The Chairman has correctly reminded you that this is not the first time
that my voice has been heard in this hall. But that was an occasion
very different from that which now assembles us together—was nearly
thirty years ago, when I endeavored to support and stimulate the
flagging energies of an institution in which I thought there were the
germs of future refinement and intellectual advantage to the rising
generation of Manchester, and since I have been here on this occasion
I have learned with much gratification that it is now counted among
your most flourishing institutions. There was also another and more
recent occasion when the gracious office fell to me to distribute among
the members of the Mechanics’ Institution those prizes which they had
gained through their study in letters and in science. Gentlemen, these
were pleasing offices, and if life consisted only of such offices you
would not have to complain of it. But life has its masculine duties,
and we are assembled here to fulfil some of the most important of
these, when, as citizens of a free country, we are assembled together
to declare our determination to maintain, to uphold the constitution to
which we are debtors, in our opinion, for our freedom and our welfare.
Gentlemen, there seems at first something incongruous that one should
be addressing the population of so influential and intelligent a
county as Lancashire who is not locally connected with them, and,
gentlemen, I will frankly admit that this circumstance did for a
long time make me hesitate in accepting your cordial and generous
invitation. But, gentlemen, after what occurred yesterday, after
receiving more than two hundred addresses from every part of this
great county, after the welcome which then greeted me, I feel that
I should not be doing justice to your feelings, I should not do my
duty to myself, if I any longer considered my presence here to-night
to be an act of presumption. Gentlemen, though it may not be an act
of presumption, it still is, I am told, an act of great difficulty.
Our opponents assure us that the Conservative party has no political
programme; and, therefore, they must look with much satisfaction
to one whom you honor to-night by considering him the leader and
representative of your opinions when he comes forward, at your
invitation, to express to you what that programme is. The Conservative
party are accused of having no programme of policy. If by a programme
is meant a plan to despoil churches and plunder landlords, I admit we
have no programme. If by a programme is meant a policy which assails
or menaces every institution and every interest, every class and
every calling in the country, I admit we have no programme. But if
to have a policy with distinct ends, and these such as most deeply
interest the great body of the nation, be a becoming programme for a
political party, then I contend we have an adequate programme, and one
which, here or elsewhere, I shall always be prepared to assert and to
vindicate.
Gentlemen, the programme of the Conservative party is to maintain
the constitution of the country. I have not come down to Manchester
to deliver an essay on the English constitution; but when the banner
of Republicanism is unfurled—when the fundamental principles of
our institutions are controverted—I think, perhaps, it may not be
inconvenient that I should make some few practical remarks upon the
character of our constitution—upon that monarchy limited by the
co-ordinate authority of the estates of the realm, which, under the
title of Queen, Lords, and Commons, has contributed so greatly to the
prosperity of this country, and with the maintenance of which I believe
that prosperity is bound up.
Gentlemen, since the settlement of that constitution, now nearly
two centuries ago, England has never experienced a revolution,
though there is no country in which there has been so continuous and
such considerable change. How is this? Because the wisdom of your
forefathers placed the prize of supreme power without the sphere of
human passions. Whatever the struggle of parties, whatever the strife
of factions, whatever the excitement and exaltation of the public
mind, there has always been something in this country round which
all classes and parties could rally, representing the majesty of the
law, the administration of justice, and involving, at the same time,
the security for every man’s rights and the fountain of honor. Now,
gentlemen, it is well clearly to comprehend what is meant by a country
not having a revolution for two centuries. It means, for that space,
the unbroken exercise and enjoyment of the ingenuity of man. It means
for that space the continuous application of the discoveries of science
to his comfort and convenience. It means the accumulation of capital,
the elevation of labor, the establishment of those admirable factories
which cover your district; the unwearied improvement of the cultivation
of the land, which has extracted from a somewhat churlish soil harvests
more exuberant than those furnished by lands nearer to the sun. It
means the continuous order which is the only parent of personal liberty
and political right. And you owe all these, gentlemen, to the Throne.
There is another powerful and most beneficial influence which is also
exercised by the crown. Gentlemen, I am a party man. I believe that,
without party, parliamentary government is impossible. I look upon
parliamentary government as the noblest government in the world, and
certainly the one most suited to England. But without the discipline
of political connection, animated by the principle of private honor,
I feel certain that a popular assembly would sink before the power
or the corruption of a minister. Yet, gentlemen, I am not blind to
the faults of party government. It has one great defect. Party has a
tendency to warp the intelligence, and there is no minister, however
resolved he may be in treating a great public question, who does not
find some difficulty in emancipating himself from the traditionary
prejudice on which he has long acted. It is, therefore, a great merit
in our constitution, that before a minister introduces a measure to
Parliament, he must submit it to an intelligence superior to all
party, and entirely free from influences of that character.
I know it will be said, gentlemen, that, however beautiful in theory,
the personal influence of the sovereign is now absorbed in the
responsibility of the minister. Gentlemen, I think you will find
there is great fallacy in this view. The principles of the English
constitution do not contemplate the absence of personal influence on
the part of the sovereign; and if they did, the principles of human
nature would prevent the fulfilment of such a theory. Gentlemen, I need
not tell you that I am now making on this subject abstract observations
of general application to our institutions and our history. But take
the case of a sovereign of England who accedes to his throne at the
earliest age the law permits and who enjoys a long reign,—take an
instance like that of George III. From the earliest moment of his
accession that sovereign is placed in constant communication with
the most able statesmen of the period, and of all parties. Even with
average ability it is impossible not to perceive that such a sovereign
must soon attain a great mass of political information and political
experience. Information and experience, gentlemen, whether they are
possessed by a sovereign or by the humblest of his subjects, are
irresistible in life. No man with the vast responsibility that devolves
upon an English minister can afford to treat with indifference a
suggestion that has not occurred to him, or information with which he
had not been previously supplied. But, gentlemen, pursue this view of
the subject. The longer the reign, the influence of that sovereign must
proportionately increase. All the illustrious statesmen who served his
youth disappear. A new generation of public servants rises up, there
is a critical conjuncture in affairs—a moment of perplexity and peril.
Then it is that the sovereign can appeal to a similar state of affairs
that occurred perhaps thirty years before. When all are in doubt among
his servants, he can quote the advice that was given by the illustrious
men of his early years, and though he may maintain himself within
the strictest limits of the constitution, who can suppose when such
information and such suggestions are made by the most exalted person in
the country that they can be without effect? No, gentlemen; a minister
who could venture to treat such influence with indifference would not
be a constitutional minister, but an arrogant idiot.[42]
Gentlemen, the influence of the crown is not confined merely to
political affairs. England is a domestic country. Here the home is
revered and the hearth is sacred. The nation is represented by a
family—the royal family; and if that family is educated with a sense
of responsibility and a sentiment of public duty, it is difficult to
exaggerate the salutary influence they may exercise over a nation.[43]
It is not merely an influence upon manners; it is not merely that they
are a model for refinement and for good taste—they affect the heart
as well as the intelligence of the people; and in the hour of public
adversity, or in the anxious conjuncture of public affairs, the nation
rallies round the family and the throne, and its spirit is animated
and sustained by the expression of public affection. Gentlemen, there
is yet one other remark that I would make upon our monarchy, though
had it not been for recent circumstances, I should have refrained from
doing so. An attack has recently been made upon the throne on account
of the costliness of the institution.[44] Gentlemen, I shall not dwell
upon the fact that if the people of England appreciate the monarchy,
as I believe they do, it would be painful to them that their royal
and representative family should not be maintained with becoming
dignity, or fill in the public eye a position inferior to some of the
nobles of the land. Nor will I insist upon what is unquestionably the
fact, that the revenues of the crown estates, on which our sovereign
might live with as much right as the Duke of Bedford, or the Duke
of Northumberland, has to his estates, are now paid into the public
exchequer. All this, upon the present occasion, I am not going to
insist upon. What I now say is this: that there is no sovereignty
of any first-rate state which costs so little to the people as the
sovereignty of England. I will not compare our civil list with those
of European empires, because it is known that in amount they treble
and quadruple it; but I will compare it with the cost of sovereignty
in a republic, and that a republic with which you are intimately
acquainted—the republic of the United States of America.
Gentlemen, there is no analogy between the position of our sovereign,
Queen Victoria, and that of the President of the United States. The
President of the United States is not the sovereign of the United
States. There is a very near analogy between the position of the
President of the United States and that of the Prime-Minister of
England, and both are paid at much the same rate—the income of a
second-class professional man.[45] The sovereign of the United States
is the people; and I will now show you what the sovereignty of the
United States costs. Gentlemen, you are aware of the Constitution of
the United States. There are thirty-seven independent States, each with
a sovereign Legislature. Besides these, there is a Confederation of
States to conduct their external affairs, which consists of the House
of Representatives and a Senate. There are two hundred and eighty-five
members of the House of Representatives, and there are seventy-four
members of the Senate, making altogether three hundred and fifty-nine
members of Congress. Now each member of Congress receives 1,000_l._
sterling per annum. In addition to this he receives an allowance called
“mileage,” which varies according to the distance which he travels, but
the aggregate cost of which is about 30,000_l._ per annum. That makes
389,000_l._, almost the exact amount of our civil list.
But this, gentlemen, will allow you to make only a very imperfect
estimate of the cost of sovereignty in the United States. Every
member of every Legislature in the 37 States is also paid. There are,
I believe, 5,010 members of State Legislatures, who receive about $350
per annum each. As some of the returns are imperfect, the average
which I have given of expenditure may be rather high, and therefore
I have not counted the mileage, which is also universally allowed.
Five thousand and ten members of State Legislatures at $350 each make
$1,753,500, or 350,700_l._ sterling a year. So you see, gentlemen, that
the immediate expenditure for the sovereignty of the United States
is between 700,000_l._ and 800,000_l._ a year. Gentlemen, I have not
time to pursue this interesting theme, otherwise I could show that
you have still but imperfectly ascertained the cost of sovereignty in
a republic. But, gentlemen, I cannot resist giving you one further
illustration.
The government of this country is considerably carried on by the aid
of royal commissions. So great is the increase of public business that
it would be probably impossible for a minister to carry on affairs
without this assistance. The Queen of England can command for these
objects the services of the most experienced statesmen, and men of the
highest position in society. If necessary, she can summon to them
distinguished scholars or men most celebrated in science and in art;
and she receives from them services that are unpaid. They are only
too proud to be described in the commission as her Majesty’s “trusty
councillors”; and if any member of these commissions performs some
transcendent services, both of thought and of labor, he is munificently
rewarded by a public distinction conferred upon him by the fountain of
honor. Gentlemen, the government of the United States, has, I believe,
not less availed itself of the services of commissions than the
government of the United Kingdom; but in a country where there is no
fountain of honor, every member of these commissions is paid.
Gentlemen, I trust I have now made some suggestions to you respecting
the monarchy of England which at least may be so far serviceable that
when we are separated they may not be altogether without advantage;
and now, gentlemen, I would say something on the subject of the House
of Lords. It is not merely the authority of the throne that is now
disputed, but the character and influence of the House of Lords that
are held up by some to public disregard. Gentlemen, I shall not stop
for a moment to offer you any proofs of the advantage of a second
chamber; and for this reason. That subject has been discussed now
for a century, ever since the establishment of the government of the
United States, and all great authorities, American, German, French,
Italian, have agreed in this, that a representative government is
impossible without a second chamber. And it has been, especially of
late, maintained by great political writers in all countries, that the
repeated failure of what is called the French republic is mainly to be
ascribed to its not having a second chamber.
But, gentlemen, however anxious foreign countries have been to enjoy
this advantage, that anxiety has only been equalled by the difficulty
which they have found in fulfilling their object. How is a second
chamber to be constituted? By nominees of the sovereign power? What
influence can be exercised by a chamber of nominees? Are they to be
bound by popular election? In what manner are they to be elected? If
by the same constituency as the popular body, what claim have they,
under such circumstances, to criticise or to control the decisions of
that body? If they are to be elected by a more select body, qualified
by a higher franchise, there immediately occurs the objection, why
should the majority be governed by the minority? The United States of
America were fortunate in finding a solution of this difficulty; but
the United States of America had elements to deal with which never
occurred before, and never probably will occur again, because they
formed their illustrious Senate from materials that were offered them
by the thirty-seven States. We, gentlemen, have the House of Lords,
an assembly which has historically developed and periodically adapted
itself to the wants and necessities of the times.
What, gentlemen, is the first quality which is required in a second
chamber? Without doubt, independence. What is the best foundation of
independence? Without doubt, property. The Prime-Minister of England
has only recently told you, and I believe he spoke quite accurately,
that the average income of the members of the House of Lords is
20,000_l._ per annum. Of course there are some who have more, and
some who have less; but the influence of a public assembly, so far as
property is concerned, depends upon its aggregate property, which, in
the present case, is a revenue of 9,000,000_l._ a year. But, gentlemen,
you must look to the nature of this property. It is visible property,
and therefore it is responsible property, which every rate-payer in
the room knows to his cost. But, gentlemen, it is not only visible
property; it is, generally speaking, territorial property; and one of
the elements of territorial property is, that it is representative.
Now, for illustration, suppose—which God forbid—there was no House
of Commons, and any Englishman—I will take him from either end of
the island—a Cumberland, or a Cornish man, finds himself aggrieved,
the Cumbrian says: “This conduct I experience is most unjust. I know
a Cumberland man in the House of Lords, the Earl of Carlisle or the
Earl of Lonsdale; I will go to him; he will never see a Cumberland
man ill-treated.” The Cornish man will say: “I will go the Lord of
Port Eliot; his family have sacrificed themselves before this for the
liberties of Englishmen, and he will get justice done me.”[46]
But, gentlemen, the charge against the House of Lords is that the
dignities are hereditary, and we are told that if we have a House of
Peers they should be peers for life. There are great authorities in
favor of this, and even my noble friend near me [Lord Derby], the other
day, gave in his adhesion to a limited application of this principle.
Now, gentlemen, in the first place, let me observe that every peer
is a peer for life, as he cannot be a peer after his death; but some
peers for life are succeeded in their dignities by their children.
The question arises, who is most responsible—a peer for life whose
dignities are not descendible, or a peer for life whose dignities
are hereditary? Now, gentlemen, a peer for life is in a very strong
position. He says: “Here I am; I have got power and I will exercise
it.” I have no doubt that, on the whole, a peer for life would exercise
it for what he deemed was the public good. Let us hope that. But, after
all, he might and could exercise it according to his own will. Nobody
can call him to account; he is independent of everybody. But a peer
for life whose dignities descend is in a very different position. He
has every inducement to study public opinion, and, when he believes it
just, to yield; because he naturally feels that if the order to which
he belongs is in constant collision with public opinion, the chances
are that his dignities will not descend to his posterity.[47]
Therefore, gentlemen, I am not prepared myself to believe that a
solution of any difficulties in the public mind on this subject
is to be found by creating peers for life. I know there are some
philosophers who believe that the best substitute for the House of
Lords would be an assembly formed of ex-governors of colonies.[48]
I have not sufficient experience on that subject to give a decided
opinion upon it. When the Muse of Comedy threw her frolic grace over
society, a retired governor was generally one of the characters
in every comedy; and the last of our great actors—who, by the by,
was a great favorite at Manchester—Mr. Farren, was celebrated for
his delineation of the character in question. Whether it be the
recollection of that performance or not, I confess I am inclined to
believe that an English gentleman—born to business, managing his own
estate, administering the affairs of his county, mixing with all
classes of his fellow-men, now in the hunting-field, now in the railway
direction, unaffected, unostentatious, proud of his ancestors, if they
have contributed to the greatness of our common country—is, on the
whole, more likely to form a senator agreeable to English opinion and
English taste than any substitute that has yet been produced.
Gentlemen, let me make one observation more, on the subject of the
House of Lords, before I conclude. There is some advantage in
political experience. I remember the time when there was a similar
outcry against the House of Lords, but much more intense and powerful;
and, gentlemen, it arose from the same cause. A Liberal government
had been installed in office, with an immense Liberal majority. They
proposed some violent measures. The House of Lords modified some,
delayed others, and some they threw out. Instantly there was a cry
to abolish or to reform the House of Lords, and the greatest popular
orator (Daniel O’Connell) that probably ever existed was sent on a
pilgrimage over England to excite the people in favor of this opinion.
What happened? That happened, gentlemen, which may happen to-morrow.
There was a dissolution of Parliament. The great Liberal majority
vanished. The balance of parties was restored. It was discovered
that the House of Lords had behind them at least half of the English
people. We heard no more cries for their abolition or their reform,
and before two years more passed England was really governed by the
House of Lords, under the wise influence of the Duke of Wellington and
the commanding eloquence of Lyndhurst; and such was the enthusiasm of
the nation in favor of the second chamber that at every public meeting
its health was drunk, with the additional sentiment, for which we are
indebted to one of the most distinguished members that ever represented
the House of Commons: “Thank God, there is the House of Lords.”[49]
Gentlemen, you will perhaps not be surprised that, having made some
remarks upon the monarchy and the House of Lords, I should say
something respecting that House in which I have literally passed the
greater part of my life, and to which I am devotedly attached. It is
not likely, therefore, that I should say any thing to depreciate the
legitimate position and influence of the House of Commons. Gentlemen,
it is said that the diminished power of the throne and the assailed
authority of the House of Lords are owing to the increased power of
the House of Commons, and the new position which of late years, and
especially during the last forty years, it has assumed in the English
constitution. Gentlemen, the main power of the House of Commons depends
upon its command over the public purse, and its control of the public
expenditure; and if that power is possessed by a party which has a
large majority in the House of Commons, the influence of the House of
Commons is proportionately increased, and, under some circumstances,
becomes more predominant. But, gentlemen, this power of the House of
Commons is not a power which has been created by any reform act, from
the days of Lord Grey in 1832 to 1867. It is the power which the House
of Commons has enjoyed for centuries, which it has frequently asserted
and sometimes even tyrannically exercised. Gentlemen, the House of
Commons represents the constituencies of England, and I am here to
show you that no addition to the elements of that constituency has
placed the House of Commons in a different position with regard to the
throne and the House of Lords from that it has always constitutionally
occupied.
Gentlemen, we speak now on this subject with great advantage. We
recently have had published authentic documents upon this matter which
are highly instructive. We have, for example, just published the census
of Great Britain, and we are now in possession of the last registration
of voters for the United Kingdom. Gentlemen, it appears that by the
census the population at this time is about 32,000,000. It is shown
by the last registration that, after making the usual deductions for
deaths, removals, double entries, and so on, the constituency of the
United Kingdom may be placed at 2,200,000. So, gentlemen, it at once
appears that there are 30,000,000 people in this country who are as
much represented by the House of Lords as by the House of Commons, and
who, for the protection of their rights, must depend upon them and the
majesty of the throne. And now, gentlemen, I will tell you what was
done by the last reform act.
Lord Grey, in his measure of 1832, which was no doubt a statesman-like
measure, committed a great, and for a time it appeared an
irretrievable, error. By that measure he fortified the legitimate
influence of the aristocracy; and accorded to the middle classes great
and salutary franchises; but he not only made no provision for the
representation of the working classes in the constitution, but he
absolutely abolished those ancient franchises which the working classes
had peculiarly enjoyed and exercised from time immemorial. Gentlemen,
that was the origin of Chartism, and of that electoral uneasiness which
existed in this country more or less for thirty years.
The Liberal party, I feel it my duty to say, had not acted fairly by
this question. In their adversity they held out hopes to the working
classes, but when they had a strong government they laughed their vows
to scorn. In 1848 there was a French revolution, and a republic was
established. No one can have forgotten what the effect was in this
country. I remember the day when not a woman could leave her house in
London, and when cannon were planted on Westminster Bridge. When Lord
Derby became Prime-Minister affairs had arrived at such a point that
it was of the first moment that the question should be sincerely dealt
with. He had to encounter great difficulties, but he accomplished his
purpose with the support of a united party. And, gentlemen, what has
been the result? A year ago there was another revolution in France,
and a republic was again established of the most menacing character.
What happened in this country? You could not get half a dozen men to
assemble in a street and grumble. Why? Because the people had got what
they wanted. They were content, and they were grateful.[50]
But, gentlemen, the constitution of England is not merely a
constitution in state, it is a constitution in Church and State. The
wisest sovereigns and statesmen have ever been anxious to connect
authority with religion—some to increase their power, some, perhaps,
to mitigate its exercise. But the same difficulty has been experienced
in effecting this union which has been experienced in forming a second
chamber—either the spiritual power has usurped upon the civil, and
established a sacerdotal society, or the civil power has invaded
successfully the rights of the spiritual, and the ministers of religion
have been degraded into stipendiaries of the state and instruments
of the government. In England we accomplish this great result by an
alliance between Church and State, between two originally independent
powers. I will not go into the history of that alliance, which is
rather a question for those archæological societies which occasionally
amuse and instruct the people of this city. Enough for me that this
union was made and has contributed for centuries to the civilization
of this country. Gentlemen, there is the same assault against the
Church of England and the union between the State and the Church as
there is against the monarchy and against the House of Lords. It is
said that the existence of Nonconformity proves that the Church is a
failure. I draw from these premises an exactly contrary conclusion;
and I maintain that to have secured a national profession of faith with
the unlimited enjoyment of private judgment in matters spiritual, is
the solution of the most difficult problem, and one of the triumphs of
civilization.
It is said that the existence of parties in the Church also proves its
incompetence. On that matter, too, I entertain a contrary opinion.
Parties have always existed in the Church; and some have appealed to
them as arguments in favor of its divine institution, because, in the
services and doctrines of the Church have been found representatives of
every mood in the human mind. Those who are influenced by ceremonies
find consolation in forms which secure to them the beauty of holiness.
Those who are not satisfied except with enthusiasm find in its
ministrations the exaltation they require, while others who believe
that the “anchor of faith” can never be safely moored except in the dry
sands of reason find a religion within the pale of the Church which can
boast of its irrefragable logic and its irresistible evidence.
Gentlemen, I am inclined sometimes to believe that those who advocate
the abolition of the union between Church and State have not carefully
considered the consequences of such a course. The Church is a powerful
corporation of many millions of her Majesty’s subjects, with a
consummate organization and wealth which in its aggregate is vast.
Restricted and controlled by the state, so powerful a corporation may
be only fruitful of public advantage, but it becomes a great question
what might be the consequences of the severance of the controlling
tie between these two bodies. The State would be enfeebled, but the
Church would probably be strengthened. Whether that is a result to be
desired is a grave question for all men. For my own part, I am bound
to say that I doubt whether it would be favorable to the cause of
civil and religious liberty. I know that there is a common idea that
if the union between Church and State was severed, the wealth of the
Church would revert to the State; but it would be well to remember that
the great proportion of ecclesiastical property is the property of
individuals. Take, for example, the fact that the great mass of Church
patronage is patronage in the hands of private persons. That you could
not touch without compensation to the patrons. You have established
that principle in your late Irish bill, where there was very little
patronage. And in the present state of the public mind on the subject,
there is very little doubt that there would be scarcely a patron in
England—irrespective of other aid the Church would receive—who would
not dedicate his compensation to the spiritual wants of his neighbors.
It was computed some years ago that the property of the Church in this
manner, if the union was terminated, would not be less than between
80,000,000_l._ and 90,000,000_l._, and since that period the amount
of private property dedicated to the purposes of the Church has very
largely increased. I therefore trust that when the occasion offers
for the country to speak out, it will speak out in an unmistakable
manner on this subject; and recognizing the inestimable services of the
Church, that it will call upon the government to maintain its union
with the State. Upon this subject there is one remark I would make.
Nothing is more surprising to me than the plea on which the present
outcry is made against the Church of England. I could not believe that
in the nineteenth century the charge against the Church of England
should be that churchmen, and especially the clergy, had educated the
people. If I were to fix upon one circumstance more than another which
redounded to the honor of churchmen, it is that they should fulfil this
noble office; and, next to being “the stewards of divine mysteries,” I
think the greatest distinction of the clergy is the admirable manner in
which they have devoted their lives and their fortunes to this greatest
of national objects.
Gentlemen, you are well acquainted in this city with this controversy.
It was in this city—I don’t know whether it was not in this hall—that
that remarkable meeting was held of the Nonconformists to effect
important alterations in the Education Act, and you are acquainted
with the discussion in Parliament which arose in consequence of that
meeting. Gentlemen, I have due and great respect for the Nonconformist
body. I acknowledge their services to their country, and though I
believe that the political reasons which mainly called them into
existence have entirely ceased, it is impossible not to treat with
consideration a body which has been eminent for its conscience, its
learning, and its patriotism; but I must express my mortification that,
from a feeling of envy or of pique, the Nonconformist body, rather than
assist the Church in their great enterprise, should absolutely have
become the partisans of a merely secular education. I believe myself,
gentlemen, that without the recognition of a superintending Providence
in the affairs of this world all national education will be disastrous,
and I feel confident that it is impossible to stop at that mere
recognition. Religious education is demanded by the nation generally
and by the instincts of human nature. I should like to see the Church
and the Nonconformists work together; but I trust, whatever may be the
result, the country will stand by the Church in its efforts to maintain
the religious education of the people. Gentlemen, I foresee yet trials
for the Church of England; but I am confident in its future. I am
confident in its future because I believe there is now a very general
feeling that to be national it must be comprehensive. I will not use
the word “broad,” because it is an epithet applied to a system with
which I have no sympathy. But I would wish churchmen, and especially
the clergy, always to remember that in our “Father’s home there are
many mansions,” and I believe that comprehensive spirit is perfectly
consistent with the maintenance of formularies and the belief in dogmas
without which I hold no practical religion can exist.
Gentlemen, I have now endeavored to express to you my general views
upon the most important subjects that can interest Englishmen. They
are subjects upon which, in my mind, a man should speak with frankness
and clearness to his countrymen, and although I do not come down here
to make a party speech, I am bound to say that the manner in which
those subjects are treated by the leading subject of this realm is
to me most unsatisfactory. Although the Prime-Minister of England is
always writing letters and making speeches, and particularly on these
topics, he seems to me ever to send forth an “uncertain sound.” If a
member of Parliament announces himself a Republican, Mr. Gladstone
takes the earliest opportunity of describing him as a “fellow-worker”
in public life. If an inconsiderate multitude calls for the abolition
or reform of the House of Lords, Mr. Gladstone says that it is no easy
task, and that he must think once or twice, or perhaps even thrice,
before he can undertake it. If your neighbor the member for Bradford,
Mr. Miall, brings forward a motion in the House of Commons for the
severance of Church and State, Mr. Gladstone assures Mr. Miall with the
utmost courtesy that he believes the opinion of the House of Commons
is against him, but that if Mr. Miall wishes to influence the House of
Commons he must address the people out of doors; whereupon Mr. Miall
immediately calls a public meeting, and alleges as its cause the advice
he has just received from the Prime-Minister.
But, gentlemen, after all, the test of political institutions is the
condition of the country whose fortunes they regulate; and I do not
mean to evade that test. You are the inhabitants of an island of no
colossal size; which, geographically speaking, was intended by nature
as the appendage of some continental empire—either of Gauls and Franks
on the other side of the Channel, or of Teutons and Scandinavians
beyond the German Sea. Such indeed, and for a long period, was your
early history. You were invaded; you were pillaged and you were
conquered; yet amid all these disgraces and vicissitudes there was
gradually formed that English race which has brought about a very
different state of affairs. Instead of being invaded, your land is
proverbially the only “inviolate land”—“the inviolate land of the sage
and free.” Instead of being plundered, you have attracted to your
shores all the capital of the world. Instead of being conquered,
your flag floats on many waters, and your standard waves in either
zone. It may be said that these achievements are due to the race
that inhabited the land, and not to its institutions. Gentlemen, in
political institutions are the embodied experiences of a race. You have
established a society of classes which give vigor and variety to life.
But no class possesses a single exclusive privilege, and all are equal
before the law. You possess a real aristocracy, open to all who desire
to enter it. You have not merely a middle class, but a hierarchy of
middle classes, in which every degree of wealth, refinement, industry,
energy, and enterprise is duly represented.
And now, gentlemen, what is the condition of the great body of the
people? In the first place, gentlemen, they have for centuries been in
the full enjoyment of that which no other country in Europe has ever
completely attained—complete rights of personal freedom. In the second
place, there has been a gradual, and therefore a wise, distribution
on a large scale of political rights. Speaking with reference to the
industries of this great part of the country, I can personally contrast
it with the condition of the working classes forty years ago. In that
period they have attained two results—the raising of their wages and
the diminution of their toil.[51] Increased means and increased leisure
are the two civilizers of man. That the working classes of Lancashire
and Yorkshire have proved not unworthy of these boons may be easily
maintained; but their progress and elevation have been during this
interval wonderfully aided and assisted by three causes, which are not
so distinctively attributable to their own energies. The first is the
revolution in locomotion, which has opened the world to the working
man, which has enlarged the horizon of his experience, increased his
knowledge of nature and of art, and added immensely to the salutary
recreation, amusement, and pleasure of his existence. The second
cause is the cheap postage, the moral benefits of which cannot be
exaggerated. And the third is that unshackled press which has furnished
him with endless sources of instruction, information, and amusement.
Gentlemen, if you would permit me, I would now make an observation
upon another class of the laboring population. This is not a civic
assembly, although we meet in a city. That was for convenience, but
the invitation which I received was to meet the county and all the
boroughs of Lancashire; and I wish to make a few observations upon the
condition of the agricultural laborer. That is a subject which now
greatly attracts public attention. And, in the first place, to prevent
any misconception, I beg to express my opinion that an agricultural
laborer has as much right to combine for the bettering of his condition
as a manufacturing laborer or a worker in metals. If the causes of his
combination are natural—that is to say, if they arise from his own
feelings and from the necessities of his own condition, the combination
will end in results mutually beneficial to employers and employed. If,
on the other hand, it is factitious and he is acted upon by extraneous
influences and extraneous ideas, the combination will produce, I fear,
much loss and misery both to employers and employed; and after a time
he will find himself in a similar, or in a worse, position.
Gentlemen, in my opinion, the farmers of England cannot, as a body,
afford to pay higher wages than they do, and those who will answer
me by saying that they must find their ability by the reduction of
rents are, I think, involving themselves with economic laws which
may prove too difficult for them to cope with. The profits of a
farmer are very moderate. The interest upon capital invested in land
is the smallest that any property furnishes. The farmer will have
his profits and the investor in land will have his interest, even
though they may be obtained at the cost of changing the mode of the
cultivation of the country. Gentlemen, I should deeply regret to see
the tillage of this country reduced, and a recurrence to pasture take
place. I should regret it principally on account of the agricultural
laborers themselves. Their new friends call them Hodge, and describe
them as a stolid race. I must say that, from my experience of them,
they are sufficiently shrewd and open to reason. I would say to them
with confidence, as the great Athenian said to the Spartan who rudely
assailed him: “Strike, but hear me.”
First, a change in the cultivation of the soil of this country would
be very injurious to the laboring class; and secondly, I am of opinion
that that class instead of being stationary has made, if not as much
progress as the manufacturing class, very considerable progress
during the last forty years. Many persons write and speak about the
agricultural laborer with not so perfect a knowledge of his condition
as is desirable. They treat him always as a human being who in every
part of the country finds himself in an identical condition. Now, on
the contrary, there is no class of laborers in which there is greater
variety of condition than that of the agricultural laborers. It changes
from north to south, from east to west, and from county to county. It
changes even in the same county, where there is an alteration of soil
and of configuration. The hind in Northumberland is in a very different
condition from the famous Dorsetshire laborer; the tiller of the soil
in Lincolnshire is different from his fellow-agriculturist in Sussex.
What the effect of manufactures is upon the agricultural districts in
their neighborhood it would be presumption in me to dwell upon; your
own experience must tell you whether the agricultural laborer in North
Lancashire, for example, has had no rise in wages and no diminution
in toil. Take the case of the Dorsetshire laborer—the whole of the
agricultural laborers on the southwestern coast of England for a very
long period worked only half the time of the laborers in other parts of
England, and received only half the wages. In the experience of many,
I dare say, who are here present, even thirty years ago a Dorsetshire
laborer never worked after three o’clock in the day; and why? Because
the whole of that part of England was demoralized by smuggling. No one
worked after three o’clock in the day, for a very good reason—because
he had to work at night. No farmer allowed his team to be employed
after three o’clock, because he reserved his horses to take his illicit
cargo at night and carry it rapidly into the interior. Therefore, as
the men were employed and remunerated otherwise, they got into a habit
of half work and half play so far as the land was concerned, and when
smuggling was abolished—and it has only been abolished for thirty
years,—these imperfect habits of labor continued, and do even now
continue to a great extent. That is the origin of the condition of the
agricultural laborer in the southwestern part of England.
But now, gentlemen, I want to test the condition of the agricultural
laborer generally; and I will take a part of England with which I
am familiar, and can speak as to the accuracy of the facts—I mean
the group described as the south-midland counties. The conditions of
labor there are the same, or pretty nearly the same, throughout. The
group may be described as a strictly agricultural community, and they
embrace a population of probably a million and a half. Now, I have
no hesitation in saying that the improvement in their lot during the
last forty years has been progressive and is remarkable. I attribute
it to three causes. In the first place, the rise in their money
wages is no less than fifteen per cent. The second great cause of
their improvement is the almost total disappearance of excessive and
exhausting toil, from the general introduction of machinery. I don’t
know whether I could get a couple of men who could, or, if they could,
would thresh a load of wheat in my neighborhood. The third great cause
which has improved their condition is the very general, not to say
universal, institution of allotment grounds. Now, gentlemen, when I
find that this has been the course of affairs in our very considerable
and strictly agricultural portion of the country, where there have
been no exceptional circumstances, like smuggling, to degrade and
demoralize the race, I cannot resist the conviction that the condition
of the agricultural laborers, instead of being stationary, as we are
constantly told by those not acquainted with them, has been one of
progressive improvement, and that in those counties—and they are
many—where the stimulating influence of a manufacturing neighborhood
acts upon the land, the general conclusion at which I arrive is that
the agricultural laborer has had his share in the advance of national
prosperity. Gentlemen, I am not here to maintain that there is
nothing to be done to increase the well-being of the working classes
of this country, generally speaking. There is not a single class in
the country which is not susceptible of improvement; and that makes
the life and animation of our society. But in all we do we must
remember, as my noble friend told them at Liverpool, that much depends
upon the working classes themselves; and what I know of the working
classes in Lancashire makes me sure that they will respond to this
appeal. Much also may be expected from that sympathy between classes
which is a distinctive feature of the present day; and, in the last
place, no inconsiderable results may be obtained by judicious and
prudent legislation. But, gentlemen, in attempting to legislate upon
social matters, the great object is to be practical—to have before
us some distinct aims and some distinct means by which they can be
accomplished.
Gentlemen, I think public attention as regards these matters ought to
be concentrated upon sanitary legislation. That is a wide subject,
and, if properly treated, comprises almost every consideration which
has a just claim upon legislative interference. Pure air, pure
water, the inspection of unhealthy habitations, the adulteration of
food,—these and many kindred matters may be legitimately dealt with
by the Legislature; and I am bound to say the Legislature is not idle
upon them; for we have at this time two important measures before
Parliament on the subject. One—by a late colleague of mine, Sir Charles
Adderley—is a large and comprehensive measure, founded upon a sure
basis, for it consolidates all existing public acts, and improves them.
A prejudice has been raised against that proposal, by stating that
it interferes with the private acts of the great towns. I take this
opportunity of contradicting that. The bill of Sir Charles Adderley
does not touch the acts of the great towns. It only allows them, if
they think fit, to avail themselves of its new provisions.
The other measure by the government is of a partial character. What
it comprises is good, so far as it goes, but it shrinks from that
bold consolidation of existing acts which I think one of the great
merits of Sir Charles Adderley’s bill, which permits us to become
acquainted with how much may be done in favor of sanitary improvement
by existing provisions. Gentlemen, I cannot impress upon you too
strongly my conviction of the importance of the Legislature and society
uniting together in favor of these important results. A great scholar
and a great wit, three hundred years ago, said that, in his opinion,
there was a great mistake in the Vulgate, which, as you all know,
is the Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures, and that, instead
of saying “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity”—_Vanitas vanitatum,
omnia vanitas_—the wise and witty king really said: “_Sanitas
sanitatum, omnia sanitas_.” Gentlemen, it is impossible to overrate
the importance of the subject. After all the first consideration of
a minister should be the health of the people. A land may be covered
with historic trophies, with museums of science and galleries of art,
with universities and with libraries; the people may be civilized and
ingenious; the country may be even famous in the annals and action of
the world, but, gentlemen, if the population every ten years decreases,
and the stature of the race every ten years diminishes, the history of
that country will soon be the history of the past.[52]
Gentlemen, I said I had not come here to make a party speech. I have
addressed you upon subjects of grave, and I will venture to believe
of general, interest; but to be here and altogether silent upon the
present state of public affairs would not be respectful to you, and,
perhaps, on the whole, would be thought incongruous. Gentlemen, I
cannot pretend that our position either at home or abroad is in my
opinion satisfactory. At home, at a period of immense prosperity, with
a people contented and naturally loyal, we find to our surprise the
most extravagant doctrines professed and the fundamental principles
of our most valuable institutions impugned, and that, too, by
persons of some authority. Gentlemen, this startling inconsistency
is accounted for, in my mind, by the circumstances under which the
present administration was formed. It is the first instance in my
knowledge of a British administration being avowedly formed on a
principle of violence.[53] It is unnecessary for me to remind you of
the circumstances which preceded the formation of that government.
You were the principal scene and theatre of the development of
statesmanship that then occurred. You witnessed the incubation of the
portentous birth. You remember when you were informed that the policy
to secure the prosperity of Ireland and the content of Irishmen was
a policy of sacrilege and confiscation. Gentlemen, when Ireland was
placed under the wise and able administration of Lord Abercorn, Ireland
was prosperous, and I may say content. But there happened at that time
a very peculiar conjuncture in politics. The civil war in America had
just ceased; and a band of military adventurers—Poles, Italians, and
many Irishmen—concocted in New York a conspiracy to invade Ireland,
with the belief that the whole country would rise to welcome them. How
that conspiracy was baffled—how those plots were confounded, I need
not now remind you. For that we were mainly indebted to the eminent
qualities of a great man who has just left us.[54] You remember how
the constituencies were appealed to to vote against the government
which had made so unfit an appointment as that of Lord Mayo to the
Viceroyalty of India. It was by his great qualities when Secretary
for Ireland, by his vigilance, his courage, his patience, and his
perseverance that this conspiracy was defeated. Never was a minister
better informed. He knew what was going on at New York just as well as
what was going on in the city of Dublin.
When the Fenian conspiracy had been entirely put down, it became
necessary to consider the policy which it was expedient to pursue in
Ireland; and it seemed to us at that time that what Ireland required
after all the excitement which it had experienced was a policy which
should largely develop its material resources. There were one or two
subjects of a different character, which, for the advantage of the
state, it would have been desirable to have settled, if that could have
been effected with a general concurrence of both the great parties in
that country. Had we remained in office, that would have been done. But
we were destined to quit it, and we quitted it without a murmur. The
policy of our successors was different. Their specific was to despoil
churches and plunder landlords, and what has been the result?[55]
Sedition rampant, treason thinly veiled, and whenever a vacancy occurs
in the representation a candidate is returned pledged to the disruption
of the realm. Her Majesty’s new ministers proceeded in their career
like a body of men under the influence of some delirious drug. Not
satiated with the spoliation and anarchy of Ireland, they began to
attack every institution and every interest, every class and calling in
the country.[56]
It is curious to observe their course. They took into hand the army.
What have they done? I will not comment on what they have done. I will
historically state it, and leave you to draw the inference. So long
as constitutional England has existed there has been a jealousy among
all classes against the existence of a standing army. As our empire
expanded, and the existence of a large body of disciplined troops
became a necessity, every precaution was taken to prevent the danger to
our liberties which a standing army involved.
It was a first principle not to concentrate in the island any
overwhelming number of troops, and a considerable portion was
distributed in the colonies. Care was taken that the troops generally
should be officered by a class of men deeply interested in the property
and the liberties of England. So extreme was the jealousy that the
relations between that once constitutional force, the militia, and the
sovereign were rigidly guarded, and it was carefully placed under
local influences. All this is changed. We have a standing army of large
amount, quartered and brigaded and encamped permanently in England, and
fed by a considerable and constantly increasing Reserve.
It will in due time be officered by a class of men eminently
scientific, but with no relations necessarily with society; while the
militia is withdrawn from all local influences, and placed under the
immediate command of the Secretary of War. Thus, in the nineteenth
century, we have a large standing army established in England, contrary
to all the traditions of the land, and that by a Liberal government,
and with the warm acclamations of the Liberal party.
Let us look what they have done with the Admiralty. You remember,
in this country especially, the denunciations of the profligate
expenditure of the Conservative government, and you have since had
an opportunity of comparing it with the gentler burden of Liberal
estimates. The navy was not merely an instance of profligate
expenditure, but of incompetent and inadequate management. A great
revolution was promised in its administration. A gentleman [Mr.
Childers], almost unknown to English politics, was strangely preferred
to one of the highest places in the councils of her Majesty. He set
to at his task with ruthless activity. The Consultative Council,
under which Nelson had gained all his victories, was dissolved. The
Secretaryship of the Admiralty, an office which exercised a complete
supervision over every division of that great department,—an office
which was to the Admiralty what the Secretary of State is to the
kingdom,—which, in the qualities which it required and the duties which
it fulfilled, was rightly a stepping-stone to the cabinet, as in the
instances of Lord Halifax, Lord Herbert, and many others—was reduced
to absolute insignificance. Even the office of Control, which of all
others required a position of independence, and on which the safety of
the navy mainly depended, was deprived of all its important attributes.
For two years the Opposition called the attention of Parliament to
these destructive changes, but Parliament and the nation were alike
insensible. Full of other business, they could not give a thought to
what they looked upon merely as captious criticism. It requires a great
disaster to command the attention of England; and when the “Captain”
was lost, and when they had the detail of the perilous voyage of the
“Megara,” then public indignation demanded a complete change in this
renovating administration of the navy.[57]
And what has occurred? It is only a few weeks since that in the House
of Commons I heard the naval statement made by a new First Lord
[Mr. Goschen], and it consisted only of the rescinding of all the
revolutionary changes of his predecessor, the mischief of every one of
which during the last two years has been pressed upon the attention of
Parliament and the country by that constitutional and necessary body,
the Opposition. Gentlemen, it will not do for me—considering the time I
have already occupied, and there are still some subjects of importance
that must be touched—to dwell upon any of the other similar topics,
of which there is a rich abundance. I doubt not there is in this hall
more than one farmer who has been alarmed by the suggestion that his
agricultural machinery should be taxed.[58]
I doubt not there is in this hall more than one publican who remembers
that last year an act of Parliament was introduced to denounce him as a
“sinner.” I doubt not there are in this hall a widow and an orphan who
remember the profligate proposition to plunder their lonely heritage.
But, gentlemen, as time advanced it was not difficult to perceive that
extravagance was being substituted for energy by the government. The
unnatural stimulus was subsiding. Their paroxysms ended in prostration.
Some took refuge in melancholy, and their eminent chief alternated
between a menace and a sigh. As I sat opposite the treasury bench
the ministers reminded me of one of those marine landscapes not very
unusual on the coast of South America. You behold a range of exhausted
volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest. But the
situation is still dangerous. There are occasional earthquakes, and
ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea.
But, gentlemen, there is one other topic on which I must touch. If the
management of our domestic affairs has been founded upon a principle
of violence, that certainly cannot be alleged against the management
of our external relations. I know the difficulty of addressing a body
of Englishmen on these topics. The very phrase “Foreign Affairs” makes
an Englishman convinced that I am about to treat of subjects with
which he has no concern. Unhappily the relations of England to the
rest of the world, which are “Foreign Affairs,” are the matters which
most influence his lot. Upon them depends the increase or reduction
of taxation. Upon them depends the enjoyment or the embarrassment of
his industry. And yet, though so momentous are the consequences of the
mismanagement of our foreign relations, no one thinks of them till the
mischief occurs and then it is found how the most vital consequences
have been occasioned by mere inadvertence.
I will illustrate this point by two anecdotes. Since I have been in
public life there has been for this country a great calamity and there
is a great danger, and both might have been avoided. The calamity was
the Crimean War. You know what were the consequences of the Crimean
War: A great addition to your debt, an enormous addition to your
taxation, a cost more precious than your treasure—the best blood of
England. Half a million of men, I believe, perished in that great
undertaking. Nor are the evil consequences of that war adequately
described by what I have said. All the disorders and disturbances
of Europe, those immense armaments that are an incubus on national
industry and the great obstacle to progressive civilization, may be
traced and justly attributed to the Crimean War. And yet the Crimean
War need never have occurred.
When Lord Derby acceded to office, against his own wishes, in 1852, the
Liberal party most unconstitutionally forced him to dissolve Parliament
at a certain time by stopping the supplies, or at least by limiting
the period for which they were voted. There was not a single reason to
justify that course, for Lord Derby had only accepted office, having
once declined it, on the renewed application of his sovereign. The
country, at the dissolution, increased the power of the Conservative
party, but did not give to Lord Derby a majority, and he had to retire
from power. There was not the slightest chance of a Crimean War when
we retired from office; but the Emperor of Russia, believing that the
successor of Lord Derby was no enemy to Russian aggression in the East,
commenced those proceedings, with the result of which you are familiar.
I speak of what I know, not of what I believe, but of what I have
evidence in my possession to prove—that the Crimean War never would
have happened if Lord Derby had remained in office.[59]
The great danger is the present state of our relations with the
United States. When I acceded to office, I did so, so far as regarded
the United States of America, with some advantage. During the whole
of the civil war in America both my noble friend near me and I had
maintained a strict and fair neutrality.[60] This was fully appreciated
by the government of the United States, and they expressed their wish
that with our aid the settlement of all differences between the two
governments should be accomplished. They sent here a plenipotentiary,
an honorable gentleman, very intelligent and possessing general
confidence. My noble friend near me, with great ability, negotiated
a treaty for the settlement of all these claims. He was the first
minister who proposed to refer them to arbitration, and the treaty
was signed by the American Government. It was signed, I think, on
November 10th, on the eve of the dissolution of Parliament. The borough
elections that first occurred proved what would be the fate of the
ministry, and the moment they were known in America the American
Government announced that Mr. Reverdy Johnson [the American Minister]
had mistaken his instructions, and they could not present the treaty
to the Senate for its sanction—the sanction of which there had been
previously no doubt.[61]
But the fact is that, as in the case of the Crimean War it was supposed
that our successors would be favorable to Russian aggression, so it
was supposed that by the accession to office of Mr. Gladstone and a
gentleman you know well, Mr. Bright, the American claims would be
considered in a very different spirit. How they have been considered
is a subject which, no doubt, occupies deeply the minds of the people
of Lancashire. Now, gentlemen, observe this—the question of the Black
Sea involved in the Crimean War, the question of the American claims
involved in our negotiations with Mr. Johnson, are the two questions
that have again turned up, and have been the two great questions that
have been under the management of his government.
How have they treated them? Prince Gortschakoff, thinking he saw an
opportunity, announced his determination to break from the Treaty of
Paris, and terminate all the conditions hostile to Russia which had
been the result of the Crimean War. What was the first movement on
the part of our government is at present a mystery. This we know,
that they selected the most rising diplomatist of the day [Mr. Odo
Russell, later Lord Ampthill], and sent him to Prince Bismarck with
a declaration that the policy of Russia, if persisted in, was war
with England. Now, gentlemen, there was not the slightest chance of
Russia going to war with England, and no necessity, as I shall always
maintain, of England going to war with Russia. I believe I am not
wrong in stating that the Russian Government were prepared to withdraw
from the position they had rashly taken; but suddenly her Majesty’s
Government, to use a technical phrase, threw over the plenipotentiary,
and, instead of threatening war, if the Treaty of Paris was violated,
they agreed to arrangements by which the violation of that treaty
should be sanctioned by England, and, in the form of a congress, they
showed themselves guaranteeing their own humiliation. That Mr. Odo
Russell made no mistake is quite obvious, because he has since been
selected to be her Majesty’s ambassador at the most important court of
Europe. Gentlemen, what will be the consequence of this extraordinary
weakness on the part of the British Government it is difficult to
foresee. Already we hear that Sebastopol is to be refortified, nor can
any man doubt that the entire command of the Black Sea will soon be in
the possession of Russia.[62] The time may not be distant when we may
hear of the Russian power in the Persian Gulf, and what effect that may
have upon the dominions of England and upon those possessions on the
productions of which you every year more and more depend, are questions
upon which it will be well for you on proper occasions to meditate.
I come now to that question which most deeply interests you at this
moment, and that is our relations with the United States. I approved
the government referring this question to arbitration. It was only
following the policy of Lord Stanley. My noble friend disapproved
the negotiations being carried on at Washington. I confess that I
would willingly have persuaded myself that this was not a mistake,
but reflection has convinced me that my noble friend was right. I
remember the successful negotiation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty by
Sir Henry Bulwer. I flattered myself that treaties at Washington might
be successfully negotiated; but I agree with my noble friend that his
general view was far more sound than my own. But no one, when that
commission was sent forth, for a moment could anticipate the course
of their conduct under the strict injunctions of the government. We
believed that commission was sent to ascertain what points should be
submitted to arbitration, to be decided by the principles of the law of
nations. We had not the slightest idea that that commission was sent
with power and instructions to alter the law of nations itself.[63]
When that result was announced, we expressed our entire disapprobation;
and yet trusting to the representations of the government that matters
were concluded satisfactorily, we had to decide whether it were wise,
if the great result was obtained, to wrangle upon points, however
important, such as those to which I have referred.
Gentlemen, it appears that, though all parts of England were ready
to make those sacrifices, the two negotiating states—the government
of the United Kingdom and the government of the United States—placed
a different interpretation upon the treaty when the time had arrived
to put its provisions into practice. Gentlemen, in my mind, and in
the opinion of my noble friend near me, there was but one course to
take under the circumstances, painful as it might be, and that was
at once to appeal to the good feeling and good sense of the United
States, and, stating the difficulty, to invite confidential conference
whether it might not be removed.[64] But her Majesty’s Government
took a different course. On December 15th her Majesty’s Government
were aware of a contrary interpretation being placed on the Treaty of
Washington by the American Government. The Prime-Minister received a
copy of their counter case, and he confessed he had never read it. He
had a considerable number of copies sent to him to distribute among
his colleagues, and you remember, probably, the remarkable statement
in which he informed the House that he had distributed those copies to
everybody except those for whom they were intended.
Time went on, and the adverse interpretation of the American Government
oozed out, and was noticed by the press. Public alarm and public
indignation were excited; and it was only seven weeks afterward, on the
very eve of the meeting of Parliament—some twenty-four hours before
the meeting of Parliament—that her Majesty’s Government felt they were
absolutely obliged to make a “friendly communication” to the United
States that they had arrived at an interpretation of the treaty the
reverse of that of the American Government. What was the position of
the American Government. Seven weeks had passed without their having
received the slightest intimation from her Majesty’s ministers. They
had circulated their case throughout the world. They had translated
it into every European language. It had been sent to every court and
cabinet, to every sovereign and prime-minister. It was impossible for
the American Government to recede from their position, even if they
had believed it to be an erroneous one. And then, to aggravate the
difficulty, the Prime-Minister goes down to Parliament, declares that
there is only one interpretation to be placed on the treaty, and defies
and attacks everybody who believes it susceptible of another.
Was there ever such a combination of negligence and blundering? And
now, gentlemen, what is about to happen? All we know is that her
Majesty’s ministers are doing everything in their power to evade
the cognizance and criticism of Parliament. They have received an
answer to their “friendly communication”; of which, I believe, it
has been ascertained that the American Government adhere to their
interpretation; and yet they prolong the controversy. What is about to
occur it is unnecessary for one to predict; but if it be this—if after
a fruitless ratiocination worthy of a schoolman, we ultimately agree so
far to the interpretation of the American Government as to submit the
whole case to arbitration, with feeble reservation of a protest, if it
be decided against us, I venture to say that we shall be entering on a
course not more distinguished by its feebleness than by its impending
peril. There is before us every prospect of the same incompetence that
distinguished our negotiations respecting the independence of the Black
Sea; and I fear that there is every chance that this incompetence will
be sealed by our ultimately acknowledging these direct claims of the
United States, which, both as regards principle and practical results,
are fraught with the utmost danger to this country. Gentlemen, don’t
suppose, because I counsel firmness and decision at the right moment,
that I am of that school of statesmen who are favorable to a turbulent
and aggressive diplomacy. I have resisted it during a great part of my
life. I am not unaware that the relations of England to Europe have
undergone a vast change during the century that has just elapsed.
The relations of England to Europe are not the same as they were in
the days of Lord Chatham or Frederick the Great. The Queen of England
has become the sovereign of the most powerful of Oriental states. On
the other side of the globe there are now establishments belonging
to her, teeming with wealth and population, which will, in due time,
exercise their influence over the distribution of power. The old
establishments of this country, now the United States of America, throw
their lengthening shades over the Atlantic, which mix with European
waters. These are vast and novel elements in the distribution of power.
I acknowledge that the policy of England with respect to Europe should
be a policy of reserve, but proud reserve; and in answer to those
statesmen—those mistaken statesmen who have intimated the decay of
the power of England and the decline of its resources, I express here
my confident conviction that there never was a moment in our history
when the power of England was so great and her resources so vast and
inexhaustible.[65]
And yet, gentlemen, it is not merely our fleets and armies, our
powerful artillery, our accumulated capital, and our unlimited credit
on which I so much depend, as upon that unbroken spirit of her people,
which I believe was never prouder of the imperial country to which they
belong. Gentlemen, it is to that spirit that I above all things trust.
I look upon the people of Lancashire as a fair representative of the
people of England. I think the manner in which they have invited me
here, locally a stranger, to receive the expression of their cordial
sympathy, and only because they recognize some effort on my part to
maintain the greatness of their country, is evidence of the spirit of
the land. I must express to you again my deep sense of the generous
manner in which you have welcomed me, and in which you have permitted
me to express to you my views upon public affairs. Proud of your
confidence, and encouraged by your sympathy, I now deliver to you, as
my last words, the cause of the Tory party, the English constitution,
and of the British empire.