it was theGovernment that was mostly right, and the legislation right, and that itwas the people that were mostly wrong. There are certain questions withregard to any country that you may settle in your own house, neverhaving seen that country even upon a map. This you may settle, that whatis just is just everywhere, and that men, from those of the highestculture even to those of the most moderate capacity, whatever may betheir race, whatever their colour, have implanted in their hearts bytheir Creator, wiser much than my critics, the knowledge and the love ofjustice. I will tell you that, since the day when I sat besideO'Connell--and at an earlier day--I have considered this question ofIreland. In 1849, for several weeks in the autumn, and for several weeksin the autumn of 1852, I came to Ireland expressly to examine thisquestion by consulting with all classes of the people in every part ofthe island. I will undertake to say that I believe there is no man inEngland who has more fully studied the evidence given before thecelebrated Devon Commission in regard to Ireland than I have. ThereforeI dare stand up before any Irishman or Englishman to discuss the Irishquestion. I say that the plans, the theories, the policy, thelegislation of my opponents in this matter all have failed signally, deplorably, disastrously, ignominiously, and, therefore, I say that Ihave a right to come in and offer the people of Ireland, as I wouldoffer to the people of Great Britain and the Imperial Parliament, a wiseand just policy upon this question. 

You know that I have attended great meetings in England within the lasttwo months, and in Scotland also. I think I am at liberty to tender toyou from those hundreds of thousands of men the hand of fellowship andgoodwill. I wish I might be permitted when I go back, as in fact I thinkby this Address that I am permitted to say to them, that amidst thefactions by which Ireland has been torn, amidst the many errors thathave been committed, amidst the passions that have been excited, amidstthe hopes that have been blasted, and amidst the misery that has beenendured, there is still in this island, and amongst its people, a heartthat can sympathise with those who turn to them with a fixed resolutionto judge them fairly, and to do them justice. 

I have made my speech. I have said my say. I have fulfilled my smallmission to you. I thank you from my heart for the kindness with whichyou have received me, which I shall never forget. And if I have in pasttimes felt an unquenchable sympathy with the sufferings of your people, you may rely upon it that if there be an Irish Member to speak forIreland, he will find me heartily by his side. 

 * * * * *

IRELAND. 

VIII. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 14, 1868. 

_From Hansard_. 

[This speech was spoken on the occasion of a proposition by Mr. Maguire, M. P. For Cork, for 'a Committee of the whole House to considerthe state of Ireland. ']

When this debate began it was not my intention to take any part in it;for I had very lately, in another place and to a larger audience, addedmy contribution to the great national deliberation upon Irish affairswhich is now in progress. But the speech of the noble Lord the ChiefSecretary for Ireland, and some misunderstanding that has arisen of whatI said elsewhere, have changed my intention, and therefore I have to askfor the indulgence of the House, in the hope that I may make on thisquestion a more practical speech than that to which we have justlistened. 

It is said by eminent censors of the press that this debate will yieldabout thirty hours of talk, and will end in no result. I have observedthat all great questions in this country require thirty hours of talkmany times repeated before they are settled. There is much shower andmuch sunshine between the sowing of the seed and the reaping of theharvest, but the harvest is generally reaped after all. 

I was very much struck with what happened on the first night of thedebate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cork, in the opening portion ofhis address, described the state of Ireland from his point of view, andthe facts he stated are not and cannot be disputed. He said that theHabeas Corpus Act had been suspended for three years in his country--that within the island there was a large military force, amounting, aswe have heard to-night--besides 12, 000 or more of armed police--to anarmy of 20, 000 men--that in the harbours of Ireland there were ships ofwar, and in her rivers there were gunboats; and that throughout thatcountry--as throughout this--there has been and is yet considerablealarm with regard to the discontent prevalent in Ireland. 

All that is quite true; but when the noble Lord the Chief Secretaryopened his speech, the first portion of it was of a very differentcomplexion. I am willing to admit that to a large extent it was equallytrue. He told us that the condition of the people of Ireland wasconsiderably better now than it was at the time of the Devon Commission. At the time of the Devon Commission the condition of that country had noparallel in any civilised and Christian nation. By the force of famine, pestilence, and emigration, the population was greatly diminished, andit would be a very extraordinary thing indeed if with such a diminutionof the population there was no improvement in the condition of those whoremained behind. He showed that wages are higher, and he pointed to thefact that in the trade in and out of the Irish ports they had aconsiderable increase, and though I will not say that some of thosecomparisons were quite accurate or fair, I am on the whole ready toadmit the truth of the statement the noble Lord made. But now it seemsto me that, admitting the truth of what my hon. Friend the Member forCork said, and admitting equally the truth of what the noble Lord said, there remains before us a question even more grave than any we have hadto discuss in past years with regard to the condition of Ireland. 

If--and this has been already referred to by more than one speaker--ifit be true that with a considerable improvement in the physicalcondition of the people--if it be true that with a universality ofeducation much beyond that which exists in this island--if it be truethat after the measures that have been passed, and have been useful, there still remains in Ireland, first of all, what is called Fenianism, which is a reckless and daring exhibition of feeling--beyond that a verywide discontent and disloyalty--and beyond that, amongst the whole ofthe Roman Catholic population, universal dissatisfaction--and if that beso, surely my hon. Friend the Member for Cork--one of the most usefuland eminent of the representatives of Ireland--is right in bringing thisquestion before the House. And there is no question at this moment thatwe could possibly discuss connected with the interest or honour of thepeople that approaches in gravity and magnitude to that now before us. And if this state of things be true--and remember I have said nothingbut what the hon. Member for Cork has said, and I have given my approvalto nothing he has said that was not confirmed by the speech of the nobleLord--if this be true, surely all this great effect must have somecause. 

We are unworthy of our position as Members of this House, andrepresentatives of our countrymen, if we do not endeavour at least todiscover the cause, and if we can discover it, speedily to apply aremedy. The cause is perfectly well known to both sides of the House. The noble Lord, it is clear, knows it even from the tenor of his ownspeech--he spoke of the question of the land, and of the Church. Thenoble Lord the Member for King's Lynn--whose observations in thisdebate, if he had offered them, we should have been glad to listen to--understands it, for he referred to the two questions in his speech atthe Bristol banquet. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of theGovernment understands it not only as well as I do, but he understandsit precisely in the same sense--and more than twenty years ago, when Istated in this House the things, or nearly the things, I stated recentlyand shall state to-night, he, from your own benches, was making speechesexactly of the same import. And though there is many a thing he seems attimes not to recollect, yet I am bound to say he recollects these words, and the impressions, of which these words were the expressions to theHouse. He referred to an absentee aristocracy and an alien Church. Iwould not say a syllable about the aristocracy in this matter; if I hadto choose a phrase, I would rather say an absentee proprietary and analien Church. 

What is the obvious remedy which for this state of things has been foundto be sufficient in every other country? If I could do so by any meansthat did not violate the rights of property, I should be happy to giveto a considerable portion of the farmers of Ireland some proprietaryrights, and to remove from that country the sense of injustice, and thesense--the strongest of all--of the injustice caused by the existence ofan alien Church. Just for a moment look at the proposition the nobleLord is about to submit to the House. It is very like the Bill of lastyear. I will not enter into the details, except to say that he proposes, as he proposed then, that the Government should lend the tenant-farmersof Ireland sums of money, by which they would make improvements, whichsums of money were to be repaid by some gradual process to theGovernment authorities. He proposes that the repayment should be spreadover a considerable number of years--I do not know the exact number, andit is not of importance for my argument. These tenant-farmers are verynumerous--perhaps too numerous, it may be, for the good of the country--but there they are, and we must deal with them as we find them. Thenumber of them holding under 15 acres is 250, 000; holding between 15acres and 30 acres, 136, 000; holding over 30 acres, 158, 000--altogetherthere are more than 540, 000 holders of land. It is to these 540, 000land-holders or occupiers that the noble Lord proposes to lend money, onthe condition that they make certain improvements, and repay after acertain number of years the sums advanced to them. I think I am right insaying that there is no limitation in the Bill as to the smallness ofthe holding to which the advance of money will be refused; and thereforethe whole 540, 000 tenants will be in a position to come to theGovernment, or to some Commission, or to the Board of Works, or to someauthority in Ireland, and ask for money to enable them to improve theirfarms. 

The House will see that if this plan is to produce any considerableresult, it will be the source of a number of transactions such as theGovernment have not had to deal with in any other matter; and I expectthat the difficulties will be very great, and that the working out ofthe plan with any beneficial results will be altogether impossible. WhatI ask the House is this--if it be right of the noble Lord, to enable himto carry out his plan, to ask the House to pass a measure like this--tolend all these tenants the money for improvements to be repaid after aseries of years, would it not be possible for us by a somewhat similarprocess, and by some step farther in the same direction, to establish tosome extent--I am not speaking of extending it all through Ireland--afarmer proprietary throughout the country? If it be right and proper tolend money to improve, it surely may be proper, if it be on othergrounds judicious, to lend money to buy. I do not know if the right hon. Member for Calne is here; but very likely he would spare me from thesevere criticisms he expended upon my hon. Friend the Member forWestminster. 

Now, I am as careful as any man can be, I believe, of doing anything bylaw that shall infringe what you think and what I think are the rightsof property. I do not pretend to believe, if you examine the termsstrictly, in what is called the absolute property in land. You may tossa sixpence into the sea if you like, but there are things with respectto land which you cannot, and ought not, and dare not do. But I do notwant to argue the question of legislation upon that ground I am myselfof opinion that there is no class in the community more interested in astrict adherence to the principles of political economy, worked out in abenevolent and just manner, than the humblest and poorest class in thecountry. I think they have as much interest in it as the rich, and theHouse has never known me, and so long as I stand here will never knowme, I believe, to propose or advocate anything which shall interferewith what I believe to be, and what if a landowner I would maintain tobe, the just right of property in the land. 

But, then, I do not think, as some persons seem to think, that the landis really only intended to be in the hands of the rich. I think that isa great mistake. I am not speaking of the poor--for the poor man, in theordinary meaning of the term, cannot be the possessor of land; but whatI wish is, that farmers and men of moderate means should becomepossessors of land and of their farms. About two centuries ago, two verycelebrated men endeavoured to form a constitution for Carolina, whichwas then one of the colonies of this country in America. LordShaftesbury, the statesman, and Mr. Locke, the philosopher, framed aconstitution with the notion of having great proprietors all over thecountry, and men under them to cultivate it. I recollect that Mr. Bancroft, the historian of the United States, describing the issue ofthat attempt and its utter failure, says: 'The instinct of aristocracydreads the moral power of a proprietary yeomanry, and therefore theperpetual degradation of the cultivators of the soil was enacted. ' Thereis no country in the world, in which there are only great landowners andtenants, with no large manufacturing interest to absorb the population, in which the degradation of the cultivating tenant is not completelyassured. 

I hope that hon. Members opposite, and hon. Gentlemen on this side whomay be disposed in some degree to sympathise with them, will not for amoment imagine that I am discussing this question in any spirit ofhostility to the landowners of Ireland. I have always argued that thelandowners of Ireland, in their treatment of this question, havegrievously mistaken not only the interests of the population, but theirown. I was told the other day by a Member of this House, who comes fromIreland, and is eminently capable of giving a sound opinion upon thepoint, that he believed the whole of Ireland might be bought at abouttwenty years' purchase; but you know that the land of England is worththirty years' purchase, and I believe a great deal of it much more, --andit is owing to circumstances which legislation may in a great degreeremove that the land of Ireland is worth at this moment so much lessthan the land of England. Coming back to the question of buying farms, Iput it to the House whether, if it be right to lend to landlords forimprovements, and to tenants for improving the farms of their landlords, to those who propose to carry on public works, and to repair the ravagesof the cattle plague, I ask whether it is not also right for them tolend money in cases where it may be advantageous to landlords, and wherethey may be very willing to consent to it, to establish a portion of thetenant-farmers of Ireland as proprietors of their farms. 

Now, bear in mind that I have never spoken about peasant proprietors. Ido not care what name you give them; I am in favour of more proprietors, and some, of course, will be small and some will be large; but it wouldbe quite possible for Parliament, if it thought fit to attempt anythingof this kind, to fix a limit below which it would not allow the owner tosell or the purchaser to buy. I believe that you can establish a classof moderate proprietors, who will form a body intermediate between thegreat owners of land and those who are absolutely landless, which willbe of immense service in giving steadiness, loyalty, and peace to thewhole population of the island. The noble Lord, the Chief Secretary, knows perfectly well at what price he could lend that money, and I willjust state to the House one fact which will show how the plan wouldwork. If you were to lend money at 3-1/2 per cent. , in thirty-five yearsthe tenant, paying 5 per cent. , would have paid the whole money back andall the interest due on it, and would become the owner of his farm; andif you were to take the rate at which you have lent to the HarbourCommissioners, and to repair the ravages of the cattle plague, which is3-1/2 per cent. , of course the whole sum would be paid back in a shorterperiod. Therefore, in a term which in former times was not unusual inthe length of leases in Ireland, namely, thirty-one years, the tenantpurchasing his farm, without his present rent being raised, would repayto the Government the principal and interest of the sum borrowed forthat purpose, would become the owner of his farm, and during the wholeof that time would have absolute fixity of tenure, because every year hewould be saving more and more, adding field to field, and at the end ofthe time he would be the proprietor of the soil. 

Let not the House imagine that I am proposing to buy up the whole of theland. I am proposing only to buy it in cases where men are willing tosell, and to transfer it only in cases where men are able and willing tobuy, and you must know as well as I that there will be many thousands ofsuch cases in a few years. Every Irish proprietor opposite--the nobleLord the Member for Tyrone (Lord C. Hamilton) himself, who made soanimated a speech, and appeared so angry with me a short time ago--mustknow perfectly well that amongst the tenantry of Ireland there is aconsiderable sum of saved money not invested in farms. Well, that savedmoney would all come out to carry into effect transactions of thisnature; and you would find the most extraordinary efforts made bythousands of tenants to become possessors of their farms by investingtheir savings in them, by obtaining it may be the assistance of theirfriends, and by such an industrious and energetic cultivation of thesoil as has scarcely ever been seen in Ireland. I said there werelandlords willing to sell, and there are cases in which, probably, Parliament might insist upon a sale--for instance, the lands of theLondon Companies. I never heard of much good that was done by all themoney of the London Companies. I was once invited to a dinner by one ofthese Companies, and certainly it was of a very sumptuous andsubstantial character, but I believe that, if the tenants of theseCompanies were proprietors of the lands they cultivate, it would be agreat advantage to the counties in which they are situated. I come thento this: I would negotiate with landowners who were willing to sell andtenants who were willing to buy, and I would make the land the greatsavings-bank for the future tenantry of Ireland. If you like, I wouldlimit the point to which we might go down in the transference of farms, but I would do nothing in the whole transaction which was not perfectlyacquiesced in by both landlord and tenant, and I would pay the landlordevery shilling he could fairly demand in the market for the estate heproposed to sell. 

Well, I hope every Gentleman present will acquit me of intendingconfiscation, and that we shall have no further misunderstanding uponthat point. I venture to say to the noble Lord that this is a plan whichwould be within compass and management, as compared with that laid downin his Bill, if it worked at all, and I believe that it would do ahundred times as much good, in putting the farmer upon the footing of aholder of land in Ireland. What do hon. Gentlemen think would become ofan American Fenian if he came over to Ireland and happened to spend anevening with a number of men who had got possession of their farms? Iremember my old friend Mr. Stafford, in the county of Wexford, whom Icalled upon in 1849, who had bought his farm and had built upon it thebest farm-house which I saw in the whole South of Ireland, and who toldme that if all the tenantry of Ireland had security for their holdings--he was an old man, and could not easily rise from his chair, though hemade an effort to do so--'If they had the security that I have, ' saidhe, 'we'd _bate_ the hunger out of Ireland. ' If the Fenian spenthis evening with such men as these, and proposed his reckless schemes tothem, not a single farmer would listen to him for a moment. Their firstimpression would be that he was mad; their second, perhaps, that thewhisky had been too strong for him; and it would end, no doubt, if hepersisted in his efforts to seduce them from their allegiance to theImperial Government, by their turning him off the premises, thoughperhaps, knowing that he could do no harm, they might not hand him overto the police. 

The other day I passed through the county of Somerset, and throughvillages that must be well known to many Gentlemen here--Rodney-Stokeand Drayford, I think they were called--and I noticed a great appearanceof life and activity about the neighbourhood. I asked the driver of thecarriage which had brought me from Wells what was the cause of it. 'Why, ' he said, 'don't you know that is the place where the great saletook place?' 'What sale?' I asked. 'Oh! the sale of the Duke'sproperty. ' 'What Duke?' 'The Duke of Buckingham. Did you never hear ofit? About fifteen years ago his property was sold in lots, and thepeople bought all the farms. You never saw such a stir in the world. ' Hepointed out the houses on the hill-side which had been built to replaceold tumble-down tenements, the red soil appearing under the plough, andcultivation going on with such general activity as had not beenwitnessed till within these last few years. The appearance of thesevillages was such as must strike every traveller from another part ofthe country, and it was produced by simple means. The great estate of anembarrassed Duke had been divided and sold off; he had not been robbed;the old miserable hovels of the former tenants had been pulled down, andnew life and activity had been given to the whole district. If you couldhave such a change as this in Ireland, you would see such a progress andprosperity that gentlemen would hardly know the district from which theycame. 

I think it only fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster tosay, that I do not believe the time is come in Ireland, and I do notbelieve it ever will come, when it will be necessary to have recourse toso vast and extraordinary a scheme as that which he has proposed to theHouse. It appears to me that it is not necessary for Ireland. There isthe land--there is the owner--there is the tenant. If the landowners hadbeen a little wiser we might not have had before us to-night thedifficulty that now perplexes us. Suppose, for example, they had notbeen tempted to coerce or to make use of the votes of their tenants;suppose they had not been tempted to withhold leases--undoubtedly thecondition of Ireland would have been far superior to what it now is. Myhon. Friend the Member for Westminster has some scruples, I believe, onthe question of the ballot, but I believe even he would not object tosee that admirable machinery of election tried in that country. Do hon. Gentlemen think it not necessary? I was talking, only two days ago, to aMember of this House who sat on one of the Irish election committees--the Waterford committee, I think--and he said: 'We could not unseat theMembers, though the evidence went to show a frightful state of things;it was one of the most orderly elections they have in that country--onlythree men killed and twenty-eight seriously wounded. ' After all, we maysmile, and some of you may laugh at this, but it is not a thing to belaughed at. It is a very serious matter, but it exists in no country inthe world where the ballot is in operation. 

If you were to try that mode of election in Ireland it would have tworesults: it would make your elections perfectly tranquil, and at thesame time it would withdraw from the landowner--and a most blessed thingfor the landowner himself this would be--it would withdraw from him thegreat temptation to make use of his tenant's vote for the support of hisown political party; and if that temptation were withdrawn, you wouldhave much more inducement to grant leases to many of your tenants, andyou would take a step highly favourable, not to the prosperity of yourtenants only, but to your own prosperity and your own honour. Now, Sir, I shall say no more upon that question except this, that I feel myselfat a disadvantage in making a proposition of this nature to a Housewhere landowners are so numerous and so powerful, but I have disarmedthem in so far that they will see that I mean them no harm, and thatwhat I propose is not contrary to the principles of political economy;and that if Government is at liberty to lend money for all the purposesto which I have referred, Government must be equally at liberty to lendmoney for this greater purpose; and, farther, I venture to express myopinion, without the smallest hesitation or doubt, that if this weredone to the extent of creating some few scores of thousands of farmerproprietors in Ireland, you would find that their influence would bealtogether loyal; that it would extend around throughout the wholecountry that whilst you were adding to the security of Government youwould awaken industry in Ireland from its slumber, and you would havethe wealth which you have not had before, and, with wealth, contentmentand tranquillity in its train. 

Now, Sir, it may appear egotistical in me to make one remark more, but Ithink if the House will not condemn me I shall make it. Last year youdid, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman, accept aproposition which I had taken several years of trouble and labour toconvince you was wise. On Wednesday last, only two days ago, by analmost unanimous vote you accepted a proposition with regard to anothermatter, exactly in the form in which six or seven years ago I had urgedyou to accept it. You in this House recollect when Mr. Speaker had togive the casting vote, amidst vast excitement in the House, on themiserable question of Church Rates; but now, on Wednesday last, youaccepted that Bill almost without opposition; and I presume that, exceptfor the formality of a third reading, we have done with the question forever. Now if you would kindly, I ask it as a favour--if you would kindlyfor a moment forget things that you read of me which are not favourable, and generally which are not true, and if you would imagine that though Ihave not an acre of land in Ireland, I can be as honestly a friend ofIreland as the man who owns half a county, it may be worth your while toconsider for your own interest, the interests of your tenants, thesecurity of the country from which you come, for the honour of theUnited Kingdom, whether there is not something in the proposition that Ihave made to you. 

Now, Sir, perhaps the House will allow me to turn to that other questionwhich, on the authority of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary forIreland, and the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, and indeed onthe authority of the Prime Minister himself, is considered the nextgreatest--perhaps I ought to have said the greatest--question we have toconsider in connection with Irish affairs; I mean the Irish Churchquestion. What is it that is offered upon this matter by the Government?The noble Lord himself said very little about it, but he is not easyupon it; he knows perfectly well, and cannot conceal it, that the IrishChurch question is at the root of every other question in Ireland. Thenoble Lord the Member for King's Lynn said also that it was, along withthe land, the great and solemn question which we had to discuss, and heturned round--I could discover it from the report in the paper, becauseI was not, as you may suppose, at the Bristol banquet--he turned roundalmost with a look of despair, and implored somebody to come and tell uswhat ought to be done on this Irish question. And the Prime Ministerhimself, in speaking of it, called it an 'Alien Church. ' Bear thatphrase in mind. It is a strong phrase, a phrase we can all understand, and we know that the right hon. Gentleman is a great master of phrases--he says a word upon some subject; it sticks; we all remember it, andthis is sometimes a great advantage. 'Alien Church' is the name he givesit; and now, what does the noble Lord, acting, no doubt, under thedirection of his Colleagues and the Prime Minister, offer upon thisquestion? He rather offered a defence of it; he did not go into anyargument, but still, at the same time, he rather defied anybody to makean assault upon it; he believed that it would not succeed, and that itwas very wrong; but what does he really propose? Only this: to addanother buttress in the shape of another bribe. He says that he willmake an offer to the Roman Catholic hierarchy and people of Ireland--some say that the people do not want it, and that the hierarchy do wantit, but I say nothing about that, because I hope the Catholic people ofIreland are at least able to defend themselves from the hierarchy, ifthe hierarchy wish to cripple them too much--he says he will endow aRoman Catholic University in Ireland. As the noble Lord went on with hisspeech he touched upon the question of the Presbyterian _RegiumDonum_, and spoke of it, I think, as a miserable provision for thePresbyterians of the North of Ireland; and evidently, if he had had thecourage, the desperate courage to do it, he would have proposed, whilsthe was offering to endow a new Roman Catholic University, to increase ordouble the _Regium Donum_. The noble Lord does not express anydissent from this, and I rather think he wishes that it were safelydone. The object of this, and what he would like to have said to thehon. Gentlemen about him who came from Ireland to represent the RomanCatholic population, and to the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland, was this: 'If you will continue to support the Protestant Church inIreland and the Protestant supremacy, we will endow you (the RomanCatholics) a University, really, if not professedly, under clericalrule; and as to you (the Presbyterians), we will double your stipends bydoubling the amount of the _Regium Donum_. '

Now, why do you offer anything? Why is it we are discussing thisquestion? Why did the noble Lord think it necessary to speak for threehours and twenty minutes on the subject? Because the state of Ireland isnow very different from the state which we have sometimes seen, and verydifferent, I hope, from that which many of us may live to see hereafter;because Ireland has a certain portion of its population rebellious, hasa larger portion disloyal and discontented, but has a still largerportion dissatisfied with the Imperial rule. Now I must say--I hope thenoble Lord will not think I am saying anything uncivil--but I must saythat his proposition appears to be at once grotesque and imbecile, and Ithink at the same time--though I do not like to use unpleasant words--that to a certain extent it must be held to be--in fact, I think thehon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire hinted as much--notonly very wrong, but very dishonest. At this moment it seems to find nofavour on either side of the House, although I can understand theCatholic Members of the House feeling themselves bound to say nothingagainst it, and perhaps, if it came to a division, to vote for it; but Ibelieve there is not a Catholic Member on this side of the House whocould in his conscience say that it was right in him to accept thisproposition as a bribe that he should hereafter support Protestantsupremacy. In fact, it appears to me exactly in the position now thatthe dual vote was in this time twelve months, and there are people whosay that it has been brought forward with the same object, and that by-and-by, as nobody is for it, the right hon. Gentleman will say that asnobody is in favour of it they will not urge it upon Parliament. Now, does anybody believe that a Catholic University in Ireland could havethe smallest effect upon Fenianism, or upon the disloyalty, discontent, and dissatisfaction of which Fenianism is the latest and the mostterrible expression? It is quite clear that for the evil which we haveto combat, the remedy which the right hon. Gentleman offers through theChief Secretary for Ireland is no remedy at all. 

It reminds me of an anecdote which is related by Addison. He says thatin his time there was a man who made a living by cheating the countrypeople. He was not a Cabinet Minister, --he was only a mountebank, --andhe set up a stall, and sold pills that were very good against theearthquake. Well, that is about the state of things that we are in now. There is an earthquake in Ireland. Does anybody doubt it? I will not gointo the evidence of it, but I will say that there has been a mostextraordinary alarm--some of it extravagant, I will admit--throughoutthe whole of the three kingdoms; and although Fenianism may be but alow, a reckless, and an ignorant conspiracy, the noble Lord has admittedthat there is discontent and disaffection in the country; and when theMember for one of the great cities of Ireland comes forward and asks theImperial Parliament to discuss this great question--this social andpolitical earthquake under which Ireland is heaving--the noble Lordcomes forward and offers that there shall be a clerical-governed endowedUniversity for the sons, I suppose, of the Catholic gentlemen ofIreland. I have never heard a more unstatesmanlike or moreunsatisfactory proposition; and I believe the entire disfavour withwhich it has been received in this House is only a proper representationof the condemnation which it will receive from the great majority of thepeople of the three kingdoms. 

Do not let any one suppose that I join in the terms which I regretted tohear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, and still lessthat I join in the, in my opinion, more offensive terms which fell fromthe right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne. There can be no good inour attacking either the Catholic population or the Catholic hierarchyof Ireland. We have our duty straight before us, which is to do both thehierarchy and the people justice. We are not called upon to support theplan of the Government, and I believe the people of Great Britain, and avery large portion of the people of Ireland, will rejoice when the Houseof Commons shall reject a proposition which is adverse to the course wehave taken for many years past, and a proposition which would have nobetter effect in tranquillising Ireland in the future than the increaseof the grant to Maynooth did more than twenty years ago. Sir Robert Peelat that time, with the most honourable and kindly feeling to Ireland, proposed to increase the grant to Maynooth, and it was passed, I think, by a large majority of the House, I being one of a very few persons onthis side of the House who opposed the grant. I was as kindly disposedto the Catholics of Ireland as Sir Robert Peel, but I was satisfied thatwas not the path of tranquillisation, and that if he trod that path itwould before any long time have to be retraced; and I think, if you nowproceed upon the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman, youwill fail in the pacification of Ireland, and the time will come whenyou will have to retrace the steps he invites you to tread in now. 

Now, Sir, I think we have arrived at this point of the question--that wehave absolutely arrived at it, and there is no escape from it--that itdoes not matter in the least whether the right hon. Gentleman sits onthe Treasury Bench, or whether the right hon. Member for SouthLancashire takes his place, or whether the two should unite--which is avery bold figure of speech--but I say that if the two should unite, itcould not alter this fact, that the Protestant supremacy, as representedby a State Church in Ireland, is doomed, and is, in fact, at an end. Whatever are the details, and I admit that they will be very difficultdetails in some particulars, which may be introduced into the measurewhich shall enact the great change that the circumstances of Ireland andthe opinion of the United Kingdom have declared to be necessary, this, at least, we have come to, that perfect religious equality henceforth, and not only religious equality, but equality on the voluntaryprinciple, must be granted. 

Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken about a pamphlet which hasrecently been written by Lord Russell. I would speak of Lord Russell, asthe House knows, as I would always of a man older than myself, and whoseservices to the country have been so long and so great; I speak of himwith great respect, and I say that the pamphlet is written withwonderful fire, that it contains in it very much that is interesting, and very much that is true, but its one fault is that it should havebeen published about forty years ago. Lord Russell's proposition ispolitically just in the division which he proposes of the property ofthe Church in Ireland, and, if public opinion had not condemned thecreation of new Established Churches, it might have been possible tohave adopted his scheme as it is. But I say the time has gone by for theestablishment of new State Churches. They will never again be planted asan institution in this country, and I suspect there is no other countryin the world which has not an Established Church that would wish topossess one. But, if the House will allow me, I should like to advert toa little scheme on this matter which I was bold enough to explain to mycountrymen on the occasion to which I have referred. It is not a newscheme in my mind, for the whole principle of it, with an elaborateargument in its favour, were published very widely in the year 1852, ina letter which I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (SirJohn Gray), who was one of certain persons, Members of Parliament andothers, who met in conference in Dublin on the question of religiousequality in Ireland. I only state this to show that it is no new idea, and that I have had plenty of time to consider it. There have been greatobjections to the plan, and amongst those who have objected to it, asmight possibly have been expected, were gentlemen of the LiberationSociety. Now, I know many of the leading members of that Society, andthey are very good men. Even those who may think they are mistakenwould, if they knew them, join with me in that opinion. One of them, atleast, who was once a Member of this House, and, in all probability, will be here again--Mr. Miall--is not only a good man, but he is a greatman. I judge him by the nobleness of his principles, and by the granddevotion which he has manifested to the teaching of what he believes tobe a great truth. I take criticisms from them kindly, as we ought totake them from our friends when they are honestly given. 

What is the condition of Ireland at this moment with which you have todeal? There is not only the Church which it is proposed to disestablish, but you have the _Regium Donum_, which, if the Church bedisestablished, must necessarily be withdrawn; and you have, if thesetwo things happen, a grant to Maynooth, the Act conferring which mustnecessarily be repealed. Now, in doing these things the House willobserve that we shall disturb all the three principal sects or Churchesin Ireland, and we can only do it, or attempt to do it, on the groundthat we are about to accomplish some great public good. Well, myproposal, which some hon. Gentlemen, I dare say, will have some vagueidea of, was made with the view of easing Parliament in the greattransaction, from which I believe it cannot escape. It is a great thingin statesmanship, when you are about to make a change which isinevitable, and which shocks some, disturbs more, and makes hesitatingpeople hesitate still more--it is a great thing, I say, if you can makethe past slide into the future without any great jar, and without anygreat shock to the feelings of the people. And in doing these things theGovernment can always afford to be generous and gracious to those whomthey are obliged to disturb. 

We have found that this has been the case when needful changes have beenproposed; for instance, hon. Gentlemen will recollect, when tithecommutation for Ireland was passed, that there was a certain concessionmade to the landowners of Ireland, to induce them to acquiesce in theproposition of Parliament. We know that when slavery was abolished aconsiderable sum of money was voted. Lord Derby proposed in this Housethat compensation should be given to the slaveowners. If it had not beenfor that, slavery would before long have been abolished by violence. ButParliament thought it was much better to take the step it did take, andI am not, at this period of time, about for a moment to dispute itswisdom. In all these things we endeavour, if we are forced to make agreat change, to make it in such a manner as that we shall obtain theacquiescence and the support, if possible, of those who are most likelyto be nearly affected by it. Suppose we were going to disestablish theChurch of Scotland--and I understand that there are a great numberbelonging to the Established Church of Scotland who are coming round tothe opinion that it would be much to their benefit, and I think for thebenefit of their Church, if it were disestablished--if we were going todisestablish the Church of Scotland or the Church of England, no personfor a moment would suppose that, after having taken all the tithes andall the income from these Churches, you would also take all the churchesand all the parsonage-houses from the Presbyterian people of Scotland, or from the Episcopal Church people in England. You would not doanything of that kind. You would do to them as we should wish, if wewere in their position, that the Government and Parliament should do tous. Do what you have to do thoroughly for the good of the country, butdo it in such a manner as shall do least harm, and as shall gain thelargest amount of acquiescence from those whom you are about to affect. I venture to say that such is the course we should take about Ireland. 

I am very free in speaking on these matters. I am not a Catholic in thesense of Rome. I am not a Protestant in the sense in which that word isused in Ireland. I am not connected with a powerful sect in England. Ithink, from my training, and education, and association, and thought onthese questions, I stand in a position which enables me to take as fairand unimpassioned a view of the matter as perhaps any man in the House. Now, if I were asked to give my advice, and if I am not asked I shallgive it--I should propose that where there are congregations in Ireland--I am speaking now, of course, of the present Established Church--whowould undertake to keep in repair the church in which they have beenaccustomed to worship, and the parsonage-house in which their ministerslive, Parliament should leave them in the possession of their churchesand of their parsonage-houses. And I believe I speak the sentiment ofevery Catholic Member on this side of the House, and probably of everyintelligent Catholic in Ireland, not only of the laity but of thehierarchy and the priesthood, when I say that they would regard such acourse as that on the part of Parliament as just, under thecircumstances in which we are placed. Well, then, of course there wouldbe no more bishops appointed by the Crown, and that institution inIreland would come to an end, except it were continued upon theprinciple upon which bishops are appointed in Scotland. All Stateconnection would be entirely abolished. You would then have all alike. The Protestants would have their churches and parsonage-houses as theyhave now. But the repairs of them, and the support of their ministers, would be provided by their congregations, or by such an organisation asthey chose to form. The Catholics would provide, as they have hithertodone so meritoriously and with a remarkable liberality, for themselves. 

No greater instance of generosity and fidelity to their Church can beseen in the world than that which has been manifested by the Catholicpeople of Ireland. They have their churches and their priests' houses inmany places. There is no pretence for meddling with them. In the northof Ireland, where the Presbyterians are most numerous, they would alsohave their places of worship, and their ministers' houses as they havenow. All the Churches, therefore, in that respect would be on anequality. Well, now, the real point of this question, and which willcreate in all probability much feeling in Parliament and in the country, is, what should be done on the question of the Maynooth Grant, and onthe question of the _Regium Donum?_ They must be treated alike, Ipresume. If you preserve the life interests of the ministers and bishopsof the Established Church, it may be right to preserve the lifeinterests of the ministers of the Presbyterian Church, and it may beright also in some way or other to make some provision that shall not inthe least degree bring them under the control of the State. And someprovision might have to be made to the Catholic Church in lieu of theMaynooth Grant, which, of course, you would be obliged to withdraw. These are points which I will not discuss in detail. I merely indicatethem for the sake of showing to the House, and to a great number ofpeople who are regarding it with even more feeling than we do, what aresome of the difficulties of this question--difficulties which must bemet--difficulties which it will require all the moderation, all theChristian feeling, and all the patriotism which this House can muster onboth sides of it, with the view of settling this question permanently, and to the general satisfaction of the three kingdoms. Now, I will go nofurther, but to say that whatever is done--if a single sixpence is givenby Parliament, in lieu of the Maynooth Grant, or in lieu of the_Regium Donum_, it must be given on these terms only--and on thatmatter I think Lord Russell has committed a great error--that it becomesthe absolute property of the Catholics or of the Presbyterians--it mustbe as completely their property as the property of the great Wesleyanbody in this country, or of the Independents, or of the Baptists, belongs to these bodies. It must be property which Parliament can neverpretend to control, or regulate, or withdraw. 

And having consented to that condition, the three Churches of Irelandwould be started as voluntary Churches, and instead of fighting, as I amsorry to say they have been fighting far longer than within the memoryof man, I hope soon there would be a competition among them which shoulddo most for the education, the morals, and the Christianity of thepopulation who are within their instruction and guidance. Now, Protestants in this country--I think almost all Protestants--object verystrongly to Rome. The Nonconformists object to endowments. Theysometimes, I think, confound establishments with endowments. I think itabsolutely essential that establishments should cease, and that thereshould be nothing in the way of endowment unless it be some smallprovision such as that which I have indicated; which it might benecessary to make when you are withdrawing certain things which theChurches in Ireland had supposed were theirs in perpetuity. 

Now, one word which I would say to the Nonconformist people of Englandand Scotland, if the House will allow me to speak, is this--they shouldbear in mind that the whole of this property which is now in thepossession of the Established Church of Ireland is Irish property. Itdoes not belong to Scotland or to England, and it would be a measureintolerable and not to be thought of, that it should be touched or dealtwith in any manner that is not in accordance with the feelings and theinterests of the people of Ireland. Let any man who to-morrow criticisesthis part of my speech ask himself what an Irish Parliament freelyelected would do with the ecclesiastical funds of Ireland. I think thePresbyterians of Scotland, the Churchmen and Nonconformists of England, have no right to suppose themselves to be judges with regard toreligious matters in Ireland. They have a perfect right to say toParliament through their representatives, 'We will discontinue the StateChurch in Ireland, and we will create no other State Churches. ' But thatseems to be about the extent of the interference which they are entitledto in this matter. 

I hope I have explained with tolerable clearness the views which I havefelt it my duty to lay before the House on the occasion of this greatquestion. The House will see, and I think hon. Gentlemen opposite willadmit, that I am at least disposed to treat it as a great questionwhich, if it be dealt with, should be dealt with in the most generous, gracious, and, if you like, tender manner by Parliament, as respects thefeelings and interests of all who are most directly concerned. The righthon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in his speech last night, said thatthis proposal to disestablish the Established Church of Ireland was, inpoint of fact, in some sort a revolution. This, at any rate, I amsatisfied, would be not only an entirely bloodless revolution, but arevolution full of blessing to the Irish people. 

I have not said a word--I never said a word in this House, and, Ibelieve, never out of it, to depreciate the character of the clergymenof the Established Church in Ireland. I think no religious ministers areplaced in a more unfortunate position, and I am satisfied that many ofthem feel it to be so. I have not the least doubt, when this transactionis once accomplished, that they will breathe more freely. I believe theywill be more potent in their ministrations, and that their influence, which must, or ought to be, considerable, will be far more extensivethan it has been, and far more beneficial in the districts in which theylive. But being so great a question, as the Home Secretary described it, it can only be settled by mutual and reasonable concession. The mainprinciple being secured, that State Church supremacy is abolished inIreland, and that the Irish Churches are henceforth to be free Churchesupon the voluntary principle, then I should be willing, and I wouldrecommend every person in the country whom my voice may reach, to makeany reasonable concession that can be suggested in the case. So anxiousam I that it should be done, that I should be delighted to co-operatewith the right hon. Gentleman, and with hon. Members on the oppositeside of the House, in support of any just measure for settling thisgreat question. But I say, if it ever does come to be dealt with by agreat and powerful Minister, let it be dealt with in a great andgenerous spirit. I would counsel to all men moderation and justice. Itis as necessary to Protestants as to Catholics and to Nonconformiststhat they should endeavour to get rid of passion in discussing thisquestion. 

We are, after all, of one religion. I imagine that there will come atime in the history of the world when men will be astonished thatCatholics and Protestants have had so much animosity against andsuspicion of each other. I accept the belief in a grand passage, which Ionce met with in the writings of the illustrious founder of the colonyof Pennsylvania. He says that 'The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere of one religion, and when death hastaken off the mask they will know one another, though the diverseliveries they wear here make them strangers. ' Now, may I ask the Houseto act in this spirit, and then our work will be easy. The noble Lord, towards the conclusion of his speech, spoke of the cloud which rests atpresent over Ireland. It is a dark and heavy cloud, and its darknessextends over the feelings of men in all parts of the British Empire. Butthere is a consolation which we may all take to ourselves. An inspiredking and bard and prophet has left us words which are not only theexpression of a fact, but which we may take as the utterance of aprophecy. He says, 'To the upright there ariseth light in the darkness. 'Let us try in this matter to be upright. Let us try to be just. Thatcloud will be dispelled. The dangers which surround us will vanish, andwe may yet have the happiness of leaving to our children the heritage ofan honourable citizenship in a united and prosperous Empire. 

 * * * * *

IRELAND. 

IX. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 1, 1868. 

[This speech was made in the debate on Mr. Gladstone's resolutions fordisestablishing the Irish Church. ]

The House will not expect me to follow the legal argument of the hon. And learned Member who has just sat down. I entertain a firm belief thatthose legal cobwebs which are spread, and which are supposed to, and doin the minds of many Gentlemen, interpose between the completion of agreat act of justice, will be swept away before long by the almostunanimous opinion of the people of the three kingdoms. 

During this debate, which has yet lasted only two nights, there hasbeen, if not a remarkable change of opinion, a remarkable change ofexpression. Last night we had an interesting speech from the noble Lordwho generally sits opposite me, the noble Lord the Member for Stamford. I refer only to the beginning of his speech, in which he spoke of hisaffection for the principle of a Church Establishment. There was ahesitation in his manner; he had a strong love for his principle, but itappeared to me that he thought the time was come when even thatcherished principle would have to be surrendered. From the Treasurybench we had a speech from the noble Lord the Secretary for ForeignAffairs, and when he sat down it is difficult to say what was theprecise impression made upon the House; but I think, on the whole, theimpression made on the other side of the House--his own side--was by nomeans a comfortable one. Now to me it is, and I think to the House itis, a misfortune that we have a Government that speaks with a differentvoice from night to night. We had it last year, and I presume, from theexample of the debate which lately took place on the motion of the hon. Member for Cork, and from the debate on this motion, we are about to seea repetition of it. 

The fact is, that the position of the Government is one of greatdifficulty and perplexity; to speak plainly, it is one which I shouldcall, in our Constitutional system, altogether unnatural. They are theMinisters, the leaders of a minority of the House, and whilst they satas leaders of the minority in opposition they defended the principles oftheir party, and they apparently regarded all their past career withsatisfaction; but the moment they are transferred to the Treasury benchthey find themselves in this difficulty, that although their party maystill wish to cling to their past opinions, there is something in thevery air, there is something throughout the mind of the whole kingdom, which teaches them that their past opinions are impossible in their newposition. 

The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn made a speech not long ago atBristol, and in that speech he expressed what I am quite sure were hishonest opinions with regard to the condition of Ireland. He stated thatthe condition of Ireland was one painful and dangerous, and to us, inappearance at least, discreditable. He said we had a strange andperplexing problem to solve; that in Ireland there was a miserable stateof things. Then he said, 'If we look for a remedy, who can give us anintelligible answer? Ireland is the question of the hour. ' And that isnot altogether at variance--in fact, I should say not at all atvariance--with the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who toldus, as far as he knew, the facts about his country. But immediatelyafterwards we had the description of the right hon. Gentleman at thehead of the Government, to the effect that there was no crisis at all--that, in point of fact, the condition of Ireland was a normal condition, and that there was no necessity for anything remarkable or unusual inthe legislation that was required. Now, to-night we have had a speechfrom the Home Secretary. I may say that every speaker on that side ofthe House has admitted that his speech is entirely in opposition, in itstone, its purpose, and its principle, to the speech of the noble Lordthe Member for King's Lynn. It seems to me that the Home Secretary to-night answered the Foreign Secretary of last night--and I suppose if thedebate goes on until Thursday, probably the right hon. Gentleman at thehead of the Government, or perhaps the Secretary of State for India, will answer the speech of the Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment. 

But all this shows us that the House is in a wrong position. We have aminority in office which cannot assert its own views with safety, norcan it with any more safety directly adopt our views; and thus, when, onthat side of the House, a Minister gets up and makes what is called aliberal speech on this question to us who are in opposition, thatcreates discontent; and then another Minister rises and makes a speechof an exactly opposite character, to reconcile that discontent. Thereis, in fact, confusion and chaos in the House. We have a Governmentwhich is not a Government--and we have an Opposition which is not anOpposition, because really we do not oppose anything that you propose. Your propositions are not based upon your own principles, which you heldwhen you sat on this side of the House, but on our principles, andtherefore we are not in opposition at all, but we help you as much aspossible to enforce, not your own principles, but ours. Whatevercompensation it may be to right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that bench andenjoy the dignities and emoluments of office, I think there are manyhonourable men on whom I am looking at this moment who do not observethe course of these proceedings with entire satisfaction. 

But now, notwithstanding these difficulties, there remains this greatquestion which we must discuss, and which, if possible, we must settle. I say, notwithstanding some observations to the contrary, that thepeople of the three kingdoms are looking with anxious suspense at thecourse which Parliament may take on this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on one occasion spoke of this question, ofthis proposition, as being something in the nature of a revolution. But, if it be a revolution, after all it is not so great a one as we mightsuppose from the force and energy of the speech which he has deliveredto-night--a speech which, although I differ from his views, was, I mustsay, a very good speech--in which he brought into the House a good dealof the energy of the people of that great county (Yorkshire) from whichhe comes. But we are now about to deal with a question which onlyaffects, according to the census, something under 700, 000 people. Iobserve hon. Gentlemen talk of the Protestants of Ireland as being one-fourth of the whole population--of being a million and a half. All thatis fanciful exaggeration. According to the census the Episcopalians arenot more than 700, 000, and let hon. Gentlemen bear this in mind--whenthe census enumerators go round, if a man is not a Catholic or aPresbyterian, he is put down, unless he can state he is of some othersect, as an Episcopalian. And judging from what we know, there must beout of the 700, 000 a considerable number who never go to church, and, politically or religiously, have no interest in it. Therefore, Ibelieve, speaking correctly, it would not be possible to show that thereare Episcopalians in Ireland in intimate connection with the EstablishedChurch to the amount of more than from half a million to 600, 000. 

Now, this will not come to more than 100, 000 families, that is, will notbe very much more than the population of Liverpool, or Manchester, orGlasgow; so that, in point of fact, this question, which is held to be arevolution, --this great question affects only a population equal to thatof the city of Glasgow, or of Liverpool, or of Manchester. And it is fora population so small as this, I am told--for I am not versed incomputations of this kind--you have no less than twelve bishops andarchbishops, and that you have devoted for their services--for theirreligious services--not less than the annual income arising from acapital sum estimated to be, at least, ten or twelve millions sterling. Now, if their system of teaching is really very good, I must say thereought to be in Ireland a more perfectly moral and religious populationamong the Church Protestants than there is in any other country in theworld. 

What, then, are we about to do? What is the House about to do if weadopt the resolutions of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire? Ifthe House accept the advice of the majority sitting on this side, whatwill be done? We are not going to commit any vital wrong upon that onecity population of 500, 000 or 600, 000. When we have done everything thatI have suggested should be done, we shall leave them in as comfortable aposition as the majority of the people of Scotland are in at thismoment. We shall leave them as well off as eight or nine-tenths of thepopulation of Wales are; we shall leave them as well off as half, andnot the least religious half, of the people of England are; we shallleave them as well off as the English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish peoplewho form the population in our colonies, whether in North America orAustralia. And what can be more monstrous than for Gentlemen to comehere from Ireland--and there may he some from England--and tell us weare bringing about a revolution, that we are committing an enormousoppression, that we are hazarding the loyalty of the people of the Northof Ireland, when, after all, the most and worst which any of us proposesto do is that the Church population of Ireland will be left at least aswell off as any of the various populations of the Empire I have justdescribed? I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will be convinced that it isnot a bottomless abyss we are going to plunge their friends into. 

Although it is a very small question for the Church in Ireland and forthe Church people, I hold it is an infinitely larger question for theCatholic population. The hon. And learned Gentleman who spoke lastrelies much upon law. I suppose it will be admitted that there are onlytwo pretences on which this State Church--the Protestant Church--canexist in Ireland. The one is religious--the other is political. Now, hasanybody been able to show that, as a religious institution, it has notbeen a deplorable failure? because clearly, the original intention, theoriginal hope was, that the people of Ireland would be drawn from theChurch of Rome and brought into harmony with the Church of England. Iundertake to say, from the time of its first establishment until now, reckoning up all the Catholics on the one side and the Protestants onthe other, that it could not be shown, and is not to be believed, thatit has ever added really one person in every hundred persons to theactual number of Protestants in the kingdom of Ireland. It has been anentire failure--a failure deplorable, and almost ludicrous, as an enginefor converting the Catholic population. But it has not only not madeCatholics into Protestants, but it has made Catholics in Ireland moreintensely Roman than the members of that Church are found to be in anyother country in Europe or in America. And what is more than that, Ithink it can be demonstrated that the existence of the Protestant Churchin Ireland, whether missionary or not in pretence, has not only notconverted the Catholics themselves, but has made it absolutelyimpossible that anybody else, or any other Church, should convert them. Because, if you look how the Church has been connected with the State, and with the politics of the country, with the supremacy of the landedproprietors, with the supremacy of the Protestant party, with all thedark records of the past, you will see the effect has been to makeCatholicism in Ireland not only a faith, but absolutely a patriotism. 

I think I might appeal to every Member of the House who now hears mewhether, if he had been placed in Ireland with his father before himamong the Catholic population--I might ask him whether he would not havefelt that if he threw off his allegiance to his Church, and if heentered the portals of this garrison Church, that it would have been tohim not only a change of faith, but a denial as it were of his birth andof his country. I have felt always in considering this question--and Ihave considered it much for twenty-five years past--that all thecircumstances of that Church in Ireland have been such as to stimulatethe heart of every Catholic to a stronger adherence to his own faith, and to a determined and unchangeable rejection of the faith and of theChurch which were offered to him by the hands of conquest. There is onepoint on this, too, which is important, that the more you have produceddissatisfaction with Imperial rule in Ireland, the more you have thrownthe population into the hands of Rome. Now, I hope I shall offend noCatholic Member in this House when I say that I consider it one of thegreatest calamities of the world that there are in many countriesmillions of Catholic population who are liable to be directed in much oftheir conduct, and often in their political conduct, through theirbishops and clergy from the centre of the city of Rome. I think that isa misfortune--I think it is a misfortune to the freedom of the world. And I think, moreover, that it is a misfortune to every Catholic Churchin every country, for it tends to prevent it from being wholly national, and it prevents also such changes and such reformations as, I believe, are necessary in the progress of every Church. We see some result ofthis in other countries of Europe. Notably, at this moment, in Austria, even in that country which we lately thought was the very last in therace of freedom, there is a contest going on with Rome. But thereprobably is no country in Europe at this moment in which the CatholicChurch and population are more entirely subject than in Ireland to thedirect influence of a certain number of persons, of whom most of us knownothing, who pull the strings of the Catholic world in the city of Rome. I attribute much of this, which I think a great evil, to the existenceof the Protestant Church in Ireland. You know perfectly well that thegreat discontent of Ireland is chiefly entertained by the Catholicpopulation, and you know that this population is even at this moment, more than it was some years ago, subject directly to politicalinfluences from Rome. But I am satisfied that it is for the interest ofthe Catholic population, and that it is for the interest of this greatnation and of this Imperial Government, that whatsoever be the tiebetween the Catholic population of Ireland and the Government inIreland, we ought at least to take away every obstacle that can lessenin the smallest degree the loyalty of that people to the Imperial Crown. 

And if this Church has failed as a religious institution, how stands itas a political institution? It was intended not only to convert theCatholics, but to secure the Union. An hon. Gentleman, with a couragethat I should not like to imitate, said that if the 5th Article of theAct of Union should be altered, then in point of fact the Union is asgood as abolished. I see the hon. Gentleman up there, and I think he isnot the only one who has said it in the course of this discussion. It isa very old and not a very strange device to expect the people to be madeloyal through the instrumentality of the clergy. I know that manycenturies ago a monk of some celebrity at the Court of Louis of Bavariatold that monarch, 'You defend me with the sword, and I will defend youwith the pen. ' We have been during all this time defending this Churchwith the sword. The sword has scarcely ever been out of the hand of thegoverning power in Ireland. And if a fair, simple, and unadornednarrative were given of the transactions of this Parliament withIreland, with regard to its different enactments, coercive restrictions, suspensions of the Habeas Corpus Act, and so forth, it would form anarrative which would astonish the world and would discredit us. Sir, Iam afraid it is not too much to say that, in support of this supremacy, many victims have perished on the scaffold in Ireland, and that thefields of Ireland have been more than once drenched with the blood ofher people. But, after all this is done, we are not a bit more secure. 

It is no matter what Government sits on the bench opposite. The righthon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire was there two years ago, and on that occasion, by the consent of his Colleagues, the then HomeSecretary had to introduce the Bill for the suspension of the HabeasCorpus Act. Now you are on that side of the House, and you have to dothe same. Nobody says it is not necessary. I am not prepared to say ithas not been necessary at other times. But surely if this be necessary--and if there is this painful duty to perform at various times--it showsthat the Union is not very secure in Ireland. In fact, Sir, it is themost painful thing that we have witnessed lately, that the suspension ofthe Habeas Corpus Act has become so common that it causes almost noremark. The measure is introduced into the House. An Irish Member makesa feeble protest against it, and it is passed, and we suspend theliberties of one of the three kingdoms from year to year. And the PrimeMinister has the courage--I might almost use another word--he has thecourage to say there is no crisis, and that things are going on verymuch as usual, and that the House of Commons is not required to do muchor care much for that country. 

What you have in Ireland is this. There is anarchy, which is subdued byforce, and after centuries of rule--not our rule, but that of ourforefathers--we have got no farther. We have not reconciled Ireland tous, we have done none of those things which the world says we ought tohave done; and at this moment--in the year 1868--we are discussing thequestion whether it is possible to make any change with reference to theEstablished Church in Ireland which will bring about a better state offeeling between the people and the Imperial Government. Sir, I am afraidthere has been very little statesmanship and very much neglect, and Ithink we ought to take shame to ourselves, and try to get rid of some ofour antiquated prejudices on this matter, and look at it as men wouldlook at it from a distance, as men whose vision is not impaired by thepassionate feelings which have so often prevailed in this country withregard to this question. What, then, is the remedy that is now offered?What do people say of it? Now, I challenge any hon. Gentleman on theother side to deny this, that out of half a million Episcopalians inIreland there are many--there are some in the Irish nobility, somelanded proprietors, some magistrates, even some of the clergy, a greatmany Irishmen--who believe at this moment that it is of the very firstimportance that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Memberfor South Lancashire should be carried. 

I am not going to overstate my case. I do not say that all of them areof that opinion. Of that half-million, say that one-fourth--I will stateno number--but of this I am quite certain, that there is an influential, a considerable, and, as I believe, a wise minority, who are in favour ofdistinct and decided action on the part of Parliament with regard tothis question. But if you ask the whole Roman Catholic population ofIreland, be they nobles, or landed proprietors, or merchants, orfarmers, or labourers, --the whole number of the Catholic population inIreland being, I suppose, eight or nine times the number ofEpiscopalians--these are probably, without exception, of opinion that itwould be greatly advantageous and just to their country if theproposition submitted on this side of the House should receive thesanction of Parliament. Now, if some Protestants and all Catholics areagreed that we should remove this Church, what would happen if Irelandwas 1, 000 miles away, and we were discussing it as we might discuss thesame state of affairs in Canada? If we were to have in Canada and inAustralia all this disloyalty among the Roman Catholic population, owingto the existence of a State Church there, the House would be unanimousthat the State Church in those colonies should be abolished, and thatperfect freedom in religion should be given. 

But there is a fear in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the HomeSecretary that the malady which would exist in Ireland might cross theChannel and appear in England; that in fact the disorder ofVoluntaryism, as he deems it, in Ireland, like any other contagiousdisorder, might cross the Channel, by force of the west wind, lodgingfirst in Scotland, and then crossing the Tweed and coming south toEngland. I think the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that hewas so much in favour of religious equality, that if you went so far asto disestablish the Church in Ireland, he would recommend the samepolicy for England. Now, with regard to that, I will give you ananecdote which has reference to Scotland. Some years ago I had thepleasure of spending some days in Scotland at the house of the late LordAberdeen, after he had ceased to be Prime Minister. He was talking ofthe disruption of the Church of Scotland, and he said that nothing inthe course of his public life had given him so much pain as thedisruption, and the establishment of the Free Church in that country;but he said he had lived long enough to discover that it was one of thegreatest blessings that had ever come to Scotland. He said that they hada vast increase in the number of churches, a corresponding increase inthe number of manses or ministers' houses, and that schools hadincreased, also, to an extraordinary extent; that there had beenimparted to the Established Church a vitality and energy which it hadnot known for a long period; and that education, morality, and religionhad received a great advancement in Scotland in consequence of thatchange. Therefore, after all, it is not the most dreadful thing in theworld--not so bad as a great earthquake--or as many other things thathave happened. I am not quite sure that the Scottish people themselvesmay not some day ask you--if you do not yourselves introduce and pass itwithout their asking--to allow their State Church to be disestablished. 

I met only the other day a most intelligent gentleman from the north ofScotland, and he told me that the minister of the church he frequentedhad 250_l_. A-year from the Establishment Funds, which he thoughtvery much too little, and he felt certain that, if the Establishmentwere abolished, and the Church made into a Free Church, the salary ofthe minister would be immediately advanced to at least 500_l_. A-year. That is a very good argument for the ministers, and we shall seeby-and-by, if the conversion of Scotland proceeds much further, that youmay be asked to disestablish their Church. The hon. Member for Honitonlast night quoted something which, I daresay, he did not recollectaccurately--something which I had said respecting the Church of England;but the fact is that the Church of England is not suffering from theassaults of the Liberation Society; it is suffering from a verydifferent complaint. It is an internal complaint. You have had it beforeone of the courts of law within the last few days, and a very curiousdecision has been given, --that candles are lawful, but incense issomething terrible, and cannot be allowed; and then the newspapers tellyou that on the very next Sunday there is more incense in thatparticular church which has been complained of than there ever had beenbefore. 

I will tell hon. Gentlemen opposite what it is that endangers the StateChurch now--I mean a State Church like this in England, against whichthere is no violent political assault. It is the prevalence of zeal. Whenever zeal creeps into a State Church, it takes naturally differentforms--one strongly Evangelical, another strongly High Church orRitualist--and these two species of zeal work on and on in opposition, until finally there comes a catastrophe, and it is found that it is notMr. Miall and the Liberation Society, although they have prepared men'sminds not to dread it, but it is something wholly different, within theChurch itself, that causes the disruption of the Church. The Scottishdisruption did not take place from any assaults from without--it tookplace from zeal and difficulties within; and if you could keep the wholeof the Church of England perfectly harmonious within its own borders, itwould take a very daring prophet who would undertake to point out thetime when it would be disestablished. 

We will confine ourselves, therefore, to Ireland, and I will ask hon. Gentlemen this: I believe Gentlemen opposite do not usually reject theview which we entertain, that the abolition of the State Church inIreland would tend to lessen the difficulties of governing that country. I think there is scarcely an hon. Gentleman on the other side, who hasnot some doubt of his previous opinions, some slight misgiving on thispoint, and some disposition to accept our view of the case. Well, whyshould you be afraid? Even children, we know, can be induced, byrepeated practice, to go into a dark room without fear. You have always, somebody said the other night, lions in the path; but I will not dignifythem with the name of lions--they are but hobgoblins. Now, when you haveseen and handled them, as you have a great many times since I have beenin the habit of speaking face to face with you, these things are found, after all, to be only hobgoblins; you have learned, after all, that theyare perfectly harmless; and when you thought we were doing you harm, andupsetting the Constitution, you have found that, after all, we weredoing you good, and that the Constitution was rather stronger than itwas before. Let me point out for a moment some of these changes thatwere found at the time to be of great difficulty, but have been found tobe very wise and good afterwards. 

When I came into this House, nearly twenty-five years ago, our colonialsystem was wholly different from what it is now. It has been changed:Sir William Molesworth and Joseph Hume were mainly the authors inParliament of that change. Well, all our colonies, as we all admit, aremuch more easily governed and much more loyal than they were in thosedays. Turning then to our financial system--and I really do not want tooffend any one by mentioning this--you know that our financial system, since Sir Robert Peel came into office in 1841, has been completelychanged, and yet the revenue of the country is larger, which I regard asa misfortune--and not only larger, but more secure by far, if Parliamentrequires it, than it was at any previous period of our history. Take theold protective system, which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and some others have not forgotten. Free-trade was afrightful monster. But the protective system is gone; and now everycandid man amongst you will admit that industry, being more freethroughout the country, is better rewarded, and that the land, which yousaid would go out of cultivation, and become of no value, sells for ahigher price in the market than it ever brought before. 

There are two other points on which I wish to add a word. One wasmentioned last night after many Members had gone home. The balance ofpower was once considered the beginning and end of our foreign policy, and I am not sure that there are not some old statesmen in the otherHouse who believe in it even yet. What was done last night? The nobleLord the Member for Haddingtonshire, who comes up from Scotland brimfullof enthusiasm for impossible projects, proposed to put in words whichhad been rejected from the preamble of the Mutiny Bill relating to thepreservation of the balance of power. What did one of your mostdistinguished Ministers, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War, say in reference to the proposition? He said he thought it singular thatthe hon. Member for Chatham should have proposed to omit the words, because they really meant nothing, but he was still more surprised thatthe noble Lord should have asked to have them replaced. Well, thus yousee that this balance of power is gone, and yet England, I willundertake to say, under the rational and fair administration of foreignaffairs by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, is just as muchrespected by all foreign Powers as she was when we were ready to meddlein every stupid quarrel that occurred upon the Continent of Europe. 

Now, there is only one other thing to which I will advert--the questionof the representation. You know, in 1830, there was almost norepresentation. There were a few towns in which there was almostuniversal suffrage, and many scores of rotten boroughs; in fact, thewhole system was in such a state of congestion that it could not betolerated any longer, and we had a small, but which might have been avery large revolution, in amending that state of things. Last year you, who had seen this hobgoblin for years, who had thought, I have no doubt, many of you, that I was very unwise and very rash in the mode in which Ihad proposed to extend the suffrage; last year you found out that it wasnot so monstrous a thing after all, and you became almost enthusiasticin support of the right hon. Gentleman's Reform Bill. Well, you believenow, and the First Minister, if this was an occasion on which he had tospeak about it, would tell you not to be afraid of what was done, --hewould tell you that, based on the suffrage of a larger portion of yourcountrymen, Parliament will henceforth be more strong and more veneratedby the people than ever it has been before. 

If that is true of Parliament, what shall we say of the Throne itselfafter all these changes? I will venture to ask, whatever of conveniencethere may be in hereditary monarchy, whatever of historic grandeur inthe kingly office, whatever of nobleness in the possessor of the Crown, in all these things is it not true that everything is at least as fullyrecognised by the nation as it ever was at any previous period? I do notmention these things to reproach anybody here. We all have to learn. There are many in this House who have been in process of learning for agood while. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for SouthLancashire would not admit to us that on this very question of the IrishChurch his opinions have been greatly expanded, and have been ripeningfor a series of years. That is greatly to the credit, not only of hishead, but of his heart. We have seen even amongst you a progress in manythings--a progress which is most gratifying to me--that is a very smallmatter; but it is a very wholesome indication that the minds of men arebecoming more open to the consideration of great principles inconnection with great public questions. And this gives us promise thatin future we shall have--as, no doubt, we shall have--a Government morein accordance with public opinion and public interests than we have hadin past times. 

In my opinion, the changes that have been made in our time are the gloryof our time, and I believe that our posterity will regard them as thenatural and blessed fruits of the growth of intelligence in our day. Imention these things to urge you not to close your ears to the argumentsnor to close your hearts to the impressions of justice which must assailyou with regard to this question which is now being debated so much inGreat Britain and Ireland. I might appeal to a right hon. Gentleman whoperhaps is in the House--the Member for the County of Limerick--who wasat a very remarkable meeting held the other day in Limerick on this veryquestion. I have heard from sources which cannot, I think, bequestioned, that it was one of the most remarkable meetings held inIreland within the last twenty years, or, perhaps, I might say for alonger period. There was a far more healthy tone of mind, of conduct, offeeling, of expression, of everything we wish for, but have not knownthere for a very long period; and I believe and know--because I am toldby witnesses who cannot be contradicted--that the change arose from thegrowing belief that there was a sufficient majority in this House, thatthe general opinion of Parliament was sufficiently strong, to enablethis measure of justice and reconciliation to be passed. Now, I ask you, if, after what has taken place, you are able, unhappily able, to preventthe progress of the movement which is now on foot for thedisestablishment of the State Church in Ireland, are you not of opinionthat it will create great dissatisfaction; that it will add to theexisting discontent; that it will make those that are hopeful despair;and that men--rash men, if you like--strong and earnest men, will speakto those that hitherto have not been rash, and have not been earnest, and will say, 'You see at last; is this not a proof convincing andunanswerable, that the Imperial Parliament sitting in London is notcapable of hearing our complaints, and of doing that justice which we asa people require at its hands?'

Do not imagine that I am speaking with personal hostility to the righthon. Gentleman who is your Chief Minister here. Do not imagine for amoment that I am one of those, if there be any, who are hoping to drivehon. Gentlemen from that bench in order that I may take one of theplaces occupied by them. I would treat this subject as a thing farbeyond and far above party differences. The question comes before theHouse, of course, as all these great questions must, as a great partyquestion, and I am one of the Members of this party; but it does notfollow that all the Members of a party should be actuated by a partyspirit, or by a miserable, low ambition to take the place of a Ministerof the Crown. I say there is something far higher and better than that;and if ever there was a question presented to Parliament which invitedthe exercise of the highest and noblest feelings of Members of theHouse, I say this is that question. 

I say, then, do not be alarmed at what is proposed. Let us take thisIrish State Church; let us take it, not with a rude--I am againstrudeness and harshness in legislative action--but if not with a rude, still with a resolute grasp. If you adopt the policy we recommend, youwill pluck up a weed which pollutes the air. ['Oh! Oh!'] I will givehon. Gentlemen consolation in the conclusion of the sentence--I say youwill pluck up a weed which pollutes the air; but you will leave a freeProtestant Church, which will be hereafter an ornament and a grace toall those who may be brought within the range of its influence. Sir, Isaid in the beginning of my observations that there are the people ofthree kingdoms who are waiting with anxious suspense for the solution ofthis question. Ireland waits and longs. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick; I appeal to that Meeting, thecharacter of which he can describe, and perhaps may describe, to theHouse; and I say that Ireland waits and longs for a great act ofreconciliation. I say, further, that England and Scotland are eager tomake atonement for past crimes and past errors; and I say, yet further, that it depends upon us, this House of Commons, this ImperialParliament, whether that reconciliation shall take place, and whetherthat atonement shall at length be made. 

 * * * * *

WARWITHRUSSIA. 

I. 

WAR WITH RUSSIA--THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 31, 1854. 

_From Hansard. _

[Mr. Bright was opposed to the war with Russia. This speech was spokenon the day when the message from the Crown announcing the declaration ofwar was brought down to the House. ]

There are two reasons which may induce a Member of this House to addressit--he may hope to convince some of those to whom he speaks, or he maywish to clear himself from any participation in a course which hebelieves to be evil. I presume I am one of that small section of theHouse to whom the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Layard) hasreferred, when he alluded to the small party who objected to the policyby which this country has arrived at the 'triumphant position which itnow occupies. ' In coming forward to speak on this occasion, I may betold that I am like a physician proposing to prescribe to-day for a manwho died yesterday, and that it is of no use to insist upon views whichthe Government and the House have already determined to reject. I feel, however, that we are entering upon a policy which may affect thefortunes of this country for a long time to come, and I am unwilling tolose this opportunity of explaining wherein I differ from the coursewhich the Government has pursued, and of clearing myself from anyportion of the responsibility which attaches to those who support thepolicy which the Government has adopted. 

We are asked to give our confidence to the Administration in voting theAddress to the Crown, which has been moved by the noble Lord the Memberfor London, and to pledge our support to them in the war in which thecountry is now to engage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member forBuckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), on a recent occasion, made use of a termwhich differed considerably from what he said in a former debate; hespoke of this war as a 'just and unnecessary war. ' I shall not discussthe justice of the war. It may be difficult to decide a point like this, seeing that every war undertaken since the days of Nimrod has beendeclared to be just by those in favour of it; but I may at leastquestion whether any war that is unnecessary can be deemed to be just. Ishall not discuss this question on the abstract principle of peace atany price, as it is termed, which is held by a small minority of personsin this country, founded on religious opinions which are not generallyreceived, but I shall discuss it entirely on principles which areaccepted by all the Members of this House. I shall maintain that when weare deliberating on the question of war, and endeavouring to prove itsjustice or necessity, it becomes us to show that the interests of thecountry are clearly involved; that the objects for which the war isundertaken are probable, or, at least, possible of attainment; and, further, that the end proposed to be accomplished is worth the cost andthe sacrifices which we are about to incur. I think these are fairprinciples on which to discuss the question, and I hope that when thenoble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) rises during thisdebate, he will not assume that I have dealt with it on any otherprinciples than these. 

The House should bear in mind that at this moment we are in intimatealliance with a neighbouring Government, which was, at a recent period, the originator of the troubles which have arisen at Constantinople. I donot wish to blame the French Government, because nothing could have beenmore proper than the manner in which it has retired from the difficultyit had created; but it is nevertheless quite true that France, havingmade certain demands upon Turkey with regard to concessions to the LatinChurch, backed by a threat of the appearance of a French fleet in theDardanelles, which demands Turkey had wholly or partially complied with;Russia, the powerful neighbour of Turkey, being on the watch, madecertain other demands, having reference to the Greek Church; and Russiaat the same time required (and this I understand to be the real groundof the quarrel) that Turkey should define by treaty, or convention, orby a simple note, or memorandum, what was conceded, and what were therights of Russia, in order that the Government of Russia might notsuffer in future from the varying policy and the vacillation of theOttoman Government. 

Now, it seems to me quite impossible to discuss this question withoutconsidering the actual condition of Turkey. The hon. Member forAylesbury (Mr. Layard) assumes that they who do not agree in the policyhe advocates are necessarily hostile to the Turks, and have no sympathyfor Turkey. I repudiate such an assumption altogether. I can feel for acountry like that, if it be insulted or oppressed by a powerfulneighbour; but all that sympathy may exist without my being able toconvince myself that it is the duty of this country to enter into theserious obligation of a war in defence of the rights of that country. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton is one of the very few men inthis House, or out of it, who are bold enough to insist upon it thatthere is a growing strength in the Turkish Empire. There was a Gentlemanin this House, sixty years ago, who, in the debates in 1791, expressedthe singular opinion which the noble Lord now holds. There was a Mr. Stanley in the House at that period, who insisted on the growing powerof Turkey, and asserted that the Turks of that day 'were more and moreimitating our manners, and emerging from their inactivity and indolence;that improvements of every kind were being introduced among them, andthat even printing-presses had been lately established in theircapital. ' That was the opinion of a Gentleman anxious to defend Turkey, and speaking in this House more than sixty years ago; we are now livingsixty years later, and no one now, but the noble Lord, seems to insistupon the fact of the great and growing power of the Turkish Empire. 

If any one thing is more apparent than another, on the face of all thedocuments furnished to the House by the Government of which the nobleLord is a Member, it is this, that the Turkish Empire is falling, or hasfallen, into a state of decay, and into anarchy so permanent as to haveassumed a chronic character. The noble Lord surely has not forgottenthat Turkey has lost the Crimea and Bessarabia, and its control over theDanubian Principalities; that the Kingdom of Greece has been carved outof it; that it has lost its authority over Algiers, and has run greatrisk of being conquered by its own vassal the Pasha of Egypt; and fromthis he might have drawn the conclusion that the empire was graduallyfalling into decay, and that to pledge ourselves to effect its recoveryand sustentation, is to undertake what no human power will be able toaccomplish. I only ask the House to turn to the statements which will befound nearly at the end of the first of the Blue Books recently placedon the table of the House, and they will find that there is scarcely anycalamity which can be described as afflicting any country, which is notthere proved to be present, and actively at work, in almost everyprovince of the Turkish Empire. And the House should bear in mind, whenreading these despatches from the English Consuls in Turkey to theEnglish Ambassador at Constantinople, that they give a very faintpicture of what really exists, because what are submitted to us are butextracts of more extended and important communications. It may fairly beassumed that the parts which are not published are those which describedthe state of things to be so bad, that the Government has been unwillingto lay before the House, and the country, and the world, that whichwould be so offensive and so injurious to its ally the Sultan of Turkey. 

But, if other evidence be wanting, is it not a fact that Constantinopleis the seat of intrigues and factions to a degree not known in any othercountry or capital in the world? France demands one thing, Russiaanother, England a third, and Austria something else. For many yearspast our Ambassador at Constantinople has been partly carrying on thegovernment of that country, and influencing its policy, and it is thecity in which are fought the diplomatic contests of the Great Powers ofEurope. And if I have accurately described the state of Turkey, what isthe position of Russia? It is a powerful country, under a strongExecutive Government; it is adjacent to a weak and falling nation; ithas in its history the evidences of a succession of triumphs overTurkey; it has religious affinities with a majority of the population ofEuropean Turkey which make it absolutely impossible that its Governmentshould not, more or less, interfere, or have a strong interest, in theinternal policy of the Ottoman Empire. Now, if we were Russian--and Iput the case to the Members of this House--is it not likely, accordingto all the theories I have heard explained when we have been concernedin similar cases, that a large majority of the House and the countrywould be strongly in favour of such intervention as Russia hasattempted? and if I opposed it, as I certainly should oppose it, Ishould be in a minority on that question more insignificant than that inwhich I have now the misfortune to find myself with regard to the policyof the Government on the grave question now before us. 

The noble Lord the Member for London has made a statement of the case ofthe Government, and in favour of this Address to the Crown; but Ithought it was a statement remarkably feeble in fact and in argument, ifintended as a justification of the course he and his Colleagues havetaken. For the purposes of the noble Lord's defence, the Russian demandupon Turkey is assumed to be something of far greater importance than Ihave been able to discover it to be from a careful examination of theterms in which it was couched. The noble Lord himself, in one of hisdespatches, admits that Russia had reason to complain, and that she hascertain rights and duties by treaty, and by tradition, with regard tothe protection of the Christians in Turkey. Russia asserted theserights, and wished to have them defined in a particular form; and it wason the question of the form of the demand, and the manner in which itshould be conceded, that the whole of this unfortunate difference hasarisen. Now, if Russia made certain demands on Turkey, this countryinsisted that Turkey should not consent to them; for although the nobleLord has attempted to show that Turkey herself, acting for herself, hadresolved to resist, I defy any one to read the despatches of LordStratford de Redcliffe without coming to the conclusion that, from thebeginning to the end of the negotiations, the English Ambassador hadinsisted, in the strongest manner, that Turkey should refuse to make theslightest concession on the real point at issue in the demands of theRussian Government. As a proof of that statement, I may refer to theaccount given by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in his despatch of the 5thof May, 1853, of the private interview he had with the Sultan, theMinister of the Sultan having left him at the door, that the interviewmight be strictly private. In describing that interview, Lord Stratfordsays, 'I then endeavoured to give him a just idea of the degree ofdanger to which his Empire was exposed. ' The Sultan was not sufficientlyaware of his danger, and the English Ambassador 'endeavoured to give hima just idea of it;' and it was by means such as this that he urged uponthe Turkish Government the necessity of resistance to any of the demandsof Russia, promising the armed assistance of England, whateverconsequences might ensue. From the moment that promise was made, or fromthe moment it was sanctioned by the Cabinet at home, war was all butinevitable; they had entered into a partnership with the TurkishGovernment (which, indeed, could scarcely be called a Government atall), to assist it by military force; and Turkey, having old quarrels tosettle with Russia, and old wrongs to avenge, was not slow to plungeinto the war, having secured the co-operation of two powerful nations, England and France, in her quarrel. 

Now, I have no special sympathy with Russia, and I refuse to discuss orto decide this question on grounds of sympathy with Russia or withTurkey; I consider it simply as it affects the duties and the interestsof my own country. I find that after the first proposition for a treatyhad been made by Prince Menchikoff, that envoy made some concession, andasked only for a _Sened_, or Convention; and when that wasdisapproved of, he offered to accept a note, or memorandum merely, thatshould specify what should be agreed upon. But the Turk was advised toresist, first the treaty, then the convention, and then the note ormemorandum; and an armed force was promised on behalf of this country. At the same time he knew that he would incur the high displeasure ofEngland and France, and especially of England, if he made the slightestconcession to Russia. It was about the middle of May that PrinceMenchikoff left Constantinople, not having succeeded in obtaining anyconcession from the Porte; and it was on the 3rd of July that theRussian forces crossed the Pruth; thinking, I believe, by making a dashat the Principalities, to coerce Turkey, and deter her allies fromrendering her the promised support. It has been assumed by some, that ifEngland had declared war last year, Russia would have been deterred fromany further step, and that the whole matter would have been settled atonce. I, however, have no belief that Russia on the one hand, or Englandand France on the other, would have been bullied into any change ofpolicy by means of that kind. 

I come now to the celebrated 'Vienna note. ' I am bound here to say, thatnobody has yet been able clearly to explain the difference between thevarious notes Turkey has been advised to reject, and this and othernotes she has been urged to accept. With respect to this particularnote, nobody seems to have understood it. There were four Ambassadors atVienna, representing England, France, Austria, and Prussia; and thesefour gentlemen drew up the Vienna note, and recommended it to the Porteas one which she might accept without injury to her independence or herhonour. Louis Napoleon is a man knowing the use of language, and able tocomprehend the meaning of a document of this nature, and his Minister ofForeign Affairs is a man of eminent ability; and Louis Napoleon and hisMinister agree with the Ambassadors at Vienna as to the character of theVienna note. We have a Cabinet composed of men of great individualcapacity; a Cabinet, too, including no less than five Gentlemen who havefilled the office of Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and who may, therefore, be presumed to understand even the sometimes concealedmeaning of diplomatic phraseology. These five Foreign Secretaries, backed by the whole Cabinet, concurred with the Ambassadors at Vienna, and with the Emperor of the French and his Foreign Secretary, inrecommending the Vienna note to the Sultan as a document which he mightaccept consistently with his honour, and with that integrity and thatindependence which our Government is so anxious to secure for him. Whatwas done with this note? Passing by the marvellous stupidity, orsomething worse, which caused that note not to be submitted to Turkeybefore it was sent to St. Petersburg, he would merely state that it wassent to St. Petersburg, and was accepted in its integrity by the Emperorof Russia in the most frank and unreserved manner. We were then told--Iwas told by Members of the Government--that the moment the note wasaccepted by Russia we might consider the affair to be settled, and thatthe dispute would never be heard of again. When, however, the note wassent to Constantinople, after its acceptance by Russia, Turkeydiscovered, or thought, or said she discovered, that it was as bad asthe original or modified proposition of Prince Menchikoff, and sherefused the note as it was, and proposed certain modifications. And whatare we to think of these arbitrators or mediators--the four Ambassadorsat Vienna, and the Governments of France and England--who, afterdiscussing the matter in three different cities, and at three distinctand different periods, and after agreeing that the proposition was onewhich Turkey could assent to without detriment to her honour andindependence, immediately afterwards turned round, and declared that thenote was one which Turkey could not be asked to accede to, andrepudiated in the most formal and express manner that which theythemselves had drawn up, and which, only a few days before, they hadapproved of as a combination of wisdom and diplomatic dexterity whichhad never been excelled?

But it was said that the interpretation which Count Nesselrode placedupon this note made it impossible for Turkey to accede to it. I verymuch doubt whether Count Nesselrode placed any meaning upon it which itdid not fairly warrant, and it is impossible to say whether he reallydiffered at all from the actual intentions of the four Ambassadors atVienna. But I can easily understand the course taken by the RussianMinister. It was this:--seeing the note was rejected by the Turk, andconsidering that its previous acceptance by Russia was some concessionfrom the original demand, he issued a circular, giving such anexplanation or interpretation of the Vienna note as might enable him toget back to his original position, and might save Russia from beingcommitted and damaged by the concession, which, for the sake of peace, she had made. This circular, however, could make no real difference inthe note itself; and notwithstanding this circular, whatever the notereally meant, it would have been just as binding upon Russia as anyother note will be that may be drawn up and agreed to at the end of thewar. Although, however, this note was considered inadmissible, negotiations were continued; and at the Conference at Olmutz, at whichthe Earl of Westmoreland was present, the Emperor of Russia himselfexpressed his willingness to accept the Vienna note--not in the sensethat Count Nesselrode had placed upon it, but in that which theAmbassadors at Vienna declared to be its real meaning, and with such aclause as they should attach to it, defining its real meaning. 

It is impossible from this fairly to doubt the sincerity of the desirefor peace manifested by the Emperor of Russia. He would accept the noteprepared by the Conference at Vienna, sanctioned by the Cabinets inLondon and Paris, and according to the interpretation put upon it bythose by whom it had been prepared--such interpretation to be defined ina clause, to be by them attached to the original note. But in theprecise week in which these negotiations were proceeding apparently to afavourable conclusion, the Turkish Council, consisting of a large numberof dignitaries of the Turkish Empire--not one of whom, however, represented the Christian majority of the population of Turkey, butinspired by the fanaticism and desperation of the old Mahomedan party--assembled; and, fearful that peace would be established, and that theywould lose the great opportunity of dragging England and France into awar with their ancient enemy the Emperor of Russia, they came to asudden resolution in favour of war; and in the very week in which Russiaagreed to the Vienna note in the sense of the Vienna Conference, theTurks declared war against Russia, --the Turkish forces crossed theDanube, and began the war, involving England in an inglorious and costlystruggle, from which this Government and a succeeding Government mayfail to extricate us. 

I differ very much from those Gentlemen who condemn the Government forthe tardy nature of their proceedings. I never said or thought that theGovernment was not honestly anxious for peace; but I believe, and indeedI know, that at an early period they committed themselves and thecountry to a policy which left the issue of peace or war in other handsthan their own--namely, in the hands of the Turks, the very last handsin which I am willing to trust the interests and the future of thiscountry. In my opinion, the original blunder was committed when theTurks were advised to resist and not to concede; and the second blunderwas made when the Turks were supported in their rejection of the Viennanote; for the moment the four Powers admitted that their recommendationwas not necessarily to be accepted by the Porte, they put themselvesentirely into the hands of the Turk, and might be dragged into any depthof confusion and war in which that respectable individual might wish toinvolve them. 

The course taken by Turkey in beginning the war was against the strongadvice of her allies; but, notwithstanding this, the moment the step wastaken, they turned round again, as in the case of the Vienna note, andjustified and defended her in the course she had adopted, in defiance ofthe remonstrances they had urged against it. In his speech to-night, thenoble Lord (Lord J. Russell) has occupied some time in showing thatTurkey was fully justified in declaring war. I should say nothingagainst that view, if Turkey were fighting on her own resources; but Imaintain that, if she is in alliance with England and France, theopinions of those Powers should at least have been heard, and that, incase of her refusal to listen to their counsel, they would have beenjustified in saying to her, 'If you persist in taking your own course, we cannot be involved in the difficulties to which it may give rise, butmust leave you to take the consequences of your own acts. ' But this wasnot said, and the result is, that we are dragged into a war by themadness of the Turk, which, but for the fatal blunders we havecommitted, we might have avoided. 

There have been three plans for dealing with this Turkish question, advocated by as many parties in this country. The first finds favourwith two or three Gentlemen who usually sit on the bench below me--witha considerable number out of doors--and with a portion of the publicpress. These persons were anxious to have gone to war during lastsummer. They seem actuated by a frantic and bitter hostility to Russia, and, without considering the calamities in which they might involve thiscountry, they have sought to urge it into a great war, as they imagined, on behalf of European freedom, and in order to cripple the resources ofRussia. I need hardly say that I have not a particle of sympathy withthat party, or with that policy. I think nothing can be more unwise thanthat party, and nothing more atrocious than their policy. But there wasanother course recommended, and which the Government has followed. Wardelayed, but still certain--arrangements made which placed the issue ofwar in other hands than in those of the Government of this country--thatis the policy which the Government has pursued, and in my opinion it isfatal to Turkey, and disastrous to England. There is a third course, andwhich I should have, and indeed have all along recommended--that warshould have been avoided by the acceptance on the part of Turkey eitherof the last note of Prince Menchikoff, or of the Vienna note; or, ifTurkey would not consent to either, that then she should have beenallowed to enter into the war alone, and England and France--supposingthey had taken, and continued to take, the same view of the interests ofWestern Europe which they have hitherto taken--might have stood aloofuntil the time when there appeared some evident danger of the war beingsettled on terms destructive of the balance of power; and then theymight have come in, and have insisted on a different settlement. I wouldeither have allowed or compelled Turkey to yield, or would have insistedon her carrying on the war alone. 

The question is, whether the advantages both to Turkey and England ofavoiding war altogether, would have been less than those which arelikely to arise from the policy which the Government has pursued? Now, if the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton is right in saying that Turkeyis a growing Power, and that she has elements of strength whichunlearned persons like myself know nothing about; surely no immediate, or sensible, or permanent mischief could have arisen to her from theacceptance of the Vienna note, which all the distinguished persons whoagreed to it have declared to be perfectly consistent with her honourand independence. If she has been growing stronger and stronger of lateyears, surely she would have grown still stronger in the future, andthere might have been a reasonable expectation that, whateverdisadvantages she might have suffered for a time from that note, hergrowing strength would have enabled her to overcome them, while thepeace of Europe might have been preserved. But suppose that Turkey isnot a growing Power, but that the Ottoman rule in Europe is tottering toits fall, I come to the conclusion that, whatever advantages wereafforded to the Christian population of Turkey would have enabled themto grow more rapidly in numbers, in industry, in wealth, inintelligence, and in political power; and that, as they thus increasedin influence, they would have become more able, in case any accident, which might not be far distant, occurred, to supplant the Mahomedanrule, and to establish themselves in Constantinople as a ChristianState, which, I think, every man who hears me will admit is infinitelymore to be desired than that the Mahomedan power should be permanentlysustained by the bayonets of France and the fleets of England. Europewould thus have been at peace; for I do not think even the most bitterenemies of Russia believe that the Emperor of Russia intended last year, if the Vienna note or Prince Menchikoff's last and most moderateproposition had been accepted, to have marched on Constantinople. Indeed, he had pledged himself in the most distinct manner to withdrawhis troops at once from the Principalities, if the Vienna note wereaccepted; and therefore in that case Turkey would have been deliveredfrom the presence of the foe; peace would for a time have been securedto Europe; and the whole matter would have drifted on to its naturalsolution--which is, that the Mahomedan power in Europe should eventuallysuccumb to the growing power of the Christian population of the Turkishterritories. 

The noble Lord the Member for London, and his colleague the noble Lordthe Member for Tiverton, when they speak of the aggrandisement of Russiarelatively to the rest of Europe, always speak of the 'balance of power'a term which it is not easy to define. It is a hackneyed term--a phraseto which it is difficult to attach any definite meaning. I wish thenoble Lord would explain what is meant by the balance of power. In 1791, the whole Whig party repudiated the proposition that Turkey had anythingto do with the balance of power. Mr. Burke, in 1791, when speaking onthat subject, used the following language:--

 'He had never heard it said before, that the Turkish Empire was ever considered as any part of the balance of power in Europe. They had nothing to do with European policy; they considered themselves as wholly Asiatic. What had these worse than savages to do with the Powers of Europe, but to spread war, destruction, and pestilence among them? The Ministry and the policy which would give these people any weight in Europe, would deserve all the bans and curses of posterity. All that was holy in religion, all that was moral and humane, demanded an abhorrence of everything which tended to extend the power of that cruel and wasteful Empire. Any Christian Power was to be preferred to these destructive savages. '

Mr. Whitbread, on the same occasion, said:--

 'Suppose the Empress at Constantinople, and the Turks expelled from the European provinces, would any unprejudiced man contend that by such an event mankind would not be largely benefited? Would any man contend that the expulsion of a race of beings whose abominable tyranny proscribed the arts, and literature, and everything that was good, and great, and amiable, would not conduce to the prosperity and happiness of the world? He was convinced it would. This was an event with which the paltry consideration of the nice adjustment of the balance in Europe was not to be put in competition, although he was a friend to that balance on broad and liberal principles. He abhorred the wretched policy which could entertain a wish that the most luxuriant part of the earth should remain desolate and miserable that a particular system might be maintained. '

And Mr. Fox, when speaking of Mr. Pitt's system, said--and be itremembered that nobody is so great an authority with the noble Lord theMember for London as Mr. Fox, whose words I am now about to quote:--

 'His (Mr. Pitt's) defensive system was wicked and absurd--that every country which appeared, from whatever cause, to be growing great, should be attacked; that all the Powers of Europe should be confined to the same precise situation in which this defensive system found them.... Her (Russia's) extent of territory, scanty revenue, and thin population made her power by no means formidable to us--a Power whom we could neither attack nor be attacked by; and this was the Power against which we were going to war. Overturning the Ottoman Empire he conceived to be an argument of no weight. The event was not probable; and if it should happen, it was more likely to be of advantage than injurious to us. '

It will probably be said, that these were opinions held by Gentlemen whosat on that side of the House, and who were ready to advocate any coursethat might serve to damage the Ministers of the day. I should be sorryto think so, especially of a man whose public character is so much to beadmired as that of Mr. Fox; but I will come to a much later period, andproduce authority of a very similar kind. Many hon. Members now in theHouse recollect the late Lord Holland, and they all know his sagacityand what his authority was with the party with which he was connected. What did he say? Why, so late as the year 1828, when this question wasmooted in the House of Lords, he said:--

 'No, my Lords, I hope I shall never see--God forbid I ever should see--for the proposition would be scouted from one end of England to another any preparations or any attempt to defend this our "ancient ally" from the attacks of its enemies. There was no arrangement made in that treaty for preserving the crumbling and hateful, or, as Mr. Burke called it, that wasteful and disgusting Empire of the Turks, from dismemberment and destruction; and none of the Powers who were parties to that treaty will ever, I hope, save the falling Empire of Turkey from ruin. '

I hope it will not be supposed that I am animated by any hostility toTurkey, in quoting sentiments and language such as this, for I have asmuch sympathy with what is just towards that country as any other mancan have; but the question is, not what is just to Turkey, but what isjust to this country, and what this House, as the depositary of thepower of this country, has a right to do with regard to this mostdangerous question. I am, therefore, at liberty to quote from thestatesmen of 1791 and 1828, the political fathers and authorities of thenoble Lord the Member for London, and to say, that if I hold opinionsdifferent from those held by the Government, I am, at least, notsingular in those opinions, for I can quote great names and highauthorities in support of the course I am taking. 

This 'balance of power' is in reality the hinge on which the wholequestion turns. But if that is so important as to be worth a sanguinarywar, why did you not go to war with France when she seized upon Algiers?That was a portion of Turkey not quite so distinct, it is true, as arethe Danubian Principalities; but still Turkey had sovereign rights overAlgiers. When, therefore, France seized on a large portion of thenorthern coast of Africa, might it not have been said that such an acttended to convert the Mediterranean into a French lake, --that Algierslay next to Tunis, and that, having conquered Tunis, there would remainonly Tripoli between France and Alexandria, and that the 'balance ofpower' was being destroyed by the aggrandisement of France? All thismight have been said, and the Government might easily have plunged thecountry into war on that question. But happily the Government of thatday had the good sense not to resist, and the result had not beendisadvantageous to Europe; this country had not suffered from theseizure of Algiers, and England and France had continued at peace. 

Take another case--the case of the United States. The United Stateswaged war with Mexico--a war with a weaker State--in my opinion, anunjust and unnecessary war. If I had been a citizen of the AmericanRepublic, I should have condemned that war; but might it not have beenas justly argued that, if we allowed the aggressive attacks of theUnited States upon Mexico, her insatiable appetite would soon be turnedtowards the north--towards the dependencies of this Empire--and that themagnificent colonies of the Canadas would soon fall a prey to theassaults of their rapacious neighbour? But such arguments were not used, and it was not thought necessary to involve this country in a war forthe support of Mexico, although the Power that was attacking thatcountry lay adjacent to our own dominions. 

If this phrase of the 'balance of power' is to be always an argument forwar, the pretence for war will never be wanting, and peace can never besecure. Let any one compare the power of this country with that ofAustria now, and forty years ago. Will any one say that England, compared with Austria, is now three times as powerful as she was thirtyor forty years ago? Austria has a divided people, bankrupt finances, andher credit is so low that she cannot borrow a shilling out of her ownterritories; England has a united people, national wealth rapidlyincreasing, and a mechanical and productive power to which that ofAustria is as nothing. Might not Austria complain that we have disturbedthe 'balance of power' because we are growing so much stronger frombetter government, from the greater union of our people, from the wealththat is created by the hard labour and skill of our population, and fromthe wonderful development of the mechanical resources of the kingdom, which is seen on every side? If this phrase of the 'balance of power'the meaning of which nobody can exactly make out, is to be brought in onevery occasion to stimulate this country to war, there is an end to allhope of permanent peace. 

There is, indeed, a question of a 'balance of power' which this countrymight regard, if our statesmen had a little less of those narrow viewswhich they sometimes arrogantly impute to me and to those who think withme. If they could get beyond those old notions which belong to thetraditions of Europe, and cast their eyes as far westward as they arenow looking eastward, they might there see a power growing up in itsgigantic proportions, which will teach us before very long where thetrue 'balance of power' is to be found. This struggle may indeed beginwith Russia, but it may end with half the States of Europe; for Austriaand Prussia are just as likely to join with Russia as with England andFrance, and probably much more so; and we know not how long allianceswhich now appear very secure, may remain so; for the circumstances inwhich the Government has involved us are of the most critical character, and we stand upon a mine which may explode any day. Give us seven yearsof this infatuated struggle upon which we are now entering, and let theUnited States remain at peace during that period, and who shall say whatwill then be the relative positions of the two nations? Have you readthe Reports of your own Commissioners to the New York Exhibition? Do youcomprehend what is the progress of that country, as exhibited in itstonnage, and exports, and imports, and manufactures, and in thedevelopment of all its resources, and the means of transit? There hasbeen nothing like it hitherto under the sun. The United States mayprofit to a large extent by the calamities which will befall us; whilstwe, under the miserable and lunatic idea that we are about to set theworn-out Turkish Empire on its legs, and permanently to sustain itagainst the aggressions of Russia, are entangled in a war. Our tradewill decay and diminish--our people, suffering and discontented, as inall former periods of war, will emigrate in increasing numbers to acountry whose wise policy is to keep itself free from the entanglementof European politics--to a country with which rests the great question, whether England shall, for any long time, retain that which sheprofesses to value so highly--her great superiority in industry and atsea. 

This whole notion of the 'balance of power' is a mischievous delusionwhich has come down to us from past times; we ought to drive it from ourminds, and to consider the solemn question of peace or war on moreclear, more definite, and on far higher principles than any that areinvolved in the phrase the 'balance of power. ' What is it the Governmentpropose to do? Let us examine their policy as described in the messagefrom the Crown, and in the Address which has been moved to-night. As Iunderstand it, we are asked to go to war to maintain the 'integrity andindependence of the Ottoman Empire'--to curb the aggressive power ofRussia--and to defend the interests of this country. 

These are the three great objects to which the efforts and resources ofthis country are to be directed. The noble Lord the Member for Londonis, I think, the author of the phrase 'the integrity and independence'of Turkey. If I am not mistaken, he pledged himself to this more than ayear ago, when he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in aletter to somebody at Newcastle-on-Tyne, in answer to an Address fromcertain enthusiasts in that town, who exhorted the Government to step infor the support of the Ottoman Empire. But what is the condition of thatEmpire at this moment? I have already described to the House what itwould have been if my policy had been adopted--if the thrice-modifiednote of Prince Menchikoff had been accepted, or if the Vienna note hadbeen assented to by the Porte. But what is it now under the protectionof the noble Lord and his Colleagues? At the present moment there are noless than three foreign armies on Turkish soil: there are 100, 000Russian troops in Bulgaria; there are armies from England and Franceapproaching the Dardanelles, to entrench themselves on Turkishterritory, and to return nobody knows when. All this can hardlycontribute to the 'independence' of any country. But more than this:there are insurrections springing up in almost every Turkish province, and insurrections which must, from the nature of the Turkish Government, widely extend; and it is impossible to describe the anarchy which mustprevail, inasmuch as the control heretofore exercised by the Governmentto keep the peace is now gone, by the withdrawal of its troops to thebanks of the Danube; and the licence and demoralization engendered byages of bad government will be altogether unchecked. In addition tothese complicated horrors, there are 200, 000 men under arms; the stateof their finances is already past recovery; and the allies of Turkey aremaking demands upon her far beyond anything that was required by Russiaherself. Can anything be more destructive of the 'integrity andindependence' of Turkey than the policy of the noble Lord?

I have seen only this day a letter in the Times from its Correspondentat Constantinople, which states that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe and oneof the Pashas of the Porte had spent a whole night in the attempt toarrange concessions which her allies had required on behalf of theChristian population of Turkey. The Christians are to be allowed to holdlanded property; the capitation tax is to be abolished--for they areactually contending for the abolition of that which the hon. Member forAylesbury (Mr. Layard) says is a positive benefit to those upon whom itis imposed; and the evidence of Christians is to be admitted into courtsof justice. But the _Times_' Correspondent asks, what is the use ofa decree at Constantinople, which will have no effect in the provinces?--for the judges are Turks of the old school, and they will have littlesympathy with a change under which a Christian in a court of justice ismade equal with his master the Turk. This Correspondent describes whatTurkey really wants--not three foreign armies on her soil, nor any otherthing which our Government is about to give her, but 'a pure executive, a better financial administration, and sensible laws;' and it must beadmitted that the true wants of the country are not likely soon to besupplied. 

Now, so far as regards Turkey herself, and the 'integrity andindependence' of that Empire, I put it seriously to the House--do youbelieve, that if the Government and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe hadadvised Turkey to accept the last note of Prince Menchikoff, a note solittle different from the others, offered before and since, that it wasimpossible to discover in what the distinction consisted; or if theGovernment had insisted on Turkey accepting, as the condition of theirco-operation, the Vienna note, either as at first proposed by theConference, or with the explanatory definitions with which the Emperorof Russia at Olmutz offered to accept it, that they would have injuredthe 'integrity and independence' of Turkey? Nay, I will not insult youby asking whether, under such circumstances, that 'integrity andindependence' would not have been a thousand times more secure than itis at this hour? If that be true, then the 'balance of power' theory hasbeen entirely overthrown by the policy of the Government, for no onewill argue that Turkey will come out of her present difficulties moreable to cope with the power of Russia than she was before. With herfinances hopelessly exhausted, will she ever again be able to raise anarmy of 200, 000 men? But there are men, and I suspect there arestatesmen, in this country, and men in office, too, who believe thatTurkey will not be Turkey at the end of this war--that she cannot comeout of it an Ottoman Power--that such a convulsion has been created, that while we are ready to contend with half the world to support the'integrity and independence' of the Ottoman Empire, there will shortlybe no Ottoman Empire to take the benefit of the enormous sacrifices weare about to make. 

But we are undertaking to repress and to curb Russian aggression. Theseare catching words; they have been amplified in newspapers, and havepassed from mouth to mouth, and have served to blind the eyes ofmultitudes wholly ignorant of the details of this question. If Turkeyhas been in danger from the side of Russia heretofore, will she not bein far greater danger when the war is over? Russia is always there. Youdo not propose to dismember Russia, or to blot out her name from themap, and her history from the records of Europe. Russia will be alwaysthere--always powerful, always watchful, and actuated by the samemotives of ambition, either of influence or of territory, which aresupposed to have moved her in past times. What, then, do you propose todo? and how is Turkey to be secured? Will you make a treaty with Russia, and force conditions upon her? But if so, what security have you thatone treaty will be more binding than another? It is easy to find or makea reason for breaking a treaty, when it is the interest of a country tobreak it. 

I recollect reading a statement made by the illustrious Washington, whenit was proposed to land a French army in North America, to assist thecolonies in overthrowing the yoke of this country. Washington was afraidof them--he did not know whether these allies once landed might not beas difficult to get rid of as the English troops he was endeavouring toexpel; for, said he, 'whatever may be the convention entered into, myexperience teaches me that nations and Governments rarely abide byconventions or treaties longer than it is their interest to do so. ' Soyou may make a treaty with Russia; but if Russia is still powerful andambitious--as she certainly will be--and if Turkey is exhausted andenfeebled by the war--as she certainly will be--then I want to know whatguarantee you have, the moment the resources of Russia have recoveredfrom the utmost degree of humiliation and exhaustion to which you maysucceed in reducing her, that she will not again insist on terms withTurkey infinitely more perilous than those you have ruined Turkey byurging her to refuse? It is a delusion to suppose you can dismemberRussia--that you can blot her from the map of Europe--that you can takeguarantees from her, as some seem to imagine, as easily as you take bailfrom an offender, who would otherwise go to prison for three months. England and France cannot do this with a stroke of the pen, and thesword will equally fail if the attempt be made. 

But I come now to another point. How are the interests of Englandinvolved in this question? This is, after all, the great matter whichwe, the representatives of the people of England, have to consider. Itis not a question of sympathy with any other State. I have sympathy withTurkey; I have sympathy with the serfs of Russia; I have sympathy withthe people of Hungary, whose envoy the noble Lord the Member forTiverton refused to see, and the overthrow of whose struggle for freedomby the armies of Russia he needlessly justified in this House; I havesympathy with the Italians, subjects of Austria, Naples, and the Pope; Ihave sympathy with the three millions of slaves in the United States;but it is not on a question of sympathy that I dare involve thiscountry, or any country, in a war which must cost an incalculable amountof treasure and of blood. It is not my duty to make this country theknight-errant of the human race, and to take upon herself the protectionof the thousand millions of human beings who have been permitted by theCreator of all things to people this planet. 

I hope no one will assume that I would invite--that is the phrase whichhas been used--the aggressions of Russia. If I were a Russian, speakingin a Russian Parliament, I should denounce any aggression upon Turkey, as I now blame the policy of our own Government; and I greatly fear Ishould find myself in a minority, as I now find myself in a minority onthis question. But it has never yet been explained how the interests ofthis country are involved in the present dispute. We are not going tofight for tariffs, or for markets for our exports. In 1791, Mr. Greyargued that, as our imports from Russia exceeded 1, 000, 000_l_. Sterling, it was not desirable that we should go to war with a countrytrading with us to that amount. In 1853, Russia exported to this countryat least 14, 000, 000_l_. Sterling, and that fact affords no proof ofthe increasing barbarism of Russia, or of any disregard of her owninterests as respects the development of her resources. What has passedin this House since the opening of the present session? We had a largesurplus revenue, and our Chancellor of the Exchequer is an ambitiousChancellor. I have no hope in any statesman who has no ambition; he canhave no great object before him, and his career will be unmarked by anydistinguished services to his country. 

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered office, doubtless he hoped, by great services to his country, to build up a reputation such as a manmay labour for and live for. Every man in this House, even those mostopposed to him, acknowledged the remarkable capacity which he displayedduring the last session, and the country has set its seal to this--thathis financial measures, in the remission and readjustment of taxation, were worthy of the approbation of the great body of the people. Theright hon. Gentleman has been blamed for his speech at Manchester, notfor making the speech, but because it differed from the tone of thespeech made by the noble Lord, his colleague in office, at Greenock. Iobserved that difference. There can be no doubt that there has been, andthat there is now, a great difference of opinion in the Cabinet on thisEastern question. It could not be otherwise; and Government has gone onfrom one step to another; they have drifted--to use the happy expressionof Lord Clarendon to describe what is so truly unhappy--they havedrifted from a state of peace to a state of war; and to no Member of theGovernment could this state of things be more distressing than to theChancellor of the Exchequer, for it dashed from him the hopes heentertained that session after session, as trade extended and the publicrevenue increased, he would find himself the beneficent dispenser ofblessings to the poor, and indeed to all classes of the people of thiskingdom. Where is the surplus now? No man dare even ask for it, or forany portion of it. 

Here is my right hon. Friend and Colleague, who is resolved on theabolition of the newspaper stamp. I can hardly imagine a more importantquestion than that, if it be desirable for the people to be instructedin their social and political obligations; and yet my right hon. Friendhas scarcely the courage to ask for the abolition of that odious tax. Ibelieve, indeed, that my right hon. Friend has a plan to submit to theChancellor by which the abolition of the stamp may be accomplishedwithout sacrifice to the Exchequer, but that I will not go into atpresent. But this year's surplus is gone, and next year's surplus isgone with it; and you have already passed a Bill to double the income-tax. And it is a mistake to suppose that you will obtain double the sumby simply doubling the tax. Many persons make an average of theirincomes, and make a return accordingly. The average will not besustained at the bidding of Parliament; and profits that wereconsiderable last year, will henceforth show a great diminution, or willhave vanished altogether. I mention this for the benefit of the countrygentlemen, because it is plain that real property, lands and houses, must bear the burden of this war; for I will undertake to say, that theChancellor of the Exchequer will prefer to leave that bench, and willtake his seat in some other quarter of the House, rather than retracethe steps which Sir Robert Peel took in 1842. He is not the promoter ofthis war; his speeches have shown that he is anxious for peace, and thathe hoped to be a Minister who might dispense blessings by the remissionof taxes to the people; and I do not believe the right hon. Gentlemanwill consent to be made the instrument to reimpose upon the country theExcise duties which have been repealed, or the Import duties which inpast times inflicted such enormous injury upon trade. The property-taxis the lever, or the weapon, with which the proprietors of lands andhouses in this kingdom will have to support the 'integrity andindependence' of the Ottoman Empire. Gentlemen, I congratulate you, thatevery man of you has a Turk upon his shoulders. 

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) spoke of our 'triumphantposition'--the position in which the Government has placed us bypledging this country to support the Turks. I see nothing like a triumphin the fact, that in addition to our many duties to our own country, wehave accepted the defence of twenty millions or more of the people ofTurkey, on whose behalf, but, I believe, not for their benefit, we areabout to sacrifice the blood and treasure of England. But there areother penalties and other considerations. I will say little about theReform Bill, because, as the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) is aware, Ido not regard it as an unmixed blessing. But I think even hon. Gentlemenopposite will admit that it would be well if the representation of thepeople in this House were in a more satisfactory state, and that it isunfortunate that we are not permitted, calmly and with mutual goodfeeling, to consider the question, undisturbed by the thunder ofartillery and undismayed by the disasters which are inseparable from astate of war. 

With regard to trade, I can speak with some authority as to the state ofthings in Lancashire. The Russian trade is not only at an end, but it ismade an offence against the law to deal with any of our customers inRussia. The German trade is most injuriously affected by the uncertaintywhich prevails on the continent of Europe. The Levant trade, a veryimportant branch, is almost extinguished in the present state of affairsin Greece, Turkey in Europe, and Syria. All property in trade isdiminishing in value, whilst its burdens are increasing. The funds havefallen in value to the amount of about 120, 000, 000_l_. Sterling, and railway property is quoted at about 80, 000, 000_l_. Less thanwas the case a year ago. I do not pretend to ask the hon. Member forAylesbury (Mr. Layard) to put these losses, these great destructions ofproperty, against the satisfaction he feels at the 'triumphant position'at which we have arrived. He may content himself with the dream that weare supporting the 'integrity and independence' of Turkey, though Idoubt whether bringing three foreign armies on her soil, raisinginsurrections in her provinces, and hopelessly exhausting her finances, is a rational mode of maintaining her as an independent Power. 

But we are sending out 30, 000 troops to Turkey, and in that number arenot included the men serving on board the fleets. Here are 30, 000 lives!There is a thrill of horror sometimes when a single life is lost, and wesigh at the loss of a friend, or of a casual acquaintance! But here weare in danger of losing--and I give the opinions of military men and notmy own merely--10, 000, or it may be 20, 000 lives, that may be sacrificedin this struggle. I have never pretended to any sympathy for themilitary profession--but I have sympathy for my fellow-men and fellow-countrymen, where-ever they may be. I have heard very melancholyaccounts of the scenes which have been witnessed in the separations fromfamilies occasioned by this expedition to the East. But it will be said, and probably the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton will say, that it isa just war, a glorious war, and that I am full of morbid sentimentality, and have introduced topics not worthy to be mentioned in Parliament. Butthese are matters affecting the happiness of the homes of England, andwe, who are the representatives and guardians of those homes, when thegrand question of war is before us, should know at least that we have acase--that success is probable--and that an object is attainable, whichmay be commensurate with the cost of war. 

There is another point which gives me some anxiety. You are boasting ofan alliance with France. Alliances are dangerous things. It is analliance with Turkey that has drawn us into this war. I would not advisealliances with any nation, but I would cultivate friendship with allnations. I would have no alliance that might drag us into measures whichit is neither our duty nor our interest to undertake. By our presentalliance with Turkey, Turkey cannot make peace without the consent ofEngland and France; and by this boasted alliance with France we may findourselves involved in great difficulties at some future period of thesetransactions. 

I have endeavoured to look at the whole of this question, and I declare, after studying the correspondence which has been laid on the table--knowing what I know of Russia and of Turkey--seeing what I see ofAustria and of Prussia--feeling the enormous perils to which thiscountry is now exposed, I am amazed at the course which the Governmenthave pursued, and I am horrified at the results to which their policymust inevitably tend. I do not say this in any spirit of hostility tothe Government. I have never been hostile to them. I have once or twicefelt it my duty to speak, with some degree of sharpness, of particularMembers of the Administration, but I suspect that in private they wouldadmit that my censure was merited. But I have never entertained a partyhostility to the Government. I know something of the difficulties theyhave had to encounter, and I have no doubt that, in taking office, theyacted in as patriotic a spirit as is generally expected from Members ofthis House. So long as their course was one which I could support, oreven excuse, they have had my support. But this is not an ordinaryquestion; it is not a question of reforming the University of Oxford, orof abolishing 'ministers' money' in Ireland; the matter now before usaffects the character, the policy, and the vital interests of theEmpire; and when I think the Government have committed a grievous--itmay be a fatal error--I am bound to tell them so. 

I am told indeed that the war is popular, and that it is foolish andeccentric to oppose it. I doubt if the war is very popular in thisHouse. But as to what is, or has been popular, I may ask, what was morepopular than the American war? There were persons lately living inManchester who had seen the recruiting party going through the principalstreets of that city, accompanied by the parochial clergy in fullcanonicals, exhorting the people to enlist to put down the rebels in theAmerican colonies. Where is now the popularity of that disastrous anddisgraceful war, and who is the man to defend it? But if hon. Memberswill turn to the correspondence between George III and Lord North, onthe subject of that war, they will find that the King's chief argumentfor continuing the war was, that it would be dishonourable in him tomake peace so long as the war was popular with the people. Again, whatwar could be more popular than the French war? Has not the noble Lord(Lord John Russell) said, not long ago, in this House, that peace wasrendered difficult if not impossible by the conduct of the English pressin 1803? For myself, I do not trouble myself whether my conduct inParliament is popular or not. I care only that it shall be wise and justas regards the permanent interests of my country, and I despise from thebottom of my heart the man who speaks a word in favour of this war, orof any war which he believes might have been avoided, merely because thepress and a portion of the people urge the Government to enter into it. 

I recollect a passage of a distinguished French writer and statesmanwhich bears strongly upon our present position: he says, --

 'The country which can comprehend and act upon the lessons which God has given it in the past events of its history, is secure in the most imminent crises of its fate. '

The past events of our history have taught me that the intervention ofthis country in European wars is not only unnecessary, but calamitous;that we have rarely come out of such intervention having succeeded inthe objects we fought for; that a debt of 800, 000, 000_l_. Sterlinghas been incurred by the policy which the noble Lord approves, apparently for no other reason than that it dates from the time ofWilliam III; and that, not debt alone has been incurred, but that wehave left Europe at least as much in chains as before a single effortwas made by us to rescue her from tyranny. I believe, if this country, seventy years ago, had adopted the principle of nonintervention in everycase where her interests were not directly and obviously assailed, thatshe would have been saved from much of the pauperism and brutal crimesby which our Government and people have alike been disgraced. Thiscountry might have been a garden, every dwelling might have been ofmarble, and every person who treads its soil might have beensufficiently educated. We should indeed have had less of military glory. We might have had neither Trafalgar nor Waterloo; but we should have setthe high example of a Christian nation, free in its institutions, courteous and just in its conduct towards all foreign States, andresting its policy on the unchangeable foundation of Christian morality. 

 * * * * *

RUSSIA. 

II. 

ENLISTMENT OF FOREIGNERS BILL. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, DECEMBER 22, 1854. _From Hansard. _At this hour of the night I shall not make a speech; but I wish to say afew things in answer to the noble Lord the Member for the City ofLondon, who has very strangely misapprehended--I am not allowed to say'misrepresented'--what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for the WestRiding. The noble Lord began by saying that my hon. Friend had chargedthe Government with making war in something of a propagandist spirit infavour of nationalities throughout the Continent; but that was the exactcontrary of what my hon. Friend did say. What he said was, that thatportion of the people of this country who had clamoured for war, andwhose opinion formed the basis whereupon the Government grounded theirplea for the popularity of the war, were in favour of the setting up ofnationalities; but my hon. Friend showed that the Government had no suchobject, and the war no such tendency. The next misrepresentation was, that my hon. Friend had spoken in favour of the _status quo_; butthere is not the shadow of a shade of truth in that statement. What myhon. Friend said was precisely the contrary; but the noble Lord, arguingfrom his own misapprehension of my hon. Friend's meaning, went on thento show that it would not do to establish a peace on the _statusquo_ terms, thus knocking down a position which nobody had set up. The noble Lord was also guilty of another mistake with reference to anobservation of my hon. Friend as to the character and position of theTurks. We have referred over and over again to a monstrous statementmade by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton as to the improvement ofthe Turks--a statement which is contradicted by all facts. Tonight, witha disingenuousness which I should be ashamed to use in argument--[Criesof 'Oh!']--it is very well for hon. Gentlemen who come down to cheer aMinister to cry 'Oh!' but is it a fact, or is it not? Is there a man whohears me who does not know perfectly well, when the noble Lord said thatthe Turks had improved within the last twenty years more than any othernation in Europe, that the statement referred not to the Christians, whose rights and interests we were defending, but to the character ofthe Mahometan population? But to-night, with a disingenuousness which Icould not condescend to be guilty of, the noble Lord has assumed thatthe statement referred to the condition of the Christian population. 

The real question was, as every hon. Gentleman knows, What was thecondition of the Mahometan? and there is not a Gentleman in this Housewho is not aware that the Mahometan portion of the population of theTurkish Empire is in a decaying and dying condition, and that the twogreat Empires which have undertaken to set it on its legs again willfind it about the most difficult task in which they ever were engaged. What do your own officers say? Here is an extract from a letter whichappeared in the papers the other day:--

 They ought to set these rascally Turks to mend them [the roads], which might easily be done, as under the clay there is plenty of capital stone. They are, I am sorry to say, bringing more of these brutes into the Crimea, which makes more mouths to feed, without being of any use. 

I have seen a private letter, too, from an able and distinguishedofficer in the Crimea, who says--

 'Half of us do not know what we are fighting for, and the other half only pray that we may not be fighting for the Turks. '

The only sign of improvement which has been manifested that I know ofis, that on a great emergency, when their Empire, under the advice ofHer Majesty's Government, and that of their Ambassador, was placed in asituation of great peril, the Turks managed to make an expiring effort, and to get up an army which the Government, so far as I can hear, hassince permitted to be almost destroyed. 

Another sign of improvement is, perhaps, that they have begun to weartrowsers; but as to their commerce, their industry, or their revenue, nothing can be in a worse condition. You have now two Empires attemptingto set the Turkish Empire up again; and it is said that a third greatEmpire is also about to engage in the task. The Turk wants to borrowmoney, but he cannot borrow it to-day in the London market at less thanfrom eight to nine per cent. Russia, on the other hand, is an Empireagainst which three great Empires, if Turkey can be counted one still, are now combined, and it is said that a fourth great Empire will soonjoin the ranks of its enemies. But Russian funds at this moment are verylittle lower than the stock of the London and North-Western Railway. Youhave engaged to set this Turkish Empire up again--a task in whicheverybody knows you must fail--and you have persuaded the Turk to enterinto a contest, one of the very first proceedings in which has forcedhim to mortgage to the English capitalist a very large portion--and thesecurest portion, too, of his revenues--namely, that which he derivesfrom Egypt, amounting in fact, in a fiscal and financial point of view, to an actual dismemberment of the Turkish Empire, by a separation ofEgypt from it. Why is it that the noble Lord has tonight come forward asthe defender of the Greeks? Is it that

he has discovered, when this war is over, that Turkey, which he hasundertaken to protect, the Empire which he is to defend and sustainagainst the Emperor of Russia, will have been smothered under hisaffectionate embrace? or, to quote the powerful language of the_Times_, when the Vienna note was refused, that whatever else maybe the result of the war in which Turkey has plunged Europe, this onething is certain, that at its conclusion there may be no Turkish Empireto talk about?

The noble Lord quoted a letter which I wrote some time ago, and which, like others who have discussed it, he found it not easy to answer. Inthat letter I referred to Don Pacifico's case; and I am sure that thenoble Lord the Member for Tiverton will remember a despatch which hereceived through Baron Brunnow, from Count Nesselrode, on that subject, --a despatch which I think the House will forgive my reading to it on thepresent occasion, as it gives the Russian Government's estimation ofthat act of 'material guarantee' on the part of England:--

 'It remains to be seen whether Great Britain, abusing the advantages which are afforded her by her immense maritime superiority, intends henceforth to pursue an isolated policy, without caring for those engagements which bind her to the other Cabinets; whether she intends to disengage herself from every obligation, as well as from all community of action, and to authorize all great Powers, on every fitting opportunity, to recognize to the weak no other rule but their own will, no other right but their own physical strength. Your Excellency will please to read this despatch to Lord Palmerston, and to give him a copy of it. '

If there had been no more temper--no more sense--no more unity in thenegotiations which took place with regard to this matter, in allprobability we might have had a war about it. It was a case in whichRussia might have gone to war with this country, if she had been sominded. But Russia did not do that. Fortunately, the negotiations thatensued settled that question without bringing that disaster upon Europe. But the noble Lord again misinterpreted my hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden). Iappeal to every Gentleman who heard my hon. Friend's speech whether thedrift of it was not this--that in this quarrel, Prussia, and certainlyAustria, had a nearer and stronger interest than England, and that hecould not understand why the terms which Austria might consider fair andsafe for herself and for Turkey, might not be accepted with honour bythis country and by France? Now, I am prepared to show that, from thebeginning of this dispute, there is not a single thing which Austriawished to do in the course of the negotiations, or even which Francewished to do, that the Government of the noble Lord did notsystematically refuse its assent to, and that the noble Lord'sGovernment is alone responsible for the failure in every particularpoint which took place in these negotiations. I will not trouble theHouse by going into the history of these negotiations now, further thanjust to state two facts, which will not take more than a few sentences. The noble Lord referred to the note which Russia wanted Turkey to sign, known as the Menchikoff note; but the noble Lord knows as well as I do, that when the French Ambassador, M. De la Cour, went to Constantinople, or whilst he was at Constantinople, he received express instructionsfrom the Emperor of the French not to take upon himself theresponsibility of inciting the Sultan to reject that note, ['No. '] Iknow this is the fact, because it is stated in Lord Cowley's despatch tothe noble Lord. 

I am expressing no opinion on the propriety of what was here done; Isimply state the fact: and it was through the interference of LordStratford de Redcliffe--acting, I presume, in accordance withinstructions from our Cabinet, and promising the intervention of thefleets--that the rejection of that note was secured. The next fact Ihave to mention is this. When in September, last year, the lastpropositions were drawn up by Counts Buol and Nesselrode, and offered atOlmütz by the Emperor, as a final settlement of the question, althoughAustria and Prussia were in favour of those propositions; though LordWestmoreland himself said (I do not quote his exact words, but theirsubstance) that they were of such a nature as might be received; thusindicating his favourable opinion of them; and though, likewise, theEmperor of the French himself declared that they guarded all the pointsin which England and France were concerned (for this was stated by CountWalewski when he said that the Emperor was prepared to order hisAmbassador at Constantinople to sign them along with the otherAmbassadors, and to offer them to the Porte in exchange for the Viennanote), nevertheless, the Earl of Clarendon wrote, not in a verystatesmanlike manner in such an emergency, but in almost a contemptuoustone, that our Government would not, upon any consideration, haveanything further to do with the Vienna note. The rejection, first of theamended Menchikoff note, and then of the Olmütz note, was a policyadopted solely by the Government of this country, and only concurred in, but not recommended, by the French Government and the other Governmentsof Europe. Whether this policy was right or wrong, there can be no doubtof the fact; and I am prepared to stake my reputation for accuracy andfor a knowledge of the English language on this interpretation of thedocuments which have been laid before us. That being so, on whatpretence could we expect that Austria should go to war in company withus for objects far beyond what she thought satisfactory at thebeginning? or why should we ask the Emperor of the French to go to warfor objects which he did not contemplate, and to insist on conditionswhich, in the month of September of last year, he thought whollyunnecessary?

But one fact more I hope the House will allow me to state. There is adespatch in existence which was never produced to the people of thiscountry, but which made its first appearance in a St. Petersburgnewspaper, and was afterwards published in the Paris journals--adespatch in which the Emperor of the French, or his Minister, urged theRussian Government to accept the Vienna note on the express ground--Igive the exact words--that 'its general sense differed in nothing fromthe sense of the original propositions of Prince Menchikoff. ' Why, Sir, can there be dissimulation more extraordinary--can there be guilt moreconclusive than that this Government should act as it did, after it hadrecommended the Emperor of Russia to accept the Vienna note? For thenoble Lord has told us, over and over again, that the Government ofEngland concurred in all the steps taken by the French Government. TheHouse will allow me to read the very words of the despatch, for, afterall, this is no very small matter. I have an English translation, butthe French original is underneath, and any hon. Gentleman who choosesmay see it. The despatch is from M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the French ForeignMinister, who states:--

 'That which the Cabinet of St. Petersburg ought to desire is an act of the Porte, which testifies that it has taken into serious consideration the mission of Prince Menchikoff, and that it renders homage to the sympathies which an identity of religion inspires in the Emperor Nicholas for all Christians of the Eastern rite. '

And farther on:--

 'They [the French Government] submit it to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg with the hope that it will find that its general sense differs in nothing from the sense of the proposition presented by Prince Menchikoff. '

The French words are:--

 'Que son sens général ne diffère en rien du sens du projet présenté par M. Le Prince Menchikoff. '

It then goes on:--

 'And that it gives it satisfaction on all the essential points of its demands. The slight variation in the form of it will not be observed by the masses of the people, either in Russia or in Turkey. To their eyes, the step taken by the Porte [that is, in accepting it] will preserve all the signification which the Cabinet of St. Petersburg wishes to give it; and His Majesty the Emperor Nicholas will appear to them always as the powerful and respected protector of their religious faith. '

This despatch was written, recommending _la note Française_; whichis the basis of, and is in reality and substance the same thing with, the Vienna note; but, up to this moment, neither the Government ofFrance nor the Government of which the noble Lord is a Member has for aninstant denied the justice--I do not say the extent or degree--but thejustice of the claim made on the part of the Russian Government againstthe Turks; and now they turn round upon their own note and tell you thatthere was a different construction put upon it. Was there anyconstruction put upon it, which was different from the recommendationhere made and the argument used by the French Government? No; and thewhole of that statement is a statement that is delusive, and if I werenot in this House I would characterize it by a harsher epithet. I saynow what I stated in March last, and what I have since said and writtento the country, that you are making war against the Government whichaccepted your own terms of peace; and I state this now only for thepurpose of urging upon the House and upon the Government that you arebound at least, after making war for many months, to exact no furtherterms from the State with which you are at war, than such as will givethat security which at first you believed to be necessary; and that ifyou carry on a war for vengeance--if you carry on a war for conquest--ifyou carry on a war for purposes of Government at home, as many wars havebeen carried on in past times, I say you will be guilty of a heinouscrime, alike in the eyes of God and of man. 

One other remark perhaps the House will permit me to make. The nobleLord spoke very confidently to-night; and a very considerable portion ofhis speech--hoping, as I do, for the restoration of peace at some timeor another--was to me not very satisfactory. I think that he would onlybe acting a more statesmanlike part if, in his speeches, he were atleast to abstain from those trifling but still irritating charges whichhe is constantly making against the Russian Government. I can conceiveone nation going to war with another nation; but why should the nobleLord say, 'The Sovereign of that State does not allow Bibles to becirculated--he suppressed this thing here, and he put down somethingelse there'? What did one of the noble Lord's present colleagues say ofthe Government of our ally? Did he not thank God that his despotismcould not suppress or gag our newspaper press, and declare that thepeople of France were subject to the worst tyranny in Europe? Thesestatements from a Minister--from one who has been Prime Minister, andwho, for aught I know, may be again Prime Minister--show a littlenessthat I did not expect from a statesman of this country, whose fate andwhose interests hang on every word the noble Lord utters, and when thefate of thousands, aye, and of tens of thousands, may depend on whetherthe noble Lord should make one false step in the position in which he isnow placed. 

And when terrible calamities were coming upon your army, where was thisGovernment? One Minister was in Scotland, another at the sea-side, andfor six weeks no meeting of the Cabinet took place. I do not note whenCabinets are held--I sometimes observe that they sit for four or fivehours at a time, and then I think something is wrong--but for sixweeks, or two months, it is said no meeting of the Ministers was held. The noble Lord President was making a small speech on a great subjectsomewhere in Cumberland. At Bedford he descanted on the fate of empires, forgetting that there was nothing so likely to destroy an empire asunnecessary wars. At Bristol he was advocating a new History of England, which, if impartially written, I know not how the noble Lord's policyfor the last few months will show to posterity. The noble Lord theMember for Tiverton undertook a more difficult task--a labour leftunaccomplished by Voltaire--and, when he addressed the Hampshirepeasantry, in one short sentence he overturned the New Testament anddestroyed the foundations of the Christian religion. 

Now, Sir, I have only to speak on one more point. My hon. Friend theMember for the West Riding, in what he said about the condition of theEnglish army in the Crimea, I believe expressed only that which all inthis House feel, and which, I trust, every person in this countrycapable of thinking feels. When I look at Gentlemen on that bench, andconsider all their policy has brought about within the last twelvemonths, I scarcely dare trust myself to speak of them, either in or outof their presence. We all know what we have lost in this House. Here, sitting near me, very often sat the Member for Frome (Colonel Boyle). Imet him a short time before he went out, at Mr. Westerton's, thebookseller, near Hyde Park Corner. I asked him whether he was going out?He answered, he was afraid he was; not afraid in the sense of personalfear--he knew not that; but he said, with a look and a tone I shallnever forget, 'It is no light matter for a man who has a wife and fivelittle children. ' The stormy Euxine is his grave; his wife is a widow, his children fatherless. On the other side of the House sat a Member, with whom I was not acquainted, who has lost his life, and another ofwhom I knew something (Colonel Blair). Who is there that does notrecollect his frank, amiable, and manly countenance? I doubt whetherthere were any men on either side of the House who were more capable offixing the goodwill and affection of those with whom they wereassociated. Well, but the place that knew them shall know them no morefor ever. 

I have specified only two; but there are a hundred officers who havebeen killed in battle, or who have died of their wounds; forty have diedof disease; and more than two hundred others have been wounded more orless severely. This has been a terribly destructive war to officers. They have been, as one would have expected them to be, the first invalour as the first in place; they have suffered more in proportion totheir numbers than the commonest soldiers in the ranks. This has spreadsorrow over the whole country. I was in the House of Lords when the voteof thanks was moved. In the gallery were many ladies, three-fourths ofwhom were dressed in the deepest mourning. Is this nothing? And in everyvillage, cottages are to be found into which sorrow has entered, and, asI believe, through the policy of the Ministry, which might have beenavoided. No one supposes that the Government wished to spread the pallof sorrow over the land; but this we had a right to expect, that theywould at least show becoming gravity in discussing a subject theappalling consequences of which may come home to individuals and to thenation. I recollect when Sir Robert Peel addressed the House on adispute which threatened hostilities with the United States, --Irecollect the gravity of his countenance, the solemnity of his tone, hiswhole demeanour showing that he felt in his soul the responsibility thatrested on him. 

I have seen this, and I have seen the present Ministry. There was thebuffoonery at the Reform Club. Was that becoming a matter of this gravenature? Has there been a solemnity of manner in the speeches heard inconnection with this war--and have Ministers shown themselves statesmenand Christian men when speaking on a subject of this nature? It is veryeasy for the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to rise and say that Iam against war under all circumstances; and that if an enemy were toland on our shores, I should make a calculation as to whether it wouldbe cheaper to take him in or keep him out, and that my opinion on thisquestion is not to be considered either by Parliament or the country. Iam not afraid of discussing the war with the noble Lord on his ownprinciples. I understand the Blue Books as well as he; and, leaving outall fantastic and visionary notions about what will become of us ifsomething is not done to destroy or to cripple Russia, I say--and I sayit with as much confidence as I ever said anything in my life--that thewar cannot be justified out of these documents; and that impartialhistory will teach this to posterity if we do not comprehend it now. 

I am not; nor did I ever pretend to be, a statesman; and that characteris so tainted and so equivocal in our day, that I am not sure that apure and honourable ambition would aspire to it. I have not enjoyed forthirty years, like these noble Lords, the honours and emoluments ofoffice. I have not set my sails to every passing breeze. I am a plainand simple citizen, sent here by one of the foremost constituencies ofthe Empire, representing feebly, perhaps, but honestly, I dare aver, theopinions of very many, and the true interests of all those who have sentme here. Let it not be said that I am alone in my condemnation of thiswar, and of this incapable and guilty Administration. And, even if Iwere alone, if mine were a solitary voice, raised amid the din of armsand the clamours of a venal press, I should have the consolation I haveto-night--and which I trust will be mine to the last moment of myexistence--the priceless consolation that no word of mine has tended topromote the squandering of my country's treasure or the spilling of onesingle drop of my country's blood. 

 * * * * *

RUSSIA. 

III. 

NEGOTIATIONS AT VIENNA. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 23, 1855. 

_From Hansard. _

[On February 22 Lord Palmerston announced in the House of Commons thatMr. Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Sidney Herbert, theColonial Secretary, Mr. Cardwell, the President of the Board of Trade, and Sir James Graham, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had resigned theoffices which they had accepted a fortnight before. The ground of thissecession was the impression entertained by the above-named personagesthat the Committee of Inquiry moved for by Mr. Roebuck was equivalent toa vote of censure on them, as they had formed part of the Government ofLord Aberdeen, whose conduct of the Russian war was impugned by theappointment of the Committee. The places vacated by these secessionswere filled up on February 28. ]

I am one of those forming the majority of the House, I suspect, who aredisposed to look upon our present position as one of more than ordinarygravity. I am one, also, of those, not probably constituting so great amajority of the House, who regret extremely the circumstances which haveobliged the right hon. Gentlemen who are now upon this bench to secedefrom the Government of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. I do nottake upon me for a moment to condemn them; because I think, if there beanything in which a man must judge for himself, it is whether he shouldtake office if it be offered to him, whether he should secede fromoffice, whether he should serve under a particular leader, or engage inthe service of the Crown, or retain office in a particular emergency. Insuch cases I think that the decision must be left to his own conscienceand his own judgment; and I should be the last person to condemn any onefor the decision to which he might come. I think, however, that thespeech of the right hon. Gentleman is one which the House cannot havelistened to without being convinced that he and his retiring Colleagueshave been moved to the course which they have taken by a deliberatejudgment upon this question, which, whether it be right or wrong, isfully explained, and is honest to the House and to the country. 

Now, Sir, I said that I regretted their secession, because I am one ofthose who do not wish to see the Government of the noble Lord the Memberfor Tiverton overthrown. The House knows well, and nobody knows betterthan the noble Lord, that I have never been one of his ardent andenthusiastic supporters. I have often disapproved of his policy both athome and abroad; but I hope that I do not bear to him, as I can honestlysay that I do not bear to any man in this House--for from all I havereceived unnumbered courtesies--any feeling that takes even the tinge ofa personal animosity; and even if I did, at a moment so grave as this, no feeling of a personal character whatever should prevent me from doingthat which I think now, of all times, we are called upon to do--thatwhich we honestly and conscientiously believe to be for the permanentinterests of the country. We are in this position, that for a monthpast, at least, there has been a chaos in the regions of theAdministration. Nothing can be more embarrassing--I had almost saidnothing can be more humiliating--than the position which we offer to thecountry; and I am afraid that the knowledge of our position is notconfined to the limits of these islands. 

It will be admitted that we want a Government; that if the country is tobe saved from the breakers which now surround it, there must be aGovernment; and it devolves upon the House of Commons to rise to thegravity of the occasion, and to support any man who is conscious of hisresponsibility, and who is honestly offering and endeavouring to deliverthe country from the embarrassment in which we now find it. We are atwar, and I shall not say one single sentence with regard to the policyof the war or its origin, and I know not that I shall say a singlesentence with regard to the conduct of it; but the fact is that we areat war with the greatest military Power, probably, of the world, andthat we are carrying on our operations at a distance of 3, 000 miles fromhome, and in the neighbourhood of the strongest fortifications of thatgreat military Empire. I will not stop to criticise--though it reallyinvites me--the fact that some who have told us that we were in dangerfrom the aggressions of that Empire, at the same time told us that thatEmpire was powerless for aggression, and also that it was impregnable toattack. By some means, however, the public have been alarmed as if thataggressive power were unbounded, and they have been induced to undertakean expedition, as if the invasion of an impregnable country were amatter of holiday-making rather than of war. 

But we are now in a peculiar position with regard to that war; for, if Iam not mistaken--and I think I gathered as much from the language of theright hon. Gentleman--at this very moment terms have been agreed upon--agreed upon by the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen; consented to by the nobleLord the Member for Tiverton when he was in that Cabinet; and ratifiedand confirmed by him upon the formation of his own Government--and thatthose terms are now specifically known and understood; and that theyhave been offered to the Government with which this country is at war, and in conjunction with France and Austria--one, certainly, and theother supposed to be, an ally of this country. Now, those terms consistof four propositions, which I shall neither describe nor discuss, because they are known to the House; but three of them are not mattersof dispute; and with regard to the other, I think that the noble Lordthe Member for the City of London stated, upon a recent occasion, thatit was involved in this proposition--that the preponderant power ofRussia in the Black Sea should cease, and that Russia had accepted itwith that interpretation. Therefore, whatever difference arises ismerely as to the mode in which that 'preponderant power' shall beunderstood or made to cease. Now, there are some Gentlemen not far fromme--there are men who write in the public press--there are thousands ofpersons in the United Kingdom at this moment--and I learn withastonishment and dismay that there are persons even in that graveassembly which we are not allowed to specify by a name in this House--who have entertained dreams--impracticable theories--expectations ofvast European and Asiatic changes, of revived nationalities, and of anew map of Europe, if not of the world, as a result or an object of thiswar. And it is from those Gentlemen that we hear continually, addressedto the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, language which I cannot wellunderstand. They call upon him to act, to carry on the war with vigour, and to prosecute enterprises which neither his Government nor any otherGovernment has ever seriously entertained; but I would appeal to thoseGentlemen whether it does not become us--regarding the true interestsand the true honour of the country--if our Government have offered termsof peace to Russia, not to draw back from those terms, not to cause anyunnecessary delay, not to adopt any subterfuge to prevent those termsbeing accepted, not to attempt shuffles of any kind, not to endeavour toinsist upon harder terms, and thus make the approach of peace even stillmore distant than it is at present?

Whatever may be said about the honour of the country in any otherrelation involved in this affair, this, at least, I expect every man whohears me to admit--that if terms of peace have been offered they havebeen offered in good faith, and shall be in honour and good faithadhered to; so that if, unfortunately for Europe and humanity, thereshould be any failure at Vienna, no man should point to the EnglishGovernment and to the authorities and rulers of this Christian country, and say that we have prolonged the war and the infinite calamities ofwhich it is the cause. 

I have said that I was anxious that the Government of the noble Lordshould not be overthrown. Will the House allow me to say why I am so?The noble Lord at the head of the Government has long been a greatauthority with many persons in this country upon foreign policy. Hislate colleague, and present envoy to Vienna, has long been a greatauthority with a large portion of the people of this country upon almostall political questions. With the exception of that unhappy selection ofan ambassador at Constantinople, I hold that there are no men in thiscountry more truly responsible for our present position in this war thanthe noble Lord who now fills the highest office in the State and thenoble Lord who is now, I trust, rapidly approaching the scene of hislabours in Vienna. I do not say this now to throw blame upon those nobleLords, because their policy, which I hold to be wrong, they, withoutdoubt, as firmly believe to be right; but I am only stating facts. Ithas been their policy that they have entered into war for certainobjects, and I am sure that neither the noble Lord at the head of theGovernment nor his late colleague the noble Lord the Member for Londonwill shrink from the responsibility which attaches to them. Well, Sir, now we have those noble Lords in a position which is, in my humbleopinion, favourable to the termination of the troubles which exist. Ithink that the noble Lord at the head of the Government himself wouldhave more influence in stilling whatever may exist of clamour in thiscountry than any other Member of this House. I think, also, that thenoble Lord the Member for London would not have undertaken the missionto Vienna if he had not entertained some strong belief that, by sodoing, he might bring the war to an end. Nobody gains reputation by afailure in negotiation, and as that noble Lord is well acquainted withthe whole question from beginning to end, I entertain a hope--I will notsay a sanguine hope--that the result of that mission to Vienna will beto bring about a peace, to extricate this country from some of thosedifficulties inseparable from a state of war. 

There is one subject upon which I should like to put a question to thenoble Lord at the head of the Government. I shall not say one word hereabout the state of the army in the Crimea, or one word about its numbersor its condition. Every Member of this House, every inhabitant of thiscountry, has been sufficiently harrowed with details regarding it. To mysolemn belief, thousands--nay, scores of thousands of persons--haveretired to rest, night after night, whose slumbers have been disturbedor whose dreams have been based upon the sufferings and agonies of oursoldiers in the Crimea. I should like to ask the noble Lord at the headof the Government--although I am not sure if he will feel that he can orought to answer the question--whether the noble Lord the Member forLondon has power, after discussions have commenced, and as soon as thereshall be established good grounds for believing that the negotiationsfor peace will prove successful, to enter into any armistice? ['No!no!']

I know not, Sir, who it is that says 'No, no, ' but I should like to seeany man get up and say that the destruction of 200, 000 human lives loston all sides during the course of this unhappy conflict is not asufficient sacrifice. You are not pretending to conquer territory--youare not pretending to hold fortified or unfortified towns; you haveoffered terms of peace which, as I understand them, I do not say are notmoderate; and breathes there a man in this House or in this countrywhose appetite for blood is so insatiable that, even when terms of peacehave been offered and accepted, he pines for that assault in which ofRussian, Turk, French and English, as sure as one man dies, 20, 000corpses will strew the streets of Sebastopol? I say I should like to askthe noble Lord--and I am sure that he will feel, and that this Housewill feel, that I am speaking in no unfriendly manner towards theGovernment of which he is at the head--I should like to know, and Iventure to hope that it is so, if the noble Lord the Member for Londonhas power, at the earliest stage of these proceedings at Vienna, atwhich it can properly be done--and I should think that it mightproperly be done at a very early stage--to adopt a course by which allfurther waste of human life may be put an end to, and further animositybetween three great nations be, as far as possible, prevented?

I appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government and to thisHouse; I am not now complaining of the war--I am not now complaining ofthe terms of peace, nor, indeed, of anything that has been done--but Iwish to suggest to this House what, I believe, thousands and tens ofthousands of the most educated and of the most Christian portion of thepeople of this country are feeling upon this subject, although, indeed, in the midst of a certain clamour in the country, they do not givepublic expression to their feelings. Your country is not in anadvantageous state at this moment; from one end of the kingdom to theother there is a general collapse of industry. Those Members of thisHouse not intimately acquainted with the trade and commerce of thecountry do not fully comprehend our position as to the diminution ofemployment and the lessening of wages. An increase in the cost of livingis finding its way to the homes and hearts of a vast number of thelabouring population. 

At the same time there is growing up--and, notwithstanding what somehon. Members of this House may think of me, no man regrets it more thanI do--a bitter and angry feeling against that class which has for a longperiod conducted the public affairs of this country. I like politicalchanges when such changes are made as the result, not of passion, but ofdeliberation and reason. Changes so made are safe, but changes madeunder the influence of violent exaggeration, or of the violent passionsof public meetings, are not changes usually approved by this House oradvantageous to the country. I cannot but notice, in speaking toGentlemen who sit on either side of this House, or in speaking to anyone I meet between this House and any of those localities we frequentwhen this House is up--I cannot, I say, but notice that an uneasyfeeling exists as to the news which may arrive by the very next mailfrom the East. I do not suppose that your troops are to be beaten inactual conflict with the foe, or that they will be driven into the sea;but I am certain that many homes in England in which there now exists afond hope that the distant one may return--many such homes may berendered desolate when the next mail shall arrive. The Angel of Deathhas been abroad throughout the land; you may almost hear the beating ofhis wings. There is no one, as when the first-born were slain of old, tosprinkle with blood the lintel and the two sideposts of our doors, thathe may spare and pass on; he takes his victims from the castle of thenoble, the mansion of the wealthy, and the cottage of the poor and thelowly, and it is on behalf of all these classes that I make this solemnappeal. 

I tell the noble Lord, that if he be ready honestly and frankly toendeavour, by the negotiations about to be opened at Vienna, to put anend to this war, no word of mine, no vote of mine, will be given toshake his power for one single moment, or to change his position in thisHouse. I am sure that the noble Lord is not inaccessible to appeals madeto him from honest motives and with no unfriendly feeling. The nobleLord has been for more than forty years a Member of this House. Before Iwas born, he sat upon the Treasury bench, and he has spent his life inthe service of his country. He is no longer young, and his life hasextended almost to the term allotted to man. I would ask, I wouldentreat the noble Lord to take a course which, when he looks back uponhis whole political career--whatever he may therein find to be pleasedwith, whatever to regret--cannot but be a source of gratification tohim. By adopting that course he would have the satisfaction ofreflecting that, having obtained the object of his laudable ambition--having become the foremost subject of the Crown, the director of, it maybe, the destinies of his country, and the presiding genius in hercouncils--he had achieved a still higher and nobler ambition: that hehad returned the sword to the scabbard--that at his word torrents ofblood had ceased to flow--that he had restored tranquillity to Europe, and saved this country from the indescribable calamities of war. 

 * * * * *

RUSSIA. 

IV. 

ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE RUSSIAN WAR. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 7, 1855. 

_From Hansard_. 

[On May 22 Mr. Disraeli moved, 'That this House cannot adjourn for theRecess without expressing its dissatisfaction with the ambiguouslanguage and uncertain conduct of Her Majesty's Government in referenceto the great question of peace or war, and that, under thesecircumstances, the House feels it a duty to declare that it willcontinue to give every support to Her Majesty in the prosecution of thewar, until Her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her allies, obtain forthe country a safe and honourable peace. ' This was met by an amendmentfrom Sir Francis Baring, 'That this House, having seen with regret thatthe Conferences at Vienna have not led to a termination of hostilities, feels it to be a duty to declare that it will continue to give everysupport to Her Majesty in the prosecution of the war until Her Majestyshall, in conjunction with her allies, obtain for this country a safeand honourable peace. ' Mr. Disraeli's resolution was rejected by 319votes to 219. Sir F. Baring's motion having become substantive, was metby an amendment of Mr. Lowe, to the effect, 'That this House having seenwith regret, owing to the refusal of Russia to restrict the strength ofher navy in the Black Sea, that the Conferences at Vienna have not ledto a termination of hostilities, feels it to be a duty to declare thatthe means of coming to an agreement on the third basis of negotiationbeing by that refusal exhausted, it will continue, ' &c. Mr. Lowe'samendment was negatived and Sir F. Baring's motion carried without adivision on June 8. ]

Last year, when the declaration of war was brought down to the House, Itook the opportunity of addressing the House in opposition to the policyof the Government of that day. I was told I was too late; and it hasbeen also said repeatedly in this debate that those who take the viewswhich I take are too late on this occasion. It seems to be one of theconsequences of the, I would say, irresponsible system of diplomacy inthis country with regard to foreign affairs, that we are never allowedto discuss a mischief when it is growing, but only when it is completed, and when no remedy can be applied. And now we are at liberty to discussthe conduct of the Government in the Conferences at Vienna; and, thoughwe were repeatedly told from the Treasury bench that it might beinjurious to the public service to discuss what was going on till theaffair was concluded, I suspect the House has come to the conclusionthat we have been pursuing our true duty to the country in the debatethat has taken place. 

We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member forBuckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) for having placed his notice on the tableof the House, and not less to my right hon. Friend and Colleague thathe, before the recess, moved the adjournment of the debate. I amsatisfied myself that the people of this country have no intention to gowrong either in home or foreign affairs, and it requires only thatquestions of this nature should be frequently discussed by theintelligent men of which this House is composed to set before them thetrue state of affairs, and to bring them to a wise opinion with regardto the policy which is being pursued. Now, we are not discussing thepolicy of the war--that is, of the origin of the war. If we were, Ishould lay claim to some degree of foresight in the opinion which Iexpressed a year ago, for there seems to be a general feeling that thesacrifices that have already been made are somewhat greater than theresults that have been obtained. I am anxious, in the observations I mayhave to address to the House, to impress my opinions on them, if it bepossible to do so, and to lay before my countrymen out of the House thatwhich I believe involves their true interests with regard to thisquestion. It is necessary, therefore, to have a basis for ourdiscussion--to fix what were the objects of the war--to ascertain, ifthat be possible, whether those objects have been secured andaccomplished--and whether there can be anything in prospect which we arelikely to gain that will justify the Government and the House inproceeding further with the war. 

Now, in my observations I am not about to carry on this discussion withthe Gentlemen below me, who are interested in a question which is notthe question before the House. They are interested in some vast, and, asit seems to me, imaginary scheme that would involve Europe in protractedand widely-extended hostilities; and I think that, so far as the Houseis concerned in discussing the question with the Government, theseGentlemen are almost, if not altogether, out of court. It appears to me, if they were logical in their course, finding that the objects of theGovernment and the objects of the Government of France were entirelydifferent from those which they have at heart, and believing, as theydo, that the objects of the allied Governments are not worth a war, thatthey ought rather to join us on this bench, and, instead of there beingone Peace bench in the House, there would be two Peace benches, and thePeace party would clearly gain a considerable accession of strength. Thenoble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has stated over andover again--and, amid the confusion of statements which he and hisColleagues have made, I think he will not find fault if I assume thatthe object of the war is simply the security of the Turkish territoryfrom the grasp of Russia, and probably from the grasp of any otherPower--the noble Lord has stated that he apprehends that if Russia wereto extend her empire by the possession of Turkey, it would give her apower that would be unsafe with regard to the other nations of Europe. When the noble Lord speaks in that vague, and, if I were not speaking ofa man so eminent, I should say, absurd language of the liberties ofEurope and the civilization of the world, I should say he means by thatmerely those great objects, so far as they can be conserved by theconservation of the Turkish territory. 

The noble Lord tells us--we are now getting out of some of themystifications--that he has no kind of sympathy that would lead him intowar for the oppressed nationalities of Europe. The noble Lord the Memberfor Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) a few nights ago turned the coldshoulder to the people of Hungary. He said he thought there could be nogreater calamity to Europe than that Hungary should be separated fromthe Austrian Empire. Well, then, we have got rid of Hungary; and, next, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell)tells us it is quite a mistake to suppose that he ever intended to go towar for Poland. In fact, he stated--what will be very disheartening tohon. Gentlemen below me--that he never supposed we were going to war forsuch a Quixotic object; that the case of Poland is one that is hopeless, and therefore it would be madness in England and France--notindiscretion--not a doubtful undertaking--but positive madness inEngland and France to take any part in promoting resistance in thatcountry. 

Having now got rid of Hungary and Poland, we only require that someMember of the Cabinet should get up later in the evening--and that Ihave no doubt will be the case--to state that it is utterly impossiblefor this country to involve itself in hostilities with a view to theregeneration of any part of Italy. The noble Lord the Member for Londontells us we are not going to war for the sake of conquest; and that, Ithink, is a matter which ought to be kept in mind by hon. Gentlemen whoare urging the Government on to a prolonged war. He stated on Tuesdaynight, 'Be it always remembered that we are seeking no object of ourown;'--it would be a very odd thing if we were to go to war for theobjects of somebody else--'that we are seeking no object of our own;that when peace is concluded we shall not have acquired one ell of newterritory, or secured any advantage whatever for ourselves. It is forTurkey and the general system of Europe that we are struggling. ' Infact, the whole matter always resolves itself into some generalmystification, and at this moment we are, every man of us, almostentirely in the dark as to what are the ultimate objects of the war. 

One other point that I ought to mention is the question of crippling andhumbling Russia. I am, of course, willing to admit that when people goto war they are not expected to be very nice in their treatment of eachother, and, if the taking of Sebastopol be an object of those who are infavour of the war, to take Sebastopol they will inflict any injury theycan upon Russia. But the noble Lord told us last year that he stillintended to leave Russia a great empire. I thought that exceedinglyconsiderate of the noble Lord, and I understand--I think it has beenstated in the public papers--that it is considered at St. Petersburg agreat condescension on the part of so eminent a statesman. Well, then, if we are not going to war for nationalities, nor for conquest, nor forany such crippling of Russia as would be effected by her dismemberment, we come to this simple question--in the condition in which Turkey haslong existed, what are the means by which the security of Turkey can bebest guaranteed? No man asserts that the security of Turkey can beabsolute, but that it must be partial and conditional. As it is well tohave high authority for these statements, I have here an extract from aspeech made by Lord Clarendon a few nights ago on the Resolution movedby Lord Grey. The noble Lord then stated:--

 'My noble Friend says, and says truly, that the attainment of all this would offer no security to Turkey. The value of a treaty must always depend upon the spirit in which it is agreed to, and the good faith with which it is entered into. No treaty can make a weak Power like Turkey perfectly safe against a powerful neighbour immediately in contact with her, if that neighbour is determined to act the aggressive towards her. '--[3 _Hansard_, cxxxviii. 1152. ]

Thus Lord Clarendon admits, what is perfectly obvious to the commonsense of all who have heard anything of Russia or Turkey, except fromthe lips of the Prime Minister, that what we are seeking to obtain isnot an absolute security for Turkey, but a conditional security, such asher circumstances, her population, her government, and geographicalposition render attainable by her friends and allies. We have now beenfourteen months at war, and two Cabinets--the Cabinets of Lord Aberdeenand of the present First Minister--I might say four Cabinets, for theCabinets of France and Austria must have agreed to the same thing--haveagreed to certain terms, and have offered them to Russia. They have beenaccepted as the basis of negotiations, conferences have been opened, andcertain proceedings towards a settlement have taken place; and now Ishould like to know whether the terms which were offered were offered inearnest. Judging of the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen by the conduct of someof its Members, and especially of Lord Aberdeen himself, I am certainthat they were sincere in the terms they offered. But the _Times_newspaper, which now in its many changes has become the organ and greatstimulant of the present Cabinet, expresses its astonishment that anyperson should think that peace was intended by the Conferences atVienna. The _Times_ states that the object of the Conferences wasnot to bring about a peace, but to shame Austria into becoming afaithful and warlike ally. 

Now, when the noble Lord the Member for London was sent to Vienna tonegotiate, I confess I was one of those who formed the opinion that thenoble Lord, amid the many eccentricities of his career, would not haveundertaken that mission unless he himself had been honest with regard tothe terms to be offered, and anxious, if possible, to consolidate apeace. There were, however, certain persons--malicious people, ofcourse--who found out that it would be convenient to the First Ministerto have the noble Lord at a distance, at least for a time. But I neveradopted that idea. I did not believe that the noble Lord's journey toVienna, with a retinue that required him to occupy no less than thirty-two rooms in one hotel, would have been undertaken unless the noble Lordconsidered that the object was a reality, on which the interests of thecountry and of Europe depended. I think he would have been the last manin the country to lend himself to such a miserable hoax as going toVienna, not to make peace, but to shame Austria into becoming a faithfuland warlike ally. I assume, therefore, that terms were sincerelyoffered, and that those terms gave guarantees which were sufficient, anda security which was as ample as the circumstances admitted for theintegrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire. It is from thatstarting-point that I would discuss this question. 

There are hon. Members in this House who think that even if those termswere obtained they would still be in no degree a compensation for theenormous sacrifices which the country has made. I happen to hold thesame opinion, and it was with that conviction that I protested againstgoing into the war. Indeed, I think that the argument I used a year ago, that nothing to be obtained in the war could at all approach acompensation for the enormous sacrifices the country would be calledupon to make, has been greatly strengthened. Well, Sir, the termsoffered are called 'bases:' from which one understands, not that theyare everything, but that they are something capable of what diplomatistscall 'development. ' I recollect a question asked of a child at school, in one of those lessons called 'object lessons, ' 'What is the basis of abatter pudding?' It was obvious that flour was the basis, but the eggsand the butter and the rest were developments and additions. But if thebases are capable of development, so I take it for granted that themeaning of negotiation is not the offering of an _ultimatum_, butthe word involves to every man's sense the probability of concession--butter, it may be--but concession of one sort or another. 

I will not go through all the Four Points, because the attention of theHouse ought really to be centred upon the third article and the mattersconnected with it. The House must remember that this article involvestwo most important subjects--first, the territorial guarantee, which ifit were sufficiently secured would be everything the House and thecountry required from the war--namely, that the territories of Turkeyshall never be molested, so long as the treaty shall continue, by any ofthe great Powers who are parties to such treaty; and, secondly, that thepreponderance of Russia in the Black Sea shall cease. Now, theterritorial guarantee was granted without difficulty. [An hon. Member:'No. '] Well, no difficulty was made about the territorial guarantee butthis:--Prince Gortchakoff said, very wisely, that he would not enterinto an absolute pledge to go to war in case of any infraction of thetreaty, and the noble Lord who said 'No' will find, when he has examinedthe question a little more closely, that it does not make the slightestdifference as to the actual results of a treaty whether a Powerguarantees in the mode proposed by Russia, or in the manner proposed bythe noble Lord the Member for the City of London, because, when aninfraction of a treaty occurs, the power of judging whether any of theGovernments who are parties to such treaty should go to war or not, isleft with each individual Government. If, for example, France stretchedher dominions westward towards Morocco, or eastward towards Tunis orTripoli, it would, of course, have been the duty, and would have been inthe power of Russia, even had she accepted the exact terms proposed bythe allies, to judge for herself whether a case had arisen whichrequired her to go to war, or which justified her in doing so. 

Such a case arose very lately with reference to Schleswig-Holstein. Wewere bound, under an ancient treaty, to go to war in the event of theinfraction of certain treaties affecting Schleswig-Holstein; but whenthis case occurred the subject was considered by the Government, thenoble Lord (Lord Palmerston) being at the time, I believe, ForeignSecretary--who most wisely and properly, not only for this country, butfor the interests of Schleswig-Holstein and of Europe, declined to actupon what was represented to be the strict letter of the treaty, andEngland did not engage in war in consequence of the disputes which thentook place. I must say that what seems to me as the most statesmanlikeand elevated declaration in the protocols is the statement of PrinceGortchakoff, that the blood of Russia is the property of Russia, andthat he will not pledge himself that years hence--it may be even acentury hence--the blood of Russia shall be shed in a cause which, whenthe time arrives, may be one which would be altogether unworthy of sucha sacrifice. 

With respect to the question of the Christian protectorate, the Housewill probably recollect that it was represented over and over again byMinisters in this House--it was stated in the speeches of Lord Clarendonin another place--that the proposition of Russia, as conveyed in theMenchikoff note, was intended to transfer the virtual sovereignty of10, 000, 000 or 12, 000, 000 of Ottoman subjects to the Czar. If that wereso, the Menchikoff note and all the old protectorate treaties beingabolished, surely the House will consider whether the combination of thethree propositions--the territorial guarantees, the Christianprotectorate, and the Black Sea project--do not give such securities toTurkey as the condition of Turkey will permit. Now the preponderance ofRussia in the Black Sea, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for theWest Riding (Mr. Cobden) showed very clearly the other evening, is in acertain sense a fact which all the negotiations in the world cannotwrite off. I see that one of the public journals this morning, commenting upon my hon. Friend's speech, says, 'Yes, truly, thecommercial preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea is a fact whichcannot be denied;' and then proceeds to argue that it does not followthat Russia should have a political and naval preponderance. But I donot know any case in which there is a commercial supremacy in a sea likethe Black Sea that is not followed by a preponderance of every otherkind. The question now is, however, how is that preponderance to cease?

The noble Lord the Member for the City of London referred the othernight to a proposition made by the French Government, but which, Ithink, does not appear at all distinctly in the protocols, with regardto making the Black Sea a neutral sea. I conceive that was so monstrousa proposition, in the present condition of Europe, that I am surprisedit should have been entertained for a moment by any sensible man. Isupposed it was found so utterly indefensible that it does not appear asa distinct proposition in the protocols. This proposal of making theBlack Sea a neutral sea gave place to another project, and it appears tome very like asking Russia, voluntarily or by compulsion, to perform theoperation of amputation upon herself. I maintain that the third articleas offered to Russia in December last could not mean what the noble Lordoffered to Russia at Vienna, because the cessation of preponderance doesnot mean the transfer of preponderance, but rather the establishment ofan equilibrium--not the destruction of an equilibrium and theestablishment of preponderance on the other side. 

Some hon. Gentlemen talk as if Russia were a Power which you could taketo Bow Street, and bind over before some stipendiary magistrate to keepthe peace for six months. Russia is a great Power, as England is, and intreating with her you must consider that the Russian Government has toconsult its own dignity, its own interests, and public opinion, just asmuch at least as the Government of this country. Now, what was theproposition of this third article? The proposal was, that Russia shouldhave eight ships; but what was the proposition with regard to herpresent antagonists? That Turkey should also have eight ships, thatFrance should have four, and that England should have four; and Ibelieve that in a preceding protocol, which has not been alluded to inthis debate, it is proposed that the contracting Powers should have twoships each at the mouth of the Danube, so that if these terms had beenagreed upon, Russia would have had eight ships in the Black Sea, whileTurkey, France, and England would have had twenty. Now, that is not amere cessation of a preponderance; it is not the establishment of anequilibrium; it is a transfer of the supremacy of the Black Sea fromthat country which, if any country should be supreme there, has the bestclaim--namely, Russia. Besides this, however, Turkey would have hadwhatever ships she liked in the Bosphorus, and the allies would alsohave had as many ships as they chose in the Mediterranean and theLevant. 

Now, let us for a moment consider the offer with which Russia met thisproposal. The first proposition was that of the open Straits, which isdisapproved by the hon. Baronet opposite. I am not about to say thatthis proposition should have been accepted in preference to the other, but I think it is the true interest of Europe, and also of Turkeyitself, that the Straits should be thrown open. At any rate, it must beadmitted that the preponderance of Russia, in the sense in which we nowunderstand it, would be absolutely destroyed if the Straits were thrownopen. Russia made a proposition which appears to me to be highlysatisfactory--that such regulations should be made by the Sultan and hisGovernment with regard to the position and duration of the anchorages ofships between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea as would preclude thepossibility, so far as there were means of doing so, of anyinconvenience or danger to Constantinople from the opening of theStraits. If that had been agreed to, all nations would have beenentitled to the passage of the Straits, and I believe that all nationswould equally have respected the privilege thus granted to them. Now, suppose these Straits, instead of being one mile wide, had been tenmiles wide, what difference would it make to Turkey? If the Straits wereten miles wide they would be open. Turkey would have no right to closethem, and European nations would not permit her to pretend to, or toexercise, any such power; but Constantinople would be no more securethen than it would be now with the Straits open, whether they were tenmiles wide or one mile wide. If the Straits were open, the consequencesto Constantinople and to Turkey appear to me to be precisely the same. Turkey would be equally safe; Turkey would be equally menaced. Ourfleets would visit the Black Sea in the course of the season, and theRussian Black Sea fleet, if it chose, would visit the Mediterranean. There would be no sort of pretence for wrangling about the Straits; andthe balance of power--if I may use the term--between the fleets ofRussia, France, and England, would be probably the best guarantee thatcould be offered for the security of Constantinople and Turkey, so faras they are in danger of aggression either from the Black Sea or theMediterranean. 

But it is said, the Sultan's sovereignty would be menaced--that he hasan undoubted right to close the Straits. I doubt whether that right willbe very long maintained; but if it be maintained, and if you are toreject any proposition which interferes with the Sultan's sovereignty, Iask you whether the sovereignty of the Czar is not as dear to him? andwhether, if, in negotiations of this kind, you can find any mode ofattaining your object without inflicting injury upon either thesovereignty of the Sultan or the Czar, it would not be much morestatesmanlike to adopt it, and so to frame your treaties that neithershould feel that it was subjected to an indignity, and therefore seek toviolate such treaties at the first opportunity? Well, but the secondproposition, which I think the hon. Baronet approved, and which I thinkthe noble Lord proposed, was, that the Sultan should open the Straits atwill. I ask the House whether that proposition, if accepted, would notimply that the Sultan could have no other enemy than Russia?--which Ithink is doubtful. If the Black Sea were open to the West, and theMediterranean closed to the East, surely that is assuming that theSultan could have no enemy but Russia. The Sultan could close theStraits to Russia, but the Western Powers could always proceed to theBlack Sea. The French plan, in my opinion, exposed Turkey far more tothe West than the Russian plan exposed her to the East. Nothing can bemore short-sighted than the notion which the noble Lord the Member forLondon started at the conferences, that Turkey could have no enemy butRussia. In fact, everybody there seemed to be on exceedingly good termswith himself. The Austrian Minister said nobody would suspect Austria--no one could be suspected but Russia. But our experience for many yearswill tell us that there has been just as much menace from the West asfrom the East--the rapacity of the West is not less perceptible thanthat of the East. ['Hear. '] Some one expresses a sentiment in opposition--it is a gentleman who has never read the Blue Books--he does not knowthat almost the whole of this business began in a threat of the mostaudacious and insulting character from the Ambassador of France--athreat to order up the French fleet to the Dardanelles, and further toland an expedition in Syria to take possession of Jerusalem and thewhole of the Holy Places. Do you mean to tell me, you and the noble Lordhimself, who tried to frighten the country with the notion of the Frenchfleet coming to invade England, that the fleet which three years agothreatened England, and more recently threatened the Dardanelles, hasfor ever abandoned rapacious desires, and that therefore there willnever again be a menace against Turkey from France?

I understand, however, there is a very different opinion prevalent uponthe southern shores of the Mediterranean. The Emperor of Morocco, apotentate somewhat allied to this country, as I am told his empress isan Irish lady--the Emperor of Morocco, who is not very well versed inwhat is going on in this House, has been making inquiries of the mostanxious character as to whether the particular guarantee which the nobleLord was going to enter into included the territory of Morocco; and Iunderstand he has not been able to find it out from the most assiduousstudy of the Gibraltar newspapers. It so happens that the Governor ofGibraltar--the noble Lord at the head of the Government corrected me theother night when I called him an irrational man--has issued an ordinanceby which he has entirely suppressed the newspaper press in that town andgarrison. 

Now we come to the question, which of the propositions would be mostsecure? I was very much struck by an observation which fell from my hon. Colleague (Mr. M. Gibson) in the course of his speech the other night--apoint I think very worthy of the attention of the House and of theGovernment; he said the limitation plan was one which must depend forits efficacy on the will and fidelity of Russia. I am not one of thosewho believe Russia to be the treacherous and felonious Power which sheis described to be by the press of this country, as she is described bythe noble Lord to be. I believe the right hon. Baronet the Member forSouthwark gave her the same character. Although Russia may not be moretreacherous than other Powers, when you are making a bargain with her, it is better you should make the efficacy of the terms depend more onyour own vigilance than on her good faith. The noble Lord the Member forLondon has admitted that the limitation plan is, after all, aninefficient one. He said that Russia might get another ship--perhapsthree or four--and when she had doubled the navy permitted to her, perhaps the noble Lord would be writing despatches about it, although Iam not sure he would do that. I think it would be holding out atemptation to buy Mr. Scott Russell's great ship as one of the eightships she is to be allowed to keep by the treaty. 

My hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding remarked that Russia mightpurchase vessels of large size from the United States, and still keepwithin the prescribed limit; but if this great ship, now building in theThames, should succeed, as I hope she will, Russia might buy her andsend her into the Black Sea. Somebody says she could not go therewithout passing the Straits, but, as she is built for mercantilepurposes, that monster vessel might freely be taken up, and then formone of the eight ships allowed to Russia. Another proposition has beenalluded to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay)--thatpointed out by the Russian Plenipotentiary--that Russia and Turkeyshould enter into a friendly treaty between themselves and arrange thatpoint; but the other diplomatists would not allow it, unless it weredone under the eyes of the conference and bearing the same features offorce and compulsion as their proposal of the limitation possessed. Iwas astonished to hear the hon. Baronet, as I understood him, say that, even although it could be shown that the Russian propositions werebetter than our own, he thought the proposition which bore on its facecoercion of Russia was most desirable. A more unstatesman-like andimmoral view upon a great question between nations I have rarely heardof. [Sir William Clay rose, and was understood to deny the sentimentsimputed to him by the hon. Member. ] I understood my hon. Friend so. Perhaps he did not mean what I thought he did mean, but that was theconclusion I came to from his argument, and I do not think he will say Ientirely misrepresented him. It has, however, been said by the pressthat, whether we were sincere or not at the conference, Russia was not. Hon. Gentlemen have read in the _Times_ and other papers blowingthe flames of war, that from first to last Russia was treacherous andinsincere. I would put it to the noble Lord the Member for Londonwhether he can say that was the case, for I observe he said, in hisspeech in this House on the 23rd of January last, in answer to aquestion from the hon. Member for Aylesbury, or some other Member--

 'My hon. Friend will see that by that act the Russian Plenipotentiary accepted this interpretation as the basis of negotiation, of course reserving to himself the power, when this basis shall have been laid down in a definite article, of making any observations on the part of his Government which he should think proper. '--[3 _Hansard_ cxxxvi. 911]

Of course the Russian Plenipotentiary, when he accepted it, did so uponthe understanding that it was the basis of negotiation and discussion, as no one will deny it was a question capable of being solved in moreways than one, and it was no indication of insincerity for him to refusethe precise mode proposed by the Plenipotentiary for England. Withregard to the terms proposed, I should like to read to the House astatement I have on very good authority as to the language which PrinceGortchakoff held at Vienna. The statement I have is not to be found inthe protocols, but I believe it may be relied upon as the precise wordshe used. The noble Lord insisted, as I understand, that it was noindignity to ask Russia to limit the number of her ships in the BlackSea; but I would submit it is precisely the same in principle as if shewere asked to limit the amount of her force in the Crimea to four or sixregiments. Prince Gortchakoff said--

 'To ask from an independent Power that it should limit its force, is to assail its rights of sovereignty on its own territory. It is with a bad grace that they would sustain the rights of the Sultan and wish to attack those of the Emperor of Russia. The proposition to render the Black Sea inaccessible to vessels of war of all nations is so strange (_si bizarre_) that one is astonished to see the fate of nations confided to men such as those who have conceived it. How could it be believed that Russia would consent to give herself up disarmed at the good pleasure of the Napoleons and the Palmerstons, who will be able themselves to have armed forces in the Mediterranean?'

There was no answer to that. If any diplomatist from this country, underthe same circumstances as Russia was placed in, had consented to termssuch as the noble Lord had endeavoured to force upon Russia--I say, thatif he entered the door of this House, he would be met by one universalshout of execration, and, as a public man, would be ruined for ever. 

I wish to ask the House this question--whether it has deliberately madeup its mind that this was a proposition which ought to have been imposedupon Russia? If they have ascertained which is the best--and I ratherthink the general opinion is that the proposition of the Government isthe worst; but, assuming that it is not so, and that there may be somelittle difference--I want to know what that difference is, and if thereis any difference which can be measured even by the finest diplomaticand statesmanlike instrument ever invented, I ask, is that differenceworth to this country the incalculable calamities which a prolonged warmust bring upon us? I am of opinion that, with the territorial guaranteeand the abolition of the Christian protectorate, either the termsproposed by the noble Lord or by Prince Gortchakoff would have been assecure for Turkey as it is possible under existing circumstances forTurkey to be by any treaty between the great Powers of Europe. And, recollect that we have been thrown a little off the originalproposition, for when that proposition was first agreed to in theCabinet of Lord Aberdeen I am satisfied in my own mind that it meantsomething very like that which the Russians themselves have proposed. 

If we take this first protocol of the conference, and look to the speechmade by Count Buol and to the proposition he made, you will find thethird article runs in this language: 'The treaty of July 13, 1841, shallbe revised with the double object, ' and so on. But what is the meaningof revising the treaty of 1841? The treaty has only one object, which isto guarantee to the Turk the right he has claimed since his possessionof Constantinople--namely, that the Straits should be closed under theguarantee of the Powers, except in case of war. Therefore, when theAberdeen Government, of which the noble Lords were Members, originallyagreed upon these terms, their object was that the Black Sea should bethrown open, or, at least, that the closing of the Straits should berelaxed; and I presume that it was not until after it was known that, while Russia had no objection to the opening of the Straits, Turkey wasvery much opposed to it, that it was found necessary to change the termsand bring them forward in another form. But, surely, if this be so, theHouse and the Government should be chary indeed of carrying on aprolonged war with Russia, Russia having been willing to accept aproposition made originally by us, and which I believe to be the bestfor Turkey and for the interests of Europe. If, I say, this be so, wasthe Government justified in breaking off these negotiations, becausethat really is the issue which this House is called upon to try? Canthey obtain better terms? If the terms are sufficient for Turkey theyought not to ask for better ones. I do not say they may not get betterterms. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), that England and France, if they choose to sacrifice 500, 000men, and to throw away 200, 000, 000_l_. Or 300, 000, 000_l_. Oftreasure, may dismember the Russian Empire. But I doubt whether thiswould give better terms for Turkey--I am sure it would not give betterterms for England and France. Now, what has it cost to obtain all this?

And here I must be permitted to say one word with regard to the coursetaken by those right hon. Gentlemen who have recently taken their seatson this bench, and whose conduct on this question has been the cause ofgreat debate, and of language which I think the state of the case hasnot wholly justified. I presume it will be admitted that these righthon. Gentlemen at least know the object of the war as well as any othermen in this House. I presume, too, that, entertaining as they do a veryserious idea of the results of a prolonged war, they are at liberty tocome to the conclusion that certain terms, to which they themselves wereparties, are sufficient; and if this be the conviction at which theyhave arrived, surely no Member of this House will say that, because theywere Members of a Cabinet some time ago which went into this war, therefore they should be forbidden to endeavour to avert theincalculable calamities which threaten their country, but should beexpected to maintain a show of consistency, for which they mustsacrifice everything that an honest man would hold dear. Have these mengained anything in popularity with the country, or even with the Membersof this House, by the course they have taken?

I am almost ashamed to say anything in the defence of those who are socapable of explaining and defending their own conduct in this matter;but I may be pardoned if I rejoice that men ranking high as statesmen, powerful by their oratory, distinguished by their long services, haveseparated themselves from that rash, that inexcusable recklessnesswhich, I say, marks the present Government, and are anxious to delivertheir country from the dangers which surround it. My hon. Friends belowme--and I am quite sure not one of them will suppose that I speak fromthe mere wish to oppose them in any way; they are personal friends ofmine, and it pains me now to differ from them; but hon. Members seem tothink, when they are looking a long way off for the objects to be gainedby war, that a man who looks at home is not a friend to his country. Iswar the only thing a nation enters upon in which the cost is never to bereckoned? Is it nothing that in twelve months you have sacrificed 20, 000or 30, 000 men, who a year ago were your own fellow-citizens, living inyour midst, and interested, as you are, in all the social and politicaloccurrences of the day? Is it nothing that, in addition to those lives, a sum of--I am almost afraid to say how much, but 30, 000, 000_l_. Or40, 000, 000_l_. Will not be beyond the mark--has already beenexpended? And let the House bear in mind this solemn fact--that the fournations engaged in this war have already lost so many men, that if youwere to go from Chelsea to Blackwall, and from Highgate and Hampstead toNorwood, and take every man of a fighting age and put him to death--ifyou did this you would not sacrifice a larger number of lives than havealready been sacrificed in these twelve months of war. 

Your own troops, as you know, have suffered, during a Crimean winter, tortures and horrors which the great Florentine hardly imagined when hewrote his immortal epic. Hon. Members are ready, I know, to say, 'Whosefault is that?' But if our loss has been less than that of the French, less than that of the Turks, and less than that of the Russians, it isfair to assume that, whatever mistakes may have been committed by theGovernment, the loss in the aggregate would, even under othercircumstances, have fallen very little short of that which I haveattempted to describe. Are these things to be accounted nothing? We havehad for twelve years past a gradual reduction of taxation, and there hasbeen an immense improvement in the physical, intellectual, and moralcondition of the people of this country; while for the last two years wehave commenced a career of reimposing taxes, have had to apply for aloan, and no doubt, if this war goes on, extensive loans are still inprospect. 

Hon. Members may think this is nothing. They say it is a 'low' view ofthe case. But, these things are the foundation of your nationalgreatness, and of your national duration; and you may be followingvisionary phantoms in all parts of the world while your own country isbecoming rotten within, and calamities may be in store for the monarchyand the nation of which now, it appears, you take no heed. Every manconnected with trade knows how much trade has suffered, how much profitsin every branch of trade--except in contracts arising out of the war--have diminished, how industry is becoming more precarious and the rewardfor industry less, how the price of food is raised, and how much thereis of a growing pressure of all classes, especially upon the poorest ofthe people--a pressure which by-and-by--not just now, when the popularfrenzy is lashed into fury morning after morning by the newspapers--[Murmurs]--but I say by-and-by this discontent will grow rapidly, andyou (pointing to the Ministerial bench) who now fancy you are fulfillingthe behests of the national will, will find yourselves pointed to as themen who ought to have taught the nation better. 

I will not enter into the question of the harvest. That is in the handof Providence, and may Providence grant that the harvest may be asbountiful as it was last year! But the House must recollect that in1853, only two years ago, there was the worst harvest that had beenknown for forty years. Prices were very high in consequence. Last yearthe harvest was the greatest ever known, yet prices have been scarcelylower, and there are not wanting men of great information and of soundjudgment who look with much alarm to what may come--I trust it may notcome--if we should have, in addition to the calamities of war, calamities arising from a scarcity of food, which may be scarcely lessdestructive of the peace and comfort of the population of this country. 

I will ask the House in this state of things whether they are disposedto place implicit confidence in her Majesty's Ministers? On that (theOpposition) side of the House there is not, I believe, much confidencein the Government; and on this side I suspect there are many men who arewishful that at this critical moment the affairs of the country shouldbe under the guidance of men of greater solidity and of better judgment. I will now point out one or two causes which I think show that I amjustified in placing no confidence whatever in her Majesty's Government. Take for example what they have been doing with Austria. The noble Lordat the head of the Government has stated to us that it was of Europeanimportance that Hungary should be connected with Austria. The noble Lordthe Member for the City of London said the other night it was ofessential importance that Austria should be preserved as she is--a greatconservative Power in the midst of Europe. Well, but at the same timethis Government has been urging Austria, month after month, to enterinto the same ruinous course which they themselves are disposed topursue. They know perfectly well that if Austria were to join eitherwith Russia on the one hand, or with the Western Powers on the other, inall human probability this great Empire would no longer remain that'great conservative Power in the midst of Europe, ' but would be strippedon the one side of her Italian provinces, and of Hungary on the other;or, if not stripped of these two portions of the Empire, would beplunged into an interminable anarchy which would prove destructive ofher power. 

What can be more inconsistent than for Ministers to tell us that theywish Austria to be preserved, and, at the same time, to urge her upon acourse which they know perfectly well must end in her disruption, and inthe destruction of that which they think essential to the balance ofpower in Europe? We are told, with regard to our other alliance, that itis a very delicate topic. It is a very delicate and a very importanttopic; but there is another topic still more delicate and important--namely, the future of this country with regard to that alliance. I thinkwe have before now spent 1, 000, 000, 000_l_. Sterling, more or less, for the sake of a French dynasty. At this moment there are French armiesin Rome, in Athens, in Gallipoli, in Constantinople, and in the Crimea, and the end of all this, I fear, is not yet. It has been repeatedlystated in this House that the people of France are not themselvesenthusiastic in favour of this war. I would fain hope, whatever else mayhappen, that between the people of England and of France an improved andfriendly feeling has grown up. But, as far as the war is concerned, youralliance depends on one life. The present dynasty may be a permanent, but it may be an ephemeral one, and I cannot but think that when men arelooking forward to prolonged warfare they should at least take intoconsideration the ground on which they are standing. 

Lord Clarendon has told us, with regard to Russia, that Europe wasstanding on a mine, and did not know it. I do not know that he is muchmore acute than other people, but I can fancy that Lord Clarendon, bythe blunders of his negotiations and the alliances he has endeavoured toform, has placed this country on a mine far more dangerous anddestructive than that upon which he thinks Europe was placed by thecolossal power of Russia. There is another point I have to touch upon. To me it was really frightful to hear the noble Lord the Member forLondon (Lord John Russell) tell the House that we are not lighting forourselves, but for Germany. I recollect one passage among many in thenoble Lord's speeches upon this point; and, in looking over what hasbeen said by Ministers, one really wonders that they should have allowedanything of the kind to appear in _Hansard_. On the 17th ofFebruary last year the noble Lord said, --

 'They (England and France) feel that the cause is one, in the first place, of the independence of Turkey.... It is to maintain the independence, not only of Turkey, but of Germany and of all European nations. '--[3 _Hansard_, cxxx. 906. ]

['Hear, hear!'] An hon. Member cheers. What a notion a man must have ofthe duties of the 27, 000, 000 of people living in these islands if hethinks they ought to come forward as the defenders of the 60, 000, 000 ofpeople in Germany, that the blood of England is not the property of thepeople of England, and that the sacred treasure of the bravery, resolution, and unfaltering courage of the people of England is to besquandered in a contest in which the noble Lord says we have nointerest, for the preservation of the independence of Germany, and ofthe integrity, civilization, and something else, of all Europe!

The noble Lord takes a much better view, as I presume many of us do, ofthings past than of things present. The noble Lord knows that we oncedid go to war for all Europe, but then we went to war with nearly allEurope, whereas now we are going to war in alliance with France only, except the little State of Sardinia, which we have cajoled or coercedinto a course which I believe every friend to the freedom of Italy andto Sardinia will live to regret. All the rest of Europe--Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Prussia, Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, andSweden--take no part in the war, and yet our Ministers have--what Ishould call, if I were not in this House, the effrontery and audacity toget up and tell us that they are fighting the battle of all Europe, andthat all Europe is leagued with us against the colossal power of Russia. Europe in the last war did, for the most part, unite with us. We went toSpain because we were called to go by the patriot Spaniards, but I thinkthe Duke of Wellington has stated, in his despatches, that if he hadknown how little assistance would be received from them he would nothave recommended even that expedition. 

But now, not only has all Europe not united with you, but othercountries will not even allow their men to fight with you. You pay theTurks to fight their own battles, you enlist men in Germany to fight thebattles of Germany, and the persons engaged in Switzerland and Hamburgin enlisting men for you are looked upon with suspicion by theauthorities, and I am not sure that some of them have not even beentaken into custody. Why, then, should you pretend that all Europe isleagued against Russia, and that you have authority to fight the battlesof all Europe against Russia, when the greater part of Europe isstanding by apathetically wondering at the folly you are committing? Iwould appeal to the noble Lord the Member for the Colonies--I beg hispardon, the Member for London--but he has been in so many differentpositions lately that it is extremely difficult to identify him. I wouldappeal to the noble Lord, because, however much I differ from him, Ihave never yet come to the conclusion that he has not at heart theinterest of his country, that he is not capable of appreciating a fairargument when it is laid before him, and that he has not some sense ofthe responsibility as to the political course he takes, and I would askhim if there be no other world of kingdoms and of nations but that oldworld of Europe with which the noble Lord is so disposed to entanglethis country?

I wish the noble Lord could blot out from his recollection, for a littletime, William III, and all the remembrance of what has been called bythe right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) 'the Dutchconquest, ' which is supposed to have enthroned the Whig aristocracy inthis country. I would ask the noble Lord to do this for to-night--for anhour--for five minutes. There is a country called the United States ofAmerica. Only on Tuesday night the very remarkable circumstanceoccurred--and I think the House will be of opinion that it is one worthnotice--of two of those distinguished men being present and listening tothe debates in this House who have occupied the position of President ofthe United States; a position, I venture to say, not lower in honour anddignity than that of any crowned monarch on the surface of the globe. The United States is precisely the country which is running with us therace of power and of greatness. Its population will, I believe, at thenext census exceed the population of the United Kingdom; in itsmanufactures and general industry it is by far the most formidable rivalthat the great manufacturers of this country now have to contend with;it has, I suppose, ten steamers for one steamer of this country; itsmagnificent steamships have crossed the Atlantic in a shorter time thanthe steamships of this country; the finest vessels which are at thismoment performing the voyage between England and the Australian colonieshave been built in the United States; therefore, in shipbuildingindustry the United States not only compete with, but in some respectseven excel, this country. Look at our present position and that of theUnited States. 

May I entreat the attention of this House, for I am not declaiming, I amnot making a party attack, I am treating of that which, in my mind, isof vital importance to every family in the kingdom. This year theChancellor of the Exchequer told you that he must have a sum of86, 000, 000_l_. In order to carry on the various departments of yourGovernment, and to defray your vast military expenditure. The UnitedStates has at this moment in her Treasury enough, I think, to pay offall her debt. Deduct the whole amount of the expenses of the Governmentof the United States, not only of the general Government, but also ofthe thirty independent sovereign States, from the 86, 000, 000_l_. Weare spending, and you will find that at least 70, 000, 000_l_. Willbe left, which is, therefore, the sum of taxation that we are payingthis year more than the people of the United States. 

Some hon. Gentlemen know what it is to run a horse that has beenweighted. I heard, the other day, of a horse that won every race inwhich it started, up to a certain period when it was for the first timeweighted. It then lost the race, and it is reported in the annals of theturf that it never won a race afterwards. If that be the case withregard to a horse, it is much more true with regard to a nation. When anation has gone a step backwards it is difficult to restore it to itsposition; if another nation has passed it in the race, it is almostimpossible for it to regain the ground it has lost. I now speakparticularly to hon. Members opposite, for there are, perhaps, moreGentlemen upon that than upon this side of the House in the happyposition of owners of vast, productive, beautiful, and, I hope, unencumbered estates in the various parts of the kingdom. We are nowabout ten days' voyage from the United States, and within ten years weshall probably communicate with that country by telegraph as quickly aswe now do with the Crimea. I hope it will be for a much better object. The people of the United States are our people, and there are fewfamilies in England which have not friends and relatives connected withor settled in that country. The inducements for men to remain at homeand their attachment to the place of their birth are necessarily to someextent weakened by the facility with which they can now travel almostround the world in a few weeks. 

Do you believe that when the capital of the greatest banking-house inLombard street can be transferred to the United States on a small pieceof paper in one post, that the imposition of 70, 000, 000_l_. Oftaxation over and above the taxation of an equal population in theUnited States will not have the effect of transferring capital from thiscountry to the United States, and, if capital, then trade, population, and all that forms the bone and sinew of this great Empire? I ask hon. Members to remember what fell on a previous evening from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Works. The right hon. Gentlemantalked of the war lasting, perhaps, six years with our resourcesundiminished. Now, nothing is easier than for a Cornish Baronet, possessing I am afraid to say how many thousands a year, a Member of aCabinet, or for all those who are surrounded with every comfort, to lookwith the utmost complacency upon the calamities which may befall othersnot so fortunately situated as themselves. Six years of this war, andour resources undiminished! Why, Sir, six years of this war, at anannual expenditure of 70, 000, 000_l_. , give 420, 000, 000_l_. Tothe side of the United States as against the condition of the people ofthis country. 

Am I, then, talking of trifles? Am I talking to sane men, that it isnecessary to bring forward facts like these? I am amazed, when thenewspaper press, when public speakers, when Gentlemen on both sides ofthis House are so ready to listen and to speak upon questions relatingto Turkey, to Servia, or to Schamyl, that I cannot get the House ofCommons to consider a question so great as the expenditure of420, 000, 000_l_. , and when we have to consider if we shall trustthat vast issue in the hands of the noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemenon the Treasury bench. 

I have stated that I have no confidence in the Government, and I willnow tell the House another reason for that want of confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, on a previous occasion, treatedthe right hon. President of the Board of Works very summarily; but Iwish to call the attention of the House to what was said by the righthon. Gentleman in 1850, in the debate which then took place upon theforeign policy of the noble Lord now his chief. On that occasion theright hon. Gentleman told the House that the foreign policy of the nobleLord now at the head of the Government had made us hated by every partyin every nation in Europe; he said that the noble Lord had excited thedisaffected to revolt, and, having brought upon them the vengeance ofthe Governments under which they lived, had then betrayed them. I do notsay that this is true, but I state it upon the authority of a Ministernow in the Cabinet of the noble Lord; but, whether true or not, I cannothave confidence in the right hon. Gentleman when sitting in a Cabinet tocarry out the foreign policy of the noble Lord. 

I will take the case of another Minister, and I do not think that whenhe speaks he will call my observations undeserved. A most distinguishedMember of the Government--the Chancellor of the Exchequer--has beentwice elected within a very short period, once before and once since hisacceptance of office, --I must say that I do not like to see thesechanges, when a man one night sits on one bench and another night onanother, --on the 8th of February, 1855, the right hon. Gentleman, addressing his constituents at Radnor, said:--

 'I am not prepared to give my vote in favour of any change in our policy which would attempt to make England a first-rate military Power. It seems to me that it would be little short of madness to attempt any such gigantic undertaking. It is our true wisdom to limit ourselves to that amount of military force which shall enable us to defend our own shores, and to protect our great dependencies abroad. If we can completely defend our own coasts, it appears to me that the objects of our national policy have been fulfilled. '

And then, as if he had in view the language of the noble Lord at thehead of the Government and that of his colleague the Member for London, he proceeded to say, --

 'I wish to see a cessation of that inordinate and senseless desire which has been sometimes expressed of late, almost usurping the functions of Providence, that we should go to almost all parts of the world to redress wrong and to see that right is done. '

I say that the right hon. Gentleman had the language of his colleaguesin view, and when he speaks he will no doubt admit that such was thecase. For what did the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies saywhen he addressed the baillies and the enthusiastic citizens ofGreenock? He said, --

 'It is likewise to be considered, and I trust we shall none of us forget it, that this country holds an important position among the nations of the world--that not once, but many times, she has stood forward to resist oppression, to maintain the independence of weaker nations, to preserve to the general family of nations that freedom, that power of governing themselves, of which others have sought to deprive them. I trust that character will not be forgotten, will not be abandoned by a people which is now stronger in means, which is more populous and more wealthy than it ever has been at any former period. This then, you will agree with me, is not the period to abandon any of those duties towards the world, towards the whole of mankind, which Great Britain has hitherto performed. '

Now let us see what the right hon. Gentleman said, after having acceptedthe office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman madea speech, and it was just after the death of the late Emperor of Russia, and, in referring to the new Emperor, he said, --

 'If, however, it should please this mighty Potentate to continue in the course of aggression upon which his father had entered, and if our reasonable hopes of a more pacific policy should be disappointed, then let him know that in England he will find a country prepared to maintain its own rights and the rights of other nations. '

Observe, 'the rights of other nations;' and he goes on, --

 'A country which, although its army has been placed in a perilous position, and has had to undergo the rigours of a Russian winter, has its resources unimpaired, has its revenue flourishing, has its trade substantially undiminished, has its spirit unbroken, and will be prepared, in case of necessity, to vindicate its own honour, and to maintain the rights and liberties of Europe. '

I wish the House to observe what a complete change there is in thelanguage of the right hon. Gentleman upon these two occasions. Either ofthe two opinions which he expressed may be right, but both of themcannot be so, and I confess that when I find that a Gentleman says onething one day, and a month later, when he comes into office, the exactopposite, I do not think that I can be expected to have that confidencein him as to be willing to entrust him with the vast issues depending onthe war. 

I will now refer to a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman--one who hasalso distinguished himself--I mean the First Lord of the Admiralty. Thatright hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) has said nothing upon the subject ofthe war, and I have felt that he must entertain great doubts as to itspolicy; but, not very long ago, he also addressed his constituents, andindulged in very hostile and insulting language towards 'our great andmagnanimous ally;' but he, too, has changed his mind; and not long agohe went down by express train to Folkestone or Dover--I forget which--tomeet in the most friendly, and probably in the most humble manner, thevery potentate whom he had formerly abused. 

If I have disposed of these Gentlemen and shown why I can have noconfidence in them, are there any better reasons why I should haveconfidence in those two noble Lords who were the active and restlessspirits in the Cabinet which the noble Lord the Member for Londonoverthrew? I regard those noble Lords as responsible for the policy ofthis war. I am bound to suppose that they acted in accordance with theirconscientious convictions; but, still, the fact of their having embarkedin that policy is no reason why I should have confidence in them. But, are those two noble Lords men in whom the House and country ought toplace implicit confidence? What of late could be more remarkable thanthe caprices of the noble Lord the Member for London? When that nobleLord was in the Government of Lord Aberdeen he went to Greenock, I thinkto Bedford, and certainly to Bristol--and, in fact, he took everyopportunity which offered itself of bringing himself before the public;and, with his power of speech, his long experience, and eminentcharacter, did his utmost to stimulate the feelings of the people to apolicy which I believe to be destructive, and which I think the majorityof this House in calm moments does not believe to have been the wisestwhich could have been pursued. It certainly appears to me to beunjustifiable that, while Lord Aberdeen was honestly endeavouring tobring the negotiations to a peaceful conclusion, the noble Lord wastaking a course which rendered statesmanship valueless in conducting theforeign policy of the nation. The noble Lord, however, at last broughthis conduct to a climax. The hon. And learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) came forward as a little David with sling and stone--weaponswhich he did not even use, but at the sight of which the Whig Goliathwent howling and vanquished to the back benches. 

I am afraid, Sir, to trust myself to speak of the conduct of the nobleLord on that occasion. I presume that we shall have to wait for theadvent of that Somersetshire historian, whose coming the noble Lordexpects, before we know whether his conduct on that occasion was, whatsome persons still call it, treachery to his chief, or whether it arosefrom that description of moral cowardice which in every man is the deathof all true statesmanship. But in the year 1853 the noble Lord theMember for London gave me a strong reason why I should feel noconfidence in his present chief. The House will remember that he thenejected the present First Minister under whom he now serves from theCabinet of which he himself was then the head, and in the explanationwhich he made to the House, he told us that men like Lord Grey and LordMelbourne, men of age, of authority, and experience, had been able insome degree to control his noble Friend, but, that he being younger thanthe noble Lord, and having been a shorter time on the political stage, had found it difficult to control him. The description which the nobleLord might give of his colleague is a little like that which weoccasionally see given of a runaway horse--that he got the bit betweenhis teeth, and there was no holding him. 

The noble Lord the Member for London was the captain of the Statevessel, and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was the mate. But howis it now? The noble Lord the Member for the City of London has acceptedthe position of mate in the most perilous times, in the most tempestuousweather, and he goes to sea with no chart on a most dangerous andinterminable voyage, and with the very reckless captain whom he wouldnot trust as mate. Sir, the noble Lord the Member for London has made adefence of his conduct at the Conferences at Vienna. I am willing togive him credit that he did then honestly intend peace; but I do thinkthat when he goes again, and on such a journey, he will do well to leavesome of his historic knowledge behind him. They were indeed historicfancies. There is nothing to me so out of place as the comparison whichthe noble Lord made between the limitation of the Russian fleet in theBlack Sea and the destruction of Dunkirk, or between the condition ofthe Black Sea and that of the lakes of North America. The noble Lord cannever have heard of the Falls of Niagara. If there were Falls like thembetween the Black Sea and the Mediterranean the cases would be somewhatsimilar, for the Russian fleet in the Black Sea would not then beexposed to the assaults of the vast navies of England or France. When Iallude to this subject, I am reminded of that Welshman whom Shakspeareimmortalised, who found some analogy between a river in Macedon and ariver in Monmouth. He knew the name of the river in Monmouth, and he didnot know the name of the river in Macedon, but he insisted upon theanalogy between them because there were salmon in both. 

Well, Sir, I now come to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Ido not complain that he is at the head of the Government. The noble Lordthe Member for the City of London had thrown everything into suchinextricable and unlooked-for confusion that any one next door to himmust necessarily occupy the place. But I cannot have confidence in thenoble Viscount, because I cannot but recollect that in 1850 he receivedthe condemnation of his foreign policy in the other House of Parliament;and in a speech which I shall never forget, the last and one of the bestever delivered by the greatest statesman of the time, he received asimilar condemnation, and the noble Viscount only escaped condemnationby a direct vote of this House by the energetic defence of the nobleLord the Member for the City of London, and by the stress laid upon manyMembers on this side of the House. But only six weeks after this thenoble Lord (Lord J. Russell) presented to the noble Viscount a letterfrom his Sovereign, which I cannot but think must have cost him muchpain, and to which I will not refer further, except to say that I do notknow how it is possible, if the contents of that letter were true, thateither the noble Lord or the House can be called upon to place implicitconfidence in the noble Lord the leader of the Government. 

I have observed the noble Viscount's conduct ever since I have had thehonour of a seat in this House, and the noble Viscount will excuse me ifI state the reason why I have often opposed him. The reason is, that thenoble Viscount treats all these questions, and the House itself, withsuch a want of seriousness that it has appeared to me that he has noserious, or sufficiently serious, conviction of the important businessthat so constantly comes before this House. I regard the noble Viscountas a man who has experience, but who with experience has not gainedwisdom--as a man who has age, but who, with age, has not the gravity ofage, and who, now occupying the highest seat of power, has--and I say itwith pain--not appeared influenced by a due sense of the responsibilitythat belongs to that elevated position. 

We are now in the hands of these two noble Lords. They are the authorsof the war. It lies between them that peace was not made at Vienna uponsome proper terms. And whatever disasters may be in store for thiscountry or for Europe, they will lie at the doors of these noble Lords. Their influence in the Cabinet must be supreme; their influence in thisHouse is necessarily great; and their influence with the country isgreater than that of any other two statesmen now upon the stage ofpolitical life in England. They have carried on the war. They have, however, not yet crippled Russia, although it is generally admitted thatthey have almost destroyed Turkey. They have not yet saved Europe in itsindependence and civilization, --they have only succeeded in convulsingit. They have not added to the honour and renown of England, but theyhave placed the honour and renown of this country in peril. The countryhas been, I am afraid, the sport of their ancient rivalry, and I shouldbe very sorry if it should be the victim of the policy which they haveso long advocated. 

There is only one other point upon which I will trouble the House, if itwill give me its attention. These Ministers--the right hon. Member forSouthwark, the Commissioner of the Board of Works, especially, andevidently the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am afraid many otherMembers of this House--seem to think little of taxes. Some Members ofthis House seem to have no patience with me if I speak of the cost ofthe war; but I am obliged to ask its attention to this point. Irecollect reading in the life of Necker, that an aristocratic lady cameto him when he was Finance Minister of Louis XVI, and asked him to giveher 1, 000 crowns from the public treasury--not an unusual demand inthose days. Necker refused to give the money. The lady started withastonishment--she had an eye to the vast funds of the State, and sheasked, 'What can 1, 000 crowns be to the King?' Necker's answer was, 'Madam! 1, 000 crowns are the taxes of a whole village!'

I ask hon. Gentlemen what are the taxes of a whole village, and whatthey mean? They mean bareness of furniture, of clothing, and of thetable in many a cottage in Lancashire, in Suffolk, and in Dorsetshire. They mean an absence of medical attendance for a sick wife, an absenceof the school pence of three or four little children--hopeless toil tothe father of a family, penury through his life, a cheerless old age, and, if I may quote the language of a poet of humble life, at last--'thelittle bell tolled hastily for the pauper's funeral. ' That is what taxesmean. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire spoke the other night in a mannerrather flippant and hardly respectful to some of us on this question. But the labourers of Dorsetshire as well as the weavers and spinners ofLancashire are toiling, and must toil harder, longer, and with smallerremuneration for every single 100_l_. That you extract in taxesfrom the people in excess of what is necessary for the just requirementsof the Exchequer of the country. I hope I may be permitted to treat thequestion on this ground, and I ask the House to recollect that when youstrike down the children in the cottage you attack also the children inthe palace. If you darken the lives and destroy the hopes of the humbledwellers of the country, you also darken the prospects of those childrenthe offspring of your Queen, in whom are bound up so much of theinterests and so much of the hopes of the people of this country. If Idefend, therefore, the interests of the people on this point, I do notthe less defend the permanence of the dignity of the Crown. 

We on this bench are not willing to place ourselves alongside of nobleLords who are for carrying on this war with no definite object and foran indefinite period, but are ready to take our chance of the verdict ofposterity whether they or we more deserve the character of statesmen inthe course we have taken on this question. The House must know that thepeople are misled and bewildered, and that if every man in this House, who doubts the policy that is being pursued, would boldly say so in thisHouse and out of it, it would not be in the power of the press tomislead the people as it has done for the last twelve months. If theyare thus misled and bewildered, is it not the duty of this House tospeak with the voice of authority in this hour of peril? We are thedepositaries of the power and the guardians of the interests of a greatnation and of an ancient monarchy. Why should we not fully measure ourresponsibility? Why should we not disregard the small-minded ambitionthat struggles for place? and why should we not, by a faithful, just, and earnest policy, restore, as I believe we may, tranquillity to Europeand prosperity to the country so dear to us?

 * * * * *

LETTER OF JOHN BRIGHTTO ABSALOM WATKINON THE RUSSIAN WAR

[This letter was originally published with notes containing extractsfrom those authorities which confirmed the writer's views. The text ofthese notes has been omitted, but the references have been retained. Ithas been thought desirable to reprint this letter, as explaining thepolicy which Mr. Bright thought it his duty to recommend--a policy whichwas as wise and just as it was unfortunately unpopular. --J. E. T. R. ]

[Mr. Absalom Watkin, of Manchester, having invited Mr. Bright to ameeting about to be held in that city on behalf of the Patriotic Fund, and having stated that in his opinion the present war was justified bythe authority of _Vattel_, Mr. Bright replied in the subjoinedletter. ]

I think, on further consideration, you will perceive that the meeting onThursday next would be a most improper occasion for a discussion as tothe justice of the war. Just or unjust, the war is a fact, and the menwhose lives are miserably thrown away in it have clearly a claim uponthe country, and especially upon those who, by the expression ofopinions favourable to the war, have made themselves responsible for it. I cannot, therefore, for a moment appear to discourage the liberality ofthose who believe the war to be just, and whose utmost generosity, in myopinion, will make but a wretched return for the ruin they have broughtupon hundreds of families. 

With regard to the war itself, I am not surprised at the differencebetween your opinion and mine, if you decide a question of this natureby an appeal to _Vattel_. The 'law of nations' is not my law, andat best it is a code full of confusion and contradictions, having itsfoundation on custom, and not on a higher morality; and on custom whichhas always been determined by the will of the strongest. It may be aquestion of some interest whether the first crusade was in accordancewith the law and principles of _Vattel_; but whether the firstcrusade was just, and whether the policy of the crusades was a wisepolicy, is a totally different question. I have no doubt that theAmerican war was a just war according to the principles laid down bywriters on the 'law of nations, ' and yet no man in his senses in thiscountry will now say that the policy of George III. Towards the Americancolonies was a wise policy, or that war a righteous war. The French war, too, was doubtless just according to the same authorities; for therewere fears and anticipated dangers to be combatted, and law and order tobe sustained in Europe; and yet few intelligent men now believe theFrench war to have been either necessary or just. You must excuse me ifI refuse altogether to pin my faith upon _Vattel_. There have beenwriters on international law who have attempted to show that privateassassination and the poisoning of wells were justifiable in war: andperhaps it would be difficult to demonstrate wherein these horrorsdiffer from some of the practices which are now in vogue. I will not askyou to mould your opinion on these points by such writers, nor shall Isubmit my judgment to that of _Vattel_. 

The question of this present war is in two parts--first, was itnecessary for us to interfere by arms in a dispute between the Russiansand the Turks; and secondly, having determined to interfere, undercertain circumstances, why was not the whole question terminated whenRussia accepted the Vienna note? The seat of war is three thousand milesaway from us. We had not been attacked--not even insulted in any way. Two independent Governments had a dispute, and we thrust ourselves intothe quarrel. That there was some ground for the dispute is admitted bythe four Powers in the proposition of the Vienna note. [Footnote:Colonel Rose to Lord John Russell, March 7, 1853--Blue Book, part i. P. 87. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to the Earl of Clarendon. , April 9 andMay 22, 1853--Ibid, part i. Pp. 127 and 235. Lord John Russell to Sir G. H. Seymour, February 9, 1853--Eastern Papers, part v. P. 8. Earl ofClarendon to Sir G. H. Seymour, April 5, 1853--Ibid, part v. P. 22. LordCarlisle's Diary in Turkish and Greek Waters, p. 181. ] But for theEnglish Minister at Constantinople and the Cabinet at home the disputewould have settled itself, and the last note of Prince Menchikoff wouldhave been accepted, and no human being can point out any materialdifference between that note and the Vienna note, afterwards agreed uponand recommended by the Governments of England, France, Austria andPrussia. But our Government would not allow the dispute to be settled. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe held private interviews with the Sultan--didhis utmost to alarm him--insisted on his rejection of all terms ofaccommodation with Russia, and promised him the armed assistance ofEngland if war should arise. [Footnote: Lord Stratford to the Earl ofClarendon, May 19, 1853. See, however, a despatch of May 10--Blue Book, part i. P. 213. ]

The Turks rejected the Russian note, and the Russians crossed the Pruth, occupying the Principalities as a 'material guarantee. ' I do not defendthis act of Russia: it has always appeared to me impolitic and immoral;but I think it likely it could be well defended out of _Vattel_, and it is at least as justifiable as the conduct of Lord John Russelland Lord Palmerston in 1850, when they sent ten or twelve ships of warto the Piraeus, menacing the town with a bombardment if the dishonestpecuniary claims made by Don Pacifico were not at once satisfied. [Footnote: Count Nesselrode to Baron Brunnow, February, 1850. ]

But the passage of the Pruth was declared by England and France andTurkey not to be a _casus belli_. Negotiations were commenced atVienna, and the celebrated Vienna note was drawn up. This note had itsorigin in Paris [Footnote: Earl of Westmorland to Lord Clarendon, July25, 1853--Blue Book, part ii. P. 19. ], was agreed to by the Conferenceat Vienna, ratified and approved by the Cabinets of Paris and London[Footnote: Earl of Clarendon to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, August 2, 1853--Blue Book, part ii. P. 27. Lord Cowley to Lord Clarendon, August4, 1853--Ibid, part ii. P. 37. ], and pronounced by all these authoritiesto be such as would satisfy the honour of Russia, and at the same timebe compatible with the 'independence and integrity' of Turkey and thehonour of the Sultan. Russia accepted this note at once [Footnote: SirG. H. Seymour to the Earl of Clarendon, August 5, 1853--Blue Book, partii. P. 43. Count Nesselrode, August 6, 1853--Ibid, part ii. P. 46. ], --accepted it, I believe, by telegraph, even before the precise words ofit had been received in St. Petersburgh [Footnote: Sir G. H. Seymour toLord Clarendon, August 12, 1853--Blue Book, part ii. P. 50. CountNesselrode to Baron Meyendorff, September 7, 1853--Ibid, part ii. P. 101. ]. Everybody thought the question now settled; a Cabinet Ministerassured me we should never hear another word about it; 'the whole thingis at an end, ' he said, and so it appeared for a moment. But the Turkrefused the note which had been drawn up by his own arbitrators, andwhich Russia had accepted [Footnote: Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to theEarl of Clarendon, August 13, 1853--Blue Book, part iv. P. 69. LordStratford to the Earl of Clarendon, August 14, 1853--Ibid, part ii. P. 71. ]. And what did the Ministers say then, and what did their organ, the_Times_, say? They said it was merely a difference about words; itwas a pity the Turk made any difficulty, but it would soon be settled[Footnote: Lord Cowley to Lord Clarendon, from Paris, September 2, 1853--Blue Book, part iv. P. 87. Lord Clarendon to Lord Stratford deRedcliffe, September 10, 1853--Ibid, part iv. P. 95. The _Times_, September 17, 1853. ]. But it was not settled, and why not? It is saidthat the Russian Government put an improper construction on the Viennanote. But it is unfortunate for those who say this, that the Turk placedprecisely the same construction upon it; and further, it is upon recordthat the French Government advised the Russian Government to accept it, on the ground that 'its general sense differed in nothing from the senseof the proposition of Prince Menchikoff. ' [Footnote: Earl of Clarendonto the Earl of Westmoreland, July 25, 1853--Blue Book, part ii. P. 1. Count Nesselrode's Memorandum of March 2, 1854, in the _Journal desDebats_. ] It is, however, easy to see why the Russian Governmentshould, when the Turks refused the award of their own arbitrators, re-state its original claim, that it might not be damaged by whateverconcession it had made in accepting the award; and this is evidently theexplanation of the document issued by Count Nesselrode, and about whichso much has been said. But, after this, the Emperor of Russia spoke toLord Westmoreland on the subject at Olmutz, and expressed his readinessto accept the Vienna note, with any clause which the Conference mightadd to it, explaining and restricting its meaning; [Footnote: LordWestmoreland to Lord Clarendon, September 28, 1853--Blue Book, part ii. P. 129. Lord Cowley to Lord Clarendon, October 4, 1853--Ibid, part ii. P. 131. Lord Clarendon to Lord Cowley, October 7, 1853--Ibid, part ii. P. 140. Lord Clarendon to Lord A. Loftus--Ibid, part ii. P. 132. ] and heurged that this should be done at once, as he was anxious that histroops should re-cross the Pruth before winter. [Footnote: Earl ofWestmoreland, September 14, 1853--Blue Book, part ii. P. 106. ] It was inthis very week that the Turks summoned a grand council, and, contrary tothe advice of England and France, determined on a declaration of war. [Footnote: Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, September 26, 1853--Blue Book, part ii. P. 130. M. Drouyn de Lhuys to Count Walewski, October 4, 1853--Ibid, part ii. P. 136. ]

Now, observe the course taken by our Government. They agreed to theVienna note; not fewer than five Members of this Cabinet have filled theoffice of Foreign Secretary, and therefore may be supposed capable ofcomprehending its meaning: it was a note drawn up by the friends ofTurkey, and by arbitrators self-constituted on behalf of Turkey; theyurged its acceptance on the Russian Government, and the RussianGovernment accepted it; there was then a dispute about its precisemeaning, and Russia agreed, and even proposed that the arbitrators atVienna should amend it, by explaining it, and limiting its meaning, sothat no question of its intention should henceforth exist. But, theTurks having rejected it, our Government turned round, and declared theVienna note, their own note, entirely inadmissible, and defended theconduct of the Turks in having rejected it. The Turks declared war, against the advice of the English and French Governments [Footnote: LordStratford de Redcliffe, September 20, 1853--Blue Book, part ii. Pp. 149, 151. Lord Clarendon, October 24, 1853--Ibid, part ii. P. 131. LordStratford, November 17, 1853--Ibid, part ii. Pp. 271, 281. LordStratford--Ibid, part ii. P. 288. Lord Clarendon to Lord Stratford, November 8, 1853--Ibid, part ii. P. 219. ]--so, at least, it appears fromthe Blue Books; but the moment war was declared by Turkey, ourGovernment openly applauded it. England, then, was committed to the war. She had promised armed assistance to Turkey--a country withoutgovernment [Footnote: Lord Clarendon to Lord Stratford--Blue Book, parti. Pp. 81, 82. Lord Stratford to M. E. Pisani, June 22, 1853--Ibid, parti. P. 383. The same to the same, July 4--Ibid, part i. Pp. 383, 384. ], and whose administration was at the mercy of contending factions; andincapable of fixing a policy for herself, she allowed herself to bedragged on by the current of events at Constantinople. She 'drifted, ' asLord Clarendon said, exactly describing his own position, into the war, apparently without rudder and without compass. 

The whole policy of our Government in this matter is marked with animbecility perhaps without example. I will not say they intended a warfrom the first, though there are not wanting many evidences that war wasthe object of at least a section of the Cabinet. A distinguished Memberof the House of Commons said to a friend of mine, immediately after theaccession of the present Government to office, 'You have a war Ministry, and you will have a war. ' But I leave this question to point out thedisgraceful feebleness of the Cabinet, if I am to absolve them from theguilt of having sought occasion for war. They promised the Turk armedassistance on conditions, or without conditions. They, in concert withFrance, Austria, and Prussia, took the original dispute out of the handsof Russia and Turkey, and formed themselves into a court of arbitrationin the interests of Turkey; they made an award, which they declared tobe safe and honourable for both parties; this award was accepted byRussia and rejected by Turkey; and they then turned round upon their ownaward, declared it to be 'totally inadmissible, ' and made war upon thevery country whose Government, at their suggestion and urgentrecommendation, had frankly accepted it. At this moment England isengaged in a murderous warfare with Russia, although the RussianGovernment accepted her own terms of peace, and has been willing toaccept them in the sense of England's own interpretation of them eversince they were offered; and at the same time England is allied withTurkey, whose Government rejected the award of England, and who enteredinto the war in opposition to the advice of England. Surely, when theVienna note was accepted by Russia, the Turks should have been preventedfrom going to war, or should have been allowed to go to war at their ownrisk. 

I have said nothing here of the fact that all these troubles have sprungout of the demands made by France upon the Turkish Government, and urgedin language more insulting than any which has been shown to have beenused by Prince Menchikoff [Footnote: Col. Rose to the Earl ofMalmesbury, November 20, 1852--Blue Book, part i. P. 49. Lord J. Russellto Lord Cowley, January 28, 1853--Ibid, part i. P. 67. ]. I have saidnothing of the diplomatic war which has been raging for many years pastin Constantinople, and in which England has been behind no other Powerin attempting to subject the Porte to foreign influences [Footnote: BlueBook--Correspondence respecting the Condition of Protestants in Turkey, 1841-51, pp. 5-8. ] I have said nothing of the abundant evidence there isthat we are not only at war with Russia, but with all the Christianpopulation of the Turkish Empire, and that we are building up ourEastern policy on a false foundation--namely, on the perpetualmaintenance of the most immoral and filthy of all despotisms over one ofthe fairest portions of the earth which it has desolated, and over apopulation it has degraded but has not been able to destroy. I have saidnothing of the wretched delusion that we are fighting for civilizationin supporting the Turk against the Russian and against the subjectChristian population of Turkey. I have said nothing about our pretendedsacrifices for freedom in this war, in which our great and now dominantally is a monarch who, last in Europe, struck down a free constitution, and dispersed by military violence a national Representative Assembly. 

My doctrine would have been non-intervention in this case. The danger ofthe Russian power was a phantom [Footnote: 'There never has been a greatState whose power for external aggression has been more overrated thanRussia. She may be impregnable within her own boundaries, BUT SHE ISNEARLY POWERLESS FOR ANY PURPOSE OF OFFENCE. '--_Lord Palmerston, inthe House of Commons_, 1853. ]; the necessity of permanently upholdingthe Mahometan rule in Europe is an absurdity. Our love for civilization, when we subject the Greeks and Christians to the Turks, is a sham; andour sacrifices for freedom, when working out the behests of the Emperorof the French and coaxing Austria to help us, is a pitiful imposture. The evils of non-intervention were remote and vague, and could neitherbe weighed nor described in any accurate terms. The good we can judgesomething of already, by estimating the cost of a contrary policy. Andwhat is that cost? War in the north and south of Europe, threatening toinvolve every country of Europe. Many, perhaps fifty millions sterling, in the course of expenditure by this country alone, to be raised fromthe taxes of a people whose extrication from ignorance and poverty canonly be hoped for from the continuance of peace. The disturbance oftrade throughout the world, the derangement of monetary affairs, anddifficulties and ruin to thousands of families. Another year of highprices of food, notwithstanding a full harvest in England, chieflybecause war interferes with imports, and we have declared our principalforeign food-growers to be our enemies. The loss of human life to anenormous extent. Many thousands of our own countrymen have alreadyperished of pestilence and in the field; and hundreds, perhapsthousands, of English families will be plunged into sorrow, as a part ofthe penalty to be paid for the folly of the nation and its rulers. 

When the time comes for the 'inquisition for blood, ' who shall answerfor these things? You have read the tidings from the Crimea; you have, perhaps, shuddered at the slaughter; you remember the terrific picture, --I speak not of the battle, and the charge, and the tumultuousexcitement of the conflict, but of the field after the battle--Russians, in their frenzy or their terror, shooting Englishmen who would haveoffered them water to quench their agony of thirst; Englishmen, incrowds, rifling the pockets of the men they had slain or wounded, takingtheir few shillings or roubles, and discovering among the plunder of thestiffening corpses images of the 'Virgin and the Child. ' You have readthis, and your imagination has followed the fearful details. This iswar, --every crime which human nature can commit or imagine, everyhorror it can perpetrate or suffer; and this it is which our ChristianGovernment recklessly plunges into, and which so many of our countrymenat this moment think it patriotic to applaud! You must excuse me if Icannot go with you. I will have no part in this terrible crime. My handsshall be unstained with the blood which is being shed. The necessity ofmaintaining themselves in office may influence an administration;delusions may mislead a people; _Vattel_ may afford you a law and adefence; but no respect for men who form a Government, no regard I havefor 'going with the stream, ' and no fear of being deemed wanting inpatriotism, shall influence me in favour of a policy which, in myconscience, I believe to be as criminal before God as it is destructiveof the true interest of my country. 

I have only to ask you to forgive me for writing so long a letter. Youhave forced it from me, and I would not have written it did I not somuch appreciate your sincerity and your good intentions towards me. 

Believe me to be, very sincerely yours, JOHN BRIGHT. 

October 29.