The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-01-19 00:00:00

MR. BRIGHT Af BIRMINGHAM.

On Saturday evening the members for Birmingham
addressed their constituents in the Town-hall, which
was densely crowded by an audience of over 5,000
persons. The Mayor, Mr. Alderman Kenrick, pre-
sided, having on his right Mr. Bright, 31. P., Mr.
Muntz, M.P., and Mr. Chamberlain. M.P ; and on
his left Mr. Dixon, ex-1\1.P., Mr. C. Harrison, M.P.,
the Rev. R. W. Dale, and many of the local leaders of
the Liberal Party.

After some introductory observations by the Mayor,
Mr. J. S. Wright, President of the Birmingham
Liberal Association, in a highly complimentary speech,
moved the following resolution, which, being seconded
by Mr. E. Bloor, was carried by acclamation :

" That this meeting desires to express its hearty thanks to
the representatives of the borough, Mr Bright, Mr. Muutz,
and Mr. Chamberlain, for the distinguished ability and zeal
with which they have served their constituents ; and rejoices
that, at a time of great national peril, Biriugham is repre-
sented by three gentlemen in whose fidelity to the cause of
freedom it has the most complete confidence."
Mr. Bright (who was received with great enthusiasm) said,
—Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen,--This meeting, as you know,
has been called some. days earlier than was some time ago
intended and you know also that Parliament has been sum-
moned about three weeks before the usual time. It is be-
cause Parliament has been summoned so early that this
meeting has been called so early. (Cheers.) In ordinary
times the summoning of Parliament creates a consilerable in-
terest in the country ; but, on the whole, I think it is an in-
terest of rather a pleasurable kind (Cheers.) On this
occasion the announcement that Parliament was to meet
on the 17th of January had the effect of creating great
anxiety ; in some cases I have heard it described
as eousternation ; and in all the centres of trade it has
caused a certain depression which has been sensibly felt.
Cheers.) lam driven to the conclusion, at which, I think,
a large portion of the people have arrived, that the cause
of all this is not a fear of Parliament, but a want of confi-
dence in the Administration. (Loud cheers.) We have
been passing through something like a crisis, and we have
had no decisive voice from the Government. (Cheers) In
point of fact, if one body of men has said that the Govern-
ment has spoken in a particular way, the next body of men
you met would tell you that the Government intended
something entirely different. (Cheers.) Of one thing,
however, we may be quite sure—that the question which
fills the minds of the people at this hour, and which has
filled their minds for a long time past, is the great and
solemn question of peace or war (cheers) ; and I doubt
whether it would be possible to submit to any people a
greater question than that. There are many in this ball
who remember a period, about 23 years ago, when the same
question was submitted to the people. (Cheers.) In 1854
the very same quuestion was put to the people which the
nation at this moment is considerieg, and that is whether
peace or war is the true poliey and the true interest of this
people. (Cheers.) At that time the conclusion to which the
people came was in favour of war. They followed a Govern-
ment that unwisely, as I thought then and as most people
think now (cheers), threw them into war. I think we may
learn some lessons from that war. (Cheers.) I read a short
time ago, in a very influential paper wllich had supported
the war of 1854, that it was a pity to go back at all to the
past, that circumstances had entirely changed, and that
many who had then been in favour of the war might very
justly and properly be against a repetition of it. (Hear,
hear.) For my part, I believe the arguments at this
moment for war are as strong as they were in 1854; and as
I believe that in point of fact the war then had no just
arguments in its support, so now I think that no just
arguments can be brought forward to induce this
people to countenance or enter into the existing conflict.
(Cheers.) As to not going baek to the past, what is com-
mon with individuals? Nothing is more common and
nothing more wise than to look back to our past s ears and
"ask them what report they bore to Heaven." (Cheers.)
How does a man become wiser as he grows older but by
looking back on the past and learning lessons from the
mistakes he has made in his earlier years. (Hear, hear.)
And that which is true of an individual must surely also be
true of a nation with regard to its foreign policy. (Cheers.)
At that time the public mind was filled with falsehoods;
it was in a state which one might describe by saying
that it became almost drunk with passion. (Cheers.)
With regard to Russia, many of you recollect what was
said of her power, of her designs, of the despotism
which ruled in Russia, of the danger which hung over
the freedom of all the countries of Europe. And the error
was not confined to a particular class. It spread from the
cottage to all classes above, ana did not even spare those
who were within the precincts of the throne. (Hear, hear.)
It affected not only the clergy of the Church of England,
but the ministers of the Nonconformist bodies; the
poison had spread everywhere and the delusion was all-per-
vading; the mischief seemed universal, and, as I know to
my cost, it is scarcely worth while to offer any arguments
or bring forward any facts against it. Well, we had a war
for two years, and we know what was its result. We know
that the naval arsenal of Sebastopol was to a large extent
destroyed, and that the Russian Fleet was sunk in the har-
bour of SebastopoL We know that when the treaty of
peace came to be negotiated in 1856 Russia was forced to
consent to a limitation of her fleet in the Black Sea, so that
she might never in future have a fleet that could menace the
security of Turkey. Now there was a certain cost to be
paid for these things. Some people consider that when they
are going into a war, or when they are in it, cost is not of
much consequence. I take a different view of it. I think
that the loss of 40,000 men in the prime of life, in
their full powers—killed in battle, dying from wounds,
dying from horrible maladies in horrible hospitals—l think
that is something. (Cheers.) I think the payment of
100,000,000 sterling—and that war cost us far more--is a
serious thing to a country where there are so many poor
people, and so many millions who live only to-day
on the produce of the labour of yesterday, (Cheers.)
But then the loss which we suffered was very small cam-
pared with the whole loss. I saw the other day a note in a
work, to which I will refer by-and-by, which stated that
90,000 Russians were buried on the north side of the city
of Sebastopol during that siege. I think it was stated in
the House of Lords by Lord Lansdowne during the war
that up to the death of the Emperor Nicholas 240,000 Rus-
sians had died or been killed, and it is statea on good autho-
rity that the whole loss in men to the Russians during that
two years' war was not less than half-a-million. Then, if you
add our loss and the loss of the French, of the Turks, and
the Sardinians, Mr. Kinglake reckons that the whole loss of
the two years' war was little if at all less than one million of
human lives. (Cheers) Well, then, the loss being so great, it
cannot be unwise that we shonld look back and see what
that war cost and what it gained. The result of that war
was that Russia for the time being in that particular part of
her empire, in the Crimea, was vanquished and a Treaty of
Peace was agreed to at Paris in 1856; but I want to show
you just for a moment how mistaken were some of the
opinions that were expressed at that time. I will only give
you two little extracts. In Irebruary, 1854, The Times,
which may be taken to be a great representation, a fair re-
presentation, of a vast amount of opinion in this country—
The Times said :

"To destroy Sebastopol is nothing less than to demolish
the entire fabric of Russian ambition in those very regions
where it is most dangerous to Europe; and this feat, and
this alone, would have really attained the solid and durable
objects of the war."
Now, Sebastopol was destroyed, the Russian Fleet then
existing was sunk, and Russia was limited for the future
to have only such a fleet as could be no menace or danger
to Turkey. But The Times was not the only authority
which made statements of that kind. A work has been
published lately to which I will for a moment refer. I mean
the third volume of "The Life of the late Prince Consort."
It is a hook which I have read with intense interest—many
parts of it with a painful interest. It is a book which gives
you an exalted, but, I believe, a true picture of the great-
ness and the nobleness of the character of the Prince
Consort. (Cheers.) It is a book to which, no doubt, Her
Majesty the Queen has contributed the main portion of its
facts and contents, and in this work she has built up a
monumeht which probably will last as long as our language
to the greatness and nobleness of the Prince. (Cheers.)
It will last longer probably, than any of those monuments
of bronze or marble by which it has been sought to com-
memorate his name and his character. (Cheers.) Well,
in this book there &re things, I have said, of painful in-
terest. I have seen some criticisms upon it which go the
length of saying that the book had better not have seen
published, as it is calculated to excite unfriendly feelings to
Russia. I have learnt rather a different lesson from it. I
think it is impossible for anybody of intelligent and impar-
tial judgment to read the book through without coming to
the conclusion that the occurrence of that war was an enor-
mous error on the part of our statesmen—(cheers)—and that
we are bound now by all regard to our country utterly to
condemn it. (Cheers.) I will give you just one paragraph
irom one of the Prince's letters, or rather from a memo-
randum that I think was submitted to the Government in
1854. He was referring to certain expectations that were
held out to the House of Commons by Lord John Russell as
to what the war should result in, and he says :
" rfind that the impossibility of allowing Russia to retain
her threatening armaments in the Crimea was one of the
most prominent of those expectations and the one that gave
most satisfaction to the House. Now, seeing that vast
treasure and the best blood had been profusely ex-
pended towards attaining that object, the nation has a right
to expect that any peace contemplated by the Government
should fully and completely realise it."

lie admits that during the negotiations the peace was not
such as they would have wished to have, but it was much
better than continuing the war with the complications then
existing in Europe. But now what happened? After you
destroyed Sebastopol and caused the fleet to be sunk and
limited the fleet in the future, you will find, if you will just
step over 15 years, that the main article of the Treaty of
Paris with reference to the limitation of the Russian Fleet
in the Black Sea—the article to whist I suppose the
Russians were most opposed because they conceived it to
be most humiliating—that article was 'surrendered by our
own Govenameut and the other Governments in Europe.
I will not say without remonstrance, though I think I
should be warranted in saying so, but without any strong
remonstrance and without anything like a blow. (Cheers.)
So that every object you had in view has failed—
having destroyed so many lives, spent so much money, and
disturbed Europe, you find that nothing has been gained by
the war, because fifteen years afterwards everything, or
nearly everything, was relinquished for which you waged
the war. The Russian Fleet is no longer limited in the
Black Sea. Turkey, for which you made the war, not only
is not safe, but in much greater danger now than she ever
was before, and it is obvious from what we have seen, that in
comparison with Turkey, Russia is found as powerful as if
the war of 1854 had never occurred. (Cheers.) At that
time we had, as you recollect, a great ally in the Emperor
of the French. I should like to tell you what sort of ally he
was—fortunately we have not an ally of that kind now.
France never was in iavour of the war. The Emperor went
into it, not because he cared about Turkey or Russia, but
because he wanted to associate himself with respectable,
old, monarchically-governed countries. (A. laugh.) lie
thought some things that had happened in his career might
be forgotten when he could enter the very high society of
the Sovereigns of Europe. (A laugh.) Now, what the
Prince says about that is this. Writing to his uncle Leopold,
the late King of the Belgians, in December, 1855, he says:—

_
" I really believe there is not a single soul in France who
ever gave him: elf the smallest concern about the main-
tenance of the Turkish Empire."
He says further in February, 1856,—" We know that England
is hated all over the Continent—that even in France it is
the Emperor and the Emperor alone who is with us body
and soul," and he says "our position in the Conference pre-
ceding the Treaty of Peace will be one of extreme difficulty.
Except the Emperor Napoleon, we have no one on our side."
Therefore, while we were fighting the despotism of the
Emperor Nicholas, we had as our principal ally the
despotism of the Emperor Napoleon ; but as for the
sympathy of that great nation—the French—more than
40,000 of whom had laid down their lives in the Crimean
In alliance with us, they had no interest and no sympathy
with this country in maintaining tha% war. At that
time Europe was not with its, and, as you know,
Europe is not with us now. In May, 1855, the Prince
Consort in another note says this,—"The Crimea was
chosen by France and England, forsaken by the rest of
Europe, as the only vulnerable point of attack ;" and
he says in 1854, " if there was a Germany and a German
Sovereign in Berlin, such a calamitous war would not have
happened." Well, there is now a Germany and a German
Sovereign in Berlin, and yet war has not I;een prevented.
(Cheers.) You will see, therefore, from this slight sketch,
that there was nothing but failure, nothing but disappoint-
ment on this page of the histery of our country ; and
I want to ask you to-night—and 1 want to ask all those of
my countrymen who may condescend-to read what I am
saying—whether they are willing to write such another
page in our history, what shall I say—so shockingly
terrible and bloody and as utterly fruitless. (Cheers, and
cries of "No.") Forsaken by Europe then, we are for-
saken by Europe now. Germany is not with us; Austria
Is not with us; Italy is not with us; France is not
with us. We are alone. Yet we are constantly meddling,
doing, or saying something which is supposed to he
pleasant to the Turk-, and which it is even hoped
may be unpleasant to the Emperor of Russia. (Hear, hear.)
Now, I must ask you to consider for a • moment why it is
that we are in this
.position, so different from that of the
other nations of Europe. What interest have we at the
east end of the Mediterranean which they have not? Our
only point of interest, and they have it too—though we
have it in a greater degree—is in the constant free
n-aintenance of the passage of the SUEZ Canal. We have a
vast dependency in India, and, therefore, in regard to a
military passage and also in regard to trade we, I suppose,
furnish nearly three-fourths of all the shipping that passes
through the Canal; and, therefore, we have a greater
Interest in the Canal in keeping it open than any other
country in Europe has That, of course, I admit, And
what a strange history is that of this Canal. It is enough

to teach us that we ought to examine carefully the declara-
thms of great statesmen and Prime Ministers before we
adopt a policy or the arguments by which they recommend
it. I recollect Lord Palmerston denouncing this Canal.
(Hear, hear.) He condemned it as a thing, not only of no
advantage, but rather to be discouraged by Etigland. Ile
did not believe, if it were made, it could ever be kept open,
and he stated, I think, an opinfon of a very distinguished
railway engineer with the view of strengthening his argu-
ments. The consequence was that the Canal was made
almost entirely by French money through the energy of
M. Lesseps, who is a very eminent Frenchman. I ant not
sure whether a single share of the company belonged
originally or has been held from the beginning by any
native of this country; but I maintain that all Europe
is interested in the Canal, and all Europe would protest
against any Power, be it the Khedive of Egypt or the Sultan
of Turkey, taking any steps to prevent a free passage
through the Canal, and the Sultan is a much more likeiy man
than the Czar of Russia to dream of doing so. (Cheers.) And,
as a proof of that, it is, I believe, well known that all the
Powers of Europe would be willing to combine with us and
with the French company and with France for the purpose
of declaring this Canal not only a great national or a great
European, but a great world's work (cheers), and that
under no conceivabie circumstances shall any Power or any
combination of Powers be permitted to interfere with it.
(Cheers) M. Lesseps, the great promoter of the Canal,
has over and over again made suggestions of this kind.
They have been made to our Government, and I think it is
a great misfortune—and I have always thought so - that the
plan was not adopted and the Canal put into a condition of
safety so clear and distinct and unquestionable as that no
one could make use of it for the political objects for
which it has been made use of lately (Hear, hear.) Now,
why cannot we do this ? Why should this matter be viewed
in connection with Russia? Why did Mr. Cross mention it
among the interests which England must maintain. (Cheers.)
The Canal, I think! heard a very eminent person on his side
of the House say, runs far more danger from Turkey than
from Russia. All this arises from an ignorant, and in some
quarters a malignant jealousyof Russia (cheers),and this igno-
rant jealousy has existed in this country and grown, not of
late years, but for 40 years past. I was reading the other
day a book of singular interest—" The Memoirs and Cor-
respondence of the late Senator Sumner, of Massachusets."
Charles Sumner was a personal friend of mine. He corres-
ponded with me for many years. In looking over his
memoirs, I came upon what I thought was a remarkable
passage, which you will permit me to read to you. It occurs
in one of his letters from England in 1839. It was just pre-
vious to the time when there had been so much excitement
in this country about Russia. and some people had really so
nearly approached being lit for, Bedlam that they believed
Russia was likely to come through the Baltic and invade the
east coast of England, and they persuaded the Government
of that day—almost too easily persuaded in that way—to
add 5,000 men to the Navy in order that the panic might
be put an end to. It is like putting a plaister on a
sore. When people get into a panic of that kind
they vote one or two or five millions of money, or they add
6,000 men to the Navy or 10,000 men to the Army, and then
they go to their beds and sleep quietly—(a laugh)—till next
morning, when they have the tax-gatherer, and they pay.
(Laughter.) At that time there was living in England a very
eminent man, the late Lord Durham, a member of the Reform
Cabinet. He was a member of the committee of the Cabinet
who drew up the first Reform Bill. Ile was a man of very
liberal views and wished the Government of Lord Grey to give
us, not a £lO franchise, but a household franchise, and to
accompany with it the ballot. (Cheers.) So much to show you
what sort of man lie was. He had been Ambassador at the
Court of the Czar at St Petersburg, and Mr. Sumner said this
of him :—He said, "I ventured to ask him what there was in
the present reports with regard to the hostile intentions of
Russia to wards England. Not a word of truth,' said he: I
will give you leave to call use idiot if there is a word of truth
in them.'" He said that Russia was full of friendly re-
gard for England, and he pronounced Urquhart—the late
. David Urquhart, who died some time since in the South of
France, who was then going about the kingdom preaching
against Russia—a madman. (Cheers and a laugh.) I knew
Mr. Urquhart in the House of Commons, and I would not
like to say a word against him now when he is not here to
answer for himself; but this I may say, without doing him
wrong, that he was a man so possessed of certain notions
that it was scarcely possible to believe him to be in a con-
dition for fairly reasoning upon them. (A laugh.) He
believed that the Czar Nicholas managed the whole world
by his diplomacy. He believed that Lord Palmerston was
bribed by the Russian Government to sell the liberties of
Europe and the interests of this country to Russia. (A
laugh.) He believed, and I have heard him say it in the
most positive manner, that the war in the Crimea was
intended, not to save Turkey, but to place Turkey
in the hands of Russia (a laugh) ' • and that if
we would leave Turkey alone and let her fight Russia
alone, Turkey was perfectly safe and Russia would be
easily and finally vanquished. (Laughter.) These were
the views of Mr. Urquhart, which I believe he honestly
entertained, for he devoted years of his life to preach them;
but Lord Durham said that in preaching these doctrines
Mr. Urquhart was acting like a madman utterly ignorant
of the true state of things in Russia. No nation, I believe,
has been in disposition more friendly to this nation titan
Russia. (Cheers.) There is no nation on the Continent of
Europe that is less able to do any harm to England, and
there is no nation on the Continent of Europe to whom we
are less able to do harm than we are to Russia. (Hear.) We
are so separated that it seems impossible that two nations
with the use of reason and common sense at all could pos
sibly be brought into conflict. We have India, and men
tell you that India is in jeopardy from Russia. Well, I
recollect a speech made last Session by Mr. Laing, who was
out in India as Financial Minister ; his speech was conclusive
upon that point. (Cheers.) But there is one thing that
Russia can do in India which may be troublesome to us, not
in the way of war or conquest, but of certain irritation and
trouble. You persuade the people of India by writings in
the Press and by the speeches of public men in this
country that we run great hazard from the advances of
Russia, and if you have enemies in India, of course you
feed their enmity by this language, and if they wish to
escape from the Government of England you make them turn
naturally and inevitably to Russia as the power that can help
them (Cheers.) The interest of this country with re-
gard to Russia in connexion with India is unbroken amity,
and I am sure that unbroken amity would be
secured if we could get rid of the miserable jea-
lousy that afflicts us. (Cheers.) I thought some time
ago we were approaching, and now I trust still we are
approaching, a better time. The present Emperor of Russia
is not the one with whom we made the war. He is a mau
not given to military din la y. He is a man whose reign be-
fore this war was signal:ze I chiefly by the great act of the
liberation of 20,000,000, of his subjects. (Cheers.) He at
least was willing to forget the unfortunate past. He con-
sented that his only daughter, the loved child of his heart,
shoald marry the son of the English Queen. (Cheers.) I
thought then that surely was a happy sign of a permanent
reconciliation anti a blessed promise of a prolonged peace.
(Cheers.) And although it has not borne in this political
respect all the fruit one could have wished for, I am de-
lighted to think that there is a great change growing, which
I believe will be accelerated by what will ensue when
this unfortunate war comes to an end. (Cheers ) There
are still the traditions of the Foreign Office (a laugh). I
once expressed a wish—it was very irreverent to speak so
of such an ancient institution (a laugh)—l once expressed a
wish that the Foreign Office might some day be burnt
down. (A laugh.) Correcting myself, I said if it should
happen to be burnt down I hoped all its mad, foolish, and
wicked traditions would be burnt with it. (Cheers.) But
those traditions still linger in the Foreign Office, and Lord
Derby—to whom they are foreign—(loud cheers)—Lord
Derby himself endeavouring to fill that eminent office,
I believe, with a true intention to serve' Isis country
and to do right—(cheers)—Lord Derby has been made
the victim of the traditions he finds in the office he
has filled for the last four or five years. (Cheers.)
But I say the heart of the nation is gradually changing.
I met at dinner at a friend's house in Salford only the
night before last an old friend of mine; he came up to
me and said.—" Do sou recollect me 23 years ago—]
walked down Market-street with you that day when you
came out of the Town-hall, where you had been hissed,
hooted, and maltreated, and not allowed to speak to the
constituency you were endeavouring to serve, and were
not allowed to pass down the street without gross insult?"
Well now, now a man may have an opinion in favour of
peace' him.
(Load the dogs of war will scarcely bark at m.
(Load cheers,) But yet we cannot disguise from ourselves
the fact that stilt there is something of a war party in the
country, and that it has full, free access to some, and,
indeed, not a few of the newspapers of the London
Press. (Hisses, and uproar.) Now, if there is any man
here who thinks the question doubtful as to our policy; if
there is any Man in the country who shall read what I say,
and has any doubt, I ask him to look back to the policy
of twenty-three years ago and see how it was then tried,
and whether it succeeded or how it failed. The arguments
were exactly the same then as they are now. (Cheers.) The
falsehoods were the same. The screechings and howliugs of
a portion of the Press were just about the same. (A laugh).
But the nation now—and if nations learnt nothing how long
could they be sustained? (cheers)—the nation now has learnt
something, and it has risen above this (cheers); because I
am persuaded that although there may be a great difference
of opinion as to Russian policy in the main, or Turkish
policy in the main, and when we put especially the suffer-
ings of one side or the sufferings of the other—for myself I
pity the sufferings on both sides (cheers)—but whatever may
be the difference of opinion. I think this is conclusively
proved, that the vast bulk of all the opinion that is influen-
tial in this country on this question leads to this,
that the nation is for a strict and rigid neutrality
throughout this war. (Loud cheers.) It is a painful and a
terrible thing to think how easy it is to stir up a nation to
war. (Hear, hear.) Take any decent history of the country
from the time of William 111. till now—for two centuries or
nearly so—and you will find that the wars have always been
supported by a class of arguments which after the wars were
over the people found were arguments they should not have
listened to. (Cheers.) It is just so now; but unfortunately
there remains the disposition, to be excited on these
questions. Some poet, I forget who, has said,—
"Religion, freedom, vengeance, what you will,
A word's enough to raise mankind to kill:
Some canning phrase, by faction caught and spread,
That guilt may reign, and wolves and worms be fed."
Yes, "some cunning phrase, by faction caught and spread"
—like the cunning phrase of 'the balance of poeser,” which
has been described as a ghastly phantom which the Govern-
ment of this country has been pursuing for centuries, and
has never yet overtaken—(a laugh)—" some cunning phrase,"
like that we have now of "British interests." (Cheers.)
Lord Derby said the wisest thing that has been uttered by
any member of the Administration during the discussions
on this war when he said that the greatest of
British interests is peace. (Loud cheers ) A hundred—
aye, far more than a hundred—public, meetings have
lately said the same, and in millions of households men
and women have thought the same. (Cheers.) To-night we
shall say amen to this wise declaration. (Loud cheers.)
I am delighted to see this grand meeting in this noble hall.
(Cheers) This building is consecrated to peace and to free-
dom. (Cheers.) You are here in your thousands, represent-
big the countless multitudes outside. May we not to-night
join our voices in this resolntion—that. so far as we are con-
cerned, the sanguinary record of the history of our country
shall be closed, that we may open a new page, on which shahi
henceforth be inscribed only the blessed message of mercy
and of peace?
The right hon. gentleman sat down amid loud and vehe-
ment cheering. The meeting was then addressed by Mr.
Muntz and Mr. Chamberlain, the other members for Bir-
mingham ; after which Mr. R. W. Dale moved and Mr.
Collings seconded the following resolution, which was carried
unanimously:
... .

" That this meeting protests against any course tending to
draw England into the conflict with Russia on behalf of
Turkey; and expresses the earnest hope that, in any negotia-
tions in which this cottutry may he called upon to take part,
the interes:s of the Christian population of Turkey should be
steadily kept in view."
Mr Bright then thanked the meeting for the resolution
of confidence which they had passed on himself and col-
leagues, and for the hearty cordiality of the reception with
which they had greeted them. He then took the oppor-
tunity of remarking upon the value to our populations of
these great meetings, and said : "I suppose that the discus-
sions in Parliament have a great effect on the public in
making them understand the questions which are brought
before it; for you find men, and very able men, in the
House of Commons who debate and debate from opposite
sides of the House and express different views on many
great questions, and if you will read the debate—if you
will read the speeches of the most able men there—you will
find that you will get almost to the bottom of every ques-
tion which is discussed in Parliament. And these meetings
—which are open councils of the country, as I have before
called them—these meetings which are being held now all
over the kingdom, are of enormous importance for the
instruction of our population. That members should come
before their constituents must be good, and, if they are: men
honourable and capable; what they say must be of advantage
to those to whom they speak. I recollect on one occasion—
now some years ago—receiving what I thought was the
very highest compliment that ever was paid to me during
my public life in this town. It was, I think, after the close
of one of our Meetings in this hall, when a lady the wife of
one of your citizens, came up to me and spoke to me with
regard to these meetings and to my presence at them, and
she, in a manner which was very sympathetic, very
striking, and full of feeling, said she wished to
thank me because sbe believed that the speeches
which I had delivered in this hall had been of vary
great service to her sons: that they had led them to think
how important were political questions, and how im-
portant it was to consider those questions with an honour-
able mind and with a strict conscientiousness, and that
generosity and liberality without which you cannot come
to any wise conclusions upon great public speeches. Well,
she paid me that compliment, and I confess that in
loekin,g back to it I have never thought of it with-
out a feeling which I am not able to express. And
if it be true that I have led any one young man,
or any of the young men of the town to consider those
questions as important, and to consider them in the

light of a liberal, generous, and intelligent mind, I am
amply—more than amply—compensated for the labour
which I have given during my public life. (Applause.) I
consider when I stand upon a platform as I do now I am
engaged in as solemn a labour as Mr. Dale when he ad-
dresses his congregation in his chapel. It is not only upon
the affairs of the other world that men must be true to them-
selves and to their conscience. Upon the affairs of this world
if men were more true; if they obeyed the impulses of their
hearts—you may depend upon it the heart itself is often in
these matters more at fault than the heal; but if they obeyed
the true impulses of their consciences and of their hearts,
the progress of nations would be less interrupted than it is
now; the misery of our population would be diminished; the
unwisdom of our Government would be checked; and we
should find over all the earth a growth and a progress towards
that brighter and happier day, of which we see now only the
glimpses and the dawning, but of which much more shall be
seen by some generations that shall succeed us. (Applause.) I
beg to propose this motion, for I feel indebted to the Mayor
for his presence here to-night. Your municipality sets a great
example to the municipalities of England. (Applause.) In
the chair on these occasions I ECO your first authority—al-
ways an intelligent and a capable man, who does your selec-
tion credit, and who does your town credit, and who gives
his services to us in the prosecution of the great questions
and objects for which these noble meetings are held. Seeing
him here, applauding his being here, feeling complimented
that he is here, believing that here he is of service to you
and to the question which has brought us together, I ask
you by loud acclaim to give your approbation to the conduct
of the Mayor and your thanks for his presence here to-
night." (Cheers.)
Mr. Muntz briefly seconded the motion, Mr. Bright insist-
ing that the meeting should vote it by acclaim in the Par-
liamentary manner. The result was a stentorian chorus of
"Aye."
The Mayor having briefly returned thanks, the proceed-
ings terminated,