Afcll 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 VN—> i : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ^UIBRARYQr 
 
 
 hoi\m %omm<^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^/.mainihw^ 
 
 LlFO% 
 
 
 ^OFCAUF0% 
 06 i 
 
 
 v omwt 
 
 .^t-IWIVtR.'. 
 
 » I -n 
 
 v-SOV^ 
 
 v^clOS-ANGElfju 
 
 AIN(V3t\v 
 
 ERS//v 
 
 ^•lOSANGElfj> 
 
 ^■LIBRARYQc ^UIBRARYtf/ 
 
 % 
 
 ^IHNV-SOV^ %I3AINA-3\\V^ ^/OJITVDJO^ ^/OJIIVJJO^ 
 
 AWE-UNIVERS/a 
 
 <f3l33NV 
 
 ^clOS-ANCElfju 
 
 O li. 
 
 "^/MAINMftV 
 
 ^OF-CAIIFO/?^ 
 
 c-> 
 
 ^AavaaiH^' 
 
 ^0KALIF(%, 
 
 O 11 I 
 
 \ 
 
 ^AavaaiH^ 
 
 ^•LIBRARY^ ^UIBRARYQr 
 
 ^ojiivd-jo^ ^aojnvD-jo^ 
 
 ^WE-UNIVERS/a 
 
 <TJWS0V^ 
 
 ^IDS-ANCElfj^ 
 
 DO 
 3D 
 
 ^a3AIN(13W> 
 
 .^0FCALIF(% 
 
 ^ K f ^\. i — 
 
 Oe [\ / ^m \ O 
 u_i '1 I' I" ■ oo 
 
 y 0AHvaan-^ 
 
 .^.OFCALIF0% 
 
 ^Aavaaniv^ 
 
 AWE-l)NIVER% 
 
 <0\ B* 'O 
 
 "%1»S0V^ 
 
 ^clOS-ANCElfj^ 
 "%3AINIH^
 
 MODERN POLITICAL ORATIONS
 
 i N 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CO 
 
 ;r 
 
 W 
 
 ■a: 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 5 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 LORD BROUGHAM ON NEGRO EMANCIPATION 
 
 T. B. MACAULAY ON THE PEOPLE'S CHARTER 
 
 W. J. FOX ON THE CORN LAWS .... 
 
 DANIEL O'CONNELL ON REPEAL OF THE UNION . 
 
 R. L. SHEIL ON THE JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL 
 
 ALEXANDER COCKBURN ON THE GREEK DIFFICULTY 
 
 SIR BULWER LYTTON ON THE CRIMEAN WAR 
 
 THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH ON THE POLISH INSURRECTION 
 
 JOHN BRIGHT ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPU 
 ACT 
 
 u. 
 O 
 
 t 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT LOWE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. GATHORNE HARDY ON THE IRISH CHURCH 
 
 EARL RUSSELL ON THE BALLOT 
 
 ISAAC BUTT ON HOME RULE 
 
 A. M. SULLIVAN ON THE IRISH NATIONAL DEMANDS . 
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD ON THE BERLIN CONGRESS . 
 
 JOSEPH COWEN ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE ON THE BEACONSFIEI.l 
 MINISTRY 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I 
 
 24 
 
 35 
 4' 
 5' 
 6o 
 
 77 
 94 
 
 101 
 
 "3 
 
 140 
 
 158 
 
 164 
 172 
 1 So 
 190 
 
 224 
 
 428775
 
 Vlll 
 
 Contents. 
 
 CHARLES BRADI.AUGH AT THE BAR OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 
 
 JUSTIN M'CARTHY IN DEFENCE OF HIS COLLEAGUES . 
 
 LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL ON THE EGYPTIAN CRISIS 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN ON LIBERAL AIMS 
 
 CHAS. S. PARNELL ON THE COERCION BILL 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. JOHN MORLEY ON HOME RULE 
 
 RICHARD COBDEN ON THE CORN LAWS .... 
 
 PAGB 
 242 
 
 249 
 
 26l 
 
 267 
 
 2S3 
 
 292 
 
 3" 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. "THE TIMES" ON " PARNELLISM AND CRIME ' 
 II. ORIGINAL SOURCES OF THE SPEF.CHES . . 
 
 3 2 9 
 343
 
 LORD BROUGHAM ON NEGRO 
 EMANCIPATION. 
 
 House of Lords, February 20TH, 1838. 
 
 [When the House assembled on this date, Lord Brougham, in a speech 
 of singular power and earnestness, introduced this motion : — " That an 
 humble address be presented to Her Majesty, earnestly beseeching Her 
 Majesty to take immediate steps for negotiating with the Governments of 
 Spain and Portugal, and obtaining the concurrence of the Governments of 
 France and the United States in such negotiations, with a view to declare 
 the trade in slaves piracy, wherever the same is carried on ; and making 
 those who carry it on liable to all the pains and consequences of piracy." 
 Anticipating a Mass Meeting in Exeter Hall, he also spoke at great length 
 in favour of the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.] 
 
 7/*L do not think, my Lords, that ever but once betbfe in the 
 whole course of my public life I have risen to address either 
 House of Parliament with the anxiety under which I labour at 
 this moment. The occasion to which alone I can liken the 
 present was when I stood up in the Commons to expose the 
 treatment of that persecuted missionary, whose case gave birth 
 to the memorable debate upon the condition of our negro 
 brethren in the Colonies — a debate happily so fruitful of results 
 to the whole of this great cause. But there is this difference 
 between the two occasions to sustain my spirits now, that, 
 whereas at the former period the horizon was all wrapt in 
 gloom, through which not a ray of light pierced to cheer us, we 
 have now emerged into a comparatively bright atmosphere, and 
 are pursuing our journey full of hope. For this we have 
 mainly to thank that important discussion, and those eminent 
 
 A
 
 2 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 men who bore in it so conspicuous a part.. y And now I feel a 
 greater gratification in being the means of enabling your Lord- 
 ships, by sharing in this great and glorious work, nay, by lead- 
 ing the "tony towards. its ftnpLaccomplishment, to increase the 
 esteem in : which you itrfc' .'hthrl by your fellow-citizens ; or if, 
 by ariy '.differences* -of; oginion*on recent measures you may 
 unhappily' have-lost any .paction .of the public favour, I know of 
 no path more short, more sure, or more smooth, by which you 
 may regain it But I will not rest my right to your co-opera- 
 tion upon any such grounds as these. I claim your help by a 
 higher title. I rely upon the justice of my cause — I rely upon 
 the power of your consciences — I rely upon your duty to God 
 and to man — I rely upon your consistency with yourselves — 
 and, appealing to your own measure of 1833, if you be the 
 same men in 1S38, I call upon you to finish your own work, 
 and give at length a full effect to the wise and Christian 
 principles which then guided your steps. 
 
 I rush at once into the midst of this great argument — I drag 
 before you once more, but I trust for the last time, the African 
 Slave Trade which I lately denounced here, and have so often 
 elsewhere. On this we arc all agreed. Whatever difference 
 of opinion may exist on the question of Slavery, on the Slave 
 Traffic there can be none. I am now furnished with a 
 precedent which may serve for an example to guide us. On 
 Slavery, we have always held that the Colonial Legislature 
 could not be trusted ; that, to use Mr Canning's expression, 
 you must beware of allowing the masters of slaves to make 
 laws upon Slavery. But upon the detestable Traffic in Slaves, 
 ! 1 show you the proceeding of a Colonial Assembly, which 
 we should ourselves do well to adopt after their example. 
 These masters of slaves, not to be trusted on that subject, have 
 acted well and wisely on this. The Legislature of Jamaica, 
 owners of slaves, and representing all other slave owners, feel 
 that they also represent the poor negroes themselves ; and 
 they approach the throne, expressing themselves thankful — 
 tardily thankful, no doubt— that the traffic has been for thirty
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Eviancipation. 3 
 
 years put down in our own Colonies, and beseeching the 
 Sovereign to consummate the great work by the only effectual 
 means — of having it declared piracy by the law of nations, 
 as it is robbery and piracy and murder by the law of God ! 
 This Address is precisely that which I desire your Lordships 
 to present to the same Gracious Sovereign. After showing how 
 heavily the Foreign Slave Trade presses upon their interests, 
 they take higher ground in this remarkable passage — 
 
 "Nor can we forego the higher position, as a question of humanity ; 
 representing all classes of the Island, we consider ourselves entitled to ofler 
 to your Majesty our respectful remonstrance against the continuance of 
 this condemned traffic in human beings. As a community, composed of 
 the descendants of Africa as well as Britain, we arc anxious to advance the 
 character of the country, and we therefore entreat your Majesty to exert 
 your interest with foreign Powers to cause this trade at once to be declared 
 piracy, as the only effectual means of putting it down, and thereby to grace 
 the commencement of your auspicious reign." 
 
 My Lords, I will not stop to remind the lawgivers of 
 Jamaica why it is that the Slave Traffic is a crime of so black 
 a dye. I will not remind them that if Slavery were no more 
 the Trade in Slaves must cease ; that if the West Indies were 
 like England, peopled with free men and cultivated only by 
 free hands, where no man can hold his fellow-creature in 
 bondage, and the labourer cannot be tormented by his 
 masters ; if the cart-whip having happily been destroyed, the 
 doors of the prison-house were also flung open, and chains and 
 bolts and collars were unknown, and no toil endured but by 
 the workmen's consent, nor any effort extorted by dread ol 
 punishment ; the traffic which we justly call not a trade but a 
 crime, would no longer inflict the miseries with which it now 
 loads its victims, who, instead of being conveyed to a place oi 
 torture and misery, would be carried into a land of liberty and 
 enjoyment. Nor will I now pause to consider the wishes of 
 some Colonies, in part, I am grieved to say, granted by the 
 Government, that the means should be afforded them of bring- 
 ing over what they call labourers from other parts of the globe, 
 to share in the sufferings of slavery, hardly mitigated under the
 
 4 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 name of Apprenticeship. That you should ever join your 
 voices with them on this matter is a thing so out of the 
 question, that I will not detain you with any other remark upon 
 it. But so neither have I any occasion to go at present into 
 the subject of the Slave Trade altogether, after the statements 
 which I lately made in this place upon the pernicious effects of 
 our head money, the frightful extent of the negro traffic, and 
 the horrible atrocities which mark its course still more awfully 
 now than before. In order to support my claim upon your 
 Lordships for the measure which alone can extirpate such 
 enormities, I need but refer you to these statements. Since 
 I presented them here, they have been made public, indeed, 
 promulgated all over the kingdom, and they have met with no 
 contradiction, nor excited the least complaint in any quarter, 
 except that many have said the case was understated ; and that 
 in one place, and only in one, I have been charged with 
 exaggeration. I have read with astonishment, and I repel with 
 scorn the insinuation, that I had acted the part of an advocate, 
 and that some of my statements were coloured to serve a 
 cause. How dares any man so to accuse me? How dares 
 any one, skulking under a fictitious name, to launch his 
 slanderous imputations from his covert ? I come forward in 
 my own person. I make the charge in the face of day. I 
 drag the criminal to trial. I openly call down justice on his 
 head. I defy his attacks. I challenge investigation. How 
 dares any concealed adversary to charge me as an advocate 
 speaking from a brief, and misrepresenting the facts to serve a 
 purpose ? 
 
 But the absurdity of this charge even outstrips its malice. 
 I stated that the negroes were thrown overboard in pairs 
 (luring a chase, to lighten the ship and enable her to escape — 
 thrown overboard in fetters, that they might sink, and not be 
 witnesses against the murderers. The answer is, that this man, 
 if man he be, had been <>n board slave ships, and never seen 
 such cruelties. I stated that the fetters were not locked, but 
 rivetted in the forge. The answer is, that the writer had been
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Emancipation. 5 
 
 on board of slave ships, and seen fetters which were locked, and 
 not rivetted. How dares any man deny a statement made 
 upon authority, referred to by name, on such a trumpery story 
 as this ? As well might he argue that a murder, sworn to by 
 fifty or a hundred credible witnesses, had never been committed, 
 because someone came forward and said he had not seen it done. 
 Did I not give the particulars ? Did I not avouch my authority ? 
 Did I not name the gallant officer from whose official report, 
 printed and published, my account was taken ? Did I not give the 
 respected name of Commodore Hayes, one of the best-esteemed 
 officers in Her Majesty's Service ? I, indeed, understated the case 
 in many particulars. But, my Lords, if I have not been charge- 
 able with exaggeration — if all who took part in the former debate, 
 whether in or out of office, agreed in acquitting me of that — 
 so neither shall I be charged for the future with understating 
 the atrocities of the case. What I then withheld I will now 
 tell — and not keeping back my authority now any more than I 
 did before, I appeal to my noble friend near me (Lord Sligo) 
 for the truth of the appalling story, himself a planter and an 
 owner of slaves. I ask him if he did not know a vessel 
 brought in with a cargo of 180 or 200 wretched beings, 
 jammed into a space three feet and a half in height. [Lord 
 Sligo. — Two and a half.] There, my Lords, I am under- 
 stating again. Into that space of two feet and a half between 
 the decks, that number of miserable creatures were jammed, 
 like inanimate lumber, certainly in a way in which no 
 Christian man would crowd dumb animals. My noble friend 
 will say whether or not that vessel, whose slaves had never 
 been released, or even washed, or in any way cleansed, since 
 it left the African coast, presented an intolerable nuisance to 
 all the senses — a nuisance unfit for any description. Nor is 
 this all. I will be chargeable with understatements no more ! 
 The ophthalmia had broken out among the poor creatures thus 
 kept in unspeakable torment ; and as often as anyone was 
 seized, instead of affording him any medical or other assistance, 
 he was instantly cast overboard, and sunk in his chains, with
 
 6 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 the view of stopping the infection. I will understate things no 
 more ! I said before that as many as 700 slaves were carried 
 across the sea in one ship ; there I stopped, for to those who 
 know what a slave ship is, this suffices to harrow up every 
 feeling of the soul. But another vessel brought away, first and 
 last, in one voyage, 980 miserable, unoffending, simple beings \ 
 and of this number, without any chase or accident, or violence, 
 or any acts of wholesale murder such as those we have been 
 contemplating, 600 perished on the voyage, through the 
 hardships and sufferings inseparably connected with this 
 execrable traffic. Of 2,300 or 2,400 carried away by our other 
 ships, no less than 1,500 perished in like manner, having 
 fallen a sacrifice to the pestilential hold. 
 
 How this enormous crime of these foreign nations is to be 
 rooted out, I know full well. You must no longer treat it as a 
 mere contraband trade — no longer call murder smuggling, or 
 treat pirates as offenders against the revenue laws. As long 
 as our slave traders were so dealt with, they made this calcula- 
 tion — "If we escape three times in four, our profits are so 
 large that the seizure and confiscation can well be afforded; 
 nay, if we are taken as often as we escape, the ships netting 
 ,£20,000, ^30,000, even as much as ^50,000 and ^60,000 a 
 voyage, we can well afford to lose ^"1,500 or ^2,000 when the 
 adventure fails." So they ran the risk, and on a calculation of 
 profit and loss were fully justified. But I had in 181 1 the 
 singular happiness of laying the axe to the root of this detest- 
 able system. I stopped all these calculations by making the 
 trade felony, and punishing it as such; for well I knew that 
 they who would run the risk of capture, when all they could 
 suffer by it was a diminution of their profits, would be slow to 
 put their heads in the noose of the halter which their crimes so 
 richly deserved. The measure passed through all its stagi 
 in both If withoul one dissenting voice; and I will 
 
 urc to assert that ever since, although English capital, I 
 have too much reason to think, fmds its way into the For* 
 Slave Trade, no Englishman is concerned directly with it in any
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Emancipation. 7 
 
 part of the world. Trust me, the like course must be taken if 
 we would put an end to the same crimes in other countries ; 
 piracy and murder must be called by their right names, and 
 visited with their appropriate penalties. That the Spanish and 
 Portuguese traders now make the same calculations which I 
 have been describing, is a certain fact. I will name one — 
 Captain Inza, of the ship Socorra, who, on being captured, had 
 the effrontery to boast that he had made fourteen slave voyages, 
 and that this was the first time he had been taken. Well 
 might»he resolve to run so slight a risk for such vast gains; 
 hut had the fate of a felon pirate awaited him, not all the gains 
 which might tempt his sordid nature would have prevailed 
 upon him to encounter that hazard. I formerly recounted 
 instances of murder done by wholesale in the course of the 
 chase of our cruisers. I might have told a more piteous tale, 
 and I will no longer be accused of understating this part of 
 the case either. Two vessels were pursued. One after another, 
 negroes were seen to be thrown overboard to the number of a 
 hundred and fifty, of all ages — the elder and stronger ones 
 loaded with their fetters to prevent them from swimming or 
 floating, the weaker were left unchained to sink or expire ; and 
 this horrible spectacle was presented to the eyes of our 
 cruisers' men ; they saw, unable to lend any help, the water 
 covered with these hapless crentures, the men sinking in their 
 chains ; the women and — piteous sight ! — the infants and 
 children struggling out their little strength in the water till they, 
 too, were swallowed up and disappeared. 
 
 I now approach a subject, not, indeed, more full of horrors, 
 or of greater moment, but on which the attention of the people 
 has for some time past been fixed with an almost universal 
 anxiety, and for your decision upon which they are now look- 
 ing with the most intense interest, let me add, with the 
 liveliest hopes. I need not add that T mean the great question 
 of the condition into which the slaves of our Colonies were 
 transferred as preparatory to their complete liberation — a 
 subject upon which your table has been loaded with so many
 
 8 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 petitions from millions of your fellow-countrymen. It is right 
 that I should first remind your Lordships of the anxious 
 apprehensions which were entertained in 1833, when the Act 
 was passed, because a comparison of those fears with the 
 results of the measure will form a most important ingredient 
 of the argument which I am about to urge for the immediate 
 liberation of the apprentices. I well remember how uneasy all 
 were looking forward to the 1st of August, 1834, when the 
 state of slavery was to cease, and I myself shared in those 
 feelings of alarm when I contemplated the possible event of 
 the vast but yet untried experiment. My fears proceeded first 
 from the character of the masters. I knew the nature of man, 
 fond of power, jealous of any interference with its exercise, 
 uneasy at its being questioned, offended at its being regulated 
 and constrained, averse, above all, to have it wrested from its 
 hands, especially after it has been long enjoyed, and its posses- 
 sion can hardly be severed from his nature. But I also 
 was aware of another and a worser part of human nature. ' I 
 knew that whoso has abused power, clings to it with a yet more 
 convulsive grasp. I dreaded the nature of man, prone to hate 
 whom he has injured ; because I knew that law of human 
 weakness which makes the oppressor hate his victim, makes 
 him who has injured never forgive, fills the wrongdoer with 
 vengeance against those whose right it is to vindicate those 
 injuries on his own head. I knew that this abominable law of 
 our evil nature was not confined to different races, contrasted 
 hues, and strange features, but prevailed also between white 
 man and white — for I never yet knew anyone hate me but 
 those whom I had served, and those who had done me some 
 grievous injustice. Why then should I expect other feelings to 
 burn within the planter's bosom, and govern his conduct 
 irds the unhappy beings who had suffered so much and 
 so long at his hands? but, on the part of the slaves, 
 I wis not without some anxiety when I con iidered the corrupt- 
 ing effects of that degrading system under which they had lin- 
 ages groaned, and recognised the truth of the saying in the first
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro E?nancipalion. 9 
 
 and the earliest of profane poets, that "the day which makes 
 a man a slave robs him of half his value." I might well think 
 that the West Indian slave offered no exception to this maxim, 
 that the habit of compulsory labour might have incapacitated 
 him from voluntary exertion ; that overmuch toil might have 
 made all work his aversion ; that never having been accustomed 
 to provide for his own wants, while all his supplies were 
 furnished by others, he might prove unwilling or unfit to work 
 for himself, the ordinary inducements to industry never having 
 operated on his mind. In a word, it seemed unlikely that long 
 disuse of freedom might have rendered him too familiar with 
 his chains to set a right value on liberty, or that, if he panted 
 to be free, the sudden transition from the one state to the 
 other, the instantaneous enjoyment of the object of his desires, 
 might prove too strong for his uncultured understanding ; 
 might overset his principles, and render him dangerous to the 
 public peace. Hence it was that I entertained some appre- 
 hensions of the event, and yielded reluctantly to the plan pro- 
 posed of preparing the negroes for the enjoyment of perfect 
 freedom by passing them through the intermediate state of 
 Indentured Apprenticeship. 
 
 Let us now see the results of their sudden though partial 
 liberation, and how far those fears have been realised ; for 
 upon this must entirely depend the solution of the present 
 question — Whether or not it is safe now to complete the 
 Emancipation which, if it only be safe, we have not the 
 shadow of right any longer to withhold. Well, then, let us 
 see. The 1st of August came, the object of so much anxiety 
 and so many predictions — that day so joyously expected by 
 the poor slaves, so sorely dreaded by their hard taskmasters ; 
 and surely, if there ever was a picture interesting, even fascinat- 
 ing, to look upon, if there ever was a passage to a people's 
 history that redounded to their eternal honour, if ever 
 triumphant answer was given to all the scandalous calumnies 
 for ages heaped upon an oppressed race, as if to justify the 
 wrongs done them, that picture, and that passage, and that
 
 io Modern Political Orations. 
 
 answer were exhibited in the uniform history of that auspicious 
 day all over the islands of the Western Sea. Instead of the 
 horizon being lit up with the lurid fires of rebellion, kindled by 
 a sense of natural though lawless revenge, and the just resist- 
 ance to intolerable oppression, the whole of that wide-spread 
 scene was mildly illuminated with joy, contentment, peace, 
 and goodwill towards men. No civilised nation, no people of 
 the most refined character, could have displayed, after gain- 
 ing a sudden and signal victory, more forbearance, more 
 delicacy, in the enjoyment of their triumph, than these poor 
 untutored slaves did upon the great consummation of all their 
 wishes which they had just attained. Not a gesture or a look 
 was seen to scare the eye — not a sound or a breath from the 
 negro's lips was heard to grate on the ear of the planter. All 
 was joy, congratulation, and hope. Everywhere were to be 
 seen groups of these harmless folks assembled to talk over 
 their good fortunes, to communicate their mutual feelings of 
 happiness, to speculate on their future prospects. Finding that 
 they were now free in name, they hoped soon to taste the 
 reality of liberty. Feeling their fetters loosened, they looked 
 forward to the day which should see them fall off, and the 
 ading marks which they left be effaced from their limbs. 
 ]5ut all this was accompanied with not a whisper that could 
 offence to the master by reminding him of the change. 
 This delicate, calm, tranquil joy was alone to be marked on 
 that day over all the chain of the Antilles. Amusements there 
 were none to be seen on that day — not even their simple 
 pastimes by which they had been wont to begufie the hard 
 hours of bondage, and which reminded that innocent people 
 of tin happy land of their forefathers, whence they had been 
 turn by the hands of Christian and civilised men. The day 
 was kept sacred as the festival of their liberation, for the 
 negroes are an eminently pious race. Every church was 
 crowded from early dawn with devout and earnest worshippers. 
 Five or six times in the course of that memorable Friday were 
 all those churches filled and emptied in succession by multi-
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Emancipation, i i 
 
 tudes, who came, not to give mouth-worship or eye-worship, 
 but to render humble and hearty thanks to God for their 
 freedom at length bestowed. In countries where the bounty 
 of nature provokes the passions, where the fuel of intemper- 
 ance is scattered with a profuse hand, I speak the fact when 
 I tell that not one negro was seen in a state of intoxication. 
 Three hundred and forty thousand slaves in Jamaica were at 
 once set free on that day, and the peaceful festivity of those 
 simple men was disturbed only on a single estate, in one parish, 
 by the irregular conduct of three or four persons, who were 
 immediately kept in order, and tranquillity was in one hour 
 restored. 
 
 But the termination of slavery was to be an end of all 
 labour ; no man would work unless compelled ; much less 
 would anyone work for hire. The cart- whip was to resound no 
 more, and no more could exertion be obtained from the indo- 
 lent African. I set the past against these predictions. I have 
 never been in the West Indies ; I was one of those whom, 
 under the name of reasoners, and theorists, and visionaries, all 
 planters pitied for incurable ignorance on Colonial affairs ; one of 
 those who were forbidden to meddle with matters of which they 
 could only judge who had the practical knowledge of experienced 
 men on the spot obtained. Therefore I now appeal to the 
 fact— and I also appeal to one who has been to the West 
 Indies, is himself a planter, and was an eye-witness of the 
 things upon which I call for his confirmatory testimony. It is 
 to my noble friend (Lord Sligo) that I appeal. He knows, for 
 he saw, that ever since slavery ceased, there has been no want 
 of inclination to work in any part of Jamaica, and that labour 
 for hire is now to be had without the least difficulty by all who 
 can afford to pay wages, the apprentices cheerfully working for 
 those who will pay them during the hours not appropriated to 
 their masters. My noble friend made an inquisition as to the 
 state of this important matter in a large part of his govern- 
 ment ; and I have his authority for stating that, in nine estates 
 out of ten, labourers ior hire were to be had without the least
 
 12 Mode in Political Orations. 
 
 difficulty. Yet this was the people of whom we were told, 
 with a confidence that set all contradiction at defiance, with an 
 insulting pity for the ignorance of us who had no local experi- 
 ence, that without the lash there could be no work done, and 
 that, when it ceased to vex him, the African would sink into 
 sleep. The prediction is found to have been ridiculously 
 false ; the negro peasantry is as industrious as our own, and 
 wages furnish more effectual stimulus than the scourge. Oh, 
 but, said the men of Colonial experience — the true practical 
 men — this may do for some kinds of produce. Cotton may be 
 planted, coffee may be picked, indigo may be manufactured — 
 all these kinds of work the negro may probably be got to do ; 
 but, at least, the cane will cease to grow, the cane-piece can no 
 longer be hoed, nor the plant be hewn down, nor the juice 
 boiled, and sugar will utterly cease out of the land. Now let 
 the man of experience stand forward — the practical man, the 
 inhabitant of the Colonies — I require that he now come forth 
 with his prediction, and I meet him with the fact ; let him but ap- 
 pear, and I answer for him, we shall hear him prophesy no more. 
 Put to silence by the past, which even these confident men 
 have not the courage to deny, they will at length abandon this 
 untenable ground. Twice as much sugar by the hour were 
 found, on my noble friend's inquiry, to be made since the 
 apprenticeship, as under the slave system, and of a far better 
 quality ; and one planter on a vast scale has said that, with 
 twenty free labourers he could do the work of a hundred 
 slaves, but linger not on the islands where the gift of freedom 
 has been but half bestowed. Look at Antigua and Bermuda, 
 where the wisdom and the virtue have been displayed of at 
 once giving Complete Emancipation. To Montscrrat the same 
 appeal might have been made, but for the folly of the Upper 
 House, which threw mil the bill passed in the Assembly by the 
 representatives of the planters. but in Antigua and in Ber- 
 muda, where fur the last three years and a half there has not 
 even been an apprentice wine all have been at once made 
 as tree as the peasantry of this country — the produce has
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Emancipation. 13 
 
 increased, not diminished, and increased notwithstanding the 
 accidents of bad seasons, droughts, and fires. 
 
 My Lords, I have proved my case, and may now call for 
 judgment. I have demonstrated every part of the proposition, 
 which alone it is necessary that I should maintain, to prove the 
 title of the apprentice to instant freedom from his taskmasters, 
 because I have demonstrated that the liberation of the slave 
 has been absolutely, universally safe — attended with not even 
 inconvenience — nay, productive of ample benefits to his master. 
 I have shown that the apprentii e works without compulsion, 
 and that the reward of wages are a better incentive than the 
 punishment of the lash. I have proved that labour for hire 
 may anywhere be obtained as it is wanted, and can be pur- 
 chased. All the apprentices working extra hours for hire, and 
 all the free negroes, wherever their emancipation has been 
 complete, worked harder by much for the masters who have 
 wherewithal to pay them, than the slave can toil for his owner, 
 or the apprentice for his master. Whether we look to the 
 noble-minded Colonies which have at once freed their slaves, 
 or to those who still retain them in a middle and half-free 
 condition, I have shown that the industry of the negro is 
 undeniable, and that it is constant and productive in proportion 
 as he is the director of its application and the master of its 
 recompense. But I have gone a great deal further — I have 
 demonstrated by a reference to the same experience, the same 
 unquestioned facts — that a more quiet, peaceful, inoffensive, 
 innocent race is not to be found on the face of this earth than 
 the Africans — not while dwelling in their own happy country, 
 and enjoying freedom in a natural state under their own palm 
 trees and by their native streams — but after they have been 
 torn away from it, enslaved, and their nature perverted in your 
 Christian land, barbarised by the policy of civilised states ; 
 their whole character disfigured, if it were possible to disfigure 
 it, all their feelings corrupted, if you could have corrupted 
 them. Every effort has been made to spoil the poor African, 
 every source of wicked ingenuity exhausted to deprave his
 
 14 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 nature, all the incentives of misconduct placed around him by 
 the fiend-like artifice of Christian civilised men, and his 
 excellent nature has triumphed over all your arts ; your 
 unnatural culture has failed to make it bear the poisonous fruit 
 that might well have been expected from such abominable 
 husbandry, though enslaved and tormented, degraded and 
 debased, as far as human industry could effect its purpose of 
 making him bloodthirsty and savage, his gentle spirit has 
 prevailed, and preserved, in spite of all your prophecies, aye, 
 and of all your efforts, unbroken tranquillity over the whole 
 Charaibean chain ! 
 
 Have I not proved my case? I show you that the whole 
 grounds of the arrangement of 1833, the very pretext for with- 
 holding Complete Emancipation — alleged incapacity for labour 
 and risk of insurrection — utterly fail. I rely on your own records ; 
 I refer to that record which cannot be averred against. I plead 
 the record of your own Statute. On what ground does its 
 preamble rest the necessity of the intermediate or apprentice 
 state, all admitting that nothing but necessity would justify it ? — 
 
 " Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made, promoting the 
 industry and securing the good conduct of the manumitted slaves." 
 
 Those are the avowed reasons for the measure, those its only 
 defence. All men confessed that were it not for the apprehen- 
 sion of liberated slaves not working voluntarily, and not 
 behaving peaceably, of slavery being found to have unfitted 
 them for industry, and of a sudden transition to perfect freedom 
 being fraught with clanger to the peace of society, you had no 
 right to make them indentured apprentices, and must at once 
 get them wholly free. But the fear prevailed, which, by the event, 
 I have now a right to call a delusion ; and the apprenticeship 
 was reluctantly agreed to. The delusion went further. The 
 planter succeeded in persuading us that he would be avast 
 by the change, ami we gave him twenty millions sterling 
 indemnify him for the supposed loss. The fear is 
 found to be utterly baseless, the loss is a phantom of the brain,
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Emancipation, i 5 
 
 a shape conjured up by the interested parties to frighten our 
 weak minds, and the only reality in this mockery is the pay- 
 ment of that enormous sum to the crafty and fortunate magician 
 for his incantations. The spell is dissolved, the charm is over, 
 the unsubstantial fabric of calculating alarm, reared by the 
 Colonial body with our help, has been crushed to atoms, and its 
 fragments scattered to the world. And now, I ask, suppose it 
 had been ascertained in 1833, when you made the Apprentice- 
 ship law, that those alarms were absolutely groundless, the 
 mere phantom of a sick brain, or contrivance of a sordid 
 ingenuity, would a single voice have been raised in favour 
 of the intermediate state? Would the words Indentured 
 Apprenticeship ever have been pronounced ? Would the man 
 have heen found endued with the courage to call for keeping 
 the negro in chains one hour after he had been acknowledged 
 entitled to his freedom ? 
 
 My Lords, I cannot better prove the absolute necessity of 
 putting an immediate end to the state of apprenticeship than 
 by showing what the victims of it are daily fated to endure. 
 The punishments inflicted are of monstrous severity. The law 
 is wickedly harsh ; its execution is committed to hands that 
 exasperate that cruelty. For the vague, undefined, undefinable 
 offence of insolence, thirty-nine lashes ; the same number for 
 carrying a knife in the pocket ; for cutting the shoot of a cane- 
 plant, fifty lashes, or three months' imprisonment in that most 
 loathsome of all dungeons, a West Indian gaol. There seems 
 to have prevailed at all times, among the law-givers of the slave 
 colonies, a feeling of which I grieve to say those of the Mother 
 country have partaken ; that there is something in the nature 
 of a slave, something in the disposition of the African race, 
 something in the habits of those hapless victims of our crimes, 
 our cruelties, and frauds, which requires a peculiar harshness of 
 treatment from their rulers, and makes what in other men's 
 cases we call justice and mercy cruelty to Society, and injustice 
 to the law in theirs, inducing us to visit with the extremity of 
 rigour in the African what if done by our own tribes would be
 
 1 6 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 slightly visited, or not at all, as though there were in the negro 
 nature something so obdurate that no punishment with which 
 they can be punished would be too severe. Prodigious, por- 
 tentous injustice ! As if we had a right to blame any but 
 ourselves for whatever there may be of harsh or cunning in our 
 slaves ; as if we were entitled to visit upon him that disposition, 
 were it obdurate — those habits, were they insubordinate — those 
 propensities were they dishonest (all of which I deny them to 
 be, and every day's experience justifies my denial) ; but were 
 those charges as true as they are foully slanderous, and 
 absolutely false, is it for us to treat our victims harshly for 
 failings or for faults with which our treatment of him has cor- 
 rupted and perverted his nature, instead of taking to ourselves 
 the blame, punishing ourselves at least with self-abasement, 
 and atoning with deepest shame for having implanted vice in a 
 pure soil ? If some capricious despot were, in the career of 
 ordinary tyranny, to tax his pampered fancy to produce some- 
 thing more monstrous, more unnatural than himself \ were he 
 to graft the thorn upon the vine, or place the dove among 
 vultures to be reared, much as we might marvel at this freak 
 of a perverted appetite, we should marvel still more if we saw 
 tyranny, even its own measure of proverbial unreasonableness, 
 and complain because the grape was not gathered from the 
 thorn, or because the dove so trained had a thirst for blood. 
 Yet this is the unnatural caprice, this the injustice, the gross, 
 the foul, the outrageous, the monstrous, the incredible injustice 
 of which we are daily and hourly guilty towards the whole of 
 the ill-fated African race ! 
 
 My Lords, we fill up the measure of this injustice by 
 executing laws wickedly conceived, in a yet more atrocious 
 spirit of cruelty. Our whole punishments smell of blood. 
 Let the treadmill stop, from the weary limbs and exhausted 
 frames of the sufferers no longer having the power to press it 
 down the requisite number of turns in a minute— the lash 
 instantly resounds through the mansion of woe! Let the 
 Stone spread out to be broken, not crumble fast enough
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Emancipation. 1 7 
 
 beneath the arms already scarred, flayed, and wealed by the 
 whip — again the scourge tears afresh the hall healed flesh ! 
 My Lords, I have had my attention directed within the last 
 two hours to the new mass of papers laid on our table from 
 the West Indies. The bulk I am averse to break, but a 
 sample I have culled from its hateful contents. Eleven females 
 were punished by severe flogging, and then put on the 
 treadmill, where they were compelled to ply until exhausted 
 nature could do no more. When faint, and about to fall off, 
 they were suspended by the arms in such a manner that has 
 been described to me by a most respectable eye-witness of 
 similar scenes, but not so suspended as that the mechanism 
 could revolve clear of their person ; for the wheel at each turn 
 bruised and galled their legs, till their sufferings had reached 
 the pitch when life can no longer even glimmer in the socket 
 of the weary frame. In the course of a few days these 
 wretched beings languished, to use the language of our law 
 — that law which is so constantly and systematically violated — 
 and " languishing, died." Ask you if crimes like these, 
 murderous in their legal nature, as well as frightful in their 
 aspect, passed unnoticed; if inquiry was neglected to be made 
 respecting those deaths in a prison ? No such thing ! The 
 forms of justice were on this head peremptory even in the 
 West Indies, and those forms, the handmaids of justice, were 
 present, though their sacred mistress was far away. The 
 coroner duly attended, his jury were regularly empannelled ; 
 eleven inquisitions were made in order, and eleven verdicts 
 returned. Murder? Manslaughter? Misdemeanour? Mis 
 conduct ? No ! but " Died by the visitation of God ! " Died 
 by the visitation of God ! A lie ! — a perjury ! — a blasphemy ! 
 The visitation of God ! Yes ; for it is among the most awful 
 of these visitations by which the inscrutable purposes of His 
 will are mysteriously accomplished, that He sometimes arms 
 the wicked with power to oppress the guiltless ; and if there be 
 any visitation more dreadful than another — any which more 
 tries the faith and vexes the reason of erring mortals — it is 
 
 B
 
 1 8 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 when Heaven showers down upon the earth the plague — not 
 of scorpions, or pestilence, or famine, or war — but of unjust 
 judges or perjured jurors — wretches who pervert the law to 
 wreak their personal vengeance or compass their sordid ends, 
 and forswear themselves on the gospels of God, to the end 
 that injustice may prevail, and the innocent be destroyed — 
 
 " Sed non immensum Spatiis confecimus requor 
 Et jam tempus equis formantia soluere colla." 
 
 I hasten to a close. There remains little to add. It is, 
 my Lords, with a view to prevent such enormities as I have 
 feebly pictured before you, to correct the administration of 
 justice, to secure the comforts of the negroes, to restrain 
 the cruelty of the tormentors, to amend the discipline of the 
 prisons, to arm the governors with local authority over the 
 police ; it is with those views that I have formed the first five 
 of the resolutions now upon your table, intending they should 
 take effect during the very short interval of a few months 
 which must elapse before the sixth shall give complete liberty 
 to the slave. I entirely concur in the observation of Mr 
 Burke, repeated and more happily expressed by Mr Canning, 
 that the masters of slaves are not to be trusted with making 
 laws upon slavery ; that nothing they do is ever found effec- 
 tual ; and that if by some miracle they even chance to enact a 
 wholesome regulation, it is always found to want what Mr 
 Burke calls "the executory principle"; it fails to execute 
 itself. But experience has shown that when the lawgivers 
 oi the Colonies find you are firmly determined to do your 
 uuty, they anticipate you by doing theirs. Thus, when you 
 announced the Bill for amending the Emancipation Act, they 
 outstripped you in Jamaica, and passed theirs before you could 
 i them. Let then your resolutions only show you to be 
 i "1 eai ow, and I have no doubt a corresponding 
 
 on wil! ]»■ evinced on the other side of the Atlantic 
 These improvements are, however, only to be regarded as 
 temporary expedients — as mere palliatives of an enormous
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Emancipation. 19 
 
 mischief, for which the only efficient remedy is that Complete 
 Emancipation which I have demonstrated by the unerring 
 and incontrovertible evidence of facts, as well as the clearest 
 deductions of reason, to be safe and practicable, and therefore 
 proved to be our imperative duty at once to proclaim. 
 
 From the instant that glad sound is wafted across the ocean, 
 what a blessed change begins ; what an enchanting prospect 
 unfolds itself ! The African, placed on the same footing with 
 other men, becomes in reality our fellow-citizen — to our feel- 
 ings, as well as in his own nature, our equal, our brother. No 
 difference of origin or colour can now prevail to keep the two 
 castes apart. The negro, master of his own labour, only 
 induced to lend his assistance if you make it his interest to 
 help you ; yet that aid being absolutely necessary to preserve 
 your existence, becomes an essential portion of the community, 
 nay, the very portion upon which the whole must lean for 
 support. This ensures him all his rights ; this makes it not 
 only no longer possible to keep him in thraldom, but places 
 him in a complete and intimate union with the whole mass of 
 Colonial society. Where the driver and the gaoler once bore 
 sway, the lash resounds no more, nor does the clank of the 
 chain any more fall upon the troubled ear ; the fetter has 
 ceased to gall the vexed limb, and the very mark disappears 
 which for a while it had left. All races and colours run 
 together the same glorious race of improvement. Peace un- 
 broken, harmony uninterrupted, calm unruffled, reigns in 
 mansion and in field, in the busy street and the fertile valley, 
 where nature, with the lavish hand she extends under the 
 tropical sun, pours forth all her bounty profusely, because 
 received in the lap of cheerful industry, not extorted by hands 
 cramped with bonds. Delightful pictures of general pros- 
 perity and social progress in all the arts of civility and 
 refinement ! 
 
 But another form is near ! — and I may not shut my eyes 
 to that less auspicious vision ! I do not deny that danger 
 exists — I admit it to be not far distant from our path. I
 
 20 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 descry it, but not in the quarter to which West Indian eyes 
 for ever turn. The planter, as usual, looks in the wrong 
 direction. Averting his eyes from the real risk, he is ready 
 to pay the price of his blindness, and rush upon his ruin. 
 His interest tells him he is in jeopardy, but it is a false 
 interest, and misleads him as to the nature of the risk he 
 runs. They who always dreaded Emancipation, who were 
 alarmed at the prospect of negro indolence, who stood 
 aghast at the vision of negro rebellion, should the chains 
 cease to rattle, or the lash to resound through the air, 
 gathering no wisdom from the past, still persist in affrighting 
 themselves and scaring you with imaginary apprehensions 
 from the transition to entire freedom out of the present inter- 
 mediate state. But that intermediate state is the very source 
 of all their real danger; and 1 disguise not its magnitude 
 from myself. You have gone too far if you stop here and 
 go no further ; you are in imminent hazard if, having loosened 
 the fetters, you do not strike them off; if, leaving them 
 ineffectual to restrain, you let them remain to fall, and to 
 irritate, and to goad. Beware of that state yet more unnatural 
 than slavery itself — liberty bestowed by halves — the power of 
 resistance given — the inducement to submission withheld. 
 You have let the slave taste of the cup of freedom ; while 
 intoxicated with the draught, beware how you dash the cup 
 away from his lips ! You have produced the progeny of 
 liberty — see the prodigious hazard of swathing the limbs 
 of the gigantic infant ; you know not the might that may 
 animate it. Have a care, I beseech you, have a care how 
 you rouse the strength that slumbers in the sable peasant's 
 arm ! The children of Africa under the tropical sun of the 
 West, with the prospect of a free negro republic in sight, will 
 not suffer themselves to be tormented when they no longer 
 can be controlled. The fire in St Domingo is raging to 
 windward, its sparks are borne on the breeze, and all the 
 Charaibean Sea is studded with the materials of explosion. 
 Every tribe, every shade of the negro race will combine,
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Emancipation. 21 
 
 from the fiery Koromantin to the peaceful Oboe, and (he 
 ghastly shape of the Colonial destruction meets the astonished 
 eye — 
 
 " If shape it may be called, that shape has none 
 Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb ; 
 Or substance may be ca'lcd tint, shadow seems ; 
 For each seems either. Black it stood as night, 
 Fierce as ten furies, terrible as Hell 1" 
 
 I turn from the horrid vision, that my eye may rest once 
 more on the prospect of enduring empire and peace founded 
 upon freedom. I regard the freedom of the negro as accom- 
 plished and sure. Why ? Because it is his right, because 
 he has shown himself fit for it, because a pretext or a shadow 
 of a pretext can no longer be devised for withholding that 
 right from its possessor. I know that all men at this day 
 take a part in the question, and they will no longer bear to 
 be imposed upon now they are well informed. My reliance 
 is firm and unflinching upon the great change which I have 
 witnessed — the education of the people unfettered by party 
 or by sect — witnessed from the beginning of its progress, I 
 may say from the hour of its birth. Yes ! It was not for a 
 humble man like me to assist at royal births with the illus- 
 trious Prince who condescended to grace the pageant of this 
 opening Session, or the great Captain and Statesman in whose 
 presence I am now proud to speak. But with that illustrious 
 Prince, and with the father of the Queen, I assisted at that 
 other birth, more auspicious still. With them, and with the 
 head of the house of Russell, incomparably more illustrious 
 in my eyes, I watched over its cradle— I marked its growth 
 — I rejoiced in its strength — I witnessed its maturity—I have 
 been spared to see it ascend the very height of supreme 
 power, directing the Councils of State, accelerating every 
 great improvement, uniting itself with every good work, 
 propping all useful institutions, extirpating abuses in all our 
 institutions, passing the bounds of our European dominion, 
 and in the New World as in the Old, proclaiming that ireedom
 
 22 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 is the birthright of man ; that distinction of colour gives no 
 title to oppression ; that the chains now loosened must be 
 struck off, and even the marks they have left effaced — pro- 
 claiming this by the same eternal law of our nature which 
 makes nations the masters of their own destiny, and which in 
 Europe has caused every tyrant's throne to quake ! But they 
 need feel no alarm at the progress of light who defend a 
 limited monarchy and support popular institutions, who place 
 their chiefest pride not in ruling over slaves, be they white 
 or be they black, not in protecting the oppressor, but in 
 wearing a constitutional crown, in holding the sword of 
 justice with a hand of mercy, in being the first citizen of a 
 country whose air is too pure for slavery to breathe, and on 
 whose shores, if the captive's foot but touch, his fetters of 
 themselves fall off. To the resistless progress of this great 
 principle I look with a confidence which nothing can shake. 
 It makes all improvement certain ; it makes all change safe 
 which it produces, for none can be brought about, unless 
 all has been prepared in a cautious and salutary spirit. 
 
 So now the fulness of time is come for at length discharging 
 our duty to the African captive. I have demonstrated to you 
 that everything is ordered — every previous step taken — all 
 safe, by experience shown to be safe, for the long-desired con- 
 summation. The time has come, the trial has been made, the 
 hour is striking ; you have no longer a pretext for hesitation, 
 or faltering, or delay. The slave has shown, by four years' 
 blameless behaviour and devotion to the pursuits of peaceful 
 industry, that he is as lit for his freedom as any English peasant, 
 aye, or any Lord whom I now address. I demand his rights ; 
 I demand his liberty without stint. In the name of justice and 
 of law, in the name of reason, in the name of God, who has 
 given you no right to work injustice, I demand that your 
 brother be no longer trampled upon as your slave! I make 
 my appeal to the Commons, who represent the free people of 
 England, and I require at their hands the performance of that 
 condition for which they paid so enormous a price — that con-
 
 Lord Brotigham on Negro Emancipation. 23 
 
 dition which all their constituents arc in breathless anxiety to 
 see fulfilled ! I appeal to this House ! Hereditary judges of 
 the first tribunal in the world, to you I appeal for justice ! 
 Patrons of all the arts that humanise mankind, under your pro- 
 tection I place humanity herself ! To the merciful Sovereign 
 of a free people, I call aloud for mercy to the hundreds of 
 thousands for whom half a million of her Christian sisters have 
 cried out ; I ask that their cry may not have risen in vain. But $ 
 first, I turn my eye to the Throne of all justice, and devoutly 
 humbling myself before Him who is of purer eyes than to 
 behold such vast iniquities, I implore that the curse hovering 
 over the head of the unjust and the oppressor be averted from 
 us, that your hearts may be turned to mercy, and that over all 
 the earth His will may at length be done !
 
 T. B. MACAULAY 1 ON THE PEOPLE'S 
 
 CHARTER. 
 
 House of Commons, May 3RD, 1842. 
 
 [On this date Mr Thomas Duncombe, the member for Finsbury, moved 
 that the petitioners of the document entitled "The People's Charter," 
 presented by him on the previous day, be allowed to be heard at the Bat 
 of the House. Mr Macaulay vigorously opposed the motion, which 
 was rejected by 287 votes to 49.] 
 
 Sir, — I am particularly desirous of saying a few words upon 
 this question, because upon a former evening, when a discussion 
 took place upon a motion of the hon. member for Rochdale 
 (Mr W. S. Crawford), I was prevented from being in my place 
 by accidental circumstances. I know that the absence of some 
 of the members of the late Government on that occasion was 
 considered and spoken of as exhibiting in their minds an in- 
 attention to this subject, or a want of sympathy for the interests 
 of the humbler classes of the people of this country. For my- 
 self, I can answer that I was compelled to absent myself on 
 account of temporary indisposition. A noble friend of mine, to 
 whose absence particular allusion was made, was prevented from 
 attending the House by purely accidental circumstances ; and 
 no member of the late Administration, I am persuaded, was 
 withheld by any unworthy motives from stating his opinions 
 on this subject. In the observations which I shall now make 
 to the House, I shall attempt to imitate, as far as I can, the 
 very proper temper of the speech of the right hon. baronet, 
 
 1 Afterwards Barou Macaulay.
 
 T. B. Mac an lay on The Peoples Charter. 25 
 
 the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir James 
 Graham) ; but if I should be betrayed into the use of any 
 expressions not entirely consistent with a calm view of the ques- 
 tion, the House will attribute it to the warmth with which I 
 view the subject generally, and no one who is acquainted with 
 my feelings will attribute it to any want of kindness or of good 
 will towards those who have signed the petition which has been 
 presented to the House. 
 
 With regard to the motion which has been made, I cannot 
 conscientiously vote for it. The hon. member for Finsbury 
 (Mr T. Duncombe) has shaped the motion with considerable 
 skill, so as to give me a very fair plea to vote for it, if I wished 
 to evade the discharge of my duty, so that I might say to my 
 Conservative constituents : " I never supported Universal Suf- 
 frage on those extreme points for which these petitioners 
 call ; " or to a large assembly of Chartists : " When your case 
 was before the Commons, on that occasion I voted with you." 
 But I think that in a case so important, I should not discharge 
 my duty if I had recourse to any such evasion, and I feel 
 myself compelled to meet the motion with a direct negative. 
 And it seems to me that if we depart from our ordinary rule 
 of not hearing persons at the bar of this House under circum- 
 stances of this nature, it must be understood, by our adopting 
 such a course, if not that we are decidedly favourable to the 
 motion which is made, at least that we have not fully made up our 
 minds to resist what the petitioners ask. For my own part, my 
 mind is made up in opposition to their prayer, and, being so, 
 I conceive that the House might complain of me, and that the 
 petitioners might also complain of me, if I were to give an 
 untrue impression of my views by voting in favour of this 
 motion ; and I think that if I took such a course, and in three 
 or four years hence I gave a distinct negative to every c*ie, or 
 to the most important clauses of the Charter, there would be 
 much reason to complain of my disingenuousness. An accusa- 
 tion founded upon such grounds, I shall, if I can, prevent 
 their bringing against me.
 
 26 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 In discussing this question I do not intend, as the right 
 hon. member for Westminster (Mr J. T. Leader) has suggested, 
 to deal with the contents of the petition with any degree of 
 harshness. To the terms of it I can scarcely allude, but to the 
 essence of it I must refer ; and I cannot but see that what the 
 petitioners demand is that we should immediately, without 
 alteration, deduction, or addition, pass the Charter into a law ; 
 and when the hon. member for Finsbury calls on the House to 
 hear persons in support of the prayer of the petition at the bar, 
 I say that if he can contend that the object of that inquiry will 
 be to investigate causes of the public distress, by all means 
 let the motion be carried ; I will not oppose it. But when I 
 see that the petitioners send to this House, demanding that a 
 particular law shall be passed, without addition, deduction, 
 or modification, and that immediately, and that they demand 
 that persons shall be heard at the bar of the House in favour 
 of that law, I say that to allege that the only object of the 
 inquiry is to ascertain the causes of public distress is a palter- 
 ing with the question to which the House will pay no attention. 
 There are parts of the Charter to which I am favourable, for 
 which I have voted, which I would always support; and in 
 truth, of all the six points of the Charter, there is only one to 
 which I entertain extreme and unmitigated hostility. I have 
 voted for the ballot. With regard to the proposition that there 
 should be no property qualification required for members of 
 this House, I cordially agree, for I think that where there 
 is a qualification of property required for the constituent body, 
 a qualification for the representative is altogether superfluous. 
 And it is absurd, that while the members for Edinburgh and 
 Glasgow are required to have no property qualification, the 
 hon. member for Marylebone or Finsbury must possess such a 
 qualification. 1 say that if the principle is to be adopted at 
 all, let it be of universal application; if it be not so, let it be 
 abandoned. It is no part of the Constitution of the kingdom 
 th.it such a qualification should be required; nor is it a part 
 of the consequences of the Revolution ; but, after all, it was
 
 T. B. Macaulay on The Peoples Charter. 27 
 
 introduced by a bad Parliament, now held in no high esteem, 
 and for the purpose of defeating the Revolution, and excluding 
 the Protestant succession to the Crown. With regard to the 
 other points of the Charter, I cannot support the proposition 
 for annual Parliaments, but I should be willing to meet the 
 wishes of the petitioners by limiting their duration to a shorter 
 period than that for which they may now endure. But I do 
 not go the length of the Charter, because there is one point 
 which is its essence, which is so important that if you withhold 
 it nothing can produce the smallest effect in taking away the 
 agitation which prevails, but which, if you grant, it matters not 
 what else you grant, and that is universal suffrage, or suffrage 
 without any qualification of property at all. Considering that 
 as by far the most important part of the Charter, and having a 
 most decided opinion that such a change would be utterly 
 fatal to the country, I feel it my duty to say that I cannot hold 
 out the least hope that I shall ever, under any circumstances, 
 support that change. 
 
 The reasons for this opinion I will state as shortly as I can. 
 And, in the first place, I beg to say that I entertain this view 
 upon no ground of finality ; indeed, the remarks which I have 
 already made preclude such a supposition, but I do admit my 
 belief that violent and frequent changes in the government of 
 a country are not desirable. Every great change, I think, 
 should be judged on its own merits. I am bound by no tie 
 to oppose any legislative reform which I really believe will con- 
 duce to the public benefit ; but I think that that which has 
 been brought forward as an undoubted and conclusive argu- 
 ment against a change of this sort, that it is perfectly incon- 
 sistent with the continuance of the monarchy or of the House 
 of Lords, has been much overstated. And this I say, though 
 I profess myself a most faithful subject to Her Majesty, and by 
 no means anxious to destroy the connection which exists 
 between the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the Constitution, 
 I cannot consider either the monarchy or the aristocracy as the 
 end of government, but only as its means. I know instances
 
 28 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 of governments with neither a hereditary monarchy or aristo- 
 cracy, yet flourishing and successful, and therefore I conceive 
 this argument to have been overstated. But I believe that 
 universal suffrage would be fatal to all {Purposes for which 
 government exists, and for which aristocracies and all other 
 things exist, and that it is utterly incompatible with the very 
 existence of civilisation. I conceive that civilisation rests on 
 the security of property ; but I think that it is not necessary for 
 me, in a discussion of this kind, to go through the arguments, 
 and through the vast experience which necessarily leads to this 
 result; but I will assert that while property is insecure it is 
 not in the power of the finest soil, or of the moral or intellec- 
 tual constitution of any country, to prevent the country sinking 
 into barbarism ; while, on the other hand, while property is 
 secure, it is not possible to prevent a country from advancing 
 in prosperity. Whatever progress this country has made, in 
 spite of all the misgovernment which can possibly be imputed 
 to it, it cannot but be seen how irresistible is the power of the 
 great principle of security of property. Whatever may have 
 been the state of war in which we were engaged, men were still 
 found labouring to supply the deficiencies of the State ; and if 
 it be the fact that all classes have the deepest interest in the 
 security of property, I conceive that this principle follows, that 
 wc never can, without absolute danger, entrust the supreme 
 government of the country to any class which would to a moral 
 certainty be induced to commit great systematic inroads against 
 the security of property. 
 
 I assume that this will be the result of this motion, and I 
 ask whether the Government, being placed at the head of the 
 majority of the people of this country, without any pecuniary 
 qualification, they would continue to maintain the principle of 
 the security of property? I think not. And if I am called 
 upon to give a reason for this belief — not meaning to refer to 
 the words of the petition with any harsh view — I will look to 
 the petition u> support what I have said. The petition must 
 be considered as u sort ot declaration of the intentions of the
 
 T. B. Macau/ay on The Peoples Charter. 29 
 
 body who, if the Charter is to become law, is to become the 
 sovereign body of the State— as a declaration of the intentions 
 of those who would, in that event, return the majority of the 
 representatives of the people to this House. If I am so to 
 consider it, it is impossible for me to look at these words with- 
 out the greatest anxiety — 
 
 " Your petitioners complain that they are enormously taxed to pay 
 the interest of what is called the National Debt — a debt amounting at 
 present to ^800,000,000, being only a portion of the enormous amount 
 expended in cruel and expensive wars for the suppression of all liberty, by 
 men not authorised by the people, and who, consequently, had no right to 
 tax posterity for the outrages committed by them upon mankind." 
 
 If I am really to understand that as an indication of the opinion 
 of the petitioners, it is an expression of an opinion that a na- 
 tional bankruptcy would be just and politic. If I am not so to 
 understand it, I am utterly at a loss to know what it means. 
 I conceive for my own part that it is impossible to make any 
 distinction between the right of the fundholder to his divi- 
 dends, and the right of the landholder to the rent for his land, 
 and I say that the author of this petition makes no such dis- 
 tinction, but treats all alike. The petitioners then speak of 
 monopolies, and they say — 
 
 "Your petitioners deeply deplore the existence of any kind of monopoly 
 in this nation ; and whilst they unequivocally condemn the levying of any 
 tax upon the necessaries of life, and upon those articles principally required 
 by the labouring classes, they are also sensible that the abolition of any 
 one monopoly will never unshackle labour from its misery until the people 
 possess that power under which all monopoly and oppression must cease. 
 Your petitioners respectfully mention the existing monopolies of the suf- 
 frage, of paper money, of machinery, of land, of the public press, of 
 religion, of the means of travelling and transit, and of a host of other 
 evils too numerous to mention, all arising trom class legislation." 
 
 Now, I ask whether this is not a declaration of the opinion 
 of the petitioners that landed property should cease to exist ? 
 The monopoly of machinery, however, is also alluded to, and 
 I suppose that will not be taken to refer to the monopoly of 
 machinery alone, but the monopoly of property in general — 
 a view which is confirmed when we turthur look to the com- 
 plaint of the monopoly of the means of transit. Can it be
 
 30 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 anything but a confiscation of property — of the funds and of 
 land— which is contemplated? And is it not further proposed 
 that there should be a further confiscation of the railways 
 also ? I verily believe that that is the effect of the petition. 
 What is the monopoly of machinery and land which is to be 
 remedied? I believe that it is hardly necessary for me to go 
 into any further explanation ; but if I understand this petition 
 rightly, I believe it to contain a declaration that the remedies 
 for the evils of which it complains, and under which this 
 country suffers, are to be found in a great and sweeping con- 
 fiscation of property ; and I am firmly convinced that the effect 
 of any such measure would be, not merely to overturn those 
 institutions which now exist, and to ruin those who are rich, 
 but to make the poor poorer, and the amount of the misery of 
 the country even greater than it is now represented to be. 
 
 I am far from bringing any charge against the great body of 
 those who have signed this petition — as far as I am from 
 approving of the conduct of those who, in procuring the peti- 
 tion to be signed, have put the sentiments which it embodies 
 into a bad and pernicious form. I ask, however, are we to go 
 out of the ordinary course of Parliamentary proceedings for 
 the purpose of giving it reception? I believe that nothing is 
 more natural than that the feelings of the people should be 
 such as they are described to be. Even we ourselves, with all 
 our advantages of education, when we are tried by the tem- 
 porary pressure of circumstances, are too ready to catch at 
 anything which may hold out the hope of relief — to incur a 
 greater evil in future, which may afford the means of present 
 indulgence ; and I cannot but see that a man, having a wife at 
 home to whom he is attached growing thinner every day, 
 children whose wants become every day more pressing, whose 
 mind is principally employed in mechanical toil, may have 
 been driven to entertain such views as arc here expressed, 
 partly from his own position, and partly from the culpable 
 neglect of the Government to supply him with the means and 
 the power of forming a hetter judgment. Let us grant that edu-
 
 T. B. Macaulay on The People s Charter. 3 1 
 
 cation would remedy these things ; shall we not wait until it has 
 done so before we agree to such a motion as this ? Shall we, 
 before such a change is wanted, give them the power and the 
 means of ruining, not only the rich, but themselves ? I have 
 no more unkind feeling towards these petitioners than I have 
 towards the sick man who calls for a draught of cold water, 
 although he is satisfied that it would be death to him ; nor 
 than I have for the poor Indians whom I have seen collected 
 round the granaries in India at a time of scarcity, praying that 
 the doors might be thrown open and the grain distributed. 
 But I would not in the one case give the draught of water, nor 
 would I in the other give up the key of the granary ; because 
 I know that by doing so I shall only make a scarcity a famine, 
 and by giving such relief enormously increase the evil. No 
 one can say that such a spoliation of property as these peti- 
 tioners point at would be a relief to the evils of which they 
 complain ; and I believe that no one will deny that it would 
 be a great addition to the mischief which is proposed to be 
 removed. But if such would be the result, why should such 
 power be conferred upon the petitioners ? That they should 
 ask for it is not blamable ; but on what principle is it that 
 we, knowing that their views are entirely delusive, should put 
 into their hands the irresistible power of doing all this evil to 
 us and to themselves ? 
 
 The only argument which can be brought forward in favour 
 of the proposition is, as it appears to me, that this course which 
 is demanded to be left open to the petitioners will not be 
 taken; that although the power is given, they will not, and do not, 
 intend to execute it. But surely this would be an extraordinary 
 way of treating the prayer of the petition, and it would be 
 somewhat singular to call upon the House to suppose that 
 those who are seeking for a great concession put the object 
 of their demand in a much higher manner than that which 
 presented itself to their own minds. How is it possible that, 
 according to the principles of human nature, if you give them 
 this power, it will not be used to its fullest extent ? There has
 
 32 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 been a constant and systematic attempt for years to represent 
 the Government as being able to do, and so bound to attempt, 
 that which no Government ever attempted; and instead of the 
 Government being represented, as is the truth, as being 
 supported by the people, it has been treated as if the Govern- 
 ment supported the people; it has been treated as if the 
 Government possessed some mine of wealth — some extra- 
 ordinary means for supplying the wants of the people ; as if they 
 could give them bread from the clouds — water from the rocks 
 — to increase the bread and the fishes five thousand-fold. Is 
 it possible to believe that the moment you give them absolute, 
 supreme, irresistible power they will forget all this? We 
 propose to give them supreme power. In every constituent 
 body throughout the empire, capital and accumulated property 
 is to be placed absolutely at the foot of labour. How is it 
 possible to doubt what the result will be ? Suppose such men 
 as the hon. members for Bath and Rochdale being returned 
 to sit in the House, who would, I believe, oppose such 
 measures of extreme change as would involve a national bank- 
 ruptcy. What should be the effect if their first answer to their 
 constituents should be, " Justice and the public good demand 
 that this thirty millions a year should be paid "? Then, with 
 regard to land, supposing it should be determined that there 
 should be no partition of land — and it is hardly possible to 
 conceive that there are men to be found who would destroy all 
 the means of creating and increasing wages, and of creating 
 and increasing the trade and commerce of this country, which 
 L;ivcs employment to so many — is it possible that the three 
 millions of people who have petitioned the House should 
 insist on the prayer of their petition? 
 
 I do not wish to say all that forces itself on my mind with 
 nd to what might he the result of our granting this Charter. 
 Let us, if we can, picture to ourselves the consequences of such 
 a spoliation as it is proposed should tike place. Would it end 
 with one spoliation? How COuldit? That distress which is 
 the motive now for « ailing on the House to interfere, would he
 
 T. 13. Macau lay on The People s Charter. 
 
 
 only doubled and trebled by the Act ; the measure of distress 
 would become greater after that spoliation, and the bulwarks 
 against fresh acts of the same character would have been 
 removed. The Government would rest upon spoliation — all 
 the property which any man possessed would be supported by 
 it ; and is it possible to suppose that a new state of things 
 would exist wherein everything that was done would be right? 
 What must be the effect of such a sweeping confiscation of 
 property ? No experience enables me to guess at it. All I cats 
 say is, that it seems to me to be something more horrid than 
 can be imagined. A great community of human beings, a 
 vast people, would be called into existence in a new position ; 
 there would be a depression, if not an uiter stoppage, of trade, 
 and of all those vast engagements of the country by which our 
 people were supported ; and how is it possible to doubt that 
 famine and pestilence would come before long to wind up the 
 effects of such a system ? The best thing which I can expect, 
 and which I think every one must see as the result, is, that in 
 some of the desperate struggles which must take place in such 
 a state of things, some strong military despot must arise, and 
 give some sort of protection — some security to the property 
 which may remain. But if you flatter yourselves that after such 
 an occurrence you would ever see again those institutions 
 under which you have lived, you deceive yourselves ; you 
 would never see them again, and you would never deserve to 
 see them. By all neighbouring nations you would be viewed 
 with utter contempt, and that glory and prosperity which has 
 een so envied would be sneered at, and your fate would thus 
 be told : " England," it would be said, " had her institutions, 
 imperfect though they were, but which contained within them- 
 selves the means of remedying all imperfections. Those insti- 
 tutions were wantonly thrown away for no purpose whatever, 
 but because she was asked to do so by persons who sought her 
 ruin ; her ruin was the consequence, and she deserves it." 
 Believing this, I will oppose with every faculty which I possess 
 the proposition lor Universal Suffrage. 
 
 C
 
 34 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 The only question is, whether this motion should be agreed 
 to. Now, if there is any gentleman who is disposed to grant 
 Universal Suffrage with a full view of all its consequences, I 
 think that he acts perfectly conscientiously in voting for this 
 motion ; but I must say that it was with some surprise that 
 I heard the hon. baronet the member for Leicester (Sir J. 
 Easthope) agreeing with me as he does in the principles 
 which I advocate, say, notwithstanding, that he is dis- 
 posed to vote simply for the motion for permitting these 
 petitioners to come to our bar to speak in defence of their 
 petition. [Sir J. Easthope. — To expound their opinions.] 
 I conceive their opinions are quite sufficiently expounded. 
 They are of such an extent that I cannot, I must confess, 
 pretend to speak of them with much respect. I shall give on 
 this occasion a perfectly conscientious vote against hearing the 
 petitioners at the bar; and it is my firm conviction that in 
 doing so I am not only doing that which is best with respect 
 to the State, but that I am really giving to the petitioners them- 
 selves much less reason for complaining than those who vote 
 for their being heard now, but who will afterwards vote against 
 their demand.
 
 W. J. FOX ON THE CORN LAWS. 
 Drury Lane Theatre, March 29TH, 1843. 
 
 [This was the first of the great meetings convened at Drury Lane Theatre 
 by the Manchester Anti-Corn Law League. The vast edifice was crowded 
 to its utmost capacity.] 
 
 Mr Chairman and Gentlemen, — On the subject of the Corn 
 Laws it is, I believe, impossible to find a new argument. 
 Everything that can be said is but an illustration of old ones. 
 Of the truth of this remark I will myself be an instance in the 
 few remarks I will have to make on the subject. It is not to 
 be wondered at, however, that it is impossible to say anything 
 new on the subject of the Corn Laws, for there are no new 
 arguments against oppression and robbery of the poor and 
 helpless. And yet, how is it, notwithstanding it is so well 
 known that nothing new can be said on the Corn Laws, 
 that such multitudes as I now see before me — and these 
 of such respectability — throng these meetings? How is 
 it that such an excitement has arisen, and is increasing, on 
 the subject throughout the country ? To solve this problem 
 we must look further and deeper into things than is 
 necessary for the mere flourishings of rhetoric. This state of 
 things indicates that there is going on a great national move- 
 ment—a movement which has been originated by wrong, 
 which has progressed amidst difficulties, until it now shows 
 the power of opinion in the enforced pliability of the Govern- 
 ment. But the fact is, that the repeal of the Corn Laws is no
 
 36 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 longer a question to be settled by argument. Had it been to 
 be settled in this way, the great work would have been achieved 
 long ago. All the principles of the Corn Law repealers are 
 admitted ; yet these laws still remain in the Statute Book. 
 The question originated with speculative theorists in political 
 economy, who put forth their occasional views in magazines 
 or in newspapers ; it has grown up into this enormous, this 
 general, this triumphant agitation ; and yet the question is not 
 carried. Why? Because we have to deal with sinister 
 interests, not with the convictions of the understanding. 
 The supporters of the Corn Laws are very fond of complain- 
 ing of the long speeches made by the Leaguers against them 
 when they know they have nothing novel to say. Now, I 
 should be very glad to effect a compromise with those 
 objectors. I should be very ready to say to them, " If you 
 will spare our pockets, we will spare your intellects. If you 
 will allow the people's mouths to be filled, we will abstain 
 from filling your ears with their remonstrances. If you will 
 untax our bread, we will no longer tax your patience." 
 
 It is true that the subject is an exhausted one ; but why 
 is it exhausted ? It is because the advocates of Free Trade 
 have not shrunk from grappling with any and every view of 
 the question that can be presented to them. Whatever 
 argument has been used, they have met with some resistless 
 fact, completely destroying its effect, and to that extent ex- 
 hausting the subject. They have met the question in every 
 light. Take it as a foreign question, and they urge that it 
 promotes war, not peace ; that even, if it does not raise hostile 
 armies against this country, it raises up hostile armies against 
 our commerce. Take it as a home question, and it leads 
 directly and at once to the inquiry, whether England is to 
 continue to be the home of Englishmen ? The Corn Laws 
 are making England but a dilapidated home for Englishmen, 
 and already have upholders of these laws arrived at that point 
 when they would rather export our people than import their 
 food. The Saxon laws bred their serfs as slaves, and they
 
 W. J. Fox on the Corn Laws. 37 
 
 sold them out of the country as slaves. But they fed them 1 
 They gave the food to enhance the price of the people ; we 
 are now prepared to give away the people in order to enhance 
 the price of the food. Looking at it further as a home question, 
 I wonder that even in a financial point of view the Minister 
 does not see how ill these laws operate. Surely the annual 
 payment out of the country of ^40,000,000 for the benefit of 
 one class must materially diminish the tax-paying power of 
 the whole people. 
 
 If we look at it as a statistical question, why, the League has 
 collected every information that figures can afford ; until the 
 arguments that spring from them grow as thick as the rank 
 grass or the leaves on the graves of those victims of the 
 provision laws, who ought still to be living by the fruits of their 
 honest industry. Sometimes the question is looked at as a 
 question of charity ; there, too, the League is not behind with 
 its view of the subject. Even the bread that is given in charity 
 must first pay the tax imposed by these laws ; and if, by a 
 royal begging letter, some hundreds of thousands of pounds 
 are collected for the poor of Paisley, why, the rapacity of this 
 dominant class must needs step in and take some ^30,000 
 of the money thus bestowed in charity. That Book which 
 we profess to revere tells us to pray for our daily bread; 
 therefore it cannot possibly teach men to tax our daily bread. 
 There is one precept in that Book with the fulfilment of which 
 these laws directly interfere ; there the young man is told to 
 sell all he has and give it to the poor. That precept it is 
 impossible to obey in our day. The Corn Laws have rendered 
 it impossible. It must be altered, and in future it will stand : 
 "Sell all thou hast, and divide the proceeds between the 
 richest and the poorest, between the pauper and the landlord." 
 
 Or look at it as a class question. What class is it that is 
 interested in the maintenance of these laws? It cannot be 
 the farmer, because the rent screw is turned upon him for 
 every extra shilling a quarter he makes on his corn. It can- 
 not be the labouring classes, for look at the wages of eight
 
 
 38 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 shillings a week for a family of seven or eight persons. It is 
 not the commercial class, for the present system keeps them 
 out of a foreign as well as a home market. It cannot be the 
 literary class, for who would care to provide food for the mind, 
 when the food for the body is so heavily taxed ? Then, in fact, 
 it cannot be any class but that very small one, composed of 
 some 10,000 or 20,000 (not more) of nominal owners of the 
 soil. I speak not of that much larger class of real holders of 
 landed property, whose interests are identified with the welfare 
 of their country, because in proportion as the towns increase 
 in wealth, and the people in comfort, so does their property 
 increase in value. I speak not of these, but of the merely 
 titular possessors of mortgaged property— men who seek only 
 the means of meeting present exigencies, and who care not 
 that they will leave the remainder of their estates to be dis- 
 cussed by their impoverished posterity. And is it for the sake 
 of such a class as this that a great people is to be stopped in 
 their onward march ? Suppose they do realise the cash which 
 seems to be the object of all their legislation, can they shake 
 off the condition that invariably attaches to its acquirement? 
 While they receive their share of the Bread Tax, can they 
 avoid also receiving their share of the odium, of the deep 
 responsibility that attends it, the responsibility of having perilled 
 the safety of the country, of having struck at the root of its 
 prosperity, of having turned the industrious out of employment, 
 earning not the blessings, but the curses of those whom their 
 laws have driven to the state in which they are ready to perish, 
 of exposing themselves to the reprobation of all good men, 
 and to the unfailing retribution of providential justice? 
 
 One great argument used in favour of these laws is that 
 they make England independent of all the world. A much 
 more proper way to take it is that they make all the world 
 independent of England. They isolate Great Britain from the 
 family of nations, and they are the destruction of that inter- 
 com ie, and that interchange of kindness which it seems to be 
 the plan of Providence in thus dividing mankind into nations
 
 W. J. Fox on the Com Laws. 39 
 
 to promote. The question now is no longer one of argument, 
 as I have already said ; it is a question of will. The will of 
 the landlords, it is, arrayed against everlasting justice. Man 
 toils for his bread by the sweat of his brow — it is just that he 
 should receive that bread untaxed, for the artificial enhance- 
 ment of his neighbour's profit ; but those who tax will tax 
 anything. They have laid a tax upon the light — they would, if 
 they could, lay a tax upon the eyes for gazing upon the beauty 
 of the heavens ; they would lay a tax upon Cassiopeia's chariot, 
 and on Orion's belt, they would impose a fixed duty on the 
 shining of the Pleiades, and place the Greater and the Lesser 
 Bear on a sliding scale. But it seems that we are to be 
 debarred from agitating for a repeal of these laws because Sir 
 Robert Peel has introduced his measure of last Session. /That 
 bantling of now exactly a year and a day old is too young, the 
 right hon. baronet thinks, to be put to death. He asks 
 for a trial. As if the other schemes had not been tried ! 
 What are we to try? Is it the principle of the measure? 
 Why, Sir Robert Peel has himself given up the principle in 
 agreeing to the arrangement for the importation of American 
 corn through Canada. That is virtually a fixed duty of 10/ 
 or 12/, and a surrender of the very principle which Sir Robert 
 Peel has come into office pledged to maintain. It is a fixed 
 duty, only by a circumbendibus. 
 ^ We are asked to give this measure a trial. Why, if we do, 
 what will be the result? We know well enough already what 
 the real operation of the plan will be ; and in the meantime 
 the work of ruin will still be going on. There will be more 
 foreign tariffs, more shut-up mills, more discharges of work- 
 men, more distress and misery among the industrial classes ; 
 and all these evils are to be incurred for the sake of imposing 
 a tax on bread — the boldest step any Government can take — 
 and certainly imposing on the proposers of it not only a 
 ministerial, but a very deep and heavy personal and individual 
 responsibility. But if Sir Robert Peel has his experiment, the 
 Leaguers have theirs also, and they have come here to this
 
 40 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 place to try it. The agitation of the question of repeal of the 
 Corn Laws has marched up from Manchester to the metropolis 
 — it has spread far and wide, and now we shall see who will 
 hold out the longest, the people or the Minister. That indi- 
 vidual and the people are both the subjects, the slaves of that 
 class which lords over all, and commands and masters the 
 ministers and the legislature, the navy, aye, and the Church ; 
 that class which even commands the Crown. The people of 
 this country, with all their untiring industry, their ingenuity, 
 and amiable dispositions, are the mere appendages of the dirty 
 acres which are inherited by that class. The very disgrace, 
 the unspeakable degradation of the Corn Laws, is intolerable, 
 to say nothing of the sufferings which they are calculated to 
 inflict. We are therefore glad to welcome the League amongst 
 us ; the people, being part and parcel of the League, are 
 determined to aid and support it ; we shall devote ourselves 
 to it, not merely by attending their weekly meetings in this 
 theatre or elsewhere, but we will solemnly and soberly pledge 
 ourselves to it as a religious sentiment. We shall swear by 
 Him who liveth for ever and ever that this egregious folly of 
 the Corn Laws, this foul wrong, this atrocious iniquity, shall be 
 utterly and for ever abolished, x
 
 DANIEL O'CONNELL ON REPEAL 
 OF THE UNION. 
 
 Hill of Tara, August 151H, 1843. 
 
 [Of all mass meetings ever heard of, this was unquestionably the greatest. 
 It was computed by reliable witnesses, not at all favourable to the cause 
 which O'Connell espoused, that no fewer than a quarter of a million 
 persons must have been present. They came from all parts of the coun- 
 try round, under the guidance of their parish priests.] 
 
 Fellow-Irishmen, — It would be the extreme of affectation in 
 me to suggest that I have not some claim to be the leader of 
 this majestic meeting. It would be worse than affectation ; it 
 would be drivelling folly, if I were not to feel the awful respon- 
 sibility to my country and my Creator which the part I have 
 taken in this mighty movement imposes on me. Yes ; I feel 
 the tremendous nature of that responsibility. Ireland is roused 
 from one end to the other. Her multitudinous population has 
 but one expression and one wish, and that is for the extinction 
 of the Union and the restoration of her nationality. (A cry 0/ 
 " No compromise ! ") Who talks of compromise ? I have 
 come here, not for the purpose of making a schoolboy's attempt 
 at declamatory eloquence, not to exaggerate the historical 
 importance of the spot on which we now stand, or to endeavour 
 to revive in your recollection any of those poetic imaginings 
 respecting it which have been as familiar as household words. 
 But this it is impossible to conceal or deny, that Tara is 
 surrounded by historical reminiscences which give it an import- 
 ance worthy of being considered by everyone who approaches
 
 42 
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 it for political purposes, and an elevation in the public mind 
 which no other part of Ireland possesses. We are standing 
 upon Tara of the Kings ; the spot where the monarchs of Ireland 
 were elected, and where the chieftains of Ireland bound them- 
 selves, by the most solemn pledges of honour, to protect their 
 native land against the Dane and every stranger. This was 
 emphatically the spot from which emanated every social power 
 and legal authority by which the force of the entire country was 
 concentrated for the purposes of national defence. 
 
 On this spot I have a most important duty to perform. I 
 here protest, in the name of my country and in the name of my 
 God, against the unfounded and unjust Union. My proposition 
 to Ireland is that the Union is not binding on her people. It 
 is void in conscience and in principle, and as a matter of con- 
 stitutional law I attest these facts. Yes, I attest by everything 
 that is sacred, without being profane, the truth of my assertions. 
 There is no real union between the two countries, and my pro- 
 position is that there was no authority given to anyone to pass 
 the Act of Union. Neither the English nor the Irish Legisla- 
 ture was competent to pass that Act, and I arraign it on these 
 grounds. One authority alone could make that Act binding, 
 and that was the voice of the people of Ireland. The Irish 
 Parliament was elected to make laws and not to make legisla- 
 tures ; and, therefore, it had no right to assume the authority 
 to pass the Act of Union. The Irish Parliament was elected by 
 the Irish people as their trustees ; the people were their masters, 
 and the members were their servants, and had no right to 
 transfer the property to any other power on earth. If the Irish 
 Parliament had transferred its power of legislation to the 
 French Chamber, would any man assert that the Act was 
 valid? Would any man be mad enough to assert it; would 
 any man be insane enough to assert it, and would the insanity 
 of the assertion be mitigated by sending any number of mem- 
 bers to the Fren< h < Chamber? Everybody must admit that it 
 would not. What care I for France? and I care as little lor 
 England us for France, for both countries are foreign to me.
 
 Daniel (J Connell on Repeal of the Union. 43 
 
 The very highest authority in England has proclaimed us to be 
 aliens in blood, in religion, and in language. {Groans.) Do 
 not groan him for having proved himself honest on one occasion 
 by declaring my opinion. But to show the invalidity of the 
 Union I could quote the authority of Locke on " Parliament." 
 I will, however, only detain you by quoting the declaration of 
 Lord Plunket in the Irish Parliament, who told them that they 
 had no authority to transfer the legislation of the country to 
 other hands. As well, said he, might a maniac imagine that 
 the blow by which he destroys his wretched body annihilates 
 his immortal soul, as you to imagine that you can annihilate 
 the soul of Ireland — her constitutional rights. / 
 
 I need not detain you by quoting authorities to show the 
 invalidity of the Union. I am here the representative of the 
 Irish nation, and in the name of that moral, temperate, virtuous, 
 and religious people, I proclaim the Union a nullity. Saurin, 
 who had been the representative of the Tory party for twenty 
 years, distinctly declared that the Act of Union was invalid. He 
 said that the Irish House of Commons had no right, had no 
 power, to pass the Union, and that the people of Ireland would 
 be justified, the first opportunity that presented itself, in effect- 
 ing its repeal. So they are. The authorities of the country 
 were charged with the enactment, the alteration, or the adminis- 
 tration of its laws. These were their powers ; but they had 
 no authority to alter or overthrow the Constitution. I therefore 
 proclaim the nullity of the Union. In the face of Europe I 
 proclaim its nullity. In the face of France, especially, and of 
 Spain, I proclaim its nullity ; and I proclaim its nullity in the 
 face of the liberated States of America. I go farther, and pro- 
 claim its nullity on the grounds of the iniquitous means by 
 which it was carried. It was effected by the most flagrant 
 fraud. A rebellion was provoked by the Government of the 
 day, in order that they might have a pretext for crushing the 
 liberties of Ireland. There was this addition to the fraud, that 
 at the time of the Union Ireland had no legal protection. The 
 Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and the lives and liberties uf
 
 44 Modern Political Orations, 
 
 the people were at the mercy of courts-martial. You remember 
 the shrieks of those who suffered under martial law. One day 
 from Trim the troops were marched out and made desolate 
 the country around them. No man was safe during the entire 
 time the Union was under discussion. The next fraud was 
 that the Irish people were not allowed to meet to remonstrate 
 against it. Two county meetings, convened by the High 
 Sheriffs of these counties, pursuant to requisitions presented to 
 them, were dispersed at the point of the bayonet. In King's 
 County the High Sheriff called the people together in the 
 Court-house, and Colonel Connor of the North Cork Militia, 
 supported by artillery and a troop of horse, entered the Court- 
 house at the head of 200 of his regiment and turned out the 
 Sheriff, Magistrates, Grand Jurors, and freeholders assembled 
 to petition against the enactment of the Union. (A Voice. — 
 " We'll engage they won't do it now ! ") In Tipperary a simi- 
 lar scene took place. A meeting convened by the High Sheriff 
 was dispersed at the point of the bayonet. Thus public senti- 
 ment was stifled ; and if there was a compact, as is alleged, 
 it is void on account of the fraud and force by which it was 
 carried. But the voice of Ireland, though forcibly suppressed 
 at public meetings, was not altogether dumb. Petitions were 
 presented against the Union to which were attached no less 
 than 770,000 signatures. And there were not 3,000 signatures 
 for the Union, notwithstanding all the Government could do. 
 
 My next impeachment against the Union is the gross cor- 
 ruption with which it was carried. No less than ,£1,275,000 
 was spent upon the rotten boroughs, and ^2,000,000 was 
 given in direct bribery. There was not one office that was not 
 made instrumental to the carrying of the measure. Six to 
 seven judges were raised to the Bench for the votes they gave 
 in its support ; and no less than twelve bishops were elevated to 
 the Episcopal Bench for having taken the side of the Union ; 
 for corruption then spared nothing to effect its purpose — cor- 
 ruption was never carried so far; and if this is to be binding on 
 the Irish nation, there is no use in honesty at all. Yet in spite
 
 Daniel GConnell on Repeal of the Union. 45 
 
 of all the means employed, the enemies of Ireland did not 
 succeed at once. There was a majority of eleven against the 
 Union the first time. But before the proposition was brought 
 forward a second time, members who could not be influenced 
 to vote for the measure were bribed to vacate their seats, to 
 which a number of English and Scotch officers, brought over 
 for the purpose, were elected, and by their votes the Union was 
 carried. In the name of the great Irish nation I proclaim it 
 a nullity. At the time of the Union the national debt of 
 Ireland was only ^20,000,000. The debt of England was 
 ,£440,000,000. England took upon herself one-half the Irish 
 debt, but she placed upon Ireland one-half of the ^440,000,000. 
 England since that period has doubled her debt, and admit- 
 ting a proportionate increase as against Ireland, the Irish debt 
 would not now be more than ^40,000,000 ; and you may 
 believe me when I say it in the name of the great Irish people, 
 that we will never pay one shilling more. In fact, we owe but 
 ,£30,000, as is clearly demonstrated in a book lately published 
 by a near and dear relative of mine, Mr John O'Connell, the 
 member for Kilkenny. I am proud that a son of mine will be 
 able, when the Repeal is carried, to meet any of England's 
 financiers, and to prove to them the gross injustice inflicted 
 upon Ireland. 
 
 My next impeachment of the Union is its destructive and 
 deleterious effect upon the industry and prosperity of the 
 country. The county of Meath was once studded with noble 
 residences. What is it now ? Even on the spot where what 
 is called the great Duke of Wellington was born, instead of a 
 splendid castle or noble residence, the briar and the bramble 
 attest the treachery that produced them. You remember the 
 once prosperous linen-weavers of Meath. There is scarcely 
 a penny paid to them now. In short, the Union struck down 
 the manufactures of Ireland. The Commissioners of the Poor 
 Law prove that 120,000 persons in Ireland are in a state of 
 destitution during the greater part of each year. How is it that 
 in one of the most fertile countries in the world this should
 
 46 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 occur ? The Irish never broke any of their bargains nor their 
 treaties, and England never kept one that was made on her 
 part. There is now a union of the legislatures, but I deny 
 that there is a union of the nations, and I again proclaim the 
 Act a nullity. England has given to her people a municipal 
 reform extensive and satisfactory, while to Ireland she gives a 
 municipal reform crippled and worthless. But the Union is 
 more a nullity on ecclesiastical grounds; for why should the 
 great majority of the people of Ireland pay for the support of a 
 religion which they do not believe to be true ? The Union 
 was carried by the most abominable corruption and bribery, by 
 financial robbery on an extensive scale, which makes it the 
 more heinous and oppressive ; and the result is that Ireland 
 is saddled with an unjust debt, her commerce is taken from 
 her, her trade is destroyed, and a large number of her people 
 thus reduced to misery and distress. 
 
 Yes, the people of Ireland are cruelly oppressed, and are 
 we tamely to stand by and allow our dearest interests to be 
 trampled upon ? are we not to ask for redress ? Yes, we will 
 ask for that which alone will give us redress — a Parliament of 
 our own. And you will have it too, if you are quiet and 
 orderly, and join with me in my present struggle. {Loud cheers.) 
 Your cheers will be conveyed to England. Yes, the majority 
 of this mighty multitude will be taken there. Old Wellington 
 began by threatening us, and talked of civil war, but he says 
 nothing about it now. He is getting inlet holes made in stone 
 barracks. Now, only think of an old general doing such a 
 thing, as, if there were anything going on, the people would 
 attack stone walls ! I have heard that a great deal of brandy 
 and biscuits have been sent to the barracks, and I sincerely 
 hope the poor soldiers will get some of them. Your honest 
 brothers, the soldiers, who have been sent to Ireland, areas 
 orderly and as brave men as any in Ireland. I am sure that 
 not one of you has a single complaint to make against them. 
 If any of you have, say so. {Loud cries of " No, no ! ") They 
 are the bravest men in the world, and therefore I do not dis-
 
 Daniel GConnell on Repeal of the Union. 47 
 
 parage them at all when I state this fact, that if they are sent 
 to make war against the people, I have enough women to beat 
 them. There is no mockery or delusion in what I say. At the 
 last fight for Ireland, when we were betrayed by a reliance on 
 English honour, which we would never again confide in — for I 
 would as soon confide in the honour of a certain black gentleman 
 who has got two horns and hoofs — but, as I was saying, at the 
 last battle for Ireland, when, after two days' hard fighting, the 
 Irish were driven back by the fresh troops brought up by the 
 English to the bridge of Limerick, at that point when the 
 Irish soldiers retired fainting it was that the women of Limerick 
 threw themselves in the way, and drove the enemy back fifteen, 
 twenty, or thirty paces. Several of the poor women were killed 
 in the struggle, and their shrieks of agony being heard by 
 their countrymen, they again rallied and determined to die in 
 their defence, and, doubly valiant in the defence of the women, 
 they together routed the Saxons. Yes, I repeat, I have enough 
 women to beat all the army of Ireland. It is idle for any 
 minister or statesman to suppose for a moment that he can 
 put down such a struggle as this for liberty. The only thing I 
 fear is the conduct of some ruffians who are called Ribbonmen. 
 I know there are such blackguards, for I have traced them 
 from Manchester. They are most dangerous characters, and 
 it will be the duty of every Repealer, whether he knows or by any 
 means can discover one of them, immediately to hand him over 
 to justice and the law. The Ribbonmen only by their proceed- 
 ings can injure the great and religious cause in which I am 
 now engaged, and in which I have the people of Ireland at 
 my back. 
 
 This is a holy festival in the Catholic Church — the day upon 
 which the Mother of our Saviour ascended to meet her Son, 
 and reign with Him for ever. On such a day I will not tell a 
 falsehood. I hope I am under her protection while addressing 
 you, and I hope that Ireland will receive the benefit of her 
 prayers. Our Church has prayed against Espartero and his 
 priest-terrorising, church-plundering marauders, and he has
 
 4S Modern Political Orations. 
 
 since fallen from power— nobody knows how, for he makes no 
 effort to retain it. He seems to have been bewildered by the 
 Divine curse, for without one rational effort the tyrant of Spain 
 has faded before the prayers of Christianity. I hope that 
 there is a blessing in this day, and, fully aware of its solemnity, 
 I assure you that I am afraid of nothing but Ribbonism, which 
 alone can disturb the present movement. I have proclaimed 
 from this spot that the Act of Union is a nullity, but in seeking 
 for Repeal I do not want you to disobey the law. I have only 
 to refer to the words of the Tories' friend, Saurin, to prove 
 that the Union is illegal. I advise you to obey the law until 
 you have the word of your beloved Queen to tell you that you 
 shall have a Parliament of your own. {Cheers, and loud cries of 
 "So we will!") The Queen— God bless her !— will yet tell 
 you that you shall have a legislature of your own — three cheers 
 for the Queen ! {Immense cheering.) 
 
 On the 2nd of January last I called this the Repeal year, and 
 I was laughed at for doing so. Are they laughing now ? No ; 
 it is now my turn to laugh ; and I will now say that 
 in twelve months more we will have our Parliament 
 again on College Green. The Queen has the undoubted 
 prerogative at any time to order her Ministers to issue 
 writs, which, being signed by the Lord Chanrjllor, the 
 Irish Parliament would at once be convened without the 
 necessity of applying to the English Legislature to repeal what 
 they appear to consider a valid Act of Union. And if dirty 
 Sugden would not sign the writ, an Irish Chancellor would 
 soon be found who would do so. And if we have our Parlia- 
 ment again in Dublin, is there, I would ask, a coward amongst 
 you who would not rather die than allow it to be taken away 
 by an Act of Union? {Loud cries of "No one would ever 
 submit to it 1" " We'd rather die !" etc.) To the last man? 
 {Cries / "To the last man!") Let every man who would not 
 allow the \(t oi Union to pass hold up his hand. (An 
 immense forest of hands was shown.) When the Irish Parlia- 
 ment is again assembled, I will defy any power on earth to 
 take it from us again. Are you all ready to obey me in the
 
 Daniel O'Connell on Repeal of the Union. 49 
 
 course of conduct which I have pointed out to you? {Cries cf 
 " Yes, yes ! ") When I dismiss you to-day, will you not dis- 
 perse and go peaceably to your homes— ("Yes, yes, we will!") 
 — every man, woman, and child ? — in the same tranquil manner 
 as you have assembled? ("Yes, yes!") But if I want you 
 again to-morrow, will you not come to Tara Hill? ("Yes, 
 yes!") Remember, I will lead you into no peril. If danger 
 should arise, it will be in consequence of some persons attack- 
 ing us, for we are determined not to attack any person ; and if 
 danger does exist, you will not find me in the rear rank. When 
 we get our Parliament, all our grievances will be put an end to; 
 our trade will be restored, the landlord will be placed on a firm 
 footing, and the tenants who are now so sadly oppressed will be 
 placed in their proper position. " Law, Peace, and Order " is 
 the motto of the Repeal banner, and I trust you will all rally 
 round it. {Cries of "We are all Repealers!") I have to 
 inform you that all the magistrates who have recently been 
 deprived of the Commission of the Peace have been appointed 
 by the Repeal Association to settle any disputes which may 
 arise amongst the Repealers in their respective localities. On 
 next Monday persons will be appointed to settle disputes with- 
 out expense, and I call on every man who is the friend of 
 Ireland to have his disputes settled by arbitrators without ex- 
 pense, and to avoid going to the Petty Sessions. 
 
 I believe I am now in a position to announce to you that in 
 twelve months more we will not be without having an Hurrah ! 
 for the Parliament on College Green. (Immense cheering.) 
 Your shouts are almost enough to call to life those who rest in 
 the grave. I can almost fancy the spirits of the mighty dead 
 hovering over you, and the ancient kings and chiefs of Ireland, 
 from the clouds, listening to the shouts sent up from Tara for 
 Irish liberty. Oh ! Ireland is a lovely land, blessed with the 
 bounteous gifts of Nature, and where is the coward who would 
 not die for her? (Cries of "Not one!") Your cheers will 
 penetrate to the extremity of civilisation. Our movement is 
 the admiration of the world, for no other country can snow so 
 
 D
 
 5<D Modern Political Orations. 
 
 much force with so much propriety of conduct. No other 
 country can show a people assembled for the highest national 
 purposes that can actuate man ; can show hundreds of thou- 
 sands able in strength to carry any battle that ever was fought, 
 and yet separating with the tranquillity of schoolboys. You 
 have stood by me long — stand by me a little longer, and 
 Ireland will be again a nation.
 
 R. L. SHEIL ON THE JEWISH 
 DISABILITIES BILL. 
 
 House of Commons, February 7TH, 1848. 
 
 [From the time of Mr Robert Grant's motion for the admission of Jews to 
 Parliament, April 5th, 1830, when Mr Macaulay made his maiden speech 
 in the House, Bills to this end were repeatedly brought in, and occasionally 
 passed by the Commons, but always thrown out by the Lords. The 
 election of Baron Rothschild for the City of London, in 1847, added a new 
 zest to Jewish Emancipation. It was not, however, until 1858 that the 
 Jewish Disabilities were entirely removed.] 
 
 Sir, — If the hon. the learned and exceedingly able gentle- 
 man who has just sat down (Mr Walpole) had been a 
 member of the House of Commons when the member for 
 Tamworth brought forward the measure of Emancipation, the 
 speech which he has this night pronounced against the Jews 
 would have been fully as apposite upon that great historical 
 occasion. With all his habits of fine forensic discrimination, 
 I do not think that he can distinguish between the objections 
 urged against the Catholic and against the Jew. He has, for 
 example, strenuously insisted that, in the writ by which the 
 sheriff is commanded to hold an election, a reference is made 
 to the maintenance of the Anglican Church. That objection is 
 nearly as strong when applied to the Unitarian, the Baptist, the 
 Independent, and above all, to the professors of the religion to 
 which it is my good fortune to belong. That men subject to 
 all the duties should be deemed unworthy of the rights of 
 Englishmen, appears to me to be a remarkable anomaly. The
 
 52 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 enjoyment of rights ought not to be dissociated from the 
 liabilities to duties. A British subject ought in every regard 
 to be considered a British citizen ; and inasmuch as the pro- 
 fessors of the most ancient religion in the world, which, as far 
 as it goes, we not only admit to be true, but hold to be the 
 foundation of our own, are bound to the performance of every 
 duty which attaches to a British subject, to a full fruition of 
 every right which belongs to a British citizen, they have, I 
 think, an irrefragable title. A Jew born in England cannot 
 transfer his allegiance from his Sovereign and his country; if he 
 were to enter the service of a foreign Power engaged in hos- 
 tilities with England, and were taken in arms, he would be 
 accounted a traitor. Is a Jew an Englishman for no other pur- 
 poses than those of condemnation ? I am not aware of a 
 single obligation to which other Englishmen are liable from 
 which a Jew is exempt; and if his religion confers on him no 
 sort of immunity, it ought not to affect him with any kind of 
 disqualification. 
 
 It has been said, in the course of these discussions, that a 
 Jew is not subject to penalties, but to privations. But what is 
 privation but a synonym for penalty? Privation of life, priva- 
 tion of liberty, privation of property, privation of country, priva- 
 tion of right, privation of privilege — these are degrees widely 
 distant indeed, but still degrees in the graduated scale of perse- 
 cution. The Parliamentary disability that affects the Jew has 
 been designated in the course of these debates by the mollified 
 expressions to which men who impart euphemism to severity 
 are in the habit of resorting ; but most assuredly an exclusion 
 from the I [ouse of Commons ought, in the House of Commons 
 itself, to be regarded as a most grievous detriment. With the 
 dignity, and the greatness, and the power of this, the first 
 assembly in the world, the hardship of exclusion is commen- 
 surate. Some of the most prominent opponents of this measure 
 are among the last by whom a seal in Parliament ought to be 
 held in little account. On this brain h of the case — the hard- 
 ship of an exclusion from this House — I can speak as a witness
 
 R. L. Shell on the Jewish Disabilities Bill. $$ 
 
 as well as an advocate. I belong to that great and powerful 
 community which was a few years ago subject to the same 
 disqualification that affects the Jew ; and I felt that disqualifica- 
 tion to be most degrading. Of myself I will not speak, because 
 I can speak of the most illustrious pi rson by whom that com- 
 munity was adorned. I have sat under the gallery of the 
 House of Commons, by the side of Mr O'Connell, during a 
 great discussion on which the destiny of Ireland was dependent. 
 I was with him when Plunket convinced, and Brougham sur- 
 prised, and Canning charmed, and Peel instructed, and Russell 
 exalted and improved. How have I seen him repine at his 
 exclusion from the field of high intellectual encounter in those 
 lists in which so many competitors for glory were engaged, and 
 into which, with an injurious tardiness, he was afterwards 
 admitted ! How have I seen him chafe the chain which bound 
 him down, but which, with an effort of gigantic prowess, he 
 burst at last to pieces ! He was at the head of millions of an 
 organised and indissoluble people. The Jew comes here with 
 no other arguments than those which reason and truth supply ; 
 but reason and truth are of counsel with him ; and in this 
 assembly, which I believe to represent, not only the high 
 intelligence, but the highmindedness of England, reason will 
 not long be baffled, and truth, in fulfilment, of its great 
 aphorism, will at last prevail. 
 
 I will assume that the exclusion from this House is a great 
 privation, and I proceed to consider whether it be not a great 
 wrong. Nothing but necessity could afford its justification; 
 and of this plea we should be taught, by a phrase which has 
 almost grown proverbial, to beware. Cardinal Caraffa relied 
 upon necessity when he founded that celebrated tribunal 
 whose practices are denounced by you, but upon whose maxims 
 have a care lest you should unconsciously proceed. The 
 sophistications of intolerance are refuted by their inconsis- 
 tencies. If a Jew can choose, wherefore should he not be 
 chosen ? If a Jew can vote for a Christian, why should not a 
 Christian vote for a Jew ? Again, the Jew is admissible to the
 
 54 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 highest municipal employments ; a Jew can be High Sheriff— 
 in other words, he can empannel the jury by which the first 
 Christian Commoner in England may be tried for his life. 
 But if necessity is to be pleaded as a justification for the 
 exclusion of the Jew, it must be founded on some great peril 
 which would arise from his admission. What is it you fear? 
 What is the origin of this Hebrewphobia? Do you tremble 
 for the Church ? The Church has something perhaps to fear 
 from eight millions of Catholics, and from three millions of 
 Methodists, and more than a million of Scotch seceders. The 
 Church may have something to fear from the assault of 
 sectaries from without, and still more to fear from a sort of 
 spurious Popery, and the machinations of mitred mutiny from 
 within ; but from the Synagogue — the neutral, impartial, 
 apathetic, and unproselytising Synagogue — the Church has 
 nothing to apprehend. But it is said that the House will 
 become unchristianised. The Christianity of the Parlia- 
 ment depends on the Christianity of the country ; and the 
 Christianity of the country is fixed in the faith, and inseparably 
 intertwined with the affections of the people. It is as stable 
 as England herself, and as long as Parliament shall endure, 
 while the Constitution shall stand, until the great mirror of the 
 nation's mind, shall have been shattered to pieces, the religious 
 feelings of the country will be faithfully reflected here. This 
 is a security far better than can be supplied by a test which 
 presents a barrier to an honest Jew, but which a scornful 
 sceptic can so readily and so disdainfully overleap. 
 
 Reference has been made in the course of these discussions 
 to the author of " The I decline and Fall of the Roman Em- 
 pire." A name still more illustrious might have been cited. 
 Was not the famous St John — was not Bolingbroke, the fatally 
 accomplished, the admiration of the admirable, to whom 
 genius paid an almost idolatrous homage, and by whom a sort 
 of fascination was exercised over all those who had the mis- 
 fortune to approach him -was not the unhappy sceptic, by 
 Whom far more mischief to religion and morality must have
 
 R. L. Sheil on the Jewish Disabilities Bill. 55 
 
 been done than could be effected by half a hundred of the 
 men by whom the Old Testament is exclusively received, a 
 member of this House ? Was he stopped by the test that 
 arrests the Jew ; or did he not trample upon it and ascend 
 through this House to a sort of masterdom in England, 
 and become the confidential and favourite adviser of his 
 Sovereign ? He was not only an avowed and ostentatious 
 infidel, but he was swayed by a distempered and almost insane 
 solicitude for the dissemination of his disastrous disbelief. Is it 
 not then preposterous that a man by whom all revealed religion 
 is repudiated, who doubts the immortality of the soul, doubts 
 a future state of rewards and punishments, doubts in a super- 
 intending Providence, believes in nothing, fears nothing, and 
 hopes for nothing, without any incentive to virtue, and without 
 any restraint upon depravity excepting such as a sense of con- 
 ventional honour or the promptings of a natural goodness may 
 have given him — is it not, I say, preposterous, and almost 
 monstrous, that such a man, for whom a crown of deadly 
 nightshade should be woven, should be enabled, by playing 
 the imposture of a moment and uttering a valueless formula at 
 the table of the House, to climb to the pinnacle of power ; 
 and that you should slap the doors of this House with indig- 
 nity upon a conscientious man who adheres to the faith in 
 which he was born and bred ; who believes in the great facts 
 that constitute the foundation of Christianity ; who believes 
 in the perpetual existence of the nobler portion of our being ; 
 who believes in future retribution and in recompense to come ; 
 who believes that the world is taken care of by its almighty 
 and everlasting Author ; who believes in the mercy of God, 
 and practises humanity to man ; who fulfils the ten great in- 
 junctions in which all morality is comprised ; whose ear was 
 never deaf to the supplications of the suffering ; whose hand 
 is as open as day to charity ; and whose life presents an 
 exemplification of the precepts of the Gospel far more faithful 
 than that of many a man by whom, in the name of the Gospel, 
 his dishonouring and unchristian disabilities are most wantonly,
 
 56 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 most injuriously, and most opprobriously maintained? But 
 where in the Scripture — in what chapter, in what text, in what 
 single phrase — will you find an authority for resorting to the 
 infliction of temporal penalty, or of temporal privation of any 
 kind, as a means of propagating heavenly truth ? You may 
 find an authority, indeed, in the writings of jurists and of 
 divines, and in the stern theology of those austere and haughty 
 churchmen by whom the Pharisaical succession, far better 
 than the Apostolical, is personally and demonstratively proved. 
 But you will not find it in the New Testament ; you will not 
 find it in Matthew, nor in Mark, nor in Luke, nor in John, nor 
 in the epistles of the meek and humble men to whom the 
 teaching of all nations was given in charge ; above all, you 
 will not find in it anything that was ever said, or anything that 
 was ever done, or anything that was ever suffered, by the 
 Divine Author of the Christian religion, who spoke the Sermon 
 on the Mountain, who said that the merciful should be 
 blessed, and who, instead of ratifying the anathema which 
 the people of Jerusalem had invoked upon themselves, prayed 
 for forgiveness for those who knew not what they did, in 
 consummating the Sacrifice that was offered up for the trans- 
 gressions of the world. 
 
 It was not by persecution, but despite of it — despite of im- 
 prisonment, and exile, and spoliation, and shame, and death, 
 despite the dungeon, the wheel, the bed of steel, and the 
 couch of fire — that the Christian religion made its irresistible 
 and superhuman way. And is it not repugnant to common 
 reason, as well as to the elementary principles of Christianity 
 itself, to hold that it is to be maintained by means diametrically 
 the reverse of those by which it was propagated and diffused? 
 lint, alas! for our frail and fragile nature, no sooner had the 
 <>rs of Christianity become the co-partners of secular 
 authority than the severities were resorted to which their pcr- 
 ■ d predecessors had endured. The Jew was selected as 
 an object of special and peculiar infliction. The history O. 
 that most unhappy people is, for century after century, a trail
 
 R. L. Shell on the Jewish Disabilities Dill. 5 7 
 
 of chains and a track of blood. Men of mercy occasionally 
 arose to interpose in their behalf. St Bernard— the great St 
 Bernard, the last of the Latin Fathers — with a most pathetic 
 eloquence took their part. But the light that gleamed from 
 the ancient turrets of the Abbey of Clairvaux was transitory 
 and evanescent. New centuries of persecution followed ; the 
 Reformation did nothing for the Jew. The infallibility of 
 Geneva was sterner than the infallibility of Rome. But all of 
 us— Calvinists, Protestants, Catholics— all of us who have torn 
 the seamless garment into pieces, have sinned most fearfully 
 in this terrible regard. 
 
 It is, however, some consolation to know that in Roman 
 Catholic countries expiation of this guilt has commenced. In 
 France and in Belgium all civil distinction between the Pro- 
 testant and the Jew is at an end. To this Protestant country 
 a great example will not have been vainly given. There did 
 exist in England a vast mass of prejudice upon this question, 
 which is, however, rapidly giving way. London, the point of 
 Imperial centralisation, has made a noble manifestation of its 
 will. London has advisedly, deliberately, and with benevolence 
 aforethought, selected the most prominent member of the 
 Jewish community as its representative, and united him with 
 the first Minister of the Crown. Is the Parliament prepared 
 to fling back the Jew upon the people, in order that the people 
 should fling back the Jew upon the Parliament ? That will be 
 a dismal game, in the deprecation of whose folly and whose 
 evils the Christian and the statesman should concur. But not 
 only are the disabilities which it is the object of this measure 
 to repeal at variance with genuine Christianity, but I do not 
 hesitate to assert that they operate as impediments to the 
 conversion of the Jews, and are productive of consequences 
 directly the reverse of those for which they were originally 
 designed. Those disabilities are not sufficiently onerous to be 
 compulsory, but they are sufficiently vexatious to make con- 
 version a synonym lor apostacy, and to affix a stigma to an 
 interested conformity with the religion of the State. We have
 
 58 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 relieved the Jew from the ponderous mass of fetters that bound 
 him by the neck and by the feet; but the lines which we have left, 
 apparently light, are strong enough to attach him to his creed, 
 and make it a point of honour that he should not desert it. 
 
 There exists in this country a most laudable anxiety for 
 the conversion of the Jews. Meetings are held, and money 
 is largely subscribed for the purpose ; but all these creditable 
 endeavours will be ineffectual unless we make a restitution 
 of his birthright to every Englishman who professes the 
 Jewish religion. I know that there are those who think 
 that there is no such thing as an English, or a French, or a 
 Spanish Jew. A Jew is but a Jew ; his nationality, it is said, 
 is engrossed by the hand of recollection and of hope, and 
 the house of Jacob must remain for ever in a state of isolation 
 among the strange people by whom it is encompassed. In 
 answer to these sophistries I appeal to human nature. It 
 is not wonderful that when the Jew was oppressed, and 
 pillaged, and branded in a captivity worse than Babylonian, 
 he should have felt upon the banks of the Thames, or of the 
 Seine, or the Danube, as his forefathers felt by the waters of the 
 Euphrates, and that the psalm of exile should have found an 
 echo in his heart. This is not strange ; it would have been 
 strange if it had been otherwise; but justice — even partial 
 justice— has already operated a salutary change. 
 
 In the same measure in which we have relaxed the laws 
 against the Jews, that patriot instinct by which we are taught 
 to love the land of our birth has been revived. British feeling 
 has already taken root in the heart of the Jew, and for its 
 perfect development nothing but perfect justice is required. 
 To the fallacies of fanaticism give no heed. Emancipate the 
 Jew— from the Statute-book of England be the last remnant 
 of intolerance erased forever; abolish all civil discriminations 
 between the Christian and the Jew, fill his whole heart with 
 the < onsciousness of country. Do this, and we dan' be sworn 
 that he will think, and feel, and fear, and hope as you do; 
 his sorrow and his exultation will be the same ; at the tidings
 
 R. L. Sheil on the Jewish Disabilities Bill. 59 
 
 of English glory his heart will beat with a kindred palpitation, 
 and whenever there shall be need, in the defence of his 
 Sovereign and of his country, his best blood, at your bidding, 
 will be poured out with the same heroic prodigality as your 
 own.
 
 ALEXANDER COCKBURN 1 ON THE 
 GREEK DIFFICULTY. 
 
 House of Commons, June 28th, 1850. 
 
 [WHAT was known about this time as the celebrated " Don Pacifico Case " 
 originated as follows : — Don Pacifico, a Jew, of Portuguese extract inn, was 
 a native of Gibraltar, and therefore a British subject. He resided at 
 Athens, where it was a time-honoured custom to bum an effigy of Judas 
 Iscariot at Easter. The police prevented this celebration in 1847, where- 
 upon the mob, attributing the action to the influence of the Jews, wrecked 
 their resentment upon Don Pacifico. whose house stood close to the 
 spot annually chosen for the burning of Judas. His claim against the 
 Creek Government, side by side with that of Mr Finlay, being ignored, 
 the British Government took upon itself to redress the wrongs of its 
 subjects.] 
 
 I think, Sir, as I was personally and pointedly alluded to 
 in the course of the debate last night by the right hon. the 
 Member for the University of Oxford (Mr Gladstone), that 
 tin- House will not consider me presumptuous if I trespass for 
 a short time upon its patience. I am anxious, Sir, in the first 
 place, if the House will indulge me for a moment, to set 
 myself right with the right hon. gentleman. He was pleased, 
 in the course of his observations in the House last night, to 
 say that I had "sneered" at him. Now, I beg to assure the 
 right hon. gentleman and the House that nothing on earth was 
 further from my wishes or intentions than to show him the 
 slightest disrespect or discourtesy. The right hon. gentleman, 
 
 1 Afterwards Lord Chief-Justice of England.
 
 Alexander Cockbum on the Greek Difficulty. 6 1 
 
 with his accustomed talent, threw down the gauntlet on the 
 floor of this House, and challenged a reply from any hon. 
 member to the facts which he stated, or to the principles of 
 law which he then enunciated. I felt, Sir, at the time, as truly 
 and as fully convinced as I ever was of anything in my life, 
 that the right hon. gentleman's facts were totally inaccurate, 
 and that his law was utterly intolerable. I ventured, therefore, 
 to accept the challenge which he so threw out, and I meant 
 by my cheer on that occasion — a mode which I believe to be 
 a perfectly parliamentary one of expressing that sentiment — to 
 say that I was ready and anxious to accept the challenge of 
 the right hon. gentleman, and I am now prepared to answer 
 him, although I am fully conscious of the vast difference of 
 ability and disparity of power which exists between us; for 
 the right hon. gentleman, from his position, his high character, 
 and above all, his great abilities, is entitled to be treated with 
 the utmost respect by every member of this House. 
 
 Having thus put myself right with the right hon. gentleman, 
 I must take the liberty of saying this, that in all my experi- 
 ence I never heard such a series of misrepresentations and 
 mis-statements as those which were made by the right hon. 
 gentleman ; and I will undertake to prove this assertion, step 
 by step, and position by position, if the House will grant me 
 its indulgence and forbearance. I feel, however, the great 
 difficult} in which I am placed in entering upon this debate. 
 If I go into the details of the case for the purpose of showing 
 the fallacies, both in the statements and arguments of the 
 right hon. gentlemen, I shall be told, by and by, because I 
 have the misfortune of belonging to a legal profession, that it 
 was a nisi prius mode -of conducting my argument. I think, 
 however, that the manner in which the discussion of this 
 subject has been conducted, both in this House and in another 
 place, has given us abundant evidence that it is not those only 
 who practise in Westminster Hall who are possessed of the 
 power of arguing in nisi prius fashion. For of all the pettifog- 
 ging proceedings which I have ever known during my experi-
 
 62 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 ence, this is the worst. It was so commenced elsewhere, and 
 in the same spirit it has been conducted here. If hon. 
 gentlemen choose to introduce this subject to Parliament, and 
 make a grave accusation against Her Majesty's Government, 
 and then conduct it, not upon the great principles of natural 
 honour, but by raising questions of minute details and 
 technicalities, by grossly perverting facts and distorting 
 evidence, and by an utter misrepresentation of what were the 
 true principles that ought to govern this case, let them not be 
 astonished if those who belong to the legal profession, whose 
 habits are to criticise and investigate with logical strictness 
 every species of evidence, to minutely analyse facts as well as 
 study the broad principles of municipal and national law, stung 
 to the quick by the manifest injustice of this proceeding, 
 should rush into tfie discussion ; and above all, let not the 
 charge come from them, that the men having these acquire- 
 ments are treating the subject in a nisi prius spirit. 
 
 I am now speaking for the interest of my profession ; and I 
 must say that I never heard an observation more ungracious, 
 or made in worse taste, than that which fell from the right 
 hon. baronet the member for Ripon (Sir F. Graham), 
 following, as it did, on the admirable speech of my hon. 
 and learned friend, the member for Oxford (Mr William Page 
 Wood), than which, a more masterly analysis of facts, and a 
 more convincing speech in point of argument and of law, I 
 never heard. It certainly never was surpassed in this House 
 or in any other place. It altogether demolished the whole 
 case against the Government in all that respected Greece. 
 And yet, the right hon. baronet, because he found he was 
 unable to grapple with the arguments of my hon. and 
 learned friend, nor even tried to do so, said: "Oh, it is 
 not fair to deal with this great question upon such narrow 
 ground, or with refer* rice to the case of Greece alone — it is .ill 
 
 founded upon blue 1 1 . a pack of rubbish; mere nisi prius. 
 
 i ii. come to that which is the great issue to be decided 
 by the House, the foreign policy of the Government." Now,
 
 Alexander Cockburn on the Greek Difficulty. 6$ 
 
 that certainly strikes me as being a \ery odd position for 
 the right hon. baronet to take, when it is considered that 
 the verdict which has been passed by the other House of 
 Parliament against Her Majesty's Government, and in conse- 
 quence of which verdict they are requested to resign, proceeded 
 entirely, not upon the question of the general policy of the 
 Government, but exclusively and distinctly upon the line 
 pursued by them in respect of Greece. The right hon. 
 baronet then went into the whole of the foreign policy of the 
 country, leaving out of view the whole of the (keek case. 
 The right hon. baronet was followed by the right hon. 
 gentleman for South Wiltshire (Mr Sidney Herbert), and he 
 followed exactly in the same track, threw the Greek question 
 overboard, and took his stand upon the foreign policy of the 
 Government. Then came the right hon. gentleman the 
 member for the University of Oxford, whom I suppose, we are 
 now to consider as the representative of Lord Stanley in this 
 House : " Gladstone vice Disraeli," am I to say, resigned or 
 superseded ? 
 
 There are, therefore, two questions before the House. The 
 right hon. baronet, the member for Ripon, and the right 
 hon. member for South Wiltshire, boldly come forward 
 and take up the question of the whole foreign policy of the 
 Government ; while the right hon. gentleman the member 
 for the University of Oxford, arguing his case upon the nisi 
 prius style, takes his stand upon the Greek question only. 
 Which of these two different positions is the House to con- 
 sider? Is it the right hon. baronet the member for Ripon, 
 or that of the right hon. gentleman the member for the 
 University of Oxford ? It is a matter of perfect indifference 
 to me. I am prepared to go into both. But I must say this, 
 that I do not think, if you sever your cases for the prosecution, 
 if the hon. gentlemen will allow me to use so technical a 
 phrase, and shift the ground of your accusation from one point 
 to the other, I claim as a right that we may be fairly heard 
 upon both . And do not tell us when we meet you on the
 
 64 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 Greek case, that it is all mere nisi prius, but allow us to show 
 you what the facts are, and what the nature of your arguments, 
 and I will undertake to say that we will demolish your whole 
 case, nor leave you a leg to stand upon. 
 
 Her Majesty's Government have, it appears, interfered in the 
 affairs of Greece for the purpose of redressing certain wrongs 
 sustained by the subjects of this Empire ; and the point in 
 dispute is whether they were justified in the course which they 
 took upon that occasion. Now, as it is impossible to dispute 
 that in this instance the subjects of Her Majesty have sustained 
 wrong— a fact which no one has attempted to deny— they were 
 most unquestionably entitled to redress from the Government 
 of the country in which they happened to be at the time they 
 sustained such wrong ; but if the laws of that country where 
 the wrongs were perpetrated afforded no means of redress, they 
 became unquestionably entitled to redress from the Government 
 of that country ; and if the Government would not redress 
 those wrongs, it was not only the right, but the bounden duty 
 of the Government of this country to interfere on behalf of its 
 subjects, and to obtain redress for the wrongs which they had 
 suffered. I take it to be a fundamental principle in the policy 
 of nations that it is the right and duty of a State to protect its 
 subjects against injuries sustained at the hands of other States, 
 or subjects of such States. This has been the principle upon 
 which nations have acted in all ages. The noble Lord who 
 addressed the Mouse the other night (Lord Palmerston) referred 
 to the great principle that the Roman State never allowed a 
 Roman citizen to be injured. But what said the right hon. 
 member for the University of Oxford to that? He said that it 
 was because Rome exercised a universal dominion over the 
 world; because it considered a Roman citizen as superior to 
 the subjects of all Other Stales, and by its universal supremacy 
 and power was enabled to tyrannise over other countries, and 
 obtain redress for the wrongs sustained by its citizens even in 
 cases when they were not entitled to such redress. I dissent 
 from that position altogether. I say that it was not after the
 
 A lexander Cockburn on the Greek Difficulty. 65 
 
 Roman Empire had become established, and had obtained its 
 supremacy over the whole world, that that position was first 
 taken up by the Roman Stale. It was a principle upon which 
 it acted from the very earliest ages of the Empire, and therefore 
 it was that the great orator was entitled triumphantly to exclaim, 
 with all the noble pride and triumph of a Roman, " Quot bella 
 majores nostri suscepti erint, quot cives Rotnani injuria affecti 
 sunt, navicularii retcnti, wercatorcs spoliaii, esse dicerentur." It 
 was not only before they had established universal dominion 
 over the world that they adopted this principle, but it was at a 
 period of their history when they had to fight their battles for 
 empire with other States upon almost equal terms, that they 
 invariably asserted that first right and duty of a State to protect 
 its citizens, and to obtain redress for their wrongs, when they 
 sustained any at the hands of other States. That course, I take 
 it, was not unknown to this country either in one of the most 
 glorious periods of its history. What is it that, in spite of all 
 the dark shades that rest upon his character, has made the 
 memory of Cromwell illustrious ? What, but that he would 
 suffer no Englishman to be injured by any State or potentate, 
 no matter how great ? But, after all, can the proposition be 
 denied that the Government of a country is bound to obtain 
 redress for, and to afford protection to its citizens when injured ? 
 The right hon. gentleman the member for the University of 
 Oxford did not dispute that position ; but he qualified it by 
 saying that British subjects living in foreign States, and sustaining 
 any wrong there, either from the Government of the country or 
 any of the subjects of that State, are bound to have recourse to 
 the tribunals of the country for redress, and if redress can be 
 obtained from such tribunals, they are not to call upon the 
 country of which they are the subjects to interfere. I cheer- 
 fully assent to that proposition, and I will undertake to make 
 it perfectly manifest that in neither of the cases which have led 
 to the interference cf this country was there the slightest or 
 most remote probability — looking to the law of Greece, and the 
 condition of its tribunals — that any English subject, however
 
 66 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 injured, could succeed in obtaining redress from the tribunals 
 of that country. 
 
 Now I will take in the first place the case of Mr Finlay. I 
 do not intend to cite Blue-Books upon this subject — the whole 
 matter is capable of being placed before the House in a very 
 short and succinct form. Mr Finlay, it appears, was the 
 proprietor of some land in Athens. That gentleman, with 
 some other inhabitants at Athens, was anxious, when King 
 Otho was in possession of the actual sovereignty of Greece, to 
 induce the king to fix the seat of Government at Athens; and 
 accordingly, Mr Finlay, with those other inhabitants, presented 
 a memorial to the Government of Greece proposing to give or 
 sell the land which belonged to them to the Government upon 
 certain terms, in order that it might be made applicable for the 
 establishment of the necessary public buildings in Athens, with 
 the view of inducing the Government to fix it there. But they 
 coupled their offer of the land with these conditions, that the 
 land to be taken should be scheduled and set out within six 
 months from the time of taking possession of it. When the 
 Government came to Athens, the land of many of the individuals 
 which had been thus offered to the Government was taken. 
 Mr 1 inlay's land, however, was not so taken. The land 
 taken by the Greek Government of the other individuals was 
 paid for according to a price which the parties had agreed 
 upon; and it is easy to understand that the inhabitants of a city 
 like Athens, possessing property, and being desirous of bringing 
 the Government to Athens, should be perfectly willing to 
 dispose of a portion of their land at a lower rate, if by so doing 
 they could attain their object, as the existence of the Govern- 
 ment at Athens would have the effect of enhancing the value 
 of the remainder of their property. Mr Kinlay's land was 
 not, however, taken upon this ground ; it was taken some time 
 after by the arbitrary command of the King, without law or 
 ordinance, or without anything whatever which could give a 
 saiM tion to such a proceeding — nothing except the arbitrary and 
 absolute will of the Sovereign.
 
 Alexander Cockburn on the Greek Difficulty, 67 
 
 That is a matter of fact upon which I defy any man to 
 dispute. That being done, what was the consequence? Mr 
 Finlay's land was taken and converted into the palace garden 
 of the King. Mr Finlay applied for compensation in 1836; 
 and according to the statement of Sir Edmund Lyons — 
 who, I apprehend, notwithstanding the insinuations of the 
 right hon. gentleman the member for the University of 
 Oxford, is in every way worthy of credit — the proceedings of 
 Mr Finlay towards the Greek Government were characterised 
 by the most gentlemanly moderation and forbearance ; yet for 
 six long years (until 1842) Mr Finlay continued, from time to 
 time, to put forward kindly and temperately his demand for 
 compensation. Do you tell me that the delay arose from any 
 dispute as to the amount of compensation which should be 
 given to that gentleman ? He could not obtain even the 
 slightest answer to his communications. But in 1842, when 
 this injustice became too grievous to be patiently borne any 
 longer, Mr Finlay addressed the noble Lord who was at the 
 head of foreign affairs of this country — not the present Lord, 
 but the Earl of Aberdeen — who instructed Sir Edmund Lyons 
 to apply to the Greek Government, and to enforce by all means 
 in his power the legitimate demands of Mr Finlay. "What 
 was the result? After a great deal of difficulty and delay, the 
 King of Greece proposed to issue a Commission to inquire into 
 the claims of Mr Finlay. But of whom was it proposed that 
 the Commission should consist ? Of M. Glarakis and M. 
 Manitaki, the Minister of the Interior. One of these persons 
 was a most remarkable character ; and Sir Edward Codrington, 
 speaking of him in a public despatch, said that he was a man 
 who had made himself notorious by fostering and encourag- 
 ing pirates. The other was a mere creature of the King, and 
 would have acted if appointed on the part of the King. 
 
 Mr Finlay therefore objected to this Commission. Further 
 communications took place, and no redress could be obtained. 
 This was in 1845. Now a Commission thus constituted Mr 
 Finlay was justified in repudiating. He said very truly, "It
 
 68 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 is not an inspired tribunal ; I can place no confidence in it ; 
 I will have nothing to do with it, but will appeal to the 
 Government at home." He did so, and the present noble Lord, 
 then at the head of Foreign Affairs, having inquired into the 
 matter, a despatch was sent to Sir Edmund Lyons, instructing 
 him to enforce the claims of Mr Finlay. The King proposed 
 another Commission, which was appointed, and in the end, 
 after all these years of evasion, shuffling, quirks, and chicanery 
 of every description, it was agreed to refer the matter to arbi- 
 tration. At first the Greek Government had the assurance to 
 propose that it should have the nomination of the umpire ; but 
 being shamed out of this extravagant proposal, a proper umpire 
 was appointed. What was the next trick they resorted to? 
 Why, they delayed the production of the necessary documents 
 beyond the period of three months, within which period, by 
 the law of Greece, an arbitration must be concluded or it falls 
 to the ground. The right hon. gentleman (Mr Gladstone) 
 has stated that the delay had originated with Mr Finlay ; but 
 this is not so ; the Blue-Book proves directly the contrary. It 
 was the Government who asked for the delay. Now was this 
 fair of the right hon. gentleman ? Talk of nisi prii/s, indeed ! 
 At least lawyers hold this at nisi prius — that though they 
 may use sophistry to induce a jury or a court to adopt their 
 conclusions, it is a sacred duty not to mis-state facts. 
 
 Well, then, Mr Finlay could get no redress ; but the right 
 hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford says, 
 he might have gone to the tribunals of the country. The 
 tribunals of the country, indeed ! They say, "a little learning 
 is a dangerous thing"; but this is equally the case when 
 applied to law. The right hon. gentleman possesses every 
 quality which would have made a most brilliant advocate. He 
 has eloquence unlimited, subtlety unrivalled, casuistry un- 
 exampled; all he wants is a little knowledge of law. If he 
 had not been a greal statesman, he would have been a great 
 lawyer if he only would have condescended to put on the 
 wig and gown, and acquired a little knowledge of the very first
 
 Alexander Cockburn on Ike Greek Difficulty. 69 
 
 principles of law. I would advise him, if he would accept of 
 my humble advice, to confine himself to that science of which 
 he is so great a master — politics, and not to meddle with law. 
 The right hon. gentleman is ignorant of the fundamental 
 principle of law — that a subject cannot sue a Sovereign. 
 That is the rule in every country, with the exception of this. 
 And why is it not the law in England ? Simply because, by the 
 established usage and magnanimous practice of this country, 
 the Sovereign, upon the petition of a subject complaining of 
 a wrong sustained from the Crown, refers it to the first law 
 officer of the Crown, and indorses upon the petition the import- 
 ant and solemn words, " Let right be done." And upon that, 
 the Sovereign condescends to submit herself to an equality 
 with her subjects before the throne of law, and allow justice to 
 be administered between her and the meanest of her subjects 
 by the ordinary tribunals of the land. And, thank God ! that 
 we have tribunals, and that we have judges, who would 
 administer the law between the Sovereign and her subjects 
 with so much impartiality, with as even a hand, and with as un- 
 biassed a mind, as between any two ordinary persons. But is that 
 the case in Greece ? No ! I ask. then, what becomes of the 
 position that Mr Finlay could have appealed to the tribunals of 
 the country against the King of Greece? The King of Greece 
 is utterly irresponsible, not only politically, but civilly, to any 
 of his subjects, and you can only seek redress, if you have 
 sustained any injury, against the officers of State. In this case, 
 however, the officers of State were not responsible, because this 
 matter had occurred before the Constitution by which alone 
 even they became responsible, and were called into power. 
 With respect, therefore, to the claim of Mr Finlay, I think 
 that case is pretty well disposed of. 
 
 I now come to M. Pacifico, and I rejoice that we shall be 
 able to discuss that case on its merits, and not on the ground 
 of M. Pacifico being a Jew or a usurer, or, as it was ungener- 
 ously suggested, and when he could not defend himself, a 
 delinquent, who had committed an act of forgery. All these
 
 ■jo Modern Political Orations. 
 
 questions are utterly beside the one at issue. And here, sir, 
 let me say that I never felt stronger indignation than when 
 I read the observations, as to who and what M. Pacifico was 
 and is, which have been repeated over and over again in that 
 portion of the Press devoted to the interests of Russian 
 despotism, and which have been spoken over and over again 
 by certain Lords, who come forward either for their own behoof 
 or that of Continental tyrants. According to these authorities, 
 M. Pacifico is a species of Jew broker, a Jew usurer, a Jew 
 trafficker, a hybrid Jew. And then, sir, forsooth, we are told 
 in the same breath as that in which such phrases are employed, 
 that they are not used to prejudice the individual to whom they 
 are applied! For what purpose then, I ask, are they used? 
 Why, sir, even at nisi prius we should not stoop to such shabby 
 artifices as these. Even lawyers would not resort to such mean 
 and dirty acts as these; they would not think themselves 
 justified in saying that, on a man sustaining a civil wrong and 
 demanding justice, the question was to be tried by his char- 
 acter ; yet that has been done again and again to prejudice 
 this case. However, the right hon. gentleman, in taking 
 the place of those who had carried on this accusation against 
 the Government elsewhere, thought it necessary to protect 
 himself from being supposed to take any part in such acts as 
 these. But the right hon. gentleman has pursued the 
 course followed elsewhere of making the most of the abused 
 extravagance of M. l'acifico's demand. But I will show the 
 House that the amount of compensation claimed has nothing 
 to do with the question, and for this simple reason, it never 
 was a matter of dispute with the Creek Government. The 
 objection which the Greek Government took was to the 
 principle of the demand, not to its amount. The dispute 
 er advanced as far as to have anything to do with the 
 amount. 
 
 for the wrongs inflicted on M. Pacifico, I need not dwell 
 upon them. They are known to all the world. The man was 
 outraged in his person, in his family, and in his property. The
 
 Alexander Cockbum on the Greek Difficulty. 7 1 
 
 question then is — Was he entitled to redress? He may 
 be a Jew, a broker, a usurer, a hybrid Jew — he may 
 have committed an act of forgery. It is possible — although 
 God forbid that I should believe such a charge against 
 any man without the opportunity of answering it ! — he may 
 have been a forger; it did not lie in the mouth of the 
 Portuguese Government to say so, after having appointed him 
 consul — first at Morocco, and then at Athens ; but for all that 
 he was injured, and therefore entitled to redress. Now, what 
 are the known facts as to his position? He had been living 
 at Athens for many years in comfort and respectability — a 
 substantial citizen, carrying on his business with the Greek 
 people. Well, he was grievously injured. The right hon. 
 gentleman said he ought to have gone before the Greek 
 tribunals. What tribunals ? He did go before one. He tried 
 to proceed in a Criminal Court — with what success we know. 
 A crime had been committed in the broad daylight, at noon, 
 in the midst of Athens. The perpetrators were seen and well 
 known. They were denounced to the police ; and the police, 
 in reply, contended that there was no evidence to fix their 
 identity, and so let them loose again. So much for the 
 honour and honesty of Greek tribunals. But the right hon. 
 gentleman says, why did he not go before a civil tribunal? 
 Why did he not sue the rioters for damages ? Good God ! 
 Is it possible that the right hon. gentleman can be in 
 earnest ? Does he really consider us so weak, so fallible, as to 
 be likely to swallow an obvious, a palpable, or gross absurdity 
 such as that ? What ! seek for compensation from a mob — 
 from a rabble of brigands, vagabonds and ruffians, in rags and 
 tatters, who wrecked his house and stole his furniture ? Is he 
 to proceed for damages against such a horde as this? Let 
 me ask the House — let me ask the right hon. gentleman this 
 question : Suppose that, in some time of trouble and popular 
 excitement, a mob were to sack his house, as the mob sacked 
 M. Pacifico's, would he bring an action against each and every 
 member of that mob ? We have had instances of such riots
 
 7 '2 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 taking place, I think. Nottingham Castle was destroyed. It 
 belonged to the Duke of Newcastle. Did he prosecute the 
 mob for damages ? The Marquis of Londonderry's house in 
 St James' Square was attacked and damaged. Did he prosecute 
 the mob for damages? The palace of the Bishop at Bristol 
 was burnt down, and property to a great extent destroyed. 
 Did he prosecute the mob for damages ? No ; you don't 
 proceed against paupers. There is nothing to be got out of 
 them. 
 
 Observe the difference between Greece and this country. 
 England, with wiser legislation, proceeding on the principle that 
 for injuries done in times of tumult, it is idle to leave the 
 people to a remedy by civil action against the parties com- 
 miting them, provides this wise regulation : that in the case of 
 such injuries the local community, the hundred, should be 
 responsible for the property which has been demolished. If, 
 however, the property fall under a certain category for which 
 the hundred is not liable, the Government is nevertheless bound 
 to make the loss good, so that no owner of property need 
 suffer from the lawless violence of mobs, which it is the business 
 of the executive to keep in order. 1 If, then, this state of things 
 had existed in Athens — if M. Pacifico could have claimed 
 redress from the Greek tribunals, he was no doubt bound to 
 go there. But I say he could not. It is idle to assert that he 
 could. The right hon. gentleman tells us that there are courts 
 of law in Greece, that there is a regular bar there, always ready 
 to undertake the case of anybody applying to them. Is there? 
 Stop a minute. M. Pacifico having been attacked a second 
 time, and having made his complaint, the noble Lord at the 
 ! of tin Foreign Office instructed Sir Edmund Lyons to 
 institute a prosecution against the parties who had committed 
 the outrage. What was the result ? The offending parties had 
 actually been apprehended, when M. Pacifico was told that he 
 
 1 A modern instance of the working <>f iliis principle «ms the compensa- 
 b] th( G ni to the sufferers by the Socialist Riots in 
 
 Ihe West-end • >! London in I ebruary, ii>So.
 
 Alexander Cockburn on t/ie Greek Difficulty. 7 
 
 •7 
 
 could not get a lawyer to bring his case on, and that such was 
 the strict compulsion under which the Courts were kept, that 
 they did not dare to place themselves in opposition to the 
 Prime Minister of the country. 
 
 But, says the right hon. gentleman, the judges at Athens 
 administer justice impartially and fairly. There is a court 
 called the Areopagus, and its judges are perfectly free to 
 act according to the dictates of their conscience. Let me 
 tell the right hon. gentleman that he never laboured under 
 a more complete mistake. The Constitution undoubtedly 
 provides that the judges shall not be dismissed at the King's 
 pleasure; but they are so dismissed every day. And not only 
 that, but the Greek Government have established this system — 
 and it shows their Greek subtlety, as they have a number of 
 courts of equal jurisdiction and authority — they transplant the 
 judges from one to the other, as the purpose of each case may 
 seem to require. When a particular case which the Govern- 
 ment is interested in bringing to a particular decision occurs in 
 a court, why then they transplant the judge on whom they can 
 depend into that court. Let me cite an instance. An action 
 was brought by M. Piscatori, the French Ambassador at 
 Athens, against the editor of a newspaper published there — the 
 Athena. This was in 1846. M. Piscatori was, of course, all- 
 powerful with the Government. Well, the sentence was against 
 the editor. Two of the judges pronounced for his acquittal ; 
 three for his condemnation. One of the former, called, I 
 believe, Disachi, was summarily dismissed, in the following 
 curt terms : "The King has been pleased to remove you from 
 the bench." Well, the editor appealed to the Court of the 
 Areopagus, and on the eve of his case coming on, two of his 
 judges who were to be were suddenly dismissed, without any 
 reason whatever being assigned. I have these facts from 
 authority upon which I can implicitly rely, and for their exact 
 truth I pledge myself to the House. Again, there was a 
 president of the Court of the Areopagus called Cleonares. He 
 was dismissed upon the instant, without any reason assigned,
 
 74 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 but for causes of which no one who has listened to what I 
 have stated can for a moment doubt. 
 
 And after this you tell me that the Greek tribunals are pure. 
 " Oh, but," says the right hon. gentleman, " I produce Sir 
 Edmund Lyons to prove my case. He says that the Press is 
 free, and the tribunals are fair and independent." True; Sir 
 Edmund Lyons says so; but when? Sir, the reference to Sir 
 Edmund Lyons shows that there are other texts besides those 
 
 of Scripture which the which certain persons can quote for 
 
 their own purposes. The despatch in question was written in 
 1836, and under what circumstances? King Otho having 
 been advised by his father, as young gentlemen who have lived 
 too fast and extravagantly sometimes are, to go and travel, and 
 look out for a wife — of course, a rich one — obeyed the paternal 
 injunction, and left his kingdom under the charge of Count 
 Armansperg, who took advantage of the absence of his royal 
 master to set matters a little to rights. Well, he began by 
 reforming the tribunals, by making them independent. He set 
 the Tress free — he established provincial councils, so as to 
 give the people some sort of means of expressing their opinions 
 on public matters — in short, he set the kingdom so far to 
 rights, hoping, of course that upon the return of his royal 
 master he would reap the reward of his merits in a rich over- 
 flow of royal favours. Notice, however, of what Count Arman- 
 sperg had been doing had, it seems, been conveyed to King 
 Otho, who straightway returned in alarm, and before the boat 
 which conveyed him from the ship touched the soil of Greece, 
 Count Armansperg was ignominiously dismissed. Arbitrary 
 dominion resumed its tyrannical rule— injustice, oppression, 
 and wrong were re-established in their old supremacy; and 
 such is the system which has ruled supreme in Greece ever 
 since. 
 
 Well, to proceed. The right hon. gentleman dwelt last night 
 on the case ol the man Sumachi, who was tortured; and he set 
 out by saying that lie did not believe Sumachi's statement, 
 and that Sir Edmund Lyons was just the man ready to receive
 
 Alexander Cockbum on the Greek Difficulty. 75 
 
 and record any unauthenticated case bearing against the Greek 
 Government. Sir, I say that Sir Edmund Lyons is a man who, 
 after eight or nine years' service as Minister of Athens, re- 
 ceived, as a token of his Sovereign's approbation, the Grand 
 Cross of the Bath ; and I hope that a gentleman who has been 
 thus specially and highly honoured is at least entitled to have 
 his official assertions believed — at all events until the contrary 
 shall have been shown. But is this case of Sumachi a single 
 instance ? No. Torture has over and over again been applied 
 in Greece. Torture, I repeat, is commonly applied in Greece. 
 I can prove innumerable instances of it. One is so disgusting 
 that I cannot mention it; yet I ought to mention it — I will 
 mention it. I feel that it ought to be told, that we may at least 
 know what these people, of whom so much has been said, 
 really are. How do they torture vfomen ? They attach cats 
 to their naked persons, and then flog the animals, that in their 
 furious struggles they may lacerate the flesh to which they are 
 tied. Another species of torture is this : a man is tied, hands, 
 feet, and head together, and in this position flung upon the 
 ground and bastinadoed. And still, Sir, the right hon. gentle- 
 man is right — perfectly right — in saying that all such atrocities 
 are forbidden by the Constitution of Greece. But what is the 
 value of that Constitution ? I say, Sir, not so much as that 
 of the paper on which it is written. It has been set aside — 
 violated, outraged in every respect and in every way. It exists 
 but in name ; while oppression and corruption reign in un- 
 mitigated horror in its room. 
 
 And now, Sir, I dismiss the right hon. gentleman and his 
 Greek arguments. I trust I have given him and them satis- 
 factory answers. Transcendent as are the abilities of the right 
 hon. gentleman, I believe that even his talents will not support 
 a case when truth is in the other scale. But truth, if it does 
 not prevail here, will prevail elsewhere. The country is begin- 
 ning to appreciate what is the truth in this question. The 
 country will fully appreciate, too, the motives which induce 
 you, after four years of silence, now at length to come forward
 
 j6 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 and attack the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Affairs of 
 this country. But whatever may be the result here, I tell you 
 that the people of England will only rally the more heartily 
 around that Government which stands pledged to extend the 
 safeguard of its power to all its subjects, in whatever land their 
 business may have led them; and which is also able and willing, 
 if on any occasion it may be too late to interfere for the pur- 
 poses of protection, at all events to stand forward and to 
 demand from them reparation and redress.
 
 SIR BULWER LYTTON 1 ON THE 
 CRIMEAN WAR. 
 
 House of Commons, June 4TH, 1855. 
 
 [During a six nights' debate on the crisis in the Crimean War, it was 
 seriously recommended to conclude a peace with Russia on terms which, 
 in ihe opinion of many politicians, did not satisfy the honour of England. 
 Sir E. B. Lytton spoke on the third night.] 
 
 Sir, — The right hon. gentleman the member for Manchester 
 (Mr Milner Gibson), towards the close of his able speech, 
 summed up his strongest objections to the continuance of the 
 war by asking how it would profit the country. In answer to 
 that question, let me remind the right hon. gentleman of the 
 laudable earnestness with which, in a recent debate, he assured 
 the House that he, and those with whom he concurred in the 
 policy to be adopted for the restoration of peace, were no less 
 anxious than we are for the due maintenance of the national 
 honour. I cordially believe him ; and when he asks how the 
 continuance of the war can profit the country, I answer, because 
 the continuance of the war is as yet essential to the vindication 
 of the national honour, and because the national honour is the 
 bulwark of the national interests. For there is this distinction 
 between individuals and nations : with the first a jealous 
 tenacity of honour mayjje a mere sentiment, with the last it is a 
 condition of power. If you lower the honour of a man in the 
 eyes of his equals, he may still say, " My fortune is net attacked, 
 
 1 Afterwards Baron Lytton.
 
 78 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 my estate is unimpaired, the laws still protect my rights and my 
 person, I can still command my independence and bestow my 
 beneficence upon those who require my aid ; " but if you lower 
 the honour of a nation in the eyes of other States, and espe- 
 cially a nation like England, which owes her position, not to 
 her territories, but to her character ; not to the amount of her 
 armies, nor even to the pomp of her fleets, but to a general 
 belief in her high spirit and indomitable will — her interests will 
 1 >e damaged in proportion to the disparagement of her name. 
 You do not only deface her scutcheons, you strike down her 
 shield. Her credit will be affected, her commerce will suffer 
 at its source. Take the awe from her flag, and you take the 
 wealth from her merchants ; in future negotiations her claims 
 will be disputed, and she can never again interfere with effect 
 against violence and wrong in behalf of liberty and right. 
 These are some of the consequences which might affect the 
 interests of this country, if other nations could say, even 
 unjustly, that England had grown unmindful of her honour. 
 But would they not say it with indisputable justice if, after 
 encouraging Turkey to a war with her most powerful enemy, 
 we could accept any terms of peace which Turkey herself 
 indignantly refuses to endorse? Honour, indeed, is a word on 
 which many interpreters may differ, but at least all interpreters 
 must agree upon this, that the essential of honour is fidelity to 
 engagements. What are the engagements by which we have 
 pledged ourselves to Turkey ? Freedom from the aggressions 
 of Russia. Is that all? No; reasonable guarantees that the 
 aggressions shall not be renewed. But would any subject 
 oi tin < Htoman Empire think such engagements fulfilled by a 
 peace that would not take from Russia a single one of her 
 fortresses, a single one of her ships, by which she now holds 
 Constantinople itself under the very mouth of her cannon? 
 
 Sir, both the members for Manchester have the merit of con- 
 sist* m y in the < .ins,- ill. v espouse. They were against this war 
 from the first. Bui I cannot conceive how any Government 
 which led us into this war, and is responsible for all it has
 
 Sir Bulwer Lytton on the Crimean War. 79 
 
 cost us, should now suddenly adopt the language of Peace 
 Societies, and hold it as a crime if we push to success the 
 enterprise which they commenced by a failure. I approach 
 the arguments of the right hon. member for the University 
 of Oxford (Mr Gladstone), with a profound respect for his rare 
 intellect and eloquence, and still more for that genuine earnest- 
 ness which assures us that, if he ever does diverge into sophistry 
 and paradox, it is not till he has religiously puzzled his con- 
 science into a belief of their simplicity and truth. The main 
 argument on which the right hon. gentleman rests the vindica- 
 tion of the views he entertains is this : He says, " I supported 
 the war at the commencement, because then it was just ; I 
 would now close the war, because its object may be attained 
 by negotiation." That is his proposition ; I would state it 
 fairly. But what at the commencement was the object of 
 the war, stripped of all diplomatic technicalities ? The right 
 hon. gentleman would not, I am sure, accept the definition 
 of his ex-colleague, the right hon. member for Southwark 
 (Sir Wm. Molesworth), that one object of the war was to 
 punish Russia for her insolence — a doctrine I would never have 
 expected in so accomplished a philosopher as my right hon. 
 friend, the pupil of Bentham and the editor of Hobbes. Either 
 in war or legislation, punishment is only a means which has 
 for its object the prevention of further crime. The right hon. 
 gentleman the member for the University of Oxford will no 
 doubt say to me, the object was the independence and integrity 
 of the Ottoman Empire. But how did he describe that object 
 in his speech at Manchester in September 1853? He said 
 then to that important audience (I quote his very words) : 
 
 " Remember the independence and integrity of Turkey are not like the 
 independence of England and France. It is a Government full of anomaly, 
 of difficulty, and distress." 
 
 This is the mode in which, simultaneously with those articles 
 in the Times, quoted by the right hon. member for Manchester 
 (Mr Gibson), on the very eve of a war that the right hon. mem- 
 ber for the University of Oxford then believed to be just and
 
 8o Modern Political Orations. 
 
 when he would naturally place the object in the most favour- 
 able light his convictions would permit, before the people whose 
 ardour it became his duty to rouse, whose pockets it was his 
 office to tax — this is the laudatory mode in which the right 
 hon. gentleman warmed the enthusiasm of his listeners to 
 acknowledge the justice of his object ; and is the statesman who 
 at the onset could take so chilling a view of all the great human 
 interests involved in this struggle, likely to offer us unprejudiced 
 and effective counsels for securing to Turkey that independence 
 and integrity in which he sees anomaly and distress, and in 
 which we see the safeguard to Europe? 
 
 The right hon. gentleman complains that the terms in which 
 our object is to be sought are now unwisely extended. Mho 
 taught us to extend them ? Who made not only the terms 
 but the object itself indefinite? Was it not the head of the 
 Government of which the right hon. gentleman was so illus- 
 trious a member? Did not Lord Aberdeen, when repeatedly 
 urged to state to what terms of peace he would apply the 
 epithets "safe" and "honourable," as repeatedly answer, 
 "That must depend on the fortune of war; and the terms will 
 be very different if we receive them at Constantinople, or im- 
 pose them at St Petersburg"? Sir, if I may say so without 
 presumption, I always discourage that language. I always held 
 the doctrine that if we once went to war, it should be for 
 nothing more and nothing less than justice. [Mr M. Gibson. — 
 " Hear, hear ! " Ay, but do not let me dishonestly catch that 
 cheer, for I must add, and also for adequate securities that 
 justice will be maintained. No redresses should induce us to 
 ask for less — no conquests justify us in demanding more. But 
 when the right hon. gentleman, being out of office, now also 
 its that doctrine, why did he not refuse his sanction to the 
 noble Earl, who took the whole question out of the strict limits 
 of abstract justice the moment he made the indefinite arbi- 
 tration of military success the only principle to guide us in the 
 objects and terms of peace ? And if the right hon. gentleman 
 li^idly desiied to limit our war to one of protection, how could
 
 Sir Bulwer Lytton on the Crimean War. 81 
 
 he have consented to sit in a Cabinet which at once changed 
 its whole character into a war of invasion ? All the compli- 
 cations which now surround us — all the difficulties in the way 
 of negotiation which now perplex even the right hon. gentle- 
 man's piercing intellect— date from the day you landed in the 
 Crimea and laid siege to Sebastopol. I do not say your 
 strategy was wrong ; but wrong or right, when you invaded the 
 Crimea you inevitably altered the conditions on which to 
 establish peace. The right hon. gentleman was a party to that 
 campaign, and he cannot now shrink from its logical conse- 
 quences. Those consequences are the difficulties comprehended 
 in the Third Article— the lie that your policy would give to 
 your actions if you accepted the conditions proposed by 
 Russia ; for why did you besiege Sebastopol, but because it 
 was that fortress which secured to Russia her preponderance 
 in the Black Sea, and its capture or dismantlement was the 
 material guarantee you then and there pledged yourselves to 
 obtain for the independence of Turkey and the security of 
 Europe ? And if the fortunes of war do not allow you yet to 
 demand that Sebastopol be disfortified, they do authorise you 
 to demand an equivalent in Russia's complete resignation of a 
 fleet in the Black Sea ; for at this moment not one Russian 
 ship can venture to show itself in those waters. 
 
 If the right hon. gentleman is perplexed to determine what 
 mode of limiting the Russian preponderance can be invented, 
 one rule for his guidance at least he is bound to consider 
 imperative— namely, that the mode of limitation must be one 
 which shall not content England alone, but the ally to whom 
 the faith of England was pledged by the Cabinet which the 
 right hon. gentleman adorned. It is strange to what double 
 uses the right hon. gentleman can put an ally. When we 
 wished to inquire into the causes of calamities purely our own 
 — calamities which the right hon. gentleman thinks were so 
 exaggerated — an exaggeration that inquiry has not served to 
 dispel — then we are told, " What are you doing ? Take care ! 
 To inquire into the fate of an English army may offend and
 
 82 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 alienate your ally, France." But now, when the right hon. 
 gentleman would have desired us to patch up a peace, he for- 
 gets altogether that we have an ally upon the face of the globe. 
 He recommends us singly to creep out of the quarrel with 
 Russia, and would leave us equally exposed to the charge of 
 desertion by Turkey, and of perfidy by France. But it has 
 been insinuated — I know not on what authority — that France 
 would have listened to these terms if we had advised it. If 
 this be true, I thank our Government for declining such a 
 responsibility. For if, in that noble courtesy which has charac- 
 terised the Emperor of the French in his intercourse with us, 
 he had yielded to your instances, and consented to resume and 
 complete negotiations based upon terms he had before refused, 
 who amongst us can lay his hand on his heart and say that a 
 peace which would have roused the indignation even of our 
 commercial and comparatively pacific people, might not so have 
 mortified the pride of that nation of soldiers to which the 
 name of Napoleon was the title-deed to empire, as to have 
 shaken the stability of a throne which now seems essential to 
 the safety and social order of the civilised globe ? " Oh," says 
 the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of 
 Oxford, with a solecism in logic which I could never have 
 expected from so acute a reasoner, " see how Russia has 
 come down to terms which she before so contemptuously 
 scouted. In February 1853 she declared such and such 
 terms were incompatible with her honour ; she would dictate 
 terms to Turkey only at St Petersburg, under the frown of the 
 Czar, or at the headquarters of the Russian camp ; and now 
 see how mild and equitable Russia has become." Yes ; but 
 how was that change effected ? By diplomacy and negotiations ? 
 By notes and protocols? No — these had been tried in vain; 
 the result of these was the levying of armaments — the seizure 
 of provinces — the massacre of Sinope. That change was 
 effected by the sword — effected in those fields of Alma and 
 [nkerman to which the right hon. gentleman so touchingly 
 appealed— effected by those military successes inspired by the
 
 Sir Bulwer Lytton on the Crimean War. $3 
 
 passion for fame and glory on which, as principles of action, 
 his humanity is so bitterly sarcastic. The right hon. gentleman 
 dwelt in a Christian spirit, which moved us all, on the gallant 
 blood that had been shed by us, our allies, and even by our 
 foes in this unhappy quarrel. But did it never occur to him that, 
 all the while he was speaking, this question was irresistibly 
 forcing itself on the minds of his English auditnee : " And 
 shall all this blood have been shed in vain ? Was it merely to 
 fertilise the soil of the Crimea with human bones? And shall 
 we, who have buried two-thirds of our army, still leave a 
 fortress at Sebastopol and a Russian fleet in the Black Sea, 
 eternally to menace the independence of that ally whom our 
 heroes have perished to protect ? " And would not that blood 
 have been shed in vain ? Talk of recent negotiations effecting 
 the object for which you commenced the war ! Let us strip 
 those negotiations of diplomatic quibbles, and look at them 
 like men of common sense. Do not let gentlemen be alarmed 
 lest I should weary them with going at length over such 
 hackneyed ground — two minutes will suffice. 
 / The direct question involved is to terminate the preponder- 
 ance of Russia in the Black Sea ; and with this is involved 
 another question — to put an end to the probabilities of 
 renewed war arising out of the position which Russia would 
 henceforth occupy in those waters. /Now the first proposition 
 of Russia is to open to all ships the passage of the Bosphorus 
 and the Dardanelles. "That is the right thing," says the 
 right hon. member for Manchester. Yes ; so it would be if 
 Russia had not the whole of that coast bristling with fortresses ; 
 but while these fortresses remain it is simply to say — Let 
 Russia increase as she pleases the maritime forces she can 
 direct against Turkey, sheltered by all the strongholds 
 she has established on the coasts, and let France and England 
 keep up, if they please, the perpetual surveillance of naval 
 squadrons in a sea, as the note of a French minister well 
 expresses it, "where they could find neither a port of refuge 
 nor an arsenal of supply." This does not, on the one hand,
 
 84 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 diminish the preponderance of Russia ; it only says you may, 
 at great expense, and with great disadvantages, keep standing 
 navies to guard against its abuse ; and on the other hand, 
 far from putting an end to the probabilities of war, it leaves 
 the fleets of Russia perpetually threatening Turkey, and the 
 fleets of England and France perpetually threatening Russia. 
 And while such a position could hardly fail sooner or later to 
 create jealousy between England and France, I can scarcely 
 imagine any disease that would more rot away the independ- 
 ence of Turkey than this sort of chronic protection established 
 in her own waters. 
 
 The second proposition, which retains the mare clausitm, 
 not only leaves the preponderance of Russia exactly what it 
 was before the war began, but in granting to the Sultan the 
 power to summon his allies at any moment he may require 
 them, exposes you to the fresh outbreak of hostilities whenever 
 the Sultan might even needlessly take alarm ; but with these 
 differences between your present and future position — first, 
 that Russia would then be strengthened, and you might be 
 unprepared ; and next, that while, as I said before, now not one 
 Russian flag can show itself on those waters, you might then, 
 before you could enter the Straits, find that flag waving in 
 triumph over the walls of the Seraglio. And, to prove that 
 this is no imaginary danger, just hear what is said upon the 
 subject by the practical authority of Marshal Marmont, which 
 was loosely referred to the other night by the noble Lord the 
 member for London (Lord John Russell), and remember the 
 Marshal is speaking at a period when the force of Russia in 
 those parts was far inferior to what it would be now if you 
 acceded to her terms : " At Sebastopol, Russia has twelve sail 
 of the line, perfectly armed and equipped." Let me here 
 observe that trie Marshal recommends that this number should 
 be increased to thirty, and says that if Sebastopol were made 
 the harbour of a powerful navy, nothing could prevent Russia 
 from imposing laws on the Mediterranean — 
 
 "In the immediate neighbourhood a division of the army is cantoned; 
 lid embark in tw> days, and in three more reach Constantinople — the
 
 Sir Bulwer Lytton on the Crimean War. 85 
 
 distance between Sevastopol and the TSosphorus being 180 miles, and a 
 speedy passage almost a matter of certainty, owing to ihe prevalence of 
 northerly winds, and the constant current from the Euxine inwards the Sea 
 of Marmora. Thus, on the apprehension of interference from the allied 
 fleet, that of Russia would pass and take up such a position as circum- 
 stances might dictate, while an army of 60,000 men would cross the 
 Danube, pass the Balkan, and place itself at Adrianople ; these movements 
 being effected with such promptitude and facility that no circumstances 
 whatever could prevent their being carried into execution." 
 
 And now I put it to the candour of those distinguished 
 advocates for the Russian proposals, whose sincerity I am 
 sure is worthy of their character and talents, whether the 
 obvious result of both these propositions for peace is not to 
 keep your Powers in the unrelaxing attitude of war — one of 
 those Powers always goaded on by cupidity and ambition, the 
 other three always agitated by jealousy and suspicion ? And 
 is it on such a barrel of gunpowder as this that you would ask 
 the world to fall asleep ? Put, say the hon. gentlemen, " The 
 demand of the Western Powers on the Third Article is equally 
 inadequate to effect the object." Well, I think there they 
 have very much proved their case — very much proved how 
 fortunate it was that negotiations were broken off. However, 
 when a third point is to be raised again let us clear it of 
 all difficulties, and raise it not in a Congress of Vienna but 
 within the walls of Sebastopol. 
 
 Sir, before I pass from this part of the subject, let me respect- 
 fully address one suggestion to those earnest and distinguished 
 reasoners who would make peace their paramount object. 
 You desire peace as soon as possible ; do you think you take 
 the right way to obtain it? Do you think that when Russia 
 can say : " Here are members of the very Government who 
 commenced the war declaring that our moderation has removed 
 all ground for further hostilities ; they are backed by the most 
 conspicuous leaders of the popular party ; the representatives 
 of those great manufacturing interests which so often influence, 
 and sometimes control, the councils of a commercial State ; " 
 do you think that Russia will not add also : " These are 
 signs that encourage us, the Russian Empire, to prosecute the
 
 86 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 war; they are signs that our enemy foresees the speedy 
 exhaustion of its means, the relaxing ardour of its people, and 
 must, after some bravado, accept the terms which are recom- 
 mended in the National Assembly by experienced statesmen 
 and popular tribunes " ? You are leading Russia to deceive 
 herself, to deceive her subjects. You are encouraging her to 
 hold out, and every speech you make in such a strain a Russian 
 general might read to his troops, a Russian minister might 
 translate to trembling merchants and beggared nobles, if he 
 desired to animate them all to new exertions against your 
 country. I do not wish to malign and misrepresent you. I 
 respect the courage with which you avow unpopular opinions. 
 I know you are patriots as sincere as we are. You have proved 
 your attachment to the abstract principle of freedom ; but do 
 you reflect whether you make a right exercise of your powers 
 if, when we are sending our sons and kinsmen to assist a cause 
 which would at least secure weakness from oppression, and 
 the free development of one nation from the brute force of 
 another, ycu take the part of the enemy against your country? 
 [Mr M. Gibson.—" No, no ! "] " No, no ?" What means that 
 denial ? You take part with the enemy when you say he is in 
 the right, and against your country when you say we are in the 
 wrong. You transfer from our cause to his that consciousness 
 of superior justice, which gives ardour to the lukewarm, endur- 
 ance to the hesitating, and by vindicating his quarrel you 
 invigorate his arms. 
 
 If I now turn to the Amendments before the House, I know 
 not one that I can thoroughly approve; not, of course, that 
 by the hon. member for the University of Oxford (Sir Wm. 
 Heathcote), not that of the hon. member for Kidderminster 
 (Mr Robert Lowe); fori feel no regret that Russia should 
 not have terminated hostilities by accepting proposals inade- 
 quate in my judgment to secure our object ; while I think 
 it scarcely consistent with the prerogative of the Crown, and 
 might furnish a dangerous precedenl hereafter, if we were to 
 contest the right of Her Majesty to judge for herself whether
 
 Sir Bulwer Lytton on the Crimean War. 87 
 
 the means of peace on the basis of the Third Negotiation 
 are exhausted or not. The Amendment of the right hon. 
 member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) would have been more 
 complimentary to the quarter whence he stole it if he had not 
 added the crime of murder to that of theft. He takes an infant 
 from the paternal cradle, cuts it in half, and the head which he 
 presents to us has no longer a leg to stand upon. The original 
 motion of my right hon. friend the member for Bucking- 
 hamshire (Mr Disraeli), in censuring the Government for 
 ambiguous language and uncertain conduct, gave a substantial 
 reason for conveying to Her Majesty that we, at least, would 
 support her in the conduct of war. Omit that censure — imply 
 by your silence that there is no reason to distrust Her Majesty's 
 responsible advisers — and the rest of the Resolution becomes 
 an unmeaning platitude. It is with great satisfaction that I 
 think of the effect produced by the original motion of my 
 right hon. friend ; for to my mind that effect atones for its 
 want of success in meeting with the sanction of the House. 
 It has not, it is true, changed the Government, but it assuredly 
 has changed its tone. I do not know whether that change will 
 be lasting, but I hope that we are not to take, as a test of the 
 earnestness of a Government thus suddenly galvanised into 
 vigour, the speech of the noble Lord the member for London 
 (Lord John Russell), which, before the division, implied so 
 much, but which, after the division, was explained away in so 
 remarkable a manner. I rejoice that, in wringing direct declara- 
 tions from the Government, it leaves us free to discuss that 
 which is before us, not as Englishmen against Englishmen, but 
 as citizens of one common State equally interested in surveying 
 the grounds of a common danger. 
 
 Much reference has been made, in the course of this debate, 
 as to the position of Austria. The mediation of Austria is 
 withdrawn for the present, but Austria is still there, always 
 ready to mediate as long as she hesitates to act. It is well to 
 consider what may be our position with regard to a Power 
 with which we have constantly been brought into contact.
 
 88 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 I cannot too earnestly entreat you to distinguish with Austria 
 and the alliance with Austria. I think it is of the utmost 
 importance, if you would confine this war within compact and 
 definite limits, that you should maintain friendly terms with a 
 Power which, as long as it is neutral, if it cannot serve does 
 not harm you, and which you could not seriously injure 
 without casting out of the balance of Europe one of the 
 weights most necessary to the equilibrium of the scales. It 
 is easy to threaten Austria with the dismemberment of her 
 ill-cemented Empire —easy to threaten her with reduction to a 
 fourth-rale Power. But she has this answer to the practical 
 sagacity of England and the chivalrous moderation of France : 
 " Is the Empire of Austria not less essential as a counterpoise 
 to France than the integrity of Turkey is essential as a barrier 
 against Russia ? If the balance of power be not a mere dream, 
 I trust my cause to every statesman by whom the balance of 
 power is respected." But though, for this and for other 
 reasons, I would desire you to maintain friendly relations with 
 Austria, pardon me if I doubt the wisdom of having so 
 earnestly solicited her alliance. Supposing you had now 
 gained it, what would you have done ? Just what a Govern- 
 ment here might do if it pressed into its Cabinet some able 
 and influential man, with views not congenial to its own, and 
 who used his power on your councils to modify the opinions 
 and check the plans upon which you had before been united. 
 Add Austria now, while she is still timid and reluctant, to 
 the two western Powers — give her a third co-equal voice in all 
 the conduct of the war, and it could only introduce into their 
 councils a certain element of vacillation and discord. But 
 if you bide your time, preserving Austria in her present 
 attitude of friendly neutrality, if you do not threaten and 
 affront her into action against you, the natural consequences 
 of continued war, the common inclinations of her statesmen 
 and her people — which I have reason to know are not favour- 
 able to Russia will bring her to you at Length with coincidence 
 in your objects, because according to the dictates ol her own
 
 Sir Bulwer Lytton on the Crimean War. 89 
 
 sense of self-interest. As far as I can judge, our tone with 
 Austria has been much too supplicating, and our mode of 
 arguing with her somewhat ludicrous. It reminds me of the 
 story of an American who saw making up to him in the woods 
 an enormous bear. Upon that he betook himself to his 
 devotions, and exclaimed, " O Lord, there is going to be a 
 horrible fight between me and the bear. All I seek is fair-play 
 and no favour. If there is justice in Heaven, you ought to 
 help me ; but if you won't help me, don't help the bear." 
 
 But now comes the grave and solemn problem which the 
 withdrawal of all negotiations forces still more upon the mind 
 of every one who thinks deeply, and which the right hon. 
 gentleman the member for Manchester has so properly raised. 
 War being fairly upon us, of what nature shall be that war ? 
 Shall it assume that vast and comprehensive character which 
 excites in the hon. member for Aylesbury (Mr Layard) hopes 
 for the human race too daring even for him to detail to this 
 sober House? In plain words, shall it be a war in which, to 
 use the language of Mr Canning in 1826, you will enlist "all 
 those who, whether justly or unjustly, are dissatisfied with 
 their own countries ; " in which you will imitate the spirit of 
 revolutionary France, when she swept over Europe, and sought 
 to reconcile humanity to slaughter by pointing to a rainbow of 
 freedom on the other side of the deluge ? Does History here 
 give to the hon. member an example or a warning? How 
 were these promises fulfilled ? Look round Europe ! You 
 had the carnage— where is the freedom ? The deluge spread, 
 the deluge rolled away — half a century is fled, and where is 
 the rainbow visible ? Is it on the ruins of Cracow ? on the 
 field of Novara ? or over the walls of defeated Rome ? No ; 
 in a war that invokes liberal opinion against established rules, 
 what I most dread and deprecate is, not that you will fulfil 
 your promises and reap the republics for which you sowed 
 rebellions ; what I dread far more is, that all such promises 
 would in the end be broken — that the hopes of liberty would 
 be betrayed — that the moment the monarchies of England and
 
 90 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 France could obtain a peace that realised the objects for 
 which monarchs go to war, they would feel themselves com- 
 pelled by the exhaustion of their resources, by the instincts of 
 self-conservatism, to abandon the auxiliaries they had lured into 
 revolution — restore to despotism " the right divine to govern 
 wrong," and furnish it with new excuse for vigilance and 
 rigour by the disorders which always distinguish armed revolu- 
 tion from peaceable reforms. 
 
 I say nothing here against the fair possibility of reconstruct- 
 ing in some future Congress the independence of Poland, or 
 such territorial arrangements as are comprised in the question, 
 " What is to be done in the Crimea, provided we take it ? " 
 But these are not all that is meant by the language we hear, 
 less vaguely out of this House than in it, except when a 
 minister implies what he shrinks from explaining. And woe 
 and shame to the English statesman who, whatever may be his 
 sympathy for oppressed subjects, shall rouse them to rebellion 
 against their native thrones, not foreseeing that in the changes 
 of popular representative Government, all that his Cabinet may 
 promise to-day a new Cabinet to-morrow may legally revoke ; 
 that he has no power to redeem in freedom the pledges that 
 he writes in blood ! And woe still more to brave populations 
 that are taught to rest Democracy on the arms of foreign 
 soldiers, the fickle cheers of foreign popular assemblies, or to 
 dream that liberty can ever be received as a gift, extorted as a 
 right, maintained as a hereditary heirloom, except the charter 
 be obtained at their own Runnymede, and signed under the 
 shadow of their own oaks ! But there is all the difference 
 between rousing nations against their rulers and securing the 
 independence and integrity of a weak nation against a powerful 
 neighbour. The first is a policy that submits the destinies of a 
 country to civil discord, the other relieves those destinies from 
 foreign interference ; the one tends to vain and indefinite 
 warfare— the other starts, at the outset, with intelligible con- 
 ditions of peace. 
 
 Therefore, in this war, let us strictly keep to the object for
 
 Sir Bulwer Lytton on the Crimean War. 91 
 
 which it was begun — the integrity and independence of the 
 Ottoman Empire, secured by all the guarantees which states- 
 men can desire, or victory enable us to demand. The more 
 definite the object, the more firm you will be in asserting it. 
 How the object is to be effected, how these securities are to be 
 obtained, is not the affair of the House of Commons. The 
 strategy must be planned by the allied Cabinets, and its 
 execution entrusted to Councils of War. We in this House 
 can only judge by results ; and, however unfair that may seem 
 to Governments, it is the sole course left to us, unless we are 
 always dictating to our allies, and hampering our generals. 
 But we thus make the end of the war purely protective ; we 
 cannot make the means we adopt purely defensive. In order 
 to force Russia into our object we must assail and cripple her 
 wherever she can be crippled and assailed. I say, with the 
 right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, 
 do not offer to her an idle insult, do not slap her in the 
 face, but paralyse her hands. " Oh," said a noble friend of 
 mine the other night (Lord Stanley), " it is a wretched policy to 
 humble the foe that you cannot crush ; and are you mad enough 
 to suppose that Russia can be crushed ? " Let my noble 
 friend, in the illustrious career which I venture to prophesy 
 lies before him, beware how he ever endeavours to contract the 
 grand science of statesmen into scholastic aphorisms. No, we 
 cannot crush Russia as Russia, but we can crush her attempts 
 to be more than Russia. We can, and we must, crush any 
 means that enable her to storm or to steal across that tangible 
 barrier which now divides Europe from a Power that supports 
 the maxims of Machiavelli with the armaments of Britain. 
 You might as well have said to William of Orange, " You 
 cannot crush Louis XIV. ; how impolitic you are to humble 
 him ! " You might as well have said to the burghers of Switzer- 
 land, "You cannot crush Austria; don't vainly insult her by 
 limiting her privilege to crush yourselves." William of Orange 
 did not crush France as a kingdom — Switzerland did not crush 
 Austria as an empire ; but William did crush the power of
 
 92 Modern Political Oral ions. 
 
 France to injure Holland ; Switzerland did crush the power of 
 Austria to enslave her people ; and in that broad sense of the 
 word, by the blessing of Heaven, we will crush the power of 
 Russia to invade her neighbours and convulse the world. 
 
 The right hon. gentleman the member for Manchester has 
 sought to frighten us by dwelling on the probable duration 
 of this war ; but if you will only be in earnest, and if you will 
 limit yourselves strictly to its legitimate object, I have no fear 
 that the war will be long. I do not presume on our recent 
 successes, important though they are, for Kertch is the 
 entrepot of all the commerce of the Sea of Azoff ; nor on the 
 exaggerated estimate of the forces which Russia has in Sebas- 
 topol, or can bring to the Crimea ; nor on her difficulty through 
 any long series of campaigns to transport and provision large 
 armies from great distances ; nor on many circumstances which, 
 of late especially, tend to show that for exertions at once 
 violent and sustained, her sinews are not strong enough to 
 support her bulk. But I look only to the one fact, that in 
 these days war is money ; and that no Power on earth can 
 carry on a long war with a short purse. Russia's pecuniary 
 resources are fast failing her. In no country is recruiting so 
 costly, or attended with such distress to the proprietors of the 
 soil. Every new levy, in depriving the nobles of their serfs, 
 leaves poverty and discontent behind ; while in arresting her 
 commercial intercourse, you exhaust the only springs that can 
 recruit the capital which she robs from the land. In the great 
 " History of Treaties," now publishing by the Count de Garden, 
 and which must supersede all other authorities on that subject, 
 he speaks thus of Russia in 1810 : — 
 
 " The closing of her ports, which was the result of her war with England, 
 deprived Russia of all outlet for her exportations, which, consisting chiefly 
 of raw materials, such as timber, potash, iron, etc., could only be trans- 
 ported by sea. The balance of commerce thus fixed itself entirely to the 
 detriment of Russia, and producing there a disastrous fall in the course of 
 exchange, and a depreciation of the currency, menaced with ruin all the 
 financial resources of the State." 
 
 You have, therefore, always at work for you, not only your
 
 Sir Bulwer Lytton on the Crimean War. 93 
 
 fleets and armies, but the vital interests of Russia herself. She 
 cannot resist you long, provided you are thoroughly in earnest. 
 She may boast and dissimulate to the last, but rely on it that 
 peace will come to you suddenly — will, in her proper name, 
 knock loudly at the door which you do not close against peace 
 herself, but against her felonious counterfeit, who would creep 
 through the opening disguised in her garments, and with the 
 sword concealed under her veil. 
 
 / The noble Lord, who has just spoken with so much honesty 
 of conviction (Lord Archibald Hamilton), ventured to anti- 
 cipate the verdict of History. Let me do the same. Let me 
 suppose that when the future philanthropist shall ask what 
 service on the human race did we, in our generation, signally 
 confer, some one — trained, perhaps, in the schools of Oxford, 
 or in the Institute of Manchester — shall answer: "A Power 
 that commanded myriads — as many as those that under Xerxes 
 exhausted rivers in their march — embodied all the forces of 
 barbarism on the outskirts of civilisation. Left there to de- 
 velop its own natural resources, no State molested, though all 
 apprehended, its growth. But, long pent by merciful nature 
 in its own legitimate domains, this Power schemed for the 
 outlet to its instinctive ambition. To that outlet it crept by 
 dissimulating guile, by successive treaties that, promising peace, 
 graduated spoliation to the opportunities of fraud. At length, 
 under pretexts too gross to deceive the common-sense of man- 
 kind, it prepared to seize that outlet — to storm the feeble gates 
 between itself and the world beyond." Then the historian shall 
 say that we in our generation — the united families of England 
 and France — made ourselves the vanguard of alarmed and 
 shrinking Europe, and did not sheathe the sword until we had 
 redeemed the pledge to humanity made on the faith of two 
 Christian sovereigns, and ratified at those distant graves which 
 Liberty and Justice shall revere for ever.
 
 THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH ON 
 THE POLISH INSURRECTION. 
 
 House of Lords, June 8th, 1863. 
 
 [The immediate cause of this insurrection was an attempt on the part of 
 the Russian Government to press into the army all the young men of the 
 towns who betrayed the least sympathy with the patriotic movement. 
 Escaping into the woods near the Austro- Polish frontier, the insur- 
 gents were able to harass the Russians, and also make good their retreat 
 into a friendly country when pressed too hard. Their chief hope was to 
 hold out until some of the European Powers should take up their cause.] 
 
 My Lords, — I rise to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs (Earl Russell) whether there has been such 
 progress in the negotiations as to afford a reasonable hope of a 
 satisfactory settlement of the affairs of Poland. I do not 
 think the question can be considered premature. The insurrec- 
 tion in Poland, which the Emperor ordered the authorities of 
 the country to put down in ten days, has existed for four 
 months and a half; and according to the last accounts, it was 
 rapidly extending itself to various distant points in the ancient 
 provinces that belonged to Poland before 1772. While diplo- 
 matists are writing and consulting, plunder, massacre, and 
 incendiarism are extending through the whole country. My 
 Lords, this is not an ordinary case of diplomacy. Generally, 
 diplomacy originates with the Governments which conduct it; 
 but in this instance, 1 think it may be considered to have 
 originated witli the nations which those Governments repre- 
 sent ; for in all parts of the world, except perhaps in Prussia, 
 deep sympathy has been expressed for Poland. When, some
 
 Lord Elk nborough on the Polish Insurrection. 95 
 
 years ago, the diplomatic intervention which preceded the 
 Crimean war was undertaken, that diplomacy proceeded from 
 statesmen who had in view not a distant but a coming danger, 
 and endeavoured to avert that danger by diplomatic arrange- 
 ment ; but the evil with which diplomacy now deals is a pre- 
 sent existing evil, which has existed for more than thirty years, 
 and has been increasing in intensity until it has arrived at a 
 degree of enormity which has compelled the people of Poland 
 to rise in arms, and makes it impossible for the people of 
 Kurope to view their condition with indifference. 
 
 This is a question of humanity. From one end of the 
 kingdom of Poland to the other, war is carried on with 
 an atrocity unknown in ordinary warfare. It is a question 
 of justice, because the Poles have never had the Constitution 
 which was promised to them. It is more than that, it is a 
 question of policy affecting not only Russia, but affecting every 
 State in Europe. It is impossible that insurrection can con- 
 tinue in Poland without exciting an insurrectionary feeling 
 among the turbulent spirits of every State in Europe. 
 For over 160 years Russia has been endeavouring 
 to establish her power in Europe — to secure to herself an 
 entrance into Europe. That entrance into Europe is, at the 
 present moment, denied to her. While Poland remains as she 
 is, or even as she has been for several years, it will be impos- 
 sible for Russia to move an army into Europe. She would 
 require more than 100,000 men to protect her communi- 
 cations ; and the longer this state of things remains in Poland, 
 the greater will become the difficulties of Russia. Depend 
 upon it, that whenever any part of the Russian Empire presents 
 a weakness, it will be discovered by those who are anxious to 
 take advantage of any opportunity that may be afforded for 
 acting against her. Circassia will be responsible to Poland, 
 and everywhere there will be a material alteration in that posi- 
 tion of strength which I confess, for my part, I am desirous 
 that Russia should maintain. 
 
 When the Powers assembled at the Congress of Vienna, they
 
 96 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 participated in the general feeling of distrust and apprehension 
 of Russia. Things were then somewhat different from what 
 they are now. In France, the ancient monarchy had been 
 restored ; France had suffered great losses ; her frontiers had 
 been thrown back to their ancient limits ; she was deemed to 
 be in a state of abeyance, and no injury or encroachment was 
 apprehended from that quarter. In Belgium, and on the 
 Rhine, and in Italy, what were then deemed securities had 
 been taken against France. The great danger seemed to be on 
 the side of Russia. Russia had performed great services for 
 Europe, but she stood in her strength, and certainly evinced a 
 disposition to use that strength in a manner that threatened the 
 independence and security of other States. With these feelings, 
 this country desired, in connection with Austria and Prussia, 
 to establish in Poland a state of things which, unfortunately, 
 they did not succeed in bringing about. They desired to 
 establish in Poland an independent kingdom. Russia insisted 
 on uniting the kingdom of Poland to herself. I confess that 
 even at the present time, if I could see the map of Europe 
 arranged as I should most desire, I should rejoice to see the 
 re-establishment of the kingdom of Poland in all its integrity, 
 and within the ancient limits, but under a better Government 
 and with a hereditary monarchy ; but I know how visionary is 
 my hope of seeing that great act of moral retribution accom- 
 plished. I cannot be insensible to the changes that have taken 
 place in France. We have seen a change of dynasty in France ; 
 we have seen her great increase of strength, and we have seen 
 that strength used with great effect in Europe. We have seen 
 other material changes in the distribution of power and of 
 territory as established in 18 15. 
 
 Having regard to those events, I do not think it would be 
 expedient to take any measures which would permanently 
 deprive Russia of her power of interfering, and I hope usefully 
 interfering, for the maintenance of a Conservative policy in 
 Europe. We cannot now preserve the balance of power in 
 Europe without the intervention of Russia. It is upon that
 
 Lord Ellenbo rough on the Polish Insurrection. 97 
 
 account that, as a friend of Russia as well as a friend of 
 Poland, I do earnestly desire to see an end put to the state of 
 things which now exists. When the Congress of Vienna im- 
 posed on Russia the duty of giving a representative national 
 Constitution to Poland, she imposed on her a condition which, 
 in the political condition of Russia, it was impossible for her 
 to perform. I say impossible, because I hold it to be im- 
 possible to give a really good government, of a Constitutional 
 form, to a country of which the Sovereign is a foreign despot of 
 enurmous power, educated in the practice of despotism, and 
 ready on all occasions to exercise his despotic authority, and 
 throw the sword of Brennus into the scale to turn it in his 
 favour. There was, and still is, that difficulty, which it is im- 
 possible to overcome, and which must at all times make it 
 impossible to establish a really good government in Poland 
 under a despotic foreign Sovereign, capable of using on all 
 occasions his arbitrary power. My Lords, a Constitutional 
 government can only exist with benefit to the people where 
 there is mutual confidence between the Sovereign and the 
 people, and where there are mutual interests, where there is a 
 mutual desire to support the Constitution, and where, above 
 all, the Sovereign is attached to his people, and depends on 
 them for his position. 
 
 All these circumstances are wanting in the case of Russia. 
 Even were she so disposed, the difficulties which she has to 
 encounter it would be impossible for her to overcome. But, 
 my Lords, there never has been any attempt to overcome those 
 difficulties. We are told in the papers which have been laid 
 on the table of the House, that up to 183 1 no attempt had 
 been made to give that Constitution to Poland which she had 
 a right to, in accordance with the Treaty of Vienna. We know 
 what has taken place since. We know that there has been no 
 security either for property or for person. Nothing could be 
 more cruel and exhaustive than the conscription. Every man 
 must have felt that his family, his life, and his property de- 
 pended on the will of a despot ; and it was utterly impossible 
 
 G
 
 98 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 for the country to prosper or to be contented. That was the 
 case before the last instance of violent despotism — which the 
 noble Earl the Foreign Secretary properly called a "proscrip- 
 tion " — was perpetrated in Russia. That proscription came on 
 the people of Poland as one of the plagues of Egypt, destroying 
 in one night the first-born in every family. It created a deep 
 chasm between the people and the Sovereign, which it was 
 impossible ever to pass. It destroyed all confidence, all pos- 
 sibility of ever trusting the word of the Sovereign, who had 
 violated his obligations. If the Emperor puts forth his hand 
 and offers it to the people of Poland, how can they take it ? 
 There is blood upon that hand. It is the blood of the 
 people of Poland, of the families of those to whom he 
 offers it — blood shed in the perpetration of an iniquity which 
 has no parallel in Europe. 
 
 My Lords, I can come to no other conclusion than this : 
 That to attempt to give good government to the people of 
 Poland while the Emperor of Russia directly exercises authority 
 in that country is a thing impossible, and that there are no 
 guarantees — of which the noble Earl spoke some time ago — 
 which could secure it. It is a thing impossible, and therefore 
 it is a thing which no prudent person would" endeavour to 
 obtain. But it is most desirable that Russia should endeavour 
 to accomplish two objects — that she should give good govern- 
 ment to Poland, and, at the same time, preserve her power of 
 entering Europe by the Vistula. I know but one course of 
 proceeding by which that double object can be accomplished. 
 The wise course for Russia to pursue would be to propose to 
 dissever the connection which was established at Vienna be- 
 tween the Russian Empire and Poland, then declared insepar- 
 able, and to place Poland, with such arrangements as to the 
 political relations between her and Russia as might be deemed 
 expedient, as an independent country with respect to internal 
 government, under the Sovereignty of a Prince of her own 
 family. I do trust that Her .Majesty's Government and the 
 other Powers of Europe which were parties to the Treaty of
 
 Lord Ellcnborough on the Polish Insurrection. 99 
 
 Vienna would willingly accept this compromise, and consider 
 it as a sufficient performance of the obligations which were 
 imposed upon Russia at the Congress of Vienna. Further, I 
 do hope that the Poles themselves would have the good sense to 
 accept it, and that no visionary ideas of future grandeur, however 
 gratifying they might be to their pride as a nation — great as 
 their pride justly is — would induce them to decline to accept 
 that which, for the present at least, would give security for the 
 government of Poland and the permanent peace of that country. 
 My Lords, I do not know what value is to be attached to 
 the statements I have seen in the foreign rather than the 
 English papers ; but I see it there stated that it has been 
 suggested by the Government of this country, and has been 
 at last acquiesced in by foreign Powers, that an armistice 
 should be proposed to the Emperor of Russia and to the 
 insurgents in Poland. I believe that measure to be utterly 
 impracticable. There are wanting on the side of the Poles 
 three things essential, as it has always been supposed, to the 
 making of an armistice — an ostensibly acknowledged Govern- 
 ment with which to contract it ; an army for which to contract ; 
 nor is there any possibility of making that demarcation of 
 limits which is essential in all cases of armistice. The only 
 force possessed by the Poles is one which is here and every- 
 where, which is here to-day and gone to-morrow. The Polish 
 insurgents collect only to strike. They disappear when they 
 have struck their blow. They have no regular, no acknow- 
 ledged limits within which they act. In an armistice the two 
 sides keep their arms. But what is required here is that one 
 side should lay down its arms. There is no other mode by 
 which the Poles can perform their part of the arrangement. 
 But what is it to lay down their arms? You may maintain, 
 and you may extend an insurrection, but you cannot renew it 
 when you have once thrown down your arms. And what is to 
 be the position of the insurgents in the interval during the 
 time in which the diplomatists — who are proverbially not the 
 most rapid in their movements— attempt to bring about a
 
 ioo Modern Political Orations. 
 
 permanent arrangement ? From the penalties of treason the 
 Poles might be relieved, but they would be still subject to the 
 criminal law. Russian officers now rule throughout every parish 
 in Poland. They have at their back what are called peasant 
 guards. Every man who has property, who is supposed to have 
 patriotic feelings, is denounced, and there is a general sequestra- 
 tion of the property of such persons. Even in Lithuania, 
 which is not a part of the Kingdom of Poland, no peasant is 
 now permitted to pay rent to his landlord. He pays it to the 
 State, and the State hereafter, if satisfied of the good conduct of 
 the proprietor, will give him the balance which is due to him. 
 
 This is a state of things which we know not as having existed 
 at any time in any part of the world, and all this machinery 
 would remain to afflict Poland during the long period of 
 negotiation which must ensue if an armistice were agreed upon. 
 Does the noble Earl, or does Her Majesty's Government, 
 suppose that in diplomacy by itself there is any strength at all ? 
 Its strength is in the force by which it is supported — in the 
 force behind. The strength of the Poles in diplomacy is the 
 strength of the insurrection. It is no other. And, depend 
 upon it, great as the sufferings of the Poles have been, they 
 might have suffered for years longer ; but if they had suffered 
 in tranquillity and in silence, never would the sympathy of 
 Europe have been extended to them. They have now the 
 sympathy of Europe because they have had the courage and 
 the spirit to rise against their oppressors. It is because they 
 show themselves worthy of Liberty that all Europe feels they 
 ought to possess it. All I can say to the Poles is : " Persevere ! 
 Keep your arms ! Strike down your enemies wherever you 
 can reach them ! You have embarked in a career of honour, 
 of patriotism, and of glory. You may fall in the field ; but 
 it is better to fall there than to die in the ranks of your 
 enemies. Persevere! And depend upon it, having adopted 
 this course — adopted, perhaps, by despair, but sanctioned 
 by reason and by justice — you will have the respect of all men, 
 and I trust that Providence will bless your efforts."
 
 JOHN BRIGHT ON SUSPENSION OF 
 THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT. 
 
 House of Commons, February 17TH, 1866. 
 
 [The disturbed state of Ireland rendered it necessary, in the opinion of the 
 Government, to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and so give the Lord- 
 Lieutenant unlimited power to arrest and detain suspected persons. For 
 this purpose an extraordinary sitting was called in both Houses of Parlia- 
 ment on Saturday, February 17th, 1866, and the Bill was run through at 
 once, receiving the Royal Assent at twenty minutes to one o'clock on 
 Sunday morning.] 
 
 I owe an apology to the Irish Members for stepping in to 
 make an observation to the House on this question. My 
 strong interest in the affairs of their country, ever since I 
 came into Parliament, will be my sufficient excuse. The 
 Secretary of State (Sir George Grey), on the part of the 
 Government of which he is a member, has called us together 
 on an unusual day and at an unusual hour, to consider a 
 proposition of the greatest magnitude, and which we are 
 informed is one of extreme urgency. If it be so, I hope it 
 will not be understood that we are here merely to carry out 
 the behests of the Administration ; but that we are to be 
 permitted, if we choose, to observe upon this measure, and 
 if possible to say something which may mitigate the apparent 
 harshness which the Government feels itself compelled to 
 pursue. It is now more than twenty-two years since I was 
 permitted to take my seat in this House. During that time I 
 have, on many occasions, with great favour, been allowed to
 
 102 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 address it ; but I declare that during the whole of that period 
 I have never risen to speak here under so strong a feeling, as 
 a member of the House, of shame, and of humiliation, as that 
 by which I feel myself oppressed at this moment. The 
 Secretary of State proposes — as the right hon. gentleman 
 himself ; has* said — to deprive no inconsiderable portion of the 
 subjects of the Queen— our" countrymen, within the United 
 Kingdom — of the commonest, of the most precious, and of the 
 most sacred right of the English Constitution : the right to 
 their personal freedom. From the statement of the Secretary 
 of State it is clear that this is not asked to be done, or required 
 to be done, with reference only to a small section of the 
 Irish people. He has named great counties, wide districts, 
 whole provinces over which this alleged and undoubted dis- 
 affection has spread, and has proposed that five or six millions 
 of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom shall suffer the loss 
 of that right of personal freedom that is guaranteed to all Her 
 Majesty's subjects by the Constitution of these realms. 
 
 Now, I do not believe that the Secretary of State has over- 
 stated his case for the purpose of inducing the House to con- 
 sent to his proposition. I believe that if the majority of the 
 people of Ireland, counted fairly out, had their will, and if they 
 had the power, they would unmoor the island from its fasten- 
 ings, and move it at least two thousand miles to the west. And 
 I believe, further, that if by conspiracy, or insurrection, or by 
 that open agitation to which alone I ever would give any 
 favour or consent, they could shake off the authority, I will not 
 say of the English Crown, but of the Imperial Parliament, they 
 would gladly do so. An hon. member from Ireland a few 
 nights ago referred to the character of the Irish people. He 
 said, and I believe it is true, that there is no Christian nation 
 with which we are acquainted amongst the people of which 
 crime of the ordinal)' character, as we reckon it in this country, 
 is so rare as it is amongst his countrymen. He might have 
 said, also, that there is no people whatever they may he at 
 home— more ndustrious than his countrymen in every other
 
 John Bright on Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 103 
 
 country but their own. He might have said more — that they 
 are a people of a cheerful and joyous temperament. He might 
 have said more than this — that they are singularly grateful for 
 kindnesses shown to them, and that of all the people of our 
 race they arc filled with the strongest sentiments of veneration. 
 And yet, with such materials, and with such a people, after 
 centuries of government — after sixty-five years of government 
 by this House — you have them embittered against your rule, 
 and anxious only to throw off the authority of the Crown and 
 Queen of these realms. Now, this is not a single occasion we 
 are discussing. This is merely an access of the complaint 
 Ireland has been suffering under during the lifetime of the 
 oldest man in this House: of chronic insurrection. No man 
 can deny this. I dare say a large number of the members of 
 this House had, at the time to which the right hon. member 
 for Buckinghamshire referred, heard the same speech on the 
 same subject from the same Minister to whom we have listened 
 to-day. [Sir G. Grew— " No ! "] I certainly thought I heard 
 the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home 
 Department make a speech before on the same question, but 
 he was a Minister of the Government on whose behalf a 
 similar speech was made on the occasion referred to, and no 
 doubt concurred in every word that was uttered by his 
 colleague. 
 
 Sixty-five years ago this country undertook to govern Ireland. 
 I will say nothing of the manner in which that duty was brought 
 upon us except this— that it was by proceedings disgraceful 
 and corrupt to the last degree. I will say nothing of the pre- 
 tences under which it was brought about but this — that the 
 English Parliament and people, and the Irish people, too, were 
 told, if you once get rid of the Irish Parliament it will dethrone 
 for ever Irish factions, and with a united Parliament we shall 
 become a united, and stronger, and happier people. Now, 
 during these sixty-five years — and on this point I ask for the 
 attention of the right hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr 
 Disraeli) — there are only three considerable measures which
 
 104 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 Parliament has passed in the interests of Ireland. One of 
 them was the measure of 1829, for the emancipation of the 
 Catholics and to permit them to have seats in this House. 
 ,But that measure, so just, so essential, and which, of course, is 
 not ever to be recalled, was a measure which the chief Minister 
 of the day, a great soldier, and a great judge of military 
 matters (the Duke of Wellington), admitted was passed in the 
 face of the menace and only because of the danger of civil 
 war. The other two measures to which I have referred are 
 the measure for the relief of the poor, and the measure for the 
 sale of the encumbered estates ; and those measures were intro- 
 duced to the House and passed through the House in the 
 emergency of a famine more severe than any that has desolated 
 any Christian country of the world within the last four hundred 
 years. 
 
 Except on these two emergencies, I appeal to every Irish 
 member, and to every English member who has paid any 
 attention to the matter, whether the statement is not true that 
 this Parliament has done nothing for the people of Ireland. 
 And, more than that, their complaints have been met — com- 
 plaints of their sufferings have been met — often by denial, often 
 by insult, often by contempt. And within the last few years 
 we have heard from this very Treasury Bench observations 
 with regard to Ireland which no friend of Ireland, or of 
 England, and no Minister of the Crown, ought to have uttered 
 with regard to that country. Twice in my Parliamentary life 
 this thing has been done — at least, by the close of this day will 
 have been done — and measures of repression — measures for the 
 suspension of the civil rights of the Irish people — have been 
 brought into Parliament and passed with extreme and unusual 
 rapidity. I have not risen to blame the Secretary of State, or 
 to blame his colleagues, for the act of to day. There may be 
 circumstances to justify a proposition of this kind, and I am 
 not here to deny that these circumstances now exist ; but what 
 I complain of is this : there is no statesmanship merely in acts of 
 force and acts of repression. And more than tluit, I have not
 
 John Bright on Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 105 
 
 observed since I have been in Parliament anything on this 
 Irish question that approaches to the dignity of statesmanship. 
 There has been, I admit, an improved administration in Ireland. 
 There have been Lord-Lieutenants anxious to be just, and 
 there is one there now who is probably as anxious to do justice 
 as any man. We have observed generally in the recent trials a 
 better tone and temper than were ever witnessed under similar 
 circumstances in Ireland before. But if I go back to the 
 Ministers who have sat on the Treasury Bench since I first 
 came into this House — Sir Robert Peel first, then Lord John 
 Russell, then Lord Aberdeen, then Lord Derby, then Lord 
 Palmerston, then Lord Derby again, then Lord Palmerston 
 again, and now Earl Russell — I say that, with regard to all these 
 men, there has not been any approach to anything that History 
 will describe as statesmanship on the part of the English 
 Government towards Ireland. There were Coercion Bills in 
 abundance — Arms Bills Session after Session — lamentations 
 like that of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucking- 
 hamshire, that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was 
 not made perpetual by a clause which he laments was repealed. 
 There have been Acts for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus 
 Act, like that which we are now discussing ; but there has been 
 no statesmanship. Men, the most clumsy, and brutal, can do 
 these things; but we want men of higher temper — men of 
 higher genius — men of higher patriotism to deal with the 
 affairs of Ireland. 
 
 I should like to know if those statesmen who hold great 
 offices have themselves comprehended the nature of this 
 question. If they have not, they have been manifestly 
 ignorant ; and if they have comprehended it, they have not 
 dealt with it ; they have concealed that which they knew from 
 the people, and evaded the duty they owe to their Sovereign. 
 I do not want to speak disrespectfully of men in office. It is 
 not my custom in this House. I know something of the 
 worrying labours to which they are subjected, and I know how, 
 from day to day, they bear the burden of the labour imposed
 
 106 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 upon them ; but still I lament that those who wear the garb, 
 enjoy the emoluments — and I had almost said, usurp the 
 dignity of statesmanship — sink themselves merely into respect- 
 able and honourable administrators, when there is a whole 
 nation under the Sovereignty of the Queen calling for all their 
 anxious thoughts — calling for the highest exercise of the highest 
 qualities of the statesman. I put the question to the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer (Mr Gladstone). He is the only man 
 of this Government whom I have heard of late years that has 
 spoken as if he comprehended this question, and he made a 
 speech in the last Session of Parliament that was not without 
 its influence both in England and in Ireland. I should like 
 to ask him whether this Irish question is above the stature of 
 himself and his colleagues? If it be, I ask them to come 
 down from the high places which they occupy, and try to learn 
 the art of legislation and government before they practise it. 
 I believe myself, if we could divest ourselves of the feelings 
 engendered by party strife, we might come to some better 
 results. Take the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is there in 
 any legislative assembly in the world a man, as the world 
 judges, of more transcendent capacity ? I will say even, Is 
 there a man with a more honest wish to do good to the country 
 in which he occupies such a conspicuous place? Take the 
 right hon. gentleman opposite, the Leader of the Oppo- 
 sition (Mr Disraeli). Is there in any legislative assembly in 
 the world, at this moment, a man leading an Opposition of 
 more genius for his position, who has given in every way but 
 one in which proof can be given that he is competent to the 
 highest duties of the highest offices of the State ? Well, but 
 these men — great men whom we on this side and you on that 
 side to a large extent admire and follow — fight for office, and 
 the result is, they sit alternately one on this side and one on 
 that. But suppose it were possible for these men, with their 
 intellects, with their far-reaching vision, to examine this ques- 
 tion thoroughly, and to say tor once, whether this leads to office, 
 and to the miserable notoriety that men call Kami', which
 
 John Bright on Suspension oj Habeas Corpus. 107 
 
 springs from office, or not : " If it be possible, we will act with 
 loyalty to the Sovereign and justice to the people ; and if it 
 be possible, we will make Ireland a strength and not a weak- 
 ness to the British Empire." It is on account of this fighting 
 with party, and for party, and for the gains which party gives, 
 that there is so little result from the great intellects of such 
 men as these. Like the captive Samson of old — 
 
 " To grind in brazen fetters, under task, 
 With their Heaven-gifted strength " — 
 
 and the country and the world gain little by those faculties 
 which God has given them for the blessing of the country and 
 the world. 
 
 The Secretary of State and the right hon. gentleman 
 opposite, even in stronger language, have referred to the 
 unhappy fact that much of what now exists in Ireland has 
 been brought there from the United States of America. That 
 is not a fact for us to console ourselves with ; it only adds to 
 the gravity and the difficulty of this question. You may 
 depend upon it that if the Irish in America, having left this 
 country, settle there with so strong a hostility to us, they have 
 had their reasons ; and if, being there with that feeling of affec- 
 tion for their own country which in all other cases in which 
 we are not concerned we admire and reverence, they interfere 
 in Ireland and stir up there the sedition that now exists, depend 
 upon it there is in the condition of Ireland a state of things 
 which greatly favours their attempts. There can be no con- 
 tinued fire without fuel, and all the Irish in America, and all 
 the citizens of America, united together, with all their organ- 
 isation and all their vast resources, would not in England or 
 in Scotland raise the very slightest flame of sedition or of 
 insurrectionary movement. I want to know why they can do 
 it in Ireland. Are you to say, as some people say in America 
 and in Jamaica, when speaking of the black man, that 
 "nothing can be made of the Irishman"? Everything can 
 be made of him in every country but his own. When he has
 
 io8 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 passed through the American school — I speak of him as a 
 child, or in the second generation of the Irish emigrant in that 
 country — he is as industrious, as frugal, as independent, as 
 loyal, as good a citizen of the American Republic as any man 
 born within the dominions of that Power. Why is it not so in 
 Ireland ? I have asked the question before, and I will ask it 
 again ; it is a pertinent question, and it demands an answer. 
 Why is it that no Scotchman who leaves Scotland — and the 
 Scotch have been taunted and ridiculed for being so fond of 
 leaving their country for a better climate and a better soil — 
 how comes it, I ask, that no Scotchman who emigrates to the 
 United States, and no Englishman who plants himself there, 
 cherishes the smallest hostility to the people, to the institutions, 
 or to the Government of his native country ? Why does 
 every Irishman who leaves his country and goes to the United 
 States immediately settle himself down there, resolved to better 
 his condition in life, but with a feeling of ineradicable hatred 
 to the laws and institutions of the land of his birth? Is not 
 that a question for statesmanship ? If the Secretary of State, 
 since his last measure was brought in, now eighteen years ago, 
 had had time in the multiplicity of his duties to consider this 
 question, possibly, instead of now moving for the suspension of 
 the Habeas Corpus Act, he might have been rejoicing at the 
 universal loyalty which prevailed, not throughout Great Britain 
 only, but throughout the whole population of Ireland. I 
 spent two autumns in Ireland in the years 1849 an d 1852, and 
 I recollect making a speech in this House not long afterwards 
 which some persons thought was not very wide of the mark. 
 I recommended the Ministers of that time to take an oppor- 
 tunity to hold an Irish Session of the Imperial Parliament — 
 to have no great questions discussed connected with the 
 ordinary matters which are brought before us, but to keep Par- 
 liament to the consideration of this Irish question solely, and 
 to deal with those great matters which are constant sources of 
 complaint; and I said thai a Session that was so devoted to 
 such a blessed and holy work would be a Session, if it were
 
 John Bright on Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 109 
 
 successful, that would stand forth in all our future history as 
 one of the noblest which had ever passed in the annals of the 
 Imperial Parliament; 
 
 Now, Sir, a few days ago everybody in this House, with two 
 or three exceptions, was taking an oath at that table. It is 
 called the Oath of Allegiance. It is meant at once to express 
 loyalty, and to keep men loyal. I do not think it generally 
 does bind men to loyalty, if they have not loyalty without it. 
 I hold loyalty to consist, in a country like this, as much in 
 doing justice to the people as in guarding the Crown — for I 
 believe there is no guardianship of the Crown, in a country like 
 this, where the Crown is not supposed to rest absolutely upon 
 force, so safe as that of which we know more in our day 
 probably than has been known in former periods of our history, 
 when the occupant of the throne is respected, admired, and 
 loved by the general people. Now, how comes it that these 
 great statesmen whom I have named, with all their colleagues, 
 some of them as eminent almost as their leaders, have never 
 tried what they could do — have never shown their loyalty to 
 the Crown by endeavouring to make the Queen as safe in the 
 hearts of the people of Ireland as she is in the hearts of the 
 people of England and of Scotland ? Bear in mind that the 
 Queen of England can do almost nothing in these matters. 
 By our Constitution the Crown can take no direct part in -them. 
 The Crown cannot direct the policy of the Government — nay, 
 the Crown cannot, without the consent of this House, even 
 select its Ministers ; therefore the Crown is helpless in this 
 matter. And we have in this country a Queen who, in all the 
 civilised nations of the world, is looked upon as a model of a 
 Sovereign, and yet her name and fame are discredited and 
 dishonoured by circumstances such as those which have twice 
 during her reign called us together to agree to a proposition 
 like that which is brought before us to-day. Now, there is an 
 instructive anecdote to be found in the annals of the Chinese 
 Empire. In a remote province there was an insurrection. 
 The Emperor put down the insurrection, but he abased and
 
 1 1 o Modern Political Orations. 
 
 humbled himself before his people, and said that if he had 
 been guilty of neglect, he acknowledged his guilt, and he 
 humbled himself before those on whom he had brought the 
 evil of an insurrection in one of his provinces. The Queen of 
 these realms is not so responsible. She cannot thus humble 
 herself; but I say that your statesmen for the last sixty — for 
 the last forty — years are thus guilty, and they ought to humble 
 themselves before the people of this country for their neglect. 
 
 But I have heard from members in this House — I have seen 
 much writing in newspapers — and I have heard of speeches 
 elsewhere, in which some of us, who advocate what we believe 
 to be a great and high morality in public affairs, are charged 
 with dislike to the institutions, and even disloyalty to the 
 dynasty which rules in England. There can be nothing more 
 offensive, nothing more unjust, nothing more utterly false. We 
 who ask Parliament, in dealing with Ireland, to deal with it 
 upon the unchangeable principle of justice, are the friends of 
 the people, and the really loyal advisers and supporters of the 
 Throne. All history teaches us that it is not in human nature 
 that men should be content under any system of legislation 
 and of institutions such as exists in Ireland. You may pass this 
 Bill, you may put the Home Secretary's five hundred men in 
 gaol — you may do all this, and suppress the conspiracy, and 
 put dbwn the insurrection ; but the moment it is suppressed 
 here will still remain the germs of this malady, and from these 
 germs will spring up, as heretofore, another crop of insurrection 
 and another harvest of misfortune. And it may be that those 
 who sit here eighteen years after this moment will find another 
 Ministry and another Secretary of State to propose to you 
 another administration of the same ever-failing and ever 
 poisonous medicine. T say there is a mode of making Ireland 
 loyal. I say that the Parliament of England, having abolished 
 the Parliament of Ireland, is doubly bound to examine what 
 that modr is, and, if it can discover it, to adopt it. I say thai 
 the Minister who occupies office in this country merely that he 
 may carry on the daily routine of administration, who dares
 
 John Bright on Suspension of Habeas Corpus, i i i 
 
 not grapple with this question, who dares not go into Opposition, 
 and who will sit anywhere except where he can tell his mind 
 freely to the House and the country, may have a high position 
 in this country, but he is not a statesman, nor is he worthy of 
 the name. 
 
 Sir, I shall not oppose the proposition of the right hon. 
 gentleman. The circumstances, I presume, are such, that the 
 course which is about to be pursued is perhaps the only 
 merciful course for Ireland. But I suppose it is not the inten- 
 tion of the Government, in the case of persons who are 
 arrested, and against whom any just complaint can be made, to 
 do anything more than that which the ordinary law permits, 
 and that when men are brought to trial they will be brought to 
 trial with all the fairness and all the advantages which all the 
 ordinary law gives. I should say what was most unjust to the 
 gentlemen sitting on that (the Treasury) Bench, if I said. aught 
 else than that I believe they are as honestly disposed to do 
 right in this matter as I am, and as I have ever been. I implore 
 them, if they can, to shake off the trammels of doubt and fear 
 with regard to this question, and to say something that may be 
 soothing — something that may give hope to Ireland. I voted 
 the other night with the hon. member for Tralee (The 
 O'Donoghue). We were a very small minority. Yes, I have 
 often been in small minorities. The hon. gentleman would 
 have been content with a word of kindness and sympathy, not 
 for conspiracy, but for the people of Ireland. That word was 
 not inserted in the Queen's Speech, and to-night the Home 
 Secretary has made a speech urging the House to the course 
 which, I presume, is about to be pursued ; but he did not in 
 that speech utter a single question which lies behind, and is 
 greater and deeper than that which he discussed. I hope, Sir, 
 that if Ministers feel themselves bound to take this course of 
 suspending the common right of personal freedom to a whole 
 nation, at least they will not allow this debate to close without 
 giving to us and to that nation some hope that before long 
 measures will be considered and will be introduced which will
 
 1 1 2 Modern Politicat Orations. 
 
 tend to create the same loyalty in Ireland that exists in Great 
 Britain. If every man outside the walls of this House who 
 has the interest of the whole Empire at heart were to speak 
 here, what would he say to this House ? Let not one day 
 elapse, let not another Session pass, until you have done some- 
 thing to wipe off this blot— for blot it is — upon the reign of the 
 Queen, and scandal it is to the civilisation, and to the justice 
 of the people of this country.
 
 THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT LOWE 1 
 ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 House of Commons, April 26th, 1866. 
 
 [The Reform Bill of 1866, introduced by Mr Gladstone on March 1 2th, 
 had for its object the reduction of the County Franchise from £50 to ,£14, 
 and of the Borough Franchise.from ^IO to ,£7. The popular interest in 
 this measure was unbounded ; not since the passing of Lord Russell's Reform 
 Bill in 1832 had any Parliamentary measure excited so much curiosity 
 or alarm.] 
 
 Sir, — My hon. friend the member for Westminster (Mr John 
 Stuart Mill) has come out in a new character. I do not speak 
 of the excellent speech which he has made, because, having 
 known him for many years, I was quite sure that, when he took 
 the trouble to give us his best thoughts, instead of dealing in 
 impromptus, those great abilities which are acknowledged to be 
 his would be apparent. But my hon. friend has taken a new 
 stand. He has taken many positions with regard to this sub- 
 ject, as those who are acquainted with his works well know ; 
 but he has now come forward in the capacity of the advocate 
 of my second principle, the doctrine of class representation. 
 He demands the franchise for the working classes ; because, he 
 says, they are not sufficiently represented now, although they 
 have a fourth of the votes in boroughs. He offers no argument 
 in support of his assertion ; I therefore pass it by, as I wish to 
 deal with arguments, and not assertions. My hon. friend does 
 
 1 Afterwards Viscount Sherbrooke. 
 II
 
 1 1 4 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 say, however, that the working classes have not so much influ- 
 ence as they might be supposed to have, because they are so 
 distributed that they are usually outvoted, and thus they are in 
 a position little better than if they had no votes at all. He 
 regrets, on their behalf, that some law is not in force for giving 
 to minorities representation. I believe that is a fair statement 
 of my hon. friend's argument. {Mr Mill was utuierstood to 
 assent.) 
 
 Now, I think my hon. friend ought, in passing, to have 
 adverted to the argument which I have so frequently insisted 
 upon in this House — namely, that if the working classes have 
 only 128,000 votes in the present constituencies, it is very much 
 their own fault, because many more of them have the means, if 
 they choose to live in _^io houses. The law, therefore, is not 
 to blame in this respect. He might have adverted to a case 
 which I may mention as the type of many others. The South- 
 wick glass manufactory, at Sunderland, is a large establishment 
 where many workmen are employed, earning from ^4 to ^5 a 
 week. It is complained that none of these persons have the fran- 
 chise. But whose fault is that ? These workmen are earning, 
 some ^200 and some ^250 a year, and yet they live in houses 
 under ^10 a year in value. Is it the fault of the law? Of 
 course, I must not say whose fault it is. Every gentleman is 
 free to say anything that is complimentary of the working 
 classes in general, and his own constituency in particular ; but 
 any gentleman who says anything in the slightest degree not 
 pleasing to them is thought to have grossly misconducted him- 
 self. But now, having adopted the theory of classes, we 
 cannot, as my hon. friend was inclined to do, take it up in 
 order to make an argument in favour of the working classes, 
 and lay it down when it makes against them. His logical 
 mind will tell him that he must follow the principle out to its 
 legitimate conclusions, and so he is bound to show us that the 
 extension of the franchise which he asks for the working 
 classes, though a wide extension, can be given without 
 injury to the other classes. He must not take the theory up
 
 Robert Lowe oil Parliamentary Reform. i j 
 
 3 
 
 for the working classes alone, but for all classes. Now, he has 
 not condescended to show us how the extension which he 
 approves would influence the position of any other class; for I 
 view this question not as one between working classes and 
 those who employ them, but between those who have property 
 and those who have not. 
 
 Now, Sir, I would refer my hon. friend and the House 
 to the Preface of the third edition of his work on " Political 
 Economy." It was published in 1852, so that my hon. friend 
 has had time to change his mind since, and he is entitled to do 
 it. This is what he said. I am very glad that I didn't — 
 
 "The only objection to which any great importance will be attached in 
 the present edition, is the unprepared state of mankind in general, and the 
 labouring classes in particular ; their extreme unfitness at present tor any 
 order of things which would make any considerable demand on either their 
 intellect or their virtue." 
 
 That was in 1852 ; but we have the opinion of my hon. friend 
 in 1S61. In his work on "Representative Government" he 
 says — 
 
 " I regard it as wholly inadmissible that any person should participate in 
 the suffrage without being able to read, write, and, I \\ill add, perform 
 the common operations of arithmetic. Universal teaching must precede 
 universal enfranchisement. No one, but those in whom an a prion 'theory 
 has silenced common sense, will maintain that power over others, over the 
 whole community, should be given to people who have not acquired the 
 commonest and most essential requisites for taking care of themselves." 
 
 My hon. friend himself cheers these remarks. I hope he will 
 take some opportunity of telling us what was the process of 
 investigation he entered upon for the purpose of satisfying him- 
 self that the electors in -Q7 houses will be found prepared for 
 the exercise of the franchise. I hope he will tell us what 
 evidence he has to produce of their intellect and their virtue 
 I hope he will satisfy us, if he has satisfied himself, of their 
 being able to read and write, and to perform all the common 
 operations of arithmetic, including — I suppose, though he did 
 not state it in that passage — the Rule of Three. I hope he has 
 satisfied himself that universal teaching has preceded universal 
 enfranchisement. Of course the word "universal" might be
 
 1 16 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 struck out, and the sense would remain the same — namely, that 
 instruction must precede enfranchisement. I hope he will 
 show us how he has satisfied himself that those persons whom 
 he proposes to enfranchise — to whom he would entrust the 
 interests of others — are persons who have acquired the com- 
 monest and most essential requisites for taking care of them- 
 selves. If not, how can he reconcile his present position with 
 any principle, but that d priori theory of which he speaks? I 
 do not say my hon. friend cannot do it. He can do most things, 
 and perhaps he can do this ; but I only say, as things stand, he 
 has not done it, and that his own writings are against the prin- 
 ciple which he now supports by his speech. 
 
 My hon. friend half took up the challenge which I threw out 
 when I asked in what this Parliament — which has only just 
 come into existence, and which was condemned before it was 
 born — has been found wanting. He pointed out our old friend 
 the Cattle Plague. I am not going to argue that question over 
 again \ but my hon. friend said, that if the working classes had 
 been represented here, they might have objected to persons 
 being twice compensated for their cattle. Now, Sir, I cannot 
 persuade my hon. friend, but I think, if I had the working men 
 here, I could show them that the persons to whom the hon. 
 member for Westminster alludes will not be compensated 
 twice. Suppose a farmer has a hundred head of cattle, which 
 are killed to prevent the spread of the disease. He is com- 
 pensated at less than their value, and then it becomes neces- 
 sary for agricultural purposes that he should go into the 
 market and buy another hundred head of cattle. The loss 
 which he sustains is not only the difference between the value 
 of his former cattle and the compensation which he got for 
 them, but also the amount by which the price of cattle has 
 been enhanced by the disease, and enhanced in some degree 
 by the slaughter. I cannot persuade my hon. friend, because 
 he is a philosopher, but I think I could persuade the working 
 men whom he seeks to bring among us, thai so far from being 
 paid twice over, the farmer in that case has never been paid
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. 1 1 7 
 
 once. You can put a case which will be the other way. If a 
 man has a large herd of cattle, and is compensated for a few of 
 them, he may be paid over again by the enhanced prices of the 
 remainder. You can put the case both ways, but what I com- 
 plain of is the narrowness and illiberality of saying that this is 
 a matter which cannot admit of two aspects — that those who 
 differ from my lion, friend must be wrong, and that if it were 
 not for the faulty constitution of this House, we should see and 
 judge things in the same manner as he does. [Mr Mill. — I 
 wish to correct the last assertion of my hon. friend. I never 
 imputed to hon. gentlemen in this House, or to the landed 
 interest, that they were wilfully wrong.] I may remark that I 
 suppose no one in this House would have any objection to 
 working men coming here if the constituencies wished to send 
 them. .They can do so now if they like, and therefore we need 
 not take up time in arguing the point, because I am sure that, 
 whenever the constituencies may think proper to send working 
 men here, we shall receive those representatives properly, and 
 listen to them with respect. But my hon. friend told us of the 
 subjects which the working classes might wish to debate here. 
 He referred to "the right of labour." That sounds very like 
 the right to labour, of which we heard in 1848. Are we to 
 have the doctrines of Fourier and St Simon discussed here ? 
 We are told that in so doing we shall educate the working 
 man. I protest against this. We are here to legislate for 
 this country, and if we look after the Executive Government 
 pretty sharply — if we take care of our finance, and if we watch 
 the Foreign Office, we shall be doing better than we should by 
 converting this House into an academy or gymnasium for the 
 instruction even of the elite of the working classes. 
 
 My hon. friend said that if the working classes were 
 here they would establish a school in every parish in a few 
 years. Well, that is a subject on which I ought to know some- 
 thing ; and I may say that the main object I had in view, in 
 the changes which I proposed on the part of the Government 
 in the education system, was to benefit the working classes.
 
 i iS Modem Political Orations. 
 
 Under the old system the poor children were not properly 
 taught. The upper children, the children of richer parents, 
 were examined, and the money was paid ; but the lower and 
 poorer children were neglected. The upper children had 
 generally had some education at home ; but the poorer children 
 had received no education at home, and they were not done 
 justice to in the schools. The object of the Revised Code was 
 to ensure that education should be given to the poor just as 
 much as to the rich ; so that the object was one mainly — indeed 
 entirely— for the working classes. But in that object I never 
 received the slightest assistance in any way from the working 
 classes. The opposition to it was very much from the mem- 
 bers of the large towns in which the working classes form a 
 considerable portion of the constituencies; but the working 
 classes themselves never interfered in the matter. They did 
 not care about it. The schoolmasters interfered, and got 
 members of Parliament to oppose the Code ; but the working 
 classes never entered into the matter at all. How, therefore, 
 my hon. friend can think that working men will deal with 
 this question, in which they have never shown any interest, 
 and which is very intricate and difficult, I cannot under- 
 stand. Again, my hon. friend ought to be prepared to show 
 how he means to resist the course of what he calls false 
 economy. If the working classes, in addition to being a 
 majority in the boroughs, get a redistribution of the seats in 
 their favour, it will follow that their influence will be enormously 
 increased. They will then urge the House of Commons to 
 pass another Franchise Bill, and another Redistribution Bill to 
 follow it. Not satisfied with these, yet another Franchise Bill 
 and another redistribution of seats will, perhaps, follow. It 
 will be a ruinous game of see saw. No one can tell where it 
 will stop, and it will not be likely to stop until we get equal 
 electoral districts, and a qualification so low that it will keep 
 out nobody. 
 
 There is another matter with which my hon. friend has 
 not dealt : I mean the pomt of combination among the working
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. i 19 
 
 classes. To many persons there appears great danger that the 
 machinery which at present exists for strikes and trades' unions 
 may be used for political purposes. And that this use of such 
 machinery has not escaped the attention of thinking men, I 
 will show you, from a speech made by the hon. member for 
 Birmingham in January i860. In that speech he said — 
 
 "Working men have associations; ihey can get up formidable strikes 
 against Capital — sometimes for things that are just, sometimes for things 
 that are impossible. They have associations, trade societies, organisations ; 
 and I want to ask them why it is that all these various organisations 
 throughout the country could not be made use of for the purpose of obtain- 
 ing their political rights ? " 
 
 Why is it that these various organisations have not been 
 so made use of? The hon. gentleman asked that question 
 in i860, and I admit that hitherto he has received no answer. 
 Why? I will tell you why. '1 he working classes, to use his 
 own expression, are the lever. But they must have a fulcrum 
 before they can act. They have not got it. Give them the 
 majority of the voters in a number of boroughs, and it is 
 supplied to them. It is not by passing resolutions and making 
 speeches they coerce their masters. They watch their oppor- 
 tunity ; they wait for the time when large orders are in, and 
 they refuse to work : that is the fulcrum they work on. Give 
 them the majority of voters — that will be their political fulcrum ; 
 and if the hon. gentleman repeats his advice, no doubt 
 they will use it with avidity. I want to call the attention of 
 the House, in a few words, to the condition of the trades' 
 unions, because we are all anxious to discover, if we can, the 
 future of that Democracy, which, I believe, this Bill will be the 
 first means of establishing. I take one class, the operative 
 stonemasons — a very influential association, numbering 80,000 
 members, and having a large capital. Last year, after a strike 
 of nineteen weeks, this body of masons beat the masters. Let 
 me call the attention of the House to a letter which they sent 
 to the employers — 
 
 " We present you with the wishes of our trade union, requesting a reply 
 on or before Saturday next : — Mr Thomas and all non-society plasterers to
 
 120 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 be discharged ; all non-society carpenters and improvers to be discharged ; 
 piecework to be abolished, etc. On behalf of the United .Building Trades, 
 John Bray, Chairman." 
 
 Mark what that is. See the power unions have of drawing 
 men within their own circle. You say, if they become political 
 bodies, men who want to have nothing to do with politics will 
 have nothing to do with them. Can they help themselves? 
 They will be overborne, overawed; they are like men con- 
 tending with a maelstrom, into which, and struggle as they may, 
 eventually they will be sucked. This is a paragraph which I 
 have taken from an Edinburgh paper — 
 
 "The tailors' strike may now be considered at an end, the men having 
 agreed to accept the London 'log,' with payment at the rate of 5jd. an 
 hour, as offered by the masters. These terms the men seem to consider 
 as highly satisfactory, entailing, as they will, an increase of from 15 to 25 
 per cent, on their wages. We have been informed that the men have made 
 it a condition with the masters that the ' black sheep,' or those who have 
 continued working during the lock-out, shall not obtain employment until 
 they become members of the Society, besides paying a fine of ten shillings 
 each." 
 
 You will say these men do not want to join these societies — 
 I daresay they do not ; but what choice have they ? The truth 
 is — and of this I want to convince the House — that these trades' 
 unions are far more unions against the best, the most skilful, 
 the most industrious, and most capable of the labourers them- 
 selves, than they are against their masters. Listen to another 
 rule which is taken from the printed book of the Co-operative 
 Society of Masons — 
 
 11 Working overtime, tending to our general injury by keeping members 
 out of employment, shall be abolished, except in case of accident or 
 necessity." 
 
 This is your future political organisation. Again — 
 
 " It is also required that lodges harassed by piecework or sub-contracting 
 do apply at a reasonable time for a grant to abolish it." 
 
 That is to say, men are first to be driven into these unions 
 by pressure such as I have explained to the House, and then, 
 once they are got within the limits, whatever their necessities, 
 whatever the pressure of their families, they are not to be
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. 1 2 1 
 
 allowed to eke out their income by working overtime. To do 
 so might enable a man, a poor man, to raise himself out of 
 that sphere of life, and furnish him with some still better 
 occupation. But although his good conduct might have invited 
 the confidence, and attracted the notice of his master, he is not 
 allowed to take a sub-contract, to make a little money in that 
 way. The object of all these proceedings is obvious. It is to 
 enclose as many men as can be got into these societies, and 
 then to apply to them the strictest democratic principle ; and 
 that is to make war against all superiority, to keep down skill, 
 industry, and capacity, and make them the slaves of clumsi- 
 ness, idleness, and ignorance. One extract more, and I have 
 done — 
 
 "In localities where that most obnoxious and destructive system gener- 
 ally known as 'chasing' is persisted in, lodges should use every effort to 
 put it down. Not to take less time than that taken by an average mason 
 in the execution of the first portion of each description of work, is the 
 practice that should be adopted among us as much as possible ; and where 
 it is plainly visible that any member or other individual is striving to over- 
 work or ' chase ' his fellow-workers, thereby acting in a manner calculated 
 to lead to the discharge of members, or a reduction of their wages, the 
 party so acting shall be summoned before the lodge, and if the charge be 
 satisfactorily proved, a fine shall be inflicted on the party implicated." 
 
 That is to say, when a poor workman, naturally quicker and 
 more skilful than those about him, and with a wish to distinguish 
 himself, shows his capacity, so as to oblige his fellow-workmen 
 to exert themselves more than goes to what they please to call 
 the time taken by an average mason in the execution of his 
 work, he is to be fined and put down. Add to this — what 
 does not appear in any of the rules and regulations, but what 
 we know well — the system of terrorism that exists behind 
 these trades' unions, and makes the lives of the "knob-sticks" 
 and " black sheep " miserable till they are driven into them. 
 And then look at this tremendous machinery ; if you only arm 
 it with the one thing it wants — the Parliamentary vote ! 
 
 It remains for us to consider the result of the step that you 
 are invited to take. I assume that this is really a very large and 
 sweeping change in the democratic direction, giving, as I
 
 I 22 
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 believe, the majority of votes in boroughs to the working 
 classes. On that point we are compelled to differ, because the 
 Government will not give us the materials necessary for making 
 an accurate calculation. This change is to be followed by a 
 further and very large change in the redistribution of seats. 
 It does not depend upon any Government, upon any Minister, 
 perhaps upon any House of Commons, to say where those 
 changes will stop. One hon. member speaks of this as a 
 change that will last fifty years. He has put the matter as 
 entirely out of his power as a man who, rolling a stone down 
 the side of a mountain, fixes beforehand in his own mind the 
 time it will take to reach the bottom. We have had this 
 matter put before us from one very peculiar and invidious 
 point of view. It seems to have been thought that the manner 
 to discuss the probable results of a u r t"cat democratic change in 
 this country was, on the one side, to praise the working man, 
 especially those among our own constituents, and on the other, 
 to remain silent, because nothing except praise, it is presumed, 
 would be borne. I think that is not the way to approach this 
 question. There is considerable risk that in this way the basis 
 of our institutions may be complimented away. We are rich 
 in experience on this subject. We have the experience of our 
 own state and condition, which, compared with that of other 
 countries, may be called a stationary state ; we have the experi- 
 ence of our Colonies all over the world, which may be described 
 as in a transition state ; and we have the experience of those 
 two great democracies, France and America, where Democracy 
 may be said to have run its course, and arrived at something 
 like its ultimate results. It is inexcusable in us, if we do not 
 apply our minds to the consideration of this subject, and draw 
 from this rich field of observation conclusions more trust- 
 worthy and more reliable than those to be gained from our own 
 isolated experience, particularly as this is so often contradictory. 
 The hon. gentleman the Under Secretary lor the Colonies 
 (Mr Cardwell) began his speech the other night by telling 
 us, that if the working men had a fault in the world, it
 
 Robert Lozve on Parliamentary Reform. 123 
 
 was their too great reverence for authority, and then he went 
 on to tell us, that if we did not accede to their present moder- 
 ate requests, it would be a question, not of how much we 
 should give, but of how much they would take. That was 
 the sum of the lion, gentleman's remarks ; he told us that 
 the burden of proof would be effectively shifted, and he said 
 what we all understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr 
 Gladstone) to say before he wrote his preface, and made his two 
 speeches to explain away his meaning. The working men 
 entered the hon. gentleman the Under-Secretary's speech 
 like lambs, and they left it as lions ; and so his estimate of 
 them may be said to answer itself. The question of peace or 
 war has been a good deal touched upon in this debate. The 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Liverpool, was very much 
 struck with the magnificent spectacle put forth by Democracy 
 in the recent war. I would rather he had commended it for 
 something it had done in peace. I never doubted that De- 
 mocracy was a terrible warlike power. It is not the educated 
 and reflective who are influenced by ideas, but the half-edu- 
 cated and the unreflective ; and if you show to the ignorant and 
 poor and half-educated wrong, injustice, and wickedness, any- 
 where, their generous instincts rise within them, and nothing is 
 easier than to get up a cry for the redress of those grievances. 
 We feel the injustice, too ; but we look not merely at the 
 injustice itself — we look before and after; we look at the 
 collateral circumstances, at what must happen to the trade, 
 revenue, and our own position in the world, and we look also 
 at what must happen to those very poor persons themselves, 
 before we commit ourselves to a decided course. Persons, 
 also, who have something to lose are less anxious to lose it than 
 those who have little at stake often, even though these last may 
 by the loss be reduced to absolute poverty. At the time of 
 the Crimean war, we actually got up an enthusiasm on behalf 
 of that most abominable and decrepit despotism — the Turkish 
 Empire. Nothing would have been more popular in England 
 than a war on behalf of Hungary in 1849, or one lately on
 
 124 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 behalf of Poland. Wherever cruelty or injustice exists, the 
 feelings of the humbler class of Englishmen — to their honour 
 be it said — revolt against it, and, not possessing the quality of 
 circumspection, their impulse is to go straight at the wrong and 
 redress it, without regard to ulterior consequences. 
 
 Therefore, to suggest that in making the institutions of the 
 country more democratic we have any security from war, that 
 we do not greatly increase the risk of war, seems to me supremely 
 ridiculous. What is taking place in the Australian Colonies? 
 Victoria and New South Wales are both governed by universal 
 suffrage, and it is as much as we can do to prevent their going 
 to war with each other. Look at America. A section of the 
 American Democracy revolted and broke up the Union, the 
 rest fought to preserve it ; the war was fought out to the bitter 
 end, and now that the war is concluded, they are almost 
 ready to go to war again to prevent the doing of that which 
 they took up arms to accomplish. Look at Free Trade. If 
 we have a precious jewel in the world, it is our Free Trade 
 Policy. It has been everything to us. With what eyes do 
 Democracies look at it ? Let us turn to History, and not enter 
 into particular cases of particular working men. Take the facts. 
 Canada has raised her duties enormously, and justified them 
 upon Protectionist principles. The Prime Minister of New 
 South Wales at this moment is a strong Protectionist. The 
 Ministry in Victoria were Free Traders, but by the will of the 
 people they have been converted, and have become Pro 
 tectionists. So vigorously has the question been fought, that 
 destruction is threatened to the second branch of the 1 -egis- 
 lature, though equal in power to the other, in defiance of the 
 laws of the country, and all to carry out a policy of Protection. 
 Then we come to America. America out-protects Protection — 
 there never was anything like the zeal for Protection in America 
 With a revenue that needs recruiting, by every means in their 
 power they persist in sacrificing the most valuable resources; 
 with a frontier that bids defiance to any effectual attempts to 
 guard it, they persist in maintaining duties that provoke to
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. 125 
 
 wholesale smuggling rather than reduce them by a single 
 penny. And, as if anxious at once to illustrate the Free Trade 
 and Peace proclivities of Democracy, they terminate the Treaty 
 with Canada, which was a step in the direction of Free Trade, 
 and then seek to enforce by violence the very rights which the 
 Treaty they have put an end to secured. I will add one word 
 as to Communism. The hon. member for Lambeth has cer- 
 tainly furnished us with a very good argument in favour of the 
 proposition of having working men to represent themselves. 
 He has drawn such a picture of them as they would scarcely 
 have given themselves. What does he say ? He says, in the 
 first place, that they are entirely unable to understand that 
 wages depend on the laws of supply and demand; that, he 
 says, is entirely out of their conception. Then he tells us that 
 they have no conception of any difference between the 
 remuneration of the strong and the weak ; the strong are to 
 work for the weak, and all are to be paid alike. Then, as far 
 as Government is concerned, the working men — so far from 
 having a horror of a paternal and interfering Government — 
 want us to prevent their going to public-houses, and this in the 
 name of universal Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Not only 
 so, but they insist that the money of their fellow-taxpayers ought 
 to be spent in building houses for them to live in, forsooth, to 
 appropriate a sufficient proportion of their own incomes to pay 
 the amount of rent required to accomplish this object on com- 
 mercial principles. 
 
 I now come to the question of the representatives of the 
 working classes. It is an old observation that every Democracy 
 is in some respects similar to a despotism. As courtiers and 
 flatterers are worse than despots themselves, so those who 
 flatter and fawn upon the people are generally very inferior to 
 the people — the objects of their flattery and adulation. We 
 see in America, where the people have undisputed power, that 
 they do not send honest, hard-working men to represent them 
 in the Congress, but traffickers in office, bankrupts, men who 
 have lost their character, and been driven from every respectable
 
 126 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 way of life, and who take up politics as a last resource. There 
 is one subject of immense importance to a constitutional 
 House — viz., the expenses of elections. The member for 
 Westminster (Mr J. S. Mill) thinks this Bill will abridge the 
 influence of wealth. Will it do so? Let us see. These 
 expenses are of two kinds— legitimate and illegitimate. The 
 Bill now before the House will enormously increase the electoral 
 districts, and in many it will double, and in some treble, the 
 legitimate expense of elections. I am speaking among people 
 who are thoroughly acquainted with this subject, and they know 
 too well that the expenses of elections depend as much on the 
 illegitimate as on the legitimate agencies employed. Can it be 
 argued, then, that by admitting occupiers of houses between 
 ^10 and j£j you will diminish the illegitimate expenses of 
 elections? Yes, it can, for it has been thus argued by the 
 right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr 
 Milner Gibson). The right hon. gentleman — and I am happy 
 to have his authority— says (mind, I do not) that the people 
 in a great many of the boroughs are very corrupt. [Mr 
 M. Gikson. — I said, "Some voters."] Well, some voters in 
 some boroughs. I wish to be cautious. Some of these voters 
 have political opinions, but their minds are so sluggish that 
 they cannot be influenced without a certain lent tormentum, or 
 reminder in the shape of a five-pound note ; while others, who 
 have no political opinions, are slow and procrastinating, being 
 never able to make up their minds until about three o'clock on 
 the day of the poll, when by some inscrutable influence they 
 are urged on to a little activity. Others are judicial, and cannot 
 decide till they have been paid on both sides. It is said, Here 
 is a disease ; cure it, dilute its poison by admitting a large 
 number to the franchise. Well, this would be a very good 
 argument if health were catching as well as disease. If I had 
 half-a-dozen diseased cattle, and I turned one hundred sound 
 cattle among them, I might infect the new ones, but 1 do not 
 think that I should do much good to the sick ones. 
 
 And now let me say that I have never been answered as to
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. 127 
 
 the effect which the lowering of the franchise would have upon 
 this House, and I suppose that I never shall be. One great mis- 
 take is made — it is almost a childish oversight— and that is to 
 speak of this House as if it were merely a legislative body. The 
 members of this House have a position, a consideration, and a 
 weight in this country such as no legislative body ever had in 
 any country in the world. This is not because of any extra- 
 ordinary skill in legislation ; we have other functions. The 
 House is the administrator of the public funds, but besides 
 that, it is a main part of the Executive Government of the 
 country. It can unmake the Executive, and it can go a long 
 way to make it. It is, therefore, well to consider that you are 
 dealing with a Legislature entirely different from either the 
 Assembly of France or the Congress of America. We all know 
 that while our legislation has been more vigorous and better 
 since the Reform Bill, the Executive Government has shown 
 weakness and languor. If you exaggerate, if you intensify the 
 causes already at work, you will find it necessary to do what 
 has been done elsewhere— to separate the functions of the 
 Executive Government from the House of Commons altogether, 
 to break up that most salutary union which exists between them, 
 and to have a Government which shall not depend for its 
 existence upon a majority in this House. 
 
 Now, that is a consideration the seriousness of which it is 
 perfectly impossible to exaggerate. In the Colonies they have 
 got Democratic Assemblies And what is the result? Why, 
 responsible Government becomes a curse, instead of a blessing. 
 In Australia there is no greater evil to the stability of Society, to 
 industry, to property, and to the well-being of the country, than 
 the constant change which is taking place in the Government, 
 and the uncertainty that it creates, and the pitting of rival 
 factions against each other. The same thing, I think, is won- 
 derfully exemplified in Victoria, where you have a Government 
 which is now under the influence of universal suffrage, and 
 which is at war at once with the judicial authorities and the 
 Upper Chamber, because neither will yield to its illegal
 
 128 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 exactions. The Supreme Court decides against the levy of 
 taxes by resolution of the Assembly, and the Government 
 dissolves Parliament and appeals to universal suffrage against 
 the decision of the Supreme Court. What does this tend to ? 
 It tends to Anarchy, and from that Anarchy these Colonies must 
 be relieved. They can, however, only be relieved by depriving 
 them of that boon which in an unfortunate hour they received — 
 that of responsible Government coupled with universal suffrage 
 — and by placing their Government in some permanent hands, 
 so that the Executive shall not be in a perpetual state of change. 
 Look a little further, and see what happened in France, where 
 there was a limited constituency in the time of Louis Philippe, 
 and Parliamentary Government until the Revolution of 1848. 
 Then came the Assembly elected by universal suffrage, and still 
 with a responsible Government. But that responsible Govern- 
 ment became weaker every day until the coup d'etat, and I 
 doubt if there are many gentlemen here who could tell me the 
 name of the nominal Premier under whom the liberties of 
 France were overthrown. The great men who founded the 
 Constitution of America foresaw this, and they took means to 
 obviate the difficulty, They knew perfectly well of what the 
 enormous advantage of our system of Government consisted. 
 They knew that Democracy required checks, and they sought 
 to check it by various means. They, in fact, checked Demo- 
 cracy with Democracy, and elected a President. They added, 
 too, what we have not got — the principle of federalism, which 
 resisted the downward tendency of Democracy by a lateral 
 pressure. To use a familiar illustration, they held a piece of 
 coal up by a pair of tongs. That has been the course adopted 
 in America. And now let us see what has come of it. They 
 have fought out a Civil War, and gained a great victory. But 
 we must remember that men's opinions were divided. One 
 side wanted to prevent the South from regaining the power it 
 possessed before the Civil War, and the other to reconstruct 
 the Union on the principle of State rights. In this country the 
 question would be decided by a vote displacing or retaining
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. 129 
 
 the Government; and those who were displaced would carry 
 into the wilderness their offences, as the scapegoat carried off 
 the offences of the people of Israel. But mark what happens 
 in America. You cannot get rid of the President, who sits for 
 four years ; nor the Congress, which sits for two years. There- 
 fore you have an internecine duel, and those who ought to 
 combine and coalesce for the good of the country are in fac- 
 tious opposition. The whole frame of the Constitution is thus 
 stretched until it cracks — to try, not who shall hold the supreme 
 power, but which of the two rival institutions shall gain the 
 victory over the other. You have seen Senators expelled in 
 order to secure a majority of two-thirds, and things have 
 arrived at such a pitch that no man need be surprised at seeing 
 a second Civil War, from the inability of the Constitution to 
 solve the difficulty in which the first Civil War had placed the 
 country. 
 
 Let us apply this to our own country. We have in our own 
 Government an invaluable institution, and let us not rashly or 
 foolishly put it in peril. I do not know whether hon. gentle- 
 men have read the report of the debate which took place the 
 other day in the French Chamber between M. Thiers and 
 M. Rouher on the subject of the introduction into France of 
 a responsible Government. Though my sympathies, as an 
 Englishman, are with M. Thiers, I confess that in my opinion 
 the argument of M. Rouher was unanswerable, for the ques- 
 tion was whether responsible Government could co-exist with 
 universal suffrage ? If you were to have responsible Govern- 
 ment back, said M. Rouher, you must also have back the pays 
 legal, the old constituencies containing 200,000 voters; for, 
 without that, he argued, M. Thiers was asking for a thing 
 without being prepared to realise the only conditions under 
 which it could exist. Now, Sir, Democracy has yet another 
 tendency, which it is worth while to study at the present 
 moment. It is singularly prone to the concentration of power. 
 Under it individual men are small, and the Government is 
 great. That must be the character of a Government which 
 
 I
 
 130 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 represents the majority, and which absolutely tramples down 
 and equalizes everything except itself. And Democracy has 
 another strong peculiarity. It looks with the utmost hostility 
 on all institutions not of immediate popular origin which 
 intervene between the people and the Sovereign power which 
 the people have set up. To use the words of the right hon. 
 gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it likes 
 to have everything as representative as possible, but that 
 which is not representative it likes to have swept away. Now, 
 look what is done in France. Democracy has left nothing in 
 that country between the people and the Emperor except a 
 bureaucracy, which the Emperor himself has created. In 
 America it has done almost the same thing. You have there 
 nothing to break the shock between the two great powers of 
 the State. The wise men who framed the Constitution tried 
 to provide a remedy by dividing functions as much as possible. 
 They assigned one function to the President, another to the 
 Senate, a third to the Congress, and a fourth to the different 
 States. But all their efforts have been in vain, and you see 
 how two hostile camps have arisen, and the terrible duel which 
 is now taking place between them. 
 
 Now, apply that to England, which, above all countries in 
 the world, is the country of intermediate institutions. There 
 are between the people and the throne a vast number of institu- 
 tions which our ancestors have created. Their principle in 
 creating them seems to have been this — that they looked a 
 great deal to Liberty, and very little to Equality. If there were 
 something to be done, they sought for some existing institution 
 which was able to do it. If some change were required, they 
 altered things as little as they could, and were content to go on 
 in that manner. This is a country of privileges above all 
 other countries ; but the privileges have been given, not as in 
 other countries — as in France before the Revolution, for 
 instance —for the benefit of the privileged classes, but because 
 Our ancestors, in all moderation, believed this to lie the best 
 way to ensure order, and good government, and stability. It
 
 Robert Lowe f>n Parliamentary Reform. 131 
 
 may be difficult to prove upon theory how all this should he, 
 because ancient Governments, as Burke finely remarks, are 
 seldom based on abstract principles, but rather are the materials 
 from which abstract principles are drawn. I think we should 
 act more wisely and more worthily to the country if we were 
 to ascertain what lessons of wisdom may be drawn from the 
 signal success of our own Government, instead of trying to 
 borrow from the people of America notions which lead to 
 such results as I have been endeavouring to depict. But, Sir 
 have we succeeded ? I will quote, not my own words, but ar 
 unexceptional witness. Says the speaker whom I quote — 
 
 " It has been our privilege to see a process going f >rward in which the 
 throne has acquired broader and deeper foundations in the affections of 
 the country ; in which the law has commended itself more and more to 
 the respect and attachment of the people ; in which the various sections of 
 the community have come into close communion the one with the other ; 
 in which the great masses of our labouring fellow-countrymen have come 
 to be better supplied than they were in the time of their immediate fore- 
 fathers ; and in which, upon the whole, a man desirous of the welfare of his 
 kind, looking out on the broad surtace of Society, may thank his (Jod, and 
 say, ' Behold, how good and pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell 
 together in unity 1 ' " 
 
 Well, those eloquent words were the words of the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, and they were spoken on the 14th of Sep- 
 tember last, just two months before he began the concoction of 
 the Bill which has been so very successful in illustrating the 
 manner in which brethren dwell together in unity. 
 
 Now, let us suppose Democracy to be established in a 
 greater or less degree in this country. With what eyes 
 would it look upon the institutions which I have alluded to ? 
 What would be the relation of this House with the House of 
 Peers? I will call a witness. Eight years ago the hon. 
 member for Birmingham (Mr John Bright) inverted his present 
 process. He is now anxious to secure means; he was then 
 proclaiming ends. He then said — 
 
 " See what I will do for you, if you will only give me Reform." 
 
 But now he says — 
 
 "Give me Kefonn, and be assured that I will do nothing."
 
 132 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 But the Bill does not say that. The words he uttered eight 
 years ago remain. They have never been retracted, and 
 I have no reason to suppose that the hon. gentleman 
 wishes to retract, or is ashamed of any one of them. The 
 hon. member said on one occasion — I am speaking from 
 memory ; but, though I am not sure about the words, I 
 am about the meaning which the hon. member intended to 
 convey — that, as far as the House of Peers was concerned, he 
 did not believe that even the Peers themselves could suppose 
 that they were a permanent institution in this country. What 
 do you suppose would become of a House of Peers in 
 America? What has become of the House of Peers in 
 France ? The name alone remains ; but where is the power 
 of that brilliant aristocracy which surrounded the throne of the 
 Louises, and gave a glitter even to their vices? Then, what 
 shall we say of the Church ? I am speaking of it merely from 
 a secular point of view, as a large and wealthy institution, not 
 exactly of popular origin, nor looked upon with particular affec- 
 tion by persons who stand well with the masses. I call a 
 witness again. What does the hon. gentleman the member 
 for Birmingham say? He speaks of 
 
 "That portion of the public estate which is for a time permitted to re- 
 main in the hands of the Church of England." 
 
 What would be the position of the judges? Looking at the 
 differences in this respect between the two countries, it will be 
 seen that we have fenced round our judges with every safe- 
 guard, and given them more and more power, until we have, 
 made them practically an irresponsible. class in the country. 
 We have been content to witness the melancholy sight of a 
 person actually blind, and we have still a man of ninety years, 
 sitting upon the judicial bench. We submit to this, not be- 
 cause we think it right in itself, but because we think it better 
 to err to a small extent than to give rise to the slightest 
 suspicion that a judge has been influenced in the least way by 
 this House. Now, what state of things exists in America?
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. 133 
 
 In the great State of New York the judges arc appointed for 
 six years only, and further West the term decreases, until in 
 Mississippi two years is the maximum. And why? In order 
 that they may be able to administer the law, not in accordance 
 with the law, but in accordance with the popular sentiment. 
 That we should continue to have judges I do not doubt, but 
 do you think they would occupy such a position as they 
 occupy now, and be so utterly independent of popular 
 power ? 
 
 And now, let us come to ourselves. Our position, as I have 
 remarked already, is much more honourable than that of the 
 members of any other Legislative Assembly in the world. Do 
 you think Democracy would look with a favourable eye upon 
 that? Would it not judge by analogy that such a state of 
 things ought, in some degree, to be altered, and that we 
 should be made to approach nearer to the level of our 
 constituents ? Now, we have a privileged class of electors who 
 hold houses above ^10. That class is a humble one, but it 
 has discharged its duty up to the present time in a manner 
 which almost defies criticism. But now, without any reason, 
 but merely on account of an abstract principle of right, we 
 have an attempt made to sweep that class away and swamp it 
 in the class below it. Without enlarging upon this topic, 
 I must say it is manifest to me, that if the House of Commons 
 is democratised, it will not rest under such modified circum- 
 stances until it has swept away those institutions which at 
 present stand between the people and the throne, and has 
 supplied the place of them, as far as it can, by institutions 
 deriving their origin direct from the people; being, as the 
 Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, as representative as 
 possible, and not having the quasi independence which the 
 present privileged institutions and corporations possess. You 
 will then have face to face, with no longer anything to break 
 the shock between them, the monarch of the time and a great 
 Democratic Assembly. Now, History has taught us little, if 
 we are to suppose that these two powers would go on bar-
 
 134 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 moniously, and that things would continue to work as they 
 do now. The event no one can predict. We saw what a duel 
 there was in France in 185 1, when the President and the 
 Assembly were each grasping at the sword, and endeavouring 
 to exterminate the other. The Emperor conquered, and 
 Csesarianism followed. Had the Emperor failed, France 
 would have had the very worst form of Government— namely, 
 a Convention, a deliberative Assembly, attempting through its 
 Committees to exercise Executive power, and endeavouring to 
 do that which ought to be done through responsible Ministers ; 
 and such a Government would only last for a time, to be 
 destroyed by some Cromwell or Napoleon, or to dissolve by 
 its own vices and weakness. Look, again, on the state of 
 things in America, where the President wields the Executive 
 power, and where an opposition to him is raised in Congress. 
 And then see how Congress works. It works through Com- 
 mittees, and every officer in the Government has a corresponding 
 Committee in Congress to thwart and to overrule him. 
 
 But I need not follow that question further. Probably, 
 many gentlemen may even think that I have endeavoured to 
 look too far into futurity. At all events, I do not base 
 my case on mere vague conjecture; I base it upon History 
 and experience. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor 
 of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr Goschen) has told us that 
 England is a country totally different from America or 
 Australia, and that no argument could be drawn from either of 
 the two latter applicable to the position in which we stand. 
 Well, Sir, there is of course, no doubt that England is a 
 country entirely different from America or Australia, but the 
 difference is in their favour as regards the working of a Demo- 
 cracy. They possess boundless tracts of land. In America 
 land acts as a sedative to political passion; in England 
 it operates as an irritant. Here land is held up by democratic 
 politicians to their followers as a thing to he desired and 
 secured— as the spoilsj in fact, of political warfare; in America 
 it is, comparatively speaking, o( no value; it is easily obtained,
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. 135 
 
 and much inflammable matter is, in consequence, removed, 
 which would, under other circumstances, prove dangerous to 
 the system. Everybody knows that if America were altogether 
 governed by the great towns, the result would be most 
 disastrous, and that it is the cultivators of the land who 
 moderate their influence, and prevent them from rushing on 
 to their destruction. Upon this point I should like to quote 
 the words of Lord Macaulay, one of the most able of the 
 advocates of the Reform Bill of 1832, from which he never 
 went back a hair's-breadth. He, in replying to an American 
 gentleman who sent him a " Life of Jefferson," says, speaking 
 of this country — 
 
 " In bad years there is plenty of grumbling here, and sometimes a little 
 rioting ; but it matters little, for here the sufferers are not the rulers. The 
 supreme power is in the hands of a elass, numerous indeed, but select — of 
 an educated class — of a class which is, and knows itself to be, deeply 
 interested in the security of property and the maintenance of order." 
 
 Then he writes as follows — 
 
 " It is quite plain that your Government will never be able to restrain 
 a distressed and discontented majority, for with you the majority is the 
 Government, and has the rich, who are always a minority, absolutely at 
 its mercy. The day will come when, in the State of New York, a 
 multitude of people, not one of whom has had more than half a breakfast, 
 or expects to have more than half a dinner, will choose a Legislature." 
 
 He adds— 
 
 "Is it possible to doubt what sort of Legislature will be chosen? On 
 one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for vested rights, strict 
 observance of public faith ; on the other is a demagogue ranting about the 
 tyranny of capitalists and usurers, and asks why anybody should be 
 permitted to drink champagne and ride in carriages, while thousands of 
 honest folks are in want of necessaries. Which of the two candidates is 
 likely to be preferred by the working man who hears his children crying 
 for more bread ? I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season 
 of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity 
 from returning. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of 
 Government with a strong hand, or your Republic will be fearfully plundered 
 and laid waste by barbaiians in the twentieth century, as the Roman 
 Empire was in the fifth ; with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals 
 who ravaged the Roman Empire came from v ithout, and that your Huns 
 and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country and by 
 your own institutions."
 
 i 36 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 Now, observe the argument of Lord Macaulay. It is this — 
 
 "You have a Democracy in America; but you have there, also, 
 plenty of elbow-room, and abundant means of subsistence for its whole 
 population ; but when this state of things comes to an end, then the in- 
 stitutions of the country will be tried, and a crash may follow." 
 
 In England we have not a Democracy, but we have a state 
 of Society in which, in the event of pressure, distress and misery 
 must to a great extent prevail. Now, if we add here with our 
 hands Democracy to population, as the course of time may in 
 America add population to Democracy, we shall have done all 
 in our power to bring about exactly the state of things which 
 Lord Macaulay describes, and we may expect that something 
 like the same consequences will be the result. Sir, it appears 
 to me we have more and more reason every day we live to 
 regret the loss of Lord Palmerston. The remaining members 
 of his Government would seem, by way of a mortuary con- 
 tribution, to have buried in his grave all their prudence, 
 statesmanship, and moderation. He was scarcely withdrawn 
 from the scene before they set to work to contravene and 
 contradict his policy. That policy, acted upon by a states- 
 man who perfectly understood the wants of the English 
 people, had been crowned with unexampled success ; and they, 
 I suppose, must have thought that the best way to secure a 
 continuance of that success was to aim at doing that which he 
 above all other things disapproved. The noble Lord at the 
 head of the Government, and the right hon. gentleman the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, have performed a great feat ; 
 they have taken the great mass of their supporters, who are, I 
 believe, men of moderate views and moderate opinions, and 
 laid them at the feet of the hon. member for Birmingham. 
 They have thus brought them into contact with men and with 
 principles from which, but six short months ago, they would 
 have recoiled. 
 
 That is what has happened to a portion of those who sit 
 upon these benches. As to the rest of us, we are left like 
 sheep in the wilderness, and after the success of this extra-
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. 137 
 
 ordinary combination, to use no harsher word, we who remain 
 precisely what we have been, are charged with inconsistency, 
 while the bonds of political allegiance are being strained until 
 they are ready to crack for the purpose of keeping the Liberal 
 Party together. We are told that we are bound by every tie 
 which ought to bind mankind to act in accordance with the 
 policy of Earl Russell; but I, for one, Sir, dispute the justice 
 of that proposition. I have never served under that noble 
 Lord. I have served under two Prime Ministers for a period, I 
 am sorry to say, of little less than ten years. The one was 
 Lord Aberdeen, the other Lord Palmerston. Earl Russell 
 joined the Government of each of those Ministers ; both 
 Governments he abandoned, both he assisted to destroy. 
 I owe the noble Lord no allegiance. I am not afraid of the 
 people of this country. They have displayed a good sense, 
 which is remarkable, indeed, when contrasted with the 
 harangues which have been addressed to them. But if I am 
 not afraid of the people, neither do I agree with the right 
 hon. gentleman the member for Huntingdon, in fearing those 
 by whom they are led. Demagogues are the commonplace of 
 History. They are to be found wherever popular commotion 
 has prevailed, and they all bear to one another a strong 
 family likeness. Their names float lightly on the stream 
 of time ; they are in some way handed down to us ; but then 
 they are as little regarded as the foam which rides on the crest 
 of the stormy wave, and bespatters the rock which it cannot 
 shake. Such men, Sir, I do not fear ; but I have, I confess, 
 some misgivings when I see a number of gentlemen of rank, 
 of character, of property, and intelligence carried away, with- 
 out being convinced, or even over-persuaded, in the support of 
 a policy which many of them in their inmost hearts detest and 
 abhor. Monarchies exist by loyalty, aristocracies by honour, 
 popular assemblies by political virtue and patriotism ; and it is 
 in the loss of these things, and not in comets and eclipses, 
 that we are to look for the portents that herald the fall of 
 States. I have said that I am utterly unable to reason with
 
 138 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer for want of a common 
 principle to start from ; but there is happily one common 
 ground left to us, and that is the Second Book of the ALneid 
 of Virgil. My right hon. friend, like the moth which has 
 singed its wings in the candle, has returned again to the poor 
 old Trojan horse, and I shall, with the permission of the 
 House, give them one more excerpt from the history of that 
 noble beast, first premising that I shall then turn him out to 
 grass, at all events for the remainder of the Session. The 
 passage which I am about to quote is one which is, I think, 
 worthy the attention of the House, because it contains a 
 description of the invading army of which we have heard so 
 much, but also a slight sketch of its General — 
 
 " Arduus armatos mediis in mamibus adstans 
 Fundit equus, victorque Sinon incendia miscet 
 Insultans ; portis alii bipatentibus adsunt, 
 Millia quot magnis, nunquam venere Mycenis." 
 
 In other words — 
 
 " The fatal horse pours forth the human tide, 
 Insulting Sinon flings his firebrands wide, 
 The gates are burst; the ancient rampart falls, 
 And swarming millions climb its crumbling walls." 
 
 1 have now, Sir, traced as well as I can what I believe to be 
 the natural results of a measure which, it seems to my poor 
 imagination, is calculated, if it should pass into law, to destroy 
 one after another those institutions which have secured for 
 England an amount of happiness and prosperity which no 
 country has ever reached, or is ever likely to attain. Surely 
 the heroic work of so many centuries, the matchless achieve- 
 ments of so many wise heads and strong hands, deserve a 
 nobler consummation than to be sacrificed at the shrine of 
 revolutionary passion, or the maudlin enthusiasm of humanity ! 
 But, if we do fall, we shall fall deservedly. Uncoerced by 
 any external force, not borne down by any internal calamity, 
 but in the full plethora of our wealth and the surfeit of our
 
 Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform. 139 
 
 too exuberant prosperity, with our own rash and inconsiderate 
 hands, we are about to pluck down on our own heads the 
 venerable temple of our liberty and our glory. History may 
 tell of other acts as signally disastrous, but of none more 
 wanton, none more disgraceful.
 
 THE RIGHT HON. GATHORNE HARDY 1 
 ON THE IRISH CHURCH. 
 House of Commons, March 31ST, 1868. 
 
 [The great speech of Mr John Francis Macguire on the state of Ireland on 
 March 1 6th led to a motion for Irish Disestablishment. It was valiantly 
 championed by Mr Gladstone, and, in spite of all opposition, was carried 
 in the course of the following Session.] 
 
 We are called on at a special and peculiar moment to go into 
 Committee upon a question of the greatest possible importance, 
 and one that cannot be settled or terminated— I will not say in 
 this Parliament, nor probably in the next, nor for many years 
 to come, in my opinion. This is met by an Amendment on the 
 part of my noble friend (Lord Stanley, afterwards second Earl 
 of Derby), to which great exception has been taken. I will 
 for a moment take notice of a remark that has been made on 
 that Amendment. My noble friend claimed for himself free- 
 dom of acting in ftiture Sessions on this great question, without 
 expressing his full opinion now; but at the same time he said 
 that hewished to make it manifest by the earlier part of his Resolu- 
 tion that the present course of the Government was not adopted 
 from mere motives of obstruction, from no conviction that there 
 was nothing t<> redress, or nothing to reform in the Irish Church, 
 lor an admission to the contrary was made by the issuing of the 
 Commission now sitting, which may be taken as an acknow- 
 
 1 Afterwards Viscount Cranbrook.
 
 Gaikoruc Hardy on the Irish Church. 141 
 
 ledgment that there are reforms to be effected and Amendments 
 to be made; and though some wish to go far beyond what I 
 should desire, yet many who think as I do acknowledge, as I 
 have already done before this time, that there are evils within 
 the Church ; that, as has been said by many of her Bishops, 
 many of her clergy, many of her attached friends, with a view 
 to strengthening and giving more effect to the administration 
 of that Church, great reforms, great alterations, and, if I may 
 without great offence to gentlemen opposite use the word, 
 great "modifications" are needed. It would have been idle 
 and absurd, after having assented to a Commission upon the 
 Irish Church, if the Government had not been prepared to act 
 upon the facts which may be proved before that Commrssion, 
 and to ameliorate where it was found necessary. I do not 
 mean to say that the present Parliament is not competent to 
 deal with the subject, because it is obvious that so long as this 
 House is in existence it must have all the powers and functions 
 of a legislative Assembly. It is not a question of competence, 
 but of time, occasion, and opportunity. The facts are these : 
 At a comparatively late period of the Session, with very little 
 progress made in Supply ; with Boundary Bills involving the 
 interests of eighty-one burghs and one or two counties ; and 
 with Reform Bills — one for Scotland and one for Ireland— in 
 which Amendments of great importance will be moved, and 
 which must take a long time — it is with these things before us, 
 and with the necessity of calling for an early dissolution of the 
 House and an appeal to the country; I say, with these things 
 before us, are we not right in saying that the House is encum- 
 bered with business ; measures of great importance are pressing 
 upon us, and therefore this is not the time to come forward 
 with an abstract Resolution. The first Resolution of the right 
 hon. gentleman (Mr Gladstone) is distinctly and solely an 
 abstract Resolution, which cannot pledge the new Parliament 
 that will have to assemble in a few months, and which he him- 
 self admits cannot be carried into effect by legislation in the 
 course of the present Session.
 
 142 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 I say, then, that this question is one which has been sud- 
 denly started upon the country; it has taken the people by 
 surprise. If it had not been started so suddenly, if it had not 
 come but recently on the minds of those who produced it, why 
 — when the opportunity was afforded by the motion of the hon. 
 member for Cork (Mr Maguire) to go into Committee on the 
 state of Ireland, of submitting this question of the Irish Church 
 to the consideration of the House — why did not the right 
 hon. gentleman produce his Resolutions then, and ask 
 the House to consider them in connection with the state of 
 Ireland ? If this had been done we should have had time to 
 consider them, and they would certainly have been discussed 
 at an earlier period of the Session than they have. Is it 
 unreasonable that we should ask for time to consider so 
 important a matter ? Is it unreasonable to ask for time in 
 order that the country should consider the question upon 
 which it must eventually decide? Even within the short week 
 we have had the rustle of petitions increasingly heard from 
 both sides of the House day by day. As time goes on I 
 venture to say that more and more petitions will be brought 
 here, and as the question becomes more thoroughly under- 
 stood in the country they will yet increase. Already, too, I 
 notice that many of the Nonconformist body have petitioned 
 against the Resolutions of the right hon. gentleman, so that 
 the feeling against them is not confined to Churchmen. And, 
 after all, the right hon. gentleman himself stated last night he 
 did not anticipate that this great measure which he had in hand 
 could be carried into effect under much less than thirty years' 
 time ; and yet now, forsooth, it is a question of hours ; it is not 
 to be adjourned for a few months in order that it may be placid 
 in all its integrity before the country. I will show before I sit 
 down that the proposition is one which evades the chief diffi- 
 culties of the question, and only deals with those portions of 
 it upon which unity of action can be obtained ; whereas, if 
 the right hon. gentleman had developed his whole plan, it 
 would be certain to split his supporters into many sections.
 
 Gat home Hardy on the Irish Church. 143 
 
 The Resolutions aimed a blow at the property of the Irish 
 Church, which I, as a Churchman, maintain has, during the 
 last three hundred years at the very least, and indeed, as I 
 believe, for a much longer time, passed down in regular succes- 
 sion into die hands by which it is now held. If this be so, 
 where are the 'Acts of Parliament transferring the right to that 
 property at any time before or during those three hundred 
 years? In what way has that transfer been made? I will not, 
 however, enter into that question, because if I did so, it might 
 possibly call up opposition on the other side. Hut 1 contend 
 that when we are dealing with a mass of property of so much 
 importance and of so long prescription, it is not a matter for 
 haste ; and you have no right to force it upon the country until 
 it has the whole case before it, and until we have an oppor- 
 tunity of consulting the constituencies upon it. 
 
 I would ask whether this question of the Irish Church is to 
 be disposed of hastily and without discussion ? Is this Church, 
 which has stood for so long a time, and has battled for centuries 
 in defence of the truth, to be at once given up without con- 
 sideration, and are all the arguments of the many great men 
 who defended her in former days to be ignored, or declared to 
 be of no avail ? Am I to be afraid to say that the Union of 
 Great Britain and Ireland was a compact — a treaty of a solemn 
 and a binding character. Am I to be forbidden to say that 
 the 5th Article of that Union was so important that it was 
 made the fundamental basis and the very essence of that 
 Union ? Let those who doubt this look at the Act of Union 
 itself, and see how differently other conditions are treated 
 which were not regarded as fundamental or essential. This 
 Article respecting the Church was made, if I may say so, the 
 very bait for the Irish Protestants to yield to that Union. It 
 was put forward on all occasions as an inducement to them to 
 establish their Church upon what was represented as a firmei 
 footing, by uniting it, as was supposed, indissolubly to the 
 Church of England. And have we any right now, because 
 this connection may, in the opinion of some, be a burden 01
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 , to us, to throw it aside and say : " We will 
 
 nion of the Churches, and leave the Irish Church 
 
 self"? Let us see what has been said in 
 
 s by eminent politicians; what, for instance, 
 
 rd Chief-Justice of England as to the effect 
 
 ion upon the united Churches of England and 
 
 15th oi May 1805, Lord Ellenborough 
 
 this Article of the Treaty in his place in 
 
 I 
 
 iole of the Union it is declared that the continuance and 
 
 United Church, as the Established Church of Eng- 
 
 II be deemed and taken to be an essential and funda- 
 
 !. By fundamental is meant, with reference to the 
 
 1 an integral part of the Compact of Union formed 
 
 is as is absolutely necessary to the support and 
 
 e fabric and superstructure of the Union, raised and 
 
 iach as, being removed, would produce the ruin and 
 
 1 olitical union founded upon this Article as its immediate 
 
 ht linn, gentleman the member for South Lancashire 
 
 d from this point by saying : " Oh, but 
 
 this in connection with other things," that 
 
 .. not in the Act of Union, but in State 
 
 1 are now accessible to us. But there was no 
 
 her in the Act of Union or in any statement on 
 
 Mi Pitt that anything would be done more than 
 
 by that Statute. Nothing can be produced that ever 
 
 Mr Pitt to show that anything forming part of 
 
 , in the slightest degree, neglected or left 
 
 im. 
 
 ■ I opposite says that there were other 
 
 sorry to say that there were, and that the 
 
 thai day may be said to have been corrupt 
 
 of the term. But the Parliament of 
 
 I that compact and joined in that 
 
 •rrupt a Pai tit? | Mr Bright. — 
 
 hon. memberfor Birmingham says it was, 
 
 hi opinion, the Acts of that
 
 Gat home Hardy on the Irish Church. 145 
 
 Parliament are not to be attended to, or, at least, are not to be 
 attended to in the same way, as he would doubtless conceive they 
 ought to be if they were the Acts of some more perfect legislative 
 Assembly. [Mr Bright. — "I did not say so."] I am perfectly 
 aware of that. But just now, when [ was asking whether the 
 Parliament of England, which also joined in the Act of Union, 
 was as corrupt as the Irish Parliament, the hon. gentleman 
 interrupted and said " It was." And that either has some 
 meaning, or it has not. If it has a meaning, does it mean that 
 the Acts of that Parliament are in any sense invalidated ? If 
 so, we shall be entering upon a very difficult question. And if 
 we are to question the intentions of Parliament and its freedom 
 from corruption, and so to judge of the Acts which it per- 
 formed, I am afraid that some of our creditors will not be 
 in a very favourable position for obtaining payment of their 
 debts. 
 
 The right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire 
 had stated that, whatever else might be the ultimate effect of 
 his Resolutions, they could not be injurious to the Protestant 
 faith; and he went into statistics as to the population and the 
 proportions of different creeds. With regard to these, I will 
 only say that anyone who heard the statistics given as to the 
 different creeds and different professions in Ireland must have 
 felt that the sources from which they were derived were not 
 such that they would be treated as a particular and demonstra- 
 tive statement with regard to the population. The only 
 statistics, I may say, that were thoroughly gone into were those 
 in 1834 and 1861. The right hon. gentleman said that when 
 the Penal Laws were most strictly enforced, the Protestants 
 had increased ; but that when the Penal Laws ceased to be 
 enforced and liberty was freely accorded, the Protestants began 
 to diminish in proportion to the Roman Catholics ; the right 
 hon. gentleman taking these things as cause and effect. Now, 
 if there were a period during which there was a more general 
 relaxation of the Penal Laws, it was that between 1834 and 
 1 86 1, and yet it will be found that the proportions of the 
 
 K
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 had then increased in favour of the Protestants. 1 
 t the right hon. gentleman says that such increase is 
 ,ted tor by the emigration of the labouring classes, 
 , to be all of the Roman Catholic faith. But 
 ntleman has made no allowance whatever for 
 ration of Protestants from Ireland. I believe 
 Irish member who will fail to tell you that 
 mts there were a very large number of Pro- 
 arried themselves and their religion to another 
 the right hon. gentleman says that the Dis- 
 nt of the Protestant Church in Ireland will not be 
 the Protestant faith. I should be ashamed of the 
 I profess, if I thought it would be unable to 
 her form of religion with or without the aid of 
 but am I on that account to say that I think it 
 . by having endowments? If so, that seems to 
 roent which goes far heyond the case of the Irish 
 not know why in one country it is to be con- 
 advantageous to be without endowments, and in 
 them. And if religion in this country can 
 obered, as the right hon. gentleman would 
 . think, with large endowments, why do you object to 
 tant friends in Ireland retaining that which they 
 rvice to them, and that to which they believe 
 lit? 
 
 the Voluntary principle, there is a great part of 
 
 h the Voluntary principle is hardly applicable — 
 
 ih are but thinly scattered, and 
 
 almost impossible, without parochial organi- 
 
 ould obtain for themselves the means of 
 
 iry that in these parts of the 
 
 ■ »me means of providing them with the 
 
 which they are now entitled bylaw. The 
 
 m holding out these Resolutions as an 
 
 . to I: how much he is alienating — 
 
 nig those who are members of the
 
 Gat home Hardy on the Irish Church. 147 
 
 Church, and those who, though not actually members of the 
 Church, feel towards it a friendly interest. We are here, as it 
 were, lookers-on at a picture which is passing before us in the 
 distance ; but it touches the hearts and the homes of many. 
 It is to such not only a sentimental grievance, but a practical 
 wrong. While they feel deeply upon the matter, is it for us, 
 in our apathetic indifference, to give up the dearest interests of 
 those with whom we are united by the ties of religion, of 
 honour, of treaty, and of compact — to allow such considerations 
 to be thrown over without regard to their feelings, with the 
 view of reconciling others who may, after all, remain hostile to us, 
 whilst we alienate our old friends who have ever been faithful to 
 us ? Now, Sir, the right hon. gentleman said he did not think 
 that anyone would venture to use the argument that the sub- 
 version of the Irish Church would tend also to the subversion 
 of property. It is, however, an argument that has been used 
 by some of our greatest authorities, and, not the least, by that 
 great man, Sir Robert Peel, whose memory probably the right 
 hon. gentleman opposite respects. It was an argument that 
 Sir Robert Peel did not disdain to use, and urge with great 
 force, on more than one occasion. He did so at some length ; 
 but I will merely read a short extract from a speech of his on 
 the Appropriation Clause, to show the terms in which he 
 spoke of the Church property. He said — 
 
 " If long possession and the prescription of three centuries were not 
 powerful enough to protect the property of the Church from spoliation, 
 there is little safety for any description of private property ; and much less 
 for that property which is in the hamls of lay corporations." 
 
 And it was no idle fear, for there are symptoms that property 
 in the hands of lay corporations is in danger, and language has 
 been used in this House on the Irish Land Question which 
 seemed to verge very near an attack on the Irish property of 
 the City Companies. Language has been used with reference 
 to their possession of land in Ireland which must certainly give 
 them the hint that the time may soon come when they will 
 have to set their houses in order.
 
 i 4 8 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 •\nd with reference to another great corporation possessing 
 land in Ireland— the Law Life Assurance Society— language 
 as been used which shows there is a design in some persons 
 to carry the attack beyond the property of the Irish Church, 
 and not stop short of the landed interest ; for I do not hesitate 
 e that the schemes proposed for dealing with the land in 
 Ireland are in themselves on a revolutionary scale. The 
 mes do attack the rights of property, and those who argue 
 that you may justly take corporate property from the Church, 
 depend upon it, will not be very squeamish hereafter in dealing 
 with other property. Well, Sir, in speaking of this question, I 
 will not hesitate to adopt what may be considered a legal state- 
 ment upon the question of corporate property made by the 
 lancellor. He says— 
 
 «« It was always admitted that so long as the corporate property which 
 the title to ecclesiastical property remained, so long as the pro- 
 later in amount than can be usefully applied by that corporate 
 light of principle on which Parliament can interkre to 
 rty of that kind." 
 
 I concur in that principle. It is a principle acted on with 
 
 to all charity property by the Court of Chancery. I 
 
 it is a just rule, and one which we cannot violate 
 
 without assailing the interests of property. The right hon. 
 
 we are going to deal tenderly with our victims, 
 
 i pa-serve vested interests, and we even pro- 
 
 beyond that ; but at that moment the cheer which 
 
 maintaining of vested rights died away — and 
 
 • inure titan vested rights, the interests of curates and those 
 
 .id entered <>n some miserable benefice with the hope of 
 
 • i better things — I found that cheering checked; 
 
 manifest that it will not be so easy for the right hon. 
 
 rry into act his tender regard for those who 
 
 I in the property of the Irish Church. 
 
 !1 tided were the vested rights of the 
 
 you going to deal with the rights of the 
 
 1 1 with the clergy, so far as they are
 
 Gat home Hardy on the Irish Church. 149 
 
 personally concerned, by paying them off, pensioning them, or 
 by arranging with them in any other manner you please; but 
 when you come to the vested interests of the laity, which are 
 held in trust for them by the Bishops and clergy, and not for 
 themselves, how are you to compensate them for the vested 
 interests you are about to rob them of? 
 
 The right hon. gentleman says it is absurd to talk of what 
 was promised in former years in order to gain concessions 
 when engagements were made that if a particular thing were 
 done, it would produce peace and harmony, and that at length 
 we should see our efforts in respect of Ireland crowned with 
 success. Certainly those who prophesied, at the periods to 
 which I allude, that those efforts would not follow have had 
 their fears amply justified by the result. I think it a great 
 misfortune for Ireland that the hopes which then actuated those 
 who were pleading the cause of the Catholics, and the promises 
 which they made, have not been fulfilled. Those who are now 
 advocating the Disestablishment of the Protestant Church in 
 Ireland do not hold the opinions of Plunket, Blake, and Peel, 
 or of the Roman Catholic Prelates, or of the Canonists of 
 Maynooth, who said that the title of the Established Church in 
 Ireland would be recognised by Rome itself, which only requires 
 a prescription of a hundred years, while the Protestant Church 
 in Ireland has lasted for three hundred years. I am bound to 
 say that on this occasion we are not in danger of being led 
 away by promises, for no promises are held out that what we 
 are asked to do will in any way tend to the pacification of 
 Ireland, or that are to be more than a step to new departures. 
 It is true that in speeches in this House something of that kind 
 may be said ; but those for whose benefit the property of the 
 Church is to be taken away are holding out no promises. They 
 are not saying that they have not in reserve a demand for 
 concessions which they regard as of much greater importance. 
 Those "calm men of Limerick" to whom the right hon. 
 gentleman the member for Calne (Mr Robert Lowe) alluded a 
 few nights ago, say that they do not believe anything will do
 
 M Political Orations. 
 
 F the people of Ireland except a repeal 
 omnl , Irish interests to an Irish Parhament 
 dthe member for Honiton (Mr R. 
 ch last night, (inoted a remarkable pas- 
 aid, was not heard by as many as ought to 
 >ws that the persons who are agitat- 
 in Ireland [ ut aside the Church altogether 
 At a meeting of the Meath Tenant-Right 
 and the Roman Catholic Vicar- 
 ,. this statement was put forward, the 
 on the occasion- 
 question for Ireland is the Land Question. 
 gainst the Established Church, got up for 
 an element of bigotry into the already dis- 
 I tenant, would effect the ruin of thousands 
 that social catastrophe which we are anxious to 
 
 ' that, by holding out this olive-branch to 
 all that is required ; whilst Lord 
 1 and Question over as unworthy of his 
 bids us bestow on the Roman Catholic 
 tnd what they themselves regard as a concession 
 | I 'lies of " No, no ! " ] 
 me to an important question, one which 
 lutions of the right hon. gentleman, 
 he offered us no solution, and without 
 1 f, we cannot fairly and honestly vote 
 [t is i sentially necessary that we should 
 that is to be proposed. Are 
 ou n cularize the revenues of the 
 
 ind? If you are going to secularize 
 OU propose to apply them? The main 
 . • • \\ hat are you going to do with the funds 
 And until we have an answer to it, yotl 
 i of persons to vote on 
 ni anj idea of the principles that
 
 Gathome Hardy on the Irish Church. 1 5 1 
 
 are to guide them hereafter. The hon. member for Westmin- 
 ster (Mr J. S. Mill) has his scheme, and would apply the funds 
 to unsectarian education. But, I would ask, is that the way to 
 conciliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland? If there is one 
 thing which they have been setting their faces against more 
 than another, it is unsectarian education. The right hon. 
 gentleman told us yesterday that it was not to be endured that 
 the tithes of Connaught should be taken and applied for the , 
 benefit of Churchmen in Ulster; but I want to know whether 
 it is to be endured that the tithes of Connaught are to be applied 
 to the building of lighthouses near Dublin or anywhere else, 
 and whether, when improvements are made, the funds are to 
 be applied for Irish purposes generally, or expended in the 
 locality whence they are derived ? If the funds are to be taken 
 in order to supply the wants of the people of Ireland generally, 
 such a plan will be quite as inconsistent with the right hon. 
 gentleman's powers of endurance as the application of the tithes 
 of Connaught for the benefit of the Churchmen of Ulster. 
 This is not a separate property, and does not belong to the 
 people of Connaught in particular. It belongs neither to the 
 landlord nor to the tenant, but to the laity of Ireland ; and if it 
 is for the improvement of their religious instruction, I say it 
 may fairly be taken and applied in any part of Ireland where it 
 may be wanted. I pass by Earl Russell's scheme of redistribu- 
 tion, which no one is ready to adopt, and which the noble Lord 
 himself condemned with such great effect very recently before 
 he adopted it. We might, therefore, rely on his condemnation 
 as sufficient for our purpose. 
 
 The hon. member for Birmingham (Mr Bright), as I 
 understand it, would leave something to the Church, though 
 he would take away a good deal and secularize it ; but he 
 has not told us what particular mode of procedure he would 
 recommend. We do not know, therefore, in what way the 
 money is to be dealt with. That there is to be an unsettle- 
 ment of everything is clear, and it is also clear that there 
 is to be a settlement of nothing. You say that this is a
 
 M Political Orations. 
 
 and I, for one, do not assert that the 
 ance being sentimental is not enough 
 resent it ; but I maintain that, when 
 grievance on the one side, and are 
 re than sentimental grievance on the 
 lair and just that the persons on whom you 
 the experiment should know what is to be 
 the funds of which you are about to despoil 
 am told, of all things, that it is not legitimate 
 that the question of the Irish Church 
 : the English and Scotch Churches. I 
 rid that there are those who are like the 
 emity, who threw away her children to save 
 iring wolf; but, at the same time, I do 
 that incident to have been regarded as a very 
 ling. The course taken by that 
 not commend itself to those who feel 
 ; to Ireland by sympathy and the ties of 
 I am not so disposed to throw her 
 11 still Less deposed to do so when a 
 en which al and materially affects — the 
 
 the Church Establishment rests in 
 whatever may be said, the main 
 which I used by the right hon. gentleman 
 
 i who sit below the gangway, and with 
 v by the latter, in support of these 
 in favour of religious equality. Now, 
 I do not understand, either in principle 
 to only one part of the Empire. I say, 
 nable in us to object, if you are 
 our ('lunch, that on that principle 
 the whole, and upsetting the 
 tich alone the Establishments of the 
 
 1 State — can be defended. If it is 
 
 equality that there should be no 
 
 led to the ministers of the
 
 Gat home Hardy on the Irish Church. 153 
 
 Established Church, then I understand the argument. It 
 is the Voluntary system, pure and simple, and one fairly 
 to be debated and argued ; but you cannot justly put 
 forward religious equality when you are only going to apply 
 the principle to a small part of the Empire. 
 
 What will be gained by this great sacrifice of principles 
 on our parts if we are to accede to it ? You have promised 
 us nothing, and you have brought nothing before us to 
 justify such a sacrifice ; but if you can show that at this 
 dear rate you can bring perfect harmony and concord in 
 every part of our dominions, Heaven knows how many 
 prejudices — how many sacrifices of a deeper nature — every- 
 body would be ready to make to obtain so desirable an 
 object. If justice required that we should give up those 
 things on which our hearts are set — that the interests of 
 the whole country required it, and there was before us a 
 certainty of obtaining that which we all desire, then there 
 are reasons for renouncing opinion, and I, for one, if I could 
 not assent, would at least withdraw out of my way, and let 
 others carry this measure for the benefit of all. But when 
 I do not see that the desired end would be attained, I 
 then continue advocating on this side of the House principles 
 which I advocated from the opposite side ; and if changes 
 in those principles are to be made, it shall not be by my 
 hand that the stab shall be given, and not on these Benches 
 that the change shall be made. I will leave to others 
 to effect purposes which I may no longer be able to resist. 
 Well, Sir, what is the general emergency that has arisen, 
 calling on us to make those enormous sacrifices, which 
 likewise, if we had made, we should have been taunted 
 for making them on an occasion which did not require it 
 to be done ? Is it the miserable Fenianism that has 
 prevailed in this country, or the base Fenianism in Ireland 
 spoken of the other night, calling on us to make this sacrifice 
 of our time, of our duty, of all that is dear to us, in order 
 to get rid of what would not be affected by it for a moment ?
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 lS pension of the Habeas Corpus Act? We have 
 5 pension of the Habeas Corpns Act for many 
 interfered practically with the liberties of 
 rid in the way it has been used? Has it interfered 
 rdinary progress of business? Has it interfered 
 ous freedom? Has it interfered with ordinary 
 intercourse? Has it not rather been used in 
 , in order to give greater security to the real 
 Ireland, by checking that which is lawless, and 
 real loyalty and liberty? If you are to take 
 round, you will only be adding another to the right 
 itleman's list of dates which were last night cited 
 the imbecility and weakness of the English Parlia- 
 injustice, its unfairness, its readiness to do wrong 
 the wrong could be done with impunity ; and 
 US that up to the present time we had abstained 
 justice to Ireland, but now these things must 
 way, and he threw it in the teeth of Parliament 
 t had never done an act of justice to Ireland without 
 compelled to do so. That, I think, is one of the 
 : Parliament, which ought not to be recorded as a 
 held up as an example to be followed on the present 
 >n. 
 Well, I think I have shown that the present is not a fitting 
 \ hich such a change, if it were necessary, should be 
 ; and I state boldly that nothing which has been put 
 by the right hon. gentleman is sufficient to con- 
 that the people of this country repose any 
 the views of the right hon. gentleman the 
 outh I Lancashire on this question. Surely, then, 
 : it to be consulted before such a change is made. 
 1 the first Resolution, if you should pass it, is 
 
 Parliament to which it will pass on from the 
 I I say that if you throw aside a com- 
 
 and say, " That is not to bind 
 . that this Resolution, passed by a
 
 Gathome Hardy on the Irish Church. 155 
 
 dying Parliament, is to bind its successor? You are putting 
 this branch of the Legislature in an undue position. There is a 
 complaint that the House of Lords has nothing to do. The 
 reason is because you will not test its power to work. But it 
 is an Assembly equal to this ; and when you are calling upon 
 us to proceed upon this dangerous and revolutionary path— 
 for so it was called by the right hon. baronet the member for 
 Morpeth (Sir George Grey)— you ought, at all events, to call 
 into council that branch of the Legislature without which you 
 cannot legislate. Again, I say, suppose you carry this Resolu- 
 tion, you do not show us the object in view, or that you obtain the 
 peace of Ireland. On the contrary, you would increase many 
 of her evils. You complain of absenteeism ; well, by the 
 adoption of your scheme, I believe that you would increase it, 
 and cause it to extend among the landlords as well as the 
 clergy. [Laughter.] In answer to that laugh, I may observe 
 that the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lanca- 
 shire admitted that in all the great emergencies the clergy 
 in Ireland had been found at the bedside of the sick and 
 in the cottages of the poor. I believe that the charities of 
 Ireland owe more to the clergy than to any other class of the 
 community. 
 
 We have been asked what course we intend to take upon 
 this question. In the first place, if, in spite of the objection 
 that we have taken, I believe justly, to the Resolutions of the 
 right hon. gentleman, you succeed in overthrowing the Amend- 
 ment, our course is clear. We shall oppose the Resolutions 
 themselves. If you ask what we would do— not in this Parlia- 
 ment, because it would have no opportunity of doing anything, 
 but in the next Parliament — in the event of the Resolutions being 
 carried, my reply is that I will give the right hon. gentleman 
 no other pledge than this— that we will act in accordance with 
 the former part of the Amendment, and if, on the report of the 
 Commission, we are satisfied that it would be for the benefit of 
 the Irish Church that certain modifications in it should be 
 made, we will make them with a fearless hand. But if you ask
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 . go further, I will say, at least for myself, as I have upon 
 
 er occasions, that I will not be a party to a measure of 
 
 ; the Irish Church. I am not prepared to sever 
 
 from England in religious matters, and present the 
 
 of a Government in Ireland of a purely secular 
 
 r. and a Government in England partially religious. 
 
 My form of expression is not, I am aware, as 
 
 ;s I would wish ; but what I meant to say was, that. I 
 
 will not consent to an anomaly that Church and State should 
 
 red in Ireland, and remain connected in England. 
 
 ight hon. gentleman said that the disestablishment of the 
 
 sh Church would, as respected the Irish people, " Pluck 
 
 i the memory a rooted sorrow ; Raze out the written 
 
 ,les of the brain " ; but he quite omitted to quote the 
 
 ■ ling line, " Can'st thou minister to a mind diseased?" 
 
 s the mind of Ireland that is diseased — a disease caused by 
 
 ; traditionary hatred of the Saxon, and kept alive by 
 
 tation and misrepresentation. It is thus you have, 
 
 s I be . diseased the kindly and generous mind of Ireland, 
 
 :h, hut for that pernicious agitation, I believe would have 
 
 n in harmony with us at the present moment. The drug, 
 
 . which the right hon. gentleman proposes to administer 
 
 ild i i "sweet oblivious antidote," to appease the 
 
 ; mind of the disloyal, who would rather ask for 
 
 " purgative to scour these English hence." The measure 
 
 ed by the right hon. gentleman would not tend in any 
 
 • to I end — to conciliate those who first of all 
 
 lem that the Land Question was to be settled on a basis 
 
 in a way to which the present Parliament would never 
 
 ml that in the end there is to be a repeal of that Union 
 
 ind fundamental basis of which was the United 
 
 land ami Ireland. 
 
 ced through the speeches that have been made in 
 
 For a statement of the specific wrongs — wrongs 
 
 remedies. I have looked in vain to find 
 
 ire to give these funds which you are going to
 
 Gat home Hardy on the Irish Church. 157 
 
 take away from those now in possession of them. I have 
 looked in vain for any statement in former debates or in this 
 which will lead me to a conclusion upon this vital question. I 
 say your Resolutions are founded on principles repugnant to, and 
 far away from, the theory and the practice of the Constitution of 
 this country, and will be provocative of strife, of enmity, and of 
 dissension, instead of paving the way for peace and harmony 
 between England and Ireland. If they conciliate one party, 
 they will irritate another ; and although I will never believe 
 that the Protestants of Ireland will become disloyal, yet there 
 can be no doubt that it will excite among them discontent and 
 disaffection ; there will be the injustice which is done them, 
 which must in the end react upon England. I feel bound, 
 where no wrong has been done in the use of property by those 
 to whom it belongs, to protest against the spoliation of it. I 
 feel doubly bound, both as a just man and as an Englishman, 
 to be true to the compact which is in force between the two 
 countries. As a Churchman I cannot be indifferent to the con- 
 dition of my brethren in the faith in Ireland. I cannot be 
 indifferent to the clergy who so zealously and so effectually 
 have performed their duties in that country. To that fact I 
 call to witness those gentlemen who are most opposed to the 
 old endowments. I cannot be a party to sever that union 
 between Church and State, under which it is the glory and the 
 privilege of the State to uphold the light of the Reformation in 
 Ireland,
 
 EARL RUSSELL ON THE BALLOT. 
 
 House of Lords, July 8th, 1872. 
 
 ac-11 known that LORDjOHN Russell was always a vigorous opponent 
 
 The following speech during the debates on the Parlia- 
 
 md Municipal Elections Bill exhibits his peculiar views on this 
 
 1 think I may venture to address your Lordships on the 
 
 ^•nt occasion, as my attention has been directed to the 
 
 subj the Ballot for more than forty years. When, in 
 
 Ministry of the late Karl Grey was formed on the 
 
 principle of introducing the question of Parliamentary Reform 
 
 Ministerial question, I was one of a Committee of the 
 
 whom was committed the charge of drawing up the 
 
 f the first Reform Bill The proposals of that Com- 
 
 recommendation of the Ballot. When Earl 
 
 »ke to me of the scheme, he said that while the Cabinet 
 
 lially approved of the measure as a whole, there was one 
 
 t of it to which they could by no means assent — namely, the 
 
 Ballot 11< asked me whether I attached much importance to 
 
 nt, and whether I was willing to give it up. My answer 
 
 at, in fa< t, I bad used every argument to induce the 
 
 not to insert the ballot in their proposals. The 
 
 Ballol was consequently omitted from the 
 
 I which I introduced into the House of Commons, 
 
 in any of the subsequent Bills. Since 
 
 I watched all the discussions that have been 
 
 Ballot question, and have taken part in some,
 
 Earl Russell on the Ballot. 1 59 
 
 and have seen no ground for changing the opinions I enter- 
 tained forty years ago. The late Sir Robert Peel was as much 
 opposed to the Ballot as Earl Grey. Many noble Lords will 
 remember the speech of wonderful argumentative force and 
 eloquence which he delivered against Mr Grote's motion in 
 1838. The result of the debate on that occasion was that the 
 motion of Mr Grote was rejected by a majority of 117. The 
 present Prime Minister (Mr Gladstone) has eight or nine times 
 voted against the Ballot in the House of Commons. 
 
 It was therefore with no little surprise that I heard the year 
 before last that Mr Gladstone had suddenly announced that he 
 had become a convert to it. The reason given for this sudden 
 conversion was twofold — first, that secret voting had been 
 adopted all over the world ; and, secondly, that now every 
 adult person in England had the right of voting. These two 
 reasons are no doubt plausible ; but the allegations on which 
 they rest are totally inadequate. With regard to the first, it is 
 far from being true that the Ballot has been introduced all over 
 the world. It has not been adopted even in all our own 
 Colonies. The good sense of the people of the Dominion has 
 refused to accept its introduction in Canada, and if I do not 
 mistake, the use of secret voting has not been practically 
 adopted in our great Colony of Victoria. Secret Ballot does 
 not really exist in half of the States of the American Union. 
 In the New England State of Massachusetts a law was passed 
 by which a voter might go to a public office and ask for an 
 envelope in which he might enclose his vote, and thus if he 
 chose keep the way in which he voted a secret. That was, if 
 anything, an " optional Ballot " — the secrecy was in the abso- 
 lute power of the voter himself. At the end of three or four 
 years some curious people wished to know how many of those 
 envelopes had been taken, and whether any great number of 
 the electors had chosen to vote secretly. It was found that 
 very few, if any, of the electors had taken those envelopes, or 
 chosen to vote secretly. The law was therefore repealed, and 
 everyone voted openly. No doubt, open voting gives oppor-
 
 i oo Modern Political Orations. 
 
 tunity for intimidation; but, in my opinion, the system 
 
 ed in the present measure will increase personation, 
 
 will increase bribery, will increase fraud and falsehood of every 
 
 -indeed, in whatever light secret voting is viewed, it seems 
 
 a bad system ; it is nothing but an increased power of corrup- 
 
 in every direction. It will encourage falsehood, for it is 
 
 e possible under the Ballot that a voter may be intimidated 
 
 s landlord into promising his vote; but having the power 
 
 will secretly vote against his promise. He would 
 
 then go to his landlord and say, " I voted as you asked me ; I 
 
 quite agree in your opinions, and have voted with you." It 
 
 some such argument as this that Mr Grote put forward 
 
 in proof of the value of the Ballot in checking the influence of 
 
 1 and employer, and he maintained that the tenant 
 
 would be perfectly justified in acting in this way. 
 
 It seems, however, to me that though the intimidation may 
 
 fail as to the actual vote, the Ballot will introduce a new form 
 
 iud and distrust which will not be much preferable to the 
 
 I fashioned intimidation. The Englishman's privilege of 
 
 ig should be as sacredly respected; he should have 
 
 lit of voting openly as he has by the existing law ; 
 
 there is no reason why the electors of Old England 
 
 • deprived of a privilege of open voting which is 
 
 I by the voters of New England. It seems to me 
 
 a j ument in support of open voting that a man 
 
 of promoting some great public question ; of 
 
 ; that would improve the condition of his fellow- 
 
 >re likely than any other man to give his vote 
 
 d will be proud of proclaiming his support of a 
 
 who holds large and liberal views. When Sir 
 
 ed in his endeavours to mitigate the 
 
 mr criminal code, and was a candidate for West- 
 
 sympathising with his efforts, was proud to 
 
 " I vi nuel Uoinilly!" Why should not a voter 
 
 o proclaim his sympathy with a man whose life is 
 
 the sufferings of his fellow-men? Or
 
 Earl Russell on the Ballot. 1 6 1 
 
 again, when Wilberforce stood before the great constituency of 
 Yorkshire, the champion of the abolition of slavery throughout 
 the world — a -great and noble aspiration — surely the electors 
 should not be prohibited from proclaiming openly, in the face 
 of all men, " I vote for Mr Wilberforce and the Emancipation 
 of the human race ! " This Bill will make the revelation of his 
 vote an offence and a crime on the part of the official persons 
 who are in the polling-booth at the time. It is provided by 
 this Bill that the voter, having secretly marked his vote on the 
 ballot-paper, and folded it up so as to conceal his vote, shall 
 place it in a closed box. There is, indeed, no penalty imposed 
 on the voter for telling his vote, but every officer, clerk, and 
 agent in attendance at a polling-station who shall communicate 
 at any time, to any person, any information obtained in a 
 polling-station, as to the candidate for whom any voter in such 
 station is about to vote, or has voted, will be liable, on sum- 
 mary conviction before two Justices of the Peace, to imprison- 
 ment for any term not exceeding six months, with or without 
 hard labour. 
 
 I feel ashamed that such a proposition should have come up 
 from the other House. Surely it is a degradation to which the 
 country will never submit. As to the allegation that every 
 adult man in England has the right of voting, it is allowed by 
 Mr Gladstone himself not to be an accurate statement, and 
 he rebukes Mr Disraeli for supposing that every man who 
 marries has the right of voting. I must, in addition, point out 
 that our whole progress for the last century and a half has been 
 in favour of publicity. There was a time when the proceedings 
 of Parliament were published under the disguise of " Debates 
 in the Senate of Lilliput," and notes of the speeches were pre- 
 fixed by fictitious names. I remember, in my own time, seeing 
 the Serjeant-at-Arms bring before the House a man whom he 
 found making notes in the Gallery. Since that time we have 
 gone on introducing more and more publicity in the transaction 
 of public affairs. The debates in Parliament are reported day 
 by day, under the real names of the speakers, and are openly 
 
 L
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 discussed the next morning in the journals throughout the king- 
 The proceedings of the Courts of Law are public, and the 
 ,an who is called upon to give evidence in a Court of Law is not 
 A the shelter of secrecy even where— as is too often the 
 e in Ireland— his giving evidence may be attended with risk 
 No exemptions are made ; all questions affecting 
 Band property are decided in public. Yet it is now proposed 
 if a man comes to the polling-booth, and says, " I wish to 
 for Lord Enfield," so essential is secrecy in the perform- 
 • public duty, that the open declaration of a man's wish 
 ind opinion by an officer in the polling-booth is declared to be 
 ad; and a crime. We declare that publicity must be the 
 
 rule of our Law Courts, whatever the consequences. In one of 
 our Courts, presided over by a member of this House, cases 
 e of which the publicity is injurious to morality and offen- 
 to decency ; nevertheless, no exception is made. Pro- 
 als have been made that in the Divorce Court proceedings 
 be taken in secrecy, if the Judge shall think fit ; but no— 
 the noble and learned Lord who presides over that Court 
 approves of publicity; and by means of this publicity all 
 may read the details of these trials in the public 
 journals. At whatever cost, the Law must be administered in 
 but when you come to the election of the law-givers — 
 iential in the performance of this form of public 
 —the vote must be so entirely in the bosom of the voter 
 ssible that publicity can be allowed — the vote 
 ven in secret. The man who is in office in the 
 trs a person say, "I vote for Lord Enfield," or, 
 Lord I Hamilton," is liable to six months' 
 
 mply monstrous. The people of England have for 
 
 of years been free to go to the poll and say, "1 
 
 I such a man, because I look upon him as 
 
 Bui this is no longer to be allowed, — secrecy, 
 
 ih to be the rule. 
 
 i into tl m o! the ulterior results of secret
 
 Earl Russell on the Ballot. 163 
 
 voting, but I do not believe it will long stand alone. Probably 
 it will lead in no very long time to Universal Suffrage. I can- 
 not forbear from noting the language of the Administration of 
 Earl Grey in reference to the great plans for Parliamentary 
 Reform which they had laid before Parliament. In 1831 there 
 appeared the following passage in the Speech from the 
 Throne — 
 
 "I have availed myself of the earliest opportunity of resorting to your 
 advice and assistance after the dissolution of the late Parliament. Having 
 had recourse to that measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of 
 my people on the expediency of a Reform in the Representation, I have now 
 to recommend that important question to your earliest and most attentive 
 consideration, confident that, in any measures which you may prepare for 
 its adjustment, you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of 
 the Constitution, by which the prerogative of the Crown, the authority of 
 both Houses of Parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people are 
 equally secured." 
 
 That was firm and clear language. No such language is heard 
 in these days. On the contrary, when a question arises affecting 
 the hereditary rights of your Lordships, the Prime Minister 
 says, " I will think once, twice, or thrice before touching 
 such a question." That, however, was not the course adopted 
 by the people of England upon a recent occasion. When the 
 people of England found that the life of the Heir to the Throne 
 was in peril, they did not think thrice, or twice, or even once ; 
 but by one unanimous voice, as if impelled by instinct, in 
 supplication for the Heir to the Throne, they put up prayers to 
 Heaven for his recovery. It is not by measures of this kind, 
 but by feelings such as those which animated the whole people 
 during that crisis — and which, I trust, will ever be the senti- 
 ments of the people of England — that the Constitution can be 
 preserved, and the rights and liberties of the people secured.
 
 ISAAC BUTT ON HOME RULE. 
 
 House of Commons, March 2oth, 1874. 
 
 In the debate on the Address to be presented in answer to the Queen's 
 
 h on the assembling of the New Parliament, Mk Butt seized the 
 
 -unity to introduce a Motion which, though at the time rejected, was 
 
 i play an important part in the history of the country. This was 
 
 si intimation of the Home Rule Movement, since the time of 
 
 1 laniel O'Connell, in Parliament] 
 
 ng an Amendment to the Address, I am fully aware of 
 
 abjection that may be raised to a course being followed 
 
 which will bring controversial questions to the vote on such an 
 
 : as the present. I venture at the same time to think 
 that, if the House favours me with a hearing, I shall be able to 
 fy hon. members that I am justified in acting as I do ; I 
 h :, in short, to show that there is an absolute necessity for 
 giving Ireland a new system of internal Government. The 
 proposal I desire to submit to the House is that the following 
 
 lie added to the Address — 
 
 think it ri;;lil humbly to represent to Your Majesty that dis- 
 
 :tion prevails ver) extensively in Iieland with the existing system of 
 
 ountry, and that complaints are made that under that 
 
 • Irish people do not enjoy the full benefits of the Constitution 
 
 principles of the law ; and we humbly assure Your Majesty 
 
 shall regard it as the duty of Parliament, on the earliest oppor- 
 
 ;in of (his dissatisfaction with a view to the 
 
 I of all es ol discontent." 
 
 there is on.- result of this dissatisfaction in Ireland, 
 
 ed bj the rei ent elections, to which no person can be 
 
 it, and whi( li no wise statesman can disregard. For
 
 Isaac Butt on Home Rule. 165 
 
 the first time since the Act of Union, a majority — I will call it 
 a decisive majority — of Irish members has been returned 
 pledged to seek such a modification of the arrangements of 
 the Union as would give to Irishmen in Ireland the right of 
 managing their own affairs. I refer to this fact as evidence 
 of dissatisfaction with the existing state of things. The Irish 
 members who have been returned as Home Rulers are a 
 decisive majority of the Irish representatives, and these have 
 not been pledged to any mere vague declaration in favour of 
 Home Rule. Those who have thought it right to endeavour 
 to excite the attention of the country to the question of Home 
 Rule have deliberately prepared and put before the country 
 the plan contained in the Resolution, which, I venture to say, 
 is framed in terms as clear and distinct as possible. We ask 
 that Ireland shall have the management of exclusively Irish 
 affairs. Our plan would relieve the House of business which 
 it has not the time, and, I may say, without disrespect, the 
 capacity, to manage. Our plan would not in the slightest 
 degree affect the prerogative of the Crown or the stability of the 
 Empire. We see no reason why an Irish Parliament could not 
 manage exclusively Irish affairs without endangering the 
 stability of the Empire. Has the grant of Parliaments to 
 Canada, Australia, and other Colonies endangered the stability 
 of the Empire? I believe I speak for every member who has 
 been returned for Ireland on the Home Rule principle, when 
 I say that we repudiate, in the strongest terms, the slightest 
 wish to break up the unity of the Empire, or to bring about 
 a collision between England and Ireland. We make no secret 
 that they have all been elected to put forward the claim of 
 Ireland to Home Rule, and, whether rightly or wrongly, we 
 have come to an agreement among ourselves that we will act 
 separately and independently of all existing political com- 
 binations in this House. 
 
 Whether this course is wise or not, it certainly is a new 
 feature in Irish politics, and one that cannot be overlooked. 
 We take up this position because we cannot acquiesce in any-
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 .hing that appears to us to imply that there is nothing in the 
 
 Ireland that requires a remedy. In taking up this 
 
 ion I feel that we have taken a great responsibility upon 
 
 and I know the difficulty of our position. I know 
 
 ■judice which the statement that we have determined to 
 
 ndently of political combinations must naturally 
 
 . but I would ask this House to judge us by our con- 
 
 We would pursue a course very different from anything 
 
 I think I may base the first part of this Amend- 
 
 the mere fact that a majority of the Irish members 
 
 returned expressly to endeavour to obtain for Ireland self- 
 
 -nment. I know not what stronger proof can be given of 
 
 faction existing in Ireland. This dissatisfaction has 
 
 institutionally expressed. It has not been expressed 
 
 irbances, such as on former occasions have been 
 
 I in the Queen's Speech. The Irish people have made 
 
 litical movement at a time when perfect tranquillity 
 
 ; throughout the country, and in all the agitation by 
 
 the result has been brought about there has been 
 
 unconstitutional or illegal. It has been expressed 
 
 that political franchise which has been given to them 
 
 e of declaring their political opinion. Ireland at 
 
 tate of perfect tranquillity. The Assizes that 
 
 sed have ended in every place with congratula- 
 
 i the upon the peaceableness of the different 
 
 In the last Summer Assizes in the city I have the 
 
 •nt (Limerick), white gloves were given to the 
 
 not being a single prisoner to be tried. In the 
 
 ither great city in the south of Ireland, the 
 
 urred. I think the dissatisfaction in 
 
 th( 1 louse, I will not say to alter or reverse 
 
 n hitherto pursued with reference to 
 
 ily to review calmly and deliberately that 
 
 in the causes that have given rise to the 
 
 the management of Irish affairs by this
 
 Isaac Butt on Home Rule. 167 
 
 I think I need not go far to justify the second part of this 
 Amendment, which affirms that the Irish people complain that 
 they have not had the full benefits of the Constitution of Eng- 
 land. I believe that at this moment Ireland is under a code 
 of law which for severity has not its parallel in any European 
 State. I will not speak for a moment of the law that prevails 
 all over Ireland independently of the will of the Lord-Lieu- 
 tenant. The Lord-Lieutenant has power, by proclamation, to 
 make it illegal in any district to carry arms without a licence 
 from a police magistrate ; and any man having a gun, a pistol, 
 or dagger is liable, unless he have a magistrate's licence, to 
 imprisonment for two years. Of the thirty-two counties in 
 Ireland, twenty-six have been proclaimed ; the greater part of 
 five others has been proclaimed ; and there is just one county 
 in Ireland, designated Tyrone, which is free from proclamation. 
 Of the eight counties and cities, Carrickfergus only is free from 
 proclamation. Now this, I think, is a very startling state of 
 things in Ireland. But more than this — at any time of the 
 night, in any district where this law prevails, any policeman 
 holding a warrant may demand to be admitted into any house 
 in a proclaimed district, and may break open the door if 
 admittance be refused, to search the house for arms ; and one 
 hundred and nineteen of these general warrants are now in 
 operation. Even this is not all. By proclamation the Lord- 
 Lieutenant may make it a crime to be out of doors after dark ; 
 while by another proclamation he can empower the police to 
 seize any stranger; and a large portion of Ireland is at present 
 under this law. By another proclamation any magistrate or 
 police officer may demand admittance to any man's house, and 
 ransack his papers for the purpose of comparing the hand- 
 writing with the handwriting of a threatening letter. Let it 
 not be insinuated that these powers are never used. On one 
 occasion a number of young men, one of whom was the son of 
 a respectable merchant, determined to play " Hamlet." A 
 police inspector, hearing of this, went to the theatre, arrested 
 the young gentleman, and kept him in prison from Saturday
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 rning, when he was brought before a 
 
 on a charge of having arms in his possession. 
 
 uent occurrence in Ireland. Under 
 
 tiing for arms the police often seek to pro- 
 
 s and thefts, and these powers may 
 
 . : .r many other purposes. I care not how these pro- 
 
 nded, for I am sure they are not necessary. 
 
 . I think, amply justifies me in saying that Ireland does 
 
 of the British Constitution, nor the 
 
 the English law. These powers are in con- 
 
 W'ith regard to arresting persons after sunset, I will 
 
 what occurred on the fifth of the present month, 
 
 unt which appeared in a very respectable 
 
 irly in the morning on that day a band went to 
 
 tion meeting. In going through the town they 
 
 which, however, was not a party tune — and 
 
 of the place were naturally attracted by the 
 
 d, and then a policeman thought fit 
 
 k an offence had been committed against the law. 
 
 • instable followed two young men, whom he 
 
 distance of two miles, and at six minutes 
 
 just after sunset, he told them they were out 
 
 rcumstances. Thereupon he carried them 
 
 th< detained until they were brought 
 
 the next day. Is this a state of things 
 
 I in a country which is nomi- 
 
 British Constitution? The police in Ireland 
 
 A high Conservative authority 
 
 ' 11 times as numerous as they need 
 
 ping the peace; and the late Lord 
 
 . converting them into a military force, 
 
 of crime has been destroyed. 
 
 the police the masters of the daily life 
 
 have been termed an "army 
 
 the < i\ il power of acountry is confided 
 
 lentified with the idea of conquest
 
 Isaac Butt on Home Rule. 169 
 
 But how does Ireland stand with regard to other matters ? 
 In the first place, the franchise is not the same as in England. 
 When the late Reform Act was passed for England, household 
 suffrage was introduced into the boroughs ; whereas in Ireland 
 no one can vote in a borough unless he have a rating qualifi- 
 cation above ^4. Moreover, the franchise in Ireland is 
 encumbered by so many vexatious rules about rating that it is 
 difficult for anybody to obtain a vote. In England, with a 
 population of 26,000,000, as many as 1,200,000 enjoy the 
 town franchise ; while in Ireland, with a population of 
 5,000,000, there are just 50,000 town voters, of whom 30,000 
 are to be found in Belfast, Dublin, Cork, and Limerick. In 
 the whole of the rest of Ireland only 20,000 persons are 
 admitted to what ought to be a popular franchise. Perhaps it 
 may be said that the town population of Ireland is not so 
 large as that of England. This is doubtless true, but in Eng- 
 land one man out of every eight has the franchise, whereas in 
 Ireland only one man out of every twenty has it. I will ask 
 you whether the Irish people have the full benefit of the 
 Constitution which has been established in England ? It is a 
 strange circumstance that the progress of Liberal opinions lead 
 to this divergence between the English and the Irish franchises. 
 Formerly they were the same in both countries, but shortly 
 after the passing of Catholic Emancipation the 40/ free- 
 holders were abolished, and by the Reform Act the fran- 
 chise in Ireland was made higher than in England. There is 
 also a difference between the municipal franchises in the two 
 countries. In Ireland — the poorer country, be it remembered 
 — a man cannot take part in a municipal election unless he 
 occupies a house worth ^10 a year ; but in England every 
 householder has a right to vote. Again, how are fiscal affairs 
 managed in Ireland ? A Grand Jury is summoned in every 
 county for the purpose of finding bills and discharging the 
 criminal administration of justice, and the members of this 
 body, who are not elected by the people, are made the guard- 
 ians of the whole county expenditure, which amounts through-
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 out the whole of Ireland to ^1,200,000 a year. In fact, the 
 em of Government in Ireland is based on distrust 
 f the people, just as the whole system of Government in 
 based upon trust of the people. 
 lis circumstance, I think, justifies the complaint of the 
 e of Ireland that they have not the benefit of the Con- 
 don. In accordance with an old principle of the British 
 ition, sheriffs in all towns are elected by the people, 
 is the case in Ireland until Liberal legislation 
 : med the corporations, and took from them this power of 
 ing sheriffs. Do not the facts I have mentioned justify 
 in asking the House to recede from its policy of coercion 
 The conclusion has been reluctantly forced 
 upon me, that conceding to Ireland a Parliament to manage its 
 affairs is the only way to establish a perfect Constitutional 
 emment in that country. I am persuaded that any candid 
 1 nan who will examine the peculiar condition of Ireland, 
 
 the differences which exist between Ireland and England, 
 will arrive, as I have done, at the conclusion that the only way 
 iave a really Constitutional Government in Ireland is to 
 allow the representatives of the people, freely chosen by the 
 to administer their own affairs. However, the Amend- 
 l I am about to move does not express any opinion on 
 i point. All I now ask the House to say is that Ireland 
 not the benefit of the Constitution, and to consider a 
 Amendment ought to commend itself to the 
 mmi sense and candour of English gentlemen. A new 
 of things lias arisen in Ireland, and an opportunity 
 to the House of Commons to review its 
 id to that country. I do not at present ask 
 Home Rule to Ireland. That question 
 discussed, and perhaps to be discussed for 
 Hut fust the advocates of Home Rule must 
 p ople that they arc not seeking separation. 
 given up the idea of separation, because she has 
 •1 obtaining another and a far better 
 p>t believe Ireland will ever be content with the
 
 Isaac Butt on Home Rule. 1 7 1 
 
 existing state of things ; but if Englishmen approach the sub- 
 ject with unprejudiced minds, there will be no difficulty in 
 framing a measure which will make Ireland contented, while 
 the integrity of the Empire will be perfectly maintained. 
 
 We are now entering upon a new phase of Irish politics. 
 It is not my wish to say one word of disrespect towards the 
 right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr Disraeli), who by his genius 
 has raised himself to the exalted position he at present occu- 
 pies. The right hon. gentleman is now for the first time in 
 his life in power, although he has previously been in office. 
 Ireland is a field large enough for the ambition of any man if 
 he can reconcile that country cordially to the British nation, 
 and dispel every trace of disloyalty to the British Crown. I 
 believe it is possible to do this by wise legislation. There may 
 be a veiled policy as well as a veiled rebellion. It will be a 
 mistake, however, if the right hon. gentleman conceives that 
 other questions will not have to be dealt with. If a policy of 
 conciliation is pursued towards Ireland, the right hon. gentle- 
 man will not find himself obstructed by Irish representatives ; 
 but if he unfortunately pursues a different course, he will find 
 himself disappointed. But however great our wish to relieve 
 the House of Commons from the management of exclusively 
 Irish affairs, for which we believe the House unfit, while these 
 affairs are managed in the House, and we continue members 
 of it, a duty devolves upon us which will be discharged by 
 offering factious opposition to any measures for the benefit of 
 Ireland, from whichever side of the House such measures may 
 emanate. 
 
 I think I have shown that a crisis has arisen in the affairs 
 of Ireland presenting new phases ; that those gentlemen who 
 have associated themselves for the purpose of obtaining self- 
 government for Ireland are bound not to acquiesce in an 
 Address which infers that things shall remain as they are ; and 
 it is with this view that I now place in the hands of the Speaker 
 the Amendment which I have prepared.
 
 A. M. SULLIVAN ON THE IRISH 
 NATIONAL DEMANDS. 
 
 House of Commons, January 17TH, 1878. 
 
 ; »eningof Parliament the Home Rule Members took exception 
 Speech on the ground that it contained no reference to 
 awls for Home Rule. They therefore proposed an Amend- 
 •rted in the Address in these words:—" We humbly assure 
 at we shall regard it as the duty of Parliament, in the 
 ■ public affairs, on the earliest opportunity, to consider 
 iciliatory spirit the National Demands which the Irish 
 Ltedly rai To speak against this Amendment the 
 
 in up Mr David 1'lunket, the Member for Dublin University, 
 : Lord Plunket who in the Irish Parliament had most 
 11I denounced the Act of Union, and who had 
 no was passed, he would, like another Han- 
 children to the altar of his country, and i here swear them 
 miiy against the power which had so basely wronged their 
 
 stands indebted to the hon. and gallant gentle- 
 
 iber f( irWaterford. His motion has broken "thecold 
 
 ' thai hung over ihe Government benches, and 
 
 ) the lion, and learned gentleman (Mr Plunket) 
 
 :h, whatever its other characteristics, we have all 
 
 ied play of humour, eloquence, and ability. 
 
 1 to to the House for the time he was 
 
 the business, and this of all others the 
 
 e lime of the House should most, rigidly 
 
 Parliament has been assembled three weeks
 
 A. M. Sullivan on I risk National Demands, i 7$ 
 
 earlier than usual, and within these three weeks there should 
 be good time for discussing and considering the Irish question 
 — for fully considered and discussed we are fixedly determined 
 it shall be. Mr Speaker, that hon. and learned gentleman said 
 of the men amidst whom I stand that they were " masquerading 
 as Home Rulers." The phrase is not offensive, I suppose, or 
 he would not have applied it ; so I may use it too, and say 
 that the thing which is really intolerable is to see the grandson 
 of the great Plunket masquerading on the floor of the House 
 as an Imperialist. We are supposed to be concerned just now 
 with the Turkish question. One of the crudest wrongs which 
 the subject Christians under the Moslem yoke were made to 
 feel was that oftentimes the children of Christian parents were 
 seized and carried into the Turkish camp, trained up in Turkish 
 ideas, embraced the faith and the banner of the conqueror, and 
 appeared many a time, scimitar in Land, to wage war upon 
 their kindred and their race ! Even so it has been with us in 
 Ireland through many a sad chapter of our country's history. 
 Sometimes by force, sometimes by guile, sometimes by one 
 influence, sometimes by another, the British power has been 
 able to tear away from us children who bore great names, and 
 might have greatly served their country ; and we have seen 
 these converts, as to-night, skilfully set in the fore-front of the 
 assault when their countrymen were to be cut down. 
 
 Who is our accuser ? The voice is the voice of an Irishman ; 
 the wit, the ability, the brilliant play of fancy and of genius, the 
 rhetoric, the skill — all, all are Irish, but all are used against 
 Ireland! Who, I repeat, is our accuser? If we stand here 
 to-night, as we do, upon the floor of this House to maintain in 
 the face of the Empire and of Europe the protest of Ireland 
 against the memorable crime that robbed her of her Constitu- 
 tional liberties, whose behests are we fulfilling ? — who pledged 
 us to undying hate and eternal war against the crime ? The 
 hon. and learned gentleman had the temerity to use a phrase 
 for ever notable in the history of his family when he spoke of 
 men " swearing upon the altar." Who was that great Irish-
 
 M Political Orations. 
 
 d Constitutional lawyer, who declared 
 
 Parliament were successfully overthrown he 
 
 ild— oh, why did he not say his grandchild ? 
 
 lira upon the altar of his country to wage relent- 
 
 iat tremendous wrong? How little did he 
 
 our that to-night the representatives of Ireland 
 
 r in the ranks of their Imperial adversaries the 
 
 . and in no small degree of his genius, 
 
 ciples and his teachings, false to his lineage and 
 
 . 1 turn from the man to his arguments. He drew 
 f Ireland. Many years ago O'Connell was 
 In his speech to the Jury he drew a 
 litre of the prisoner at the bar as a model husband 
 he was not married at all), a dutiful son, an 
 n, virtuous, pious, industrious, inoffensive. At 
 ibner in the dock could stand it no longer, and 
 ! to those around him, " I never knew before that 
 Well, Sir, we have heard to-night 
 British rule in Ireland extolling the virtues and 
 lient ; and well may the prisoner at the bar 
 ■ laim, " I never knew 1 was so beautiful, so 
 •US as all that.'' Only believe the hot), and 
 there is not the slightest need of 
 the slightest possibility of improving 
 in Ireland I rything there is already perfect 
 nt, law, ami administration. There 
 m < fortunate spot on the face of 
 It is the home of happiness, peace, 
 t rule ami abounding loyalty. Hon. 
 You evidently think so too. You 
 now In land better than we do. ' You 
 it than we. tin- Irish majority, 
 iv, by what right does your party hold 
 I * nl*- the di itinies of England but by the 
 In virtue of a Parliamentary 
 
 entitled to speak to the world for
 
 A. M. Sullivan on Irish National Demands. 
 
 / o 
 
 England, while in virtue of a Parliamentary minority you would 
 claim to speak for Ireland. 
 
 But, Sir, the question before the House is much wider, and 
 greater, and more serious than the merits of the Irish " Bills " 
 which the Government has promised. If it were a matter of 
 a better or a worse Grand Jury Law, or a better or a worse 
 Intermediate Education Bill, I, for one, should hesitate to con- 
 cur in an interposition like the present. The question we raise 
 is that for which it may be said Parliament has been specially 
 convoked. We have been told in the Royal Speech of a 
 possible danger near at hand, of precautions and preparations 
 that may be necessary for the defence of the power and 
 stability of the Empire. Well, we have come forward to 
 suggest the wisest precaution and the most potential prepara- 
 tion which the Government could make. The matter is glossed 
 over by smooth phrases, but the danger that you all mean is 
 war — a war in which England will have to fight for her very 
 existence as a nation. If that war break out, if it be not 
 averted, as I hope it may be, England will find herself in such 
 desperate strait as she has not known for four hundred years. 
 Your army, small, but brave and fearless as ever, will behave 
 with its traditional valour ; wherever it may be sent, on what- 
 ever field it may fight, the army of this country will exhibit 
 those splendid qualities that have justly given it a world-wide 
 fame. I would say as much for it, even were it not composed 
 as largely as it is of my own brave countrymen. But there is 
 not a military man sitting in this House who does not know 
 and feel the truth of what I say — that a recent memorable war 
 in Europe has demonstrated that courage and prestige no 
 longer compensate as largely as they used to do sixty years ago 
 against overwhelming odds ; and that your army of a hundred 
 thousand, or a hundred and fifty thousand men, would be 
 utterly powerless before the hosts that now stand arrayed and 
 disciplined on the Continent of Europe. Should this calamity 
 befall, should this trouble for your existence arise, think you 
 that it is upon inanimate sword and bayonet, and ship and gun,
 
 J. Political Orations. 
 
 i stalwart arms and patriotic enthusiasm, your 
 
 Should that crisis come, right sure am I 
 
 lish masses a patriotic fervour will answer to 
 
 gland and throughout Scotland it will 
 
 ilreland? In the spirit of the oath which 
 
 -nay, higher obligations still, by the duty I 
 
 and to truth— I dare all misconception and 
 
 this momentous crisis my solemn testimony 
 
 Empire enters upon a struggle of such 
 
 while Ireland is in the attitude which Hungary 
 
 rds Austria previous to Sadowa, the popular 
 
 i which you will receive in England and Scotland 
 
 pou in Ireland. [Cries of "Oh ! oh ! "J 
 
 your exclamations, and I do not complain j 
 
 ■ it I have made is serious, and naturally un- 
 
 e will vindicate the truth of my words and the 
 
 my moti 
 
 wenty-five years ago there stood upon the floor 
 
 i of Irish members, struggling, as we 
 
 you to listen to Irish demands. 
 
 5 what was their fate ; read for yourselves 
 
 I that time. They were voted down, they were 
 
 laughed at, they were denounced or 
 
 ed. • 1 in that day — as you always have — some 
 
 a Irishman in your service to get up and do 
 
 i luntrymen —to contradict their testi- 
 
 .. nit tidings which you hailed as gospel 
 
 : hun t warnings of danger were shrieked against 
 
 . John Francis Maguire and others 
 
 House, is I >ay now, that there was 
 
 on m Ireland. They were set upon 
 
 I were contradicted and con- 
 
 Hou «, by overwhelming vol lared their 
 
 nd that Ireland was peaceable, contented, 
 
 M ii in' two barely passed when 
 
 : on .ill this. At that very moment
 
 A. M. Sullivan on Irish National Demands. 177 
 
 my unfortunate countrymen were being sworn in by the thousand 
 in a secret conspiracy for armed insurrection. Barely a few years 
 passed away when the crowded dock, the convict ship, the penal 
 gang, the triangle, and the bloody lash — nay, the scaffold itself 
 — furnished a frightful contradiction to the pleasant testimonies 
 which you preferred to believe ; a frightful corroboration to the 
 warnings you denounced and despised. What happened then ? 
 Like the story of the recent Fenian amnesty which we have 
 heard to-night, measures prayed for in vain in the hour of your 
 tranquillity, when concession would have grace and efficacy, 
 were conceded amidst public disquietude and almost panic. 
 Writing some six weeks ago to a friend in the north of England 
 ■ — a fair-minded, a kindly- hearted, and a high -principled 
 Englishman — yes, I believe in the existence of such men, not 
 in scores or hundreds, but in hundreds of thousands — I com- 
 plained of this, and asked how and why it was that English 
 statesmen and politicians should thus put a premium on 
 turbulence and revolt. 
 
 Just look what has been the history of any great political 
 measure passed for Ireland in our own generation. The 
 argument of Catholic Emancipation was exhausted in 1801. 
 Its justice was as patent to all men in 181 2 as at any time 
 afterwards ; yet it was resisted and refused until, as the Duke 
 of Wellington declared, civil war seemed inevitable. Was not 
 that a mischievous lesson to Irishmen ? The Tithe Question 
 you resisted until our land was reddened with blood. The 
 Church Question and the Land Question— it is a story ol 
 recent years. A Land Bill was passed in 1870, after passions 
 had been aroused, hearts broken, homes desolated by the 
 thousand ; after you had filled America with combustible 
 elements that are at this moment a serious menace to England. 
 In that struggle you broke the heart of Lucas, and drove 
 Gavan Duffy into exile — robbed Ireland of the services ol 
 a man whose genius and worth you have been glad tc 
 recognise at the Antipodes. The Land Bill, prayed foi 
 in T850, was granted in part in 1870, after the terrihle tragedy 
 
 M
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 of Ball; had startled the Empire. In 1868 you 
 
 . /threw the Irish Church, because, as you avowed, 
 i enianism. In the face of the men whose 
 . had angrily resented a few years previously, 
 this House to concede in an hour of alarm 
 refused in the time of tranquillity. Is this 
 true or false? Am I, or am I not, reciting facts 
 all? What do these facts show? That, by 
 ; malign fatality, some calamitous coincidence, if nothing 
 at men, like my colleague and myself, who 
 . ,1 to be just in time. You resist concession in 
 1 aim, and yield it only in the face of real or fancied 
 If it be not so, let some one get up to-night, and name 
 .it national concession made to Ireland under 
 instances. As it has been, perhaps it is still 
 You will complain of my words; you will say I do 
 n hut threaten, and you will prefer to believe those 
 : the Irish masses are contented and well-affected, 
 ally ready as Englishmen could be to pour out 
 Mi your defence ; hut I dare all risk of temporary 
 and blame. 
 I look into the future, and can await my vindication. Do 
 ■ mistake our position in this crisis of the Empire. 
 1 many members of a party or a section of this 
 
 any advocates of this or that Bill. 
 
 national representation of Ireland, here in over- 
 
 to demand the restoration of Parliamentary 
 
 istitutional Government. We are projecting no 
 
 al, lik-- the friends of this or that great reform or 
 
 are here to call for the restitution of what 
 
 d, but which you wrung from us by 
 
 ■Id to vitiate and render illegal every public 
 
 1 man and man, between nation and 
 
 '1 ; no title to it : for no time runs 
 
 • 1 and renewed, as ours has been, from 
 
 legally we stand to day where we
 
 A. M. Stillivan on Irish National Demands. 179 
 
 stood seventy years ago. Restore to Ireland the reign of law ! 
 It is all she asks as the price of her friendship — a price cheap 
 indeed, for it takes nothing from you that belongs to you. 
 The price of her friendship ! You are now, in view of a 
 terrible emergency, possibly at hand, searching Europe 
 through for allies. Here we are to-night empowered to offer 
 you one worth the best you could elsewhere find — the alliance, 
 the hearty friendship, the enthusiastic support of Ireland. I 
 own I have deep reason to wish this question settled, and to see 
 a cordial feeling established between the two countries before 
 dark clouds grow darker, and while yet the reconciliation can be 
 free and generous and efficacious. The peace, the happiness, 
 the tranquillity of Ireland are most dear to me ; and I do not 
 wish to see my country desolated and destroyed by being made, 
 perhaps, a battle-field of the coming struggle. I do not want 
 the ghastly episode of some Continental despot making what 
 he would call a diversion in Ireland — wasting the blood and 
 blasting the hopes of my country in a mere stroke of tactics to 
 serve his own ends. I shudder when I think of such a 
 possibility ; and I appeal to you — yes, unchilled by the fore- 
 gone conclusion of your unwise refusal— I nevertheless raise 
 and record my appeal to you and the English nation to-night 
 to let us clasp hands in friendship on the only terms on which 
 we can be allies or friends. Be simply just. That you will 
 do so yet, despite your customary refusals now, I am as 
 convinced as I am of my own existence. It is the time 
 which, with your customary unwisdom, you may select for 
 such a step that alone disquiets me. Austria tried your 
 present policy towards Hungary, and changed it after Sadowa. 
 I hope and pray you will wait for no such hour to accept the 
 proffered hand and secure the ready aid of the brave and 
 
 gallant Irish nation. 
 /
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD ON 
 THE BERLIN CONGRESS. 
 
 Carlton Club Banquet, July 27TH, 1878. 
 
 .eturn from the Berlin Congress, Lord Beaconsfield was at 
 
 mit of his popularity. Enthusiastic crowds cheered his progress 
 
 the Foreign Office, from one of the windows of which 
 
 1 the multitude, saying, " I have brought you peace, but I trust, 
 
 These words became memorable. The speech, 
 
 ,11 at the Carlton Club Banquet in the Duke of Wellington's 
 
 Knightsbridge— the largest available hall in the West 
 
 pmeiit of that brief address to the people. The Duke 
 
 iccupied the Chair.] 
 
 Mv ' .1. and Gentlemen, — I am sure that you will 
 
 nit me of affectation if I say that it is not without 
 
 1 have received this expression of your good- 
 
 sympathy. When I look around this chamber I 
 
 of some who entered public life with myself, 
 
 friend the noble Duke has reminded me, more 
 
 I more whose entrance into public 
 
 ed when I had myself gained some experience 
 
 md lastly, I see those who have only recently entered 
 
 and whom it has been my duty and my 
 
 and to counsel when they entered that 
 
 characteristic of this country, and which is 
 
 rities of our liberty and welfare. 
 ..I Gentlemen, our Chairman has referred to my 
 if all |Hil>li<- nun in this country, as one 
 ide ; but 1 have been sustained, even
 
 Lord Beacons fie Id on the Berlin Congress. 18 1 
 
 in the darkest hours of our party, by the conviction that I 
 possessed your confidence, I will say your indulgent confid- 
 ence ; for in the long course of my public life, that I may 
 have committed many mistakes is too obvious a truth to 
 touch upon ; but that you have been indulgent there is no 
 doubt, for I can, I hope, I may say proudly, remember 
 that it has been my lot to lead in either House of Parlia- 
 ment this great party for a longer period than has ever 
 fallen to the lot of any public man in the history of this 
 country. That I have owed that result to your generous 
 indulgence more than to any personal qualities of my own 
 no man is more sensible than myself; but it is a fact that 
 I may recur to with some degree of proud satisfaction. Our 
 noble Chairman has referred to the particular occasion which 
 has made me your guest to-day. I attended that high 
 assembly which has recently dispersed with much reluctance. 
 I yielded to the earnest solicitations of my noble friend 
 near me (the Marquis of Salisbury), my colleague in that 
 great enterprise. He thought that my presence might be of 
 use to him in the vast difficulties he had to encounter ; but I 
 must say now, as I shall ever say, that to his lot fell the 
 labouring oar in that great work, and that you are, I will not 
 say equally, but more indebted to him than to myself for the 
 satisfactory results which you kindly recognise. I share the 
 conviction of our noble Chairman that it is one which has been 
 received with satisfaction by the country, but I am perfectly 
 aware that that satisfaction is not complete or unanimous, 
 because I know well that before eight-and-forty hours have 
 passed the marshalled hosts of opposition will be prepared 
 to challenge what has been done, and to question the policy 
 we hope we have established. 
 
 My Lords and Gentlemen, as I can no longer raise my 
 voice in that House of Parliament where this contest is to 
 take place, as I sit now in a House where our opponents 
 never unsheath their swords, a House where, although the 
 two chief plenipotentiaries of the Queen sit, they are met only
 
 1 82 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 by innuendo and by question, I hope you will permit me, 
 though with extreme brevity, to touch on one or two of the 
 point's which in a few hours may much engage the interest 
 and attention of the Parliament. My Lords and Gentlemen, 
 it is difficult to describe the exact meaning of the charge 
 which is brought against the plenipotentiaries of the Queen, 
 as it will be introduced to the House of Commons on 
 Monday. Drawn as it is, it appears at first sight to be only 
 a series' of congratulatory regrets. But, my Lords and Gentle- 
 men, if you penetrate the meaning of this movement, it 
 would appear that there are two points in which it is hoped 
 that a successful onset may be made on Her Majesty's 
 Government, and on those two points, and those alone, I 
 hope with becoming brevity, at this moment, perhaps, you 
 will allow me to make one or two remarks. It is charged 
 against Her Majesty's Government that they have particularly 
 deceived and deserted Greece. 
 
 Now, my Lords and Gentlemen, this is a subject which is, 
 1 think, capable of simpler treatment than hitherto it has 
 encountered in public discussion. We have given at all 
 times, in public and in private, to the Government of Greece 
 and to all who might influence its decisions but one advice — 
 that on no account should they be induced to interfere in 
 those coming disturbances which two years ago threatened 
 Europe, and which concluded in a devastating war. And we 
 Lve that advice on these grounds, which appear to me 
 incontestable. If, as Greece supposed, and as we thought 
 erroneously supposed, the partition of the Ottoman Empire 
 was at hand, Greece, morally, geographically, ethnographically, 
 was sure of receiving a considerable allotment of that 
 partition when it took place. It would be impossible to make 
 re settlement of the East of Europe without largely 
 fying the claims of (Greece; and great as those claims 
 • be, if that were the case, it was surely unwise in Greece 
 • and its blood. If, on the other hand, as 
 Her Majesty's Government believed, the end of this struggle
 
 Lord Beaconsjield on the Berlin Congress. 183 
 
 would not be a partition of the Ottoman Empire, but that the 
 wisdom and experience of all the Powers and Governments 
 would come to the conclusion that the existence and strengthen- 
 ing of the Ottoman Government was necessary to the peace 
 of Europe, and without it long and sanguinary and intermitting 
 struggles must inevitably take place, it was equally clear to us 
 that when the settlement occurred, all those rebellious 
 tributary principalities that have lavished their best blood 
 and embarrassed their finances for generations would neces- 
 sarily be but scurvily treated, and that Greece, even under this 
 alternative, would find that she was wise in following the 
 advice of England and not mixing in a fray so fatal. Well, 
 my Lords and Gentlemen, has not the event proved the justice 
 and accuracy of that view ? At this moment, though Greece 
 has not interfered, fortunately for herself — though she has not 
 lavished the blood of her citizens and wasted her treasure, 
 under the Treaty of Berlin she has the opportunity of obtain- 
 ing a greater increase of territory than will be obtained by any 
 of the rebellious principalities that have lavished their blood 
 and wasted their resources in this fierce contest. I should 
 like to see that view answered by those who accuse us of 
 misleading Greece. We gave to her the best advice ; fortun- 
 ately for Greece she followed it, and I will hope that, follow- 
 ing it with discretion and moderation, she will not lose the 
 opportunity we have secured for her in the advantages she 
 may yet reap. 
 
 I would make one more remark on this subject, which will 
 soon occupy the attention of many who are here present. 
 It has been said we have misled and deserted Greece, because 
 we were the Power which took steps that Greece should 
 be heard before the Congress. Why did we do that ? 
 Because we have ever expressed our opinion that in the 
 elevation of the Greek race — not merely the subjects of the 
 King of Greece — one of the best chances of the improvement 
 of Society under the Ottoman rule would be found, and that it 
 was expedient that the rights of the Greek race should be
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 rated by that portion of it which enjoyed an independent 
 : and all this time, too, let it be recollected 
 my noble friend was unceasing in his efforts to obtain 
 such a settlement of the claims, or rather, I should say, the 
 with the Porte, as would conduce greatly to 
 itage of that kingdom. And not without success, 
 ition of Lord Salisbury for the rectification of the 
 Greece really includes all that moderate and 
 iible men could desire; and that was the plan that 
 timately was adopted by the Congress, and which Greece 
 it avail herself of if there be prudence and moderation 
 in her councils. Let me here make one remark — which 
 indeed is one that applies to other most interesting portions 
 at question; it refers to the personal character of 
 the Sultan. From the first the Sultan of Turkey has expressed 
 [lis desire to deal with Greece in a spirit of friendliness and 
 iliation. He has been perfectly aware that in the union 
 the Turkish and Greek races the only balance could be 
 ined and secured against the Pan-Slavic monopoly which 
 t invading the whole of his dominions. Therefore 
 there w ry disposition on his part to meet the proposals 
 
 ish Government with favour, and he did meet them 
 with favour. Remember the position of that Prince. It is 
 ost unprecedented. No prince, probably, that ever lived 
 h such a series of catastrophes. One of his 
 ommits suicide; his immediate predecessor is 
 a visitation more awful even than suicide. The 
 ends the throne his Ministers are assassinated. 
 out in his own palace, and then he learns 
 invaded; his armies, however valiant, 
 id that the enemy is at his gates; yet, with all 
 ' during all this period, he has never swerved 
 and 1 believe the feeling, of a desire to deal 
 spiril tdship. Well, what happened? — 
 
 expression of feeling on his part? He 
 < a man whose every impulse is good; however
 
 Lord Beaconsfield on the Berlin Congress. 185 
 
 great the difficulties he has to encounter, however evil the 
 influences that may sometimes control him, his impulses are 
 good ; and where impulses are good there is always hope. He 
 is not a tyrant— he is not dissolute — he is not a bigot, or 
 corrupt. What was his last decision? When my noble 
 friend, not encouraged, I must say, by Greece, but still 
 continuing his efforts, endeavoured to bring to some practical 
 result this question of the frontiers, the Sultan said that what 
 he was prepared to do he wished should be looked on as an 
 act of grace on his part, and of the sense of the friendliness of 
 Greece in not attacking him during his troubles ; but as 
 a Congress was now to meet, he should like to hear the result 
 of the wisdom of the Congress on the subject. The Congress 
 has now spoken ; and though it declared that it did not feel 
 justified in compelling the Sultan to adopt the steps it might 
 think advantageous even for its own interests, the Congress 
 expressed an opinion which, I doubt not, the Sultan is 
 prepared to consider in the spirit of conciliation he has so 
 often displayed. And this is the moment when a party 
 for factious purposes, and a party unhappily not limited 
 to England, is egging on Greece to violent courses ! I may, 
 perhaps, have touched at too much length on this topic ; but 
 the attacks made on Her Majesty's Government are nothing 
 compared with the public mischief that may occur if mis- 
 conception exists on this point. 
 
 There is one other point on which I would make a remark, 
 and that is with regard to the Convention of Constantinople of 
 the 4th of June. When I study the catalogue of congratulatory 
 regrets with attention, this appears to be the ground on which 
 a great assault is to be made on the Government. It is said 
 that we have increased, and dangerously increased, our re- 
 sponsibilities by that Convention. In the first place, I deny 
 that we have increased our responsibilities by that Convention. 
 I maintain that by that Convention we have lessened our 
 responsibilities. Suppose now, for example, the settlement of 
 Europe had not included the Convention of Constantinople,
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 ad the occupation of the Isle of Cyprus? Suppose it had 
 
 limited to the mere Treaty of Berlin, what, under all 
 
 able circumstances, might then have occurred? In ten, 
 
 n, it might be in twenty years, the power and resources of 
 
 Russia having revived, some quarrel would again have occurred, 
 
 garian or otherwise, and in all probability the armies of 
 
 5 ia would have been assailing the Ottoman dominions both 
 
 in Europe and Asia, and enveloping and enclosing the city 
 
 of Constantinople and its all-powerful position. Well, what 
 
 would be the probable conduct, under these circumstances, of 
 
 the Government of this country, whoever the Ministers might 
 
 be— whatever party might be in power? I fear there might be 
 
 hesitation for a time -a want of decision— a want of firmness ; 
 
 no one doubts that ultimately England would have said : 
 
 " This will never do ; we must prevent the conquest of Asia 
 
 Minor; we must interfere in this matter and arrest the course 
 
 of Russia." No one, I am sure, in this country who im- 
 
 tially considers this question can for a moment doubt 
 
 what under any circumstances would have been the course of 
 
 this country. Well, then, that being the case, I say it is 
 
 |y important that this country should take a step 
 
 rehand which should indicate what the policy of England 
 
 would be; that you should not have your Ministers meeting in 
 
 mini-Chamber, hesitating and doubting, and considering 
 
 < , and then acting at last, but acting, perhaps, too 
 
 I that the responsibilities of this country 
 
 not been increa edj the responsibilities already existed, 
 
 I, for one, would never shrink from increasing the 
 
 of this country if they are responsibilities 
 
 a to be undertaken. The responsibilities of this 
 
 ntry are practically diminished by the course we have 
 
 A I ordi and Gentlemen, one of the results of my attending 
 
 of Berlin has been to prove what I always 
 
 olute fact, that neither the Crimean War 
 
 le devastating war which has just terminated
 
 Lord Beaconsfield on the Berlin Congress. 187 
 
 would have taken place if England had spoken with the 
 necessary firmness. Russia has complaints to make against 
 this country that neither in the case of the Crimean War nor 
 on this occasion — and I do not shrink from my share of the 
 responsibility in this matter — was the voice of England so 
 clear and decided as to exercise a due share in the guidance of 
 European opinion. Well, Gentlemen, suppose my noble friend 
 and myself had come back with the Treaty of Berlin, and had 
 not taken the step which is to be questioned within the next 
 eight-and-forty hours, could we with any self-respect have 
 met our countrymen when they asked, What securities have 
 you made for the peace of Europe? — How far have you 
 diminished the chance of perpetually recurring war on this 
 question of the East by the Treaty of Berlin ? Why, they could 
 say, all we have gained by the Treaty of Berlin is probably the 
 peace of a few years, and at the end of that time the same 
 phenomenon will arise, and the Ministers of England must 
 patch up the affair as well as they could. That was not the 
 idea of public duty entertained by my noble friend and myself. 
 We thought the time had come when we should take steps 
 which would produce some order out of the anarchy and 
 chaos that had so long prevailed. We asked ourselves was it 
 absolutely a necessity that the fairest provinces of the world 
 should be the most devastated and most ill-used, and for 
 this reason, that there is no security for life or property so 
 long as that country is in perpetual fear of invasion and 
 aggression ? 
 
 It was under these circumstances that we recommended the 
 course we have taken, and I believe that the consequence of 
 that policy will tend to and even secure peace and order in a 
 portion of the globe which hitherto has seldom been blessed 
 by these celestial visitants. I hold that we have laid the 
 foundation of a state of affairs which may open a new Con- 
 tinent to the civilisation of Europe, and that the welfare of the 
 world and the wealth of the world may be increased by avail- 
 ing ourselves of that tranquillity and order which the more
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 intimate connection of England with that country will now 
 roduce. But I am sorry to say that, though we taxed our 
 brains and our thought to establish a policy which might be 
 ,enencial to the country, we have not satisfied those who are 
 itics I was astonished to learn that the Convention of 
 . 4 th June has been described as an "insane" Convention. 
 It is a strong epithet. I do not myself pretend to be as com- 
 ment a judge of insanity as my right hon. opponent (Mr 
 Gladstone). I will not say to the right hon. gentleman Naviget 
 Autuyram, but I would put this issue to an English jury— 
 Which do you believe most likely to enter into an insane Con- 
 vention, a body of English gentlemen, honoured by the favour 
 and the confidence of their fellow-subjects, managing your 
 affairs for five years, I hope with prudence and not altogether 
 without success, or a sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with 
 the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotis- 
 tical imagination that can at all times command an interminable 
 and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent 
 and to glorify himself? 
 
 My Lords and Gentlemen, I leave the decision upon that 
 
 Convention to the Parliament and people of England. I 
 
 that in that policy are deeply laid the seeds of future 
 
 welfare, not merely to England, but to Europe and to Asia; 
 
 and confident that the policy we have recommended is one 
 
 that will be supported by the country, I and those that act 
 
 with me can endure these attacks. My Lords and Gentlemen, 
 
 ne thank you once more for the manner in which you have 
 
 led me to-day. These arc the rewards of public life 
 
 that : .' vei pall -the sympathy of those who have known you 
 
 iio have worked with you long, who have the same 
 
 ntons in policy that ought to be pursued in this great 
 
 i These are sentiments which no language 
 
 iently appreciate which are a consolation under all 
 
 and the highest reward that a public man can 
 
 lerous feeling that has prompted you to wel- 
 
 olleague and myself on our return to England will
 
 Lord Beaconsfield on the Berlin Congress. 189 
 
 inspire and strengthen our efforts to serve our country ; and it 
 is not merely that in this welcome you encourage those who 
 are doing their best for what they conceive to be the public 
 interests, but to tell to Europe also that England is a grate- 
 ful country, and knows how to appreciate the efforts of her 
 public servants, who are resolved to maintain to their utmost the 
 Empire of Great Britain.
 
 JOSEPH COWEN ON THE FOREIGN 
 
 POLICY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 Newcastle-on-Tyne, January 31ST, 1880. 
 
 v tin.; the Dissolution of Parliament and a General Election Mr 
 instei meeting of his constituents in the Town Hall, 
 ill, r 11. W. NEWTON presiding.] 
 
 Mr Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen,— I have rarely 
 addressed a meeting with more misgivings than I do this one. 
 My h( sitation does not arise from any doubt I entertain as to 
 of the statements I am about to make, of the 
 of the argument I propose sustaining, or of the sound- 
 deductions I intend to draw. On all these points I 
 Ay persuaded in my own mind. My reluctance to 
 om the conviction I entertain that anything 
 .vill be valueless, and may be locally mischievous. 
 ,] problems of great intricacy and importance have 
 Ulement since the last general election. Many 
 1 are old ones, some of them centuries old, 
 tot then before the electors. The Liberals, as 
 . , assumed towards them an altered attitude. 
 abandoned, no doubt for reasons which appeared 
 . the historic policy of the country, if not 
 principles of the party. There is necessarily 
 with precision the position of a complex 
 1 oange. But no injustice will, I think, be
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 191 
 
 done to anyone by saying that many Liberals, on foreign 
 questions, have espoused in spirit, if not in substance, the 
 doctrines which were held with such tenacity and expounded 
 with such earnestness by that band of capable men who made 
 the world their debtors by their labours for Free Trade. 
 
 I have not been able to become a convert to this new faith. 
 I am not, and never was, an adherent of what is popularly 
 known as the "Manchester School." On this subject there 
 is between myself and some of my friends a distinct divergency, 
 which I have no desire either to minimise or ignore. I am in 
 favour of an European and national, as against an insular and 
 — I use the word in no offensive sense— a parochial policy. It 
 may seem somewhat hard to dismiss a member because, in the 
 course of a Parliament, he has not been able to change his 
 creed. I recognise, however, the right of the constituency to 
 demand uniformity of view from their representatives. I also 
 feel that in my present position I am a source of embarrassment 
 to many and of annoyance to some ; and I have repeatedly 
 expressed my willingness, and I do it again to-night, to solve 
 all difficulties by quietly retiring. It has not been thought 
 desirable that an election should take place in Newcastle at 
 this time ; and although my immediate retirement might meet 
 with the approval of some, I understand that it would not 
 meet with the general approval of the electors. Such being 
 the case, in my judgment it would have been wise not to have 
 re-opened troublesome topics, which may add possible irrita- 
 tion to honest difference by promoting a discussion that can 
 be fruitful of no good results. I do not object, without 
 further hearing, to be tried, condemned, and, if you decree it, 
 dismissed. 
 
 There is nothing that I have said on this question that I 
 wish either to modify or retract. There is nothing that I have 
 done which I regret. I may be mistaken ; I am not infallible ; 
 but I believe that the course of policy I have supported has 
 been the best for England and the best for liberty. I fear my 
 convictions are too strongly fixed to be shaken. I am not
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 either so sanguine or so egotistical as to suppose that anything 
 I can say will turn my friends from the faith they have accepted 
 much devotion. Apart from political considerations, 
 ,ns and personal predilections and prejudices have 
 •orted into the controversy, and in some instances 
 been intensified by religious animosities. It is 
 ; to reason against such a combination of active and 
 ments. But the blast that blows loudest is soon 
 rid having lodged an earnest protest in support 
 . I am willing to bend to the storm and wait for 
 g effects of experience and the modifying influence 
 t out the asperity of the political jehad which is 
 ached against doctrines that, to my mind, have 
 ici at least of truth and justice to sustain them. 
 im to speak I will do so frankly, without reservation 
 ation. In a country where unfortunately speech is 
 mch controlled by, and so much based on, party interest, 
 ttle favour is shown to the politician who ignores its considera- 
 and ventures upon the dangerous practice of striving to be 
 impartial. If he speak the unbiassed sentiments of his own 
 ind he secures the opposition of his former supporters, the 
 his atrabilarious opponents, and the sneers, if not 
 his, of some of his associates. But sincerity of 
 uttc nly channel of truth, and I believe that my 
 
 len will listen to declarations of opinion which 
 opposition, and possibly censure of some of them, 
 larations are untainted, as I trust in my case they 
 >r, with either levity or ignorance. I cannot cite a new 
 . and ; can adduce a new argument either for or 
 
 e poli< y that this country has recently pursued. The 
 tten about and spoken of so often, and at 
 argumentative thread is worn thin and 
 rhi rature on the interminable theme is a veritable 
 in which every form of thought, every 
 in, is presented in all shapes of attraction and
 
 Joseph Co wen on Foreign Policy. 193 
 
 But if what I say is not new, it will only be in keeping with 
 the speeches of more distinguished persons. We are not philo- 
 sophers speculating upon what might be, nor philanthropists 
 dilating upon what ought to be, nor poets chanting the dirge of 
 a brilliant but buried past. We are matter-of-fact politicians, 
 talking of the prosaic present. And politics, I fear, are too 
 often controlled more by self-interest than by sentiment. We 
 are not dealing with an ideal State. If we were, the fragmen- 
 tary and composite Empire of Britain would not realise my 
 Utopia. Greece, whose name has been for centuries a watch- 
 word upon earth, whose fame will never fade, from whose 
 history mankind have derived inspiration and guidance, and 
 which still rises upon our intellectual sight like a mountain-top 
 gilded with sunshine, amidst the devastations of a flood — 
 Greece, I say, rather than law-giving, conquering, Imperial, 
 splendid, but savage Rome, would be my model. I would 
 have a State in which every man is free, and where every man 
 is fortified against superstition by education, and against 
 oppression by arms ; where the arts and graces of Athens, and 
 the martial independence of Sparta, would commingle with the 
 mercantile and industrial enterprise and the naval prowess of 
 Britain ; and in which, while influence and authority are won 
 by intellectual strength and moral worth, a proud defiance 
 could be bid to despotism's banded myriads. 
 
 But these are the dreams of the idealists. We belong to the 
 real and the active, and not the imaginary world. We are to 
 deal with things as they are, and not as we can sketch them in 
 our fancy. We are the inheritors of a Colonial Empire, the 
 most widespread, scattered, and extensive ever known. It 
 reaches to every region, and has its feelers and its feeders in 
 every corner of the globe. Some of these possessions came to 
 us in a questionable shape, and by means that no one can 
 justify, and that I, at least, have no desire either to palliate or 
 excuse. But the present generation of Englishmen are guiltless 
 of the crime attending their acquisition. Our Colonies cover 
 an area of three millions of square miles, and have a population 
 
 N
 
 Modern- Political Orations. 
 
 million persons following diverse pursuits, but all 
 
 one mind, aim, and tradition. In India we have 
 
 he thousand miles, an area of one and a half 
 
 ire miles, and 240,000,000 of people under our 
 
 insular position frees us from many of the dangers 
 
 and Continental States, but our external Empire 
 
 the same time one of the most sensitive and assail- 
 
 . No serious movement can take place in any 
 
 arth without our feeling its influence. No country 
 
 occupied such a peculiar position as Britain and her 
 
 .liter empires now hold. It is not egotism to say that, 
 
 standing all our shortcomings, power so vast was never 
 
 wielded with so sincere a desire to use it beneficially. Every 
 
 tribe we touch acknowledges our supremacy, and looks to us 
 
 either in conscious fear of weakness, or with brightening hope 
 
 articipating in our elevation. To secure the existence, to 
 
 rivet the cohesion of this vast dominion, blest with one of the 
 
 forms of freedom that the world has ever seen, to carry 
 
 int countries and succeeding ages the loftiest form of 
 
 rivi! is our mission. To abandon the opportunity of 
 
 •fulness thus conferred, to throw aside the hope of securing 
 
 hts and impartial freedom, to destroy the means of 
 
 ling of fraternity and consciousness of common 
 
 rial interests amongst so many millions of our fellow- 
 
 • 1 be a narrow, a niggardly, a short-sighted, and a 
 
 it nation to pursue. 
 
 [f we >uth Africa, what would be the result? There 
 
 British-born men and women — our own kith and 
 
 Without some protection from the Home 
 
 the 1 ads they have erected by years of 
 
 of civilisation and of commerce that they 
 
 by their enterprise, would be endangered, if not 
 
 I ailants would not be the natives of the 
 
 and inoffensive, but savage invaders 
 
 rth, wh< much alien and aggressors as the 
 
 [] dia, a like, but more disastrous
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 195 
 
 result would ensue. The scores of different races and 
 nations into which the population of that country is divided 
 would fly at each other's throats. In the earliest encounters 
 probably the fierce, courageous, unteachable, and intractable 
 Mahommedans, who are forty millions strong, would re-assert 
 their supremacy, but after years of internecine war and social 
 disorder the country would eventually fall a prey to a foreign 
 invader— possibly Russia. The 8,000 miles of railway, the 
 18,000 miles of telegraph, the canals, and other creations of 
 English capital, would be destroyed. The machinery for the 
 administration of justice, and the protection of life and property, 
 which England has created, and which has assured to the com- 
 mon people of India more security and greater personal freedom 
 than they ever enjoyed under former rulers, would be upset. 
 This country would suffer equally with the Indian people; the 
 ;£i 28,000,000 of Indian debt would have to be provided for ; 
 civil servants and officers whose careers would be destroyed 
 would require their pensions, and compensation would possibly 
 be demanded by traders who would be ruined by our change of 
 policy. India, England, and the world would all be injured. 
 No Englishman could contemplate such a contingency with 
 approval, or acquiesce in it with satisfaction. Now that we 
 possess it, we are bound to protect and defend India — to hold 
 it against any enemy as stoutly as we would hold Cornwall or 
 Caithness. 
 
 England is not so many square roods of land, but a nation 
 whose people are united in love of soil and race, by mutual 
 sympathy and tradition, by character and institutions. It is not 
 a fortuitous concourse of individuals merely bound over to keep 
 the peace towards each other, and, for the rest, following their 
 own selfish objects, and crying outside their own cottage, 
 counting-house, or country, let everything " take its course." 
 Our country is something more than the mere workshop of the 
 world, a manufactory for flashy clothing, and a market for cheap 
 goods. We are pledged to each other as citizers of a great 
 nationality, and by solidarity of life. We owe a duty to our-
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 to our families, and to our country, and also to our 
 ition and to the future. We have grown great, not merely 
 it of our possessions and the fertility of our soil, but 
 cservation of our liberties and the energy and enter- 
 e of our people. The present generation is the outcome of 
 of effort. The history of England is woven and inter- 
 laced and interlaced with the history of Europe and the 
 Id for a thousand years. Wherever liberty has struggled 
 ally, or wherever it has suffered in vain, there our 
 nave gone. There is nothing in human affairs that 
 be foreign to us. Wealth almost beyond the dreams of 
 avarice, territorial possessions, and education bring with them 
 •risibilities. Power, to the very last particle of it, 
 is duty. Unto whom much is given, of him much will be 
 lired. 
 
 have inherited, so we have to transmit. No one can 
 slightingly on the results which rest upon our national 
 But if ever a nation, drunk with the fumes of power 
 and wealth, makes an apotheosis of gold and material pleasure, 
 riches to duty, comfort to courage, selfish enjoyment to 
 t and sacrifice, it sinks in the respect of others, and 
 s the first and strongest incentive to human effort. Great 
 m mands great effort, and great effort is the life and soul 
 
 individuals and nations. I contend, therefore, for these 
 —the integrity of the Empire, and the interest, the 
 duty of England to play her part in the great 
 I, as did our illustrious ancestors, the fore- 
 run ropean freedom. 
 
 ply these principles to the recent controversies in 
 
 I and ll on that has been taken by this country. 
 
 one of "in most distant, as it is one of our most 
 
 We hold it more as conquerors than 
 
 ire urgent and obvious reasons why our 
 
 ild be rapid, easy, and expeditious. 
 
 nd commercial enterprise, have 
 
 e the best route to it through the Isthmus
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 197 
 
 which unites the continents of Asia and Africa. The Egyptians, 
 the Phoenicians, and the Carthagenians, before the Christian 
 era, travelled to India this way. In the Middle Ages the 
 Genoese and Venetian merchants went by the same road. The 
 first envoy whom England ever sent to India also journeyed by 
 this path — Bishop Sherborne, who was deputed by good King 
 Alfred to undertake a mission to the people on the coast of 
 Coromandel and Malabar. As before the Christian era, so 
 to-day — the most direct route to the East is by the Isthmus of 
 Suez and Asia Minor. The Suez Canal is the link which unites 
 our Eastern and Western Empires. Through it we not only 
 reach India but our dependencies in the Chinese Seas, our 
 Australian colonies, the Mauritius, and the British settlements 
 on the East Coast of Africa. It is the neck which connects the 
 head with the extremities of our Empire. It has been suggested 
 that if we lost it we could resume our old road by the Cape of 
 Good Hope, It is quite true that this could be done. It is 
 equally true that we might return to pack-horses and stage 
 waggons as a means of transit, but it is not likely that we shall 
 do so ; it would be contrary to the genius of civilisation and the 
 spirit of our times thus to recede. We have got the Canal, and 
 in the interests of ourselves and of the world we will hold it free 
 for everyone at all hazards. If Russia were to obtain political 
 supremacy on either side of the Bosphorus, she could stop the 
 Canal or intercept our way to India by the Euphrates Valley. 
 North of the Danube she is comparatively harmless ; but with 
 the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmora, and the Straits, she would 
 have at her command a position unequalled in the world for 
 commerce and for war. She could barricade the Dardanelles, 
 and behind it she would have two inland seas, which would be 
 at one and the same time harbour, arsenal, dockyard, and naval 
 station. She could there with security and ease equip and arm 
 her ships, and train her sailors, and manoeuvre her fleet. In the 
 numberless islands and roadsteads of the Archipelago she would 
 have protection for conducting either offensive or defensive 
 warfare, such as is to be found in no other part of the globe in
 
 i 9 S Modern Political Orations. 
 
 il space. This position is the key to Europe -one of its 
 
 life-arteries. Its occupation by a conquering, ambitious, and 
 
 spotic Power would be a danger to England, to Europe, and 
 
 iberty. 
 
 The aspirations of the Russian peasant are southward. He 
 > be clear of the Boreal regions of snow and solitude in 
 which he is enveloped for the greater part of the year. As 
 naturally as the sap rises in the vine, so naturally does the desire 
 of the Russian rise to reach more genial regions, and to burst 
 the political and frozen cerements which rob him of life and of 
 development. It is only the force of the iron yoke that makes 
 him a labourer. By choice and by taste he would be a wanderer, 
 a boatman, a pedlar, or a travelling mechanic. Russia is not a 
 nation like France, or Italy, or Spain ; it is not a dynastic 
 ition of States like Austria; but it is a crushing and 
 devouring political mechanism, which has annihilated full fifty 
 distinct nationalities. It kills every spring of independence ; 
 it intercepts and has covered whole continents with the melan- 
 choly monuments of nations. Poland, the Niobe of nations, 
 whose gallant sons have been the knight-errants of liberty the 
 world over, has been all but interred by her in Siberia. Cir- 
 ia, the cradle of the human race, whose people are the 
 manliest and handsomest in the world, has been converted 
 into a tomb. And she is now seeking to engulph the desert 
 steppes, the briny waters, and the shifting burning sands that lie 
 the ( Caucasus, the Caspian, and the Afghan Table Land 
 The intereit, the instinct, and, to some extent, the necessity, of 
 the Russian people, urge them to seek "fresh fields and pastures 
 away from their biting north winds, their icy frosts, their 
 bleak and limitless plains. The government, which is Asiatic 
 rul.\ bastardized by German beaucracy, with appropriating 
 triven to annex territory in all directions ; while the 
 animated by an ambition akin to that of "Mace 
 Madman and the Swede," have been dazzled by a 
 univt i sal i mpire. To find a foothold for their power 
 inrivalled natural resources which Turkey affords, has
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 199 
 
 been their aim. The defeat of Russia in the Crimea modified 
 for a time her external and internal policy. To soften the dis- 
 content created by the surrender of Sebastopol liberal legal 
 changes were instituted, and a decree emancipating the serfs 
 was promulgated. The benefits conferred by this instrument 
 are more apparent than real. By it the peasants were relieved 
 from some claims to the landlords, but they were charged with 
 equivalent burdens for the national revenue ; and the Imperial 
 functionary is often a harder taskmaster than the local lord of 
 the soil. M. Walewski calculated that the emancipation of the 
 serfs doubled the direct taxes of the Empire. Repulsed in the 
 south and west, Russia sought an outlet for her stream of con- 
 quest in Central Asia. Unnoticed, to a large extent unknown, 
 she has, in that quarter of the globe, during recent years absorbed 
 a territory nearly equal in extent to Continental Europe, and 
 she has now a bristling array of bayonets in threatening 
 proximity to our Indian Empire. 
 
 Although popular feeling and historical recollection have 
 always favoured a campaign for supplanting the Crescent by the 
 Cross, there is a small but intelligent and influential party in 
 Russia who are adverse to this tempting and treacherous cry of 
 " To Constantinople ! " They contend that if the seat of 
 Government were removed from the banks of the cold and 
 misty Neva to those of the brilliant Bosphorus, the Empire 
 would perish through the effeminacy generated by residence in 
 the sunny and seductive South. Hardy Northmen would be 
 replaced in the councils of the Czar by the intrigues of Greeks 
 and Bulgars. This would lead to divisions in which the un- 
 wieldy dominions would be split in twain through the struggles 
 for supremacy that would ensue betw r een the genuine Slav and 
 the idle mongrels that would flutter round the Court of the new 
 Byzantium. This view has been maintained not only by authors 
 like Gurowski, and by soldiers like Fadeof, but by many Russian 
 Liberals. Three of the most remarkable men that the revolu- 
 tions in the East sent into Western Europe were Bakunin, whom 
 the Emperor Nicholas, after an interview with him, described
 
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 but dangerous madman"; Mr Alexander Herzen, 
 ascinating of men, who combined the philo- 
 nv, the politics of Republican France, and the 
 se of Englishmen, with the native Russian 
 tnd Mieroslowski, the brilliant and eloquent Polish 
 1 have heard all of these gentlemen contend that 
 .ould not see for many years— probably not for genera- 
 mother effort made by Russia to obtain Constantinople, 
 v held this opinion not because they all approved of it — 
 inin certainly did not— but their belief was that the German 
 had so realised the hopelessness of a struggle 
 with the Western Powers that they would not resume it. The 
 hesitating, indolent, but kindly man who is now at the 
 of the Russian people, has always, until recently, been 
 I with a settled determination not to renew the enter- 
 that ended so disastrously for his father. The idea was 
 ral that India and China, rather than Turkey, would be 
 ed by Russian advance. I own that I largely shared 
 that opinion, but events have shown that this was an error, 
 and that the passion for accomplishing what the people of 
 I tn he their manifest destiny was not dead but 
 only slumbered the leopard had not changed his spots nor 
 Tartar his skin. 
 The first pronounced intimation of the retention of this old 
 in the course pursued by Russia during the 
 rman war. Immediately our friend and ally France 
 ed in that di inflict, the Czar intimated that 
 
 longi i to comply with the clauses of the Treaty 
 i lie Black Sea. He did not invite the 
 who, along with himself, were parties 
 Y t" i nd discuss the reasonableness of his 
 
 ration, but, with autocratic pride and despotic 
 laimed his determination to look upon 
 'ill and void. 1 le had observed 
 in a position to unite with England for 
 he was temporarily disabled, he
 
 Joseph Coiven on Foreign Policy. 201 
 
 seized the opportunity to break an engagement which he had 
 solemnly entered upon. This was the first sign of the change, 
 the effects of which Europe has just witnessed. Russia, in her 
 attacks upon neighbouring States, follows an uniform and un- 
 varying plan. She begins usually by professing an interest in 
 their welfare. At one time she is moved by sympathy for her 
 brethren in bonds as if there were no person in bonds in Russia. 
 At another time she is roused to fervour for her co-religionists, 
 as if there were no persons suffering for their religious opinions 
 within her own borders. She knows how to lure adjoining 
 rulers to destruction by encouraging them in every frivolous 
 expense, every private vice, and every public iniquity, as she 
 did Abdul Aziz and many an unfortunate Asiatic Khan. She 
 can compass the destruction of popular liberty by Jesuitical 
 intrigue, as she did in Poland. She can engage in plots and 
 conspiracies, as she did more recently in Bulgaria. Ignorance, 
 ambition, corruption, are all made in turn to minister to her 
 designs. The cupidity of Turkish pashas, who too often 
 obtained their positions by bribery, and held them by oppres- 
 sion and extortion, and the hopeless confusion into which 
 the ministers of the Sultan had allowed affairs to drift at 
 Constantinople, formed a favourable field for the work of 
 Russian emissaries. The stereotyped process was followed. 
 There was first complaint, then suggestion, and then the inevit- 
 able conference, and the equally inevitable war. The Turkish 
 people, both Mahommedan and Christian, suffered under solid 
 and serious grievances. They had been oppressed and outraged 
 by a system of administration that was outrageous and indefen- 
 sible ; but they sought redress of their grievances at the hands 
 of their own rulers, and not from a foreign Power. This was 
 shown by the stubborn resistance that was made to the advance 
 of the Austrian troops into Bosnia and Herzegovina. The 
 Hungarians are the truest friends the Turks had in Europe, 
 and if they fought so stoutly to oppose their entrance to their 
 provinces they would have fought with greater resolution 
 against the admission of the troops of any other country.
 
 M Political Orations. 
 
 ian diplomatists and generals succeeded 
 
 trembling palace pachas around them at 
 
 „n whom they abstracted a Treaty that unmasked 
 
 ed them in a broad and startling light 
 
 Id- . 
 
 n any doubt before as to the aim Russia 
 
 war, there could be none then. 
 
 campaign the Czar declared— first, 
 
 ■nd to enter Constantinople; second, 
 
 k territorial acquisition; and third, that 
 
 i ensure the freedom of the oppressed 
 
 lb kept the word of promise to the ear, but 
 
 He did not enter Constantinople, 
 
 ided it, and his troops would have 
 
 if • sh licet had not been in the Sea 
 
 n d the h soldiers within call at Malta. 
 
 ent by annexing Bessarabia 
 
 . : atoum, Ardahan, and Kars. By 
 
 he proposed the creation of what he 
 
 Bulgaria," in other words, 
 
 an province was to be created, whose borders 
 
 I th( . 1 '._< an. If the Treaty 
 
 !i by Russia, she would have had a 
 
 in the south, she would have had another 
 
 Antivari, and she would have been left 
 
 thirds of the shores of the Black Sea 
 
 north of Constantinople, round 
 
 ind Ratoum. There would have been 
 
 of ground, little more 
 
 ( lountj of Durham ; then the new 
 
 would intervene ; and beyond 
 
 \i ionia, Albania, and the 
 
 I li without frontiers and 
 
 fi li n .1 read) and easy prey to 
 
 enough and Europe 
 
 igh t her to resume her (in
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 20 
 
 .-> 
 
 By this treaty Russia not only took territory in Armenia 
 and Bessarabia, but she proposed also to subject the entire 
 Balkan peninsula to her authority. She kept her third en- 
 gagement by ignoring the nationality of the Roumanian 
 inhabitants of Bessarabia, separating them from a free and 
 uniting them to a despotic State. She despised the religious 
 and race leanings of the Mahommedans near Batoum, and 
 treated with contempt the nationality of Mahommedans living 
 in the southern provinces of Turkey. She in this way either 
 broke or evaded every engagement she made. To have 
 allowed Russia to retain the position she projected for herself 
 at San Stefano would have destroyed the balance of power in 
 Europe, to have put the fate of Asia in her hand, and placed 
 in her grasp the virtual dictatorship of two continents. 
 
 The main purpose of international arrangement is to secure 
 the freedom and safety of smaller States, and to enable them 
 to live their own lives while surrounded by Powers which 
 could annihilate them without such protection. The law 
 of nations prevents grasping, greedy Governments crushing 
 weaker ones. If it were not sustained, the marauders of the 
 earth would be let loose to prey upon their poor and feeble 
 neighbours. It is no childish dislike of Russia that leads 
 me to contend for the maintenance of this law and this policy. 
 National enmity is no sound or permanent ground of either 
 duty or policy. It is the defence of England and of Europe, 
 the assertion and maintenance of the principles of free 
 government as against a despotism — England and the Western 
 Powers representing the one and Russia the other — that leads 
 me to resist the advance of the Muscovites to the Bosphorus. 
 In what way has the recent policy of this country contributed 
 to the defence of the Empire, the maintenance of the way to 
 India, and the upholding of the authority of this country 
 in the councils of Europe ? Let us look fairly at the facts as 
 they are, and not as they are painted by rival partisans. To 
 the jaundiced eye everything is yellow. By the fortunes of 
 war — a hypocritical war, it is true, but still by the fortunes of
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 a had Turkey at her mercy. She had fought and 
 
 I won. She did not occupy Constantinople, but she 
 
 amanded it, and to the victors belong the spoil. It is true, 
 
 I have just explained, she made certain promises before 
 
 \ the conflict which she either evaded or broke. 
 
 s not remarkable. It would have been more remark- 
 
 if she had kept them. The Treaty of San Stefano 
 
 :iot fully express her desires, but it did express the extent 
 
 believed she could with safety go in the presence 
 
 if the indifference of other Powers, and the assumed incapacity 
 
 and unwillingness of England to oppose her. The Treaty 
 
 la did not fully express what this country wanted, 
 
 hut it did express the extent of the concessions that it was 
 
 A comparison of what was dictated 
 >ia at S.m Stefano, and what was accepted by her at 
 in, will show the measure of change made mainly at 
 the in of tli is country. The Russian troops have 
 
 I arkish territory. This may appear a simple state- 
 it is not unimportant. Every effort was made 
 ier t<> retain possession of the provinces she had con- 
 to promote discord between the Mussul- 
 I Christian inhabitants, hoping that that discord could 
 le a pretext for her remaining. Failing in that, she 
 ed the Jesuitical plan of a joint occupation of 
 lumelia by herself and other Powers. These 
 ■'■< re baffled; and there is now not a single 
 of the l'ruth. If the Treaty of San 
 ■I as it was drawn, Turkey would not only 
 nbered but destroyed. She has now the 
 a fresh start in national life. She can, 
 d rehabilitate herself in the estimation 
 
 irorld. 
 
 yet, I am bound to say, of this 
 
 [ible pashas who control her policy 
 
 ad foi otten nothing by the 
 
 is. The Government is
 
 Joseph Coiven on Foreign Policy, 205 
 
 as rotten as the portals of the Porte are worm-eaten. These 
 men have most of the vices of both Eastern and Western 
 peoples, and few of their virtues. There are persons high in 
 the confidence of the Sultan who are as completely under the 
 control of the enemies of their country as Faust was under the 
 control of Mephistopheles. But though the Porte perishes 
 Turkey will remain. The Empire vanished, hut France was 
 left. There is, and has been for years, an active and patriotic 
 party in Turkey, who have been striving to adapt their institu- 
 tions to Western modes of life and to European requirements. 
 The simple programme of this party is the fusion of the 
 various races in the peninsula into an united State, based upon 
 the equality, religious and political, of all. Fuad Pasha and 
 Ali Pasha laboured long and earnestly for these principles, and 
 they are advocated with equal sincerity by Midhat and his 
 supporters. Men of all creeds and all races will be placed on 
 a common level. This programme has the support of Christians 
 and Mahommedans alike. One of the most painful and regret- 
 table incidents of this controversy was the disparaging way in 
 which the honest efforts of these Turkish reformers were spoken 
 of by Liberal politicians in England. Whoever else cared to 
 sneer at the Turkish Constitution, it certainly was no part of 
 the duty of professed advocates of Liberal government to take 
 up their parable against it. It is certainly not impossible to 
 conceive of the establishment of a Government in which both 
 Mahommedans and Christians may be united, and the pernicious 
 influence which now predominates at Constantinople be 
 exorcised from Turkish political life. By the Treaty of San 
 Stefano injustice would not only have been done to the Greeks, 
 but that country would have been condemned to sustain an 
 exhausting conflict for its bare existence. By the extension of 
 a Slav State to the TEgean, Greece would have been denied 
 development. With resources limited and population scanty 
 she would have been stripped of the elements of growth. She 
 might have been an independent State truly, but so weak that 
 she would have been unable to fulfil the purpose of her foun-
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 She has now the opportunity of working out her 
 
 -she is the nucleus, the preparatory agency for the 
 
 Lent of a Hellenic State. Greece has a lofty 
 
 to fulfil, and, despite present unfavourable signs, I do 
 
 r of seeing her accomplish it. She is something 
 
 better than when Byron mournfully described her as 
 
 but living Greece no more." She does live ; she has 
 
 icd a soul almost " within the ribs of death "— 
 
 •• The Spartan blood that in her veins yet throbs at freedom's call : 
 stone of old Greece— had it not its hero-tale? 
 re they fought, where they fell, 'twas on every hill and dale. 
 The dead are but the hero seed that will spring to life again. 
 
 By the Treaty of Berlin, Greece gained but little, but at least 
 not by it "cribbed, cabined, and confined" to the 
 larrow limits of her too restricted territory. The idea of most 
 European Liberals has been that Russian aggression could be 
 ■ 1 only by the creation of a belt of free States between the 
 and the Balkans. The different nationalities would be 
 grouped in distinct organizations, and, combined, they 
 a more effective barrier to Muscovite progress than an 
 receding empire like Turkey. Many Liberals who 
 1 with this principle saw difficulties to its practical realisa- 
 The inhabitants of this region are chiefly members of 
 hureh. The Czar is the head of that Church, and 
 he holcL them in a state of political as well as theological 
 Russia has often professed to assist at the birth of a 
 lation, but she always managed to keep her thumb upon 
 i hat it could be destroyed if it became trouble- 
 It was a common saying of the Russian troops in 
 "We have now got these Bulgar pigs, and we will 
 Apart, however, from these speculative objections 
 distinct nationalities — the oft-declared policy 
 when the Emperor Nicholas proposed to Sir 
 ton Seymour that England and Russia should divide 
 i the possessions of the Sick Man, he said there 
 , points in his proposed scheme which he was willing
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 207 
 
 to yield to the wishes of England, but there was one point on 
 which he would never yield. Whatever else he consented to, 
 he would never consent to the establishment of a number of 
 small and independent States on the Russian frontier. These 
 would be, he said, nothing but nurseries in which a perpetual 
 crop of Mazzinis and Kossuths would be raised ; their opinions 
 would penetrate into his dominions and endanger the necessary 
 authority of his government. 
 
 This was then the settled policy of Russia, and has been 
 authoritatively expressed repeatedly since. Bulgaria, as created 
 by the Treaty of San Stefano, would have been little more than 
 a Russian Principality ; but by the Treaty of Berlin the 
 Bulgarian people had had afforded to them the opportunity of 
 winning for themselves an independent national life. Some 
 few years ago the Bulgarians were held up in this country as 
 models of Christian meekness. Recently they have been con- 
 demned with almost equal vigour, and their character has 
 certainly developed some not very lovable attributes. They 
 profess to be Christians, but they have scarcely acted upon the 
 Christian principle of doing unto others as they would like to 
 be done by. They complained loudly and justly of the oppres- 
 sion they suffered from the Turkish pashas ; but now, when 
 they have the power, they have manifested toward their 
 Mussulman neighbours a more arbitrary and tyrannical spirit 
 than these Mussulmans ever showed towards them. But I 
 have no wish to judge them harshly. A nation that has for 
 generations been sunk in ignorance and vice cannot be 
 expected all at once to realize the enlightened magnanimity of 
 philosophers. People who have been trampled on will re- 
 member it; those who have been injured will retaliate, and 
 those who have been oppressed will not all at once forget. But 
 the Bulgarians in time will take their place amongst the 
 European family of nations, and shake off some of the offensive 
 characteristics that have recently distinguished them. The 
 most gratifying and encouraging intelligence that has come 
 from the East of Europe recently is that these independent
 
 2o8 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 ates had realised their position. They have learned that 
 Russia's interest in their behalf was certainly not disinterested. 
 The Roumanians remember with bitterness that although they 
 ie to the assistance of their big neighbours when they were 
 1 sad straits before Plevna, their reward has been the loss of 
 of their most important provinces. The entire tone of 
 feeling throughout these regions is a determination on the part 
 of these States to assert their independence and shake them- 
 selves clear of Russian influence and direction. But the most 
 important event that has taken place in Turkey has been the 
 occupation of Bosnia by Austria. This action cannot be justi- 
 fied on the grounds of national right or justice. I certainly 
 have no wish to extenuate or defend it. It is understood that 
 the clause in the Treaty of Berlin, which assured these provinces 
 to Austria, owed its authorship to Prince Bismarck and Count 
 Andrassy. Germany contends that the Danube is a German 
 stream — that as she controls its source so should she command 
 its mouth. German colonists are planted along its banks, and 
 their statesmen are unwilling to allow it to pass under the 
 control of Russia. Austria objects to the creation of an 
 independent Slav State on the west, as she has already on her 
 hi borders. For these dynastic and State reasons, the 
 occupation, or rather the annexation, of these provinces by 
 Austria has been assured. I am not justifying what has been 
 done, and am dealing only with the facts as they are. 
 
 The occupation of Bosnia by Austria renders the advance of 
 
 Russia to Constantinople all but impossible. Both political 
 
 and military reasons combine to prevent her achieving her 
 
 designs on the great city of the East. The case may be put in 
 
 The design of Russia, as revealed by the Treaty 
 
 ino, was to obtain a preponderating influence in the 
 
 Balkan peninsula. The object of England was to prevent her 
 
 doing this. The result is that Russia is now further from the 
 
 iorus and less likely to get there, than she has ever been; 
 
 s has been accomplished chiefly by the action taken by 
 
 itry. It has been achieved, too, without the loss of a
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 209 
 
 single English life, or without our setting a single regiment in 
 line of battle. Of all the strange things that I have heard 
 during this controversy, the strangest is that Russia has 
 achieved a victory, while England has sustained a defeat. We 
 were told this in varying forms almost daily. I do not think 
 anyone else in Europe says so except some English politicians. 
 It is a fact beyond dispute, that the military and aggressive 
 party in Russia are loudly proclaiming that the victories they 
 won with so much difficulty in the field have been abstracted 
 from them in the Council-Chamber. They were dissatisfied 
 with the mode in which the war was commenced and for some 
 time conducted, but the advance of the troops to the neigh- 
 bourhood of Constantinople consoled them for a season. The 
 Treaty of San Stefano, objectionable as it was regarded by 
 England, was considered by the active party in Russia as 
 incomplete and unsatisfactory. Their complaints against it, 
 however, were mollified by the assurance held out to them that 
 it was only temporary. But when even that unsatisfactory 
 treaty had to be subjected to the revision and alteration of the 
 other European States at Berlin, their discontent assumed an 
 active and threatening attitude. The promulgation of the 
 Treaty of Berlin corresponds with the recommencement of a 
 period of political assassinations and plots. This reveals 
 popular discontent, while the marching and counter-marching 
 of Russian troops, and the massing of such numbers on the 
 German and Austrian frontiers, reveal the state of feeling which 
 pervades the governing class. It is indisputable that, in the 
 estimation of men familiar with Russian society, the Treaty of 
 Berlin has shaken the system of government to its foundation ; 
 while the war which Englishmen are so fond of regarding 
 as a triumph for Russia and a discomfiture for this 
 country, is looked upon by Russians as having entailed 
 upon their country a harvest of discontent and disappoint- 
 ment. To balance the territorial advantages gained bv 
 other Powers, we have obtained a more assured position in 
 the Levant. 
 
 O
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 I will not enter into the rather pitiful squabble about Cyprus 
 
 whether that island is what the poets of the past have painted 
 
 it, "the blest, the beautiful, the salubrious, the happy, the 
 dream and the desire of man," or, as it is drawn by partisan 
 iticians in this country, "a fever bed and charnel-house." 
 That it is advantageously situated for guarding the Suez Canal 
 from any danger from the North, and that it affords a favourable 
 starting point for advancing to the East through the Euphrates 
 will scarcely be denied by anyone who has impartially 
 :iined the subject. Military and naval men maintain that 
 .n be made not only a watch-tower but a depot for arms and 
 ife naval station. It is only twenty-four hours from Port Said, 
 nine from Acre, and six from Beyrout. It is near enough to 
 watch, and close enough to strike, if we required to strike, in 
 defence of our road to the Red Sea and to the Persian Gulf. 
 By the Anglo-Turkish Convention, England has taken upon 
 herself heavy responsibilities. But if we had not effected that 
 arrangement, the Sultan, like Shere Ali, despairing of help from 
 and, would have thrown himself — reluctantly, no doubt, 
 but still he would have thrown himself — into the arms of 
 Russia j and whatever the result of such a bargain would have 
 n to the people, the greedy pashas would have been secured 
 in their pleasures and possessions. We had, therefore, either 
 to accept the position or permit it to pass into the possession 
 of a rival who, with such a leverage in the centre of two con- 
 tinents, could not only have imperilled our Empire in India, 
 authority in Europe. We have often entered into 
 with other nations entailing equally onerous obligations. 
 bound to defend Greece against Turkey; Portugal 
 lin j Belgium against France and Germany. We 
 und to defend Denmark, and with culpable cowardice 
 • d the res] onsibility. Under a stringent Treaty we are 
 intain the independence of Sweden and Norway. 
 lould attempt to lease the fisheries in Swedish 
 turage on N ian soil, this country is to be 
 
 (, and any attempt on her part to infringe
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 2 1 1 
 
 upon the Scandinavian territory we are under engagement to 
 resist by force of arms. 
 
 We are parties to other Treaties, many of them quite as risky 
 as the one we have recently entered into with Turkey ; and few 
 of them offer such prospect of achieving such beneficial results 
 as may spring from the Anglo-Turkish Convention. In Asia 
 Minor there are 700,000 square miles of some of the finest 
 land in the world, washed by three seas, watered by large 
 rivers, and possessing spacious ports and harbours. The soil 
 is capable of producing grain, fruit, and cotton in abundance, 
 while the hills and the valleys abound in copper, lead, iron, 
 and silver. Much of this fair and fruitful region on which the 
 seasons have lavished all their beauty, and nature all its 
 fragrance, is given over to malaria and to wild beasts— is the 
 gathering-ground of predatory Kurds, and the camping-place 
 of wandering Arabs. The spot from which the first enterprise 
 of man started — the land around which such a wealth of the 
 romance, the poetry, and the mystery fastens, which has in- 
 fluenced the destinies and formed the characters of not one, 
 but many people— is now, from causes partly local and partly 
 foreign, doomed to endure a system of rule which is little less 
 than organised anarchy. We send our surplus population 
 across the Atlantic or to the Antipodes. There is no reason 
 why they should not find a field for their labours, and an 
 outlet for their skill in a luxuriant land, rich with golden grain 
 and an infinite variety of plants and fruit and minerals, within 
 a few hours of our own shores. What has hitherto been wanted 
 is security for life and property. Under the protection that 
 might be, that ought to be, and I trust will be, given 
 by this Treaty, these obstacles to colonisation would be 
 removed. 
 
 English capitalists and the English Government have always 
 refused seriously to consider the project of a railway through 
 the Euphrates Valley, because they declined to risk such large 
 investments in a country over which they had not sufficient 
 control. This Treaty ought to, and I think will, dispense
 
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 with this difficulty. The railway scheme is described by 
 •partisans as Utopian and visionary, but that is a kind of 
 which has grown stale and obsolete. It is not 
 ears ago since the construction of the Suez Canal was, 
 >proval of English engineers, demonstrated by our 
 Mr Robert Stephenson, to be an impossibility, and 
 laughed at in the House of Commons by Lord Palmer- 
 as the dream of a crack-brained Frenchman. But the 
 nal is, nevertheless, a great fact. Last year there passed 
 through it between sixteen and seventeen hundred ships with a 
 of nearly three million tons, and thirteen hundred 
 of the sixteen were English vessels — a proof of the 
 mportance of this waterway to this country. When the 
 heme of making a railway across the American Continent 
 ■; first promulgated, it was met with characteristic derision, 
 and yet now the line between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, 
 distance of nearly 2,800 miles, carries thousands of people in 
 of a year. Russians in these matters are somewhat 
 r and more enterprising than some Englishmen are. By 
 i combined effect of river and railway, canal and lake, they 
 nearly united the basins of the Baltic, the Black Sea, and 
 pian. They have revived the old project of diverting 
 the course of the Oxus, and by their system of land and water 
 ;e, commencing at Riga and Warsaw, and terminating 
 t far from our Indian frontier, they hope to secure a pre- 
 ng influence in Central Asia. The Euphrates Valley 
 Quid be 1,200 miles long, and the cost of its con- 
 mated at ,£12,000,000 — a comparatively small 
 1 the amounts invested in railways in this country are 
 I know no more of the future than a prophet, but 
 be 1 a venture to hazard the prediction 
 
 will be made, and made, too, through English 
 i work will not only act as a breakwater 
 ion, and a bulwark for the Indian 
 mad< ;h. fulcrum for raising politically and 
 -pie, and making the early seat of
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 2 1 
 
 o 
 
 arts and refinement, the theatre of some of the most 
 momentous events in history, once more bloom and blossom 
 as the rose. My contention, in a sentence, is that our 
 external Empire should be maintained and defended, as much 
 in the interests of freedom and civilisation as in the interests 
 of England and its distant dependencies ; that we cannot 
 honourably and without danger shrink from the responsibilities 
 that our history and our position as the oldest, and one of the 
 chief of free States in the world, entail upon us ; that the 
 security of our dominions in the East and the equilibrium of 
 Europe were threatened by the advance of Russia on Constan- 
 tinople ; that the action this country took, although it was open 
 to objection in its details, was necessary, and in the main 
 judicious ; that it largely contributed to thwart the dangerous, 
 the aggressive designs of Russia ; has protected our present, 
 and made provision for our obtaining an improved way to India; 
 may help to secure better government for Turkey ; and has 
 strengthened the influence of England in the councils of 
 Europe. 
 
 It is impossible now to discuss at length the policy pursued 
 in Afghanistan, but I wish to express shortly the views I enter- 
 tain on the action that has been taken in that country. Our 
 Indian possessions are encircled by the ocean on the south, the 
 south-east, and south-west. On the east they are protected by 
 high ranges of mountains and all but impenetrable forests. 
 These mountains and these forests are occupied by savage 
 tribes, who, although capable of great annoyance, as the Nagas 
 are now, are incapable of inflicting any real political or military 
 injury upon us. On the north and north-west our frontiers are 
 the bases of the Himalaya and the Sulieman Mountains. It is 
 an accepted canon in military science that a Power which holds 
 the mountains and possesses what in soldiers' parlance is called 
 the "issues of the frontier," has an enormous advantage over 
 the Power which occupies the plains. This is an opinion 
 which will scarcely be contested. These mountains are 
 peopled by fierce, warlike, and turbulent tribes, who have no
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 special love for England, but have just as much dislike to 
 each other. They live partly by pasturage, partly by plunder. 
 They fi"ht for their own hand. The only State that has an 
 organised Government of any strength is Afghanistan. As long 
 as these passes and mountains, and the country generally, were 
 occupied by tribes of this character, no danger to India was to 
 anticipated. Partly brigands, partly soldiers, they could 
 annoy us, and levy blackmail on the adjoining inhabitants, yet 
 they could not seriously disturb or threaten our authority. 
 But it is the accepted opinion of men of all parties— statesmen 
 and soldiers alike— that should this strong military position 
 ever pass into the hands of a powerful Government, our 
 exposed frontier would lay us open to serious danger. For 
 years Afghanistan, if not friendly, has at least been neutral ; 
 and there was an understanding between Russia and England 
 that that country should be considered as outside of their 
 mutual interest and influence — that it should be regarded as a 
 neutral territory, both being concerned in upholding its inde- 
 pendence and neutrality. The advance of Russia, however, to 
 the East so alarmed the late Ameer that he urged, some years 
 the English Government to enter into closer alliance with 
 him than then existed. He pointed out that Russia was ad- 
 vancing, and did not conceal his fear that, unless he were 
 protected by England, the same fate would overtake him that 
 had overtaken many another Asiatic ruler. Our Government at 
 that time did not share Shere Ali's fears, and refused to com- 
 ply with the requests that he preferred. He became discon- 
 tented ; and from having a friendly leaning towards England, 
 now began to lean towards Russia, and to open nego- 
 tiations with the Russian commanders in the adjacent 
 provint • 
 
 When Russia's objects in Turkey were thwarted by this 
 
 :itry, she retaliated by striving to set our Indian frontiers in 
 
 No one ( an complain of her doing so; it is what we 
 
 have done, probably, in like circumstances. She 
 
 ed to our licet being in the Sea of Marmora, and she
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 215 
 
 thought she would disturb us and distract our attention by 
 assuming a threatening attitude in Afghanistan. A Russian 
 mission was sent. It was received with ostentatious displays 
 of sympathy by the Ameer, and, as far as he was able, he 
 proclaimed that in future he would be the firm friend and ally 
 of Russia, and if not the enemy, at least not the friend, of this 
 country. If not in words, the substance of his declaration and 
 his action at the reception of the Russian mission amounted to 
 this. Our Government required that, as he had received a 
 mission from Russia, he should also accept one from Eng- 
 land. He refused to do it, and we attempted to force the 
 mission upon him. It is unnecessary to repeat the facts 
 which are in the recollection, no doubt, of all present. 
 Shere Ali's refusal led to war, and after a small show of 
 resistance he fled from Cabul, and shortly afterwards died. 
 With his son, who was made his successor, we concluded 
 peace, and entered into a Treaty. By that Treaty England 
 got the right of sending agents to certain specified districts 
 in Afghanistan, and also obtained an important frontier. 
 Instead of having the base of the mountains as a border, 
 we had the mountains themselves. By that Treaty the country 
 should stand. The frontier secured to us by it should be 
 maintained. A most lamentable, melancholy, and disastrous 
 incident occurred in the autumn — the murder of Sir Louis 
 Cavagnari and his suite. But that ought not to divert us 
 from the settled policy that was developed and expressed by 
 the Treaty of Gandamuk. I am in favour of holding the 
 possessions we have, but we want no more. We have pro- 
 vinces plenty and to spare. Even if we possessed Afghanistan, 
 it would be only a perplexing acquisition ; but supposing it 
 were a profitable one, it would be contrary to the wishes and 
 feelings of the Afghans to come under British rule, and I am 
 altogether opposed to enforcing it upon them. The Treaty 
 that Yakoob Khan entered into embodies the policy of the 
 country, and it should be upheld. 
 
 I have discussed principles and not personalities. I am
 
 216 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 not interested either in defending or in decrying any body 
 
 All I have been concerned for is to state the 
 
 ounds on which I have been led to support the assertion 
 
 of what I believe to be Liberal principles and the main- 
 
 ince of a national policy. It is easy to find fault, and 
 
 ier still to impute bad motives to your opponents— 
 
 " A man must serve his time to every trade 
 Save censure. Critics all are ready made." 
 
 The shortcomings of the Government are as apparent to me as 
 
 ie fiercest opponents of their foreign policy. They have 
 
 :i been weak, sometimes vacillating, not unfrequently 
 
 but I wish to judge them as I would like them to judge 
 
 or the party with which I am identified, under like circum- 
 
 ices. They have been beset by a succession of difficulties 
 
 and dangers such as never before encompassed an Administra- 
 
 in our times. Apart from the inherent intricacies of the 
 
 tions they have had to deal with, they have had to contend 
 
 with the rival interests of other Powers, a strong opposition at 
 
 and some divisions in their own party. It is not 
 
 ., it is simply justice, to remember this. We should 
 
 that, in dealing with foreign affairs, there are 
 
 alw.t , matters that cannot be explained. All Ministries 
 
 upon at times to act upon information that they 
 
 make public — 
 
 " What's done we partly may compute, 
 But know not what's resisted." 
 
 ven in party warfare, to drive your attacks too 
 nunciation usually provokes reaction. The 
 
 h id the support of large majorities in 
 
 t , is accused of not only being wrong, 
 
 criminal— not only of being mischievous and 
 
 olent and malicious. They are 
 
 ! roamed round the world with incendiary 
 
 cut upon turning our frontiers into blazing bastions
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 2 1 7 
 
 fringed with fire. The accusation is, in my judgment, not only 
 incorrect but foolish. The indictment I would prefer against 
 them would be of the very opposite character. I think they 
 have acted with tameness and timidity. They have been six 
 years in office, and the first half of that time presented them in 
 their normal and natural character. An entire absence of 
 political legislation, some mild but useful social measures, a 
 free and easy administration, were their characteristics. Taking 
 warning by their predecessors, their great effort was to avoid 
 needlessly offending anyone. Events that they could not fore- 
 see, circumstances which they could not control, have driven 
 them into warlike action. People are easily misled by a cry, 
 but no man who has examined the facts for himself can contend 
 that the English Government started the conflict in Eastern 
 Europe. Whoever else began it — whether it was the Russian 
 emissaries or the Turkish people themselves — certainly Lord 
 Derby, who was then the Foreign Minister of this country, did 
 not do so. He pressed the Sultan to settle the dispute with 
 his subjects, and if that could not be done, he urged him, with 
 somewhat cynical indifference, to suppress the insurrection. 
 When that failed, he strove to localise the war. It might be 
 said that England should have obeyed the three Emperors, 
 and signed the ukase which the Imperial league issued from 
 Berlin, and if Turkey refused to comply with their demands 
 she should have been coerced — in other words, that we should 
 have gone to war against her. It is a matter of opinion, but, 
 in the judgment of men familiar with the East, had such a course 
 been pursued, the Turks would have turned their backs to the 
 wall, and with all the disci plined fanaticism of their race, they 
 would have fought against Christians and coalesced Europe for 
 their country and their faith. The resistance that was given in 
 Bosnia to the advance of a friendly Hungarian army strengthens 
 this view. 
 
 But if the Berlin Memorandum was refused, England 
 assented and took part in the Conference of Constantinople. 
 However we may condemn the course taken by the Govern-
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 ent on the Eastern difficulties, no man can fairly say that 
 . them. The Afghan war, for which they are more 
 ponsible, was the outcome of the action of Russia 
 ' We may fairly criticise the policy of the Govern- 
 no one, I think, can say that they sought a cause of 
 I do not contend that foreign politics are outside the 
 ain of popular and Parliamentary criticism. On the con- 
 I regret that for many years the English people have 
 ttle and such fluctuating heed to foreign questions, 
 t I do say that such delicate topics should not be made the 
 Id of party. There are two modes of conducting a 
 ion— one to elicit information, to sustain, to direct and 
 uide the Executive ; another to win a party victory out of 
 •rnnient troubles. If the Government of the country is 
 in difficulties abroad, the nation is in difficulties, and it 
 much against my national pride as against my 
 hunting for arguments against my poli- 
 nts amongst the stiffening corpses of your fellow- 
 men. On this subject I will quote the opinion of the 
 M. I 'hiers, when discussing the attitude taken in France by 
 the Orleanists and the Legitimists during the Crimean War. 
 i French statesman, speaking to Mr Nassau, Senior, 
 
 of parly warfare allow me to call my opponent a villain, 
 
 low him to be honest ; to abuse his measures though I know them 
 
 lack his arguments with sophistry and even with false- 
 
 l this my opponent may do to me, and therefore it is fair that I 
 
 •" In m. Bui we must both of us abstain from using as our 
 
 d th< relations of our country. In these relations an error 
 
 al. We may quarrel amongst ourselves; we must be united 
 
 I nil not in to the benefits of party government. 
 
 . in a large measure, owes its stability to such 
 
 ion. . m liv serious and prolonged struggles 
 
 1 by party vigilance. The education gained 
 
 made the victories permanent. It would 
 
 , ie> replace a system that has become so
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 219 
 
 acclimatised to our constitutional life. But party spirit, pushed 
 too far, crushes individuality of thought, and cripples independ- 
 ent energy. Tt impairs the disciplinary value of the suffrage 
 by destroying the voter's sense of responsibility. It lowers the 
 character of the Parliament by converting independent repre- 
 sentatives into political automatons, whose value consists in 
 the unreflecting vigour with which they shout the party shibbo- 
 leth. On points of procedure and of detail, a member may 
 obey the party managers without injury or disadvantage; but 
 when great national issues are at stake, a man forfeits his own 
 respect, and becomes a recreant to his own country who ignores 
 his convictions, and submits to think by deputy or to act by 
 order. Some of our friends, I think, act somewhat incon- 
 sistently on this subject. One of their chief causes of complaint 
 against the present Parliament is its want of independence. 
 They charge it with being an unthinking party machine, and 
 they applauded the action of Lord Derby and Lord Carnarvon 
 when they separated themselves from their colleagues and 
 announced their dissent from their policy. But when Liberals 
 on the other side, acting from equally high motives, separate 
 themselves from their leaders, they are censured, and in some 
 instances ostracised. What is accounted as commendable 
 independence on the one side is condemned as an exhibition 
 of fractious self-will on the other. 
 
 There are in the House of Commons some thirty or forty 
 members who, more or less, had supported the policy the 
 Government had pursued on foreign questions. But their 
 numbers possibly would have been larger if vote by ballot had 
 been in operation in the House. Their action, however, in 
 this Parliament is only in keeping with the action of other 
 sections of the Liberal party in previous Parliaments. In the 
 last Parliament the Nonconformists and Radicals were dis- 
 satisfied with the way the Government dealt with elementary 
 education. The Irish members were discontented with the < 
 manner in which they dealt with university education. The 
 hostility of Irish representatives to the Irish University the
 
 220 
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 scheme of the Ministry led to their defeat in Parliament. The 
 opposition of Nonconformists did not cause the defeat, but it 
 :ertainly contributed to it at the poll. Yet the Ministers who 
 were responsible for this educational legislation are to-day 
 amongst the trusted leaders of the party. In the Parliament 
 re that stronger differences were developed. Lord Russell 
 introduced a Reform Bill, proposing to give a vote to every man 
 who lived in a house of the value of £i. This moderate 
 ,sal was objected to by a section of Liberals, who de- 
 nounced it as revolutionary. Their opposition led to the 
 defeat of Earl Russell's Government, and the subsequent 
 nation of his Government. Lord Russell himself describes 
 this party as consisting of three gangs — the timid, the selfish, 
 and those who were both timid and selfish. For the first, he 
 said, he had pity; for the second indignation; for the third 
 contempt. During all his long career, he declared that he 
 never encountered a body of politicians so little influenced by 
 principle or animated by a patriotic spirit. The leader of the 
 party he described as a man "sagacious, bold, and turbulent 
 of wit." Vet this same leader was Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 in the last Ministry, and is now one of the ablest of the Liberal 
 leaders in the House of Commons. Another difference took 
 e in the same Parliament which had more beneficial results. 
 The ' lonservative Government proposed that household suffrage 
 be made the basis of the Reform Bill. This was 
 obje< ted to by the official Liberals of the day, who wished to 
 a rate-paying franchise instead of a household. A number 
 i :als met in the tea-room of the Parliament House, 
 1 that they approved of the principle of the Government 
 Bill, and resolved that if the Ministry would give them an 
 that they would stand by that principle they (the 
 Is) would support them. The Ministry did give the 
 dicals did stand to the arrangement; and the 
 was that household suffrage became the law notwith- 
 opposition of the official Liberals of the time. 
 lamite defection drove the Liberal Government from
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 2 2 1 
 
 office, and the tea-room defection succeeded in making a 
 household suffrage the law of the land. There has never been 
 a Parliament since the Reform Bill where instances of the kind 
 have not occurred. 
 
 The policy on foreign questions that I and others in the 
 House of Commons have defended is the old policy of this 
 country. I have no wish to shelter myself behind big names 
 or to shake myself clear of the slightest responsibility. I have 
 too often been in a minority to be afraid of being in that 
 position again. I know what it is to be in the right with two 
 or three. But the policy I have expounded to-night, and which 
 I have supported in Parliament, is the policy that was advocated 
 by Mackintosh and Brougham, Horner and Lord Durham ; 
 it is a policy that received the approval of the philosophic 
 Liberals, Molesworth, Mill, Grote, and Buller. It is the old 
 Radical policy that was expounded by Major Cartwright, Lord 
 Dundonald, William Cobbett, and General Thompson ; and it 
 was the common faith of Radicals when I first became 
 interested in political affairs. It is not the faith, I know, of 
 the " Manchester School " ; but it is certainly of the early 
 Radicals. I would quote from the speeches and writings of 
 the men whose names I have cited numerous extracts to 
 confirm my statement ; but I will content myself with citing, 
 in support of my position, a few words from a statesman whose 
 name will, in every Liberal assembly, be received with favour. 
 Earl Russell for fifty years played a leading and important part 
 in the history of this country. No one has rendered the 
 Liberal cause more effective service than he has done,. He 
 has not boxed the political compass and seryed all sides in 
 turn. He ended as he began — a moderate and consistent 
 advocate of Liberal principles. In his last work Lord Russell 
 expressed the strong regret he felt at having retired, as he did, 
 from the leadership after the defeat of the party in 1867. 
 The reason why he regretted having retired was the policy the 
 party was led to pursue on foreign matters. The policy that 
 the present Opposition has supported is the policy of the late
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 Lord Russell commended their domestic legis- 
 sured in very strong and very emphatic terms 
 on in foreign matters. These are his words— 
 
 " I had no reason to suppose, when I surrendered the leadership of the 
 
 e (the Liberal Prime Minister) was less attached than I was to 
 
 ur, less proud than I was of the achievements of our 
 
 rid land, that he disliked the extension of our Colonies, and 
 
 res he promoted would tend to reduce the great and glorious 
 
 wl ich lie was put in charge to a manufactory of cotton and 
 
 [ a market for cheap goods, that the army and navy would be 
 
 :;rv savings to a standard of weakness and inefficiency. By 
 
 icy he has tarnished the national honour, injured the national 
 
 . .ind lowered the national character." 
 
 These are not my words. I never used language anything 
 
 like so strong, but they are the words of the honoured and 
 
 trusted kader of the Liberal party for the better part of half a 
 
 try. I am not a conventional adherent of the fashionable 
 
 :a!ism of the hour, but I am a life-long Radical by con- 
 
 sympathy, training, and taste. I am concerned for 
 
 son; nore and higher than the transference of the offices 
 
 from one set of men to another. I will not trim my 
 
 I faith to catch the passing breeze, however pleasant. 
 
 I, unpensioned, no man's heir or slave," I neither 
 
 for nor r:ire for the honours, the favours, or the patronis- 
 
 • approval lisped "in liquid lines mellifluously bland " of any 
 
 party. There is only one consolation for a public man, and 
 
 iat is the approval of his conscience and a sense of duty done. 
 
 I will not knowingly or consciously offend any man by either 
 
 . I nit if I am placed in a position where I must 
 
 •ak, I will speak what 1 believe to be the truth, temperately, 
 
 lly, but plainly. Whatever my lot in life may be, whether 
 
 member of the British Parliament again or not, I 
 
 will labour for the advancement of Radical principles, and 
 
 ■ Liberal cause according to my lights and to the best 
 
 But while- 1 wear the party uniform I will never 
 
 I plu h. I will take any position, however humble, in 
 
 . but it will In- as a volunteer and not as a lackey. 
 
 le's welfare is the supreme law, and our
 
 Joseph Cowen on Foreign Policy. 223 
 
 country's honour and safety the first consideration. But I 
 prefer national interests to the triumph of a faction. I am 
 weak enough to own that I believe in the now derided obliga- 
 tion of patriotism and the duty of the individual to the State, 
 as one of the first principles planted in the human breast. I 
 know my country's defects, but I cannot join with those who 
 exaggerate and parade them. The land of Michael Angelo 
 and of Dante was not destitute of energy ; but when she per- 
 sistently proclaimed herself to be miserable and infamous 
 through the mouth of Machiavelli, the world took her at her 
 word and trod upon her. Englishmen disposed to decry their 
 native land may remember with advantage the experience of 
 Italy. It is ours to hand down to posterity, undimmed and 
 undiminished, the priceless heritage of a free State, the imper- 
 ceptible aggregations of centuries, won by the struggles of a 
 heroic national life. It was planted, has been reared and 
 watered by the sweat, the tears, the blood of some of the 
 noblest of men. She has carried liberty and laws, art and 
 thought, in triumph round the globe. If England is old, she is 
 not decrepit, and has still within her daring and elasticity.
 
 RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE 
 ON THE BEACONSFIELD 
 MINISTRY. 
 
 Edinburgh, March 17TH, 1880. 
 
 to this date Mr Gladstone had already addressed the electors 
 
 if Midlothian on three great occasions. He now opened his famous Mid- 
 
 an Campaign in earnest, taking the Government to task with such 
 
 lergy as to force his convictions upon the people. The place 
 
 ofm< this occasion was the Music Hall, Mr Duncan M'Laken, 
 
 M. P., presiding.] 
 
 Gi n 1 11 men,— When I last had the honour of addressing you 
 
 in this Hall, I endeavoured, in some degree, to open the great 
 
 which I was in hopes would, in conformity with what 
 
 I in. iv call constitutional usage, then have been brought at 
 
 before you. The arguments which we made for a dis- 
 
 tion were received with the usual contempt, and the 
 
 Parliament was summoned to attempt, for the first time in 
 
 our history, the regular business of a seventh session. I am 
 
 ow to argue on the propriety of this course, because, 
 
 u lure in the capital of the county and of Scotland, 
 
 us to go straight to the very heart of the matter, 
 
 and. amidst the crowd of topics that rush upon the mind, to 
 
 upon some of those which you will judge to be most 
 
 ml mosl intimately connected with the true merits 
 
 diat is before us. 
 
 LSI tl liition has come, ami I postpone the con-
 
 W. E. Gladstone on the Beacons field Ministry. 225 
 
 sideration of the question why it has come, the question how 
 it has come, on which there are many things to be said. It 
 has come, and you are about to give your votes upon an 
 occasion which, allow me to tell you, entails not only upon me, 
 but upon you, a responsibility greater than you ever had to 
 undergo. I believe that I have the honour of addressing a mixed 
 meeting, a meeting principally and very largely composed of 
 freeholders of the county, but in which warm and decided 
 friends are freely mingled with those who have not declared 
 in our favour, or even with those who may intend to vote 
 against us. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, let me say a word in the first place to those 
 whom I must for the moment call opponents. I am not going 
 to address them in the language of flattery. I am not going 
 to supplicate them for the conferring of a favour. I am not 
 going to appeal to them on any secondary or any social ground. 
 I am going to speak to them as Scotchmen and as citizens ; 
 I am going to speak to them of the duty that they owe to the 
 Empire at this moment ; I am going to speak to them of the 
 condition of the Empire, of the strength of the Empire, and 
 of the honour of the Empire ; and it is upon these issues that 
 I respectfully ask for their support. I am glad that, notwith- 
 standing my Scotch blcod, and notwithstanding the association 
 of my father and my grandfather with this country, it is open 
 to our opponents, if they like, to describe me as a stranger ; 
 because I am free to admit that I stand here in consequence 
 of an invitation, and in consequence of treatment the most 
 generous and the most gratifying that ever was accorded to 
 man. And I venture to assure every one of my opponents, 
 that if I beg respectfully to have some credit for upright motives, 
 that credit I at once accord to them. I know very well they 
 are not accustomed to hear it given me ; I know very well that 
 in the newspapers which they read they will find that violent 
 passion, that outrageous hatred, that sordid greed for office, 
 are the motives, and the only motives, by which I am governed. 
 Many of these papers constitute, in some sense, their daily 
 
 P
 
 22 6 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 food; but I have such faith in their intelligence, and in the 
 ealthiness of their constitution as Scotchmen, that I believe 
 that many of them will, by the inherent vigour of that con- 
 stitution, correct and neutralise the poison thus administered; 
 will consent to meet me upon equal grounds, and will listen 
 to the appeal which I make. 
 
 Th al which I make to them is this : If my position 
 
 rious one, their position is serious too. My alle- 
 ions have been before you for a length of time. I will not 
 in read to a Midlothian audience the letter in which 
 I first accepted this candidature. By every word of that letter 
 I abide; in support of every allegation which that letter con- 
 tains, I am ready to bring detailed and conclusive proof. 
 These allegations— I say to you, Gentlemen, to that portion 
 of my audience— these allegations are of the most serious 
 character. I admit, as freely as you can urge, that if they be 
 unfounded, then my responsibility— nay, my culpability— before 
 my country cannot be exaggerated. But, on the other hand, 
 if these allegations be true— if it be true that the resources of 
 it Britain have been misused ; if it be true that the inter- 
 national law of Europe has been broken ; if it be true that the 
 ■ if this country has been broken ; if it be true that the good 
 e of this land has been tarnished and defaced; if it be 
 that its condition has been needlessly aggravated by 
 - hi nil useless, and wanton, and mischievous in them- 
 then your responsibility is as great as mine. For I 
 fully admit that in 1S74 you incurred no great or special 
 lility. You were tired of the Liberal Government; 
 satisfied with them. [Cries of" No, no !" Oh, I 
 ■■! >n ; I am addressing my opponents. Scotchmen, 
 
 I much as Englishmen, like plain speaking, and 
 
 II 11 you some proof that if that be your taste 
 mr to meet it as well as I can; and I thank you 
 
 nner in which, by your kindly attention, 
 me to say what I think is the truth, whether 
 whether it be not.
 
 W. E. Gladstone on the Beaconsjicld Ministry. 227 
 
 Now the great question which we have been debating for the 
 last three or four years— for I do not carry back the pith of 
 what I have principally to say to the six years of the Govern- 
 ment — is the question of the policy which has been pursued 
 during that time ; most especially by far the policy of the last 
 two years, and the effect of that policy upon the condition 
 of the country, upon the legislation of the country, upon the 
 strength of the Empire, and, above all, upon the honour of 
 the Empire. I am now going to compare the conduct of the 
 present Government, which is commended to you as masterly 
 in forethought and sagacity, and truly English in spirit— I am 
 going to compare it with the conduct of the last Government, 
 and to lay before you the proceedings of the results. It so 
 happens that their histories are a not inconvenient means of 
 comparison. England, as you are aware, has been involved in 
 many guarantees. I said England— do not be shocked ; it is 
 the shortest word— Great Britain or the United Kingdom is 
 what one ought to say. The United Kingdom— the British 
 Empire has been and is involved in many guarantees for the 
 condition of other countries. Among others, we were involved, 
 especially since the Peace of Paris, but also before the Peace 
 of Paris, in a guarantee for Turkey, aiming to maintain its 
 integrity and its independence ; and we were involved in 
 another guarantee for Belgium, aiming to maintain its integrity 
 and its independence. In the time of the present Government 
 the integrity and the independence of Turkey were menaced — 
 menaced by the consequences of rank, festering corruption 
 from within. In the time of the late Government the integrity 
 and independence of Belgium were not less seriously menaced. 
 We had been living in perfect harmony and friendship with two 
 great Military States of Europe— with Prussia and with France. 
 France and Prussia came into conflict, and at the moment of 
 their coming into conflict a document was revealed to us which 
 the Ministers of those two States had had in their hands. 
 Whoever was its author, whoever was its promoter, that is no 
 affair of mine— it is due to Prince Bismarck to say that he was
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 person who brought it to light— but they had in their hands 
 iment of a formal character, touching a subject that 
 considered and entertained. And that bad instrument 
 an instrument for the destruction of the freedom, inde- 
 ed integrity of Belgium. Could there be a graver 
 • to Europe than that ? 
 
 .', as a State— not like Turkey, the scandal of the world, 
 
 the danger of the world from misgovernment, and from the 
 
 liorrible degradation it inflicted upon its subject races — but a 
 
 country which was a marvel to all Europe for the peaceful 
 
 e of the rights of freedom, and for progress in all the 
 
 ad all pursuits that tend to make mankind good and happy. 
 
 . this country, having nothing but its weakness that could 
 
 nst it, with its four or five millions of people, was 
 
 ly pointed out by somebody and indicated to be 
 
 to be offered up as a sacrifice to territorial lust by 
 
 or other of those Ministers of Powers with whom we were 
 
 ; in close friendship and affection. We felt called upon 
 
 to enlist ourselves on the part of the British nation as 
 
 ; and as champions of the integrity and independ- 
 
 ^ r ium. And if we had gone to war, we should have 
 
 r for freedom, we should have gone to war for 
 
 right, we should have gone to war to save human 
 
 im being invaded by tyrannous and lawless power. 
 
 s what I call a good cause, Gentlemen. And though I 
 
 nl thru- arc no epithets too strong, if you could 
 
 me with them, that I will not endeavour to heap upon 
 
 ■in such a war as that, while the breath in my body 
 
 ed to me, I am ready to engage. I am ready to 
 
 it, I idy to give all the help and aid I can to 
 
 rry this country into it. Well, Gentlemen, pledged 
 
 and independence of Belgium, what did 
 
 to Prussia to enter into a new and 
 
 villi us to resist the French Empire, if the 
 
 ! to violate the sanctity of freedom in 
 
 1 to France to enter into a similar
 
 W. E. Gladstone on the Beacons fie let Ministry. 229 
 
 Treaty with us to pursue exactly the same measures against 
 Prussia, if Prussia should make the like nefarious attempt. 
 And we undertook that, in concert with the one, or in concert 
 with the other, whichever the case might be, we would pledge 
 all the resources of this Empire, and carry it into war, for the 
 purpose of resisting mischief and maintaining the principles ol 
 European law and peace. 
 
 I ask you whether it is not ridiculous to apply the doctrine 
 or the imputation, if it be an imputation, that we belong to the 
 "Manchester School," or to a Peace Party — we who made 
 these engagements to go to war with France if necessary, or to 
 go to war with Prussia, if necessary, for the sake of the inde 
 pendence of Belgium ? But now I want you to observe the 
 upshot. I must say that, in one respect, we were very inferior 
 to the present Government — very inferior indeed. Our ciphers, 
 our figures, were perfectly contemptible. We took nothing 
 except two millions of money. We knew perfectly well that 
 what was required was an indication, and that that indication 
 would be quite intelligible when it was read in the light of the 
 new treaty engagement which we were contracting ; and con- 
 sequently we asked Parliament to give us two millions of money 
 for the sake of somewhat enlarging the numbers of available 
 soldiers, and we were quite prepared to meet that contingency 
 had it arrived. The great man who directs the Councils of the 
 German Empire (Bismarck) acted with his usual promptitude. 
 Our proposal went to him by telegraph, and he answered by 
 telegraph, "Yes," the same afternoon. We were not quite 
 so fortunate with France, for at that time the Councils of 
 France were under the domination of some evil genius which 
 it is difficult to trace, and needless to attempt to trace. There 
 was some delay in France — a little unnecessary haggling — but 
 after two or three days France also came into this engagement, 
 and from that moment the peace of Belgium was perfectly 
 secured. When we had our integrity and our independence to 
 prote:t, we took the measures which we believed to be neces- 
 sary and sufficient tor that protection ; and in every year since
 
 23° 
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 iose measures, Belgium, not unharmed only, but strengthened 
 
 been carried safely and unhurt through a terrible 
 
 . has pursued her peaceful career, rising continually in 
 
 ■ prosperity and happiness, and still holding out an example 
 
 Europe to teach the nations how to live. 
 \\< I tlemen, as that occasion came to us with respect to 
 o it came to our successors with respect to Turkey. 
 . did they manage it ? They thought themselves bound to 
 maintain the integrity and independence of Turkey, and they 
 were undoubtedly bound conditionally to maintain it. I am 
 not now going into the question of right, but into the ques- 
 tion of the adaptation of the means to an end. These are the 
 tlemen who are set before you as the people whose continu- 
 e in office it is necessary to maintain to attract the confid- 
 i of Europe ; these are the gentlemen whom patriotic 
 associations laud to the skies as if they had a monopoly of 
 human intelligence; these are the gentlemen who bring you 
 "Peace with Honour"; these are the gentlemen who go in 
 ial trains to attend august assemblies, and receive the 
 pliments of august statesmen; these are the gentlemen 
 who for all these years have been calling upon you to pay any 
 number of millions that might be required as a very cheap and 
 ;ii!"i( ant consideration for the immense advantages that you 
 deri\<- from their administration. 
 
 I want you to know, and I have shown you, how 
 maintain integrity and independence, and how 
 . maintained then. I ask how they have set about it. 
 ntli men, on their own showing, they have done wrong, 
 it out of their own mouths. I won't go to Lord 
 to the only man whose authority is higher 
 i purpose than Lord Derby's, namely, Lord Beacons- 
 you plainly that what the Government ought 
 have said to Russia, " You shall not 
 ntlemen, that course is intelligible. It is a 
 pinion, to have taken up arms for main- 
 ly of Turkey against her subject races,
 
 W. E. Gladstone on the Beaconsficld Ministry. 231 
 
 or to take up arms against what the Emperor of Russia 
 believed to be a great honour to humanity in going to apply a 
 remedy to these m ischiefs. But Lord Beaconsfield has con 
 fessed in a public speech that the proper course for the- 
 Government to have taken was to have planted their foot, and 
 to have said to the Emperor of Russia : " Cross not the 
 Danube; if you cross the Danube, expect to confront the 
 power of England on the southern shore." Now, Gentlemen, 
 that course is intelligible, perfectly intelligible ; and if you are 
 prepared for the responsibility of maintaining such an integrity, 
 and such an independence, irrespectively of other considera- 
 tions against the Christian races in Turkey, that was the 
 course for you to pursue. It was not pursued, because the 
 agitation, which is called the Bulgarian agitation, was too 
 inconvenient to allow the Government to pursue it, because 
 they saw that if they did that which Lord Beaconsfield now 
 tells us it would have been right to do, the sentiment of 
 the country would not have permitted them to continue to hold 
 their office ; and hence came that vacillation, hence came that 
 ineptitude of policy which they now endeavour to cover by 
 hectoring and by boasting, and which, within the last year or 
 two, they have striven, and not quite unsuccessfully, to hide 
 from the eyes of many by carrying measures of violence into 
 other lands, if not against Russia, if not against the strong, 
 yet against the weak, and endeavouring to attract to them- 
 selves the credit and glory of maintaining the power and 
 influence of England. 
 
 Well, Gentlemen, they were to maintain the integrity and 
 independence of Turkey. How did they set about it? They 
 were not satisfied with asking for our humble two millions; 
 they asked for six millions. What did they do, first of all? 
 First of all they encouraged Turkey to go to war. They did 
 not counsel Turkey's submission to superior force ; they 
 neither would advise her to submit, nor would they assist her 
 to resist. They were the great causes of her plunging into 
 ihat deplorable and ruinous war, from the consequences of
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 Speech states this year, Turkey has not 
 ivered, and there is not the smallest appearance of hope 
 that she will ever recover. But afterwards, and when the war 
 iken place, they came and asked you for a vote of six 
 millions. What did they do with the six millions? They 
 ourished it in the face of the world. What did they gain for 
 Turkey ? In the first place, they sent a fleet to the Dardanelles 
 and the Bosphorus. Are you aware that in sending that fleet 
 . broke the law of Europe ? They applied for a firman to 
 Sultan. The Sultan refused, and they had no right to send 
 that fleet. But, however that may be, what was the use of 
 ; that fleet ? The consequence was that the Russian 
 army, which had been at a considerable distance from Con- 
 stantinople, marched close up to Constantinople. Is it pos- 
 sible to conceive an idea more absurd than that which I really 
 believe was entertained by many of our friends — I do not say 
 our friends in Midlothian, but in places where the intelligence 
 is high —that the presence of certain British ironclads in the 
 Sea of Marmora prevented the victorious Russian armies from 
 entering Constantinople? What could these ironclads do? 
 . could have battered down Constantinople, no doubt; but 
 what consolation would that have been to Turkey, or how 
 .'(1 it have prevented Russian armies from entering? That 
 part of the pretext set is too thin and threadbare to require 
 any confutation. But they may say that that vote of six 
 mill i an indication of the intention of England to act in 
 
 I ; and when it was first proposed, it was to strengthen 
 the ngland at the Congress. But did it strengthen 
 
 ■ hands of England ; and if so, to what purpose was that 
 The Treaty of San Stefano had been signed 
 ;ia and Turkey; the Treaty of Berlin was sub- 
 for it. What was the grand difference between the 
 of Berlin and tl of San Stefano? There was 
 
 ibia which, down to the time of the Treaty 
 irlin free institutions, and by the Treaty of 
 
 ind mainly through the agency oi the British Govern-
 
 W. E. Gladstone on the Bcaconsjield Ministry. 233 
 
 ment, which had pledged itself beforehand by what is called 
 the Salisbury-Schouvaloff Memorandum, to support Russia 
 in her demand for that territory if Russia adhered to that 
 demand, England, with the vote of six millions given to 
 strengthen her influence, made herself specially responsible 
 for handing back that territory, which enjoyed free institutions, 
 to be governed despotically by the Russian Empire. 
 
 That is the first purpose for which, as I have shown you, 
 your vote of six millions was available. What was the second? 
 It was to draw a line along the Balkan Mountains, by means 
 of which Northern Bulgaria was separated from Southern 
 Bulgaria, and Southern Bulgaria was re-named Eastern Rou- 
 melia. The Sultan has not marched, and cannot march, a man 
 into Eastern Roumelia. If he did, the consequences would 
 be that the whole of that population, who are determined to 
 fight foi their rights, would rise against him and his troops, 
 and would be supported by other forces that could be drawn 
 to it under the resistless influences of sympathy with freedom. 
 You may remember that three or four years ago utter scorn 
 was poured upon what was called the " bag-and-baggage 
 policy." Are you aware that that policy is at this moment the 
 basis upon which are regulated the whole of the civil state of 
 things in Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia? What that policy 
 asked was that every Turkish authority should be marched out 
 of Bulgaria, and every Turkish authority has gone out of Bul- 
 garia. There is not a Turk at this moment who, as a Turk, 
 holds office under the Sultan either in Bulgaria or in Southern 
 Bulgaria, which is called Eastern Roumelia— no, not one. 
 The despised "bag-and-baggage policy" is at this moment the 
 law of Europe, and that is the result of it ; and it is for that, 
 Gentlemen, that the humble individual who stands before you 
 was held up and reviled as a visionary enthusiast and a verbose 
 — I forget what- — rhetorician, although I believe myself there 
 was not much verbosity in that particular phrase. It appeared 
 to me the people of England understood it pretty well — nay, 
 more, the Congress of Berlin seemed to have understood it,
 
 - 1 i Modem Political Orations. 
 
 and the state of things which I recommended was irresistible, 
 i now, I thank God, is irreversibly established in those once 
 provinces. Gentlemen, we have got one more 
 thing to do in regard to these provinces, and that is this— I 
 i it at the same time when I produced this monstrous con- 
 ion of the "bag-and-baggage policy"— it is this, to take 
 that the majority of the inhabitants of these pro- 
 . who are Christians, do not oppress either the Moham- 
 medans, or the Jewish, or any other minority. That is a 
 lutyj I don't believe it to be a difficult duty; it is a 
 sacred duty. I stated to you just now that there was not a 
 Turk holding office, as a Turk, in these provinces. I believe 
 are Turks holding office— and I rejoice to hear it— hold- 
 ice through the free suffrage of their countrymen, and 
 ! that they, when they are once rid of all the 
 
 lent and poisonous associations, and the recollections of 
 the old ascendency, will become good and peaceful citizens 
 like other people. I believe the people of Turkey have in 
 them many fine qualities, whatever the Governors may be, 
 ble under proper education, Gentlemen, of bringing them 
 
 ■ i capacity and competency for every civil duty. 
 
 ntlemen, it still remains for me to ask you how this great 
 
 powerful Government has performed its duty of maintain* 
 
 the integrity and independence of Turkey. It has had 
 
 • and extraordinary advantages. It has had the advantage 
 
 plined support from its majority in the House of 
 
 < Though I am not making any complaint, as my 
 
 id in the Chair knows, it was not exactly the same as 
 
 led in the days of recent Liberal Governments. It 
 
 unflinching and incessant support from the large 
 
 the I ,ords. That was very far from being our case 
 
 There is no reason why I should not say so. 
 
 1 ii is an historical fact- that the House of Lords, 
 
 ntatives are backed by a strong 
 
 ial feeling, when it would be dangerous to oppose, 
 
 i the House of Lords pass our measures.
 
 W. E. Gladstone on the Beaconsfield Ministry. 235 
 
 So they passed the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, 
 and so they passed the Irish Land Act; and I have no 
 doubt that, if it pleases the Almighty, they will pass many 
 more good measures. But the moment the people go to 
 s i ee p — an d they cannot be always awake — when public 
 opinion flags and ceases to take a strong and decided interest 
 in public questions, that moment the majority of the House 
 of Lords grows. They mangle, they postpone, they reject 
 the good measures that go up to them. 
 
 I will show you another advantage which the present Ad- 
 ministration possesses. They are supported by several foreign 
 Governments. Did you read in the London papers within 
 the last few weeks an account of the energetic support they 
 derived from the Emperor of Austria? Did you see that the 
 Emperor of Austria sent for the British Ambassador, Sir 
 Henry Elliot, and told him that a pestilent person, a certain 
 individual named Mr Gladstone, was a man who did not 
 approve the foreign policy of Austria, and how anxious he was 
 — so the Kmperor of Austria was pleased complacently to say 
 — for the guidance of the British people and of the electors of 
 Midlothian— how anxious he was that you should, all of you, 
 give your votes in a way to maintain the Ministry of Lord 
 Beaconsfield. 1 Well, Gentlemen, if you approve the foreign 
 policy of Austria, the foreign policy that Austria has usually 
 pursued, I advise you to do that very thing ; if you want to 
 have an Austrian foreign policy dominant in the Councils of 
 this country, give your votes as the Emperor of Austria 
 recommends. What has that foreign policy of Austria been? 
 I do not say that Austria is incurable. I hope it will yet be 
 cured, because it has got better institutions at home, and I 
 heartily wish it well if it makes honest attempts to confront its 
 difficulties. Yet I must look to what that policy has been. 
 Austria has ever been the unflinching foe of freedom in every 
 country of Europe. Austria trampled under foot, Austria 
 
 1 Subsequent disclosures proved that this was not strictly correct, and Mr 
 Gladstone apologetically withdrew the statement.
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 ,d the unity of Germany. Russia, I am sorry to say, has 
 >en the foe of freedom too; but in Russia there is an 
 >ption-Russia has been the friend of Slavonic freedom; 
 but Austria has never been the friend even of Slavonic freedom. 
 Austria did all she could to prevent the creation of Belgium. 
 Austria never lifted a finger for the regeneration and con- 
 stitution of Greece. There is not an instance— there is not a 
 ;not upon the whole map where you can lay your finger 
 say, "There Austria did good" I speak of its general 
 policy ; I speak of its general tendency. I do not abandon 
 the hope of improvement in the future, but we must look to 
 the past and to the present for the guidance of our judgments 
 at this moment. And in the Congress of Berlin Austria 
 ted the extension of freedom, and did not promote it; 
 and therefore, 1 say, if you want the spirit of Austria to inspire 
 the Councils of this country, in Heaven's name take the 
 Em; counsel; and I advise you to lift the Austrian 
 
 ,vhen you go about your purposes of canvass or of public 
 It will best express the purpose you have in view, 
 and I, (ot one, cannot complain of your consistency, whatever, 
 in that case, I might think of the tendency of your views in 
 of principle, of justice, of the happiness of mankind, or 
 atness, the dignity, and the honour of this great 
 
 Era] 
 
 tl men, still one word more, because I have no 
 of what I en the upshot of all this. There are a 
 
 many persons in this country, I am afraid, as well as in 
 . who are what is called Worshippers of Success, 
 i of the famous "Peace with Honour" demon- 
 ion there was a very great appearance of success. I was 
 al that time particularly safe when I walked in the 
 of London. 1 I have walked with my wife from my own 
 I have walked owing my protection to the police ; but 
 
 the " fingo" Excitement, Mr and Mrs Gladstone were 
 
 i:i Cavendish Square, and saved only from 
 
 ill the house of Dr, afterwards Sir, Andrew Clark.
 
 IV. E. Gladstone on the Beaconsjield Ministry. 237 
 
 that was the time, Gentlemen, when all those curious methods 
 of maintaining British honour and British dignity were sup- 
 posed to have been wonderfully successful. And now I want 
 to ask you, as I have shown you the way we went about 
 maintaining the independence and integrity of Belgium — what 
 has become of the independence and integrity of Turkey? 
 T have shown that they neither knew in the first instance 
 the ends towards which they should first have directed their 
 efforts, nor, when they have chosen ends, have they been able 
 rationally to adapt their means to the attainment of those 
 ends. I am not speaking of the moral character of the means, 
 but how they are adapted to the end. And what did the vote 
 of six millions achieve for Turkey ? I will tell you what 
 it achieved. Tt did achieve one result, and I want you well to 
 consider whether you are satisfied with it or not, especially 
 those of you who are Conservatives. It undoubtedly cut 
 down largely the division of Bulgaria, established by the 
 Treaty of San Stefano. Now, I am not going to maintain 
 that that division was a right one, for that depends on a 
 knowledge more minute than I possess ; but the effect of 
 it was to cut it down, as is perfectly well known — that is, 
 put back under the direct rule of the Sultan of Turkey, and in 
 the exact condition in which all European Turkey, except the 
 Principalities, had been before the war, the population in- 
 habiting the country of Macedonia, and about a million of 
 people, the vast majority of them Christians. Two substantive 
 and definite results, the two most definite results, produced 
 were these — first of all, that Bessarabia, that had been a country 
 with free institutions, was handed back to despotism ; and 
 secondly, a million and a half of people inhabiting Macedonia, 
 to whom free institutions had been promised by the Treaty of 
 San Stefano, are now again placed under the Turkish Pashas, 
 and have not received one grain of benefit of importance as 
 compared with their condition before the war. 
 
 But how as regards Turkey ? I have shown results bad 
 enough in regard to freedom. What did the British Plenipoten-
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 tiaries say at Berlin? They said that some people seemed 
 to suppose we had come to cut and carve Turkey. That is 
 quite a mistake, said the Plenipotentiaries ; we have come to 
 consolidate Turkey. Some of the scribes of the Foreign 
 ice coined a new word, and said it was to "rejuvenate" 
 Turkey. How did they rejuvenate this unfortunate Empire, 
 this miserable Empire, this unhappy Government which they 
 have lured into war and allowed and encouraged to pass into 
 war because they allowed their Ambassadors at Constantinople, 
 Sir Henry Elliot and Sir Austen Layard, to whisper into the 
 ear of the Turk that British interests would compel us to 
 interfere and help her? What has been the result to Turkey? 
 Now, I will say, much as the Christian populations have the 
 right to complain, the Sultan of Turkey has a right to complain 
 very little less. How has the Sultan been treated ? We 
 condescended to obtain from him the island of Cyprus, at a 
 time when Austria was pulling at him on one side and free- 
 dom on the other. We condescended to take from him that 
 miserable paltry share of the spoil. That is not all. What 
 is the condition of Turkey in Europe? It is neither integrity 
 nor independence. The Sultan is liable to interference at 
 any moment, at every point of his territory from every one 
 that signed the Treaty of Berlin. He has lost ten millions of 
 subjects altogether, ten millions more are in some kind of 
 dependence or other — in a condition that the Sultan does not 
 know whether they will be his subjects to-morrow or the next 
 day. Albania is possessed by a League. Macedonia, as you 
 read in the papers, is traversed by brigands. Thessaly and 
 Epirus, according to the Treaty of Berlin, should be given to 
 ce. The treasury of Turkey is perfectly empty, disturb- 
 3 have spread through Turkey in Asia, and the condition 
 of that Government whose integrity and independence you 
 told that "Peace with Honour" had secured, is more 
 rable than at any previous period of its history ; and wise 
 and merciful indeed would be the man that would devise some 
 method of improving it.
 
 W. E. Gladstone on the Beaconsjield Ministry. 239 
 
 To those gentlemen who talk of the great vigour and 
 determination and success of the Tory Government, I ask you 
 to compare the case of Belgium and Turkey. Try them by 
 principles, or try them by results, I care not which, we knew 
 what we were about and what was to be done when we had 
 integrity and independence to support. When they had 
 integrity and independence to protect, they talked, indeed, 
 loud enough about supporting Turkey, and you would suppose 
 they were prepared to spend their whole resources upon it; 
 but all their measures have ended in nothing except that they 
 have reduced Turkey to a state of greater weakness than at 
 any portion of her history, whereas, on the other hand, in 
 regard to the twelve or thirteen millions of Slavs and Rou- 
 manian population, they have made the name of England 
 odious throughout the whole population, and done everything 
 in their power to throw that population into the arms of 
 Russia, to be the tool of Russia in its plans and schemes, unless 
 indeed, as I hope and am inclined to believe, the virtue of 
 free institutions they have obtained will make them too wise 
 to become the tools of any foreign Power whatever, will make 
 them intent upon maintaining their own liberties, as becomes 
 a free people playing a noble part in the history of Europe. 
 
 I have detained you too long, and I will not, though I 
 would, pursue this subject further. I have shown you what I 
 think the miserable failure of the policy of the Government. 
 Remember we have a fixed point from which to draw our 
 measurements. Remember what in 1876 the proposal of 
 those who approved of the Bulgarian agitation and who were 
 denounced as the enemies of Turkey, remember what that 
 proposal would have done. It would have given Autonomy 
 to Bulgaria, which has now got Autonomy ; but it would have 
 saved all the remainder at less detriment to the rest of the 
 Turkish Empire. Turkey would have had a fair chance. 
 Turkey would not have suffered the territorial losses which 
 she has elsewhere suffered, and which she has suffered, I must 
 say, in consequence of her being betrayed into the false and
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 ischievous, the tempting and seductive, but unreal and 
 
 ise policy of the present Administration. 
 
 There are other matterswhich must be reserved for other times. 
 
 We are told about the Crimean War. Sir Stafford Northcote 
 
 ells us the Crimean War, made by the Liberal Government, 
 
 >st the country 40 millions of debt, and an income tax of 
 
 ;d. per pound. Now what is the use of telling us that? 
 
 ! will discuss the Crimean War on some future occasion, but 
 
 now. If the Liberal Government were so clever, that they 
 
 1 ontrived to burden the country with 40 millions of debt for 
 
 this Crimean War, why does he not go back to the war before 
 
 hat, and tell us what the Tory Government did with the 
 
 Revolutionary War, when they left a debt on the country of 
 
 some 900 millions, of which 650 millions they had made in the 
 
 Revolutionary War, and not only so, but left the blessing and 
 
 cy of the Corn Laws, and of a high protective system, an 
 
 impoverished country, and a discontented population — so much 
 
 so that for years that followed that great Revolutionary War, no 
 
 man could say whether the Constitution of this country was or 
 
 was not worth five years' purchase. They might even go 
 
 further back than the Revolutionary War. They have been 
 
 talking loudly of the Colonies, and say that, forsooth, the 
 
 Liberal party do nothing for the Colonies. What did the Tory 
 
 party do for the Colonies? I can tell you. Go to the war 
 
 that preceded the Revolutionary War. They made war against 
 
 the American Continent. They added to the debt of the 
 
 country 200 millions in order to destroy freedom in America. 
 
 They alienated it and drove it from this country. They were 
 
 compelled to bring this country to make an ignominious peace; 
 
 and, as far as I know, that attempt to put down freedom in 
 
 America, with its results to this country, is the only one great; 
 
 which has ever distinguished the relations between a Tory 
 
 Government and the Colonies. 
 
 it, Gentlemen, these must be matters postponed for another 
 
 I th auk you very cordially, both friends and oppon- 
 
 ii opponents you be, for the extreme kindness with which
 
 W. E. Gladstone on the Beaconsfield Ministry. 241 
 
 you have heard me. I have spoken, and I must speak in very 
 strong terms of the acts done by my opponents. I will never 
 say that they did it from vindictiveness, I will never say that 
 they did it from passion, I will never say that they did it from 
 a sordid love of office ; I have no right to use such words ; I 
 have no right to entertain such sentiments ; I repudiate and 
 abjure them. I give them credit for patriotic motives — I give 
 them credit for those patriotic motives, which are incessantly 
 and gratuitously denied to us. I believe we are all united in 
 a fond attachment to the great country to which we belong, to 
 the great Empire which has committed to it a trust and function 
 from Providence, as special and remarkable as was ever en- 
 trusted to any portion of the family of man. When I speak 
 of that trust and that function I feel that words fail. I cannot 
 tell you what I think of the nobleness of the inheritance which 
 has descended upon us, of the sacredness of the duty of 
 maintaining it. I will not condescend to make it a part of 
 controversial politics. It is a part of my being, of my flesh 
 and blood, of my heart and soul. For those ends I have 
 laboured through my youth and manhood, and, more than 
 that, till my hairs are grey. In that faith and practice I have 
 lived, and in that faith and practice I shall die.
 
 CHARLES BRADLAUGH AT THE BAR 
 OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 Second Speech, April 26th, 1881. 
 
 [M r BRADLAUGH's first attempt to take his seat in the House as the Member 
 (or Northampton, May 21st, 1880, was frustrated on the ground that he 
 claimed the right to affirm instead of subscribing the oath in the usual way. 
 econd appearance in the House, on the above date, after having been 
 in the meantime re-elected by his constituents, gave rise to the following 
 impassioned speech.] 
 
 Mr Speaker, — I have again to ask the indulgence of the 
 House, while I submit to it a few words in favour of my claim 
 to do that which the law requires me to do. Perhaps the 
 House will pardon me if I supply an omission, I feel uninten- 
 tionally made, on the part of the hon. member for Chatham 
 (Mr John Gorst). In some words which have just fallen from 
 him, I understood him to say that he would use a formal 
 statement made by me to the Committee against what the 
 Chancellor of the Duchy had said I had said. I am 
 sure the hon. and learned member for Chatham, who has 
 evidently read the proceedings of the Committee with care, 
 Id, if he had thought it fair, have stated to the House that 
 the statement only came from me after an objection made by 
 me — a positive objection on the ground that it related to 
 matters outside this House, and that the House in the course 
 of ii nl never inquired into such matters; but I can 
 
 lly understand what the member for Chatham meant, when 
 said that he contrasted what I did say with what the Chan-
 
 Charles Bradlaugh at the Bar of the House. 243 
 
 cellor of the Duchy said I said ; for it is not a matter of memory, 
 it is on the proceedings of this House, that, being examined 
 formally before the Committee, I stated: "That the essential 
 part of the oath is in th£ fullest and most complete degree 
 binding upon my honour and conscience, and that the repeat- 
 ing of the words of asseveration does not in the slightest degree 
 weaken the binding of the allegiance on me." I now say I 
 would not go through any form— much as I value the right to 
 sit in this House, much as I desire and believe that this House 
 will accord me that right— that I did not mean to be binding 
 upon me without mental reservation, without equivocation. I 
 would go through no form unless it were fully and completely and 
 
 4oroughly binding upon me, as to what it expressed or promised. 
 Mine has been no easy position for the last twelve months. 
 I have been elected by the free votes of a free constituency. 
 M> return is untainted. There is no charge of bribery, no 
 charge of corruption, nor of inducing men to come drunken to 
 the polling-booth. I come here with a pure untainted return 
 — not won by accident. For thirteen long years have I fought 
 for this right — through five contested elections, including this. 
 It is now proposed to prevent me from fulfilling the duty my 
 constituents have placed upon me. You have force : on my 
 side is the law. The hon. and learned member for Plymouth 
 (Mr, afterwards Sir, Edward Clarke) spoke the truth when he 
 said he did not ask the House to treat the matter as a question 
 of law ; but the constituencies ask me to treat it as a question 
 of law. I, for them, ask you to treat it as a question of law. 
 I could understand the feeling that seems to have been mani- 
 fested were I some great and powerful personage. I could 
 understand it had I a large influence behind me. I am only 
 one of the people, and you propose to teach them that, on a mere 
 technical question, you will put a barrier in the way of my doing 
 my duty which you have never put in the way of anybody else. 
 The question is, Has my return on the 9th of April 1881 any. 
 thing whatever to impeach it ? There is no legal disqualifica- 
 tion involved. If there were, it could be raised by petition.
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 The hon. member for Plymouth says the dignity of this House 
 s in question. Do you mean that I can injure the dignity of 
 
 House? This House which has stood unrivalled for 
 
 ;enturies ? This House, supreme among the assemblies of the 
 
 This House, which represents the traditions of liberty? 
 
 1 should not have so libelled you. How is the dignity of this 
 
 se to be hurt ? If what happened before the 9th of April 
 is less than a legal disqualification, it is a matter for the judg- 
 ment of the constituency and not for you. The constituency 
 has judged me j it has elected me ; I stand here with no legal 
 disqualification upon me. The right of the constituency to 
 return me is an unimpeachable right. I know some gentle- 
 men make light of constituencies; yet without the constitu- 
 encies you are nothing. It is from them you derive your 
 whole and sole authority. The hon. and learned member for 
 Plymouth treats lightly the legal question. It is dangerous to 
 make light of the law— dangerous, because if you are only 
 going to rely on your strength of force to override the law, you 
 give a bad lesson to men whose morality you impeach as to 
 what should be their duty if emergence ever came. Always 
 outside the House I have advocated strenuous obedience to 
 the law, and it is under that law that I claim my right. It is 
 by the right hon. baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), who 
 interposes between me and my duty, that this House has 
 
 od some Resolution. First, I submit that that Resolution 
 docs not affect the return of the 9th of April. The conditions 
 arc entirely different; there is nothing since the date of that 
 return. I submit next, that, if it did affect it, the Resolution 
 
 illegal from the beginning. In the words of George Gren- 
 
 ville, spoken in this House in 1769, I say, if your Resolution 
 
 in the teeth of the law — if against the Statute — your 
 
 olution is null and void. No word have I uttered outside 
 ills which has been lacking in respect to the House. I 
 House will do me justice, and I ask it to look at 
 what it i I < l.iim. 
 
 1 ■ I i to do that which the law says I must. Frankly, I
 
 Charles Bradlatigh at the Bar of the House. 245 
 
 would rather have affirmed. When I came to the table of the 
 House I deemed I had a legal right to do it. The courts 
 have decided against me, and I am bound by their decision. 
 I have the legal right to do what I propose to do. No Resolu- 
 tion of yours can take away that legal right. You may act 
 illegally and hinder me ; and unfortunately, I have no appeal 
 against you. "Unfortunately," perhaps, I should not say. 
 Perhaps it is better that the Chamber that makes the law 
 should never be in conflict with the courts which administer 
 the laws that the Chamber makes. I think the word " unfor- 
 tunately " was not the word I ought to have used in tnis argu- 
 ment. But the force that you invoke against the law to-day 
 may to-morrow be used against you, and the use will be 
 justified by your example. It is a fact that I have no remedy 
 if you rely on your force. I can only be driven into a contest, 
 wearying even to a strong man well supported, ruinous and 
 killing to one man standing by himself — a contest in which, if 
 I succeed, it will be injurious to you as well as to me. In- 
 jurious to me, because I can only win by lessening your repute, 
 which I desire to maintain. The only court I have the power 
 of appealing to is the court of public opinion, which I have no 
 doubt in the end will do me justice. The hon. member for 
 Plymouth said I had the manliness on a former occasion to 
 make an avowal of opinions to this House. I did nothing of 
 the kind. I have never, directly or indirectly, said one word 
 about my opinions, and this House has no right to inquire 
 what opinions I may hold outside its walls. The only right is 
 that which the Statute gives you ; my opinions there is no right 
 to inquire into. I shelter myself under the laws of my country. 
 This is a political assembly, met to decide on the policy of the 
 nation, and not on the religious opinions of the citizens. 
 While I had the honour of occupying a seat in the House, 
 when questions were raised which touched upon religious 
 matters I abstained from uttering one word. I did not desire 
 to say one word which might hurt the feeling of even the 
 most tender.
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 But it is said, Why not have taken the oath quietly ? I did 
 not take it then, because I thought I had the right to do some- 
 thin- else, and I have paid the penalty. I have been plunged 
 in litigation fostered by men who had not the courage to put 
 themselves forward. I, a penniless man, should have been 
 ruined if it had not been that the men in workshop, pit, and 
 factory had enabled me to fight this battle. [An interruption^ 
 I am sorry that hon. members cannot have patience with one 
 ] leading as I plead here. It is no light task, even if you put 
 it on the lowest personal grounds, to risk the ambition of a life 
 on such an issue. It is a right ambition to desire to take part 
 in the councils of the nation, if you bring no store of wisdom 
 with you, and can only learn from the great intellects that we 
 have. What will you inquire into? The right hon. baronet 
 would inquire into my opinions. Will you inquire into my 
 conduct, or is it only my opinions you will try here? The hon. 
 member for Plymouth frankly puts it, opinions. If opinions, 
 why not conduct? Why not examine into members' conduct 
 when they come to the table, and see if there be no members 
 in whose way you can put a barrier? Are members, whose 
 conduct may be obnoxious, to vote my exclusion because to 
 them my opinions are obnoxious? As to any obnoxious views 
 supposed to be held by me, there is no duty imposed upon me 
 to say a word. The right hon. baronet has said there has 
 i no word of recantation. You have no right to ask me 
 for any recantation. Since the 9th of April you have no right 
 to ask me for anything. If you have a legal disqualification, 
 petition, lay it before the judges. When you ask me to make 
 a statement, you are guilty of impertinence to me, of treason 
 to the traditions of this House, and of impeachment of the 
 liberties of the people. My difficulty is that those who have 
 made the most bitter attacks upon me only made them when I 
 n.t here to deal with them. 
 
 On< hon. and gallant member recently told his constituents 
 
 s would be made a Tarty question, but that the Con- 
 
 members had not the courage to speak out against
 
 Charles Bradlaugh at the Bar of the House. 247 
 
 me. I should have thought, from reading Hansard, not that 
 they wanted courage, but that they had cultivated a reticence 
 that was more just. I wish to say a word or two on the 
 attempt which has been made to put on the Government of 
 the day, complicity in my views. The Liberal Party has never 
 aided me in any way to this House. Never. I have fought 
 by myself. I have fought by my own hand. I have been 
 hindered in every way that it was possible to hinder me ; and 
 it is only by the help of the people, by the pence of toilers in 
 mine and factory, that I am here to-day, after these five 
 struggles right through thirteen years. I have won my way 
 with them, for I have won their hearts, and now I come to 
 you. Will you send me back from here ? Then how ? You 
 have the right, but it is the right of force, and not of law. 
 When I am once seated on these benches, then I am under 
 your jurisdiction. At present I am under the protection of 
 the writ from those who sent me here. I do not want to 
 quote what has happened before; but if there be one lesson 
 which the House has recorded more solemnly than another, it 
 is that there should be no interference with the judgment of a 
 constituency in sending a man to this House against whom 
 there is no Statutory disqualification. Let me appeal to the 
 generosity of the House as well as to its strength. It has 
 traditions of liberty on both sides. I do not complain that 
 members on that (the Conservative) try to keep me out. They 
 act according to their lights, and think my poor services may 
 be injurious to them. [Cries <?/"No!"] Then why not let 
 me in ? It must be either a political or a religious question. 
 
 I must apologise to the House for trespassing upon its patience. 
 I apologise because I know how generous in its listening it has 
 been from the time of my first speech in it till now. But I ask 
 you now, do not plunge with me into a struggle I would shun. 
 The law gives me no remedy if the House decides against me. 
 Do not mock at the constituencies. If you place yourselves 
 above the law, you leave me no course save lawless agitation 
 instead of reasonable pleading. It is easy to begin such a strife,
 
 24S Modern Political Orations. 
 
 but none knows how it would end. I have no court, no 
 tribunal to appeal to : you have the strength of your votes at 
 the moment. You think I am an obnoxious man, and that I 
 have no one on my side. If that be so, then the more reason 
 that this House, grand in the strength of its centuries of liberty, 
 should have now that generosity in dealing with one who 
 to-morrow may be forced into a struggle for public opinion 
 against it.
 
 JUSTIN M'CARTHY 
 IN DEFENCE OF HIS COLLEAGUES. 
 
 House of Commons, February 23RD, 1883. 
 
 [In the adjourned Debate on the Amendment proposed on the Main Ques- 
 tion affecting Irish Affairs in the Queen's Speech, Mr W. E. Forster 
 charged Mr Justin M'Carthy and his Colleagues with complicity in the 
 recent outrages and crimes in Ireland.] 
 
 The fate of the Amendment now before the House gives me 
 very little concern. Neither its fate, nor its purport, nor its 
 wording is of much account to me, or to those with whom I 
 have the honour to act. One thing is clear, that the Amend- 
 ment is directed not against the Irish members, but against Her 
 Majesty's Ministers. I care not whether it is rejected or passed, 
 and I do not propose to make my business either the arraign- 
 ment or the defence of the Government as regards its general 
 policy. I shall confine myself to two speeches delivered in the 
 course of this debate — that of the right hon. gentleman the 
 member for Bradford (Mr Forster), and that of the right hon. 
 gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Now the speech of 
 the right hon. gentleman the member for Bradford was un- 
 doubtedly what writers in the newspapers sometimes call 
 ''a great effort." It was a tremendous effort. I always thought 
 the right hon. gentleman had a good deal of theatrical talent, 
 which he had not up to the present fully developed. Those 
 who heard his remarkable speech will agree with me that it was 
 mimetic as well as historic. It gave us that entertainment 
 which is often described in the play-bills of theatres and music-
 
 2-0 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 halls as " imitations of popular performers." I wish I saw him 
 in his place in the House at present. I am hardly mistaken in 
 thinking that he favoured the House with what he believed to 
 be imitations of the voices and manners of some hon. members 
 of the Irish Party. I am content that he shall have all the 
 favour which his familiar attacks upon some members of that 
 Party, and his erudition in American newspapers, can win him 
 for a time from this House and the public. I know, too, that 
 his motive was not merely, although it was mainly, to discredit 
 the Irish members. He had his mind fixed also upon dis- 
 crediting and damaging the Government from which he has 
 been discarded; and I am convinced that there are members 
 of that Government— aye, members who are at this moment 
 sitting on the Treasury Bench — whom he had in his mind with 
 a wish to discredit my hon. friend the member for the City of 
 Cork (Mr Parnell). Whaiever his speech was made up from — 
 from American newspapers, from reports of meetings in the 
 country, from hints, and more than hints, in the passionate 
 press of London — there was one quality of that speech which 
 was all the right hon. gentleman's own, and that was its en- 
 venomed malignity. I never heard in this House a speech 
 more entirely inspired with the purpose of deliberate defama- 
 tion. I believe it was the right hon. gentleman's intention to 
 do all the damage he could to the characters of some members 
 of the House by a process of systematic calumny. He accused 
 some of my hon. friends, and with them of course myself, of 
 conniving at outrage and assassination. He talked of offering 
 us an alternative; but he gave none. He made it clear that his 
 < harge was nothing short of deliberate connivance with outrage 
 and assassination. Heie is the sort of alternative the right hon. 
 gentleman offered us — 
 
 " I give the hon. member an alternative, that ei'her he connived at 
 
 i warned by facts and statements, he determined to 
 
 m ignorance; that he took no trouble to test the truth of whether 
 
 iiad been committed or not, but that he was willing to eain the 
 
 1 1 age of them."
 
 Justin McCarthy in Defence of his Party. 251 
 
 I point out that this is no alternative; that men who arc 
 informed that outrage and assassination are going on, and who 
 determine to remain in ignorance, and are willing to gain the 
 benefit of outrage and assassination, are distinctly conniving at 
 those crimes. Therefore, I tell the right hon. gentleman that 
 when he pretended to give us an alternative he did nothing of 
 the kind ; and that as he had made up his mind to charge us 
 by implication with conniving at murder, he ought to have 
 stood boldly up and said so. He ought to have said so in 
 those plain words he sometimes is able to use, and ought not 
 to have shielded himself behind the pretence of an alternative. 
 I should have thought that the right hon. gentleman would be 
 the member of this House least inclined, owing to certain 
 memories he must have, to fling accusations of sympathy with 
 murder recklessly at other men. When charging us with these 
 crimes, he must have recalled a time when a newspaper, then 
 far more influential than it now is — The Tunes — charged him 
 with sympathy with secret assassination. I do not charge the 
 right hon. gentleman with having sympathy with crime ; but 
 for the reason I have stated he ought to have fell a sentiment 
 which would have prevented him from recklessly hurling 
 similar charges in the faces of men as honourable as himself, 
 and who feel as little thirst for blood as he does. On the 14th 
 of March 1864, one who was then a member of this House, 
 and is now high in Her Majesty's Colonial Service— Sir John 
 Pope Hennessy — brought forward certain statements in this 
 House with regard to a right hon. friend of mine, for whom 
 I have the highest respect, the member for Halifax (Mr Stans- 
 feld), and who was accused by certain newspapers of sympathy 
 with assassination because he had harboured Mazzini and some 
 of his friends. This became the subject of debate in this House, 
 and led to the right hon. gentleman the member for Halifax 
 resigning his position in the Government. The right hon. 
 gentleman the member for Bradford stood up for his friend. I 
 do not blame him lor that — he believed him to be innocent. 
 But what were the evidences given, and the assassination
 
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 theory held, by the man for whom the right hon. gentlen an 
 he member for Bradford stood up in this House ? Extracts 
 were then read from Mazzini's letter, "The Theory of the 
 _crer." Such passages as these were read — 
 
 "Blessed be the knife of Palafox: blessed be in your hands every 
 
 ,on that can destroy the enemy and set you free. The weapon that 
 
 v Mincovich in the Arsenal initiated the insurrection in Venice. It was 
 
 jot of irregular warfare like that which, three months before the 
 
 :, destroyed the Minister Rossi in Rome. . . . Sacred be the 
 
 stiletto that began the Silician Vespers." 
 
 The right hon. gentleman the member for Bradford rose and 
 
 said — 
 
 "The hon. and learned gentleman has brought forward a charge 
 st an absent man— Signor Mazzini— who, whatever his faults, was a 
 q of high character." 
 
 Whatever his faults ? What though he blessed the knife of 
 one man and the dagger of another, and the system of "irregu- 
 lar warfare " which removed Count Rossi, the Minister of the 
 Pope Pius IX., who was murdered on the steps of the 
 hoi. he was "a man of high character"! The right hon. 
 gentleman's Leader of the present day did not agree with his 
 mate of Signor Mazzini. The present Prime Minister had 
 written in a preface to a translation of Signor Farini's "Roman 
 -"'1 he Satellites of Mazzini make common cause with 
 ; ns." After those extracts had been read and four days 
 I, .hiring which the right hon. member for Bradford 
 had time for reflection, the subject was again raised, and the 
 right hon. gentleman said — 
 
 " I should not be ashamed of being the friend of Mazzini." [Irish cheers, 
 of The Dagger /] " I am not ashamed of being his 
 
 e." 
 
 % 
 
 Well, T think that that incident is not without its interest and 
 
 ral. The Irish members who brought forward that question 
 
 did not charge the right hon. gentleman, or think 
 
 him, with sympathy with assassination. The charge 
 
 t he and his companions showed a levity which disie-
 
 Justin McCarthy in Defence of his Party. 253 
 
 garded what a man might do, so long as that man was a foreign 
 patriot. The Times of March 15, 1864, had a leading article 
 on the subject, which is not without its application to the 
 present circumstances. The right hon. gentleman was not 
 then in the flush and heyday of youth. He was able to judge 
 whether Mazzini and his associates and satellites were what 
 they were represented to be. The Times said — 
 
 "Who, then, is this M. Mazzini, to whose innocence this gentleman (Mr 
 Stansfeld) and Mr W. E. Forster pledge themselves? Let anyone read 
 the passages quoted by Mr Hennessy last night, and say whether the 
 friends of M. Mazzini have any right to indulge in high-flown indignation 
 when it is alleged that he might possibly be engaged in a conspiracy against 
 a Potentate's life." 
 
 I ask whether the right hon. member for Bradford was justi- 
 fied in seizing at the chance of high-flown indignation because 
 the newspaper that accused him then of sympathy with 
 assassination accuses some of us now of the same thing. I 
 wonder that the memory of that episode in his career has not 
 made him more generous — yes, I will say, more honest — 
 towards men whom, in his heart, he no more believes to be 
 guilty of that charge than honourable men then believed him 
 to be. I pass from that not uninstructive incident to the right 
 hon. gentleman's attack on Irish members, and the grounds on 
 which that attack was made. He had something to say about 
 myself in connection with United Ireland, a paper published in 
 Dublin. He said much the same thing about a year ago. He 
 then went over the story of some articles that he said appeared 
 in that paper. I believe they were not articles, but headings of 
 paragraphs ; and he appealed to me, though I was not in my 
 place at the time, to know whether I approved of all these 
 various paragraphs and headings. Now, the right hon. gentle- 
 man must have known — at all events he might have known — 
 that I could not have seen that newspaper then. He knew 
 that I had been out of England the whole of that recess, from 
 the end of one Session to the beginning of another. [An Irish 
 Member. — " He did."] He did, and he said so himself in this 
 House, for he indulged in some more or less graceful satire at
 
 254 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 my expense, and complained that, instead of helping to keep 
 id, I had been enjoying myself among the monu- 
 ments of ancient Greece. But since I was so culpable as to be 
 ying myself among the monuments of ancient Greece, and 
 in countries much further off, he might have known that it was 
 not likely that a Dublin paper followed me in all my wander- 
 He knew that at the time he was speaking— at the time 
 e was so playfully chiding me for the amusement of the House 
 -he must have known that that paper was prevented from 
 coming into this country ; and though I made strenuous efforts 
 shortly after to get copies of it, and see if it contained the ter- 
 ible things it was said to contain, I was unable to obtain a copy, 
 r, I allow that to pass. It would not much matter 
 if the right hon. gentleman could have sustained his charge. 
 If he had not returned to it, I should not have cared to raise it. 
 l'.ut I am quite willing to tell him, if it affords him the slightest 
 interest, the history of my connection with that paper. It was 
 started to get rid of a notorious print, which appears lately 
 to have lived by the levying of blackmail in Dublin. It was 
 founded by a Committee of gentlemen in whom I have the 
 greatest trust ; and the editorship was given to a man whom I 
 id and respect, and whom I know to be incapable of 
 ducting a journal on the principles the right hon. gentleman 
 ribed. Under these conditions I felt content, having no 
 trol over the paper, to go abroad among the monuments of 
 ancient Greece, and to leave the paper in the hands of the able 
 r who has already shown his ability in this House. I did 
 not inquire in my absence how he conducted it. I know he 
 ducted it honourably and well; and we have learned that 
 only things the right hon. gentleman objects to are the 
 hs and headings which got into the paper while he had 
 the responsible editor under lock and key in one of his prisons. 
 I have said enough on that point. I do not believe that any 
 ition would convict that editor of publishing any 
 which men of honour would be ashamed to sanction, 
 lion, gentleman went over many points with the
 
 Justin McCarthy in Defence of his Party. 255 
 
 object of associating me and others with plots and assassinations. 
 
 For example, he spoke of a telegram sent by Mr Brennan, who 
 
 was the correspondent of The Irish World, to that paper. 
 
 The telegram is given variously in the different journals, but I 
 
 would ask the right hon. gentleman, Is this which I am about 
 
 to rend the right version ? — 
 
 " All sorts of theories are afloat concerning this explosion " — that is the 
 Salford dynamite explosion — "but the truly loyal one is that Fenianism 
 did it." 
 
 What is the plain and evident meaning of that ? Is it not that 
 
 the fashionable and loyal theory, as a matter of course, is that 
 
 the Fenians did it? I ask the right hon. gentleman, Is not 
 
 that the manifest meaning ? [Mr W. E. Forster. — " I would 
 
 ask the hon. member to read the remainder of the telegram."] 
 
 I quote the whole of the printed version I have. The right 
 
 hon. gentleman charged me with deliberate avoidance of reading 
 
 articles in order that I might be able to say I do not know of 
 
 the incitement to assassination they contained. Then he said — 
 
 " I expect, or suspect" — probably suspect, it is more in his line — " I 
 suspect the hon. member (meaning myself) has been careful not to read the 
 articles to which I refer." 
 
 The charge is, perhaps, hardly Parliamentary. There was a 
 rude interruption last night, which we all regret, to an imputa- 
 tion which ought not to have been made; but the right hon. 
 gentleman is allowed to say — 
 
 " I suspect the hon. member has been careful not to read the articles to 
 which I refer." 
 
 The whole theory and purpose of his declamation and 
 defamation was to make members of this House responsible 
 for every violent act done, and every violent word said, by any 
 supposed follower of his in this country or America. I should 
 like to know how that theory would apply to the right hon. 
 gentleman. 
 
 The right hon. gentleman has not forgotten the riots which 
 occurred in the Reform years, nor the men who got up these 
 riots. He has not forgotten the riot which led to the break- 
 ing down of the Hyde Park railings, and the maiming and
 
 256 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 wounding of many of the mob and some policemen. The 
 it hon. gentleman and his friends came back to power on 
 I smash of the Hyde Park railings. The right hon. 
 itleman was well acquainted with the leader of the Demo- 
 : Movement- the late Mr Beales. [Mr W. E. Forster.— 
 " I did not know him personally."] Neither do I know personally 
 those who have uttered these violent words and done these 
 nt acts in Ireland, for which I am sought to be made 
 ible. Mr Beales is dead. Mr Beales was a man of 
 ur and courage. I knew him and I respected him. But 
 ertainly got around him, and could not help getting around 
 men of very odd character and very odd pretensions, 
 s the right hon. gentleman remember a certain Mr Joseph 
 ; eSter, a famous glass-blower? [MrW. E. Forster. — "I do 
 not remember him."] He does not remember him? As a 
 >us actress said on one occasion, " What a candour ; but 
 what a memory ! " At the time Mr Leicester's name used to 
 ar in every London newspaper every morning. This dis- 
 tinguished supporter of the right hon. gentlemen's party went 
 to a great meeting one day — a great Trades' Demonstration, 
 held, I think, in Trafalgar Square — and this was part of the 
 ch of Joseph Leicester. There was then, as there has 
 n more lately, a kind of rush and raid on the House of 
 Commons to force them to pass a certain Bill, and this was 
 what th; gogue here said — 
 
 'The question is, were they to suffer those little-minded, decrepit, 
 d, one-eyed scoundrels, who call themselves the House of 
 1 md them any longer of their rights?" 
 
 I r of the House of Commons then, and did 
 
 not - in for any part of that lively personal description; 
 
 k the right hon. gentleman if someone as nearly con- 
 
 ted with the hon. number for the City of Cork as Mr 
 
 . with the right hon. gentleman, had used words 
 
 to a meeting of Irishmen, what would he 
 
 :li, l? The riots in Hyde Park took place, and people 
 
 & ! ' m I "J There was no cry of " Ques-
 
 Justin McCarthy in Defence of his Party, 257 
 
 tion " when the right hon. gentleman was defaming me and 
 others, and went over land and sea and over years to find 
 charges against us. It is quite to the question. I want to 
 say to him and the House that it is impossible in any move- 
 ment to hold the leaders responsible for every idle word and 
 act said and done by their followers. Of this movement Mr 
 Beales was the leader, and when the right hon. gentleman and 
 his friends came into power, did they repudiate Mr Beales? 
 They made him a County Court Judge. Did they at any time, 
 while these proceedings were going on, repudiate the language 
 of any man ? No. There was a newspaper in London at the 
 time, of which the right hon. gentleman sitting near him (Mr 
 John Bright) knew something, in which a writer, not now living, 
 had once called on the people, if a certain thing were not done, 
 to destroy the House of Lords, and to strew the Thames with 
 the wreck of their painted chamber. I ask the right hon. 
 gentleman, who took in that paper, whether he read it or not ? 
 {Cries of" Morning Star."] Yes, The Morning Star. [Mr W. E. 
 Forster. — "I was not a shareholder."] The matter was brought 
 to the notice of this House by an hon. member, and I am 
 not aware that the right hon. gentleman said one single word in 
 condemnation of that language. And remember, Mr Speaker, 
 that the time of the Hyde Park riots was not a time of peace. 
 We have heard, again and again, that things may be allowed 
 in time of peace ; but that was not a time of peace. Those 
 were dangerous times. Troops were kept in readiness — the 
 air was full of danger. During the whole of that time the 
 right hon. gentleman never said, as far as I know, one word to 
 dissociate himself or any of his friends from those acts or 
 words. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman another 
 question. Did he never hear at that time that a famous Con- 
 tinental leader of revolution was over in London, and was in 
 negotiation with some of the men concerned in these affairs, 
 with the hope of assisting them in a Democratic revolution ? 
 [Mr W. E. Forster.—" No."] He never heard of it ? He 
 never read any of the papers published at that time ? He 
 
 R
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 I histories published since that time? Over 
 
 gain— in newspapers, magazines, and books— has the 
 
 e foreign incendiary been told, and the right hon. 
 
 leman never heard of it or read of it ; and yet he sup- 
 
 | ry cony of The Irish World! 
 
 ink I have sufficiently shown that the right hon. gentle- 
 
 t to be cautious how he makes charges against us of 
 
 v with assassination, or of having assisted or connived 
 
 s, and how he lays down the theory that a man is 
 
 md to know what is done by everybody else who is con- 
 
 ■d with him in any popular movement. I will tell the right 
 
 tleman and the House how outrages grew up in 
 
 nd of late. The Land League was formed with the full 
 
 and deliberate intent of drawing agitation above the surface. 
 
 t was its motive. Its purpose was to maintain public 
 
 platforms on which agitation might go on openly and in the 
 
 of day, by which men would be withdrawn from that 
 
 terrible system of conspiracy which has been the bane and 
 
 curse of Ireland for so many years. That was the motive of 
 
 the Land League. I saw that was its distinct purpose, and it 
 
 manifestly in the purpose that I joined the 
 
 gue. Tiie right hon. gentleman expects that everyone has 
 
 every letter written by everyone else. I should ask him 
 
 e did me the favour of reading a letter of mine which was 
 
 published in all the papers in England in reference to my join- 
 
 - the I. and League ? [Mr W. E. Forster. — " No."] He did 
 
 He only reads The Irish World, and I did not write to 
 
 World to explain my intentions. In that letter I 
 
 nd clearly my reasons for believing the Land 
 
 lid do good, and why I thought it was the duty of 
 
 /patriot man to join it. I believed it was doing 
 
 »il by helping to close the era of conspiracy. But there 
 
 upon Ireland one autumn and one winter three influences 
 
 iei famine, the House of Lords, and the right 
 
 nan. The country was miserably pinched with 
 
 I louse of Lords rejected the poor little Compen- 
 
 rbance bill, which might have stopped for a
 
 Justin McCarthy in Defence of his Party. 259 
 
 while the sufferings of the people ; and then, to improve the 
 situation, the right hon. gentleman got his law for the arrest of 
 suspicious men, under which he flung the leaders of the people 
 into prison. Then it was that outrages began to increase. 
 After the arrest of the hon. member for the City of Cork the 
 movement drifted leaderless and hopeless, dropped from the 
 high point to which it had risen in publicity and on the plat- 
 form, into the seething ferment of the sea of conspiracy. The 
 leaders of the land movement had nearly succeeded in raising 
 Ireland out of conspiracy. That is what I fully and firmly 
 believe, and thus History hereafter will I am certain write it out. 
 The Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant made a serious 
 mistake when he appealed to us to-night to justify all manner 
 of executions simply on the ground that so many murders had 
 been committed. It is not the theory of this country that for 
 so many murders there shall be so many executions. That is 
 the theory of certain Eastern States ; but that is happily not 
 yet the theory even in Ireland. Were the murders ten times 
 more in number than the men put on trial for them, I should 
 be at liberty still, if I thought I had reason, to examine into 
 the justice of each trial and the way in which it had been 
 conducted ; and if it could be shown that there was anything 
 like systematic jury-packing in even one trial, no matter how 
 many murders had been committed, I should denounce it. 
 
 The right hon. gentleman seemed a little hopeful towards 
 the end of his speech when he spoke of the great decrease of 
 outrages, and when there was drawn from him the statement 
 that there was also a decrease of evictions. In searching for 
 the causes which had led to this decrease of outrages, the fact 
 of the decrease of evictions must not be overlooked. The 
 right hon. gentleman then became a little more ominous in 
 saying that he feared that lately evictions had been on the 
 increase. Was it not possible that with the increase of evic- 
 tions might come an increase of outrages ? It must be remem- 
 bered that there is now no such thing as the right of public 
 meeting or free speech in Ireland. A man may make a speech
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 ' he likes at his own risk ; but the right hon. gentleman tells 
 
 us that if he thinks there is anything in the speech which 
 
 ght lead to inflame the feelings of anyone, he will prevent or 
 
 sh the making of such speeches, although he knows the 
 
 •aker had no evil intention whatever. There is no free plat- 
 
 •iii in Ireland; no free Press — no right to hold a public 
 
 There is no way in which the sentiments and 
 
 vances of the people can be freely expressed. You are 
 
 labouring in the dark. You are driving disaffection beneath 
 
 the surface. You alone will be responsible for the consequences 
 
 of the terrible and stringent measures you have adopted. As 
 
 the hon. member for the City of Cork said, there is no longer 
 
 any probability of the Irish Leaders or Irish Members of 
 
 Parliament standing between you and the elements of con- 
 
 icy. I do not blame the right hon. gentleman the Chief 
 
 retary so much for the change that has come about. The 
 
 lOnsibility for that change I lay, as I have already said, on 
 
 the shoulders of another man. I may say of him, as was said 
 
 of another famous politician, that it has seldom been within the 
 
 er of any human creature to do so much good as the rieht 
 
 hun. gentleman for Bradford has prevented.
 
 LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL ON 
 THE EGYPTIAN CRISIS. 
 
 Prince's Hall, Piccadilly, February i6th, 1884. 
 
 [The fall of Sinkat and the massacre of its garrison excited the most bitter 
 indignation in all Conservative minds. When the announcement was 
 made in the House of Lords on the 12th inst., Lord Salisbury moved a 
 vote of censure on the Government, describing its policy pursued in Egypt 
 as " vacillating and inconsistent," and also as "an act of blood-guiltiness." 
 A similar vote was maved in the House of Commons by Sir Stafford 
 Northcote. Indignation meetings were held every where, and the Liberal 
 Government seemed tottering to its fall.] 
 
 Mr Algernon Borthwick, My Lords and Gentlemen, — 
 I rise for the purpose of moving the first Resolution, and in 
 order that we may consider that Resolution with advantage, I 
 would beg all these gentlemen here, who do not altogether 
 concur with the views which we are going to expound, to listen 
 to the discussion with equanimity, and, if possible, to reply to 
 the arguments we may urge. [A Voice. — " They're for an 
 Amendment."] It would conduce more to the dignity of a 
 London meeting, it will conduce more to the maintenance of 
 the high character of the citizens of this great Metropolis, if 
 any gentlemen who have counter opinions to urge to those of 
 the majority of the meeting, will come to the platform and 
 address us. We have, Gentlemen, to-day to set an example to 
 the country : let us first set an example of order. The Resolu- 
 tion which I have to propose is in these terms : — " That in the 
 opinion 01 this meeting, Her Majesty's Government are solely
 
 Modem Political Oi at ions. 
 
 responsible for the anarchy which prevails in Egypt, and the 
 led which has occurred, and which is imminent in the 
 oudan, and that the vacillating and pusillanimous policy of 
 the Ministers deserves the severest censure of the country." 
 
 arc gathered together this afternoon for a serious pur- 
 • no other, indeed, than to pronounce, after due delibera- 
 the strongest and most resolute condemnation of Mr 
 Istone's Egyptian Policy, and our detestation and abhorrence 
 of the bloodshed and misery of which he has been the immediate 
 and direct cause. I say Mr Gladstone's Egyptian Policy, 
 because I utterly decline to recognise as responsible agents 
 either his Ministerial colleagues or his Parliamentary supporters. 
 Those parties have so wallowed in a stifling morass of the 
 most degraded and servile worship of the Prime Minister that 
 they have sunk below the level of slaves ; they have become 
 mere puppets, the objects of derision and contempt ; they have 
 lost all claim to the title of Englishmen, and I think they have 
 lost all claim to the title of rational human beings. To give 
 you an instance of the abject imbecility which has struck down 
 the Liberal Party, I would mention what occurred in the 
 House of Commons on Thursday night. Mr Forster in that 
 h which he made that evening — a speech in which 
 he promised one vote to the Government in the House of 
 Commons, and alienated a hundred thousand votes from the 
 iment in the country— Mr Forster, I say, expressed the 
 opinion that the Government ought to have rescued the garrison 
 Sinkat "How?" cried out some importunate Liberals, 
 was the plaintive cry they raised. " How ? " 
 I Mr Forster, turning upon them, so that they wished 
 tin v a hundred leagues under the sea, "How? why, by 
 
 doii : irtnight earlier what they are doing now, sending 
 
 to the garrison's rescue." There is a good 
 : the hopeless and incurable mental alienation to 
 which the once free and inde] endent Liberal Part)- have been 
 1 by Mr Gladstone! It was indeed a melancholy 
 
 le.
 
 Randolph Churchill on the Egyptian Crisis. 263 
 
 I said that our purpose this afternoon was a serious one, and 
 it is so. It is a serious thing for Englishmen to meet together 
 in open day for the purpose of doing all they can to destroy 
 a Government. But we are not alone. Thousands of your 
 countrymen have already met, and thousands more will meet, 
 animated by the same feelings as yourselves, and, like your- 
 selves, resolved to exhaust their energies in a supreme effort 
 to avert further disgrace from our names, future defeat from 
 our army, and ultimate ruin from our country, by dashing from 
 his pride of place the evil and moonstruck Minister who has 
 brought England into grievous peril. Perilous, I say, is our 
 condition, for it is perilous for a country to shed human blood 
 in vain ; it is perilous for a country to assume responsibilities 
 which it is too cowardly to discharge ; it is perilous for a 
 country to permit its foreign interests to be in such a condition 
 that any morning we may awake to hear Europe demanding 
 reparation and even vengeance. Once again, for the fourth 
 time in fo ur years, do the Ministry, whose programme was 
 peace, and whose component parts were Quakers, call upon 
 you to give them authority to wage a bloody war. Of their 
 former wars the results have been either infamous or futile — 
 infamy in the south of Africa ; futility in the north of Africa. 
 Will you, I ask, with these memories still fresh in your minds, 
 permit these false guides again to direct your course ? There 
 can be but one answer. If war is again to be urged ; if British 
 blood and British treasure are again to be poured forth ; if 
 the regeneration of Egypt and the East is once more to be 
 taken in hand, then other heads must do the work, and other 
 policies must be pursued. A Parliament which has long 
 ceased to represent England must be dissolved, and a Ministry, 
 for a parallel to which you must go back to the days of 
 Shaftesbury or Lord North, must be placed on its trial by the 
 people. We have to provide for the safety of the hero Gordon ; 
 for the safety of the 4,000 British soldiers sent to Suakim ; for 
 the safety of the garrisons of the Soudan, 30,000 souls in all, 
 whose one and only hope is now reposed in you. Above all,
 
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 have to provide for the safety of our position in the Delta 
 of the Nile. Shall labours such as these, interests so tremen- 
 dous and so vital, be committed to the hands of Mr Gladstone 
 ues, men who have on their souls the blood of 
 re oi Maiwand, the blood of the massacre of Lang's 
 ood of George Colley, the blood of Lord Frederick 
 ndish and Mr Burke, and many other true and loyal 
 subjects of the Crown in Ireland, the blood of Hicks Pasha 
 and his 10,000 soldiers, the blood of the army of General 
 the blood of Tewfik Bey and his 500 heroes? For 
 four years this Ministry has literally waded in blood; their 
 hands are literally dripping and reeking with blood. From 
 massacre to massacre they march, and their course is inefface- 
 ably stamped upon the history of the world by an overflowing 
 stream of blood. How many more of England's heroes — how 
 many more of England's best and bravest, are to be sacrificed 
 to the Moloch of Midlothian? This, too, is shocking and 
 horrible — the heartless indifference and callousness of the 
 Libera] Party to narratives of slaughter and unutterable woe. 
 Fifteen times did Mr Gladstone on Tuesday night in his reply 
 to the grave and measured accusations of Sir Stafford Northcote 
 — fifteen times, I say, did he excite the laughter of his Liberal 
 supporters with a frivolity which was too hideous to con- 
 template. Talk of Bulgarian atrocities! Add them together, 
 and even multiply them if you will, and you will not exceed 
 the total of the atrocities and the infamies which have dis- 
 uished with an awful reputation the most blood-stained and 
 withal the most cowardly Government which England has 
 n. 
 W< .1, we are me1 together this afternoon as loyal subjects of 
 ml as lovers of our country for this purpose, and 
 only to put a stop to further wicked and wanton 
 todshed We know that great empires must sometimes 
 it battles, and that empires which fear to light battles 
 to he empires ; but we are resolved that the 
 ■lii, b we have to light shall be lought for definite
 
 Randolph Churchill on the Egyptian Crisis. 265 
 
 objects and for noble ends, and that poltroons and traitors, in 
 the garb of Ministers of the Crown, shall sacrifice no longer 
 for worthless and degraded aims the life-blood of our country. 
 The supporters of the present Government exclaim that the 
 Tory Party, although prodigal of censure, is deficient in a 
 policy of its own ; and with many taunts they call upon us to 
 disclose the direction in which our efforts would be turned in 
 the event of a change in the Councils of the Crown. The 
 demand cannot be considered unfair, and the reply is not so 
 difficult as some people seem to think. We recognise to the very 
 uttermost the immense responsibilities which this country has 
 incurred towards Egypt, and towards the interests of Europe 
 there, and to the discharge of these responsibilities we would be 
 prepared to apply all the resources, if need be, of the Empire 
 of the Queen ; and till those responsibilities are satisfied we 
 would neither stop nor stay. The history of the Tory Party in 
 the past is, I fearlessly assent, an ample guarantee that the 
 recognition of a responsibility and the full discharge of a 
 responsibility are inseparable and consequential. I cannot 
 claim to have the smallest share in the Councils of the 
 leaders of the Tory Party, whoever they may be — and there- 
 fore, as far as they are concerned, I speak without authority. 
 But having studied with some care the history of our Party 
 in the past, possessing an unbounded faith in its future, and 
 being not altogether ignorant of the state of public opinion, I 
 will venture to say this much — that the policy of the Tory 
 Party, should it be placed in power, will be the policy of 
 calling things by their right names. The occupation of 
 Egypt by the British forces will be called a Protectorate of 
 Egypt by the British Empire, having for its object the 
 establishment, in process of time, of a Government at Cairo, 
 which shall be consonant with the legitimate and laudable 
 aspirations of the Egyptian people, which shall be able to 
 protect itself alike from internal tumult and from foreign 
 intrigue, which, while it shall develop the undoubted 
 resources of Egypt, shall faithfully discharge the equitable
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 ies of its people, and which, as far as human govern- 
 ments can do, shall give promise of prosperity and happiness in 
 ad of the Nile. We are now in Egypt by the sufferance 
 of Europe, but we must endeavour to be in Egypt by the 
 date of Europe. Our Protectorate, to be effective, and 
 authoritative, and secure, should be acquiesced in by a 
 European Congress, in which Turkey shall be adequately 
 ted and the rights and powers of the Sultan loyally 
 secured. Our Protectorate, if it is to be crowned with success, 
 must not shrink from dealing comprehensively and boldly with 
 financial indebtedness of Egypt, even though such dealing 
 ould involve some pecuniary liability on ourselves. The 
 ., if you undertake it, will be a work of time — perhaps a 
 time. It will be a work of difficulty, and perhaps a work 
 of danger ; but it would also be a work of duty and a work of 
 : and from work of that kind Britain has never yet 
 L-d. It is a work which, if courageously persisted in, will 
 i losely to us than heretofore the sympathies of the 
 Mohammedan races, and will establish on deeper foundations 
 our dominions in the East. Our aims are honour, peace, and 
 lorn, and we should not shrink from prosecuting those 
 aims, if need be, by force of arms. Conscious of their mag- 
 nimity, we would go boldly forward, knowing well that 
 the results of our policy would surely be to undo the heavy 
 burdens and to let the oppressed go free.
 
 THE RT. HON. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN 
 ON LIBERAL AIMS. 
 
 Birmingham, June 3RD, 1885. 
 
 [On this date a Deputation of the Council of the Western Division of 
 Birmingham waiter! upon Mr Chamberlain at the Forward Club, urging 
 him to stand for that Division in Parliament in the forthcoming General 
 Election. They asked him for no pledge, none bt ; ng necessary.] 
 
 Mr Payton and Gentlemen, — I thank you very much for 
 the cordiality with which you have invited me to be your 
 representative in Parliament, and I take it as an earnest 
 of the spirit and the genuine kindness with which I may hope 
 to be received by the constituency itself. I think you will not 
 be surprised when I say that I come before you to-day with 
 mixed feelings. I am going, I hope, to be your member ; but 
 I cannot forget that I am, and that I have been, the represent- 
 ative of the whole of this great constituency, and being and 
 having been member for Birmingham is really a very proud 
 thing to reflect upon. It is not only that it is, I believe, the 
 largest of the constituencies of the United Kingdom ; at the 
 time of the last general election we numbered, I think, 
 something like 65,000 registered electors, and other towns 
 of larger population, like Liverpool and Glasgow, could only 
 muster a few over 60,000. It is not merely the size of the 
 borough which has made it an honour to represent it, it is 
 also the great influence which it has so continuously exercised 
 upon the political life and the legislation of the country ; and
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 to re; resent in the future 10,000 of my fellow-townsmen after 
 
 represented 65,000, is like living in a cottage after 
 
 \ resided in a palace. [Laughter.'] At the same time, I 
 
 "that the difference is more apparent than real, and that 
 
 shall continue to preserve the unity of this great constitu- 
 
 : and that although none of the seven members whom it 
 
 will now enjoy will be entitled to speak authoritatively in the 
 
 name of the whole, yet that as a body we shall speak with the 
 
 one potent voice of Birmingham, united, as we have been of 
 
 yore, in the pursuit of every Liberal measure. 
 
 Well, I may say that if the separation was to take place, 
 there is no division of the town which it would be personally 
 more gratifying to me to represent than this W'estern Division. 
 Your Chairman has already alluded to the reasons which 
 make me see a peculiar fitness in the invitation which you 
 have been good enough to address to me. It is here that I 
 made my first entry into public life. I believe my first 
 tical speech was made in a schoolroom in All Saints, 
 under the presidency of my friend the Chairman, and in 
 support of the candidature of Mr Dixon as one of the 
 members for Birmingham. Afterwards I was connected with 
 many of your leading citizens in establishing that undenomi- 
 national school, also in All Saints, which gave a practical 
 illustration of the scheme of the National Education League 
 to which Mr Payton has referred, and which had so large a 
 part in carrying the measure, of the advantages of which he has 
 not said one word too much. As to St Paul's Ward, I am 
 indeed to recollect that it was through the kindness of 
 the 1 of St Paul's Ward that I was introduced to local 
 
 mmenl and that I gained my experience of local life, 
 which has been to me of the greatest possible value, and 
 
 which has | lined in my mind an enduring conviction of 
 
 importance and dignity of our local government, and an 
 
 to extend its functions and to increase the 
 
 on whom it may be conferred. Well, then, 
 
 itlemen, 1 may say that 1 accept with gratitude the invitation
 
 Joseph Chamberlain on Liberal Aims. 269 
 
 which you have addressed to me. If there is to be opposition, 
 I have no doubt that we shall give a good account of our- 
 selves. And whether there be opposition or not, I have no 
 doubt whatever that, if life is spared to me, somewhere about 
 the end of November, I shall be the member for the Western 
 Division of Birmingham. 
 
 I thank those who have already addressed you for the 
 kindness with which they have said that from me they ask no 
 profession of faith. Well, it is true that my public and 
 political life has been all before you, and there is probably 
 no subject of the slightest importance on which you do not 
 already know my opinion, and with regard to which you do 
 not know that I will not do all that in me lies to give force 
 to that opinion. Of course, I do not expect that my opinion 
 agrees with yours upon every subject or upon every detail. 
 That would be to presuppose that you yourselves are entirely 
 agreed, which is more, perhaps, than I have a right to expect, 
 even from the constituency which I aspire to represent. No, 
 Gentlemen, but though we may differ sometimes upon details, 
 and sometimes upon methods, I believe that we are agreed 
 upon the main lines of Liberal policy, and that we shall 
 always be found shoulder to shoulder in endeavouring to 
 secure their general acceptance. Now, this invitation, and the 
 signs of activity which are everywhere around us, are proofs 
 that we have arrived at a stage in our political history. The 
 old order is passing away ; the new order is beginning to make 
 itself felt. I am not generally much inclined to indulge 
 in political retrospect — I am more ready to say, "Let the 
 dead past bury its dead ; our business is with the present 
 and with the future " ; but standing here, as I do, at the 
 turning of the ways, I will venture to assert that when the 
 history of the last five years comes to be written, neither the 
 Government of which I have the honour to be a member, 
 nor the Parliament which was returned to power with such 
 tremendous enthusiasm five years ago, will have any cause 
 to fear its verdict. When that history comes to be written
 
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 you know whose will be the central and prominent figure. 
 
 hat Mr Gladstone will stand out before posterity 
 
 test man of his time— remarkable not only for his 
 
 iry eloquence, for his great ability, for his steadfast- 
 
 5 of purpose, for his constructive skill, but more, perhaps, 
 
 han all these, for his personal character, and for the high tone 
 
 hat he has introduced into our politics and public life. I 
 
 sometimes think that great men are like great mountains, and 
 
 hat we do not appreciate their magnitude while we are close 
 
 em. You have to go to a distance to see which peak 
 
 it is that towers above its fellows ; and it may be that we shall 
 
 have to put between us and Mr Gladstone a space of time 
 
 before we shall see how much greater he has been than any 
 
 of his competitors for fame and power. I am certain that 
 
 justice will be done to him in the future, and I am not less 
 
 certain that there will be a signal condemnation of those men 
 
 who, moved by motives of Party spite in their eagerness for 
 
 ive not hesitated to load with insult and indignity the 
 
 greatest statesman of our time, who had not allowed even his 
 
 which should have commanded their reverence, or his 
 
 rience, which entitled him to their respect, or his high 
 
 personal character, or his long service to his Queen and to his 
 
 country, to shield him from the vulgar affronts and lying 
 
 accusations of which he has nightly been made the subject 
 
 in the House of Commons. He, with his great magnanimity, 
 
 can afford to forget and forgive these things ; those whom he 
 
 has served long it behoves to remember them, to resent them, 
 
 and to punish them. 
 
 Now, I have said, Gentlemen, that I do not think that this 
 
 Parliament will have any cause to fear the verdict of History. 
 
 Just contrast it for a moment with the Parliament which 
 
 That was a Parliament and a Government 
 
 which came into power under the most exceptionally favour- 
 
 e circumstances. Inland was contented, there was peace 
 
 - the world, the finances were in the most admirable 
 
 r was there a better opportunity for a great and
 
 Joseph Chamberlain 011 Liberal Aims. 271 
 
 patriotic statesman to promote measures of urgent domestic 
 importance, and yet I venture to say that during the whole 
 existence of that Parliament, with the exception, perhaps, of 
 the Artisans' Dwellings Act of Sir Richard Cross, which was, 
 unfortunately, an unsuccessful, but which was, I believe, a 
 well-meant attempt to grapple with a great social evil — with 
 that exception there is not, 1 believe, one single Act to which 
 the future historian will deem it necessary to make even a 
 passing reference. 
 
 But now, when we came into power, everything was 
 changed. There was trouble all over the world. South 
 Africa was in a state of anarchy : there had been war, shortly 
 to be renewed, in Afghanistan ; Ireland was dissatisfied, and 
 was on the eve of the greatest agitation which has ever con- 
 vulsed that country since the Tithe War ; the finances were in 
 hopeless confusion ; and yet, in spite of all these things, 
 in spite of obstruction carried with the tacit approval of the 
 leaders of the Tory Party up to the height of a science, and in 
 spite of the most factious Opposition that, I believe, this 
 country has ever known, there has not been a single Session 
 which has passed without measures of important reform finding 
 their place in the Statute Book, without grievances being 
 redressed and wrongs being remedied. We have abolished 
 flogging in the army, we have suspended the operation of the 
 odious Acts called the Contagious Diseases Acts, we have 
 amended the Game Laws, we have reformed the Burial Laws, 
 we have introduced and carried our Employers' Liability Bill, 
 we have had a Bankruptcy Act, a Patents Act, and a host of 
 secondary measures, which, together, would have formed the 
 stock-in-trade of a Tory Government for twenty years at least ; 
 and yet these are only the fringe, only the outside, of the 
 more important legislation of our time, the chief elements in 
 which have been the Irish Land Bill and the Reform Bill. 
 The Irish Land Bill alone is a monument of Mr Gladstone's 
 genius. He probably was the only man who could have 
 successfully dealt with so gigantic, so complicated, and so
 
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 : a subject. But he has passed two great measures 
 
 with that subject, giving to the Irish tenant full 
 
 security of tenure, and now, at all events, he enjoys in their 
 
 entirety all the improvements which he may make in his 
 
 holding. And sometimes, Gentlemen, I cannot but wish that 
 
 rals would have a little more faith in their principles, and 
 a little more trust in the remedial legislation which they have 
 
 ted to pass. If Ireland is pacified at th^e present moment 
 I do not attribute it to Coercion Bills ; I attribute it to the 
 reform of the Land Laws and to the removal of the deep- 
 
 d Agrarian grievance of the Irish peasant. Coercion 
 may be necessary at times. Murder, and outrage, and 
 
 ssination are things which no Government can tolerate, 
 which no honest man will lift a finger to approve; and when 
 ;e things stalk through the land, then they must be put 
 down at all hazards and at all risk, by every means within the 
 power of the Legislature and of the Government. But 
 I rcion is for an emergency. It is nonsense to talk of 
 a Constitutional system and Constitutional Government if the 
 Constitution is always being suspended. When the emergency 
 is over, then it is the duty of wise statesmen to seek out the 
 > auses of discontent and to endeavour to remedy them. 
 Well, I believe that one of the greatest of Irish problems 
 i- still before us, and must wait for its solution until the new 
 Parliament, whose advent we anticipate with so much interest 
 and with such expectations. Mr Gladstone has removed two 
 of the greatest grievances of Ireland. He has disestablished 
 an alien Church and he has reformed the Land Laws. But 
 there remains a question as important, possibly even more 
 important, than both these two, and that is, to give in Mr 
 
 [stone's own words, the widest possible self-government 
 to Ireland which is consistent with the maintenance of the 
 
 rity of the Umpire. What we have to do is to conciliate 
 
 ■ national sentiment of Ireland. We have to find a safe 
 
 tween separation on the one hand, which would be 
 
 to Ireland and dangerous to England, and that
 
 Joseph Chamberlain on Liberal Aims. 273 
 
 excessive concentralisation on the other hand, which throws 
 upon the English Parliament and upon English officials the 
 duty and burden of supervising every petty detail of Irish local 
 affairs, which stifles the national life, which destroys ihe sense 
 of responsibility, which keeps the people in ignorance of the 
 duties and functions of Government, and which produces a 
 perpetual feeling of irritation, while it obstructs all necessary 
 legislation. That is the problem, and I do not believe that 
 the resources of statesmanship are exhausted, or that it will be 
 impossible to find a solution. 
 
 We are going to have a new Parliament, when for the first time 
 the whole people will be represented. We shall know what is 
 the authoritative expression of the wishes of the majority of 
 the people of Ireland. That is a great thing, and this authori- 
 tative expression of the wishes of the people of Ireland will be 
 submitted to the judgment, not of classes, nor of those who 
 are prejudiced by the existence of privileges or by separate and 
 individual claims and rights, but to the whole people of England 
 and Scotland. And when I think how much importance the 
 English and the Scotch people attach to local Government, 
 when I know how we in the towns prize it, when I know how 
 Liberals in the country desire it, when I know how Liberals 
 in the Metropolis are asking for it, I do not believe for a 
 moment that they will hesitate before conceding to Ireland 
 all the liberties and all the freedom which they will claim for 
 themselves. 
 
 Well, now, Gentlemen, I do not think I need dilate upon the 
 circumstances or the manner in which what has been called the 
 greatest reform, the greatest Constitutional reform since the 
 Revolution of 1688, has been carried through. The Tories 
 opposed it, as they have opposed every measure of reform, as 
 long as they dared, and until they saw the passions of the 
 people were so aroused that it would be dangerous to resist any 
 longer. They opposed it and attempted to delay it, attempted 
 to minimise it, and now with characteristic effrontery, they 
 are taking the credit for the passing of a measure, which, if 
 
 S
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 their power had been equal to their will, we should never have 
 jen upon tiie Statute-Book of the land. But though they have 
 red their language, they have not changed their tactics. 
 We have had a taste of their spirit, even within the last few 
 What the Tories have not dared to do in the House of 
 Commons, they have put up their confederates in the House of 
 Lords to do for them, and by making medical relief a 
 ualification for the franchise, they have taken away with the 
 one hand what they gave with the other, and they have kept 
 a the enjoyment of their electoral rights probably one- 
 fourth of those whom we sought to enfranchise. 
 
 Well, this is monstrous injustice. It is an intolerable thing 
 that a poor labourer, with his 12/ or possibly 14/ a week, 
 should be placed in time of sickness and trouble in his family 
 een the alternative of either losing his electoral rights, or 
 of leaving his family without the assistance which medical skill 
 could afford. It is an iniquity which, if it be not set right in 
 the present Parliament, it will be the first duty of the new 
 Parliament to correct. In the meantime I do not doubt that 
 the new electors, those of them to whom the Lords in their great 
 mercy have still left their votes, will know how to judge between 
 the two parties in the State, and will know what trust to place 
 in the assurances which the leaders of that party are giving of 
 their confidence in the people. 
 
 W.ll, Gentlemen, if I were to stop here, although I think I 
 should have made out a pretty fair case for our domestic policy, 
 lould lay myself open to the remark, "Oh, but you have said 
 nothing about foreign policy ; you confess then, that that at all 
 events is a failure, and that there you have broken down." I 
 .on not going to confess anything of the kind ; I am not going 
 e any such admission. I am going to claim your sup- 
 on line of our foreign policy just as earnestly, 
 1 with as full a conviction of your assent as I have claimed 
 jpport lor our domestic policy. I do not say that we 
 nade mistakes. I think it would be a very extra- 
 A( Immigration indeed which, dealing with such
 
 Joseph Chamberlain on Liberal Aims. 275 
 
 difficult and complicated business as has been placed before 
 us recently, had not made any mistakes ; it would be very 
 wonderful if, looking back now with fuller knowledge, we were 
 not able to put our finger on some point where we would wish 
 to have acted differently from what we did ; but I say, for the 
 main line of our policy, I claim your approval, and of the main 
 line of the policy of our opponents I ask you to mark your 
 emphatic dissent. I am not content, however, to rest entirely 
 upon the fact that if there were a change of Government the 
 alternative which is presented to you by the Tories is not a 
 very agreeable one. If words mean anything, and if the 
 language of their leaders should be interpreted by the law of 
 common sense, then in the last five years, if Lord Salisbury 
 had been in office, we should have been at war with two at 
 least of the Great Powers of Europe. I want you to consider 
 the spirit in which the two parties have addressed themselves 
 to foreign policy. I can well understand that there are some 
 people, many perhaps in Birmingham, who are in favour of 
 what is called absolute non-intervention in the affairs of other 
 countries. But, Gentlemen, although, when I consider the 
 difficulties in which intervention has frequently landed us, I 
 can sympathise with such a feeling, I tell you plainly that it is 
 impracticable, that it is impossible of realization. Our relations 
 are so far spread, we have so many interests in so many differ- 
 ent parts of the world, that we could not even if we would 
 remain absolutely isolated in the midst of what is taking place 
 around us, and the question is, In what spirit are we to address 
 ourselves to the communications which we must necessarily 
 have with foreign Powers ? Now, if we may assume the leaders 
 of the Tory party to speak for their followers, they would 
 address themselves to any foreign nation with which we had 
 matters of discussion in the spirit and tone of a superior dic- 
 tating his will. They would state at the outset the demands 
 which they make, and they would expect those demands to be 
 instantly and entirely complied with. They would not abate 
 one jot, they would yield nothing to the sensibility of others —
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 y would deal with all those questions in the spirit of those 
 word should always be law. 
 I do not think this is a tone which is becoming us, 
 ich it is right or which it is prudent for a Great Power to 
 I believe, on the contrary, that the Government have 
 en justified in dealing with foreign nations, as with nations 
 ntitled to equal consideration with ourselves, and while endeav- 
 oring to maintain the honour and interests of this country, not 
 hat account to ignore altogether the honour and the interests 
 of the countries with which we have had to deal. Now, I 
 should have liked to have said something at length upon the 
 Lis of our recent negotiations with Russia; but as you have 
 i, those negotiations are not finally closed, and it would not, 
 therefore, be permissible for me to deal fully with the communica- 
 which have already taken place. You are told that we have 
 led basely to Russia, that we have compromised the inter- 
 of the country. Well, Gentlemen, all I will say is, that if 
 it be found when the whole question is finally and happily 
 - ttled— as I hope and believe it shortly will be— if it is then 
 found that we have maintained the friendship and confidence 
 of the Ameer of Afghanistan, that we have secured for our ally 
 all that he himself has deemed of importance, that we have 
 lined everything that the Government of India has thought 
 ry for the security, order, and credit of the Empire, we 
 shall not in that case be held to have failed, even though, in 
 maintaining our position, we may have dealt with a great nation 
 in a spirit ol conciliation and of consideration, and, while 
 anxious to maintain the dignity of this country, have been also 
 lise tin- claims and the rights of the Power with 
 'i we have been dealing. Well now, it is in the same spirit 
 nducted all our negotiations and communica- 
 -. with our neighbours in France, and you will not doubt 
 have had many difficult and complicated questions to 
 with the French Government. 
 id that luri' also we have truckled to the French, and 
 have betrayed English interests and exhibited an
 
 Joseph Chamberlain on Liberal Aims. 27; 
 
 unparalleled pusillanimity. Well, I would just say, in passing, 
 that these are statements which I do not think it is very 
 patriotic to make in times of great national difficulty and em 
 barrassment. They are statements which are very apt to bring 
 about their own fulfilment ; because if a foreign Power learns from 
 the leaders of a great party in this country that the Executive 
 Government of the day is cowardly, weak, vacillating, and 
 yielding, and that this foreign Government has only to demand 
 in order that its utmost requirements may immediately be 
 satisfied, I think you will say such a thing as that is very apt 
 to increase the demands of the foreign Government, and that 
 it is not at all likely to lead to a satisfactory settlement of our 
 disputes. When I was in Paris the other day I was struck by 
 a rather curious coincidence. When I left London the Tory 
 Peers and some of the Tory speakers had been after their 
 wont denouncing the Government in the language to which 
 I have already referred, but when I got to France I found 
 there were French politicians, French Ashmead-Bartletts and 
 French Randolph Churchills, who were using precisely similar 
 language concerning the Government of that country ; only it 
 was the other side of the shield that was thus presented to me ; 
 it was the French Government who was truckling to the arro- 
 gance of England, whose concessions knew no bounds, and 
 who, if it had any care for the interests of France, would 
 immediately issue its ultimatum to perfidious Albion. In the 
 last article I read before I left, in The Times, I was told that the 
 limits of concession on the part of the Government to France 
 must, it supposed, at last have been reached. In the first 
 article I read in the Debats, a most ably conducted journal in 
 Paris, I found the French Government assailed most bitterly 
 for the manner in which it had yielded everything to the insol- 
 ence of England. Well, do not you think that when these 
 things are being said on both sides, perhaps there is as little 
 truth on one side as there is on the other, and that perhaps 
 both Governments are wiser than these irresponsible writers in 
 the Press, who risk sometimes a breach in the friendship which
 
 : -8 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 ought to exist between two great nations; wiser than the 
 
 :ians whose recklessness endangered the peace of the 
 
 world ? Do not you think it possible that the two Govern- 
 
 may be each earnestly seeking to conciliate the interests 
 
 and the honour of their respective countries ? 
 
 I will not apologise for saying a few more words on this 
 tian question, because I attach the greatest possible 
 rt.mce to the French alliance. The friendship between 
 France and this country has been slowly built up during a 
 ration, it has done a great deal for civilisation, and it has 
 helped on important occasions to secure the peace of Europe. 
 1 lieve that near neighbours as we are, in our continued and 
 cordial friendship lies the best guarantee for the future happi- 
 i of both our nations ; and I would be sorry that any 
 temporary misapprehension, any misrepresentation, should 
 .irdise the alliance to which I attach so great an import- 
 ance. Now the Egyptian question has brought us face to face 
 with great interests and a natural sensitiveness on the part of 
 Fren< hmen. To begin with, let me answer the question, 
 " Why did you go to Egypt ? " There are a great many people 
 who think, in view of what has subsequently occurred, that it 
 would have been wiser if we had kept away altogether ; but 
 then it should be borne in mind what the alternative wouM 
 beea We also have got interests in Egypt. I do not 
 k now of the sums of money which are invested there, 
 whether in the Debt or in public works and national enter- 
 1 do not speak merely of the great trade with that 
 ntry, of the cotton and corn which come from Egypt 
 : ■ I land, anil which are purchased with our manufac- 
 B .: ! ]'t is the highway to India and to our Colonial 
 i lions j four-fifths of the ships that traverse the Canal 
 
 indet the English flag, and probably a great deal more 
 all the merchandise which they bear is either 
 ! or C": tween England and her own possessions. 
 
 iiite impossible that any Government with a sense of 
 lability should ignore these vast and important
 
 Joseph Chamberlain on Liberal Aims. 279 
 
 interests, and if we had allowed Egypt to become the prey of 
 anarchy and disorder, and if subsequently some other Power 
 had interfered and taken possession of the country, I do not 
 believe that the Government would have been forgiven ; I do 
 not believe that it would have been held to have done its duty ; 
 and I do not believe that its action would have contributed in 
 the long run to the peace of the world. 
 
 But if we have great interests, bear in mind that the French 
 have interests of hardly lesser magnitude. Probably as a mere 
 commercial speculation, they are less engaged in Egyptian 
 affairs than we are ; but then you will not forget that the Suez 
 Canal itself we owe to the genius and enterprise of a great 
 Frenchman, who, undeterred by ridicule, by opposition, I am 
 afraid I must almost say by the hostility of England, so ably 
 carried forward that great enterprise, which has done an 
 immense deal for the civilisation and advantage of the world. 
 It is not possible for Frenchmen to dissociate themselves from 
 the honour and glory which attended upon the successful 
 conduct of so great a matter ; and we have to bear that in 
 mind when we find that our neighbours are sensitive on the 
 subject of our interference. Not only so ; but, as you know, 
 in past history the military annals of France have gained an 
 added glory in connection with the enterprise which Napoleon 
 successfully carried out in that country, so that we have to 
 bear with Frenchmen when we find them, more perhaps than 
 other nations, susceptible to the action we have found it our 
 duty to take. We thought it our duty to consult and concert 
 with them, and, as you know, in the first instance every step 
 was taken in alliance with the French Government. At a 
 certain period — at the time of the bombardment of Alexandria 
 ■ — the French Government broke off from that alliance. I am 
 not complaining of their action ; I am merely reciting facts. 
 But it is well to hear in mind that it was they and not we who 
 first severed the concert which up to that time had existed. 
 Well, at that moment there were two courses which were open to 
 us. We might if we had liked have taken possession of Egypt ;
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 we might have announced a protectorate similar to the French 
 rate of Tunis, or we might have annexed the country as 
 I rench have annexed Algiers. I suppose at that time such a 
 course could have been pursued without immediate danger of 
 war ; hut the Government thought it was assuming a respon- 
 sibility altogether outside the proper sphere of English duty 
 and of English interests. The Government thought that we 
 had no right to destroy the independence of Egypt. They 
 thought that we had no right to assume the immense respon- 
 sibility which would follow upon our becoming, as we should 
 ; done, practically a European nation, and so losing the 
 advantage which our insular position has hitherto given us ; 
 and, above all, we did not think it was worth our while, or 
 desirable, or right, for such an object to risk the friendship of 
 France, to which we attached so much value. Well, then, the 
 alternative was this — the alternative was that we should remain 
 in Egypt only so long as was necessary to restore order, and 
 that then we should come away without having sought or 
 obtained any territorial aggrandisement for ourselves. And 
 when that policy was announced, what would you have said 
 would have been the duty and the only natural course of a 
 French patriotic statesman? I confess I should have said: 
 ' We are dealing with a Government which announces its 
 intention in such a way as to afford us no just cause of offence. 
 Government has declared its willingness to evacuate 
 it as soon as order is re-established ; it is our business to 
 it to its pledges, and to make this policy as easy as 
 ible to it." Well, I must confess I did not think that 
 although it appears to me to be the obvious policy of French 
 smen, it has always been the course which has been 
 pursued by the French Government. 
 
 We have found great difficulties thrown in our way both in 
 tion with the administration of Egypt and also in con- 
 on with the re-arrangement of its finances; and I cannot 
 nting out to you, and through you to others, that one 
 effect of tins policy has been to delay the evacuation which
 
 Joseph Chamberlain on Liberal Aims. 281 
 
 both nations have equal reason to desire, to postpone it, to 
 make it difficult, and perhaps even in the last resort to make it 
 impossible. Now, Gentlemen, what are the objects with which 
 we still remain in that country ? In the first place we are 
 bound to secure the independence of Egypt. It cannot be 
 tolerated that after the sacrifices we have made, our going away 
 should be the signal for another Power to take up a preponder- 
 ating position there. We have a right to ask, we have a right 
 to expect, that some guarantee will be given to us that other 
 nations will be as self-denying as we intend to be ourselves 
 before we can leave the country. But we have also something 
 else to do. We have a duty which we owe to the Egyptians. 
 We have to provide them with some form of government which 
 is likely to be a settled one; we have to relieve the peasants 
 from excessive or unjust taxation, which might be a cause of 
 discontent and trouble in the future ; and we have to create 
 some kind of native or other army which may answer for the 
 defence of the country against external enemies and against 
 internal disorder. These are objects surely in which we may 
 seek and obtain the cordial assistance of France, and which are 
 not calculated to provoke jealousy or alarm among other nations 
 of the Continent. I have dwelt upon this matter because, as I 
 say, I believe that some of the unfriendliness, which I fear has 
 sometimes prevailed, has been due to misunderstanding and to 
 misapprehension, and because I believe that if that misapprehen- 
 sion could be removed, the reasons that should draw the two 
 nations together are so strong that the clouds which have 
 hitherto hung over our alliance will be entirely and speedily 
 dispelled. 
 
 Gentlemen, I feel that I owe you an apology for addressing 
 you at such length, and especially, perhaps, for speaking on 
 subjects which are rather outside the ordinary scope and limit 
 which I have fixed to my political addresses ; but I have 
 recently had more than one opportunity of speaking on the 
 future domestic policy of the Liberal party, and I did not think 
 that on this occasion it was necessary that I should repeat
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 myself. I have nothing to : Jd to what I have already said in 
 once to this matter; I have nothing to withdraw. I believe, 
 and I rejoice to believe, that the reduction of the franchise will 
 into prominence social questions which have been too 
 neglected, that it will force upon the consideration of 
 thinking men of all parties the condition of our poor— aye, and 
 the contrast which, unfortunately, exists between the great 
 luxury and wealth which some enjoy, and the misery and 
 poverty which prevails among large portions of the population. 
 I do not believe that any Liberal policy, mine or any other, 
 will ever take away the security which property rightly enjoys ; 
 that it will ever destroy the certainty that industry and thrift 
 will meet with their due reward ; but I do think that something 
 may be done to enlarge the obligation and responsibility of the 
 whole community towards its poorer and less fortunate members. 
 In that great work, if I am permitted to take any part, I hope 
 I may have, I am confident I shall have, your support and sym- 
 y ; and I hope that this great constituency of Birmingham 
 will be as one man in carrying forward the Liberal measures 
 from which in the past the country has derived such signal 
 advantage. Gentlemen, I thank you very much for the cor- 
 diality with which you have conveyed to me your invitation. I 
 hope that before long I may have an opportunity of addressing 
 a larger meeting in the constituency, and I hope that the con- 
 which has existed between us, first in the Town Council 
 and in connection with local affairs, and then in Parliament, 
 may not be broken during my lifetime.
 
 C. S. PARNELL ON THE 
 COERCION BILL. 
 
 House of Commons, April i8th, 1887. 
 
 [In the former part of this speech Mr Parnell denounced as a forgery the 
 letter purporting to have been written by him, as giving countenance to the 
 Phoenix Park Murders, and published in facsimile in The Times of this dale. 
 See Appendix.] 
 
 Sir, — The right hon. gentleman (Mr A. J. Balfour) refrained from 
 answering the speech which I delivered on the first reading of 
 this Bill, and the Government refused to allow the adjournment 
 of the debate, in order that some other member of the Govern- 
 ment should have an opportunity of answering it the next day ; 
 and now, upon the second reading of this Bill, he goes back to 
 the speech, and he attempts an answer to it, at a time of the 
 night when he knows perfectly well that no reply can be made 
 to him ; and, with characteristic unfairness — an unfairness 
 which I suppose we may expect to be continued in the future — 
 he has refused to me the ten or twelve minutes that I should 
 have craved to refer to a villainous and barefaced forgery which 
 appeared in The Times of this morning, obviously for the pur- 
 pose of influencing the Division, and for no other purpose. 
 I got up when the right hon. gentleman the member for 
 Midlothian (Mr Gladstone) sat down. I had not intended 
 to have made a speech at all upon the second stage of this Bill. 
 I should not have said more than a very few words in refer- 
 ence to this forgery ; but I think I was entitled to have had
 
 2S4 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 from the right hon. gentleman an opportunity of exposing this 
 deliberate attempt to blacken my character at some time when 
 there would have been some chance of what I stated reach- 
 ing the outside world. I say there is no such chance now. I 
 cannot suppose the right hon. gentleman, in refusing me the 
 ten minutes which I crave, had not. in his eye the design of 
 practically preventing my denial of this unblushing calumny 
 having that effect upon public opinion which it would otherwise 
 have had if it had been spoken at a reasonable hour of the 
 night It appears that, in addition to the passage of this 
 Coercion Act, the dice are to be loaded — that your great organs 
 of public opinion in this country are to be permitted to pay 
 miserable creatures for the purpose of producing these calum- 
 nies. Who will be safe in such circumstances and under such 
 conditions? I do not envy the right hon. gentleman the Chief 
 Secretary for Ireland, this first commencement of suppression 
 of defence — this first commencement of calumny and of forgery 
 which has been made by his supporters. We have heard of the 
 misdeeds of Mr Ford, the editor of The Irish World, but Mr 
 Ford never did anything half so bad as this. [Mr A. J. 
 Balfour. — I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member; but 
 as he makes these accusations, I should like to explain that I 
 intervened between the hon. gentleman and the House simply 
 because I understood that it had been arranged that I should 
 follow the right hon. member for Midlothian, and that the hon. 
 member would follow me. No hint reached me that he was 
 going to confine himself to an explanation of, or deal at all 
 with the accusation in The Times to which he has referred. 
 NO hint of that kind reached me, and I conceive that the hon. 
 member mi.^ht have risen, had he wished, at any time earlier in 
 the evening.] I was asked officially, at an early hour in the 
 evening, whether I would speak after the right hon. member 
 for Midlothian, and I replied that I would, and that I only 
 <ded to say a few words in reference to this calumny. I 
 think I ought to have been given the opportunity which I 
 doiied.
 
 C. S. Pamell on the Coercion Bill. 285 
 
 Now, Sir, when I first heard of this precious concoction — I 
 heard of it before I saw it, because I do not take in or even 
 read The Times usually — when I heard that a letter of this 
 description, bearing my signature, had been published in The 
 Times, I supposed that some autograph of mine had fallen into 
 the hands of some person for whom it had not been intended, 
 and that it had been made use of in this way. I supposed that 
 some blank sheet containing my signature, such as many 
 members who are asked for their signature frequently send — I 
 supposed that such a blank sheet had fallen into hands for 
 which it had not been intended, and that it had been misused 
 in this fashion, or that something of that kind had happened. 
 But when I saw what purported to be my signature, I saw plainly 
 that it was an audacious and unblushing fabrication. Why, 
 Sir, many members of this House have seen my signature, and 
 if they will compare it with what purports to be my signature in 
 The Times of this morning, they will see that there are only 
 two letters in the whole name which bear any resemblance to 
 letters in my own signature as I write it. I cannot understand 
 how the conductors of a responsible, and what used to be a 
 respectable, Journal, could have been so hoodwinked, so 
 hoaxed, so bamboozled, and that is the most charitable inter- 
 pretation which I can place on it, as to publish such a produc- 
 tion as that as my signature. My writing — its whole character 
 — is entirely different. I unfortunately write a very cramped 
 hand : my letters huddle into each other, and I write with very 
 great difficulty and slowness. It is, in fact, a labour and a toil 
 to me to write anything at all. But the signature in question is 
 written by a ready penman, who has evidently covered as 
 many leagues of letter-paper in his life as I have yards. Of 
 course, this is not the time, as I have said, to enter into full 
 details and minutiae as to comparisons of handwriting ; but if 
 the House could see my signature, and the forged, the 
 fabricated signature, they would see that, except as regards 
 two letters, the whole signature bears no resemblance to 
 mine
 
 2S6 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 The same remark applies to the letter. The letter does not 
 purport to be in my handwriting. We are not informed who 
 
 written it. It is not alleged even that it was written by 
 anybody who was ever associated with me. The name of this 
 anonymous letter-writer is not mentioned. I do not know 
 who he can be. The writing is strange to me. I think I 
 should insult myself if I said— I think however, that I perhaps 
 
 it to say it, in order that my denial may be full and com- 
 plete—that I certainly never heard of the letter. I never 
 directed such a letter to be written. I never saw such a letter 
 before I saw it in The limes this morning. The subject- 
 matter of the letter is preposterous on the surface. The 
 phraseology of it is absurd — as absurd as any phraseology that 
 Id be attributed to me could possibly be. In every part of 
 it, it bears absolute and irrefutable evidence of want of genuine- 
 ness and want of authenticity. Politics are come to a pretty 
 pass in this country when a leader of a party of eighty-six 
 members has to stand up, at ten minutes past one, in the 
 of Commons, in order to defend himself from an 
 anonymous fabrication, such as that which is contained in The 
 Times of this morning. I have always held, with regard to the 
 late Mr Forster, that his treatment of his political prisoners 
 
 a humane treatment, and a fair treatment ; and I think for 
 that reason alone, if for no other, he should have been shielded 
 from such an attempt as was made on his life by the Invincible 
 
 tciation. I never had the slightest notion in the world 
 that the life of the late Mr Forster was in danger, or that any 
 
 piracy was on foot against him, or any other official in 
 I ind or elsewhere. I had no more notion than an unborn 
 child that there was such a conspiracy as that of the Invincibles 
 . and no one was more surprised, more thunder- 
 struck, and more astonished than I was when that bolt from 
 e blue fell upon us in the Phoenix Park Murders. I know 
 
 in what direction to look for this calamity. It is no 
 tion to say that if I had been in the Park that day I 
 ladly have stood between Lord Frederick Cavendish
 
 C. S. Panic 11 on the Coercion Bill. 287 
 
 and the daggers of the assassins, and, for the matter of that, 
 between their daggers and Mr Burke too. 
 
 Now, Sir, I leave this subject. I have suffered more than 
 any other man from that terrible deed in the Phoenix Park, 
 and the Irish nation has suffered more than any other nation 
 through it. I go for a moment to the noble Marquis the 
 member for Rossendale (the Marquis of Hartington). The 
 noble Marquis made a rather curious complaint of me. He 
 said that, having denied point-blank a charge that had been 
 made by him against me and the National League during the 
 General Election last year, he was rather surprised that I did 
 not again refer to the matter in the House of Commons. 
 Well, I was rather surprised that the noble Marquis made a 
 charge which he advanced without a particle of truth. He 
 advanced that charge again to-night without a particle of proof, 
 and I deny that charge, as I denied it before, in point-blank 
 terms. I said it was absolutely untrue to say that the Irish 
 National League or the Parliamentary Party had ever had any 
 communication whatever, direct or indirect, with a Fenian 
 organisation in America or this country. I further said that I 
 did not know who the leaders of the Fenian organisation in 
 this country or America were. I say that still. But the noble 
 Marquis says he knows who they are, at least he tells us that 
 Mr Alexander Sullivan — I believe that was the name mentioned 
 — was president of the Clan-na-Gael, or Fenian organisation. 
 When I asked him how he obtained his knowledge, he said 
 that he obtained it from information he received as a member 
 of Her Majesty's Government. That may be. But I am not 
 in possession of the information with regard to the Clan-na- 
 Gael which is possessed by the members of the present, or of 
 the late Government. The Clan-na-Gael is a secret organisa- 
 tion ; it is an oath-bound organisation ; it gives no information 
 with regard to its members to persons who are not members. 
 I presume that the Government, if they obtained their informa- 
 tion with regard to Alexander Sullivan, obtained it through 
 their secret agents in America, through means which are not
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 to me in any capacity as a private person or a public 
 itician. It is no answer to me to say that because the noble 
 lis, a member of the late Government, with all the infor. 
 mation obtainable by the wealth and resource of that Govern- 
 ment at his disposal, believes Alexander Sullivan was a member 
 and the leader of the Clan-na-Gael, or any secret organisation 
 in America. I have never had any dealings with him, or any- 
 one else, cither in Ireland or America, in respect to the doings 
 or p] , ( f any secret society whatsoever. All my doings 
 
 and doings in Irish public life have been open 
 and above board, and they have stood the test of the searching 
 investigation of the three years' administration of the Crimes' 
 Act by Lord Spencer, who has left it on record that neither 
 any of my colleagues nor myself were in any way connected 
 with the commission of, or approving of the commission of, 
 any crime. Here are Lord Spencer's words spoken at New- 
 castle on the 21st of April 1886 — 
 
 " Foremost among the many objections are these : It is said that you 
 
 I to hand over the government of Ireland to men who have 
 
 ged — nay, some I have heard say even have directed — outrage and 
 
 crim. ihI. That is a very grave accusation. Now, I have been in 
 
 in my official capacity to see and know nearly all the evidence 
 
 that has been given in Ireland in regard to the murder and conspiracies 
 
 to murder that took place in 1881 and 1882, and I can say, without doubt 
 
 : .in, that I have neither heard nor seen any evidence of complicity 
 
 with those crimes against any of the Irish representatives. It is right that 
 
 1 ould clearly and distinctly express my condemnation of many of the 
 
 methods by which they carried on their agitation. They often used 
 
 ■■■ and arguments that were as unjustifiable as they were unfounded. 
 
 perhaps from financial grounds, were silent when words 
 
 : hue been golden, when words might have had a great influence on 
 
 mntry. They might even have employed men for their 
 
 legitimate purposes who had been employed in illegal acts by others ; 
 
 iy, but, on the other hand, I believe those men to have an 
 
 ion for, and a real interest in, the welfare of their country. Their 
 
 hown an<l acknowledged in the House of Commons by all 
 
 ! believe that, with full responsibility upon them, they will show 
 
 .'. iy of obtaining the happiness and contentment of 
 
 foi the ' iovernment to maintain law and order, and defend the 
 
 1 1 privileges of every class and of every man in the country." 
 
 I cordially re echo those words. I believe that that expresses 
 of maintaining law and order in any country
 
 C. S. Parnell on the Coercion Bill. 289 
 
 — that you must obtain from the majority of the people of the 
 country sympathy towards the law, without which the main- 
 tenance of the law is impossible ; that you must show the 
 majority of the community that the law is not only made, but that 
 it is also administered for their benefit, and fairly and justly 
 to all classes. In this way, and in this way only, can you 
 ever obtain respect and sympathy for law and order in Ireland, 
 or anywhere else. The present Bill may ] ut down crime, or it 
 may increase crime. If it puts it down, it will not put it down 
 by instilling in the minds of the people a S)mpathy for law 
 and order. Crime will die out only as the effect of sullen 
 submission. You will be no farther, after you have been 
 administering your Crimes Act, in the direction of the real 
 maintenance of law and order than you were at the beginning ; 
 nay, not nearly so far. You are crushing by this icon Coercion 
 Bill those beneficial symptoms in Ireland which a Government 
 of wise statesmen and wise administrators would cherish and 
 foster. You are preventing that budding of friendship between 
 the two countries which this generation would never have wit- 
 nessed in Ireland had it not been for the great exertions of the 
 right hon. member for Midlothian. Who could have predicted, 
 who would have ventured to predict, that the heat, the passion, 
 the political antipathies engendered by the working of the Pro- 
 tection Act of 188 1 and the Crimes Act of 1882 would have all 
 disappeared in three or four short months, and that you would 
 have had the English and the Irish people regarding each other 
 as they did during that happy, that blessed period, and all this 
 to be put an end to by the mad, the fatuous conduct of the 
 present Government. You are going to plunge everything back 
 into the seething cauldron of disaffection. You cannot see 
 what the results of all this may be. We can only point to the 
 experience of what has happened in past times. We anticipate 
 nothing beneficial from this Bill, either to your country or to 
 ours ; and we should not be honest men if we did not warn 
 you, with all the little force at our command, of the terrible 
 dangers that may be before you. 
 
 T
 
 
 ,o Modern Political Orations. 
 
 I trust before this Bill goes into Committee, or at all events, 
 •efore it leaves Committee, the great English people will make 
 their voices heard, and impress upon their representatives that 
 they must not go on any further with this coercive legislation. 
 It" this House and its majority have not sense enough to see 
 !u's, the great heart of this country will see it, for I believe it is 
 great and generous heart, that can sympathise even when a 
 n is concerned in reference to which there have been so 
 many political antipathies. I am convinced, by what I have 
 seen of the great meetings which have been held over the 
 length and breadth of England and Scotland, that the heart of 
 vi air nation has been reached — that it has been touched, and 
 though our opponents may be in a majority to-day, that the real 
 force of public opinion is not at their back. A Bill which is 
 supported by men, many of whom are looking over their 
 shoulders and behind them, like the soldiers of an army which 
 a panic is beginning to reach, to see which is their readiest mode 
 of retreat, is not likely to get through the difficult times before 
 it emerges from Committee. The result will be modifications 
 of the provisions of the most drastic of the Coercion Acts ever 
 introduced against Ireland since 1833. Do not talk to me of 
 comparing the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act with the 
 nt Dill. We have suffered from both. We have suffered 
 from some of the provisions of the present Bill, as well as from 
 1 1 ibeas Corpus Suspension Act, and we are able to com- 
 ill'- one with the other; and I tell you that the provisions 
 of tin I [abeas Corpus Suspension Act empowered you to arrest 
 and detain in prison those whom you suspected; but it 
 nteed them humane treatment, which did much to soften 
 rities that otherwise would have been bred between the 
 ions by that Act. Your prisoners under the Habeas 
 1 N't were not starved and tortured as they will be under 
 
 ir political prisoners were not put upon a plank bed, 
 and fed <>n sixteen ounces of bread and water per day, and 
 d to pick oakum, and perform hard labour, as they 
 will he under this bill. The Bill will be the means by which
 
 C. S. Parnell on the Coercion Bill. 291 
 
 you will be enabled to subject your political prisoners to treat- 
 ment in your gaols which you reserve in England for the worst 
 of criminals, and it is idle to talk about comparison between 
 the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, under which your 
 prisoners were humanely and properly treated — although 
 imprisonment is hard to bear under the best circumstances ; 
 but in the position in which this Bill will place them, your 
 political prisoners will be deliberately starved with hunger and 
 clammed with cold in your gaols. I trust in God, Sir, that this 
 nation and this House may be saved from the degradation and 
 the peril that the mistake of passing this Bill puts them in.
 
 THE RIGHT HON. JOHN MORLEY ON 
 HOME RULE. 
 
 Oxford, February 29TH, 1888. 
 
 February 22nd, 1888, Lord Randolph Churchill, by the invitation 
 
 ord Union Society, delivered a speech on Home Rule, opposing 
 
 ihis Motion : — " That to satisfy the just aspirations of the Irish people, it 
 
 is necessary that a Statutory Parliament be forthwith established in 
 
 On the Wednesday following Mr Morley treated the subject 
 
 q the other side.] 
 
 Sir,— This is not my maiden speech to the Oxford Union, 
 
 therefore it is not upon that ground that I venture to claim 
 
 your indulgence. I was warned before I came here — and what 
 
 I have heard since does not alter the weight of that warning — 
 
 that I must be prepared to face a decisively hostile majority. 
 
 But, in spite of that, I confess I felt in coming here none of 
 
 those misgivings which the great Master of Romance made 
 
 Louis XI. feel when lie was infatuated enough to put himself 
 
 in the hands of Charles the Bold of Burgundy. I feel perfectly 
 
 confident that I shall receive from gentlemen present the 
 
 courteous and kindly attention which Englishmen seldom 
 
 • vi 11 to their political opponents^/-- It is quite true that 
 
 moment [tarty passion and political passion have reached 
 
 1 pitch of bitterness, and in some quarters I would almost 
 
 feroi tty, which has not been equalled in English history 
 
 up of the Conservative party on the repeal of 
 
 • Corn Laws forty two years ago. In spite of that, I venture 
 
 mmend the remarks which I shall intrude upon you to
 
 John M or ley on Home Rule. 293 
 
 your favourable and indulgent consideration. I am accused 
 very often of choosing to address what arc called ignorant 
 and credulous audiences. It cannot, at all events, be said 
 that, in venturing to accept your very kind invitation to come 
 here to-night, I have sought an audience which is ignorant, or 
 an audience which is credulous. I suspect I shall find a 
 scepticism in regard to my arguments the prevailing mood rather 
 than credulity. An old Parliamentarian was once asked 
 whether he had ever known a speech change opinions, and 
 he answered : " Oh, yes, I have constantly known a speech to 
 change opinions, but I have never known a speech to change 
 votes." I do not aspire to-night to change votes ; I content 
 myself with the less arduous and more modest task of trying 
 to change your opinions. I have listened with enormous 
 interest and sincere pleasure to the debate which has proceeded 
 since I entered the room. It has been animated and ex- 
 hilarating, and if on one side I heard prejudices and sophisms 
 to which I am accustomed, these prejudices and sophisms were 
 expressed with very great ability, and with evident sincerity. 
 The arguments on the other side — the side which I am here 
 to press upon your attention — were admirably put, and I hope 
 that they may have caused searching of hearts among some of 
 those who are going to-night to vote against the Resolution 
 before the House. 
 
 I am following to-night a very distinguished statesman whom 
 you rightly welcomed last week. That noble Lord has shown 
 himself to be a man of great shrewdness, some insight, and 
 of very considerable liberality of mind. I am glad that you 
 agree with me in that account. I hope you will go further 
 with me when I say that, considering that he is a man of 
 shrewdness, of insight, and of liberality of mind, it is no wonder 
 that he has left Her Majesty's Government. But the noble 
 Lord, in his speech, as far as practical issues were concerned, 
 dealt mainly in the prophetic. Now the prophetic is a line 
 in respect to Irish affairs in which the noble Lord does not 
 at all excel. I remember very well in 1884, when the
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 Franchise Bill was before the House of Commons, that the 
 advocated and defended the enlargement of the 
 in Ireland, on the ground that the new voters whom 
 that Bill would admit to political power would, on the whole, 
 rvative force, and would to some extent neutralise 
 the Nationalist forces in the towns. The election of 1885 
 ed what foresight there was in that particular prophecy of 
 noble Lord ; and I venture, with all respect, to warn you 
 that the prophecies which he made to you last week, with 
 to the probable course of events affecting self-govern- 
 ment, will, within the next two or three years, be seen by you 
 in this hall to have been as futile, as random, and as ill-founded 
 as the prophecy which he made in 1885. You must not forget 
 that the noble Lord himself was once a Home Ruler. [A cry 
 No, no ! " Some gentleman says " No," but I assure him 
 he is mistaken. Lord Randolph Churchill said in the House 
 of Commons that he had been himself in Mr Butt's days 
 ied to look favourably upon Home Rule on Mr Butt's 
 5. It cannot be denied that Lord Randolph Churchill has 
 been himself in his day a Home Ruler, and in his day he may 
 lie a Home Ruler again. 
 
 I will not detain you long in dealing with Lord Randolph 
 I :■ lull's positions, but there are one or two of them so 
 ukahle that I cannot allow them, considering the noble 
 ! I's importance in the public eye, to pass without a word of 
 irk. The noble Lord defined the Irish question, and I 
 1 fault to find with that definition. He said that the 
 Irish question arose from this fact, that we cannot obtain from 
 ind, first of all, the same reverence for the law; secondly, 
 same material prosperity ; and thirdly, the same content- 
 id tranquillity that we obtain in England and Scotland. 
 I think that is a perfectly fair statement of the question. But 
 then, it ur even to those who are going to vote 
 
 nsl this Resolution tonight, that a statesman who admitted 
 ned nothing better than a result so unsatis- 
 litable, and so deplorable, would say: "Since
 
 John M or ley on Home Rule. 295 
 
 the result has been such, we must change the system which 
 has produced that result " ? I think that is a fair way of 
 answering the question as the noble Lord defines it. Did he so 
 answer it ? On the contrary, what he said was: "Since the 
 result has been so discreditable, so deplorable, and so un- 
 satisfactory, therefore I urge you, of the Oxford Union, to vote 
 in favour practically of maintaining every jot and tittle of that 
 system exactly as it now stands." I do not know how the 
 school of logic goes in Oxford since my day ; but I think if 
 theoretic logic had been dealt with on the same principle as 
 the noble Lord deals with questions of practical logic, he would 
 have come away from the schools with no testamur. 
 
 And now I come to a more important part of the noble 
 Lord's speech. What is the good of the policy which he pressed 
 upon your attention ? What is the bright and cheerful prospect 
 that he holds out to you as the result of following that policy ? 
 It is so extraordinary and so remarkable from a man of the 
 n ble Lord's shrewdness, that I really will beg your very close 
 scrutiny of the position which he then took up, and of the very 
 astonishing arguments to which he resorted. The noble Lord 
 said that the Irish party is deeply divided into two sharply- 
 opposed sections — one of them is the section which is content 
 with Parliamentary, Constitutional, and peaceful methods ; 
 and the other is the party of violence and force. That is 
 perfectly true. There have always been in Irish history these 
 two opposed forces. It is a very old story ; and one part of 
 the story that I have always heard is that in the old days when 
 the quarrel between the moral force party and the physical 
 force party waxed very hot, it generally ended in the moral 
 force party kicking the ph> sical force party downstairs. The 
 noble Lord reversed this. He said, depend upon it, as Home 
 Rule receded in the distance, those who do not believe in the 
 efficacy of Parliamentary methods would assert their superiority 
 over those who do believe in Parliamentary methods. I will 
 ask the House to put that proposition into rather plainer 
 English. What it means is, that when Home Rule is put
 
 >6 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 the shelf, the Fenian Movement — which the noble Lord 
 jiv remarked could scarcely be said to exist at the present 
 moment —would rise in undisputed triumph, and the Consti- 
 tutional, peaceful, and Parliamentary movement would receive 
 its quietus. And that is the noble Lord's argument in this 
 House for opposing the Resolution now before it ! I cannot 
 imagine that the golden prospect which the noble Lord places 
 re you is one that is really calculated to bring comfort or 
 relief to British statesmen. I agree with him absolutely in his 
 prediction. I have often said that if you do shelf Home Rule, 
 if you once show the majority of the population of Ireland that 
 they have nothing to hope for from the equity and common 
 >e of Great Britain, then I firmly believe that you will have 
 a revival of the old party of violence, of conspiracy, of sedition, 
 and of treason. But the prospect that he regards with satis- 
 faction and complacency — the prospect of the revival of the 
 violent party and the depression of the peaceful party — that 
 spect fills me, and I hope fills all well-considering men 
 here, whether they be Unionists or Home Rulers, with re- 
 pugnance and horror. We shall regard the revival of such a 
 state of things as most dishonouring to England, and as merci- 
 less t Ireland. 
 
 But I would ask, Gentlemen, to press the noble Lord's argu- 
 ment home, to test it and to probe it to the bottom from his 
 <>w speech. You are to force Home Rule back, in order to 
 ■re those halcyon days of which the noble Lord himself gave 
 you an account when, as he said, and I daresay correctly said, 
 hall the population of Ireland were either sworn Fenians or 
 in close sympathy with Fenianism. That is extreme 
 Bui what is still more extraordinary is the purpose 
 and object with which you are to effect this most curious 
 re What was the purpose and the object of shelving 
 Home Rule with the prospect of a revival of Fenianism? 
 the noble Lord's train of thought. You are to raise 
 sin from the dead, you are to stamp out the Constitutional 
 new life to the men of violence and con- 
 you are to fan into a glow all the sullen elements of
 
 John M or ley on Home Rule. 297 
 
 insurgency in Ireland, in order, forsooth, that the Empire should 
 be the better able to face all these troubles that are coming 
 upon Europe, as the noble Lord thinks, and may truly 
 think— to face all these troubles with concentrated strength 
 and undivided resources ! Surely of all extraordinary 
 short cuts to concentrated strength and undivided resources, 
 none can be more extraordinary than to take care to keep a 
 disaffected province at your very gates. The moral charm of 
 such a policy as that is only equalled by its practical common 
 sense. Why, the other day, in the wilds of Donegal, there was 
 occasion — or the Government thought there was occasion — to 
 arrest a certain priest, and to carry this priest in the midst of 
 his flock to the Court-house, where he was about to be tried, it 
 required a force of horse, foot, and artillery of something like 
 500 or 600 of Her Majesty's troops. Now it does not need a 
 very elaborate arithmetical calculation to satisfy ourselves if it 
 takes 600 troops to safely look after one insignificant parish 
 priest in the wilds of Donegal for trial, how many troops will 
 it take to hold Ireland when half the population are sworn 
 Eenians, or else in close sympathy with Fenianism. 
 
 So much for the noble Lord's argument, because that was 
 the real argument of his speech. No, Sir, gentlemen here 
 may depend upon it that, if the time ever comes, as it has come 
 before, when this great and mighty realm shall be called once 
 more by destiny or her duty to face a world in arms in some 
 high cause and policy of State, she will only have her strength 
 concentrated and her resources undivided on the condition 
 that her statesmen and her people have plucked up the root of 
 strife in Ireland, and turned the domestic enemy on our flank 
 into our friend and our ally. But I think we may all agree to 
 recognise the hollowness of the cause, when so able a man as 
 the noble Lord, appealing to you in the name of the Empire 
 and the strength of the Empire, argues for the perpetuation of 
 a state of things which morally, and politically, and materially 
 weakens, disables, and cripples the forces of the Empire. So 
 much for the goal of the policy which the noble Lord pressed 
 upon you. It is the same goal which Ministers — the same Lord
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 longer a Minister— it is the same goal which Ministers 
 are constantly alleging in the House of Commons that they 
 ice before themselves, and most paradoxical and extra- 
 ordinary things they say in defence of the proposition that they 
 are reaching the goal. What is the goal ? The goal is to give 
 to Ireland the same reverence for the laws, the same material 
 perity, the same contentment and tranquillity, that we have 
 Ingland and Scotland. Yes; but there are some very 
 astonishing congratulations to be heard in the Ministerial camp 
 as to the speed with which and as to the manner in which 
 they are nearing that goal. For instance, the Attorney-General 
 said the other day that they must be considered to be sur- 
 mting the difficulties that concerned English government 
 in Ireland. Well, but why? The Attorney-General said that 
 the Government were surmounting difficulties in Ireland, 
 i use meetings and movements which had once been open 
 now secret. I am sure that many of you, though you 
 have other things to do than to follow very closely the history 
 of Ireland, and of the good and bad movements in Ireland, 
 must be well aware that the great bane of Ireland and of Scot- 
 land when they cross the seas — whether they go to the United 
 States or the English Colonies — has been secret association. 
 The great triumph, I will say, of the League and of the Nati nal 
 Movement since the year 1880, has been that those associations 
 which formerly were secret, and therefore dangerous, are now 
 1, and will be open as long as this most reckless Govern- 
 • will allow them to be. Ask yourselves — I appeal to your 
 Lsk yourselves whether, if treason is taught, and if 
 murder is hatched, is treason likely to be taught, is murder 
 likely to be hatched, in open meetings? No, it is impossible. 
 possible? I am afraid that what is certain is, that 
 if you repress public combination— if you go through that 
 and ridiculous process which is called driving discontent 
 ith the surface— if you do that, you are taking the surest 
 that can be taken to have treason taught and murder 
 I
 
 John M or ley on Home Rule. 299 
 
 Now, I ask gentlemen here before they vote to-night — or, at 
 all events, to turn it over in their minds after they have voted 
 whether the goal is being reached by the present policy, a 
 policy which the rejection of this Resolution encourages and 
 endorses. I am not talking away from the Resolution, because 
 I am trying to call the attention of gentlemen to the alternative 
 of the policy set out in the Resolution of the hon. mover. I 
 hope, therefore, you will agree that I am keeping close to the 
 point. The point is the alternative of the policy of Home 
 Rule. We have had since the Session began a series of debates 
 in the House of Commons upon the administration of the 
 Coercion Act. Of course I am not an impartial witness, but 
 I think that the subtle something which is called the im- 
 pression of a great assembly, the impression of the House of 
 Commons, is that the Government have not shown that they 
 have attained any of the ends which they proposed to them- 
 selves when they passed this piece of legislation. All the tests 
 that can be applied to the success of the operation of that Act 
 appear to me to show that it has achieved none of the ends 
 that were proposed. Have they put down the League ? It is 
 perfectly certain that the League is as strong as ever. I know 
 that an attempt is made to make out the contrary case, but 
 from any test that you can apply to the strength of the League, 
 whether it be to the number of branches, to the copiousness of 
 subscriptions, or to the numbers at the meetings— according to 
 any of these tests, so far as I can make out, the League is 
 not in the least degree weakened. Have they put down the 
 Plan of Campaign ? It is very clear that the Plan of Campaign 
 has not been put down. It is true, to come to a third point, 
 that there is a great decline in boycotting. That is quite true, 
 but the point that you have got to make good is that the 
 decline in boycotting is due to the Government policy. There 
 are more explanations than one for the decline of boycotting. 
 If you want my explanation, since you have been so very kind 
 as to ask me to come here, and are so good as to listen to me 
 so attentively, my explanation is that the decline of boycotting
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 ;, first of all, to the fact that a great many of the boycotted 
 
 have wisely, or unwisely, yielded to and joined the 
 
 and, secondly, what is a far more important considera- 
 
 ng has declined because a great many landlords 
 
 under pressure, or from other motives, made those reduc- 
 
 :ions which equity required and which the peace of the country 
 
 demanded. 
 
 Now, I think it is very important that you should try and 
 ise for yourselves what the policy of Coercion is in actual 
 ractice. I am not going to detain this House very long by 
 reading extracts. One of the most respected lawyers in the 
 North of England and a very old friend of mine, who is a 
 very experienced man, was in the Court at Galway on the 13th 
 of this month during a trial of twelve men for rioting. Now, 
 this is what he says — 
 
 "There was a greal crowd to welcome Mr Blunt on the evening of 
 
 Mr Blunt was brought to the giol at Galway the 
 
 orderlj on the whole, but they cheered for Mr Blunt, and 
 
 they pushed through the police at the station in their anxiety to see 
 
 Mr Blunt." 
 
 Was there any harm in that ? My friend goes on to say— 
 
 " Orders were given to clear the station." 
 
 I will ask you to mark that I am not criticising what happened. 
 1 want to get you into Court. My friend goes on to say— 
 
 "The station was cleared in half a minute, the police batoning the 
 
 I knocking them down. What attempt was made on February 
 
 4 any offence home to the twelve accused persons ? All that 
 
 1 !»• m inst them was that they hail waited for and had cheered 
 
 Mr Blun 
 
 And 1 think they had as much right to do so as if they had 
 1 in Oxford Station. To continue — 
 
 was not dismissed, it was adjourned and resumed on 
 
 rhe Crown then called four fresh policemen, 
 
 no notice had been given to the accused, and these four 
 
 •men told a new tale. The crowd, which, according to the 
 
 fore, wa: described as orderly, was now de cribed as 
 
 It was now represented that the police had been interfered
 
 John M or ley on Home Rule. 301 
 
 with and were in actual peril. There was stone-throwing, but it was 
 outside the station, and no attempt was made to connect the accused with 
 anything that took place outside the station, or anythirg worse than 
 shouting or cheering. The result was that e'even or twelve of the 
 accused men were sentenced to a fortnight's or a month's imprisonment 
 with hard labour ; and one of them calling out that he would do the same 
 again, the magistiate, with what I must call a truly contemptible vindic- 
 tiveness, said, ' You shall have another week's imprisonment for saying 
 that.' The upshot of the whole case was that these men — two of them, 
 mind you, Town Commissioners, respected public men in the confidence 
 of their fe'.low-citizens— were punished, not for concerting a riotous 
 meeting, not for throwing stores, not for attacking the police, not for 
 doing anything to alarm reasonable and courageous persons, but simply 
 for waving their hats and caps in honour of Mr Blunt." 
 
 Now, I say that is, unfortunately, a typical case. [Cries of 
 "No."] Yes, it is a typical case. If gentlemen who doubt 
 that will take the trouble, as I have done, to read the reports 
 from day to day of what goes on in these Courts, if they will 
 take the trouble to hear evidence that Englishmen, not partisan 
 Irishmen, have seen administered in these Courts, they will 
 agree that this is a typical case, that men are treated violently, 
 that they are then summoned for an offence which is not 
 properly proved— [A cry of 11 No."]— what I say I hope to show 
 in a moment— and for acts which are not in themselves an 
 offence or a crime. 
 
 Somebody protested when I used the word "prove." I will 
 ask him, and I will ask the House, to listen to a little extract 
 which I am going to read to show the kind of evidence which 
 in these Courts is thought good enough. It is the case of a 
 certain Irish member, Mr Sheehy, who was convicted, and this 
 is a very short passage from the cross-examination of the 
 shorthand writer. Mr Sheehy was brought up for words 
 spoken ; it was vitally important to know what were the words 
 spoken, for which he was about to have inflicted upon him a 
 very severe punishment. This is, in a very few words, a 
 passage fiom the cross-examination of the Government re- 
 porter — 
 
 " Did you ever study shorthand ? " 
 
 " I did not. I might look over the book, but that is all. As far as I 
 know, shorthand is not studied by any man in the barracks. There was no
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 to my knowledge, in Trench Park on the day of the meeting 
 
 id. The meeting lasted from three o'clock till a quarter 
 
 Sneehy was speaking the greater part of the time. When 
 
 ntence or a sentence and a half, I took down all I 
 
 iber at the lime. I took no note of what he would be sayii g 
 
 taking down the two sentences which I remembered at the 
 
 tin, ; Mr Sheehy a slow speaker." 
 
 '• While you would be writing a sentence, how many sentences would he 
 ?" 
 d the constable or reporter, "he might get two or three." 
 "Then when you would complete your sentence, would you skim over 
 what he had said in the meantime and then catch him up again ?" 
 
 •■ V tld try and remember what he would say in the meantime." 
 
 "When you say that you would try and remember, what do you 
 mean ?" 
 
 •' I mean that when I heard a sentence or two I would take that down, 
 and pay no attention to what he would say in the meantime." 
 
 How many gentlemen here must have been in English Courts, 
 and heard the careful, austere, and impressive standards which 
 the Judges of those Courts apply to evidence ? I say, when you 
 hear such evidence as that, do you not think you are listening 
 to the proceedings of a Court in a Comic Opera ? Pray re- 
 mark, that in a charge of this kind a phrase or a qualification 
 of a phrase may be of vital importance. It may make all the 
 difference in the construction and the interpretation that the 
 Court would put upon a word spoken ; and yet you see that 
 the qualifying phrases and words might have been dropped out 
 while the reporter was taking down the other sentences. It is 
 a sheer caricature of evidence. 
 
 I must inflict one more story upon you — it is the last — 
 
 because you must know it is no use using vague general words 
 
 about Coercion. Realize what Coercion means. I ought to 
 
 i hat those words I have just read and that case was 
 
 mentioned in the House of Commons. Those words were 
 
 I out in the House of Commons. No answer was attempted 
 
 to them by the Government. I am not going to use any case 
 
 which has not been challenged in the House of Commons. 
 
 ie is a case, of a certain Patrick Corcoran. Patrick 
 
 1 n is the foreman printer of The Cork Examiner. He 
 
 purely a mechanic. He was tried, his name being 
 
 on the imprint of the newspaper, for publishing proceedings of
 
 John Morley on Home Rule. 303 
 
 the suppressed branches of the National League. On the 
 hearing of the first summons the joint-editor and manager 
 came forward and said he alone was responsible for everything 
 that appeared in the paper, and that Corcoran was a mere 
 mechanic, and had no power or control in any sense or degree 
 over the matter published. Well, of course, as he had no con- 
 trol over the matter published, he could not have what the 
 lawyers call that guilty mind which was necessary, according to 
 the Act, for the commission of the offence ; because the Act 
 requires that this publication should be uttered with a view of 
 promoting the objects of the incriminated association. Well, 
 Corcoran, this mechanic, was sent to prison for a month. 
 [Cries of " Shame ! "J Yes, and mark the point. Most of you 
 know that if a sentence is for more than a month, then there is 
 a right of appeal. Corcoran's counsel implored the Bench to 
 add a week to the sentence so that there might be this right of 
 appeal, or else to state a case for a Superior Court, which 
 would have been the same thing. The Magistrate refused even 
 that. That is rather sharp ; but that was not all. They took 
 up another charge, in substance the same, for publishing 
 reports of meetings number two, and on the footing of the 
 second summons they gave Corcoran another month's imprison- 
 ment. I hope gentlemen see the point — that by this method 
 of accumulated penalties they managed to give him a two 
 months' sentence, and yet to deprive him of the right to appeal 
 which he would have had from a single two months' sentence. 
 
 These are illustrations which I commend to the attention of 
 gentlemen who oppose this Resolution, because they are 
 inevitable features in the system which is the alternative to the 
 system advocated in the Resolution. [Cries of " No, no ! "] 
 Well, I will have one word to say about that in one moment. 
 But I ask you, in the meantime : Can you wonder that under 
 such circumstances as those of which I have given you three 
 actual illustrations — that Irishmen do not respect the law and 
 do not revere the tribunals where that law is administered ? 
 Imagine how the existence of such a state of things would
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 affect you who are Englishmen. Would you endure to be 
 und< tional repressive legislation of this kind so adminis- 
 
 tered ? I do not believe you would. Englishmen never have 
 acquiesced in legislation and administration of that kind; they 
 have fought against it from age to age, and Irishmen will 
 
 jhtly fight against it from age to age. 
 
 I listened with especial interest, and, if I may say so, with 
 ition to the speech of the gentleman who preceded me, 
 in whom I am glad to recognise the germs of hereditary gifts ; 
 and, if it is not impertinent in me to say so, I hope he will 
 continue to cultivate those remarkable gifts; and — forgive me 
 for saying so — I hope he may one day use them in a better 
 cause. The hon. gentlemen struck the keynote. I accept 
 that note. He said, "Think of the sons and daughters of 
 Ireland." Think of the sons and daughters of Ireland; it is 
 lor their sake as much as for our own, not more, but as much — 
 it is for the sake of the sons and daughters of Ireland that I am 
 and have been an advocate of giving Ireland responsibility and 
 self-government. Can you wonder? Put yourselves in the 
 place of the sons and daughters of Ireland. These trans- 
 actions, of which I have given you a very inadequate specimen, 
 fill their minds. They hear scarcely anything else in the 
 lus of their leaders and in the talk of those in whom 
 they have confidence. They talk of these things when they 
 meet at fairs, when they meet at chapel, when they meet at 
 athletic sports. And they read scarcely anything else in the 
 newspapers. And if they cannot read, then their children read 
 these proceedings out to them. Now think of a generation 
 growing up in this demoralising and poisoned atmosphere of 
 defiance and suspicion and resentment, and think whether you 
 are doing your duty; think how you are preparing for the 
 :h of a generation in Ireland in whom the spirit of 
 citizenship shall he wholesome and shall be strong. It is of 
 ■ ail to tell me that a lawyer in his study has this or that 
 i lion to this or that section. What I see in Ireland is a 
 ilation in whom you are doing your best to breed want of
 
 John M or ley on Home Rule. 305 
 
 reverence for the law, distrust of the tribunals, and resentment 
 against the British rule which fastens that yoke upon their 
 necks. 
 
 When I said that the Government were pursuing a policy of 
 pure repression, somebody objected. I should like him to be 
 kind enough to tell me what other dish there is on the Minis- 
 terial table for Ireland, except repression. Let us go to the law 
 and the testimony. We used to be told — I see old and re- 
 spected friends of mine around me who are Liberal Unionists, 
 and their party used to say that they would not assent to Home 
 Rule, but that they would assent to an extension of local govern- 
 ment in Ireland. [A cheer.'] I am glad to hear that cheer, but 
 it is a very forlorn cry. I will ask you for a single instant to 
 listen to the history of the promise of the extension of local 
 government in Ireland. In 1842, forty-six long years ago, a 
 Commission reported in favour of amending the system of county 
 government in Ireland. A Bill was brought in to carry out 
 that recommendation in 1849. It was rejected. It was 
 brought in in 1853, and it was rejected ; again in 1856 it was re- 
 jected ; again another in 1857, which also was rejected. Then 
 there was a pause in the process of rejection until 1868, when 
 a Parliament and the Government of the day resorted to the 
 soothing and comforting plan of appointing a Select Committee. 
 That, just like the previous Commission, issued a copious and 
 an admirable report, but nothing more was done. In 1875 a 
 Bill was brought in for County Reform in Ireland, and in 1879 
 another Bill was brought in which did not touch the evils that 
 called for remedy. In 1881, in the time of the Gladstone 
 Administration, and at a time when Ireland, remember, was in 
 a thousand times worse condition than the most sinister 
 narrator can say she is now, the Queen in her Speech was 
 made to say that a Bill for the extension of local government 
 of Ireland would be brought in ; nothing was done. In 1886 
 the distinguished man whom you had here last week himself 
 said — I heard him say it one afternoon — he made this promise 
 in the name of the Government of which he was a leading and 
 
 U
 
 :o6 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 an important member— that it was the firm intention of the 
 eminent to bring in a measure with a view of placing all 
 control of local government in Ireland in the hands of the 
 Irish people. [Cheers.] Some of you cry, " Hear, hear," but 
 that is all gone. Listen to what Lord Harrington, the Master 
 of the Government, has since said. The noble Lord has said 
 that no scheme for the extension of local government in Ire- 
 land can be entertained until there has been a definite repudia- 
 tion of nationality by the Irish people. I do not want to press 
 that too far, but at all events you will agree with me that it 
 postpones the extension of local government in Ireland to a 
 tolerably remote day. Do not let Liberal Unionists deceive 
 themselves by the belief that there is going to be a moderate 
 extension of local government for Ireland. Do not let them 
 retain any such illusion. Proposals for local government will 
 follow these Royal Commissions, Committees, Bills, Motions, 
 into limbo, and we shall hear no more of extension of local 
 government. This is only one illustration among many others, 
 which, taken together, amount to a demonstration of the 
 unfitness and incompetence of our Imperial Parliament for 
 dealing with the political needs, the admitted and avowed 
 political needs, of Ireland. One speaker said something about 
 fisheries. There was a Select Committee appointed in 1884, 
 and there was another Royal Commission reporting a few 
 weeks ago, but I am not sanguine enough to think that more 
 will be done in consequence of the recommendations of that 
 ( lommission than has been done in consequence of the recom- 
 mendation of others. Again, there are the Irish railways. I 
 wrong, by the way, that a Royal Commission was on 
 
 —it was on Irish industries generally, fisheries included. 
 
 < >n the question of railways there was a Royal Commission in 
 
 1867, and a small Committee was appointed in 1868. There 
 
 id admirable reports. There is another copious 
 
 and admirable report laid on the table of the House of 
 
 imons this week. Nothing has been done, and I do not 
 
 inything will be done. That is another field in which
 
 John Morley on Home Rule. 307 
 
 Ireland abounds in requirements and necessities, and which 
 the British Parliament has not the power, knowledge, or 
 inclination to deal with or to touch. 
 
 One gentleman who spoke to-night with great ability— and if 
 people think these things I do not know why they should not 
 be said— reproduced to my regret the old talk about the 
 Hottentots. I confess this is the most painful part of the 
 present controversy — that there should be men (I am sure he is 
 one of them) of generous minds, of public spirit and patriotism, 
 who talk, and sincerely talk, of union, and the incorporation of 
 Ireland with Britain, and yet think that this kind of language, 
 and what is far more, this kind of feeling, is a way likely to 
 produce incorporation and union. I have seen a good deal of 
 Irishmen. I saw a great, a tremendous crowd of Irishmen the 
 other day on their own soil. They comported themselves, 
 many tens and scores of thousands of them, comported them- 
 selves with a good humour, a perfect order, a temper generally 
 of which any capital in Europe — London, Paris, Berlin, or 
 Vienna — might have been proud. I think you can do some- 
 thing better with such a people than alienate them by calling 
 them and by thinking of them as Hottentots, or as in any way 
 inferior to ourselves. That is not the way to have union and 
 incorporation. That is not the way to make the Empire 
 stronger. And I apply the same to the language that is used 
 about the Irish members. I am not prepared to defend all 
 that the Irish members have said and done. No, and I am 
 not prepared to defend all that English members have done. 
 But I ask here, as I asked in Dublin, is there to be no 
 amnesty ? Is there never to be an act of oblivion ? These 
 men, after all, have forced upon the British Legislature, and 
 have extorted from the British Legislature, laws for the benefit 
 of their own down-trodden and oppressed people. Those 
 laws were either right or wrong. If they were wrong, the 
 British Legislature ought not to have passed them. If they 
 were right, you ought to be very much obliged to the Irish 
 members for awakening your sense of equity and of right.
 
 3oS Modern Political Orations. 
 
 I return again— I am going to conclude in a moment— I 
 return again to the point. You have the future in your hands, 
 because what has been said is true ; the future depends upon 
 the opinions of the men between twenty and thirty, which, I 
 take it, is the average of the audience I have the honour of 
 What is the condition of Ireland ? Here, too, I 
 will repeat what I said in Dublin. In Ireland you have a 
 gared gentry ; a bewildered peasantry ; a random and 
 harsh and aimless system of government ; a population fevered 
 by political power and not sobered by political responsibility. 
 Tin's is what you have to deal with ; and I say here, with a full 
 sense of important responsibility, that rather than go on in 
 face of that distracted picture, with the present hard, inco- 
 herent, cruel system of government in Ireland, rather than do 
 that I would assent to the proposal that has been made, if 
 that were the only alternative, by a great representative of 
 the Unionist party, by Lord Grey. And what does Lord 
 Grey suggest? Lord Grey suggests that the Lord-Lieutenant 
 should be appointed for ten years, and during those ten 
 years— it is a strong order— during those ten years he is to 
 make what laws he thinks fit without responsibility either to 
 Ministers or to Parliament. It is a strong order, but I de- 
 clare—and I believe that Mr Parnell has said that he agrees— 
 that I would rather see Ireland made a Crown Colony to- 
 morrow than go on in the present hypocritical and inefficient 
 system of sham representation. You may then have the 
 severity of paternal repression, but you will have the bene- 
 of paternal solicitude and supervision. What you 
 have is i ion and neglect; and repression and 
 
 you will have until you call the Irish leaders into 
 icil and give to the majority of the Irish people that 
 n reality which now they have only in name. 
 One minute more and I will sit down. The Resolution 
 fairly the great issue that now divides and engages 
 IS minds in this country — the issue which has broken 
 political party, which has tried and tested more
 
 John Morley on Home Ride. 309 
 
 than one splendid reputation, and in which the Liberal party 
 have embarked all their hopes and fortunes as resolutely and 
 as ungrudgingly as their forefathers did in the case of Catholic 
 Emancipation. The opponents of this Resolution ought to 
 have told us, what no opponent to-night did tell us- -for I 
 listened very carefully — they ought to have told us what it is 
 they mean. Merely to vote a blank and naked negative to 
 this Resolution ? It is not enough, it cannot be all, merely to 
 say "No" to this Resolution. You are not going through the 
 familiar process of rejecting an academic Motion or an abstract 
 proposition. In refusing this proposition you are adopting an 
 Amendment. I have taken the liberty to draft a Unionist 
 Amendment. I will gladly place it in the hands of any 
 Unionist Member who may think it expedient to move it. 
 This is the alternative Amendment to the Resolution of the hon. 
 mover — "That, inasmuch as Coercion, after being tried in every 
 form and under all varieties, has failed to bring to Ireland that 
 order and content we all earnestly desire, Coercion shall be 
 made the permanent law of the land ; That as perfect equality 
 between England and Ireland is the key to a sound policy, 
 Coercion shall be the law in Ireland and shall not be the law 
 in England ; That as decentralisation and local government 
 have been long recognised and constantly promised as a 
 necessary reform in Irish affairs, the time has at length arrived 
 for definitely abandoning all reform in Irish local govern- 
 ment ; That since the backward condition, and the manv 
 admitted needs of Ireland urgently call for the earnest and 
 unremitting attention of her rulers, the exclusive attention 
 of this Parliament shall be devoted to the consideration of 
 English, Scotch, and Welsh affairs ; That, in view of the fact 
 that representative institutions are the glory and strength of 
 the United Kingdom, the Constitutional demands of the great 
 majority of the Irish representatives shall be disregarded, and 
 these representatives shall have no voice in Irish affairs and 
 no share in Irish government ; and, finally, That as Mr Pitt 
 declared the great object of the Union to be to make the
 
 3 1 o Modern Political Orations. 
 
 Empire more secure by making Ireland more free and more 
 happy, it is the duty of every true Unionist to make Ireland 
 more miserable in order to prevent her from being free." 
 
 That, Sir, is the Amendment which you are, I fear, presently 
 going to vote. [Cries of "No I" Yes, you are. That is 
 what you are going to vote, and I have failed in the speech 
 which you have most kindly and indulgently listened to, if you 
 do not see that that Amendment, with its stream of paradoxes 
 and incoherencies, represents the Unionist policy. That is a 
 policy which judgment condemns and which conscience 
 forbids.
 
 RICHARD COBDEN ON THE CORN 
 
 LAWS. 
 
 House of Commons, February 24TH, 1842. 
 
 [The original motion for the total repeal of the Corn Laws, passed in 1815, 
 was made in the House by the Hon. Chas. Pelham Villiers (now known as 
 "the Father of the House of Commons"), February iSth, 1842, when he 
 presented and read a numerously-signed petition from the three kingdoms 
 praying that the Corn Laws be immediately repealed.] 
 
 Sir, — The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Sir 
 Howard Douglas) would have given still greater satisfaction to 
 the House if he had assured us that he would, when he spoke, 
 always keep strictly to the subject-matter under discussion. 
 I must be allowed to say that my hon. friend the member for 
 Wolverhampton (the Hon. C. P. Villiers) has very just grounds 
 for complaining that in all this discussion, to which I have 
 been listening for seven nights, while there has been much 
 talk of our trade with China, and of the war with Syria, while 
 there has been much contest between parties and partisans, 
 there has been very little said upon the question really in 
 hand. I may safely say that, on the other side, not one 
 speaker has grappled with the question so ably laid down by 
 my hon. friend. That question simply is, how far it is just, 
 honest, and expedient, that any tax whatever should be laid 
 upon the food of the people. This is the question we have 
 to decide ; and when I heard the right hon. Baronet (Sir 
 Robert Peel) so often express the deep sympathy he felt for the 
 working classes, I did expect that he would not have finished 
 his last speech without giving some little consideration to the 
 case of the working man in connection with this question. I
 
 12 
 
 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 will venture to call the attention of the Committee to the 
 question of the Bread Tax as connected with the labouring 
 classes as it bears upon the wages of labour; and I call upon 
 you all to meet me upon neutral ground while we discuss the 
 interests of those working people who have no representatives 
 in this House. As I hear from the other side so many and 
 such strong expressions of sympathy, I call upon them to give 
 practical proof of the existence of that sympathy with the hard 
 labouring population, and not to delay until they are reduced 
 to that state when they can only receive the benefits of your 
 legislation in the abject condition of pauperism. 
 
 Sir, in reading, which I have done with some attention, the 
 reports of the debates which took place in 1815, prior to the 
 passing of the Corn Bill of that year, I have been struck with 
 the observation that all who took part in that discussion agreed 
 on one point of the subject, namely, that the price of food 
 regulated the rate of wages. That principle was not only laid 
 down by one side of the House, but it met with the concur- 
 rence of both. Men the most opposite in political opinions I 
 find agreeing upon that principle. Mr Horner, Mr Baring, 
 Mr Frankland Lewis, Mr Philips, Mr Western, those who 
 opposed the Corn Law, and those who strenuously advocated 
 its principle, all alike agreed upon the same point, that the 
 price of food regulated the price of labour. So completely did 
 they agree, that one speaker laid down the principle mathemati- 
 cally, and framed a computation in figures to show the relative 
 proportions in which the principle would work, and to what 
 extent the payment of labour would rise or fall in ratio to the 
 rise or fall of the price of food. The same delusion existed 
 amongst the capitalists out of doors. There was a petition 
 presented in 1815, signed by the most intelligent merchants 
 and manufacturers in Manchester, praying that the Corn Law 
 should not pass, because it would so raise the rate of wages 
 that the British manufacturers would no longer be able to com- 
 ])<J(j with those abroad, who had to pay wages so much less in 
 amount. That delusion certainly did then exist; but I have
 
 Richci7'd Cobden on the Com Laws. 3 1 3 
 
 been struck with the deepest sorrow to observe that the minds of 
 many men who bear their part in the discussion now should still 
 be labouring under the same erroneous impression. The great 
 body of those who legislated in 18 15 passed their Bill in the 
 honest delusion that the operation of the law would be such 
 as I have described. I believe that if the fact, if the true state 
 of the case had been then known, if they had known what now 
 we know, that law would never have been passed in 181 5. 
 Every party in the House, and many out of doors, were 
 deceived ; but there was one party which was not deluded— the 
 party most interested in the question — namely, the working 
 classes. They were not deluded, for they saw with instinctive 
 sagacity, without the aids of learning and education, without 
 the pretence of political wisdom, what would be the operation 
 of the law upon the rate of wages. Therefore it was, that when 
 that law was passed your House was surrounded by the excited 
 populace of London, and you w r ere compelled to keep back an 
 enraged people from your doors by the point of the bayonet. 
 When that law passed Murder ensued. Yes, I call it Murder, 
 for a coroner's jury returned a verdict of Wilful Murder against 
 the soldiers. The disturbances were not confined to London ; 
 but throughout the North of England, from 18 15 to 18 19, when 
 the great meeting took place on Peter's-field, there never was 
 a meeting in the north of England in which banners were not 
 displayed with inscriptions of " No Corn Laws ! " There was 
 no mistake in the minds of the multitudes upon this question. 
 It was always understood by them. Do not let hon. gentle- 
 men suppose that there is any mistake in the minds of the 
 working classes upon this topic. There never was, and there 
 is not now. They may not indeed cry out exclusively for the 
 repeal of the Corn Laws ; they have looked beyond the ques- 
 tion, and they have seen, at the same time, other evils greater 
 than this which they are now calling upon you to remedy ; and 
 when they raise the cry of Universal Suffrage and The People's 
 Charter, do not let hon. gentlemen opposite suppose, because 
 the Anti-Corn Law League may, perchance, have run into
 
 3 i4 Modem Pol h 'Heal Orations. 
 
 collision with the masses upon some points, that the people are 
 •onsequently favourable to the existence of the Corn Laws. 
 
 What has surprised me more than anything is to find that 
 in this House, where lecturers are, of all men, so much 
 decried there exists on the other side such an ignorance 
 upon this subject. [Cries of "Oh! Oh!"] Yes, I say, an 
 ignorance upon this subject that I never saw equalled in any 
 body of working men in the North of England. [" Oh ! Oh ! "J 
 Do you think that the fallacy of 1815, which, to my astonish- 
 ment, I heard put forth in the House last week, namely, that 
 wages rise and fall with the price of food, can prevail with the 
 minds of the working men after the experience of the last 
 three years ? Have you not had bread higher during that time 
 than during any three years during the last twenty years? 
 Yes. Vet during those three years the wages of labour in every 
 branch of industry have suffered a greater decline than in any 
 three years before. Still, hon. gentlemen opposite, with the 
 reports of Committees before them, which, if they would take 
 the trouble to consult them, would prove the decline of wages 
 within those three years, are persisting in maintaining the 
 doctrine that the price of food regulates the rate of wages under 
 the belief that this new law will keep up the price of labour. 
 Then I am told that the price of labour in this country is so 
 much higher than the wages abroad, that the Corn Laws 
 must be kept up in order to keep up labour to the proper 
 level. Sir, I deny that labour in this country is higher paid 
 than on the Continent. On the contrary, I am prepared to 
 prove, from documents on the table of your own House, that 
 the price of labour is cheaper here than in any other part of 
 the globe. I hear an expression of dissent on the other side, 
 but I say to hon. gentlemen, when they measure the labour of an 
 Englishman against the labour of the foreigner, they measure a 
 day's labour indeed with a day's labour, but they forget the 
 tive quality of the labour. I maintain that if quality is to 
 die test, the labour of England is the cheapest in the 
 W( rid. The Committee which sat on Machinery in the last
 
 Richard Cobden on the Corn Laws. 3 1 5 
 
 Session but one, demonstrated by their Report that labour on 
 the Continent is dearer than in England. You have proof of 
 it. Were it not so, do you think you would find in Germany, 
 France, or Belgium so many English workmen ? Go into any 
 city from Calais to Vienna, containing a population of more than 
 10,000 inhabitants, and will you not find numbers of English 
 artisans working side by side with the natives of the place, and 
 earning twice as much as they do, or even more? Yet the 
 masters who employ them declare, notwithstanding the pay is 
 higher, that the English labour is cheaper to them than the 
 native labour. Yet we are told that the object of the manu- 
 facturers in repealing the Corn Laws is to lower wages to the 
 level of the Continent. It was justly said by the hon. member 
 for Kilmarnock that the manufacturers did not require to lower 
 the rate of wages in order to gain high profits. If you want 
 proof of the prosperity of manufacturers, you will find it when 
 wages are high ; but when wages drop, the profits of the manu- 
 facturer drop also. I think manufacturers take too intelligent 
 and enlightened a view of their own position and interest to 
 suppose that the impoverishment of the multitudes they employ 
 can promote or increase manufacturing prosperity. 
 
 Sir, by deteriorating such a vast population as that employed 
 in manufactures, you run the risk of spoiling not the animal 
 man only, but the intellectual creature also. It is not from 
 the wretched that great things can emanate ; it is not a potato- 
 fed population that ever led the world in arts or arms, in 
 manufactures or commerce. If you want your people to be 
 virtuous or happy, you must take care that they are well fed. 
 Upon this assumption, then, that the manufacturers want to 
 reduce wages, and upon the assumption that the Corn Laws 
 keep up the price of labour, we are going to pass a law to tax 
 the food of the hardworking, deserving population ! What 
 must be the result? You have heard, from the right hon. 
 Baronet, Sir Robert Peel, an answer to the fallacy about our 
 competing with foreign manufacturers. He has told you we 
 export forty or fifty millions. We do then already compete
 
 1 16 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 with foreigners. You tax the bones and muscles of your 
 leople. You put a double weight upon their shoulders, and 
 then you turn round upon them and tell them to run a race 
 with Germany and France. I would ask, with Mr Deacon 
 Hume, who has been before quoted in this House, "To whom 
 do the energies of the British people belong? Are they 
 theirs or are they yours?" Think you that these energies 
 were given to the English people that they might struggle for a 
 bare existence, whilst you take from them half of what they 
 earn? Is this doing justice to the "high-mettled racer"? 
 Why, you don't treat your horses so. You give your cattle 
 food and rest in proportion to their toil, but men in England 
 are now actually treated worse. Yes, tens of thousands of 
 them were last winter treated worse than your dogs and your 
 horses. What is the pretence upon which you tax the people's 
 food ? We have been told by the right hon. Baronet that the 
 object of the law is to fix a certain price for corn. Since I 
 have been listening to this debate, in which I heard it proposed 
 by a Prime Minister to fix the price of corn, I doubted whether 
 or not we had gone back to the days of our Edwards again, 
 and whether we had or had not travelled back some three or 
 four centuries, when they used to fix the price of a table-cloth 
 or a pair of shoes. What an avocation for a legislator ! To 
 fix the price of corn ! Why, that should be done in the 
 open market by the dealers. You don't fix the price of 
 cotton, or silk, or iron, or tin. But how are you going to fix 
 this price of corn ? Going back some ten years, the right hon. 
 Baronet finds the average price of corn is 56s. iod., and there- 
 fore, says he, I propose to keep up the price of wheat from 54s. 
 to 58s. The right lion. Baronet's plan means that or nothing. 
 I have heard something about the prices which it has been 
 proposed by legislation to affix to wheat. I remember that 
 Lord Willoughby D'Eresby said the minimum price ought to 
 be 58s., and I see by the newspapers that the Duke of Bucking- 
 ham has just announced his opinion that 60s. ought to be the 
 lowest. There is one hon. gentleman in this House who, I
 
 Richard Cobden on the Corn Laws. 3 1 7 
 
 hope, will speak on this subject — for I have seen him endeav- 
 ouring to catch the Speaker's eye — and who has gone a little 
 more into particulars respecting the market price he intends to 
 procure for commodities by Act of Parliament. I see in a 
 useful little book called "The Parliamentary Pocket Com- 
 panion," in which there are some nice little descriptions given 
 of ourselves, under the head " Cayley," that that gentleman is 
 described as being the advocate of " such a course of legislation 
 with regard to agriculture as will keep wheat at 64s. a quarter, 
 new milk cheese at 52s. to 60s. per cwt., wool and butter at is. 
 per lb. each, and other produce in proportion." Now it might 
 be very amusing that there were to be found some gentlemen 
 still at large who advocated the principle of the interposition 
 of Parliament to fix the price at which articles should be sold ; 
 but when we find a Prime Minister coming down to Parliament 
 to avow such principles, it really becomes anything but amus- 
 ing. I ask the right hon. Baronet, and I pause for a reply : Is 
 he prepared to carry out that principle in the articles of cotton 
 and wool ? [Sir Robert Peel : It is impossible to fix the 
 price of food by legislation.] Then on what are we legislating ? 
 I thank the right hon. Baronet for his avowal. Perhaps, then, 
 he will oblige us by not trying to do so. Supposing, however, 
 that he will make the attempt, I ask the right hon. gentleman, 
 and again I pause for a reply : Will he try to legislate so as to 
 keep up the prices of cotton, silk, and wool ? No reply. Then 
 we have come to this conclusion — that we are not legislating 
 for the universal people. We are openly avowing that we 
 are met here to legislate for a class against the people. When 
 I consider this I don't marvel, although I have seen it with the 
 deepest regret, and I may add indignation, that we have been 
 surrounded during the course of the debates of the last week 
 by an immense body of police. [Cries of " Oh ! oh ! " and 
 laughter from the Ministerial side.~\ 
 
 I will not let this subject drop, even though I may be greeted 
 with laughter. It is no laughing matter to those who have got 
 no wheat to sell, nor money to purchase it from those who
 
 J 
 
 i S Modern Political Orations. 
 
 have. If the agriculturists are to have the benefit of a law 
 founded on the calculation of ten years' average, to keep up 
 their price at that average, I ask, are the manufacturers to 
 have it too ? Take the manufacturers of the Midland counties, 
 the manufacturers of the very articles the agriculturists con- 
 Their goods have depreciated 30 per cent, in the 
 last ten years. Are they to continue to exchange their com- 
 modities for the corn of the landlord, who has the benefit of 
 a law keeping up his price on a calculation of a ten years' 
 average, without the iron manufacturer having the benefit of 
 the same calculation? I have great doubts whether this is 
 legislation at all. I deny that it is honest legislation. It is no 
 answer for the right hon. Baronet to say that he cannot, even 
 if he wished, pass a law to keep up the price of manufactures. 
 It is no satisfaction for being injured by a Prime Minister to 
 be told that he has not the power, even if lie has the will, 
 to make amendment. I only ask him to abstain from doing 
 that for which he cannot make atonement, and surely there is 
 nothing unreasonable in that request. I have but touched upon 
 the skirts of this subject. I ask the right hon. Baronet whether, 
 while he fixes the scale of prices to secure the landowners 
 56s. a quarter, he has got also a sliding scale for wages? 
 I know but of one class of labourers in this country whose 
 interests are well secured by the sliding scale of corn duties, 
 and that class is the clergy of the Established Church, whose 
 tithes are calculated upon the averages. But I want to know 
 what you will do with the hardworking classes of the com- 
 munity, the labouring artisans, if the price of bread is to be 
 kept up by Act of Parliament. Will you give them a law to 
 keep up their rate of wages? You will say that you cannot 
 
 p up the rate of wages; but that is no reason why you 
 should pass a law to mulct the working man of one-third of the 
 loaf he earns. I know well the way in which the petitions of 
 the hand-loom weavers were received in this House. "Poor 
 
 ■iant men," you said, "they know not what they ask, they 
 are not political economists, they do not know that the price
 
 Richard Cob den on the Corn Laws. 319 
 
 of labour, like other commodities, finds its own level by the 
 ordinary law of supply and demand. We can do nothing for 
 them." But I ask, then, why do you pass a law to keep up the 
 price of corn, and at the same time say you cannot pass a law 
 to keep up the price of the poor man's labour? This is the 
 point of view in which the country are approaching this question ; 
 and the flimsy veil of sophistry you are throwing over the 
 question, and the combination of figures put together and 
 dovetailed to answer a particular purpose, will not satisfy the 
 people of England, till you show them that you are legislating 
 impartially for the advantage of all classes, and not for the 
 exclusive benefit of one. What are the pretexts upon which this 
 Corn Tax is justified ? We have heard, in the first place, that 
 there are exclusive burthens borne by the agriculturists. I 
 heard one explanation given of those burthens by a facetious 
 gentleman who sits near me. He said that the only exclusive 
 burthens upon the land which he knew of were mortgages. I 
 think the country has a right to know, and indeed I think it 
 would have been no more than what was due to this House if 
 those burthens of which we have heard so much had been 
 named and enumerated. The answer I heard from the right 
 hon. gentleman (Sir R. Peel) opposite was that there was a 
 great variety of opinions on the subject of these burthens. 
 That I could myself have told the right hon. Baronet. As a 
 law is to be framed, founded expressly upon these alleged 
 burthens, it would have been but fair at least to tell us what 
 they are. I shall not enter upon the subject now ; but this I 
 will tell the right hon. gentleman, that for every particular 
 burthen he can show me as pressing upon the land, I will 
 show him ten exemptions. Yes, ten for his one. 
 
 There is one burthen that was referred to by the right hon. 
 Member for Renfrewshire (Mr P. M. Stewart), which is the 
 Land Tax. I am surprised we have not yet got the returns 
 moved for many months since, relative to the Land Tax of 
 other countries. What are our ambassadors and diplomatists 
 about, that we cannot have the returns of the revenue and ex-
 
 320 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 pendilure of foreign countries? Our own bureaux must be 
 badly kept, or we ought to have this information already here 
 in London. Being without official information, however, I 
 will not run the risk of making a general statement, lest I 
 should fall into error. I have, however, one document which 
 is authentic, as it is on the authority of M. Humaun, the 
 Finance Minister of France ; and he states that the Land Tax 
 in that country is 40 per cent, on the whole revenue, and 25 
 per cent, on the revenue of the proprietors of the soil ; so that 
 in France the landowner pays 5s. in the pound, while in this 
 country you have a Land Tax of .£1,900,000, not 5 per cent, 
 of the income, and you call for a fresh tax upon the poor man's 
 loaf to compensate you for the heavy burthen you bear. I will 
 tell the Prime Minister that, in laying on this tax without first 
 stating his views on this point, he is not treating the House 
 and the country with proper respect. I have seen, with some 
 satisfaction, that admissions have been made (and indeed it 
 has not been denied) that the profits of the Bread Tax go to 
 the landowners. Now in all the old Committees on agricultural 
 concerns, it was alleged that it was a farmer's question — an agri- 
 cultural labourer's question ; and never till lately did I hear it 
 admitted that the Bread Tax did contribute to the benefit of 
 the landowners, on account of those exclusive burthens that 
 are set up as a pretence for its continuance. Ought we not 
 to know what these burthens were when this Corn Law was 
 passed? Having patiently waited for twenty-five years, I 
 think we are entitled at last to a clear explanation of the 
 pretext upon which you tax the food of the people for the 
 acknowledged benefit of the landowners. 
 
 The right hon. Baronet tells us we must not be dependent 
 upon foreigners for our supply, or that that dependence must 
 be supplementary, that certain years produce enough of corn 
 for the demand, and that we must legislate for the introduction 
 of corn only when it is wanted. Granted. On that point the 
 right hon. Baronet and I are perfectly agreed. Let us only 
 ilate, if you please, for the introduction of corn when it is
 
 Richard Cobden on the Corn Laws. 32 i 
 
 wanted. Exclude it as much as you please when it is not 
 wanted. But all I supplicate for on the part of the starving 
 people is, that they and not you shall be the judges of when 
 corn is wanted. By what right do you pretend to gauge the 
 appetites and admeasure the wants of millions of people? 
 Why, there is no despotism that ever dreamed of doing any- 
 thing so monstrous as this ; yet you sit here, and presume to 
 judge when people want food, dole out your supply when you 
 condescend to think they want it, and stop it when you choose 
 to consider that they have had enough. Are you in a position 
 to judge of the wants of artisans, of hand-loom weavers? you, 
 who never knew the want of a meal in your lives, do you pre- 
 sume to know when the people want bread ? Why, in the 
 course of the present debate the right hon. Baronet said that 
 from 1832 to 1836 sufficient corn was produced at home for 
 the population ; and yet in his last speech he told us that there- 
 were 800,000 hand-loom weavers who in 1836 were unable tc 
 supply themselves with the commonest wants and necessaries 
 of existence, even though they worked sixteen and eighteen 
 hours a day. Was it not also of that period that Mr Inglis, 
 the traveller in Ireland, wrote, when he wound up his account cf 
 that country by the emphatic and startling declaration that one- 
 third part of the population perished prematurely from diseases 
 brought on by the want of the necessaries of life ? Yet, in that 
 state of things, the right hon. Baronet gravely comes forward, 
 and tells us that the country produces a sufficiency of food ! 
 
 I have heard other admissions too ; one in particular by the 
 right hon. Paymaster of the Forces (Sir E. Knatchbull), who 
 said the landlords were entitled to the Corn Law to enable 
 them to maintain a high station in the land. [Sir E. Knatch- 
 I'.ull : To enable them to maintain their present station in 
 Society.] A noble Lord, also (Lord Stanley), admitted that the 
 price of food did keep up the rent of land, but did not raise 
 wages. What does that mean, but that the rent of land is kept 
 up at the expense of the working classes, who are unrepre- 
 sented in this House ? I say that the right hon. Paymaster of 
 
 x
 
 322 Modem Political Orations. 
 
 the Forces and the noble Lord do not deal fairly with the 
 people, for they are giving themselves an outdoor relief which 
 they deny to the poor in the Union Workhouses. It is not 
 merely an extension of the Pension List to the landed pro- 
 prietors, as was said by The Times some years ago, when that 
 paper stigmatised the Corn Laws as an extension of the Pension 
 List to the whole of the landed aristocracy ; it is the worst form 
 of pauperism ; it is the aristocracy submitting to be fed at the 
 expense of the poorest of the poor. If this is to be so, if we 
 are to bow our necks to a landed oligarchy, let things be as 
 they were in ancient Venice; let the nobles inscribe their 
 names in a golden book, and draw their money direct from the 
 Exchequer. It would be better for the people thus to suffer 
 our aristocracy than to circumscribe our trade, destroy our 
 manufactures, and draw the money from the pockets of the 
 poor by indirect and insidious means. Such a course would 
 be more easy for us, and more honest for you. But have the 
 hon. gentlemen who maintain a system like this considered 
 that the people of this country are beginning to understand it a 
 little better than they did? And do they think that the 
 people, with a better understanding of the subject, will allow 
 one class not only to tax the rest of the community for their 
 own exclusive advantage, but to be living in a state of 
 splendour upon means obtained by indirect taxation from the 
 pockets of the poor? The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), I 
 apprehend, knows more of the state of the country than most 
 of his followers ; and I would exhort him to bear in mind that 
 there is a widespread feeling extending into every part of the 
 country that upon him, and him alone, will rest the responsi- 
 bility of the manner in which he shall legislate upon this sub- 
 ject. He has now been in the possession of a great power for 
 many months; he had due warning when he took office of the 
 course it would be necessary for him to pursue. He knows the 
 existing state of commerce and manufactures. He has had 
 ample opportunities of acquainting himself with the actual 
 condition of the people. He is not legislating in the dark, 
 and this I will venture to tell him. that bad as he finds trade
 
 Richard Cobdeii on the Corn Lazvs. 323 
 
 now, he will live (if he follows out the course in which he 
 purposes to embark) to find it much worse. I hope, sincerely 
 hope, that he is prepared for the consequence. We have never 
 heard of an honest English merchant coming forward to say 
 that this law would give him a trade in corn. The corn traders 
 alone have been appealed to. The right hon. Baronet tells us 
 that we must force forward this discussion, that we must pro- 
 ceed at once to the settlement of this question, because, for- 
 sooth, he has heard from many corn traders that it is very 
 important that the matter should remain no longer in abeyance. 
 If the trade in corn is still to be left in the hands of a peculiar 
 class of dealers, in the hands of a class who are habitual 
 gamblers, will that be an alteration of the law calculated to 
 amend the situation of those who are engaged in the general 
 trade and commerce of the country ? Why should there be corn 
 merchants any more than tea merchants or sugar merchants ? 
 Why should not the general merchant be enabled to bring- 
 back corn in exchange for his exports, as well as cotton, tea, 
 or sugar? Until you pass a law enabling the merchant to 
 make a direct exchange for corn, as well as for other com- 
 modities of foreign production, you will give no substantial 
 relief to commerce. Nor is your law calculated to lower the 
 price of food. You will have people amongst you maintaining 
 the same wolfish competition to raise the price of bread, and 
 you will have capitalists day by day struggling against bank- 
 ruptcy. For this state of things the right hon. Baronet, Sir 
 Robert Peel, will be responsible. I own, indeed, that I heard 
 in the right hon. Baronet's second speech something like an 
 apologetic tone of reasoning; some deprecatory as to his present 
 position, not being able to do all that he would do. That tone 
 would be very well if the right hon. Baronet had been forced 
 into the present position by the people, or summoned there by 
 the Queen ; then with some shadow of fairness he might resort 
 to the plea that his position was a difficult one, and that he 
 would do more if his party would permit him. But let me 
 remind the right hon Baronet that he sought the position he 
 now fills, and though I am no friend, no political' partisan, of
 
 3 "> 
 
 -4 
 
 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 the noble Lord the member for London (Lord John Russ 11), 
 though I have no desire to see him again in power, governed 
 by his old opinions, this I must say, that the measure which 
 the noble Lord proposed upon the Corn Law, though in 
 itself not good, was still infinitely better than that of the 
 rieht hon. Baronet. And I beg to call to the right hon. 
 Baronet's mind, that if he is now placed in a situation of 
 difficulty, that difficulty was sought by himself, and, con- 
 sequently, cannot now be pleaded in extenuation of his present 
 measure. He told us at Tamworth that for years and years, 
 ay, even from the passing of the Reform Bill, he had been 
 engaged in reconstructing his party. I presume he knew of 
 what materials that party was composed. I presume he was 
 not ignorant of the fact that it consisted of monopolists of 
 every kind : of monopolists of religion, monopolists of the 
 franchise, monopolists of sugar, monopolists of corn, mono- 
 polists of timber, monopolists of coffee. These were the 
 parties that gathered around him, and out of which he was to 
 construct his new Parliament. They were fully alive to the 
 occasion. They set to work to revive the old system of 
 corruption. They bribed and they bought. Yes, they bribed, 
 they bought, and they intimidated, until they found themselves 
 in office, and the right hon. Baronet at their head, as their 
 leader and champion. Did he expect that this party had 
 expended their funds and their labour in the Registration 
 ( 'uurts — for there, as the right hon. Baronet himself has stated, 
 I believe the Constitution will henceforth be fought — did he 
 think that they had expended this labour and this money in 
 r that they might come into office and assist him to take 
 away their monopolies? The right hon. Baronet must have 
 known the party he had to deal with, for he had a very old 
 connection with them; and, therefore, I presume he was not 
 disappointed when he came into office, having thrust out men 
 who, with all their faults, were still far better than those who 
 succeeded them. Having thrown those men out of office, and 
 being unable to carry the measure which they proposed, and 
 - adv to cany into effect, I say that he has now no right
 
 Richard Cobden on the Co7'n Laws. 325 
 
 to set up the difficulty of his position as a bar to the universal 
 condemnation which his proposition must receive in the 
 estimation of every just politician in the country. He is the 
 cause, yes, I say he is the cause, of our present position, and 
 upon his shoulders will the people rest the whole of the 
 responsibility. 
 
 I will now say a word to the gentlemen on this side of the 
 House who have such great difficulties, such bogglings and 
 startings, at the danger of giving their assent to the motion of 
 my hon. friend the member for Wolverhampton (Hon. C. P. 
 Villiers). I will say a word or two to the noble Lord the 
 member for London (Lord John Russell), and to my noble 
 and right hon. neighbours, as to the difficulties of conscience 
 which they appear to entertain about a total and immediate 
 repeal of the Corn Laws. I hear on this side of the House, in 
 almost all directions, an acknowledgment of the principle for 
 which I and others contend, that is, the principle of perfect 
 freedom in the trade in corn. But there are some of my noble 
 and right hon. neighbours who think there should be a duty on 
 corn for the purpose of revenue. How can there be a duty for 
 revenue unless it be a duty for Protection ? I ask my noble 
 and right hon. neighbours who entertain that view of the sub- 
 ject to reconsider it before they go to a division. With that 
 word of advice to those who sit near me, I proceed to make a 
 remark in reference to the little word " now," about which 
 many gentlemen on this side of the House seem also to feel a 
 considerable difficulty. There are gentlemen here who think 
 that the Corn Laws ought to be repealed, but they cannot 
 reconcile themselves to the immediate repeal of them. They 
 do not like to repeal them noiu. " We admit," say they, " the 
 injustice which these laws inflict upon twenty-five millions of the 
 people for the advantage of a select few ; but inasmuch as some 
 thousands of persons have a beneficial interest in this wrong 
 inflicted upon the millions, we cannot suddenly deprive them 
 of the advantage they possess." Now, with all due deference 
 to gentlemen who use that argument, I must be permitted to 
 say that I think they are showing a very great sympathy for the
 
 326 Modern Political Orations. 
 
 few who are gaining, and vasriy little sympathy indeed for the 
 many who are suffering from the operation of these laws. I 
 would put it to those gentlemen whether, if it had been in their 
 power, immediately after the passing of the Corn Law in 18 15, 
 to repeal that law, they would have given any compensation to 
 the landed interest in the shape of an eight or ten years' 
 diminishing duty upon the importation of foreign grain ? No ; 
 they would have repealed them at once. Then, I ask, do they 
 think that twenty-seven years' possession of the wrong— 
 twenty-seven years of exclusive advantage — twenty-seven 
 years of injustice to the rest of the community,— entitles 
 this interested and selfish party to increase its demand in the 
 shape of compensation? I give the hon. gentlemen who are 
 near me credit for being quite sincere in their scruples. I 
 have heard such scruples very often expressed before ; but I 
 once heard them met at a public meeting of electors in what 
 appeared to me to be a very satisfactory manner. There was 
 great difficulty on the platform among the Whig gentlemen 
 who were assembled there about the repeal of the Corn Laws, 
 and they were arguing about the danger and hardship of an 
 immediate repeal of them. They were at length interrupted 
 by a sturdy labouring man in a fustian coat, who called out, 
 "Whoi, mun ! where 's the trouble of taking them off? You 
 put them on all of a ruck " ; meaning that they had been put 
 on all of a sudden. And so they were. The law was passed 
 without notice in iS 15, notwithstanding the remonstrances of 
 the people. 
 
 Then, I say, let us abolish this law, and the sooner the 
 better. I will not trespass further upon the patience of the 
 House. I consider that this question is now drawn within 
 sucli narrow limits as to depend upon these two points : "Are 
 you, the landed interest, able to show that you are subjected 
 to exclusive burthens?" If so, then the way to relieve you is 
 not to put taxes on the rest of the community, but to remove 
 your burthens. Secondly, "Are you prepared to cany out even- 
 handed justice to the people?" If not, your law will not stand : 
 nny, your House itself, i. based upon injustice, will not stand!
 
 APPENDIX.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE TIMES ON "PARNELLISM AND 
 
 CRIME." 
 
 Mr Parnell and the Phcenix Park Murders. 
 
 A great sensation was created on April 18th, 1887, by the 
 publication in The Times of the following letter in facsimile, 
 dated nine days after the Phcenix Park murders : — 
 
 " 15/5/82. 
 "Dear Sir, 
 
 " I am not surprised at your friend's anger, but he and you 
 should know that to denounce the murders was the only course open to us. 
 To do that promptly was plainly our best policy. 
 
 " Rut you can tell him, and all others concerned, that though I regret the 
 accident of Lord F. Cavendish's death, I cannot refuse to admit that 
 Burke got no more than his deserts. 
 
 ' ' You are at liberty to show him this, and others whom you can trust 
 al»o, but let not my address be known. He can write to House of 
 Commons. 
 
 " Yours very truly, 
 
 "Chas. S. Parnell." 
 
 This was accompanied by the following letterpress : — 
 
 " In concluding our series of articles on ' Parnellism and 
 
 Crime,' we intimated that, besides the damning facts which we 
 
 there recorded, unpublished evidence existed which would bind 
 
 still closer the links between the 'constitutional' chiefs and the
 
 -"lo Modern Political Orations — Appendix. 
 
 contrivers of murder and outrage. In view of the unblushing 
 denials of Mr Sexton and Mr Healy on Friday night, we do not 
 think it right to withhold any longer from public knowledge the 
 fact that we possess, and have had in our custody for some time, 
 documentary evidence which has a most serious bearing on the 
 Parnellite conspiracy, and which, after a most careful and minute 
 scrutiny, is, we are satisfied, quite authentic. We produce one 
 document in facsimile to-day by a process the accuracy of which 
 cannot be impugned, and we invite Mr Parnell to explain how his 
 signature has become attached to such a letter. 
 
 "It is requisite to point out that the body of the manuscript is 
 apparently not in Mr Parnell's handwriting, but the signature and 
 the 'Yours very truly' unquestionably are so ; and if any Member 
 of Parliament doubts the fact, he can easily satisfy himself on the 
 matter by comparing the handwriting with that of Mr Parnell in 
 the book containing the signatures of Members when they first take 
 their seats in the House of Commons. 
 
 "We particularly direct attention to the erasure in the manu- 
 script, 1 as undersigned evidence of authenticity ; and should any 
 questions be raised as to the body of the letter being in another 
 handwriting, wc shall be prepared to adduce proof that this 
 pe< uliarity is quite consistent with its genuine character. 
 
 " The body of the letter occupies the whole of the first page of 
 an ordinary sheet of stout white note-paper, leaving no room in 
 the same page for the signature, which is placed on the fourth page 
 near the top right-hand corner. It was an obvious precaution to 
 sign upon the back instead of upon the second page, so that the 
 half-sheet might, if necessary, be torn off, and the letter dis- 
 claimed. 
 
 "It is right and necessary to explain that the 'Dear Sir' is 
 c<l to be Egan, and that the letter was addressed to him in 
 onler to pacify the wrath of his subordinate instruments in the 
 nix Park murders — then (on May 15th, nine days after the 
 tragedy) still at large and undetected. The anxiety of the writer to 
 his a I<1 icss unknown will be noted, and is curious in connec- 
 tion with a belief prevailing at the time that Mr Parnell was so 
 impressed l>y the danger he had incurred by denouncing the 
 
 1 After the word " plainly" in the first paragraph, the words "the only 
 courv: " had been written and crossed through.
 
 " The Timss " on " Parnellism and Crime." 33 l 
 
 assassinations, as to have applied for the protection of the police 
 on the plea that his life was in peril. 
 
 " Mr Parnell in his letter describes Lord F. Cavendish's death 
 as an 'accident,' but he 'cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no 
 more than his deserts.' That is his language to the ' Inner Circle' ; 
 but before Parliament, yielding to what he considered ' the only 
 course,' or, as it stands amended in the text, ' our best policy,' he 
 spoke on Monday, May 8th, two days after the murders, as 
 follows : — 
 
 "'Mr Parnell said he wished to be permitted to express, on the part 
 of his hon. friends, on his own part, and, he believed, on the part of every 
 Irishman in whatever portion of the world he might live, their most un- 
 qualified detestation of the horrible crime which had been committed in 
 Ireland. (Hear, hear.) He could not now refer to the steps which the 
 Government proposed to take. He did not deny that it might be impos- 
 sible for the Government to resist taking measures such as had been 
 mentioned by the Prime Minister. But he wished to express his belief 
 that the crime had been committed by men who absolutely detested the 
 cause with which he had been associated — (hear, hear) — and who had 
 devised that crime, and cairied it out as the deadliest blow in their power 
 against the hopes and the new course which the new Government had 
 resolved upon.' 
 
 " Particular attention may now be drawn to the wicked sug- 
 gestion here made that the Phoenix Park murders had been the 
 work of the enemies of Parnellism and the League, ' devised and 
 carried out as the deadliest blow in their power against the hopes 
 and the new course ' which the Government had resolved upon. 
 Has that infamous accusation ever been excelled or even equalled? 
 and to what benevolent construction of motives is a public man 
 now entitled who made such a charge, at the very time when he 
 was smoothing down the 'anger' of Egan's 'friends' for de- 
 nouncing them as murderers in Parliament ? 
 
 "To the country at large Mr Parnell, Mr Dillon, and Mr Davitt 
 addressed on the day after the murder the following manifesto : — 
 
 " ' To the People of Ireland. — On the eve of what seemed a bright 
 future for our country, that evil destiny which has apparently pursued us 
 for centuries has struck another blow at our hopes, which cannot be 
 exaggerated in its disastrous consequences. In this hour of sorrowful 
 gloom we venture to give an expression of our profoundest sympathy with 
 the people of Ireland in the calamity that has befallen our cause, through 
 a horrible deed, and to those who had determined at the last hour that a 
 policy of conciliation should supplant that of terrorism and national dis- 
 trust. We earnestly hope that the atdtude and action of the whole Irish
 
 JJ 
 
 2 Modem Political Orations — Appendix. 
 
 people will show the world that assassination, such as has startled us 
 almost to the abandonment of hope for our country's future, is deeply and 
 religiously abhorrent to their every feeling and instinct. We appeal to you 
 to show by every manner of expression that almost universal feeling of 
 horror which this assassination has excited. No people feels so intense a 
 detestation of its atrocity, or so deep a sympathy for those whose hearts 
 must be seared by it, as the nation upon whose prospects and reviving 
 hopes it may entail consequences more ruinous than have fallen to the lot 
 of unhappy Ireland during the present generation. We feel that no act 
 has ever been perpetrated in our country during the exciting struggles for 
 social and political rights of the past fifty years that has so stained the 
 name of hospitable Ireland as this cowardly and unprovoked assassination 
 of a friendly stranger; and that until the murderers of Lord Frederick 
 Cavendish and Mr LSiuke are brought to justice, that stain will sully our 
 
 country's name. 
 
 I Charles S. Parnell. 
 "'(Signed) \ John Dillon. 
 
 \ Michael Davitt.' 
 
 " Here, again, the peculiar language employed will be noted. 
 It is 'the evil destiny which has apparently pursued us for cen- 
 turies,' which ' has struck another blow at our hopes,' etc. 
 
 "Only a fortnight ago, on the first reading of the Crimes Bill, 
 Mr Parnell took occasion to refer to this manifesto in the House 
 of Commons in the following remarkable terms : — 
 
 " ' I do not believe you would ever have broken up that 1 [the Invincible] 
 'conspiracy if it had not been for the denunciation of Mr Michael Davitt, 
 the Member for Kast Mayo, and myself, issued after the crime in Phcenix 
 Paik. It was the denunication that shook that conspiracy and enabled 
 liicers of the law in Ireland, by means of their secret inquiries and 
 other agencies, to get under it, and finally break it up.' 
 
 "An interval of more than half a year elapsed between the 
 Phoenix Park murders and the discovery of the perpetrators. In 
 that interval, while the 'stain on the name of hospitable Ireland,' 
 in spite of 'the appeal' made in the manifesto, still adhered to it, 
 Ireland's uncrowned king 1 actually addressed to his trusted sub- 
 ordinate, the Treasurer of the Land League, the following extra- 
 ordinary letter, which tells it own talc. 
 
 " In the facsimile, which we place before our readers, the paper 
 ies open, the first page being to the right and the fourth to 
 the left." 
 
 Mr Parnell, by the way, was not the only Irishman invested with the 
 'The Uncrowned King." It had been borne by Daniel 
 
 11.
 
 " The Times" on " Pamellism and Crime" 333 
 
 Subjoined is The Times' leader in the same issue of the paper : — 
 "We place before our readers to-day a document, the grave 
 importance of which it would be difficult to over-estimate. It is 
 a facsimile of a letter from Mr Parnell, written a week after 
 the Phoenix Park murders, excusing his public condemnation of 
 the crime, and distinctly condoning, if not approving, the murder 
 of Mr Burke. It needs no further words to recommend this 
 document to the serious consideration of the public, and especially 
 of Members of the House of Commons. At the close of to-night's 
 sitting — if the arrangements made by the Whips hold good — the 
 division will be taken in the House on the second reading of the 
 Crimes Bill. That the amendment moved at Mr GLADSTONE'S 
 instance, and in the interests of his Parnellite allies, will be 
 defeated by a great majority is beyond doubt. There is, how- 
 ever, a preliminary question of great significance to be settled. 
 No greater danger has ever threatened public life in England than 
 the 'demoralisation in politics,' against which Mr GOSCHEN in 
 his speech on Saturday, at Edinburgh, abjured all honest men 
 to make a stand. The disgraceful scene, for which Colonel 
 Saunderson'S statements on Friday might furnish a pretext, cannot 
 be allowed to pass without further explanation. It is bad enough 
 that the House of Commons should be degraded by the use of 
 language which would not be permitted in any decently conducted 
 music-hall, but that is a matter which must be left in the hands 
 of Members themselves until the time comes when the country 
 will have to pass judgment upon the offenders, and those who 
 instigate and encourage them. Something more serious than a 
 question of Parliamentary manners is involved in the charges 
 brought by COLONEL Saunderson against the principal members 
 of Mr Parnell's party, and met by Mr Healy and Mr Sexton, 
 not with any attempt at disproof, but with the lie direct. Mr 
 Healy's breach of orders was punished by suspension from the 
 service of the House, but the decision will be challenged to-day 
 on the motion of his fellow-offender, Mr Sexton. As for Mr 
 Sexton himself, he escaped punishment because COLONEL 
 Saunderson had placed himself — technically at least — in the 
 wrong by one or two inaccuracies in his citations from the 
 evidence collected in our articles on ' Parnellism and Crime.' 
 Those inaccuracies, however, do not in the smallest degree 
 affect the cumulative force of the evidence in question. Mr
 
 534 Modern Political Orations — Appendix. 
 
 HEALY and Mr Sexton fastened upon the possibly indiscreet 
 statement that members of Mr Parnell's party 'had been 
 associating with men they knew to be murderers.' It is im- 
 possible to prove that the Parliamentary Members of the 
 alive Committee of the Land League, in the historic days 
 when Mr GLADSTONE denounced the crime that dogged its foot- 
 steps, and when Mr Parnell and Mr Sexton sat in secret 
 council with Egan, Brennan, Boyton, and Sheridan, were 
 aware of the character of their associates. As Mr Arnold- 
 Forster in his letter to us to-day observes, 'There is no proof; 
 there is only presumption.' On this point every man must form 
 his opinion for himself, giving such weight as he may think proper 
 to Mr Sexton's 'passionate' denials, and arriving at a judgment 
 according to the reasonable probabilities of the case. It is not 
 wise to state a probability, however overwhelming its strength may 
 appear, as a fact. But, after all, the allegation, which COLONEL 
 Saunderson withdrew as far as the proceedings of the Executive 
 Committee of the League were concerned, remains strictly true 
 with respect to the subsequent conduct of Mr Parnell's party 
 as a body, and of the principal members of it individually. 
 
 " We have publicly stated, and we repeat the statement, that the 
 present allies of the Gladstonians — the men whom Mr Gladstone 
 and his colleagues are assisting to paralyse law and to render 
 government impossible in Ireland — have been, and are, associated 
 closely and continuously with the worst of criminals, with the 
 agents and instruments of murder-conspiracies, with the planners 
 and paymasters of cowardly and inhuman outrage, with the 
 preachers of the ' Gospel of Dynamite,' who are at the same time 
 the financiers that furnish the funds on which the ' Parliamentary 
 I'aity' subsist. These charges have been for weeks before the 
 country. They are protected by no privilege of Parliament or 
 other artificial shelter, and it is open to those persons who are so 
 indignant at their repetition in the House of Commons that they 
 cannot observe the common decencies of civilised speech, to refute 
 them if they can, and recover damages in a Court of Law. Yet 
 neither Mr PARNELL himself, nor any one of his subordinates, has 
 taken a single step to prove that they have been maligned in the 
 extracts we have published from The Irish World. While Mr IIealy, 
 speaking to a Sheffield audience, demands to be placed on his trial 
 at the Old Bailey for a crime of which he has never been accused,
 
 " The Times" on " Parnellism and Crime." 335 
 
 he and his colleagues in the House of Commons leave the real, the 
 crushing charge against them unanswered, or answered only with 
 brutal insult, unsupported by any evidence except that of their 
 word. In the whole body of testimony we have published, only 
 one insignificant error has been detected, turning upon a mistaken 
 identification of Mr T. P. O'Connor, M.P., with another person 
 bearing the same surname and having the same initials. The rest 
 of the story is told, as far as the facts are concerned, in the columns 
 of Ford's newspaper — the organ of the dynamite party, and the 
 channel through which, as Davitt has gratefully testified, 
 enormous sums of money have passed into the hands of the League. 
 From this trustworthy source we learn that Mr Parnell'S party 
 have been associated, not only before, but since the detection of 
 the Phcenix Park murderers and the disclosure of the origin of the 
 'Invincible' conspiracy with Ford himself, who 'stands by all he 
 has ever said on this doctrine of dynamite ' with EGAN, who hinted 
 to the ' Invincibles' that 'talk' would never get the suspects out of 
 Kilmainham, with SHERIDAN, BRENNAN, Walsh, BOYTON, and 
 Byrne, all implicated by Casey's evidence, all fugutives to the 
 United States, and all conspicuous members up to that time of the 
 staff of Mr Parnell'S constitutional agitation. These men, to- 
 gether with O'Donovan Rossa, Finnerty, Feely, Devoy, and 
 other advocates of ' physical force ' in its various forms, Mr 
 Parnell has always treated as his allies for American purposes, 
 though he has occasionally disavowed some of them on this 
 side of the Atlantic when he deemed it convenient to conciliate 
 English opinion. He has never rejected their money. He has 
 sent congratulatory telegrams to their conventions ; his lieu- 
 tenants of high and low degree, from Mr T. P. O'Connor and 
 Mr Justin M'Carthy down to Mr Redmond and Mr O'Brien, 
 have been entertained and chaperoned by Egan and the Fords — 
 by the very persons who presented 'that brave little woman,' 
 Mrs Frank Byrne, with a well-filled purse at a banquet com- 
 memorative of the victory in the Phcenix Park. Finally, as The 
 Irish World shows, the proceedings which led up to the Chicago 
 Convention, and at which the Plan of Campaign was hatched, 
 brought together, both in a secret conclave and on a public plat- 
 form, Ford and Egan, Mr Redmond, and Mr Deasy, Brennan, 
 Davitt, and Mr O'Brien, Sullivan, Kerwin, Feely, and 
 Devoy, of the Clan-na-Gael Murder Club, and Finnerty,
 
 
 , Modem Political Orations — Appendix. 
 
 described by Mr PARNELL himself as a 'dynamiter.' This con- 
 federacy, the ramifications of which we have laid bare, has now 
 :en brought distinctly under the notice of the House of Commons, 
 and the country lias a right to know whether the Gladstonian 
 Liberals are going to content themselves with a general denial by 
 Mr HEALY, Mr SEXTON, and Mr Parnell himself, of facts 
 attested by the impartial evidence of The Irish World. 
 
 "The remarkable document which we publish to-day has no 
 unimportant bearing upon the value of such contradictions. The 
 letter from Mr PARNELL, apologising for the course which he 
 took, as he explained, under compulsion, when he denounced the 
 Phoenix Park assassination, is produced, for reasons set forth 
 elsewhere, in facsimile. Mr Parnell's statement that LORD 
 Frederick Cavendish's death was 'an accident,' he 'cannot 
 refuse to admit that BURKE got no more than his deserts,' is too 
 significantly in harmony with the language of some of his allies 
 beyond the Atlantic. In 1883, Finnerty, at a ' Martyrs' Meeting' 
 at Chicago, in which he announced Mr Healy'S return for Mona- 
 ghan as 'a piece of good news,' said : — 'As regards Cavendish, 
 it' [the murder] 'was not premeditated ; as regarded Burke, they 
 said nothing. ... He' [Lord F. Cavendish] 'died because he was 
 in bad company— was with Thomas H. Burke, the Fouche of 
 Ireland." But Mr PARNELL, as we show elsewhere, did not 
 consider it prudent to use this sort of plain speaking in the Flouse of 
 ( ouiinons. Not only did he express his detestation for the crime, 
 but he attempted to cast the infamy of it upon the enemies of his 
 ise, 3 and he has never to this hour withdrawn the charge. 
 What, then, is the estimate to be formed of the value of disclaimers 
 ami denials, when we have before us proof not to be easily rejected 
 that they represent no more than the convenience of the moment ? 
 Sir WILLIAM Harcourt finds it becoming to treat the grave 
 charges which have been brought against Members of the House 
 of Commons now associated with him in Opposition as ' rubbish,' 
 but the country will not share this newly-acquired indifference to 
 the contamination of crime. Mr Parnell must understand the 
 gravity of the question raised by the accusations we have formu- 
 lated and suppi rted with evidence, but he cannot expect that his 
 simple repudiation of the letter we publish this morning will 
 have any weight with public opinion. He must be prepared with 
 • more solid proofs, if he is to annul the effect of a disclosure
 
 " The Times" on " Parnellism and Crime." 2>Z7 
 
 which reduces the passionate denials with which his party 
 encounter unpleasant truths to even a lower value than Mr 
 Arnold-Forster assigns to them." 
 
 The next clay The Times returned to the charge in these 
 terms : — 
 
 " Mr Parnell's speech on the second reading of the Crimes 
 Bill was not delivered till i o'clock in the morning — too late for 
 detailed account on the passages referring to the letter we pub- 
 lished yesterday. Earlier in the evening, however, Mr Parnell 
 — though he has not yet made any communication to us — appears 
 to have imparted his views on the subject to certain news agencies. 
 It would be unfair to look at the present stage for a complete 
 statement of Mr Parnell's defence — beyond the fact, which 
 might have been anticipated even before Mr Sexton spoke, 
 that he declares the letter in indignant language to be ' a forgery.' 
 It is, however, somewhat remarkable that he has apparently 
 been in doubt as to the grounds on which he is to impeach the 
 genuineness and authenticity of this document. While repudiating 
 the body of the letter, it was open to him either to deny or to 
 acknowledge the signature. At first he was, as it seems, disposed 
 to acknowledge it, assuming that it was an autograph, or possibly 
 a signature, for the use of his private secretary, which might 
 have fallen in blank into some unscrupulous hands. But a 
 different theory is put forward in the latest version of Mr 
 Parnell's views. He now asserts that the signature is 
 not his, and he points out various discrepancies, as they appear 
 to him, between the signature reproduced in our issue of yesterday 
 and his usual signatures. Such discrepancies in small points, 
 if they can be shown to exist, prove extremely little. They 
 constantly occur, even in the case of persons whose handwriting 
 does not materially vary. We have in our possession several 
 undoubted examples of Mr Parnell's signature, with which that 
 of the letter has been carefully compared, and we repeat that, 
 in our deliberate judgment, there can be no doubt of the genuine- 
 ness of the latter. We do not know whether Mr Parnell has 
 made up his mind to adopt the attitude recommended by Mr 
 Sexton, and to retuse, even after Lord Hartington's pointed 
 challenge, to attempt to vindicate his character in a Court of 
 
 Y
 
 - 3 8 Modem Political Orations — Appendix. 
 
 Law. To denounce this letter as a 'villainous and barefaced 
 rv," concocted with the object of influencing the division 
 and of calumniating Mr Parnell, is easy, but inadequate to 
 the occasion. We pay no attention whatever to Mr Parnell'S 
 big words ; and if he should proceed to apply the only test by 
 which the truth can be plainly brought before the world, we are 
 quite prepared to meet him. Disclaimers, of which the value 
 was discounted in LORD Hartington'S weighty speech, are not 
 strengthened by violence of language, nor is the assumption— 
 that the public will look upon Mr Parnell'S letter as out- 
 ously improbable — safe ground on which to rest the defence 
 of a party associated with English public men. We deeply regret 
 that Mr Gladstone, as the Chief Secretary observed in his 
 reply, joined in the conspiracy . of silence which has at last been 
 practically broken through. The Leader of the Opposition can- 
 not afford to ignore grave accusations affecting politicians whom 
 he has enlisted among his followers, and to whom he would hand 
 over the government of the land. Lord Spencer's testimony to 
 a negative which he cannot possibly have had the means of 
 proving, or even of conjecturing, his exculpation, gloried in by Mr 
 Sexton, of those who for years pursued him with atrocious and 
 abominable slanders, is a pitiable example of the lengths to which 
 party spirit will carry a man of honour. The public will certainly 
 not dismiss the statements affecting Mr Parnell as incredible 
 when they see that Gladstonians, not wanting in good sense or 
 good feeling, are capable of expressing such sentiments as those 
 of our correspondent, 'Not a Transcendentalism' 1 From this 
 frame of mind to Mr Labouchere'S, when he appeals to the 
 Secret Societies against the judgment of the House of Commons, 
 the distance is not great." 
 
 1 " T<> THE Editor of The Tivies. — Sir, — If a man has the power of 
 imprisoning any person whom he suspects of what he may please to call 
 ' ; if, exercising that power, he imprisons the leader 
 of the Opposition and some hundreds of others, and keeps them to plank 
 bed and prison fare for seven months; and if after that time he is 
 murdered, is it a matter of serious wonder or condemnation that one of the 
 just liberated from prison should admit that the murdered man 'had 
 got no more than its'? Does such an expression of opinion mark 
 
 the man who uses it in a confidential letter as standing in ' a category 
 apart from any who have ever sat in the House of Commons'? Some
 
 "The Times" on " Parnellism and Crime ." 339 
 
 That Mr Parnell did take advantage of the Courts of Law 
 to vindicate his character is a matter of history. Nearly two 
 years afterwards, viz. on 28th February 1889, in the same issue as 
 that which contained the report of the 57th sitting of the Parnell 
 Commission, The Times published the following leader : — 
 
 " When the special Commission met yesterday, the ATTORNEY- 
 General made the following statement on behalf of The Times, 
 which we feel it right to reproduce in full :— ' I need scarcely assure 
 your Lordships that since the adjournment yesterday my learned 
 friends and I have communicated with those whom we represent, 
 and have, in conjunction with them, most carefully and anxiously 
 considered the course which it is our duty to take in relation to 
 that portion of this inquiry which has lately been under your Lord- 
 ships' consideration. My Lords, it is unnecessary to remind you 
 that the letters put in evidence purporting to be signed by Mr 
 Parnell, the authenticity of which is disputed, including the letter 
 of the 15th of May 1882— also those which purport to bear the 
 signatures of Mr O'Kelly, Mr Davitt, and Patrick Egan— all 
 came into the hands of the managers of The Times from one 
 source, from one man — Richard Pigott. I desire to say nothing 
 respecting that witness except that I presume everyone will agree 
 that no one ought to attach any weight to any evidence he has 
 given ; but, taking the most lenient view of his conduct, he cer- 
 tainly confessed in his statement to Mr Shannon that he forged 
 some of these letters, with the assistance of the man from whom 
 he received others. I need not say, my Lords, that I had not 
 heard the contents of the statement received this morning until it 
 was read by Mr Cunningham.' This referred to the text of 
 Pigott's confession to Mr Laeouchere, which had been for- 
 warded by post to Mr Shannon, had been handed, with the 
 envelope unopened, to the Secretary of the Commission, and 
 read by him in Court. The Attorney-General proceeded : — 
 ' My Lords, under these circumstances, it seems to us that the course 
 we ought to take is clearly defined ; and, believing that we are 
 merely doing our duty, I now, on behalf of those whom we repre- 
 
 people, apparently sane and respectable, say the same sort of things now of 
 Mr Gladstone, and others speak in like manner regarding Mr" Balfour. 
 You seera to be up in the clouds. — I am, etc., 
 
 "Not a Transcendentalism"
 
 p Modern Political Orations — Appendix. 
 
 sent, ask permission to withdraw from your consideration the 
 question of the genuineness of the letters which have been submitted 
 to you, the authenticity of which is denied, with the full acknow- 
 
 ment that, after the evidence which has been given, we are 
 not entitled to say that they are genuine. My Lords, although it 
 is possible that any expression of regret used by me in making this 
 statement may be misinterpreted, those whom I represent request 
 me to express their sincere regret that these letters were published. 
 That feeling, which most truly exists, will, at the proper time, be 
 more fully expressed by themselves. If I were entitled to do so, I 
 could say much as to the manner in which those whom I represent 
 have been imposed upon, but I desire, in making this statement, to 
 abstain from introducing any controversial matter ; but I claim, 
 with your Lordships' permission, to state that some words used by 
 my learned friend Sir Charles Russell yesterday did not escape 
 our attention. My learned friend said that behind PlGOTT there 
 had been a foul conspiracy. I desire emphatically to say that, if a 
 foul conspiracy has existed, those whom we represent have had no 
 share whatever in it. That they have been misled and imposed 
 upon is true, but therein lies their fault, and if it be suggested that 
 their error extends beyond this fault, they earnestly ask that your 
 Lordships will make the fullest inquiry into any part they have 
 taken, either in procuring these documents or in placing them 
 before the public' 
 
 " We desire to endorse and to appropriate every word of the 
 foregoing statement. It is our wish, as it is our duty, to give ex- 
 pression to that feeling of sincere regret to which the Attorney- 
 GENERAL referred. It was obvious that, after PlGOTT, on his own 
 showing, had proved himself to be a person utterly unworthy of 
 credit, and after he had made two confessions, varying in detail, 
 but both admitting that the letters which he had produced were 
 tainted with forgery, our duty was unreservedly to withdraw these 
 
 rs from the consideration of the Judges. Moreover, Mr 
 PARNELL having in the witness-box stated that the letters at- 
 tributed to him were forgeries, we accept in every respect the truth 
 of that statement. In these circumstances we deem it right to 
 express our regret most fully and sincerely at having been induced 
 to publish the letters in question as Mr Parnell'S, or to use them 
 in evident e against him. This expression of regret, we need hardly 
 Bay, includes also the letters lalsely attributed to Mr Egan, Mr
 
 li 
 
 The Tiines" on " Pamellism and Crime." 341 
 
 Davitt, and Mr O'Kelly. It is clear now that Pigott was guilty 
 of a gross and disgraceful fraud when he produced the documents 
 which reached our hands. Into the circumstances under which we 
 received and published them it is scarcely fitting we should enter. 
 Nor shall we now refer to the grounds, apart from PlGOTT'S testi- 
 mony, on which we considered ourselves to be justified in dealing 
 with these letters as genuine documents. To do so would be to 
 touch upon controversial matter which cannot for the present be 
 properly dealt with in these columns. We are bound, however, to 
 point out that though PlGOTT was the source from which the letters 
 came, and though they were thus contaminated by their origin, he 
 was not the person with whom we communicated, and who placed 
 the documents in our hands. Moreover, we must add that we 
 firmly believed the letters to be genuine, until the disclosures made 
 by PlGOTT in the course of his cross-examination. 
 
 "We heard on Tuesday of 'a conspiracy behind PlGOTT and 
 HOUSTON,' but it must be evident to all reasonable persons that, if 
 a conspiracy existed, The Times was victimised by it and not a 
 party to it. Errors in judgment may have been committed, and for 
 them the penalty must be paid. What we have done, it must be 
 clearly understood, has been done by us in the public interest alone. 
 It has been done, moreover, altogether of our own motion and upon 
 our own responsibility. We regarded the undertaking on which we 
 entered as one of national importance, but we must enter an em- 
 phatic protest against attempts to make any statesman or any 
 political party conjointly responsible with us for acts which were ex- 
 clusively our own. We may point out, further, that it is absurd to take 
 us to task for not having at once abandoned the portion of the case de- 
 pendent upon the letters at an earlier stage of PlGOTT'S examination. 
 We were responsibly advised that it was not within our right or 
 power to express any opinion on the evidence of a witness still 
 under examination, and could not offer any view of our own until 
 that witness's cross-examination was concluded. As soon as the 
 incidents affecting PlGOTT'S flight had been inquired into, our 
 counsel at once asked for an adjournment, for the purpose of con- 
 sidering the most proper form in which to present our withdrawal 
 of the letters from the consideration of the Commission. This 
 withdrawal of course refers exclusively to the letters obtained from 
 PlGOTT, and not to the other portion of the case embraced in the 
 'charges and allegations,' which still remain the subject of judicial
 
 "42 Modern Political Orations — Appendix. 
 
 inquiry. Our desire is simply to express deep regret for the error 
 into which we were led, and to withdraw unreservedly those parts 
 of our original statements which we cannot honestly continue to 
 maintain." 
 
 How Richard Pigott fled to Madrid, and there shot himself, to 
 escape being taken by the emissaries of the law ; and how, in the 
 "last scene of all " in the tedious drama of the Pamell Commission, 
 Mr Parnell was awarded the sum of £5000 damages from the 
 proprietors of The Times, are facts known to everyone.
 
 Original Sources of the Speeches. 343 
 
 II. 
 
 ORIGINAL SOURCES OF THE SPEECHES. 
 
 Lord Brougham on Negro Emancipation . . . Hansard 
 T. B. Macaulay on the People's Charter ... „ 
 
 W. J. Fox on the Corn Laws . ... The Times. 
 
 Daniel O'Connell on Repeal of the Union, The Morning Chronicle. 
 R. L. Sheil on the Jewish Disabilities Bill . . . Hansard. 
 Alexander Cockburn on the Greek Difficulty . . „ 
 
 Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton on the Crimean War . . } , 
 
 The Earl of Ellenborough on the Polish Insurrection . „ 
 
 John Bright on Suspension ot the Habeas Corpus Act . „ 
 
 The Rt. Hon. Robert Lowe on Parliamentary Reform — 
 
 From " The Speeches of the Rt. Hon. Robert Lowe" by permission of the 
 Viscountess Sherbrooke, and A. Ratchet t Martin, Esq., Author of 
 " The Life and Letters of Viscount SJterbrooke." 
 
 The Rt. Hon. Gathorne Hardy on the Irish Church . Hansard. 
 Earl Russell on the Ballot .... „ 
 
 Isaac Butt on Home Rule „ 
 
 A. M. Sullivan on the Irish National Demands — 
 
 From "Speeches and Addresses by A. M. Sullivan, M.P." {Office of 
 " The Nation"), by permission ofT.D. Sullivan, Esq., M.P., formerly 
 Editor of " The Nation"
 
 ? 44 Modern Political Orations — Appendix. 
 
 The Earl of Beaconsfield on the Berlin Congress . . T/ie Times. 
 
 Joseph Cowen on The Foreign Policy of England— 
 
 The Newcastle Daily Chronicle. 
 
 Reprinted and Revised Copy kindly supplied by Joseph Cowen, Esq., M.P. 
 
 The Rt Hon. W. E. Gladstone on the Beaconsfield 
 
 Ministry The Times. 
 
 Charles Bradlaugh at the Bar of the House of Commons— 
 
 From "T/te Speeches 0/ Charles Bradlaugh, M.P." by permission of 
 Mrs Bradlaugh Bonner. 
 
 Justin McCarthy in Defence of his Colleagues . . Hansard. 
 Lord Randolph Churchill on the Egyptian Crisis . . The Times. 
 The Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain on Liberal Aims . „ 
 
 C. S. Parnell on the Coercion Bill Hansard. 
 
 The Rt Hon. John Morley on Home Rule . . . The Times. 
 Richard Cobden on the Corn Laws . . . . Hansard.
 
 September 1896 
 
 COMPLETE LIST 
 
 OF 
 
 HENRY HOLT & CO.'S 
 
 EDUCATIONAL PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 All prices are NET except those marked with an asterisk (*), which are RETAIL. 
 All books bound in cloth, unless otherwise indicated. 
 
 SCIENCE. CATALOGUE 
 
 TRICE PAGE 
 
 Allen's Laboratory Physics, Pupil's Edition $ 80 2 
 
 The same, Teacher's Edition 100 2 
 
 Arthur, Barnes, and Coulter's Plant Dissection 120 3 
 
 Barker's Physics, A dvanced Course 3 50 4 
 
 Beal's Grasses of North America. 2 vols 5 
 
 Bessey 's Botany, Advanced Course ... 2 20 6 
 
 The same, Briefer Course 1 12 6 
 
 Black and Carter's Natural History Lessons 50 8 
 
 Bumpus's Laboratory Manual of Invertebrate Zoology 1 00 8 
 
 Cairns's Quantitative Analysis 2 00 9 
 
 Crozier's Dictionary of Botanical Terms 2 40 9 
 
 Hackel's True Grasses (Scribner) *i 50 9 
 
 Hall and Bergen's Physics (Key, 50 cts.) 125 10 
 
 Hall's First Lessons in Physics 65 11 
 
 Hertwig's General Principles of Zoology 160 12 
 
 Howell's Dissection of the Dog 1 00 12 
 
 Jackman's Nature Study 1 20 13 
 
 Kerner's Natural History of Plants. With 16 colored plates, iooocuts. 4Pts.is 00 14 
 
 Mac Doug al's Experimental Plant Physiology 1 00 15 
 
 Macloskie's Elementary Botany 1 30 15 
 
 McMurrich's Invertebrate Morphology. New Edition 300 16 
 
 Martin's The Human Body, Advanced Course. New Edition .. 250 17 
 
 The same, Briefer Course 1 20 17 
 
 The same. Elementary Course 75 19 
 
 The Human Body and the Effects of Narcotics 1 20 18 
 
 Newcomb and Holden's Astronomy, ^(("z'SKcurfCwrw 200 20 
 
 The same. Briefer Course 1 12 20 
 
 Noyes's <W. A.) Elements of Qualitative Analysis 80 21 
 
 Packard's Zoology, Advanced Course 240 22 
 
 The same, Briefer Course 1 12 22 
 
 The same, Elementary Course 80 23 
 
 Entomology for Beginners 140 24 
 
 Guide to the Study of Insects *5 00 24 
 
 Embryology *2 50 24 
 
 Perkins's Outlines of Electricity and Magnetism 25 
 
 Pierce's Problems in Elementary Physics .. 60 25 
 
 Price's Fern Collector's Handbook and Herbarium 
 
 Remsen's Chemistry, Advanced Course 280 26 
 
 The same, Briefer Course 1 12 26 
 
 The same, Elementary Course 80 28 
 
 Laboratory Manual (for Elementary Course) 40 29 
 
 Remsen and Randall's Chemical Experiments (for Briefer Course) 50 29 
 
 Sc udder's Butterflies *i 50 30 
 
 Brief Guide to Commoner Butterflies *i 23 30 
 
 Life of a Butterfly *i 00 30 
 
 Sedgwick and Wilson's General Biology, New Edition . 1 75 31 
 
 Unuerwood's Native Ferns 100 32
 
 Henry Holt & Co.'s Educational Publications 
 
 CATALOGUE 
 PRICE PAGE 
 
 Williams's (G H.) Elements of Crystallography $i 25 32 
 
 Williams's iH. S.t Geological Biology 280 33 
 
 Woodhull's First Course in Science: Book of Experiments 50 34 
 
 Text-book 65 34 
 
 Zimmermann's Botanical Microtechnique 2 50 35 
 
 MATHEMATICS. 
 
 Gillet's Elementary Algebra 1 35 36 
 
 Euclidean Geometry 1 25 37 
 
 Keig win's Class-book of Geometry 37 
 
 Newcomb's School Algebra I Key, 95 cts.) 95 3 8 
 
 Algebra for Colleges (Key, $1.30). 1 3° 38 
 
 Elements of Geometry 1 20 38 
 
 Elements of Trigonometry, Plane and Spherical 1 60 39 
 
 Trigonometry, separate 120 39 
 
 Mathematical Tables 1 10 39 
 
 Essentials of Trigonometry 100 39 
 
 Plane Geometry and Trigonometry 1 10 39 
 
 Analytic Geometry 120 40 
 
 Differential and Integral Calculus 150 40 
 
 Phillips and Beebe's Graphic Algebra 1 60 40 
 
 HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Doyle's History of the United States 100 45 
 
 Duruy's Middle Ages 1 60 41 
 
 Modern Times to 1798 160 42 
 
 Fleury's Ancient History told to Children 70 43 
 
 Freeman's General Sketch of History 1 10 44 
 
 Fyffe's History of Modern Europe : Volume I. 1792-1814 *2 50 46 
 
 Volume U 1814-1848 *2 50 46 
 
 Volume III. 1848-1S78 *2 50 46 
 
 The same. Three volumes in one 275 46 
 
 udet's Manual of International Law 130 46 
 
 Gardiner's English History for Schools 80 47 
 
 Introduction to English History 80 47 
 
 Gardiner and Mullinger's English History for Students 180 47 
 
 Hunt's History of Italy 80 45 
 
 Johnston's American Politics 80 51 
 
 History of the United Slates 1 00 48 
 
 Shorter History of the United States 95 50 
 
 Lacombe's Growth of a People 80 52 
 
 Mac Arthur's History of Scotland 80 45 
 
 Porter's Constitutional History of the United States 1 20 52 
 
 Roscher's Principles of Political Economy. 2 vols *7 00 52 
 
 Sime's History of Germany 80 45 
 
 Sumner's Problems in Political Economy 1 00 52 
 
 Symonds's R< naissance *i 75 5 2 
 
 Thompson's 1 1 isiory of England 88 44 
 
 Walker's Political Economy, Advanced Course 200 53 
 
 The same, Briefer Course 120 54 
 
 The same Elementary Course 1 00 54 
 
 Yonge's History of France 80 45 
 
 Landmarks of History : Ancient History 75 56 
 
 Mediaeval History 80 56 
 
 Modern History 105 56 
 
 PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 Baldwin's Psychology. Vol.1. Senses and Intellect 180 57 
 
 Vol.11. Feeling and Will 200 58 
 
 Elements of Psychology 1 50 59 
 
 artes, Philosophy of (Torrey) 1 50 64 
 
 F alckenberg'a History ol Modern Philosophy 3 50 60 
 
 Hume, Philosophy of (Aikins) 100 65 
 
 ii
 
 Henry Holt &- Co.'s Educational Publications 
 
 CATALOGUE 
 
 PRICE PAGE 
 
 Hyde's Practical Ethics $ 80 61 
 
 James's Psychology. Advanced Course. 2 vols 480 62 
 
 The same. Briefer Course 1 60 63 
 
 Kant. Philosophy of (Watson) 1 75 65 
 
 Locke, Philosophy of (Russell) 100 65 
 
 Paulsen's Introduction to Philosophy (Thilly) 3 5° 65 
 
 Reid, Philosophy of (Sneath) - 5° 6 5 
 
 Spinoza, Philosophy of (Fullerton) 150 65 
 
 Zeller's History of Greek Philosophy 140 66 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. (In English.) 
 
 Banister's Music 80 67 
 
 Champlin's Cyclopaedia of Common Things. Cloth *2 50 68 
 
 The same. Half Leather *3 00 68 
 
 Cyclopaedia of Persons and Places. Cloth *2 50 69 
 
 The same. Half Leather *3 00 69 
 
 Catechism of Common Things 48 70 
 
 Young Folks' Astronomy 48 70 
 
 Champlin and Bostwick's Cyclopaedia of Games and Sports *2 50 70 
 
 Cox's Catechism of Classic Mythology 75 71 
 
 Davis, King, and Collie's Governmental Maps 30 71 
 
 White's Classic Literature 160 71 
 
 Witt's Classic Mythology 100 71 
 
 ENGLISH. 
 
 Bain's Brief English Grammar (Key, 40 cts.) 40 86 
 
 Higher English Grammar. 80 86 
 
 English Grammar bearing upon Composition 1 10 86 
 
 Baker's Specimens of Argumentation. Modern 50 73 
 
 Baldwin's Specimens of Prose Description 50 75 
 
 Boswell's Life of Dr. Samuel Johnson (abridged) *i 50 86 
 
 Brewster's Specimens of Prose Narration.. 50 76 
 
 Bright's Anglo-Saxon Reader 1 75 87 
 
 ten Brink's History of English Literature : Volume I. To Wvchf '200 88 
 
 Volume II ... ..' *2 00 88 
 
 Browning : Selections. (Mason.) 
 
 Burke: Selections. (Perry.) 77 
 
 Clark's Practical Rhetoric 100 89 
 
 Exercises for Drill. Paper 35 89 
 
 Briefer Practical Rhetoric 90 90 
 
 Art of Reading Aloud 60 90 
 
 Coleridge's Prose Extracts. (Beers.) 50 77 
 
 Cook's Extracts from Anglo-Saxon Laws. Paper 40 90 
 
 Corson's Anglo-Saxon and Early English 1 60 90 
 
 De Quincey's English Mail Coach and Joan of Arc. (Hart.) 50 78 
 
 Ford's The Broken Heart. (Scollard.) Buckram 70 78 
 
 The same. Cloth 50 78 
 
 Hale's Constructive Rhetoric im 91 
 
 Hardy's Elementary Composition Exercises 80 90 
 
 Johnsor's Chief Lives of the Poets. (Arnold.) 125 91 
 
 Rasselas. (Emerson.) Buckram 70 79 
 
 The same. Cloth. 50 79 
 
 Lamont's Specimens of Exposition. Cloth 50 80 
 
 Lounsbury'o History of the English Language 112 92 
 
 Part I. with Appendix of Specimens and Index. 90 92 
 
 Lyly's Endymion. (Baker.) Buckram 125 8i 
 
 The same. Cloth 85 81 
 
 Macaulay and Carlyle: Croker's Boswell's Johnson (Strunk.) Cloth... 50 82 
 
 Marlowe's Edward II. (McLaughlin.) Buckram 70 83 
 
 The same. Cloth 50 83 
 
 McLaughlin's Literary Criticism 1 00 93 
 
 Nesbitt's Grammar-Land *i 00 93 
 
 Newman: Selections. (Gates.) Buckram 90 83 
 
 The same. Cloth 50 83 
 
 iii
 
 Henry Holt & Co.'s Educational Publications 
 
 Pancoast's Representative English Literature 
 
 Introduction to English Literature 
 
 Sewell's Dictation Exercises ■ 
 
 Shaw's English Composition by Practice 
 
 Siglar's Practical English Grammar 
 
 Smith's Synonyms Discriminated 
 
 Taine's History of English Literature i 
 
 The same. Abridged. Class-room Edition. (V lSke.) 
 
 Tennyson's Princess. (Sherman.) 
 
 GERMAN. 
 
 Andersen's Bilderbuch. Vocab. (Simonson.) Boards .. $ 
 
 Die Eisjungfrau und andere Geschichten. (Krauss.) Boards 
 
 Ein Besuch bei Charles Dickens. Boards 
 
 Stories, with Grimm's, from Bronson's Easy Prose. Vocab. 
 Auerbach's Auf Wache with Roquette's Gefrorene Kuss. (Macdonnell). 
 
 Boards 
 
 Baumbach's Frau Holde. (Fossler.) Poem. Boards 
 
 Benedix's Der Dritte. Play. (Whitney.) Boards.. . 
 
 Dr. Wespe. Play. Boards 
 
 Eis;ensinn. Play. Boards 
 
 Beresford -Webb's German Historical Reader 
 
 Black well's German Prefixes and Suffixes 
 
 Brandt Day's Scientific Reader 
 
 Bronson's Colloquial German (Key, 65 cts.) 
 
 Easy German Prose. See also Andersen, Grimm, and Hauff 1 
 
 Carovo's Das Miirchen ohne Ende. Vocab. Boards 
 
 Chamisso's lVlcr Schlemihl. (Vogel.) Boards 
 
 Claar's Simson und Delila. Play. Paper 
 
 Cohn's Uber Bakterien. (Seidensticker.) Paper 
 
 Ebers's Line Frage. Boards 
 
 Eckstein's Preisgekront. (Wilson.) 
 
 Eichendorffs Aus dem Leben eines Taugenichts. Boards 
 
 Fischer's Practical Lessons in German 
 
 Elementary Progressive German Reader 
 
 Wildermuth's Der Einsiedler im Walde 
 
 Hillern's HOher als die Kirche 
 
 Fouquc's Sin tram und seine Gefahrten. Paper 
 
 Undine. Vocab. (Jagemann.) 
 
 " Boards 
 
 Francke's German Literature 2 
 
 Fref tag's Karl der Grosse. (Nichols.) 
 
 Die Journalisten. Play. (Thomas.) Boards 
 
 Friedrich's ( J fin si :hen von Buchenau. Play. Paper 
 
 Gerstiickcr's Irrfahrtcn. (Whitney.) 
 
 Goethe's Egmont. iSieffen.) Play. Boards 
 
 Faust. Parti. Play. (Cook.) 
 
 I lermann und Dorothea. Poem. (Thomas.). Boards 
 
 Iphigenie auf Tauris. Play. (Carter) 
 
 Gotz von Berlichingen. (Goodrich ) 
 
 Dichtung und Wahrheit. Selections, (von Jagemann.) 
 
 Glirner's Englisch. Play. Paper 
 
 Gostwick and Harrison's German Literature 2 
 
 Grimm's Die Venus von Milo; Rafael und Michel-Angelo. Boards 
 
 Grimms' Kinder- und Hausmarchen. Vocab. (Otis.) 1 
 
 Boards. (Different selections and notes, no Vocab.). . . 
 
 Selei tions, with Andersen, from Bronson's Easy Prose. Vocab. 
 Gutzkow's Zopf und Schwert. Play. Paper 
 
 Harris's German Reader 1 
 
 Hauffs Die Karawane. From Bronson's Easy Prose. Vocab 
 
 Das kalte Herz, Boards 
 
 (Burnett.) Boards 
 
 Helmholtz'a Goethe's Arbeiten. (Seidensticker.) Paper 
 
 Ma's Kinder-KomSdien. J'lai,- .... 
 
 CATALOGUE 
 
 PRICE 
 
 PAGE 
 
 $1 60 
 
 97 
 
 I 25 
 
 94 
 
 45 
 
 100 
 
 75 
 60 
 
 99 
 100 
 
 *2 25 
 
 100 
 
 *I 25 
 
 100 
 
 I 40 
 
 100 
 85 
 
 3° 
 
 116 
 
 3° 
 
 no 
 
 2.5 
 
 11b 
 
 go 
 
 117 
 
 35 
 
 117 
 
 25 
 
 101 
 
 20 
 
 102 
 
 25 
 
 102 
 
 25 
 
 114 
 
 qo 
 
 i2g 
 
 60 
 
 130 
 
 
 T 3° 
 
 65 
 
 131 
 
 25 
 
 132 
 
 20 
 
 117 
 
 25 
 
 117 
 
 25 
 
 "5 
 
 30 
 
 118 
 
 35 
 
 118 
 
 3° 
 
 118 
 
 3° 
 
 ng 
 
 75 
 
 '34 
 
 70 
 
 134 
 
 65 
 
 134 
 
 60 
 
 134 
 
 25 
 
 no 
 
 Ho 
 
 119 
 
 35 
 
 119 
 
 00 
 
 '35 
 
 75 
 
 120 
 
 30 
 
 102 
 
 35 
 
 "5 
 
 3° 
 
 121 
 
 40 
 
 102 
 
 48 
 
 103 
 
 3° 
 
 i°3 
 
 48 
 
 104 
 
 
 103 
 
 
 120 
 
 25 
 
 104 
 
 00 
 
 '35 
 
 40 
 
 121 
 
 00 
 
 121 
 
 40 
 
 121 
 
 go 
 
 117 
 
 40 
 
 104 
 
 00 
 
 I3<> 
 
 75 
 
 123 
 
 20 
 
 122 
 
 3° 
 
 122 
 
 3° 
 
 122 
 
 48 
 
 lO.'i
 
 Henry Holt &■ Co.'s Educational Publications 
 
 CATALOGUE 
 
 PRICE PAGE 
 
 Heness's Der neue Leitfaden $ r 20 138 
 
 Der Sprechlehrer unter seinen Schiilern 1 10 138 
 
 Hey's Fabeln iiir Kindor. Vocab. Boards 30 123 
 
 Heyse's Anfang und Ende. Boards 25 123 
 
 L'Arrabbiata. (Frost.) Vocab. Boards 25 123 
 
 Die Einsamen. Boards 2 o 123 
 
 Miidchen von Treppi; Marion. (Brusie.) Boards 25 123 
 
 Hillebrand's German Thought *i 75 138 
 
 Hillern's Hoher als die Kirche. Vocab. (Whittlesey.) Boards 25 124 
 
 The same. (Fischer.) 60 134 
 
 Huss's Conversation in German 1 10 138 
 
 Jagemann's German Prose Composition 90 139 
 
 Elements of German Syntax 80 140 
 
 Joynes-Otto: First Book in German. Boards 30 141 
 
 Introductory German Lessons 75 141 
 
 Introductory German Reader g5 141 
 
 Translating English into German (Key, 80 cts.) 80 141 
 
 Jungmann's Er sucht emen Vetter. Play. Paper 25 115 
 
 Kaiser's Erstes LehrDUch 65 142 
 
 Keetels' Oral Method with German 130 142 
 
 Klemm's Lese- und Sprachbiicher. Kreis I. Boards 25 143 
 
 " II. Boards 30 143 
 
 " " (With Vocab.).. 35 143 
 
 " III. Boards 35 143 
 
 " (With Vocab.). 40 143 
 
 " IV. Boards 40 143 
 
 " V. Boards 45 143 
 
 " VI. Boards 50 143 
 
 " VII. Boards 60 143 
 
 Geschichte der deutschen Literatur (Kreis VIII.) 120 143 
 
 Klenze's Deutsche Gedichte 90 105 
 
 Koenigswinter's Sie hat ihr Herz entdeckt. Play. Paper 35 115 
 
 Lessing's Emilia Galotti. (Super.) Play. Boards 30 106 
 
 Minna von Barnhelm. Play. (Whitney.) 48 107 
 
 Nathan der Weise. Play. tBrandt.) New Edition 60 107 
 
 Meissner's A us meiner Welt. Vocab. (Wenckebach.) 75 124 
 
 Moser's Der Schimmel. Play. Paper 25 115 
 
 Der Bibliothekar. Play. (Lange.) Boards 40 107 
 
 MUgge's Riukan Voss. Paper 15 124 
 
 Signa die Seterin. Paper 20 124 
 
 Miiller's (E. R.) Elektrischen Maschinen. (Seidensticker.) Paper 30 124 
 
 Miiller's (Max) Deutsche Liebe. Boards 35 125 
 
 Nathusius's Tagebuch eines armen Frauleins. Paper 25 125 
 
 Nichols's Three German Tales : I. Goethe's Die neue Melusine. II. 
 Zschokke's Der tote Gast. III. H. v. Kleist's Dii Ver- 
 
 lobung in St. Domingo 60 125 
 
 Otis's Elementary German 80 144 
 
 Introduction to Middle High German 1 00 145 
 
 Otto's German Conversation Grammar (Key, 60 cts.) 1 30 146 
 
 Elementary Grammar of the German Language 80 147 
 
 Progressive German Reader. Half roan 1 10 146 
 
 Paul's Er muss tanzen. Play. Paper 25 115 
 
 Petersen's Prinzessin Use. Boards 20 126 
 
 Putlitz's Was sich der Wald erzahlt. Paper 25 126 
 
 Vergissmeinnicht. Paper 20 126 
 
 Badekuren. Play. Paper 25 108 
 
 Das Herz vergessen. Play. Paper 25 108 
 
 Pylodet's New Guide to German Conversation 50 147 
 
 Regents' German and French Poems. Boards 20 108 
 
 Riehl's Burg Neideck. (Palmer.) 30 126 
 
 Der Fluch der Schonheit. (Kendall.) 25 126 
 
 Roquette's Der gefrorene Kuss, with Auerbach's Auf Wacl.e. (Mac- 
 
 donnell.) boards 35 127 
 
 Rosen's Ein Knopf. Play. Paper 25 115 
 
 Scheffel's Kkkehard. (Carruth.) 125 127 
 
 Trompecer von Sakkingen. Poem. (Frost.) 80 108 
 
 Schiller's Die Jungfrau von Orleans. Play. (Nichols.) Cloth 60 no
 
 Henry Holt & Co.'s Educational Publications 
 
 CATALOGUE 
 
 PRICE PAGE 
 
 Schil.er's Die Jungfrau von Orleans. Play. (Nichols.) Boards $ 4° 110 
 
 Das Lied von der Glocke. Poem. (.Otis.) Boards 35 "' 
 
 Maria Stuart. Play (Joynes.) 60 m 
 
 Der Xeffe als Onkel. Play. (Clement.) Boards 40 "2 
 
 Wallenstein. Play. (Carruth.) 100 112 
 
 WilhelmTell. Play. (Sachtleben.) 4 8 "3 
 
 Schoenfeld's German Historical Prose »° I2 7 
 
 Schrakamp's Sagen und Mythen 75 140 
 
 Beriihmte Deutsche 8 5 '49 
 
 Erzahlungen aus der deutschen Geschichte 9° 149 
 
 Schrakamp and van Daell's Das deutsche Buch 65 148 
 
 Simonson's German Ballad-book J \° XI 4 
 
 Spanhoofd's Das Wesentliche der deutschen Grammatik 60 150 
 
 Sprechen Sie Deutsch ? Boards 4° '5° 
 
 Stern's Studien und Plaudereien. First Scries. New Edition 1 10 151 
 
 " " im Vaterland. Second Series 1 20 153 
 
 Storm's Immensee. Vocab. (Burnett.) Boards |5 Iz8 
 
 Teusler's Game for German Conversation. Ninety-eight Cards in a Box 80 153 
 
 Thomas's Practical German Grammar • • •-••;• * I2 J 54 
 
 Three German Comedies: Elz's Er ist nicht eiiersiichtig, Benedix s 
 
 Der Weiberfeind, and Miiller's Im War- 
 
 tesalon erster Klasse. Boards 3° "4 
 
 Tieck's Die Elfen and Das Rothkappchen. Boards 20 129 
 
 Vilmar and Richter's German Epic Tales. Boards 35 I2 9 
 
 Wenckebach and Schrakamp's Deutsche Grammatik '°° x 50 
 
 Wenckebach's Deutsches Lesebuch 8o J 57 
 
 Deutscher Anschauungs-Unterrieht 1 IO J 5 8 
 
 Die schiinsten deutschen Lieder 1 2 ° IX 4 
 
 Deutsche Sprachlehre * ,2 J 5 8 
 
 Whitney's Compendious German Grammar (Key, 80 cts.) 13° J 59 
 
 Brief German Grammar 6° 1 °° 
 
 German Reader in Prose and Verse ' 5° 'o 3 
 
 Introductory German Reader J °° I ° I 
 
 German and English Dictionary 200 163 
 
 Whitney-Klemm: German by Practice 9° T °4 
 
 Elementary German Reader 8° l6 4 
 
 Wichert's An der Majorsecke. (Harris.) 20 114 
 
 Wilhelmi's Einer muss heirathen. Play. Boards 25 114 
 
 Williams's Introduction to German Conversation 8o ,6 4 
 
 Witcomb and Otto's German Conversation 5° *47 
 
 Zschokke's Neujahrsnacht and Der zerbrochene Krug. (Faust.) 25 129 
 
 FRENCH. 
 
 Achard's Le Clos Pommier. Paper 25 T 74 
 
 The same with I >c Maistre's Les Prisonniers du Caucase 70 '74 
 
 ASsop's Fables in French 5° '74 
 
 Alliot's I.es Auteurs Contemporains 120 175 
 
 Contes et Nouvelles 100 191 
 
 Aubert's Literature Francaise 100 175 
 
 Colloquial French Drill. Parti . 48 191 
 
 The same. Part II 65 192 
 
 Balzac's I.e Cure de Tours, avec autres contes. (Warren.) 175 
 
 e Grandet. (Bergeron.) 80 176 
 
 Bayard et Lemoine's La Niaise de Saint-Flour. Play. Paper 20 165 
 
 olliere's Histoire de la Mere Michel. Vocab 60 176 
 
 The same. Paper 3° 17 6 
 
 Bellows's Dictionary for the Pocket. Roan tuck 255 192 
 
 The same. Morocco tuck 3 10 '9 2 
 
 French and English Dictionary. Larger-type Edition 100 192 
 
 '.laminar '93 
 
 . Sn/.inne. Hoards 3° *77 
 
 Borei a Grammaire Francaise. Half roan 13° '93 
 
 Bronson's Exercises in Everyday French. (Key, 60 cts.) 60 194 
 
 vi
 
 Henry Holt & Co.'s Educational Publications 
 
 CATALOGUE 
 
 PRICE PAGE 
 
 Bronson's French Verb Blanks $ 5° 
 
 Carraud's Les Gouters de la Grand'mere. Paper 20 177 
 
 With Sdgur's Petites Filles Modeles 80 177 
 
 Chateaubriand's Les Aventures du dernier Abencerage. With extracts 
 from Atala, Voyage en Ame'rique, etc. (Sanderson.) 
 
 Boards 35 '77 
 
 Choix de Contes Contemporains. (O'Connor.) ... 100 178 
 
 The same. Paper 52 178 
 
 Clairville's Petites Miseres de la Vie Humaine. Play. Paper 20 165 
 
 Classic French Plays : 
 
 Vol I. Le Cid, Le Misanthrope, Athalie 100 165 
 
 Vol. II. Cinna, L'Avare, Esther 100 165 
 
 Vol. III. Horace, Bourgeois Gentilhomme, Les Plaideurs 1 00 165 
 
 College Series of French Plays : 
 
 Vol. I. Joie fait Peur, Bataille de Dames, Maison de Penarvan. 1 00 165 
 . Vol. II. Petits Oiseaux, Mile, de la Seigli&re, Roman d'un Jeune 
 
 Homme Pauvre, Doigts de Fee 1 00 165 
 
 CoppeVs On Rend 1' Argent. (Bronson.) 60 178 
 
 Coppee and De Maupassant: Tales. (Cameron.) 75 >7 8 
 
 Corneille's Cid. (Joynes.) Play. Boards 20 166 
 
 Cinna. (Joynes.) Play. Boards 20 166 
 
 Horace. (Delbos.) Play. Boards 20 166 
 
 Curo's La Jeune Savante, with Souvestre's La Loterie de Francfort. 
 
 Plays. Paper 20 173 
 
 Daudet's Contes. Including La Belle Nivernaise. (Cameron.) 80 179 
 
 La Belle Nivernaise. (Cameron.) Boards 25 179 
 
 Delille's Condensed French Instruction 4° J 94 
 
 De Neuville's Trois Comedies pour Jeunes Filles. I. Les Cuisinieres. 
 
 II. Le Petit Tom. III. La Malade Imaginaire. Paper.. 35 171 
 Drohojowska's Demoiselle de Saint-Cyr. With Souvestre's Testament 
 
 de Mme. Patural. Plays. Boards . 20 173 
 
 Erckmann-Chatrian's Le Conscrit de 1813. (Bocher.) 90 180 
 
 The same. Boards 4 s l8 ° 
 
 Le Blocus. (Bocher.) 9° l8 ° 
 
 The same. Paper 4 s l8 ° 
 
 Madame Therese. (Bocher.) 00 180 
 
 The same. Paper 4 8 180 
 
 Eugene's Students' Grammar of the French Language 1 30 19s 
 
 Elementary French Lessons 60 195 
 
 Fallet's Les Princes de 1' Art 100 180 
 
 The same. Paper 5 2 180 
 
 Feuillet's Le Roman d'un Jeune Homme Pauvre. The Novel. (Owen.) 90 181 
 
 The same. Paper 44 181 
 
 Le Roman d'un Jeune Homme Pauvre. The Play. Boards. 20 167 
 
 Le Village. Play. Paper 20 167 
 
 FevaPs Chouans et Bleus. (Sankey.) 80 181 
 
 The same. Paper 4° 181 
 
 Fisher's Easy French Reading 75 J 95 
 
 Fleury's L'Histoire de France 1 10 195 
 
 Ancient History 7° *95 
 
 Foa's Le Petit Robinson de Paris. Vocab 7° l81 
 
 The same. Paper 3 6 l81 
 
 Contes Biographiques. I'ocab 80 181 
 
 The same. Paper 4° l8x 
 
 Fortier's Histoire de la Litterature Francaise 100 196 
 
 Gasc's Dictionary of the French and English Languages. 8vo 225 196 
 
 Pocket French and English Dictionary. i8mo 100 197 
 
 Translator 100 1 97 
 
 Girardin's La Joie fait Peur. Play. Paper 20 167 
 
 Halevy's L'Abbe Constantin. Vocab. (Super.) Boards 4° l82 
 
 Hugo's Selections. (Warren.) • 7° l8a 
 
 Ruy Bias. Play. (Michaels.) Boards. 4° 168 
 
 Hernani. Play. (Harper.) 7° l6 7 
 
 Janon's Recueil de Poesies 8o l68 
 
 Jeu des Auteurs. Ninety-six cards in a box 80 197 
 
 Joynes's Minimum French Grammar and Reader 75 '9 8 
 
 Joynes-Otto's First Book in French. Boards 3° J 99 
 
 vii
 
 Henry Holt &- Co.'s Educational Publications 
 
 CATALOGUE 
 
 PRICE PAGE 
 
 Joynes-Otto's Introductory French Lessons $i oo 199 
 
 Introductory French Reader 80 199 
 
 Labiche et Delacour's La Cagnotte. Play. Paper 20 168 
 
 Les Petits Oiseaux. Play. Paper 20 169 
 
 Labiche et Martin's La Poudre aux Veux. Play. Paper 20 169 
 
 Lacombe's Petite Histoire du Peuple Francais 60 182 
 
 La Fontaine's Fables Choisies. (Delbos.) Boards 40 169 
 
 Leclerq's Trois Proverbes. Plays. Paper 20 169 
 
 Mace's Bouchee de Pain. Vocab 100 183 
 
 The same. Vocab. Paper 52 183 
 
 Madame de M.'s La Petite Martian. With Mine, de Gaulle's Le Bracelet. 
 
 Paper 20 169 
 
 Matzke's French Pronunciation 
 
 Mazires' Le Collier de Pedes. Play. Paper.. 20 169 
 
 de Maistre's Voyage autour de ma Chambre. Paper 28 183 
 
 M<.ras's Syntaxe Pratique de la Langue Francaise 100 200 
 
 Legendes Franchises : No. 1. Robert le Diable 20 200 
 
 No. 2. Le Bon Roi Dagobert 20 200 
 
 Xo. 3. Merlin l'Enchanteur 30 200 
 
 Merimee's Colomba. (Cameron.) 60 184 
 
 The same. Boards 36 184 
 
 oiiire's L'Avare. Play. (Joynes.) Boards 20 170 
 
 I. e Bourgeois Gentilhomme. Play. (Delbos.) Paper 20 170 
 
 Lc Misanthrope. Play. (Joynes.) Boards 20 170 
 
 Moutonnier's Les Premiers Pas dans l'fitude du Francais 75 201 
 
 Pour Apprendre a Parler Francais 75 201 
 
 Musiciens Celebres 1 00 184 
 
 The same. Paper 52 184 
 
 Musset's l'n Caprice. Play. Paper 20 170 
 
 Otto's French Conversation-Grammar. Half roan. (AVy, 60 cts.) t 30 202 
 
 Progressive French Reader 1 10 202 
 
 Owen-Paget (The) Annotations 185 
 
 Parlez-vous Francais ? Boards 40 202 
 
 Porchat's Trois Mois sous la Neige 70 186 
 
 The same. Paper 32 186 
 
 Pressense's Rosa. Vocab. (Pylodet.) .■ 100 186 
 
 T he same. Paper 52 186 
 
 Pylodet's Gouites de Rosee 50 171 
 
 Lecjons de Litterature Francaise Classique 1 30 204 
 
 Theatre Fran9ais Classiquc. Paper 20 203 
 
 La Litterature Francaise Contemporaine 1 10 186 
 
 I a Mere I'Oie. Boards 40 171 
 
 Beginning French. Boards 45 203 
 
 Beginner^ French Reader. Boards 45 203 
 
 Sei 1 md French Reader 90 203 
 
 Racine's Athalie. Play. (Joynes.) Boards 20 171 
 
 Esther. Play. (Joynes.) Boards 20 171 
 
 Plaidetirs. Play. (Delbos.) 20 171 
 
 Regent's French and German Poems. Boards 20 172 
 
 Riodu's Lucie 60 204 
 
 Sadler's [Yanslating English into French 1 00 204 
 
 St. Germain's Pour une Epingle. Vocab 75 187 
 
 The same. Paper. 36 187 
 
 Sand's La Petite Fadette. (Bother.) 100 188 
 
 une Boards 52 188 
 
 Marianne. Paper 30 188 
 
 La Mare aux Diable. (Joynes.) '88 
 
 Sandeau's Mademoiselle de la seigliere, Play. Boards 20 172 
 
 I.. 1 Maison de Penarvan. Play. Boards 20 172 
 
 Scribe et Lcgouve. La Bataille de Dames. Play. Boards 20 172 
 
 Li i Doigts de Fee. Play. Boards 20 173 
 
 Scribe et MMesvili Paper 20 173 
 
 i es Filles Modeles Papei 24 188 
 
 Les Females qui Pleurent, Play. Paper 20 173 
 
 Souvestrc's ' I phi nous les Toits 60 188 
 
 Paper 28 188 
 
 La Vieille Cousine 1 Ricochets, Plays, Paper — 20 173 
 
 viii
 
 Henry Holt & Co.'s Educational Publications 
 
 CATALOGUR 
 
 PRICE l'AGK 
 
 Souvestre's La Loterie de Francfort, with Curo's La Jeune Savante. 
 
 Plays. Boards .- » 2 ° "73 
 
 Le Testament de Mme. Patural, with Drohojowska's Demoi- 
 selle de Saint-Cyr. Plays. Boards 20 173 
 
 Stern and Mi'ras's fitude Progressive de la Langue Franchise 1 20 205 
 
 Taine's Les Origines de la France Contemporaine. (Edgren.) Boards. 50 189 
 
 Thiers' Expedition de Bonaparte en figypte. (Edgren.) Boards 35 189 
 
 Toepffer's Bibliotheque de mon Oncle. (Marcou.) 189 
 
 Vacquerie's Jean Baud ry. Play. Paper 20 '73 
 
 Verconsin's C'lStait Gertrude. En Wagon. (Together.) Plays. Boards. 30 173 
 
 Verne's Michel Strogoff. (Lewis.) •■ 7" '9° 
 
 Walter's Classic French Letters 75 *9° 
 
 Whitney's Practical French Grammar. Half roan. (Key, 80 cts.) 130 206 
 
 Practical French 9° 207 
 
 Brief 'French Grammar 6 5 2o8 
 
 Introductory French Reader 7° 2 °9 
 
 Witcomb and Bellenger's Guide to French Conversation 5° 210 
 
 GREEK AND LATIN. 
 
 Brooks's Introduction to Attic Greek ' "> 216 
 
 Goodell's The Greek in English 60 217 
 
 Greek Lessons. Part I. The Greek in English. Part II. The 
 
 Greek of Xenophon ••• * 25 2I 7 
 
 Judson's The Latin in English 100 218 
 
 Peck's Gai Suetoni Tranquilli De Vita Csesarum Libri Duo 1 20 218 
 
 Latin Pronunciation 4° 220 
 
 Preparatory Latin and Greek Texts 120 221 
 
 Latin part separate 80 221 
 
 Greek part separate 6 ° 221 
 
 Richardson's Six Months' Preparation for Caesar 90 221 
 
 Scrivener's Greek Testament 2 00 221 
 
 Williams's Extracts from Various Greek Authors 100 221 
 
 ITALIAN AND SPANISH. 
 
 ITALIAN. 
 
 Amicis' Cuore, abridged. (Kuhns.) 211 
 
 Montague's Manual of Italian Grammar. Half roan 100 213 
 
 Nota's La Fiera. Paper 60 211 
 
 Ongaro's Rosa dell' Alpi. Paper 60 211 
 
 Parlate Italiano ? Boards 4° 2I 3 
 
 Pellico's Francesca da Rimini. Paper 60 211 
 
 SPANISH. 
 
 Caballero's La Familia de Alvareda. Paper 75 212 
 
 i Habla vd. Espanol ? Boards 4° 212 
 
 I Habla v. Ingles ? Boards 40 212 
 
 Lope de Vega's Obras Maestras. Burnished buckram 100 212 
 
 Manning's Practical Spanish Grammar. (Revised Ed.) 100 212 
 
 Ramsey's Text-book of Modern Spanish.... 1 80 214 
 
 Sales's Spanish Hive , ■ J °° 2I 5 
 
 ix
 
 A 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "%3A 
 
 
 
 
 AOF-0 
 
 
 
 vkios-; 
 
 
 "%3/\ 
 
 
 
 
 '/HI3A
 
 ■J3U3NV-S01* N vflMAINW' 
 
 ^t-UBRARY-Oc ^UIBRARYQr 
 
 University of California. Los Angeles 
 
 L 005 213 905 2 
 
 ^OJIIVJ-JO^ %MI1V3-J0^ <Tii3QNVS01^ "%!3AIN(HttV 
 
 so 
 
 ."*> 
 
 ^FCALIfOfy 
 
 
 tovyaiH^ ^Aavaan-^ 
 
 \WEUNIVER% 
 
 
 ^lMNV-SOl^ 
 
 <AV\EtiNIVER% ^lOS-ANGEUfc* 
 
 i— » 
 
 3> 
 
 <r 
 
 (0 Q I 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 
 000 695 487 
 k ^E-llBRARY^ 
 
 %l3AINfl-]Vb? %MITCH0^ ^0JITVJdO : 
 
 \V\E-UNIVERS//>. 
 o 
 
 a^IOS-ANCEIFju 
 
 ^0F-CAllF(% 
 
 i>5 
 
 ^MNYSOl^ *%I3AINIHWV ^AaV«flll# 
 
 .^OF-CAIIFO% 
 
 ^uivaaiH^ 
 
 ^•LIBRARYQ^ ^ILIBRARYj^ 
 
 AWH-DNIVERS//) 
 
 ^IOS-ANCELfj^ 
 
 O 
 
 ^odnvj-jo^ %omn^ <^»so^ *%hainih$ 
 
 t0KAUF(%, ^0FCALIF0%, 
 
 .^EUNIVERS/a 
 
 ^lOS-ANGEtfju