_Gentlemen:_--
The chairman has correctly reminded you that this is not the first
time that my voice has been heard in this hall. But that was an
occasion very different from that which now assembles us together--
was nearly thirty years ago, when I endeavored to support and
stimulate the flagging energies of an institution in which I thought
there were the germs of future refinement and intellectual advantage
to the rising generation of Manchester, and since I have been here
on this occasion I have learned with much gratification that it is
now counted among your most flourishing institutions. There was also
another and more recent occasion when the gracious office fell to me
to distribute among the members of the Mechanics' Institution those
prizes which they had gained through their study in letters and in
science. Gentlemen, these were pleasing offices, and if life
consisted only of such offices you would not have to complain of
it. But life has its masculine duties, and we are assembled here to
fulfill some of the most important of these, when, as citizens of a
free country, we are assembled together to declare our determination
to maintain, to uphold the constitution to which we are debtors, in
our opinion, for our freedom and our welfare.
Gentlemen, there seems at first something incongruous that one
should be addressing the population of so influential and
intelligent a county as Lancashire who is not locally connected with
them, and, gentlemen, I will frankly admit that this circumstance
did for a long time make me hesitate in accepting your cordial and
generous invitation. But, gentlemen, after what occurred yesterday,
after receiving more than two hundred addresses from every part of
this great county, after the welcome which then greeted me, I feel
that I should not be doing justice to your feelings, I should not do
my duty to myself, if I any longer consider my presence here
to-night to be an act of presumption. Gentlemen, though it may not
be an act of presumption, it still is, I am told, an act of great
difficulty. Our opponents assure us that the Conservative party has
no political program; and, therefore, they must look with much
satisfaction to one whom you honor to-night by considering him the
leader and representative of your opinions when he comes forward, at
your invitation, to express to you what that program is. The
Conservative party are accused of having no program of policy. If by
a program is meant a plan to despoil churches and plunder landlords,
I admit we have no program. If by a program is meant a policy which
assails or menaces every institution and every interest, every class
and every calling in the country, I admit we have no program. But if
to have a policy with distinct ends, and these such as most deeply
interest the great body of the nation, be a becoming program for a
political party, then I contend we have an adequate program, and one
which, here or elsewhere, I shall always be prepared to assert and
to vindicate.
Gentlemen, the program of the Conservative party is to maintain the
constitution of the country. I have not come down to Manchester to
deliver an essay on the English constitution; but when the banner of
Republicanism is unfurled--when the fundamental principles of our
institutions are controverted--I think, perhaps, it may not be
inconvenient that I should make some few practical remarks upon the
character of our constitution upon that monarchy limited by the
co-ordinate authority of the estates of the realm, which, under the
title of Queen, Lords, and Commons, has contributed so greatly to
the prosperity of this country, and with the maintenance of which I
believe that prosperity is bound up.
Gentlemen, since the settlement of that constitution, now nearly two
centuries ago, England has never experienced a revolution, though
there is no country in which there has been so continuous and such
considerable change. How is this? Because the wisdom of your
forefathers placed the prize of supreme power without the sphere of
human passions. Whatever the struggle of parties, whatever the
strife of factions, whatever the excitement and exaltation of the
public mind, there has always been something in this country round
which all classes and parties could rally, representing the majesty
of the law, the administration of justice, and involving, at the
same time, the security for every man's rights and the fountain of
honor. Now, gentlemen, it is well clearly to comprehend what is
meant by a country not having a revolution for two centuries. It
means, for that space, the unbroken exercise and enjoyment of the
ingenuity of man. It means for that space the continuous application
of the discoveries of science to his comfort and convenience. It
means the accumulation of capital, the elevation of labor, the
establishment of those admirable factories which cover your
district; the unwearied improvement of the cultivation of the land,
which has extracted from a somewhat churlish soil harvests more
exuberant than those furnished by lands nearer to the sun. It means
the continuous order which is the only parent of personal liberty
and political right. And you owe all these, gentlemen, to the
throne.
There is another powerful and most beneficial influence which is
also exercised by the crown. Gentlemen, I am a party man. I believe
that, without party, parliamentary government is impossible. I look
upon parliamentary government as the noblest government in the
world, and certainly the one most suited to England. But without the
discipline of political connection, animated by the principle of
private honor, I feel certain that a popular assembly would sink
before the power or the corruption of a minister. Yet, gentlemen, I
am not blind to the faults of party government. It has one great
defect. Party has a tendency to warp the intelligence, and there is
no minister, however resolved he may be in treating a great public
question, who does not find some difficulty in emancipating himself
from the traditionary prejudice on which he has long acted. It is,
therefore, a great merit in our constitution, that before a minister
introduces a measure to Parliament, he must submit it to an
intelligence superior to all party, and entirely free from
influences of that character.
I know it will be said, gentlemen, that, however beautiful in
theory, the personal influence of the sovereign is now absorbed in
the responsibility of the minister. Gentlemen, I think you will
find there is great fallacy in this view. The principles of the
English constitution do not contemplate the absence of personal
influence on the part of the sovereign; and if they did, the
principles of human nature would prevent the fulfillment of such a
theory. Gentlemen, I need not tell you that I am now making on this
subject abstract observations of general application to our
institutions and our history. But take the case of a sovereign of
England, who accedes to his throne at the earliest age the law
permits, and who enjoys a long reign,--take an instance like that
of George III. From the earliest moment of his accession that
sovereign is placed in constant communication with the most able
statesmen of the period, and of all parties. Even with average
ability it is impossible not to perceive that such a sovereign must
soon attain a great mass of political information and political
experience. Information and experience, gentlemen, whether they are
possessed by a sovereign or by the humblest of his subjects, are
irresistible in life. No man with the vast responsibility that
devolves upon an English minister can afford to treat with
indifference a suggestion that has not occurred to him, or
information with which he had not been previously supplied. But,
gentlemen, pursue this view of the subject. The longer the reign,
the influence of that sovereign must proportionately increase. All
the illustrious statesmen who served his youth disappear. A new
generation of public servants rises up, there is a critical
conjunction in affairs--a moment of perplexity and peril. Then it
is that the sovereign can appeal to a similar state of affairs that
occurred perhaps thirty years before. When all are in doubt among
his servants, he can quote the advice that was given by the
illustrious men of his early years, and, though he may maintain
himself within the strictest limits of the constitution, who can
suppose, when such information and such suggestions are made by the
most exalted person in the country, that they can be without effect?
No, gentlemen; a minister who could venture to treat such influence
with indifference would not be a constitutional minister, but an
arrogant idiot.
Gentlemen, the influence of the crown is not confined merely to
political affairs. England is a domestic country. Here the home is
revered and the hearth is sacred. The nation is represented by a
family--the royal family; and if that family is educated with a
sense of responsibility and a sentiment of public duty, it is
difficult to exaggerate the salutary influence they may exercise
over a nation. It is not merely an influence upon manners; it is not
merely that they are a model for refinement and for good taste--
they affect the heart as well as the intelligence of the people; and
in the hour of public adversity, or in the anxious conjuncture of
public affairs, the nation rallies round the family and the throne,
and its spirit is animated and sustained by the expression of public
affection. Gentlemen, there is yet one other remark that I would
make upon our monarchy, though had it not been for recent
circumstances, I should have refrained from doing so. An attack has
recently been made upon the throne on account of the costliness of
the institution. Gentlemen, I shall not dwell upon the fact that if
the people of England appreciate the monarchy, as I believe they do,
it would be painful to them that their royal and representative
family should not be maintained with becoming dignity, or fill in
the public eye a position inferior to some of the nobles of the
land. Nor will I insist upon what is unquestionably the fact, that
the revenues of the crown estates, on which our sovereign might live
with as much right as the Duke of Bedford, or the Duke of
Northumberland, has to his estates, are now paid into the public
exchequer. All this, upon the present occasion, I am not going to
insist upon. What I now say is this: that there is no sovereignty of
any first-rate State which costs so little to the people as the
sovereignty of England. I will not compare our civil list with those
of European empires, because it is known that in amount they treble
and quadruple it; but I will compare it with the cost of sovereignty
in a republic, and that a republic with which you are intimately
acquainted--the republic of the United States of America.
Gentlemen, there is no analogy between the position of our sovereign,
Queen Victoria, and that of the President of the United States. The
President of the United States is not the sovereign of the United
States. There is a very near analogy between the position of the
President of the United States and that of the prime minister of
England, and both are paid at much the same rate--the income of a
second-class professional man. The sovereign of the United States is
the people; and I will now show you what the sovereignty of the United
States costs. Gentlemen, you are aware of the Constitution of the
United States. There are thirty-seven independent States, each with a
sovereign legislature. Besides these, there is a Confederation of
States, to conduct their external affairs, which consists of the House
of Representatives and a Senate. There are two hundred and
eighty-five members of the House of Representatives, and there are
seventy-four members of the Senate, making altogether three hundred
and fifty-nine members of Congress. Now each member of Congress
receives 1,000 pounds sterling per annum. In addition to this he
receives an allowance called "mileage," which varies according to the
distance which he travels, but the aggregate cost of which is about
30,000 pounds per annum. That makes 389,000 pounds, almost the
exact amount of our civil list.
But this, gentlemen, will allow you to make only a very imperfect
estimate of the cost of sovereignty in the United States. Every
member of every legislature in the thirty-seven States is also paid.
There are, I believe, five thousand and ten members of State
legislatures, who receive about $350 per annum each. As some of the
returns are imperfect, the average which I have given of expenditure
may be rather high, and therefore I have not counted the mileage,
which is also universally allowed. Five thousand and ten members of
State legislatures at $350 each make $1,753,500, or 350,700 pounds
sterling a year. So you see, gentlemen, that the immediate
expenditure for the sovereignty of the United States is between
700,000 and 800,000 pounds a year. Gentlemen, I have not time to
pursue this interesting theme, otherwise I could show that you have
still but imperfectly ascertained the cost of sovereignty in a
republic. But, gentlemen, I cannot resist giving you one further
illustration.
The government of this country is considerably carried on by the aid
of royal commissions. So great is the increase of public business
that it would be probably impossible for a minister to carry on
affairs without this assistance. The Queen of England can command
for these objects the services of the most experienced statesmen,
and men of the highest position in society. If necessary, she can
summon to them distinguished scholars or men most celebrated in
science and in arts; and she receives from them services that are
unpaid. They are only too proud to be described in the commission
as her Majesty's "trusty councilors"; and if any member of these
commissions performs some transcendent services, both of thought and
of labor, he is munificently rewarded by a public distinction
conferred upon him by the fountain of honor. Gentlemen, the
government of the United States, has, I believe, not less availed
itself of the services of commissions than the government of the
United Kingdom; but in a country where there is no fountain of
honor, every member of these commissions is paid.
Gentlemen, I trust I have now made some suggestions to you
respecting the monarchy of England which at least may be so far
serviceable that when we are separated they may not be altogether
without advantage; and now, gentlemen, I would say something on the
subject of the House of Lords. It is not merely the authority of
the throne that is now disputed, but the character and the influence
of the House of Lords that are held up by some to public disregard.
Gentlemen, I shall not stop for a moment to offer you any proofs of
the advantage of a second chamber; and for this reason. That
subject has been discussed now for a century, ever since the
establishment of the government of the United States, and all great
authorities, American, German, French, Italian, have agreed in this,
that a representative government is impossible without a second
chamber. And it has been, especially of late, maintained by great
political writers in all countries, that the repeated failure of
what is called the French republic is mainly to be ascribed to its
not having a second chamber.
But, gentlemen, however anxious foreign countries have been to enjoy
this advantage, that anxiety has only been equaled by the difficulty
which they have found in fulfilling their object. How is a second
chamber to be constituted? By nominees of the sovereign power?
What influence can be exercised by a chamber of nominees? Are they
to be bound by popular election? In what manner are they to be
elected? If by the same constituency as the popular body, what
claim have they, under such circumstances, to criticize or to
control the decisions of that body? If they are to be elected by a
more select body, qualified by a higher franchise, there immediately
occurs the objection, why should the majority be governed by the
minority? The United States of America were fortunate in finding a
solution of this difficulty; but the United States of America had
elements to deal with which never occurred before, and never
probably will occur again, because they formed their illustrious
Senate from materials that were offered them by the thirty-seven
States. We gentlemen, have the House of Lords, an assembly which
has historically developed and periodically adapted itself to the
wants and necessities of the times.
What, gentlemen, is the first quality which is required in a second
chamber? Without doubt, independence. What is the best foundation of
independence? Without doubt, property. The prime minister of England
has only recently told you, and I believe he spoke quite accurately,
that the average income of the members of the House of Lords is
20,000 pounds per annum. Of course there are some who have more,
and some who have less; but the influence of a public assembly, so far
as property is concerned, depends upon its aggregate property, which,
in the present case, is a revenue of 9,000,000 pounds a year. But,
gentlemen, you must look to the nature of this property. It is
visible property, and therefore it is responsible property, which
every rate-payer in the room knows to his cost. But, gentlemen, it is
not only visible property; it is, generally speaking, territorial
property; and one of the elements of territorial property is, that it
is representative. Now, for illustration, suppose--which God
forbid--there was no House of Commons, and any Englishman,--I will
take him from either end of the island,--a Cumberland, or a Cornish
man, finds himself aggrieved, the Cumbrian says: "This conduct I
experience is most unjust. I know a Cumberland man in the House of
Lords, the Earl of Carlisle or the Earl of Lonsdale; I will go to him;
he will never see a Cumberland man ill-treated." The Cornish man will
say: "I will go to the Lord of Port Eliot; his family have sacrificed
themselves before this for the liberties of Englishmen, and he will
get justice done me."
But, gentlemen, the charge against the House of Lords is that the
dignities are hereditary, and we are told that if we have a House of
Peers they should be peers for life. There are great authorities in
favor of this, and even my noble friend near me [Lord Derby], the
other day, gave in his adhesion to a limited application of this
principle. Now, gentlemen, in the first place, let me observe that
every peer is a peer for life, as he cannot be a peer after his
death; but some peers for life are succeeded in their dignities by
their children. The question arises, who is most responsible--a
peer for life whose dignities are not descendible, or a peer for
life whose dignities are hereditary? Now, gentlemen, a peer for
life is in a very strong position. He says: "Here I am; I have got
power and I will exercise it." I have no doubt that, on the whole,
a peer for life would exercise it for what he deemed was the public
good. Let us hope that. But, after all, he might and could
exercise it according to his own will. Nobody can call him to
account; he is independent of everybody. But a peer for life whose
dignities descend is in a very different position. He has every
inducement to study public opinion, and, when he believes it just,
to yield; because he naturally feels that if the order to which he
belongs is in constant collision with public opinion, the chances
are that his dignities will not descend to his posterity.
Therefore, gentlemen, I am not prepared myself to believe that a
solution of any difficulties in the public mind on this subject is
to be found by creating peers for life. I know there are some
philosophers who believe that the best substitute for the House of
Lords would be an assembly formed of ex-governors of colonies. I
have not sufficient experience on that subject to give a decided
opinion upon it. When the Muse of Comedy threw her frolic grace over
society, a retired governor was generally one of the characters in
every comedy; and the last of our great actors,--who, by the way,
was a great favorite at Manchester,--Mr. Farren, was celebrated for
his delineation of the character in question. Whether it be the
recollection of that performance or not, I confess I am inclined to
believe that an English gentleman--born to business, managing his
own estate, administering the affairs of his county, mixing with all
classes of his fellow-men, now in the hunting field, now in the
railway direction, unaffected, unostentatious, proud of his
ancestors, if they have contributed to the greatness of our common
country--is, on the whole, more likely to form a Senator agreeable
to English opinion and English taste than any substitute that has
yet been produced.
Gentlemen, let me make one observation more on the subject of the
House of Lords before I conclude. There is some advantage in
political experience. I remember the time when there was a similar
outcry against the House of Lords, but much more intense and
powerful; and, gentlemen, it arose from the same cause. A Liberal
government had been installed in office, with an immense Liberal
majority. They proposed some violent measures. The House of Lords
modified some, delayed others, and some they threw out. Instantly
there was a cry to abolish or to reform the House of Lords, and the
greatest popular orator [Daniel O'Connell] that probably ever
existed was sent on a pilgrimage over England to excite the people
in favor of this opinion. What happened? That happened, gentlemen,
which may happen to-morrow. There was a dissolution of Parliament.
The great Liberal majority vanished. The balance of parties was
restored. It was discovered that the House of Lords had behind them
at least half of the English people. We heard no more cries for
their abolition or their reform, and before two years more passed
England was really governed by the House of Lords, under the wise
influence of the Duke of Wellington and the commanding eloquence of
Lyndhurst; and such was the enthusiasm of the nation in favor of the
second chamber that at every public meeting its health was drunk,
with the additional sentiment, for which we are indebted to one of
the most distinguished members that ever represented the House of
Commons: "Thank God, there is the House of Lords."
Gentlemen, you will, perhaps, not be surprised that, having made
some remarks upon the monarchy and the House of Lords, I should say
something respecting that house in which I have literally passed the
greater part of my life, and to which I am devotedly attached. It
is not likely, therefore, that I should say anything to depreciate
the legitimate position and influence of the House of Commons.
Gentlemen, it is said that the diminished power of the throne and
the assailed authority of the House of Lords are owing to the
increased power of the House of Commons, and the new position which
of late years, and especially during the last forty years, it has
assumed in the English constitution. Gentlemen, the main power of
the House of Commons depends upon its command over the public purse,
and its control of the public expenditure; and if that power is
possessed by a party which has a large majority in the House of
Commons, the influence of the House of Commons is proportionately
increased, and, under some circumstances, becomes more predominant.
But, gentlemen, this power of the House of Commons is not a power
which has been created by any reform act, from the days of Lord
Grey, in 1832, to 1867. It is the power which the House of Commons
has enjoyed for centuries, which it has frequently asserted and
sometimes even tyrannically exercised. Gentlemen, the House of
Commons represents the constituencies of England, and I am here to
show you that no addition to the elements of that constituency has
placed the House of Commons in a different position with regard to
the throne and the House of Lords from that it has always
constitutionally occupied.
Gentlemen, we speak now on this subject with great advantage. We
recently have had published authentic documents upon this matter
which are highly instructive. We have, for example, just published
the census of Great Britain, and we are now in possession of the
last registration of voters for the United Kingdom. Gentlemen, it
appears that by the census the population at this time is about
32,000,000. It is shown by the last registration that, after making
the usual deductions for deaths, removals, double entries, and so
on, the constituency of the United Kingdom may be placed at
2,200,000. So, gentlemen, it at once appears that there are
30,000,000 people in this country who are as much represented by the
House of Lords as by the House of Commons, and who, for the
protection of their rights, must depend upon them and the majesty of
the throne. And now, gentlemen, I will tell you what was done by
the last reform act.
Lord Grey, in his measure of 1832, which was no doubt a
statesmanlike measure, committed a great, and for a time it appeared
an irretrievable, error. By that measure he fortified the
legitimate influence of the aristocracy, and accorded to the middle
classes great and salutary franchises; but he not only made no
provision for the representation of the working classes in the
constitution, but he absolutely abolished those ancient franchises
which the working classes had peculiarly enjoyed and exercised from
time immemorial. Gentlemen, that was the origin of Chartism, and of
that electoral uneasiness which existed in this country more or less
for thirty years.
The Liberal party, I feel it my duty to say, had not acted fairly by
this question. In their adversity they held out hopes to the
working classes, but when they had a strong government they laughed
their vows to scorn. In 1848 there was a French revolution, and a
republic was established. No one can have forgotten what the effect
was in this country. I remember the day when not a woman could
leave her house in London, and when cannon were planted on
Westminster Bridge. When Lord Derby became prime minister affairs
had arrived at such a point that it was of the first moment that the
question should be sincerely dealt with. He had to encounter great
difficulties, but he accomplished his purpose with the support of a
united party. And gentlemen, what has been the result? A year ago
there was another revolution in France, and a republic was again
established of the most menacing character. What happened in this
country? You could not get half a dozen men to assemble in a street
and grumble. Why? Because the people had got what they wanted.
They were content, and they were grateful.
But, gentlemen, the constitution of England is not merely a
constitution in State, it is a constitution in Church and State. The
wisest sovereigns and statesmen have ever been anxious to connect
authority with religion--some to increase their power, some,
perhaps, to mitigate its exercise. But the same difficulty has been
experienced in effecting this union which has been experienced in
forming a second chamber--either the spiritual power has usurped
upon the civil, and established a sacerdotal society, or the civil
power has invaded successfully the rights of the spiritual, and the
ministers of religion have been degraded into stipendiaries of the
state and instruments of the government. In England we accomplish
this great result by an alliance between Church and State, between
two originally independent powers. I will not go into the history of
that alliance, which is rather a question for those archaeological
societies which occasionally amuse and instruct the people of this
city. Enough for me that this union was made and has contributed for
centuries to the civilization of this country. Gentlemen, there is
the same assault against the Church of England and the union between
the State and the Church as there is against the monarchy and
against the House of Lords. It is said that the existence of
nonconformity proves that the Church is a failure. I draw from these
premises an exactly contrary conclusion; and I maintain that to have
secured a national profession of faith with the unlimited enjoyment
of private judgment in matters spiritual, is the solution of the
most difficult problem, and one of the triumphs of civilization.
It is said that the existence of parties in the Church also proves
its incompetence. On that matter, too, I entertain a contrary
opinion. Parties have always existed in the Church; and some have
appealed to them as arguments in favor of its divine institution,
because, in the services and doctrines of the Church have been found
representatives of every mood in the human mind. Those who are
influenced by ceremonies find consolation in forms which secure to
them the beauty of holiness. Those who are not satisfied except
with enthusiasm find in its ministrations the exaltation they
require, while others who believe that the "anchor of faith" can
never be safely moored except in the dry sands of reason find a
religion within the pale of the Church which can boast of its
irrefragable logic and its irresistible evidence.
Gentlemen, I am inclined sometimes to believe that those who
advocate the abolition of the union between Church and State have
not carefully considered the consequences of such a course. The
Church is a powerful corporation of many millions of her Majesty's
subjects, with a consummate organization and wealth which in its
aggregate is vast. Restricted and controlled by the State, so
powerful a corporation may be only fruitful of public advantage, but
it becomes a great question what might be the consequences of the
severance of the controlling tie between these two bodies. The State
would be enfeebled, but the Church would probably be strengthened.
Whether that is a result to be desired is a grave question for all
men. For my own part, I am bound to say that I doubt whether it
would be favorable to the cause of civil and religious liberty. I
know that there is a common idea that if the union between Church
and State was severed, the wealth of the Church would revert to the
State; but it would be well to remember that the great proportion of
ecclesiastical property is the property of individuals. Take, for
example, the fact that the great mass of Church patronage is
patronage in the hands of private persons. That you could not touch
without compensation to the patrons. You have established that
principle in your late Irish Bill, where there was very little
patronage. And in the present state of the public mind on the
subject, there is very little doubt that there would be scarcely a
patron in England--irrespective of other aid the Church would
receive--who would not dedicate his compensation to the spiritual
wants of his neighbors.
It was computed some years ago that the property of the Church in this
manner, if the union was terminated, would not be less than between
80,000,000 and 90,000,000 pounds, and since that period the amount
of private property dedicated to the purposes of the Church has very
largely increased. I therefore trust that when the occasion offers
for the country to speak out it will speak out in an unmistakable
manner on this subject; and recognizing the inestimable services of
the Church, that it will call upon the government to maintain its
union with the State. Upon this subject there is one remark I would
make. Nothing is more surprising to me than the plea on which the
present outcry is made against the Church of England. I could not
believe that in the nineteenth century the charge against the Church
of England should be that churchmen, and especially the clergy, had
educated the people. If I were to fix upon one circumstance more than
another which redounded to the honor of churchmen, it is that they
should fulfill this noble office; and, next to being "the stewards of
divine mysteries," I think the greatest distinction of the clergy is
the admirable manner in which they have devoted their lives and their
fortunes to this greatest of national objects.
Gentlemen, you are well acquainted in this city with this
controversy. It was in this city--I don't know whether it was not
in this hall--that that remarkable meeting was held of the
Nonconformists to effect important alterations in the Education Act,
and you are acquainted with the discussion in Parliament which arose
in consequence of that meeting. Gentlemen, I have due and great
respect for the Nonconformist body. I acknowledge their services to
their country, and though I believe that the political reasons which
mainly called them into existence have entirely ceased, it is
impossible not to treat with consideration a body which has been
eminent for its conscience, its learning, and its patriotism; but I
must express my mortification that, from a feeling of envy or of
pique, the Nonconformist body, rather than assist the Church in its
great enterprise, should absolutely have become the partisans of a
merely secular education. I believe myself, gentlemen, that without
the recognition of a superintending Providence in the affairs of
this world all national education will be disastrous, and I feel
confident that it is impossible to stop at that mere recognition.
Religious education is demanded by the nation generally and by the
instincts of human nature. I should like to see the Church and the
Nonconformists work together; but I trust, whatever may be the
result, the country will stand by the Church in its efforts to
maintain the religious education of the people. Gentlemen, I
foresee yet trials for the Church of England; but I am confident in
its future. I am confident in its future because I believe there is
now a very general feeling that to be national it must be
comprehensive. I will not use the word "broad," because it is an
epithet applied to a system with which I have no sympathy. But I
would wish churchmen, and especially the clergy, always to remember
that in our "Father's home there are many mansions," and I believe
that comprehensive spirit is perfectly consistent with the
maintenance of formularies and the belief in dogmas without which I
hold no practical religion can exist.
Gentlemen, I have now endeavored to express to you my general views
upon the most important subjects that can interest Englishmen. They
are subjects upon which, in my mind, a man should speak with
frankness and clearness to his countrymen, and although I do not
come down here to make a party speech, I am bound to say that the
manner in which those subjects are treated by the leading subject of
this realm is to me most unsatisfactory. Although the prime minister
of England is always writing letters and making speeches, and
particularly on these topics, he seems to me ever to send forth an
"uncertain sound." If a member of Parliament announces himself a
Republican, Mr. Gladstone takes the earliest opportunity of
describing him as a "fellow-worker" in public life. If an
inconsiderate multitude calls for the abolition or reform of the
House of Lords, Mr. Gladstone says that it is no easy task, and that
he must think once or twice, or perhaps even thrice, before he can
undertake it. If your neighbor, the member for Bradford, Mr. Miall,
brings forward a motion in the House of Commons for the severance of
Church and State, Mr. Gladstone assures Mr. Miall with the utmost
courtesy that he believes the opinion of the House of Commons is
against him, but that if Mr. Miall wishes to influence the House of
Commons he must address the people out of doors; whereupon Mr. Miall
immediately calls a public meeting, and alleges as its cause the
advice he has just received from the prime minister.
But, gentlemen, after all, the test of political institutions is the
condition of the country whose fortunes they regulate; and I do not
mean to evade that test. You are the inhabitants of an island of no
colossal size; which, geographically speaking, was intended by
nature as the appendage of some continental empire--either of
Gauls and Franks on the other side of the Channel or of Teutons and
Scandinavians beyond the German Sea. Such indeed, and for a long
period, was your early history. You were invaded; you were pillaged
and you were conquered; yet amid all these disgraces and
vicissitudes there was gradually formed that English race which has
brought about a very different state of affairs. Instead of being
invaded, your land is proverbially the only "inviolate land"--"the
inviolate land of the sage and free." Instead of being plundered,
you have attracted to your shores all the capital of the world.
Instead of being conquered, your flag floats on many waters, and
your standard waves in either zone. It may be said that these
achievements are due to the race that inhabited the land, and not to
its institutions. Gentlemen, in political institutions are the
embodied experiences of a race. You have established a society of
classes which give vigor and variety to life. But no class
possesses a single exclusive privilege, and all are equal before the
law. You possess a real aristocracy, open to all who desire to
enter it. You have not merely a middle class, but a hierarchy of
middle classes, in which every degree of wealth, refinement,
industry, energy, and enterprise is duly represented.
And now, gentlemen, what is the condition of the great body of the
people? In the first place, gentlemen, they have for centuries been
in the full enjoyment of that which no other country in Europe has
ever completely attained--complete rights of personal freedom. In
the second place, there has been a gradual, and therefore a wise,
distribution on a large scale of political rights. Speaking with
reference to the industries of this great part of the country, I can
personally contrast it with the condition of the working classes
forty years ago. In that period they have attained two results--
the raising of their wages and the diminution of their toil.
Increased means and increased leisure are the two civilizers of man.
That the working classes of Lancashire and Yorkshire have proved not
unworthy of these boons may be easily maintained; but their progress
and elevation have been during this interval wonderfully aided and
assisted by three causes, which are not so distinctively
attributable to their own energies. The first is the revolution in
locomotion, which has opened the world to the working man, which has
enlarged the horizon of his experience, increased his knowledge of
nature and of art, and added immensely to the salutary recreation,
amusement, and pleasure of his existence. The second cause is the
cheap postage, the moral benefits of which cannot be exaggerated.
And the third is that unshackled press which has furnished him with
endless sources of instruction, information, and amusement.
Gentlemen, if you would permit me, I would now make an observation
upon another class of the laboring population. This is not a civic
assembly, although we meet in a city. That was for convenience, but
the invitation which I received was to meet the county and all the
boroughs of Lancashire; and I wish to make a few observations upon
the condition of the agricultural laborer. That is a subject which
now greatly attracts public attention. And, in the first place, to
prevent any misconception, I beg to express my opinion that an
agricultural laborer has as much right to combine for the bettering
of his condition as a manufacturing laborer or a worker in metals.
If the causes of his combination are natural--that is to say, if
they arise from his own feelings and from the necessities of his own
condition--the combination will end in results mutually beneficial
to employers and employed. If, on the other hand, it is factitious
and he is acted upon by extraneous influences and extraneous ideas,
the combination will produce, I fear, much loss and misery both to
employers and employed; and after a time he will find himself in a
similar, or in a worse, position.
Gentlemen, in my opinion, the farmers of England cannot, as a body,
afford to pay higher wages than they do, and those who will answer
me by saying that they must find their ability by the reduction of
rents are, I think, involving themselves with economic laws which
may prove too difficult for them to cope with. The profits of a
fanner are very moderate. The interest upon capital invested in
land is the smallest that any property furnishes. The farmer will
have his profits and the investor in land will have his interest,
even though they may be obtained at the cost of changing the mode of
the cultivation of the country. Gentlemen, I should deeply regret
to see the tillage of this country reduced, and a recurrence to
pasture take place. I should regret it principally on account of
the agricultural laborers themselves. Their new friends call them
Hodge, and describe them as a stolid race. I must say that, from my
experience of them, they are sufficiently shrewd and open to reason.
I would say to them with confidence, as the great Athenian said to
the Spartan who rudely assailed him: "Strike, but hear me."
First, a change in the cultivation of the soil of this country would
be very injurious to the laboring class; and second, I am of opinion
that that class instead of being stationary has made if not as much
progress as the manufacturing class, very considerable progress
during the last forty years. Many persons write and speak about the
agricultural laborer with not so perfect a knowledge of his
condition as is desirable. They treat him always as a human being
who in every part of the country finds himself in an identical
condition. Now, on the contrary, there is no class of laborers in
which there is greater variety of condition than that of the
agricultural laborers. It changes from north to south, from east to
west, and from county to county. It changes even in the same
county, where there is an alteration of soil and of configuration.
The hind in Northumberland is in a very different condition from the
famous Dorsetshire laborer; the tiller of the soil in Lincolnshire
is different from his fellow-agriculturalist in Sussex. What the
effect of manufactures is upon the agricultural districts in their
neighborhood it would be presumption in me to dwell upon; your own
experience must tell you whether the agricultural laborer in North
Lancashire, for example, has had no rise in wages and no diminution
in toil. Take the case of the Dorsetshire laborer--the whole of
the agricultural laborers on the southwestern coast of England for a
very long period worked only half the time of the laborers in other
parts of England, and received only half the wages. In the
experience of many, I dare say, who are here present, even thirty
years ago a Dorsetshire laborer never worked after three o'clock in
the day; and why? Because the whole of that part of England was
demoralized by smuggling. No one worked after three o'clock in the
day, for a very good reason--because he had to work at night. No
farmer allowed his team to be employed after three o'clock, because
he reserved his horses to take his illicit cargo at night and carry
it rapidly into the interior. Therefore, as the men were employed
and remunerated otherwise, they got into a habit of half work and
half play so far as the land was concerned, and when smuggling was
abolished--and it has only been abolished for thirty years--
these imperfect habits of labor continued, and do even now continue
to a great extent. That is the origin of the condition of the
agricultural laborer in the southwestern part of England.
But now gentlemen, I want to test the condition of the agricultural
laborer generally; and I will take a part of England with which I am
familiar, and can speak as to the accuracy of the facts--I mean
the group described as the south-midland counties. The conditions
of labor there are the same, or pretty nearly the same, throughout.
The group may be described as a strictly agricultural community, and
they embrace a population of probably a million and a half. Now, I
have no hesitation in saying that the improvement in their lot
during the last forty years has been progressive and is remarkable.
I attribute it to three causes. In the first place, the rise in
their money wages is no less than fifteen per cent. The second
great cause of their improvement is the almost total disappearance
of excessive and exhausting toil, from the general introduction of
machinery. I don't know whether I could get a couple of men who
could or, if they could, would thresh a load of wheat in my
neighborhood. The third great cause which has improved their
condition is the very general, not to say universal, institution of
allotment grounds. Now, gentlemen, when I find that this has been
the course of affairs in our very considerable and strictly
agricultural portion of the country, where there have been no
exceptional circumstances, like smuggling, to degrade and demoralize
the race, I cannot resist the conviction that the condition of the
agricultural laborers, instead of being stationary, as we are
constantly told by those not acquainted with them, has been one of
progressive improvement, and that in those counties--and they are
many--where the stimulating influence of a manufacturing
neighborhood acts upon the land, the general conclusion at which I
arrive is that the agricultural laborer has had his share in the
advance of national prosperity. Gentlemen, I am not here to
maintain that there is nothing to be done to increase the well-being
of the working classes of this country, generally speaking. There
is not a single class in the country which is not susceptible of
improvement; and that makes the life and animation of our society.
But in all we do we must remember, as my noble friend told them at
Liverpool, that much depends upon the working classes themselves;
and what I know of the working classes in Lancashire makes me sure
that they will respond to this appeal. Much, also, may be expected
from that sympathy between classes which is a distinctive feature of
the present day; and, in the last place, no inconsiderable results
may be obtained by judicious and prudent legislation. But,
gentlemen, in attempting to legislate upon social matters, the great
object is to be practical--to have before us some distinct aims
and some distinct means by which they can be accomplished.
Gentlemen, I think public attention as regards these matters ought
to be concentrated upon sanitary legislation. That is a wide
subject, and, if properly treated, comprises almost every
consideration which has a just claim upon legislative interference.
Pure air, pure water, the inspection of unhealthy habitations, the
adulteration of food,--these and many kindred matters may be
legitimately dealt with by the legislature; and I am bound to say
the legislature is not idle upon them; for we have at this time two
important measures before Parliament on the subject. One--by a late
colleague of mine, Sir Charles Adderley--is a large and
comprehensive measure, founded upon a sure basis, for it consolidates
all existing public acts, and improves them. A prejudice has been
raised against that proposal, by stating that it interferes with the
private acts of the great towns. I take this opportunity of
contradicting that. The bill of Sir Charles Adderley does not touch
the acts of the great towns. It only allows them, if they think
fit, to avail themselves of its new provisions.
The other measure by the government is of a partial character. What
it comprises is good, so far as it goes, but it shrinks from that
bold consolidation of existing acts which I think one of the great
merits of Sir Charles Adderley's bill, which permits us to become
acquainted with how much may be done in favor of sanitary
improvement by existing provisions. Gentlemen, I cannot impress
upon you too strongly my conviction of the importance of the
legislature and society uniting together in favor of these important
results. A great scholar and a great wit, three hundred years ago,
said that, in his opinion, there was a great mistake in the Vulgate,
which, as you all know, is the Latin translation of the Holy
Scriptures, and that, instead of saying "Vanity of vanities, all is
vanity"--_Vanitas_ _vanitatum_, _omnia_ _vanitas_--the wise and
witty king really said:"_Sanitas_ _sanitatum_, _omnia_ _sanitas_."
Gentlemen, it is impossible to overrate the importance of the
subject. After all the first consideration of a minister should be
the health of the people. A land may be covered with historic
trophies, with museums of science and galleries of art, with
universities and with libraries; the people may be civilized and
ingenious; the country may be even famous in the annals and action
of the world, but, gentlemen, if the population every ten years
decreases, and the stature of the race every ten years diminishes,
the history of that country will soon be the history of the past.
Gentlemen, I said I had not come here to make a party speech. I
have addressed you upon subjects of grave, and I will venture to
believe of general, interest; but to be here and altogether silent
upon the present state of public affairs would not be respectful to
you, and, perhaps, on the whole, would be thought incongruous.
Gentlemen, I cannot pretend that our position either at home or
abroad is in my opinion satisfactory. At home, at a period of
immense prosperity, with a people contented and naturally loyal, we
find to our surprise the most extravagant doctrines professed and
the fundamental principles of our most valuable institutions
impugned, and that, too, by persons of some authority. Gentlemen,
this startling inconsistency is accounted for, in my mind, by the
circumstances under which the present administration was formed. It
is the first instance in my knowledge of a British administration
being avowedly formed on a principle of violence. It is unnecessary
for me to remind you of the circumstances which preceded the
formation of that government. You were the principal scene and
theatre of the development of statesmanship that then occurred. You
witnessed the incubation of the portentous birth. You remember when
you were informed that the policy to secure the prosperity of
Ireland and the content of Irishmen was a policy of sacrilege and
confiscation. Gentlemen, when Ireland was placed under the wise and
able administration of Lord Abercorn, Ireland was prosperous, and I
may say content. But there happened at that time a very peculiar
conjuncture in politics. The Civil War in America had just ceased;
and a band of military adventurers--Poles, Italians, and many
Irishmen--concocted in New York a conspiracy to invade Ireland,
with the belief that the whole country would rise to welcome them.
How that conspiracy was baffled--how those plots were confounded,
I need not now remind you. For that we were mainly indebted to the
eminent qualities of a great man who has just left us. You remember
how the constituencies were appealed to to vote against the
government which had made so unfit an appointment as that of Lord
Mayo to the vice-royalty of India. It was by his great qualities
when Secretary for Ireland, by his vigilance, his courage, his
patience, and his perseverance that this conspiracy was defeated.
Never was a minister better informed. He knew what was going on at
New York just as well as what was going on in the city of Dublin.
When the Fenian conspiracy had been entirely put down, it became
necessary to consider the policy which it was expedient to pursue in
Ireland; and it seemed to us at that time that what Ireland required
after all the excitement which it had experienced was a policy which
should largely develop its material resources. There were one or two
subjects of a different character, which, for the advantage of the
State, it would have been desirable to have settled, if that could
have been effected with a general concurrence of both the great
parties in that country. Had we remained in office, that would have
been done. But we were destined to quit it, and we quitted it
without a murmur. The policy of our successors was different. Their
specific was to despoil churches and plunder landlords, and what has
been the result? Sedition rampant, treason thinly veiled, and
whenever a vacancy occurs in the representation a candidate is
returned pledged to the disruption of the realm. Her Majesty's new
ministers proceeded in their career like a body of men under the
influence of some delirious drug. Not satiated with the spoliation
and anarchy of Ireland, they began to attack every institution and
every interest, every class and calling in the country. It is
curious to observe their course. They took into hand the army. What
have they done? I will not comment on what they have done. I will
historically state it, and leave you to draw the inference. So long
as constitutional England has existed there has been a jealousy
among all classes against the existence of a standing army. As our
empire expanded, and the existence of a large body of disciplined
troops became a necessity, every precaution was taken to prevent the
danger to our liberties which a standing army involved.
It was a first principle not to concentrate in the island any
overwhelming number of troops, and a considerable portion was
distributed in the colonies. Care was taken that the troops
generally should be officered by a class of men deeply interested in
the property and the liberties of England. So extreme was the
jealousy that the relations between that once constitutional force,
the militia, and the sovereign were rigidly guarded, and it was
carefully placed under local influences. All this is changed. We
have a standing army of large amount, quartered and brigaded and
encamped permanently in England, and fed by a considerable and
constantly increasing reserve.
It will in due time be officered by a class of men eminently
scientific, but with no relations necessarily with society; while
the militia is withdrawn from all local influences, and placed under
the immediate command of the Secretary of War. Thus, in the
nineteenth century, we have a large standing army established in
England, contrary to all the traditions of the land, and that by a
Liberal government, and with the warm acclamations of the Liberal
party.
Let us look what they have done with the Admiralty. You remember,
in this country especially, the denunciations of the profligate
expenditure of the Conservative government, and you have since had
an opportunity of comparing it with the gentler burden of Liberal
estimates. The navy was not merely an instance of profligate
expenditure, but of incompetent and inadequate management. A great
revolution was promised in its administration. A gentleman
[Mr. Childers], almost unknown to English politics, was strangely
preferred to one of the highest places in the councils of her
Majesty. He set to at his task with ruthless activity. The
Consulative Council, under which Nelson had gained all his
victories, was dissolved. The secretaryship of the Admiralty, an
office which exercised a complete supervision over every division of
that great department,--an office which was to the Admiralty what
the Secretary of State is to the kingdom,--which, in the qualities
which it required and the duties which it fulfilled, was rightly a
stepping-stone to the cabinet, as in the instances of Lord Halifax,
Lord Herbert, and many others,--was reduced to absolute
insignificance. Even the office of Control, which of all others
required a position of independence, and on which the safety of the
navy mainly depended, was deprived of all its important attributes.
For two years the opposition called the attention of Parliament to
these destructive changes, but Parliament and the nation were alike
insensible. Full of other business, they could not give a thought
to what they looked upon merely as captious criticism. It requires
a great disaster to command the attention of England; and when
the Captain was lost, and when they had the detail of the perilous
voyage of the Megara, then public indignation demanded a complete
change in this renovating administration of the navy.
And what has occurred? It is only a few weeks since that in the
House of Commons I heard the naval statement made by a new First
Lord [Mr. Goschen], and it consisted only of the rescinding of all
the revolutionary changes of his predecessor, the mischief of every
one of which during the last two years has been pressed upon the
attention of Parliament and the country by that constitutional and
necessary body, the Opposition. Gentlemen, it will not do for
me--considering the time I have already occupied, and there are
still some subjects of importance that must be touched--to dwell
upon any of the other similar topics, of which there is a rich
abundance. I doubt not there is in this hall more than one farmer
who has been alarmed by the suggestion that his agricultural
machinery should be taxed.
I doubt not there is in this hall more than one publican who
remembers that last year an act of Parliament was introduced to
denounce him as a "sinner." I doubt not there are in this hall a
widow and an orphan who remember the profligate proposition to
plunder their lonely heritage. But, gentlemen, as time advanced it
was not difficult to perceive that extravagance was being
substituted for energy by the government. The unnatural stimulus
was subsiding. Their paroxysms ended in prostration. Some took
refuge in melancholy, and their eminent chief alternated between a
menace and a sigh. As I sat opposite the treasury bench the
ministers reminded me of one of those marine landscapes not very
unusual on the coast of South America. You behold a range of
exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest.
But the situation is still dangerous. There are occasional
earthquakes, and ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea.
But, gentlemen, there is one other topic on which I must touch. If
the management of our domestic affairs has been founded upon a
principle of violence, that certainly cannot be alleged against the
management of our external relations. I know the difficulty of
addressing a body of Englishmen on these topics. The very phrase
"Foreign Affairs" makes an Englishman convinced that I am about to
treat of subjects with which be has no concern. Unhappily the
relations of England to the rest of the world, which are "Foreign
Affairs," are the matters which most influence his lot. Upon them
depends the increase or reduction of taxation. Upon them depends
the enjoyment or the embarrassment of his industry. And yet, though
so momentous are the consequences of the mismanagement of our
foreign relations, no one thinks of them till the mischief occurs
and then it is found how the most vital consequences have been
occasioned by mere inadvertence.
I will illustrate this point by two anecdotes. Since I have been in
public life there has been for this country a great calamity and
there is a great danger, and both might have been avoided. The
calamity was the Crimean War. You know what were the consequences
of the Crimean War: A great addition to your debt, an enormous
addition to your taxation, a cost more precious than your treasure
--the best blood of England. Half a million of men, I believe,
perished in that great undertaking. Nor are the evil consequences
of that war adequately described by what I have said. All the
disorders and disturbances of Europe, those immense armaments that
are an incubus on national industry and the great obstacle to
progressive civilization, may be traced and justly attributed to the
Crimean War. And yet the Crimean War need never have occurred.
When Lord Derby acceded to office, against his own wishes, in 1852,
the Liberal party most unconstitutionally forced him to dissolve
Parliament at a certain time by stopping the supplies, or at least
by limiting the period for which they were voted. There was not a
single reason to justify that course, for Lord Derby had only
accepted office, having once declined it, on the renewed application
of his sovereign. The country, at the dissolution, increased the
power of the Conservative party, but did not give to Lord Derby a
majority, and he had to retire from power. There was not the
slightest chance of a Crimean War when he retired from office; but
the Emperor of Russia, believing that the successor of Lord Derby
was no enemy to Russian aggression in the East, commenced those
proceedings, with the result of which you are familiar. I speak of
what I know, not of what I believe, but of what I have evidence in
my possession to prove--that the Crimean War never would have
happened if Lord Derby had remained in office.
The great danger is the present state of our relations with the
United States. When I acceded to office I did so, so far as
regarded the United States of America, with some advantage. During
the whole of the Civil War in America both my noble friend near me
and I had maintained a strict and fair neutrality. This was fully
appreciated by the government of the United States, and they
expressed their wish that with our aid the settlement of all
differences between the two governments should be accomplished.
They sent here a plenipotentiary, an honorable gentleman, very
intelligent and possessing general confidence. My noble friend near
me, with great ability, negotiated a treaty for the settlement of
all these claims. He was the first minister who proposed to refer
them to arbitration, and the treaty was signed by the American
government. It was signed, I think, on November 10th, on the eve of
the dissolution of Parliament. The borough elections that first
occurred proved what would be the fate of the ministry, and the
moment they were known in America the American government announced
that Mr. Reverdy Johnson, the American minister, had mistaken his
instructions, and they could not present the treaty to the Senate
for its sanction--the sanction of which there had been previously no
doubt. But the fact is that, as in the case of the Crimean War, it
was supposed that our successors would be favorable to Russian
aggression, so it was supposed that by the accession to office of
Mr. Gladstone and a gentleman you know well, Mr. Bright, the
American claims would be considered in a very different spirit. How
they have been considered is a subject which, no doubt, occupies
deeply the minds of the people of Lancashire. Now, gentlemen,
observe this--the question of the Black Sea involved in the
Crimean War, the question of the American claims involved in our
negotiations with Mr. Johnson, are the two questions that have again
turned up, and have been the two great questions that have been
under the management of his government.
How have they treated them? Prince Gortschakoff, thinking he saw an
opportunity, announced his determination to break from the Treaty of
Paris, and terminate all the conditions hostile to Russia which had
been the result of the Crimean War. What was the first movement on
the part of our government is at present a mystery. This we know,
that they selected the most rising diplomatist of the day and sent
him to Prince Bismarck with a declaration that the policy of Russia,
if persisted in, was war with England. Now, gentlemen, there was
not the slightest chance of Russia going to war with England, and no
necessity, as I shall always maintain, of England going to war with
Russia. I believe I am not wrong in stating that the Russian
government was prepared to withdraw from the position they had
rashly taken; but suddenly her Majesty's government, to use a
technical phrase, threw over the plenipotentiary, and, instead of
threatening war, if the Treaty of Paris were violated, agreed to
arrangements by which the violation of that treaty should be
sanctioned by England, and, in the form of a congress, showed
themselves guaranteeing their own humiliation. That Mr. Odo Russell
made no mistake is quite obvious, because he has since been selected
to be her Majesty's ambassador at the most important court of
Europe. Gentlemen, what will be the consequence of this
extraordinary weakness on the part of the British government it is
difficult to foresee. Already we hear that Sebastopol is to be
refortified, nor can any man doubt that the entire command of the
Black Sea will soon be in the possession of Russia. The time may
not be distant when we may hear of the Russian power in the Persian
Gulf, and what effect that may have upon the dominions of England
and upon those possessions on the productions of which you every
year more and more depend, are questions upon which it will be well
for you on proper occasions to meditate.
I come now to that question which most deeply interests you at this
moment, and that is our relations with the United States. I
approved the government referring this question to arbitration. It
was only following the policy of Lord Stanley. My noble friend
disapproved the negotiations being carried on at Washington. I
confess that I would willingly have persuaded myself that this was
not a mistake, but reflection has convinced me that my noble friend
was right. I remember the successful negotiation of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty by Sir Henry Bulwer. I flattered myself that
treaties at Washington might be successfully negotiated; but I agree
with my noble friend that his general view was far more sound than
my own. But no one, when that commission was sent forth, for a
moment could anticipate the course of its conduct under the strict
injunctions of the government. We believed that commission was sent
to ascertain what points should be submitted to arbitration, to be
decided by the principles of the law of nations. We had not the
slightest idea that that commission was sent with power and
instructions to alter the law of nations itself. When that result
was announced, we expressed our entire disapprobation; and yet
trusting to the representations of the government that matters were
concluded satisfactorily, we had to decide whether it were wise, if
the great result was obtained, to wrangle upon points however
important, such as those to which I have referred.
Gentlemen, it appears that, though all parts of England were ready
to make those sacrifices, the two negotiating States--the
government of the United Kingdom and the government of the United
States--placed a different interpretation upon the treaty when the
time had arrived to put its provisions into practice. Gentlemen, in
my mind, and in the opinion of my noble friend near me, there was
but one course to take under the circumstances, painful as it might
be, and that was at once to appeal to the good feeling and good
sense of the United States, and, stating the difficulty, to invite
confidential conference whether it might not be removed. But her
Majesty's government took a different course. On December 15th her
Majesty's government were aware of a contrary interpretation being
placed on the Treaty of Washington by the American government. The
prime minister received a copy of their counter case, and he
confessed he had never read it. He had a considerable number of
copies sent to him to distribute among his colleagues, and you
remember, probably, the remarkable statement in which he informed
the house that he had distributed those copies to everybody except
those for whom they were intended.
Time went on, and the adverse interpretation of the American
government oozed out, and was noticed by the press. Public alarm
and public indignation were excited; and it was only seven weeks
afterward, on the very eve of the meeting of Parliament,--some
twenty-four hours before the meeting of Parliament,--that her
Majesty's government felt they were absolutely obliged to make a
"friendly communication" to the United States that they had arrived
at an interpretation of the treaty the reverse of that of the
American government. What was the position of the American
government? Seven weeks had passed without their having received
the slightest intimation from her Majesty's ministers. They had
circulated their case throughout the world. They had translated it
into every European language. It had been sent to every court and
cabinet, to every sovereign and prime minister. It was impossible
for the American government to recede from their position, even if
they had believed it to be an erroneous one. And then, to aggravate
the difficulty, the prime minister goes down to Parliament, declares
that there is only one interpretation to be placed on the treaty,
and defies and attacks everybody who believes it susceptible of
another.
Was there ever such a combination of negligence and blundering? And
now, gentlemen, what is about to happen? All we know is that her
Majesty's ministers are doing everything in their power to evade the
cognizance and criticism of Parliament. They have received an
answer to their "friendly communication"; of which, I believe, it
has been ascertained that the American government adhere to their
interpretation; and yet they prolong the controversy. What is about
to occur it is unnecessary for one to predict; but if it be this--
if after a fruitless ratiocination worthy of a schoolman, we
ultimately agree so far to the interpretation of the American
government as to submit the whole case to arbitration, with feeble
reservation of a protest, if it be decided against us, I venture to
say that we shall be entering on a course not more distinguished by
its feebleness than by its impending peril. There is before us
every prospect of the same incompetence that distinguished our
negotiations respecting the independence of the Black Sea; and I
fear that there is every chance that this incompetence will be
sealed by our ultimately acknowledging these direct claims of the
United States, which, both as regards principle and practical
results, are fraught with the utmost danger to this country.
Gentlemen, don't suppose, because I counsel firmness and decision at
the right moment, that I am of that school of statesmen who are
favorable to a turbulent and aggressive diplomacy. I have resisted
it during a great part of my life. I am not unaware that the
relations of England to Europe have undergone a vast change during
the century that has just elapsed. The relations of England to
Europe are not the same as they were in the days of Lord Chatham or
Frederick the Great. The Queen of England has become the sovereign
of the most powerful of Oriental States. On the other side of the
globe there are now establishments belonging to her, teeming with
wealth and population, which will, in due time, exercise their
influence over the distribution of power. The old establishments of
this country, now the United States of America, throw their
lengthening shades over the Atlantic, which mix with European
waters. These are vast and novel elements in the distribution of
power. I acknowledge that the policy of England with respect to
Europe should be policy of reserve, but proud reserve; and in
answer to those statesmen--those mistaken statesmen who have
intimated the decay of the power of England and the decline of its
resources, I express here my confident conviction that there never
was a moment in our history when the power of England was so great
and her resources so vast and inexhaustible.
And yet, gentlemen, it is not merely our fleets and armies, our
powerful artillery, our accumulated capital, and our unlimited
credit on which I so much depend, as upon that unbroken spirit of
her people, which I believe was never prouder of the imperial
country to which they belong. Gentlemen, it is to that spirit that I
above all things trust. I look upon the people of Lancashire as
fairly representative of the people of England. I think the manner
in which they have invited me here, locally a stranger, to receive
the expression of their cordial sympathy, and only because they
recognize some effort on my part to maintain the greatness of their
country, is evidence of the spirit of the land. I must express to
you again my deep sense of the generous manner in which you have
welcomed me, and in which you have permitted me to express to you my
views upon public affairs. Proud of your confidence, and encouraged
by your sympathy, I now deliver to you, as my last words, the cause
of the Tory party, of the English constitution, and of the British
empire.