^ \^ ^> 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 A 
 
 ^ .^\ 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 11.25 
 
 hiW2.B 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 lU 
 Hi 
 
 140 
 
 2.0 
 
 m 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sdences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTIII,N.Y. 14SW 
 
 (716)872-4503 
 
 qv 
 
 ^ 
 
 .^^ 
 
 <\ 
 
 4 
 
 ^\ 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 ^ 
 

 CIHM/rCMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microraproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notas techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 □ Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I — I Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 Couverture endommagAe 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurte et/ou pellicula 
 
 I — I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 n 
 
 Cartes gAographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 r~^ Bound with other material/ 
 IJlJ Relit avec d'autres documents 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrte peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge inttrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. 
 mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas M filmtes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplimentaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagtes 
 
 I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 Pages restaurtes et/ou pelliculAes 
 
 q1 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages dicolortes, tachettes ou piquAes 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditachies 
 
 ["T^Showthrough/ 
 I — I Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Qualiti intgale de I'impression 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel suppltmentaire 
 
 □ Only edition available/ 
 Seule Mition disponible 
 
 D 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 1 
 
 V 
 
 d 
 e 
 b 
 ri 
 ri 
 n 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, 
 etc., ont M filmies it nouveau de fa9on A 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqut ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 y 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thanke 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Metropolitan Toronto Library 
 Canadian History Department 
 
 The image* appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — »- (meaning "COI\l- 
 TliyiUED"). or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 L'exemplaire filmi f ut reproduit griee h la 
 gtnArosit* de: 
 
 IMetropolitan Toronto Library 
 Canadian History Department 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reprodultes avec ie 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettet* de l'exemplaire filmA. et en 
 conformity evec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimte sont fiimte en commenqant 
 par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second 
 plat, salon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmfo en commen^ant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniire page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la 
 derniire image de cheque microfiche, seion Ie 
 cas: ie symboie — »• signifie "A SUiVRE". Ie 
 symbols y signifie "FIN". 
 
 iVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre 
 fiimte A des taux de reduction diffirents. 
 Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seui clich6, il est fiimi 6 partir 
 de i'engie sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droita, 
 et de haut en bas. en prenant Ie nombre 
 d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 iliustrent la mMhode. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
7"8 
 
 GREAT MEETING 
 
 OF 
 
 ELECTORS OF THE BOROUGH OP HYTHE, 
 
 Held in the Town Hall, Folkestone^ Friday^ 
 February 27, 1880. 
 
 Speech of SIR EDWARD WATKIN, M.P. 
 
 Dr. BATEMAN m the Chaib. 
 
 Mr. Hart read the notice convening the meeting. 
 
 The Chairman : At what I may call a preliminary meeting 
 tc those which took place a few days ago, which was attended 
 by most of the leading Liberals in this town, and also by our 
 staunch friends from Hythe and Sandgate, and which, I think, 
 pretty fairly represented the Liberal feeling of this Borough, 
 the following resolutions were passed : — 1 . "That in the opinion 
 of this meeting it is desirable to convene a general meeting of 
 the Liberal party to consider the arrangements to be made for 
 the next General Election for this Borough, and that the 
 Chairman of this Committee convene such meeting accor- 
 dingly." 2. " That Sir Edward Watkin should be respect- 
 fully invited to attend." He has been invited, and I expect 
 to see him here every minute. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, since 
 the present borough of Hythe was formed by the great 
 Beform Act of 1833, we have had many contests — some severe 
 and some in which we have gained rather easy victories ; but 
 in all these contests we have been successful ; we have always 
 carried a Liberal member ; and I think the great cause of our 
 fiucoess has been that we have always been united. 
 
 I must do our Nonconformist brother electors^ the justice to 
 say that they, who are certainly a tower of strength to the 
 liberal party throughout the country — (cheers) — have never 
 brought their own particular views in opposition to the general 
 views of the electors, and we have never had extreme men for 
 candidates. Our members have generally been moderate men. 
 Gentlemen, I think you will agree with me that the principal 
 
 B. 
 
 lift: 
 
 if 
 
 f 
 
( a ) 
 
 business of this meeting will be to determine whether Sir 
 Edward Watkin is to be our future candidate. (Hear, hear.) 
 Not having had the opportunity of speaking, I would just say 
 a few words to you and give you my views upon that 
 subject. (Hear, hear.) It is no use, gentlemen, disguis- 
 ing the fact that some of Sir Edward Watkin's staunchest 
 supporters have not been pleased with some of the votes 
 he has lately given. (Hear, hear.) He has voted on some 
 questions independently of his party — (hear, hear, and 
 cheers) — but he has voted according to his own convictions. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, this has been, as usual, chiefly on ques- 
 tions of foreign policy. Well, Sir Edward Watkin may be right 
 or he may be wrong — I know that many of you think that he 
 has acted perfectly right. (Cheers.) But what I would 
 ask you is, whether he were right or wrong, has he no right 
 to have an opinion of his own, and because he has acted in a 
 manner which some of us do not exactly like, is that to cancel 
 his life-long service in the cause of civil, religious and com- 
 mercial liberty. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, I have seen the regu- 
 lations for the first formation of the Anti-Corn Law League ; 
 they are in the handwriting of Sir Edward Watkin's father, 
 who with Mr. Cobden, drew them up. At that tine Sir 
 Edward Watkin began his political life. He was then a youth 
 of nineteen years of age and he followed Cobden and Bright 
 in that great agitation for doing away with laws which put an 
 artificial price as you know upon the food of the people. (A 
 voice : Do not talk of the past ; give us the future.) 
 
 Gentlemen, we generally judge of the future from the past. 
 (Cheers.) What a man has done all his life you may expect 
 him to continue to do. (Hear, hear.) I believe no man has 
 sacrificed more to the Liberal party than Sir Edward Watkin. 
 He has been all his life a consistent Liberal ; he has spent his 
 time, his talent, his money in the cause of Liberal ideas. When 
 I say his money, I can tell you that he has had no less than 
 nine contested elections, and they have cost him something I 
 expect. Now, gentlemen, I will give you an extract from an 
 authority which you will all acknowledge to be a great autho- 
 rity on the Liberal side, and I hope you will take it and consi- 
 der it and follow the advice given in it. 
 
 " If sound principles are to prevail they must have effective 
 personal representation; they must be set forth by men who 
 are capable of presenting them in an attractive light ; by men 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 of readiness of speech, of achieved reputation, or of high pro- 
 mise. A loose and hesitating allegiance needs to be confirmed 
 by attractive or impressive personal qualities. Above all these 
 there must be no vindictive proscription of men who differ 
 from their party on any one set of questions, however important. 
 
 ** We expressed this opinion long ago ; even in the extreme 
 and rather trying case of Mr. Walter, and incurred some re- 
 proof for doing so. All that has passed since confirms us in 
 our view not simply of the expediency, but of the absolute 
 necessity of mutual toleration if the Liberal party is not to be 
 wholly disorganized. Personal independence, even though it 
 must often involve a mistaken judgment, is a quality to be re- 
 spected and encouraged. Liberal members who do not wholly 
 share the views of the leaders of opposition on questions of 
 foreign policy represent a minority, but a not inconsiderable 
 minority, in the Liberal party. The alienation of this minority 
 means a plurality of candidates for single seats, and a repetition 
 in 1880 of the mismanagement and disaster of 1874. It is 
 necessary that candidates of high personal qualifications 
 should be chosen, and that the tactics of reconciliation and 
 accommodation and not of proscription and exclusion should 
 be followed." (Cheers.) 
 
 That is from the Daily News, and it was written in reference 
 to the late Liberal defeat at the Southwark election. I ex- 
 pect Sir Edward Watkin will be here immediately, and I 
 think that the first thing you would like would be to hear 
 him. (Cheers.) 
 
 [Sir Edward Watkin here entered the room, and was re- 
 ceived with loud and prolonged cheering.] 
 
 Sir Edwabd Watkin : Mr. Chairman, we have entered 
 upon Lent, and those who teach us things that are well for us to 
 know urge us at this time to fasting, to prayer, and to giving of 
 alms. I sometimes wish, both inside the House of Commons 
 and out, that they would also require us to have a little self- 
 abstention in the matter of talking. (Laughter.) I think it 
 would be well for the House of Commons if they talked less 
 and worked more, and I think that in every constituency it 
 woidd not be altogether an evil if we met each other fairly 
 and quietly upon questions of difference, instead of trying to 
 magnify any little dispute and to do as much mischief as 
 possible for the mere sake of talking. (Cheers.) 
 
 B 2 
 
 }i- 
 
i 
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 There have been times in the history of our country — many, 
 fortunately, and frequent — when ** none were for a party, and 
 all were for the state ;" and I must say that it has struck me — 
 I hope it will strike you — that, looking at the last three and a 
 half years, there never was a time when it was more necessary 
 that every honest patriot should remember that he was an 
 Englishman first and a party politician afterwards. (Cheers.) 
 Now, sir, I never entered Parliament for any of the con- 
 stituencies I have represented — as a mere delegate (hear, hear), 
 and as regards the ancient borough of Hylhe and its modem 
 sisters of Sandgate and Folkestone, and that country district 
 which the wisdom of Parliament added to its boundaries, I 
 have always considered that I was representing a constituency 
 eminently independent (hear, hear) ; and I can assure this 
 meeting, and I believe they will be entirely in accordance 
 with me when I say, that the vote of an independent con- 
 stituency upon those momentous questions which agitate the 
 public mind is of far more value in a moral and patriotic 
 sense than the vote of a constituency which chooses always to 
 crouch to the whipper-in of the party that it professes to 
 prefer. (Cheers.) And, sir, it has always seemed to me that 
 in our constituency of Hythe we have those elements of 
 electoral independence which unfortunately in some consti- 
 tuencies are absent. We have amongst us, to begin with, a 
 resident population of men who have served their country in 
 every clime of the wide world. Then we have professional 
 gentlemen coming here, for the sake of health, whose 
 opinions upon most questions must be not only important 
 but experienced. Then we have the mercantile portion of 
 our constituency, which, for honour and independence, can 
 hardly be equalled. And beyond all that, we have our 
 fishing trade, our artizans and others — men disposed to 
 think for themselves and to defy dictation. (Cheers.) I 
 think, therefore, that if there is a place in the world which 
 while holding fast to those great principles upon which all 
 free political action is founded, desire in details not to be 
 chained or fettered — if there is such a constituency, it is this • 
 and such a constituency deserves, I venture to think, an inde- 
 pendent member. (Cheers.) 
 
 I, sir, have always regarded myself as a trustee for that 
 independence, and whenever difficult questions have arisen I 
 have taken the precaution to consult those whose opinions I 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 thought might be fairly compared with my own. Not that 
 the opinion of any one man is not as good as the opinion of 
 any other ; but there are those fully informed upon questions, 
 and those who from circumstances cannot possibly be so ; and 
 hence I have gained the impression that the votes that I shall 
 allude to to-night, which I have given in Parliament as your 
 trustee, are votes which are endorsed and will be endorsed by 
 the great majority of this constituency. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) 
 Now, sir, I have been attacked. Everybody must at times be 
 attacked. I look upon it as rather a compliment to be attacked. 
 (Laughter.) People who have done nothing, who know no- 
 thing, who have never said anything worth listening to, are 
 never attacked ; but the men who have done something, who 
 have said something, who know something, are generally at- 
 tacked, and usually by those who know nothing, who have 
 said nothing, who have done nothing — except make mischief. 
 (Hear.) Now I should like just to allude for a moment, in a sort 
 of parenthesis, to some little reports that have been going about. 
 We must have reports. I wish they were always as correct 
 as the reports of the gentlemen of the press whom I see 
 below me. But the report that came to my ears was this, 
 that your representative was going vj desert you without even 
 giving you the ordinary servant's form of notice ; that instead 
 of saying to you that if you did not know when you had a 
 good servant he knew when he had a good master, — ^he was 
 going absolutely to run away from you — "bag and baggage;" 
 that in addition to that he was going to turn his back upon 
 the active and acting principles of his life, and to be a can- 
 didate for a seat in another district of the country upon the 
 strongest principles of re-action; and, moreover, that, con- 
 fident in his power of being able to do whatever he liked, 
 he was going to bring forward some personal relative to take 
 his place. (Laughter.) 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I will neither admit nor deny any- 
 thing. I will answer by a little American story. A friend 
 of mine, gifted with a good many hard-headed qualities, but 
 with very little quickness, and much less wit, was travel- 
 ling in the United States of America. In that free and 
 enlightened country they are usually rather fond of chaffing 
 Englishmen, and they saw that this was an Englishman 
 peculiarly open to be chaifed. One of the company in the 
 train happened to be a lady, and ladies in America, I can 
 
 1*1 
 
 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 
 assure the charming ladies present, are to Englishmen very 
 dangerous people. It is not so much their beauty, because 
 we can manage that, but it is the peculiar cuteness and 
 slyness which they invariably exhibit. Well, this lady said 
 to my friend, " I guess I will tell you a story that you cannot 
 answer." "Oh," said he, "I do not think you can. lam 
 an Englishman with a peculiar faculty for unfolding 
 riddles." "Well," said the lady, "I will give it 
 you. I met a little boy, and I said to him, ' Have you a 
 father ? ' * No,' he said, * I never had none.' * Have you got 
 a mother?' *No, I never had none.' 'Have you got any 
 brothers and sisters?' *0h, lots of brothers and sisters.' 
 Now," said the lady, " what is the answer to that ? " Well, 
 my friend scratched his head, and knocked his forehead 
 about for an hour or two (laughter), and at length he said, 
 " Well, for the first time in my life I must give it up." 
 "Oh," said the lady, "It is very simple; think again." 
 " Oh, I cannot make it out at all," said the Englishman. 
 "Why," said the lady, "It is very simple, as I told you. 
 The fact was, — the little boy lied." (Much laughter.) 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, to be serious for a moment. When I 
 am attacked by people for whom I have a contempt it does 
 not come home to me at all ; but when I am attacked, as I 
 think, unjustly and unkindly, by constituents for whom I have 
 the highest respect, I confess that it does hurt my feelings. I 
 know it has been stated in the public papers that I have said that 
 the views of the thoughtful and intelligent portion of the consti- 
 tuent body were in favour of my votes, and that my statement led 
 to the most ungrateful and ungraceful inference, — that there- 
 fore the minority who did not agree with my votes were neither 
 intelligent nor thoughtful. Now, I beg to say that I liever 
 meant — I never said — and I never could have said or meant, 
 any reflection upon these gentlemen (thoughtful and intelligent 
 as they are) who have not entirely agreed with that which 
 I have done ; and I take this earliest opportunity of saying 
 that I do not think it was a generous thing to suppose that I 
 could for a moment have assumed that because gentlemen of 
 education and position did not take the exact view with 
 regard to certain questions discussed in Parliament that I 
 took, forming a portion as they did of the great intelligence 
 and thoughtfulness of the borough, they must be unintelli- 
 gent and unthoughtful. Now, I have been told that I have 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 In 
 
 >» 
 
 » 
 
 been talking the merest bunkum. Well, I may have talked 
 that which to some gentlemen might have appeared the merest 
 bunkum ; but I am bound to say that, in a long attachment 
 to the party of progress, this is the first time that I have 
 experienced the weight of such a charge. Then the gentle- 
 man who has done mo the honour to criticise me and my 
 votes says that he recognizes my courage, but it would be an 
 insult if he said that he acknowledged my honesty. Gentle- 
 men, that is a very grave charge. To tell a man that he is 
 dishonest is about as grave a charge as could be launched 
 against him. I am told — I suppose in consequence of my 
 bunkum and my dishonesty — that there is discontent loud and 
 deep in the borough. (No, no.) Well, I should just like to 
 go back a few years. It seems to me only yesterday since I 
 met a crowded meeting 
 
 The Rev. William Sampson : May I put you right upon a 
 matter of fact. (Cries of " Order," and confusion.) 
 
 The Chairman : I beg you will hear Mr. Sampson. 
 
 Mr. Sampson : I never — (cries of " Order," and confusion.) 
 
 The Chairman : I am sure Sir Edward Watkin would wish 
 Mr. Sampson to be heard. 
 
 Sir Edwabd Watkin : I shall consider it a personal dis- 
 favour to myself if Mr. Sampson is not heard with the respect 
 which is fully due to him. 
 
 Mr. Sampson : Sir Edward has asked as a personal favour 
 to himself that you will hear my explanation. I want to save 
 time. When Sir Edward says that I have charged him with 
 being dishonest, he has altogether misread my letter. (Hear, 
 hear.) What I said was this — Sir Edward has the letter 
 before him — that I should think it an insult to tell him that 
 he was an honest man. Of course it would be an insult : of 
 course he is an honest man : that is my meaning. (Cheers.) 
 
 Sir Edwaed Watkin : Gentlemen, I always wish to have 
 justice done to me, and I should have no right to make that 
 demand if I did not wish to do justice to everybody else ; 
 therefore, I think the best way of settling this little interrup- 
 tion which, to some extent, has deranged the order of my speech, 
 would be for me to read the words to which I have alluded. 
 Mr. Sampson says, " I confess I am puzzled. Sir Edward has 
 voted for his former political opponents. I recognize his 
 
 I; 
 
 
 1; 
 
oourago in doing bo ; T should consider it an insult to 
 him if I were to say that I acknowledge his honesty." I 
 voted for principles ; I did not vote for party. Now, gentle- 
 men, I quite accept Mr. Sampson's explanation of what he 
 meant ; but I want to go back to the last election, and before 
 I sit down I hope I shall have proved conclusively to 
 you that if I am not able to agree with all the views of 
 Mr. Sampson and those who follow him, at the same time 
 without making any compromise of my opinions, I have done 
 everything I could to concede to those gentlemen and the 
 opinions they held. I want to ask what was the great thing 
 that divided the Liberal party in 1874? Why, sir, it 
 was mainly, at all events, certain clauses of a measure which 
 I believe will go down to posterity with the name of William 
 Edward Foster attached to it. I mean that great educa- 
 tional charter which silently but surely has been up-raising 
 the intellectual and moral position of the people of this 
 country. (Hear, hear.) There was a clause, notably the 
 twenty-fifth, which excited the greatest difficulty and the 
 greatest discontent amongst many portions of the Noncon- 
 formist body. I was, unfortunately, at that time in the 
 position of not sympathizing with the grievance which Mr. 
 Sampson in very forcible and excellent words expressed ; but, 
 although I did not agree with him at that time, I thought 
 that the great Nonconformist body had conferred such benefits 
 upon the freedom and civilization of England, that it was my 
 duty, especially as a churchman, and also, particularly, as 
 your representative, to endeavour if possible to assist in 
 smoothing over and removing a difficulty and a source of 
 distress such as that which Mr. Sampson pointed out. Well, 
 sir, what was the course which I took? It was that of joining 
 many Liberal members of Parliament, churchman as I am, and 
 as they were, in urging most strongly upon the Government 
 that that which was offensive to our Nonconformist brethren 
 should be wiped out and done away with. We made many 
 efforts, extending over a period of two years, and at the end 
 of that period we got the Government — without a division, I 
 believe — to alter that clause in reference to free education, the 
 payment of the school fees of certain classes of children, and 
 to abolish the twenty-fifth clause absolutely and entirely. 
 Therefore, I am bound to say that w^e I cannot compromise 
 a principle, I value so much the unity, the brotherhood, and 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 the peraonal attachment of this g^reat people of England, that 
 there is nothing I would not do, in order if possible by con- 
 coHsion to promote and bring about and increase that union. 
 And I am not afraid to say that I thank the Government for 
 the concession. (Cheers.) And, sir, when my friend Mr. Samp- 
 son, I am sure from the highest principle, criticizes my conduct, 
 I am bound to ask in what relative positions we stand. Sir, 
 I think it is nearly forty-four years since I began (I think 
 that is the phrase they used in those days) to meddle in politics. 
 I followed the principles held by my fnt}\er, and which, I 
 believe, were also the principles of my grandfather, and I 
 hope they may remain the principles of my son, who is in 
 Parliament, however much we may all of us differ with regard 
 to unimportant details ; and from that day to this I do not 
 believe that there is any man in England who has employed 
 more time, who has sacrificed more personal interest, who has 
 laboured harder in the promotion of all measures having for 
 their aim civil, religioutt and commercial liberty — than I have 
 done. (Loud cheers.) 
 
 Sir, when I was twenty-one, I had a vote ; therefore I was 
 able to throw my lot into the scale in favour of any candidate. 
 I was not excluded, like many of our friends who are ably 
 represented to-night. I was, also, a Churchman, and therefore 
 every office in the State, every piece of preferment in the 
 universities, was open to mb. I was under no disqualifica- 
 tion ; I was under no ban ; I had nothing to gain. Per- 
 sonally — for in those days Liberal politics were not very 
 popular with certain classes in this country — personally I had 
 everything to lose ; but I fought the battle for my fellow- 
 countrymen, who were Nonconformists, and who had no vote. 
 (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, I think it is a little hard on. a 
 veteran reformer like myself, who has seen every measvire 
 which he has struggled for carried, who can feel like the man 
 who has scaled the mountain and gazes down upon the bloom- 
 ing pastures and beautiful groves, everything smiling and 
 delightful, the conquests of his toils and labours— conquests 
 not earned for himself, but for others in disability and exclu- 
 sion — that he should on the eve of a general election be 
 singled out for attack either here or elsewhere. Why should 
 I, I ask, be persistently so attacked? I know there is a 
 notion that "gratitude is a lively sense of favours to come." 
 Well, it is very likely that there are few more favours to come 
 
 r 
 
 III 
 
 iP 
 
 m 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 from veterans like myself, l^ecause we have seen accomplished 
 that which I look upon as the very root and groundwork of 
 everything that is good in England. We have seen religious 
 equality established. (Cheers, and cries of "No, no.") I 
 know there is one question which we have been told wiU pro- 
 bably at some time divide us — the question of what is called 
 Disestablishment and Disendowment ; but that question has 
 not yet reached, they tell us, " the region of practical politics." 
 Putting, however, that question for a moment aside, leaving 
 each of us to have his own opinions, I should like to know what 
 are the disqualifications, comparing Churchmen and Noncon- 
 formists, now remaining. I remember very well when a Non- 
 conformist could not be even a town councillor, when a Eoman 
 Catholic could not be anything, when a Jew could not enter 
 Parliament, when the " tithe pig " was so much in the ascen- 
 dant, that actually in my county, Cheshire, in some cases the 
 collector took every tenth gooseberry off the tree, and every tenth 
 cabbage and cauliflower out of the garden. Then those who 
 were connected with my church had the pleasure of taxing every 
 Nonconformist, and making him pay church rates. As for our- 
 selves, we could go to Oxford and Cambridge, and places of 
 that kind ; we could study, we could graduate, we could gain 
 prizes, we could take honours, we could become teachers and 
 principals of our colleges. The Nonconformist could not. 
 Well, the exertions of those with whom I have been asso- 
 ciated for all that long period of time have done away with 
 all that ; and I say, putting aside for a moment the question 
 of the Church of England, whether it is a source of liberty 
 and enlightenment, or whether it is a source of tyranny and 
 unenlightemnent — apart from that, I say that my friend Mr. 
 Sampson is more free to day than the clergjmien of the church 
 to which I belong. Perhaps he will contradict that ; I wiU 
 prove it. Now, if our good friend the vicar, who, like your 
 representative, somehow or other appears to attract opposi- 
 tion occasionally, was ambitious of senatorial honours, he 
 would first of all have to give up his living, to take off his 
 gown and cease to be a church clergyman. Now, my friend 
 Mr. Sampson, if he thinks that my notions and my antece- 
 dents are so pestilent and so improper that I deserve the 
 most rancorous opposition, — in case you and I should agree 
 that it would be discreet for your interest that I should be a 
 candidate, — why, he might stand against me — (cheers and 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 laughter) — without breaking any law, but in accordance with 
 law — with a special law that has been passed, which some think 
 is a freedom, but which I think is a penalty upon churchmen. 
 While poor Mr. Woodward would have to put his pulpit in 
 the fire before he could enter the House, fortunate Mr. Samp- 
 son — fortunate by our exertions, fortunate by the exertions of 
 Liberal churchmen all over the country — could stand against 
 me, and undoubtedly he would beat me at the poll. (Laughter.) 
 He could electrify the House of Commons night after night 
 for five days in the week, and he could charm and improve his 
 congregation on the Sunday, just as well as ever. (Much 
 laughter.) 
 
 Now, I came here to-night, not only to answer a good many 
 questions, but to ask a few, and I want to know whether what 
 I have said can in any sense be denied. I assert that it is a 
 fact, and that nobody can deny it. Now, Mr. Chairman, I 
 am almost ashamed to occupy your time at such length ; but 
 I must ask you, for a moment, to consider things, as the 
 French say, jusqu* au fond — to look at the foundation of 
 things. Now what are the ultimate foundations of parties ? 
 They are very simple. There is prescription and privilege 
 on the one side, producing the Government of the many by 
 the few for the good of the few ; and there is, on the other 
 side, the principle of popular self-government, under which 
 the people are governed by the people, and for the good of 
 the people. Now, as long as we adhere to these two prin- 
 ciples, I think we are tolerably safe. It was in defence of 
 the principle of civil and religious liberty — and civil liberty 
 involves, of course, free trade and commercial liberty of every 
 kind — that those who preceded me struggled for a lifetime ; 
 and I have tried at a great distance, and no doubt with 
 much disadvantage, to follow in their steps. But I am told 
 that I voted against the Liberal party. Now, one of the 
 questions I want to ask — and to which, I think, I should 
 have an answer — is this, What do those gentlemen call the 
 Liberal party? Because my experience of parties is this. 
 There is a great deal that is good under the cowl of each 
 of them, and I very much agree with the late Mr. O'Connell 
 that those names of Whig, and Tory, and Eadical, and 
 liquor-seller — and I do not know how many more — are 
 nicknames, and that sensible men are not led away by 
 nicknames and bogies as little boys are frightened in a 
 
 '1^ 
 
 n 
 
 m 
 m 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 churchyard by seeing a sheet on the top of a pitchfork, and a 
 light inside of a turnip. We do not look to shams and nick- 
 names ; we look to realities. Well, I say I am on the side of 
 those who opposed prescription and privilege, on the side of 
 those who are in favour of the freedom and self-action of 
 England. (Loud cheers.) 
 
 Now, I think it is a healthy thing in an independent 
 borough that we should analyze these questions of parties a 
 little further. At present, on the Conservative side of the 
 House, there is a bench on which thirteen gentlemen nightly 
 sit — that is when they do not feel too much distressed and 
 fatigued or too idle to sit — and they look, I am boimd to say, 
 quite as wise as they are. (Laughter.) Then, on the Oppo- 
 sition or Liberal side of the House, there are, I think, thirteen 
 gentlemen who look about as wise as the people on the other 
 side. (Laughter.) Now, am I to be told, as one of the 
 35,000,000 of England, Ireland, and Scotland, that these 
 twenty-six gentlemen absorb all the talent, all the genius, 
 all the patriotism of the country? Am I to be told that 
 because something that I call a good measure comes either 
 from the Government side or the Opposition side, if I sit on 
 the Opposition side I must not vote for what I believe to be a 
 great measure because it came from those thirteen gentlemen 
 who look so wise on the Government side. (Cheers.) My 
 idea of my duty as your representative is this, that if I see a 
 measure that will promote in any way the freedom and happi- 
 ness of the people and the glory and honour of the country, 
 from whichever side of the House it comes, I oug^it to support 
 it. (Cheers.) 
 
 Now we do not exactly know what those thirteen gentlemen 
 on the Government side do, but I am bound to say with re- 
 gard to the thirteen upon the other side, that in the last six 
 years, so far as I know, with regard to the momentous ques- 
 tions, when a unity of action amongst the party was clearly 
 most important, there has never been a meeting of the Liberal 
 Members of Parliament to consider any question whatever. 
 I mention this, not in any way to weaken the Liberal party, 
 not in any way to sow dissension, — for I have never been 
 a party to dissension ; I have always been desirous to make 
 any and every sacrifice to prevent dissension, — ^but I say it 
 because I think the time has come when, if the Liberal 
 party is ever again to be a great power in the State — 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 parties all round should to some extent reconstruct them- 
 selves. I have endeavoured to lay down for your con- 
 sideration the two different principles upon which parties 
 are founded. So far as I am concerned, having taken an 
 independent course, I do not intend — it is too late in life 
 for me to do it — to turn my back upon those principles that 
 have guided our family for four generations. But my differ- 
 ence with my friend Mr. Sampson and others has been this : 
 I have objected, and I do object, to foreign policy being made 
 a party question : I have objected, and do object, especially 
 to that which has disfigured as I think some portion of our 
 press, — that the disasters of England, however caused (we 
 need not mention that for the moment), should be looked 
 upon as things proper to whet the appetite of political 
 asperity. (Hear, hear.) If you ask me what is my notion 
 of the foreign policy of England — I say the duty of England. 
 These gentlemen every Sunday from their pulpits tell us of 
 our individual duties ; I wish they would tell us a little more 
 of our national duties; because if I, as a man and a Christian, 
 living in a free country, owe a duty to my neighbour, the 
 thirty-five millions of England owe a duty to all the world. I 
 am one of those who think that Providence has given to us a 
 power, an influence, a wealth, a capacity, which imposes upon 
 us the duty of endeavouring, so far as we can, to act, not only 
 with regard to political liberty, but with regard to the great 
 truths of Christianity, from which all real liberty springs — as 
 the great missionary of the world. (Cheers. ) And now we come 
 to the pith of the question. I told you when I came before 
 you in 1874, as regards the policy, as it is called, of England, 
 but, as I would venture to describe it, the duty of England, I 
 was very much of the opinion of Chatham, of Pitt in his earlier 
 and better days, of Canning, of Huskisson, of Peel, and of 
 Palmerston. I see no reason in any way to retract the general 
 outline of policy which I took the liberty to announce when 
 you did me the honour to elect me. (Cheers.) On the other 
 hand, there is a school in England — the school of, so called, 
 non-intervention — which I think has provoked more war than 
 any other school. It has put on the outward disgiiise of peace. 
 It has led foreign nations to think that you might tread upon 
 the tail of the British lion as much as you liked, but it would 
 never roar. (Cheers.) Yes — I think, that school of politicians, 
 with the best intentions, have made mischief and misery in 
 
 :i 
 
 :' 
 
 f-A 
 
 :l 
 
 |,4 
 
 ■fcl: ,, 
 
 ML ■•■ 
 
 It 
 
 f.Si 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 the world. (Renewed Cheers.) Mr. Chairman, is there no 
 intermediary course of action between going round the world 
 as a great bully challenging everybody, and that firmness 
 which the man of courage shows in calm and the sense of 
 strength, and which teaches the coward and the bully that, 
 quiet as the man may be, if they once cross his path he is the 
 most dangerous opponent, because he fights not for defiance, 
 not for aggression, but for human right and eternal justice. 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 I now come for a moment to those questions which I have 
 been mostly taxed about, and I will, if you please, begin with 
 the Zulu War ; I will then say a word or two with regard to 
 the vexed question of Afghanistan, and then I will come back 
 to the great subject — what is called the Eastern Question, and 
 I will do all I can to justify the votes which I have given in 
 your name and on your behalf upon those three questions. 
 
 It is not more than fourteen months ago that we heard of 
 that dreadful disaster in Zululand where some two thousand 
 people. Englishmen and subsidiaries in the army, were 
 slaughtered, fighting as each one did to the very death, against 
 overpowering numbers. I think we might say of them — 
 
 " But in behind our path they closed, 
 Though fain to let us through ; 
 For they were forty thousand men, 
 And we were wondrous few." 
 
 (Cheers.) Sir, there is in Zululand a bishop. He was sent 
 out by one of our societies — I believe a society connected with 
 the Church of England — to convert the Zulus — the whole 
 of them, mind — and he was converted himself by one Zulu 
 — (laughter) — and ever since then, instead of standing up 
 for the Christianity which civilizes, enlightens, frees, and 
 ennobles, he has been doing aU he could to place the dry rot 
 of disbelief inside the pages of the Bible. (Cheers and inter- 
 ruption.) lam sure my friends will allow me to finish the 
 few remarks I have to make. Fortunately for us, we have in 
 Zululand, and that part of South Africa, other ministers of 
 the Gospel. Now, I do not like to inflict a long extract 
 upon you; but as I intend to print everything that I 
 say to-night, and circulate it to every elector present 
 and absent, I will merely say that if you will get a little 
 book, written by the Eev. CliflFord Holden, a respected mis- 
 sionary of the Wesleyan body, who has been nearly forty 
 
• ( 15 ) 
 
 years out in Africa, and who is the honoured brother of your 
 worthy mayor, you will find that he tells you distinctly, at 
 page 199, that the policy which has been pursued in Zulu- 
 land has been absolutely inevitable.* 
 
 Now, I am told that lately Lord Hartington voted, as I 
 
 * The extracts are as follows : — 
 
 Page 199, " British Rule in South Africa." 
 
 ** The vast extent of country which now constitutes the Orange Free 
 State and the Transval was subsequently taken possession of by the 
 English, not the Dutch, and an English govermnent formed, which con- 
 tinued, until, in a dark hour, under wofully mistaken policy, the whole 
 was given over to the Dutch farmers. Those who vrill avail themselves 
 of the information supplied in the * History of the Orange River 
 Sovereignty,' as contained in the appendix of my History of Natal, will 
 have all the details of these proceedings before them. 
 
 "Let the reader, then, who wishes to understand the subject fully, 
 take the maps of South Africa, of Kaffirland and of Zululand, as given 
 in my works, and turn to the different countries under review, and he 
 will then see that, instead of retaking the Transval to ' round off ' the 
 British possessions in South Africa, the Transval is beyons the Free State, 
 Natal is beyond Kaffirland, which comes in between the Oape Colony 
 and the Natal Colony, and Zululand is beyond Natal, stretching on to 
 Delegoa Bay. But the Transval already extends two degrees beyond the 
 Amazulu. Thus these barbaric, uncivilized states were not isolated or 
 separated from each other, but in the midst of existing British possessions 
 and that what affects one must of necessity affect all. Hence before 
 general permanent peace can be established, and suitable laws formed 
 and enforced, there must be one great central governing race that can 
 make wise and good laws, sustained by a power which can enforce those 
 laws so as to make them respected and obeyed. Hence the absolute neces- 
 sity of a united strong English government of confederated States, having 
 each its own local government, but being united and one for all great 
 interests, especially having one uniform mode of government for all the 
 varying native races of the country. Races varying in colour from the 
 pale white through every tinge to the jet black ; races speaking many 
 languages from the Koranna with thirteen clicks to the Kaffir, with his 
 euphonic concord. My conviction has long been that the subjugation of 
 the Amazulu nation to British sway was necessary before this much 
 needed consummation could take place. Then, with general or universal 
 peace, this nation of fragmentary states and people will become one 
 united mighty power ; each and all having increased facilities for de- 
 veloping the resources of the country; extending mercantile transac- 
 tions, encouraging Christian missions, and growing into one of the great 
 and good dominions of the globe, speaking the English language, and 
 planting English arts and industries throughout the land. 
 
 I think the necessity of the subjugation of the Amazulu race is thus 
 clearly indicated. 
 
 
 
 ]i ' 
 
 1^ 
 
 :U 
 
 
 II' 
 
 I 
 
 is- 
 

 I 
 
 ( 16 ) 
 
 think in an unhappy moment, with Sir Wentworth Dilke, and 
 that I voted against Sir Wentworth Dilke. Now let me tell 
 you, gentlemen, that the publication of recent blue-books and 
 other documents, and the information which I have very care- 
 fully obtained, convince me that no inducement in the world 
 would make me vote in a different way from that which I 
 adopted on that occasion ; and I express the most entire con- 
 fidence that now, with all the information before us. Lord 
 Hartington would not vote with Sir Wentworth Dilke upon 
 that question again. (Cheers.) 
 
 Well, if you want any more evidence, you will find a letter 
 by Mr. Anthony Trollope, who is a good and true Englishman 
 and an author, published in the Daily News of the 7th of 
 February.* In addition to that, if you will look at the last 
 blue-book, you will find a letter from the Eev. Henry Goden 
 of the DutchEeformed Church, in which he concludes by saying, 
 " In Africa, at least, the greatest majority of the colonists, 
 even of the missionaries, who are generally accused to be partial 
 to the natives, fully approve of the policy of His Excellency 
 towards the Zulus." f Now, the admirers of Cetewayo do not 
 
 • The letter is in full, as follows : — 
 
 Extract from Letter of ANTHomr Tbollopb to ** Dailj/ News" of 
 
 ■ February 7th. 
 
 ** I visited the country in 1877, and found that the allegations made 
 were true. The Dutch Boers had not congregfated even for purposes of 
 defence. No taxes had been paid for many months. The mail services 
 were all discontinued. Property had become worthless. Education had 
 fallen lower and lower. Things had begun to change a little for the 
 better, because the oouniary had been annexed ; but the interference had 
 hardly been in time. My conviction was that, had not the English 
 interfered, European supremacy throughout a large portion of South 
 Africa, would have been endangered. Looking to the probable results 
 of such a condition, I think that the annexation was an imperative 
 duty." 
 
 t The extracts are as follows : — 
 
 Sev. Eenry Goden, Butch Reformed Church, SattVa Fort, Aug. 20, 1879. 
 
 " What I have seen and heard in my travels, and my long residence in 
 this country, leaves no doubt in my mind that a war with the Zulus was 
 unavoidable, and would have broken out sooner or later. I am quite con- 
 vinced that the powerful Chief of the Zulus was at the bottom of all the late 
 risings of the natives in South Africa. He was, with his well-organized, 
 anmerouB troops, a sword of Damocles. 
 
 << Since years an outbreak of the war with the Zulus was anticipated. 
 
t, - 
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 tell you that he was crowned unfortunately under the auspices 
 of the British nation, under certain conditions. If you will 
 pardon me for a moment I will quote from the Rev. Mr. Holden's 
 book what those conditions were. I beg your attention to 
 this matter, because it is not merely a question of my votes ; 
 it is a question of the humanity of the world. The first 
 condition was that the indiscriminate shedding of blood 
 should cease in the land ; the second was that no Zulu should 
 be condemned without open trial and the public examination 
 of witnesses for and against, and that he should have a right 
 to appeal to the King. The third was that no Zulu's life 
 should be taken without the previous knowledge and consent 
 of the Xing after such trial had taken place, and the right 
 of appeal had been allowed to be exercised ; and the fourth 
 was that, for minor crimes, the loss of property — all or a 
 portion of it — should be substituted for the general punish- 
 ment of death. Now, I ask my opponents whether they do 
 not think that those stipulations which were attached to our 
 sanction of the crowning of that black and barbarous King — 
 not that because he is black he ought to be or need be 
 barbarous, because the missionaries out there can show you 
 many a chief converted to Christianity, who has, if not a high 
 education, all the goodness and gentleness of a Christian — ^I 
 ask my opponents whether they do not think that those were 
 stipulations which ought to have been enforced. 
 
 Well, then, what was the cause of the war ? The cause of 
 the war was twofold: one was that those conditions were 
 
 li 
 
 Since years an invasion from their parts in the South African Colonies 
 was feared. If such an invasion had taken place it would have been a fearful 
 calamity ; the savage Zulus would have destroyed everything by fire and 
 
 sword. 
 
 • ♦•••♦ 
 
 «*The King of the Zulus once subdued, his power broken, I quite 
 expect that South Africa will enjoy many years of peace and prosperity. 
 
 • •♦*♦* 
 
 " Here, in Africa at least, the greatest majority of the Colonists, even 
 of the missionaries, who are generally accused to be partial to the natives, 
 fully approve of the policy of his Excellency towards the Zulus. 
 
 Evelyn Wood. 
 " Cetewayo's peaceful professions cannot be reconciled with his con- 
 duct at Luneburg ; but I do know that it would be an evil day for Eng- 
 land when the meanest home entitled to the protection of her flag ceases 
 to be a castle of the Empire." 
 
 0. 
 
 \^ 
 

 ( 18 ) ■ 
 
 outrageously broken, that life was taken, that murders were 
 committed, that outrages of a most abominable kind were 
 perpetrated under the rule of this man, upon those whom he 
 chose to call his subjects. The other was repeated and gross 
 violation of our territory. One form of outrage was this. 
 No man was allowed to be married imtil he had been a 
 soldier, and until, to use their phrase, he had washed his 
 spears in the blood of some enemy. Well, at last this mili- 
 tary power grew to such an extent that it was absolutely 
 necessary to check it. Those who tell you that this was an 
 innocent black gentleman who never did any wrong to any- 
 body, who was perfectly innocuous, and therefore might 
 have been trusted under the friendship of Dr. Colenso, did 
 not tell you of the outrages upon British territory. Now, 
 the great army of this savage man grew to such an ex- 
 tent that Sir Bartle Frere, as your Plenipotentiary abroad, 
 in adjudicating upon some questions of land between the 
 Boers and the Zulu nation (giving his judgment, by 
 the way, in favour of the Zulus) insisted upon an ulti- 
 matum. What was that ultimatum? That those condi- 
 tions which the Zulu king had agreed to when he was 
 crowned should be carried out, and that this great over- 
 powering army of 30,000 or 40,000 men in his wedge- 
 shaped territory should be disbanded. Now, let us assume 
 for a moment that that cornice represents the sea coast line 
 of South Africa, and that you have above the door the sea 
 coast line of Zululand. Just suppose, for a moment, that in 
 all that large territory you have a scattered white population, 
 wishing to live in peace, wanting to outrage nobody, but re- 
 quiring security and protection. Do you mean to tell me that 
 any nation that was great and powerful would permit 30,000 
 or 40,000 men to be constantly in battle array in the 100 
 miles in the midst, threatening both sides, when the principles 
 of those people were, in case of war, indiscriminate slaughter, 
 and the ripping up of victims with their assegais? I say for 
 myself, and in that I am corroborated by every man engaged 
 in the struggle, — by Sir Bartle Frere, and by a large body of 
 missionaries and natives belonging to the Dutch Beformed 
 Ohurch, the Wesleyans, and the Swedish Church, — ^that war 
 was an absolute necessity in the interests of humanity, and 
 in opposition to the undisputed reign of barbaric cruelty. 
 (Oheers.) 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 Cetewayo insisted that his mon should serve as soldiers, and 
 should wash their spears in blood, before they were married. 
 Now, there were two women — and you know women do not - 
 always like to be married to anybody who is forced upon them ; 
 they are independent all over the world, certainly they are in 
 England (laughter), who did not exactly like to be tied to some 
 great ruffians of soldiers whom they had never seen before, and 
 might not wish to see again, and they accordingly escaped 
 into British territory. What was the result ? The English 
 frontier was violated, and those women were taken back into 
 Zululand — and murdered. I want to know, is that an offence 
 which the gentlemen who are for non-intervention and peace, 
 and everything of that kind, would allow to remain unavenged ? 
 I agree with Sir Eveljrn Wood, that the day when the hum- 
 blest dwelling of the humblest citizen of this country has 
 ceased to be inviolate — to be a castle of the empire — will be a 
 bitter and unfortunate day for England.* (Cheers.) 
 
 |. 
 
 * As much has been said about " John Dunn," I add the following : 
 — " John Dunn is the son of natives of Great Britain, who settled in 
 South Africa. His father had some appointment under the Colonial 
 Government, but was killed suddenly by his horse being frightened at 
 the sudden debouche of wild elephants near where Durban now is. 
 
 " Dunn was educated for medicine, but bein^' a bold fine lad he, at 
 sixteen, could not resist the charm of wild life and sport in Zululand, 
 and left his mother at Fietermaritzburgh, and went on an expedition, 
 after sport, in Zululand, where he has lived for more than twenty years, 
 much beloved by the people and respected by them. A person who had 
 known him for many years said his influence had been acquired among 
 the fine wild fellows of Zululand by his inflexible justice, and that they 
 had never heard of a case in which he had wronged a Zulu. Be that as 
 it may, extraordinary confidence and affection towards him was testified 
 by all the chiefs of the southern half of Zululand, who came in and 
 submitted to General Crealock, and this confidence and sort of worship 
 extended to all classes. He did all he possibly could to prevent the 
 king (Cetewayo) going to war. He strongly advised him, even if we 
 crossed his border, not to fight. But when he saw war was inevitable, 
 and that the king was only waiting for our troops to be embarked, to 
 sweep into Natal, when there would have been the most terrible 
 massacre of whites and others ever heard of — ^he left the Zulu king, 
 who would not be guided by him — and he came over to us, ' bag 
 and baggage.' But he lost a very large number of cattle, three 
 country houses, farms, &c., all of which were taken or destroyed 
 by the Zulus. He, greatly against his own desire, was attached to 
 Lord Chelmsfor< as a political agent and intelligence officer when Lord 
 Chelmsford ad,..aced to and relieved Eckowe. Lord Chelmsford had 
 
 2 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 I 
 
 
 Now, I do not want to trouble you veiy much, but I must 
 say a word upon the question of the Afghan war, and here I 
 will ask this other question ; is it the opinion of our friends 
 that we ought to give up the Indian empire, or that we ought 
 to keep it? (Cries of "Keep it.") I say, and I challenge 
 denial, that the British rule in India has been, perhaps, not an 
 unmixed blessing, because there is no such thing as an unmixed 
 blessing in human experience, but a great civilizing, freedom- 
 restoring power, which has been for the good of the two 
 hundred millions of people under the British sway. 
 
 I say that we have established entire religious liberty, — 
 the dearest of all liberties — a liberty worth fighting for. The 
 Mohammedan can no longer oppress the Hindoo, and the 
 various sects of Hindoos can no longer oppress each other. 
 The horrible rite of suttee, under which when a man died 
 his widow must be burnt with his corpse, has been done away 
 with, and that Juggernaut, in which thousands of men 
 
 perfect confidence in him, and spoke most highly of him. He came with 
 General Grealock in the same capacity, and was found to be simple, 
 straightforward, and quite truthful and upright ; most reliable in all his 
 information, whether local or political. He was of the gpreatest use to 
 the Oeneral in all ways; and he was much regarded by Commodore 
 Richards and all who knew him. To his presence the flocking to the 
 G«neral of all the gfreat chiefs from the Tugfuela to St. Lucia Bay, a 
 distance of 120 miles, was due, as they knew they could trust Mm; and 
 when he told them they were safe, if they submitted at once and gave 
 up their arms and cattle, they believed him and came in. As a fact 
 no one ever submitted to the other columns. He is as brave as a lion, 
 very cool, very reserved and silent, a tremendous sportsman, good rider, 
 and good shot ; about 42 years old, spare, and active ; extremely good 
 looking, and very like a gentleman in every way. Q«neral Crealook 
 recommended him to Sir Gamett Wolseley on his arrival, when he took 
 over political charge from the G«neral ; and he was appointed ' ' Induna, ' ' 
 or chief gpovemor of the south district of Zululand. He sigfned 
 conditions with the Government as regards his government, &o. 
 He did not refuse missionaries leave to settle in his district, but he did 
 insist on their giving him an assurance that missions were to be what 
 they pretended to be, and not stations for trade in arms and spirits, as 
 half were before — and that missionaries should undertake to teach the 
 Zulus some trade or occupation when gathered at the stations as well as 
 the usual catechisms and singing, to which all will cordially agree. Sir 
 Garnet has entirely approved of aU he has done since he has assumed 
 direction of affairs there. 
 
 "He is married to one wife (Mrs. J. Dunn), a colonial lady, and has 
 eleven children by her. His elder daughters are very pretty girls." 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 laid themselves down before a brutal oar, and were orusbed 
 to death, under the notion that that would give them a 
 portal to heaven, has been put an end to. Then, again, 
 roads and railways and works of irrigation have been 
 established, and employment has been afforded to the people, 
 and a start has been given to the industry and progress 
 of the country. I give it as my opinion — ^whatever it may 
 be worth — that if to-morrow our non-intervention friends 
 were to cast off India from the rule of England, it would be 
 an evil day for India ; and although this country might with 
 its great resources bear such a separation, India would be 
 reduced again to barbarism and internecine struggle. Now, 
 with regard to the Afghan war, I think you cannot have a 
 better witness than Sir Frederick Eoberts, and I am bound 
 to say that I, for one — a peaceful man, a peace-loving man, 
 a meek man — or I could not bear all these censures with 
 all this equanimity — (laughter) — have read with the greatest 
 indignation those brutal attacks that have been made 
 upon Sir Frederick Boberts, as gallant a soldier, as 
 humane a man, as great a statesman (because a man can 
 be a great soldier and a great statesman at the same time), 
 as ever existed. He has been accused of hanging men 
 light and left, and of indulging in the most atrocious 
 tyranny and cruelty. What has he done? We sent an 
 envoy under treaty to Cabul ; he was under the protection 
 of the Ameer who had entered into the treaty with us ; he 
 went with the full consent of the Ameer and under the pro- 
 tection of that treaty. He was assassinated, his place pulled 
 down about his ears, and every one of his suite murdered ; 
 and their poor unfortunate remains, mutilated in a most bar- 
 barous manner, were dragged by these men along the streets 
 of Cabul. (Shame.) 
 
 You may tell me, some of you, that that is a case where we 
 ought to have turned the other cheek — ^I am afraid I am not 
 good enough to sanction that principle, and I say — turn me 
 out if you like for saying it — ^that, as to those men who broke 
 that treaty and were guilty of that treachery, murdered our 
 people, and dishonoured them when they were dead, I would 
 hang them as high as Haman. (Cheers.) Now let me bring 
 you back to the initial point, which is this — Ought we to keep 
 India, or ought we not ? If you told me that we ought to 
 cast off the painter and let it go, I have not a. word to say; 
 
 
 til 
 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 but if you tell me that we are to keep it, and if I can show 
 you that we were in all probability to bo at some opportune 
 time attacked, I think you will agree with me that, knowing 
 that we were to be attacked, we were compelled to wipe out 
 the means of attacking us immediately. (Cheers.) That is 
 the whole question of the Afghan war. Now, here is what 
 Sir Frederick Roberts says : — 
 
 " Our recent rupture with Shero Ali has, in fact, been the 
 " means of unmasking and checking n very serious conspiracy 
 " against the peace and security of our Indian Empire. The 
 " magnitude of Shere Ali's military preparations is, in my 
 " opinion, a fact of peculiar significance. I have already 
 " touched upon this point in a former letter, but I shall perhaps 
 " be excused for noticing it again. Before the outbreak of 
 ** hostilities last year, the Ameer had raised and equipped 
 " with arms of precision sixty-eight regiments of infantry and 
 " sixteen of cavalry. The Afghan artillery amounted to near 
 " 300 guns. Numbers of skilled artisans were constantly em- 
 " ployed in the manufacture of rifled cannon and breach- 
 " loading small arms. More than a million pounds of powder, 
 " and I believe several million rounds of home-made Snider 
 " ammunition, were in the Bala Hissar at the time of the 
 " late explosion. Swords, helmets, uniforms and other 
 ** articles of military equipment were stored in proportionate 
 " quantities. Finally, Shere Ali had expended upon the 
 " construction of the Shurper Cantonments an astonishing 
 '* amount of labour and money. The extent and cost of this 
 " work may be judged of from the fact that the whole of the 
 " troops under my conmiand will find cover during the 
 " winter within the cantonment and its outlying buildings, 
 " and the bulk of them in the main line of rampart itself, 
 " which extends to a length of nearly two miles under 
 '' the southern and western slopes of the Bemaroo hills. 
 " Shere Ali's original design was apparently to carry the 
 " wall entirely round the hiUs — a distance of five miles — and 
 " the foundations were already laid for a considerable 
 "portion of this length. All these military preparations 
 " were quite unnecessary except as a provision for oontem 
 " plated hostilities with ourselves ; and it is difficult to under- 
 " stand how their entire cost coidd have been met from the 
 " Afghan treasury, the gross revenue of the country amount- 
 " ing only to about eighty lakhs of rupees per annum. I 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 ** have referred to the prevalence of Bussian coin and waref 
 " in Oabul as evidence of the growing connection between 
 '* Bussia and Afghanistan. I am unable to find proof that 
 " the Czar's coin was introduced in any other way than by 
 " the usual channels of trade. It is quite possible that the 
 " bulk of it, if not the whole, came in gradually by this 
 " means, the accumulation of foreign gold in particular being 
 " considerable in this country, where little gold is coined. 
 " Nevertheless, it seems to me a curious fact that the amount 
 " of Bussian money in circulation should be so large. No 
 " less than 13,000 gold pieces were found among the Ameer's 
 " treasure alone ; similar coins are exceedingly common in the 
 " city bazaar; and great numbers of them are known to be 
 '' in possession of the sirdars." 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I am not one of those who wish in any 
 way to emulate the territorial ambition of ancient States. I 
 know, as respects the Empire of Bome, it was said that it was 
 a government "begun by fratricide, augmented by robberies 
 and rapes, established by valour and conquest, and undone 
 by luxury and vice ; " and of that kind of ambition it has 
 been said : — 
 
 " Ambition is a weed that's always found 
 To spread the furthest in the richest ground ; 
 Fair to the eye the fragrant blossoms rise. 
 But he who plucks the fruit and tastes it dies." 
 
 The ambition which I think ought to possess a country like 
 our own is of a totally different description. It should be an 
 ambition to preserve peace, so far as peace can be preserved. 
 I do not use the phrase about "Peace with Honour," but 
 peace so far as is consistent with duty. There is something 
 far beyond honour, and that is duty ; and I say, so long as our 
 duty to our country and the world permits it, peace ought to 
 be secured — secured at any price less than the sacrifice of 
 duty. But when it comes to be a question whether British 
 subjects should be outraged with impunity — ^whether the 
 Christian religion shall be a crime — ^whether people are to be 
 down-trodden or to be relieved from oppression — ^then I say — 
 if I comprehend anything of the providential reason why 
 England is a powerful nation — I say that the possession of 
 that power imposes upon us the duty of interfering in those 
 oases where not to interfere would be decidedly a orime^ 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 If- 
 
 
 V 'L 
 
 Ml 
 
tT 
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 Now let me say a word or two about the Eastern Question. 
 With regard to this Eastern Question, the complaint against 
 me is that — at what I thought a critical time — I voted with 
 the existing Government, and against those with whom I 
 usually acted, in reference to the sending to Malta the 
 Indian Contingent. Now, I have never, in anything that 
 I have said in Folkestone, acquitted the Government of 
 what I think was a mistake in not having accepted in prin- 
 ciple the Berlin Memorandum. We had a meeting in Folke- 
 stone, when we laid down the principle unanimously, that, 
 so far as the arm of England could go, it should never be 
 a crime in any part of the world to be a Christian. Cer- 
 tainly, that was not a non-intervention proposition, and I 
 thought that after that, when the Government of this 
 country were represented in Constantinople, they ought to 
 have said to the Turks, that if they did not redress the 
 grievances of the Christian population we should put on 
 our armour and compel them to do so. More than that, 
 I think the Government were wrong in leaving Constanti- 
 nople without a distinct pledge from the other powers 
 that if there was to be intervention it should be a general in- 
 tervention, and not an intervention of one power alone. I 
 think those were very serious mistakes. I know it will be 
 said on the other side, "Why, you the party of peace — ^you 
 the non-interventionists — you the extreme Liberals — if we 
 had attempted to threaten war, would have immediately got up 
 and denounced us as men who wanted to provoke it." 
 Now, it is only fair to remind you that in 1854, we had 
 a Liberal Government ; we then had the Crimean War, 
 and we certainly got no result, except blood and loss, 
 as I conceive it, out of that sanguinary contest. We 
 have recently had, whatever the mistakes of the Govern- 
 ment may have been (and I am not the man to be cowardly 
 enough if I see results not to state them, or to quote 
 them in a way which is unfair to anybody), a most critical 
 state of affairs ; and whether it be by good luck or by good 
 management, we have escaped from that critical state of 
 affairs in a different way from what happened in 1854 — we 
 have got through it without a war. (Cheers.) Well, I am 
 glad for the result, whatever the cause. We got rid of the 
 25th clause, which annoyed some of our friends so much'; and 
 by the action of the Government this war has been prevented. 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 Now I want to know why we should be so ungenerous, what- 
 ever criticisms we may utter against the Government, as not 
 to give them credit at all events for having preserved us from 
 another sanguinary conflict in Europe ? (Cheers.) 
 
 I do not believe that any honest man who has read and 
 thought upon the subject, and who has been about Europe as 
 I have, can doubt for a moment that if in 1854 the Govern- 
 ment of Lord Aberdeen had said to Bussia, " If you cross the 
 Pruth we will go to war with you," — there would have been no 
 war. And I believe that if you had not put your foot down on 
 a very recent occasion, and said to Eussia that if certain things 
 were done there would be war, you would have had a general 
 war in Europe. Now I may be wrong ; but I want to know 
 whether a man who has been engaged in politics and busi- 
 ness, and has read and thought a great deal, and has been 
 very much over the world, and has had to some extent perhaps 
 exceptionally good means of observation, has, or has not, a 
 right to an opinion ? Condemn me, if you like, but do not say 
 I have no right to an opinion. Well, what was the reason why 
 I voted again, with the greatest possible regret, against the 
 views of a man for whom I have the greatest possible regard 
 and admiration — I mean Lord Hartington ? Why ? Because it 
 struck me that if we did not make a demonstration and shew 
 that we were in earnest — that we were not the weak people of 
 1854 — a universal conflagration would have taken place. 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 I am sure you will consider, Mr. Chairman, that I have 
 wearied this kind audience sufficiently (No, no) ; but I want 
 to say a few words as to what yet remains to be done. Our 
 first duty is to resist reaction. Eeaction comes from indiffer- 
 ence — sometimes; from divisions — always. Cromwell and 
 the Puritans, and new-born British power, came to a dis- 
 graceful end with Charles II. ; the Bill of Eights, of 1668, 
 got its first blow of faction in the Septennial Act of 1716; 
 and America and our people were alienated from us in 1776. 
 It is true that Pitt, in the brilliant morning of his youth and 
 power, sowed a seed of renewed liberty which has blossomed 
 in our day. But fetter after fetter was forged, and after sixty 
 years, nearly, of reactionary government, the uprising of 1830 
 compelled Eeform in Parliament, and through Parliament. 
 And our great triumphs of principle date from thence. My 
 opponents think they have surplus power enough to stop re- 
 
 
 iii 
 
 ii 
 
 i R 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 newed reaction. I say they ^ave not. I tell them they have 
 no protection for their new-bom equality of rights and privi- 
 leges except in union. I teU them they are on the road to 
 reaction. I will not weary you with a list of the great re- 
 forms which have produced the freedom and contentment 
 which we have seen recently around us, — the Franchise, the 
 Ballot, Education, Free Trade, a Free Press, Beligious 
 Liberty — all those great measures which in the last forty 
 years have been achieved by perpetual agitation and dis- 
 cussion. I have been told that I ought to remember that 
 all these were opposed by the Tories and supported by 
 the Liberals. "Well, it is quite enough for me to know 
 that every one of these great changes was supported by 
 me and by those like me, who had nothing to gain and 
 everything to lose, but who acted on the principle of 
 doing to their fellow-citizens as they would be done by 
 (cheers) ; and I think that one of the greatest triumphs of that 
 party to which all my life I have belonged — I do not mean a 
 sham party who want to get into places ; but I mean the 
 people who believe in principle — is that they have on many 
 notable occasions, — on Catholic Emancipation, on Free Trade, 
 on Household Suffrage, on Disabilities in the Universities, on 
 the Emancipation of the Jews, — converted their opponents. 
 Now, if I convert my opponent, ought I to despise him ? It 
 is said that there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that 
 repenteth than over ninety-nine sinners who do not repent. 
 The great modem doctrine seems to be, that there shall be 
 more hatred thrown upon one sinner that you convert than 
 upon ninety-nine who resist your conversion. (Laughter.) 
 
 Now I do not believe in that, and I say that an independent 
 constituency — it comes to that at the last — who return an inde- 
 pendent Member, should demand from that independent 
 Member the pluck to support any ministry that the people of 
 England have placed in power, if they bring forward a 
 measure that he believes will remove disabilities or increase 
 the freedom and happiness of the people. (Cheers.) 
 
 Now I ask what remains to be done? A great many 
 things remain to be done. Although the great principles of 
 equality in civil and religious matters have been all but, if not 
 entirely, satisfied, there are some measures of progress which 
 require to be tackled. There is, for instance, the question of 
 labourers' dwellings. I have been attacked because I have 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 said that I do not think that a hovel, where father and mother 
 and sisters and brothers, all live together like so many pigs 
 in a stye, ought to be dignified by the possession of a vote. 
 Why did I say that ? Was it because some poor agricultural 
 labourer might be disfranchised ? No ; but as a blow in the 
 direction of obtaining for those unfortunate countrymen of 
 ours better dwellings, in which Christian men, humble though 
 they may be, may reside with credit and advantage.* (Cheers.) 
 
 I think that the question of improving the dwellings of the 
 poorer classes of this country is one that is at the very root of 
 our future progress. My friend Mr. Ulyett and Mr. Clarke 
 may teach, and Mr. Sampson and Mr. Woodward may preach, 
 and you may have your societies, and everything of that kind ; 
 but I say that so long as you bring up children of the rising 
 generation in the cottages of the land like pigs, you will 
 teach and preach and exert yourselves in vain. (Cheers.) 
 With that qualification I am perfectly ready to vote for a 
 wise extension of the franchise in counties, so long as you do 
 not give it the name of hovel franchise, instead of what it 
 really ought to be — household franchise. (Cheers.) 
 
 Then there are questions affecting the middle classes. The 
 working classes, by the excellent management of this Govern- 
 ment and preceding Governments, — I do not at all blame 
 them, — no doubt it was done for political and not for benevo- 
 lent reasons, — are, to a large extent, emancipated from the 
 obligations of the income tax; but what have the Govern- 
 ments done for the shopkeeper, and for middle-class men 
 generally, for professional men, poor clergymen, and persons 
 of that class ? If I have got a large estate which I can sell 
 at any time for what is called thirty-three years' purchase, 
 that is thirty-three times as much as the annual rental, I am 
 assessed at so much in the pound : if I am a surgeon in 
 practice in the poor districts of Folkestone, or other districts, 
 as my friend Dr. Bateman knows, and other medical gentlemen 
 whom I see in this room, I am taxed as if my income was as 
 good as the income of the man who derives it from land, 
 whereas perhaps my life is not worth ten years' purchase. 
 
 * In this I am quite consistent. In 1867 I proposed an amendment to 
 the Disraeli Reform Bill, to the effect that a "house," to be taken as a 
 " house " for voting purposes, shall be "a tenement containing not less 
 than two habitable apartments." Mr. Disraeli accepted this amendment, 
 but certain Liberals opposed it, on popularity-hunting principles ; unfor- 
 tunately it did not pass. 
 
 Il 
 
 li 
 
 U -ttt. 
 
Mi 
 
 .it 
 
 ( 28 ) 
 
 It is the same with regard to the trader whose business 
 depends on his health, his connection, his good fortune, 
 seasons, and fifty things of that kind. I say that to tax such 
 a man exactly as If he had permanent possession of so much 
 landed property is not fair. 
 
 Then there is another great question to be discussed, — the 
 reform of our land laws. 
 
 The Government have, I think very wisely, introduced four 
 bills on that subject. I approve of the principle of those 
 bills, but I am sorry to say that, much as I respect her 
 Majesty's Government, my complaint against them is this, 
 that they lay down very important principles, that they admit 
 the necessity of certain very important measures, but stiU 
 they are not what my friend in the chair would call allopathists, 
 they are homoeopathists, and they treat us to a very small pinch 
 of physic when we want a good rousing draught or bolus to 
 dear our system. (Laughter.) 
 
 But we must be thankful, I suppose, for small mercies. I 
 always like to get my friend upon the right course. I always 
 like to see him put in the right way ; and if he does not go 
 quite as fast as I should wish, when I see him fairly on the 
 road I try to give him a little push behind. (Laughter.) 
 
 Well, gentlemen, there is another great question of the 
 day — the question of Lreland. We are told by many of my 
 Irish friends in the House of Commons that no good will be 
 done until they have an independent Parliament in College 
 Green. (Cries of " Never !") 
 
 Now you know, ** What is sauce for the goose is sauce for 
 the gander." But if one part of the Empire has a separate 
 Parliament the other three must be equally favoured or 
 damaged. Whether the goose is John Bull, and the gander 
 our friends on the other side of the Channel, or not, I do 
 not know; still we are all fellow-citizens, and I am sure 
 we have a very kindly feeling for each other. I only know 
 that I sent over the other day a contribution of a few friends 
 of mine — £500 — to buy seed potatoes for the poor farmers in 
 Ireland ; and if I could have sent them £5,000, they shoidd 
 have had it with all the pleasure in life. They talk to us 
 about domestic legislation. My answer to that is this : Do 
 you think if you had a Parliament in Dublin to-morrow it 
 would save those hundreds and thousands of people, who are 
 threatened with starvation because they have no seed to renew 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 their crops? Some facetious man has said, it would take 
 about twelve months to organize, and they would be sure to 
 quarrel about it. In all probability the price of shillelaghs 
 would considerably rise — (laughter) — and you would require 
 a British regiment to be sent from London or Folkestone 
 to put down the scrimmage got up amongst themselves. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Then, with regard to the other plan that has been proposed 
 from a much more important quarter, that the present land- 
 owners should sell their land — at low prices of course, be- 
 cause if sold at high prices nobody would care to buy — to 
 the present tenants, I want to know what would become of 
 the present labouring man, and the future tenant and the 
 future labouring man. It would only, as it seems to me, be 
 substituting for a small number of landlords a large number 
 of landlords still more interested in screwing everybody, ex- 
 cept themselves. "We have all got our crotchets, and my cure 
 for Ireland is — Great public works. I ventured to say at Man- 
 chester that if I were the administrator of Ireland I would treat 
 that country as I would treat a badly cultivated and unimproved 
 farm. I rhould find that in ordinary seasons it barely pro- 
 duces food, of a very humble kind, for five and a-half millions 
 of people, and I should say that by certain developments and 
 improvements it might produce good food and plenty of it, 
 good wages and plenty of them, for perhaps double that 
 population. I should, as a plain, practical man, set myseU to 
 consider what are the measures necessary to make that island 
 produce double or treble the present quantity of food ? I 
 think that is common sense. I am sure that is the 
 way that every farmer in Kent, when he takes a poor 
 impoverished farm goes to work. If he did not do it in 
 that way, he would find that falling down on his knees or 
 sa3dng his prayers, or getting up a political demonstration 
 to denounce the Archbishop of Canterbury, or somebody else, 
 would not lead to his growing two blades of grass where pre- 
 viously only one grew. If I had to do the work I should 
 follow the example that has been set us in France. And here 
 I may say, — quite apart from politics, and, of course, by way 
 of parenthesis, — ^thatlthink one of the greatest Ministers since 
 Colbert that France ever had is the present Mons. de Frey- 
 cinet, who is deepening the harbour at Boulogne. Of course 
 this is not politics. You- must assume for a moment that in- 
 
 '.'' 
 
 ȴi 
 
 ill 
 
',i«*,»..aii.*u^i ■;*:•. 
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 stead of being at a political meeting you have got into a rail- 
 way meeting. (Laughter.) Now, I have made up my 
 mind that by means of that great work now in the 
 course of accomplishment, after years of labour, anxiety, 
 and opposition, Folkestone will be the front door of 
 England — (cheers) — for access to the Continent, and every- 
 thing that is reached through the Continent. But to come 
 back to Ireland, I should like to do for that country 
 what Mon. de Freycinet is doing for France. He is laying 
 out in France on railways, canals, harbours, roads, drain- 
 age, and public works, two hundred millions of money 
 distributed over ten years — twenty millions a year — and 
 he estimates, and the estimate is perfectly reliable, that 
 that will add at least thirty per cent, to the productive 
 power of France. If I had my way I would try that 
 French experiment upon Ireland. (Cheers.) I would make 
 Ireland the great high road to the British Dominion in 
 Canada, — a dominion which, thanks to a little party of 
 men of whom I was one, now extends from the Atlantic to 
 the Pacific, is of larger area than the great United States of 
 America, and recognizes British law, being the honoured 
 and loyal subject of Queen Victoria. I would make a 
 ship canal right across Ireland, so that the American 
 and Canadian Continent and the Port of Liverpool, or other 
 ports upon our western coast, should be reached two days 
 sooner than they are at present. In doing that I should tap 
 some of those great bogs in Ireland and lay the foun- 
 dation of a traflftc such as no one now expects. And 
 I would carry out the same system of improving the 
 roads, the railways, the docks and the harbours that 
 has been carried out elsewhere. — [A Voice : " I'll vote for 
 you after that." (Laughter).] — The first effect of that would 
 be that every sensible man who is frightened by all these wild 
 political schemes that do not mean the moving of a spade of 
 earth, or the digging up of a single weed, would say, "Now, 
 that is a practical thing ;" hope would come back into the 
 hearts of the people, and wages would rise. I know some 
 may say, " Oh dear me, if you give higher wages that would 
 be a dreadful thing for the farmers and the householders." I 
 say, " No." High wages mean the cheapest work — ^I have 
 tried it ; you cannot get a full amount of work out of a starv- 
 ing man. Pay him good wages, feed him well, and he will 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 give you good work, and the work he will give you will be 
 cheaper than that which you get out of the poor slave 
 with his eightpence or tenpence a day. Then it would 
 have the effect of soothing over all those national differ- 
 ences — differences of race and antagonisms which unfor- 
 tunately have existed between England and Ireland. Now, 
 gentlemen, there are other questions that can be dealt 
 with to-night; but I want to give a full opportunity to 
 those who follow me for saying whatever they like. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think we may congratulate 
 ourselves that after more than forty years of progress we are 
 still ruled over by Queen Victoria. (Cheers.) We have had 
 during her reign a constitutional sovereign governing a con- 
 stitution-loving people. The court has been a perfect contrast 
 to those iniquities that were described in reference to the 
 courts from Charles 11. downwards, when it was said, 
 
 . " Here round and round the ghosts of beauties glide 
 Haunting the places where their honour died." 
 
 In her Majesty's court there has been a purity and a high 
 tone which has reflected honour upon our Court, and which 
 has been a bright example to courts all over the world. 
 Some people say — ^I have heard it often — I heard it upon 
 that vote of mine confirming the government in bringing 
 those Indian troops to Malta — that the prerogatives of 
 the Crown were being strained. Now, I can quite under- 
 stand in an emergency a ministry taking the responsibility 
 of acts — being of course responsible to Parliament with 
 their heads — ^because a ministry can be impeached, and, 
 if you choose to go to that length, everyone of them 
 may be executed. Perhaps some of you, who are vehe- 
 ment opponents of the Government, may say that it 
 would be no misfortune to the country if such a thing 
 were to happen. (Laughter.) I do not go quite so far as 
 that, but be that as it may, is it not natural, — is it not right 
 and proper that when a Sovereign like our Queen, who, since 
 1837, has read every important despatch which has come 
 to this country, who has really made the politics of Europe 
 and of England the study of her life — is it not natural 
 that the accumulated experience of such a monarch 
 day by day increases the authority, and therefore the con- 
 trol, which she exercises over the affairs of the country? 
 
 i 
 
■J-,ttAtii<AiU ■!•*•.' 
 
 . ( 32 ) '*• 
 
 I say, is it not a benefit ? I join issue with those who would 
 say that the Queen has ever attempted to exceed the legiti- 
 mate authority of a legitimate constitutional monarch — 
 (cheers) — and I am bound to say that it was only in defer- 
 ence to the views of my friend in the chair and some others, 
 that instead of voting for — as I really think I ought to have voted 
 — I voted against conferring upon the Queen the title of Em- 
 press. I thought the title of Queen of England was enough 
 for my love and my affection and loyalty ; at the same time I 
 was not aware that the father of the son-in-law of the Queen 
 had entitled her Majesty Empress long before — that before 
 the Act of Parliament was introduced for that purpose he 
 had taken upon himself to do it — autocratically. (Cheers.) 
 
 But, gentlemen, we are happy in our Queen, because she is 
 our Queen, and because she is a good woman, and a most con- 
 stitutional Sovereign. She presides over an empire such as 
 the world has probably never seen. Long may she receive, 
 as she deserves, our loyalty and our affection, and long may 
 she find this country free for every class and every sect in it, and 
 therefore powerful wherever liberty can be learned and re- 
 spected. A great American orator, describing our country 
 of the last century, said, that it was an empire to which the 
 fabled glories of Egypt, of Greece, and of Rome, were beneath 
 comparison ; that dotted around the world were hor military 
 posts, so that following the sun, and keeping company with 
 the hours, the whole earth was encircled daily with one con- 
 tinuous sound of England's martial music. (Cheers.) 
 
 I hope, Mr. Chairman, that, in the advancing tide of opinion 
 and of progress, — with the increase of those ennobling and soft- 
 ening influences which, from the pulpit, the school, and the 
 press, have now for so many years been growing amongst us, 
 — we may in the future, while not at all ignoring that portrait 
 of her former greatness, be justified in the prayer and in the 
 hope as regards this Empire, that as the morning sun breaks 
 upon the horizon, in every country and every clime, it may be 
 welcomed by the sound of prayer and praise from all mankind, 
 in the grand old English language of this home of freedom. 
 (Loud cheers.) 
 
 The Mayob (J. Holdon, Esq.) : After the speech we have 
 listened to, I daresay there is something more to be said r, and 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 when r; is said, I am prepared to move a Resolution ; or if no 
 one els3 is desirous of speaking, I will at once move — 
 
 ♦' TJiat, in the opinion of this meeting, Sir Edward William Watkin 
 "is a fit and proper person to represent the borough of Hythe 
 " in the ensuing Parliament, and this meeting pledges itself to 
 ' ' support his election whenever a dissolution may ooour." 
 
 (Loud cheers.) 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, we are all in a capital humour, and 
 I do not want to spoil it. I should be sorry to say one word 
 that would interfere with the harmony of this meeting. You 
 know my motto is fair play for everybody, and I believe in 
 fair discussion upon every subject that interests the mind of 
 an Englishman. I never moved a resolution of a political 
 character before, and how it is that I have strung up my 
 nerves to be guilty of such an act of temerity to-night I do 
 not know. I am not going to make a speech — I could do so 
 if I felt disposed. (Laughter.) I will only occupy your time 
 two or three minutes. 
 
 In moving this Eesolution I feel that we are perfectly safe, 
 and that we can trust our local, social, and business interests 
 in the keeping of Sir Edward Watkin. (Cheers.) That is 
 number one. I need not talk about it; you can digest it 
 when you get home ; you can pull it to pieces and put it 
 together again, and when you have done that it will be just 
 where you found it. (Laughter.) While Sir Edward 
 Watkin was speaking I tried to put down two or three 
 thoughts, but really he carried me along with him so 
 thoroughly that I could not for the life of me do so. I wrote 
 down, "Man all round — angular — confidence — look back 
 upon his parentage — four generations of liberals." 
 
 Now if that is anything like a logical speech, or a text for 
 one, tell me. I never knew that Sir Edward was such a 
 fighting-man as he is. I certainly was not prepared to go 
 with b^Tn when he talked about hangine^ up the Ameer of 
 Afghanistan and all those wicked fellows as high as Haman. 
 I certainly should hesitate before I undertook that piece of 
 business. (Laughter.) When he talked about the annihilation 
 of those Zulu hosts, I fancied I could see old Cetewayo on the 
 bottom of the Transvaal, and Sekukuni on the top of the 
 Transvaal, with their murderous intentions to crush out every 
 Boer. That knocked my speech out of my head. (Laughter.) 
 
 Nevertheless, Mt. Chairman and fellow-townsmen, if we 
 
 D 
 
 
 I 
 
 n 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 It I 
 
 ii 
 
 want a man to do anything for us, let hira have our confi- 
 dence. (Hear, hear.) We might have a one-sided man, we 
 might have a man full of angles and crochets, and ideas of 
 his own that might correspond with the ideas of half-a-dozen 
 people in this street, and one in another, and two up yonder, 
 and six down there ; but that is not what wo want. We do 
 not want a delegate — a man that is to be pinned fast and close 
 all round ; wrapped up in swaddling clothes, ho that ho cannot 
 move hand or limb ; kept in one shape ard attitude, and one 
 form of speech. We do not want a man like that. If you 
 asked me to do a thing for you, I should say, tell me what 
 you want me to do, and I will do it to the best of my ability; 
 but if a certain thing should arise in the course of the pro- 
 ceeding, give me a little discretion. If you want me to do 
 anything, trust me; do not qui tion my motives. Question 
 my acts, if you like ; but when you question them, I will tell 
 you why I did so and so. Judge a man by what you see, and 
 if he is fair all round, take him as he is. I feel as an 
 Englishman — I feel as an inhabitant of Folkestone, and I feel 
 as a member of the Liberal party, having been a liberal ever 
 since I knew the meaning of the word, and I hope I shall 
 continue to be so — that I can confidently trust my civil, my 
 religious and my commercial interests in the keeping of a 
 man like Sir Edward Watkin. (Cheers). 
 
 I do not approve of all that the present Government have 
 done in their foreign policy — he does not himself, he told you 
 BO plainly — ^but there have been certain periods in the history 
 of this country when loyal Englishmen have been compelled 
 to go with the Government. (Hear, hear.) How was it that 
 less than 100 Liberal members went into the lobby upon the 
 vote for the six millions credit after those wonderful speeches 
 condemnatory of the policy of the Tory Government ? The 
 honour of England was at stake, and they refused to oppose 
 the Government just at that critical time. (" Hear, hear," 
 and cheers.) 
 
 I did not mean to say that, but somehow or another it has 
 wormed itself out. I feel the greatest confidence — I do not 
 please everybody, and I cannot expect to do so — in moving 
 this Besolution. (Cheers.) 
 
 Mr. CoBAY : I beg leave to second the motion. It is not 
 necessary to occupy your time in speaking upon it, because 
 everything that I could say myself has been already said. I 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 endorse all the sentiments that have been uttered by the 
 worthy Mayor of Folkestone, and I cannot say anything more. 
 The Rev. William Sampson: Before that Resolution is 
 put to the Meeting, I ask your permission to say a word or 
 two in opposition to it. Permit me to say I have never stood 
 upon this platform before with such regret as I stand here 
 to-night. If I could reconcile it with my conviction and duty 
 to be silent, very gladly would I be silent. I want for a 
 moment to refer to the remarks our Member was making when 
 I ventured to interrupt him just now on a personal explana- 
 tion — I am very careful, if I have anything to do with contro- 
 versy, that no one could charge me with sa3dng or doing 
 anything that could be considered ungentlemanly. I ventured 
 to write to the papers — which I had a perfect right to do^ 
 criticiziiig the speeches of Sir Edward "Watkin delivered here 
 and at Hythe. In those speeches Sir Edward Watkin took 
 credit to himself for his courage and for his honesty. I said 
 I did not question his courage. I will quote my exact words: 
 " I recognize his courage in doing so ; I should consider it an 
 insult to him if I were to say that I acknowledged his 
 honesty." Gentlemen, if I were to look into any man's face 
 and say, "I consider you an honest man," would he not sup- 
 pose I was insulting him ? Of course. Sir Edward is an honest 
 man, and I am not here to-night to say one single word against 
 the honesty and the courage with which Sir Edward Watkin has 
 always acted. I acknowledge it, and I fully accede to what 
 the Mayor has just said, and to what Sir Edward Watkin has 
 also said. I will be no party to sending to Parliament a mere 
 delegate, who shall vote exactly as the constituency tells him 
 to do ; I will only be a party to send a representative to Par- 
 liament who shall vote according to his convictions. Every 
 man in the House of Commons ought to vote according to his 
 convictions, and it will be a sad day when our members of Par- 
 liament do not vote according to their convictions. Sir, I admire 
 the independence of members of Parliament; but while I 
 acknowledge that they have a perfect right to be independent, 
 I claim the same independence for myself and for the con- 
 stituency to which I belong. (Hear, hear.) While a member in 
 the House of Commons ought to vote according to his convic- 
 tions, it is the duty of the constituency to consider whether 
 the votes he gives are those which in their judgment are 
 
 right or wrong. (Cries of " Question.") That is the question, 
 
 D 2 
 
 
( 3fi ) 
 
 and becauBo I am going to ehallongo Sir Edward Watkin's 
 votes, and his conduct in the House of CommouH in so voting, 
 or in not voting ; I moan to oppose the resolution wliich 
 has been submitted to us to-night. (Cheers and hisses.) 
 Now, gentlemen. Sir Edward has referred to the Zulu War. 
 I pass over, with a single expression of regret, the circum- 
 stance that he should condescend to use the terms he has 
 used in describing those who have opposed him — " That 
 kindly man, Cetewayo," " That man with such good inten- 
 tions." I say it is a pity that Sir Edward Watkin should 
 have condescended to use such terms as those. "An innocent 
 black gentleman" — that is what Sir Edward Watkin says wo 
 call him — " an innocent black gentleman, who never did any 
 harm." Now, I have never referred to Cetewayo in any such 
 terms as those. (A Voice: "The party has.") I never 
 heard of any of the Liberal party that have done it, and I 
 will challenge any one to produce statements made by men 
 who are fairly called representatives of the Liberal party to 
 that effect. (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, in reference to the 
 Zulu War, and the long description of the causes of it that Sir 
 Edward Watkin has given, there is an entire answer. This 
 Government of ours, this Conservative Government, who sent 
 out Sir Bartle Frere, and who received his despatch an- 
 nouncing that he had sent an ultimatum, and who waited 
 until Sir Bartle Frere had sent a fuller explanation before 
 they gave any expression of their own opinion — this Govern- 
 ment said that the war was an unnecessary one. Now, 
 gentlemen, I take my stand there. I won't go into parti- 
 cidar details about Zululand, or refer to what Sir Edward 
 Watkin has said to us in reference to Bishop Colenso, or in 
 reference to anyone else. I take my stand there. This 
 Government declared that Sir Bartle Frere was not justified 
 in sending that ultimatum. I do not know how that fact can 
 be got over. It must have been known to Sir Edward, but 
 he did not refer to it in his speeches here before, and he has 
 not referred to it to-night. Well, gentlemen, I say that a 
 Government that permits one of its officers to continue in 
 office after he has commenced what they think and have said 
 is an unjust and unnecessary war — that Government ought not 
 to have the confidence of the Liberal party of this country. 
 Now, that resolution that Sir Charles Dilke moved with re- 
 ference to the Zulu war was accepted by both parties — Sir 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 Stafford Northcoto on tho part of the Government, and the 
 Marquis of Ilartington on the part of the Opposition — as a vote 
 of want of confidence in the Government ; and to my regret 
 Sir Edward Watkin gave a vote which was accepted as a vote 
 of confidence in the Conservative Government. (Cheers and 
 hisses.) I am not surprised, gentlemen, to hear a great deal 
 of applause here. I am very much gratified to find how many 
 conservative gentlemen have been converted to the liberal 
 party. (Laughter.) I only hope they will prove true con- 
 verts, and we will welcome back repentant sinners to-night, 
 although we might find ninety-nine not "other sinners," but 
 " righteous men who do not think that they need repentance." 
 Now, one word about tho Afghan War. I fuily wish I had 
 a large map here, and that I had the graphic powers shown 
 by Sir Edward Watkin when he described Zululand, just to 
 describe tho Afghanistan territory and the territory round 
 about it. I want to know what in the world the statement of 
 Sir Edward Watkin about the greatness of India and the 
 benefit of the English rule in India had to do with the question 
 at issue. At one time I thought I was at a missionary meeting. 
 I have often talked about Sutteeism and about infanticide 
 and Juggernaut. I have been there, and I have stood at the 
 very spot where the people have been crushed under the Jug- 
 gernaut wheels, but I could not understand what all that had 
 to do with the question at issue. What business have we in 
 Afghanistan at all? (Hear, hear.) [A Voice : "Russia."] 
 The question is not shall we keep India, or give up India ? 
 We all say and we all mean to keep India — (A Voice : " Keep 
 Bussia out.") — and as long as we do our duty to India and 
 maintain as our standard there the great principles of right- 
 eousness and truth, so long we shall hold India ; and, depend 
 upon it, if we give up thobe great principles of righteousness 
 and truth, and go into the gunpowder and glory business, our 
 hold on India will be slackened, and India wiU be taken from 
 UB. (A Voice: "Never.") It is because I believe all that, 
 that I feel this matter so strongly. We had no business in 
 Afghanistan at all. (A Voice : " Then we ought to let Eussia 
 go.") Our friend says, we ought to let Eussia go. Now, if 
 Eussia was attempting unfairly and unduly to get into 
 Afghanistan, with whom ought we to have a quarrel ? Ought 
 we to have it with Afghanistan, or ought we to have it with 
 Bussia ? (Hear, hear.) To talk about being afraid of Eussia 
 
.•U'M^VlMlmiMtlt'**^.:- 
 
 11 
 
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 getting into our dominions in India, why do, as Lord Salis- 
 bury told you to do the other day, study a good large map, 
 a,nd the very appearance of the map will show you that you 
 need not fear Russia getting into India for many a long 
 year to come. The fact is, our power is spreading in one 
 direction and the power of Eussia is spreading in another, 
 and there are great distances of very difficult country to get 
 over before you can join the two growths together. If 
 you will only watch the progress that Eussia has been 
 making in Central Asia you will find that she is keeping 
 right away to a great distance from our northern frontier; 
 but even if we were to be afraid of Eussia we are only playing 
 into the hands of Eussia in going into Afghanistan at all. 
 The great policy was the policy of Lord Lawrence, Lord 
 Mayo, and Lord Northbrook, to keep Afghanistan as a strong, 
 friendly, independent power. But what have we done now ? 
 Judge of the tree by its fruits. You have made Afghanistan, 
 not friendly, not merely a passive enemy ; you have made 
 Afghanistan for generations to come an active enemy to the 
 British power. (No, no.) You will find it, yes. (Cheers 
 and hisses.) Instead of our going to meet Eussia in that 
 direction, we should have waited to let Eussia come into 
 Afghanistan, and she would have had the opposition of all 
 the tribes of Afghanistan to meet (No, no) ; instead of which 
 we have made Afghanistan our enemy. That is the ques- 
 tion; and when I find a Government proclaiming war as 
 they did — forcing' war as they did upon the Ameer of 
 Afghanistan — ^I feel that they are undeserving our confi- 
 dence. Now, gentlemen, I won't trouble you with going at 
 length into the question of the Eastern policy ; but I want 
 to say one word on this point. It is commonly said: " Oh, 
 Sir Edward is only in favour of the Government on foreign 
 policy, and foreign policy ought to be beyond the range of 
 party politics." Ay, ay ; but since when has that been an 
 admitted principle ? Before this Government came into power 
 the men who are now the leaders of the Government — the 
 mainsprings of the Government — ^were the loudest in denounc- 
 ing the foreign policy of their predecessors. They never 
 accepted the principle that foreign politics are outside the 
 range of party politics ; they are too astute men to do that ; 
 and they only raise the question now in order to prevent the 
 fair and honest criticism which the people of this country 
 could give to their policy. 
 
u 
 
 [f 
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 Now, suppose that Sir Edward has only voted with 
 the Government on foreign policy — only the foreign 
 policy — what does that mean ? It is the question of 
 peace and wai ; it is the question of increased expendi- 
 ture ; it is the question of taking away the bone and sinew 
 of the country to fight the battles of the country. And 
 mark me, I fully believe if this Government be returned to 
 power again — (A Voice: "They will"). — ^Is this a Liberal 
 meeting? Is it a Liberal that shouts out, " They will?" (A 
 Voice: "Yes.") I should like that Liberal to stand up. I 
 know that some who have shouted out "They will" are men 
 who have been the strongest upholders of the Conservative 
 party in this Borough for years past. I know them; but 
 mark me, if this Government is returned to power again, I do 
 not believe it is possible for us to escape war with Russia. 
 (A Voice : "We don't want to.") If you are one of the Liberals 
 that " don't want to," then send into Parliament a gentleman 
 who will support this present Conservative Government. 
 Foreign policy only, what does it mean ? It means the 
 weKare and happiness of this people. It means the true 
 honour of England, and because I believe that that honour 
 has been trailed in the dust — (Cheers, and cries of " No, no.") 
 — ^I believe it, gentlemen ; and you cannot challenge me. 
 Now I ask you another question. Is it only the foreign 
 policy on which Sir Edward has voted for the Conservative 
 Government, or not voted with his own party ? Refer to the 
 votes. On the County Franchise Bill Sir Edward Watkin 
 has been silent since 1875 — (Oh, oh!) — and to-night he justi- 
 fies that vote, or that not vote, by saying that he is not pre- 
 pared to give hovel franchise. (Hear, hear.) I am not 
 surprised to hear that " Hear, hear;" but I ask gentlemen to 
 listen for a moment. If a man in Folkestone lived in a hovel 
 he would have a vote, and if he lived in a hovel outside the 
 limits of the borough, why should he not have a vote as well ? 
 Talk about hovel suffrage, let these men have the vote, and 
 the probability is that they will have the hope inspired in 
 them which has been driven out of them by long centuries of 
 legislation that has trampled them to the dust ; and I say that 
 one of the most effective means of raising them from that 
 condition is giving them the franchise. But most assuredly 
 when a man has a vote for a hovel in Folkestone, there can be 
 no reason for his not having a vote because he lives in a hovel 
 
 ■■^i 
 
)l;l 
 
 f! 
 
 II 
 
 mV 
 
 , 
 
 • ( 40 ) 
 
 outside Folkestone. Well, gentlemen, on many other questions 
 besides, Sir Edward Watkin has not voted on home matters with 
 the Liberal party. I know that there are on these questions one 
 and another who have voted against their party. Mr. Co wen 
 voted against his party on the Eastern question ; he votes 
 with his party on the Zulu war and the Afghan war, and on 
 all those questions that affect home matters. Mr. Goschen 
 does not vote with his party on the County Franchise Bill ; 
 he votes with them on all these other questions where Sir 
 Edward has forsaken them. And we find not that Sir Edward 
 has merely refrained from voting on the foreign policy and on 
 one or two matters of home politics; but on a great many 
 other questions. I feel therefore that I am bound to withhold 
 my vote from him. [A Voice: "You are only one."] Yes, lam 
 but one, and our friend who shouts is but one, too. (Laughter.) 
 Gentlemen, believe me when I say that I have never taken 
 up a public matter with so great regret as this ; but believing 
 that England has been dishonoured by this Government — 
 (" Oh ! oh !") — having no confidence whatever in the present 
 Government — and if time permitted I would bring forward 
 evidence that I think would convince you that they are a 
 Government in whom we ought not to have confidence— I can 
 be no party to sending any man to Parliament who will not 
 do his very utmost to hurl from power the Government that 
 has been misusing it and degrading England for so many 
 years past. 
 
 The Chairman : Does any other gentleman wish to speak 
 against the Eesolution ? ' ' ' '- 
 
 After a pause, 
 
 Sir Edward "Watkin said : Well, gentlemen, as I have no 
 other accuser, I will say a word or two (feeling myself to 
 some extent in the dock) in reply to the accusation which has 
 been brought against me. I think you will observe that my 
 reverend friend has rather been attacking her Majesty's 
 Government than attacking me. (Hear, hear.) Upon some 
 questions I have no donbt that I shall be ready to join with 
 him in attacking her Majesty's Government. But I want to 
 know. Who was it that placed her Majesty's Government in 
 power ? Now, there is a gentleman whose radical proclivities 
 and Nonconformist faithfulness will, I am sure, be entirely 
 accepted by my reverend friend. I mean Mr. Samuel Morley. 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 Well, Mr. Samuel Morley said at a public meedng in 
 London, that the reason why Lord Beaconsfield was placed in 
 power, and that Mr. Gladstone was kicked out of power, was 
 because of these internecine divisions caused in different 
 Liberal constituencies, where in seventy-five cases two Liberals 
 started against one Conservative. Now, I venture to say as 
 my opinion — and I do not care whom I vex or whom I please 
 by saying it — ^that the same intolerant game is to be played 
 again, and that if you want to turn out her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment you must rather rely upon Liberals of forty-four years 
 standing like myself — upon Liberals who have fought the 
 battle and borne the heat and burden of the day — than upon 
 those men on whom we have conferred equality and enfran- 
 chisement, and who, alas, reward us by their opposition and 
 their hatred. Now, we will come to particulars. My friend 
 Mr. Sampson says that the issues have been those of peace or 
 war. I admit it, and I justify my votes by expressing the most 
 confident opinion — and I am sure every one of you who will read 
 all the papers and study the question carefully — ^which evidently 
 Mr. Sampson has not — will come to that opinion, that the 
 votes which I have given have been in favour of peace, 
 because they prevented those wars that come from weakness 
 and indecision. Now, I will ask a few questions. I asked 
 whether my friend was willing to give up India. He says, 
 No. Very well; if he is not prepared to give up Lidia, what 
 is the best way of defending India? ** Oh," he says, " you 
 have no business in Afghanistan," but he forgets that we have 
 the most complete and conclusive evidence that preparation 
 was made in Afghanistan for attack upon India. (No, no ; 
 Yes, yes, and interruption.) Now, gentlemen, let us just try 
 to be fair. I say you have the distinct and unmistakeable 
 evidence of Sir Frederick Boberts against the mere assertion 
 of Mr. Sampson. 
 
 Mb. Sampson : No, you have not. 
 
 Sir E. Watkin : There is not the slightest doubt, and 
 I am sure Mr. Sampson will not contradict the extracts 
 I read from Sir Frederick Eoberts' despatch — ^that there 
 was an enormous accumulation of military means at Cabul 
 which could only be used and only be intended for an 
 attack upon India. (No, no.) What is the use of deny- 
 ing it ? Well, if that is so — and it all depends upon facts 
 
 I; I 
 
.\.:..- .>»t»i,-:tmtiitikm.-i"tiKii:/>i.- 
 
 V. 
 
 ( 42 ) 
 
 which every one of you can prove or disprove for your- 
 selves — if there was a vast military accumulation at Cabul — 
 within four weeks' march of the frontiers of India — what 
 was our best course to take ? Were we to allow those 
 cockatrices' eggs to mature into destruction for us, or to go 
 there and crush them ? ** Oh," says Mr. Sampson, *• if you 
 were afraid of Hussia, why didn't you go to war with 
 Bussia?" Now, I ask Mr. Sampson to get up and tell me, 
 was he in favour of going to war with Eussia ? (Loud cheers.) 
 
 Mr. Sampson : I rise at Sir Edward's request to answer his 
 question. The question is an utterly unfair one. My state- 
 ment is this : If you have cause of war against Russia, go to 
 war with Eussia, and not with Afghanistan. And, gentlemen, 
 please take notice of it ; I have never said that we have cause 
 for war with Eussia ; but if we have the cause, then I will 
 give the answer : but, don't you, gentlemen, have dust thrown 
 in your eyes in that way. 
 
 Sir Edward Watkin : Now gentlemen, I am going to 
 follow this thing up. (Hear, hear.) If you have a little 
 patience I am going to have it deliberately out. Either we 
 had cause of war, or difference at all events with somebody, 
 or we had cause of difference with nobody. It is very in- 
 genious of my reverend friend. Either we had cause of 
 quarrel or we had not. Now on what information are we to 
 rely ? Are we to rely upon the ipse dixit of Mr. Sampson, or 
 upon my ipse dixit, or upon unmistakeable official documents? 
 I read to you one of them. 
 
 Mr. Sampson : What is the date of it ? I know it. 
 Sir Edwabd Watkin : Mr. Sampson says he knows it. 
 
 Mr. Sampson : I do know it. It is Sir Frederick Eoberts* 
 despatch, written after aU the war in Afghanistan, only a few 
 weeks ago. Now, we know weU enough that all those native 
 princes in India have great stores of ammunition ; it is part of 
 their pride to have them. (Oh, oh !) You may say " Oh, oh," 
 but it is true. It is part of their pride to have them. But 
 our Gj-ovemment did not know this until Sir Frederick Eoberts 
 wrote his despatch. If Sir Edward says that they did 
 know it, I will ask him for his authority. The Government 
 has never put this matter forward in this way until Sir 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 Frederick Roberts' despatch arrived, and you cannot justify 
 by evidence found out afterwards what you did months be- 
 fore. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Sir Edward Watkin : I should like to keep my friend to 
 the point if I can. He tells you that Sir Frederick Roberts 
 wrote this despatch, making these statements, after a certain 
 stage of the war. Now, can we any of us believe that the 
 Government were not aware of the information which was 
 confirmed by what Sir Frederick Roberts sent to them ? Can 
 one for a moment believe that a body of Englishmen — not 
 blood-thirsty men, not men disposed to " Cry havoc and let 
 slip the dogs of war," who had the great weight over them of 
 English public opinion — would have engaged in that war if 
 they did not know that there was a danger ? When I ask 
 upon wliat authority Mr. Sampson states that there was no 
 such information until Sir Frederick Roberts' despatch 
 arrived, he asks me to state on what authority I say there 
 was such information. I can only say that either he knows 
 there was no such information, or he does not. If he does 
 not know, he ought to have informed himself before coming 
 to accuse me of high crimes and misdemeanors for consider- 
 ing that the Government did know it. I will leave that for 
 a moment, and focus the matter in this way. Mr. Sampson 
 says he would not give up India. I understand him > 
 admit that the English domination in India is a civilizing 
 and elevating influence, and that we should be not only 
 doing wrong, but conunitting a crime and omitting a duty 
 if we gave up India. Mr. Sampson is kind enough to 
 assent to that proposition. Then, I say^ that if the Govern- 
 ment of England have gone to war unwisely, cruelly, and 
 wrongly, I should join Mr. Sampson in condemning them ; 
 but, according to the information given to me, which is patent 
 to everybody, and which comes from the highest authority, 
 there was a distinct danger — there was a collection of forces in 
 Cabul which would have exploded in an invasion of India, or 
 would have led to irritation after irritation until that alterna- 
 tive which Mr. Sampson himself has suggested (not, I am 
 sure, that he wishes it) would have arisen, and we should 
 have been obliged to declare war, not in India — ^but against 
 Russia. Suppose there are three people in a quarrel, and 
 there is an intermediate man, what is the best course to 
 
,. I ii.s**Y,<?W«S#li**Jii«fe.»>i!iii»^'i:''j.i<U';. 
 
 ^'- 
 
 r 
 
 i: 
 
 i 
 
 ( « ) 
 
 pursue ? Is it best to leave the intermediate man to join one 
 side or the other, or to go to the intermediate man and settle 
 with him first ? At all events, I say we are quite right in 
 endeavouring to prevent an invasion or a hostile demon- 
 stration against India, in Cabul. Bemember there are 70,000 
 or 80,000 white men governing 200 nullion Hindoos, Maho- 
 medans and others in India, and the moment your prestige 
 is weakened, your power is gone, and you will have to regain 
 it by a bloody war and an enormous expenditure. (Cheers.) 
 I said two or three months ago, that war was so dreadful 
 and so bad, that whenever a Government engaged in it, it 
 ought to show cause why it did so. I am bound to say with 
 regard to Afghanistan that the despatch of Sir Frederick 
 Eoberts to my mind shows that there was a justification. 
 With regard to the Zulu war, Mr. Sampson has taunted me 
 for having spoken in certain terms of Cetewayo. T hold in 
 my hand the answer of Cetewayo to the ultimatum sent to 
 to him by our Government. The king said in reply to our 
 envoy, " Did I ever tell Mr. Shepstone I would not kill ? 
 Did he tell the white people that I made such an arrange- 
 ment ; because if he did he has deceived them ? I do kill, but 
 do not consider that I have done anything yet in the way of 
 killing. Why do the white people start at nothing ; I have 
 not yet beg^n. I have yet to kill ; it is the custom of our 
 nation, and I shall not depart from it." 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I want to know whether any Christian 
 person wiU say that if that was the religion, the doctrine, the 
 practice of this savage person, with his thirty or forty thousand 
 aimed men there, like a wedge between two portions of the 
 country inhabited by white settlers, we should tolerate that 
 sort of thing or not: that is my answer with regard to 
 that point. I am bound to say, coming back to the 
 Afghan business for a moment, that I entirely object to the 
 idea that there should be between India and Bussia a 
 neutral zone. I say it is impossible. I say it is provocative 
 of war. I say the proper course is to agree with Bussia, and 
 I think if our Government are wise and capable and able 
 they might take advantage of this particular position of doubt 
 and difficulty in Bussia to make such an arrangement. They 
 ought to agree to a frontier line in central Asia and get 
 rid of aU these doubts, difficulties, and struggles. Therefore, 
 while I am prepared, as I always have been, to assert the 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 power and might of England in a just cause and to avoid wars 
 by a firm attitude, I am always prepared, and shall be pre- 
 pared, to recommend those negotiations which ought, if pos- 
 sible, to put an end to internecine struggles of Europe in 
 arms which delay the progress of ciT'lization and threaten 
 human liberty. (Cheers.) 
 
 The Mayok : Before this Eesolution is put I claim the right 
 to reply. Let me ask you not to run on side lines. The re- 
 solution does not approve of a Tory Government, and it does 
 not pledge us to support a Tory Government. It pledges us 
 to support a man whose whole life — (A Voice : " You are a 
 Tory.") I challenge the truth of that. Our friend has made 
 a mistake. Facts and figures are very stubborn things, and 
 we cannot deny the statement made by our friend to-night, 
 that his whole family for four generations have voted on the 
 Liberal side. (Interruption.) He tells you that the course 
 he has pursued and the course he will pursue is in the Liberal 
 interest of this country — ^the civil, religious, and commercial 
 freedom of Englishmen. The Eesolution is a fair and open 
 one : it asks for your cordial vote, and you will give it. 
 
 Mr. John Clabke : I beg to move an amendment. I agree 
 that Sir Edward Watkins' hands ought not to be tied, and 
 that he should say what he likes when he gets into the House 
 of Commons ; but we ought to have the same privilege our- 
 selves. I am one who disagrees with Sir Edward Watkins' 
 votes on the foreign policy of this country ; and I beg leave 
 to move as an amendment — 
 
 " That the votes which Sir Edward Watkin has given on the foreign 
 " policy of the present Gk>yemment are not in accordance with 
 « the majority of the Liberals of this borough." 
 
 (Hear, hear. Cheers and groans.) 
 
 The Chaibmait: Does any gentleman second the amend- 
 ment ? (A Voice : Will you read the amendment ?) 
 
 The Chaibman : The amendment is not written. 
 
 The Mayob : While they are writing out the amendment, 
 let me say — 
 
 The Chaibman : It has been suggested to me — and I think 
 the suggestion is a very good one— that this ia not an amend- 
 
 W 
 
 
 'I 
 
 >i 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 ment, but a motion, which may be put as a separate motion 
 afterwards ; but it is not an amendment to this motion. 
 
 The Mayor : Let us be fair with each other. I tell you 
 honestly that I can vote with the amendment. What position 
 are you putting me in ? I shall vote for my resolution, most 
 decidedly, but you will be dividing to-night with that amend- 
 ment on wrong issues. (" Oh, oh.") Yes, you will. I say it, 
 and I maintain it, and I am ready to prove it, that the majority 
 of the Liberal party in Folkestone are prepared to support Sir 
 Edward Watkin (loud cheers) ; and I say still further, that the 
 majority of the Liberal party in Folkestone do not approve of 
 the Tory Government. 
 
 Mr. W. H. Willis : I think that this is putting matters 
 upon a false issue. I stand here to-night fully prepared, after 
 all I have heard from Sir Edward Watkin, to stand by his 
 side and to give him my vote ; but I am not prepared to say 
 that I endorse the foreign policy of the Government. Well, 
 look at the position you are in. If Mr. Clarke's motion is lost 
 our vote for Sir Edward Watkin will be not merely a vote of 
 confidence in Sir Edward Watkin, but it will be a vote of con- 
 fidence in her Majesty's Government. Now, we profess to be 
 here to-night as a meeting of Liberals. I daresay there are 
 others who do not profess to be Liberals. Now, it is a great 
 pity, brother electors, that you should divide the Liberal 
 camp. I for one would scout the idea of returning a man 
 who should be a mere delegate. As a member of the Folke- 
 stone Corporation I would never be returned or sit in the 
 Corporation, if I was bound and tied and fettered to carry out 
 certain purposes. Those who return me to the Corporation 
 ought to have confidence in me, as I have confidence in Sir 
 Edward Watkin. I do hope that our Chairman will rule that 
 this matter is out of order. I have no objection to a vote 
 being taken afterwards ; I will hold up my hand for it ; 
 but what I feel is this — I should deeply deplore the party 
 bf ng divided. Do you not know that Liberal division is 
 Conservative opportunity? (Cheers.) What I feel about 
 the matter is this : We cannot see every thing alike. Sir 
 Edward Watkin may have had more information upon 
 these subjects than you and I have. I believe that he 
 has acted without fear, favour, or affection, and that he 
 has given his votes in the House of Commons faithfully and 
 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 conscientiously ; nevertlieless, I differ on that point, and he 
 and a great many of his constituents differ on that point. 
 Therefore, I think it would be better if you could put this 
 motion afterwards. I do not think it is an amendment to the 
 motion. The motion does not say a word as to the foreign 
 policy of Sir Edward Watkin at all. It very wisely, as I 
 think, leaves the whole question ; and looking at what Sir 
 Edward "Watkin is and what he has done, and what he is 
 prepared to do, and looking at the way in which he has always 
 supported Liberal opinions, it declares that this meeting 
 deems him worthy of its support. 
 
 The CiiAiRMAN : I rule that the amendment is out of order. 
 
 Mr. Clakke: As the Chairman rules that this is out of 
 order I will waive it now, and I will move it afterwards. 
 
 A show of hands was then taken, and 
 
 The Chairman said, I declare this resolution carried by an 
 overwhelming majority. (Loud cheers.) 
 
 Mr. Clarke : I beg to move " That the votes given by Sir 
 •* Edward Watkin on the Foreign Policy of the Government 
 " are not in accordance with the opinions of the majority 
 " of the Liberals of this borough." 
 
 Mr. Sampson : I second the motion. 
 
 A show of hands was then taken, and the motion was 
 rejected by a large majority. 
 
 .\lderman Sherwood : I beg to move a vote of thanks to 
 our worthy Chairman, Dr. Bateman, for so ably conducting 
 this evening's meeting. 
 
 The motion was seconded, and carried unanimously. 
 
 The Chairman: I beg to thank you for your vote of thanks, 
 and for the orderly manner in which you have behaved 
 to-night. Although we have had some exciting topics, I am 
 sure that the meeting has been most orderly. 
 
 0. r. BOWOBTH, PBINTBB, BBEAX'S BVILDINaS, OHANOEBT LANS.